EVALUATING ROAD SAFETY AUDIT IMPLEMENTATION AND
EFFECTIVENESS IN CALIFORNIA
A Project
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Civil Engineering
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Civil Engineering
(Transportation Engineering)
by
Amanda Jordan Lee
SPRING
2014
© 2014
Amanda Jordan Lee
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
EVALUATING ROAD SAFETY AUDIT IMPLEMENTATION AND
EFFECTIVENESS IN CALIFORNIA
A Project
by
Amanda Jordan Lee
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Ghazan Khan
__________________________________, Second Reader
Dr. Kevan Shafizadeh, P.E., PTP, PTOE
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Amanda Jordan Lee
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the project.
_____________________, Graduate Coordinator
Dr. Matthew Salveson, P.E.
Department of Civil Engineering
iv
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
EVALUATING ROAD SAFETY AUDIT IMPLEMENTATION AND
EFFECTIVENESS IN CALIFORNIA
by
Amanda Jordan Lee
Road Safety Audits (RSAs) are formal safety performance examinations of an existing or
future road or any project, which interacts with road users, in which an independent,
qualified multidisciplinary team reports on accident potential and safety performance. It
estimates and reports on potential roadway safety issues for all users and identifies
opportunities for improvements to eliminate or reduce problems. Emphasis is placed on
preventive measures and implementing road safety into projects.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recommends RSAs be implemented
and suggests following U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Administration guidelines; however, these guideline have not been made a standard
program for California. The objective of this research was to learn about the experiences
of transportation agencies implementing RSAs in California and to identify issues to
determine if improvements can be made in the agencies’ process.
v
A list of transportation agencies in all California counties, as well as various cities and
towns in California, was compiled and a survey was developed and distributed which
included 36 questions to collect data on agency implementation of RSAs. Survey
responses were compiled to create a dataset which was analyzed to identify best
practices, issues, and recommendations for future improvements to RSA implementation
in California.
The focus of the data analysis from survey responses was on entities that were currently
conducting RSAs. Of the 98 responding agencies, 68 (69.4%) were aware of what an
RSA is and 30 (30.6%) were not. Of the 68, almost 50% were actually conducting RSAs.
According to the data analysis, the most prominent issues that California transportation
agencies faced were a lack of standardization of the RSA process, lack of funding, and
lack of training. All of these issues are a critical part of the project findings that are a
priority in the recommendations of this project. A standard practice for conducting RSAs
would increase productivity and effectiveness. RSAs would be more productive and costeffective with proper training and implementation in California based on the
recommendations in this research. Lastly, availability of more funding would result in
more participation, training and implementation leading to safer roads in California.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Ghazan Khan
_______________________
Date
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Khan and Dr. Shafizadeh for their help and guidance in the
completion of this project, including help with survey implementation. I am thankful to
all the transportation agencies who responded to my survey. Their responses allowed me
to collect the data necessary to complete this project. I would also like to thank my family
and friends for giving me the support I needed to complete the graduate program. Special
thanks to my mom for helping me through to the end! I have grown so much from this
project and have enjoyed the learning experience from taking the extra time to complete
it.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................. xi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Definition .................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Description ................................................................................... 1
1.3 Purpose of Study ........................................................................................ 4
2. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Road Safety Audit Implementation ........................................................... 5
2.2 Essential Elements of Road Safety Audits.................................................. 6
2.3 Conducting Road Safety Audits ................................................................. 7
2.3.1 Step 1: Identify Project or Existing Road to be Audited ............. 8
2.3.2 Step 2: Select RSA Team……………………………………… 10
2.3.3 Step 3: Conduct a Pre-Audit Meeting…………………………. 10
2.3.4 Step 4: Conduct Review of Project Data and Perform Field
Review..…………………………………………………11
2.3.5 Step 5: Conduct Audit Analysis and Prepare Report of
Findings……………………..………………………….11
viii
2.3.6 Step 6: Present Audit Findings………………………………... 12
2.3.7 Step 7: Prepare a Formal Response…………………………... 13
2.3.8 Step 8: Incorporate Findings Into the Project………………… 13
3.
LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 14
3.1 First Implementation of Road Safety Audits ........................................... 14
3.2 Case Studies .............................................................................................. 15
3.2.1 South Dakota.............................................................................. 16
3.2.2 Tribal Road: Navajo Nation ....................................................... 19
3.3 California Road Safety Audits .................................................................. 22
4. DATA COLLECTION ......................................................................................... 23
4.1 Agency Survey ......................................................................................... 23
4.1.1 Part A ……………………………………………………….
25
4.1.2 Part B………………………………………………………… 26
5. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ................................................................... 27
5.1 Survey Respondents ...................................................................................27
5.2 Questions and Analysis of Agencies Conducting RSAs............................34
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 46
6.1 Survey ...................................................................................................... 46
6.2 Road Safety Audit Difficulties.................................................................. 46
6.3 Implementation of Road Safety Audits..................................................... 48
6.4 Primary Issues……………… ..................................................…………. 50
ix
6.5 Recommendations ....................................................................…………. 51
Appendix A. Survey Contact Information .................................................................. 53
Appendix B. Web-Based Survey ................................................................................ 61
Appendix C. Web-Based Survey Results .................................................................. 69
References ................................................................................................................... 76
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1.
National RSA Activity in 2011 …………………………………………… ….3
2.
Typical RSA Process ...........................................……………………………. 8
3.
Road Safety Audits Grouped by Phase and Stage ..…………………………. 9
4.
Recipient Distribution across California ................…………………………. 24
5.
Breakdown of RSA Survey…………………………………………… .....….27
6.
Web-Based Survey Results…………………………………………… .....….28
7.
City/County/Town Representation………………………… ..........................28
8.
Agencies Area Classification…………………………………………… .......29
9.
Percentage of Agencies Aware of RSAs by Classification……………… .....30
10.
Agency RSA Training .....................................................................…………31
11.
Breakdown of Agencies Conducting RSAs by Area Classification …………32
12.
Reasons for Not Using RSAs.................................…………………………. 33
13.
RSAs Conducted in the Last 3 Years……………… .....................…………. 35
14.
Roadway Types Included in RSAs……………… ........................…………. 36
15.
Time Frame for Conducting RSAs……………… ........................…………. 37
16.
RSA Team Composition……………… ........................................…………. 38
17.
RSA Checklist Used by the Agencies………………....................…………. 39
18.
