August

2023
Design Stage Road Safety Audit Report For:

Chainage KM 503+200 to KM 515+000 (Junction with Pathankot-

Gurdaspur road (NH-54) Jakh village to Kunjwani of NH-44) i.e.,
11.8 KM section including development of Kunjwani to 4th Tawi
bridge section of NH-144A to four lane NH standards (Chainage
KM 000 to KM 7+385 of NH-144A; spur connectivity to Jammu
airport) in the union territory of Jammu & Kashmir

Package XVI

RSA report submitted on: 30/08/2023

Client: NHAI (PIU Jammu)

Final Report

Ref: Letter no. PD/JMU/DKE/2022-23/88

Submitted to
Project Director
PIU- Jammu (NHAI)

Submitted by:
Dr. Ankit Kathuria
Assistant Professor, IIT Jammu
1. INTRODUCTION TO ROAD STRETCH
The design stage road safety audit has been conducted for National Highway (NH-44). The
Project Road connects Gurha Baildaran to Jakh village in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. The
audit was done on the following stretch:
a. Chainage 468+000 to KM 503+250 (Junction with Hiranagar near village Gurha Baildaran
to Junction with Jammu ring road (NH-244A) near Jakh village of NH-44) i.e., 35.15 KM
section in the union territory of Jammu & Kashmir

2. ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

Road Safety Audit (RSA) is a formal, systematic, and detailed examination of a road project by
an independent and qualified team of auditors that leads to a report of potential safety concerns
in the project road as per the guidelines of IRC Manual (IRC:SP:88, 2019). The main objective
of road safety audit is to minimize the risk of crashes occurring on an existing road or a new
road and to minimize the severity of any crashes that do occur or are likely to occur (IRC:SP:88,
2019). There are five stages of road safety audit namely:-
1. Feasibility stage/Preliminary Design stage
2. Development Stage
3. Construction Stage
4. Pre-Opening Stage
5. Safety Assessment (Existing Road)
The present report discusses stage 2 audit which is for the development stage audit that
includes a detailed inspection of the drawings of the proposed new road project immediately
prior to its construction.

Table 1. List of documents/drawings submitted by the concessionaire

S. Date of
Items Remarks
NO. receiving
1 Concession agreement Received 12/06/2023
2 P&P drawings of main carriageway Received 12/06/2023
3 P&P of slip roads, interchange ramps Received 23/08/2023
4 Cross-section drawings Received 12/06/2023
Layout of bus bays - truck lay byes and
5 Not Applicable -
entry and exit ramps
6 Toll plazas Received 12/06/2023
7 Road Furniture Plan Not Received -
8 Crash barrier drawings Received 12/06/2023
9 Drainage Plan & Profile Received 12/06/2023
10 Storm Water Calculation file Not Received -
Traffic Management Plan (TMP) and Traffic Received but not as per
11 12/06/2023
Control Plan (TCP) site conditions
11 Alignment reports Received 12/06/2023
Drawings summary
Plan & Profile of main carriageway: Drawings No. BIC/JKV/HW/P&P-01 (R4) to Drawings No.
BIC/JKV/HW/P&P-05 (R4)
Plan & Profile of main carriageway: Drawings No. BIC/JKV/HW/P&P-06 (R6) to Drawings No.
BIC/JKV/HW/P&P-12 (R5)
Plan & Profile of main carriageway: Drawings No. BIC/JKV/HW/TAWIBRIDGE/P&P-01 (R3) to
Drawings No. BIC/JKV/HW/TAWIBRIDGE/P&P-04 (R3)
Plan & Profile of main carriageway: Drawings No. BIC/JKV/HW/P&P-4A (R0) to Drawings No.
BIC/JKV/HW/P&P-08 (R0)
Plan & Profile of Ramps: Drawings No. BIC/JKV/HW/RAMP/P&P-01 (R1) to Drawings No.
BIC/JKV/HW/RAMP/P&P-09 (R1)
Plan & Profile of Exit ramp: Drawings No. BIC/JKV/HW/SIDCO/P&P-01 (R1) to Drawings No.
BIC/JKV/HW/SIDCO/P&P-04 (R0)
Plan & Profile of Major junction at chainage 509: Drawings No. BIC/JKV/HW/JN-01 (R0)
Plan & Profile of Major junction at chainage 511: Drawings No. BIC/JKV/HW/JN-02 (R0)
Plan & Profile of Major junction at chainage 514: Drawings No. BIC/JKV/HW/JN-03 (R0)
Plan & Profile of Minor junction at chainage 514: Drawings No. BIC/JKV/HW/JN-01 (R0)
Cross sectional drawings: Drawings No. BIC/JKV/HW/TCS-I (R1) to Drawings No.
BIC/JKV/HW/P&P-VA (R1)
Cross sectional drawings: Drawings No. BIC/JKV/HW/TCS-V (R1) to Drawings No.
BIC/JKV/HW/P&P-VIC (R0)
Cross sectional drawings: Drawings No. BIC/JKV/HW/TCS-VIII (R3) to Drawings No.
BIC/JKV/HW/P&P-I (R2)
Cross sectional drawings: Drawings No. BIC/JKV/HW/TCS-V (R1) to Drawings No.
BIC/JKV/HW/P&P-VIC (R0)
Cross sectional drawings: Drawings No. BIC/JKV/HW/TCS-I (R3) to Drawings No.
BIC/JKV/HW/P&P-IX (R2)
Traffic management plan and Traffic Diversion Plan

