USA Banner
  U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Here's how you knowOfficial US Government Icon
              **Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
            Secure Site Icon
              **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                  A **lock** ( A locked padlock ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. 
 U.S. Department of Transportation Icon United States Department of Transportation
 Search DOT
            Search
                    About FHWAFHWA Organization
                Headquarters Offices
                Field Offices
                Strategic Plan
                Business Opportunities
                Staff Directories
                Careers
                Highway History
                Contact UsProgramsAcquisition Management
                Civil Rights
                Federal Lands Highway
                Infrastructure
                Innovative Program Delivery
                Operations
                Planning, Environment, and Realty
                Policy
                Research, Development, and Technology
                Safety
                Browse by TopicsResourcesCore Highway Topics
                Federal Aid Essentials
                Automation
                Complete Streets
                Laws and Regulations
                Policy & Guidance Center
                Section 508
                Publications and Statistics
                Professional Development
                National Highway Institute
                Resource Center
                Accessibility Resource Library
                FHWA Research LibraryNewsroomPress Releases
                Speeches & Testimony
                Photos
                Videos
                Media ContactsMenu FHWA Highway Safety Programs Home
                        Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case Studies


            
            In This Section
        Safety Data Analysis & Tools
                Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse
                Roadway Safety Data Program (RSDP)
                                Overview
                Data Driven Safety Analysis
                Data Management
                Safety Data Analysis Tools
                Local Data Integration
                Technical Assistance
                Case Studies
                Training
                Resources
                Highway Safety Manual (HSM)
                Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) and FDEs
                Systemic
                                Overview
                Why Systemic
                Training
                Resources
                Road Safety Audits
                                Overview
                Benefits
                Legal Issues
                Steps of Conduct
                Training
                Resources
                
                THE RSA PROCESS
Eight Steps of an RSA

The eight steps of an RSA are shown in Figure 1, and are discussed below with reference to the case studies.

Figure 1. Flowchart. Flowchart of the eight-step RSA process (click image for alternate description).

FIGURE 1 RSA PROCESS

**RSA projects** and the **RSA team** (Steps 1 and 2) were pre-selected in this FHWA case studies project. RSA teams were interdisciplinary, including engineering and enforcement staff. A pavement specialist was included in the case of the Standing Rock Sioux RSA.

All meetings and site visits for the RSAs in the case studies project were conducted over three days. The RSAs typically began with a **start-up meeting** (Step 3) attended by the Project Owner (hereafter referred to as the Owner), the Design Team (Santa Clara Pueblo only), and the RSA team:

The Owner described the tribe's and other users' concerns regarding the roads to be audited, why the sites had been chosen for an RSA, and any constraints or limitations. Typically, the reasons for the RSA site selection centered on high-profile crashes or public safety concerns.
	For the Santa Clara Pueblo RSA, which included a planning-stage RSA, the Design Team representative then described the future road design, including its constraints and challenges.
	The multidisciplinary RSA team then described the RSA process. This included an overview of the RSA process with examples of safety issues that are typically encountered and mitigation measures to address them.Photo. RSA start-up meeting. Participants in a start-up meeting sit around a table looking at photos of the project location.**FIGURE 2
START-UP MEETING**

Photo. RSA field review. Members of an audit team inspect guardrail at a project locations.**FIGURE 3
FIELD REVIEW**



Following the start-up meeting and a preliminary review of the design or site documentation provided by the Owner and Design Team, the RSA team conducted a **field review** (Step 4). The purpose of the field review was to observe the ambient conditions in which the proposed design would operate (for the planning-stage RSA), or to observe geometric and operating conditions (for the RSAs of existing roads). The RSA team observed road user characteristics (such as typical speeds and traffic mix), surrounding land uses (including traffic and pedestrian generators), and link points to the adjacent transportation network. Field reviews were conducted by the RSA team under a variety of environmental conditions (such as daytime and night-time) and operational conditions (such as peak and non-peak times).

The team conducted the **RSA analysis** (Step 5) in a setting in which all team members reviewed available background information (such as traffic volumes and collision data). The RSA analysis methodology involved a systematic review of features at the RSA sites, including road geometry, sight distances, clear zones, drainage, signing, lighting, and barriers. Human factors issues were also considered by the RSA team, including road and intersection "readability," sign location and sequencing, and older-driver limitations. On the basis of this review, the RSA team identified and prioritized safety issues, features that could contribute to a higher frequency and/or severity of crashes. For each safety issue, the RSA team generated a list of possible ways to mitigate the crash potential.

At the end of the analysis session, the Owner, Design Team (Santa Clara Pueblo only), and RSA team reconvened for a **preliminary findings meeting** (Step 6). Presenting the preliminary findings verbally in a meeting gave the Owner and Design Team the opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification on the RSA findings, and also provided a useful forum for the Owner and Design Team to suggest additional or alternative mitigation measures in conjunction with the RSA team. The discussion provided practical information that was subsequently used to write the RSA report.

**FIGURE 4
RSA ANALYSIS SESSION**

Photo. Preliminary findings meeting. Members from a project owner/design team sit in a room listening to a presentation from RSA audit team members.**FIGURE 5
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS MEETING**



In the weeks following the on-site portion of the RSA, the RSA team wrote and issued the **RSA report** (also part of Step 6) to the Owner documenting the results of the RSA. The main contents of the RSA report were a prioritized listing and description of the safety issues identified (illustrated using photographs taken during the site visit), with suggestions for improvements.

