Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

i

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. FHWA-SA-08-005 2. Government 

Accession No.

3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

 

4. Title and Subtitle

Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case Studies

5. Report Date

September 2008

6. Performing Organization Code 

 

7. Authors

Margaret Gibbs; Sany R. Zein; Dan Nabors

8. Performing Organization Report 

No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.

Opus Hamilton Consultants Ltd

850 – 1185 West Georgia Street

Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6E 4E6

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc

700 – 8300 Boone Boulevard

Vienna, VA 22182-2626

11. Contract or Grant Nos.

DTFH61-03-D-00105

DTFH61-05-D-00024

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of Safety

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590-9898

13. Type of Report and Period 

Covered

Final Report

May 2005 – May 2007

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes: The Federal Highway Administration (Office of Safety and Office of Federal Lands) 

sponsored the RSAs reported in this document. The FHWA Office of Safety Contract Task Order Managers were 

Louisa Ward and then Rebecca Crowe. The FHWA Office of Federal Lands Task Order Manager was Chimai Ngo.

16. Abstract

Road Safety Audits (RSAs) are an effective tool for proactively improving the future safety performance of a road 

project during the planning and design stages, and for identifying safety issues in existing transportation facilities. To 

demonstrate the usefulness and effectiveness of RSAs for tribal road agencies, the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) Office of Safety and Office of Federal Lands sponsored a series of four tribal RSAs.

The results of the tribal 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 tribal 

governments with examples and advice that can assist them in implementing RSAs in their own jurisdictions.

17. Key Words

Safety, Road Safety Audit

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of 

Pages: 52

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

ii
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

iii

PREFACE

Road Safety Audits (RSAs) are an effective tool for proactively improving the future safety 

performance of a road project during the planning and design stages, and for identifying 

safety issues in existing transportation facilities. Additional information and resources on 

RSAs are available on the web at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa.

Information for the case studies reported in this document was gathered during a series 

of four RSAs conducted throughout the United States in 2005 and 2006, involving tribal 

transportation agencies of the Standing Rock Sioux, Santa Clara Pueblo, Jemez Pueblo, 

and Navajo Nation. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the authors greatly 

appreciate the cooperation of these tribes, as well as other participating agencies such 

as the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and state departments of transportation (DOTs), for 

their willing and enthusiastic participation in this FHWA-sponsored RSA series.
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

iv
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

Background 1

What is an RSA? 1

The FHWA Tribal RSA Case Study Program 3

THE RSA PROCESS 4

Eight Steps of an RSA 4

Prioritization of Issues 7

RSAs: COSTS AND BENEFITS 10

RSA Costs 10

RSA Benefits 11

THE FHWA RSA CASE STUDIES: PROMOTING THE ACCEPTANCE OF RSAs 13

Key Factors for Success 13

Lessons Learned 17

CONCLUSION 22

APPENDIX A: CASE STUDY RSAs A-1

RSA 1 Standing Rock Sioux Tribe A-2

RSA 2 The Santa Clara Pueblo A-6

RSA 3 The Jemez Pueblo A-10

RSA 4 Navajo Nation A-14

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 RSA Process 4

Figure 2 Start-Up Meeting 5

Figure 3 Field Review 5

Figure 4 RSA Analysis Session 6

Figure 5 Preliminary Findings Meeting 6

Figure 6 Example Discussion of an RSA Safety Issue 18
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Case Study RSAs 3

Table 2 Frequency Rating 8

Table 3 Severity Rating 8

Table 4 Crash Risk Assessment 9
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

1

INTRODUCTION

Background

Road Safety Audits (RSAs) are an effective tool for proactively improving the future safety 

performance of a road project during the planning and design stages, and for identifying 

safety issues in existing transportation facilities. 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety and FHWA Office of Federal 

Lands commissioned a series of four tribal road safety audits (RSAs) as part of a Task 

Order under FHWA Contracts DTFH61-05-D-00024 and DTFH61-03-D-00105. FHWA 

wanted to demonstrate the usefulness and effectiveness of RSAs for tribal road agencies. 

The RSAs were conducted by Opus Hamilton Consultants Ltd. and Vanasse Hangen 

Brustlin, Inc.

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 tribal governments with examples 

and advice that can assist them in implementing RSAs in their own jurisdictions. 

What is an RSA?

A Road Safety Audit (RSA) is a formal safety performance examination of an existing or 

future road or intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary team. 

Compromises and constraints among the competing interests that typically drive a road 

project (such as cost, right of way, environment, topographic and geotechnical conditions, 

socioeconomic issues, and capacity/efficiency) are a normal part of the planning and 

design process. The design team has the responsibility of integrating these competing 

interests to arrive at a design that accommodates these interests in as balanced and 

effective a manner as possible. RSAs, conducted by a team that is independent of the 

design, enhance safety by explicitly and exclusively identifying the safety implications 

of project decisions. By focusing on safety, RSAs make sure that safety does not “fall 

through the cracks.”
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

2

The RSAs followed the procedures outlined in the FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidel

document (Publication Number FHWA-SA-06-06). The procedures involve an eight-step 

RSA process discussed later in this case study document.

The multidisciplinary RSA team is typically composed of at least three members having 

a background in road safety, traffic operations, and/or road design, and members from 

other areas such as maintenance, human factors, enforcement, and first responders. 

Members of the RSA team are independent of the operations of the road or the design of 

the project being audited. The RSA team’s independence assures two things: that there 

is no potential conflict of interest or defensiveness, and the project is reviewed with “fresh 

eyes.”

RSAs can be done at any stage in a project’s life:

• A pre-construction RSA (planning and design stages) examines a road before it i

built, at the planning/feasibility stage or the design (preliminary or detailed design) 

stage. An RSA at this stage identifies potential safety issues before crashes occur. 

The earlier a pre-construction RSA is conducted, the more potential it has to 

efficiently remedy possible safety concerns.

•	 Construction RSAs (work zone, changes in design during construction, and preopening) examine temporary traffic management plans associated with constructio

or other roadwork, and changes in design during construction. RSAs at this stage 

can also be conducted when construction is completed but before the roadway is 

opened to traffic. 

