text:
FHWA Study Tour for
October 1997
Prepared by the Scanning Team:
Michael Trentacoste
Patti Boekamp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leanna Depue
Martin E. Lipinski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David Manning
Greg Schertz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .James Shanafelt
Thomas Werner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eugene M. Wilson
and by
American Trade Initiatives, Inc.
Prepared for:
October 1997
FHWA Team Leader
City of San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Central Missouri State University
University of Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wisconsin DOT
FHWA, Region 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington State DOT
New York State DOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University of Wyoming
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Purpose and Scope 1
1.3 Definition 3
1.4 History 3
1.5 Overview of Report 3
1.6 Scanning Team Members 4
1.7 Comparison of Demographics 4
1.7.1 United States of America 5
1.7.2 Australia 5
1.7.3 New Zealand 5
2.1 Introduction 7
2.2 Australia 7
2.2.1 Transportation and Road Safety Organizations 7
2.2.2 National Road Safety Strategy 8
2.2.3 Safety Audits 8
2.2.4 Road Safety Funding 8
2.3 Victoria 9
2.3.1 Road Safety Strategy 9
2.3.2 Road Safety Audits 9
2.4 New South Wales 9
2.4.1 Road Safety Strategy 10
2.4.2 Road Safety Funding 10
2.4.3 Road Safety Audits 10
2.5 New Zealand 10
2.5.1 Management of Road Safety 10
2.5.2 Road Safety Strategy 11
2.5.3 Road Safety Funding 11
2.5.4 Road Safety Audits 11
3.1 Introduction 13
3.2 Definition and Purpose 13
3.3 Relationship of Safety Audits to U.S. Safety Management Practices 14
3.4 Essential Elements of a Road Safety Audit 14
3.5 Stages of the Road Safety Audit 14
3.6 Selection of Projects 17
3.7 Organizing a Road Safety Audit 20
3.7.1 Auditor Qualifications 20
3.7.2 Methods of Organizing a Road Safety Audit 20
3.7.3 Selection of Auditors: Summary of Current Practice 21
3.8 Conducting the Road Safety Audit 21
3.8.1 The Process 21
3.8.2 Data Requirements and Checklists 22
3.8.3 Writing the Report 22
3.8.4 Agency Concerns 22
3.8.5 Implementing Recommendations 23
3.9 Training and Accreditation of Auditors 23
3.10 Examples of Road Safety Audit Findings 24
3.11 Case Studies 24
3.12 Cost of Conducting Audits 25
3.13 Benefits of Road Safety Audits 25
3.14 Liability Concerns 25
3.15 Safety Audits and Quality Assurance 26
3.16 Obstacles to Implementation 27
3.17 Success Factors 27
3.18 Future Directions 28
4.1 Significant Findings 29
4.2 Transferability 30
Tables and Figures
Table 1. Comparison of Country and State Demographics 7
Table 2. Crash Statistics 7
Table 3. Reasons for Conducting Audits 19
Figure 1. Factors Contributing to Road Crashes 3
Figure 2. Feasibility-Stage Audit 16
Figure 3. Draft Design-Stage Audit 17
Figure 4. Detailed Design-Stage Audit 17
Figure 5. Project Development Requirements 20
1.1 Background
As society approaches the next century, the challenge of enhancing traffic safety is a formidable one. The toll from traffic crashes remains a major health and economic problem in the United States. Each year more than 40 thousand people are killed and 3 million are injured. The estimated societal cost of these crashes is more than US$150 billion each year. Fatality and injury rates, both on the bases of population and vehicle kilometers of travel (VKT), have plateaued for the past several years. This in spite of improvements in vehicle design, including occupant protection, and advances in highway design, specifically the focus on improving the roadside environment.
Other key factors influencing the efforts to improve safety include the following:
Confronting the challenge of safety requires proactive strategies that treat the root causes of crashes and levels of severity before they occur. Figure 1 illustrates the relationships among the three primary factors--human, vehicle, and road environment--that contribute to road crashes. Several countries have taken innovative approaches to break the crash-causation chain by focusing on one or more of the factors.
1.2 Purpose and Scope
In 1994, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored an international technology scanning review that focused on Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Its purpose was to review the application of safety management systems. One of the primary findings was that safety audits were effective in improving highway safety in the countries where they are implemented, specifically Australia and New Zealand. In addition, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has included several presentations on safety audits in recent meetings, and the World Bank uses safety audits in its projects. Based on the recommendation of the FHWA study, a follow-up scanning review on highway safety audits was undertaken from October 21 to 31, 1996.
The mission of the safety audits scanning team was to review and document inter-national efforts to enhance highway safety and safety management systems through implementation of safety audit initiatives. The panel researched the processes, policies, and procedures developed and utilized by other countries at various stages of project and program development. In addition, the panel shared information with international counterparts on policies and programs related to safety initiatives in the United States.
Road safety audits were first introduced and continue to be used in the United Kingdom (U.K.), but the scanning team visited Australia and New Zealand only. In these countries, safety audit concepts have been expanded and integrated into the overall safety programs at the federal and state levels. Because practices varied among agencies, it was possible to review several different approaches to the planning and application of road safety audits.
1.3 Definition
As defined by Austroads, a road safety audit is "... a formalized examination of an existing or future road or traffic project or any project which interacts with road users, in which an independent, qualified examiner reports on the project's accident potential and safety performance." Austroads is the counterpart of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
1.4 History
The development of roadway audits is generally attributed to Malcolm Bulpitt of the United Kingdom. In the 1980's, Bulpitt applied safety audit concepts that were originally introduced on railroad networks during the Victorian Period. At that time, the government appointed officers to inspect all aspects of a new railway line before it could be opened for use. Bulpitt applied the concept of independent checking to improve operational safety on road projects carried out by the Highways and Transportation Department of the Kent County Council.
Safety audit procedures were developed by other county councils and metropolitan governments. The Scottish Development Department made the procedures operational one year earlier than the equivalent English agency. The Institution of Highways and Transportation published "Guidelines for the Safety Audit of Highways" in 1990. By April 1991, the U.K. Department of Trans-port made safety audits mandatory for all national trunk roads and motorways (free-ways) over a specified cost.
Road safety audits were introduced in the State of New South Wales (NSW), Australia, in 1990, when the audit of the Pacific Highway used specially prepared checklists. (It is interesting to note that NSW began with an audit of an existing roadway, not a proposed scheme.) In 1994, the Austroads guide Road Safety Audit was published.
Transit New Zealand was created in 1989, and, in 1990, the first safety audit manager was appointed to conduct postconstruction safety audits. In 1992B93, pilot audits were conducted on state highway projects, and by 1993 a set of policies and procedures was developed and implemented.
1.5 Overview of Report
This report is a summary of the findings of the FHWA scanning team that visited Australia and New Zealand in October 1996. The objective of the document is to provide an overview of the organization and application of road safety audits. It is not the purpose of the report to serve as a handbook or guide for using road safety audits; it is a collection of observations that describe the applications of the process, the framework in which audits are applied, and the policy context in which audits are conducted. Examples and brief descriptions of audits are also presented. Part 2 of this report is a separate volume that contains examples of actual road safety audits and specific safety audit procedures and checklists.
Part 1 of the report has five main sections:
1. Introduction
2. Overview of Countries and Safety Organizations
3. The Road Safety Audit Process
4. Summary of Scanning Team Findings
5. Strategies for Advancing Road Safety Audits in the United States
1.6 Scanning Team Members
The scanning team consisted of the following representatives of FHWA, States, cities, and academe:
Michael F. Trentacoste, Team Leader Director, Office of Highway Safety
Federal Highway Administration
Patti Boekamp
Deputy Director, Engineering & Capital Projects
City of San Diego
Leanna Depue
Director, Missouri Safety Center
Central Missouri State University
Martin E. Lipinski, Report Facilitator Professor and Chair, Department of Civil Engineering
University of Memphis
David Manning
Director, Transportation Safety Office
Wisconsin DOT
Greg Schertz
Regional Safety Engineer
Federal Highway Administration, Region 8
James Shanafelt
Assistant State Traffic Engineer
Washington State DOT
Thomas Werner
Director, Traffic Engineering and Safety
New York State DOT
Eugene M. Wilson
Director, Wyoming T2 Center
University of Wyoming
The team developed a list of technical questions that were distributed to the hosting organizations in advance of the team's visit. Appendix A is the list of questions, which were grouped into four categories:
1. Institutional/Organizational Issues
2. Implementation Strategies and Issues
3. Informational and Data Requirements
4. Identification and Quantification of Benefits
Appendix B is a list of the names, titles, addresses, and phone numbers of the individuals in Australia and New Zealand who participated in the discussions.
1.7 Comparison of Demographics
The demographics of the countries visited and, for comparative purposes, the United States are summarized in Table 1. This table also contains separate data for Victoria and New South Wales, the most populous states in Australia. Safety programs in these states were reviewed during the tour. Table 2 summarizes crash statistics for the countries visited, the United States, and the States of Victoria and New South Wales.
1.7.1 United States of America
The United States has a population of about 260 million, living in an area of 9,158,404 km2. The National Highway System consists of 250,000 km of roadways, of which 68,395 km are interstate highways. There are approximately 1.5 million km of state primary and secondary highways and 4.8 million km of local roads and streets. For the past 5 years, the number of motor vehicle-related fatalities has remained at approximately 40 thousand per year (41,798 in 1995), and the average fatality rate per 100 million VKT is 1.1.
1.7.2 Australia
The area of Australia is 7,700,000 km2, similar to that of the continental United States. Its population of 18.1 million is
concentrated along the coastsC40 percent live in the two cities of Melbourne and Sydney. Melbourne is in the State of Victoria, and Sydney is in the State of New South Wales. The road system consists of 810,000 km of roads, of which only 18,500 km are in the National Highway System. About 2,000 people are killed each year in roadway crashes, with a corresponding fatality rate of 1.7 per 100 million VKT.
