Professional Documents
Culture Documents
R
e
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
p
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)
b
y
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
3
R
o
a
d
u
s
e
r
s
,
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
m
i
x
4
D
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
5
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
l
a
n
e
s
1
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
s
p
a
c
i
n
g
2
T
y
p
e
s
,
l
a
y
o
u
t
s
3
R
a
m
p
s
,
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
4
D
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
5
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
l
a
n
e
s
1
S
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
t
e
r
r
a
i
n
2
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
,
s
u
n
l
i
g
h
t
3
N
o
i
s
e
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
,
a
n
i
m
a
l
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
4
A
n
i
m
a
l
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
5
V
i
s
u
a
l
d
i
s
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
6
U
n
s
t
a
b
l
e
l
a
n
d
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
,
r
a
i
l
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
,
r
o
a
d
s
i
d
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
e
v
e
n
t
s
,
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
,
r
e
s
t
a
r
e
a
s
,
e
t
c
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
t
a
g
e
A
u
d
i
t
55 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
P
R
O
M
P
T
L
I
S
T
2
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
a
g
e
A
u
d
i
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
T
o
p
i
c
s
D
e
s
i
g
n
I
s
s
u
e
s
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
R
o
a
d
U
s
e
r
s
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
,
S
i
g
n
s
a
n
d
D
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
S
a
f
e
t
y
A
s
p
e
c
t
s
N
o
t
A
l
r
e
a
d
y
C
o
v
e
r
e
d
1
1
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
s
i
n
c
e
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
a
u
d
i
t
1
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
2
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
3
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
4
A
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
5
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
6
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
7
F
u
t
u
r
e
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
w
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
/
o
r
r
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s
)
8
S
t
a
g
i
n
g
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
9
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
1
0
H
u
m
a
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
1
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
2
T
y
p
i
c
a
l
c
r
o
s
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
z
o
n
e
s
3
E
f
f
e
c
t
o
f
c
r
o
s
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
4
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
l
a
y
o
u
t
5
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
a
n
d
e
d
g
e
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
6
E
f
f
e
c
t
o
f
d
e
p
a
r
t
u
r
e
s
f
r
o
m
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
o
r
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
7
F
l
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
8
D
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
1
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
o
f
h
o
r
i
-
z
o
n
t
a
l
a
n
d
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
2
V
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
s
i
g
h
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
3
N
e
w
/
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
o
a
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
4
'
R
e
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
'
(
p
e
r
c
e
p
-
t
i
o
n
)
o
f
t
h
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
b
y
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
1
V
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
-
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
t
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
2
L
a
y
o
u
t
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
t
y
p
e
3
'
R
e
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
'
(
p
e
r
c
e
p
-
t
i
o
n
)
b
y
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
4
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
5
D
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
1
V
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
2
L
a
y
o
u
t
,
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
3
L
a
n
e
s
,
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
4
R
a
m
p
s
5
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
6
D
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
7
C
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
,
v
i
s
u
a
l
p
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
1
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
2
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
3
B
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
4
O
l
d
e
r
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
5
M
o
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
6
E
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
n
d
s
t
o
c
k
7
M
o
t
o
r
c
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
8
P
u
b
l
i
c
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
9
R
o
a
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
1
0
S
n
o
w
m
o
b
i
l
e
s
a
n
d
A
T
V
s
1
1
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
(
s
l
o
w
m
o
v
i
n
g
)
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
1
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
2
S
i
g
n
s
3
M
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
1
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
f
l
o
w
a
n
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
2
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
e
r
g
e
s
3
R
e
s
t
a
r
e
a
s
a
n
d
s
t
o
p
p
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
s
4
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
1
S
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
t
e
r
r
a
i
n
2
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
,
s
u
n
l
i
g
h
t
3
N
o
i
s
e
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
,
a
n
i
m
a
l
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
4
A
n
i
m
a
l
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
5
V
i
s
u
a
l
d
i
s
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
6
U
n
s
t
a
b
l
e
l
a
n
d
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
e
v
e
n
t
s
,
c
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
u
n
u
s
u
a
l
o
r
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
o
v
e
r
s
i
z
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
56 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
P
R
O
M
P
T
L
I
S
T
3
F
i
n
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
a
g
e
A
u
d
i
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
T
o
p
i
c
s
D
e
s
i
g
n
I
s
s
u
e
s
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
R
o
a
d
U
s
e
r
s
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
,
S
i
g
n
s
a
n
d
D
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
R
o
a
d
s
i
d
e
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
S
a
f
e
t
y
A
s
p
e
c
t
s
N
o
t
A
l
r
e
a
d
y
C
o
v
e
r
e
d
1
3
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
s
i
n
c
e
