Local Rural Road Safety Audit
Guidelines and Case Studies
Hesham Mahgoub, Ken Skorseth, Ronald Marshall, and Ali Selim
The main goal of this study was to improve the safety performance of
local rural roads in South Dakota by promoting road safety audits
(RSAs) and by providing a toolbox of low-cost safety improvement
strategies to county highway superintendents and local highway agen-
cies. The study conducted RSAs at 12 selected sites along county high-
ways, city streets, and township roads. RSA projects were selected through
South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program promotion and
commitments from South Dakota local agencies. The study exposed
local governments to the concept and practices of road safety analysis.
The study also provided a good opportunity for local highway agency
staff members to participate and gain experience by working with road
safety teams. This paper reports on the procedures and the results of the
rural road RSAs and identifies guidelines to conduct RSAs on local rural
roads to help local agencies identify, prioritize, and implement safety
improvements.
The safety of local rural roads in South Dakota deserves attention.
Over the past several years, an average of approximately 50 deaths
per year, 25% of the state’s total highway deaths, and 19% of its
injuries have occurred on local rural roads. Rollovers and fixed-object
crashes on local rural roads are two of the leading types of crashes,
which accounted for 43% of crashes and 70% of deaths and injuries
on these roads. Significantly, the fatality rate on South Dakota local
rural roads was higher than that of its surrounding states and nearly
50% higher than the national average for similar roads.
The main goal of this project was to improve the safety perfor-
mance of local rural roads in South Dakota by promoting road
safety audits (RSAs) and by providing a toolbox of low-cost safety
improvement strategies to county highway superintendents and local
highway agencies.
To demonstrate the effectiveness of RSAs for local rural roads,
the FHWA through the South Dakota Department of Transportation
(DOT) sponsored a series of eight RSAs. The aim of these case stud-
ies was to demonstrate the usefulness and effectiveness of RSAs for
a variety of local rural road projects, and in a variety of agencies
throughout the state.
H. Mahgoub, Room 120, and A. Selim, Room 100, Crothers Engineering Hall, Civil
and Environmental Engineering Department, Box 2219, and K. Skorseth, South
Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program, South Dakota State University,
Box 2220 Harding Hall, Brookings, SD 57007. R. Marshall, South Dakota Local
Transportation Assistance Program, Hat Ranch Drive, Belle Fourche, SD 57717.
Corresponding author: H. Mahgoub, Hesham.mahgoub@sdstate.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2182, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2010, pp. 97–104.
DOI: 10.3141/2182-13
97
RSA BACKGROUND
RSAs have been used successfully worldwide for a number of years
and have begun to gain acceptance in the United States. An RSA is
a proactive approach to improving highway safety (1). It is an exam-
ination of an existing or proposed roadway by an independent and
qualified team that prioritizes safety findings and reports on safety
issues.
The RSA concept was developed and introduced in 1989 in the
United Kingdom, where its use became mandatory by 1991. The ben-
efits of such systematic checking were soon recognized around the
world, and many countries have since established their own similar sys-
tems. Through the 1990s, audits were introduced in such countries as
Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Audits have been conducted in
the United States since the late 1990s. In 2000, Pennsylvania became
the first state to formally adopt the RSA into its processes.
The RSA focuses on safety for all road users. It is a formal exami-
nation that applies safety principles from a multidisciplinary perspec-
tive. FHWA defines RSA as a formal safety performance examination
of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent audit
team. It qualitatively estimates and reports on potential road safety
issues and identifies opportunities for improvements in safety for all
road users (2).
The national association of road transport and traffic authorities
in Australia defines a road safety audit as a formal examination of
an existing or future road or traffic project, or any project that inter-
acts with road users, in which an independent, qualified examiner
looks at the project’s accident potential and safety performance (3).
The RSA is not a means to rank or rate a project, nor is it a check
of compliance with standards. The RSA does not attempt to redesign