3. METHODOLOGY
All the drawings (Cross-section, Plan and Profile drawings) of the proposed expressway were
extensively studied by IIT Jammu to ascertain, if there are any issues that may affect the safety
of all road users. The specific guidelines of Indian Roads Congress (IRC:SP:88-2019,
IRC:SP:99-2013, IRC:SP:84-2019, IRC:SP:87-2019 and IRC:73-1990) have been referred and
considered during the review process. The problems identified have been classified into the
following Seven categories for a better comprehension and understanding.
1. Horizontal & Vertical Alignment
2. Typical cross-sections
3. Intersections
4. Interchanges
5. Roadside Hazards
6. Toll plaza
7. Traffic Management Plan and Traffic Diversion Plan

Each situation under these broad categories will be presented in the following format:
Safety Concerns & Audit Findings: The problems are identified, and safety concerns are
presented, supported with chainage and photographs to appreciate the gravity of the
problems/issues.
Recommendations: The audit recommends road safety measures for each observed problem.
Some recommendations are in drawing format (adopted from IRC Codes) to implement them as
envisaged by the audit and for easy understanding and execution.

4. ROAD SAFETY AUDIT OF PROPOSED EXPRESSWAY

Below is a table that provides the safety concerns and audit findings along with the images of
drawings. The recommendations are then suggested by citing the appropriate IRC codes for the
reference. The table also mentions about the type of risk based on the auditor’s assessment
and the priority.
S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority

1 Horizontal & Vertical Alignment

1.1 Design speed

As per Annexure 1 of Schedule-B of the Moderate Kindly design the expressway as per Essential Radius more than
concessionaire agreement, the project road the design speed mentioned in the 440m is only
has to be designed for the design speed of concessionaire agreement. proposed in most of
80/100/120 KMPH. However, the following the stretch. Curve
curves were not designed as per the Radius at mentioned
concessionaire agreement. Kindly clarify. location is below
440m radius due to
Design Design ROW constraint. In
Curve Chaina
ed speed as DPR also, radius
no. ge
speed per CA below 440m is
509+40 proposed. Also note
510/1 90 100 that, at this stage
0
510+65 there is no scope of
511/2 65 80 change in horizontal
0
511+38 geometry, as in most
512/1 60 80 of the stretches
0
514+10 foundation are already
515/1 30 80 completed.
0
1.2 Extra widening
Multiple entry and exit ramps were observed Very High Kindly provide the extra widening as Essential
at chainage KM 510+600 to KM 511+500. per Table 18 of IRC:73:1990 which
However extra widening was not observed on is given below.
the following curves of the ramps.

 UP Ramp-5 Curve 1/2

 Down Ramp-6 Curve No 1/1
 Down Ramp-6 Curve No 1/2
S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority
 Down Ramp-6 Curve No 1/3
 UP Ramp-7 Curve No 1/1
 UP Ramp-7 Curve No 1/2

Figure 1. Table 18 of IRC:73:1990

1.3 Curve radius
Curve No. Chainage Radius Very High It is highly desirable to design the Essential
507/4 506+961 400 radius of a curve as per Table 2.5 of
IRC:SP:99-2013 which is given
509/1 508+050 400 below Radius more than
510/1 509+400 350 440m is only
proposed in most of
511/2 510+650 170 the stretch. Curve
512/1 511+380 150 Radius at mentioned
514/2 513+900 400 location is below
Figure 2. Table 2.5 of IRC:SP:99- 440m radius due to
During the audit, it was observed that, radius 2013 ROW constraint. In
of few horizontal curves was not designed as DPR also, radius
per IRC standards. It may be noted that, as below 440m is
per IRC:SP:99-2013, on expressways, the proposed. Also note
absolute minimum radius of horizontal curve that, at this stage
should be 440 meters for a design speed of there is no scope of
100 KMPH. Radius less than absolute change in horizontal
minimum might disturb the characteristics of geometry, as in most
expressways and may not fulfill the key of the stretches
objectives of the proposed project. Following foundation are already
are the curve numbers where radius was completed.
observed less than 440 meters. Kindly clarify.

