Chapter Four - The Road Safety Audit Program Distinguished

The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.
Proverbs 18:17

An examination of existing road safety programs reveals some background into implementing a Road Safety Audit Program, and examining other infrastructure management programs revealed their common characteristics. The Road Safety Audit Program is contrasted with these programs.

Other Infrastructure Management Systems

In 1991, when Congress enacted ISTEA, it required states to implement a Safety Management System (SMS). In fact, Congress required five other infrastructure management systems in ISTEA: Pavement Management System (PMS), Bridge Management System (BMS), Traffic Congestion (CMS), Public Transportation Facilities and Equipment (PTMS), and intermodal transportation facilities and systems IMS.⁹⁸ Like the SMS, these programs no longer are mandatory, but instead are guidelines.⁹⁹ Research in Pavement Management Systems and Bridge Management Systems offers some assistance in analyzing the Road Safety Audit Program.

Both the PMS and BMS rely heavily on a computer database for storing data on thetransportation entity's pavement and bridges, respectively. According to the FHWA, "[a] pavement management system is built around a database."¹⁰⁰ The PMS database may include data regarding the pavement's "identification, inventory, condition, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, [and] cost information."¹⁰¹ The BMS centers around a bridge management database called "Pontis."¹⁰² The database includes cost data and data on the condition of bridge components, which "is analyzed to arrive at least cost (optimal) long term preservation and improvement policies for a network of bridges."¹⁰³

The FHWA issues some warnings about implementing a PMS. The FHWA warns that in some transportation entities, barriers to implementing the PMS may arise out of fear of exposure, turf protection, and perceived complexity of the new system.¹⁰⁴ Admitting that "[t]here are no magic solutions to overcome, remove, or bypass all barriers," the FHWA goes on to say that some of the barriers can be "overcome by improved communications and education."¹⁰⁵

Two lessons learned from these two infrastructure management programs are relevant here. First, the PMS and BMS systems provide some examples for using computers to store and analyze infrastructure information. Second, the PMS system provides insight into barriers that might impede implementation of an infrastructure management program such as the Road Safety Audit Program.

Existing Road Safety Programs

Road safety programs that have been used to varying degrees by transportation entities are explained here. The Road Safety Audit Program is contrasted with these programs.

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) was created by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 1979 "to establish the policy for the development and implementation of a comprehensive highway safety program in each state."¹⁰⁶ The LHSIP, or Local Highway Safety Improvement Program, created in 1986, was provided for local transportation entities.¹⁰⁷ Both the HSIP and LHSIP use the Spot Improvement Approach--they use crash data that reveal high accident locations such as an intersection or bridge.

These programs have three broad components: planning, implementation, and evaluation.¹⁰⁸ Each component has several specific processes, subprocesses, and procedures.¹⁰⁹ For example, the planning component has four processes (collect and maintain data, identify hazardous locations and elements, conduct engineering studies, and establish project priorities), which in turn consist of seven subprocesses and 68 procedures.¹¹⁰

The acronym "HSIP," when used hereafter in this paper, will refer to both the HSIP and the LHSIP unless indicated otherwise.

The Safety Management System (SMS)

When Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), it required that states have a Safety Management System (SMS) by October of 1994.¹¹¹ Though initially this was mandatory, Congress relaxed the requirement in 1995 and allowed states the option of enacting a SMS.¹¹²

The SMS utilizes five steps: (1) coordinating with other safety programs, (2) developing systems "to ensure that the major safety problems are identified and addressed," (3) "ensuring early consideration" of road safety, (4) "identifying [the] safety needs of special user groups," and (5) performing routine maintenance and upgrades on road safety hardware.¹¹³ Congress also suggests additional elements that include establishing goals and accountabilities, coordinating among multiple agencies, utilizing databases, and implementing public information campaigns.¹¹⁴

Other Road Safety Programs

The American Association of State and Highway and Transportation Officials is developing a safety information management system called Transportation Safety Information Management Systems (TSIMS).¹¹⁵ This system is not so much a comprehensive program as it is a computer database that can manage road safety information.¹¹⁶ Other programs have been proposed that also emphasize computer inventories of crashes and defects.¹¹⁷ Because the AASHTO TSIMS program still is in the design stage and because the other proposed programs have not been used extensively, the analysis in this report focuses on the HSIP and the SMS.

Common Characteristics

Notwithstanding their common goals of improving road safety, two characteristics of the existing road safety programs become apparent - their reactive approach to improving road safety and their detailed structure, and are explained here.