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
a
u
d
i
t
1
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
2
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
3
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
4
A
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
5
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
;
b
r
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
s
;
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
a
n
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
6
F
u
t
u
r
e
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
w
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
/
o
r
r
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s
)
7
S
t
a
g
i
n
g
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
8
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
-
m
e
n
t
s
9
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
c
u
t
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
1
0
S
k
i
d
R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
1
1
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
1
2
H
u
m
a
n
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
1
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
o
f
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
a
n
d
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
2
T
y
p
i
c
a
l
c
r
o
s
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
z
o
n
e
s
3
E
f
f
e
c
t
o
f
c
r
o
s
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
4
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
l
a
y
o
u
t
5
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
a
n
d
e
d
g
e
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
6
E
f
f
e
c
t
o
f
d
e
p
a
r
t
u
r
e
s
f
r
o
m
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
o
r
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
1
V
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
s
i
g
h
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
2
N
e
w
/
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
o
a
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
3
'
R
e
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
'
(
p
e
r
c
e
p
-
t
i
o
n
)
o
f
t
h
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
b
y
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
4
D
e
t
a
i
l
o
f
g
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
5
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
b
r
i
d
g
e
s
a
n
d
c
u
l
v
e
r
t
s
6
C
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
f
e
a
-
t
u
r
e
s
1
V
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
-
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
t
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
2
L
a
y
o
u
t
3
'
R
e
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
'
(
p
e
r
c
e
p
-
t
i
o
n
)
b
y
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
4
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
5
D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
g
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
6
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
7
S
i
g
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
8
R
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
s
9
O
t
h
e
r
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
1
0
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
1
V
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
2
L
a
y
o
u
t
3
L
a
n
e
s
,
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
4
R
a
m
p
s
5
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
6
S
i
g
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
7
C
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
,
v
i
s
u
a
l
p
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
8
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
1
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
2
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
3
B
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
4
O
l
d
e
r
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
5
M
o
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
6
E
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
n
d
s
t
o
c
k
7
M
o
t
o
r
c
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
8
P
u
b
l
i
c
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
9
R
o
a
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
1
0
S
n
o
w
m
o
b
i
l
e
s
a
n
d
A
T
V
s
1
1
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
(
s
l
o
w
m
o
v
i
n
g
)
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
1
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
2
S
i
g
n
s
3
M
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
1
M
e
d
i
a
n
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
2
P
o
l
e
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
o
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
3
R
o
a
d
s
i
d
e
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
4
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
r
a
i
l
i
n
g
5
B
r
i
d
g
e
s
,
c
u
l
v
e
r
t
s
a
n
d
c
a
u
s
e
w
a
y
s
/
f
l
o
o
d
w
a
y
s
1
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
,
s
u
n
l
i
g
h
t
2
N
o
i
s
e
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
,
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
3
A
n
i
m
a
l
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
4
V
i
s
u
a
l
d
i
s
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
5
U
n
s
t
a
b
l
e
l
a
n
d
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
e
v
e
n
t
s
,
c
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
u
n
u
s
u
a
l
o
r
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
o
v
e
r
s
i
z
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
57 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines 57 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
P
R
O
M
P
T
L
I
S
T
4
W
o
r
k
Z
o
n
e
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
P
l
a
n
A
u
d
i
t
R
o
a
d
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
,
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
i
n
g
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
S
i
g
n
s
a
n
d
M
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
a
f
e
t
y
A
s
p
e
c
t
s
N
o
t
A
l
r
e
a
d
y
C
o
v
e
r
e
d
1
O
f
f
i
c
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
-
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
s
e
t
u
p
o
f
w
o
r
k
z
o
n
e
2
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
3
T
u
r
n
i
n
g
r
a
d
i
i
a
n
d
t
a
p
e
r
s
4
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
l
a
n
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
5
N
i
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
6
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
7
A
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
8
S
a
f
e
t
y
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
9
H
u
m
a
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
1
0
W
o
r
k
z
o
n
e
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
1
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
2
S
p
e
e
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
3
W
o
r
k
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
1
S
i
g
n
s
2
D
a
y
/
n
i
g
h
t
s
i
g
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
3
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
4
D
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
r
k
e
r
s
5
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
6
D
e
t
o
u
r
s
1
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
2
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
3
V
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
4
S
i
g
n
a
l
d
i
s
p
l
a
y
5
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
