FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines

Previous Page | Next Page

Part B: The Road Safety Audit Process

4.0 Conducting Road Safety Audits

The purpose of this chapter is to present the RSA process in detailed steps. The description of each step will include:

• The objective of each step.
• Typical roles and responsibilities for each step.
• Guidance common to all RSA stages and types of RSAs.
• Specifics related to RSA stages and types of RSAs.

The typical eight-step RSA procedure is presented in Exhibit 4.1. Further information on conducting pre-construction, construction, and post-construction phase RSAs is found in chapters 5, 6 and 7, respectively.

4.1 Step 1: Identify Project or Existing Road to be Audited

Putting RSA policy into action.

The objective of this step is to identify the project or existing road to be audited and to set the parameters for the RSA .

When selecting a project for an RSA , the public agency should adhere to a pre-determined policy. This approach will eliminate questions and concerns as to why or how projects were audited.

Once a project is identified, the project owner should help establish clear parameters for the RSA . The parameters should define the following:

• Scope.
• Schedule for completion.
• Team requirements.
• Audit tasks.
• Formal audit report contents and format.
• Response report expectations.

The RSA team must remain independent and not be directed by the project owner.

Scope of and RSA project.

The scope of the RSA should be defined in terms of the geographical area, the aspects of the project to be reviewed, and what is considered to be out of scope. The project owner, in consultation with the RSA team leader, should specify how many individuals will be on the audit team and what qualifications they should possess. The size and qualifications of the team will vary depending on the scope and type of project being audited.

Exhibit 4.1

The project owner and the RSA team leader should set a schedule for key dates such as presentation of the RSA findings to the project owner and design team, and for preparation of the response report. These dates may be critical to the project schedule. Clear understanding and adherence to them will minimize any delay.

The project owner should specify the required tasks for all involved parties. The audit team may also be required to complete tasks unique to the project, such as reviewing a previous safety evaluation or RSA or focusing on a particular vulnerable road user group potentially at risk. The design team may be required to provide specific data to the audit team that will assist the auditors in conducting the RSA .

Finally, the project owner should work with the RSA team leader to specify requirements for the content and format of the RSA report and the response report.

4.2 Step 2: Select an RSA Team

The objective of selecting an audit team is to choose an independent, qualified, and multidisciplinary team of experts who can successfully conduct a road safety audit.

RSA team composition.

The project owner is responsible for selecting the RSA team leader. The project owner and the RSA team leader need to select a set of qualified individuals from within the agency, from another public agency, or from outside sources. Regardless of where they find the team members, the audit team itself must be independent of the project being audited.

Should the project owner choose to use individuals from within the agency, these individuals must be impartial and must not have been involved in the design process. The key element to consider when deciding if the team is truly independent is whether the auditors can act independently of the project owner/design team, and not whether they are drawn from internal or external resources. The freedom, ability and comfort of auditors to comment frankly on potentially controversial safety issues is crucial to the success of the RSA .

RSA team size.

The project owner and RSA team leader should also ensure that the audit team represents a group of individuals that, combined, possess a set of skills that will ensure the most critical aspects of the project are addressed. One person may possess a combination of skills in a number of different areas, but the audit team should consist of at least three individuals to ensure that no aspect of the RSA is overlooked. On projects of a more complex nature, a larger team should be considered.

RSA team background.

RSA team members should have a background in road safety, traffic operations and/or road design. Knowledge of human factors/positive guidance is an asset. At least one member should be an independent local representative. The audit team leader, having the final word on the RSA report and being the primary point of contact between the project owner, the design team, and the audit team, should have a thorough understanding of the RSA process and possess excellent communications and leadership skills.

Role of human factors/positive guidance.

In addition, individuals representing other areas of specialty may also be considered depending on the type of project. These individuals may represent maintenance, enforcement, and first responders. Depending on the specifics of the project, potential team members may also have expertise in pedestrian and bicycle treatments, transit operations, commercial vehicle operations, intelligent transportation systems, or the design of special facilities (e.g., toll plazas, bridges, tunnels, complex freeway structures, roundabouts, traffic calming, etc.). These individuals may not necessarily participate fully in the RSA ; rather, they could be called in to provide specific input in their areas of specialty.

