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 improvements

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 Guide
  (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/tribaltrans/saf_guide.htm).
• Tribal Transportation funding resources
  (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/tribaltrans/ttfundresource.pdf).
• FHWA Discretionary Programs website
  (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/discretionary/proginfo.cfm).
• FTA Grants/Grants Programs website
  (https://www.transit.dot.gov/grants).

 You will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the PDF on this page.

The Tribal Highway Safety Improvement Implementation Guide advises that the 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:

• FHWA funds administered by the state, include the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and Surface Transportation Program (STP).
• Transportation Enhancement Funds for projects involving pedestrian facilities and 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) Program.
• Scenic byway funds.
• Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program, jointly administered by BIA Division of 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 Program.

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 the 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.

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 possible 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 and 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.

5. RSA teams have been composed of a multidisciplinary group of experienced 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 brief.

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:

• 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 design 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 and 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.

FIGURE 6 EXAMPLE DISCUSSION OF AN RSA SAFETY ISSUE

2. Recurring concerns identified in multiple tribal RSAs may reflect safety issues typical 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 Sioux	Santa Clara Pueblo	Jemez Pueblo	Navajo 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.

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 outcome.

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 a successful RSA result. it is important to maintain an atmosphere of cooperation among all participants in the RSA process — the design Team, RSA team, and the owner.

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 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. A "local champion" can greatly help to facilitate the establishment of RSAs.

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 conditions.

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.