Time Frame for RSA Field Review……………… .......................…………. 40
19.
Formal Response to RSA Team Recommendations……………… ................41
xi
20.
Agency Reasons for Not Implementing RSA Team Recommendations…… .43
21.
Data Collection for Evaluation……………… ..............................…………. 44
xii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Definition
Road Safety Audits (RSAs) are formal safety examinations of an existing or future road
or project that interacts with road users, in which an independent, qualified
multidisciplinary team reports on crash potential and safety performance. With a
proactive nature, RSAs estimate and report on potential roadway safety issues for all
users and identify opportunities for improvements to eliminate or reduce problems.
Emphasis is placed on the implementation of road safety using preventive measures.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) Guidelines state that RSAs are not a replacement for design quality control,
traffic impact studies, safety conscious planning, or standard compliance checks. They
should not be used to evaluate design work, rank one project over another, or evaluate
crash data and crash patterns (Ward, 2006).
1.2 Problem Description
The toll from traffic crashes remains a major health and economic problem in the United
States, signifying the need for improving the safety of roads. Safety is often lumped into
a large category of design criteria and is sometimes overlooked given all of the
components (e.g. alignment, drainage, utilities), when it should be one of the major
focuses of roadway design. In order to have a reduction in crashes there must be
2
consideration when designing roadways to include crash prevention, which requires
safety checks and audits. RSAs are an effective supplemental tool, which can help
achieve higher levels of safety especially in cases where safety issues may otherwise be
overlooked.
RSAs are being implemented across the world within formal safety programs. In 1996,
FHWA became aware of the need to facilitate and integrate RSA concepts into
engineering practice, and it developed a document that included RSA guidelines and
checklists (Lipinski & Wilson, 2006).
Increased availability of guidelines, training, and documentation of RSA fundamentals,
has led to more states performing RSAs. In January 2011, there was a study done by
FHWA that determined at least half of the states in the U.S. were piloting or performing
RSAs, as shown in Figure 1 (Nabors et al., 2012). In addition, many of the states had
implemented standard RSA programs.
3
Figure 1: National RSA Activity in 2011
(Nabors et al., 2012)
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has developed a “Local Roadway
Safety Manual for California Local Road Owners” to assist local agencies in conducting
proactive safety analysis of roadway networks. The goal for developing this manual,
according to the manual itself (Local Roadway Safety Manual), “is to maximize the
safety benefits for local roadways by encouraging all local agencies to proactively
identify and analyze their safety issues and to position themselves to compete effectively
in future Caltrans’ statewide, data-driven call-for-projects” (Caltrans, 2013, p. 2). Within
this manual, Caltrans recommends RSAs be implemented and recommends following
FHWA guidelines; however, it has not been made a standard program for California.
4
There is little information on whether or not the different cities, counties, and towns in
California are implementing RSAs. In addition, if cities, counties, and towns are
implementing the audits, there is little information on the process and whether or not
FHWA guidelines are being followed. Without a standard program, the implementation
process and effectiveness of the individual programs throughout the state is unknown.
1.3 Purpose of Study
The primary goal of this project was to identify issues that California transportation
agencies were facing when conducting RSAs and to develop recommendations that
would help improve the process so that a standard program can be developed. The data
collection for this study included 448 county, city, and town transportation agencies in
California first to determine if RSAs were being implemented, then to what extent and
how effective were the RSAs. The product is a discussion, which includes the differences
in the agencies’ RSAs, the outcomes of conducting RSAs, and a recommendation for
future RSAs. With improvements to the RSA process, a standard could become better
integrated into California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), similar to what other
countries have done as discussed in Chapter 3 of this report.
5
Chapter 2
BACKGROUND
2.1 Road Safety Audit Implementation
Integration of RSAs into an agency’s road safety management plan requires involvement
from all levels of an organization. There must be management commitment to pilot the
RSAs and develop a formal RSA policy. Project managers must be informed and they
must continue to put individuals through training programs. The organization as a whole
must continuously monitor and refine their RSA policy to ensure the policy is successful
and providing effective safety benefits to their problem areas (Ward, 2006). The FHWA
Guidelines states, “RSA champions, who will devote energy to driving the RSA
implementation forward and who are empowered by management to do so, are critical to
getting a successful RSA program started” (Ward, 2006, p. 3).
Agencies can initiate the RSA process by conducting pilot projects. A pilot project is a
trial that will provide the ability to learn the process and test the logistics. Agencies do
not have the time, staff or money to conduct something that may have deficiencies, no
effectiveness, or that is not going to be cost-effective. The pilot projects would involve
professionals that would lead future RSAs and project managers who would incorporate
recommendations from the RSA report into an existing or future project. The agency
should designate an RSA coordinator that has an understanding of the RSA process and
road safety engineering.
6
With experience from the pilot projects, agencies can develop a formal RSA policy. As
FHWA guidelines states, “Key elements of a formal RSA policy include: Criteria for
selecting projects and existing roads; Procedures for conducting and documenting RSAs
and Response Reports; and Programs for providing RSA training” (Ward, 2006, p. 4).
Through training programs, RSA programs would have skilled auditors that are
knowledgeable about the implementation.
After an agency has developed a formal RSA policy, they need to keep monitoring and
refining it in order to get the most beneficial safety program. Management wants
effective low cost safety benefits, and if there are benefits and success, it should be
shared throughout the agency so that the RSA process continues.
2.2 Essential Elements of Road Safety Audits
An RSA has essential elements that make it different from any other safety review. As
Ward (2006) states in the FHWA Guidelines the essential elements are as follows:
1. The nature of the RSA implementation is proactive. Rather than performing a
safety review as a reaction to a problem, an RSA is conducted to prevent a safety
issue from occurring.
2. The nature of the RSA product is qualitative. The product identifies issues and
suggests preventive measures.
7
3. It has a formal examination that requires the audit team to follow a formal policy
set forth by the agency. It includes a formal review and report.
4. The RSA is conducted by a multi-disciplinary independent qualified team. The
team is made up of a variety of experience and expertise and they are independent
of the design team involved in the original design.
5. The RSA focuses on road safety issues and includes all road users. Lastly, field
reviews are always conducted and typically are done both day and night.
