Road Safety Audits

[sc]

G'day all,

I have added road safety auditor consulting to my practice and would like to get some opinions as to how other road design/construction engineers feel about road safety audits and whether or not they have a positive impact on improving road design.

The reason I ask is that I have always viewed road safety audits as a means to have some-one independant of the project look at the design from a safety perspective and give an opinion. Recently I have been told by some rather cynical folk that it is just another way of stalling projects and future funding.

Any comments?



regards
sc

 

[Focht3]

This is a bit out of my area, but...

Many had the same opinion of geotechnical engineering 60+ years ago. (And some still do!)


If you are doing an honest, fair assessment of the project then I don't see what the fuss is all about. Good engineers don't mind having their peers review their work as long as it is done honestly and professionally.

Who are the cynics, anyway? Public officials? Contractors? Other engineers?

 

[BigH]

I think it is a good idea.

There is one really big project that had just this - back in 1993 or so, Highway 407 was being built across the northern fringe of Toronto by a private sector company for design, build and operate (no longer involved, I believe). "Caveat" - this is based on my recollection; I may be off a bit but the gist is there.

The original design was thought "defective" by some including police - not sufficient median width without crash barriers, etc. A very thorough study was done, headed by the Professional Engineers of Ontario. When all was said and done, to my best recollection, the median width was "fine" but on the narrow side but some exit ramps were a bit "tight" - among other small items. But the bottom line was that a thorough study was done and it was judged prudent and useful. (view PEO at

http://www.peo.on.ca

- I believe that you can then send them an email through their web site - in order to get more precise information. Let me know through post if you have trouble and I will try to find out more details.)

 

[VAD]

Are you doing these audits on behalf of a Client. While this is a good idea I also know that govt agencies tend to truncate their own standards very often to keep costs down.

BigH:
I may be guessing here. Did the company not have to follow standards set by the MTO.

We have run into this type of situation very often as many who do not have design experience choose to make sweeping changes. If SC can get the mandate to ensure that standards set are maintained then it would be a step in the right direction. However, with govt lip service is generally given upfront so that all looks great and then watch out when the costs come home.

Good Luck

 

[sc]

Focht3

The cynics are the local government engineers who believe that they should not have their work questioned at all. They feel that if they are given the appropriate funds they can produce a good safe project. I guess its a case of too independant for too long for these folks.

Contractors don't mind the audits as it helps them to reduce their ongoing insurance risks by having some one independant state they have left the job in a safe manner. It also helps them to identify possible design problems as design problems and not construction problems. The issues quite often picked up by the RSA are usually identified as either construction faults by the contract supervisor prior to the audit.


VAD

I know what you mean by governments truncating their own standards, this kind of double standards is picked up and thrown back at the officers concerned by acknowledging it in the audit report as a lapse in standard. The wonderful thing about government departments, especially large ones is that the staff are quite often so far removed from the prospect of litigation that they do not consider marginal or poor designs to be a problem. Perhaps its time that the government staff became liable for their work instead of the organisation.



The RS auditor that assisted me in training has always stated that as a road safety auditor your only responsibility is to the community and that you you should always provide a comprehensive, accurate and honest assessment.

The assessment should be based on common sense, design rules and honesty. He also advised not to be influenced by the client or regulating body as they are only paying the bill or looking for faults.


regards
sc

 

[BigH]

VAD - can't remember the details - sorry. A lot of this was written up in the Engineering Dimensions Magazine put out by PEO. At least it is source of a design, construction, a review, some minor modifications, etc.

 

[tsum]

I have worked as an engineer for the New York State Dept of Transportation for 26 years...20 years in highway design and the last 6 in charge of highway construction. I have never heard of your "service", unless you mean that lawyers hire you as an expert witness for an accident lawsuit. Where do you practice this service?

The criteria used for the design of our state highways are based on a number of factors. Some of which are as follows:
1.) Functional class of the highway (freeway,arterial,local road etc.)
2.) Type of roadwork (Total reconstruction, resurfacing etc.)
3.) Funding (100% state money or a split that includes federal money)
4.) Traffic volume and speed

These factors set the criteria or level a safety to be designed into a set of road plans to insure uniformity and accepted practice throughout the state/country. We also review the police accident reports for the last 3 years to identify problem locations that may need additional attention.
As a designer you cannot ignore these criteria and "do your own thing" as you seem to imply. There are many internal checks and balances. If the project has federal money in it, there is another whole layer of people looking over your shoulder from the Federal Highway Admistration.

As you might expect, the safety standards designed into the plans for a reconstructed freeway with a 100,000 AADT will be vastly different than the plans for the resurfacing of a subdivision street with 1000 AADT.

So, to answer your question, I would find your audit interesting, but probably unnecessary to the production of a quality set of plans.

My questions to you are... What criteria do you use when deciding if a highway plan is safe, or is it just based on your opinion? Who funds your study?

 

[VAD]

Tsum:

There is no doubt that some jurisdictions maintain a no nonsense approach but there are others who do not and situations result in standards that are often compromised.

In addition, not all that is put on paper is accomplished in the field. If you have the right of way etc then there should be no problem in sticking to the design standards.

Just for discussion - the area of sideslopes and guardrails, barrier lines seem to be ones that are never consistent in many roads (barrier lines here apply to two lane roads). The clear zone concept though espoused in many specs is often not applied consistently. There are many others that seem to be correct in the design and standards that do not often fit the real world.

