http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov

A MODEL Road Safety Audit Policy
I. Introduction

Safety is a top priority of the U.S. Department of Transportation and is central to the work of the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety. The FHWA Office of Safety provides 

national leadership and guidance for reducing highway fatalities and making the Nation’s 

roads safer. As part of FHWA’s commitment to safety, the Office of Safety maintains a list of 

Proven Safety Countermeasures. This list includes safety countermeasures that agencies 

are encouraged to use to improve safety on their road network. The 2008 Proven Safety 

Countermeasures list included Road Safety Audits (RSA) because of their ability to identify 

opportunities for safety improvements on all public roads and for all road users.

What is a Road Safety Audit (RSA)?

An RSA is the formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road or intersection 

by an independent, multidisciplinary team.

•	 An RSA is a formal safety examination with a structured process, not just a cursory review of the safety of a project.

•	 An RSA extends beyond a simple standards check to examine the interaction of the many elements contributing to road

safety, such as roadway geometry, traffic operations, level of service, road users, and environment.

•	 An RSA is conducted by an independent team of qualified professionals who have not previously been directly involved

in the project.

•	 RSA team members should be from multiple disciplines representing a range of expertise areas such as safety, law

enforcement, operations and/or maintenance.

•	 An RSA addresses the needs of all road users.

2

RSA Team

Design Team/Project Owner

Responsibilities

1

Identify 

Projects

2

Select RSA 

Team

3

Conduct 

Start-up 

Meeting

4

Perform Field 

Reviews

5

Analyze

and Report

on Findings

6

Present 

Findings to 

Owner

7

Prepare 

Formal 

Response

8

Incorporate 

Findings

Figure 1. Eight-Step RSA Process
3

The Need for and Benefits of RSAs.

The public depends on road agencies to build and maintain safe roads, walkways, and bikeways. 

RSAs help agencies meet this expectation by enabling the road owner to identify and mitigate 

safety issues before, during, and/or after roadway construction. In addition to helping reduce 

crashes and the costs associated with them, pre-construction RSAs can help reduce costs 

associated with:

•	 facility redesign and reconstruction to correct safety deficiencies,

•	 maintenance, and

•	 liability claims.

What is the Model RSA Policy?

The purpose of the Model RSA Policy is to assist road owners in developing a policy on 

implementing Road Safety Audits. The model policy is a flexible document that a road agency 

can use to meet their needs and is consistent with their specific processes, practices, and budget 

constraints. The Model RSA Policy is not a Federal requirement. 

Road owners will find more detailed guidance in the FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines

(Publication No. FHWA-SA-06-06). Guidance has also been developed for RSAs specific to 

pedestrians, bicyclists, work zones, wrong-way driving, and Federal and tribal lands. All of these 

resources can be downloaded for free and are available on FHWA’s RSA website (http://safety.

fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/index.htm).

A State Transportation Agency's RSA policy can be coordinated with the FHWA Division Office and 

may be incorporated or referenced in State Transportation Agency and FHWA Stewardship and 

Oversight agreements.
4

II. Model RSA Policy

This model policy includes five main sections:

1. RSA Program

1.1 What is an RSA?

1.2 Objectives and Organization of the

 RSA Program

1.3 Administration of the RSA Program

2. Criteria for Projects to be Audited

3. RSA Process

3.1 Independence and Sourcing of

 the RSA Team

How should this model RSA policy be used?

This model provides sample wording and multiple options to assist a road agency in establishing 

an RSA policy. Each road agency has its own mandate, culture, characteristics, and staffing and 

funding constraints. As a result, each road agency should tailor this model RSA policy so that it:

•	 meets their needs and constraints,

•	 is consistent with their processes and practices,

•	 is integrated with other policies and programs within the agency, such as their Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP),

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), crash reduction goals, safety focus areas, and funding source

In addition, it may be desirable to consider the policies and programs of parallel road safety 

organizations, such as the highway safety office or law enforcement, when tailoring this model 

RSA policy to local conditions.

