Operational implementation of a safety management system

Transit NZIHT 7th annual conference

Authors: Bill Greenwood & Jeff Kaye
Land Transport NZ / Fulton Hogan Corporate

Abstract

As part of the government Road Safety 2010 Strategy over the last two and a half years most Road Controlling Authorities (RCAs) in New Zealand have developed a Safety Management System (SMS). Transit NZ has been operating their SMS for eight years. This paper briefly describes what a best practice SMS contains.

Having achieved wide spread development of SMS now the main focus of attention has moved to "Implementation" - "Making it work" at an operational level.

This paper will focus on two key aspects of operational implementation:

• Developing and using a Safety Management Plan
• Developing and using a Safety Intervention Plan

The paper discusses the content of a Safety Management Plan (SMP) including the following:

• Inputs - deficiency identification
• Controls - judgment
• Processing of deficiencies - prioritisation of the deficiencies by various methods subject to the desired outcome
• Economic/funding process - sorting the deficiencies hazards and remedial actions by funding categories
• Outputs - remedial works - fixing the hazard / minimizing the problem
• Review and monitor effectiveness of action

The paper also discusses the content of a Safety Intervention Plan (SIP) including the following:

• The purpose
• Ownership - contractor for RCA
• Key stakeholders
• Operational performance measures
• Document structure
• Opportunities for improvement
• Suggested items to be included

The paper will provide guidance on how to develop a quality SIP, how to implement and review the total process, and where it should "live".

1.    Operational implementation of a safety management system

1.1   Introduction

In September 2002 the NZ Government First Steps Programme (LTSA-1) provided funding to the Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA). A key engineering component was the encouragement of Road Controlling Authorities (RCAs) to adopt a Safety Management System (SMS). Following the appointment of a Project Manager in December 2002, a project was established with the purpose 'to ensure RCAs decisions about construction, maintenance and management of the road networks lead to the achievement of clear safety targets (Greenwood-1)'. By October 2005 all but 10 of the 74 NZ RCAs have commenced or completed development of their SMS.

It is generally recognised that there will be safety advantages from using a systematic approach to the management of safety on the road network. The following are the benefits that a SMS is providing to a RCA and to road users:

• Safer roads for all road users
• Safer roads for all those who work on roads
• Proactive approach to road safety engineering
• Appropriate outputs from a road safety deficiency database prioritisation
• Protection from potential litigation

There are four parts to a RCAs SMS:

• Direction - a road safety strategic vision and how it will be achieved
• Delivery  - road standards and guidelines, staff structure, roles and technical expertise to be used both internal and external
• Control    - processes used and responsibilities of personal
• Review    - a review /audit regime

This is illustrated in the following diagram:

1.2   Safety management system implementation

An annual national SMS workshop has been held involving the RCA SMS 'champion', Land Transport NZ and Consultant road safety engineering staff. The workshop has the following objectives:

• Celebration of what has been achieved.
• To get feedback on the SMS development process and identify what has worked well and what hasn't worked well.

A key feedback at the workshops has been the difficulties being experienced in implemented a SMS (LTSA-2,3,4). This feedback led to the development of trial issue Guidelines for implementing a safety management system. The implementation guideline focused on buy-in, planning and operation and continuous improvement within the RCA.(LTSA-5).

This paper focuses on the planning and operation aspect of implementation of a SMS. The paper suggests creating and using a Safety Management Plan (SMP) and Safety Intervention Plan (SIP) to systematically manage operational processes to achieve the desired safety outcomes proactively on the road network.

2.    Safety management plan

2.1   What is a safety management plan?

A SMP is a document that details the network management consultants (or RCA asset managers) day to day focus on managing safety on the road network including; inputs, controls, processes (i.e. risk assessment and prioritization of deficiencies and Economic/Funding selections) outputs and performance monitoring.

2.1.1   Inputs

The inputs relating to a Safety management Plan can generally be separated into two main grouping as follows.