• A post-construction or operational RSA (existing road) examines a road that i

operating, and is usually conducted to address a demonstrated crash problem.
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

3

The FHWA Tribal RSA Case Study Program

The four RSAs conducted in this case study program are summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1 CASE STUDY RSAs

FACILITY OWNER RSA SITES RSA STAGE

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, 

North Dakota and South 

Dakota

	two-lane rural roads (paved 

and gravel), including state 

highways

	unsignalized intersections

existing roads

Santa Clara Pueblo, New 

Mexico

	two-lane state highway

	signalized and unsignalized 

intersections

planning stage 

and existing 

roads

Jemez Pueblo, New Mexico

	two-lane state highway

	unsignalized intersections existing roads

Navajo Nation Reserve, 

Arizona

	two-lane rural roads

	signalized and unsignalized 

intersections

existing roads

All participating tribal transportation agencies volunteered to be involved in this RSA 

program. Involvement in the case study program required the agency to nominate the 

sites for the RSA project; provide the RSA team with the materials (such as volume and 

crash data) on which the RSA would be based; participate in the start-up and preliminary 

findings meetings; and contribute at least one tribal staff member to participate on the 

RSA team. The RSA teams were led by two experienced and independent consultants.

Information on each of these RSAs, including background, a summary of RSA issues, 

and a list of suggested improvements, is included in the Appendix.
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

4

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. 

figre 1  RSA P

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. 
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

5

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 highprofile 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.

FIGURE 2

START-UP MEETING

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 
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

6

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

FIGURE 5

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS MEETING
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

7

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.
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

8

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 

RATING EXPOSURE PROBABILITY

high high 10 or more crashes per year Frequent medium hig

high medium

medium medium 1 to 9 crashes per year Occasiona

low high

high low less than 1 crash per year, but more 

than 1 crash every 5 years Infrequent low mediu

medium low less than 1 crash every 5 years Rare low lo

TABLE 3 SEVERITY RATING

TYPICAL CRASHES EXPECTED

(per RSA item)

EXPECTED CRASH 

SEVERITY

SEVERITY 

RATING

crashes involving high speeds or heavy 

vehicles, pedestrians, or bicycles

probable fatality or 

incapacitating injury Extrem

crashes involving medium to high speed; 

head-on, crossing, or off-road crashes

moderate to severe 

injury High

crashes involving medium to low speeds;

left-turn and right-turn crashes

minor to moderate 

injury Moderate

crashes involving low to medium speeds;

rear-end or sideswipe crashes

property damage only 

or minor injury Lo
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

9

TABLE 4 CRASH RISK ASSESSMENT

FREQUENCY 

RATING

SEVERITY RATING

Low Moderate High Extre

Frequent C D E 

Occasional B C D 

Infrequent A B C 

Rare A A B 

Crash Risk Ratings: A: lowest risk level C: moderate-low risk level E: high risk lev

B: low risk level D: moderate-high risk level F: highest risk level
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

10

RSAs: COSTS AND BENEFITS

RSA Costs

Three main factors contribute to the cost of an RSA:

• RSA team costs.

• Design team and owner costs.

• Costs of design changes or enhancements.

The RSA team costs reflect the size of the team and the time required for the RSA, whic

in turn are dependent on the complexity of the RSA project. For the RSAs in this case 

studies project, the following cost components are noted:

• RSA teams were composed of between five and ten persons in this case studies 

project, but these teams were large since the RSAs served as training exercises 

for tribal and state engineering staff. Without the need for training, the RSA teams 

would more typically have been composed of three persons.

• Opening and closing meetings, site visits, and RSA analysis sessions were 

conducted in a three-day period for each RSA.

• Prior to and following the on-site portion of the RSA, the time required for analysis 

(such as analysis of collision records, and research on applicable design standards 

or mitigation measures) and writing the RSA report ranged between about 30 to 

40 man-hours.

For this case studies project, additional RSA team costs were incurred in travel for 

experienced RSA team leaders. However, typical RSAs would employ local team 

members, and consequently entail only minor travel costs.

The design team and owner costs reflect the time required for staff to attend the start-up 

and preliminary findings meetings, and to subsequently read the RSA report and respond 

to its findings. In addition, staff time is required to compile project or site materials for the 

RSA team.

The final cost component is that resulting from design changes or enhancements, which 

reflect the number and complexity of the issues identified during the RSA. Suggested 
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

11

design changes and enhancements, listed in the Appendix (Tables A.1 through A.4) for 

each of the RSAs conducted for this case studies project, have focused on low-cost 

improvements or countermeasures where possible. Suggested improvements for the 

RSAs focused on improved signing and pavement markings, minor or moderate geometric 

changes (such as added auxiliary lanes at intersections), gateway treatments, and barrier 

improvements.

RSA Benefits

The primary benefits of RSAs are to be found in reduced crash costs as road safety is 

improved. The costs of automotive crashes are estimated by the US Department of 

Transportation1

 as:

• $3,000,000 for a traffic fatality.

• $2,290,000 for a critical injury.

• $565,000 for a severe injury.

• $175,000 for a serious injury.

• $45,000 for a moderate injury.

• $6,000 for a minor injury.

Other benefits of RSAs include reduced life-cycle project costs as crashes are reduced, and 

the development of good safety engineering and design practices, including integration of 

multimodal safety concerns and consideration of human factors in the design, operations, 

and maintenance of roads.

It is difficult to quantify the benefits of design-stage RSAs, since they aim to prevent 

crashes from occurring on new or improved facilities that have no crash record. However, 

when compared with the high cost of motor-vehicle injuries discussed above, the moderate 

cost of a design-stage RSA suggests that changes implemented from an RSA only need 

to prevent a few moderate- or high-severity crashes for an RSA to be cost effective.

The benefits of RSAs on existing roads can be more easily quantified, since pre-and postimprovement collision histories are available. As an example, the Road Improvement 

1 Intersection Safety Issue Brief No. 15 (“Road Safety Audits: An Emerging and Effective Tool for Improved Safety”), issued April 2004 by 

Federal Highway Administration and Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

12

Demonstration Project conducted by AAA Michigan in Detroit and Grand Rapids (MI), 

which is based on RSAs of existing high-crash urban intersections and implementation of 

low-cost safety measures at them, has demonstrated a benefit-cost ratio of 16:1. Another 

example of data on the quantitative safety benefit of RSAs conducted on existing roads 

comes from the New York DOT, which reports a 20 to 40 percent 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 reported a positive impact on safety. Early 

results from four separate RSAs, following one year of results, are promising. One site, 

implementing four of eight 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 two of the thirteen suggestions for improvements were 

incorporated. A third site, implementing all nine suggested improvements, saw a reduction 

of 60 percent in fatalities, resulting in an economic savings of $3,660,000. 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 most objective and most often-cited study of the benefits of RSAs, 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 RSAs were not conducted. 

It found that, while the average yearly fatal and injury crash frequency at the RSA 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 RSAs of highway projects make them almost 

five times more effective in reducing fatal and injury crashes.