a project but provides recommendations or findings that should be
considered when a project is reviewed.
The key elements of this definition are that the RSA (4)
• Is a formal examination with a structured process and is not a
cursory review;
• Is conducted independently, by professionals who are not cur-
rently involved in the project;
• Is completed by a team of qualified professionals who represent
appropriate disciplines; and
• Focuses solely on safety issues.
STUDY APPROACH
Team Composition
An RSA team must be an independent, qualified team that identifies
and prioritizes safety findings and reports on safety improvement rec-
ommendations. The freedom, ability, and comfort of team members to
98
comment frankly on potentially controversial safety issues are crucial
to the success of such an audit. FHWA RSA guidance recommends
that, while a team member may be selected from within the local
highway agency, this individual must be able to truly act indepen-
dently. To maintain independence in the research reported here, the
local road manager was not a member of the team. In most of the
case studies of county roads, a neighboring highway superintendent
was on the RSA team.
In all cases, the teams included members with different areas
of expertise. Teams included someone familiar with the road (e.g.,
school bus driver, mail delivery person, law enforcement officer, road
maintainer/blade operator, truck driver), a person with multidiscipli-
nary experience to bring synergy to the team effort, and at least one
team member with professional experience in design, traffic opera-
tions, safety, and familiarity with design standards and the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (5).
The team leader was a South Dakota Local Transportation Assis-
tance Program (SDLTAP) staff member, responsible for familiarity
with the RSA process, coordination of the review, facilitation of
team communications, and preparation of written documentation
for the team. The team leader selected team members, coordinated
schedules, and notified the team with the dates for the field review.
While each team had three to five members, the actual composition
of the team varied according to the specific focus and expectations
of the review as defined by the local road manager.
RSA Process
The process of conducting an RSA was managed by the RSA team
leader in cooperation with the responsible road manager. The role
of the road manager was to identify the road or the location, pro-
vide the RSA team with the site information, and with the histori-
FIGURE 1 RSA process.
Transportation Research Record 2182
cal crash records, if available. The steps in the process are illus-
trated in Figure 1, and are discussed below with reference to the
case studies.
RSA projects were selected through SDLTAP communications
and commitments from South Dakota’s local agencies. The RSA team
members were selected in each case study according to the nature
and location of the project. All meetings and site visits for the RSAs
in the case studies were conducted in 1 day.
Typically, the RSA began with a start-up meeting attended by the
road manager. Team members then reviewed background informa-
tion, crash data, and proposed plans furnished to them to gain insight
and identify any preliminary areas of safety concern. The team leader
then reviewed the RSA process. This included an overview of the
RSA process with examples of safety issues typically encountered
and potential mitigation measures to address them.
After the start-up meeting, the RSA team conducted a field review
(Step 4). Its purpose was to observe geometric and operating condi-
tions of the roads. The RSA team observed road user characteristics
(e.g., autos, trucks, pedestrians, agricultural vehicles) and surrounding
land uses.
The research team identified a list of safety issues to be consid-
ered when doing a road safety field review. The list was not intended
to be all-inclusive but used as a starting point. Figure 2 illustrates the
main components of the review list, which asks a series of questions
to stimulate thinking about possible safety issues. It is formatted
as a checklist with space for notes to be taken during a review to
identify specific safety issues for possible consideration.
As the team conducted the RSA analysis, the main points of all
findings were gathered and recorded. The team leader kept detailed
notes of observations and a preliminary list of issues and proposed
recommendations for inclusion in the RSA report.
Crash severity was used to establish priorities, particularly fatal-
ity and personal injury versus property damage only (PDO) crashes.
Severity is often the result of speed and the type of crash. Crash
Mahgoub, Skorseth, Marshall, and Selim 99

