Chapter Three - The Road Safety Audit Program Defined...the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough... By understanding the environment in which the transportation entity operates--in particular the overarching public policy of road safety, the impending "duty to know," and the need to manage its risk--the entity's need for a safety program emerges. The Road Safety Audit Program (RSAP) is introduced as one such safety program. It is distinguished from other road safety programs in the next chapter. Overview of the Road Safety Audit ProgramAustralia was one of the first countries to implement Road Safety Audits. The Austroads handbook defines the Road Safety Audit as "a formal examination of an existing or future road or traffic project, or any project which interacts with road users, in which an independent, qualified examiner reports on the project's accident potential and safety performance."18 The Road Safety Audit Program encompasses the Road Safety Audit (RSA) and the Road Safety Audit Review (RSAR). The RSA is the road safety examination on a road in the conceptual stage--i.e., in the planning and design stages. The RSAR is the road safety examination on an existing road. In other words, the RSA and the RSAR are the actual audits themselves, while the RSAP is the comprehensive program in which both types of audits are performed. HistoryThe RSAP originated in the United Kingdom in the 1980s and has been further developed by Austroads, the Australian transportation authority.19 In 1994, Austroads published a comprehensive handbook entitled "Road Safety Audit," which combined road safety auditing practices from Australia and from other nations to create guidelines for the then-fledgling RSAP.20 The Austroads handbook reports that the RSAP originated "in the United Kingdom in the 1980s," with aims of helping "highway authorities to take steps to reduce the possibility of accidents on their roads."21 Interestingly, according to the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the concept of using an independent auditor was introduced during the Victorian Period to preview new rail lines.22 By April 1991, both the Scottish Development Department and their British counterpart mandated safety audits for certain roads above specified costs. New Zealand also adopted the safety audit concept, conducting pilot studies as early as 1992 and developing related policies and procedures by 1993.23 In October of 1996, a nine-member, Federal Highway Administration-sponsored scanning team of U.S. personnel--from both government and academe--visited Australia and New Zealand to observe the two countries' "applications of the [RSAP] process, the framework in which audits are applied, and the policy context in which audits are conducted."24 The report from this 1996 scanning expedition is the progenitor of recent safety audit research and applications in the United States, including this report. ElementsRecall the Austroads handbook's definition of the Road Safety Audit: "a formal examination of an existing or future road or traffic project, or any project which interacts with road users, in which an independent, qualified examiner reports on the project's accident potential and safety performance."25 The elements of this definition, which are also applicable to Road Safety Audit Reviews, follow. Formal ExaminationThe RSAP utilizes a formal examination of the road. Austroads describes a three-stage process for this examination. First, the "designer or client selects an auditor, provides all the [project] documents, and holds a commencement meeting with the auditor."26 The auditor then "reviews all the documents and audits the drawings, inspects the site (including night time), repeats these two steps (as required), writes the audit report, and holds a completion meeting with the designer or client."27 Third, the "designer or client decides on the action required in response to the audit report and its recommendations...and documents these decisions."28 The auditor may use checklists or other safety issue lists to ensure that all relevant safety factors in the site visit or plan review are considered.29 However, the "auditor should use his/her own judgment [sic] about the safety of any feature."30 Indeed, "the checklists are not a substitute for knowledge and experience: they are an aid for the application of that knowledge and experience."31 Note that though the term "auditor" here is in the singular form, the audit may be done by a team of auditors. This is further explained later in this report. Existing or Future ProjectsThough the emphasis of the safety items audited will vary depending on the project's size and stage, project aspects such as the road's alignment, intersections, uses and users, signs, signals, lighting, barriers, maintenance, and operation typically are examined.32 The Applicable Projects.Audits are project specific,33 and can be conducted on a wide range of road projects, such as "new freeways, major divided roads, reconstruction and realignment projects, intersection projects, pedestrian and bicycle routes, [detoured] local roads near major projects, local area traffic