1.7.3 New Zealand
New Zealand is similar in size to the State of Colorado. Its north and south islands comprise an area of 278,000 km2. The population of 3.6 million is concentrated on the North Island in the cities of Auckland and Wellington, which is the capital. New Zealand has 91,864 km of roads, of which 10,400 are classified as national (state) roads. The remaining are local roads; as the country is not divided into states. There were 581 fatalities in 1995, with fatality rates of 2.5 per 10,000 vehicles. The estimated fatality rate per 100 million VKT is 1.8.
Table 1. Comparison of Country and State Demographics
Characteristic |
United States |
Australia |
State of |
State of |
New Zealand* |
Area (km2) |
9,158,408 |
7,686,850 |
227,600 |
801,600 |
278,000 |
Population (millions) |
260 |
18.1 |
4.5 |
6.1(1) |
3.6 |
Population Density |
28.4 |
2.4 |
19.8 |
7.6 |
12.9 |
Motor Vehicles |
202 |
10.95(2) |
2.87(2) |
3.33(2) |
2.49 |
Total Roads (km) |
6,319,276 |
810,000 |
161,130 |
184,239 |
91,876 |
Federal Roads (km) |
277,000 |
18,500 |
944 |
3,028 |
n.a. |
State Roads (km) |
1,291,000 |
152,000 |
21,772 |
36,322 |
10,453 |
Local Roads (km) |
4,720,000 |
639,500 |
138,384 |
144,889 |
n.a. |
Urban Roads (km) |
1,319,000 |
n.a.(3) |
28,809 |
n.a. (3) |
15,286 |
Rural Roads (km) |
4,977,000 |
n.a.(3) |
132,321 |
n.a. (3) |
66,137 |
(1) Population as of June 30, 1995.
(2) Vehicles registered in 1995, including motorcycles, excluding trailers.
(3) No uniform definition exists for the urban/rural split. Victoria figures based on 300 largest urban areas.
Table 2. Crash Statistics
Statistic |
United States |
Australia |
State of |
State of |
New Zealand* |
Fatalities (per 100,000 of population) |
15.9 |
11.2 |
9 |
10.14 |
15.9 |
Fatalities (per 100 million km of travel) |
1.1 |
1.7 |
1 |
1.5 |
1.8 |
Fatalities and Injuries (per 100,000 population) |
1,304 |
n.a.(1) |
523 |
435 |
not available |
Fatalities and Injuries (per 100 million km of travel) |
88.6 |
n.a.(1) |
540 |
490 |
not available |
Total Crashes |
10,700,000 |
n.a.(1) |
41,000 |
52,120(1) |
34,525 |
Fatalities |
39,000 |
1,825 (2,018)(2) |
371 (418)(2) |
620 |
581 |
Injuries |
1,400,000 |
n.a.(1) |
16,898 (23,686)(3) |
19,223(1) |
16,870 |
(1) Australia-wide injury figures are not available because there is no standard definition for
"injury" levels. Similarly, figures for Victoria and New South Wales cannot be directly compared.* Figures provided by LTSA
2.1 Introduction
In both Australia and New Zealand, the introduction of audits was an element of comprehensive programs to improve road-way and traffic safety. In each country, an environment was created that recognized the importance of cooperative efforts among government, industry, the public, and safety advocacy groups to achieve safety objectives. The establishment of a "safety culture," evident in both countries, was accomplished through broad approaches that included marketing strategies, sound funding bases, and commitment from the highest levels of government.
It is important to note that the commitment to roadway safety was being made as both countries were implementing quality management philosophies into both private and public administrative practices. Thus, safety objectives and the overall safety programs were crafted within frameworks that emphasized all aspects of quality-improvement programs and the formalized process that accompanied the quality philosophy.
This section provides an overview of the organizations and structures of transportation and road safety-related activities in the countries and states visited by the scanning team. More detailed descriptions of the functions of individual agencies and the development of safety policies are in Part 2. Supplemental information pertaining to general road safety activities in Australia and New Zealand can be found in the summary reports prepared by two previous FHWA scanning tours.
2.2 Australia
2.2.1 Transportation and Road Safety Organizations
The cabinet-level organization responsible for transportation is the Department of Transport and Regional Development (DTRD). DTRD is structured along modal lines, much like the US DOT. In Australia, the states and territories generate most of the initiatives relating to the roadway transportation system and its safety. DTRD is responsible for the National Highway, a system of 18,500 km of roads that links the major cities and is the backbone of the freight transportation system.
The Federal Government spends about A$800 million (US$640 million) per year on construction and maintenance of the National Highway. Funding is provided directly to states and territories.
The Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) is the agency within the DTRD that is responsible for road safety. Its mission is to reduce road trauma. FORS has two major branches, whose responsibilities are shown in the box on the following page.
FORS is only one of many organizations involved in setting the National Road Safety Policy. The Ministerial Council for Road Transport consists of the Ministers of Trans-port from each of the six states, the two territories, and the Commonwealth Minister of Transport. These same entities also form another group, the Australian Transport Council, which is responsible for implementing the national road safety strategy.
Branches of FORS |
Road User |
Motor Transport |
Strategies & Black Spots |
Client Operations |
Road Transport Regulations |
International Projects |
Statistical Analysis |
Vehicle Standards, R&D |
Research |
Policy & Emissions |
Public Education & Liaison |
------------------------- |
In 1992, the National Road Transport Com-mission was formed to develop nationally consistent standards and regulations for road transport. It provides information and research and drafts road-related laws for consideration by the Transport Council. The Commission receives input from a variety of advisory groups and other entities, including state transport agencies, Austroads, and ARRB Transport Research, Ltd. (ARRB TR), formerly the Australian Road Research Board. Austroads is an organization similar to AASHTO. ARRB TR conducts research of national interest for the Commonwealth, for the states and territories, individually or collectively (through Austroads), and is increasingly seeking private work.
2.2.2 National Road Safety Strategy
The National Road Safety Strategy was developed in 1992 and was Australia's first national, comprehensive approach to reduce traffic fatalities. It was formulated at a time when road fatalities were decreasing, but during a period when data indicated that
The document set forth objectives, through the year 2000, to reduce road trauma and was prepared with contributions from more than 70 stakeholders. These included federal, state, and local governments, business concerns, and community organizations.
2.2.3 Safety Audits
Road safety audits are part of the National Road Safety Strategy. The audit process is addressed in one of the objectives--safer vehicles, safer roads, and safer road users. FORS identified road safety audits as one of the national "best practices" that could be implemented to meet safety objectives, and the Austroads publication, Road Safety Audit, is used as a guide to good practice. FORS supports a proactive, rather than reactive, approach to road safety and serves as coordinator of the process, bringing all parties together. The states and territories are responsible for implementing and monitoring road safety audits.
2.2.4 Road Safety Funding
In 1993B94, the level of federal road funding was A$1,532 million (US$1,226 million), and it has been increasing at approximately 2 percent per year. About A$800 million (US$640 million) of these funds are designated as direct funding for the National Highway System. From 1993B94 to 1996, A$6 million (US$4.8 million) was allocated as direct funding to the states and territories for road safety. The remaining funding is distributed to the states and territories for national arterials and local roads. Starting in fiscal 1996, A$36 million (US$28.8 million) was earmarked directly for a hazard elimination (black spot) program.
2.3 Victoria
In Victoria, the primary government responsibility for road safety lies with the Ministry of Roads and Ports. The principal transportation agency for the state is the Victoria Roads Corporation, known as VicRoads. VicRoads is a statutory corporation formed by parliament in July 1989, during a period of privatization of government services. It was created from two acts: the Transport Act, which identified the road and transportation management functions; and the Road Safety Act, which focused on vehicle registration, driver licensing, and traffic regulations.
VicRoads is organized into four divisions:
Each division is headed by a general manager, who reports to the chief executive. Under each general manager are regional and project managers to supervise individual programs and projects. For example, the Road Safety section is responsible for road safety audits, black spot programs, speed management, and elimination of hazardous roadside obstacles.
2.3.1 Road Safety Strategy
In 1995, the Victoria government developed a comprehensive strategy, known as "Safety First." Safety First was designed to build on successful programs and specify areas for action in the following five years. The primary objective of the strategy is to further reduce the incidence, severity, and cost to the community of road crashes. These goals will be achieved through improved research and education, continued media campaigns that focus on attitudes and behaviors, attention to design and safety features of roads and vehicles, stringent enforcement of road laws, and coordination of efforts by all related agencies.
2.3.2 Road Safety Audits
Road safety audits have been under development in Victoria for three years. VicRoads considers audits to be a critical element in the quality management process and a chance to improve quality with little in-crease in cost. All projects that cost more than A$5 million (US$4 million) at all stages are subject to safety audits. Twenty percent of all other projects are audited randomly at one or more of the project stages. Safety audits in Victoria are con-ducted by independent contractors selected by VicRoads.
2.4 New South Wales
The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) has executive responsibility for road safety in New South Wales. RTA works with other stakeholders such as police, local government, and the community to carry out the safety agenda.
Management of RTA is decentralized, though it should be noted that RTA is not as privatized as VicRoads and is a more traditional government structure. RTA has programs and services in six regions in the state, and each region has primary responsibility for implementing road safety programs in its area. Programs are based on regional as well as overall state safety objectives to ensure that local issues are addressed. Links between the RTA and professional organizations, community groups, and other government units are provided through the Roads and Traffic Advisory Council, the Road Safety Advisory Council, and the Road Safety Forum.