2.3 Conducting Road Safety Audits
The Road Safety Audit process has typical steps for agencies to follow. According to
Ward (2006) in the FHWA guidelines, the process takes eight steps:
Step 1: Identify project or existing road to be audited
Step 2: Select RSA Team
Step 3: Conduct a pre-audit meeting
Step 4: Conduct review of project data and perform field reviews
Step 5: Conduct audit analysis and prepare report of findings
Step 6: Present audit findings
Step 7: Prepare formal response
Step 8: Incorporate findings into the project when appropriate (Ward, 2006)
The eight steps are conducted by either the RSA team or the design team/ project owner;
they are illustrated in Figure 2 on the following page.
8
Figure 2: Typical RSA Process
(Nabors et al., 2012)
2.3.1
Step 1: Identify Project or Existing Road to be Audited
The first step in the RSA process requires the project owners to determine which road or
project is going to be audited, and when. There are multiple stages for transportation
facilities and an RSA can be conducted on any of them. In the United States, there are
four phases each with a varying number of stages. The four phases are pre-construction,
construction, post-construction, and development project. Pre-construction phase contains
three stages made up of planning, preliminary design, and detailed design. Construction
phase contains three stages made up of work zone stage, construction stage, and preopening stage. Post-construction phase contains one stage and that is existing roads;
roadways that have been opened. Lastly, development project phase contains one stage
and that is land use development (Ward, 2006). Land use development is the conversion
9
of land into construction ready, involving improvements to drainage, grading, or paving.
Figure 3 illustrates the grouping method of the phases and stages.
Figure 3: Road Safety Audits Grouped by Phase and Stage
(Ward, 2006)
The first phase, pre-construction, involves RSAs that are conducted before the
construction of a facility begins. Changes can easily be made with less of an impact to the
cost and schedule of the project. The second phase, construction, involves RSAs that are
conducted after the project design phase when construction either is about to begin, has
begun, or is recently completed. These RSAs typically ensure the construction zone and
final design are safe before opening to the public. The third phase, post-construction,
10
involves RSAs that are conducted on existing roads. This phase of an RSA is different
from the others, as its main objective is to identify road safety issues for all road users.
The fourth phase, development project, involves RSAs that are conducted on land
development projects such as industrial, commercial, or residential that can have an
impact on the adjacent roads.
According to FHWA Guidelines, it is important for the project owner to define the
parameters for the RSA once the roadway has been identified. The owner should include
a scope, schedule, tasks, and expectations (Ward, 2006).
2.3.2
Step 2: Select RSA Team
The second step in the RSA is selecting the multidisciplinary audit team, which is done
by the project owner. This team needs to be independent from the project owner and/ or
the design team. The members of this team must be qualified, knowledgeable about the
RSA process and road safety. The team should be made up of at least three individuals,
each having different expertise (design, traffic, maintenance, construction, safety, local
officials, police, first-responders) (Ward, 2006). With this team dynamic, the audit can be
more effective with identifying road safety issues.
2.3.3
Step 3: Conduct a Pre-Audit Meeting
The third step in the RSA involves both the project owner and the selected audit team. A
pre-audit meeting is held for the two entities so they can discuss scope and project
information. In this meeting, the topics discussed are the scope, project information,
11
schedule, tasks, expectations, and ways of communication. For the different RSA phases,
the project owner would need to give the RSA team specific information related to that
phase.
2.3.4
Step 4: Conduct Review of Project Data and Perform Field Review
The fourth step is for the audit team to conduct a review of the project data prior to going
out for a field review. The audit team would study the existing project information to get
an idea of what they might find in the field review. These preliminary project data
reviews are first done individually and then they are discussed as a team. Once a review
of material has been completed and the auditors are confident in their understanding of
the site, the field review is performed.
The field reviews can be done independently with a meeting to come together as a team
after or they can be done as a team from the beginning. During the field review, concerns
that were found in the review should be verified and photographs or video should be
taken for visual justification (Ward, 2006, p. 33). The audit team would identify the
safety issues to be further analyzed.
2.3.5
Step 5: Conduct Audit Analysis and Prepare Report of Findings
The audit team would continue from step four with identifying the safety issues to then
analyzing and finalizing their RSA findings in an RSA report. According to Ward in
FHWA Guidelines, the report should be concise and should be completed within a
relatively short amount of time (two weeks). The RSA report would be written to identify
12
the safety issues found on site along with the level of risk associated with it; and then a
recommendation to fix the safety issue would be presented. Recommendations should be
constructive, realistic, and appropriate for the project stage (Ward, 2006, p. 36). For
example Ward states:
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. Suggestions that
are more appropriate may be warning signs, rumble strips, or the removal of trees
to improve sight distance. Conversely, in a preliminary design RSA in the Preconstruction Phase, it would not be appropriate to suggest installing a guardrail
along a sharp curve. A more appropriate suggestion would be flattening the curve
itself.
These recommendations are going to be the most effective for the specific phase of the
project.
2.3.6
Step 6: Present Audit Findings
The sixth step is for the audit team to present the findings orally to the project owner/
design team. The audit team will not only discuss the safety concerns but also identify the
recommendations, which give opportunities for improving safety.
13
2.3.7
Step 7: Prepare a Formal Response
The seventh step is completed by the project owner, which involves a written response to
the RSA report findings. The written response is typically done in a letter report format;
and includes the project owner’s plan of action.
2.3.8
Step 8: Incorporate Findings Into the Project
The final step is for the project owner or design team to incorporate the RSA report
recommendations into the project, as they feel necessary and suitable.
14
Chapter 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 First Implementation of Road Safety Audits
According to FHWA’s Study Tour, RSAs were first introduced in the United Kingdom
(UK) by Malcolm Bulpitt in the 1980s (Trentacost, 1997). The Department of
Transportation’s report on the Evolution of Road Safety Audits states that the concept
evolved because they were experiencing high crash frequencies or severities on new
construction that could have been prevented if more safety-conscious designs were used.
“By 1991, the UK Department of Transport made RSAs mandatory for all national trunk
roads and freeways. National guidelines adopted in 1996 recommend that ideally all
projects should be subjected to a RSA if it is achievable, within available resources”
(Ward, 2006, p.65).
The Evolution of Road Safety Audits identified that by the early 1990s, RSAs were being
introduced in Australia and New Zealand. It noted that some individual states such as
Australia used their own policies to select projects for auditing, which seems to be the
trend in the United States. Through the 1990s, RSAs were introduced to other countries
such as Denmark, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and South
Africa. “In recent years RSAs have been actively implemented in the developing
countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Bangladesh, India, Mozambique and United Arab
Emirates. Presently, the World Bank and European Transport Safety Council are actively
promoting RSAs as part of national road safety programs” (Ward, 2006).