FIGURE 2 Safety issues review list.

probability (i.e., expectation of future crashes) was also considered
by evaluating crash history. Locations with frequent and severe crashes
were given the highest priority. Table 1 illustrates this concept. As a
result of the low-traffic volume on many rural roads, and the infre-
quent and often random nature of crashes, this approach was taken
only when crash data were available.
The team evaluated the risk and prioritized safety concerns and
recommendations by using historical crash records and the concept
of risk. In this paper, the concept of risk is regarded as a relative
measure of accident rates. An RSA safety priority evaluation matrix
form had been used to assess risk on the basis of the likelihood of
an event and its possible consequences. This form was used by
RSA team members to set out their reasons for identifying a safety
issue as a risk and thereby develop team consensus on the highest
priority recommendations. Figure 3 shows the priority evaluation
matrix.
At the end of the field review, the RSA team and road manager
reconvened for a preliminary findings meeting. The objective of pre-
senting RSA findings at a closeout conference was to report orally
the key issues to be presented in the RSA formal report. The discus-
TABLE 1 Priority on Basis of Crash Severity
and Frequency
Frequency
Severity Frequent Occasional Rare
Fatal Urgent High Medium
Serious (injuries) High Medium Low
Minor (PDO) Medium Low Low
sion started with a review in which opportunities were identified to
improve safety from the team members’ observations.
After the on-site portion of the RSA, the team leader drafted a
report and provided an opportunity for each team member to review
and comment. Every effort was made to complete the formal report
within a relatively short time frame (2 weeks). A final report was
then sent to the local agency.
Road managers were encouraged to respond after reviewing the
final report and recommendations. The research team encouraged them
to outline actions that would be taken to address each safety concern
listed in the RSA report. Road managers had the opportunity to agree
or disagree with the recommendations. If they disagreed, the response
“no action will be taken” was documented. Table 2 summarizes
the RSA tasks descriptions and responsibilities.
ROAD SAFETY AUDIT CASE STUDY
South Dakota RSA Case Study Program
The research team conducted 12 RSAs at selected sites along county
highways, city streets, township roads, and other locations deemed
appropriate for the study. RSA projects were selected through
SDLTAP promotion and commitments from South Dakota’s local
agencies. The research team and the SDLTAP staff encouraged
commitments from local agencies to host RSAs throughout the dura-
tion of the study. A presentation on local, rural road safety was made
at the Region Local Roads Conference in 2008 in Rapid City, South
Dakota. RSAs were promoted as a useful way to identify needed
low-cost safety improvements. Also, RSA audits were promoted at
county and township association meetings and at 29 safety workshops
across South Dakota. The projects conducted in this case study
program are summarized in Table 3.
100 Transportation Research Record 2182

Description of issue/hazard:

Location:

Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Exposure
Probability
Consequence

Comment on Safety Risk:

Recommendation

FIGURE 3 RSA safety priority evaluation matrix form.

TABLE 2 Descriptions of Steps in Conduct of Road Safety Audit

Step Description Responsibility

1 Identify existing road (or proposed project) to be reviewed. Road manager

Scope of RSA and time schedule agreed to with team leader.
2 Select interdisciplinary team (usually three to five members). Team leader with road manager
Review available information—traffic data, roadway importance–functional classification, historical crash
records, and future plans (data support from DOT and DPS).
3 Conduct prefield review meeting to discuss background information and data, context, and scope of RSA and Team leader with RSA team and
any specific expectations. road manager
4 Perform field reviews. RSA team
Identify safety issues.
5 Discuss and evaluate findings. RSA team
Agree on safety issues and prioritize suggestions for reducing the degree of safety risk.
6 Close out with road manager to present preliminary findings. RSA team
Prepare written report summarizing findings, review and comment by team members, transmit to road Team leader
manager.
7 Respond to RSA report. Road manager
Outline actions to be taken by road manager and why some suggestions could not be implemented.
8 Take follow-up action(s). Road manager
Corrective actions completed.