1
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
2
E
l
d
e
r
l
y
a
n
d
d
i
s
a
b
l
e
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
3
B
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
1
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
d
e
f
e
c
t
s
2
S
k
i
d
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
3
P
o
n
d
i
n
g
/
i
c
i
n
g
/
s
n
o
w
a
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
58 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
P
R
O
M
P
T
L
I
S
T
5
P
r
e
-
O
p
e
n
i
n
g
S
t
a
g
e
A
u
d
i
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
T
o
p
i
c
s
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
R
o
a
d
U
s
e
r
s
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
,
S
i
g
n
s
a
n
d
D
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
R
o
a
d
s
i
d
e
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
S
a
f
e
t
y
A
s
p
e
c
t
s
N
o
t
A
l
r
e
a
d
y
C
o
v
e
r
e
d
1
1
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
s
i
n
c
e
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
a
u
d
i
t
:
t
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
d
e
s
i
g
n
i
n
t
o
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
1
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
2
C
l
i
m
a
t
i
c
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
3
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
4
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
5
A
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
6
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
7
S
i
d
e
s
l
o
p
e
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
8
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
a
n
d
e
d
g
e
d
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
o
r
s
9
S
i
g
n
s
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
1
0
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
,
s
k
i
d
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
1
2
C
o
n
t
r
a
s
t
w
i
t
h
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
1
3
R
o
a
d
s
i
d
e
h
a
z
a
r
d
s
1
4
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
1
5
A
l
l
r
o
a
d
u
s
e
r
s
1
6
S
p
e
e
d
z
o
n
i
n
g
1
7
H
u
m
a
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
1
V
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
s
i
g
h
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
2
N
e
w
/
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
o
a
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
3
R
e
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
p
e
r
c
e
p
-
t
i
o
n
)
o
f
t
h
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
b
y
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
4
B
r
i
d
g
e
s
a
n
d
c
u
l
v
e
r
t
s
1
V
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
i
n
t
e
r
-
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
V
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
t
i
n
t
e
r
-
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
R
e
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
p
e
r
c
e
p
-
t
i
o
n
)
b
y
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
4
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
5
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
6
S
i
g
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
7
R
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
s
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
i
s
l
a
n
d
s
8
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
1
V
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
s
i
g
h
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
2
R
e
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
p
e
r
c
e
p
-
t
i
o
n
)
b
y
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
3
S
i
g
n
i
n
g
,
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
d
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
4
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
5
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
1
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
2
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
3
B
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
4
O
l
d
e
r
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
5
M
o
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
6
E
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
7
M
o
t
o
r
c
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
8
P
u
b
l
i
c
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
9
R
o
a
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
1
0
S
n
o
w
m
o
b
i
l
i
e
s
a
n
d
A
T
V
s
1
1
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
(
s
l
o
w
m
o
v
i
n
g
)
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
1
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
2
S
i
g
n
s
3
M
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
1
M
e
d
i
a
n
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
2
P
o
l
e
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
o
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
3
R
o
a
d
s
i
d
e
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
4
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
r
a
i
l
i
n
g
5
B
r
i
d
g
e
s
,
c
u
l
v
e
r
t
s
a
n
d
c
a
u
s
e
w
a
y
s
/
f
l
o
o
d
w
a
y
s
1
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
2
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
3
R
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
t
e
m
p
o
-
r
a
r
y
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
/
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
d
e
v
i
c
e
s
59 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
P
R
O
M
P
T
L
I
S
T
6
(
1
O
F
2
)
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
a
d
A
u
d
i
t
R
o
a
d
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
,
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
R
o
a
d
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
C
r
o
s
s
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
A
u
x
i
l
i
a
r
y
L
a
n
e
s
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
S
i
g
n
s
a
n
d
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
M
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
B
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
a
n
d
C
l
e
a
r
Z
o
n
e
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
l
s
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
n
d
B
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
1
V
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
s
i
g
h
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
2
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
p
e
e
d
3
S
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
/
s
p
e
e
d
z
o
n
i
n
g
4
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
5
R
e
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
p
e
r
c
e
p
-
t
i
o
n
)
o
f
t
h
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
b
y
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
6
H
u
m
a
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
7
W
i
d
t
h
s
8
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
9
C
r
o
s
s
s
l
o
p
e
s
1
0
S
i
d
e
s
l
o
p
e
s
1
1
D
r
a
i
n
s
1
2
C
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
1
T
a
p
e
r
s
2
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
3
S
i
g
n
s
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
4
T
u
r
n
i
n
g
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
1
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
2
V
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
s
i
g
h
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
3
S
i
g
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