Areas of specialty that would further supplement the core skills will vary depending on the RSA phase (pre-construction, construction, or post-construction).

In the pre-construction phase, members of the RSA team must rely on drawings to determine what the project will entail. They need to be able to visualize the road in three dimensions with all its appurtenances. A field investigation of the site of a proposed road will help in visualizing the design and will assist the audit team in better understanding how the new project will transition into existing roads. A preliminary design stage RSA should have a road design engineer skilled in horizontal and vertical road alignment, road cross-section elements, and intersection layout.

A detailed design stage RSA should have a traffic operations engineer skilled in traffic signal control; traffic signs; delineation; pavement markings; pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities; and a road design engineer skilled in roadside protection. Consideration should also be given to individuals with experience in road maintenance, enforcement, first response, schools, highway-rail grade crossings and others of useful expertise. Note that it is not necessary to include experts in these fields as formal team members.

In the construction phase, during the pre-opening stage RSA where an on-site review can be conducted, the audit team should have areas of specialty in human factors/positive guidance and maintenance and enforcement.

In the post-construction phase, in which the site can be visited during regular traffic conditions and where crash data would be available to the team, the RSA team may want to have an expert in crash investigation and reconstruction and either a State or local enforcement officer represented.

Reasonable size of an RSA Team.

Having a variety of qualifications, while beneficial, should not be achieved through an unreasonably large RSA team. Experience shows that such teams become less effective. The best practice is to have the smallest team that brings all of the necessary knowledge and experience to the process, while consulting with people who have other needed skill sets.

Finally, if selecting the RSA team from outside the public agency, the project owner should remember that the cost of the RSA should be less important than ensuring the team is experienced and qualified. A qualified audit team will have a clear understanding of safety issues arising from the design-and the interaction of road users with the design-and will be able to predict accurately where crashes have the potential to occur independent of the availability of any crash data.

4.3 Step 3: Conduct a Pre-audit Meeting to Review Project Information and Drawings

The objective of the pre-audit meeting is to set the context for the RSA by bringing together the project owner, the design team, and the audit team to discuss its scope and review all information available.

The most effective and efficient way to acquaint the audit team with the project is to have a pre-audit meeting. The purpose of the pre-audit meeting is to:

• Hand over all relevant information to the audit team.
• Review the scope and objectives of the RSA .
• Delegate responsibilities.
• Agree upon a schedule for the completion of the RSA .
• Set up lines of communication between the audit team leader, the project owner, and the design team.
• Communicate matters of importance to the audit team.

Providing project information to the RSA team.

Prior to the pre-audit meeting, the project owner is responsible for ensuring that all relevant project information is provided to the RSA team. This will involve some coordination with the design team, who should be notified well in advance of the RSA . The type of data being provided will vary depending on the RSA stage.

At the meeting, the RSA team leader may provide an overview of the process the team will be undertaking, including the method the it will use to qualitatively evaluate the extent of safety concerns. The design team should inform the RSA team of design criteria, constraints, standards used, the results of previous RSAs, if available and any other pertinent issues. The project owner should ensure that the team understands the scope of the RSA . At the end of the meeting, all three parties should have a clear understanding of the RSA to be undertaken and the roles and responsibilities of each. Both RSA and design teams must have clear understanding that no matter what design constraints exist, if they adversely affect safety, the RSA team will need to identify them as safety concerns and estimate the extent to which safety may be affected.

Understanding your role in the RSA team.

For pre-construction and construction phase RSAs, the project owner will need to provide the RSA team with the design parameters and specifications used, data on traffic and environmental characteristics, and any other documents showing the proposed road design/improvement. The RSA team may also request that the project owner provide them with a listing of all relevant project standards, guidelines and manuals, including, but not limited to, Federal standards such as the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, NCHRP reports, and State and local design policies, standards and manuals. Minutes of public meetings and agreements with stakeholders for accommodating needs of local communities, and if applicable previous RSA reports and RSA response reports, should also be included in the data made available to the RSA team.

