Transport Scotland - Risk Assessment for roadworks on the A92: EIR Review

Information requested

Original request: 202400433110

Sight of the Risk Assessment for the night works currently ongoing on the A92.

Response

Further to my letter of 24 October 2024, I have now completed my review of our response to your request under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs) relating to barrier replacement road works on the A92 between Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy for: “sight of the risk assessment for the works in order that I may ascertain how exactly that supports the imposition of a circa 28.56% reduction in speed limit being in place outside the hours when works are taking place”.

I have concluded that the original decision should be confirmed, with modifications, including the release of further information relevant to your request.

The works were undertaken by Amey’s safety barrier sub-contractor, HBS Ltd, with the traffic management arrangements provided by Class One Traffic Management Ltd. In response to your original request, the HBS risk assessment for the barrier replacement works on the A92 between Cardenden Over Bridge and Chapel Junction was provided along with Class One Traffic Management Ltd’s method statement for the traffic management arrangements that were necessary for these works between the B9149 Junction at Lochgelly to Chapel Junction.

In your request for a review you have stated that the information requested has not been provided and the information provided is not for the correct roadworks. You have clarified that you are requesting the information that relates to the “3 mile stretch starting just after Cowdenbeath interchange”.

Further checks with Amey have confirmed that the risk assessment and method statement provided are the correct documents for the barrier works between Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy. The risk assessment in question pertaining to the reduced speed limit covers all of the recent barrier works on the A92 . The barrier works are a continuum of the other schemes cited on pages 10, 11 and 12 of the risk assessment. There is no other information that exists in terms of risk assessments for this section of the A92.

However, I have requested that Amey provide the traffic management drawings associated with Class One Traffic Management Ltd’s method statement already provided to you. This would have helped clarify the full extent of the works inclusive of traffic management arrangements. This information, comprising 4 traffic management drawings is now attached and I apologise that this was not provided with the original response.

The approach signing for the traffic management started 2 miles further east of Lochgelly at Cowdenbeath with the eastbound temporary 50 mph speed limit commencing within this approach section. The westbound traffic management commenced east of Chapel Junction with the approach signing commencing a further 2 miles east on the A92 to the north of Kirkcaldy. The traffic management arrangements including signing, coning, lane restrictions and temporary speed limit for the barrier works therefore covered the full length of this section of the A92 between Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy.

The HBS Ltd Risk Assessment notes on page 14 that “while the temporary VRS (Vehicle Restraint System) is in position a temporary 50mph speed limit will be imposed over the extents of the worksite which will remain in place 24/7 until the new permanent VRS has been installed.” This is further noted on all the Traffic Management drawings TM-001 – TM-004.

It is clear from your original request that you were seeking to understand why the temporary speed limit remained in force outside the hours when works were taking place. The risk assessment previously provided and the traffic management drawings now provided confirms that, until the new permanent VRS is installed, the planned works would require the temporary speed limit to remain in place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week whilst the temporary VRS was in place. However, I consider that the risk assessment and drawings on their own do not fully explain why the 24/7 temporary speed limit is required. I apologise that further information was not provided in order to answer your enquiry and which is now provided below.

To protect the existing structures, the site works and the travelling public during periods of construction and during interim periods when there were unrestricted traffic movements, a temporary vehicle restraint system was assessed to be necessary. Due to working width constraints on the site, this barrier had to be placed on the carriageway edge.

The type of temporary safety system used is determined by standard highways specifications which detail several parameters. These parameters include the signed speed of the road, the barrier working width and the barrier’s performance i.e. it’s known deflection or level of containment if it is hit by a moving vehicle at specified test speeds and angles of impact.

The site was assessed by a specialist barrier contractor and the type of temporary safety barrier system was determined based on the amount of space required to undertake the works, the amount of deflection if struck, the position of existing structures and the available width of carriageway. The system determined for use is approved for speeds up to 50 mph.

It is not practical or possible to fully reinstate the permanent barrier and remove the temporary safety system on a daily basis. This resulted in a temporary speed limit of 50 mph being imposed and in place at all times when the temporary vehicle restraint barrier system was in place. The arrangement enabled existing lane widths to be maintained to reduce disruption as much as possible. In order to provide a working width for deflection above 50 mph, the temporary barrier would require to be placed further into the offside lane resulting in it being closed and causing significant disruption during daytime hours due to much reduced capacity. That in itself would also have required a reduced speed limit in any event.

The above temporary safety barrier solution is determined by national standards, is standard industry practice and is not subject to further risk assessment. Designers and Traffic Management contractors will incorporate this into their designs. The designed system enabled the contractor to upgrade the existing permanent safety barrier in the most efficient way possible while always ensuring minimal disruption to the travelling public on the A92 Corridor.

In your request for a review you also raised the point about whether the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs) was the correct legislation for handling the response as opposed to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). I have considered this and confirm that EIRs is the correct legislation. Information relating to measures and activities of the built environment falls within the scope of the EIRs. In addition to buildings this includes the lifecycle of other infrastructure such as roads, bridges and transport.

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.

EIR - 202400435314 - Information released - Annex A - Annex D

File type

PDF

File size

3.4 MB