2.4.1 Road Safety Strategy
In 1991, NSW developed a road safety strategic plan, "Road Safety 2000." The plan identified six key strategic issues:
1. Community involvement
2. Transport and land-use planning and management
3. Safer people
4. Safer roads
5 Safer vehicles and equipment
6. Strategic coordination
2.4.2 Road Safety Funding
Funding for RTA safety programs exceeded A$80 million (US$64 million) in 1995. Of that total, A$30 million (US$24 million) was used to fund road safety development programs, such as community-based initiatives, enforcement, and information programs. An additional A$30 million (US$24 million) funded the Road Environment Safety Program.
2.4.3 Road Safety Audits
Road safety audits are addressed specifically under the "safer roads" objective in the Road Safety 2000 Strategic Plan. The plan states that the application of the safety audit process to all roads in NSW will ensure that safety aspects are properly addressed in all development activities.
Road safety audits began in NSW in 1990, and, by the middle of 1991, RTA developed a road safety audit manual. Road safety audits are sold as part of the overall quality management approach in the state--the emphasis is on safety in all aspects of a project. Each year 20 percent of the existing roadways in each region are audited, and approximately 20 other design audits are conducted. The goal was to cover the entire state roadway network in five years.
2.5 New Zealand
In 1989, the government underwent massive reorganization, based on a commitment to quality concepts and privatization of its functions. The State Sector Act of 1988 provided for the reorganization of government into "crown agencies." Crown agencies are government corporations that are headed by chief executives, who are responsible to Crown Authorities. Six crown entities report to the Minister of Transport. They are
2.5.1 Management of Road Safety
The main agencies responsible for road safety in New Zealand are as follows:
Funding for safety programs is provided through two main mechanisms: the Safety (Administration) Programme and the National Roadway Program (NRP). (The NRP was formerly referred to as the Land Transport Programme.) S(A)P is managed by LTSA and funds police road safety programs, community projects, and the LTSA. NRP is administered by Transfund New Zealand, which funds highway maintenance and construction and provides financial support to local authorities.
At the national level, there are several bodies that coordinate safety. The National Road Safety Committee is composed of the chief executives of the national government agencies involved in road safety, and the National Road Safety Advisory Group includes representation from many national agencies and organizations interested in road safety. At the local level, regional councils are responsible for developing the 14 Regional Land Transport Strategies, which include safety components.
2.5.2 Road Safety Strategy
New Zealand has a National Road Safety Plan that was instituted in 1990 and revised in 1995. It is administered by the National Safety Road Advisory Group and includes a safer roads priority area, of which road safety audits are a part. Safety audits are identified as a policy and procedure of TNZ and are indirectly linked to the National Road Safety Plan.
2.5.3 Road Safety Funding
As mentioned earlier, LTSA administers the S(A)P, which focuses on regulatory and behavioral issues. The program includes more than NZ$25 million (US$18.25 million) for dissemination of safety information, monitoring safety activities, and auditing commercial vehicle fleets. These audits, known as performance audits, are evaluations of the functions and services delivered, and not road safety audits. The program also includes about NZ$188 mil-lion, including GST, (US$137.25 million) for police activities.
2.5.4 Road Safety Audits
Road safety audits were introduced in New Zealand in 1990. In 1993, TNZ published "Safety Audit Policy and Procedures," which stated that all projects costing more than NZ$5 million (US$3.65 million) would be audited at all stages of project development. Smaller projects are only audited at later stages.
TNZ implements the policy based on a 20-percent sample of state highways, but with no guidelines as to which ones should be included in the sample. Transfund New Zealand provides the funding for the safety audit program.
3.1 Introduction
The widespread growth in the use of road safety audits is due to two factors: the concern with improving road safety and the application of quality-assurance principles to road projects. At all agencies visited by the scanning team, at the national level in Australia and New Zealand and in Victoria and New South Wales, comprehensive strategies to reduce the crash toll have identified safety audits as a part of the overall strategic approach. In both countries, a safety culture has been established. The safety culture is embraced by national, state (in Australia), regional, and local governments, and it requires an unequivocal commitment to safety, starting at the top and filtering down through an organization. It includes emphasis on prevention as well as corrective action and requires high levels of coordination among all entities with safety concerns--engineers, police, educators, community groups, and others.
The establishment of a safety culture is tied directly to the application of quality principles. In both countries, quality-assurance principles are central to the evolution and reorganization of government functions, especially with respect to privatization of activities. As agencies shift focus from operations to policy and management, evaluation of the quality delivered is gauged by measuring safety accomplishments. Continual improvement is a key concern. The road safety audit is a snapshot in time that checks to see if the quality is being implemented. Safety audits are considered an integral and necessary component of a quality road safety management program.
3.2 Definition and Purpose
As stated earlier, Austroads defines a road safety audit as "... a formalized examination of an existing or future road or traffic project or any project which interacts with road users, in which an independent, qualified examiner reports on the project's accident potential and safety performance." The definition used by the RTA is "a means of checking the design, implementation, and operation of roads projects against a set of safety principles as a means of accident prevention and treatment." The purposes of audits are to identify potential safety problems for all road users and others affected by a road project and to ensure that measures to eliminate or reduce problems are considered fully. Emphasis is placed on preventive measures and building road safety into projects.
Austroads identified the following benefits of conducting road safety audits:
3.3 Relationship of Safety Audits to U.S. Safety Management Practices
In the United States, road safety audits have not been adopted as a formal process. Ross et.al. compared road safety audit practices with safety reviews in the United States, pointing out that both approaches are aimed at achieving the same objective--to prevent crashes by incorporating highway safety principles in the planning, design, construction, and operation of roadways. They also identified some significant differences between the two approaches, particularly that audit procedures are more formalized and structured in conducting reviews and in reporting. They also emphasized the important difference that, in the United States, the approach is to review compliance with standards rather than the interaction of standards in the final design.
Appleton and Jordan point out that the 1991 FHWA publication "Management Approach to Highway Safety: A Compilation of Good Practice" recognizes the need to establish processes to consider safety in the development and construction of high-ways. Safety audits are not specifically mentioned but, if applied, would satisfy objectives for a comprehensive approach to safety, as outlined in the report. The road safety audit process is a systematic means of dealing with the safe design, construction, and operation of the highway infrastructure.
3.4 Essential Elements of a Road Safety Audit
The essential elements of a road safety audit are that as follows:
3.5 Stages of the Road Safety Audit
There are five stages in which road safety audits can be conducted:
Stage 1: Feasibility
Feasibility-stage audits are conducted in the early planning and project development. These audits evaluate options such as route locations, layouts, treatments, interchange locations and type access control, impacts on the existing road network, and other features. Assessment of the relative safety performance of the proposed project and how it meets the needs of all road users (motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists) is conducted at this stage. Figure 2 shows a Stage 1 audit in progress, with the audit team and plan layout in the field.
Stage 2: Draft Design
At this stage, sometimes referred to as "preliminary design," general design standards are evaluated. Horizontal and vertical alignment, intersection and interchange type and layout, sight distances, lane and shoulder widths, superelevation, and provisions for pedestrians and bicyclists are some of the factors considered at this stage. Any effects on safety resulting from deviation from standards are noted at this point. After this stage it is very difficult to make changes in alignment, because land acquisition has been finalized. Figure 3 shows an aerial photo of a plan layout.
Stage 3: Detailed Design
All elements of the final design should be in place at this time. A detailed design-stage audit reviews the final geometric design features, traffic signals, signing and marking plans, lighting plans, landscaping, intersection and interchange details, provisions for special users (older pedestrians, the disabled, bicyclists), drainage, guide rails, and other roadside objects. Stage 3 also may involve a review of the plan for traffic control and management during construction (see Figure 4).
Stage 4: Pre-Opening
Pre-opening is a final check, prior to opening, to ensure that the safety concerns of all road users have been addressed and that hazardous conditions have been eliminated. Stage 4 audit should include both day and night checks, evaluations in wet and dry weather, and driving, riding, and walking, if appropriate. A major focus of Stage 4 is to note variations from the original plans that may have been constructed.
(Note that VicRoads identifies the "Construction Audit" as a particular stage performed during the building of a project wherein safety considerations are evaluated as the project is being constructed. Its function is similar to that of a pre-opening audit, but it also may include evaluation of the traffic management and control plans.)
Stage 5: Existing Roads
These audits are performed on existing facilities to ensure that the safety needs of road users are being served. Stage 5 involves recognition that the use of a roadway may change over time. (Note that the Stage 5 audit differs from processes reviewing crash history and treatment of known high-crash locations, referred to as "black spot" pro-grams.) Stage 5 audits may be performed on a road section newly opened to traffic to evaluate its performance or it can be used to identify safety deficiencies on existing roads. Intersections, roadway segments, and roadside features are some of the elements that may be examined in an audit of an existing roadway. (In New Zealand, the audit of existing roads is considered a separate process. Stages 1 to 4 apply to a project, and Stage 5 applies to a network.)
Audits are not conducted at each stage for each project because of limited resources or other considerations. It is, however, recognized that "... the earlier a road is audited within the design and development process, the better." Table 3 contains a listing of reasons why audits should be conducted at each of the five stages of a project.