Reports - methodology & task descriptions, including:

• Road safety inspections - day, night and side road
• Treatment of crash locations / crash reduction studies
• Road safety audits
• Existing road audits
• Feasibility / concept audits
• Scheme / preliminary design audits
• Detailed design audits
• Post construction audits
• Fatal and serious crash reporting
• Grey and blackspot studies

Data - Road Safety Analysis, including:

• LTNZ Crash database (CAS)
• Local network crash reports
• Public complaints / comments including
• Members of the public
• RCA staff
• LTZN staff
• NZ Police
• Contractors
• Regular inspections
• Network strategy studies
• Road geometry and condition data
• Local knowledge

2.1.2   Controls

Judgment - verification of identified deficiencies and the chosen most practical remedial solution against:

• Codes of practice
• Standards
• Guidelines
• Local rules / operating procedures
• Adopted industry "Best" practice
• Experience / expertise

2.1.3   Process deficiency - prioritisation of the risk

A number of RCAs and consultants have developed programmes to process deficiencies and prioritise the risk associated with them. As part of the Land Transport NZ SMS project a working group was formed to investigate and report on the Deficiency database prioritisation process (Land Transport NZ-1). A key finding of the report was that an understanding of relative 'risk' was required to prioritise deficiencies. A Deficiency database prioritisation process has the following attributes:

• Identified deficiency
• Prioritise relative risk value before treatment using
  • Exposure - (location within road reserve and traffic volume)
  • Probability - (likelihood of crash occurring)
  • Severity - (expected outcome should event occur)
• Treatment of identified deficiency
  • Description of the selected treatment
  • Estimated cost of the selected treatment
• Reprioritise relative risk value after treatment
  • Exposure - (location within road reserve and traffic volume)
  • Probability - (likelihood of crash occurring)
  • Severity - (expected outcome should event occur)
• Calculate the risk reduction
  • Risk reduction per $1,000 funded / spent
  • Could be expressed as maximum safety improvement for $'s spent

2.1.4   Economic / funding sort

The sorting of the road network deficiencies by Funding Category, Rules, Sort Orders and Budget Constraints may occur before or after they have been rated for risk reduction. The types of operational activities they can be sorted into includes:

• Safety maintenance - scheduled
  • Included under the Contractors lump sum - sorted by location and prioritisation A, B or C (refer Transit NZ State Highway Asset Management Manual - SHAMM)
  • Allowed for in contractors agreed rates
• Safety maintenance - unscheduled
  • Low cost remedial works - sort by prioritisation (A,B or C refer SHAMM ) - remedial action subject to funding availability
  • Remedial actions could be tasked as addition works under existing contract
• Route, area and special safety upgrading works
  • Fundable ex special projects funding
  • Sorted by risk reduction per $s
• Safety improvement projects (Capital Works)
  • Fundable B/C likely based on existing crash history sorted by risk score before treatment or economic analysis yields or fundable B/C and subject to funding availability
• Minor safety projects
  • Cost of remedial work under $150,000 sorted by risk reduction per $'s or subject to funding availability

2.1.5   Output - remedial works

Having sorted the road network deficiencies it is time to undertake the remedial works. Methods to "finally fixing the problem" include the following physical works:

Safety maintenance - scheduled

• Task maintenance contractor
• Undertake remedial works
• Verify completion

Safety maintenance - unscheduled

• Task maintenance contractor
• Undertake remedial works
• Verify completion

Route, area and special safety upgrading works

• Design
• Construction
• Verify completion within funding period

Safety improvement projects (Capital Works)

• Include in annual lan
• Investigations
• Design
• Construction
• Verify completion

Minor safety projects

• Design
• Construction
• Verify completion within funding year

2.1.6   Review and monitor effectiveness of actions

It is essential to review and monitor the safety effectiveness of remedial actions that have been completed and to ensure the methods used to address the safety deficiency was maximized the possible improvement within funding constraints. The following are suggested review and monitoring activities:

• Review crash records for say 5 years 
• CAS data
• Network area crash reports
• Subsequent crash reduction studies
• Subsequent safety audits
• Subsequent road safety inspections
• Register projects and track via Land Transport NZ Crash Reduction Monitoring System

2.1.7   How could the SMP be delivered and implemented

A safety management plan could be:

• Included in a RCAs safety management system (Marlborough Roads-1) or
• It could be a stand-alone document referenced by the safety management system (Taranaki Roads-1)
• It should ideally be part of a road network "Consultants Project Quality Plan", and
• Which ever form is chosen, to ensure complete implementation and following a period of "testing", the SMP could form the technical specification for road safety engineering management issues in "future" network management requests for tender / contract requirements
• Ideally the contract would require the Consultant to adopt the principals of the SMP and to personalise to suit their internal operational mode.