15
FHWA recognized the potential for RSAs to become an effective proactive tool in road
safety management systems in the U.S. A tour was sponsored by FHWA to Australia and
New Zealand in 1996 in order to gather information to develop U.S. specific guidelines.
The conclusion of this tour was that RSAs show significant promise in maximizing the
safety of roadway designs and operations and should be piloted in the U.S. A major step
towards implementation of RSAs in the U.S. was the FHWA RSA pilot program (Ward,
2006, p. 65):
Pennsylvania DOT developed a program to implement RSAs at the design stages
of projects. New York DOT developed a program to integrate RSAs into their
pavement overlay program. Iowa DOT developed a program to integrate RSAs
into their 3R projects (pavement rehabilitation, restoration and resurfacing). The
first application of RSAs to a mega-project in the US occurred in 2003, when
designs for the Marquette Interchange upgrade in Milwaukee, Wisconsin were
audited. RSAs for existing local roads are also being conducted by the
Metropolitan Planning Commissions of New Jersey and Vermont.
Experience from the pilot RSAs indicated that they have a proven positive road safety
effect and should be further integrated into road safety management systems.
3.2 Case Studies
There are multiple case studies performed in the United States that provide documented
information and results of surveys from state and local transportation agencies. The
16
following sections go into further detail of case studies in South Dakota conducted by
local agencies and along tribal roads conducted by different tribes and state agencies.
3.2.1
South Dakota
The South Dakota Case Study presented in this section is according to Local Rural Road
Safety Audit Guidelines and Case Studies (South Dakota Department of Transportation,
2010). The South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program (SDLTAP) in 2010
selected multiple RSA projects through the promotion and commitment of the local
agencies; there were eight case studies conducted. Each case study selected RSA team
members that would be useful based on the characteristics and location of the project.
The study included county roads, townships, intersections, and railroad crossings within
several counties.
County Road: Day County Route 1
Day County Route 1 (447th Avenue) was a major collector running from the southeast
corner of Waubay, South Dakota. The selected portion of the road was approximately 2
miles in length, beginning approximately 4 miles south of town. The pavement surface
and pavement markings were in good condition. The posted speed limit was 55 miles per
hour (mph). The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was estimated to be 400 + vehicles/day
with increasing traffic volumes. This road served local access traffic, agricultural traffic,
and recreational access.
17
At the time of the review, the audit team did not have access to crash data; however,
between 2006 and 2008 there were nine fatalities, six within the project review limits.
Safety was a growing concern due to the traffic speeds and limited sight distance.
After the RSA was conducted in April of 2009, the county commission passed a
resolution in June 2009 requesting funding assistance from the FHWA Highway Safety
Improvement Project (HSIP) to make construction and operational improvements. The
RSA and the final report were used as the primary supporting documents (Local Rural
Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Case Studies, 2010).
Intersections
The case study performed RSAs at two intersections in the City of Pierre. The first
intersection had a daycare facility at the corner of two major roads. The other intersection
of Church and Harrison had no sidewalk on the northeast corner of the intersection.
The purpose of the review for the first intersection was to address safety concerns related
to vehicles picking up and dropping off children. The other intersection of Church
Avenue and Harrison Avenue had been of interest because Harrison Avenue was
extended to be a through street to the north, serving a shopping mall and a residential
development, and a sidewalk was not installed; the potential for pedestrian conflicts had
grown.
With the RSA results, the City of Pierre redesigned the day care entrance and exit with
the main building access moved to the rear. For the Church and Harris intersection, the
18
City of Pierre added “yield to pedestrians in crosswalk” signs to all legs of the
intersection.
Railroad Crossings
The case study performed RSAs at two railroad crossings, the first had a potential for
crashes due to the skewed angle of the crossing. The second had a potential for vehicles
hitting the low-clearance structure. The railroad structure was over Pierre Street, which
was located between Sioux Avenue and Pleasant Street. The structure vertical clearance
was 11’3” (Local Rural Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Case Studies, 2010).
With the RSA results of the first location, Stanley County officials had placed Advanced
Warning Railroad Crossing signs. They were attempting to contact the railroad agency to
resolve tree trimming for improved sight distance. In addition, the 35 mph speed limit
was extended to reduce the speed before entering the curve that approaches the crossing.
For the second location, the City of Pierre intended to install low clearance detection
devices and warning system. Funding had been approved for the project.
There were many lessons learned with the performance of these case studies, which are
summarized as follows:
1. This project had increased awareness of local road and street safety in South
Dakota. When a highway superintendent or local manager is involved in the
review team, they gain experience and they return to their department with a new
perspective in analyzing traffic safety.
19
2. One of the key elements of RSA success is good preparation before performing
the audit. All of the information for the project site must be prepared and
discussed at the start up meeting.
3. Local governments in South Dakota are wary of the road safety audit process.
4. Some local officials are opposed to the term “audit” because it can have a
negative connotation in the minds of many people.
5. To overcome the reluctance to conduct formal RSAs, someone local that
understands the purposes and procedures of an RSA, and who is willing and able
to promote RSAs is needed.
6. It is good to have a diverse RSA team.
7. The team must understand functional classifications of local roads.
8. It is important to schedule an RSA field review during regular recurring traffic
conditions (Local Rural Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Case Studies, 2010, p.
24-25).
3.2.2
Tribal Road: Navajo Nation
The Tribal Road Case Study presented in this section is according to the Tribal Road
Safety Audits: Case Studies. The Navajo Nation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs studied
three segments of Highway N-12 and two intersections. Two of the segments were
located in rural areas and had a two-lane rural cross-section with paved shoulders. One
segment was located in an urbanized area with a five-lane cross-section with paved
shoulders or curb-and-gutter. The two intersections are signalized
20
Highway N-12 was a rural minor arterial, which provided access to the Navajo capital at
Window Rock, AZ. The RSA focused on the portion of N-12 north of Highway 264
between Window Rock and Fort Defiance, and two sites south of Highway 264.
Highway N-12 has an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) ranging between 14,000
and 24,000 vehicles used by residents of the Navajo Nation reservation and visitors, as
well as, residents to commercial establishments in Window Rock. The highway
accommodated a substantial truck volume. Speed limits along the segments of roadway
vary from 35 to 55 mph (Gibbs, Zein, & Nabors, 2008, p. A-6).
