Greg Speier Jaime Campos€¦ · In preparing this article the authors considered national Road...

Greg Speier and Jaime Campos Road Safety Audits – A Promise Unfulfilled

Greg Speier Jaime Campos Civil Engineer, Highway Safety Specialist Civil Engineer Santiago, Chile Santiago, Chile [email protected] [email protected]

Road Safety Audits/Inspections – A promise unfulfilled When the techniques and procedures of Road Safety Audits and Road Safety Inspections were first introduced in the United Kingdom and subsequently in Australia and New Zealand towards the end of the last century, many saw these as a potential tool of great promise, one that would be a tremendous aid in improving the safety of roads in developing countries. Today, more than twenty years later, that promise is still not fulfilled.

In preparing this article the authors considered national Road Safety Audit (RSA) and Road Safety Inspection (RSI) standards and other related materials from 17 countries in addition to information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the International Road Federation, The World Road Association (PIARC) and various multi-lateral lending institutions. The author also drew from his personal experience in conducting Audits, Inspections and Training throughout South and Central America and Mexico.

This paper considers these techniques and procedures and lists some of the reasons they may have not been more widely implemented. It provides recommendations to overcome these reasons. The report is structured in the following sections:

• Section 1, Terminology, defines the terminology as used in this paper. • Section 2, RSAs and RSIs, provides a brief clarification of these techniques and

methodologies. • Section 3 lists eleven (11) reasons why some resist implementation (there may be

others), • Section 4 considers training needs, • Section 5 briefly relates crash data with RSAs and RSIs, • Section 6 considers risk evaluation and, • Section 7 takes a quick look at cost-benefit.

A total of 16 recommendations are interspersed in the paper and it is hoped that these will help overcome the resistance and difficulties presently encountered when attempting to implement RSAs and RSIs. These recommendations should be understood and stressed by all that are working to convince governments and others to make RSA and RSI a permanent part of the road safety actions and road safety programs.


1. TERMINOLOGY

• OWNER - Road authority, highway department, road concessionaire or similar • ROAD SAFETY AUDIT (RSA) - A formalized systematic process to identify safety

concerns of a design project that is likely to result in a crash • ROAD SAFETY INSPECTION (RSI) - A process to identify safety concerns of an existing

road • AUDIT TEAM – Qualified and independent team that conducts an RSA • INSPECTION TEAM - Team that conducts an RSI • DESIGN TEAM - Team providing design services to an owner • OPERATIONS STAFF - Responsible for operations and/or maintenance of a roadway • BRIEF - Information provided to the Audit or Inspection Team during an RSA/RSI • COUNTERMEASURES - Actions to enhance safety also referred to as REMEDIAL

ACTIONS • ROAD - A road or highway or other transportation facility to which the RSA or RSI is

applied • ROADWAY USER – pedestrian, bicyclists, vulnerable users, encumbered users,

motorists, autos, trucks, buses and other street running transit, etc. • CHECKLIST or PROMT LIST – Assist the audit team in considering relevant issues. • TERMS OF REFERENCE (ToR) – A document that describes the scope and limitations

of services.

2. ROAD SAFETY AUDITs and ROAD SAFETY INSPECTIONs

There is general agreement in the available literature that both a RSA and a RSI:

1. Are formal examinations 2. Are conducted by an independent team of qualified personnel (Road engineers,

human factors specialists, crash analysts etc.) 3. Are performed to identify road safety concerns and to propose conceptual

countermeasures 4. Require a formal final response by the owner.

For Austroads, a RSA is a formal examination of a future road or traffic project or an existing road, in which an independent, qualified team reports on the project’s crash potential and safety performance.1 The term RSA is used for both existing and future facilities.

For the African Development Bank, a RSA is a formal procedure for independently assessing and modifying new roads or highway improvement schemes. A RSA systematically identifies safety issues, and provides conceptual recommendations for how the design can be improved to remediate (Mitigate) against those issues.2

Some entities define a RSI as a preventive tool for detecting safety issues, consisting of a regular, systematic, on-site inspection of existing roads or in some cases covering an entire road network. These are carried out by teams of trained safety experts. Road hazards and safety 1 Road Safety audit, AUSTROADS, Second Edition, 2002 and 2009. 2 New Roads and Schemes: Road Safety Audit, African Development Bank Group, July 2014


issues detected during this activity are described in a written report, for which a formal response by the relevant road authority is required.3

Thus, a distinction is made in the literature and in this article by using the term RSA for new projects and the RSI for existing roads. Other terms such as road safety review will not be used so as to avoid confusion.