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.
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

13

THE FHWA CASE STUDIES: PROMOTING THE ACCEPTANCE OF 

RSAs

The RSAs in this case studies project have been well received by all participating 

agencies. Characteristics of the FHWA RSAs that have promoted their acceptance by 

the participating agencies are generally those that are aimed at making the RSA as useful 

and “user-friendly” as possible.

Key Factors for Success

1. Identify candidate funding sources for suggested improvement

All of the tribal RSAs included suggestions for improvements to address safety issues. 

An important consideration in identifying and implementing road safety improvements 

is funding. The federal government provides funding assistance for eligible activities 

through legislative formulas and discretionary authority, including some funding programs 

based on 80/20 (federal/local) matches. The RSA team can obtain up-to-date information 

on funding opportunities by referring to the following resources and visiting the following 

websites:

•	 Tribal Highway Safety Improvement Implementation Guid

(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/tribaltrans/saf_guide.htm).

•	 Tribal Transportation Funding Resourc

(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/tribaltrans/ttfundresource.pdf).

• FHWA Discretionary Programs website 

(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/discretionary/proginfo.cfm).

• FTA Grants/Grants Programs website 

(http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants_financing_36.html).

The Tribal Highway Safety Improvement Implementation Guide advises that th

implementation plan for a tribal highway safety improvement project (THSIP) or highway 

safety project will depend greatly on which funding sources the tribes pursue, since each 

source has different program eligibility requirements. Some of the important government 

traffic safety-funding sources include:
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

14

•	 FHWA funds administered by the state, include the Highway Safety Improvemen

Program (HSIP) and Surface Transportation Program (STP).

•	 Transportation Enhancement Funds for projects involving pedestrian facilities an

scenic highways.

•	 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) funds administered by 

the state Highway Safety Office and the BIA Highway Safety Office, including the 

State and Community Highway Safety Grants Program.

•	 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Progra

•	 Scenic Byway Fund

•	 Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program, jointly administered by BIA Divisi

Transportation and the Federal Lands Highway Office and funded by FHWA.

• The Indian Health Service Injury Prevention Program for basic and advanced injury

prevention projects, and for building tribal capacity for preventing any type of injury 

problem facing a tribal government.

•	 Public Lands Highways Discretionary Progra

Additional sources specific to each state may be available from the state department of 

transportation.

2. Preliminary RSA results (findings and suggestions) have been presented to the Owner

twice, verbally and in a draft written form, to provide the Owner and Design Team with th

opportunity for input and review before the results are documented in the final report.

Since RSA reports may become public documents and/or may be used to justify funding 

requests, transportation agencies may be sensitive to their contents and the way in which 

the RSA results are presented. To address an agency’s concerns and provide it with 

an opportunity for input, the RSA team first discusses the RSA results in the preliminary 

findings meeting. In this discussion, the design team and the Owner have the opportunity 

to identify potentially sensitive safety issues or alternative suggestions to those that have 

been identified by the RSA team. In practice, the safety issues identified by the RSA team 

in the tribal RSA have been consistently accepted as valid, and no agency has attempted 

to discourage their inclusion in the RSA report. In contrast, the RSA team’s suggestions 

for improvements have been discussed at some length.
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

15

After discussion in the preliminary findings meeting, a final set of suggestions can be 

identified and incorporated in the RSA report. A draft version of the RSA report is provided 

to the Owner for review. The Owner or Design Team can suggest clarifications or provide 

additional information that can be incorporated in the final RSA report. In practice, of the 

four RSA reports completed to date in this tribal case studies project, only minor changes 

to two drafts have been requested. 

By discussing RSA findings in the preliminary findings meeting and issuing a draft version 

of the report, the RSA team, Design Team, and Owner can work together to ensure that 

potentially sensitive issues are appropriately presented, and that findings are presented 

in a way that will facilitate funding applications. It remains the responsibility of the RSA 

team to ensure that, while the Owner’s concerns are adequately addressed, the final 

RSA report is an objective and accurate reflection of its findings, and that the integrity and 

independence of the RSA process are maintained.

3. For RSAs at an early design stage, the RSA team has provided guidance on possib

low-cost improvements that could be implemented as interim measures to decrease 

interim crash risks.

One of the RSAs in this pilot series was conducted at the start of the planning process for 

highway upgrades, when construction was not expected to start for another two years. 

The RSA team examined safety issues and suggested safety improvements that could 

be implemented in the short-term and medium-term (before substantial upgrades to the 

corridor were completed), as well as the long-term (implemented as part of the corridor 

upgrades). 

4. The safety benefits of a project have been identified as part of the RSA process a

report.

As part of the RSA process, the team identified measures already in place (prior to the 

RSA) that improve the safety of road users, such as continuous sidewalk networks, 

shoulder rumble strips, nighttime lighting at isolated rural intersections, targeted traffic 

enforcement, and institutional measures that provide ongoing support for transportation 

safety initiatives. Acknowledging safety measures that have already been implemented 

puts the RSA findings in an appropriate context, and acknowledges the efforts already 

done by the road agency to improve the safety of road users.
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

16

5. RSA teams have been composed of a multidisciplinary group of experience

professionals.

The core disciplines on an RSA team are traffic operations, geometric design, and road 

safety. Beyond these core requirements, all of the RSA teams in this case studies project 

have included members who have brought a range of backgrounds and specialties to the 

RSA, including:

•	 Specialist expertise: The RSA of tribal roads on the Standing Rock Sioux 

reservation included a pavement management expert to advise on maintenance 

issues associated with pavement deterioration in the harsh Plains environment. 

•	 Enforcement: The RSA teams included traffic enforcement officers where possible,

and consulted with enforcement staff where their full-time participation on the RSA 

team was not feasible. Enforcement staff contribute knowledge regarding local 

driver behavior and road safety history, and can advise concerning the expected 

effectiveness of suggested improvements that rely on driver behavior to be 

effective.

•	 Road agency staff: RSA teams included members from the tribal road agency,

BIA engineering staff, state DOTs, and FHWA field safety staff. These team 

members provided first-hand knowledge of local policies, practices, constraints, 

and resources.

In this series of pilot RSAs, RSA team members were recruited from the tribe, BIA, state 

DOTs, and FHWA. Tribes considering their own RSAs may consider these agencies, as 

well as staff from other tribes with whom they establish a reciprocal relationship, when 

looking to staff RSA teams. When staffing a team, the RSA team leader should remember 

that the RSA team should be independent of the project or site being audited, as far as 

possible. While consultation with local involved staff is necessary to gain an adequate 

understanding of the project or site, the RSA team should be made up of members who 

have little or no prior involvement with the specific project or site.

