under the Official Information Act 1982
POST CONSTRUCTION ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
Central Motorway Junction Cycleway
AECOM Component
Released
Prepared for NZTA
10 March 2015

under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

link to page 3 link to page 3 link to page 3 link to page 3

Central Motorway Junction Cycleway - AECOM Component

This document has been prepared for the benefit of NZTA.  No liability is accepted by this company or
any employee or sub-consultant of this company with respect to its use by any other person.

This disclaimer shall apply notwithstanding that the report may be made available to Auckland Transport
and other persons for an application for permission or approval to fulfil a legal requirement.

QUALITY STATEMENT
PROJECT MANAGER

PROJECT TECHNICAL LEAD
s 9(2)(a)

N/A

PREPARED BY
s 9(2)(a)

………………………………...............          10 / 03 / 15……
CHECKED BY
N/A
………………………………...............
REVIEWED BY
s 9(2)(a)

………………………………...............          10 / 03 / 15……
APPROVED FOR ISSUE BY
s 9(2)(a)

………………………………...............          10 / 03 / 15……

AUCKLAND
MWH House Level 3, 111 Carlton Gore Road, Newmarket, Auckland 1023
PO Box 9176, Newmarket, Auckland 1149
TEL +64 9 580 4500, FAX +64 9 580 7600

under the Official Information Act 1982

Released

Status: Final
Project No.:
10 March 2015

Our ref: https://nztransportagency-my.sharepoint.com/personal/ronnie_salunga_nzta_govt_nz/Documents/Microsoft Teams Chat Files/CMJ
Cycleway Post Constr RSA - AECOM response.docm

link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 14 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 7 link to page 8

link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 14 link to page 16 link to page 17

Central Motorway Junction Cycleway - AECOM Component

1
Introduction
1.1
Safety audit procedure
A road safety audit is a term used internationally to describe an independent review of a future road
project to identify any safety concerns that may affect the safety performance. The audit team considers
the safety of all road users and qualitatively reports on road safety issues or opportunities for safety
improvement.
A road safety audit is therefore a formal examination of a road project, or any type of project which
affects road users (including cyclists, pedestrians, mobility impaired etc.), carried out by an independent
competent team who identify and document road safety concerns.
A road safety audit is intended to help deliver a safe road system and is not a review of compliance with
standards.
The primary objective of a road safety audit is to deliver a project that achieves an outcome consistent
with Safer Journeys and the Safe System approach, which is a safe road system increasingly free of
death and serious injury. The road safety audit is a safety review used to identify all areas of a project
that are inconsistent with a Safe System and bring those concerns to the attention of the client so that
the client can make a value judgement as to appropriate action(s) based on the risk guidance provided
by the safety audit team.
The key objective of a road safety audit is summarised as:
‘to deliver completed projects that contribute towards a safe road system that is increasingly free of
death and serious injury by identifying and ranking potential safety concerns for all road users and
others affected by a road project.’
•  A road safety audit should desirably be undertaken at project milestones such as:
•  concept stage (part of business case);
•  scheme or preliminary design stage (part of pre-implementation);
•  detail design stage (pre-implementation or implementation); or
•  pre-opening or post-construction stage (implementation or post-implementation).
A road safety audit is not intended to be a technical or financial audit and does not substitute for a
design check of standards or guidelines. Any recommended treatment of an identified safety concern is
intended to be indicative only, and to focus the designer on the type of improvements that might be
appropriate. It is not intended to be prescriptive and other ways of improving the road safety or
operational problems identified should also be considered.
In accordance with the procedures set down in the NZTA Road Safety Audit Procedures for Projects
Guidelines - Interim release May 2013 the audit report should be submitted to the client who will instruct
under the Official Information Act 1982
the designer to respond. The designer should consider the report and comment to the client on each of
any concerns identified, including their cost implications where appropriate, and make a
recommendation to either accept or reject the audit report recommendation.
For each audit team recommendation that is accepted, the client will make the final decision and brief
the designer to make the necessary changes and/or additions. As a result of this instruction the designer
shall action the approved amendments. The client may involve a safety engineer to provide commentary
to aid with the decision.
Decision tracking is an important part of the road safety audit process. A decision tracking table is
embedded into the report format at the end of each set of recommendations. It is to be completed by the
Released
designer, safety engineer, and client for each issue, and should record the designer’s response, client’s
decision (and asset manager's comments in the case where the client and asset manager are not one
and the same) and action taken.
A copy of the report including the designer's response to the client and the client's decision on each
recommendation shall be given to the road safety audit team leader as part of the important feedback
loop. The road safety audit team leader will disseminate this to team members.