The model RSA policy consists of three main components.

1.	 Basic Elements – Standard RSA policy language for each of the five main sections.

2.	 Options – Suggestions for more detailed language to include with the RSA policy. Agencies may choose one 

more of the options to suit their needs or write their own additional language.

3.	 References – Supporting resources that provide additional guidance.

Figure 2 shows how to use the model RSA policy. 

3.2 Elements of the RSA

3.3 Road Owner’s Response 

3.4 Responsibilities of the Road 

 Owner and RSA Team

4. RSA Program Monitoring & 

Evaluation

5. Funding Sources 

5.1 Funding for RSAs

5.2 Funding for Improvements
5

Figure 2. How to Use the Model RSA Policy

Section — Basic

section of an RSA policy

document.

References—

Reference to sections of

the FHWA Road Safety 

Audit Guidelines and

other assistance.

Suggestions —

Suggested language (in 

italics) that an agency

might want to include in

the policy.

Agencies may choose 

one or more of the 

options to suit their 

needs, or they may 

write their own.

Subsection—

Suggested

subsections and

standard language

for the beginning

of each.
6

Section 1: RSA Program References

1.1. What is an RSA?

A Road Safety Audit (RSA) is a formal safety performance 

examination of an existing or future transportation facility by an 

independent, multidisciplinary RSA team.

See RSA Guidelines:

•	 Section 1.3

•	 Section 3.1

•	 Section 3.2

1.2. Objectives and Organization of the RSA Program

The objective(s) of the RSA program:

Some suggested options (choose one or more of these, or write your own):

•	 to make all roads safer for all road users

•	 to reduce overall crashes by percent on audited roads within years 

following the implementation of improvements resulting from RSAs

•	 to reduce fatal and injury crashes by percent on audited roads within 

years following the implementation of improvements resulting from RSAs

•	 to reduce the number of crashes per million vehicle miles travelled (MVMT) by

 percent on audited roads

•	 to reduce the number of crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV) by 

percent at audited intersections

•	 to achieve a benefit/cost ratio (based on achieved collision reductions and the cost 

of improvements) of at least within years following the implementation 

of improvements resulting from RSAs

•	 to perform (number) RSA(s) at each planning and design stage

•	 to perform (number) RSA(s) on existing facilities 

•	 to perform (number) RSA(s) in percent of the agency’s constituent 

districts (selected on a rotating basis) every years. In this way, each district 

will conduct at least RSA(s) every years 

Measurable objectives, which are useful for

program evaluation, are typically expressed

in terms of:

•	 crash reductions

•	 benefit/cost ratios

•	 performance of a specific number of RSAs
7

1.3. Administration of the RSA Program

The RSA Program will be administered by 

 (Department or division)

Administration of the RSA Program will involve:

RSA programs may need an administrative

“home”, and may be managed on a day-today basis by a coordinator or work group.

Some suggested options (choose one or more of these, or write your own):

•	 funding (including training funds) for the program

•	 authority to assign staff to be trained in and perform RSAs

•	 authority to liaise with other agencies as needed to develop the RSA program and 

effect reciprocal RSA agreements

•	 review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the RSA program at regular intervals

•	 The RSA Program will be managed by 

 (title of staff or work group

•	 Management of the RSA Program will involve (choose one or more of these,

or write your own):

•	 identifying specific projects or facilities to be audited 

•	 establishing RSA training programs for prospective RSA team members

•	 setting up RSAs

•	 forming RSA teams 

•	 administering RSA contracts 

•	 receiving and reviewing RSA reports 

•	 following up to ensure that RSA response letters are written 

•	 monitoring the implementation of improvements resulting from RSAs

•	 reviewing and compiling RSA results to identify possible improvements to the 

agency’s design and operation standards and guidelines

•	 conducting RSA program evaluation

•	 liaising with other road agencies to establish reciprocal arrangements for 

staffing and training

•	 coordinating the RSA program with similar or parallel road safety initiatives 

at other levels of government (or other entities within the same level of 

government) to identify opportunities for joint or cooperative RSA activities 

•	 replying to inquiries from the public, elected officials, and senior management
8

