Key Message: A good road design is one that can anticipate and accommodate common driver errors. This concept is not new – since the 1960’s, the concept of the “forgiving roadside” has been prevalent, and has led to the widespread use of crash attenuators, slip-base or frangible poles, etc. The road safety audit simply applies this concept of a road design that accommodates driver error to the entire project, on the basis that it is easier to design and build safer roads than to modify or improve driver behavior. This is especially the case as the driving population ages, since older drivers need enhanced guidance and are more prone to making errors of judgment. Background Information: N/A Interactivity: N/A Notes:
Key Message: The Venn diagram shows that about 28% of collisions are attributed (entirely or in part) to the road environment. Most collisions are attributed (entirely or in part) to human error, such as failure to observe traffic signals, misjudging gaps in crossing traffic, or failure to see a pedestrian. Background Information: N/A Interactivity: N/A Notes:
Key Message: RSAs may be conducted during the design stage or after a facility is in service. In a design stage audit, it is possible to make structural changes on paper instead of in concrete. Conducting the RSA prior to opening a facility optimizes the potential for crash and conflict prevention. In-service RSAs occur after the facility is open to traffic. While it may be more difficult to make major geometric changes when compared to a design stage audit, there are often several opportunities for low-cost safety improvements. Tom Welch (Iowa DOT State Safety Engineer) indicated that Iowa has implemented RSAs on proposed resurfacing projects and they now see the sustained benefits with staff consistently looking for and implementing numerous low cost safety improvements on Iowa’s roads. Background Information: This information and slide were borrowed from the NHI RSA Course Interactivity: N/A Notes:
Key Message: It is important to include members on the RSA team who are independent from the owner and design team. Independence ensures a fresh set of eyes and an unbiased assessment. Creating a multi-disciplinary team ensures that the problem will be viewed from multiple perspectives and draws upon expertise from several disciplines. Core skills/backgrounds that should be represented on the RSA team include: Safety, Geometric Design, Operations, and Enforcement. Other skills that may be desired include: Human Factors, Maintenance, and Specialists (ADA, pedestrians, bicyclists). Local law enforcement should be included in the RSA process whenever possible because they can provide firsthand knowledge of many safety issues. Background Information: This information and slide were borrowed from the NHI RSA Course Interactivity: N/A Notes:
Insert photos SAFETAP The NYSDOT’s Safety Appurtenance Program, based on a Road Safety Audit approach, is designed to ensure that roadside safety considerations are incorporated in all locations scheduled for simple pavement preventive maintenance annually. Regional teams from Operations, Maintenance and Design conduct reviews to determine simple, low cost safety improvements to be implemented during or after construction. Over 1,000 miles are audited annually. MPO Safety Assessment Guidelines The MPO’s Road Safety Assessment guidance tool was developed to provide guidance for evaluating safety conditions on local roads within small, medium and large urban environments. The guidance, based on road safety audit principles, outlines a process to help planners and engineers evaluate specific location performance problems through identification of planning, multimodal, engineering, enforcement, and education solutions at any location on the local transportation system. Training Initiatives The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), NYSDOT, and the MPOs have given priority to providing numerous training and workshop sessions in Designing Streets for Pedestrian Safety, Road Safety Assessments (Audits), Safe Routes to School and Walkable Communities to state and local government engineers and officials, enforcement organizations and other safety stakeholders to advance the incorporation of safety elements for all users into the roadway environment.
A typical agenda for a start-up meeting is shown. The elements include: Introductions: All persons present should introduce themselves and explain their connection with the project. For example, in a pre-construction audit, members of the project team should identify their role in the project, such as project manager or drainage engineer. The remaining items on the agenda are discussed in the next few slides.
