Annex F

 
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT

PESHAWAR-KARACHI MOTORWAY (PKM)

SUKKUR-MULTAN SECTION

JAN 2017
Peshawar - Karachi Motorway
Section II Sukkur - Multan

Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (consolidated version)

August 2018

FRED ENGINEERING
Roma | Almerìa | Casablanca | www.fredeng.eu
Peshawar – Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 1 RSA

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2
2 Background information ................................................................................................ 3
3 Items resulting from this Stage 1 Audit .......................................................................... 5
3.1 General ................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 The junctions .......................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Signing and markings ........................................................................................... 11
4 Audit Team Statement ................................................................................................. 14
APPENDIX 1 - List of drawings examined........................................................................... 15
APPENDIX 2 – Road Safety Audit feedback form ............................................................... 16

FRED ENGINEERING 1
Peshawar – Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 1 RSA

1 Introduction
This report describes a Stage 11 Road Safety Audit carried out on the Feasibility study and
preliminary design of the Section II Sukkur - Multan of the Karachi – Multan - Lahore
Motorway, in Pakistan. The audit was carried out during May - June 2018.
The Audit Team members were as follows:
¡ Edoardo Mazzia, certified Road Safety Auditor approved according to Dir.
2008/96/EC, Team Leader, FRED Engineering S.r.l.
¡ Dr Kamran Ahmed, Team Member, FRED Engineering S.r.l.
The following NHA engineers also participated in the audit as Observers:
¡ Muhammad Hasan Khalil, NHA
¡ Zaier Abbas Zaidi, NHA
The audit comprised of a review of the preliminary design drawings provided by the design
office.
No Road Safety Audits were carried out before.
This Stage 2 audit has been carried out in accordance with international recognized
practices, with particular reference to the CAREC RSA Manual2. The team has examined
only those issues within the preliminary design related to the road safety implications of the
scheme and has therefore not examined or verified the compliance of the design to any
other criteria.
Appendix 1 describes the drawings examined by the Audit Team.
All of the issues highlighted in this report are considered by the Audit Team to require
action during the detail design stage in order to improve the safety of the roadway section
and minimise collision occurrence.
A feedback form containing both the Designer/Contractor’s response to this Audit and the
Auditor’s feedback is reported in the Appendix 2.

1
In accordance with current international practice (e.g. UK HD 19/15), Stage 1 generally refers to the
Preliminary Design Stage. However, it should be noted that according to some practices (e.g.
CAREC RSA Manual 2018) the same audit can be referred to as Stage 2, Stage 1 being the one
referred to the feasibility study.
2
CAREC Road Safety Engineering Manual 1 – Road Safety Audit (March 2018)

FRED ENGINEERING 2
Peshawar – Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 1 RSA

2 Background information
The scope of this audit covers the Section II Sukkur – Multan of the Karachi – Lahore
Motorway (KLM), from km 391+800 to km 739+200 (about 347 km).
The Karachi - Lahore motorway is a controlled-access dual carriageway that is part of the
trade corridor linking ports of Karachi and Gwadar with China and Asian States. The
general alignment runs parallel to the National Highway N-5, which carries about 65%
traffic of Pakistan. The KLM can be divided into three sections: Hyderabad – Sukkur
Section, Sukkur – Multan Section and Multan – Lahore Section.
The project is implemented according to a Design-build system. The Contractor and design
consultant is a Joint Venture leaded by China State Construction Engineering Cooperation
Ltd (CSCEC).
No departures from standards have been notified to the Audit Team.
A proposed alignment of Sukkur Multan Motorway is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Alignment of Sukkur Multan Motorway

The project is located in the province of Punjab and Sindh. It starts at approximately 2.3 km
to the south of National Highway N-5 in the city of Rohri and ends near Multan in the area
of Shujaabad. The proposed alignment mostly moves parallel to the National Highway N-5.

FRED ENGINEERING 3
Peshawar – Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 1 RSA

The alignment has been designed according to AASHTO standards with a design speed of
120 km/h. The typical cross-section consists of two-way divided carriageways, having three
lanes on each direction (lane width is 3.65 m). Hard shoulders are also provided on both
sides: the outer shoulder is 3.0 m wide, while the inner one is 1.0 m wide (see Figure 2
below).

Figure 2 – Typical cross-section

The alignment is entirely in embankment with no particular horizontal curves. Several

bridges are present to cross existing road and rail infrastructures, as well as several
watercourses.
The following 10 interchanges make part of the project, all of them are half Cloverleaf:
¡ Rohri interchange – km 391+800
¡ Pano Aqil interchange – km 414+400
¡ Ghotki interchange – km 444+243
¡ Guddu interchange – km 503+100
¡ Rahim Yar Khan interchange – km 542+800
¡ Zahir Pir interchange – km 595+000
¡ Taranda Muhammad Panah interchange – km 641+200
¡ Uch Sharif interchange – km 664+600
¡ Jalalpur interchange – km 700+800
¡ Shujaabad interchange – km 739+200
The following mainline toll plaza makes also part of the project:
¡ Rahim Yar Khan toll plaza – km 525+530

FRED ENGINEERING 4
Peshawar – Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 1 RSA

3 Items resulting from this Stage 1 Audit

3.1 General
3.1.1 Problem
Location: general
Summary: median barrier could not properly restrain errant vehicles
Risk: high
The median barrier is New-Jersey type and is made of reinforced concrete cast in
situ, anchored to the road infrastructure, as shown in Figure 3. This type of barrier,
as it is integral to the road infrastructure, cannot move and thus absorb the energy
of an impact.
Furthermore, the barrier profile does not seem to be capable of effectively
redirecting an errant vehicle.
It is worth noting that a New-Jersey barrier redirects a vehicle thanks to the
particular shape of its profile, which consists of a particular sequence of three
different slopes (see Figure 4). They have the task of moving the impacting wheel in
such a way that first the vehicle ascends on the so shaped face (creating the
acceleration absent in blade type and stake barriers) and then send it back towards
the roadway that had abandoned, in a time more or less longer depending on the
angle and speed of impact. If the energy of the impact is higher, the barrier has also
a displacement that dissipates energy by friction. The displacement of the barrier
gives rise to a loop, more or less accentuated, in the protection line. It induces the
vehicle to flow along the barrier and not to bounce towards the centre of the road,
as happens in elastic collisions without movement. This effect, combined with the
mechanism of ups and downs described, facilitates control of the trajectory and
redirection, especially for heavy vehicles.

Figure 3 – In situ cast barrier Figure 4 – Key mechanisms of a New-Jersey barrier

Anchorage method, profile and size of the design barrier suggest that there may be
a real risk that they will be not coherent with the safety level required for the type of
road and traffic in subject. An errant vehicle could be thus not properly protected.

FRED ENGINEERING 5
Peshawar – Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 1 RSA

Recommendation
It is recommended to install pre-cast New-
Jersey barriers shown in Figure 5, having a
containment level appropriate to the design
speed and the expected traffic (volume and
mix). In particular, it is recommended to
install barriers tested according to
internationally recognized standards (e.g.
EN 1317, MASH, etc.)3.

