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
                        FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines


            
            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
                
                2.0 Implementation of Road Safety Audits
Part A: Background to Road Safety Audits

2.0 Implementation of Road Safety Audits

Public agencies with a desire to improve the overall safety performance of roadways under their jurisdiction should be excited about the concept of Road Safety Audits (RSAs). An RSA program can range from something very simple to the full integration of safety into every stage of each project. The goal of this chapter is to highlight how simple and completely customizable a public agency's RSA program can be and to encourage the implementation of an RSA program that fits with an agency's safety goals and objectives.

The FHWA encourages agencies to call their road safety audit program whatever the agency is comfortable with. While some agencies use the term road safety audits, others have selected different terms such as road safety assessments, road safety evaluations or safety impact teams.

**Road Safety Audit Process: Typical RSA Steps Include:**

Step 1: Identify project or road in-service to be audited.
Step 2: Select RSA team.
Step 3: Conduct a pre-audit meeting to review project information.
Step 4: Perform field observations under various conditions.
Step 5: Conduct audit analysis and prepare report of findings.
Step 6: Present audit findings to Project Owner/Design Team.
Step 7: Project Owner/Design Team prepares formal response.
Step 8: Incorporate findings into the project when appropriate.



2.1 Getting Started - Steps to Introduce Road Safety Audits in your Organization

Integration of RSAs as a component of a comprehensive road safety management system in a jurisdiction requires several equally important elements: management commitment, an agreed-upon policy, informed project managers, an ongoing training program, and skilled auditors. RSA champions, who will devote energy to driving the RSA implementation forward and who are empowered by management to do so, are critical to getting a successful RSA program started.

*"Top down" strategic approach for the introduction of RSAs.*

Generally, a "top down" strategic approach is recommended for introduction of RSAs. For example, a public agency may pilot one or more RSA projects, adopt the audit process, and develop a policy on RSAs. Through an agreed process of regulation, funding, or encouragement this policy is then implemented "down" through other departments (planning, design, traffic engineering/operations, maintenance) or through other parts of the agency (districts).

A "top-down" approach typically includes:

Piloting RSA projects.
	Development of the formal RSA policy.
	Continued monitoring, refinement, and promotion of the RSA process.Piloting RSA Projects

The best way to initiate the RSA process is to conduct one or more pilot projects involving both selected professionals who will become the champions of RSAs and a small number of project managers who can explore the ways in which it is possible to respond and react to audit reports.

Pilot RSA projects rapidly bring a number of engineers up to a level of understanding that allows them to become "champions" of the audit process. In addition, pilot RSA projects enable public agencies to fine-tune RSA guidelines to fit with other processes and practices and provide a good basis for the development of an agency's formal RSA policy.

*Conducting RSA pilot projects.*

Conducting pilot RSA projects typically includes the following steps:

Getting management commitment.
	Appointing an RSA coordinator empowered to manage the RSA pilot program. The role of the RSA coordinator will require a person with good knowledge of the general RSA process and experience in road safety engineering or highway design. This individual should be enthusiastic about RSAs and able to bring together and manage a diverse, multidisciplinary team. Ideally the person should also be an employee of the public agency who is familiar with its internal processes and procedures.
	Selecting RSA pilot projects from different stages of the highway lifecycle; e.g., preliminary design, detailed design, construction, pre-opening, post-opening, and roads in-service. The RSA process may also be piloted with projects undergoing value engineering review to provide an understanding of how the RSA process can be incorporated with the agency's value engineering processes.
	Selecting RSA teams that may be comprised of both internal staff and external resources with the skill sets best suited to specific projects.
	Providing safety audit training to the RSA teams and internal staff that will be involved in the RSA process.
	Gathering the information needed to conduct the audits.*Developing formal RSA policy suited to local conditions.*

Development of the Formal RSA Policy

Using experience gained in conducting RSA pilot projects, agencies will be able to develop a formal RSA policy that is suited to local conditions. Key elements of a formal RSA policy include:

Criteria for selecting projects and existing roads for RSAs.
	Procedures for conducting and documenting RSAs and Response Reports.
	Programs for providing RSA training.Criteria for selecting projects to be audited differ between agencies. Some example criteria are provided in section 2.2. Chapter 4 of this guideline provides a comprehensive reference for the development of the local RSA procedures. Section 2.5 discusses the training programs of various U.S. agencies.