A RSA can be beneficial at or near completion of the following stages:

• Planning Stage • Preliminary Design Stage • Detailed Design Stage • Construction Stage • Additionally, some entities will conduct a RSA from 1 to 5 years after completion of

construction.

The road owner, road authority, highway department, concessionaire or similar will be referred to in the text of this paper as the OWNER.

For the purposes of this paper, RSAs are design related and consider a specific design or scheme by a specific design team. The process encompasses selecting an audit team, providing that team with essential information in the form of an Audit Brief which includes pertinent background and design information, conducting the audit and preparing the audit report. Once the audit report is finalized, the design team will normally propose remedial actions or countermeasures to the owner who in turn may agree, may propose other actions, may choose to delay implementation of the actions or may simply decide to not make the changes. See Figure 1 – Basic Flowchart for Road Safety Audits.

3 Road Safety Inspection: Best practice and Implementation Plan, Ripcord-iSerest, December 2007


RSIs consider existing roadways, networks or transportation facilities that were probably designed by a number of design teams and which may have been modified over time. These roads may be managed by an Operations or Maintenance Team and the Brief may include RSA´s done previously, as-built drawings, crash and collision history and a list of operational problems if these are available. See Figure 2 – Basic Flowchart for Road Safety Inspections.


The key elements to a successful RSA or RSI are a comprehensive Audit or Inspection Brief prepared by the owner and design team or operations staff who fully understand the purpose of the audit or inspection and who are prepared to act accordingly on the recommendations. In summary, a RSA OR A RSI is an evaluation of how a future or existing road´s infrastructure (as assessed during examination of the design plans and/or observed during the audit or inspection) will interact physically and visually with each and every road user, without consideration of the user´s compliance or non-compliance with the laws and regulations that may apply, and the safety concerns that may be generated by that interaction.

RSAs and RSIs should always consider all roadway users: pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians, motorists, people carrying loads or pushing carts, people with reduced mobility, ALL USERS. The audit or inspection should consider the way that these users actually use the roadway including situations when they do not comply with regulations and laws such as exceeding the speed limit, ignoring traffic signals both as motorist or pedestrian, etc. Success in an audit can be assisted by the auditors or inspectors looking at the design or the road from the perspective of each different road user group.


Although a lot of the work of a RSA will be done in the office, in most cases a RSA will require the audit team to look at existing roads, terrain, land use, and to see how users actually use the existing infrastructure. All of this to better understand the potential risks involved in the future facility. Pre-opening, work zones, post construction audits will require day and night audits. It will often be beneficial to audit during peak and off-peak conditions in some cases.

3. Reasons why RSA/RSIs are not more universally employed

a. The term AUDIT may have negative connotations

The term “Audit” is often associated with a check of financial transactions, money laundering or similar illegal actions. The term “audit may be seen by some with falsification of information and/or corruption. As such, the term may conjure to some a false impression as to what a RSA is all about and some administrators may thus be hesitant to use the technology.

Recommendation 1 Accordingly, it is essential to include a clear statement when proposing the use of this technique as to its objective of enhancing road safety by reducing the number and/or severity of road crashes. This must be clear in the ToR soliciting audits and in the contract with the audit team. Further, this central objective must be clearly stated in every report and in the Formal Final Response issued by the Owner.

b. Uncertainty as to the appropriateness and function of the Checklist

The use of checklists is required by virtually every manual or guide and these must be used for both RSAs and RSIs to ensure a reasonably complete and systematic coverage of possible safety concerns. Audit and inspection teams should also identify concerns that are not covered by the checklists. No checklist will cover every possible concern.

These lists should be prepared by experienced auditors whom may consider checklists prepared by other experienced auditors. Care should be taken when using checklists which have been published in the various guides and manuals commented at the beginning of the article as some of these may not have the proper focus. Unfortunately, many checklists focus on compliance with standards and these types of lists should not be used.

Even the most veteran auditor will ofttimes need these aids to memory which will also help to organize the audit review and report. The checklists are a tool and as such completed checklists are normally not turned into the owner after completing an audit or inspection. However, in selecting an audit or inspection team, it may be very beneficial to evaluate the check list the team proposes to use to evaluate the project or road segment. Should the need arise, the owner may add additional items to the checklist proposed by the audit inspection team

Check lists will often need to be modified to reflect local and regional social-cultural considerations. Many audit/inspection teams will conduct the audit and then carefully review the checklists to ensure full coverage of potential concerns.