1.4 Transition curve

At chainage KM 513+900, a horizontal curve Very High It is highly desirable to design the Essential Due to land
S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority
was designed. But the length of the transition transition curve length as the
curve was not designed as per IRC maximum value of the calculated
standards. Generally, transition curve length value and Table value given in Table
is calculated as per the Chapter 7 of IRC:38- 2.6 of IRC:SP:99-2013 which is
1998. On expressways, it may also be shown below.
provided as per Table 2.6 of IRC:SP:99-
2013. However, it is recommended to constraint, it was not
consider the maximum of calculated value feasible at this
and table value for the design of transition location. If we
curve length. But on the following curves, increase length of
transition length was not designed as per the transition curve, it
Figure 3. Table 2.6 of IRC:SP:99-
recommended standards. overlaps with next
2013
curve.
Chai V(K Ls Ls Ls
R
nag MP (Calcu (Table (Provi
(m)
e H) lated) value) ded)
514/ 117.5
2 400 100 78125 85 55
1.5 Gradient
As per Clause 4.4.1. of IRC:SP:42-2014, a Moderate The Concessionaire to review the Essential We have maintained
minimum longitudinal gradient shall be gradients which are less than 0.3% the 0.3% gradient in
maintained as 0.3 percent to avoid the and revise the designs, so that flat the whole stretch
stagnation of water on the carriageway. But gradients which cause collection of except at existing
on the following chainages, the longitudinal storm water on the MCW are nalla / river bridges
gradient was not designed as per IRC eliminated which are to be
standards: retained and we can
 503.2-503.41(MCW) not change the
 504.79-504.94(MCW) existing gradient.
 505.95-506.16(MCW)
 0-0.050(LHS-Spur road)

Exit ramp at chainage KM 509+900

S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority
 KM 380 to KM 220 (MCW)
1.6 Sight distance
Plan and Profile drawings have been Very High The Concessionaire to review the Essential Please note that
reviewed with reference to the criteria of curve K values which are less than Table-6 of IRC:SP-23
minimum ISD as per Table 6 of IRC SP 23- required sight distance and revise as mentioned is not
1993. It was observed that, at few chainages the designs. It is recommended to applicable for a case
desirable sight distance was not maintained. ensure the ISD as per Table 6 of when length of curve
Following are the observations found. IRC:23-1993 is greater than sight
distance.
K Value Provided as Probably engineer is
Chainage
against IRC values checking as per case
504685.990- 33.33 provided against (i) given in IRC:73
504786.990 41.5 10.4.1.
505850.250- 35.714 provided There are two
505950.250 against 41.5 equation given in IRC
508403.985- 115.384 provided code for calculation of
508463.985 against 135 length of summit
508808.334- 67.340 provided curve:-
508888.334 against 135 (i) First equation is for
509849.935- 55.045 provided L>S.
509909.935 against 135 (iI) Second equation is
514461.695- 42.613 provided for L<S.
514611.695 against 41.5
50.911-110.911
(Kunjwani to 22.79 provided against
Tawi river) 60
738.5-768-5 5.17 provided against
(Sidco chowk) 6.6
S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority

We have checked
SSD / ISD at all
location and found all
are OK.
This issue was
discussed earlier also
before approval of
P&P from I.E. Detail
calculation were
checked by I.E. team
also and then P&P
were approved.
1.7 Super elevation
On the following curves of ramps, super Very High Kindly provide the super-elevation as Essential NHAI has decided
elevation was not provided. Kindly clarify. per the equilibrium condition given in some changes in
clause 9.4.1 of IRC:73:1990 which is ramps for which
 UP Ramp-5 Curve 1/2 given below. revised drawing shall
 Down Ramp-6 Curve No 1/1 be submitted.
 Down Ramp-6 Curve No 1/2 V
2

 Down Ramp-6 Curve No 1/3 e +f =

gR
S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority
 UP Ramp-7 Curve No 1/1 Where:
 UP Ramp-7 Curve No 1/2 e = Super elevation
f = Coefficient of side friction which
can be assumed as 0.15
g = Acceleration due to gravity (m/s)
R = Curve radius (m)
V = Design speed (m/s)
2. Typical cross-sections
2.1 Median
Median openings of the proposed High As per section 2.14.1 of IRC: SP:99- Essential Storage lane is not
expressway were not observed in the P&P 2013, it is desirable to provide feasible at median
drawings. This query may be clarified by the median openings with detachable opening location due
designer. barriers at about 5 KM spacing on an to piers of main
expressway for maintenance and viaduct at median.
emergency works.

