U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
| < Previous | Table of Content | Next > |
The RSAs in this case studies project have been well received by all participating agencies. Characteristics of the FHWA RSAs that have promoted their acceptance by the participating agencies are generally those that are aimed at making the RSA as useful and “user-friendly” as possible:
1. The RSA suggestions have been consistent with the project’s design stage.
When a safety issue is identified by the RSA team, one or more possible mitigation measures are suggested for consideration by the Design Team and Owner. Suggested mitigation measures must be consistent with the design stage at which the RSA is being conducted.
For example, an RSA was conducted on the detailed design of improvements to US 60 in Oklahoma within 12 weeks of the date on which the final design was due for submission. In the course of the RSA, the team identified a vertical crest curve that limited sight distance to an intersection and driveways. Both the RSA team and Design Team agreed that redesign of the road profile would improve sight distance, but was infeasible financially and at such an advanced project stage, when the land acquisition process had already been completed and utility relocation was underway. The Design Team had already incorporated geometric features to address the limited sight distance in the design, and the RSA team put forward further mitigation measures that could feasibly be implemented at the advanced design stage, such as signing and driveway relocation. Conversely, for the RSA conducted at an early (planning) stage for widening an arterial roadway in Collier County, FL, the RSA team could consider a wider range of safety improvements that could feasibly be included in subsequent design stages. Suggested measures included improved pedestrian and cycling facilities (since the arterial was adjacent to newly constructed schools) and a comprehensive access management program.
2. Preliminary RSA results (findings and suggestions) have been presented to the Owner twice, verbally and in a draft written form, to provide the Owner and Design Team with the opportunity for input and review before the results are documented in the final report.
Since RSA reports may become public documents, transportation agencies may be sensitive to their contents and the way in which the RSA results are presented. To address an agency’s concerns and provide it with an opportunity for input, the RSA team first discusses the RSA results in the preliminary findings meeting. In this discussion, the design team and the Owner have the opportunity to identify potentially sensitive safety issues or alternative suggestions to those that have been identified by the RSA team. In practice, the safety issues identified by the RSA team in this case studies project have been consistently accepted as valid, and no agency has attempted to discourage their inclusion in the RSA report. In contrast, the RSA team’s suggestions for improvements were discussed at some length.
After discussion in the preliminary findings meeting, a final set of suggestions can be identified and incorporated in the RSA report. A draft version of the RSA report is provided to the Owner for review. The Owner or Design Team can suggest clarifications or provide additional information that can be incorporated in the final RSA report. In practice, of the ten RSA reports completed to date in this case studies project, changes to the draft have been requested in only three reports. These changes were minor in nature, dealing with details such as terminology and clarification of some transportation agency policies.
By discussing RSA findings in the preliminary findings meeting and issuing a draft version of the report, the RSA team, Design Team, and Owner can work together to ensure that potentially sensitive issues are appropriately presented. It remains the responsibility of the RSA team to ensure that, while the Owner’s concerns are adequately addressed, the final RSA report is an objective and accurate reflection of its findings, and that the integrity and independence of the RSA process are maintained.
3. For RSAs at an early design stage, the RSA team has provided guidance on possible low-cost improvements that could be implemented as interim measures to decrease interim crash risks.
Two of the RSAs in this pilot series were conducted in the planning or preliminary design stage, when construction was expected to start two or more years in the future. In the interim, while waiting for the public consultation, design and funding processes to proceed, the RSA team and Owner agreed that the safety issues that had partly motivated the projects should be addressed. Accordingly, during field reviews, the RSA team conducted an RSA of the existing facilities aimed at identifying safety issues and low-cost countermeasures that could be implemented as stopgap measures to improve safety as much as possible while waiting for the redesign to be implemented. Representative stopgap improvements included improved signing, improved pedestrian facilities (crosswalks and signal heads), and a suggestion to review signal operations to determine if left-turn phasing should be changed.
4. The RSA process has been applied to enhance the implementation of innovative road safety measures, with the aim of promoting their success.
Transportation agencies may develop or adopt technologies or measures that are innovative (locally or nationally) with the aim of promoting road safety. A common example of such a measure is the modern roundabout. Since these measures may be new to both the transportation agency and the wider community of road users, they may involve unforeseen consequences that ultimately compromise, rather than promote, safety. An RSA can be beneficial as a means of reviewing the innovative improvement in its intended environment, identifying possible factors that may compromise its successful implementation, and suggesting measures to address them.
For example, the City of Tucson has developed an innovative pedestrian crossing device, the HAWK signal (High Intensity Activated CrossWalK, a type of flashing beacon), and is implementing it at intersections where pedestrian safety is a concern. The City of Tucson received approval from FHWA to experiment with this device; it is not yet adopted in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. One of the outcomes of the RSA conducted for six implementation sites in Tucson was a set of suggestions to enhance the HAWK system with a view to its wider (statewide or nationwide) application. Another outcome was a set of suggestions for site-specific low-cost improvements that could be “piggybacked” onto the signal implementation works to further enhance pedestrian and traffic safety.