The design parameters that need to be communicated to the RSA team include road function, classification, environment, design speeds, design vehicles, a list of departures from the design standards in the design, and the justification for those departures.

The traffic and environmental characteristics (vehicular, pedestrian/bicyclists volumes on the surrounding road network, unique weather conditions, topography, etc.) are usually included in the operations study report and environmental assessment report. Crash data may be helpful as well, especially for rehabilitation/reconstruction projects. For new construction, crash data for the surrounding road network are not as important; however, they may provide insights into prevailing crash patterns and safety issues in the study area. The required level of detail of the documents showing the proposed road design/improvement is dependent on the design stage, as follows:

• At the preliminary design stage, drawings may be at a relatively small scale (1:3000 1:5000 for road sections and 1:1000-1:2500 for intersections). The plan should be sufficient to show the horizontal and vertical alignment of the road, the cross section, connections to adjoining roadways, and proposed traffic control devices at any intersections. For freeways, the basic ramp configuration and lane arrangements should be shown.
• At the detailed design stage and pre-opening stage, the drawings should be of a suit able scale (1:500-1:100 for road sections and 1:300- 1:50 for intersections) and should show all signs, delineation, illumination, pavement markings, lane configuration, landscaping, roadside appurtenances, traffic signal placement, phasing and timing, and roadside protection.

For post-construction RSAs, the project owner will need to provide the audit team with information about road function, classification, environment, traffic and environmental characteristics of the road and adjacent road network (including traffic circulation scheme), crash data detailing the location, type, and severity of each crash for at least a three-year period, as-built drawings at a suitable scale (1:500), and aerial photographs which will be useful to have on hand during the field review.

As with the pre-construction and construction phase RSAs, the post-construction RSAs will benefit from the analysis of previous RSA reports and RSA response reports, as well as results of any previous safety evaluations (e.g., traffic conflict studies). If the records of residents' complaints, police observations of speeding/unsafe behavior, and agreements with stakeholders for accommodating needs of local communities are available, these should be made available to the RSA team as well.

4.4 Step 4: Conduct Review of Project Data and Field Review

The objective of conducting a project data review is to gain insight into the project or existing road, to prepare for the field visit, and to identify preliminary areas of safety concern. The field visit is used to gain further insight into the project or existing road, and to further verify/identify safety concerns.

Review of Project Data

The review of design drawings and other project information is to be conducted prior to and after the field review. Field reviews should be conducted as part of every RSA no matter the stage or type of project. The review of design drawings (including the base map, alignment, and profile) will be crucial to understanding the interaction between the proposed road and its users at the Pre-construction phase while the field reviews are crucial for identifying safety issues on the built road (as in the construction phase during pre-opening RSAs and the post-construction phase during existing road RSAs).

The RSA team should examine the design drawings in detail, imagining how the road would appear from the perspective of road users (including drivers of different vehicle types and older drivers) and, if applicable, cyclists and pedestrians (including pedestrians of different age groups and abilities). A useful approach is to review the design drawings systematically in one direction at a time for each road section and to review each movement individually at freeway interchanges and at-grade intersections.

Individual and team review of project data.

Reviews of the project data and design drawings are performed individually and in a team setting. Individual auditing allows an in-depth consideration of different aspects of the design while "brainstorming" in the team setting can lead to the identification of new safety issues and better ways to mitigate or eliminate safety concerns.

The RSA team members may refer to the checklists described in chapter 8 of this guideline as a means of reminding themselves of relevant aspects of the RSA . During the field review, it may be possible to verify identified issues and identify additional safety issues that might not be evident from the design drawings/project data.

Clarifying or gathering missing data.

In situations where design documentation contains missing or misleading information that the audit team feels is critical to carrying out the RSA , the design team should be contacted and asked for an explanation before the site visit is conducted. This should be done in a cooperative manner, as a means of gaining a better understanding of the proposed project.

The RSA team should restrict its comments to those issues having a bearing on the safety of road users. Their comments may be either specific to a particular location or broad-based, such as mentioning that a particular element of the road design may lead to aggressive driving. Issues relating to aesthetics, amenities, or congestion may also be commented upon, but only if they will lead to less-safe conditions. Comments on safety issues that may be identified outside of the project limits should not be included unless it is a safety issue that would arise as a result of the project itself, such as the potential for traffic to shortcut through an adjoining residential area as a result of an additional traffic congestion during construction on a busy arterial.