3.6 Selection of Projects
Road safety audits can be conducted on a variety of projects ranging from construction of new freeways to signal upgrades to road-side improvements. The types of projects audited and the stages at which audits are conducted varied among agencies visited by the scanning team. The following policies were reported during the review:
Stage 1 |
Stage 2 |
Stage 3 |
Stage 4 |
Stage 5 |
Greatest scope to influence safety |
May not have audited at Stage 1 |
Audits may not have been done at previous stages |
Audits may not have been done at previous stages |
Uses of the road change over time |
Input safety into the consideration of options |
Identify items missed at Stage 1 |
Identify items missed in previous stages |
Identify items missed in previous stages |
Uses next to the road change over time |
Avoid |
Avoid wasting costly design time |
Check what standards have been used and departures from standards |
Check interrelationships of elements; may look fine on plans but not on site |
Attend to changes before they lead to crashes |
Identify affected road user groups |
Check what standards have been used and departures from standards |
Check signing, marking, and landscaping plans |
Check project is built as designed |
Landscape grows |
Check compatibility with road type and user expectations |
Check that all likely users have been considered |
Check details of operation |
Designs and incidentals may get changed, on site |
Accepted practices change with experience |
Check design standards with road type and user expectations |
Check intersection layouts and conflict points |
Check interaction of detailed elements |
Add or expand landscape |
Check consistency of road features |
Consider number, spacing, and types of intersections |
Alert designers to areas where attention will be needed later |
Check details at connections to existing roadways for consistency |
Check for nighttime visibility and/or potential confusion |
Devices age, over time; possible reduced visibility, reflectivity |
Consider effects in transition areas, away from the project--environment, consistency, etc. |
Check details at connections to existing roadways for consistency |
Unplanned hazards, such as poles, etc. |
Devices become damaged or dangerous; maintenance may not result in safety |
Signs may get lost in their backgrounds |
Specifically address safety, rather than relying on routine or poor maintenance |
Source: Robert Morgan, Informal Notes, October 1996.
Audits are optional at all four stages for projects costing less than NZ$100,000. In addition, policies require audits for a 20-percent sample of projects. In New Zealand, the audit stages are defined slightly differently:
Stage 1: Feasibility (Project Feasibility Report Analysis)
Stage 2: Scheme Assessment (at completion of Project Evaluation)
Stage 3: Final Design (at completion of the design)
Stage 4: Pre-Opening (immediately before "substantial completion" of construction and prior to removal of temporary traffic control)
Selection of the specific projects to be audited is partly a function of an agency's organizational structure. For example, at VicRoads, project supervisors in the regions initiate the audits. The selection of projects to be audited (excluding the required audits for major new projects) is made at the regional level. In New South Wales, RTA also relies on the regional managers to identify projects to be audited. In New Zealand, Transit Regional State Highway Managers select the sample of projects to be audited (again, excluding major new construction).
3.7 Organizing a Road Safety Audit
3.7.1 Auditor Qualifications
A road safety audit is performed by an individual or team with expertise in one or more areas of road safety. Typical backgrounds include traffic or transportation engineering,
highway design and construction, crash investigation and analysis, and human factors/road-user behavior. Ideally, it is desirable to have a team of individuals rather than a single auditor for the following reasons:
While it is not always feasible or practical to use a team in conducting audits, it is very important that auditors possess an under-standing of traffic engineering and road design techniques and have some experience in crash investigation. An understanding of human factors is also important, because of the strong interaction between road users and road environment.
The scanning team observed that most audits were conducted by individuals with strong backgrounds in traffic engineering or road-way design or were performed by teams led by people with similar backgrounds.
3.7.2 Methods of Organizing a Road Safety Audit
There are three distinct ways of organizing a road safety audit:
The success of the road safety audit process depends on trust and commitment from all parties. Audits identify deficiencies and may be viewed as threatening to road designers. It is critical that the focus be on the process and not be viewed as criticism of the project or, more importantly, of the skills of the designers. A designer may have legitimate reasons for making decisions that consider factors other than safety in the proposed design, and the compromise could be identified in the audit. Factors influencing a decision would be identified in a response to the safety audit.
3.7.3 Selection of Auditors: Summary of Current Practice
Each agency visited by the scanning team has established its own procedures for selection of road safety audit teams or individuals. The processes of each agency are summarized below.
3.8 Conducting the Road Safety Audit
3.8.1 The Process
Austroads has identified steps and designated responsibilities for conducting a road safety audit, as shown in the box on the following page.
The Austroads guide, the RTA Road Safety Audits, and the TNZ Safety Audit Policy and Procedures publications contain detailed descriptions of issues to be considered in each step of the process.
Step |
Entity Responsible |
Select Auditor |
Client or Designer |
Provide Background Information |
Designer |
Hold Commencement Meeting |
Client/Designer and Auditor |
Assess Documents and Inspect Site |
Auditor |
Write Report |
Auditor |
Hold Completion Meeting |
Client/Designer and Auditor |
Follow Up |
Client and Designer |
3.8.2 Data Requirements and Checklists
The core process of the road safety audit is focused on a series of standard checklists. Checklists have been developed by Aust-roads, by TNZ, and by individual agencies for use by auditors in evaluating safety at each stage of the audit process. Each agency emphasized that checklists should be used to prompt the auditors in their evaluations. Auditors indicate the areas that should be investigated and where further analyses are needed.
The data base for conducting an audit should include plans and drawings; site information, such as detailed crash history and traffic volumes; design standards that have been used; environmental effects; and on-site evaluations, which examine a location from the perspective of the road users (motorists, pedestrians, or bicyclists). This last element is particularly important and should encompass a review of all types of movements, special needs of the elderly or disabled, and weather and environmental problems.
3.8.3 Writing the Report
In writing the report, it is essential to emphasize the purpose of the document. It should identify safety deficiencies, not develop recommended treatments. All agencies that the team visited made it clear that it is very important to focus on the point that the report is not a critique of the original design but is an identification of potentially hazardous conditions. The report may contain recommendations for mitigating problems, but it should not contain detailed descriptions of solutions. TNZ suggests that problems be clearly identified by number and, possibly, by ranking into two or three categories. RTA specifies a "Corrective Action Request" (CAR) that assigns priorities as "immediate," "necessary," or "desirable." VicRoads emphasizes the inclusion of photographs to help readers visualize the problems.
3.8.4 Agency Concerns
The following are some of the key issues relating to the conduct of audits that were identified during the scanning tour:
Reports by the agencies visited review all aspects of the road safety audit process, including summaries of what was under-taken, evaluations of the success of the program, and recommendations for improvements. Suggestions cover the entire process, including selection and training of auditors, use of checklists, selection of projects to be audited, contents of final report, and responding to auditors' recommendations.
3.8.5 Implementing Recommendations
The first step toward implementing recommendations of a road safety audit report is to hold a completion meeting. Its purpose is to provide a forum for the presentation of the findings, without being a platform for entertaining debate on the merits of the findings. VicRoads reported the following range of responses to recommendations:
Follow-up procedures are necessary to record responses to each recommendation. For those that are accepted, the actions to be taken should be described. For suggestions that are rejected, reasons for the rejection should be fully explained.
Accountability is obviously an important factor in the success of the audit program. VicRoads has established a chain of command, from the project supervisors to the general manager for road safety, for the resolution of disagreements about recommendations. A signature is required at each level to certify the audit. Similar procedures were in place in New South Wales and New Zealand.
It is not always feasible to implement the recommendations of the auditors. Resource limitations or other factors may preclude corrective action. The key factor is that a response be prepared describing the reasons for not implementing change.
3.9 Training and Accreditation of Auditors
A prime factor identified by Austroads and mentioned in discussion with all agencies was the use of experienced and skilled auditors. This raises the issue of training and possible accreditation. Currently, formal training experiences are varied. VicRoads has conducted an in-house workshop for its staff. FORS has sponsored the development of a road safety audit training course by a university in South Australia and is considering the issue of accreditation. One opinion was that Austroads should manage accreditation issues. RTA has conducted some 2-day workshops in cooperation with the Institute of Municipal Engineers. The program consists of presentations by RTA staff and private consultants, including slide shows and group exercises in the training process.
TNZ began by using a pool of local experts to train auditors on the job. It now has a 5-day safety course, one day of which is devoted specifically to road safety audits. TNZ also has a training process whereby a potential auditor is first an observer on an audit team, then a team member on a group led by an experienced auditor and eventually moves to a team leader position. This is interpreted as an informal accreditation process.
3.10 Examples of Road Safety Audit Findings
Through a combination of site visits and reviews of actual reports, the scanning team was able to observe the results of road safety audits. In Victoria, an audit was being con-ducted on a freeway section under construction. This audit identified the following types of problems:
In NSW, the scanning team visited locations where sight distance deficiencies, improper signing and marking plans, and poor geo-metrics were recognized in the audits. One site was a new bridge over an inlet to Sydney Harbor where economic and land constraints forced design compromises. Another was an existing location that experienced major traffic volume increases as a result of the opening of the new bridge.
TNZ completed an analysis of the findings of its urban safety audits. Pedestrian issues, signs and markings, signs other than priority, and intersection visibility were the four topics mentioned most often. Part 2 of this report contains a summary of this analysis.
While in New Zealand, the scanning team visited three locations and reviewed the findings of the safety audits. These sites included a suburban area where a new flyover interchange was being proposed, a roadway relocation project, and an inter-section reconstruction.
3.11 Case Studies
The Austroads guide contains examples of Stage 1 to Stage 5 road safety audits. The scanning team was provided with several actual road safety audit reports, excerpts from which are in Part 2 of this report. They contain the following:
3.12 Cost of Conducting Audits
Austroads reports that the cost of auditing a large construction project at all four stages will add from 4 to 10 percent of total project design cost. TNZ found three components to the cost of audits:
1. Consultant's fees.
2. Client's time to manage the audit.
3. Costs associated with implementing recommendations that are adopted.
Additional costs also may result from changes to a project's scope and schedule. TNZ found that fees range from NZ$1,000 to $8,000 (US$730 to $5,840), with most falling in the range of NZ$3,000 to $5,000 (US$2,190 to $3,650). The client's time, while difficult to estimate, averaged about 1 day per audit. Estimated costs of implementing recommendations were not mentioned. RTA indicated that the cost of a road safety audit on a new project was about the same as a geotechnical survey.