6. RSA reports have been brie

The RSA report is concise, and focuses on describing safety issues and suggested 

mitigation. Graphics and photographs were used as extensively as possible. The reports 

included:
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

17

•	 Background, providing a brief summary of the road or project being audited

•	 RSA team and process, including a listing of the RSA team members, the desig

or as-built drawings used, site visit dates, and a description of the prioritization 

method used.

•	 Site observations made during site visits, including photographs.

•	 Safety benefits of the proposed improvements, describing elements of the project 

that are expected to effectively address existing safety issues or otherwise enhance 

road safety.

•	 RSA findings, a listing of safety issues and suggested mitigation, usually one or 

two pages each. A two-page example is shown in Figure 6. A safety issue has 

been identified in a single sentence at the top of the page. A description (with 

photos) of the safety issue follows, describing the nature of the safety concern and 

how it may contribute to collisions. Prioritization of the safety issue follows, using 

the prioritization matrix described earlier, and ways to address the safety issue are 

suggested. 

Lessons Learned

Over the course of the tribal RSA case studies project, the RSA teams have identified six 

key elements that can help to make an RSA successful. 

1. The RSA team must acquire a clear understanding of the project background an

constraints.

At the RSA start-up meeting, a frank discussion of the constraints and challenges 

encountered in the design of the project, or operation of existing road, is critical to 

the success of the RSA. It is crucial that the RSA team understand the trade-offs and 

compromises that were a part of the design process or the form of the present road. 

Knowledge of these constraints helps the RSA team to identify mitigation measures that 

are practical and reasonable.
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

18

FIGURE 6 EXAMPLE DISCUSSION OF AN RSA SAFETY ISSUE
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

19

2. Recurring concerns identified in multiple tribal RSAs may reflect safety issues typic

of tribal transportation environments. 

RSA teams identified the following issues on at least three of the four tribal RSAs conducted 

in this series, suggesting that RSA teams may expect to encounter these issues during 

tribal RSAs:

SAFETY ISSUE

Standing Rock SiouxSanta Clara PuebloJemez PuebloNavajo Nation

pedestrian safety, including the safety of children walking to and from 

school and school-bus stops    

worn, damaged, or confusing signs and pavement markings   

hazardous roadside conditions   

limited road maintenance   

With regard to maintenance of tribal roads, this activity has historically been funded through 

a range of sources, including federal and state funding sources. Funding for maintenance 

has typically been constrained by limited overall budgets, and by funding categories that 

exclude maintenance. At the same time, tribal road agencies are often responsible for 

an extensive network of rural roads that connect a widely-dispersed population, and that 

must be maintained in a harsh environment that can cause rapid pavement deterioration. 

As a result, road maintenance was observed to be problematical in three of the four tribal 

RSAs. Poor pavement conditions could result in cracked, worn, and rutted pavements, 

which can affect driver control and accelerate the deterioration of pavement markings.

A recognition on the part of the RSA team that the issues listed above will often be significant 

in tribal RSAs may help the RSA team leader to recruit appropriate expertise to address 

these issues. For example, the RSA team on the Standing Rock Sioux RSA included a 

pavement specialist from the nearby state university, who contributed his expertise to the 

audit team.
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

20

3. The involvement of multiple road agencies in the design, operation, and maintenance 

of roads on tribal lands can present a challenge, and can also help promote a successful 

RSA outcom

Most of the roads audited in this series of RSAs were under the joint jurisdiction of two or 

three road agencies at different levels, including:

• The tribal transportation agency.

• The Bureau of Indian Affairs.

• One or more state Departments of Transportation.

Although relations between the representatives from these agencies ranged from civil to 

friendly on all RSAs conducted in this series, these multiple layers can result in a large 

and unwieldy RSA team, and may result in conflict between members of the team. At the 

same time, the involvement of multiple agencies was a distinct advantage in some tribal 

RSAs where participants were able to call upon resources within multiple agencies to 

make the RSA outcome as successful as possible.

4. The RSA team and Design Team need to work in a cooperative fashion to achieve

successful RSA result  It is important to maintain an atmosphere of cooperation amo

all participants in the RSA process – the Design Team, RSA team, and the O

The RSA team should be consistently positive and constructive when dealing with the 

Design Team. Many problems can be avoided if the RSA team maintains effective 

communication with the Design Team during the RSA (including the opportunities 

presented in the start-up and preliminary findings meetings) to understand why roadway 

elements were designed as they were, and whether mitigation measures identified by 

the RSA team are feasible and practical. This consultation also gives the Design Team 

a “heads-up” regarding the issues identified during the RSA, as well as some input into 

possible solutions, both of which can reduce apprehension (and therefore defensiveness) 

concerning the RSA findings.

The cooperation of the Design Team is vital to the success of the RSA. An RSA is not a 

critical review of the design team’s work, but rather a supportive review of the design with 

a focus on how safety can be further incorporated into it. Cooperation between the RSA 

team and Design Team usually results in a productive RSA, since the RSA team will fully 

understand the design issues and challenges (as explained by the Design Team), and 
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

21

suggested mitigation measures (as discussed in advance with the Design Team) will be 

practical and reasonable.

Support from the Owner is vital to the success of individual RSAs and the RSA program 

as a whole. It is essential that the Owner commit the necessary time within the project 

schedule for conducting the RSA and incorporating any improvements resulting from it, 

as well as the staff to represent the Owner in the RSA process (primarily the start-up and 

preliminary findings meetings).

5.  “local champion” can greatly help to facilitate the establishment of RSA

Wilson and Lipinski2

 noted in their recent synthesis of RSA practices in the United States 

that the introduction of RSAs or an RSA program can face opposition based on liability 

concerns, the anticipated costs of the RSA or of implementing suggested changes, and 

commitment of staff resources. To help overcome this resistance, a “local champion” 

who understands the purposes and procedures of an RSA, and who is willing and able to 

promote RSAs on at least a trial basis, is desirable. Thus, measures to introduce RSAs to 

a core of senior transportation professionals can help to promote their wider acceptance. 

“Local champions” have been found within tribal road agencies, state DOTs, and FHWA 

field offices.

6. The RSA field review should be scheduled during regular recurring traffic condition

Where possible, the RSA team should visit the project site when traffic conditions are 

typical or representative. For example, the RSA on the Standing Rock Sioux reservation 

included the highway adjacent to a reservation high school, where recurring congestion 

from arriving and departing school buses was a reported issue. The RSA team scheduled 

site visits during the school year, coinciding with the start and end of the school day, and 

consequently was able to observe the congested conditions. In contrast, the RSAs on the 

Jemez and Santa Clara Pueblos were conducted in late October, well after the end of the 

summer tourist season. Consequently, the RSA teams were not able to observe tourist 

traffic associated with the scenic and cultural attractions on the Pueblo lands. Although 

this did not significantly affect the RSA findings, scheduling the field review to observe 

regularly recurring traffic conditions is preferable, since it allows the RSA team to see how 

these traffic conditions and road user behavior may affect safety.