Process diagram for a safety management plan (PDF, 491 KB)

3.    Safety Intervention Plan

3.1   What is a Safety Intervention Plan?

A Safety Intervention Plan (SIP) is a document that details the "Contractors" day-to-day focus on maintaining and in some cases improving safety on the road network.

It could be a process/document that will improve the proactive identification of identified safety deficiencies on the RCAs road network, thus accelerating the development of the Contractor's road safety culture.

It generally includes an introduction and work activity sheets sorted by deficiency type.

3.1.1   Introduction

The introduction in a SIP defining:

• The purpose
• Ownership - Contractor for RCA
• Key stakeholders
• Operational Performance Measures (KPI's, OPM's etc)
• Document management and structure, and
• Opportunities for improvement

3.1.2   Work activity sheets

A separate Work Activity Sheet (WAS) is included for each safety deficiency and defines:

• Service provider
• Key safety issues related to the identified deficiency
• Proactive stance to managing safety maintenance
• Purpose and description
• Aim/operational performance measure for item
• Road classification
• Inspection/monitoring
• Response iimes
• Standard operating procedures with a safety focus
• Reporting requirements

3.1.3   Safety deficiencies included in a safety intervention plan

The following is a list of safety deficiencies items that are generally covered within the work activity sheets of a SIP:

• Sealed pavement carriageway maintenance, including:
  • Potholes
  • Surfacing/resurfacing
  • Cracking
  • Heaves and shoves
  • Edge break and edge rutting
  • Depressions and rutting
  • Low shoulders and high shoulders
  • Bleeding seal
  • Flushing seal
  • Scabbing and stripping
  • Loss of surface friction/skid resistance
  • Chip polishing
• Unsealed pavement maintenance, including:
  • Potholes
  • Heaves, shoves and corrugations
  • Depressions and rutting
  • Surface and shape restoration
  • Pavement repairs
  • Maintenance aggregate
  • Control of dust plume
• Detritus, litter and loose metal on a sealed surface, including:
  • Surface detritus, spills, ice and grit
  • Live and dead animals
  • Abandoned vehicles and unauthorised activities
  • Litter collection and rubbish bin maintenance
• Stormwater Structures, including:
  • Drainage - lined and unlined side drains
  • Sumps, manholes and catch pits
  • Culvert and culvert marker posts
  • Horizontal, subsoil drains including flumes
  • Fords and cattle stops
• Routine bridge and minor structure maintenance, including:
  • Cleaning and painting
  • Structural integrity
  • Drainage
  • Deck joints, bearings and linkage bolts
  • Side protection - guardrails etc
  • Waterways
• Signs maintenance, including:
  • Regulatory, warning, advisory speed and chevron markers
  • Directional, motorist, community and "other" signs
  • Seasonal signs
  • Unauthorised signs
• Vegetation control, including:
  • On sealed roads
  • On unsealed roads
  • Trees
  • Chemical spraying
  • Noxious weed control
• Crash and damage reporting, including:
  • Crash damage and asset damage
• Delineation, including:
  • EMP's delineators and hazard markers
  • Bridge end markers
  • RRPM's and non reflective pavement markers
  • Sight rails
• Incident response, including:
  • Emergency response
  • Special patrols
• Road marking, including:
  • All pavement markings
• Temporary traffic management, including:
  • Approval of TMP's - generic and specific
  • Audits of temporary traffic management and contractor safety
• Side protection barriers, including:
  • Safety barriers excluding bridges and bridge approaches
• Recurring hazards, including:
  • Management of known recurring hazards
  • Management of snow, ice and gritting
• Street and highway lighting, including:
  • All lighting including Belisha beacons
• Footways and cycleways, including:
  • Footpaths and access crossings
  • Cycleway maintenance
• Road safety deficiencies, including:
  • Management of "Contractor" identified road safety deficiencies
• Treatment selection, including:
  • Resurfacing - all roads
  • Major drainage - all roads
  • Area wide treatments - all roads
  • Smoothing treatments - all roads
• Information management, including:
  • Inventory updates (RAMM) and maintenance costs
  • Maintain and update signs inventory
  • Location referencing management system (LRMS)

