ROAD SAFETY AUDIT MANAGEMENT

Transcription

1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT MANAGEMENT Transportation Research Record Devin Duranleau, Corresponding Author KPH Turcot, un partenariat S.E.N.C Boulevard Grande-Allée Boisbriand, QC J7H 1M7 Tel: , John Morrall, PhD, P.Eng, Coauthor Canadian Highways Institute Ltd. 95 Edendale CR NW Calgary, Alberta CANADA, T3A 3W9 Tel: ; Paul de Leur, Ph.D., P.Eng, Coauthor De Leur Consulting Limited 2050 Nelson Street, Suite 1602 Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6G 1N6 Tel: ; Word count: 2154 words text + 4 tables/figures x 250 words (each) = 3,154 words Submission ID: 133 Submission Date: March 18, 2015

2 Duranleau, Morrall, de Leur, 2 ABSTRACT The Road Safety Audit (RSA) process is widely accepted as a valuable tool to ensure that roadway safety at all stages of design, construction, and pre-opening is met. The outcomes of an RSA may become fragmented between auditor, designer, builder and owner, resulting in confusion when proposing corrective measures. This paper describes a tracking tool called the Total Acceptance Program (TAP), which improves the transparency of the RSA process and clarifies its documentation. The paper will discuss how it has been successfully used for a P3 project involving major road infrastructure rehabilitation. This project was called the Port Mann/Highway 1 Project (PMH1) in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The project budget was $2.6 billion and it involved 37 km of urban freeway being widening from 4 lanes to 10 lanes in places and the construction of a world record breaking 10 lane bridge over the Fraser River. A brief outline for resolving RSA comments with the TAP is described below: 1. The RSA occurs and safety issues are identified by the auditor; 2. Marked-up design drawings, photographs and the suggested mitigation measures are given to the builder s Traffic Quality Manager (TQM); 3. The TQM documents the safety issues in the TAP with separate tracking identification numbers; 4. The TQM and the designer review the comments and must either accept, accept with modifications, or reject the results from the RSA; 5. Resolutions to the safety issues are discussed with the auditor; 6. The approved design changes to address the safety issues are constructed on site; 7. The TQM completes a final inspection and then enters the builder s response and photographs into the TAP to provide assurance that the improvements have been implemented; 8. The auditor reviews all documentation associated with each road safety resolution and approves or rejects the changes; and, 9. Changes and modifications that are rejected by the auditors are returned to the TQM and design team for further review and rectification.

3 Duranleau, Morrall, de Leur, 3 INTRODUCTION Road Safety Audits (RSA) are an integral part of highway planning, design, construction and maintenance but can be time consuming and stressful for all parties involved when the process is not clearly organized. The outcomes of an RSA may become fragmented between Road Safety, Designer, Contractor and Owner, resulting in confusion when proposing corrective measures and preparing Audit Reports and Audit Responses. The RSA process described in this paper provides a more effective and organized means of remediating RSA findings by itemizing each comment and closing them out individually without the need for heavily detailed RSA reports and responses. The process outlined in this paper was developed for a P3 project but this method could be used on other projects where the contract models require a RSA as part of the final handover process. LITERATURE REVIEW The traditional RSA process for remediating comments normally involved the Road Safety Audit Team (RSAT) performing an audit on site and then submitting a large technical audit report. This report would then have to be interpreted by the Designer, Contractor and Owner to decide on appropriate corrective actions. These corrective actions would then be submitted as a response to the RSAT s report. The RSA process that is typically followed in Canada is described in references 1 & 2. MATERIALS, METHODS AND DATA: To perform the RSA process under this new format, the user will require a program or system that has the ability to accurately itemize and document each RSA comment. Further, it is important that the system can be accessed online so the comments can be adjusted or reviewed anywhere and in a very timely manner. Each itemized comment should include: A tracking identification number for each safety audit comment; The status of the safety audit comment (i.e., Open, Closed); The drawing number to reference the area or location where the safety issue was identified; The geographical location utilizing road names or landmarks; The chainage for the comment as it relates to the design drawings; A description of the safety concern and the suggested recommendations; The name of the who identified the safety issue; The date the safety issue and resulting comment was identified; and The discipline that the safety issue applies to (i.e. Structures or Roads). (Table 1) below outlines an example of what the itemized comment should look like when entered into the system. TABLE 1 Itemized Safety Issue Comment Example Tracking ID Status Design Drawing Number 1256 Open HW-7006 Location or Landmark 152 nd Overpass Chainage to Comment Description Barrier flare does not include hazard signage Name Devin Duranleau Identified Date Discipline Minor Signs