2 Eugene Wilson and Martin Lipinski. NCHRP Synthesis 336: Road Safety Audits, A Synthesis of Highway Practice (National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program, TRB, 2004)
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

22

CONCLUSION

The tribal RSA case studies project sponsored by the FHWA Office of Safety has been 

well received by the participating tribal transportation agencies. The case studies project 

has exposed tribal governments to the concepts and practices of an RSA, and provided 

the opportunity for tribal staff members to participate on the RSA team as part of the 

process. This case studies document has summarized the results of each RSA, with 

the intent of providing tribal governments with examples and advice to assist them in 

implementing RSAs in their own jurisdictions. 
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

A-1

APPENDIX A

CASE STUDY RSAs
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

A-2

RSA NUMBER 1

STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE (NORTH AND SOUTH DAKOTA):

RSA OF RESERVATION ROADS

Roads: existing two-lane rural tribal roads

RSA Sites: •	 paved and gravel roadways (including state secondary highways under state DO

jurisdiction) in rural and low-density urbanized environments

•	 one small bridge

Environment:  urban/urbanized  suburban  rura

Owners: Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), North Dakota DOT, South

Dakota DOT

Road Safety Audit

Date of RSA: 22-24 May 2

RSA Stage(s):  planning/design stage  RSA of existing roa

RSA team: staff from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Federal Highway Administration (Nort

Dakota and South Dakota field offices), North Dakota DOT, South Dakota DOT, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, North Dakota State University, Northern Plains TTAP, and 

Opus Hamilton

BACKGROUND: 

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (SRST) reservation in North and South Dakota extends 

over 2.3 million acres, with an extensive rural road network of BIA, county, and state 

roads. The reservation roads connect the reservation’s communities to each other and 

to the tribal administrative center in Fort Yates, ND. They also serve through traffic, and 

provide access to the Tribe’s two casinos.

At the time of the RSA, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe was actively pursuing improvements 

to transportation infrastructure on the reservation. Under the SRST Transportation 

Department, the Tribe had embarked on a long-range, multi-million-dollar program to 

upgrade community transportation facilities, using an innovative financing scheme 

involving government, tribal, and borrowed funds. 

The Tribe maintained its extensive road network using its own funds as well as funding 

from sources such as the BIA. Maintenance of tribal roads was a sensitive topic, since 

funding for maintenance involved an extensive government allocation effort that limited the 

amounts available to reservations. At the same time, road maintenance was viewed as an 

important responsibility that directly affected tribal efforts to build a cohesive reservation 

community and promote economic activity. Maintenance of the roads on the SRST 

reservation was a challenge due to their extent (connecting a population of about 9,000 
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

A-3

spread over 850,000 acres) and the impacts of the Northern Plains environment (winter 

road conditions, frost damage, and variations in the underlying water table). Although 

the SRST reported that it fully utilized available government funds and its own funds, the 

RSA team observed multiple maintenance-related issues on reservation roads, which are 

summarized as Issue 1 in Table A.1.

Roads studied during this RSA included ND 24 and Highway 1806 (part of BIA 3), US 12, 

and community access roads. Typical reservation roadways are shown in Figure A.1. 

The RSA team drove these roads to identify safety issues associated with road geometry, 

traffic operations, and maintenance. Although bridge inspection is not a usual part of 

the RSA process, the RSA team was asked to observe possible maintenance issues 

associated with a bridge on BIA 3 at Four-Mile Creek. RSA findings associated with the 

bridge were included in the RSA report.

BIA 3 at intersection with ND 24 south of For

Yates, 

BIA 3 / Hwy 1806 in Kenel, S

US 12 at Grand River Casino (left), nea

Mobridge, S

BIA 44 west of Mahto

FIGURE A.1 VIEWS OF RSA SITES (STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE RSA)
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

A-4

KEY RSA FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS:

The key findings and suggestions of the RSA are summarized in Table A.1.

TABLE A.1 SUMMARY OF SELECTED SAFETY ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS:

STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE RSA

SELECTED SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description)

RISK 

RATING SUGGESTIONS

1

Road Maintenance: Limited

maintenance on reservation roads 

contributes to poor pavement conditions 

and concern regarding bridge stability.

B to D

•	 control cracking with sawcut and fill 

•	 accommodate future overlays

•	 bridge inspection and repair

2

Access to Grand River Casino  Driver

turning into and out of the Grand River 

Casino may interfere with crossing, 

opposing, and following traffic on US12.

D

•	 speed reduction

•	 improved signing

•	 westbound left turn bay

•	 access relocation

3

BIA 31 and ND 24 (School Frontage): 

Driver workload is potentially high near 

the intersection of BIA 31 and ND 24, 

which accommodates local, school, and 

through traffic.

B to D

•	 no-passing zone

•	 crosswalk maintenance

•	 enhanced signing

•	 turning lanes on ND24

•	 improved lighting

•	 access consolidation

•	 urban cross section

4

BIA 3 and Highway 1806 (Kenel):

Vehicle and pedestrian traffic may 

interfere with through traffic on BIA 3 

through Kenel.

B to D

•	 marked crosswalk

•	 regrading

•	 urban cross section

•	 relocation of grocery store

5

Hwy 1806 and US 12 (Jed’s Landing):

Driver workload is potentially high at the 

intersection, which accommodates high 

turning volumes and high speeds.

C •	 speed reduction

•	 review of turning lanes

6

BIA 3 and ND 24: Left-turning vehicles 

may obstruct through vehicles at 

highway intersection on a horizontal 

curve.

A •	 left turn bay
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

A-5

KEY LESSONS LEARNED:

This large RSA team effectively combined members from a wide range of disciplines an

jurisdictions, and included experts with relevant specialist knowledge. The core disciplines 

that must be represented on any RSA team are traffic operations, geometric design, and 

road safety. Beyond these core requirements, the Standing Rock RSA team included 

members with a range of backgrounds and specialties, including team members from the 

Standing Rock Sioux tribe, two state DOTs having highways traversing the reservation, 

two state FHWA field offices, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Northern Plains Tribal 

Transportation Assistance Program (TTAP) program, and North Dakota State University. 