management schemes and their component parts, signal upgradings, subdivision proposals, and accident reconstruction schemes."34 Furthermore, a Road Safety Audit Program also can provide for audits that are conducted on projects that are off-road--those "which affect nearby roads or create off-road areas, which effectively operate like roads."35 For instance, consider a shopping mall development that creates potential safety impacts as "vehicle/pedestrian conflicts in the new carpark, increased numbers of pedestrians crossing the adjacent road, [and] a spillover of parking onto an adjacent busy road."36 These potential safety impacts can be identified in an RSA and a RSAR. Transportation professors Eugene Wilson and Martin Lipinski found some RSAP applications in the U.S. They note that "the Pennsylvania DOT has had quite a successful pilot program to implement Road Safety Audits in the design phase," that "the New York DOT has a program to integrate RSAs in their pavement overlay program," and that "[a]nother 10 or more DOT's are involved in initiating RSA practices."37 The Road Safety Audit / Road Safety Audit Review Distinction.The Austroads handbook states that audits can be conducted at five stages, "regardless of the size or nature of [the road] project: the feasibility stage, the draft design stage, the detailed design stage, the pre-opening stage, and an audit of an existing road."38 Wilson and Lipinski divide these five stages into two categories: audits in the first three stages retain the name Road Safety Audit, while an audit in the fourth or fifth stage--on an existing road--is termed a Road Safety Audit Review.39 This distinction between pre-construction and post-construction audits has some implication in the law. It is addressed further in Chapter Six. Not surprisingly, the earlier the audit, the less costly it is to address potential safety improvements. Once "an inappropriate concept or treatment (i.e., one with inherent safety problems in the particular context) is chosen at the feasibility stage, it is very difficult, and often impossible to remove the safety problems at later design stages or once traffic is using it."40 Austroads provides examples of safety items that an audit might target in each of the five stages:
Safety of All Road UsersThe Austroads handbook explains that audits "assess the operation of the road," and "focus on road safety as it affects the users of the road."41 In addition to motorists, such users might include motorcyclists, truck and bus drivers, public transportation users, and pedestrians.42 The RSAP can affect the safety of other, less obvious road "users" as well. For instance, the owner of land that abuts the road can be at risk of loss from either personal or property damage caused by the unsafe condition on the adjacent road section. Recall also the "off-road" audit above in which the effects of a large development adjacent to the road spill over into the road. The safety of the pedestrians and of those who are forced to park on the street--while not using the road for transportation, but instead as a crosswalk or a parking area--is also certainly of concern. Independent and Qualified ExaminerThe RSAP utilizes an independent and qualified auditor to identify and report on the safety aspects of existing or future transportation projects.43 The two tests, independence and qualified, are explained next. Independence."Independence" of the auditor requires (1) the auditor to view the project from a safetydriven perspective and (2) that he or she not be familiar with the project. First, the auditor should focus only on road safety--he or she should not be biased by competing interests, such as financial or personnel constraints. Second, the "road safety auditor must be independent of the designer;" he or she should not be biased by prior project decisions.44 The Austroads handbook uses the phrase "'fresh eyes'" to describe what the auditor should bring to the audit.45 Qualifications.The qualifications of road safety auditors include having "sufficient experience and expertise in the areas of road safety engineering, accident investigation and prevention, traffic engineering, and road design."46 At a minimum, auditors should be familiar with traffic engineering operations and geometrics.47 But skills also may be needed in the areas of pavement performance, road construction, human factors, and other areas, depending on the audit stage and the complexity of the audit.48 Also important is the ability of auditors "to use their skills to see the road project from the point of view of the different types of 'customer' or road user--those able to think and perceive like each user."49 As an example of a unique road "customer," consider a bicyclist. The bicyclist has unique interests as a road user (especially in the road shoulder features), so the successful auditor will envision the road's safety from both a bicyclist's and a vehicle operator's point of view. The RSA / RSAR split affects qualifications needed for the audit. In RSAs (when the road is in its conceptual stage), key auditor skills include the ability to envision the proposed road and its potential safety