3.13 Benefits of Road Safety Audits
The application of road safety audits is in its infancy. Only limited studies have been con-ducted that have attempted to provide "hard numbers" on the benefits and costs of audits, although reference has been made to studies undertaken in the U.K. that have claimed savings in crash costs. Benefits that have been attributed to road safety audits range from crash reduction and design improvements to enhancement of the corporate safety culture. Austroads lists the following specific benefits:
Other benefits cited in meetings with road safety officials were that auditing is a pro-active rather than reactive approach, and it is having the effect of moving toward a higher standard of best practices.
3.14 Liability Concerns
In the United States, the liability implications of all government decisions undergo close scrutiny. Thus, there is some concern that a process identifying safety deficiencies would leave an agency vulnerable to litigation. In the Austroads guide, the issue of increased exposure as a result of conducting audits is examined in detail. A party alleging neglect on the part of a public authority must prove that the authority owed a duty of care, failed to act reasonably, and caused the damage. It is acknowledged that a road authority owes a duty of care. Safety audits are a reasonable approach to improving safety; therefore, the law should encourage the use of safety audits. Laws are, however, focused on the end product of the road, not how it is made safe. A road safety audit will help discover deficiencies.
The question arises of whether an agency increases its liability by rejecting an audit recommendation and a crash occurs. This would not necessarily be true, because the plaintiff would still need to prove negligence and that the problem was ignored after it was put on record. Identification of "potential safety areas" should be even less problematic than the identification of "hazardous locations" in the Highway Safety Planning process now used by U.S. states.
New Zealand has a national, fault-free insurance program, and citizens forfeit the right to sue for personal injury. Thus, they don't face the same issues that confront officials in the United States. The same is true in some states in Australia. Legal counsel in New Zealand has advised road officials that implementation of road safety audit procedures does not alter their responsibilities.
In summary, the scanning team does not believe that the use of road safety audits would expose an agency to increased risk, and that highway authorities that fail to adopt the process may not identify defects, and defects contribute to crashes. However, it is important to continue to cooperate with the legal profession to develop procedures to lower risk. The key is to document and address the final actions taken on all of the road safety audit findings.
3.15 Safety Audits and Quality Assurance
During the 1990's, private businesses and government agencies embraced quality management concepts as vital to the conduct of good business. Using terminology like "defining new paradigms" and examining the successes of techniques refined by Japanese businesses, recent focus has been on continual improvement, customer retention, and, in the case of government, on privatization. Road safety audits have been embraced so readily because their application is consistent with the quality philosophy. While quality assurance emphasizes continual improvement and the safety audit process is a step-by-step activity, both have the underlying theme of "get it right the first time."
All agencies that the team visited were deeply involved in applying quality concepts. This was especially true in New Zealand, where the transportation functions of government shifted from operations to almost exclusive involvement with policy and management. Road safety audits were another application of quality concepts. The same was evident in the discussions with the state and federal organizations in Australia.
The Austroads guide contains a section devoted to discussion of safety audits and quality assurance.
3.16 Obstacles to Implementation
While acceptance of road safety audits has been almost universal in Australia and New Zealand and the use of the process has grown rapidly, some obstacles remain to be overcome. One major issue is the acceptance and application at the local level. Some local agencies are still skeptical, and it is difficult to get them to "buy in" to the process. It also has been difficult to convince local agencies to expend funds for safety audits.
Other major difficulties include getting professionals to accept the reviews of other professionals; selecting auditors on the basis of expertise, rather than low cost (an opinion expressed by consultants that the team met); and finding qualified auditors. A concern of all agencies was finding the resources to expand road safety audit programs.
3.17 Success Factors
During the scanning review, the team met with many individuals, reviewed documents and road safety audit reports, and made several site visits. Based on the visits and observations, the team concluded that many factors have contributed to the success of road safety audit programs in Australia and New Zealand. The factors listed below were identified as key reasons for the widespread use and success of road safety audits:
3.18 Future Directions
The use of road safety audits is still in its infancy. Agencies and individuals are continuing to refine the process to improve
its application and effectiveness. The following issues were identified as topics that require attention:
The scanning team found that road safety was a high-priority issue for all the transportation agencies that it visited. In both Australia and New Zealand, road safety audits were entrenched as key elements in the overall programs to reduce the crash toll and the efforts to establish a safety culture within the agency. The most significant findings of the group are summarized below.
4.1 Significant Findings
4.2 Transferability
An important concern of the scanning team was whether the techniques used success-fully in Australia and New Zealand could be transferred to the United States. Some of the more significant issues are described below:
The scanning team found that the use of road safety audits could yield safety benefits in the United States. As highlighted in the previous chapter, many of the practices observed in Australia and New Zealand are transferable, in some form, to the United States. As with any new technology, however, an effective marketing program will be needed to convince transportation agencies that audits are affordable and will yield safety benefits.
The benefits must be accepted "from the top, down" to integrate audits into agencies' safety programs. To achieve this, a program will be needed to educate decision makers, market the process to everyone involved, conduct pilots audits, and reevaluate guide-lines.
What follows is a proposed strategy for implementing road safety audits in the United States.
Outline of Proposed Implementation Strategy |
Goal 1 |
Increase the understanding and awareness of the road safety audit process |
1 |
Develop a joint document, based on this report and the Austroads guide, which can serve as a marketing piece to be distributed throughout the United States. |
2 |
Promote the process through Federal agencies such as FHWA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). |
3 |
Promote the concept through the activities of professional organizations, such as ITE, AASHTO, the Transportation Research Board (TRB), the National Association of Governor's Highway Safety Representatives (NAGHSR), and through Technology Transfer Centers (T2). |
4 |
Promote through presentation at major national conferences, such as ITE, TRB, AASHTO, NAGHSR, T2, etc. |
5 |
Promote through presentations at regional/state safety-related meetings and conferences, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers, State DOTs, and ITE, etc. |
Goal 2 |
Gain support of key stakeholders |
1 |
Distribute information to key transportation decision makers. |
2 |
Enlist candidates for conducting pilot road safety audits. |
Goal 3 |
Conduct pilot road safety audits |
1 |
Conduct road safety audits at all stages for both state and local projects of varying magnitude. This should include both new and existing roads. |
2 |
Use existing road safety audit materials, principally the Austroads guide, as the blueprint for implementing the audits. |
3 |
Include an evaluation component in each audit. |
Goal 4 |
Revise basic road safety audit materials to incorporate knowledge gained from pilot projects and from introducing the concept in the U.S. safety culture |
1 |
Use advisory groups to revise guidelines. Include a global focus by enlisting participation of individuals from Australia and New Zealand. |
2 |
Distribute revised guidelines to the groups that participated in the pilot audits for their review and comment. |
3 |
Disseminate information to a larger sample of transportation safety professionals. |
Goal 5 |
Incorporate the road safety audit process in the "best practices" guidelines |
1 |
Enlist the support of state and Federal officials to prepare best practice summaries. |
Goal 6 |
Train selected Federal, state, and local personnel to serve as a support group for state and local governments implementing safety audit practices |
1 |
Develop appropriate training materials. |
2 |
Develop a training course. |
3 |
Conduct a series of training sessions. |
Goal 7 |
Develop a national training course |
1 |
Assemble a team of experts. |
2 |
Develop course materials and the course. |
3 |
Conduct workshops at regional, state, and local levels. |
Goal 8 |
Monitor the implementation of the safety audit process |
1 |
Monitor best practices. |
2 |
Monitor success stories. |
3 |
Document the implementation process. |
Goal 9 |
Adopt guidelines and procedures, as necessary |
I. Institutional/Organizational Issues
1. How does the safety audit process fit into your national/state strategic highway safety plan(s) and which agency(ies) are responsible for implementing the process and monitoring its success?
2. How did you obtain "buy-in" and continued acceptance by management (national and state), project designers, local jurisdictions, and the public to utilize and promote the safety audit process?
3. In view of the many competing needs for finite resources, how are the costs and benefits associated with road safety audits balanced against other public concerns (e.g., environmental, road maintenance, preservation, political pressures, etc.)?
4. What major obstacles or resistance have you encountered to initiating and continuing the safety audit process? Would you do anything differently if you were starting over?
5. Explain your collaboration process involving national, state, and local governments, agencies within a level of government (e.g., engineering, enforcement, etc.), and any public/private participation.
6. What type and level of resources (personnel, money, training, equipment) were required to get the process started and are now needed to keep the process in place?
II. Implementation Strategies and Issues
1. How are audit team members selected? What types of professionals--i.e., law enforcement, emergency medical services, etc.--are involved and what types of training do they receive?
2. Describe the methods, materials, and resources used in safety audits and delineate how consistency is maintained from one audit to another, especially with respect to integration of modes, i.e., bicycles, pedestrians, autos, transit, and the analysis of trade-offs.
3. How do you select and prioritize projects to undergo safety audits?
4. How is private industry involved in the audit process?
5. What guidelines standards, forms, etc., are used to conduct the safety audits?
6. How is safety defined in the safety audit process?
7. Does the safety audit process differ for roadway classes, i.e., urban, rural, low-volume roads, etc.?
8. Describe the safety audit process and how the results are utilized.
9. Who is responsible for implementing the safety audit recommendations and who pays for these improvements?
10. There are many safety tradeoffs among different design alternatives. Does the audit team use its experiences to recommend one option over another, or is there some analytical method utilized (perhaps comparing expected benefit/cost ratios)?
11. Do the auditors recommend anything other than project-specific items (such as additional training for certain designers)? Are any summary reports prepared by the auditors presenting possible policy/standard practice changes?
