Guidelines for the
implementation of traffic
control at crossroads
RTS 1
November 1990
Reprinted June 1998, August 2001
Land Transport Safety Authority
PO Box 2840
Wellington
Telephone 04 494 8600
Fascimile 04 494 8601
ISSN: 1170-5337
ISBN: 0-477-05242-8
Contents
Preface 4
1. Introduction 5
2. Summary 6
3. Crossroads in urban areas 7
3.1 Road hierarchy 7
3.2 Driver expectation 7
3.3 Choice of priority control at crossroads 8
4. Crossroads in rural areas 10
4.1 Road hierarchy 10
4.2 Driver expectation 10
4.3 Lighting 10
4.4 Choice of control 10
5. Implementation 11
5.1 Legal aspects 11
5.2 Suggested practical procedure 11
6. Monitoring 12
7. Acknowledgement 13
8. References 14
Appendix 1: Road and traffic standards information 15
Appendix 2: Accidents and economic analysis 18
3
Preface
The Land Transport Division has adopted as a road safety measure, the policy that all crossroad
intersections should be provided with suitable forms of traffic control.
The Division’s objective is that there will be no uncontrolled crossroads remaining in New Zealand
by 1 January 1993. This policy has been published as Road and Traffic Standards Information No. 9
(see Appendix 1).
Expected savings are more than 800 injury and fatal accidents over a five year period, when
implementation of the policy is completed.
The purpose of these Guidelines is to provide practical information about the traffic management
methods available for the assessment of road networks with respect to installation of appropriate
crossroad controls.
Road Controlling Authorities are now requested to arrange the implementation of the policy stated
above and assist the monitoring of results by annual completion of the reporting form included in
Appendix 1.
John Toomath
Manager, Safety Standards
4
1. Introduction
Land Transport Division policy is that every crossroad junction has an appropriate form of traffic
control. This policy is promulgated in Road and Traffic Standards Information No. 9. Appendix 1 is
a copy of this document.
These guidelines are for road controlling authorities requiring technical guidance and further
information when installing traffic control devices in accordance with the above policy. They focus
on traffic control by signs, since most uncontrolled crossroads remaining in New Zealand will not
justify traffic signals or more extensive treatment. Appropriate reference material is already
available if more extensive treatment is indicated by these guidelines.
They have been prepared with the help of many members of the traffic engineering profession in
New Zealand and are derived from a paper endorsed by the New Zealand Traffic Management
Workshop (1).
5
2. Summary
The use of these guidelines will result in the selection of the most appropriate crossroad controls for
urban and rural intersections, and ensure compliance with legal requirements.
Main features of the guidelines are:
• All crossroads will have traffic control;
• The choice of which approach legs the control should be placed on, and the need for
reinforcement by additional measures, depends on the road hierarchy and driver prior
expectation about the intersection;
• The criterion for control by Stop signs is the maximum safe approach speed;
• Measures which physically achieve speed reduction, e.g. roundabouts, have additional benefits
but cost more than signs and markings;
• Control by signs and markings have such a short pay-back period that they should be
considered as an interim measure even if better longer term solutions are pending;
• Traffic Regulation requirements for signs and markings must be met.
It is intended to monitor and evaluate the results of this policy.
6
3. Crossroads in urban areas
3.1 Road hierarchy
The relative importance of each route and traffic flows, will generally be the main factor governing
intersection priority.
Urban roading systems usually consist of a network of roads arranged according to the type of
function fulfilled by each road or route. Any road will usually be either a local street, a collector
route which local streets lead into, or an arterial route fed by the collector routes. This ranking of
road function is called a road hierarchy and forms the basis of a properly organised network.
This enables roads and intersections to be designed and constructed according to their intended
function.
The intersection control should be consistent with the status of the approach roads in the hierarchy.
As a general rule at intersections, collector roads should have priority over local streets, and
arterials should have priority over collectors. Streets with the same hierarchical status should
preferably have equal priority.