improvements. In RSARs (when the road is being constructed or already exists), auditor skills include the ability to assess the existing road and its potential safety improvements. In other words, the auditor's ability to envision the road is needed in RSAs, while in RSARs, the ability to assess an existing road is needed. And again, in both RSAs and RSARs, the ability to analyze the road from the perspective of all road users is critical. Austroads recommends that audits be performed by an audit team, rather than a single auditor, (1) to take advantage of "the diverse backgrounds and different approaches of different people," (2) to enable "the cross-fertilisation [sic] of ideas which can result from discussions," and (3) because of the advantage of "simply having more pairs of eyes."50 A team of auditors with the type of experience recommended by Austroads may not be available or affordable, yet Austroads states that even "an audit by one person has the potential for significant accident savings."51 For example, according to transportation professor Eugene Wilson, as quoted in a National Safety Council publication, "[l]ocal governments won't hire a team of experts to tell them what's wrong with their roads--that formalized process is more applicable to the [State] Department of Transportation level."52 But, Wilson adds, the local government may "relax the audit format, yet still use audits as a structured tool to solve local problems."53 Austroads stopped short of establishing an auditor accreditation requirement. Instead, Austroads suggests (1) that auditors "be experienced and skilled (as described above)," (2) that they undertake "a 1 - 3 day road safety audit training program," and (3) that they "should have worked on at least one road safety audit with an experienced auditor."54 A recent study from the University of Wyoming analyzed the level of expertise required to perform a Road Safety Audit Review by comparing the audits of four groups of varying qualifications with a control group. The four groups were a team of independent engineers, a visiting engineer, a resident engineer, and a team of superintendents. In the control group were a transportation professor, a FHWA traffic safety engineer, and a Wyoming DOT traffic engineer.55 All five groups conducted Road Safety Audit Reviews of rural local roads in two counties in Wyoming. In the first county, the groups reviewed roads in four classifications (Rural Primary, Rural Secondary, Rural Local, and Rural Low-Volume Local). In the second county, the groups reviewed roads in five classifications (Major High Speed, Major Medium Speed, Minor, Rural Local, and Rural Low-Volume Local).56 The study had four conclusions. First, all levels of expertise found "valuable safetyimprovements."57 Second, "[a]ll levels of expertise demonstrated consistency in their assessment of the issue of [safety] urgency, especially in the intermediate to higher urgency levels."58 Third, the independent engineers identified "mainly the high priority safety needs," and fourth, the superintendents "were less likely to identify low priority issues."59 The study recommended that further research is needed to better define the requisite level of expertise needed for a competent RSA or RSAR. Report on SafetyThe purpose of the Road Safety Audit Program--of the Road Safety Audit and of the Road Safety Audit Review--is to generate safety information that can assist the transportation entity in decision-making. Results from the RSA or the RSAR generally are in the form of reports on safety issues of the audited road. Purpose of the Road Safety Audit ProgramThe Road Safety Audit Program has two purposes. First, the RSAP is "to identify potential safety problems for road users and others affected by a road project."60 Second, the RSAP is "to ensure that measures to eliminate or reduce the problems are considered fully."61 Focus on SafetySafety is paramount in the Road Safety Audit Program. Recall that the auditor is to be concerned only with safety aspects of the road and is not to be concerned with the financial or manpower aspects of the project. Moreover, while the RSAP involves a formal examination of the road with an eye toward identifying safety defects, it does not constitute a fault-finding mission aimed at embarrassing or even implicating the transportation entity or the designer, builder, or maintainer of the road whose decisions or actions may have led to the defect. Instead, "[t]he primary aim of a Road Safety Audit is to identify potential safety problems so that decisions can be made about eliminating or reducing the problems."62 Use of the AuditThe Road Safety Audit Program is a flexible and useful safety device. It allows for audits at the entire road system level and also at a specific location. It can provide a hierarchy of ratings of road safety deficiencies. At a minimum, it provides a tool for decision-makers at the transportation entity. Incorporates Both System-Wide and Spot ApproachesWriting for the Transportation Research Board, Benjamin Chatfield explains that two approaches to road safety improvements are used by transportation organizations: the Spot