Containing comments to issues having a bearing on the safety of road users.

The RSA team should fully review any project data provided to them prior to the field review to familiarize themselves with the location. However, there might be a merit in setting aside for later review the project data that identifies past safety issues (e.g., through crash data) so that it may be used to confirm and complement the RSA findings. Such an approach would allow the RSA team members to remain completely objective during the field review.

The Field Review

The field review is a key task that the RSA team should undertake in all audits. The safety of the RSA team and of all road users during field reviews is a key consideration and should be planned-for at the outset. Proper safety equipment and traffic controls should be used at all times, and the potential for adverse impacts on road traffic and audit team safety must be managed at all times during a field review.

The field review: a key task.

One approach to field reviews is that each RSA team member reviews the entire site independently, noting anything of importance. The team then reviews the site together, discussing the various issues each team member has identified independently. This approach encourages all RSA team members to participate and not to defer to an individual team member who may be perceived to be more experienced. Another approach is for the team to move through the site as a group, with each team member noting issues as they encounter them.

Issues identified in the review of project data should be verified in the field. Photographs and possibly video footage should be taken of anything that may need to be reviewed or revisited while writing the RSA report or while presenting the RSA findings to the project owner and design team.

During the field review, the RSA team must consider all possible movements. On freeways and road sections, both directions of travel should be considered starting at a point beyond the project limits. At interchanges, movements on each ramp, deceleration and acceleration lanes, weaving sections, and ramp terminal intersections should be investigated. At intersections, right, through, and left-turning movements on each approach should be considered. Pedestrian and bicyclist facilities should also be investigated, particularly at points where they come into conflict with vehicular traffic. The audit team should freely refer back to notes made during their review of the project data, design drawings, and checklists to further verify any safety concerns initially identified.

Consider future tie in during pre-construction phase audits.

In the pre-construction phase, the RSA team will not be able to see the actual layout of the site as it will appear upon completion. The audit team should see how the planned road improvement would tie in to the existing road network and examine adjacent roadways to determine how consistent the design will be from the perspective of road users. They should also consider prevailing climatic conditions, surrounding vegetation, and topography.

In the pre-opening stage of construction phase RSAs, the RSA team will have the advantage of seeing the site firsthand prior to opening (driving through the site in all directions and approaches, and walking and bicycling key stretches of the site to gain the perspectives of motorist, pedestrians, and bicyclists). Limitations and specific requirements of drivers of different vehicle types, older drivers, pedestrians of different age groups, disabled persons, etc. should be considered.

The RSA team should also conduct a nighttime visit to identify any issues under conditions.

Observe road users in post-construction audit.

In the post-construction phase, the RSA team will be able not only to observe the site firsthand but also to observe how road users are interacting with the road environment. Post-construction phase audits located in urban areas should be scheduled for the peak periods so that the audit team may observe the road under heavy traffic conditions. Afternoon observations may facilitate remaining on site into the evening so the audit team may observe lower volume conditions and issues relating to inadequate lighting and visibility of roadway delineation. Locations with pedestrian traffic should be reviewed on foot. The RSA team may also take advantage of reviewing the route during periods of inclement weather.

At the end of the field review, the RSA team should have clear understanding of potential safety issues inherent in the design plans and other project data reviewed or observed in the field.

4.5 Step 5: Conduct Audit Analysis and Prepare Report of Findings

The objective of conducting RSA analysis and preparing the RSA report is to succinctly report the findings of the audit team through identification and prioritization of safety issues. Suggestions should then be made for reducing the degree of risk.

Providing guidance on the level of risk associated with safety issues identified.

In the previous step, the audit team will have identified a number of safety issues. Next, the team will finalize the RSA findings and develop suggestions. When considering audit suggestions, the audit team may want to give the design team and the project owner guidance on the level of risk associated with the various safety issues identified (e.g., low, medium or high), according to guidelines established with the project owner at the pre-audit meeting. Each audit team should establish how they wish to evaluate risk and prioritize safety concerns.