The latter case is usually dealt with by roundabouts or traffic signals, although in the case of local
streets four-way Stop control or physical speed reduction devices have been used successfully. On
local streets the control of vehicle speeds at intersections is more important than maintaining traffic
flow efficiency by minimising delays.
3.2 Driver expectation
A driver’s prior expectations about the traffic control at the next intersection is a major factor in
compliance with the traffic control.
Driver expectation of traffic control at intersections ahead should not be violated
This can happen when the preceding driving environment, such as a succession of intersections
where priority has been given, has established this expectation.
It is therefore best to avoid giving consistent priority to the same local street. In a grid network of
local streets is may be possible to alternate the controlled roads at successive intersections.
When a lower status street meets a higher status street, such as a collector route meeting an arterial,
violation of driver expectation may be unavoidable. This can also occur on arterial where traffic
signals are encountered after a long section of priority intersections.
Where there is any risk of violation of drivers’ expectation of traffic control priority, which cannot
be removed by other means, then the presence of the control should be reinforced by additional
measures. These measures can include duplicating signs or signals on central islands or overhead
mast arms, and shifting signs out onto kerb extensions to a position closer to the centre of a
driver’s focus of attention.
To ensure that these devices are clearly visible at night, additional lighting at delineation should be
provided if necessary.
7
3.3 Choice of priority control at crossroads
(a) The use of signs
All crossroads must have Stop or Give Way signs unless some other form of priority traffic control
is used.
Safe approach speed is the criterion used to decide between the installation of Stop or Give Way
signs at intersections.
(i) Stop signs
Stop signs should be installed on a crossroad approach if lack of visibility makes it unsafe to
approach the intersection at speeds greater than 10 km/h.
It is unsafe to approach an intersection at more than 10 km/h if, from a point 9 metres from the
intersection on a controlled approach, a driver could not see a vehicle on an uncontrolled approach
at a distance (in metres) of 1.2 times the speed (in km/h) of vehicles approaching on the priority
route. The speed of priority route traffic is taken as the speed exceeded by 15% of vehicles on that
route, i.e. the 85th percentile speed measured in km/h.
(ii) Give Way signs
Give Way signs should be installed at all crossroads that do not have visibility constraints which
require the installation of Stop signs, or are not controlled by other methods.
Stop signs should not be used instead of Give Way signs for reasons such as the violation of driver
expectation (see Section 3.2), to establish or reinforce a road hierarchy (see Section 3.1), or as a
routine response to an actual or expected accident problem. This use of Stop signs is generally
ineffective, and can reduce their effectiveness when used correctly in other locations. Where the
above problems do occur then additional devices such as central islands with duplicated signs, kerb
extensions or threshold treatments as mentioned in Section 3.2 will be required.
(iii) Different signs on opposite approaches
Stop signs and Give Way signs will occasionally be justified on opposite approaches of the same
crossroad intersection, according to the safe approach speeds. This situation can cause confusion
because it results in some priorities which are the reverse of the more common situation, i.e. where
the controls on opposite approaches are the same. This occurs because the giving way rules state
that traffic at a Stop sign must always give way to traffic at a Give Way sign. Therefore, the use of
different controls on opposite approaches should be avoided if possible by considering the use of
Give Way signs on both approaches, with a physical speed control device, threshold treatment or
visibility improvements on the more restricted approach.
If no alternative methods exist the use of differing controls can be acceptable when a Stop sign is
obviously needed on one approach, and the opposite approach has a safe approach speed of more
than 30 km/h, i.e. excellent visibility.
8
(b) Reduction of approach speeds
The speed of traffic approaching intersections can be reduced by making physical changes to the
intersection or the approach roads.
Some methods can be used solely in isolation, e.g. roundabouts, while other speed reducing
methods such as chicanes and speed control humps must be part of a complete Local Area Traffic
Management Scheme to avoid the creation of safety hazards.
If an intersection is programmed for treatment with speed restraint devices in the next year, control
by Give Way or Stop signs should be installed in the interim period. The latter are low cost
measures which repay costs through accident saving in only a few months.
