Road Safety Audits (2004)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

ROAD SAFETY AUDITS SUMMARY Road safety audits (RSAs) and road safety audit reviews (RSARs) are two safety tools that offer promise to help reduce roadway crashes and fatalities. Globally, these tools have been used by transportation safety professionals since the 1980s and are beginning to emerge as proactive safety tools in U.S. practice. The purpose of this synthesis is to describe RSA and RSAR processes and to summarize their current usage. It is anticipated that this document will promote increased use of RSAs and RSARs and, as a result of the increased use, a reduction in roadway crashes and fatali- ties. The internationally accepted definition of an RSA as used in this synthesis comes from The Canadian Road Safety Audit Guide and is as follows: “An RSA is a formal and inde- pendent safety performance review of a road transportation project by an experienced team of safety specialists, addressing the safety of all road users.” An RSAR is defined for use in this synthesis as “an evaluation of an existing roadway section by an independent team, again focusing solely upon safety issues” and comes from NHI Course 380069 (“Road Safety Audits and Road Safety Audit Reviews”). Internationally, the distinction between the evaluation of a plan or a design (RSA) and the evaluation of a roadway section or intersection (RSAR) either just before opening or already open to traffic is becoming more pronounced. Terms such as RSAR, road infrastructure as- sessment, road review, roadway assessment, and roadway inspection have been used to dif- ferentiate an RSAR of an existing roadway from an RSA of a plan. RSAs were introduced in the United States in 1996 as a result of an FHWA-sponsored scanning tour of Australia and New Zealand. The FHWA contacted all state departments of transportation (DOTs) to solicit interest in applying the concepts as a pilot study. In 1997, it sponsored a workshop in St. Louis to discuss the practice and pilot activities. Thirteen states and two local governments participated in this pilot project, marking the beginning of U.S. practice. This synthesis was developed using a comprehensive literature review, a survey of state and provincial DOTs by means of a structured questionnaire, and the authors’ personal con- tacts and experiences in providing RSA team leadership and training worldwide. The questionnaire was designed to elicit responses related to key RSA issues defining DOT practices and to clarify and identify possible DOT concerns when agencies consider implementing these proactive safety tools. The survey responses indicated that by mid-year 2003, only seven state DOTs were using both RSAs and RSARs in their safety programs. An additional 10 states indicated that they were using one but not both of these tools. Most of these states indicated that their use was best described as a beginning program to determine the benefits of incorporating the tools into their safety programs. That is not surprising, for the initial exposure of most state DOTs to RSAs was relatively recent, in 1997, compared with international practices, which date from the 1980s.

2 The survey identified several issues that affect the use of RSA processes and the way in which they are applied, including • • • Institutional issues—agency culture, staff interests, manpower, expertise availability, financial resources, liability, and management acceptance. Audit team composition—size of team (three to five members were recommended) and team skills—most states identified a core related to traffic operations, design, and safety, with additional skills related to construction, maintenance, law enforcement, planning emergency medical services, and human factors depending on the audit stage and scope of the project. In general, the benefits of conducting RSAs during an early project stage were identi- fied as a key to maximizing their impact or effectiveness. The advantage of identifying the safety issues before the project’s footprint has been developed was seen as an im- portant benefit of the RSA approach. Several states have advanced beyond the initial assessment stage. Specifically, Iowa, Pennsylvania, New York, South Carolina, and South Dakota were identified as having devel- oped programmed approaches for including proactive safety assessments. Training was a major component of the South Carolina program, and two workshops were held to provide a core group of trained auditors. The number of countries worldwide using the tools of RSAs and RSARs is growing rap- idly. Historically, the most advanced countries have been involved in applying these tech- niques since the mid-1980s. The United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand are leaders in refining and advancing the state of the practice. It is noteworthy that these three countries have active and extensive programs, are requiring audits to be undertaken, and are conduct- ing RSAs during different project stages. In some cases, multiple audits are required, and the monitoring of RSA audited projects is becoming a mandatory activity in the United King- dom program. Auditor certification is beginning to emerge as an international issue. In the United States, more and more states are learning of RSAs through a National Highway Institute training course. Local agencies are also beginning to explore and develop programs based on applying RSARs. The value added in using RSAs and RSARs will con- tinue to grow in the United States as more state DOTs and local agencies try these safety tools on their roadways.