Status: Final
10 March 2015
Project No.: 80007831  Child No.: 80507831
Page 1
Our ref: CMJ Cycleway Post Constr RSA - AECOM response.docm

Central Motorway Junction Cycleway - AECOM Component

1.2
The safety audit team
This road safety audit has been carried out in accordance with the NZTA Road Safety Audit Procedure
for Projects Guidelines - Interim release May 2013, by:
•  s 9(2)(a)
Technical Development Leader – Transportation, MWH New Zealand, Auckland
•  s 9(2)(a)
Principal Transportation Engineer, MWH New Zealand, Auckland
•  s 9(2)(a)
Transportation Team Leader, MWH New Zealand, Auckland
The safety audit team (SAT) conducted the safety audit on site on Thursday afternoon 19 February 2015
and revisited the site once it was dark to assess the safety of the route at night.
1.3
Report format
The potential road safety problems identified have been ranked as follows.
The expected crash frequency is qualitatively assessed on the basis of expected exposure (how many
road users will be exposed to a safety issue) and the likelihood of a crash resulting from the presence of
the issue. The severity of a crash outcome is qualitatively assessed on the basis of factors such as
expected speeds, type of collision, and type of vehicle involved.
Reference to historic crash rates or other research for similar elements of projects, or projects as a
whole, have been drawn on where appropriate to assist in understanding the likely crash types,
frequency and likely severity that may result from a particular concern.
The frequency and severity ratings are used together to develop a combined qualitative risk ranking for
each safety issue using the concern assessment rating matrix in Table 1-1. The qualitative assessment
requires professional judgement and a wide range of experience in projects of all sizes and locations.

Table 1-1: Concern assessment rating matrix
Severity
Frequency (probability of a crash)
(likelihood of death or
serious injury)
Frequent
Common
Occasional
Infrequent
Very likely
Serious
Serious
Significant
Moderate
Likely
Serious
Significant
Moderate
Moderate
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
Minor
Minor
Very unlikely
Moderate
Minor
Minor
Minor
under the Official Information Act 1982

While all safety concerns should be considered for action, the client or nominated project manager will
make the decision as to what course of action will be adopted based on the guidance given in this
ranking process with consideration to factors other than safety alone. As a guide a suggested action for
each concern category is given in Table 1-2.

Released

Status: Final
10 March 2015
Project No.: 80007831  Child No.: 80507831
Page 2
Our ref: CMJ Cycleway Post Constr RSA - AECOM response.docm

Central Motorway Junction Cycleway - AECOM Component

Table 1-2: Concern categories
Concern
Suggested action
Major safety concern that must be addressed and requires changes to avoid
Serious
serious safety consequences.
Significant safety concern that should be addressed and requires changes to avoid
Significant
serious safety consequences.
Moderate
Moderate safety concern that should be addressed to improve safety.
Minor
Minor safety concern that should be addressed where practical to improve safety.

In addition to the ranked safety issues it is appropriate for the safety audit team to provide additional
comments with respect to items that may have a safety implication but lie outside the scope of the safety
audit. A comment may include items where the safety implications are not yet clear due to insufficient
detail for the stage of project, items outside the scope of the audit such as existing issues not impacted
by the project or an opportunity for improved safety but not necessarily linked to the project itself. While
typically comments do not require a specific recommendation, in some instances suggestions may be
given by the auditors.
1.4
Project description
This audit reviews of the recently constructed off-road cycleway in Grafton Gully between the Ian
McKinnon Drive intersection with Upper Queen Street and the Churchill Street intersection with Beach
Road. A full plan of the cycleway showing all project stages is attached as Appendix A.
The cycleway runs in close proximity to SH1 and SH16 through the central motorway junction area.
This audit covers the following sections:
•  Ian McKinnon Drive Intersection
•  Upper Queen Street (Ian McKinnon Drive to Canada Street)
•  Upper Queen Street Intersection with Canada Street
•  Stage 3a and 3b (Upper Queen Street to Wellesley Street Underpass)
•  Bridge Connection to University (near Wellesley Street)
•  Stage 4 (Wellesley Street to Grafton Road)
•  Grafton Road Intersection
•  Stage 1 (Grafton Road to Alten Road)
•  Stage 2 - Churchill Street (Alten Road to Beach Road)
At NZTA’s request the Alten Road Intersection with SH16 (Stanley Street) was specifically excluded
under the Official Information Act 1982
from this audit

The project is for the provision of a cycle facility, however it is likely that it will also attract significant
pedestrian use.