Recommendation 2 ToR should request that all those offering services submit for approval the check lists that they will use during the audit or inspection.


c. Describing findings as “Errors/deficiencies/problems” may not foster remedial actions

Civil engineers and technicians are trained to comply with applicable national and/or local standards and a project either complies with the standards or does not. If a project does not comply or if “Errors/deficiencies/problems” are observed, then corrective action must be taken or steps to revise the standards might be in order. In the case of civil structures, legal penalties may apply for allowing a structure to be built with “ERRORS”.

Road safety is not a precise science. No road is perfectly safe, some roads are safer than others. A project may comply completely with the standards and still be unsafe because elements of design in that particular combination may create dangerous conditions (e.g. coincidence of horizontal and vertical curves). Conversely, a project may not comply with the standards and still be relatively “safe”.

Thus, using words such as “Errors” or “Deficiencies” in a report may lead one to think that every such finding must be corrected. Such is not the case. Further, owners and or designers may be offended by harsh terms such as error or deficiency.

However, when a finding is described as a “concern” or an “issue”, it should be clear that although the Audit Team listed a particular concern, others, including other auditors, might not be concerned or may even consider the matter as “Not worthy of comment”. Each concern should be described in enough detail to explain, what is the concern and why is it a concern. In other words, the report should clearly state who will be hurt or killed and how will this happen. Photographic images or images taken from plan sheets are key. Of course, should an audit team find a particularly serious concern, the owner should be notified immediately.

Recommendation 3 Findings should always be identified as concerns, issues, or similar non-offensive terms. This will allow for amicable resolution and better teamwork in agreeing with the final report.

d. All remedial recommendations do not need to be implemented

Owners may fear that every recommended action must be complied with regardless of cost or administrative complications. While all proposed remedial actions should be considered for implementation, this in no way means that they must all be implemented. In each case, the final decision as to which actions to implement, delay, to respond in a different manner, or to simply take no action is always up to the owner or road authority and these final decisions should be documented in the formal response to the audit.

Recommendation 4 The ToR should clarify that the owner will make the final decisions as to which and when the corrective actions will be implemented. These decisions will be documented in the audit or inspection formal response which should be prepared in every case. These final reports may be shared with the audit team and should be a matter of public record.

e. Confidentiality of Reports

Owners, design staff, and operations staff may fear that the final reports will be used against them either formally or informally, that they may be blamed for the unsafe situations. This points to the need for not using words implying error or problem. Further, audit/inspection


teams should maintain the confidentiality of their reports, information, and discussions of the audit or inspection. That is, the audit or inspection team should not show or discuss the final report with any third party, Once the final audit or inspection report is accepted, the audit team will normally have no further interaction with the process.

Recommendation 5 Confidentiality should be stressed throughout the procedure, in the ToR and in the contract documents.

f. Fear that remedial actions may delay project scheduling

Concerns identified during the planning, preliminary design, and design stages should normally be able to be addressed in a relatively short time-frame. Some countermeasures may cause a more significant delay on advancing plans to the construction stage and in some cases, they may result in an increase in design costs. These increases will normally be marginal in comparison to corrective actions in subsequent stages and in the overall cost of the project.

Recommendation 6 Senior management within government or owner organizations should officially state their willingness to accept project delays and/or additional design costs. Without a clear statement to this effect, design teams may be hesitant to implement the needed countermeasures.

Concerns and issues identified during the construction phase will normally require a change order or plan revision. Although not always the case, a cost increase may result. Normally the owner will have to determine how these additional costs will be covered.

g. The cost of an audit or inspection

The Institute of Transportation Engineers cites RSA costs of $US 15,000 or less for small or simple projects and $US 30,000 for very large projects. 4 The cost of a RSI may vary according to the length and consistency of the project and adjacent land use. Values of $US 50 to $US 400 per kilometer of roadway have been reported. Travel costs must be added to these. RSIs will frequently find that some signs or some pavement markings are not visible at night, that pavement friction may appear to be inadequate or that speed limits may be set too low and are therefore not complied with. These findings should be made based on the collective opinions of the inspection team. Audit or inspection teams should not be tasked to undertake survey work of any kind whether it be physical, demographic or traffic related. Speed or traffic volume studies, retro reflectometer readings and measurements of road friction are normally not part of a RSI. Their inclusion as deliverables during a typical inspection will only increase the overall cost with little benefit. It is beneficial to have owner staff, usually a junior engineer to accompany the inspection team and in this way to understand the process and the concerns.