The RSA team members contributed a wealth of knowledge and expertise in topics as 

diverse as pedestrian safety, pavement maintenance, and tribal policies, practices, and 

conditions. 

See also the discussion of “Key Factors for Success” and “Lessons Learned” in the main 

text.
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

A-6

RSA NUMBER 2

SANTA CLARA PUEBLO:

RSA OF STATE HIGHWAY NM 30 THROUGH THE PUEBLO

Road: existing two-lane rural tribal road

RSA Sites: •	 paved two-lane roadway with paved shoulders in an urbanized environmen

 auxiliary turning lanes at some major intersections

 short four-lane segment at recently upgraded intersection

•	 one signalized intersection

Project Environment:  urban/urbanized  suburban  rura

Project Owner: Santa Clara Pueblo and New Mexico Department of Transportation

Road Safety Audit

Date of RSA: 24-25 October 2

RSA Stage(s):  planning/design stage  In-service aud

RSA team: staff from Santa Clara Pueblo, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Southwest Regiona

Office, New Mexico DOT (District 5), Federal Highway Administration, Gannett 

Fleming West Consultants, Opus Hamilton, VHB 

BACKGROUND: 

The Santa Clara Pueblo in New Mexico is home to approximately 11,000 residents. State 

Highway 30 (NM 30), which runs through the Pueblo, has an estimated AADT of 9,000 

vehicles, reflecting use by:

• Residents of the Pueblo for travel within Pueblo lands, as well as travel to neighboring 

communities.

• Visitors to the Pueblo and its attractions, including the Black Mesa Golf Club, scenic 

Santa Clara Canyon, and historic Puye Cliff Dwellings.

• Through traffic on NM 30, including commuters travelling between Los Alamos (an 

employment center south of the Pueblo) and Espanola (a residential area north of the 

Pueblo).

The highway accommodates a substantial truck volume, estimated at 16 percent of AADT. 

Posted speed limits along the audit segment vary from 45 to 60 mph, with a 15 mph speed 

limit posted at a school crosswalk for two hours on school days. Two views of NM 30 are 

shown in Figure A.2.

The main residential area of the Pueblo is divided by the NM 30, which separates 

the historic center of the Pueblo on the east side of the highway from more recentlydeveloped residential areas on the west side. The Pueblo’s transportation agency has 

very effectively limited vehicle access to the highway by designating a limited number 
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

A-7

of access points and restricting, where possible, direct driveway access. Similarly, it 

encourages pedestrians to cross the highway in a safe manner by providing a marked 

school crosswalk that is regularly supervised by tribal enforcement officers.

At the time of the RSA, NM DOT was conducting a study of the NM 30 corridor to identify 

the need for upgrades. The DOT had committed approximately $8 million to implement 

NM 30 upgrades, starting in 2008. The RSA was conducted with a view to identify safety 

issues that could be addressed by the planned upgrades.

Looking south along NM 30 toward a signed

and marked school zone crosswalk near the 

Pueblo’s main residential area.

Looking north along NM 30 toward a recently

improved intersection adjacent to a convenience 

store/gas station. The full traffic signal was 

place, but not operational, at the time of the 

audit.

FIGURE A.2 VIEWS OF RSA SITE (THE SANTA CLARA PUEBLO)

KEY RSA FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS:

The key findings and suggestions of the RSA are summarized in Table A.2. Where 

appropriate, the suggestions were divided into:

• Short-term (could be implemented prior to the anticipated opening of scenic and 

historic areas the following spring).

• Medium-term (could be implemented in the interim period before substantial upgrades 

to the corridor were started).

• Long-term (could be implemented as part of the corridor upgrades that were scheduled 

to start in two years).
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

A-8

TABLE A.2 SUMMARY OF RSA SAFETY ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS:

SANTA CLARA PUEBLO RSA

SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description)

R

Rat

1

Pedestrian Facilities:

•	 Vehicles on the shoulder, an 

absence of night-time lighting, 

and the possibility of accelerating 

vehicles, increase the risk of collision 

for pedestrians crossing NM30 in the 

school crosswalk.

•	 Pedestrian connections are noncontinuous.

D

•	 school crosswalk:

 paint advance yield lines

 provide flexible delineator posts on 

shoulders

 provide overhead lighting

•	 install additional crossing facilities at 

signalized intersection

•	 provide grade-separated crossings

•	 plan and provide a continuous 

pedestrian network

•	 consider urban cross-section (longterm)

2

Narrow Shoulder and Auxiliary Lane

•	 Discontinuous shoulders may 

increase the risk of collisions.

•	 Narrow 10-foot lanes may increase 

the risk of off-road or sideswipe 

collisions.

C

•	 enhance signing and delineation

•	 include a pavement fillet to limit 

pavement edge drop-offs

•	 re-stripe lanes

•	 widen cross-section

•	 plan and provide a continuous 

pedestrian network

3

Signal Operation at Puye Cliffs Acces

Road: Drivers turning from the Puye

Cliffs access road may require a full 

signal to safely turn left onto NM30.

C

•	 review the need for a full signal

•	 review merge operation and safety

•	 change lane configuration

•	 provide signing

4

Signing and Pavement Markings: An 

absence of warning signs and pavement 

markings may increase the collision risk 

at merge areas.

B

•	 post advance signing before end of 

bypass lanes

•	 review taper lengths

•	 review need for or location of “Pass 

With Care” sign

•	 paint centerlines on intersecting 

residential streets

•	 plan and provide guide signing for Puye 

Cliffs Visitor Center

•	 provide temporary signing for start of 

signal operation

•	 provide lane use signing
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

A-9

SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description)

R

Rat

5

Lighting: The absence of overhead

lighting limits the visibility and 

conspicuousness of unsignalized 

intersections and the school crosswalk.

B

•	 install lighting at signed entrances to 

Pueblo

•	 install lighting at school crosswalk

6

Roadside Hazard: Two signal poles

are located within the clear zone at a 

signalized intersection.

C provide a roadside barrier •	

7

Speed Limits

•	 Frequent speed limit changes may 

result in unintentional violations and 

differential speeds.

•	 Speeds limits may be high adjacent 

to the main residential area.

