U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
| < Previous | Table of Content | Next > |
Road Safety Audits (RSAs) are an effective tool for proactively improving roadway safety. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines an RSA as a "formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary team." The primary focus of an RSA is safety, while working within the context of other aspects, such as mobility, access, surrounding land use, and aesthetics. By using an independent and multidisciplinary team to perform a comprehensive review and an evaluation of physical, operational, and human-factors-related safety issues for a given study area, promote an holistic approach to evaluating roadway safety. The RSA team is typically composed of at least three members having expertise in road safety, traffic operations, and road design. Other potential team members may have a background in (but not limited to) enforcement, emergency medical services, maintenance, human factors analysis, transportation planning, pedestrian safety, and bicyclist safety.
RSAs can be done at any stage in a project's life:
Figure 1: Typical eight-step RSA process
The eight steps of an RSA are shown in Figure 1 and follow the procedures outlined in the FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines document (Publication Number FHWA-SA-06-06).
The RSA Projects were pre-selected for this case studies document and the RSA teams were interdisciplinary, typically including engineering, planning, enforcement staff (Steps 1 and 2) from various levels of government to include Federal, State, municipal, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO).
All meetings and site visits for the RSAs in the case studies document were conducted over two or three day periods. The RSAs typically began with a start-up meeting (Step 3) attended by the Project Owner and/or Design Team (hereafter referred to as the Owner), and the RSA team:
Following the start-up meeting and a preliminary review of the design or site documentation, the RSA Team conducted a field review (Step 4). The purpose of the field review was to observe the ambient conditions in which the proposed design would operate (for the planning-stage RSA), or to observe geometric and operating conditions (for the RSAs of existing roads). The RSA Team observed site characteristics (such as road geometry, sight distances, clear zones, drainage, signing, lighting, and barriers), traffic characteristics (such as typical speeds and traffic mix), surrounding land uses (including traffic and pedestrian generators), and link points to the adjacent transportation network. Human factors issues were also considered by the RSA team, including road and intersection "readability," sign location and sequencing, and older-driver limitations. Field reviews were conducted by the RSA Team under a variety of environmental conditions (such as daytime and night-time) and operational conditions (such as peak and off-peak times).
The team conducted the RSA analysis (Step 5) in a setting in which all team members reviewed available background information (such as traffic volumes and collision data) in light of the observations made in the field. On the basis of this review, the RSA Team identified and prioritized safety issues, including features that could contribute to a higher frequency and/or severity of crashes. For each safety issue, the RSA Team generated a list of possible measure to mitigate the crash potential and/or severity of a potential crash.
At the end of the analysis session, the Owner and the RSA Team reconvened for a preliminary findings meeting (Step 6). Presenting the preliminary findings verbally in a meeting gave the Owner the opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification on the RSA findings, and also provided a useful forum for the Owner to suggest additional or alternative mitigation measures in conjunction with the RSA team. The discussion provided practical information that was subsequently used to write the RSA report.
In the weeks following the on-site portion for the RSA, the RSA Team wrote and issued the RSA report (also part of Step 6) to the Owner documenting the results of the RSA. The main content of the RSA report was a prioritized listing and description of the safety issues identified (illustrated using photographs taken during the site visit), with suggestions for improvements.
The Owner was encouraged to write a brief response letter (Step 7) containing a point-by-point response to each of the safety issues identified in the RSA report. The response letter identifies the action(s) to be taken, or explains why no action would have been taken. The formal response letter is an important "closure" document for the RSA. As a final step, the Owner was encouraged to use the RSA findings to identify and implement safety improvements when policy, manpower, and funding permit (Step 8).
The primary benefits of RSAs are the reduction of crashes and associated crash costs as road safety is improved. The costs of automotive crashes are estimated by the US Department of Transportation as:
Other benefits of RSAs include reduced life-cycle project costs as crashes are reduced, and the development of good safety engineering and design practices, including consideration of the surrounding land use and development in combination with the potential multimodal safety issues and integrating human factors issues in the design, operations, and maintenance of roads. Additional benefits may include enhanced traveler experience and access management, reduced travel delay and travel time, and improved travel reliability.
FHWA sponsored a study of nine RSA programs and five RSA projects, and results are published in the FHWA report Road Safety Audits: An Evaluation of RSA Programs and Projects (FHWA-SA-12-037). The evaluation documented key strategies underpinning the success of the nine RSA programs as well as the quantitative safety benefits of specific improvements implemented as a result of the five specific RSA projects. Other local and regional studies have been completed to quantify the benefits of RSAs; practitioners are encouraged to consult partnering agencies with regard to the success in implementing RSAs.
Three main factors contribute to the cost of an RSA:
The RSA Team costs reflect the size of the team and the time required for the RSA, which in turn are dependent on the complexity of the RSA project.
RSA teams are typically composed of three to four persons although they can be larger when multiple owners are involved.
Opening and closing meetings, site visits, and RSA analysis sessions are typically conducted in a two - or three-day period for each RSA. Prior to and following the on-site portion of the RSA, time is required for analysis (such as analysis of collision records, and research on applicable design standards or mitigation measures) along with writing the RSA report.
The design team and owner costs reflect the time required for staff to attend the start-up and preliminary findings meetings, and to subsequently read the RSA report and respond to its findings. In addition, staff time is required to compile project or site materials for the RSA team.
The final cost component is that resulting from design changes or enhancements, which reflect the number and complexity of the issues identified during the RSA.
| < Previous | Table of Content | Next > |