It is recommended that intersections with speed restraint devices should also have Stop or Give Way
sign control to define or to reinforce priorities. This is because not all drivers can be relied on to
apply the right hand rule, a situation which is not expected to improve as the number of
uncontrolled intersections is reduced in future.
Aesthetic reasons are not justification for the omission of sign-posted controls, even in landscaped
areas.
(c) Roundabouts
Well-designed roundabouts have the advantages of slowing traffic.
This has traffic management benefits which extend beyond the intersection, and prevent the
formation of a priority route with higher speeds.
On local streets a roundabout does not generally need approach islands, and can be mountable by
heavy vehicles.
As a guide, if a roundabout can be installed at low cost (less than $10,000) then the safety
improvement will provide a favourable benefit cost ratio, assuming an accident rate of one injury
accident in five years for an uncontrolled intersection. This accident rate should, however, not be
regarded as a warrant as it is too low for a warrant and subject to statistical variations.
A suggested warrant (based on Kitto’s results (2)) for the installation of a roundabout on safety
grounds is a total inflow exceeding 2,000 vehicles per day, and that the flows are not grossly
unbalanced.
Any roundabout installation should be designed and constructed to high standards (NAASRA
Roundabouts: A Design Guide provides information. Appendix 2, ref 2). Badly installed roundabouts
will lead to an increase in accidents, and can be particularly confusing for elderly road users.
The changing of existing priorities at controlled intersections causes greatly increased accident risks
because driver expectations are seriously violated. If possible such changes should be avoided, but
if they must be made then physical works will be required to alert all road users to the changes to
help maintain acceptable safety. Clearly, the correct initial choice of control is a paramount
consideration.
9
4. Crossroads in rural areas
The principles which apply to the control of traffic at crossroads in urban areas are relevant to rural
crossroads, but with some important differences. Road traffic volumes are usually lower,
intersections are much further apart and there is usually no need to discourage unwanted through
traffic or to reduce speeds.
4.1 Road hierarchy
The importance of the routes and the traffic flow are the main factors which determine intersection
priority in rural areas. However, flexibility may be required if there is a regular pattern of
intersections, e.g. a grid network, to achieve a consistent pattern of control, e.g. all north/south
roads have priority over all east/west roads.
4.2 Driver expectation
Where the control at a series of consecutive intersections all favour one route, a driver may come to
expect priority at the next junction. Where the control is contrary to this expectation, or where
there are strong linear elements in the landscape, such as rows of trees or poles and fences which
line up through the intersection disguising its presence, a single control sign may not be sufficient.
The duplication of control signs on offset central islands has been successful in such situations and
should be considered for implementation if the above conditions apply. This usually involves the
widening of the seal on the left side of each approach to accommodate each island. Consequent
reorganisation of drainage is often involved.
As an interim measure such sites should at least have the Stop or Give Way sign duplicated on the
right hand side of each controlled approach.
4.3 Lighting
Considerable care is required to ensure that traffic islands in rural areas are clearly visible at night.
These should generally have street lighting and reflective delineation.
4.4 Choice of control
For most rural crossroads the only cost effective option will be Give Way or Stop sign controls. The
choice between Stop or Give Way signs should be based solely on the safe approach speed. The
same visibility criteria as for urban intersection apply. See 3.3 (a).
Note that there are a few crossroads where the safe approach speeds can be lower than 10 km/h,
thus needing Stop sign control, even though good visibility is available. This occurs when drivers
experience unusual difficulty in judging the speed, distance or lane position of approaching traffic.
This is most likely to occur when approaching traffic speeds are very high, traffic flows are high,
and carriageways are wide. Control devices other than signs are likely to be preferred. However, if
other forms of control are not acceptable, then Stop signs may be safer than Give Way signs if these
other factors reduce the safe approach speed to below 10 km/h.
10
5. Implementation
5.1 Legal aspects
Road controlling authorities are given the authority to erect regulatory signs which include Give
Way and Stop signs, by clause 122 of the Traffic Regulations 1976 (3). A resolution of the
authority is necessary.