Typical safety intervention plan - work activity sheet

3.1.4   How could the SIP be delivered and implemented?

A Safety Intervention Plan could be:

• Included in a RCAs safety management system (Marlborough Roads-1) or
• It could be a stand-alone document referenced by the safety management system (Central Otago DC - Fulton Hogan -1)
• It should ideally be part of a road network "Contractors" "Project Quality Plan", and
• Which ever form is chosen, to ensure complete implementation and following a period of "testing", the SIP could form the technical specification for road safety engineering management issues in "future" network maintenance requests for tender/contract requirements.

Ideally the contract would require the successful Contractor to adopt the principals of the SIP and to personalise to suit their internal operational mode.

4.    Conclusion

Over the last three years considerable progress has been made in delivering road safety through the development and implementation of Safety Management Systems by majority of NZ road controlling authorities.

Implementation of these safety management systems however has not always been easily achieved. Those road controlling authorities that have also operated a quality safety management plan and safety intervention plan have a system fully capable of delivering their road safety strategic outcomes.

The development and implementation of both safety management plans and safety intervention plans will ensure that the RCA's agents will:

• Become proactive with respect to road safety
• Provide addition Road Safety "eyes" on the road network, with a structured focus
• Provide the operational detail not shown in the RCAs safety management system
• Increase the road safety engineering expertise available to the RCA
• Develop, in time, an alliance and understanding of all of the partners road safety culture

5.    References

• (LTSA-1) Road Safety Package – first steps towards 2010 September 2002
• (Greenwood-1) Safety Management Systems Project Plan Report to LTSA, January 2003.
• (LTSA-2) Proceedings Safety management systems workshop Sudima Hotel Christchurch, 18th September 2003
• (LTSA-3) Proceedings Safety management systems workshop Brentwood Hotel Wellington, 15th July 2004
• (LTSA-3) Proceedings Safety management systems workshop Brentwood Hotel Wellington, 22nd June 2005
• (LTSA-5). Trial issue "Guidelines for implementing a Safety Management System for Road Controlling Authorities", May 2004
• (Land Transport NZ-1) Deficiency Database Prioritisation Project Report, July 2005
• (Marlborough Roads-1) Safety Management System Marlborough Roads, June 2005
• (Taranaki Roads-1) Taranaki Roads Safety Management System, July 2004
• (Fulton Hogan-1) Safety Intervention Strategy Central Otago District Council, February 2005

Keywords

Road Safety Management Intervention

Background

Bill Greenwood

Bill joined the Land Transport New Zealand as Manager of the Safety Management Systems Project in 2002. This follows 18 years with the Christchurch City Council. From 1998 Bill led the road safety engineering functions of the City as their Transportation Safety Engineer. In 2001 Bill received the 3M New Zealand Traffic Engineer of the Year Award for innovation in traffic engineering.

Jeff Kaye

Jeff joined Fulton Hogan Corporate as the Group Safety Advisor in March 2005. This followed 40 years with Opus International Consultants. From 1993, Jeff was the Regional Road Safety Engineering Manager and National Road Safety Engineering Advisor. During this time Jeff was involved in the development and operational implementation of Safety Management Strategies for Transit New Zealand's State Highway area networks. During 2003 and 2004 Jeff was the Opus Project Manager for the development of Safety Management Systems for various RCAs, this work being funded by Land Transport New Zealand.

Page created: 21 December 2005