We will discuss field reviews and site visit procedures in detail later in this presentation. For now, we will just give an overview of field reviews. Field reviews should be conducted for both pre-construction and post-construction RSAs. Field reviews for pre-construction RSAs are conducted to observe the ambient conditions in which the new facility will operate. Field reviews for post-construction RSAs are conducted to observe conditions “on the ground” that create safety hazards. In both cases, the audit team should perform a preliminary review of the drawings (pre-construction RSA) or collision history (post-construction RSA) before attending the site, so that they have an understanding of potential issues. Observe road user characteristics: For example, what are typical speeds? What is the typical traffic mix, including heavy vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists? Does traffic tend to queue at certain times of the day or in certain lanes? Observe surrounding land uses: What are the existing developments contributing traffic to the audit site? Are there any driveways that might affect the planned roadway? Are any pedestrian generators such as transit facilities or schools nearby? What are the typical traffic patterns associated with the adjacent land uses (for example, weekend traffic near a home improvement store)? Observe link points to the adjacent transportation network: For example, are there at-grade railway crossings in the vicinity of the audit site that could delay traffic? Are interchange ramps close to the site?
June 5-6, 2012
There is no substitute for getting out of the car and walking the audit site, especially if traffic at the audit site includes (or will include) pedestrians. The audit team can more closely observe roadside and pavement conditions, as well as pedestrians’ perspective. Time spent walking around or observing the audit site also gives greater insight into driver and pedestrian behavior, although the presence of the audit team may influence this behavior. June 5-6, 2012
Accompanying text: June 5-6, 2012
This slide gives an overview of how the audit is conducted. RSA analyses will be discussed in greater detail later in this presentation. workshop setting: The RSA is usually conducted in one or two workshop sessions. All team members attend and review the drawings together. A photo of an audit, showing the workshop setting, is shown. review background reports and design criteria: Before reviewing the drawings, any background reports (project reports, justification reports, IHSDM analysis reports, etc.) are reviewed. For pre-construction RSAs, it is particularly important to review the design criteria for the project, since these criteria specify the standard to which the roadway is designed. systematically review design drawings and/or other information: For pre-construction RSAs , the drawings should be reviewed systematically, examining design features such as road geometry, sight distances, clear zones, drainage, barriers, etc. Fewer of these elements will be available at early-stage pre-construction RSAs. A checklist may be useful for this review. For post-construction RSAs , design drawings will generally not be available. Instead, information such as collision history, signal timing plans, and turning movement counts will be available and should be reviewed along with field-review findings. identify, prioritize, and mitigate safety issues: This is the main focus of the RSA process. From the review of the drawings and other information, safety issues are identified. Safety issues are associated with project features that may contribute to a higher frequency and/or severity of crashes. Safety issues are then prioritized. For each safety concern, a list of possible ways to mitigate the increased crash potential may be generated. These steps (identifying, prioritizing, and mitigating safety issues) are discussed in the next section on “Understanding Risk and Safety”.
June 5-6, 2012
At the end of the RSA workshop, a preliminary findings meeting may be held. Presenting the preliminary findings in a meeting gives the project owner and project team the opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification on the RSA findings, and also provides a useful forum for the project owner and project team to suggest additional mitigation measures in conjunction with the RSA team. The same parties who attended the pre-audit meeting usually attend the preliminary findings meeting: the owner, the design team, and the RSA team. While the pre-RSA meeting focused on each party presenting their information, the preliminary findings meeting can be more of a round-table discussion. Typically, the RSA team goes through the safety issues that have been identified in the course of the audit. For each safety issue, the RSA team can identify possible solutions or suggestions that can address the safety issue. The design team and owner can use the RSA team’s suggestions as a springboard for identifying other measures that may be more feasible, or explain why RSA team’s suggestions may be infeasible. However, this meeting is not an opportunity for the design team to try to persuade the audit team to delete any of their concerns. If the audit team has a safety concern, it should be documented in the RSA report; the design team may refute it in their formal response letter. It is important to maintain a positive and constructive atmosphere of cooperation, and encourage the sharing of knowledge and perspectives on the project being audited. The discussion provides useful information that can subsequently be used to write the RSA report.