Associated roadmarkings are required by the Traffic Regulations 1976, regulations 105 and 106.
Both signs and markings must be present to have legal effect, except where the surface type makes
it impractical to provide markings, e.g. unsealed roads. The required markings are detailed in Guide
to Urban Road Marking (4).
It should be noted that the current edition of the Manual of Traffic Signs and Markings (5) shows
the “Stop” or “Way” letters starting a maximum of 10 metres from the limit line. To make sure the
Traffic Regulations are complied with the whole of the word should be within 10 metres from the
limit line as shown in the Guide to Urban Road Marking.
The location of the signs is specified in the Traffic Regulations 1976 with further guidance given in
the Signs Manual. Duplication of signs may be desirable as outlined in these guidelines.
Roundabouts are required to have symbolic a “Rotary Junction” (W-54) sign in advance of the
junction on each approach. This is specified in the definition of ‘Intersection’ in the interpretation
clause of the Traffic Regulations 1976. While Give Way signs and markings are not required at
roundabouts by law, they are necessary to ensure uniform national standards and to avoid
confusion.
Legal aspects of speed reduction devices are discussed in Guidelines for Use and Construction of
Speed Control Humps (6).
5.2 Suggested practical procedure
(a) Identify sites: Carefully work through a map of the area to identify all the crossroads without
control. It is very easy to overlook some intersections.
(b) Use the guidelines contained herein to select the appropriate controls and the approaches to
which they should apply. It is important that the decisions made at this stage are correct,
because later changes are difficult to implement safely (see Section 3).
(c) Arrange for the necessary resolution of the road controlling authority.
(d) Publicise the reasons for the controls, and where they will be installed.
(e) Co-ordinate the signs and markings so they are installed together.
For example, Ashburton Borough controlled 48 intersections. The poles (pre-drilled to take the
signs), were erected and 30 metres of centreline were marked on each approach. This coincided with
publicity. The limit lines and messages on the road surface were then marked. Then the signs van
followed the roadmarker erecting the signs as the roadmarker finished each site. Each area was
completed before moving on. It was reported that the preparation and erection of the signs were the
most time consuming tasks.
A larger centre will probably need to complete the exercise as a series of smaller areas.
11
6. Monitoring
The Land Transport Division wishes to monitor progress of the implementation of the policy to
control every crossroad junction in New Zealand, and to evaluate its effect in reducing accidents.
For this purpose please return to one of the addresses below, completed, the form which is attached
to Appendix 1.
Regional Engineers
Land Transport Safety Authority
Auckland Regional Office
Private Bag 106 602
Auckland or
Wellington Regional Office
PO Box 27 249
Wellington or
Christchurch Regional Office
PO Box 13 364
Christchurch
It is suggested that this is done at the end of each financial year until the programme is completed.
12
7. Acknowledgement
The preparation of the technical material for this document was by Tim Hughes at the Christchurch
Office of the Road and Traffic Standards Section. Contributions by Christchurch members of the
Traffic and Transportation Group of the Institution of Engineers of New Zealand, and the 1988
Traffic Management Workshop are gratefully acknowledged. John Edgar undertook the technical
editing, Denise Hamilton draft typing, and Chrisine Prebble arranged final production.
13
8. References
(1) Hughes T, 1988 Policy and Guidelines for the Control of Crossroads New Zealand Traffic
Management Workshop
(2) Kitto H J, 1980 Accident Rate at Urban Right Angle Intersection National Roads Board Bulletin
No. 48
(3) Traffic Regulations 1976 New Zealand Government
(4) Traffic and Transportation Group of the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand, 1984
Guide to Urban Road Marking National Roads Board NZ
(5) 1975 Manual of Traffic Signs and Markings National Roads Board NZ
(6) Guidelines for the Use and Construction of Speed Control Humps 1987, Ministry of Transport
14
Appendix 1: Road and traffic standards information
No. 9, November 1990
Policy on traffic control at crossroads
1. Introduction
As a result of safety studies and extensive consultation with interested parties, the Ministry has
determined that there should be no crossroad type intersections without some form of positive
traffic control on any public road in New Zealand.