Figure 5 – Example of a pre-cast New-Jersey

barrier tested with the standard EN 1317,
approved in class H2

3.1.2 Problem
Location: general
Summary: roadside barrier could not properly restrain errant vehicles
Risk: high
The design does not provide information about the containment classes of safety
barriers. Roadside guardrails could be inappropriate to contain an errant heavy
vehicle.
There is the risk that they will be not coherent with the safety level required for the
type of road and traffic in subject. An errant vehicle could be thus not properly
protected.

Recommendation
It is recommended to install safety barriers having a containment level appropriate to
the design speed and the expected traffic (volume and mix). In particular, it is
recommended to install barriers tested according to internationally recognized
standards (e.g. EN 1317, MASH, etc.)4.

3.1.3 Problem
Location: general
Summary: steep gradient of fill slopes
Risk: very high
Gradient of fill slopes is 1:1.5. These embankments result in a high risk of vehicle
rollover and significant consequential injury if a vehicle should veer off the
carriageway.
According to the design if slope height is less than 2 m, no guardrail shall be set.

3
As an indication, the containment class should be at least H2 according to EN 1317 standards (but
other comparable standards can be considered)
4
As an indication, the containment class should be at least H1 according to EN 1317 standards (but
other comparable standards can be considered)

FRED ENGINEERING 6
Peshawar – Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 1 RSA

Recommendation
It is recommended to provide 1:3 or less steep fill slopes. In alternative it is
recommended to protect with a guardrail slopes higher than 1 m.

3.1.4 Problem
Location: general
Summary: gaps in the median are hazardous for errant vehicles
Risk: very high
Barrier emergency openings are provided on the median along the motorway. The
scope is to permit closing of a carriageway and the utilization of the other as a two-
way carriageway while maintenance work is performed on the closed one, as well as
to permit service and assistance vehicles to effect “U” turns so as to intervene more
quickly in emergencies.
Although the design report suggests closing these openings with removable
barriers, in the drawings they appear closed with a fence.
Any interruption on the continuity of the median barrier is a hazard for errant
vehicles.

Figure 6 – Barrier opening (front view)

Recommendation
It is recommended to close down the opening with removable barriers (see an
example on Figure 7 below).

Figure 7 – Example of a class H2 removable median barrier (France)

FRED ENGINEERING 7
Peshawar – Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 1 RSA

3.1.5 Problem
Location: Rahim Yar Khan toll plaza (km 525+530)
Summary: toll islands are not sufficiently protected
Risk: high
All toll plazas are proposed on the entry and exit ramps at each interchange, except
Rahim Yar Khan Toll Plaza which is proposed on the mainline at km 525+5305.
This rarity may surprise the drivers which could have a not adequate speed. The
possible crash with the nose of the toll island may lead to very serious
consequences.

Figure 8 – Layout of a toll island

Recommendation
It is recommended to install impact attenuators (crash
cushion) at noses of toll islands.
The attenuators should comply with internationally
recognised standards (e.g. European standard EN
1317-3)6.

Figure 9 – Impact attenuator

5
Other mainline toll plazas are envisaged in adjacent sections
6
As an indication, the containment class should be at least 50 according to EN 1317-3 standards
(but other comparable standards can be considered)

FRED ENGINEERING 8
Peshawar – Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 1 RSA

3.2 The junctions

3.2.1 Problem
Location: all interchanges
Summary: the junction of motorway ramps/slip roads with the access roads do not
have the characteristics to ensure safe traffic flow
Risk: high
The slip roads are usually connected to small rural roads. These rural roads are
generally providing access to N-5 highway.
The project does not provide details on how the intersections, which are likely to be
affected by significant traffic flows, will be realised.
There is a risk that the many conflicts that will arise may lead to crashes.
Junction of Local
roads with Slip road

Junction of Local
roads with Slip road

Figure 10 – Proposed ambiguous layout of the junctions at Ghotki interchange

Moreover, these local roads often pass through small settlements before joining the
national highway. Higher traffic flow (especially heavy vehicles) accessing motorway
is expected on these local roads. The current geometric and road environment at
these local roads may constitute a serious danger, especially for vulnerable road
users, i.e. pedestrians, two-wheelers, etc..

Recommendation
It is recommended to adopt a layout for the junctions which ensures safe and
smooth traffic flow. Figure below shows the suggested layout for junctions.
It is also suggested that local roads leading to the national highway be rehabilitated,
so as to allow the safe flow of expected traffic.

FRED ENGINEERING 9
Peshawar – Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 1 RSA

Figure 11 – Suggested layout of T-junctions

3.2.2 Problem
Location: all interchanges, service and rest areas
Summary: layout of exit ramps may be not adequate to safely diverge the traffic
streams
Risk: low
Exit ramps at interchanges and service/rest areas diverge from the mainline (without
a parallel auxiliary lane). The diverging area is just limited to the taper (length is not
provided).
Vehicles are forced to slow down on the traffic lane, thus obstructing other vehicles.
This configuration increase probability of rear end crashes occurrence.

Insufficient Length of
Decelerating Land and Taper

Figure 12 – Short diverge taper

Recommendation
It is recommended to design a manoeuvring section, which is at least a 150 m long
taper adjacent to the motorway with appropriate decelerating lane.

FRED ENGINEERING 10
Peshawar – Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 1 RSA

3.3 Signing and markings

3.3.1 Problem
Location: general
Summary: edge lines are too thin
Risk: medium
Edge lines are 12 cm wide. This width does not seem sufficient to make the edge of
the road effectively visible at the speed of the motorway, especially in poor visibility
(e.g. fog, night, etc.).
There is a risk that vehicles may lose their trajectory and even run out of the way.

Recommendation
Edge lines at least 15 cm in width are recommended.

3.3.2 Problem
Location: general
Summary: length of solid lines of lane lines is too short
Risk: medium
Lane lines are broken lines where the gap is 12 m and the solid line is 4 m long. The
length of the solid line seems to be too short to be appreciated effectively at the
speed of the motorway
There is a risk that vehicles may lose their trajectory and conflict with other vehicles
on adjacent lanes.

Recommendation
It is recommended that the solid line is at least 6 m long7.

3.3.3 Problem
Location: all ramps at interchanges
Summary: vehicles may enter into the motorway in the wrong direction
Risk: high
The loops of the cloverleaves are undivided 2-way roads until the nose where the
slip roads (exit and entry ramps) diverge. The Figure below shows the Rohri and
Ghotki interchanges signage layout.
At the nose no sign is provided to inform the direction about right direction.
Inattentive drivers may take the exit ramp in the wrong direction thus posing a
serious risk of head on crashes along the motorway.

7
Usually the gap is twice that of the line segments

FRED ENGINEERING 11
Peshawar – Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 1 RSA

Rohri Interchange
Layout

Ghotki Interchange
Layout
Figure 13 – Rohri and Ghotki interchanges sign layout

Recommendation
It is recommended to install the following signs:
¡ ‘Keep left’ (arrow) sign, showing the right direction to take
¡ 2 ‘No entry’ signs (on both roadsides), preventing the wrong direction being
taken
In order to reinforce the separation of flows, it is also advisable to install plastic
marker posts along the centreline.