All median openings shall be

provided with an additional 3.5 m
wide storage lane by the side of the
median in both directions for waiting
vehicles to take U-turn.
The length of median opening shall
be 18 to 20 m only. The length of
median openings can be more than
20 m in case of median opening
without a storage lane. All
plantations and objects in the
median for at least 120 m from the
median tip shall be removed to
ensure visibility between
approaching vehicles and
waiting/turning at median openings.
S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority
Kindly ensure the above guidelines
as recommended by IRC: SP:99-
2013.
On the entire project road, new jersey crash Very High Only incase of right-of-way Essential Noted and shall be
barrier was provided as a median. Also, restriction, new jersey crash barrier incorporated.
entire project road, the new jersey crash may be provided with antiglare
barrier doesn’t have antiglare screen. screens mounted over it as
suggested by MoRTH circular
number RW/NH-29023/02/2019-
S&R(P&B). But as per the cross-
section drawings, antiglare screens
were not observed. Kindly provide
antiglare screens on the new jersey
crash barrier.

However, as per IRC:SP:99-2019

and MoRTH circular number
RW/NH-29023/02/2019-S&R(P&B),
all the expressways shall be
provided with either depressed or
flush median. No raised/kerb median
shall be provided especially in the
open country/rural stretches of
expressways. Since the
expressways are designed as
partially controlled highway for
higher speeds, raised median may
be a safety hazards and may cause
severe accidents/fatalities once the
errant vehicle strikes the raised
median. A typical pictures of
depressed median and flush median
are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5
respectively.
S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority

Figure 4. A typical depressed

median

Figure 5. A typical flush median with

anti-glare screens

In case of flush or depressed type

medians, crash barrier and antiglare
measures shall also be provided for
safety consideration and headlight
glare respectively. The width of
median shall be as per Table 2.3 of
IRC: SP:99-2019 which is given in
Figure 6 of this report.
S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority

Figure 6. Table 2.3 of IRC: SP:99-

2019

Furthermore, it must be noted that,

wherever the median width changes,
a transition of 1 in 50 shall be
provided. Kindly ensure the above
guidelines as recommended by IRC:
SP:99-2019.
3. Intersections
A Y-junction was observed at chainage KM High It is recommended to provide the Essential Please note that our
511+370 (see Figure 7). But the details of type of control at the junction as per expressway is going
type of intersection control (signal clause 1.4 of IRC:SP:41. above viaduct and it is
control/police control) were not observed on a grade separated
the drawings. junction.
Control at ground
shall be decided by
local authorities. In
our opinion existing
arrangement as on
today can be
maintained as it is.
The pedestrian crossing was provided at High Kindly ensure the continuity of Essential Provided in revised
chainage KM 511+370. However, the details pedestrian crossing at the drawing.
of pedestrian refuge islands were not highlighted junction as per clause
observed on the P&P drawings. Pedestrian 6.7.3.3 of IRC:103-2012. As shown
refuge islands ensure the safety of in Figure 8, pedestrian refuge
pedestrians who cannot cross the entire islands shall be maintained on the
carriageway at one time in safety. They also medians. Entire crosswalk shall be
S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority
ensure the continuity of crossing along the maintained at the same level as
crosswalk. shown in Figure 8. To avoid
trespassing of U-turning vehicles on
the refuge island, safety bollards
shall be placed on either side of the
refuge island. The height and gap
between safety bollards shall
conform to clause 6.12 of IRC:103-
2012.