The Ministry has an objective to ensure that all remaining uncontrolled crossroads are progressively
eliminated by road controlling authorities within the next two years.
The completion of this programme has been estimated to prevent more than 800 injury and fatal
accidents over a five year period, and will be highly cost effective. Benefit/cost ratios for
signposting uncontrolled crossroads in urban areas have been estimated to range from 26 to 38
depending on whether sites have an accident history. A study of sites in several rural areas
indicated a ratio of 4:1.
2. Background
Analysis of the outcome of studies completed by Accident Investigation Teams in a number of local
authority areas revealed that disproportionate numbers of accidents occur at uncontrolled cross
road intersections. Although few such crossroads remain in most areas, they account for a relatively
large number of accidents because they create an unexpected and unfamiliar road environment for
most drivers.
Large savings in accident numbers and associated accident costs could be achieved with the
application of appropriate low cost traffic control methods at these locations.
This policy was received with unanimous support when proposed at a joint Ministry of Transport/
Transportation and Traffic Engineering Group Workshop at which a wide range of central and local
government organisations were represented.
3. Action
All road controlling authorities are requested to identify all their uncontrolled crossroads and to
adopt procedures to implement suitable forms of traffic control. This would most often only require
the installation of Give Way or Stop signs. At a few locations more major changes such as
roundabouts, traffic islands, traffic signals, turning restrictions or street closures may need
consideration.
4. Monitoring
To enable monitoring of the implementation and results of this policy, road controlling authorities
are requested to fill in and submit the form attached to this policy to the District Controller, Road
and Traffic Standards at one of the addresses below.
15
5. Implementation
Procedures for the choice of traffic control at a particular uncontrolled crossroad are discussed in a
new Ministry publication Guidelines for the Implementation of Traffic Control at Crossroads (1). It
provides a convenient reference to matters such as visibility distance, approaching vehicle speeds,
type of road, e.g. local, arterial etc., appropriate legal matters and practical aspects. In particular it
contains new criteria for the installation of Stop signs based on the safe approaching speed.
Copies of the guidelines are available from the offices of the Land Transport Division listed below.
Relevant information can also be found in the Manual of Traffic Signs and Markings (2). It has
been agreed that the section of the Manual dealing with Give Way and Stop signs will be amended
to give effect to this policy and be consistent with the guidelines.
The District Controllers, Road and Traffic Standards, located at the Land Transport District Offices in
Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, are available to provide further technical and policy
advice. However, the implementation of this policy should be undertaken by road controlling
authorities using their own staff or consultants.
6. Attachment
Monitoring report form.
7. References
(1) Guidelines for the Implementation of Traffic Control at Crossroads Road and Traffic Standards,
Land Transport Division, Ministry of Transport
(2) Manual of Traffic Signs and Markings, National Roads Board NZ, 1975
For further information, please contact:
Regional Engineers
Land Transport Safety Authority
Auckland Regional Office
Private Bag 106 602
Auckland, or
Wellington Regional Office
PO Box 27 249
Wellington, or
Christchurch Regional Office
PO Box 13 364
Christchurch.
16
Monitoring report form
Priority street Controlled street Control Date installed
e.g. Johns Harewood Stop 21.05.89
Note: Where opposite approaches are not identically controlled, list each approach separately.
Please return this form completed to the District Controller of Road and Traffic Standards at the end
of each financial year.
17
Appendix 2: Accidents and economic analysis
1. Introduction
Accident studies by the Accident Investigation Units of the Ministry of Transport identified
uncontrolled crossroads as a black feature of road networks. Studies in Ashburton and Invercargill
quantified the problem, and considered the reasons.
Analysis of accident reports suggested that drivers thought they were slowing to safe speeds to
negotiate the crossroads, but their reported speeds were frequently too fast for them to have given
way.