Improvement Approach and the System-Wide Safety Improvement Approach.63 Chatfield says that both approaches are necessary for "a balanced system."64 According to transportation professor Eugene Wilson, the "spot improvement approach focuses on hazardous locations or segments of a highway system on which crash frequency or severity is unusually high."65 Spot improvement projects usually result in "crash prevention measures" that may include "revising grade and alignment, widening pavement, [and] installing signs or signals."66 On the other hand, the System-Wide Approach targets "roadways in a substantial portion of an agency's jurisdiction," such as when it is desired "to install cross-bucks at all unmarked rail-highway crossings."67 Thus, the Spot Approach can lead to actions unique to the location of the safety analysis, whereas the System-Wide Approach may lead to treating a specific safety issue by providing improvements for that issue throughout the entire network. An example of the latter approach would be to apply state-of-the-art guardrail end treatments at all guardrail locations in the network. The Road Safety Audit Program can be used under either approach. The RSAP could be used as a Spot Approach in auditing a "new school crossing or set of road humps,"68 and it could be used in a System-Wide Approach in the audit of the system's traffic signals.69 The flexibility of the RSAP advances toward Chatfield's proposition of the necessity of both the Spot Approach and the System-Wide Safety Improvement Approach for "a balanced system."70 Provides a Hierarchy of RatingsPerhaps the primary use of the RSA and RSAR is to prioritize findings from the audit. According to Austroads, "[a]ny safety issue which is considered to be of sufficient hazard to warrant immediate attention for removal, protection or warning should be so identified."71 However, though the purpose of this use "is not to rate the design, but rather to address any road safety concerns,"72 a hierarchy of ratings of findings from the audited road likely will emerge. This hierarchy should be based on the severity of safety ratings, but should be listed "in an order which is logical for those considering the corrective actions."73 Professor Wilson provides an insightful example: "'[I]f there is a cliff next to a rural local roadway, the local government can recognize that deficiency, then put it into their own priority scheme, based on road usage.'"74 So this hierarchy of safety ratings contains judgments regarding the severity of the defect and is to be organized with the decision-maker in mind. Serves as a Tool for Decision-MakingAnother use of the audit is as a tool for the decision-maker in the transportation entity that performed the audit. Several levels of responses by the entity to the audit's findings are possible. The responses could be based on the defect, recommendation, or urgency of the recommendation. The entity could agree entirely with every defect and immediately adopt each and every recommendation from the audit or it could reject it all. One can see that there are manifold variations within these two extremes that could vary as to the assessment of the defect, timing of the adoption, and extent of the adoption. For example, the entity could agree as to the defect, but disagree about the recommendation or urgency of the recommendation. Or the agency may agree about the defect, recommendation, and urgency of the recommendation, but decide to postpone the recommendation out of funding or programmatic concerns. Legal issues associated with these decisions are addressed later in this report. Of importance here, is use of the audit findings as an information tool for the entity to utilize in deciding between courses of action. Results of the Road Safety Audit ProgramTransitioning from the purposes of the Road Safety Audit Program to the results of the RSAP, the benefits, costs, outcomes, and output of the RSAP are presented here. Benefits and Costs of the Road Safety Audit ProgramWith the focus on safety and the inclusion of a safety audit at all stages in a road project, which is targeted to all road users, benefits of the Road Safety Audit Program are obvious and substantial. The costs may be equally obvious yet are not nearly as substantial. BenefitsAustroads identifies five benefits of the RSAP. The RSAP can (1) reduce the likelihood of accidents, (2) reduce the severity of accidents, (3) elevate road safety "in the minds of road designers and traffic engineers," (4) reduce the need for "costly remedial work," and (5) reduce the "total cost of a project to the community, including accidents, disruption, and trauma."75 Writing for the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Robert Morgan adds also that the RSAP can foster "more explicit consideration of the safety needs of vulnerable road users," and may result in the "eventual safety improvements to standards."76 CostsThe costs of the RSAP include personnel, material, and time costs to conduct the RSAP. Morgan suggests that these costs "may be equivalent to less than 4 percent of the road design costs" which themselves are in the range of 5 to 6 percent of the overall