Reactive Approach

Both the HSIP and the SMS systems are "reactive" in the sense that their safety analyses are triggered largely by crash data. The core of these programs is a safety system that "reacts" to crash data by undertaking a safety evaluation.

For example in the HSIP, the first of six processes is to "collect and maintain data," and the second process is to "identify hazardous locations and elements."¹¹⁸ The remaining four processes concern the safety analyses and safety project implementation to be performed once the hazardous locations and elements are identified.¹¹⁹ The HSIP alludes to the need for identifying potential high accident-locations, but provides little guidance as to how to do so.¹²⁰ Instead, the HSIP describes a robust system for managing crash data management and identifying hazardous locations based on the data.¹²¹

The six processes of the HSIP are (1) Collect and Maintain Data, (2) Identify Hazardous Locations and Elements, (3) Conduct Engineering Studies, (4) Establish Project Priorities, (5) Schedule and Implement Safety Improvement Projects, and (6) Determine the Effect of Highway Safety Improvements.

Similarly, the SMS suggests the consideration of "identifying and investigating hazardous or potentially hazardous highway safety problems" in an entity's road safety program.¹²² But, like the HSIP, the SMS focuses on a reactive approach in which crash data is collected, maintained, disseminated, and analyzed, "to assess highway safety needs, select countermeasures, and set priorities."¹²³

Other road safety programs, such as that being developed by AASHTO,¹²⁴ also use this reactive approach. They use computer databases to manage road safety information and emphasize computer inventories of crashes and defects.¹²⁵

Cumbersome Structure

Another defining feature of the existing road safety programs is their detailed and cumbersome procedures. For example, in the HSIP, 68 procedures are provided in a methodical, detailed approach. ¹²⁶ Computer databases and statistical analyses abound in the HSIP.¹²⁷

The SMS has fewer procedures than the HSIP, but is no less burdensome. Being a set of overall safety program guidelines, the SMS recommends program elements aimed at coordination with other agencies, developing public education programs, and carrying out safety training.¹²⁸ Carrying out these additional elements of implementing coordination, education, and training programs are noble and worthwhile , but only are indirectly related to improving the safety of a particular road.

Whether it is through several detailed steps as in the HSIP or through fewer but large tasks as in the SMS, improving the safety of a particular road is achieved only after expending significant time and resources. Moreover, the circuitous routes involved in each create a cumbersome program structure for the entity aimed at improving road safety.

Distinguishing the Road Safety Audit Program

The Road Safety Audit Program differs from existing road safety programs in three ways. First, the RSAP is not solely a reactive program. It can be used as a reaction to a high accident location as indicated by crash data, but it is not as dependent on crash data as the HSIP and SMS are. Second, the RSAP is simple and not cumbersome. Third, the RSP is flexible and not rigid.

Proactive and Reactive

The Road Safety Audit Program is proactive--its use does not depend on a triggering event from crash data. It certainly can be implemented as a reaction to a high accident location in the crash data, but it does not have to be. For example, if crash data indicate that an intersection has a large amount of crashes, this may trigger a safety evaluation of that intersection in the form of a Road Safety Audit Review. But a Road Safety Audit can be conducted of the same intersection even while it is in the design stage--while it is still conceptual.

This is one of the powers of the Road Safety Audit Program. It can be proactive and reactive. A Road Safety Audit can be conducted on a road in its design stage, a Road Safety Audit Review can be conducted on the same road after the road is built, and RSAR's can continue on the road over time.

But the advantages to a proactive approach to identifying road safety are not limited to identifying safety defects of a road in the design stage. It can identify safety issues in a road from adjacent land uses, such as the potential spillover effects from a planned commercial development. Neither the road nor the development need exist. Reactive approaches that rely on crash data would not identify any such safety deficiencies until both the road and the development are built and several accidents have occurred in the area of concern.

A second advantage of a proactive approach to safety is that it can identify safety problems that do not show up in crash data. For example, if a new road has been built and little crash data exist for the road, the reactive approach would not be triggered. But a Road Safety Audit Review of that road could identify safety defects. Or, if a safety defect results in several "near misses" or minor "fender-benders" that do not register in crash data, the reactive approach would not be triggered, but a Road Safety Audit Review could identify the safety defect.