Key Message: The audit team issues a final report documenting the results of the RSA. The main contents of the RSA report are: A prioritized listing of the safety issues identified (illustrated with drawings or photographs where possible). Suggestions for improvements. The organization of the RSA report, and examples of RSA reports, will be discussed later in the course. Background Information: N/A Interactivity: N/A Notes:
Key Message: In this sample page from a road safety audit report, a safety issue is identified in a single sentence at the top of the page. A description of the safety issue follows, describing the nature of the safety concern and how it may contribute to collisions. A figure is used to illustrate the safety issue. Prioritization of the safety issue may follow, using methods described later in this session. Suggestions for how the issue can be addressed may follow. Background Information: N/A Interactivity: N/A Notes:
Key Message: The response letter is prepared by the local road agency, which typically reviews the audit items and suggestions, and drafts the response letter. In the case of a pre-construction (design stage) audit, the designer will likely provide input as well. Most response letters are brief and in bullet format. The response letter identifies what (if any) action will be taken in response to the RSA findings, and the reasoning or explanation for these decisions. Reasons for not taking action are frequently based on limited funds, reflecting the generally-recognized reality that agencies have multiple responsibilities and limited resources. An example of adequate and inadequate responses is shown in the following slide. Along with the RSA report, the response letter becomes part of the project record. Background Information: N/A Interactivity: N/A Notes:
Introducing RSAs: Piloting RSA projects – conducting one or more projects with in-house personnel that are guided by individuals experienced in the process. Developing a formal RSA policy/process – use the experience from the pilot projects to develop an RSA policy/process suited to the local conditions; establish criteria for site selection, procedures for conducting and documenting field reviews, and opportunities for additional training. Monitoring/refinement, and promotion of the RSA policy/process – periodically review the current policy/process to ensure the desired level of success is being achieved and modify as necessary to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Key Message: Background Information: N/A Interactivity: N/A Notes:
Update Town brochure and Town website to Duck Trail: Correct walking and biking practices. Map showing transitions along NC 12. Practices on sharing the shoulder between pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
Rsa workshop overview
Overview of Road SafetyOverview of Road SafetyAudit ProcessAudit Process
Road Safety Audit Process Learning Objectives:– Participants should be able to define an RSAand list the various project phases at which anRSA may be conducted.– Participants should be able to explain theeight-step RSA process, including the taskscompleted during each step and potentialchallenges to conducting pedestrian RSAs.– Participants should be able to explain basicelements for establishing an RSA program.
What is a Road SafetyAssessment/Audit (RSA)?A formal safety performance evaluation of anexisting or future road or intersection by anindependent, multidisciplinary team.
An RSA is a tool that: Reviews observed and potentialsafety issues to reduce risk Considers all environmentalconditions Considers all road usersWhat is a Road Safety Audit?
Why are Road Safety AuditsNeeded? Not all road-related safety issues areidentified in collision reports. Road designs need to anticipate andaccommodate common errors.
Why are Road Safety AuditsNeeded?RoadEnvironmentFactors (28%)VehicleFactors (8%)HumanFactors (95%)4%24% 67%4%4%TYPICALREPORTEDCRASHCAUSES
When to Conduct RSAsDesign stageRegional &CorridorPlanningStudiesExisting FacilitiesWork Zones
Who to Include in RSAsIndependence = A fresh, unbiased assessmentMultidisciplinary = Multiple perspectives, expertiseCore Team = Safety, Design, Operations, EnforcementSpecial: ADA, Pedestrian, Bicycle, Human Factors
Step 1: Identify RSA Project• High-collision sites• High-profile (political orpublic interest)• Sites at which trafficcharacteristics havechanged• Unusual or new features• Many interacting modes• Context-sensitive design• Seasonal changes in traffic Temporary use Atypical vehicle mix User skill ortraining Areas ofopportunity