C review speed limits •	

KEY LESSONS LEARNED:

Conducting the RSA at the start of the parallel corridor upgrade study provided a

opportunity for enhanced safety input to the corridor study. In addition to the issuespecific suggestions listed in Table A.2, the RSA team discussed longer-term suggestions 

to improve safety along NM 30. In particular, the RSA team recognized that the growth of 

the Pueblo’s main residential area had generated a need to examine whether the current 

rural configuration and high speeds along NM 30 were still appropriate. Specifically, 

the RSA team suggested that NM DOT and the Pueblo consider converting the highspeed, two-lane rural highway cross-section into a four-lane urban cross-section through 

all or part of the Pueblo. The urban cross-section could enhance vehicle and pedestrian 

safety by reducing through speeds, providing facilities to better accommodate drivers 

turning into and out of the Pueblo’s residential areas, and providing safer opportunities 

for pedestrians crossing the highway. In addition, since NM DOT and Pueblo staff often 

cited excessive speed as an issue along NM 30 (and a review of the highway collision 

history supported this view), the RSA Team suggested that a formal speed study could be 

considered as a supplement to the NM 30 corridor upgrade study.

See also the discussion of “Key Factors for Success” and “Lessons Learned” in the main 

text.
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

A-10

RSA NUMBER 3

THE JEMEZ PUEBLO:

RSA OF STATE HIGHWAY NM 4 THROUGH THE PUEBLO

Road: existing two-lane rural tribal road

RSA Sites: •	 pave  two-lane highway (rural cross-section) through the main residential area o

the Pueblo 

•	 several intersections with STOP control on minor road

•	 high pedestrian volumes walking along and crossing the highway

Project Environment:  urban/urbanized  suburban  rura

Project Owner: Pueblo of Jemez and the New Mexico DO

Road Safety Audit

Date of RSA: 26-27 October 2

RSA Stage(s):  planning/design stage  RSA of existing roa

RSA team: staff from Pueblo of Jemez, BIA Southwest Regional Office, New Mexico DOT (Distric

6), Federal Highway Administration, VHB, and Opus Hamilton Consultants 

BACKGROUND: 

The Jemez Pueblo, the only remaining village of the Towa-speaking Pueblos in New 

Mexico, is home to approximately 2,000 residents. State Highway 4 (NM 4), a minor 

arterial, runs through the main village area. In 2003, the highway had an estimated 

workweek AADT of 3,000 vehicles (rising to 5,700 over the Memorial Day weekend), 

reflecting use by:

• Residents of the Pueblo for travel within the Pueblo, as well as travel to neighboring 

communities such as Jemez Springs and Bernalillo.

• Visitors to the Pueblo and surrounding areas, including the tribe’s Walatowa Visitors 

Center and the Red Rocks Recreation Area.

• Through traffic on NM 4, which is part of the Jemez Mountain Trail National Scenic 

Byway (established 1998) and provides access to the Valles Caldera National Preserve 

(established 2000).

Two views of NM 4 are shown in Figure A.3.
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

A-11

Looking north along NM 4 at the entrance to the

Pueblo of Jemez. NM 4 is predominantly a two-la

rural road with wide shoulders, with a speed limit of 

30 mph along this segment.

Looking north along NM 4 at the Red Roc

recreational area. Roadside land uses include

the commercial area (service station and 

Walatowa Visitors Center) visible at left, and the 

recreational area (where small-scale vending 

takes place during the summer) at right. The 

speed limit along this segment of the highway is 

50 mph.

FIGURE A.3 VIEWS OF RSA SITE (THE JEMEZ PUEBLO)

KEY RSA FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS:

The key findings and suggestions of the RSA are summarized in Table A.3.

TABLE A.3 SUMMARY OF RSA SAFETY ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS:

JEMEZ PUEBLO RSA

SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description)

R

Rat

1

Frequent Uncontrolled Accesse

Uncontrolled access to properties 

adjacent to NM 4 increases the risk of 

conflicts and collisions.

D

•	 support for realignment of NM 4

•	 pilot application of access management 

measures

•	 development of access management 

policy

•	 intersection lighting
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

A-12

SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description)

R

Rat

2

Pedestrian Safety: Pedestrians 

walking along NM 4 have no dedicated 

pedestrian facilities.

D

•	 network of continuous off-road paths

•	 improved visibility at school bus stops

•	 lighting in areas of potential vehicle/

pedestrian conflicts

•	 marked pedestrian crossings

•	 reduced speed limit (Red Rocks 

recreational area)

•	 access management plan

3

Signing, Pavement Markings, and 

Delineation: Missing signs, pavement

markings, or delineation may limit 

driver guidance and increase the risk of 

collision. Excessive signing may distract 

drivers.

C

•	 comprehensive signing review

•	 improved pavement markings

4

Speed: Speeds above the posted speed 

limit increase the risk and potential 

severity of crashes on NM 4.

E

•	 gateway treatment

•	 speed display signs

•	 consistent speed limit (Red Rock 

recreational area)

•	 pavement word markings

•	 review of need for transitional speed 

zone

5

Deterioration of Shoulder: Shoulder

conditions may deteriorate as a result of 

surface drainage flows and traffic.

C

•	 shoulder stabilization

•	 curb and gutter

6 Roadside Hazards: Unshielded roadside

hazards are present off the highway. C

•	 roadside barriers

•	 crashworthy drainage inlets

7

Intersection with Bear Canyon Roa

Limited sight distances, especially at 

night, increase the risk of collision at this 

intersection.

C

•	 improved signing and pavement 

markings

•	 lighting

•	 transverse rumble strips

•	 pedestrian improvements

8

School Bus Operations  School buse

do not consistently operate their flashing 

lights when picking up and dropping off 

students.

D

•	 clarification of policy

•	 lighting at school bus stops
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

A-13

SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description)

R

Rat

9 Animals on the Highway: Animals on

the highway pose a crash risk. C

•	 lighting

•	 cattle guards

•	 resolve conflicts between “open range” 

concept and requirements to keep 

cattle off the highway

KEY LESSONS LEARNED:

Cultural traditions can conflict with road safety initiatives. The RSA Team noted in its 

report that the Pueblo of Jemez has been supportive of efforts (like the Scenic Byways 

designation of NM 4) to increase tourism, preserve the environment, and improve 

economic development in the region. At the same time, to protect and preserve its 

spiritual and cultural practices, the tribe has also insisted that all recommendations for 

roadway improvements should consider impacts on the culture and traditional lifestyle of 

its members. Two examples illustrate this lesson:

• Improved night-time lighting was identified in the RSA report as one of several measures 

that could address pedestrian safety. Pueblo representatives were supportive of the 

idea, but noted that, since night-time lighting conflicts with traditional/cultural activities 

near the center of the community, controls that allow for manually turning street lights 

on or off as needed were preferred. 