4
L
a
y
o
u
t
a
n
d
r
e
a
d
-
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
p
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)
b
y
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
5
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
6
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
1
V
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
s
i
g
h
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
2
L
a
n
e
s
,
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
3
S
i
g
n
i
n
g
,
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
d
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
4
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
5
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
1
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
2
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
s
i
g
n
s
i
s
s
u
e
s
3
S
i
g
n
l
e
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
4
S
i
g
n
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
s
1
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
i
s
s
u
e
s
2
C
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
s
,
e
d
g
e
-
l
i
n
e
s
,
l
a
n
e
l
i
n
e
s
3
G
u
i
d
e
p
o
s
t
s
a
n
d
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
o
r
s
4
C
u
r
v
e
w
a
r
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
1
C
l
e
a
r
z
o
n
e
s
2
B
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
3
E
n
d
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
/
C
r
a
s
h
c
u
s
h
i
o
n
s
4
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
r
a
i
l
i
n
g
5
V
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
a
n
d
f
e
n
c
e
s
1
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
2
V
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
3
P
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
s
i
g
n
a
l
h
e
a
d
s
1
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
i
s
s
u
e
s
2
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
3
B
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
4
P
u
b
l
i
c
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
60 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
P
R
O
M
P
T
L
I
S
T
6
(
2
O
F
2
)
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
a
d
A
u
d
i
t
O
l
d
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
r
s
B
r
i
d
g
e
s
a
n
d
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
s
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
F
l
o
o
d
w
a
y
s
a
n
d
C
a
u
s
e
w
a
y
s
P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
F
o
r
H
e
a
v
y
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
O
t
h
e
r
S
a
f
e
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
1
T
u
r
n
i
n
g
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
l
a
n
e
w
i
d
t
h
s
,
r
a
d
i
i
)
2
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
,
o
p
p
o
s
i
n
g
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
3
S
i
g
h
t
t
r
i
a
n
g
l
e
s
4
S
i
g
n
i
n
g
,
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
5
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
1
D
e
s
i
g
n
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
2
B
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
3
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
d
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
1
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
d
e
f
e
c
t
s
2
S
k
i
d
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
3
P
o
n
d
i
n
g
/
i
c
i
n
g
/
s
n
o
w
a
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
4
L
o
o
s
e
s
t
o
n
e
s
/
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
5
M
a
n
h
o
l
e
s
1
D
e
s
i
g
n
i
s
s
u
e
s
2
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
/
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
1
P
o
n
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
2
S
a
f
e
t
y
o
f
d
e
v
i
c
e
s
1
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
2
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
w
o
r
k
s
3
H
e
a
d
l
i
g
h
t
g
l
a
r
e
4
R
o
a
d
s
i
d
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
5
S
i
g
n
s
o
f
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
(
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
,
r
o
a
d
s
i
d
e
)
6
R
e
s
t
a
r
e
a
s
7
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
8
M
e
d
i
a
n
c
u
r
b
i
n
g
61 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
P
R
O
M
P
T
L
I
S
T
7
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
A
u
d
i
t
R
o
a
d
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
,
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
i
n
g
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
S
i
g
n
s
a
n
d
M
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
a
f
e
t
y
A
s
p
e
c
t
s
N
o
t
A
l
r
e
a
d
y
C
o
v
e
r
e
d
1
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
2
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
1
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
S
e
r
v
i
c
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
62 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
Prompt List 1 - Detailed (Sample portion)
Planning Stage Audit
Intersections
1. Location, spacing, types
Are all intersections located safely with respect to the horizontal and vertical
alignment?
Where intersections occur at the end of high-speed environments (e.g., at approaches
to towns); are there traffic control devices to alert drivers?
2. Readability (perception) by drivers
Is the form and function of the intersection clear to drivers on all approaches? (Check
by driving.)
Are all conflict points between vehicles safely managed?
Is the intersection layout obvious to all road users?
Is the alignment of curbs obvious and appropriate?
Is the alignment of traffic islands obvious and appropriate?
Is the alignment of medians obvious and appropriate?
Can all likely vehicle types be accommodated?
Are merge tapers long enough?
Is the intersection free of capacity problems that may produce safety problems?
Are there sufficient visual cues to prevent overshooting into the conflicting traffic?
3. Road Users, traffic mix
Pedestrians, bicyclists
Are the sight lines adequate for the safety of all pedestrian groups?
Is the movement of vulnerable road users safely accommodated at all intersections?
4. Design Consistency
..
63 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
APPENDIX A
APPENDI X A
Reactive and Proactive Approaches to Road Safety
A reactive approach to road safety is associated with the identification of locations
experiencing safety problems (screening), problem definition (diagnosis), and the iden-
tification and implementation of countermeasures (cure).
A proactive approach to road safety is associated with the prevention of safety
problems before they manifest themselves in the form of a pattern of crash occurrence.
Both prevention and cure should be inherent elements of an overall road safety manage-
ment system.
A reactive approachto road safety is based on the analysis of existing crash data. Road
safety improvements proposed are considered in reaction to identified safety problems
brought to light by crashes that have occurred after the road has been designed, built, and
opened to the traveling public. Traditional reactive road safety engineering processes
include such activities as information collection and management (crash information sys-
tems), identification of problem locations on the road network, analysis, development and
implementation of countermeasures. The Hazard Elimination Program or a jurisdictions
high crash location list are examples of reactive approaches to crash frequency and/or
severity reduction.
