Adapting the Road Safety Audit Review for Local Rural Roads (MPC ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AcknowledgementsThe U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, theWyoming Department of Transportation and the University of Wyoming sponsored this project. TheWyoming Association of County Engineers and Supervisors and Arve Kirkevold provided input and datapreparation for this study. The author recognizes and appreciates their help and support.DisclaimerThe contents of this report reflect the views of the author, who is responsible for the facts and theaccuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship ofthe Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest ofinformation exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.2
ABSTRACTIt is important to improve safety on local rural roads, but many local transportationagencies do not implement a road safety improvement program. This often is due to limitationson funding, expertise, and time. The Road Safety Audit Review (RSAR) process is a viableoption for aiding local transportation agencies in addressing safety issues.This project developed a simple and cost effective local rural RSAR program. TheRSAR program was developed to identify critical safety issues and to assess the level of auditorexpertise needed. The specific issues of needed safety improvements and the urgency ofimplementing these improvements have been defined in the audit process. These issues werecorrelated to a proposed local rural functional classification system, also developed as acomponent of this research. Pilot audit review groups were composed of experts, countyengineers, and local road supervisors. The different auditor groups generally agreed on the levelof urgency in correcting the needed improvements. While the control group identified moresafety needs on the lower classified roads than the other groups, it should be noted that thedifferences generally were those on which the control group recommended no action be taken.The importance of this process in meeting the needs of local government is that road supervisorsand county engineers from other counties also were effective in identifying safety needs.Implementing improvements for identified action items with the highest urgency is anapproach that will be an effective tool for local rural governmental agencies.3
Page 1: ADAPTING THE ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REVI
Page 6 and 7: CHAPTER 5 - Summary, Conclusions, a
Page 8 and 9: LIST OF TABLESTable 1. Classificati
Page 10 and 11: According to Austroads, 4 the Austr
Page 12 and 13: Recalling the definition of an RSAR
Page 14 and 15: control group. The highest levels o
Page 17 and 18: LOCAL RURAL GOVERNMENT RSAR PROCESS
Page 19 and 20: Safety Issues to LOOK FOR:Roadside
Page 21 and 22: Road Safety Audit Review for Local
Page 23 and 24: Functional Local Rural Road Classif
Page 25 and 26: Mr.______, titleMr.______, titleMr.
Page 27: RURAL LOCAL CLASSIFICATIONMany pote
Page 30 and 31: including Australia, New Zealand, a
Page 33 and 34: CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW2.1 In
Page 35 and 36: 2.2.1. Highway Safety Improvement P
Page 37 and 38: approaches. The RSAR seeks to ident
Page 39 and 40: 4, 15The objectives of a road safet
Page 41 and 42: property use, growth of surrounding
Page 43 and 44: CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY3.1 Overview
Page 45 and 46: The trial audit was conducted in Co
Page 47 and 48: (Appendix C) the category was terme
Page 49: An important issue focused on the v
Page 52 and 53:
audit. Therefore, the old checklist
Page 54 and 55:
Table 6. RSAR Procedure Instruction
Page 56 and 57:
For each evaluated roadway, the RSA
Page 58 and 59:
Table 8. Total Road Deficiencies Id
Page 60 and 61:
When results are compared by functi
Page 62 and 63:
engineer in County I and the team o
Page 64 and 65:
was due to the small sample of defi
Page 66 and 67:
Table 11. Road Deficiency Urgencies
Page 68 and 69:
4.2.3. RSAR Completion ReportsThe d
Page 71 and 72:
CHAPTER 5 - SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, A
Page 73 and 74:
Overall, results from these analyse
Page 75:
6. The value of using global positi
Page 78 and 79:
14. Med et vaakent kritisk blikk pa
Page 80 and 81:
Instructions for Local Rural Road S
Page 82 and 83:
Safety Issues to LOOK FOR:Roadside
Page 84 and 85:
Road Safety Audit Review for Local
Page 86 and 87:
1. Leave as it is2. No urgency, but
Page 88 and 89:
Road Deficiency Urgency -Final Audi
Page 90 and 91:
Road Deficiency Urgency - Final Aud
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
MajorReconstructionUrgency of Defic
Page 98 and 99:
Road Deficiency Severities 2 & 3 Su
Page 100 and 101:
Summary of Results from Field RSAR
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Final Audit - County 2 Control Grou
Page 108 and 109:
108
Page 110 and 111:
Trial Audit - County 1 Control Grou
Page 112 and 113:
112
Page 114 and 115:
114
Page 116 and 117:
Engineer Audit ReportsCounty I, Rur
Page 118 and 119:
County II, Rural Major Medium-speed
Page 120 and 121:
Superintendents Audit Reports(The r
Page 122:
Superintendent IIIRoad Safety Audit
show all

Adapting the Road Safety Audit Review for Local Rural Roads (MPC ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?