FHWA is successfully conducting RSA training courses throughout the US. Agencies may use the FHWA courses to support development of their own training programs.

An agency's training program should involve a core group of staff that are to become knowledgeable in the management and implementation of RSAs.

Continued Monitoring, Refinement and Promotion of the RSA Process

Implementation of RSAs does not end with the endorsement of a formal RSA policy. Periodic reviews are required to ensure the policy reflects both the level of acceptance and success achieved by RSAs as well as the agencies' level of preparedness to move forward. Policy reviews may lead to the expanded application of RSAs over time and/or the requirement for RSAs on all projects of a specific type; e.g., projects designed utilizing "context sensitive design principles."

The benefits and successes of RSAs need to be communicated throughout the implementation process. Management needs be assured on a continuing basis that the RSA process is providing positive, low-cost safety benefits to projects.

*Strategy for RSA implementation tailored to local conditions.*

Other Approaches to Implement RSAs

Photo of a vehicle recently involved in a collision.

Local conditions may dictate a different strategy for implementing RSAs. For example, many agencies already undertake safety-related tasks that, taken together, may constitute an informal audit process. These tasks may include independent safety and design reviews conducted from the road user perspective that examine new alignments and/or existing road segments and intersections slated for rehabilitation or expansion. These agencies may be able to formulate a formal RSA policy on the basis of this experience without the need to conduct RSA pilot projects.

The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) provides a good example of tailoring process to needs. In their program, safety performance plays a significant role in programming for future projects: safety performance and updated field data are used to assess improvement options at the corridor or intersection level. KDOT auditors use video-log information to "virtually" return to an intersection or road segment and review safety concerns that may have been overlooked in the field, such as illumination, pavement shoulder edge drop off, signs, pavement markings, delineation, and other road user guidance concerns.

KDOT's RSA program is a tool for internal staff use only. The organization in general undertakes a wide range of safety activities; however, their RSA-designated activities focus strictly on existing roads.

The program began in 1997 out of the simple desire to be more proactive in identifying safety deficiencies on existing roads under State jurisdiction. A plan was developed for audit teams to visit State highways within all 105 counties over a 3 year period. Conditions affecting safety, including crash performance, geometry, traffic control devices, speeds, horizontal and vertical curvature, and a variety of other factors, were reviewed from a road user perspective.

Instead of fearing what might be found, KDOT has used their RSA process in a proactive manner: to stay on top and ahead of safety issues, to generate both small and large improvement projects, and evaluate their potential for safety improvement.

It is important to recognize that getting started does not lock an agency into performing the same tasks repeatedly. For example, KDOT has completed their first round of RSAs and prepared final reports for each county - reports that will form a beneficial foundation for the second round of RSAs. On the basis of this initial effort, KDOT expects the next round of RSAs to take only 2 years and to focus on other features affecting road safety.

But KDOT's is only one approach, and RSAs can be conducted on many types of projects depending on the focus and goals of the individual State agency. The following section describes some of the projects conducted by the Pennsylvania DOT, the Iowa DOT, and other State DOTs on which RSAs have been conducted and provides insight into the safety benefits to each.

Capital improvement projects

RSAs of capital improvement projects generally provide significant safety benefits, particularly when conducted early in the design process. The flexibility inherent in capital improvement projects often provides more time to undertake the audit, along with greater scope and opportunity to implement RSA suggestions. Larger funding allocations and the fact that these projects often already involve right-of-way acquisition provides the flexibility to implement a broader range of safety enhancements.