Limitations of the reactive approach are as follows:
It requires the identification of high crash locations before improvement plans may be
developed and implemented;
The supporting crash data is often dated, incomplete and/or insufficient to support
accurate diagnosis and intervention; and
It may also be more costly, since improvement plans are necessarily implemented on a
road already built and open to public.
Despite these limitations, no road safety management system can be considered complete
without a reactive component as it is a powerful tool for addressing existing safety prob-
lems.
APPENDI X A
Limitations to
the reactive
approach to road
safety.
64 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
Benefits of a
proactive
approach to
road safety.
A proactive approachfocuses on the evolving Science of Safety, that is, what is known
about the evolving specific safety implications of highway design and operations decisions.
The proactive approach applies this knowledge to the roadway design process or to the
implementation of improvement plans on existing roads to diminish the potential of crash-
es occurring prior to the road being built or reconstructed. Conducting RSAs is an example
of a proactive road safety strategy.
The advantages of a proactive approach include:
Crash prevention: It is not necessary for crashes to occur before crash prevention
measures are taken; and
Lower costs: Changing plans is easier and less costly than to implement an
improvement plan on a road open to the public.
Effective road safety management programs should exercise an optimal balance between
reactive and proactive strategies.
While each jurisdiction will determine an optimal balance based on local conditions, the
potential benefits of implementing RSAs are clearly significant.
APPENDI X A
65 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
Evolution of Road Safety Audits
The concept of RSAs originated in the United Kingdom (UK) during the early 1980's. The
concept evolved out of concerns that some newly constructed roads were experiencing
high crash frequencies or severities that could have been prevented through more safety-
conscious design decisions. By 1991, the UK Department of Transport made RSAs manda-
tory for all national trunk roads and freeways. National guidelines adopted in 1996 rec-
ommend that ideally all projects should be subjected to a RSA if it is achievable, within
available resources.
By the early 1990's, RSAs were being introduced in Australia and New Zealand. Individual
states in Australia use their own policies to select projects for auditing. 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 active-
ly 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 pro-
grams.
Recognizing a potential for RSAs to become an effective proactive tool in road safety man-
agement systems in the US, the FHWA sponsored a scanning tour in Australia and New
Zealand in 1996. The conclusion was that RSAs hold promise in maximizing the safety of
roadway designs and operations and should be piloted in the US. The FHWA National
Highway Institute (NHI) offers a training course on RSAs and FHWA has developed a new
course on road safety audits for local agencies. Information on these training courses as
well as basic information and success stories relating to RSAs can be found at
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa.
A major step towards implementation of RSAs in the US was the FHWA RSA pilot pro-
gram. 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 over-
lay 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.
Visit the FHWA
RSA website at
http://safety.
fhwa.dot.gov/rsa.
APPENDIX B
APPENDI X B
66 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
Experience from the pilot RSAs indicates that they have a proven positive road safety
effect and should be further integrated into road safety management systems. The pilot
programs also revealed a diversity of opinions and views that currently exist regarding the
role, scope, and application of RSAs. Details on RSA practice in the US are contained in
the NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 3-36: Road Safety Audits: State of the
Practice available from the Transportation Research Board (TRB) bookstore at
http://trb.org/bookstore/ or call (202) 334-3213.
This synthesis includes documented information, results of surveys of state and local trans-
portation agencies along with detailed case study information and profiles of innovative
agencies and practices.
NCHRP Synthesis
of Highway
Practice 3-36:
Road Safety
Audits: State of
the Practice.
APPENDI X B
67 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
The Maine Department of Transportation (DOT) was implementing a project to
improve a 1.7 mile length of US Route 1 in the vicinity of Camden State Park near
Camden, Maine. The project was to include sidewalk, drainage, shoulder, and util-
ities work.
The community and the engineers were concerned about the best way to provide
safe access for sidewalks along and across the highway and to reduce vehicle trav-
el speeds in the vicinity of the park. To address these considerations, the engineers
conducted a road safety audit to identify the best way to provide the sidewalk and pedes-
trian crossing in the vicinity of the park.
The project was in the preliminary design stage, so several alternative roadway cross-sec-
tions and sidewalk treatments had been developed. Five people participated in the audit:
the Camden Police Chief, two people from the maintenance and operations division, an
urban and arterial engineering technician, and a project manager from the Bureau of
Planning.