• Over half of all reported collisions along NM 4 in the Jemez Pueblo involved animals 

(primarily cattle) on the highway. Although the RSA team noted that the most effective 

and practical long-term measure to address livestock collisions was to install and 

maintain fencing to keep livestock off the road, there was extended discussion 

regarding whether some or all of the Pueblo lands are “open range”, which would 

imply that it is the responsibility of road users to drive with caution and avoid livestock 

on the road. The RSA team suggested that efforts should be undertaken to clarify and 

resolve potentially conflicting laws and customs regarding the movement of livestock 

over public roads, with the goal of protecting road users (including both local traffic 

and through traffic) and livestock.

See also the discussion of “Key Factors for Success” and “Lessons Learned” in the main 

text.
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

A-14

RSA NUMBER 4

NAVAJO NATION:

RSA OF HIGHWAY N-12

Road: existing two-lane rural tribal road 

RSA Sites: •	 two segments in rural areas having a two-lane rural cross-section with pave

shoulders

•	 one segment in an urbanized area having a five-lane cross-section with paved 

shoulders or curb-and-gutter

•	 two signalized intersections (urbanized area)

Project Environment:  urban/urbanized  suburban  rura

Project Owner: Navajo Nation and the Bureau of Indian Affair

Road Safety Audit

Date of RSA: 1-3 November 2

RSA Stage(s):  planning/design stage  RSA of existing roa

RSA team: staff from Navajo DOT, BIA, Arizona DOT, Federal Highway Administration, Navaj

Police, and Opus Hamilton

BACKGROUND: 

Highway N-12 is a rural minor arterial providing access to the Navajo capital at Window 

Rock, AZ. The highway, which is under the jurisdiction of the BIA, intersects I-40 near 

Lupton, AZ, and continues northward to US 191, passing through three states (Arizona, 

New Mexico, and Utah). This RSA has focused on the portion of N-12 north of Highway 

264 between Window Rock and Fort Defiance, and also included two smaller sites south 

of Highway 264.

On the segment between Window Rock and Fort Defiance, Highway N-12 has an AADT 

ranging between 14,000 and 24,000 vehicles, reflecting use by:

• Residents of the Navajo Nation reservation, especially employees and visitors 

associated with the tribal government, which is centered in Window Rock.

• Residents and visitors to commercial establishments in Window Rock.

• Visitor and long-distance traffic on N-12.

The highway accommodates a substantial truck volume. Speed limits along the audit 

segments vary from 35 to 55 mph. Two views of N-12 are shown in Figure A.4.

Seven years (1999 through 2005) of collision summaries along N-12 were reviewed as 

part of this RSA. Over seven years, a total of 386 collisions were reported along N-12. 

Annual collision frequency peaked in 2002 with 60 reported collisions, and declined each 
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

A-15

subsequent year to a low of 21 reported collisions in 2005. Figure A.5 shows the spatial 

distribution of collisions along the entire highway segment from MP 0.0 to MP 58.5. Peaks 

are evident around MP 23/24 and MP 28/29, which correspond to the Window Rock and 

Fort Defiance areas. 

NOTE: Shows collision locations reported on N-12 over seven years (1999 through 2005). Distribution is shown in one-mile segments,

so (for example) all collisions at MP 24.0 through 24.9 are shown at “MP24” in the chart.

FIGURE A.4 COLLISIONS ALONG HIGHWAY N-12

Looking north along N-12 at the intersection with

N-110 (near Fort Defiance). A 62-foot urban crosssection is provided, consisting of two through lanes i

each direction, with curb and gutter and turn lanes (or 

a raised median) at intersections.

Looking south along N-12 at audit site south of

Highway 264. The cross-section is a two-la

rural road with wide paved shoulders.

FIGURE A.5 VIEWS OF RSA SITE (NAVAJO NATION)
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

A-16

KEY RSA FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS:

The key findings and suggestions of the RSA are summarized in Table A.4.

TABLE A.4 SUMMARY OF SELECTED SAFETY ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS:

NAVAJO NATION RSA

SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description)

R

Rat

1

Signing and Pavement Marking: Worn or 

missing signs and pavement markings 

may limit driver guidance, especially at 

night.

D

•	 policy measures

•	 measures to improve visibility and 

reduce maintenance requirements

2

Pedestrian Facilities: The design

and maintenance of some pedestrian 

facilities may limit their usefulness. 

Pedestrians who are unable or unwilling 

to use pedestrian facilities may use 

the roadway instead, where they are 

exposed to vehicle traffic.

D

•	 maintenance schedule review

•	 completion of pedestrian networks 

with sidewalk segments and marked 

crosswalks (where currently missing)

•	 removal of obstructions in sidewalk

3

Poor Pavement Conditions: Cracked, 

worn, rutted, and dusty/muddy pavement 

may reduce driver control (especially 

for motorcyclists), particularly on N-12 

between N-110 and Hwy 264.

C pavement repair and rehabilitation •	

4

Intersection of N-12 and N-100 (Window

Rock):

•	 Peak period left-turn volumes exceed 

the capacity of the left turn lanes.

•	 Access to the residential area 

interferes with operations at the 

N-12/N-100 intersection.

•	 Fixed-object hazards are located in 

the right-turn channelizing island.

•	 Laning on the east exit leg is not 

clear.

C

•	 extend left turn lane to accommodate 

peak demand

•	 revise signal operation to clear queue

•	 introduce staggered work hours to 

reduce peak volumes

•	 reconfigure intersection to four legs

•	 relocate signal controller box

•	 clarify laning requirements on 

eastbound exit leg
Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case

A-17

SAFETY ISSUE

(Number and Description)

R

Rat

5

Intersection of N-12 and N-110 (For

Defiance):

•	 The intersection configuration and 

conspicuousness may be limited.

•	 Movements at driveways near 

the intersection may contribute to 

conflicts.

•	 A fixed-object hazard is located close 

to travel lanes.

•	 Laning on the east exit leg is not 

clear.

C

•	 improve signing and pavement 

markings

•	 upgrade the signal display

•	 review opportunities for access 

management

•	 upgrade the east exit leg

6

N-12 near St Michael’s School (between

MP22 and MP23):

•	 Horizontal and vertical curves limit 

sight distance on the approaches to 

the school driveway.

•	 Roadside hazards may increase the 

potential risk and severity of an offroad collision.

C

•	 improve signing around the school 

driveway

•	 increase the length of the guardrail

•	 improve curve delineation

7

S-curve on N-12 between MP13 and

MP14:

•	 A steep roadside slope may increase 

the potential risk and severity of an 

off-road collision.

•	 Drivers may be unprepared for 

vehicles pulling into or out of a 

school bus stop.

C

•	 install rumble strips

•	 improve signing

•	 increase length of guardrail

KEY LESSONS LEARNED:

See the discussion of “Key Factors for Success” and “Lessons Learned” in the main 

text.