Step 1: Identify RSA ProjectL o c a t io n : T h a t W a y a t K a th y L a n eT o w n o f A n y to w n , N YD a te : 9 / 3 0 / 0 1In v e s tig a to r: C h ip S e a lsR o a d w a y M a in t e n a n c e F o r e m a nS c a le : N o t to S c a le3 x 5 b o x w /h e a d w a lls , 0 4 1 2 " - P O L E # 3 6A P P R O X .N O R T HK a th y L a n e1 6 " w id e , C L = 3 6 7 3 8 0 T h r e e1 5 " P in e s3 3 0 A p p ro x . P T3 3 5 P O L E # 3 53 3 0 2 4 0 2 2 8 - 1 8 " d ia . o a k2 2 5 - P O L E # 3 42 0 8 - B r id g e r a il e n d s1 8 0 - A p p ro x . P C1 4 5 - B r id g e J o in t1 1 0 - B rid g e J o in t1 6 5 - P O L E # 3 3 A6 2 - A p p r o x . P T4 9 - P O L E # 3 25 0 - B r id g e R a il s ta r ts(2 ) 1 1 a s p h a lt la n e s , 2 + /- g ra v e l s h o u ld e r s1 8 " d ia . o a kK e y :U tility P o leS ig nE v e r g re e n T re eB ro a d le a f T r e eP o in t o f C u rv a tu reP o in t o f T a n g e n c yP CP T
Step 3: Conduct Start-up MeetingAgenda Introductions Project objectives Project design RSA process Schedule Exchange ofinformationRSA AgendaDay 1 Date9.00 – 9.30 AM Introduction to RSA process9.30 – 10.00 AM Project objectives/background10.00 – 12.00 PM Initial site visit by car12.00 – 1.00 PM Lunch1.00 – 5.00 PM Detailed site review5.00 – 6.30 PM Peak hour review6.30 – 8.30 PM Dinner8.30 – 9.30 PM Nighttime site reviewDay 2 Date7.30 – 9.30 AM Continue detailed site review10.00 – 12.00 PM Individual assignments12.00 – 1.00 PM Lunch1.00 – 3.00 PM RSA team develops workshop summary/3.30 – 4.30 PM Preliminary findings meeting___ General meeting – all need to attend especially “roadway owners” i.e.,persons responsible for development of plans and/or facility owner___ RSA team activity – all who are interested in participating in the site visitsand developing suggestions (excluding roadway owners)___ Optional RSA team activity – FHWA anticipates doing this work on theirown, but welcomes all who are interested in participating
7. Response Letter Prepared by the localroad agency (withpossible input fromdesigner) For each audit issue,identifies what actionwill (or will not) be takenwith a brief explanation Part of the projectrecord
8. Incorporate Findings Incorporate findings based on ranking andfeasibility Some improvements can be implementedrelatively quickly– Short-Term– Intermediate– Long-Term
Education Strategies Local press conferences Information on hazards and best practices Giveaways
Public Engagement Community meetings Solicit input beforeconducting RSA Present findings and finalrecommendations at theend of the RSA
Establishing an RSA ProgramIntroducing RSAs:1.Piloting RSA projects2.Developing a formal RSA policy/process3.Monitoring/refinement, and promotionof the RSA policy/process
– Visit the FHWA RSA website(http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa)– Contact a FHWA office, LTAP orTTAP, or State/local DOT– Utilize the RSA Peer-to-PeerProgram (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/resources/p2p/)– Subscribe to safety-relatednewsletters, such as the RoadSafety Audit (RSA) Newsletter(http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/newsletter)– Subscribe to relevant listservs– Attend a safety conference whenheld in your stateWhere can I find support?
Pedestrian andPedestrian andBicycle RSAsBicycle RSAsPedestrian and Bicycle RSAPedestrian and Bicycle RSAGuidelines and Prompt ListsGuidelines and Prompt Lists
Case Study Town of Duck, North Carolina– Two lanes with continuous two-wayleft-turn lane– Speed limit 25 mph– Shared-use shoulder throughdowntown commercial area
Crash Trends Eight (8) of 10 incidents involved bicyclestraveling southbound against flow ofvehicular traffic. Most vehicular crashes were rear endcrashes. Several rear end crashes were caused bydrivers stopping to allowpedestrians/bicyclists to cross the road. Two (2) pedestrian crashes involvedpedestrians walking along the road.
Conflicts Associated with Use of ShoulderDescription: Shared use of shoulder createsconflicts.Suggestions:•Short-term signage to encourage proper use of facilities.•Consider allowing bicycles on boardwalk duringrestricted periods.•Explore opportunities to create improved cross sectionthrough downtown.Short-term Intermediate Long-term
Direction of Travel for Pedestrians & CyclistsDescription: High number ofcyclists observed to travel againsttraffic in shoulders; pedestrianstraveling with traffic.Suggestions:– Update Town brochure andTown website to Duck Trail.– Maintain bike lanes.– Install wayfinding signs attransition points to/from DuckTrail.– Replace “◊” pavementmarkings.– Realign northern andsouthern transition points.Short-term Intermediate Long-term