Simple, Not Cumbersome

In contrast with the HSIP's manifold procedures including database utilization and statistical analyses of crash data, the RSAP appears quite simple. The RSAP consists of three primary stages (auditor selection, audit, and report)¹²⁹ which consist of steps themselves, but no computer usage or statistical analyses--steps which require significant time, money, and expertise--are required.

Furthermore, the RSAP has a sharper focus on road safety than the SMS program.¹³⁰ The SMS has elements that have the transportation agency engaging in public education programs, coordinating with other agencies, and carrying out safety training.¹³¹ While these additional elements are aimed at improving road safety, they do not go directly to one particular road's safety. The RSAP does.

Flexible, Not Rigid

The HSIP uses only the Spot Improvement Approach in that it targets a particular high crash location as indicated by the crash data. But the Road Safety Audit Program can be used as a Spot Improvement Approach and a System-Wide Improvement Approach. For example, a Road Safety Audit Review can be used to examine a notorious bridge in a Spot Approach, or can be used to review the safety of all of the bridges in a particular corridor.

This flexibility is another powerful asset of the Road Safety Audit Program. It is not confined to safety evaluations on only those spots with high crash rates.

Compatibility

When compared to existing road safety systems, the proactivity, simplicity, and flexibility of the Road Safety Audit Program emerges. But the Road Safety Audit Program and the existing road safety programs can coexist--they are compatible.

By itself the Road Safety Audit Program is sufficient for improving road safety, but it can interface with the HSIP and the SMS if desired. In the HSIP, a Road Safety Audit Review can be performed once the crash data indicate that a particular area in the road system warrants a safety evaluation. In the SMS, the Road Safety Audit Program can fit into the first step of the overarching safety management system as one safety program that the safety manager must coordinate.

Summary

The value of the Road Safety Audit Program lies not only in its proactivity, simplicity, and flexibility, but also in its compatibility with existing road safety programs. Lessons from the Bridge and Pavement Management Systems include how computer databases may be used to store infrastructure data and how an entity may need to overcome some barriers in implementing the RSAP. So an entity can improve road safety through using the Road Safety Audit Program alone or it can dovetail its existing HSIP and SMS programs with the Road Safety Audit Program.

98 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Case Studies of Highway Safety Management Systems (Participant Workbook) 9 (1997).

99 See id.

100 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Graduate Course in Pavement Management 15-2 (1992).

101 See id.

102 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Welcome to the Bridge Management Group Page (visited Oct. 23, 2001) <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/manag.htm>.

103 See id.

104 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Graduate Course in Pavement Management 22-2 to 22-5 (1992).

105 Id. at 22-6.

106 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 1 (1981).

107 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (LHSIP) 2-3 (1986).

108 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 1 (1981), and Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (LHSIP) 2-3 (1986).

109 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 8 (1981) and Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (LHSIP) 2-3 (1986).

110 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 2-3 (1986).

111 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Safety by Design (Safety Management Systems: Good Practices for Development and Implementation)2 (1996).

112 Id. at 3.

113 Id. at 3.

114 Id. at 5-6.

115 See generally, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Transportation Safety Information Management System (TSIMS) (visited Oct. 28, 2001) <http://www.aashtoware.org/tsims/site.nsf>.

116 See id.

117 See, for example, Tapan K. Datta, Roadway Defect Surveillance--A Personal Computer- Based System, ITE Journal 26 (August 1995), and Yusuf M. Mohamedshah & Amy R. Kohls, Accident Rates Using HSIS, Public Roads 44 (Summer 1994).

118 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 11 (1981).

119 Id. at 11.

120 Id. at 71.

121 See generally, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) (1981).

122 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Safety by Design (Safety Management Systems: Good Practices for Development and Implementation) 5 (1996).

123 Id. at 6.

124 See generally, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Transportation Safety Information Management System (TSIMS) (visited Oct. 28, 2001) <http://www.aashtoware.org/tsims/site.nsf>.

125 See, for example, Tapan K. Datta, Roadway Defect Surveillance--A Personal Computer- Based System, ITE Journal 26 (August 1995), and Yusuf M. Mohamedshah & Amy R. Kohls, Accident Rates Using HSIS, Public Roads 44 (Summer 1994).

126 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 14-15 (1981).

127 See generally, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) (1981).

128 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Safety by Design (Safety Management Systems: Good Practices for Development and Implementation) 6 (1996).

129 Austroads, Road Safety Audit 22 (Austl. 1994).

130 Id. at 14.

131 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Safety by Design (Safety Management Systems: Good Practices for Development and Implementation) 6 (1996).