The Owner and Design Team were encouraged to write a **brief response letter** (Step 7) containing a point-by-point response to each of the safety issues identified in the RSA report. The response letter identifies the action(s) to be taken, or explains why no action would be taken. The formal response letter is an important "closure" document for the RSA. As a final step, the Owner and Design Team were encouraged to use the RSA findings to identify and implement safety improvements as and when policy, manpower, and funding permit (Step 8).

Prioritization of Issues

Where reliable crash data were not available (or where a design was being audited), a prioritization framework was applied in both the RSA analysis and presentation of findings. The likely *frequency* and *severity* of crashes associated with each safety issue were qualitatively estimated, based on team members' experience and expectations. Expected crash *frequency* (Table 2) was qualitatively estimated on the basis of expected exposure (how many road users would likely be exposed to the identified safety issue?) and probability (how likely was it that a collision would result from the identified issue?).

Expected crash *severity* (Table 3) was qualitatively estimated on the basis of factors such as anticipated speeds, expected collision types, and the likelihood that vulnerable road users would be exposed. These two risk elements (frequency and severity) were then combined to obtain a qualitative risk assessment on the basis of the matrix shown in Table 4. Consequently, each safety issue was prioritized on the basis of a ranking between A (lowest risk and lowest priority) and F (highest risk and highest priority). It should be stressed that this prioritization method was qualitative, based on the expectations and judgment of the RSA team members, and was employed to help the Owner and Design Team prioritize the multiple issues identified in the RSA.

For each safety issue identified, possible mitigation measures were suggested. The suggestions focused on measures that could be cost-effectively implemented within likely budget limitations.

**TABLE 2 FREQUENCY RATING**
	ESTIMATED
			EXPECTED CRASH FREQUENCY (per RSA item)
			FREQUENCY RATINGEXPOSURE
			PROBABILITYhigh
			high
			10 or more crashes per year
			frequentmedium
			highhigh
			medium
			1 to 9 crashes per year
			occasionalmedium
			mediumlow
			highhigh
			low
			less than 1 crash per year, but more than 1 crash every 5 years
			infrequentlow
			mediummedium
			low
			less than 1 crash every 5 years
			rarelow
			low

**TABLE 3 SEVERITY RATING**
	TYPICAL CRASHES EXPECTED (per RSA item)
			EXPECTED CRASH SEVERITY
			SEVERITY RATINGcrashes involving high speeds or heavy vehicles, pedestrians, or bicycles
			probable fatality or incapacitating injury
			Extremecrashes involving medium to high speed; head-on, crossing, or off-road crashes
			moderate to severe injury
			Highcrashes involving medium to low speeds; left-turn and right-turn crashes
			minor to moderate injury
			Moderatecrashes involving low to medium speeds; rear-end or sideswipe crashes
			property damage only or minor injury
			Low

**TABLE 4 CRASH RISK ASSESSMENT**
	FREQUENCY RATING
			
			SEVERITY RATINGlow
			Moderate
			High
			extremefrequent
			C
			D
			E
			Foccasional
			B
			C
			D
			Einfrequent
			A
			B
			C
			Drare
			A
			A
			B
			C*Crash Risk Ratings:*
			**A**:*lowest risk level*
			**C**:*moderate-low risk level*
			**E**:*high risk level***B**:*low risk level*
			**D**:*moderate-high risk level*
			**F**:*highest risk level*
      
  Book traversal links for THE RSA PROCESS
      ‹ INTRODUCTION
                    Up
                    RSAs: COSTS AND BENEFITS ›
                
                Book:Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case Studies
              Acronyms
                EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
                INTRODUCTION
                THE RSA PROCESS
                RSAs: COSTS AND BENEFITS
                Chapter 3–Coordinating with Internal and External Partners
                THE FHWA CASE STUDIES: PROMOTING THE ACCEPTANCE OF RSAs
                CONCLUSION
                APPENDIX A
                Chapter 5–Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions
                Chapter 7–Addressing Local Road Needs
                Chapter 8–Considering all "4E's"
                Chapter 9–Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery
                Appendix A–Key Contacts from Host States
                Appendix B–Scan Team Members
                Appendix C–Notable Practices by State U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

**Federal Highway Administration**

1200 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, SE

WASHINGTON, DC 20590

202-366-4000Subscribe to email updates
                    About
  

        
              About FHWA
                Careers
                Org Chart
                Staff Directories
                Work with UsPrograms
  

        
              Acquisition Management
                Civil Rights
                Federal Lands Highway
                Infrastructure
                Innovative Program Delivery
                Operations
                Planning, Environment, and Realty
                Policy
                Research, Development, and Technology
                SafetyPolicies, Rights, Legal
  

        
              About DOT
                Accessibility
                Budget and Performance
                Civil Rights
                FOIA
                Information Quality
                No FEAR Act
                Office of Inspector General
                Privacy Policy
                USA.gov
                Web Policies and Notices
                Web StandardsNews & Events
  

        
              Newsroom
                Press Releases
                Speeches & Testimony
                Media Contacts
                Connect with Us