Seven years (1999 through 2005) of collision summaries along N-12 were reviewed as
part of the RSA. A total of 386 collisions were reported along N-12. Annual collision
frequency peaked in 2002 with 60 reported collisions, and declined each subsequent year
to a low of 21 reported collisions in 2005. Data collected showed peaks around 23/24
Post Mile (PM) and 28/29 PM in the Window Rock and Fort Defiance areas (Gibbs et al.,
2008, p. A-14).
The audit identified a number of safety issues and the RSA team rated their risk on a
scale of A (being the lowest risk and priority) to F (being the highest risk and priority).
Highlighted in the case study, were risks C and above, which were given
recommendations for change. Examples of a few of the highest safety risks were:
Signing and pavement marking issues, pedestrian design and maintenance issues, poor
pavement conditions, and access to residential areas interfering with operations at the N12 intersection. These safety issues were identified and possible mitigation measures
21
were suggested. Suggestions focused on measures that could be cost-effectively
implemented within budget (Gibbs et al., 2008, p. 8).
As discussed in the Tribal Studies Safety Audits: Case Studies, the tribal RSA case
studies helped to identify six key elements that can help make an RSA successful.
1. The RSA team must acquire a clear understanding of the project background and
constraints.
2. Recurring concerns identified in multiple triple RSAs may reflect safety issues
typical of tribal transportation environments.
3. The involvement of multiple road agencies in the design, operation, and
maintenance of roads on tribal lands can present a challenge, and can help
promote a successful RSA outcome.
4. The RSA team and design team need to work cooperatively to achieve a
successful RSA result.
5. Someone that understands the purposes and procedures of an RSA, and who is
willing and able to promote RSAs can greatly help to facilitate the establishment
of RSAs.
6. The RSA field review should be scheduled during regular recurring traffic
conditions.
The tribal RSA case study project was sponsored by the FHWA Office of Safety and was
well received by the participating tribal transportation agencies (Gibbs et al., 2008, p. 1721). The case studies summarized the results of each RSA to provide the tribal
22
governments with examples and advice to assist them in implementing RSAs in their own
jurisdictions.
These case studies are referenced in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 as they are consistent with
the results from the survey responses.
3.3 California Road Safety Audits
California local roads operate with outdated and/or insufficient safety features. According
to the Local Roadway Safety Manual, “Limited funding often prevents agencies from
constructing safety projects, which can be expected. At the same time, the lack of safety
data, design challenges, and lack of adequate training also hinders local agencies’
accurate evaluation of their roadway safety issues, which is more preventable” (Caltrans,
2013, p. 6). It is Caltrans’ responsibility to administer funding for local roadway safety
improvements. There are federal funding safety programs that are used at the state level,
such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and the High Risk Rural
Roads Program (HR3). These safety programs are now including Road Safety Audits as
an eligible project.
23
Chapter 4
DATA COLLECTION
4.1 Agency Survey
In order to collect information on RSA implementation within the different cities,
counties, and towns in California, a web-based survey was sent out to 448 county, city,
and town local contacts of the transportation and/or public works departments. The goal
was to obtain enough data to determine whether or not agencies in California were using
RSAs, and if they were, how effective the agencies themselves found them to be. Of the
448 agencies, there were all 57 counties and 391 cities/towns. The distribution across
California can be seen in Figure 4. A detailed contact list can be found in Appendix A:
Survey Contact Information.
24
* City Recipients
Figure 4: Recipient Distribution across California
The survey included two parts, A and B. Part A was intended for information on the
RSAs being implemented, and Part B was intended for recommendations for future
RSAs. With Part A, the necessary information on agency implementation was determined
and with Part B, there was agency input to help with the recommendations for
25
California’s standard program. The survey can be seen in Appendix B: Web-Based
Survey.
4.1.1
Part A
The beginning of the survey asked for the local agency’s identifying information so that
the different responses could be categorized by city, county, or town. Next, the survey
asked the agency if they were aware of what a RSA is. This question would eliminate
those agencies that were not aware of RSAs. The survey then identified if the agency had
been through training and what type of sources the agency had used to learn how to
conduct RSAs. This question helped to identify whether or not the agencies knew about
the FHWA process or if they were more likely using their own standards. Next, the
leading question to the main survey was whether the agency had conducted any RSAs. If
the agency had not, there was a question asking to explain why and then they were exited,
but if they had, the survey continued.
The main body of the survey included questions that asked the following:
1. What types of projects are included?
2. When are the RSAs conducted?
3. Who is in the RSA team conducting the RSAs?
4. What was used when conducting field reviews?
5. How long do the RSAs take?
6. Are recommendations made, and if so are they implemented?
7. How is the success of the RSA measured?
26
4.1.2
Part B
The second part of the survey included questions that were intended for agency opinions
that would identify key elements for conducting a successful RSA. The questions
included:
1. When is the most beneficial time for conducting RSAs?
2. What is the best organization for the RSA audit team?
3. What is the most useful information to collect from a field review?
The data from the survey responses were collected and analyzed for standard program
recommendations.
27
Chapter 5
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
5.1 Survey Respondents
The web-based survey was sent to 448 agencies, including all 57 counties and 391
cities/towns. The total number of respondents was 98 (22%). Of the 98 respondents, 68
agencies were aware of an RSA, of those, 33 conducted them (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Breakdown of RSA Survey
The 98 respondents provided a good representation of the various counties, cities, and
towns of California (Figure 6 and 7) and included both rural and urban areas (Figure 8).
28
Figure 6: Web-Based Survey Results
Figure 7: City/County/Town Representation
29
Figure 8: Respondent Area Classification
Urban areas are cities/ towns that have a dense population with development of houses,
buildings, roads, and bridges. An urban area can refer to towns, cities, and suburbs. In
contrast, rural areas are all areas outside of the urban areas with low population density
and with large amounts of undeveloped land. Figure 8 above represents more rural
respondents than urban, most likely because they represent 75% of the California areas.
30
Of the 98 agencies, 68 were aware of RSAs and 30 were not. When looking specifically
at the urban and rural classification of all respondents, the data shown in Figure 9 shows
that, there were a higher percentage of urban agencies aware of RSAs than those in the
rural areas.
Figure 9: Percentage of Agencies Aware of RSAs by Classification
Urban areas may be more aware of planning and transportation issues due to their dense
population requiring more attention from government programs that assist them with
handling the changes caused by population growth and the need for improvements and
increased development.