Team members conducted a field visit and reviewed preliminary plans, crash data, project
history, Maine Access Management rules, the Maine Highway Design Guide, and the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Through the review, the report identified both
general and specific findings. In general, the auditors provided comments for the design
alternatives, including possible applications of mountable curbs, emergency stopping loca-
tions, applicability of bollards, construction traffic management plans, potential seasonal
flooding issues, overhead signs, and striping.
Relative to travel speed and pedestrian safety, the
auditors made specific recommendations for loca-
tions of overhead signs, cross-walk locations, loca-
tions where the shoulder might be widened to sepa-
rate vehicle door swings from bicyclists passing by,
guardrail locations to optically narrow the road, the
location of speed reduction zones, and a monitoring
program to test for improvements. The auditors fur-
ther recommended that if suitable speed reduction
was not achieved, then a pedestrian tunnel should be
considered. The RSA report was three pages long.
Road Safety Audit of Preliminary Design:
US Route 1 - Grading, Drainage, Base and Sidewalk
Camden, Maine
CASE STUDY
1
CASE STUDY 1
68 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
Road Safety Audit Program:
South Carolina Department of Transportation
CASE STUDY 2
The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SC DOT) has established a
Road Safety Audit (RSA) program. Following development of all of the manage-
ment policies, program structure, training, and implementation guidelines, the SC
DOT had a goal of conducting audits on 10 projects per year. To achieve this goal
an Advisory Committee was established that included engineering directors for
such activities as traffic, construction and safety, and district engineering adminis-
trators. The Advisory Committee was responsible for overseeing program devel-
opment, training, goals and visions, and implementation. The following activities are includ-
ed in the overall program:
The Advisory Committee solicited interest from all State technical staff for possible
participation in RSA training. Sixty staff members were selected for training and 2-year
terms as road safety auditors.
Annually, staff submits applications for project road safety audits. The Advisory
Committee selects the widest array of projects possible, including projects from different
areas of the State, on different types of road facilities, in different stages of development,
and that are either typical or unusual.
With training complete and projects selected, the RSA Coordinator arranges teams and
completes logistics (e.g., travel, scheduling, billings, etc.) for each of the audits.
The audit team travels to the site, conducts field visits, reviews project documentation,
and meets with the District Engineering Administrator. Subsequently, the audit team pre-
pares an audit report documenting findings and recommendations in priority order.
The District Engineering Administrator then has 45 days to prepare a formal written
response to the audit report. This response outlines what will and won't be
implemented and provides justification for each decision; thus documenting the actions
of the reasonable and prudent engineer.
The SC DOT has conducted 11 audits (2 on new facilities, 5 on facilities under construction,
and 4 on existing facilities). The response to the audits has been positive and it is anticipat-
ed that the RSA program will continue to grow.
CASE STUDY
2
69 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
Since receiving Road Safety Audit (RSA) training, South Dakota has conducted
RSAs on existing roads in their county road systems, including Hughes County.
This RSA was conducted when the County Highway Superintendent identified a
need and contacted the South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program
(SDLTAP) to organize the audit. The SDLTAP requested aid from the Department
of Transportation (DOT) Traffic & Safety Engineer in the DOT Office of Local
Government Assistance and from the FHWA Traffic & Safety Engineer.
Seven team members participated in the audit, including three representatives from SDLTAP,
two representatives from FHWA, a guest County Highway Superintendent, and the DOT
Traffic & Safety Engineer. The DOT Traffic & Safety Engineer served as the leader of the
audit team.
The audit team reviewed five existing roadway facilities, which were previously classified by
the County Highway Superintendent responsible for the roadways as rural roads that were
either major or minor, and either high-, medium-, or low-speed highways. The team con-
ducted a field visit to the existing facilities and prepared a report summarizing the findings.
The RSA summarized the classification, posted speed, and conditions of the existing road
and classified the recommended improvements as: 1) items where immediate safety
improvements should be made, 2) items where low cost improvements could have a posi-
tive impact on safety and should be considered in a reasonable period of time, and 3) items
identified as high-cost improvements that should be considered as funds become available
for a major rehabilitation or reconstruction of the roadway. These recommendations per-
tained to improvements such as relocating utility poles, modifying signing and striping,
maintaining landscaping, and improving grading.
At the end of the RSA, the items listed in the report were reviewed in a closeout meeting
with the Highway Superintendent responsible for the roadway. The Traffic & Safety
Engineer prepared the final report and forwarded it the Highway Superintendent. A master
copy of the report was also stored in the Office of Local Government Assistance files. The
RSA report was nine pages long.
Road Safety Audit of Existing Roads:
Hughes County, South Dakota
CASE STUDY
3
CASE STUDY 3
70 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
The South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) was planning a proj-
ect to upgrade existing interchanges and build a new interchange on I-29 in Sioux
Falls, South Dakota. The interchange upgrades were planned on I-29 at the SD 42
interchange, which consisted of work on I-29 from Skunk Creek to the vicinity of
Russell Street and on SD 42 between Marion Rd and Lyons Boulevard. The new
interchange was being constructed at the intersection of I-29 and Madison Street.