12. Was any public notice given or public input obtained during the audit process? Were any focus groups formed to obtain input on specific locations?
III. Informational and Data Requirements
1. What criteria are used to select and prioritize your safety investments and locations to be selected for the audit process? Are they prioritized against a set of safety objectives?
2. What types and amount of data--i.e., crash histories, information on special user groups, traffic volumes, etc.--are required to support the audit process?
3. Who is responsible for collecting the data?
4. Are work zone plans addressed in the safety audit process?
IV. Identification and Quantification of Benefits
1. What drawbacks or negative impacts--i.e., increased liability, higher project completion costs, longer project completion times--were experienced on individual projects after implementation of safety audits?
2. Has there been any attempt to quantify the benefits of the audit process using benefit/cost, cost/effectiveness, or other measures? If so, what variables were considered and what were the results?
3. What are the "selling points" of the audit process?
4. What program, design practices, or technologies have been modified or introduced as a result of the audit process?
5. What safety investment levels are used to challenge or verify that adopted standards remain cost-effective?
Canberra, Australia |
Name |
Position |
Agency |
Address |
Phone |
Fax |
Jennifer Moris |
Senior Project Manager |
Federal Office of Road Safety Department of Transport & Regional Development |
GPO Box 594 |
(06) 274-7495 |
(06) 274-7922 |
Bruce Gemmell |
First Assistant Secretary |
Federal Office of Road Safety |
GPO Box 594 |
(06) 274-7819 |
(06) 274-7819 |
Dennis O'Leary |
Director |
Federal Office of Road Safety |
GPO Box 594 |
(06) 274-7420 |
(06) 274-7477 |
Allan Armistead |
Director, Technical Services Land Transportation Policy Div. |
Federal Office of Road Safety |
GPO Box 594 |
(06) 274-7315 |
(06) 274-7677 |
Michael McFadden |
Statistics and Analysis Section |
Federal Office of Road Safety Department of Transport & Regional Development |
GPO Box 594 |
(06) 274-7136 |
(06) 274-7922 |
Anthony P. Ockwell |
Assistant Secretary |
Federal Office of Road Safety |
GPO Box 594 |
(06) 274-7652 |
(06) 274-7999 |
Neville Potter |
Assistant Secretary |
Federal Office of Road Safety |
GPO Box 594 |
(06) 274-7266 |
(06) 274-7677 |
Chris Brooks |
Director |
Federal Office of Road Safety Department of Transport & Regional Development |
GPO Box 594 |
(06) 274-7396 |
(06) 274-7922 |
Joe Motha |
Senior Research Manager |
Bureau of Transport & Communications Economics |
GPO Box 594 |
(06) 274-6828 |
(06) 274-7677 |
Kevin Rheese |
Acting Senior Project Officer Strategies & Black Spots |
Federal Office of Road Safety Department of Transport & Regional Development |
GPO Box 594 |
(06) 274-7424 |
(06) 274-7922 |
Carol Rowe |
Director |
Federal Office of Road Safety Department of Transport & Regional Development |
GPO Box 594 |
(06) 274-7132 |
(06) 274-7922 |
New South Wales, Australia |
Name |
Position |
Agency |
Address |
Phone |
Fax |
Peter Croft |
Manager |
Roads and Traffic Authority |
Level 2, Centennial Plaza |
(02) 9218-6260 |
(02) 9218-6745 |
Fred Schnerring |
Leader |
Roads And Traffic Authority |
Level 2, Centennial Plaza |
(02) 9218-6405 |
(02) 9218-6745 |
Ray Taylor |
General Manager |
Roads and Traffic Authority |
Level 2, Centennial Plaza |
(02) 9218-3564 |
(02) 9218-6693 |
Graham Brisbane |
Traffic and Safety Manager |
Roads and Traffic Authority |
PO Box 477 |
(042) 212-460 |
(042) 273-705 |
Ken Lysaught |
Road Safety Audit Manager |
Roads and Traffic Authority |
PO Box 558 |
(02) 9831-0911 |
(02) 9831-0926 |
Kevin Webster |
Road Safety Manager |
Roads and Traffic Authority |
Management Directorate |
(02) 9218-6246 |
(02) 9218-6745 |
Victoria, Australia |
Name |
Position |
Agency |
Address |
Phone |
Fax |
John Cunningham |
Principal Road Design Engineer |
VicRoads |
2nd Floor, 3 Prospect Hill Road |
(03) 9811-8201 |
(03) 9811-8200 |
Robert Morgan |
Principal |
Traffic Engineering and Road Safety |
24 Park Road |
(03) 9888-8786 |
(03) 9888-8980 |
Ken Ogden |
Professor (at time of visit) (Since the visit of the scanning team, Mr. Ogden has taken a new position with Royal Auto Club) |
Institute of Transport Studies |
Royal Auto Club of Victoria 550 Princes Highway |
(03) 9790-2923 |
(03) 9790-2628 |
David Anderson |
General Manager Road Safety |
VicRoads |
60 Denmark Street |
(03) 9854-2700 |
(03) 9854-2668 |
Bill Collins |
Manager |
VicRoads |
3 Prospect Hill Road |
(03) 9811-8363 |
(03) 9811-8200 |
Ron Gowan |
Senior Engineer |
VicRoads |
60 Denmark Street |
(03) 9854-2645 |
(03) 9854-2668 |
John Moylan |
Team Leader |
VicRoads |
1/144 Melrose Drive |
(03) 9338-4055 |
(03) 9338-8915 |
Ted Vincent |
Manager, Strategy and Programs |
VicRoads |
60 Denmark Street |
(03) 9854-2722 |
(03) 9854-2668 |
Richard Warwick |
Manager, ConstructionCWestern Ring Road Major Projects |
VicRoads |
1/144 Melrose Drive |
(03) 9338-4055 |
(03) 9338-8915 |
Peter Balfe |
Director |
VicRoads |
60 Denmark Street |
(03) 9854-2758 |
(03) 9854-2500 |
Andrew P. O'Brien |
Managing Director |
Andrew O'Brien & Assoc., Pty. Ltd. |
59 Avenue Road, Unit 3 |
(03) 9882-9955 |
(03) 9813-2106 |
Joseph P. Perone |
Strategic Transport Planner |
City of Melbourne |
GPO Box 1603M |
(03) 9658-8559 |
(03) 9650-3572 |
Henry H. Turnbull |
Director |
Turnbull Fenner |
1st Floor |
(03) 9882-8699 |
(03) 9882-7219 |
Robert Stemp |
Traffic Engineer |
Sinclair Knight Group |
222 Kingsway |
(03) 9685-3118 |
(03) 9670-6846 |
Wellington, New Zealand |
Name |
Position |
Agency |
Address |
Phone |
Fax |
Ian Appleton |
Safety Audit Manager |
Transfund New Zealand |
PO Box 2331, Wellington |
(04) 495-3271 |
(04) 499-0733 |
Robin Dunlop |
General Manager |
Transit New Zealand |
PO Box 5084, Wellington |
(04) 496-6601 |
(04) 496-6666 |
Peter Wright |
Review and Audit Manager |
Transfund New Zealand |
PO Box 2331, Wellington |
(04) 495-3270 |
(04) 499-0733 |
Steve Stewart |
State Highway Policy Manager |
Transit New Zealand |
PO Box 5084, Wellington |
(04) 496-6688 |
(04) 496-6666 |
Marten Oppenhuis |
Traffic and Safety Manager |
Transit New Zealand |
PO Box 5084, Wellington |
(04) 496-6665 |
(04) 496-6666 |
Stuart Fraser |
Training and Education Manager |
Transit New Zealand |
PO Box 5084, Wellington |
(04) 496-6698 |
(04) 496-6666 |
Fiona Knight |
Land Transport Policy Manager |
Transit New Zealand |
PO Box 5084 Lambton Quay |
(04) 496-6670 |
(04) 496-6666 |
Dave Rendall |
Regional State Highway Manager Wellington |
Transit New Zealand, |
PO Box 27 477 |
(04) 801-2580 |
(04) 801-2599 |
Stanley Chesterfield |
Road Safety Engineer |
Transit New Zealand, |
PO Box 27 477 |
(04) 801-2580 |
(04) 801-2599 |
Murray Carpenter |
Senior Consultant, Road Design |
Opus International, Ltd. (former Works Consultant Services) |
Majestic Center, 100 Willis St. |
(04) 471-7392 |
(04) 471-1397 |
Wellington, New Zealand (continued) |
Name |
Position |
Agency |
Address |
Phone |
Fax |
Stewart Milne |
Secretary for Transport |
Ministry of Transport |
38-42 Waring Taylor Street |
(04) 472-1253 |
(04) 498-0665 |
Colette L. Kraus |
Traffic Engineer |
Land Transport Safety Authority |
7-27 Waterloo Quay |
(04) 494-8600 |
(04) 494-8604 |
Reg Barrett |
Director |
Land Transport Safety Authority |
7-27 Waterloo Quay |
(04) 494-8605 |
(04) 494-8605 |
Craig Hill |
Manager |
Land Transport Safety Authority |
7-27 Waterloo Quay |
(04) 494-8704 |
(04) 494-8608 |
Rob Martyn |
Group Manager |
Land Transport Safety Authority |
7-27 Waterloo Quay |
(04) 494-8600 |
(04) 472-9939 |
John P. Edgar |
Manager, Policy and Programmes |
Land Transport Safety Authority |
7-27 Waterloo Quay |
(04) 494-8600 |
(04) 494-8604 |
Australian Land Transport Development Program: Progress Report 94-95, Australian Government Publishing Service, 1996.
Australia's Rural Road Safety Action Plan, "Focus for the Future," National Road Safety Strategy Implementation Task Force, Federal Office of Road Safety, June 7, 1996.