This audit report presents just those concerns that relate to the design work completed by AECOM.  As
such not all the issues raised on the above sections are contained herein.
1.5
Scope of audit
Released
This is a post construction safety audit of the new 1.9km long cycleway and its connections. The SAT is
not aware of any incomplete construction items.

Status: Final
10 March 2015
Project No.: 80007831  Child No.: 80507831
Page 3
Our ref: CMJ Cycleway Post Constr RSA - AECOM response.docm

Central Motorway Junction Cycleway - AECOM Component

1.6
Previous road safety audits
ViaStrada Ltd conducted several road safety audits of the scheme and detail design over preceding
years. MWH (Nick Gluyas) was an audit team member on all preceding ViaStrada audits and for
consistency, was retained to lead this audit.
The SAT has generally not reconsidered previous safety issues that had been resolved prior to
construction.
1.7
Documents provided
The SAT had access to all previous road safety audits and attachments.
1.8
Disclaimer
The findings and recommendations in this report are based on an examination of available relevant
plans, the specified road and its environs, and the opinions of the SAT. However, it must be recognised
that eliminating safety concerns cannot be guaranteed since no road can be regarded as absolutely safe
and no warranty is implied that all safety issues have been identified in this report. Safety audits do not
constitute a design review nor are they an assessment of standards with respect to engineering or
planning documents.
Readers are urged to seek specific technical advice on matters raised and not rely solely on the report.
While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the report, it is made available on the basis
that anyone relying on it does so at their own risk without any liability to the safety audit team or their
organisations.

under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

Status: Final
10 March 2015
Project No.: 80007831 Child No.: 80507831
Page 4
Our ref: CMJ Cycleway Post Constr RSA - AECOM response.docm

Central Motorway Junction Cycleway - AECOM Component

2
Safety Concerns – Stage 3a and 3b (Upper Queen
Street to Wellesley Street Underpass)
2.1
Encroachment of vegetation
The grass vegetation planted immediately adjacent to the cycleway has grown significantly over summer
months and now encroaches across into the cycleway by at least 0.5m on either side. Given the type of
grass (slightly abrasive) it is not particularly pleasant to brush past and subsequently cyclists were
observed to be avoiding and shying away from it. This has the effect of reducing the cycleway down to
approximately 2 m in width and increases the risk of crashes between passing path users.

Figure 1: Grass encroaching over the cycleway path
Recommendation
Ensure the grass vegetation immediately adjacent to the path is trimmed regularly to stop encroachment
and when appropriate (e.g. when the background vegetation has matured) remove the grass or replace
it with a more appropriate species.
Frequency
Severity
Rating
under the Official Information Act 1982
Crashes are likely to be
Death or serious injury is
The safety concern is
occasional
unlikely
minor
Designer
NZTA (AT) maintenance should be able to manage vegetation growth by regular
response
cutbacks to edge of path. This would resolve the safety concern.
Safety engineer
Accept Designers Response (ADR)
comment
Client decision
NZTA to perform grass trimming until the end of defects liability period, i.e.
Released

September 2015 and then project will be handover to Auckland Transport for
maintenance.
Action taken
Grass trimming executed in the month of June 2015

Status: Final
10 March 2015
Project No.: 80007831 Child No.: 80507831
Page 5
Our ref: CMJ Cycleway Post Constr RSA - AECOM response.docm

link to page 10

Central Motorway Junction Cycleway - AECOM Component

2.2
Through visibility
Further to 2.1 above, the SAT noted a potential forward visibility issue under the Symonds Street
onramp. Northbound cyclists approaching this section (potentially at speed) will tend to shy towards the
centre of the path to avoid brushing the vegetation. The same vegetation, together with the shade under
the onramp, conspires to hide visibility to southbound path users heading up the hill. The grade of the
path at this location (11%) also lengthens the stopping distance for down-hill cyclists. These factors
combine to increase the chance of a crash between a downhill cyclist and an uphill path user.