When the project was in the preliminary design phase. Six people participated in the audit:
a representative from Road Design at SDDOT, a Pavement and Materials Engineer from
FHWA, the Sioux Falls City Traffic Engineer, the Sioux Falls Assistant Public Works Director,
a traffic engineering specialist from the DOT Local Government Assistance, and the SDDOT
Region Traffic Engineer.
Team members reviewed preliminary project plans, crash data, traffic volume data, and typ-
ical design manuals including: the AASHTO Road Design Manual, the Federal Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the State of South Dakota Standard
Specifications, and the Highway Capacity Manual. Through the RSA, the report identified
35 safety concerns and findings ranging from access management, to drainage improve-
ments, to grading improvements, to modifying construction phasing, to meeting ADA
requirements. The safety benefits of some recommendations were stated explicitly, such as
in the discussion of snow removal and snowmelt run off on the ramps. The report explained
that lack of direct sunlight could cause slick ramp conditions for extended periods of time.
The safety benefits of other improvements were implied as in the recommendation to
remove the proposed curb along the Interstate shoulders and ramps in the design. The RSA
report was six pages long.
Road Safety Audit of Preliminary Design:
Minnehaha County, South Dakota
CASE STUDY
4
CASE STUDY 4
71 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
The Maine Department of Transportation (Maine DOT) was implementing a proj-
ect to widen the Route 22/Spring Street intersection in the Town of Westbrook,
Maine, to provide additional through lanes as well as dedicated left-turn lanes.
The existing intersection was experiencing capacity issues and was identified as a
high-crash location by the Maine DOT. To address the safety issues, the engineers
conducted a Road Safety Audit (RSA).
The project was in the preliminary stage of design. Six people participated on the audit team
representing four different divisions of the Maine DOT. This included two traffic engineers,
one division engineer, one assistant engineer, one representative from the Regional
Program, and one representative from Traffic Engineering.
Consistent with many other RSAs, the audit team conducted a 2-hour field visit and
reviewed preliminary plans and crash data. However, a unique element of this report is that
it specifically stated the following The audit was conducted based on the assumptions that
the existing highway was built to the design standards at the time of construction, the plans
for the proposed improvements were according to current design standards, the utilities
would be moved outside of the clear zone, the pedestrian and bicycle traffic had been con-
sidered, the capacity issues had been considered, and all traffic signals and signing would be
consistent with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The audit team felt it
would be useful to outline the context and considerations for the audit.
Based on the team's review, the RSA identified 11 safety issues whose correction ranged
from minor modifications such as providing wider median islands to accommodate signs, to
more extensive changes such as redesigning the loca-
tions of accesses and minor street intersections in the
vicinity of the Route 22/Spring Street intersection.
The RSA report was three pages long.
Preliminary Design Stage Audit:
Route 22/Spring Street Intersection Upgrade;
Westbrook, Maine
CASE STUDY 5
CASE STUDY
5
72 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
District 3 of the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) conducted a Road
Safety Audit for seven existing rural highways throughout the District in Iowa. The
audit was conducted by driving and walking along the subject roads.
The road safety audit team consisted of ten participants from the Office of Traffic
and Safety, the Federal Highway Administration, Iowa State University's Center
for Transportation Research and Education, maintenance, engineering, and
design, and included one consultant. The audit team reviewed the crash summaries prior to
the field visit.
Through the review, the team identified many general observations, such as a lack of side-
walks on many routes, particularly in the community of Denison. In addition, the team paid
special attention to horizontal and vertical curves on three of the reviewed highways. There
were cases where left curves were followed by vertical crest curves, which the report
explained are particularly vulnerable to crashes. The report discussed treatment options such
as chevrons, curve widening, shoulder super elevation, and rumble strips, as well as many
other improvements.
The report also discussed the potential safety implications of reduced roadside mowing,
including reduced site distance and obstacles in the clear zone. Based on the review, the dis-
trict suggested that mowing and roadside maintenance be added to the Safety Review
Checklist maintained by the Office of Traffic and Safety. The RSA report was six pages
long.
Road Safety Audit of Existing Roads:
District 3. Iowa
CASE STUDY
6
CASE STUDY 6
73 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center has developed a walkability and
bikeability checklist for community members to use in assessing facilities in
their neighborhoods.
In the walkability checklist, residents are asked to pick a typical route that they
travel (e.g., to the store, or to school) and to walk the route with the checklist
in hand. Some of the questions on the checklist included:
Is there space to walk?
Is it easy to cross streets?
Do drivers behave well?