Section 2: Criteria for Projects to be Audited References

Transportation facilities may be audited at one or more of the 

following stages:

See RSA Guidelines:

•	 Section 3.5

•	 Section 5

•	 Section 6

•	 Section 7

Some suggested options (choose one or more of these, or write your own):

•	 prior to construction (during the planning stage)

•	 prior to construction (during the design stage)

•	 during construction (including the work zone)

•	 at any time they are in operation

The following criteria identify projects that should be audited: See RSA Guidelines:

•	 Section 2.1

•	 Section 2.2

Criteria may be stated as guidance or

requirements. Guidance will allow more

flexibility in the application of the criteria.

Some suggested options (choose one or more of these, or write your own):

Project or Facility RSA during 

design

RSA during 

construction

RSA for 

facilities in 

operation

intersections or road segments having 

over crashes / fatal 

and injury crashes (choose one and 

insert threshold number) per year over 

a three-year / five-year (choose one) 

period



intersections or road segments having 

over crashes per MEV/MVMT 

(insert threshold number)



intersections or road segments in the 

State’s “Top 5%” list 

projects or improvements receiving 

funding from a specified source (such 

as HSIP or HRRR projects) and/or 

public funding above $ (insert 

threshold value)

  

The suggested options cover the following

candidate projects or facilities:

•	 projects or facilities above a specified crash

threshold (existing or forecast crashes)
9

Project or Facility RSA during 

design

RSA during 

construction

RSA for 

facilities in 

operation

all new transportation facilities 

with a budget exceeding $ 

(insert threshold value)

 

all surface improvement projects 

with a budget exceeding $ 

(insert threshold value)

  

all bridge reconstruction projects 

with a budget exceeding $ 

(insert threshold value)

  

all 3R projects with a budget 

exceeding $ 

(insert threshold value)

  

all new projects, regardless of budget  

•	 projects or facilities above a specified size

or value

Project or Facility RSA during 

design

RSA during 

construction

RSA for 

facilities in 

operation

all facilities associated with or 

influenced by new developments   

all facilities adjacent to (or influenced 

by) a substantial change in land use   

•	 developer-led projects

Project or Facility RSA during 

design

RSA during 

construction

RSA for 

facilities in 

operation

projects or facilities with AADTs 

above (insert threshold value)   

projects or facilities with peakhour vehicle volumes above 

(insert threshold value)

  

projects or facilities with pedestrian 

volumes exceeding (insert 

threshold value)

  

projects or facilities with cyclist 

volumes exceeding (insert 

threshold value)

  

•	 projects or facilities above a specified

volume threshold (existing or forecast

volumes)
10

Project or Facility RSA during 

design

RSA during 

construction

RSA for 

facilities in 

operation

projects or facilities operating at a 

level of service below (insert 

threshold value)



projects or facilities adjacent or near 

to land uses that generate vulnerable 

road users (such as schools and 

parks) or special safety concerns 

(such as stadiums)

  

 (insert number) projects 

or facilities within each geographic/

administrative area or division

  

all projects on roadways above 

(specify functional classification)   

•	 other projects and facilities.

The following criteria identify projects that are normally exempt 

from RSAs, at the discretion of the RSA Program Manager:

Some suggested options (choose one or more of these, or write your own):

•	 new transportation facilities with a budget under $ 

•	 surface improvement projects with a budget under $ 

•	 bridge reconstruction projects with a budget under $ 

•	 3R projects with a budget under $ 

•	 projects or facilities with AADTs below 

•	 projects or facilities with peak-hour vehicle volumes below 

•	 projects on roadways below (specified functional classification)
11

Section 3: RSA Process References

3. RSA Process See RSA Guidelines:

An RSA is a structured examination of the safety performance of a 

project or facility, with documented results.