Figure 2: Encroaching grass obscures sight distance and narrows the path
Recommendation
Consider installing some form of signage and/or markings immediately south (uphill) from the Symonds
Street onramp underpass highlighting the need to keep left and moderate approach speed.
Frequency
Severity
Rating
Crashes are likely to be
Death or serious injury is
The safety concern is
occasional
unlikely
minor
Designer
NZTA (AT) maintenance should be able to manage vegetation growth by regular
under the Official Information Act 1982
response
cutbacks to edge of path. This action would resolve the safety concern.
Safety engineer
ADR
comment
Client decision
NZTA to perform grass trimming until the end of defects liability period, i.e.

September 2015 and then project will be handover to Auckland Transport for
maintenance.
Action taken
Grass trimming executed in the month of June 2015

Released

Status: Final
10 March 2015
Project No.: 80007831 Child No.: 80507831
Page 6
Our ref: CMJ Cycleway Post Constr RSA - AECOM response.docm

Central Motorway Junction Cycleway - AECOM Component

2.3
Motorway interface
At the Symonds Street motorway onramp connection with the southern motorway the shared path
descends from a level above the motorway lanes to travel underneath the onramp. At this location the
nearest lane of the southern motorway is no more than 2 m away (at head height). The SAT was
concerned that any debris (accidental or deliberate) from a passing vehicle would enter the shared path
area at roughly head height, posing a significant hazard to a passing cyclist or pedestrian. This hazard is
further exacerbated given the low non-solid side barrier at this location. The SAT was also concerned
that the current barrier would not comply with NZTA’s current requirements for side road protection and
may not contain a heavy vehicle impact.

Figure 3: Note close proximity of motorway, potentially non-compliant barrier system and
potential for fallen objects to strike path users
Recommendations
1.  Review whether the motorway side barrier is fit for purpose
2.  Provide a screen to stop debris falling (or thrown) from motorway traffic from entering the shared
path area
Frequency
Severity
Rating
under the Official Information Act 1982
Crashes are likely to be
Death or serious injury is
The safety concern is
infrequent
likely
moderate
Designer
1.  Motorway side barrier is not in project scope. This concern should be
response
referred to AMA for consideration to upgrade the bridge and edge
protection.
2.  This issue has been raised before in previous RSA’s and the risk is no
different to debris falling off a truck further down the cycleway where it is
located alongside the motorway or street (eg. Beach Rd section).
Released
Safety engineer
ADR. This issue will be considered in an area wide investigation of barrier fitness.
comment
Client decision
Investigate the two SAR recommendations above

Action taken
AMA to take care of recommendation 1; the screen to catch debris falling to cyclists

Status: Final
10 March 2015
Project No.: 80007831  Child No.: 80507831
Page 7
Our ref: CMJ Cycleway Post Constr RSA - AECOM response.docm

Central Motorway Junction Cycleway - AECOM Component

Frequency
Severity
Rating
Crashes are likely to be
Death or serious injury is
The safety concern is
infrequent
likely
moderate

is under design for implenatation.

under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

Status: Final
10 March 2015
Project No.: 80007831 Child No.: 80507831
Page 8
Our ref: CMJ Cycleway Post Constr RSA - AECOM response.docm

Central Motorway Junction Cycleway - AECOM Component

2.4
Exposed retaining wall poles
The tops of the steel ‘H’ pile retaining wall are exposed such that that a glancing collision with the wall
could result in part of a cyclists body catching on the corners of the retaining posts. The likelihood of a
crash is further increased due to the close proximity of the wall to the path (no separation zone), the
local narrowing of the path (less than 2.5m) and the lack of a ‘rub’ rail on the retaining wall side.
The after-market hard rubber covers that have been attached to the top of the H-piles would offer no
protection for the type of crash illustrated in Figure 4.

s
9(2
)(a)