5. The safety benefits of a project have been identified as part of the RSA process and report.
In this RSA case studies project, all of the road improvement projects on which RSAs were conducted during the planning or design stages were initially motivated, wholly or in part, by a desire to address safety issues. Part of the RSA process developed in this case studies project has been to identify safety issues that were observed on-site or through collision data, and to clearly state how the elements of the Design Team’s proposed improvements or design can be expected to positively address these issues. Acknowledging the safety benefits of the original design puts the RSA findings in an appropriate context.
6. RSA teams have been composed of a multidisciplinary group of experienced professionals.
The core disciplines on an RSA team are traffic operations, geometric design, and road safety. Beyond these core requirements, all of the RSA teams in this case studies project have included members who have brought a range of backgrounds and specialties to the RSA. For example, the RSA of a preliminary design for arterial road upgrades for the Illinois DOT involved a team of professionals with individual specialties in construction, maintenance, access management, and enforcement. In addition, the RSA team included members from outside the state as well as locally based members from Illinois DOT and FHWA Field Safety staff. Those team members with local experience provided first-hand knowledge of local policies, practices, and conditions (including important information on commuter routes and local land use), while those from outside the state contributed ideas gained from experience with other agencies and in other jurisdictions.
7. RSA reports have been brief.
The RSA report is concise, and focuses on describing safety issues and suggested mitigation. Graphics and photographs were used as extensively as possible. The reports included:
FIGURE 6 EXAMPLE DISCUSSION OF AN RSA SAFETY ISSUE
Over the course of the RSA case studies project, the RSA teams have identified several key elements that help to make an RSA successful.
1. The RSA team must acquire a clear understanding of the project background and constraints.
At the RSA start-up meeting, a frank discussion of the constraints and challenges encountered in the design of the project, or operation of existing road, is critical to the success of the RSA. It is crucial that the RSA team understand the trade-offs and compromises that were a part of the design process. Knowledge of these constraints helps the RSA team to identify mitigation measures that are practical and reasonable.
2. The RSA team and Design Team need to work in a cooperative fashion to achieve a successful RSA result. It is important to maintain an atmosphere of cooperation among all participants in the RSA process – the Design Team, RSA team, and the Owner.
The RSA team should be consistently positive and constructive when dealing with the Design Team. Many problems can be avoided if the RSA team maintains effective communication with the Design Team during the RSA (including the opportunities presented in the start-up and preliminary findings meetings) to understand why roadway elements were designed as they were, and whether mitigation measures identified by the RSA team are feasible and practical. This consultation also gives the Design Team a “heads-up” regarding the issues identified during the RSA, as well as some input into possible solutions, both of which can reduce apprehension (and therefore defensiveness) concerning the RSA findings.
The cooperation of the Design Team is vital to the success of the RSA. An RSA is not a critical review of the design team’s work, but rather a supportive review of the design with a focus on how safety can be further incorporated into it. Cooperation between the RSA team and Design Team usually results in a productive RSA, since the RSA team will fully understand the design issues and challenges (as explained by the Design Team), and suggested mitigation measures (as discussed in advance with the Design Team) will be practical and reasonable.
Support from the Owner is vital to the success of individual RSAs and the RSA program as a whole. It is essential that the Owner commit the necessary time within the project schedule for conducting the RSA and incorporating any improvements resulting from it, as well as the staff to represent the Owner in the RSA process (primarily the start-up and preliminary findings meetings).
3. A “local champion” can greatly help to facilitate the establishment of RSAs.
Wilson and Lipinski2 noted in their recent synthesis of RSA practices in the United States (1) that the introduction of RSAs or an RSA program can face opposition based on liability concerns, the anticipated costs of the RSA or of implementing suggested changes, and commitment of staff resources. To help overcome this resistance, a “local champion” who understands the purposes and procedures of an RSA, and who is willing and able to promote RSAs on at least a trial basis, is desirable. Thus, measures to introduce RSAs to a core of senior transportation professionals can help to promote their wider acceptance. “Local champions” have been found within state DOTs, FHWA field offices, or city, county, or Tribal transportation agencies.
4. The RSA field review should be scheduled to coincide with important site conditions.
The RSA team should visit the project site when traffic conditions are typical or representative. For example, the RSA in Yellowstone National Park was conducted at the start of the Park’s summer season when visitor volumes were increasing. Consequently, the RSA team observed parking and circulation issues that were characteristic of the Park’s high-volume summer season. In contrast, the RSA in Cincinnati was conducted in late December, after classes at a nearby university had ended. The RSA team was consequently unable to observe the impact of university traffic at the site. Although this did not significantly affect the RSA findings, scheduling the field review to observe typical or usual traffic conditions is preferable, since it allows the RSA team to see how regularly-recurring traffic conditions and road user behavior may affect safety.
2Eugene Wilson and Martin Lipinski. NCHRP Synthesis 336: Road Safety Audits, A Synthesis of Highway Practice (National Cooperative Highway Research Program, TRB, 2004)
| < Previous | Table of Content | Next > |