Teams should normally use cameras and video capture devices available at modest cost, hand levels, safe-speed indicators, and measuring tapes.

Recommendation 7 ToR should not normally require specialized equipment or studies such as pavement friction measurements of vertical signs or markings retroreflection. Should the

4 Road Safety Audits: An Emerging and Effective Tool for Improved Safety, April 2004.


inspection identify concerns based on visual evaluations, the Owner or Operations team may commission more detailed studies.

The audit or inspection team recommendations should be conceptual as detailed countermeasures will increase the cost of the audit or inspection. Audit and inspection teams are often not very qualified to prepare detailed estimates and solutions and they may not be aware of special needs of a project and it is therefore best for design/operations teams to prepare detailed solutions and cost estimates based on the countermeasures suggested by the audit or inspection team.

Recommendation 8 ToR should clearly state that reports should be limited to conceptual countermeasures and at most, preliminary estimates of cost. Actual detailed design of the proposed improvements must be done by the designers.

h. Fix the concern and fix the procedure that resulted in the concern

In many cases it will be equally or even more important to fix the procedure than to fix the concern. For example, faded pavement markings might be a concern during a RSI. The countermeasure will be to apply visible markings where needed. At the same time, the report should recommend that procedures be created or modified or followed to insure the timely application of markings in the future.

Recommendation 9 In other words, resolving a concern that will reappear in a short period is not the full solution, it is a patch. Always look for long-term solutions during an RSI or RSA.

Concerns on a particular road may often point out the need to change standards or procedures. For example, a RSI might reveal that vertical signs are not visible at night. If the condition is a result of a standard that specifies non-reflective signs for example, one of the actions to consider would be to modify that standard.

During a RSI some concerns may be evident at many locations. For example, large trees near the roadway, excessive vegetation blocking sight distance, non-breakaway sign or lighting supports without proper barrier shielding or similar. Normally it will not be beneficial to list each end every situation, rather, a simple comment and simple countermeasure should suffice.

i. RSA/RSIs are confused with reviews for compliance with standards

As stated in the aforementioned AUSTROADS document, “a RSA is not a check of compliance with standards”.5 This basic consideration is reflected in almost all of the documents reviewed by the author. Accordingly, RSAs and RSIs should never be undertaken to check for compliance with road standards as standards may be based on unsafe practice or may be outdated and not reflecting modern safety thinking. Very often one standard might be in contradiction with another standard. The combination of applying minimum criteria for several factors at a single location may diminish the overall safety of that location or segment of road.

Recommendation 10 ToR to select an audit/inspection team should state clearly that audits or inspections should not just assume that compliance with standards and norms is enough to

5 Road Safety audit, AUSTROADS, Second Edition, 2002.


ensure safety and should examine the safety aspects independently of the standards. In effect, the standards should not be considered when considering if the design is safe.

Recommendation 11 Each RSA/RSI report should clarify that the audit/inspection did not consider standards and norms although they may have been applicable to the project. The basic focus is simple, will the project be safe? And what are the concerns? Is the roadway safe? And, what are the concerns?

j. Finding qualified Auditors and Inspectors

Some agencies maintain a list of qualified personnel who can be contacted when the need arises for qualified auditors or inspectors. Professionals are added to or removed from these lists based on training and experience. The problem here is that statements of experience and training received may be exaggerated.

Other agencies simply treat a RSA or RSI like any other design project and allow qualified companies to offer a bid. In this case, a company may document good experience but there is no guarantee that the professionals used in previous audits or inspections will be used again.

k. Certification of Training and Documentation of Experience

Owners should request that each bid response include copies of the certificates of training or statements of experience for all members proposed for the audit/inspection team. They should confirm the validity of the certificate with the entity that issued the certificate. It is also helpful to request a list of audit/inspection experience and letters of confirmation from the owners of those projects where the individual claims to have worked as an auditor/inspector.

Recommendation 12 All certificates of training and documentation of experience should be validated.

Recommendation 13 National road safety organizations and road agencies should maintain a list of qualified auditors/inspectors based on experience and completed audits/inspections.

4. Training

In many cases potential auditors and inspectors will have a background in roads, their design, construction and maintenance, accident analysis and similar. As such they will tend to look for compliance with existing standards so RSA and RSI training must have as an objective to break that paradigm and cause engineers to look beyond the design standards.

Recommendation 14 Training should stress that compliance with standards and norms does not guarantee a safe road.

Road users will vary immensely in how they cope with the roadway. This variation is among users and each user will vary in their performance from day to day. So, a road that is safe for one user may not be safe for another user.