Figure 4: Exposed ‘H’ pile posts are a hazard for glancing collisions with the retaining wall
Recommendation
Encapsulate the top of the retaining wall (including the posts) in a capping beam such that any glancing
blow will slide along the wall and not catch on the exposed corners of the retaining wall posts
Frequency
Severity
Rating
Crashes are likely to be
Death or serious injury is
The safety concern is
infrequent
likely
moderate
under the Official Information Act 1982
Designer
Agree this could happen but highly unlikely. A cyclist hitting the wall by a glancing
response
blow would more likely be thrown away from the wall and not into it at the angle
shown in the photograph. However a plastic half round pipe capping could be
installed. A rub rail would reduce the already narrow width causing a problem for
cyclists approaching from the opposite direction. NZTA to advise if want to proceed
with a specialised treatment.
Further, if this safety concern is treated then it would then be prudent to protect
cyclists hitting the many crib walls along this route. An additional expense that the
design team did not consider warranted
Released
Safety engineer
ADR. The risk of this type of incident is very low.
comment
Client decision
Accept Safety Engineer’s recommendation

Action taken
No further action to be taken

Status: Final
10 March 2015
Project No.: 80007831  Child No.: 80507831
Page 9
Our ref: CMJ Cycleway Post Constr RSA - AECOM response.docm

Central Motorway Junction Cycleway - AECOM Component

Frequency
Severity
Rating
Crashes are likely to be
Death or serious injury is
The safety concern is
infrequent
likely
moderate

under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

Status: Final
10 March 2015
Project No.: 80007831 Child No.: 80507831
Page 10
Our ref: CMJ Cycleway Post Constr RSA - AECOM response.docm

Central Motorway Junction Cycleway - AECOM Component

3
Safety Concerns – Stage 1 (Grafton Road to Alten
Road)
3.1
Streetlights not working
During the night inspection the SAT noted that half the streetlights on Stage 1 were not working (9
lights). On previous site visits to this stage this has also been the case, whereas the lighting on all other
stages was 100% operational. Poor lighting is a possible risk to personal security and increases the
chance of crashes between path users.

Figure 5: Streetlight not working
Recommendation
Undertake a thorough maintenance check of the lighting in Stage 1.
Frequency
Severity
Rating
Crashes are likely to be
Death or serious injury is
The safety concern is
infrequent
unlikely
minor
under the Official Information Act 1982
Designer
NZTA (AT) maintenance need to raise this fault with Vector Ltd as the supplier of
response
power to the AT street lighting or advise Council Action line of the fault to resolve
this issue. All lights were working at the time of handover from the Contractor and at
end of defects period.
Safety engineer
ADR. This is a maintenance issue.
comment
Client decision
NZTA to inform AT of the lighting maintenance issue which is now their

responsibility
Released
Action taken
AT has taken responsibility of the lighting maintenance. No further action to be

taken.

Status: Final
10 March 2015
Project No.: 80007831 Child No.: 80507831
Page 11
Our ref: CMJ Cycleway Post Constr RSA - AECOM response.docm

Central Motorway Junction Cycleway - AECOM Component

4
Safety Concerns – Stage 2 - Churchill Street (Alten
Road to Beach Road)
4.1
Ambiguous priority
Near the Alten Road end of Stage 2 the shared path crosses Churchill Street on a raised speed table.
As the raised speed table does not include zebra markings drivers of vehicles on the road have right of
way. However, the shared path at this location does not have any signage or markings indicating cyclists
should dismount or give way to vehicles. The SAT consider that the red colour of the table and the lack
of any obvious indicators suggesting cyclists should give way (e.g. chicanes, signage, markings, hold
rails, etc.) increases the risk of a cyclist crashing with a vehicle, especially given the low volume of
vehicles using Churchill Street and the propensity for cyclists to grow accustomed to not having to give
way.

Figure 6: Mid-block crossing across Churchill Street
Recommendation
Clarify whether vehicles or cyclists should have right of way at the Churchill Street speed table and
mark, sign and control crossing movements appropriately
under the Official Information Act 1982
Frequency
Severity
Rating
Crashes are likely to be
Death or serious injury is
The safety concern is
infrequent
likely
moderate
Designer
The safety concern raised has been answered in above auditor discussion ie. the
response
shared path at this location does not have any signage or markings indicating
cyclists should dismount or give way to vehicles. Cyclists in this instance do not
have right of way and given the speed table hence low vehicle speeds and low
vehicle frequency this is not considered to be a moderate concern. Further to this
Released sight lines are more than adequate at this location.
Safety engineer
ADR. This is not a moderate risk.
comment
Client decision
Accepts Safety Engineer’s recommendation.