Rehabilitation projects

RSAs of rehabilitation projects may result in significant safety benefits. The scope of these projects is generally broad. Funding allocations are often substantial and they often include the acquisition of additional right-of-way. This provides needed flexibility in implementing RSA suggestions. Incorporating safety improvements in rehabilitation projects is often achievable with only minor changes in the overall design.

Surface improvement projects

Surface improvement projects probably have the greatest potential to benefit from RSAs. RSAs of these projects often identify low-cost, high-value safety enhancements capable of being implemented in conjunction with surface improvements. For example, New York State's SAFETAP program incorporates RSAs as a component of the planning and design of NYDOT's maintenance paving projects. Surface improvements, along with the implementation of low-cost audit suggestions at over 300 high-crash locations, have resulted in a 20% to 40% reduction in crashes.

Bridge reconstruction projects

PennDOT's experience with RSAs on bridge rehabilitation projects shows that broad-scope projects, such as those involving a complete rehabilitation, were more successful in incorporating major improvements suggested by RSAs than projects with a narrower scope, such as deck replacement projects. However, these narrower projects may also benefit from RSA suggestions for improvements to illumination, signs, markings and delineation, and for accommodating the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists.

Safety projects

Safety projects utilizing Federal Hazard Elimination Funds already emphasize and focus on safety. However, they typically utilize only reactive (collision analysis) techniques in identifying hazards. Incorporating RSAs into these projects brings the knowledge and capabilities of a multidisciplinary team to bear as well as providing a proactive approach to safety. RSAs both identify potential hazards by looking at roads in-service from the perspectives of different road users and offer suggestions for improvement that do not rely on a crash history for validation.

Developer-led projects

PennDOT's experience indicates that RSAs of developer-led projects may offer enormous opportunities and benefits. However, developer resistance to iterative reviews and redesigns must be recognized and managed.

The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) offers an example of customizing the RSA process to public agency needs. Their RSA program focuses strictly on the design of rehabilitation, restoration, and resurfacing (3R) projects. An audit team of engineers, elderly drivers, technicians, safety engineers, and occasional university staff completes a field review, thoroughly assesses the crash performance of the highway, and provides feedback on the safety-related features of the proposed design.

This narrow focus is a good fit with Iowa DOT's overall safety review process. Safety features on all new roadway designs are comprehensively reviewed under an existing program. Small or medium sized communities in Iowa that do not have staff to support reviews intended to identify and address safety problems may obtain technical assistance under Iowa's Traffic Engineering Assistance Program (TEAP).

2.2 Selection of Projects for Road Safety Audit

*Varying criteria for selecting projects for RSAs.*

RSA programs may encompass projects of any size being undertaken at any point in the highway lifecycle. Agencies must make their own decisions about what projects to audit and when to audit them based upon statewide and/or local issues and priorities. Selection criteria, too, may be simple in focus initially but may be modified in response to emerging needs and issues. These issues and priorities may vary over time, even year to year, and programs should be regularly reviewed and adjusted in response.

Existing practices in the United States and elsewhere encompass a broad range of criteria for selecting which projects to audit and when to audit them. Some agencies require that all major road projects designed utilizing "context sensitive design principles" be audited. Others require audits of all projects with a construction cost exceeding a pre-determined threshold. Some agency criteria require that a proportion of all projects be audited or that a minimum number of RSAs be conducted each year.

**Benefits of an RSA program**

RSAs pro-actively address safety
	RSA audited designs should produce fewer, less severe crashes.
	RSAs identify low-cost/high-value improvements.
	RSAs enhance consistency in how safety is considered and promote a "safety culture."
	RSAs provide continuous advancement of safety skills and knowledge.
	RSAs contribute feedback on safety issues for future projects.
	RSAs support optimized savings of money, time, and – most importantly – lives.Agencies may also have varying criteria for existing roads. RSAs may be initiated on the basis of stakeholder concerns, or due to policies that mandate that a proportion of the road network be assessed on an annual basis, or because road sections have been identified in network screening studies as having poorer than expected safety performance. Regardless of the type of criteria an agency may use to select the projects it will audit, RSAs may benefit a wide variety of projects.