TABLE 3 Road Safety Audit Case Study Projects

RSA Case
Facility Owner Project Number Comments

County Roads
Deuel County Clear Lake Rodeo Route 1 Special event traffic
Lawrence County Maitland Road 6 Development occurring, increased traffic
Day County Day County Route 1 7 Sight distance, traffic speed
Township Roads
Highland Township Highland Township road system 8 Crest vertical, curves and drainage
Intersections
City of Pierre Euclid & 4th 3 Day care center conflicts
City of Pierre Harrison & Church 4 Pedestrian safety
Railroad Crossing
Stanley County Bad River Road—DM&E railroad 2 Skewed crossing
crossing
City of Pierre Pierre St. railroad underpass 5 Low vertical clearance
Mahgoub, Skorseth, Marshall, and Selim
County Roads
The study included three county roads in Deuel, Lawrence, and Day
Counties. Two were gravel roads; the Day County road was paved.
Each of the three roads had its own characteristics and presented a
model case of safety features and problems.
Crystal Springs Rodeo Route
This road audit addressed the concerns about safety and operational
issues related to the annual Crystal Springs Rodeo, a 3-day event
held the last weekend in June. Attendance at the rodeo is estimated
at 10,000 over 3 days. Average daily traffic (ADT) has been esti-
mated to exceed 2,000. The traffic mix is both automobiles and heavy
vehicles. In addition to rodeo attendees in automobiles and pickup
trucks, many drive supply and service trucks, livestock trucks, and
horse trailers. The road has a posted speed limit of 50 mph. The sur-
face is asphalt concrete for the first mile, and then gravel the 4 mi to
the rodeo site.
A review of the crash records for the previous 3 years was requested
and reviewed. There were four reportable crashes, two of which were
deer hits. There was no observable pattern of crashes that could be
addressed by roadway safety improvements.
Maitland Road
Concern was raised about safety related to significant development
adjacent to and primarily served by the road. Maitland Road is a
gravel-surfaced road of approximately 8.6 mi. The gravel surface
was in good condition throughout its length. The posted speed limit
was 30 mph. Its functional classification is as a major collector, and
the route is designated as a federal-aid secondary route and is on the
forest highway system.
In the last 3 years, 31 crashes were reported (six in 2005, 11 in
2006, and 14 in 2007). Of the total, there were zero fatalities, eight
injuries, and 23 PDO crashes. Although no recent traffic counts were
available, traffic volume was increasing according to the county high-
way superintendent. In addition, as supported by the crash history,
safety is a growing concern. As the development now under way
is completed, demand on Maitland Road will increase, with higher
traffic volumes, and greater demand for routine maintenance, snow
removal, and emergency services.
Day County Route 1
Day County Route 1 (447th Avenue) is a major collector, bituminous-
surfaced road, which runs south from the southeast corner of Waubay.
The specific section of this road selected for this review was approx-
imately 2 mi in length, beginning approximately 4 mi south of town.
The surface was in good condition. It appeared to have been chip-
sealed within the last couple of years. Pavement markings were in good
condition, including striped “No Passing” zones. The posted speed
limit was 55 mph.
This road serves not only local and agricultural traffic but also
provides recreational access to area lakes. A boat ramp and parking
area for Bitter Lake were within the project limits. In addition, both
the county and township maintain gravel pits adjacent to the road,
where truck traffic creates potential conflict.
101
At the time of review, the team did not have records of all reportable
crashes for recent years; there had, however, been nine fatalities (six
within the limits of this project review). Although no recent traffic
counts were available, traffic volume is increasing. From the most
recent traffic counts, ADT was estimated at 400+. In addition, as sup-
ported by the crash history, safety was a growing concern because of
speed and limited sight distance as a consequence of the rolling terrain
(both horizontal and vertical curves).
Township Roads
The study performed RSAs at five locations in Highland Township
on local gravel-surfaced roads. The first, second, and fifth sites were
located on top of hills with limited sight distances. At the first site,
the roadway narrowed and shifted south at the crest. A sideswiping
incident that involved two vehicles was reported there recently. At
the second site, Highland Township supervisors were concerned
that the roadway was too narrow at the crest. At the third and fourth
sites, the roads narrow and pass through water.
Intersections
RSAs were conducted at two intersections in Pierre, South Dakota.
The first was located between two major roads with a day care facil-
ity at one corner of the intersection, while the second intersection
had no sidewalk on the northeast corner of the intersection.
Intersection of Euclid and 4th Street in Pierre
The review addressed concerns about safety and operational issues
related to the day care center located in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of Euclid and 4th Street in Pierre. Of primary safety
concern were the morning vehicle drop-offs and evening pickups of
children at the facility. These times of day were also when commuter
traffic was at its heaviest.
Pedestrian Safety at Local Intersection in Pierre
The intersection of Church and Harrison Avenue had been an issue
of interest to the city’s safety committee for several years. Citizens
voiced concerns about pedestrian safety because no sidewalk existed