Upon completion of the RSA analysis, the audit team leader is ready to write the RSA report. In some instances, the RSA report will need to be written immediately after completion of the site visit, such as in a pre-opening RSA . Other RSAs are typically completed within a relatively short time-frame (two weeks).

The report should be concise. Where possible, the report should include pictures and diagrams as may be considered useful to further illustrate points made. The audit team should number each safety issue identified and, as appropriate, provide a map indicating its location. References to other reports, standards, policies or published research on road safety may also be made within the RSA report.

In the introduction, there should be a brief description of the project, including the scope and objectives and any special issues raised by the project owner or design team. The stage of RSA should be identified. Design and operational elements reviewed and not reviewed should be mentioned. It should be emphasized that some design elements will not be reviewed because of the stage of the RSA .

For example, a planning design audit in the Pre-construction Phase will not contain a review of signs and pavement markings. A pre-opening audit in the Construction Phase will not contain a review of interchange configuration. The project limits should be clearly defined – preferably through use of a map or plan.

Background information should be given identifying the audit team member names, their affiliation and qualifications as well as the date of the pre-audit meeting and dates and times that the RSA was conducted.

Data provided by the project owner and/or design team should be acknowledged. General observations made regarding the site visit should be included such as day and time of visit, traffic, lighting and weather conditions and other extenuating circumstances. The RSA team may want to summarize the features of the road or design that will help, or are helping, to improve safety at that location.

Level of detail of RSA report.

The main body of the report will contain all of the identified safety issues. The audit team may wish to group safety issues into broad topics (e.g. General, Design Issues, Alignment Details, Intersections, Special Road Users, etc.) that are further broken down into subtopics (e.g., Design Standards, Typical Cross Sections and Recovery Zones, Effect of Cross Sectional Variation etc.). Alternatively, for smaller projects the audit team may report on safety issues that are high risk first, leaving lower priority concerns until later in the report.

Each safety issue should be identified in the report with a brief description of why it poses a risk. The issue identified should be specific. An appropriate example of how to word a safety issue in an RSA report may be:

"Because the horizontal curve immediately west of the Black Street overpass is sharp there is a higher risk of run off the road crashes associated with this location. Consideration could be given first to realignment of the curve. If that is not feasible, the addition of advance warning signing and/or delineators for drivers at this location would highlight the presence of the curve."

Broad descriptions of safety issues should be avoided. An inappropriate example of a safety issue description would be:

"Horizontal alignment at many locations along Smith Freeway is not acceptable and may cause crashes to occur."

Do's and don'ts in documenting RSA suggestions.

Terms such as "unsafe", "sub-standard", "unacceptable", and "deficient" should be avoided.

Suggestions for improvement should be constructive and realistic (bearing in mind the costs involved), and should recognize that the project owner may have several different options to achieve the desired result. The audit team leader should not demand specific corrective measures. It will be up to the project owner and design team to review the safety issue and determine how best to implement the suggestion.

Suggestions should be appropriate to the stage in the RSA and the elements being examined. In a pre-opening RSA in the Construction Phase, it would not be appropriate to suggest making modifications to the vertical alignment of the roadway due to sight distance issues approaching a STOP controlled intersection. More appropriate suggestions may be warning signs, rumble strips, or the removal of trees to improve sight distance. Conversely in a preliminary design RSA in the Pre-construction Phase, it would not be appropriate to suggest installing a guard rail along a sharp curve. A more appropriate suggestion would be flattening the curve itself.

Framing RSA suggestions

After the main body of the report, the audit team leader may suggest that another RSA suggestions be conducted at a later point in the project or on subsequent changes to the road design, if significant design alterations were suggested in the RSA report.

At the end of the report, the audit team leader may consider including a statement signed by each audit team member. The statement would declare that the audit team members listed in the report participated in the RSA and agree with its findings.

4.6 Step 6: Present Audit Findings to Project Owner/Design Team

The objective of presenting audit findings to the project owner and design team is to report orally the key findings of the audit as presented in the audit report.