**What types of projects may benefit from RSAs?**

One approach to determining what types of projects may benefit from RSAs is through the application of nominal and substantive safety concepts, where nominal safety refers to compliance with standards and substantive safety refers to crash performance. The examples below illustrate the application of these concepts to existing roads:

An intersection or road segment that does not meet current design standards (nominal safety issues) and also has a poor record of safety performance (substantive safety issues) should be considered a high-priority candidate for RSA as the potential for safety improvement, and the likelihood of its achievement, is also high.
	An intersection or road segment that meets current design standards (no nominal safety issues) but has a poor record of safety performance (substantive safety issues) should also be considered as a priority candidate for RSA as the potential for safety improvement, and the likelihood of its achievement, is significant.
	An intersection or road segment that does not meet current design standards(nominal safety issues) but has a satisfactory record of safety performance (no substantive safety issues), should be considered as a lower priority candidate for an RSA relative to those above, which exhibit substantive safety issues, as the potential for safety improvement, and the likelihood of its achievement, is low to moderate.*Potential impacts of RSAs on individual project schedules.*

2.3 Impact on Project Schedule

The impact of an RSA on a project's schedule depends largely on the complexity of the project, how the RSA program is organized, when in the project lifecycle the audit is undertaken, the scope and implications of suggestions which result from the RSA , and how those suggestions are to be addressed. Public agencies should fully understand these scheduling implications when beginning an RSA program.

The relationship between RSA tasks and other project activities is an important consideration, and potential impacts should be identified and planned for at the outset. Provisions should be made in the overall project schedule to ensure that time is set aside to conduct the RSA , evaluate suggestions, respond to the audit report, and implement those suggestions that are accepted. In general, the earlier an RSA is performed in the project lifecycle, the easier it is to implement suggestions without disruption to the project schedule. Lead times for changes in project scope, right-of-way acquisition, design revisions, and subsequent reviews are more easily accommodated if they are identified early in the project lifecycle.

Public agencies should examine their existing project activities on an individual basis and develop a process for integrating RSAs into each.

2.4 Costs and Benefits

A number of reports suggest that the RSA process is cost-effective, although most reference qualitative rather than quantitative benefits. Establishing and meeting a target benefit/cost ratio for RSAs is not the motivating factor behind support for RSAs at PennDOT, KDOT or Iowa DOT. These agencies suggest that the benefits of RSAs are substantial, but largely immeasurable. Nonetheless, the major quantifiable benefits of RSAs can be identified in the following areas:

Throwaway costs and reconstruction costs to correct safety deficiencies identified once roads are in-service are either avoided or substantially reduced.
	Lifecycle costs are reduced since safer designs often carry lower maintenance costs (e.g., flattened slope versus guardrail).
	Societal costs of collisions are reduced by safer roads and fewer, less-severe crashes.
	Liability claims, a component of both agency and societal costs, are reduced.*Quantifiable benefits of RSAs*.

The most objective and most often-cited study of the benefits of RSA , conducted in Surrey County, United Kingdom, compared fatal and injury crash reductions at 19 audited highway projects to those at 19 highway projects for which audits were not conducted.

It found that while the average yearly fatal and injury crash frequency at the audited sites had dropped by 1.25 crashes per year (an average reduction from 2.08 to 0.83 crashes per year), the average yearly fatal and injury crash frequency at the sites that were not audited had dropped by only 0.26 crashes per year (an average reduction from 2.6 to 2.34 crashes per year).

This suggests that audits of highway projects make them almost five times more effective in reducing fatal and injury crashes.

Photo of heavy vehicle traveling down roadway.

Other major studies from the United Kingdom, Denmark, New Zealand and Jordan quantify the benefits of RSAs in different ways; however, all report that RSAs are relatively inexpensive to conduct and are highly cost effective in identifying safety enhancements. An example of U.S. data on the quantitative safety benefits of RSAs conducted on existing roads comes from the New York DOT, which reports a 20% to 40 % reduction in crashes at more than 300 high-crash locations that had received surface improvements and had been treated with other low-cost safety improvements suggested by RSAs.