on the east side of Harrison Avenue, north of Hilltop. The adjoining
lot steeply slopes down to the street, with a rock retaining wall adja-
cent to the curb and gutter on Harrison Avenue. The lot was devel-
oped before Harrison Avenue was extended to be a through street
north to serve the Pierre Mall. With the street extension, additional
development, and subsequent growth in vehicular traffic, the potential
for pedestrian-related accidents has grown.
Railroad Crossings
Bad River Road and DM&E Railroad Crossing
The primary safety concern was the potential for crashes at the rail-
road crossing because of its skewed angle. The county road (Bad
River Road) has a gravel surface and intersects the railroad track at
a skewed angle, which makes visibility in both directions difficult.
102
Pierre Street and DM&E Railroad Underpass
The primary safety concern was the number of vehicles that have hit
the structure. The railroad structure over Pierre Street is a midblock
location between Sioux Avenue (to the south) and Pleasant Street (to
the north). The structure has a vertical clearance of 11ft 3in. At this
location, Pierre Street is signed as US-14 and as US-83 through the
city. The truck route eastbound continues east from Pierre Street on
Sioux Avenue–Wells Avenue to Garfield and then northerly to US-14
and US-83. Westbound, the truck route leaves US-14 and US-83 and
turns south on Garfield, thence westerly on Wells and Sioux Avenues,
past Pierre Street to the Missouri River. These US routes connect with
Sioux Avenue from the west, turn north on Pierre Street, turn east on
Pleasant Street, and then north on Euclid to US-14 and US-83.
CASE STUDY FINDINGS
RSA teams identified some safety issues on most of the local roads
where RSAs were conducted in this study. Below, explanations of
each safety issue and the possible increase in accident risk are briefly
reported.
Roadside Obstacles
The main effect of roadside obstacle safety issues is not on accident
probability but on accident severity. An unprotected culvert end
next to the edge of the road presents a higher risk if it is located on
the outside of a curve just over a hill than if it is located on a straight
section of roadway in plain view of oncoming drivers. In several
locations mailboxes were mounted on bases, which created unsafe
roadside obstacles. In South Dakota, total reported mailbox crashes
have averaged 50 per year, with an average of 10 per year reported
on local rural roads. Consideration should be given to working with
individual property owners to replace these installations with posts that
will break away on impact. Roadside vegetation and roadside objects
present a high risk, especially if located close to an intersection or
railroad crossing.
Delineation
Delineation of the road is a critical safety issue especially at night-
time or in snow and rain. Supplementary delineation is an important
safety factor under any condition, especially on horizontal curves,
and isolated curves with a short radius. A safety approach is needed
that provides long-range delineation of the roadway alignment. The
chevron alignment sign is an important traffic control device used
to warn drivers of the severity of a curve by delineating the align-
ment of the road around that curve. Missing or ineffective chevrons
and damaged or missing guideposts or barrier reflectors can increase
the risk of an accident.
Cross Section, Alignment, and Access
Cross-section widths affect single-vehicle, run-off-the-road accidents,
and multiple-vehicle, head-on, opposite-direction, sideswipe, and
same-direction sideswipe accidents. Wider lanes and shoulder widths
provide safer operation and lead to fewer accidents. Inadequate sight
distance on horizontal and vertical curves is a common accident
contributory factor.
Transportation Research Record 2182
The geometry and location of direct access to roads can signifi-
cantly increase accidents. The wrong location of access points (e.g.,
access on horizontal or vertical curves) can be dangerous. Driveways
and driveway density also can have a dramatic effect on road safety.
Road Surface and Pavement
Safe roads must provide uniformly smooth surfaces and require good,
routine maintenance. Gravel roads need to be built with quality gravel,
have the proper shape, and provide for adequate drainage. On paved
roads, the factor that has the greatest impact on road safety is fric-
tion. The skid resistance of the road surface is an important safety
factor, especially when the surface is wet. Several studies show an
increase in accident risk when the friction decreases below certain
threshold values (6).
Pavement Marking
Pavement markings play a large role in the improvement of road
safety and are likely to be cost-effective. A relative increase in crashes
will result from missing or ineffective edge lines and center lines,
especially at horizontal curves. Centerline pavement marking is con-
sidered the minimal treatment for curve sections. Edge line pavement
marking delineates the edge of the roadway and provides a visual
reference to prevent motorists from drifting onto the shoulder.
Signs
The road signs that have the greatest effect on traffic safety are warn-
ing signs (7). They call attention to unexpected conditions and to sit-
uations that might not be readily apparent to the road users, giving
guidance for safe behavior. Faded and vandalized signs do not provide
needed information to drivers, especially at night. Regulatory signs,
such as ones that post speed limits, convey essential information on
safe behavior.
Maintenance
Funding for maintenance has been constrained by limited budgets
overall. The teams recognized the limited funds available to coun-
ties and townships to reconstruct or reshape their road systems. Con-