FRED ENGINEERING 12
Peshawar – Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 1 RSA

Figure 14 – Signage at a slip road in UK

FRED ENGINEERING 13
Peshawar – Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 1 RSA

4 Audit Team Statement

We certify that we have reviewed the drawings and other information listed in Appendix 1.
This review has been carried out with the sole purpose of identifying any features of the
design that could be removed or modified to improve the safety of the scheme. The
problems were identified and noted in the report, together with suggestions for
improvement. The suggestions should be considered for implementation. The road safety
audit has been conducted by the persons named below who have had no involvement in
the design of the scheme.

Edoardo Mazzia Signed

Road Safety Audit Team Leader
Date 29/06/2018
FRED Engineering

Kamran Ahmed Signed

Road Safety Audit Team Member
Date 29/06/2018
FRED Engineering

FRED ENGINEERING 14
Peshawar – Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 1 RSA

APPENDIX 1 - List of drawings examined

¡ Feasibility Study Report - Main Report (July 2014)

¡ Traffic Study Report (July 2014)
¡ Design Drawings and Spreadsheets (May 2014)
o General Design
§ Computer-generated images
§ Map of geographical location
§ Plan and profile (1:50000)
o Alignment
§ Alignment plan and profile (1:10000)
o Subgrade, Pavement and Drainage
§ Typical cross-section of subgrade
§ Design drawing for general subgrade
§ Design drawing for special subgrade
§ Design drawing for subgrade cross-section
§ Design drawing for bridgehead subgrade treatment
§ Design drawing for subgrade protection works
§ Design drawing for subgrade and pavement drainage
o Bridges and culverts
§ Typical cross-section of bridge superstructure
§ General arrangement drawing of bridge superstructure
§ General arrangement drawing of bridge substructure
§ Typical bridge design drawing
§ Typical culvert design drawing
o Alignment intersection
§ Typical cross section of subgrade
§ Plan of interchanges
§ Typical interchange arrangement drawing
§ Typical ramp bridge arrangement drawing
§ Typical flyover design drawing
§ Typical flyover bridge arrangement drawing
§ Typical subway design drawing
§ Plan of service facilities along the alignment
o Traffic Engineering and Road Facilities
§ Layout of traffic engineering and roadside facilities
§ Interchange sign layout
§ Rorhi interchange sign layout
§ Road sign layout design drawing
§ Marking design drawing
§ W-beam
§ Three-beam
§ General layout of movable fences
§ Design drawing of central New-Jersey barrier
§ Design drawing of delineator attached to wave beams
§ Design drawing of delineator attached to concrete barrier
§ Barbed wire fence structure design drawing
§ Design drawing of glare-shield facilities
§ Design drawing of falling object prevention net

FRED ENGINEERING 15
Peshawar – Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 1 RSA

APPENDIX 2 – Road Safety Audit feedback form

Scheme: Peshawar – Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan

Audit Stage: 1 (preliminary design)

Alternative
Recommended measures or
Problem Describe alternative measures. Give
Items resulting from Recommendation by the measure reasons
Ref. accepted reasons for not accepting
Stage 1 Audit Auditor accepted accepted by
[yes/no] recommended measure.
[yes/no] the Auditor
[yes/no]
Median barrier could It is recommended to (i) The current profile of New Jersey
not properly restrain install barriers tested according barriers is provided for all motorway in
errant vehicles to the country.
internationally recognized (ii) If yes, vehicle wouldn’t hit the barriers
3.1.1 standards (e.g. NO NO at 90°but laterally. The currently YES
EN 1317, MASH, etc.) 4 . designed barriers profile can also move
the impacting wheel and send it back
towards roadway to meet the TL-4
containment class.
Roadside barrier could It is recommended to install (i) The current W-beam guardrails are
not properly restrain barriers tested according to provided for all motorway in the country
3.1.2 errant vehicles internationally recognized NO NO and work well in practices. NO
standards (e.g. EN 1317, (ii) The current design meets the Contract
MASH, etc.) documents.

FRED ENGINEERING 16

Scheme: Peshawar-Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan
Audit stage: 1 initial design
Items resulting from
Stage 2 Audit
median barrier could not
3.1.1 properly restrain errant
vehicles
roadside barrier could not
3.1.2 properly restrain errant
vehicles
Steep gradient of fill slopes is
3.1.3
1:1.5
Gaps in the median are
3.1.4
hazardous for errant vehicles
Toll islands are not
3.1.5 sufficiently protected at Rahim attenuators (crash cushion) at noses of toll
Yar Khan Toll Plaza.
APPENDIX 2- Road Safety Audit Feedback Form
Alternative
Recommende measures or
Problems
d measure Describe alternative measures. Give reasons for not accepting recommended reasons
Recommendation by the Auditor accepted
accepted measure. Only complete if recommended measure is not accepted. accepted by
Yes/No
Yes/NO the Auditor
(Yes/no)
(i) The current profile of New Jersey barriers are provided for all motorway in the
it is recommended to
country.
install barriers tested according to
NO NO (ii)If yes, vehicle wouldn't hit the barriers at 90°but laterally. The currently designed YES
internationally recognized standards (e.g.
barriers profile can also move the impacting wheel and send it back towards
EN 1317, MASH, etc.) 4 .
roadway to meet the TL-4 containment class.
It is recommended to install barriers tested i The current W-beam guardrails are provided for all motorway in the country
according to internationally recognized NO NO and work well in practices. YES
standards (e.g. EN 1317, MASH, etc.) ii The current design meets the Contract documents.
It is recommended to provide 1:3 or less
According to the contract requirements provide 1:3 steep fill slopes when slopes
steep fill slopes. In alternative it is
YES NO less than 3m, provide 1:2 steep fill slopes and protect with a guardrail slopes higher YES
recommended to protect with a guardrail
than 3 m.
slopes higher than 1 m.
i As required by the Employer, CSCEC has improved the median opening
solution recommended in the original tender documents and adopted moveable
It is recommended to close down the barriers same as those on M4 motorway in Pakistan.
NO NO YES
opening with removable barriers ii According to traffic accident statistics, traffic accident rate at median openings
is extremely low on M4 motorway.
It is recommended to install impact
In detailed design, all toll plazas are positioned on ramps in the interchanges and
YES NO YES
there is no toll plazas on the mainline. There is no such worry now.
islands.