project cost.77 Thus, these direct costs appear to be significantly less than 1 percent of the overall project cost. In fact, the Pennsylvania DOT recently conducted a pilot project on Road Safety Audits. According to Pennsylvania DOT engineer Tim Pieples, "[o]ur audits have resulted in significant design improvements that have been well worth that small cost."78 Outcomes of the Road Safety Audit ProgramRecall the two objectives of the Road Safety Audit Program. It is aimed at identifying the "accident potential and safety performance" of existing or future transportation projects79 and ensuring the full consideration of solutions for mitigating any deficiencies.80 Presumably, all audits will seek to satisfy these two objectives and should therefore result in general outcomes consistent with these two objectives. But other outcomes also may result from an audit that are more specific to the particular project. These two levels of outcomes, general and specific, are described here. General OutcomesAccording to the Austroads handbook, after the auditor assesses the relevant project documents and inspects the site, he or she should write a report. The main task of this report "is to succinctly report on aspects of the project which involve hazards and to make recommendations about corrective actions."81 Key components of the report, then, are that it should be succinct and that it should contain recommendations. Austroads notes that the "recommendations will usually indicate the nature or direction of a solution, rather than specifying the details of how to solve the problem....that will rest with the designer."82 Transportation professor Eugene Wilson proposes, though, that the auditor should record his or her concern and should assign an urgency and potential improvement to that concern.83 Professor Wilson also provides five categories on which the auditor should report: (1) roadside features, (2) road surface/pavement markings, (3) signing and delineation, (4) intersections and approaches, and (5) special road users, railroad crossings, and consistency.84 Each of these of course has several sub-categories, but these categories provide general guidelines. In sum, then, the RSAP report generally will be a succinct report, following categories similar to those proposed by Professor Wilson, with a description and recommendation of any safety deficiencies found in the project in those categories. Recommendations of the auditor might come with a priority and a suggested improvement strategy attached. A brief description of the audit process also may be included.85 Specific OutcomesResearch in the United States has led to the development of Road Safety Audit Programs tailored to bicycles, local agencies, small cities, and interstate reconstruction. Each of these specific audits yielded checklists that were tailored specially to the unique audit application. In the bicycle safety audit, a unique checklist was developed that targeted "general facility design, visibility, alignments, travel surface, signing, marking, issues associated with the multi-use path, and other types of bicycle areas."86 This project also demonstrated the Road Safety Audit Program's versatility in that it focused on a specific road user--the bicyclist. In 1998, transportation researchers Tate and Wilson developed a Road Safety Audit Program "for use by local agencies," first creating a rural road classification system "to help structure road safety audits" and then developing a RSAP tailored specifically to the rural local roads.87 The checklist developed in this research included a section for "general issues," which used categories similar to the five proposed by Wilson, above, but had two additional sections: one for "paved road issues" and another for "unpaved road issues."88 In the "paved road issues" section, the checklist targeted pavement markings and pavement conditions, and in the "unpaved road issues" section, the checklist focused on roadway surface considerations.89 Research by Haiar and Wilson developed a safety audit program for use in small cities, creating "a systematic process for examining [the] safety needs" of small cities.90 Two special checklists were developed in this study: one for traffic signs and another for intersections.91 In 1998, research by Bowler and Wilson led to the development of checklists for a Road Safety Audit of interstate reconstruction, focusing on evaluating "traffic control plans, devices, and strategies before the interstate work begins," to "ensure that major safety considerations have not been overlooked."92 Four special checklists were developed in this study, each targeting a specific type of interstate reconstruction work: (1) slab replacements on a rural interstate, (2) milling / resurfacing on a rural interstate, (3) two-lane, two-way operations on a rural interstate, and (4) entrance and exit ramps on a rural interstate.93 Most recently, in 2000, research by Wilson led to a refining of the local rural road classification initially developed by Tate and Wilson in 1998 and developed five categories discussed above (roadside features; road surface/pavement markings; signing and delineation; intersections and approaches; and special road users, railroad crossings, and consistency).94 The Output of the Road Safety Audit ProgramRecall that after the audit, the auditor should "succinctly report on aspects of the project which involve hazards and...make recommendations about corrective actions."95 This report will most likely address the general safety issues explained above and may contain specific issues related to the particular type of audit. The report also should contain the auditor's recommendations and suggestions for action with respect to each issue and may assign an urgency or ranking to the safety items.96 Austroads suggests the use of photographs or videotapes to supplement the audit report.97 18 Austroads, Road Safety Audit 10 (Austl. 