sequently, their recommendations were intended to be as practical
and cost-effective as possible to enhance safety at the sites selected
for review. The traveled way at the three sites in Highland Town-
ship, where sharp crests exist, could be widened to the local road
standard with a motor grader by widening some shoulders and cor-
recting alignment, and should not require actual reconstruction with
earthmoving equipment.
Culverts under narrow roadways with steep side slopes make for
potentially high-risk locations. Culverts should be extended to pro-
vide adequate clear zones and side slopes. Culvert ends should be
marked with delineators.
RSA FOLLOW-UP AND FEEDBACK
In the short time since the RSAs were completed in South Dakota in
May 2009, much has been done to improve safety. Reaction has
been positive at six of the eight sites audited, and activity has ranged
Mahgoub, Skorseth, Marshall, and Selim
from installation of new signs, or upgrades to current signs, to speed
limit changes, to long-term plans to realign roadways. Feedback on
each RSA case is reported below.
Crystal Springs Rodeo Route
After receipt of the RSA recommendations, Deuel County made
changes in traffic control by adding signs and temporarily reduc-
ing the speed limit during the annual rodeo on June 25–27, 2009.
No crashes were reported. This was a positive reaction to the RSA
done in late August 2008. In addition, in response to one of the
RSA recommendations, the county requested assistance to obtain
accurate traffic counts during the 3-day rodeo event, as well as
counts 2 days before and 1 day afterward. This information will
help the county make decisions on future safety improvements.
The county highway superintendent also commented positively on
the RSA, which he said permitted him to approach his commission
with recommendations from outside experts on how to enhance
local road safety.
Maitland Road
As a result of RSA report recommendations, Lawrence County
requested safety funds from the FHWA High Risk Rural Road
Safety Fund to make alignment changes on the approaches to a
low water crossing on Maitland Road. It was a positive reaction
to recommendations made in the RSA done there in October 2008.
Day County Route 1
In June 2009, the county commission passed a resolution to request
funding assistance from the FHWA High Risk Rural Road Safety
Fund (or another source, if feasible) through the South Dakota DOT
to make construction and operational improvements on Day County
Route 1. The RSA conducted there on April 9, 2009, the final report
submitted thereafter, and the addendum submitted by the South Dakota
DOT regional traffic engineer were the primary documents of support
used to make this request.
Bad River Road and DM&E Railroad Crossing
County officials installed new advance-warning railroad crossing
signs. They are attempting to make contact with the railroad fore-
man in the area to trim trees in the railroad right-of-way to improve
sight distances. The 35 mph speed limit has been extended approx-
imately 1,000 feet south; the intent is to reduce speed northbound
before the curve in the approach to the crossing.
Intersection of Euclid and 4th Street in Pierre
Pierre’s safety committee, with the help of the South Dakota DOT,
redesigned the day care facility entrance and exit. The new design
changed the main building access from the front to the rear. New
“Yield to Pedestrians in Crosswalk” signs have been placed in each
leg of the intersection. They reflect recommendations of the RSA con-
ducted in August 2008. Pierre is still limited, however, in its ability to
make additional improvements to signage and pavement marking.
103
Pierre Street and DM&E Railroad Underpass
A low-clearance detection device may be installed, if a cost–benefit
ratio supports it and adequate safety funds are available to do so.
KEY FACTORS AND LESSONS LEARNED
This project has increased awareness of local road and street safety
issues in South Dakota. When highway superintendents and local
managers are invited to serve as peer members of road safety review
teams, they learn from the experience and return to their departments
with a new perspective on how to analyze traffic safety within their
own highway systems.
One of the key elements of RSA success is good preparation before
an audit is performed. All information, including constraints, crash
history, project environment, and operations encountered at the site,
must be prepared and discussed during the start-up meeting. It is
crucial that the team members have a full understanding of the
constraints in order to reach practical and reasonable findings and
recommendations.
Recognition by RSA team members of safety issues identified in
the past often is significant for future safety efforts on rural roads.
The conduct of an RSA may help a team leader recruit appropriate
experts to address such issues. One lesson learned in this study was
that local government in South Dakota is wary of the RSA process.
The project proposal called for 10 local road safety audits but only
eight were completed because local agencies did not want to come for-
ward and ask for the service. SDLTAP promoted the project aggres-
sively. Three articles were written about it in a quarterly newsletter.
As part of another safety training activity, a 15-min promotional pre-
sentation was given at 29 locations from January through March 2008
and reached more than 850 people in local government. In addition,
the project was promoted at three statewide conferences of local
road and street officials. SDLTAP field staff also promoted the proj-
ect personally during routine field work. Despite these efforts, few
came forward to request the service.
Local champions that understand the RSA purpose and process
are needed to encourage their local agencies, along with their elected