The South Carolina DOT RSA program has had a positive impact on safety. Early results from four separate RSAs, following 1-year of results, are promising. One site, implementing 4 of the 8 suggested improvements saw total crashes decrease 12.5 percent, resulting in an economic savings of $40,000. A second site had a 15.8 percent increase in crashes after only 2 of the 13 suggestions for improvements were incorporated A third site, implementing all 9 suggested improvements saw a reduction of 60% in fatalities, resulting in an economic savings of $3.66 million dollars. Finally, a fourth location, implementing 25 of the 37 suggested safety improvements, had a 23.4 percent reduction in crashes, resulting in an economic savings of $147,000.

The cost of RSAs may vary greatly based upon project size, scope and complexity; the composition of the RSA team; and the level of detail of the audit. The cost of human resources to conduct RSAs may range from a one-day field review by in-house audit team members to maintaining full-time auditors working on a statewide basis. Costs may also be higher if consultants are retained to conduct the audit or to supplement staff expertise on audit teams. Overall, the cost of RSA programs are dependent on an agency's creativity in integrating audit activities within existing project tasks, practices and resources, and on the decision-making methodology used to evaluate and implement audit suggestions.

The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet initially hired consultants to complete comprehensive, county-wide RSAs of several of their largest counties. Subsequent audits were conducted by trained, in-house staff and RSA costs were dramatically reduced. The Kentucky program provides ongoing RSA training for staff, facilitates continuous improvements in roads, and allows for monitoring of internal processes and policies.

*Average cost of an RSA .*

PennDOT indicates that their average cost of conducting RSAs ranges from $2000 to $5000. This is comparable with estimates produced in the United Kingdom and Australia and is, according to PennDOT, "very little for the amount of success." The results of PennDOT's own RSA pilot program concluded that RSA teams identified safety concerns that would not otherwise have been discovered as part of a standard safety review. As a result, the safety value of projects where the RSA process was applied was significantly enhanced.

2.5 Training

*National Highway Institute (NHI) RSA training course.*

Based on experience gathered while conducting RSA training in different jurisdictions, the FHWA's National Highway Institute (NHI) has developed an RSA training course that is available to all who are interested. Information on this course may be found at www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov. In addition, FHWA has developed a training course on Road Safety Audits for Local Agencies. Information on this course can be found at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa.

Hands-on training that involves in-house staff in real-world situations is often preferred. For example, Kentucky has a team of six auditors who, over a 3-year period, wrote a separate audit report for each of the 105 counties within the State. These reports serve as a reference for potential new auditors, who are initially teamed with the six original auditors to gain experience.

A different approach was taken in Iowa. The Iowa DOT partnered with The Center for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE) at Iowa State University. Together, they developed and implemented an RSA process that focused on resurfacing, rehabilitation, and restoration (3R) projects. Audit teams were staffed by the two agencies and recently completed 3R projects were field-evaluated in-service. Findings were communicated to design teams planning future 3R projects and, together, the RSA and design teams discussed design goals, issues, evaluation criteria, and identified improvements based on advancements in construction methods and as-constructed results. Iowa DOT's RSA program will result in the entire State highway system being audited over a 20-year period. These audits will provide valuable feedback on the safety performance of 3R projects and facilitate continuous safety improvement.

Based on established RSA practices for 3R projects, CTRE developed a training program for staff within each of the six district offices. The program includes a "mini" RSA process, which can be completed on each 3R project designed at the local level. Both district and headquarters staff commented that the process is simple, adds significant safety value to locally-designed 3R projects, and supplements and enhances the skills and knowledge of the design team.

The Kentucky training program provides another excellent example. They provided RSA training to all 12 of their highway districts, training 2 districts at a time. Those receiving training included staff from design, maintenance, traffic and permit administration. Consultants also received the training.