Is it easy to follow safety rules?
Is your walk pleasant?
Residents are then provided with tools for scoring the results, and most importantly, a list of
ideas for addressing concerns.
While these tools do not follow the formal
RSA process, they are effective tools in raising
awareness of safety issues. Local or State
planners and engineers could encourage resi-
dents to use these surveys as part of a pro-
ject's public involvement process. The results
of the survey provide information about the
user's perceptions of safety on a facility. These
perceptions are important complementary
information to the crash, roadway, and traffic
volume data that is typically readily available
to city or state staff.
The walkability checklist is available at
www.walkinginfo.org
Walkability and Bikeability Checklist
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, walkinginfo.org
CASE STUDY
7
CASE STUDY 7
74 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
75 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
FHWA and ITE. Road Safety Audits: An Emerging and Effective Tool for Improved
Safety. Road Safety Audits Briefs, Issue 15, 2004, 4p.
Morgan, R., J. Epstein, P. Jordan, G. Lee, and R. Lathlean. Road Safety Audit Guide -
Second Edition. AUSTROADS, 2002, 135p.
Sabey, B. Guidelines For The Safety Audit Of Highways. Institution of Highways and
Transportation (Great Britain), 1996, 50p.
Zein, S., G. Ho, and P. de Leur. The Canadian Road Safety Audit Guide. Transportation
Association of Canada, 2001, 81p.
University of New Brunswick Transportation Group. Road Safety Audit Manual. Canada,
1999, 128p.
Pieples, T.R. The Pennsylvania Experience PennDOT's Road Test of the Road Safety Audit
Process. Report by PennDOT, downloaded from http://www.roadwaysafetyaudits.org,
last updated 5/8/2000, 24p.
Lipinski, M.E., and E.M. Wilson. Road Safety Audits and Road Safety Audit Reviews
(Instructor Guide and Reference Manual). FHWA National Highway Institute (NHI),
Publication No. FHWA-NHI-03-024, 2003.
Bray, J.S. Safety Appurtenance Program: NYSDOT's Road Safety Audit Pilot. Institute of
Transportation Engineers Annual Meeting (69th : 1999 : Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.) Annual
Meeting Papers. CD-ROM, 1999, 21p.
Navin, F., S. Zein, and J. Nepomuceuo. Road Safety Audits and Reviews: The State-Of-
The-Art and Beyond. Institute of Transportation Engineers Annual Meeting (69th: 1999:
Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.) Annual Meeting Papers. CD-ROM, 1999, 11p.
Leur, P., and T. Sayed. Development of a Road Safety Risk Index. AAA Foundation for
Traffic Safety, 2002, 21p.
Owers, R.S., Wilson, E.M. Safety Analysis without the Legal Paralysis: The Road Safety
Audit Program. University of Wyoming, Laramie, 2001, 183p
PennDOT's Publication 10-A, DM-A, Appendix E: Safety Review Procedures, PennDOT,
2003, 6p.
Manual of Road Safety Audit, Danish Road Directorate, 1997, 52p plus prompt lists
Jordan, P.W. Vital Steps In The Implementation Of Road Safety Audit: Getting It Started
In Your Area. Institute of Transportation Engineers Annual Meeting (69th : Las Vegas,
Nevada, U.S.), Annual Meeting Papers [CD-ROM], 1999, 8p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BI BLI O GRAPHY
76 FHWA Road Safety Audits Guidelines
BI BLI O GRAPHY
Macaulay, J; McInerney, R. Evaluation of The Proposed Actions Emanating from Road
Safety Audits. Australian Road Research Board, AUSTROADS publication No. AP
R209/02, 2002
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges - Volume 5 Assessment and Preparation of Road
Schemes, Section 2 Preparation and Implementation, Part 2 Hd 19/03 - Road Safety
Audit. The Highways Agency, Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government,
Llywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru, The Department for Regional Development Northern
Ireland, 2003
Road Safety Audit Procedures for Projects. Guideline. Transfund New Zealand Manual No.
TFM9,. 2004, 14p plus appendices
Ho, G, Rozental, J. Alberta Transportation Road Safety Audit Guidelines. 2004, 18p.
British Columbia Ministry of Transportation. Road Safety Audit Guidelines. 10p.
Lipinski, M.E. and E.M. Wilson, Road Safety Audits: A Synthesis of Highway Practice,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP Synthesis 336, Transportation
Research Board, 2004, 138p.
FHWA Study Tour for Road Safety Audits, Part 1: Final Report, Michael Trentacoste
FHWA Team Leader, October 1997.
FHWA Study Tour for Road Safety Audits, Part 2: Case Studies and Checklists, Michael
Trentacoste FHWA Team Leader, October 1997.
FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines
RSA