4 Duranleau, Morrall, de Leur, 4 Once the safety issue comment has been itemized, the user can assign different status milestones to track the progress of the comment. To advance the status of a comment, a series of check boxes should be incorporated into the software that can be selected when a remediation associated with a safety issues advances through the process. When a box is checked to identify the stage of the remediation process, the software or system should include the date the comment checked as well as who checked it. The check boxes can continue to the right of the itemized comment as shown in (Table 2) below. TABLE 2 Remediation Process Repaired Fixed by: Accepted by Quality Department Rejected by Quality Department Verified By Quality Department Comments Accepted by Road Safety Rejected by Road Safety Name of Road Safety Road Safety Comment Each time a user checks a box, the status of the safety comment will change to reflect the new status. For example, if the user checked the Repaired box, then the status of that safety comment would be changed from Open to Repaired To further organize each itemized safety comment, specific areas on the project can be separated into groups so that the itemized comments related to that section can be sorted easier. For the PMH1 Project, a total of six (6) different lists were used to outline the various project completion milestones for the project. The last step to complete the itemized road safety comment is to be able to attach or link files, photos, marked-up drawings or records to provide support and justification that the comment has been addressed. This information allows the user to close the RSA loop, as it provides evidence that the issue has been corrected or the justification that the safety issue does not need to be addressed. REVISITING THE ROAD SAFETY AUDIT RESOLUTION PROCESS Conventional pre-opening, detour, and in-service Road Safety Audits involve a site visit of the new highway construction to determine potential safety issues, with the results of the audit being detailed in a lengthy and often cumbersome audit report. Conventional RSAs, which were the norm at the start of the project, resulted in some safety issues /comments that were never being properly considered and addressed. The traditional process for performing a Road Safety Audit has been identified in the flow chart in (Figure 1). As a result the decision was made to develop a system and process that could be utilized to track each safety comment individually. This allowed the project managers to ensure that all safety issues were effectively considered and addressed, thereby allowing the closure of the RSA loop. Further, the system improved the organizational efficiency of the RSA process, and maintained transparency with the Project Owner

5 Duranleau, Morrall, de Leur, 5 FIGURE 1: Road Safety Audit Process (The Canadian Road Safety Audit Guide, Transportation Association of Canada (2001), Chapter 2 Procedures, Section 2.1 Audit Process, Page 13) This process of developing TAP consisted of a simple procedure which involved; the Contractor, the Designer, the Road Safety and the Owner. Since each comment was itemized and given a tracking number, discussing each comment in meetings and with construction personnel was more effective. The modified Road Safety Audit Process which uses the TAP has been outlined in the flow chart in (Figure 2).

6 Duranleau, Morrall, de Leur, 6 FIGURE 2: Road Safety Audit Process Using the TAP The colour codes as outlined in the Legend for (Figure 2) correlate to the Audit Process steps of the traditional Road Safety Audit Process as outlined in (Figure 1).