Corben, B.; Newstead, S.; Diamantopoulou, K.; and Cameron, M.; "Results of an Evaluation of TAC-Funded Accident Black Spot Treatment," paper distributed to FHWA Scanning Team, Canberra, Australia, Oct. 24, 1996.
Evaluation of the Black Spot Program: Report 90, Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, Australia, 1995.
Kumar, Arun, Accreditation Course for Road Safety Auditors: Guidelines for Preparing the Course, Department of Civil and Geological Engineering, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, 1995.
The Length of the Land--Australia's National Highways, Department of Transport and Communications, Land Transport Division, Canberra, Australia [no date].
Moses, P.J., Traffic Management in New Zealand, 1991: A Perspective, Main Roads Department of Western Australia, 1991.
The National Road Safety Action Plan: 1994, Federal Office of Road Safety, Department of Transport, Canberra, Australia, 1994.
The National Road Safety Action Plan, 1996, Federal Office of Road Safety, Department of Transport and Regional Development, Canberra, Australia, 1996.
The National Road Safety Strategy, Federal Office of Road Safety, Department of Transport and Communications, Canberra, Australia, 1992.
Road Safety Audit, Austroads, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 1994.
New South Wales
Road Environment Safety, Road and Traffic Authority, Sydney, NSW, Australia 1995.
Road Safety Audits, 2nd Edition, Road and Traffic Authority, NSW, Australia, 1995.
Road Safety Audit: Glebe Island Bridge and Approaches, Pyrmont: Pre Opening Audit including Proposed Staged Traffic Arrangements, Road Safety and Traffic Management Directorate, NSW, Australia, November 1995.
Road Safety 2000CThe Plan for Road Safety in New South Wales 1995B2000, Road and Traffic Authority, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 1995.
Road Safety 2000CThe Plan for Road Safety in New South Wales Progress Report 1991B1994, Road and Traffic Authority, Sydney, NSW, Australia 1995.
"Road Safety 2000CRoad Safety Campaign Planner: July 1996BJune 1997," a calendar.
Road Traffic Accidents in New South Wales, 1995: Statistical Statement: Year Ended 31 December 1995, Roads and Traffic Authority, Haymarket, NSW, Australia, 1996.
Southern Region Safety Audits: F6 Freeway Widening & MR626 Interchange, Gwynneville: Detail Design, Project No. 94/20, Rhodes Thompson Associates, Campbelltown, NSW, Australia, 1996.
Taylor, Ray, "Road Safety 2000: Progress and Challenges," informal communication.
Crashstats: Road Crash Statistics: Victoria 1991B1995, VicRoads, 1996.
Gowan, Ron, "Road Safety Audit, Its Role in Developing a Safer Road Network," Informal Communication, October 1996.
Morgan, Robert, "Austroads Road Safety Audit Guidelines," Victoria, Australia.
Morgan, Robert, informal notes on road safety audits, distributed to FHWA scanning team, Melbourne, Australia, October 1996.
Morgan, Robert, "Road Safety Audit of Development Projects," Proceedings Roads 96 Conference, Part 5, September 1996.
Morgan, Robert, "Road Safety AuditCIts Contribution to Road Safety," presented to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Regional Conference, Melbourne, May 1996.
Road Accident Facts, Minister for Roads and Ports, VicRoads.
Route Audit Report: Portarlington Road, Road Safety Audits, Pty., Ltd., Feb. 23, 1996.
Safety First--Victoria's Road Safety Strategy, 1995B2000, Ministry of Roads and Ports, Victoria, Australia, 1995.
Tullamarine Freeway/Western Ring Road Interchange: Functional Design Road Safety Audit Report, Road Safety Audits, Pty., Ltd., Nov. 4, 1995.
Tullamarine Freeway/Western Ring Road Interchange: Implemented Traffic Management Road Safety Audit Report, Road Safety Audits, Pty., Ltd., Dec. 22, 1995.
New Zealand
Appleton, Ian, "Briefing Notes to FHWA International Technical Scan on Safety Audits," Oct. 30, 1996, Wellington, NZ.
Appleton, Ian, "The Management of Road Safety in New Zealand," paper presented to the Institute of Transportation Engineering Regional Conference on Transport and Livable Cities, Melbourne, Australia, May 1996.
Appleton, Ian, "Progress with the Introduction of Road Safety Audit in Australia and New Zealand," 18th ARRB Transport Research Conference & Transit New Zealand Land Transport Symposium, "Roads 96," 1996.
Appleton, I., and Jordan, P., "Road Safety Audit: Progress in Australia and New Zealand," Proceedings of the New Zealand Land Transport Symposium 1994, Volume 1, pp. 101B106.
Balancing the Benefits and Costs: A Guide to Transit New Zealand's Project Evaluation System,
Transit New Zealand, Wellington, NZ, July 1995.
"Corporate Profile," Transfund New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
Guidelines for the presentation of district, city, and regional recommended Road Safety Programme 97-98, Land Transport Safety Authority, Wellington, NZ, 1996.
Guidelines for Setting Speed Limits: Safer Vehicles, Roads, and Rail, RTS l7, Land Transport Safety Authority, Wellington, NZ, February 1995.
Jordan, P., and Appleton, I., "Road Safety Audit: Its Progress in Australia and New Zealand," Institute of Transportation Engineers 1994 Compendium of Technical Papers, Denver, CO, August 1994.
Kaye, Jeff, "Safety Audit Workshop--Highway Safety Inspections," Roads 96 Conference, Christchurch, NZ, September 1996.
National Land Transport Strategy: Setting the Scene, Ministry of Transport, Te Manatu Waka, Wellington, NZ, 1996.
New Zealand Government Transport Agencies, Ministry of Transport, Te Manatu Waka, Wellington, NZ, 1996.
The New Zealand Road Safety Programme: 96B97, Land Transport Safety Authority, Wellington, NZ, August 1996.
Pilot Safety Audits, Local Roading Projects, Report No. 94/338S, Transit New Zealand, Wellington, NZ, September 1994.
Review of the Implementation of Safety Audit on State Highways 1993/94, Report No. 94/346S, Transit New Zealand, Wellington, NZ, November 1994.
Review of the Safety (Administration) Programme: Report of the Working Group to the National Road Safety Committee, Land Transport Safety Authority, Wellington, NZ, December 1995.
Review of a Selection of Rural Safety Audits, Report No. 95/415S, Transit New Zealand, Wellington, NZ, July 1996.
Review of a Selection of Urban Safety Audits, Report No. 95/416S, Transit New Zealand, Wellington, NZ, July 1996.
Road Management Options for Reform, Discussion Document, Ministry of Transport, Te Manatu Waka, Wellington, NZ, August 1996.
Road Safety Atlas, Land Transport Safety Authority, Wellington, NZ, September 1996.
Safety Audit Policy and Procedures, Transit New Zealand, Wellington, NZ, August 1993.
Safety Audits for Commercial Road Transport Operators: Safer People and Operators, Discussion Document, Land Transport Safety Authority, Wellington, NZ, September 1995.
Safety Audits of Existing Roads, Report No. 95/434S, Transit New Zealand, Wellington, NZ, February 1996.
Safety Directions, 2nd Edition, Land Transport Safety Authority, Wellington, NZ, December 1995.
Statement of Intent: 1996B1997, Land Transport Safety Authority, Wellington, NZ,
"Transit New Zealand Amendment Act 1995: Objective: To allocate resources to achieve a safe and efficient roading system," Transfund New Zealand, informal communication.
Transport in New Zealand: An Overview of the New Zealand Experience in Transport Sector Reform 1980B1995, Ministry of Transport, Te Manatu Waka, Wellington, NZ.
Transport Reform in New Zealand: The New Zealand Transport Sector Model, Secretary for Transport Judi Stack, Ministry of Transport, Te Manatu Waka, Wellington, NZ, 1995.
Bulpitt, Malcolm, "Safety Audit--An Overview," Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineering, Paper 10616, May 1996.
FHWA Study Tour for Highway Safety Management Practices in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, June 1995.
FHWA Study Tour for Speed Management and Enforcement Technology, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, December 1995.
IHT Guidelines for the Safety Audit of Highways, the Institute of Highways and Transportation, London, United Kingdom, 1990.
O'Brien, A., and Fairlie, R., "Road Safety Audit--Some Experiences," informal communication.
Road Safety Audits, Highways Agency 42/90, Department of Transport, London, United Kingdom, 1990.
Road Safety Audits, an Informational Report of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Prepared by Committee 4S-7, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, February 1995.
Ross, Alan, "Road Safety Checks," Infrastructure Notes, Infrastructure and Urban Development Department, World Bank, January 1992.
Ross, A., Silcock, D.T., and Ghee, C., "Safety Audit: An International Overview," informal communication.
Traffic Safety Facts 1995: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatal Accident Reporting System and the General Estimates System, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, September 1996.


text:
Your are here: Home // Posts Tagged With la verne public works
Cool Cruise turns downtown La Verne into hot rod heaven
More than 500 custom classic cars converged in downtown La Verne on Saturday to strut their stuff for the annual Cool Cruise car show.
Cal State Long Beach student T.J. Mills checks out a 1956 Chevrolet Bel Air owned by Doc Conroy of West Covina. It was one of hundreds of customized and restored cars on display at the annual Cool Cruise car show in downtown La Verne on Saturday. Mills attended the...