Recommendation 15 Training should make clear as to the need for the consideration of all users and how to consider the differences among drivers. For example, larger more retroreflective signs for senior citizens.

Checklists are the tools to connect the road infrastructure, future or present, with the users.


Recommendation 16 All training courses should show how to use a checklist to make sure that all relevant factors are considered.

There is little agreement as to how long the training courses should be and as to the relative benefits of On-line courses versus in-classroom or in-field training. Usually the shorter courses, as little as 16 hours, will focus on how to conduct and audit/inspection. Longer courses, up to 40 hours or more, may explain how road safety items work. They show retro reflectivity of signs and markings, pavement friction, function of roadside barriers, basic geometric design and similar. In those countries where the basics of road safety are not known, it may be necessary to consider courses of up to 120 hours. However, it may be difficult for professionals to devote that amount of time.

What subjects should be covered in a RSA/RSI training course?

All training should clarify the purpose and methodology of RSAs and RSIs.

Roads must first guide all users safely and clearly define the path to be used by each. This is done in every case by clear visibility of the roadway and roadway elements. Where needed, the proper path is made more evident by proper vertical and horizontal signing including variable message panels. Accordingly, vertical and horizontal signing principles should be covered in each course.

Roads must segregate users from each other and define the space to be used by each user. This is done in part by horizontal signing which in many cases needs to be supplemented by vertical signing. Where needed, road safety barriers are used for positive segregation. The basics should be covered in every course.

Roads must not present objects or hazards within the roadside often referred to as the clear zone. If such elements cannot be removed, nor further-separated from the motorist, nor made colapsable or breakaway, then they should be shielded with appropriate barriers. As a minimum, they need to be clearly marked or delineated for both night-time and day-time visibility. Typical hazards include sign posts, luminaire posts, utility posts, embankments, drainage structures among others. These concepts should be explained in every course.

Roads must provide an adequate road surface in terms of coefficient of friction so that they will be safe at normal operating speeds in both dry and wet conditions. Pavement deformations will also contribute to unsafe operations and such aspects must be covered.

The training should cover the basic needs of all road users considering that they may not always comply with the rules and regulations of the road.

Students should complete the course with an understanding of these principles and how they are evaluated using the checklists.

It may be helpful to conduct a short session on how to prepare and present an audit/inspection report.

5. Use of crash data

Quality crash-data can be useful during a RSA or RSI and should be considered during the audit or inspection. Local police can provide valuable insight. However, crash data is not essential and


in fact many countries do not have complete and accurate data bases. Frequently, roadside memorials will indicate the location of fatal events and these should also be considered. Physical evidence of crashes such as damaged infrastructure or crash debris may also be helpful. Skid marks can hint that an area may have a concern. These clues can be helpful in identifying possible concerns to be addressed at such locations.

Recommendation 17 If crash data bases are not very reliable or complete, every effort should be made to improve them, however, this should never be a focus or task during the inspection or audit.

6. The issue of Risk, an imprecise guess.

Some of the guides available today require audit teams to calculate the risk of each concern. Risk can be considered a function of frequency of exposure times the probability of occurrence times the severity of the consequences.

Risk = f(Frequency*probability*Severity)

Frequency is a function of volume of vehicles, pedestrian, and other users. Some refer to this as exposure. Probability is a function of the condition of those users (Alcohol and Drugs and previous preparation through training and education). Severity is a function of the crashworthiness of the vehicles, roadside barriers, breakaway signs and lighting systems and the speed at which each event occurs and the use of active safety devices. To be sure, other variations will affect risk. Weather and lighting conditions will affect risk.

Given the number of variables and the relative lack of precision of each many experienced auditors/inspectors are hesitant to assign much value to these calculations.

Recommendation 18 The terms of reference should clearly state that risk analysis will be the responsibility of the owner.

7. Cost/Benefit considerations

Many studies have documented the cost to benefit ratio of conducting RSA and RSIs. The benefits include a reduction in crashes, a reduction in the severity of crashes, a reduction in highway deaths and serious injuries. Crashes often result in congestion and secondary crashes. Many RSA or RSI recommendations are low in cost. However, many road agency decision-makers do not consider the real cost of crashes, collisions, and vulnerable user deaths along the roads as these costs do not come out of the operating budget of the agency.

Cost benefit ratios of more than 30:1 have been reported for RSAs and 16:1 for RSIs.

Date post:	15-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Greg Speier Jaime Campos€¦ · In preparing this article the authors considered national Road...

Documents