For all interchanges, the
junction of motorway
ramps/slip roads with the
3.2.1
access roads do not
have the characteristics to
ensure safe traffic flow
For all interchanges, service
and rest areas,layout of exit
3.2.2 ramps may be not adequate to
safely diverge the traffic
streams
Signing and markings: edge
3.3.1
lines are too thin
Length of solid lines of lane
3.3.2
lines is too short
For all ramps at interchanges,
vehicles may enter into the
3.3.3
motorway in the wrong
direction
i It is recommended to adopt a layout
for the junctions which ensures safe and
smooth traffic flow.
It is also suggested that local roads leading
to the national highway be rehabilitated,
t is recommended to design a
manoeuvring section, which is at least a
150 m long taper adjacent to the
motorway with appropriate decelerating
lane
Edge lines at least 15 cm in width are
recommended.
It is recommended that the solid line is at
least 6 m long 8
It is recommended to install ‘Keep left’
(arrow) sign and ‘No entry’ signs. In
order to reinforce the separation of flows,
it is also advisable to install plastic marker
posts along the centreline.
i The intersection between the crossed local road and local road is not in the
contract scope of the Project. It is part of the local road network.
ii Based on the Highway Safety Audit Expert’s comments, CSCEC hereby
propose a future renovation plan for the intersection between the crossed local road
and N5, in which the intersection is renovated into a signalized one and special left-
turn and right-turn lanes are added. The plan is provided for the Employer’s
reference and implementation.
YES NO YES
i A tapered-design deceleration lane including tapering section and deceleration
lane is adopted for the deceleration lane at the diverging section of interchange
ramps. Length of the deceleration lane is taken as per Table 10-5 of AASHTO – A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways & Streets. A 170m design value is
adopted, satisfying the requirements of the specification.
NO NO YES
ii According to the general drawings in tender documents, length of the
deceleration lane tapering section is taken as 70m, and the taper ratio is taken as
1:20. The divergence angle is taken as 2.865°, satisfying the required 2°~5° in
Figure 10-70 of Chapter 10-Grade Separations and Interchanges, AASHTO – A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways & Streets.
YES YES In detailed design, edge lines are changed as 15cm in width. YES
YES YES In detailed design, solid lines of broken lines is changed as 6m long. YES
Concrete barriers are provided in the center of two-way ramps in the interchange in
YES NO order to eliminate the possibility of vehicles entering into the motorway in the YES
wrong direction. Execute on AER Export’s comments.
Peshawar - Karachi Motorway
Section II Sukkur - Multan

Stage 2 Road Safety Audit (consolidated version)

August 2018

FRED ENGINEERING
Roma | Almerìa | Casablanca | www.fredeng.eu
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2
2 Background information ................................................................................................ 3
3 Items resulting from the Stage 1 Audit ........................................................................... 5
4 Items resulting from this Stage 2 Audit .......................................................................... 6
4.1 General ................................................................................................................... 6
4.2 The junctions ........................................................................................................ 11
4.3 Signing and markings ........................................................................................... 19
5 Audit Team Statement ................................................................................................. 21
APPENDIX 1 - List of drawings examined........................................................................... 22
APPENDIX 2 – Road Safety Audit feedback form ............................................................... 23
ANNEX 1 – Photos of the site visit ...................................................................................... 29

FRED ENGINEERING 1
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

1 Introduction
This report describes a Stage 21 Road Safety Audit carried out on the detailed design of
the Section II Sukkur - Multan of the Peshawar – Karachi Motorway (PKM), in Pakistan. The
audit was carried out during May - June 2018.
The Audit Team members were as follows:
¡ Edoardo Mazzia, certified Road Safety Auditor approved according to Dir. 2008/96/EC,
Team Leader, FRED Engineering S.r.l.
¡ Dr Kamran Ahmed, Team Member, FRED Engineering S.r.l.
The following NHA engineers also participated in the audit as Observers:
¡ Muhammad Hasan Khalil, NHA
¡ Zaier Abbas Zaidi, NHA
The audit comprised of a review of the drawings relating to the scheme supplied by the
design office and a visit to the site by the team on 12 - 14 May 2018. Weather conditions
during the site visit were sunny.
Also present during the site visit were:
¡ Li Xiang, Manager Design CSCEC
¡ Usman Riaz, CSCEC consultant
At the moment of visit, the construction works were already in an advanced stage. This
audit, even if it refers to the design stage, therefore contains references to items already in
place.
The Audit Team had previously done a Stage 1 RSA of this scheme in June 2018.
This Stage 2 audit has been carried out in accordance with international recognized
practices, with particular reference to the CAREC RSA Manual2. The team has examined
only those issues within the design related to the road safety implications of the scheme,
and has therefore not examined or verified the compliance of the design to any other
criteria.
Appendix 1 describes the drawings examined by the Audit Team.
All of the issues highlighted in this report are considered by the Audit Team to require
action in order to improve the safety of the roadway section and minimise collision
occurrence.
A feedback form containing both the Designer/Contractor’s response to this Audit and the
Auditor’s feedback is reported in the Appendix 2.

1
In accordance with current international practice (e.g. UK HD 19/15), Stage 2 generally refers to the
Detailed Design Stage. However, it should be noted that according to some practices (e.g. CAREC
RSA Manual 2018) the same audit can be referred to as Stage 3, Stage 1 being the one referred to
the feasibility study.
2
CAREC Road Safety Engineering Manual 1 – Road Safety Audit (March 2018)

FRED ENGINEERING 2
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

2 Background information
The scope of this audit covers the Section II Sukkur – Multan of the Peshawar – Karachi
Motorway (PKM), from km 380+000 to km 772+018 (about 392 km).
PKM is a north-south skeleton motorway of Pakistan. Starting from Peshawar in the north,
it connects Islamabad, Multan, Sukkur and Hyderabad and ends at Karachi. Sukkur -
Multan Section, which is the longest section of PKM, is located in Sindh and Punjab
province which are the most affluent and densely populated regions of Pakistan.
According to the designer the construction of PKM will improve the road network of
Pakistan significantly, enhance the communication and provide connection between the
major cities of Pakistan. Moreover PKM will drive the economic development of the small
and medium-sized cities along the motorway, ease the traffic burden on the national
highways (N-55 and N-5) and improve overall traffic capacity of the north-south roads.
The project is implemented according to a Design-build system. The Contractor and design
consultant is a Joint Venture leaded by China State Construction Engineering Cooperation
Ltd (CSCEC).
The project is divided in seven sub-sections. No departures from standards have been
notified to the Audit Team.
The proposed alignment and sub-sections are shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Alignment of Sukkur - Multan motorway

The alignment has been designed according to AASHTO standards with a design speed of
120 km/h. The technical criteria adopted are as follows:
¡ Design speed: 120 km/h
¡ Width of standard cross section: 31.5 m
¡ Number of lanes: 6
¡ Width of lanes: 3.65 m

FRED ENGINEERING 3
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

¡ Stopping sight distance: 250 m

¡ Minimum radius of horizontal curve: 1,000 m
¡ Minimum radius of horizontal curve with no super elevation: 5,000 m
¡ Maximum vertical gradient: 3%
¡ Minimum vertical gradient: 0.3%
¡ Minimum vertical clearance (flyover): 5.5 m
The typical cross-section consists of two-way divided carriageways, having three lanes on
each direction (lane width is 3.65 m). Hard shoulders are also provided on both sides: the
outer shoulder is 3.0 m wide, while the inner one is 1.0 m wide (see Figure 2 below).

