This chapter describes potential safety issues identified on Federal and Tribal lands as well as a list of potential low-cost countermeasures for addressing these issues.  A basic prioritization methodology is also discussed. 

What Types of Safety Issues Might I Encounter?

Most issues on or adjacent to Federal and Tribal lands have both an engineering and behavioral element.  For example, traffic types and volumes may be inconsistent with the intended roadway design due to changes in the functionality of the roadway and land use in surrounding areas.  This may result in a roadway serving mostly commuter traffic, an increase in heavy vehicular traffic, or seasonal traffic peaks and variations.  As such, shoulder widths and roadsides may not adequately address the increased risk to drivers.  From a behavioral standpoint, lack of awareness of the intended purpose of the roadway may result in motorists not applying the appropriate driving techniques for the conditions.  Furthermore, driver expectancy of other road users such as pedestrians and bicyclists may not reflect the intended usage.

The RSA team should determine the safety issues while considering the infrastructure and the behavior elements.  Table 2 illustrates common safety issues and behavioral aspects relating to these issues on or near Federal and Tribal lands listed by roadway element. The RSA team is charged with determining specific roadway and behavioral issues for the specific project they are assessing.  The documents in the Resource Materials section provide further detail with regard to the issues presented here and to other potential safety hazards that an RSA team should be aware of when conducting a field review.

What are Common Countermeasures?

Table 2 also presents common countermeasures that may be used to address road safety issues on or near Federal and Tribal lands.  This list is not comprehensive; it is intended to provide general guidance to typical countermeasures.  Note that the countermeasures identified in this list are primarily low-cost engineering measures, although a few relatively high-cost options are included because they are considered to be “proven” countermeasures.  A few specific education and enforcement measures are identified as well, but a more general discussion of how to incorporate education, enforcement, and EMS countermeasures is provided in the following section.  The documents in the Resource Materials section provide a much wider and detailed range of potential countermeasures and their effectiveness and should be used as guidance when considering safety measures during the RSA process.

Table 2: Common Safety Issues and Countermeasures

How Can I Incorporate Education, Enforcement, and EMS Countermeasures?

Safety issues cannot be completely addressed through engineering alone.  The other “E’s” include education, enforcement, and emergency medical services (EMS).  The RSA team should encourage and suggest measures that consider all “4 E’s” to address specific safety issues.  Communication and coordination among the “E’s” is essential to ensuring safety is addressed at a comprehensive level.  The agencies conducting RSAs may need to regularly assemble representatives from each of the “4 E’s” to ensure that countermeasures and strategies are complementing one another.  Some examples of education, enforcement, and EMS countermeasures are presented below; NCHRP Report 622 provides a more complete description of countermeasures that may aid education, enforcement, and EMS safety strategies (see Resource Materials section for complete reference).  Although the report is based on countermeasures targeting a State Highway Safety Office audience, the information provided may be applicable to safety issues observed by Federal and Tribal agencies.

Education – All road users must be aware of the safe and proper way to use roads.  Due to the unique characteristics of Federal and Tribal land roadways, users need to be made aware of safe travel practices and potential hazards.  Example methods of transferring this information include postings on the internet, brochures provided at visitor’s centers, and video messages.  Additional information on effective education strategies may be acquired through outreach groups such as Tribal Technical Assistance Programs (TTAPs).

Enforcement – Laws are intended to control the operation of road users.  Enforcing speed limit and compliance with signal/sign indications, as well as correcting wrong-way riding and impaired driving create a safer travel environment for all road users.  Staffing and funding constraints may limit the ability of a Federal or Tribal land agency to provide comprehensive enforcement; however, efforts should be made to target specific issues or frequent or high-risk behaviors. This can be done by identifying prevalent factors that contribute to crashes along the roadway of interest and targeting behaviors that relate to those issues. For example, if alcohol was determined to be a primary contributing factor in 50 percent of fatal and injury crashes along a specific route, it may be appropriate to deploy a checkpoint to combat drinking and driving; this could be further targeted by identifying the time of day and day of week when this behavior is most likely to occur.

Law enforcement on RSAs is helpful to identify safety issues as well as to suggest targeted enforcement countermeasures.

Emergency Medical Services – The rural nature of many roadways on or near Federal or Tribal lands may play a major role in limiting the ability to provide timely medical treatment to people injured in a crash.  Factors contributing to response time include the ability of other motorists to identify a crash and to notify emergency personnel, the ability of emergency personnel to quickly respond to the scene, and the ability to quickly transport the victim(s) to a trauma center.  Adequate cell phone service coverage and routine patrols are a few methods that can help save a life in the event of a serious injury.

How Do I Prioritize Issues?

A prioritization process is useful for identifying the most pressing safety needs based on the findings of the RSA team.  Table 3 is a matrix that can be used in the prioritization process.  In general, issues associated with more frequent crashes and higher severity levels tend to be given higher priority.  The prioritization can be based on historical crash data, expert judgment (provided by the RSA team), or a combination of the two.

Table 3: Issue Prioritization Matrix

For many RSAs conducted in rural areas, reliable crash data are not available.  Anecdotal information (e.g., from maintenance, enforcement call logs, land owners) and evidence of conflicts and crashes (e.g., skid marks and fence strikes) help to create a more complete picture of potential hazards, but cannot be quantified with any certainty.  In these cases, the likely frequency and severity of crashes associated with each safety issue are qualitatively estimated, based on the experience and expectations of RSA team members.  Expected crash frequency can be qualitatively estimated on the basis of 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 can be 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) are then combined to obtain a qualitative risk assessment.