To facilitate learning, each district provided a planning or design project which was then assigned to an RSA team from another district. A training location within an hour's drive of each project site was selected.

The training was conducted over two and half days. The first morning, an overview of RSAs was presented to address background and principles along with the steps involved in conducting RSAs. In the afternoon, staff from each district presented their design project. Plans, project planning reports, environmental documents, aerial photos, collision diagrams, etc. were then turned over to the district that would conduct the RSA .

After reviewing the documentation, audit teams conducted a day and a night review of their project site. The next morning, each audit team prepared their RSA report and then presented their suggestions to staff from district that owned the project. This allowed each team to present a design, conduct an RSA , present their findings, and receive the findings of another RSA team.

Other agency approaches to RSA training have included the following:

One-to-one pairing between States that currently have RSA programs and those wishing to implement one, with cross-training of staff through participation in audits with knowledgeable team leaders.
	Training by engineering faculties of universities.
	Participation by State safety staff in university outreach programs.
	Staff attendance at Road Safety Audit courses.
	Participation in website forums that provide relevant guidelines, documents, and links to established RSA programs, allowing agencies to share effective practices, discuss implementation challenges, and communicate successes.2.6 Legal Issues

*Considering legal implications of RSA programs.*

*Note: The information provided here is not legal advice, but is meant to assist public agencies in discussions with their attorneys on developing a policy for the implementation of Road Safety Audits.

Some State and local agencies have been hesitant to conduct RSAs due to a fear that RSA reports will be used against them in tort liability lawsuits, which are lawsuits in which a plaintiff may sue for compensation for an injury resulting from a design or engineering flaw. In this case, such a suit would assume that RSA documents could be cited as proof that State or local agencies oversaw implementation of a road design that was not safe or that somehow contributed to an individual's injury.

A survey of State Departments of Transportation was conducted as part of NCHRP Synthesis project #336, Road Safety Audits. The survey asked questions about States' sovereign immunity, the doctrine that Government agencies (Federal, State, city, county) are immune to lawsuits unless they give their consent to the lawsuit. A summary of the information in the synthesis follows:

There appeared to be no specific correlation in the application of RSAs (to new projects or to existing roads) and whether or not the State had sovereign immunity. Two States implementing RSAs indicated full immunity and three indicated partial immunity. For States that use RSAs (in the design stage or on existing roads but not both), two indicated full immunity, four had partial immunity, and four had no immunity.

The same survey also received this response related to liability, "Liability is one of the major driving factors in performing a good audit; it demonstrates a proactive approach to identifying and mitigating safety concerns. When findings cannot be implemented, an exception report is developed to address liability and mitigating measures. Our attorneys say that once safety issues are identified, and we have financial limitations on how much and how fast we can correct the issues, then the audit will help us in defense of liability..."

*RSAs in defense against liability.*

In the case of Kansas DOT, the RSA program was implemented to be proactive in identifying and fixing safety issues. They report their RSA results are for internal staff use only and are not available to the public or to lawyers representing claims against the State. There have been instances where these records were requested by outside legal counsel and to date the information has remained at KDOT.

The only instance where a RSA report was released was in a case where the State was being sued but the claim did not ask for any money. [Public disclosure laws require release of this information in many States. However, some States do not allow information gathered under public disclosure laws to be used in lawsuits.]

The Iowa DOT has had no instances of RSA records being requested or used in court by outside legal counsel. In both cases above, these States have successfully implemented RSA programs which significantly improve the safety along public agency roads and assist in decision making agency wide.

Federal law affords evidentiary and discovery protections that assist State and local highway agencies in keeping data and reports compiled or collected pursuant to various Federal safety improvement programs from being used in tort liability actions. However, Federal law does not protect data and reports from Freedom of Information Act requests.

Photo of Road Safety Audit team members inspecting a traffic signal cabinet.