Figure 2 – Typical cross-section

The alignment is entirely on embankment with no particular horizontal curves. Several

bridges are present to cross existing road and rail infrastructures, as well as watercourses.
The following 11 interchanges make part of the project, all of them are half cloverleaf:
¡ Rohri interchange – km 386+127
¡ Pano Aqil interchange – km 413+978
¡ Ghotki interchange – km 442+669
¡ Guddu interchange – km 503+376
¡ Rahim Yar Khan interchange – km 560+043
¡ Zahir Pir interchange – km 595+624
¡ Taranda Muhammad Panah interchange – km 641+801
¡ Uch Sharif interchange – km 665+292
¡ Bhawalpur interchange – km 687+642
¡ Jalal Pur interchange – km 701+446
¡ Shujaabad interchange – km 740+235

FRED ENGINEERING 4
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

3 Items resulting from the Stage 1 Audit

The road safety aspects of the Section II Sukkur - Multan were highlighted in the Stage 1
Road Safety Audit Report.
Following items are not addressed in the detailed design and are referred again in this Road
Safety Audit Report:

Item Stage 1 RSA New item

3.1.1 4.1.1

3.1.2 4.1.2

3.1.4 4.1.4

3.2.1 4.2.3 to 4.2.7

3.2.2 4.2.1

3.3.3 4.3.1

All other issues raised in the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit have been resolved, namely:
¡ Gradient of fill slopes is 1:3 (1:4 in the triangle zone adjacent to interchange ramps)
¡ Edge lines are 15 cm wide
¡ Solid lines of broken lines are 6 m long

FRED ENGINEERING 5
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

4 Items resulting from this Stage 2 Audit

4.1 General
4.1.1 Problem
Location: general
Summary: median barrier could not properly restrain errant vehicles
Risk: high
The median barrier is New-Jersey type and is made of reinforced concrete cast in
situ, anchored to the road infrastructure, as shown in Figure 3. This type of barrier,
as it is integral to the road infrastructure, cannot move and thus absorb the energy
of an impact.
Furthermore, the barrier profile does not seem to be capable of effectively
redirecting an errant vehicle, and the size (height 0.81 m) does not seem to be
sufficient to hold a heavy vehicle.
It is worth noting that a New-Jersey barrier redirects a vehicle thanks to the
particular shape of its profile, which consists of a particular sequence of three
different slopes (see Figure 3). They have the task of moving the impacting wheel in
such a way that first the vehicle ascends on the so shaped face (creating the
acceleration absent in blade type and stake barriers) and then send it back towards
the roadway that had abandoned, in a time more or less longer depending on the
angle and speed of impact. If the energy of the impact is higher, the barrier has also
a displacement that dissipates energy by friction. The displacement of the barrier
gives rise to a loop, more or less accentuated, in the protection line. It induces the
vehicle to flow along the barrier and not to bounce towards the centre of the road,
as happens in elastic collisions without movement. This effect, combined with the
mechanism of ups and downs described, facilitates control of the trajectory and
redirection, especially for heavy vehicles.

Figure 3 – In situ cast barrier Figure 4 – Key mechanisms of a New-Jersey

barrier

FRED ENGINEERING 6
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

Anchorage method, profile and size of the

design barrier suggest that there may be a
real risk that they will be not coherent with
the safety level required for the type of road
and traffic in subject. An errant vehicle
could be thus not properly protected.

Recommendation
It is recommended to install pre-cast New-
Jersey barriers shown in Figure 5, having a
containment level appropriate to the design
speed and the expected traffic (volume and
mix). In particular, it is recommended to Figure 5 – Example of a pre-cast New-Jersey
install barriers tested according to barrier tested with the standard EN 1317,
approved in class H2
internationally recognized standards (e.g.
EN 1317, MASH, etc.)3.

4.1.2 Problem
Location: general
Summary: roadside barrier could not properly restrain errant vehicles
Risk: high
The design does not provide information about the containment classes of safety
barriers. Roadside guardrails appear to be inappropriate to contain an errant heavy
vehicle.
There is the risk that they will not be coherent with the safety level required for the
type of road and traffic in subject. An errant vehicle could be thus not properly
protected.

Recommendation
It is recommended to install safety barriers having a containment level appropriate to
the design speed and the expected traffic (volume and mix). In particular, it is
recommended to install barriers tested according to internationally recognized
standards (e.g. EN 1317, MASH, etc.)4.

3
As an indication, the containment class should be at least H2 according to EN 1317 standards (but
other comparable standards can be considered)
4
As an indication, the containment class should be at least H1 according to EN 1317 standards (but
other comparable standards can be considered)

FRED ENGINEERING 7
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

4.1.3 Problem
Location: general
Summary: distance between safety barriers and lighting poles may be not sufficient
to protect errant vehicles
Risk: high
According to the design, at interchanges, lighting poles are installed right at the
edge of the carriageway, in a position where it is likely that they will be very close to
the guardrails.
This kind of barriers, in case of crash, bends absorbing part of the energy. There
must be adequate space for this dynamic deflection behind the safety barrier. If an
obstacle is present in this space, it is a hazard for errant vehicles and there is the
risk that they are not properly protected.

Figure 6 – Cross-section showing the position of lighting poles

Recommendation
It is recommended to install the lighting poles outside the working width of the
guardrail (see Figure 7 below).

FRED ENGINEERING 8
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

Figure 7 – Position of a hazard with respect to the working width

4.1.4 Problem
Location: general
Summary: gaps in the median are hazardous for errant vehicles
Risk: very high
Barrier emergency openings are provided on the median along the motorway. The
scope is to permit closing of a carriageway and the utilization of the other as a two-
way carriageway while maintenance work is performed on the closed one, as well as
to permit service and assistance vehicles to effect “U” turns so as to intervene more
quickly in emergencies.
Although the design report suggests closing these openings with removable
barriers, in the drawings they appear closed with posts connected by a simple
chain.
Any interruption on the continuity of the median barrier is a hazard for errant
vehicles.

Figure 8 – Barrier opening (front view)

Recommendation
It is recommended to close down the opening with removable barriers (see an
example on Figure 9 below).

FRED ENGINEERING 9
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

Figure 9 – Example of a class H2 removable median barrier (France)

4.1.5 Problem
Location: general
Summary: pillars in the median barrier are hazardous for errant vehicles
Risk: high
The width of the base of the central pillars of the gantries is 600 mm which is exactly
the width at the base of the median barrier. The pillar is 356 mm wide, which means
that it protrudes 103 mm on either side of the top of the barrier. Figure below shows
the base of under construction pillar.
These types of pillars are therefore dangerous unprotected hazards for errant
vehicles due to its size.

Figure 10 – Front view of the pillar base (left) and base under construction (right)

FRED ENGINEERING 10
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

Recommendation
It is recommended (i) to install gantries without central pillar, (ii) to widen the median
in order to host it without dangerous protrusion or (iii) to design a different pillar
consistent with the dimension of the barrier.