Some of the above are no doubt different in different jurisdictions. One can only relate to ones that one has been involved with.

In some jurisdictions the designers have never visited the field before the design, during the design or after the road has been constructed. Again, there may be different approaches by some jurisdictions.

Perhaps sc is doing a "peer review" type of evaluation which may involve him reviewing the area where the road is to be improved or constructed especially in many jurisdictions where consultants are doing the bulk of the work and govt agencies have downsized so that their staff are not involved with very much hands on work.

Interesting and valid comments.

 

[sc]

Tsum,

I am a civil engineer based in Victoria, Australia. The aim of the Road Safety Audit is best explained on the US Dept of transports FHA site:

http://www.roadwaysafetyaudits.org

.

The service is aimed at ensuring that no one short cuts on a job, ie. full consideration is given to all road users, not just cars and trucks. For example in most large cities the volume of traffic is quite high, but higher still is the number of pedestrians. Most road design standards give full consideration to vehicle traffic, but do not adequately consider the impact of the road on pedestrain traffic. Also many of the pedestrians may be elderly and quite as agile as they used to be, does the road design standard always consider the design impact on the elderly pedestrian? Is the line marking proposed compatible with motorbike traffic? Will the signs installed impact on site distances?

I realise that in many larger organisations these items are often checked and cross checked, but are they considered at the design brief stage (when the project is put together as a concept). I'm not so sure that they are. The added bonus of the road safety audit is the independant assessment of the design that it provides.

The criterior used are generally the relevant design standards for the region, generally acknowledged "people" related limitations (behavioral), weather, local industry, road side environment to name a few. I do not look at the design calculations for VCs, HCs, etc I look at the end result. It is amazing how many engineers still cannot get the interaction of VC, HC and road side objects right.

You might be now wondering what the weather has to do with road safety apart from the need to provide drainage or snow clearance, etc. Well I have had one interesting problem where the angle of the sun created a problem when a road side vineyard watered with an overhead spray system. The resulting glare through the spray mist made it almost impossible to see an intersection just beyond the spray area for a good 2 hours a day when the spray was on. The solution was to provide the vineyard owner with an incentive to change over to a drip watering system.

So in short I guess I use the tools suggested above and my own opinion (based on 15 years in road design/construction for local government and state government schemes). When I am in doubt I often seek a further opinion from "local" design engineers and fellow auditors.

As I stated in my opening, even though clients (local government, state government departments, construction companies, private persons, etc) pay the bill, I am obliged to ignore their individual needs and wishes and focus on the community as the client. I am not responsible to the client for what they have designed, constructed or wish for. Road Safety Auditors are basically working under the general engineering ethic of ensuring a safer community.


regards
sc

 

[ACtrafficengr]

TSUM - Road Safety Audits are very similar what I used to do in NYSDOT's Poughkeepsie regional office. We just called it "Traffic Engineering Design Review."

So they're not really new. The differnece is an RSA is an independent audit by people outside the agency. Sort of like if NYSDOT and ConnDOT reviewed each other's plans.

The other new wrinkle is RSA's are properly done by a team of auditors, with a range of expertise that would be chosen based on the needs of the project. The team may include a human factors specialist, a highway designer, a maintenance engineer, and State Police traffic sergeant, for example.

 

[tsum]

LTAPjim
Thanks for your input and clarification

 

[10Gallen]

You'd probably be aware that Austroads have revised the Urban & Rural Geometric Design Guidelines, and coupled with the recent court rulings removing non-feasance as a defence, I'd say this would make a pretty compelling case for the clients to be sure they're getting what's required to mitigate their inherent risk as owners and maintainers of these assets.
I am just now involved in a project for a mining company which decided to install Armco guard rail at culvert crossings along the link road from the quarry to the dump station. Materials were ordered on the basis of a catalogue, but no consideration was given as to whether the works would actually increase the risk to the other road users, given that nothing much can be done for the trucks! By engaging someone to undertake an audit of the hazards, the company would have been able to make a decision which better balanced the risks and costs.
cheers
GAllen

 

[derbysafetyauditor]

In the uk, especially in local government, we routinely safety audit. This is because no matter how experienced the engineer, they will always look at things from an engineering perspective. Safety audits give the opportunity for an impartial initial design, pre construct and post constrct audit - looking at a wide range of highways needs and safety issues.

It does not hold up projects unnecessarily as a point raised may just save someones life. The engineer doesn't have to accept what is reported and can provide an exception report if they wish.

Safety Auditing is avaluable safeguard, and if anybody wants to offer me a job in Australia doing it - I am open to offers for emmigrating.

 

[MPENN]

We design to the Green Book. However, engieering judgement is allways required. If a Green book policy is not followed, a request for a design is required. The request documents why the policy must be abridged. Four levels of managment (and FHWA if within their oversight) review the request. It is not a rubberstamp action in my office. Generally, we don't design to "minimum" standards. Never under estimate the value of experience on engineering judgement. And never dismiss a fresh young mind solely for lack of experience.

 

[Asif1971]

Hello
I am interested in doing road safety audit for intersections in Toronto.Is there any good links that can help me ?
Asif

 

[ACtrafficengr]

Asif - go to

http://www.trb.org

and check out NCHRP report 500. There are two volumes that should help you: on on signalized intersections and one on unsignalized intersections. You can buy hard copies or download PDF's.

Note these were made for the US market, and you should check any recommendations against Ontario an Canadian rules and regs first.


------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.

- Blair Houghton