7 Duranleau, Morrall, de Leur, 7 The project was separated into six (6) highway segment completion milestones which all had to be completed at different times and each segment milestone required a separate Road Safety Audit report. By separating these segments into separate folders and itemizing the corresponding safety comments on the TAP, it was possible to develop a list of all the comments and associated evidence into a single submittal file. Once all comments were closed or remediated, this list along with the evidence was submitted to the Project Owner in place of the formal RSA Report. This Report was submitted along with a memorandum from the RSA Team verifying that they were on site completing each audit on various dates. This memo became the title page for the formal RSA Report The Project Owner accepted this report with favorable comments because of the ease associated with the review process and the clarity of evidence to determine the timeline between the safety comment origination, remediation. This is in contrast to the traditional RSA process, where considerable time is often required to interpret the comments from the Road Safety Audit Report in order to complete the corresponding Response Report. BENEFITS TO ITEMIZED ROAD SAFETY AUDIT PROCESS There were many benefits to this new version of a Road Safety Audit comment remediation process but there were three main benefits that were realized by all stakeholders. These three main benefits were; 1) saving time for multiple parties by not having to interpret traditional Road Safety Audit Reports that are often lengthy and cumbersome, 2) reducing the amount of revised RSA Reports created by multiple follow up audits, and 3) providing a clear and transparent way to communicate the progress of the RSAs to the Owners, Project Managers and Field Personnel. Saving time and reducing stress Reading traditional Road Safety Audit reports and interpreting potential remediation plans can be a cumbersome and sometimes frustrating task that normally occurs at a very stressful time in a project (e.g., when a Contractor and an Owner are working out terms for closing out the project). By itemizing all comments created by the Road Safety Audit team and uploading them to the TAP, concerns related to interpretation and where the comments was located were simplified. These itemized comments could also be scheduled easier for repair by utilizing their specific ID number. Reducing the amount of follow up Road Safety Audit reports By making these lists remotely accessible, the Road Safety Audit team can remotely access the lists of comments to see their status and close comments by reviewing photos and evidence that the Contractor would have attached to the itemized comments online. This reduced the amount of follow up audit trips and Audit Reports that the RSA Team had prepare and reduced the chances of losing data or comments from multiple audits. Communicating progress of the Road Safety Audits to Management and Owners As this is a remotely accessible program or software, all parties involved in the remediation of the various Road Safety Audit comments or their status could log into the system and see the status of each comment on the project. This was very beneficial for status reports and communicating progress and closing out milestones.

8 Duranleau, Morrall, de Leur, 8 Performing Road Safety Audits in stages as Project Infrastructure is completed This P3 project included a very specific challenge which this revised process was able to streamline. The challenge was to complete RSAs on long sections of infrastructure with multiple intersecting road networks that would never be completed at the exact same time and would always have live traffic on it. This varied from the traditional process which is based on completing pre-opening RSAs on each of these long sections at one time when there is no live traffic. To rectify this issue, each long section of infrastructure was separted into continuous routes and maneuvers with a beginning and end point. This allowed the Road Safety Audit team to review these smaller sections and provide comments to be resolved while other parts of the project were still under construction. This solution was very beneficial to the contractor and designer of record because they were able to assess geometric design issues related to the Road Safety Audit comments at earlier stages of construction rather than all at the same time a few weeks from the handover date. These early RSAs were called Early Road Safety Audits. CONCLUSION In conclusion, Road Safety Audits are an integral part of highway planning, design, construction and maintenance especially for large P3 projects. However, the current RSA process can be inefficient, non-effective and not transparent to all stakeholders. The traditional Road Safety Audit process involving Audit Reports, Audit Responses and Follow Up audits can be simplified into one list of safety comments that covers all the requirements of the traditional format. This process of using the TAP to close out Road Safety Audit comments was initiated before the first road section was required to be completed on the PMH1 project. Since that day it has been utilized to close out four (4) additional road section completion milestones. REFERENCES 1. The Canadian Road Safety Audit Guide, Transportation Association of Canada (2001) 2. The Canadian Guide to In-service Road Safety Reviews, Transportation Association of Canada (2004)