4.1.6 Problem
Location: general
Summary: diverging points are not adequately protected
Risk: high
Diverging points can represent serious dangers if not
adequately equipped. The drawings show an anti-
collision barrel that is supposed to be used to protect
these points. Their effectiveness is, however, limited
and do not protect properly vehicle occupants in the
event of an impact with an obstacle (e.g. in the
presence of a guardrail).

Recommendation
It is recommended to install impact attenuators (crash
cushion) at diverging points (interchanges, rest/service
areas) when there are dangerous obstacles to protect
(in this case, the barrier itself is a dangerous obstacle).
The attenuators should comply with internationally
recognised standards (e.g. European standard EN Figure 11 – Impact attenuator
1317-3)5.

4.2 The junctions

4.2.1 Problem
Location: all interchanges; all service and rest areas
Summary: layout of exit ramps may be not adequate to safely diverge the traffic
streams
Risk: low
Exit ramps at interchanges and service/rest areas diverge from the mainline (without
a parallel auxiliary lane). The diverging area is just limited to the taper that is 70 m
long.
Vehicles are forced to slow down on the traffic lane, thus obstructing other vehicles.
This configuration increase probability of rear end crashes occurrence.

5
As an indication, the containment class should be at least 80 according to EN 1317-3 standards
(but other comparable standards can be considered)

FRED ENGINEERING 11
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

Figure 12 – Short diverge taper

Recommendation
It is recommended to design a manoeuvring section, which is at least a 150 m long
taper adjacent to the motorway.

4.2.2 Problem
Location: all interchanges; all service and rest areas
Summary: layout of entry ramps may be not adequate to safely merge the traffic
streams
Risk: medium
Merging of vehicles entering into the motorway with those travelling on the main
roadway is regulated by a taper approximately 175 m long. No parallel auxiliary
lanes are provided.
This configuration increase probability of lateral crashes occurrence, especially in
the presence of heavy traffic, because vehicles may not have enough space and
time to merge safely into the main traffic stream.

Figure 13 – Short merge taper

Recommendation
It is recommended to design a manoeuvring section, parallel to the main
carriageway, which is at least a 300 m long including the taper. This section shall
allow entering vehicles to attain the operating speed of the outer motorway traffic
lane and to merge into the flow in safety.

FRED ENGINEERING 12
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

Figure 14 – Layout of a parallel merge

4.2.3 Problem
Location: Rorhi interchange (km 386+127)
Summary: the junction where the motorway is connected does not have the
characteristics to ensure safe traffic flow
Risk: very high
This interchange will be the access point to the motorway for several years until the
route is completed southwards. During this period, the volume of traffic at the
intersection of the access road at the interchange and the N-5 road will be very high
and the current layout does not appear to guarantee adequate levels of safety.
Numerous conflicts will be present, and crashes will therefore be possible.

Figure 15 – Current intersection with N-5 highway

Recommendation
It is recommended to redesign the intersection with the N-5 road, giving priority to
turns to and from the motorway.

FRED ENGINEERING 13
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

4.2.4 Problem
Location: Pano Aqil interchange (km 413+978)
Summary: the road where the motorway is connected does not have the
characteristics to ensure safe traffic flow
Risk: high
The interchange connects to the N-5 highway via a small road with a very narrow
section. The project involves the rehabilitation of only the initial section, up to a small
bridge over a canal (here the width is only 4 m) that is not clear whether it is subject
to an intervention of rehabilitation or not.
The road section does not allow the simultaneous passage of two trucks and there
is a risk that crashes, including head-on collisions, may occur.
In addition, the right turns on the N-5 road are currently indirect, adjusted with U-
turns. The current configuration does not seem adequate for the expected traffic
volumes. Numerous dangerous conflicts will be possible, which may lead to
crashes.

Figure 16 – Narrow bridge (left) and difficult crossing of vehicles (right)

Recommendation
Rehabilitation of the entire stretch of road between the interchange and the N-5
road, including the canal bridge, is recommended. The road section should be such
as to allow the safe transit of two trucks at the same time.
It is also recommended to improve the layout of the intersection with the N-5 road. It
is suggested to investigate the use of a traffic signals at the intersection of N-5 and
link road.

4.2.5 Problem
Location: Rahim Yar Khan interchange (km 560+043)
Summary: the junction where the motorway is connected does not have the
characteristics to ensure safe traffic flow
Risk: medium
The west ramp connects to a small local road which then crosses a more important
road where the east ramp is linked. The project does not foresee a rehabilitation of
this intersection.

FRED ENGINEERING 14
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

This intersection currently has four legs, but the project plans to rehabilitate it by
excluding one (it becomes a T-junction) without, however, providing for traffic
channelling (there is no traffic island).
The future traffic flow generated by the motorway (especially heavy goods vehicles)
is not consistent with this simple layout and may create dangerous conflicts at the
intersection.

Figure 17 – T-junction without provisions for traffic management

Figure 18 – Current intersection

FRED ENGINEERING 15
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

Recommendation
It is recommended that the 4-leg junction be rehabilitated in such a way as to have
geometric characteristics consistent with the type and expected traffic flow. In
particular it is suggested to provide a roundabout which has the double advantage
of reducing the points of conflict and moderating the speed.

4.2.6 Problem
Location: Bhawalpur interchange (km 687+642)
Summary: the interchange includes a small village
Risk: very high
The two ramps of the interchange connect on a small local road which then leads to
the N-115 road. Between the two intersections, along the local road, there is a small
village that will inevitably be damaged by new highway traffic (composed of
significant proportion of heavy vehicles).
In the village there are schools, mosques and a market, activities that generate an
intense movement of vulnerable users.
The project does not give any indication on how the impact of the new road will be
controlled.
In this situation, it is clear that there is a very high risk of pedestrians and other
vulnerable users involvement in road crashes due to the expected high traffic
demand on this road.
In addition, at the T-junction between the local road and the N-115 road, no
rehabilitation is envisaged. The current layout can lead to dangerous conflicts
between different traffic flows: rear-end and lateral collisions may occur.

Figure 19 – Village included in the interchange

FRED ENGINEERING 16
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

Figure 20 – Current layout of the junction between N-115 and local road

Recommendation
If the village cannot be bypassed or avoided, it is recommended to implement traffic
calming measures at the level of the crossing of the agglomeration in order to
safeguard vulnerable users.
Moreover, it is recommended to adopt a different layout for the T junction between
N-115 and local road, with storage/acceleration lanes for vehicles turning right and
traffic islands to drive vehicles on the correct trajectories (see Figure below).

Figure 21 – Suggested T-junction layout

4.2.7 Problem
Location: Jalal Pur interchange (km 701+446)
Summary: the junction where the motorway is connected does not have the
characteristics to ensure safe traffic flow
Risk: high
The slip roads are connected to the road N-115. The western ramp connects directly
to the national highway, while the eastern ramp connects to a local road that then
intersects the road N-115 at a 4-leg non-signalised junction. The project does not
foresee a rehabilitation of this intersection.

FRED ENGINEERING 17
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

The future traffic flow generated by the motorway (especially heavy goods vehicles)
is not consistent with this layout and may create dangerous conflicts at the
intersection.
In addition, at the T-junction between the western ramp and the road N-115 no
storage lane is envisaged for right turning vehicles. This layout can lead to
dangerous conflicts between the different traffic flows: rear-end and lateral collisions
may occur.