31
For those respondents who were not aware of RSAs, they were exited from the survey
with an information link http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/guidelines/. The link was included
so they had a resource with more information that would familiarize them with FHWA
guidelines for conducting RSAs.
The next question in the survey was to find out whether the 68 agencies had any sort of
training on how to conduct RSAs. Of the 68 respondents, only 7% of agencies went
through federal training FHWA; 42% had other training through printed materials,
videos, other agencies, consultants, webinars, and workshops (Figure 10).
Figure 10: Agency RSA Training
Of the 68 respondents that were aware of RSAs, 33 agencies were conducting RSAs. Of
these 33 respondents, 73% had some sort of RSA training. Figure 11 shows that there
were nearly as many urban agencies (56%) as rural agencies (53%) conducting RSAs.
32
Figure 11: Breakdown of Agencies Conducting RSAs by Area Classification
It is likely that urban agencies are conducting RSAs because of their knowledge and
training of the transportation programs and the effectiveness of RSAs and therefore they
use them. It is likely that rural agencies are conducting RSAs because rural roadways
tend to lack safety features. RSAs are an effective tool to identify safety issues. If there
was more awareness about RSAs in rural areas, the probability of conducting them would
most likely increase. There is a greater need in the rural areas because they make up a
greater percentage of the roadways in California.
33
Figure 12 shows that lack of funding was the main reason agencies are not conducting
RSAs. Secondly, a lack of personnel was a major factor, which is most likely related to
not having funding.
Figure 12: Reasons for Not Using RSAs
Until recently, there has not been an emphasis for RSA funding within the roadway
safety grants. Data has proven, through conducting RSAs, that RSAs are beneficial and
effective in identifying roadway safety issues. It is expected that the number of agencies
conducting RSAs will increase and the lack of funding will no longer be an issue. This
would be an area worth re-evaluating after a few grant cycles.
34
Few agencies stated there was a concern for liability and a lack of interest in the RSA
process. As found in the lessons learned from the case studies in South Dakota the
perception from some local officials was that they were opposed to the term “audit”
because it could have a negative connotation in the minds of the people in the agency.
Also, some of the local governments were wary of the road safety audit process in that it
points out the safety issues and could be potentially seen as a liability to them. In
opposition to these claims, the RSA process is implemented in order to reduce the safety
liability to the agencies and incorporate preventive measures. It is not performed to
highlight the faults in the agency roadways but rather to provide recommendations for
improvements.
5.2 Questions and Analysis of Agencies Conducting RSAs
Once the survey established those agencies that conducted RSAs, the survey questions
became more specific to define the effectiveness of the agency’s RSA process and
outcomes. What follows is an analysis of the data provided by those agencies that are
currently doing RSAs.
Question: How many RSAs has your agency conducted in the last three years?
Analysis: Those that had responded with zero in the last three years, the assumption is
that they responded based on an RSA conducted more than three years ago. The data
indicates that most agencies have conducted between one and five RSAs in the last three
years. Few agencies have conducted more than five RSAs in the last three years (Figure
13). The responses reflect a good range of experience in performing RSAs.
35
Figure 13: RSAs Conducted in the Last 3 Years
Question: What types of roadways/sites are included in the RSAs?
Analysis: The majority of agencies performed RSAs on two-lane highways, local roads,
and intersections. They performed RSAs on multi-lane highways slightly less (Figure
14).
It is likely that these agencies conducted RSAs on two-lane highways, local roads, and
intersections because they have more conflict points, multiple modes of transportation,
and higher incident of accidents. According to the FHWA Safety website, “Rural
collectors and local roads tend to lack features such as paved shoulders, clear zones, and
divided directions of travel. Rural roads tend to have higher average vehicle speeds,
36
partially due to low volumes” (FHWA). Intersections can be problematic locations
because they are complex and require a higher demand on a driver. The three facility
types are conveying the most safety needs and therefore agencies are performing RSAs to
identify the issues and prevent traffic accidents. Nevertheless, the chart shows a mix of
various kinds of facilities and not just focused on a single type e.g. intersections which
are often times the perception in some circles.
Figure 14: Roadway Types Included in RSAs
37
Question: When does your agency conduct RSA audits? Do you think it is beneficial to
conduct the RSA at a specific phase?
Analysis: The data showed that the majority of respondents are conducting RSAs during
the Pre-Construction phase, which includes Planning, Preliminary Design, and Detailed
Design. Many respondents have conducted RSAs in other phases; however, the majority
recommended conducting them in the Pre-Construction phase.
Figure 15: Time Frame for Conducting RSAs
It is best to conduct RSAs during the Pre-Construction phase because it is most beneficial
to implement the recommendations made by the audit team early in the design phase. It
38
will mitigate future changes for construction or for the constructed project, which both
can be costly.
Question: What expertise(s) are included in the Road Safety Audit team?
Analysis: The data showed that the agencies include traffic and public works
representatives most often; however there was a variety of expertise that were critical to
the team. Often times, the limitation of expertise resources is due to the lack of funding.
The public works and traffic expertise is usually existing staff that deal with
transportation related tasks.
Figure 16: RSA Team Composition
39
Questions: Did the Road Safety Audit team perform field reviews using pre-defined
checklists? For those that have, were they adequate? Please define the type of checklist
used and what data collection items are included.
Analysis: The majority of respondents did not use a pre-defined checklist. The
respondents did not include detailed information on whether or not they were adequate
nor did they provide information on the data collection items/ checklists; therefore an
analysis on field review checklists and data collection could not be made.
Figure 17: RSA Checklist Used by the Agencies
40
Question: What is the average time frame for completion of an RSA? Was the audit team
timely in their responses?
Analysis: The data showed that 96% of the audit teams performed RSAs timely. Most of
the RSAs were conducted within a 6 month time frame, which is important for allowing
time for identifying key issues. The short time frame enables issues to be addressed
before the design phase is started or completed, which is more efficient and more cost
effective.
Figure 18: Time Frame for RSA Field Review
41
Question: Once the field review is complete, is a report developed with
recommendations? If so, does your agency prepare a formal response to the audit
recommendation report?
Analysis: A majority of the RSA teams developed a report with recommendations. After
the report was submitted and reviewed by the agency, the data showed that 73% of the
agencies did not respond with a formal response to discuss their reaction to the
recommendations. A formal response is important because it defines the agency’s
response to the findings. It should include the next steps the agency plans to take.