•	 Section 3.1

•	 Section 4

Some suggested options (choose one or more of these, or write your own):

•	 The RSA will follow the eight-step process described in the FHWA Road Safety Audit

Guidelines

3.1. Independence and Sourcing of the RSA Team

The members of the RSA Team should have no previous 

involvement with the project or facility being audited. 

See RSA Guidelines:

•	 Section 3.3

•	 Section 4.2

Some suggested options (choose one or more of these, or write your own):

The RSA Team may be composed of persons:

•	 from other divisions within the road agency (who have no previous involvement 

with the project) 

•	 from other road agencies, especially those having a reciprocal arrangement for 

staffing RSA teams, 

•	 from the private sector

•	 from agencies or organizations contributing specialist expertise, such as 

maintenance, enforcement, or emergency services
12

3.2. Elements of the RSA

Each RSA will include the following:

Some suggested options (choose one or more of these, or write your own):

•	 a start-up meeting with the RSA team, road owner, and design team (if any)

See RSA Guidelines:

•	 Section 4.3

•	 a field review by the RSA team •	 Section 4.4

•	 Section 8 (Prompt Lists)

•	 identification of safety issues (on the basis of crash data analysis and/or 

operational, geometric, and human factors issues) by the RSA team

•	 suggestions by the RSA team regarding how safety can be enhanced on the 

project or facility

•	 Section 4.5

•	 Section 8 (Prompt Lists)

•	 a preliminary findings meeting with the RSA team, road owner, and design team

(if any)

•	 a written report by the RSA team providing the results of the RSA

•	 Section 4.5

•	 Section 4.6

•	 The RSA Final Report will be written by the RSA team and submitted to the road 

owner.

•	 The road owner is responsible for circulating the RSA Final Report to the appropriate 

stakeholders and parties, as well as to the agency’s RSA coordinator or work group.

•	 The RSA team may provide a draft version of the RSA report for comment, prior to 

finalizing the report. The road owner may provide comments from himself and 

from any others to whom he circulates the report (such as the design team). To 

avoid compromising the independence of the RSA process, the road owner’s 

comments should not be directed toward changing the findings of the RSA (in 

terms of safety issues), unless those issues have been identified using incorrect 

factual information. The road owner’s comments should be directed to correcting 

or expanding on factual information in the draft RSA report, or to providing input 

to suggestions (for example, concerning the feasibility of a suggestion developed 

by the RSA team). To avoid delaying the RSA report, the road owner’s comments 

should be provided within one week of receiving the draft report.

The RSA policy may include more

detailed information concerning the RSA

documentation.
13

3.3. Road Owner’s Response

The road owner will review the RSA findings and suggestions. 

See RSA Guidelines:

•	 Section 4.7

•	 Section 4.8

The road owner response is an important

“closure document” for the RSA.

Some suggested options (choose one or more of these, or write your own):

•	 The road owner will issue a formal response outlining his agreement or 

disagreement with the RSA findings, and the proposed actions to be taken in 

response to the RSA findings. 

•	 If no action is to be taken in response to an RSA finding, the road owner should 

indicate the reason (such as inadequate funding). 

•	 The road owner may incorporate RSA recommendations into the audited project or 

facility.

3.4. Responsibilities of the Road Owner and RSA Team

The RSA is a cooperative effort involving the road owner and RSA 

team. Each party will be responsible for the following RSA tasks:

See RSA Guidelines:

•	 Section 3.4

•	 Section 4.1

Some suggested options (choose one or more of these, or write your own):

The owner of the project or facility:

•	 will identify (some/all) members of the RSA team in consultation with the RSA team 

leader

•	 will supply necessary materials for use by the RSA team

•	 will set the date of the start-up meeting in consultation with the RSA team leader, 

and invite attendees (including the design team) to the meeting

•	 will be available to answer questions during the RSA site visit and analysis

•	 will review and respond to the RSA findings, and incorporate improvements to 

respond to the RSA findings where possible.