Sharing positive findings and identifying opportunities to improve safety.

The RSA team should begin by reviewing the scope of the audit and may want to consider starting by sharing some "positives" as noted in the RSA . They may also preface the meeting with a reminder that the intent of a RSA is to identify opportunities to improve safety, rather than critique the work of the design team.

If safety concerns are identified, comments should be kept as specific as possible. Issues identified should be described in terms of where they are located and how they represent a safety risk. Pictures or video footage may be shown to the project owner and design team to further illustrate the issue. This opportunity allows informal feedback from the project owner, for the RSA team to clarify its findings and suggestions, and to ensure that findings are within the scope of the RSA .

4.7 Step 7: Prepare Formal Response

The objective of responding to the audit report is for the project owner and the design team to document their response to the findings of the audit report

Once the project owner and the design team have reviewed the audit report, they should jointly prepare a written response to its findings. The response should outline what actions the project owner or design team will take related to each safety concern listed in the audit report. The documentation of a formal response is especially beneficial if the project owner and the design team are not planning on addressing all of the safety issues outlined in the RSA report. A letter report format, signed by the project owner, is a valid method of responding to the RSA report.

In responding to the RSA report, the project owner and design team will have to bear in mind all of the competing objectives involved in a project, some of which may be seen as conflicting with safety. The project owner and design team may consider the following in choosing whether or not to proceed with a suggestion:

Considerations in proceeding with an RSA suggestion.

• Is the RSA report finding within the scope of the project?
• Would the suggestion made in the RSA report address the safety issue, reducing the likelihood of occurrence and/or resultant severity?
• Will the suggestion made in the RSA report lead to mobility, environmental, or other non-safety related problems?
• What would be the cost associated with implementing the suggestion? Are there more cost-effective alternatives that would be equally effective?

Based on the outcome, the project owner and/or design team may agree that a valid safety issue has been identified. In this situation, they may either:

Documenting reasons for RSA response.

• Agree with the suggestion described by the audit team and commit to its implementation, outlining a schedule for the completion of the suggestion.
• Disagree with the suggestion described by the audit team and commit to an alternative, outlining a schedule for the completion of the alternative. In doing so, the project owner and design team should provide a valid reason as to why they choose not to adopt the audit team's suggestion.
• Choose not to implement any improvement at all due to project constraints. In doing reasons in RSA so, the project owner and design team should document the reasoning behind their response. decision.

Alternatively, in rare situations, the project owner and/or design team may disagree with the audit team regarding the safety issue, believing that there is no increased risk associated with the concern raised by the audit team. In doing so, the project owner and/or design team must document the reasoning behind their decision.

4.8 Step 8: Incorporate Findings into the Project when Appropriate

The objective of the final step is to incorporate findings into the project when appropriate and to ensure that the RSA process is a learning experience for all parties.

Once the response report is sent to the RSA team, the project owner and design team will need to ensure that the agreements described in the response report are completed as described and in the time-frame documented.

Using RSAs as a learning opportunity.

Having committed to a process of RSAs, the project owner and design team should use the RSA as a learning opportunity. Internally, the recipients of the RSA report should have gained a better understanding of road safety and principles of road design, operations, and human factors that either contribute to or take away from the elements of risk on their road network. This knowledge may then be applied to future projects and, therefore, through repeated experiences, the project owner and design team will ultimately be managing and designing a safer road network.

The project owner and design team should also review the RSA process to aid in refining future audits. Key questions they may ask themselves are:

Key questions to consider when reviewing the RSA process.

• Was the RSA done at the correct stage?
• Would it have been more effective to conduct the RSA at an earlier stage where the safety issues could have been addressed in a more cost-effective way?
• Were the parameters established at the beginning of the RSA appropriate in meeting the desired objectives?
• Did the audit team get all of the data they required to conduct the RSA ?
• Was enough time allocated for the RSA ?
• Was the audit team timely in their response?
• Did the audit team satisfy the requirements of the RSA ?
• Were the safety issues identified and suggestions made by the audit team responded to in an appropriate way and in a timely fashion?
• Is there any evidence that safety has been improved at the study location?

Previous Page | Next Page