Figure 8. Pedestrian refuge island as

per IRC:103-2012

Figure 7. Ground level plan at Chainage KM

511+370

Figure 9. Placement of Bollards as

S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority
per IRC:103-2012
The pedestrian crossing was provided at Very High Kindly ensure the continuity of Essential
Please refer to latest
chainage KM 511+370. However, the pedestrian movement by providing
drawing in which
continuity of footpath/sidewalk was not footpath along the length of
pedestrian crossing is
observed on the service road towards carriageway. The characteristics of
kept at one location
Vijaypur. A major bridge was observed from footpath shall conform to clause 6 of
only. As per contract
chainage KM 511+110 to KM 511+346. As IRC:103-2012.
existing bridge at this
per typical cross sectional drawings Type-III,
chainage is to be
no footpath was found on the service roads.
retained and no
In the absence of footpath/sidewalk,
footpath can be
pedestrian use the main carriageway of
provided.
service road which is unsafe.
A Y-junction was observed at chainage KM High As per clause 6.4 of IRC:92-2017, Essential Please refer to latest
511+370. The merging section highlighted in the number of lanes beyond the drawing in which
Figure 10 doesn’t meet the requirement of merging of two traffic streams should comment is not valid.
lane balance. Three lanes road and one lane not be less than the sum of all traffic
road are converted to two lanes. lanes on the merging roadways
minus one but may be equal to the
sum of all traffic lanes on the
merging roadway. A typical lane
balance is shown in Figure 11. The
designer may think of a better
alternative design to avoid traffic
conflicts at the merging section.
S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority
Figure 10. Merging point of two roads at
junction (Chainage KM 511+370)

Figure 11. Typical Examples of

Merging and Diverging Lane
Balance as per IRC:92-2017
The acceleration/deceleration lanes were not High It is recommended to provide the Essential Please note that main
observed on the merging and diverging acceleration length and deceleration carriageway
sections of the junction at chainage KM length of ramps as per Table 3.2 and (expressway) is
511+370. Table 3.3 of IRC:SP:99-2019 elevated viaduct and
respectively (see Figure 12 & Figure cross road is not
14). connected with the
main carriageway. It is
only connected with
service road at grade
only. Existing Bridge
which shall be used
as service road after
construction of
Figure 12. Table 3.2 of IRC:SP:99-
S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority
2019

elevated viaduct are

to be retained as it is
as per our contract.
Figure 14. Table 3.3 of IRC:SP:99-
2019

Figure 13. Junction at chainage 511+370

The design of the junction at chainage KM Very High The junction should be redesigned Essential
509+900 has potential for major traffic keeping the traffic volumes of the
conflicts. As shown in Figure 15, Traffic existing road in mind.
Stream A interacts with Traffic Stream B on There is no conflict of
the service road or slip road. Traffic Stream B traffic. Also note that
interacts with Traffic Stream C on the slip main carriageway's
road. traffic is going above
viaduct. At ground /
service level only
Road B traffic (Which
is very less important
road) is merging into
service road which is
already 3 lane
carriageway road.

Figure 15. Junction at 509+900

A traffic stream separator was observed at Very High If separator is provided to segregate Essential Please note that the
chainage KM 514+000 as shown in Figure the through traffic and left turning separator (as
16. Kindly clarify the significance of separator traffic, join the separator with the highlighted by you) is
at the highlighted location. channelizing island of left turn as between MCW (RE
S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority
shown in Figure 17. if the separator
abruptly ends at the start point of left
turning (as designed), vehicles from
traffic lane A may try to take the left
turn and vehicle from traffic lane B
may try to go straight (as designed)
finally end up colliding with the other
vehicles. Wall) and Service
Road. If we follow
modification in island
as given by you, then
Traffic Lane A can't
go left and Traffic lane
B can't go straight
Figure 16. Presence of separator at junction which is not
KM 514+000 acceptable by client
also.

Figure 17. Tentative modification of

separator at the junction KM
514+100
Pedestrian refuge islands are missing at the High Kindly ensure the provision of Essential Storage lane is not
following chainages: pedestrian refuge islands at the feasible at median
highlighted chainages. As shown in opening location due
 KM 514+000 Figure 8, pedestrian refuge islands to piers of main
 KM 509+800 shall be maintained on the medians. viaduct at median.
 KM 510+050 Entire crosswalk shall be maintained
at the same level as shown in Figure
8. To avoid trespassing of U-turning
vehicles on the refuge island, safety
bollards shall be placed on either
side of the refuge island. The height
S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority
and gap between safety bollards
shall conform to clause 6.12 of
IRC:103-2012.

Storage lane was not observed at the High It is highly desirable to provide the Highly
following turning/U-turn locations. additional 3.5 m wide shelter lane/ Desirabl
storage lane at all median openings e Storage lane is not
 KM 509+800 by the side of median in both feasible at median
directions for waiting of vehicles to opening location due
 KM 510+050
take U-turn. Wherever required, to piers of main
 KM 511+370
horizontal geometries of the road viaduct at median.
 KM 513+730
 KM 514+000 shall be suitably adjusted.