The RSA team:

•	 will identify the information needed from the owner for the RSA

•	 will attend the start-up meeting

•	 will analyze data and perform field reviews 

•	 will identify safety issues associated with the project or facility

•	 will identify possible mitigation measures to address safety issues associated with 

the project or facility

•	 will present the RSA findings in a preliminary findings meeting with the owner and 

those invited by the owner (such as the design team)

•	 will present the RSA findings in a formal report
14

Section 4: RSA Program Monitoring & Evaluation References

The RSA Program will be monitored by 

(responsible party identified in Section 1.3) every 

(interval) to ensure that:

See RSA Guidelines:

•	 Section 2.1

•	 Section 2.4

Some suggested options (choose one or more of these, or write your

own):

•	 RSAs are being implemented on projects and facilities that meet the 

selection criteria

•	 RSA training is being conducted

•	 the quality of RSA teams and RSA final reports are adequate

•	 RSA funding is being effectively utilized

•	 RSAs are resulting in the implementation of safety improvements

•	 the RSA program is working effectively within or alongside the agency’s 

other transportation safety programs and initiatives

Road owner representatives whose projects have been audited may be 

contacted to assess the level of acceptance and success achieved by RSAs.

The effectiveness of the RSA program will be evaluated every 

(interval) by (responsible party 

identified in Section 1.3) with reference to its measurable objectives stated in 

Section 1.2 above. 

Typically, the main objective of the RSA program is

to reduce crashes. The effectiveness of the R

program may be evaluated using before/after crash

comparisons at audited sites (for RSAs of existing

facilities only), or by comparing crashes at audited

and unaudited sites (for RSAs of existing facilities, or

RSAs of projects in the planning or design stages).

Evaluation exercises need to be appropriately

designed to provide reliable results.
15

Section 5: Funding Sources References

5.1. Funding for RSAs

Funding to conduct an RSA can be obtained from:

Some suggested options (choose one or more of these, or write your

own):

FHWA Office of Safety Grants may be available from the FHWA Office

of Safety for specific types of activities based on

solicitation of proposals through FHWA Division

Offices or LTAP Centers.

FHWA Division Office Funds are available from FHWA Division Offices for

technology transfer activities. There is potential to

team with Division Offices using a portion of the

technology transfer funds to provide safety-related

support to local agencies within the Division.

State Department of Transportation A State DOT may have specific funds available for

safety-related activities.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

is a core Federal- aid program. The goal of the

program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic

fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads,

including non-State-owned public roads and roads

on tribal lands. The HSIP requires a data-driven,

strategic approach to improving highway safety on

all public roads that focuses on performance. The

program is typically administered within each State

by the State Highway Agency (typically State DOT)

in partnership with the FHWA Division Office. These

funds can be used for safety projects on any public

road, including engineering services. To qualify f

HSIP funding, engineering activities should support

key strategies within the State’s Strategic Highway

Safety Plan (SHSP).

State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program

(Section 402)

Section 402 funds are Federal funds administered

by the State Highway Safety Office. The purpose

of the Section 402 program is to assist States and

communities with developing and implementing

behavioral highway safety programs. Proposals

for 402 funding must be submitted through

the State Highway Safety Office. For mo

information, contact the Governor’s Highway Safety

Representative.

Local/Tribal Technical Assistance (LTAP/TTAP) Programs LTAP / TTAP Centers may be able to provide partial or

even complete funding to support an RSA using their

existing funding mechanisms.
16

5.2. Funding for Improvements Identified During an RSA

Funding to implement improvements identified during an RSA 

can be obtained from:

(Suggested options - choose one or more of these, or write your own)

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The HSIP provides Federal funds from FHWA. T

program is typically administered within each State

by the State Highway Agency (typically State DOT)

in partnership with the FHWA Division Office. These

funds can be used for safety projects on any public

road, including engineering services. To qualify f

HSIP funding, engineering activities should support

key strategies within the State’s Strategic Highway

Safety Plan (SHSP).