officials, to request an RSA. Someone from local law enforcement
could also provide great input, as could local emergency responders.
It is good to have diversity on the RSA teams. The study recruited
a highway superintendent from a neighboring county. One MUTCD
expert is essential because many low-cost improvements involve sign-
age, delineation, and marking. Yet each RSA must follow the audit
outlines; it is not a MUTCD compliance review. A surface condition
and pavement expert can contribute expertise to the RSA team, too.
The team must understand the functional classifications of local
roads, in order to contribute sound input into prioritization recom-
mendations made on the basis of risk, and to offer some positive
feedback.
It is important to schedule the RSA field review during regular,
recurring traffic conditions. Where possible, the RSA team should
visit the project site when traffic conditions are typical or represen-
tative. The RSA team on the Crystal Springs Rodeo route scheduled
site visits there during August to address concerns about safety and
operational issues related to the annual rodeo held during the last
weekend in June. Attendance at the rodeo was estimated at 10,000
over 3 days. The RSA team did not observe the tourist traffic asso-
ciated with the event. Their absence did not significantly affect the
RSA findings or recommendations to improve permanent signage
104
on the route, and to add signage during the rodeo event to improve
safety for motorists not familiar with the route.
Throughout the project, local managers noted that they had lim-
ited budgets and did not have the money to make changes that the
RSA might recommend. This might account for the lack of recep-
tivity to the audit; local managers might feel that, without sufficient
funds to act on the recommendations, the RSA would be of little
value. There was also fear that the existence of a document on record
that identified safety problems at a local site could be used against
them in litigation, if the problems were not quickly remedied.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The local rural RSA case studies sponsored by the FHWA through
the South Dakota DOT have been well received by the participating
highway agencies. In a short period of time since the RSAs were
completed, numerous actions have been taken to improve safety.
The project has exposed local governments to the concept and prac-
tices of road safety analysis. The project has also provided a good
opportunity for local highway agency staff members to participate and
gain experience from working with road safety teams.
The major issues that the audits identified related to intersection
sight distance, angle of approach, signage, road alignment, vertical and
horizontal curvature, culverts, table drains and location of signage, and
visibility and legibility of signs.
Many of the recommended solutions related to maintenance prac-
tices (e.g., keeping the immediate roadside clear of vegetation to
improve sight distance through curves), delineation (e.g., marking cul-
verts with guideposts), and general sign improvement (e.g., installing
signs to warn of particularly sharp or unexpected changes in the
horizontal or vertical alignment).
Continuous conduct of RSAs on local, rural roads will help local
agencies to identify and prioritize safety improvements. The audits
can also be used to implement a plan that improves safety.
The issue of marketing safety evaluations deserves special atten-
tion. The U.S. Department of Transportation could help convince
Transportation Research Record 2182
local road agencies to pursue RSAs and safety assessment programs
by providing some incentive for funding improvements identified
through those programs.
Some local officials oppose the term “audit.” The word has a neg-
ative connotation in the minds of many people, as discussed at the
April 2009 SDLTAP Advisory Board meeting. One of the advisory
board members suggested that a different term, such as “road
safety review” or “road safety assessment,” might be used in the
future.
Clearly, safety has to be a part of routine maintenance activities.
There is a need to recognize the value of an occasional assessment
through the eyes of someone other than the usual maintenance and
management staff, however, particularly at locations with significant
crash histories or the potential for crashes. The Local Rural Road
Safety Handbook, developed as a product of this study, includes a
safety issues review list, which could be used both by an RSA team
and a local road manager to conduct safety assessments.
REFERENCES
1. Wilson, E. M. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 321: Roadway
Safety Tools for Local Agencies. Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003.
2. FHWA. Road Safety Audit Guidelines. FHWA SA-06-06. Office of
Safety, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2006.
3. Austroads. Road safety audit. Austroads National Office, Australia, 1994.
4. Wilson, F. R., and E. D. Hildebrand. Road Safety Audits for New Brunswick.
Presented at New Brunswick Department of Transportation, Fredericton,
New Brunswick, Canada, April 9, 1999.
5. FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Millennium Edition.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2000.
6. Wallman, C., and H. Astrom. Friction Measurement Methods and the Cor-
relation between Road Friction and Traffic Safety. Swedish National Road
and Transport Research Institute, 2001.
7. Drory, A., and D. Shinar. The Effects of Roadway Environment and
Fatigue on Sign Perception. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 13, No. 1,
Spring 1982, pp. 25–32.
The Transportation Safety Management Committee peer-reviewed this paper.