Figure 22 – 4-leg junction between N-115 and the local road (left) and T-junction on N-115 road (right)

Recommendation
It is recommended to rehabilitate the 4-leg junction, in such a way as to have
geometric characteristics consistent with the type and expected traffic flow. In
particular it is suggested to provide a roundabout which has the double advantage
of reducing the points of conflict and moderating the speed.
Moreover, it is recommended to adopt a different layout for the T junction with
storage/acceleration lanes for vehicles turning right and traffic islands to drive
vehicles on the correct trajectories (see Figure 23 below).

Figure 23 – Suggested T-junction layout

FRED ENGINEERING 18
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

4.3 Signing and markings

4.3.1 Problem
Location: all ramps at interchanges
Summary: vehicles may enter into the motorway in the wrong direction
Risk: high
The loops of the trumpets and cloverleaves are undivided 2-way roads until the nose
where the slip roads (exit and entry ramps) diverge (see Figure below).
At the nose no signalisation showing the right direction is provided.
Inattentive drivers may take the exit ramp in the wrong direction thus posing a
serious risk of head on crashes along the motorway.

Figure 24 – Noses without signage at an interchange

Recommendation
It is recommended to install the following signs (see an example in the Figure
below):
¡ ‘Keep left’ (arrow) sign, showing the right direction to take
¡ 2 ‘No entry’ signs (on both roadsides), preventing the wrong direction being
taken
In order to reinforce the separation of flows, it is also advisable to install plastic
marker posts along the centreline.

FRED ENGINEERING 19
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

Figure 25 – Signage at a slip road in UK

FRED ENGINEERING 20
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

5 Audit Team Statement

We certify that we have reviewed the drawings and other information listed in Appendix 1.
This review has been carried out with the sole purpose of identifying any features of the
design that could be removed or modified to improve the safety of the scheme. The
problems were identified and noted in the report, together with suggestions for
improvement. The suggestions should be considered for implementation. The road safety
audit has been conducted by the persons named below who have had no involvement in
the design of the scheme.

Edoardo Mazzia Signed

Road Safety Audit Team Leader
Date 09/07/2018
FRED Engineering

Kamran Ahmed Signed

Road Safety Audit Team Member
Date 09/07/2018
FRED Engineering

FRED ENGINEERING 21
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

APPENDIX 1 - List of drawings examined

¡ Main Report (January 2017)

¡ Road Safety Audit Report (January 2017)
¡ Construction drawings (September 2017):
o General layout plans
o Typical cross sections
o Plan and profile
o Interchanges
o Typical structures
o Roadside facilities
o Road signs, pavement markings & miscellaneous details
o Lighting
o ITS
o Landscape and horticulture
¡ Shop drawings (February 2018):
o Road signs, pavement markings & miscellaneous details

FRED ENGINEERING 22

Scheme: Peshawar-Karachi motorway | Section II Sukkur - Multan
Audit Stage:2 Detailed Design
Items resulting from Stage 2
Audit
Median barrier could not
4.1.1
properly restrain errant vehicles
Roadside barriers could not
4.1.2 properly restrain errant
vehicles.
Distance between safety
barriers and lighting poles may
4.1.3
be not sufficient
to protect errant vehicles
Gaps in the median are
4.1.4
hazardous for errant vehicles.
APPENDIX 2- Road Safety Audit Feedback Form
Problem
Recommendation accepted
by the Auditor
It is recommended to install barriers tested
according to internationally recognized
standards (e.g.EN1317,MASH, etc)
It is recommended to install barriers tested
according to internationally recognized
standards (e.g.EN1317,MASH, etc).
It is recommended to install the lighting
poles outside the working width of the
guardrail.
It is recommended to close down the
opening with removable barriers.
Recommen Alternative
ded measures or
Describe alternative measures. Give reasons for not accepting recommended
measure reasons accepted
Yes/No measure. Only complete if recommended measure is not accepted.
accepted by the Auditor
Yes/NO (Yes/no)
(i) The current profile of New Jersey barriers are provided for all motorway in the
country.
NO NO (ii)If yes, vehicle wouldn't hit the barriers at 90°but laterally. The currently designed YES
barriers profile can also move the impacting wheel and send it back towards
roadway to meet the TL-4 containment class.
i The current W-beam guardrails are provided for all motorway in the country
NO NO and work well in practices. YES
ii The current design meets the Contract documents.
i Illumination works are mainly provided in interchange areas to reduce traffic
safety accidents, where vehicle speed (design speed 50km) and collision probability
are comparatively low. Even if a collision between vehicle and barrier occurs, force
of the collision and deformation of the barrier would be small due to the relatively
low vehicle speed, and the designed space could satisfy the practical requirements.
ii Conventional practices in Pakistan are referenced for the set up of street
lighting of the Project. As per CSCEC s investigations to the existing M4
NO NO YES
motorway in Pakistan, barriers are generally not provided at street lights, and when
provided, the distance between the barrier and the lighting pole is less than 0.5m.
According to traffic accident statistics, traffic accident rate at lighting poles is
extremely low.
iii To increase the anti-collision performance of the metal barriers at lighting
poles, CSCEC accepts AER expert’s suggestion to adjust the barrier post spacing at
lighting poles from 3.81m to 1.905m.
i As required by the Employer, CSCEC has improved the median opening
solution recommended in the original tender documents and adopted moveable
barriers same as those on M4 motorway in Pakistan.
NO NO YES
ii According to traffic accident statistics, traffic accident rate at median openings
is extremely low on M4 motorway.