1994). 19 Id. at 5. 20 Federal Highway Adminstration, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA Study Tour for Road Safety Audits: Part 1--Final Report 3 (1997). 21 Austroads, Road Safety Audit 5 (Austl. 1994). 22 Federal Highway Adminstration, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA Study Tour for Road Safety Audits: Part 1--Final Report 3 (1997). 23 See id. 24 See id. 25 Austroads, Road Safety Audit 10 (Austl. 1994). 26 Id. at 22. 27 Id. at 22. 28 Id. at 22. 29 Id. at 22. 30 Id. at 22. 31 Id. at 22. 32 Id. at 98. 33 Id. at 10. 34 Id. at 18. 35 Id. at 18. 36 Id. at 18. 37 Eugene M. Wilson & Martin E. Lipinski, Tailoring Road Safety Audits For Local US Applications, 2 (presented at the "Tenth International Conference: Traffic Safety on Two Continents," Malmo, Sweden, Sep. 1999). 38 Austroads, Road Safety Audit 15 (Austl. 1994). 39 Eugene M. Wilson & Martin E. Lipinski, Tailoring Road Safety Audits For Local US Applications, 2 (presented at the "Tenth International Conference: Traffic Safety on Two Continents," Malmo, Sweden, Sep. 1999). 40 Austroads, Road Safety Audit 15 (Austl. 1994). 41 Id. at 14. 42 Id. at 14. 43 Id. at 19. 44 Id. at 19. 45 Id. at 19. 46 Id. at 19. 47 Id. at 19. 48 Id. at 19. 49 Id. at 19. 50 Id. at 19. 51 Id. at 19. 52 Darcy Lewis, Road Safety Audits: Will They Work in the U.S.?, Traffic Safety: The Magazine for Promoting Safer Roadways, National Safety Council 14 (July/August 2000). 53 Id. at 14-15. 54 Austroads, Road Safety Audit 19 (Austl. 1994). 55 See generally, Eugene M. Wilson, Mountain-Plains Consortium, Adapting the Road Safety Audit Review for Local Rural Roads (2000) 56 See id. 57 Eugene M. Wilson, Mountain-Plains Consortium, Adapting the Road Safety Audit Review for Local Rural Roads 65 (2000). 58 Id. at 66. 59 Id. at 66. 60 Austroads, Road Safety Audit 14 (Austl. 1994). 61 Id. at 14. 62 Id. at 22. 63 Benjamin V. Chatfield, National Research Council, System-Wide Safety Improvements: An Approach to Safety Consistency 7 (National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 132, 1987). 64 Id. at 17. 65 Eugene M. Wilson, Mountain-Plains Consortium, Adapting the Road Safety Audit Review for Local Rural Roads 28 (2000). 66 See id. 67 See id. 68 Austroads, Road Safety Audit 18 (Austl. 1994). 69 See id. 70 Benjamin V. Chatfield, National Research Council, System-Wide Safety Improvements: An Approach to Safety Consistency 17 (National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 132, 1987). 71 Austroads, Road Safety Audit 44 (Austl. 1994). 72 See id. 73 See id. 74 Darcy Lewis, Road Safety Audits: Will They Work in the U.S.?, Traffic Safety: The Magazine for Promoting Safer Roadways, National Safety Council 14 (July/August 2000). 75 Austroads, Road Safety Audit 14-15 (Austl. 1994). 76 Robert Morgan, Road Safety Audit, in The Traffic Safety Toolbox: a Primer on Traffic Safety 293 (Institute of Transportation Engineers 1999). 77 See id. 78 Darcy Lewis, Road Safety Audits: Will They Work in the U.S.?, Traffic Safety: The Magazine for Promoting Safer Roadways, National Safety Council 15 (July/August 2000). 79 Austroads, Road Safety Audit 10 (Austl. 1994). 80 Id. at 14. 81 Id. at 43. 82 Id. at 43-44. 83 Eugene M. Wilson, Mountain-Plains Consortium, Adapting the Road Safety Audit Review for Local Rural Roads 48 (2000). 84 Id. at 74-75. 85 Austroads, Road Safety Audit 44 (Austl. 1994). 86 Eugene M. Wilson & Martin E. Lipinski, Tailoring Road Safety Audits For Local US Applications, 7 (presented at the "Tenth International Conference: Traffic Safety on Two Continents," Malmo, Sweden, Sep. 1999). 87 Joseph Tate III, & Eugene M. Wilson, Mountain-Plains Consortium, Adapting Road Safety Audits to Local Rural Roads 25 (1998). 88 Id. at 75-78. 89 Id. at 77-78. 90 Keith A. Haiar & Eugene M. Wilson, Mountain-Plains Consortium, Adapting Safety Audits for Small Cities 42 (1998). 91 Id. at 49-50. 92 1 Christopher P. Bowler & Eugene M. Wilson, Mountain-Plains Consortium,Road Construction Safety Audit for Interstate Reconstruction 68 (1998). 93 2 Id. at 73-80. 94 Eugene M. Wilson, Mountain-Plains Consortium, Adapting the Road Safety Audit Review for Local Rural Roads 74-75 (2000). 95 Austroads, Road Safety Audit 43 (Austl. 1994). 96 Eugene M. Wilson, Mountain-Plains Consortium, Adapting the Road Safety Audit Review for Local Rural Roads 48 (2000). 97 Austroads, Road Safety Audit 43 (Austl. 1994). |