Speed surveys were performed at a number of intersections in Ashburton that had severe visibility
restrictions. This confirmed that excessive speed through the intersections was a major driving
factor.
Another problem related to the consistency of intersection controls. Many local authorities have
already controlled all or most of their crossroads. Motorists from an area with no uncontrolled
crossroads are easily deceived because they have learned to expect that if an intersection is not
controlled on their approach it will have a Give Way or Stop control on the intersecting street. This
was identified as a contributing factor to accidents in Ashburton and Invercargill involving drivers
from other places.
Some accident investigation team study reports have recommended that all the crossroads in a
district be controlled. Other districts had already implemented such a policy and there is concern
that the remaining uncontrolled crossroads will become more dangerous as a result.
2. The size of the problem
During the five year period 1983 – 87 there were 701 collisions in New Zealand at uncontrolled
crossroads involving traffic driving straight through. These are referred to by the traffic accident
coding system as HA accidents. Over 80% of accidents as uncontrolled crossroads are of this type. It
is the only accident type that clearly distinguishes between crossroads with or without control. The
701 accidents occurred at 529 sites. Twenty-four of these accidents were at rural sites and the
others were urban.
An inventory of intersections and traffic control type was available for Christchurch, Ashburton
and Invercargill.
This information was used to infer the approximate size of the problem nationally, and to estimate
costs and likely benefits.
Table 1 estimates the number of sites with no accidents, and the underlying accident rate at such
sites.
18
Table 1: Urban uncontrolled crossroad sites
Chch Ashbtn Invgll Total
Total Sites 50 48 121 219
No. of sites with no accidents in before period
(1980 – 84) 31 27 79 137
No. of injury accidents in after period (1985 – mid 88)
at the above sites 9 13 15 37
Accidents per site 0.29 0.48 0.19 0.27
Scaled to five years 0.41 0.69 0.27 0.39
The best estimate of the average number of accidents in next five years per uncontrolled crossroad,
with no accidents recorded in the previous five years, is 0.39.
The above data includes only sites that were uncontrolled over the whole period 1980 – 88.
Table 2: New Zealand distribution of HA accidents at uncontrolled crossroads 1983 – 87
No of HA Ax. per site No. of sites No. of accidents
0 884 (calculated)* 0
1 411 170
2 75 150
3 36 108
4 4 16
5 2 10
6 1 6
Total 1413 701
* Assumes the proportion of sites with no accidents as in Table 1. This is probably an underestimate
because the proportion of sites with no accidents is higher in rural areas.
3. Proven remedies
There are two low cost remedies:
• Give Way or Stop signs have been demonstrated to reduce all accidents at urban crossroads by
70% and right angle collisions by 80% (1).
• Local street roundabouts are one of a number of speed reduction devices that can be used as
part of a Local Area Traffic Management Scheme. They work by slowing traffic to a safe speed
through the local network in general and at intersections in particular. Roundabouts have been
demonstrated to reduce accidents at urban local street crossroads in Victoria by 95% (confidence
limits 80% - 99%) (2).
Both the above controls also reduce accident severity (1, 3).
4. Costs and benefits
This analysis of costs and benefits assumes urban conditions. It is confined to the universal
application of Stop or Give Way sign control. Other control devices cannot reasonably be
considered for universal application and would normally be assessed for each case in comparison
with control by traffic signs.
19
4.1 Sites with an accident history
The cost of installing two Give Way or Stop signs and associated road markings at a crossroads
junction is not likely to exceed $1,200 including an allowance for maintenance over 10 years.
Treating the 529 sites with an accident history could be expected to cost $634,800 (present value
over 10 years).
Estimated annual accident savings:
0.8 x 701/5 = 112 ax.
Present value of benefits:
Uniform series present worth factor for 10 years = 6.447
Costs of each “HA” urban accident = $78,472
PV benefits = 112 x 6.447 x $78,472
= $56.7 million
Benefit costs = 56.7/0.634
= 89.
With allowance for regression to the mean, the benefit/cost reduces to 38. This represents a first
year rate of return of 580%.