Status: Final
10 March 2015
Project No.: 80007831 Child No.: 80507831
Page 12
Our ref: CMJ Cycleway Post Constr RSA - AECOM response.docm

Central Motorway Junction Cycleway - AECOM Component

Frequency
Severity
Rating
Crashes are likely to be
Death or serious injury is
The safety concern is
infrequent
likely
moderate
Action taken
No further action required

under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

Status: Final
10 March 2015
Project No.: 80007831 Child No.: 80507831
Page 13
Our ref: CMJ Cycleway Post Constr RSA - AECOM response.docm

Central Motorway Junction Cycleway - AECOM Component

5
Audit statement
We declare that we remain independent of the design team, and have not been influenced in any way by
any party during this road safety audit.
We certify that we have used the available plans, and have examined the specified roads and their
environment, to identify features of the project we have been asked to look at that could be changed,
removed or modified in order to improve safety.
We have noted the safety concerns that have been evident in this audit, and have made
recommendations that may be used to assist in improving safety.
Signed

Date  10 March 2015
s 9(2)(a)
CPEng, MIPENZ, BSc(Eng), BEng(Hons), MSc
Principal Transportation Engineer, MWH New Zealand Ltd
Signed

Date  10 March 2015
s 9(2)(a)
CPEng, MIPENZ, BE(Civil)(Hons), Road Safety Engineering Workshop (2000)
Technical Development Leader, MWH New Zealand Ltd
Signed

Date  10 March 2015
under the Official Information Act 1982
s 9(2)(a)
BE(Civil)(Hons), BSc Physics, GIPENZ, Road Safety Engineering Workshop (2005)
Auckland Transportation Team Leader, MWH New Zealand Ltd

Released

Status: Final
10 March 2015
Project No.: 80007831  Child No.: 80507831
Page 14
Our ref: CMJ Cycleway Post Constr RSA - AECOM response.docm

Central Motorway Junction Cycleway - AECOM Component

6
Response and decision statements
System designers and the people who use the roads must all share responsibility for creating a road
system where crash forces do not result in death or serious injury.
6.1
Designer’s responses
I have studied and considered the auditors’ safety concerns and recommendations for safety
improvements set out in this road safety audit report and I have responded accordingly to each safety
concern with the most appropriate and practical solutions and actions, which are to be considered
further by the safety engineer (if applicable) and project manager.
Signed

Date
Designer’s name, qualifications
position, company
6.2
Safety engineer’s comments (if applicable)
I have studied and considered the auditors’ safety concerns and recommendations for safety
improvements set out in this road safety audit report together with the designer’s responses. Where
appropriate, I have added comments to be taken into consideration by the project manager when
deciding on the action to be taken.
Signed

Date  13/05/15
Safety engineer’s name, qualifications
position, company
6.3
Project manager’s decisions
under the Official Information Act 1982
I have studied and considered the auditors’ safety concerns and recommendations for safety
improvements set out in this road safety audit report, together with the designer’s responses and the
comments of the safety engineer (if applicable), and having been guided by the auditor’s ranking of
concerns have decided the most appropriate and practical action to be taken to address each of the
safety concerns.
Released
Signed

Date
Project manager’s name, qualifications
position, company

Status: Final
10 March 2015
Project No.: 80007831  Child No.: 80507831
Page 15
Our ref: CMJ Cycleway Post Constr RSA - AECOM response.docm

Central Motorway Junction Cycleway - AECOM Component

6.4
Designer’s statement
I certify that the project manager’s decisions and directions for action to be taken to improve safety for
each of the safety concerns have been carried out.
Signed

Date
Designer’s member name, qualifications
position, company

6.5
Safety audit close out
The project manager is to distribute the audit report incorporating the decisions to the designer, safety
audit team leader, safety engineer, and project file.
Date: ……………………..
under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

Status: Final
10 March 2015
Project No.: 80007831 Child No.: 80507831
Page 16
Our ref: CMJ Cycleway Post Constr RSA - AECOM response.docm

Document Outline