Figure 19: Formal Response to RSA Team Recommendations
42
Question: Did your agency implement the recommendations made by the Road Safety
team? For the recommendations not implemented what was the primary reason(s)?
Analysis: The majority of respondents (16 or 59.3%) implemented some of the
recommendations; 37.0 percent (10) agencies implemented all the recommendations and
only 3.7 percent (1) agency did not implement any recommendations. The most
significant reasons for not implementing recommendations were due to lack of funding
(budget) or lack of economic feasibility (Figure 19). The lack of funding relates to the
initial reasons why agencies do not conduct RSAs, the agency does not have funds to
place recommendations from the RSA team.
For a lack of economic feasibility to occur, the recommendations have a benefit cost ratio
less than one; the benefit is less than the cost. RSA field reviews are intended to
recommend cost-effective measures to improve safety. If respondents say that
recommendations are not economically feasible, perhaps these audit teams need to focus
on cost effective countermeasures. There were only three agencies with FHWA training,
perhaps if more agencies adopted this training to learn the process it would help RSA
teams identify cost effective countermeasures.
43
Figure 20: Agency Reasons for Not Implementing RSA Team Recommendations
Questions: Does your agency do any post-audit evaluation on the effects of the
implemented recommendations? Do they collect data to show evidence that safety has
been improved at the study location? In the end, is there evidence that safety has been
improved?
Analysis: These questions were analyzed together due to their correlation. In order to
have evidence that safety had been improved there must be some kind of evaluation
either through data collection or site reviews. The data indicated that 88% (21) of the
respondents collected data.
44
Figure 21: Data Collection for Evaluation
Of the 21 respondents that collected data, 16 stated that there was evidence of improved
safety, and 5 had not yet implemented the recommendations. The fact that they collected
data and saw safety improvements implies that they were doing follow up or post audits,
which is important because in order to determine if RSAs were effective there must be an
evaluation to conclude whether or not the recommendations/ implementations improved
safety.
Question: How does your agency measure the success of the RSA?
Analysis: This question was intended for respondents to discuss whether or not the RSA
process was effective for the RSA team to improve safety. The respondents answered
45
instead with how they measured the success of the implemented recommendations. Some
of the measurements of success were as follows: monitoring collision history, comparing
collision rates with previous rates, and customer feedback. Some of the respondents
described that the success of the safety measures are intuitive. Although the respondents
did not directly answer if the RSA process was effective, the evidence of improved safety
from those using it was proof that it does have a positive effect.
46
Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Survey
To initiate the research on implementation and effectiveness of RSAs, 448 surveys were
sent out to California towns, cities, and counties. The total number of survey respondents
was 98 and of these respondents, 68 were aware of RSAs. Of the 68 agency respondents,
33 agencies actually conducted RSAs. The findings and conclusions are primarily based
on the 33 respondent agencies that conduct RSAs because the main goal was to identify
issues that California transportation agencies were facing when conducting RSAs and to
determine how effective the RSA process was. The respondents who were not aware of
RSAs or who do not conduct them were included in the initial data analysis to determine
the reasons.
6.2 Road Safety Audit Difficulties
Although some of the agencies were not aware of RSAs, their responses indicated the use
of some level of road safety assessments. The fact that these agencies conducted some
level of road safety assessments indicated that safety is an important issue to them. There
is FHWA education and training on the RSA process available, but there needs to be
more outreach to agencies especially to the rural areas. The data show there is less
awareness in these areas, which may be because urban area planning and transportation
issues garnish more political attention due to their dense population, high daily traffic
47
volumes and need for improvements for growing development. Rural areas make up a
greater percentage of the roadways in California and lack safety features, so they need to
be included in the government outreach for funding. An emphasis on outreach and
training from FHWA to provide awareness through education of the RSA process and its
effectiveness along with funding would demonstrate to the rural agencies that they are a
priority and would encourage implementation of a standard program.
For those agencies that were aware of RSAs, only 7% of the 68 respondents had FHWA’s
official training. California would benefit immensely if more outreach were done to
provide this training. Lack of standardized training could be a defining reason for why
many of the agencies do not conduct RSAs, or for those that do, why there is a lack of
implementation of the recommendations from the audit teams. If there is a lack of
knowledge of the process then many agencies are not going to implement a standard RSA
program and will not make it a priority within their agency. With appropriate training, the
agencies would learn that the RSA is an effective tool to improve roadway safety in a
cost-effective manner and promote proactive safety improvements.
Based on the 68 survey responses, 69% of the agencies stated they did not use RSAs
because of the lack of funding and lack of personnel. Many cities do not have the funds
for transportation related projects and in order for agencies to implement the RSAs there
needs to be a source of funding and personnel. Through FHWA, there are federal funding
safety programs that are used at the state level, such as the Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) and the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HR3). These safety programs
48
are now including Road Safety Audits as an eligible project. It is important that federal
and state government start to prioritize RSA funding because as the funding resource
grows so will the agency involvement.
6.3 Implementation of Road Safety Audits
The majority, or 76%, of agencies that were conducting RSAs were conducting them on
local roads, intersections, and two-lane highways. The phase for conducting was typically
done within the Pre-Construction phase. The agencies also stated that the PreConstruction phase is the most beneficial (more cost-effective) phase to conduct RSAs
because the recommendations made by the audit team can be implemented into the
design early. It will mitigate future changes to the design or future changes to the
constructed project, which both can be costly. The data showed that 96% of the audit
teams performed RSAs timely. Most, 76%, of the RSAs were conducted within a 6
month time frame, which is important for allowing time for identifying key issues. The
short time frame enables issues to be addressed before the design phase is started or
completed, which is more efficient and more cost effective.
When an audit team is developed, the expertise most often included was Public Works
and Traffic. For future audits, the majority of respondents felt additional expertise would
be beneficial to make the audit more effective, such as local officials. Local officials
should be used to make a better team especially considering the importance of local
knowledge in conducting RSAs. In fact, the South Dakota case studies found that the
RSA team must have a clear understanding of the project background and constraints and
49
functional classification of the local roads. It would be beneficial to have a local official
on the team because they have that background knowledge and can ensure that this
knowledge is provided to the team.
The most important part of the audit team structure is to have multiple disciplines to get a
broad perspective on safety for the project site. The issue gets back to a lack of funding.