The Highway Safety Act of 1973 was enacted to improve the safety of our Nation's highways by encouraging closer Federal and State cooperation with respect to road safety improvement projects. The Act included several categorical programs to assist States in identifying highways in need of improvements and in funding these improvements, including 23 U.S.C. § 152 (Hazard Elimination Program, "Section 152").1 States objected to the absence of any confidentiality with respect to their compliance measures under Section 152, fearing that any information collected could be used as an effort-free tool in litigation against governments.

23 U.S.C. § 409 ("Section 409") was enacted to address this concern. This law expressly forbids the discovery or admission into evidence of reports, data, or other information compiled or collected for activities required pursuant to several Federal highway safety programs (Sections 130, and 152 (now 148)), or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project, which may be implemented utilizing federal aid highway funds, in tort litigation arising from occurrences at the locations addressed in such documents or data.2 In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of Section 409, indicating that it "protects all reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data actually compiled or collected for § 152 purposes" (emphasis on original).3 Some States consider information covered by Section 409 as an exemption to its public disclosure laws, but courts may not agree with this interpretation.4

Another approach could be to use RSA reports in tort liability suits to show the courts that the State or local agency is proactively trying to improve safety.

*Legal and liability information provided in this guideline is not a substitute for legal advice.*

Many litigants and their lawyers will hire an expert witness to conduct their own safety review of the location in question. The RSA report can be used to refute or counter the expert witness's report and to show the public agency's efforts at improving safety in that location. It is important to have a response to the RSA report in the file to show how the agency plans to incorporate the suggestions or why the RSA report suggestions will not be implemented.

(1) Under the Surface Transportation Act of 1978, these categorical programs were merged into the Rail Highway Crossing program (23 U.S.C. 130) and the Hazard Elimination Program (23 U.S.C. 152). To be eligible for funds under Section 152, the statute states that a State or local government must "conduct and systematically maintain an engineering survey of all public roads to identify hazardous locations, sections, and elements, including roadside obstacles and unmarked or poorly marked roads, which may constitute a danger to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians; assign priorities for the correction of such locations, sections, and elements; and establish and implement a schedule of projects for their improvement." The recently enacted section 1401 of SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L. 109-59, August 10, 2005) establishes a new Highway Safety Improvement Program in 23 U.S.C. § 148, which incorporates the elements of section 152 and which will be the source of funding for the activities eligible under that section. As a result of this provision of SAFETEA-LU, 23 U.S.C. § 409, cited in the next footnote, now references section 148, not section 152. Because activities eligible under section 152 will be funded under section 148, they will continue to be protected pursuant to section 409.

(2) Section 409 in its entirety states "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 [152] of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data."

(3) Pierce County, Washington v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129 (2003).

(4) The New York Supreme Court recently held that 409 protects only from requests in litigation and, thus, does not create a public records exemption in New York. See Newsday v. State DOT, Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department (July 1, 2004).
      
  Book traversal links for 2.0 Implementation of Road Safety Audits
      ‹ 1.0 Introduction
                    Up
                    3.0 Overview of Road Safety Audit Process ›
                
                Book:FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines
              Preface
                1.0 Introduction
                2.0 Implementation of Road Safety Audits
                3.0 Overview of Road Safety Audit Process
                4.0 Conducting Road Safety Audits
                5.0 Pre-construction Road Safety Audits
                6.0 Construction Road Safety Audits
                7.0 Post-construction Road Safety Audits
                8.0 Road Safety Audit Prompt Lists
                Prompt List
                Pre-construction Phase: Prompt List 1 – Planning Stage Audit
                Pre-construction Phase: Prompt List 2 – Preliminary Design Stage Audit
                Pre-construction Phase: Prompt List 3 – Final Design Stage Audit
                Construction Phase: Prompt List 4 – Work Zone Traffic Control Plan Audit
                Construction Phase: Prompt List 5 – Pre-Opening Stage Audit
                Post-construction Phase: Prompt List 6 – Existing Road Audit
                Development Projects: Prompt List 7 – Land Use Development Proposals Audit
                Appendix A
                Appendix B 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