High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) Program Under MAP-21 legislation, a Special Rule requires

States with an increase in fatality rates on rural

roads to obligate a specified amount of HSIP funds

on HRRRs. Projects may be selected on a publ

HRRR (state or locally owned) to correct or improve

hazardous locations or features.

State Department of Transportation A State DOT may have specific funds available for

safety-related activities.

State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program 

(Section 402)

Section 402 funds are Federal funds administered

by the State Highway Safety Office. The purpose

of the Section 402 program is to assist States and

communities with developing and implementing

behavioral highway safety programs. Proposals

for 402 funding must be submitted through

the State Highway Safety Office. For mo

information, contact the Governor’s Highway Safety

Representative.

Transportation Alternatives Program The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP),

authorized under Section 1122 of MAP-21 (23 U.S.C.

§ 213), provides funding for projects or activities,

including: transportation alternatives, as defined

at 23 U.S.C. § 101(a)(29); the recreational trails

program under 23 U.S.C. § 206; the safe routes to

school program under section 1404 of SAFETEALU; and the planning, design or construction of

boulevards and other roadways largely in the rightof-way of former Interstate System routes. Fun

apportioned under the program to a State per MAP21, may be used to correct deficiencies that may

also address maintenance problems for facilities in

the public-rights-of-way (e.g., sidewalks and curb

ramps).

Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program IRR Program funds are available for planning,

design, construction, and maintenance activities

addressing Tribal transportation needs.
17

III. Additional RSA Resources

Road Safety Audit Guidelines (Publication No. FHWA-SA-06-06): This publication provides a 

foundation for public agencies to draw upon when developing their own RSA procedures and when 

conducting RSAs within their jurisdictions. The publication provides basic RSA principles that can be 

tailored to suit local conditions. The Guidelines include prompt lists to assist RSA teams with identifying 

safety issues.

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists (Publication No. FHWA-SA-07-007): This 

publication provides transportation agencies and RSA teams with a better understanding of the needs 

of pedestrians in the transportation system when conducting an RSA. The document is an expansion 

of the pedestrian-related material in the FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines. The Guidelines include 

prompt lists to assist RSA teams with identifying pedestrian safety issues.

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists (Publication No. FHWA-SA-12-018): This 

publication provides transportation agencies and RSA teams with a better understanding of the safety 

of cyclists in the transportation system. It presents an overview of basic principles of the safety of cyclists 

and potential issues affecting cyclists. It also provides information on how to perform an RSA and 

effectively assess the safety of cyclists. Prompt lists describe safety considerations when conducting an 

RSA focused on cyclists. 
18

Road Safety Audit: Case Studies (Publication No. FHWA-SA-06-17): To demonstrate the effectiveness 

of RSAs, the FHWA Office of Safety sponsored a series of ten RSAs. The aim of these case studies was to 

demonstrate the usefulness and effectiveness of RSAs for a variety of projects and project stages, and 

in a variety of agencies throughout the United States. The results of the RSAs have been compiled in 

this case studies document. Each case study includes photographs, a project description, a summary 

of key findings, and the lessons learned. The aim of this document is to provide state and local 

agencies and Tribal governments with examples and advice that can assist them in implementing 

RSAs in their own jurisdictions.

Road Safety Audit Toolkit for Federal Land Management Agencies and Tribal Governments

(Publication No. FHWA-FLH-10-0011): The Toolkit is a publication that provides information to Federal 

Land Management Agencies and Tribes on how to perform an RSA, establish an RSA Program, and 

incorporate RSAs in the planning process. Worksheets and other sample materials are provided to aid 

the RSA process. The publication also includes information on the programs and experiences of other 

agencies to provide examples of the successes and struggles in implementing RSAs and improving 

safety for all road users.
19

For More Information:

For more information, visit http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/

FHWA, Office of Safety

Rebecca Crowe

rebecca.crowe@dot.gov

804-775-3381

FHWA-SA-14-xxx