Again, if funding were prioritized towards transportation safety this could help alleviate
the problem. Not only does the priority for funding need to be there but also the
commitment from management and an agency as a whole. As found in the FHWA
guidelines, “RSA champions, who will devote energy to driving the RSA implementation
forward and who are empowered by management to do so, are critical to getting a
successful RSA program started” (Ward, 2006, p. 3).
The majority of audit teams prepared a report with recommendations; however, 73% did
not always prepare a formal response. A formal response is important because it defines
the agency’s response to the findings. It should include the next steps the agency plans to
take. Respondents said that the recommendations were implemented but often times only
partially. The main reason for not implementing recommendations was budget. If the
audits are done in the Pre-Construction phase then these recommendations can be
incorporated into construction costs.
Some sort of data collection was reported by 67% of the respondents after the audit
teams’ recommendations have been implemented, so they do some sort of post audit
evaluation for evidence of safety improvements. The RSA is a cyclical process, in that,
50
when you implement the safety elements it is important to measure and evaluate the
success of the implementation. The measurement of success is typically confirmed by
post audit data collection and re-evaluation.
6.4 Primary Issues
The most prominent issues that were identified from this study were the lack of
standardization of the RSA process, federal training, and funding. All of these issues are
a critical part of the project findings that are a priority in the recommendations of this
project. In order to make the RSA process successful and effective for more agencies, it
would be beneficial to incorporate a standard practice. A standard practice for conducting
RSAs would increase productivity because it would reduce the learning curve. When
there are no standards, there is a greater chance for inconsistencies and errors. In
addition, it makes it difficult for establishing or providing training.
After an agency has developed a formal RSA policy, they need to keep monitoring and
refining it in order to get the most beneficial safety program. Management wants
effective low cost safety benefits and so if there are benefits and success, it should be
shared throughout the agency so that the RSA process continues.
With a standard practice there must be training to those who will be involved with the
implementation within the agency and training for those who will be conducting the
RSAs. With proper training, an effective RSA will be performed and cost-effective
measures will be implemented.
51
Funding is a leading concern for these agencies. If there was more funding available and
RSAs were a greater priority there would likely be more involvement. From the survey
result, those agencies conducting RSAs stated they find them effective. Of the 33
respondents conducting RSAs, 21 respondents collected data. Of these 21 agency
respondents, there were 16 agencies that stated there was evidence of improved safety
and five agencies that had not yet implemented the recommendations. Of those that
collected data after implementing the recommendations, 100% stated that there was
evidence of improved safety. The fact that the agencies that are collecting data are seeing
safety improvements implies that the RSA process is effective. RSAs are an effective
supplemental tool, which can help achieve higher levels of safety especially in cases
where it would otherwise be overlooked. If funding was available for implementing
RSAs, there would be more participation, training, and implementation. Most
importantly there would be safer roads.
6.5 Recommendations
Based on this work the following recommendations are made.
1. Agencies should follow the FHWA Guidelines in order to gain an understanding
on the definition of a formal Road Safety Audit and the process.
2. Conduct RSAs during the Pre-Construction: Planning phase for the most benefit
(cost-effectiveness).
52
3. Incorporate pre-defined checklists for a basis of information that will give
guidance and reduce the possibility for missing critical items.
4. Perform post audit evaluations to measure and evaluate the success of the
implementation.
5. FHWA should organize and facilitate more standardized training sessions
throughout the nation for all agencies to attend. Not only should training include
the process, but also the benefits of these safety audits over other methodologies.
6. FHWA should provide incentives so that the agencies will use their standards to
conduct Road Safety Audits.
7. FHWA should collaborate with those agencies that use a different process for
conducting RSA to determine if they have components that may be worth
adopting in the FHWA guidelines.
53
Appendix A: Survey Contact Information
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Appendix B: Web-Based Survey
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Appendix C: Web-Based Survey Results
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
References
California County Public Works Directors. (n.d.). County Engineers Association of
California. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from http://www.ceaccounties.org/
FHWA. Implementing the High Risk Rural Roads Program. (n.d.). FHWA Safety.
Retrieved February 1, 2014 from
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa10012/chap_2.cfm
FHWA. Road Safety Audits (RSA). (n.d.). FHWA Safety. Retrieved November 21, 2013,
from http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/benefits/
Gibbs, M., Zein, S., & Nabors, D. (2008, September 1). Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case
Studies . FHWA Safety. Retrieved November 21, 2 013, from
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/tribal_rsa_studies/tribal_rsa_studies.pdf
Grosskopf, S., Labuschagne, F., & Moyana, H. (n.d.). Road Safety Audits: The Way
Forward. CSIR Research Space. Retrieved November 13, 1921, from
http://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/bitstream/10204/4380/1/Grosskopf_2010.pdf
Lipinski, M., & Wilson, E. (2006, January 1). Road Safety Audits in the United States:
State of Practice. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Retrieved November 21,
2013, from http://www.ite.org/Membersonly/annualmeeting/2005/AB05H0801.pdf
77
Nabors, D., Gross, F., Moriarty, K., Sawyer, M., & Lyon, C. (2012, October 1). RSA
Case Studies. Road Safety Audits: An Evaluation of RSA Programs and Projects.
Retrieved November 21, 2013, from
http://www.vhb.com/508/RSACaseStudies/index.htm
Public Works Officers Directory. (2013, January 1). League of California Cities.
Retrieved November 21, 2013, from http://www.cacities.org/
Road Safety Audits. (n.d.). National Indian Justice Center. Retrieved November 21,
2013, from
http://www.nijc.org/pdfs/Road%20Safety%20Audit%20Training/Introduction%20to
%20Road%20Safety%20Audits%20-%20197%20pages.pdf
Road Safety Audits: An Emerging and Effective Tool for Improved Safety. (2004, April
1). Institute of Transportation Engineers. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from
http://www.ite.org/technical/IntersectionSafety/RSA.pdf
South Dakota Department of Transportation. Local Rural Road Safety Audit Guidelines
and Case Studies. (2010, June 1). Local and Tribal Technical Assistance Program
Website. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from
http://www.ltap.org/conference/2010/downloads/2010_SDPoster.pdf
Trentacost, M. (1997, October 1). Part 1. FHWA Study Tour for Road Safety Audits.
Retrieved November 21, 2013, from http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/rpt7-pt1.html
78
Ward, L. (2006, January 1). FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines. FHWA Road Safety
Audit Guidelines. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/guidelines/