Pillars in the median barrier are
4.1.5
hazardous for errant vehicles.
Diverging points are not
4.1.6
adequately protected
Layout of exit ramps may be
4.2.1 not adequate to safely diverge
the traffic streams
Layout of entry ramps may be
4.2.2 not adequate to safely merge
the traffic streams.
It is recommended (i) to install gantries
without central pillar, (ii) to widen the
median in order to host it without dangerous
protrusion or (iii) to design a different pillar
consistent with the dimension of the barrier.
It is recommended to install impact
attenuators (crash cushion) at diverging
points (interchanges, rest/service areas)
when there are dangerous obstacles to
protect
(in this case, the barrier itself is a dangerous
obstacle). The attenuators should comply
with internationally recognised standards
(e.g. European standard EN 1317-3)
It is recommended to design a manoeuvring
section, which is at least a 150 m long taper
adjacent to the motorway.
It is recommended to design a manoeuvring
section, parallel to the main carriageway,
which is at least a 300 m long including the
taper. This section shall allow entering
vehicles to attain the operating speed of the
outer motorway traffic lane and to merge
into the flow in safety.
i Conventional practices for existing motorways in Pakistan such as M4, etc. are
referenced for the gantry pillars of the Project: gantry pillars are located at the
median and the median barrier is interrupted at the pillar foundation; transition
YES NO treatment is not adopted. YES
ii Medians and gantry pillars of the Project have been constructed. According to
the Expert’s comments, CSCEC installed steel structure protection at the gantry
pillars to increase safety.
On the existing motorways in Pakistan, W-beam barriers at the end of diverging
points are not specially treated. In case of a collision, barriers are prone to thrust into
vehicles and cause severe casualties. In concern of this, optimization has been
carried out in the design submitted by CSCEC: barriers to both sides of the
YES NO YES
diverging point are connected as a whole by end-beams, and anti-collision barrels
with reflective film are placed in front of the ends for warning and energy
dissipation.
i A tapered-design deceleration lane including tapering section and deceleration
lane is adopted for the deceleration lane at the diverging section of interchange
ramps. Length of the deceleration lane is taken as per Table 10-5 of AASHTO – A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways & Streets. A 170m design value is
adopted, satisfying the requirements of the specification.
NO NO YES
ii According to the general drawings in tender documents, length of the
deceleration lane tapering section is taken as 70m, and the taper ratio is taken as
1:20. The divergence angle is taken as 2.865°, satisfying the required 2°~5° in
Figure 10-70 of Chapter 10-Grade Separations and Interchanges, AASHTO – A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways & Streets.
i A tapered-design acceleration lane including tapering section and acceleration
lane is adopted for the acceleration lane at the merging section of interchange
ramps. Length of the acceleration lane is taken as per Table 10-3 of AASHTO – A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways & Streets. A design value of 245m is
adopted under the stop condition of 80km/h, and 460m is adopted under the stop
condition of 50km/h, satisfying the requirements of the specification.
NO NO YES
ii As per the length of the tapering section, according to Figure 10-69 of
Chapter 10-Grade Separations and Interchanges, AASHTO-GDHS, in tapered-
design, taper ratio shall be taken as 50:1~70:1; in parallel-design, length of tapering
section shall be no less than 90m. The acceleration lane of the Project, as tapered-
designed, adopts a tapering section length of 175m and a taper ratio of 50:1, both
satisfying the regulated values of the two design modes.

The junction Rorhi interchange
(km 386+127) where the
4.2.3 motorway is connected does
not have the characteristics to priority to turns to and from the motorway.
ensure safe traffic flow
The road where the motorway
is connected Pano Aqil
interchange (km 413+978)
4.2.4
does not have the
characteristics to ensure safe
traffic flow.
The junctionRahim Yar Khan
interchange (km 560+043)
where the motorway is
connected does not have the
4.2.5
characteristics to ensure safe
traffic flow and may create
dangerous conflicts at the
intersection.
It is recommended to redesign the
intersection with the N-5 road, giving
i Rehabilitation of the entire stretch of
road between the interchange and the N-5
road, including the canal bridge, is
recommended.
ii It is also recommended to improve the
layout of the intersection with the N-5 road.
It is suggested to investigate the use of a
traffic signals at the intersection of N-5 and
link road.
It is recommended that the 4-leg junction be
rehabilitated in such a way as to have
geometric characteristics consistent with the
type and expected traffic flow. In
particular it is suggested to provide a
roundabout.
i The intersection between the crossed local road at Rohri interchange and N5 is
not in the contract scope of the Project. It is part of the local road network.
ii Based on the Highway Safety Audit Expert’s comments, CSCEC hereby
propose a future renovation plan for the intersection between the crossed local road
and N5 , in which the intersection is renovated into a signalized one and special left-
turn and right-turn lanes are added. The plan is provided for the Employer’s
reference and implementation.
YES NO YES
i The intersection between the crossed local road at Pano Aqil interchange and
N5, as well as the bridge over the canal, is not in the contract scope of the Project.
They are part of the local road network.
ii Based on the Highway Safety Audit Expert’s comments, CSCEC hereby
propose a future renovation plan for the intersection between the crossed local road
and N5 , in which the crossed road (including the bridge over the canal) is widened
into two-way 2-lane, the intersection is renovated into a signalized one, and special
left-turn and right-turn lanes are added. The plan is provided for the Employer’s
reference and implementation.
YES NO YES
i Taken into consideration the road network conditions on site, the T-shaped
intersection is changed into 4-leg interchange, which has been accepted by the
Highway Safety Audit Export. Land acquisition of the interchange has been
YES NO YES
completed and positions of the existing roads cannot be changed. Therefore the
crossing angles of the intersection cannot be changed.

The Bhawalpur interchange
(km 687+642) includes a small
village. there is a very high
risk of pedestrians and other
vulnerable users involvement
4.2.6 in road crashes due to the
expected high traffic demand
on this road. In addition, at the
T-junction between the local
road and the N-115 road, no
rehabilitation is envisaged.
The junctionJalal Pur
interchange (km 701+446)
where the motorway is
4.2.7
connected does not have the
characteristics to ensure safe
traffic flow.
In all ramps at interchanges,
vehicles may enter into the
4.3.1
motorway in the wrong
direction.
i If the village cannot be bypassed or
avoided, it is recommended to implement
traffic calming measures at the level of the
crossing of the agglomeration in order to
YES
safeguard vulnerable users.
ii it is recommended to adopt a different
layout for the T junction between N-115
and local road.
i It is recommended to rehabilitate the 4-
leg junction.
ii it is recommended to adopt a
YES
different layout for the T junction with
acceleration lanes for vehicles turning right
and traffic islands.
It is recommended to install ‘Keep left’
(arrow) sign and ‘No entry’ signs (on both
roadsides).In order to reinforce the
YES
separation of flows, it is also advisable to
install plastic marker posts along the
centreline.
i The intersection between the local road at the interchange and N115 is not in
the contract scope of the Project. It is part of the local road network.
ii Based on the Highway Safety Audit Expert’s comments, CSCEC hereby
propose a future renovation plan for the intersection between the local road and
N115, in which a T-shipped channelized crossing is adopted and right-turn
acceleration lane is provided. The plan is provided for the Employer’s reference and
implementation. YES
NO
i The intersection between the local road and N115 is not in the contract scope
of the Project. It is part of the local road network.
ii Based on the Highway Safety Audit Expert’s comments, CSCEC hereby
propose a future renovation plan for the intersection between the local road and
N115, in which the intersection is renovated into a signalized one and special left-
turn and right-turn lanes are added. The plan is provided for the Employer’s
reference and implementation.
iii Based on the Highway Safety Audit Expert’s comments, CSCEC proposes the
following: adjust the position of the median; combine the left-turn traffic and the
straight traffic into one lane; separate the right-turn traffic and the straight traffic
NO YES
and adopt two lanes; set up a marking-type traffic island 50ms after the right-turn
lane of the intersection to protect right-turn vehicles.
Concrete barriers are provided in the center of two-way ramps in the
NO interchange in order to eliminate the possibility of vehicles entering into YES
the motorway in the wrong direction. Execute on AER Export’s comments.
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

ANNEX 1 – Photos of the site visit

FRED ENGINEERING 29
Peshawar – Karachi motorway – Section II Sukkur - Multan Stage 2 RSA

FRED ENGINEERING 30