4.2 Sites with no accident history
There are many sites that had no right angle collisions in the last five years but which could have
them during the next five years.
To estimate the number of those sites, the uncontrolled crossroads in Christchurch, Ashburton and
Invercargill were counted and found to number 219. Of these, 137 had no accidents in 1980 – 84. A
total of 36 accidents occurred at these sites from 1985 to mid 1988. The underlying accident rate
per site without accidents in the past five years is 0.39 ax. per five years (see Table 1).
If the proportion of sites without accidents in all New Zealand is the same as for Christchurch,
Ashburton and Invercargill combined, then there would be 884 such sites in all New Zealand (see
Table 2). They could be expected to have 345 accidents during the next five years.
Costs = 884 x $1,200 = $1,060,800
Benefits = 0.8 x 345 x $78,472 x 6.447/5 = $27,907,000
Benefit/cost = 26.3
First year rate of return = 408%
4.3 Rural sites
Analysis of accidents at rural crossroads in Ellesmere, Ashburton and Southland Counties was
performed to indicate an approximate Benefit Cost Ratio for rural sites. There were six injury
accidents in five years and an estimated total of 116 uncontrolled crossroads. It assumed that four
out of six accidents would be preventable by assigning priority.
20
Present value of benefits:
Cost of each “HA” rural accident = $107,848 (1988 dollars)
PV benefits: 4 x $107,848 x 6.447/5 = $556,236
PV costs: $1,200 x 116 = $139,200
Benefit cost: =4
Note: On this analysis some crossroads with very low traffic flows, e.g. unsealed roads in rural
areas, may not justify control. However, it is desirable to control such intersections to achieve
uniformity.
There is no national inventory of intersections, but it is roughly estimated that the total number of
uncontrolled crossroads is between 1,200 and 2,000.
The costs in the first year for each intersection are estimated to be:
Sign and post $140 x 2 approaches = $280
Roadmarkings (reflective) $90 x 2 = $180
Total = $460
Signs and posts receive currently 75% Transit NZ subsidy. The roadmarkings receive base subsidy.
The Transit NZ share is approximately $290 per intersection. The local authority share is
approximately $170 per intersection.
The total costs therefore range from $552,000 to $920,000, depending on the number of
intersections involved.
5. Conclusion
The control of all crossroads presently uncontrolled is highly cost-effective.
To achieve uniformity in the road network, all the remaining crossroads should be controlled.
References
(1) Frith W J and Harte D S The Safety Implications of Some Control Changes at Urban Intersections
Accident Analysis and Prevention 18, 183 – 192, 1986
(2) National Association of Australian State Road Authorities Roundabouts: A Design Guide 1986
NAASRA 1986 pp 57 – 59
(3) Accident Investigation Team, Invercargill City Accident Study City Engineers Dept, City of
Invercargill, 1986
21
Road and Traffic Guideline publications
The following Road and Traffic Guidelines are available:
RTS I Guidelines for the implementation of traffic control at crossroads (1990)
RTS 2 Guidelines for street name signs (1990)
RTS 3 Guidelines for establishing rural selling places (1992)
RTS 4 Guidelines for flush medians (1991)
RTS 5 Guidelines for rural road marking and delineation (1992)
RTS 6 Guidelines for visibility at driveways (1993)
RTS 7 Advertising signs and road safety: design and location guidelines (1993)
RTS 8 Guidelines for safe kerbline protection (1993)
RTS 9 Guidelines for the signing and layout of slip lanes (1994)
RTS 11 Urban roadside barriers and alternative treatments (1995)
RTS 13 Guidelines for service stations (1995)
RTS 14 Guidelines for installing pedestrian facilities for people with visual impairment (1997)
RTS 17 Guidelines for setting speed limits (1995)
The Guidelines may be purchased from:
Land Transport Safety Authority, Head Office (PO Box 2840, Wellington) or Regional Offices in:
Auckland, (Private Bag 106 602), Wellington (PO Box 27 249) and Christchurch (PO Box 13 364).
22