4. Interchanges
The following list of ramps was observed as High These ramps are
per Appendix B-I of the concessionaire included in the plan
agreement. and profile of Sidco
connecting road.
S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority

Figure 18. List of ramps as per Appendix-BI

of Concessionaire agreement

However, Ramp-2, Ramp-3, and Ramp-4

were not observed on the P&P drawings of
main carriageway. Kindly clarify, where the
above mentioned ramps were provided on
the project road.

5. Roadside Hazards

High Tension line (HT line) was found Very High Kindly ensure the vertical clearance Essential Raising of HT line is
crossing the project road at the following of HT line as per clause 4.1 of proposed and this
chainages IRC:32-1969. However as a best issue in under
 KM 507+625 practice, the designer can also refer process.
 KM 507+680 to Table 10.4 of the draft version of
IRC:73-2020 which is given in Figure
19. Clearance details were given
S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority
with respect to the voltage of high
tension wire in IRC:73-2020 (draft
version).

Figure 19. Table 10.4 of IRC:73-

2020 (Draft version)

However, the details of vertical clearance

from the project road was not observed on
the P&P drawings. Kindly clarify the vertical
clearance at the HT line crossing.
6. Toll Plaza
No Toll plazas

7. Traffic Management Plan and Traffic Diversion Plan

Traffic Management Plan (TMP) and Traffic

?
Control Plan (TCP) were not as per
standards. No details of dimensions were
observed on the TMP and TCP. Details of
taper rate of transition zone and terminal
zone, buffer distance of crash barrier etc.
were not available on the TMP and TCP.
S.N Safety Concerns & Audit Findings Recommendations Client Response
o. Description (with Images If any) Risk Description (with Figures if any) Priority
A typical traffic diversion plan of the Package
XVI is shown in Figure 20. Due to the
unavailability of the required information on
TMP and TCP, the audit team couldn’t review
the same.

Figure 20. Traffic diversion plan of Chainage

KM 503+700 to 504+500
CONCLUSION
The audit has identified a series of safety issues along the improved National Highway and
recommendations rated as “Essential”, “Highly Desirable” and “Desirable” are to be
implemented within a specified time. The implementation of the recommendations may be
monitored by the site office of the Supervision Consultant. It is also recommended that the
accident data may be electronically collected with GPS coordinates continuously as per
MoRTH’s format using road accident database management softwares to study observe the
accident patterns and for identifying the improvement/modification that will be further helpful for
safety of operation.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
 Ensure the design speed of the expressway as per Schedule-B of concessionaire
agreement.
 Design the curve radius of the expressway as per Table 2.5 of IRC:SP:99-2013.
 On all horizontal curves ensure the equilibrium condition of super elevation, radius and
design speed as per clause 9.4 of IRC:73-1990.
 Design the transition curves of the expressway as per Table 2.6 of IRC:SP:99-2019 or as
per Chapter 7 of IRC:38-1998 (Whichever is the maximum).
 A minimum longitudinal gradient should be maintained as per Clause 4.4.1. of IRC:SP:42-
2014.
 The width of the median shall be as per Table 2.3 of IRC:SP:99-2019
 The cross fall of the depressed median should be as per clause 1.4.5 of MoRTH guidelines
of expressways.
 Ensure the taper rate of median as per clause of 2.5.3 of IRC:SP:99-2019.
 Ensure the minimum length of vertical curve as per Table 2.10 of IRC:SP:99-2013.
 Ensure the vertical clearance at VUP/LVUP/SVUP and other underpasses as per Table
2.11 of IRC:SP:99-2013.
 Ensure the vertical clearance at water bodies as per clause 106.8 of IRC:5-2015.
 The vertical clearance of High Tension line should be as per clause 4.1 of IRC:32-1969.
 Design the length of acceleration and deceleration lane as per Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 of
the IRC:SP:99-2019 respectively.
 Design all the ramps of all interchanges as per Table 2.03B of MoRTH guidelines of
expressways
 Provide the U-turn ramps at toll plaza as per clause 12.4.21 of IRC:SP:99-2013.
 Design the entry and exit ramps of toll plaza as per 12.4.8 of IRC:SP:99-2013.
 Kindly provide all traffic signs as per IRC:67-2022.

The road safety audit team expects that the designer must ensure the above points.