subset: commoncrawl


text: Weekly raid quests Edit Classic editor History Talk0 102,693pages on this wiki Category page Pages in category "Weekly raid quests" The following 15 pages are in this category, out of 15 total. A Quest:Anub'Rekhan Must Die!D Quest:DeprogrammingF Quest:Flame Leviathan Must Die!I Quest:Ignis the Furnace Master Must Die! Quest:Instructor Razuvious Must Die! L Quest:Lord Jaraxxus Must Die! Quest:Lord Marrowgar Must Die!M Quest:Malygos Must Die!N Quest:Noth the Plaguebringer Must Die!P Quest:Patchwerk Must Die! R Quest:Razorscale Must Die! Quest:Respite for a Tormented SoulS Quest:Sartharion Must Die! Quest:Securing the Ramparts (Alliance)X Quest:XT-002 Deconstructor Must Die! Categories: Weekly quests Add category Cancel Save


text:
Pureed Cream of {Left-over} Vegetable Soup
A smooth cream of vegetable soup recipe, that can be made with any mixture of vegetables, especially left-over vegetables!
Read MoreA smooth cream of vegetable soup recipe, that can be made with any mixture of vegetables, especially left-over vegetables!
Read MoreA simple, but flavourful corn risotto recipe, using grilled corn. A perfect summer side dish or meatless main dish.
Read MoreA delicious summer salad recipe, featuring grilled corn, tomatoes, arugula, bacon, jalapeno and Parmesan, topped with a Tomato Basil Vinaigrette.
Read MoreA creamy and hearty chicken, potato and corn chowder, perfect for a filling dinner soup. A perfect use for left-over cooked chicken.
Read MoreA versatile dish with orzo, corn, tomatoes and basil, that can be served warm as a side dish or meatless main or enjoy cold as a salad. Great for the lunch box!
Read MoreA classic no-knead bread from Jim Lahey, with corn and jalapeno. Use can use fresh or frozen corn. Baked in a Dutch oven for a great rustic bread, perfect side for chili.
Read MoreA recipe for tagliatelle pasta with fresh corn pesto. Contains no dairy but rather uses corn "milk" to add creaminess to the dish.
Read MoreA lovely fresh corn summer soup made with fresh corn and the milk from the cobs, so there is no added milk to this creamy soup. A great summer soup. Dairy free!
Read More


text:
Love you too!
Added to Bag!
We'll let you know if it's back in stock!
Added to Wishlist!
In a Stitch Dress
$49.99 $14.9970% off!
Whether you're sitting behind your sewing machine or drafting up a new design, this aqua- and onyx-hued dress will clothe you in chic style. Crafted from silky material in a classic A-line silhouette, this short-sleeved dress features a unique pattern of printed houndstooth, herringbone, and plaid, joined together by red accents. Paired with red ballet flats, a thimble-bedecked pendant necklace, and a black braided belt, this puff-sleeved dress will add well-stitched style to any ensemble.
Final Sale: This item cannot be returned or exchanged.
- 100% Polyester.
- Fabric does not provide stretch.
- Hand wash cold. Do not bleach. Hang to dry.
- Unlined. Hidden back zipper.
- Made in the United States
Product Measurements:
Size | S | M | L |
Length | 35.5 | 36 | 36.5 |
All measurements in inches.


text:
Professional dog walker, dog walking, dog sitting, dog boarding, pet sitting, puppy sitting
Hi My name is Kim and I am an experienced dog owner offering a dog walking/pet sitting service in the hingham area. I do have a car so i can travel however a mileage charge would be added to the price. I can offer my services both weekdays an


text: Meta Battle Subway PokeBase - Pokemon Q&A Login Register All Activity Questions Unanswered Tags Users Ask a Question Rules Chat Difference between Pokemon day-care in anime and games? 0 votes I want to discuss a minor detail between anime and games about the day-care. in the anime, the day-care couple take care of eggs till hatching and in the games, they can't take eggs nor hatch them. did the game go wrong anywhere or the anime ? daycare anime asked Sep 18, 2013 by harkaran lakhotra edited Sep 18, 2013 by Pokemaster Please log in or register to add a comment. Please log in or register to answer this question. 1 Answer 0 votes The anime is not the games, and the game are not the anime. They simply do things differently. It makes more sense in the game to receive the egg and hatch it yourself. answered Sep 18, 2013 by Pokemaster Please log in or register to add a comment. Related questions What other Pokemon do I put in the day care to get Rhyperior and Hippowdon with the curse egg move? About the day care and what EVS its Pokemon get? I put my mantibuzz in the day care with my ditto and left it but no egg? Does compatibility of Pokemon in the day-care rely on the nature of the two, or their characteristics? Does the number of steps equal the number of EXP required to level up a Pokemon in the day-care? If you leave 2 Pokemon in the daycare when doing the Masuda method does the day care cost get too high? If I put a Pokemon in the Day-Care until level 99, will it miss out on EVs? What happens when a male Pokemon learns a specific move whilst in Day-Care? Useful Meta Posts How to change your username How to add a user avatar Why was my post hidden? The points system Question etiquette Flags vs Downvotes Anime FAQ


text:
Submit your feedback / criticism of the Wellesley Globalist first edition to email@example.com. Subject line: FEEDBACK. Your comments will remain anonymous, unless indicated to us otherwise. We are eager to ...
Malian Crisis: The story of intervention
Video of recent protests in Egypt
Aung San Suu Kyi returns from Europe to hero's welcome in Burma
Latest News
The Wellesley Globalist Vol.1, Issue.2 | Frontiers
The Wellesley Globalist Vol.1, Issue.2 | Frontiers
The Grand Mosque of Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan
The fog covering the skies cannot shield your vision from seeing the grand monumental building that lies ahead. As you drive on the paved 4 lane highway, it is immediately hard to observe the other cars driving by, but instead all you can do is fixate your eyes on the big white domes and large complex. The […]
Cancer: The Unforeseen Effects of the Iraqi War
Though no atomic bomb was involved in the war, the effects of war on Iraq have resulted in equal, if not worse, health consequences compared to those following Hiroshima in World War II. According to a study released by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, "the increases in cancer, leukemia and infant mortality and perturbations of the […]
Money Talks: Preventing a Grexit
After Greece dropped nearly all of its demands, Europe agreed to extend the bailout for another four months. Now Syriza has to answer to its voters.
Sweden Recognizes Palestine State
By: Victoria Angelova Earlier this month, during his inaugural address, the Swedish Prime Minister touched upon the idea that a two-state solution is the only way to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. Last week Sweden's new government became the second Western European country, after Malta, to recognize a Palestinian state. Margot Wallstrom, Sweden's new foreign minister, […]
The Ebola Epidemic
While the events of the past year have been daunting for public health officials, the future is less bleak. U.N. Ebola Chief Dr. David Nabarro hopes that with improved public health responses, the outbreak will be contained within the next few months. In fact, by December 1st, the U.N. aims to have 70% of cases contained. Within a year, Dr. Nabarro hopes to eradicate the disease


text:
Sighting Basics
Case Number | 55298 |
Log Number | US-04082014-0012 |
Date Submitted | 04/08/2014 12:34 UTC |
Date of the Event | 04/06/2014 05:15 UTC |
Source | MUFON |
Disposition | Unresolved |
Summary | Yellow Orb |
Tags | photo |
Sighting Location
City | Undisclosed |
Region | Oregon |
Country | United States |
Latitude | 43.812293 |
Longitude | -120.545451 |
The latitude and longitude presented here is an approximation to protect the reporters identity
Sighting Specifics
Viewing Distance | Over 1 Mile, Unknown |
Sighting Duration | 00:10:00 |
Object Features | Unknown |
Object Flight Path | Stationary,Hovering then path |
Object Shape | Sphere |
Weather Factors | Unknown |
Sighting Details
The sky was clear blue on April 6, 2014. I was outside meditating in the sun. I decided to go inside the house, when I looked straight up and saw something stationary in the sky. I watched for a few moments to see if the object was moving. It was relatively stationary and I called my wife to have a look. She came to the door and I pointed out the object to her and she quickly spotted the object. I asked her to track the object and I retrieved two cameras, a Nikon D3000 and a Sony HD camcorder. I first photographed the object with the Nikon through a 55-200mm zoom lens at full 200mm zoom. I got over 60 photographs with ease, as the object was hardly moving towards the north east. After I photographed the object for the several shots, I turned on the camcorder. The camcorder does not have an eye viewfinder, instead it uses an LED monitor to see through the lens. This makes spotting any object at a distance difficult when zooming in. I did manage to capture glimpses of the object with the camcorder, however the photographs are the best capture. I had been meditating earlier just to communicate with such objects and give thanks to the 'Great Spirit' for all the Great Spirit provides. Once I observed the object, I thanked the object for the visit and wished for further visits. I humbly, respectfully with unconditional love, had requested a 'fly over' from the GFL. The GFL has always honored my requests, and this is not the first request made to the GFL, it is just at this sighting, I was ready with camera(s) and conditions were clear. The photographs I submit are three out of over 80 photographs. |
Did You See It? Have a Comment or Question? Discuss it Below.
blog comments powered by Disqus


text:
Shopping Cart
Savings of $1.30 (13% off).
A few months after our arrival in Scranton, I finally get up the Courage to ask Grandma Resuba the Question that is constantly on my mind. "Why do you hate us so much?" I say to her. "When mommy was here, you gave us milk and cookies and let us sit in your kitchen." For the first time since we arrived, Grandma Resuba looks me full in the face. Her eyes bore into mine, Blazing with hatred. She spits out her reply. "Your mother was nothing! My son had no business marrying a woman with four kids." Her voice rises higher as she rages on. "I'll never forgive her for marrying my son. I'm glad she's dead, only now I'm stuck with you miserable brats! Every penny and minute I spend with you takes away from what I should be giving to Alice. She's my flesh and blood, and you're nothing, just like your mother was." When her mother died in a fire, eight-year-old Jerri thought life couldn't get worse.
You can read this item using any of the following Kobo apps and devices: