Following an individual study on the infrastructure of national routes, covering 18 years (1995-2012), the General Audit Office (AGN, for its acronym in Spanish) concluded that despite the progress made on this subject, there is a "disarticulation" among the three entities linked to the problem of road safety.

The report analyzed the work of the Road Concession Watchdog (OCCOVI), the National Highway Administration (DNV), and the National Road Safety Agency (ANSV) and detected, for example, that some of these institutions may be "a little receptive "to recommendations coming from other areas. And that even the fact that the three agencies are "uncoordinated," can cause an office to survey routes and that their results "are not of interest" for the rest of the related spaces.

The Audit exemplified the lack of interplay between these entities from the break of the only agreement signed between the two.

In 2009 the agreement was signed by the National Road Safety Agency, which defined 11 actions, including the development of databases on the so-called "black spots" of the routes, and to report road traffic accidents. To that end, it also established the creation of a Coordination Unit, which was responsible for articulating the cooperation actions between the two institutions.

The issue is that "this agreement has no beginning of execution, was not created the Coordination Unit, and also (the agreement) expired in December 2011 and was not extended by the parties," says the AGN. It also added that due to the importance of the objectives proposed, the breach of the agreement "is serious," because they were fundamental actions in road safety that required "the joint action of both departments."

More Examples

Also on the interaction between these organisms, the AGN maintained "another example of incoordination." And it is that the Office "does not consider" some evaluations made by the National Road Safety Agency, such as the so-called Infrastructure Risk Assessment Report, which collected data on more than 50,000 kilometers of national routes only between 2010 and 2011.

In their research, the auditors tried an explanation: "The problem is that both agencies, although they have different missions, share the same scenario, the routes, and (possibly) to have concurrent functions, generate some conflict of interests or gray areas. It is probable, the technicians continue, that the DNV shows little permissive or receptive of recommendations emanated from this new entity (about the ANSV). Especially when it comes to doing works that modify their ways; roads that DNV has been designing and building for years, without considering the need to revise them or modify the old standards with which they are designed today. "

Given this scenario, the Audit says that the agencies "should coordinate actions because they have the same objective."

One by One

In the separate analysis of the entities in question, the AGN report even spoke of a "low institutional commitment" and even of a "negligent attitude" of the Road Concessions Control Body (OCCOVI).

The failure mentioned above of the OCCOVI is related to the fact that "it does not have a specific area for road safety," and that since the same body attribute "a large part of accidents to human failures caused by negligent behaviors of drivers." However, this position was considered by the auditors "a negligent official attitude (because) in many cases the driver's erroneous decisions forced by poor design or not perfect design" of the roads.

Likewise, the AGN detected that the Authority "does not have a database of accidents in the Concession Network," which is, precisely, its area of ​​action. The study reports that, at the request of the auditors, the OCCOVI sent "numerous files in Excel format, and reported that they are provided by the Concessionaires, not to mention procedures for verification or validation of the data provided."

Likewise, on the information provided by the firms, and related to claims recorded between April 2010 and June 2011, "failures have been detected, such as that it does not cover all periods and that the forms have different criteria and formats, making data processing difficult.”

"In short, the AGN does not have a complete system that concentrates accident data, limiting its action to collect, without further processing, the information provided by the concessionaires and without using validation procedures" of the figures expressed in those documents.

And, despite the limitations observed by the Audit, such as the fact that the OCCOVI "does not produce reports on the evolution of accidents in concessional corridors," the special study adds that the agency "does not maintain agreements on safety vial "with other areas.

Roads, from the Strategic Plan to the internal document

In its report, the Audit revealed that, although National Highway has a Road Safety Division, written information on the operation of that area could not be accessed. However, by subsequent procedures, it was detected that "its technical resources are limited," since it has only one specialized engineer in transit, who is also the Head of the division.

Given this situation, the research shows that "there is a lack of resources, considering the extension of the national road network, and the importance and growing demand generated by this issue."

However, the most remarkable finding of the auditors was the road that the Strategic Road Safety Plan formulated and approved in 2001. It consisted of a set of rules that aimed to guide the future action of the agency, and among others objectives, it hoped that the DNV would have an active presence and leadership in the matter. The AGN adds that to meet this goal, "negotiations for Technical Road Safety Assistance financed by the Inter-American Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) had even been promoted."

In finding out what happened to the Plan, the auditors noted that for the Road Safety Division "this is an internal document, never implemented and even its Plan of Analysis, outlined by five specific programs. Among which were the research of road accidents, operating audits, justification and evaluation of improvements, and quality control of the traffic accident information system, were nothing more than premises or statements to be taken into account when dealing with the resolution of some works".

Likewise, although "DNV does not follow the guidelines of its Strategic Plan in road safety," not everything was lost. The Plan is still in force and, regarding that, the AGN warns: "That 11 years have passed since its inception, it does not make it obsolete."

And, if old age is what we are talking about, the Audit explained that the rules in force to design roads are the "Standards of Geometric Design of Rural Roads" of National Roads, "approved in the year 1967".
 
With the idea of ​​refreshing this framework, an agreement signed in 2008 with the Mountain Path Engineering School (EICM), which was entrusted with the elaboration of new rules and, after 18 months, it resulted in a project called "Update of the Geometric Design Standards for Roads."

Of the process narrated resulted from an original normative body of four volumes that consist of 10 chapters and an atlas of planes. All the material received the approval of the Sub-Management of Studies and Road Projects, back in June 2010. And although the auditors themselves considered the work as "very complete, finished, without technical objections and immediate implementation, that would require no more than the resolution of the General Administrator to go into effect, "the concrete thing is that this could never be carried forward.

To complete the picture, the AGN says this situation is repeated with "other manuals," even made in-road, for example by the Road Safety Division, and even received funding from the World Bank, but were not approved.

Given the auditors' consultation, the report states that the agency "has not explained the reasons why this important work has not been put into effect, bearing in mind that the organization intended (precisely) new regulatory body of Road Safety."

The Agency and its "Ineffective Products"

The National Road Safety Agency (ANSV) was created in 2006, at the initiative of the President of the Nation, and was designed to carry out actions with a clear objective: to reduce road fatalities by 50% in five years.

In analyzing the role of the Agency, the auditors emphasize that "it has managed to position itself, in its short life, as the leading body in road safety having developed advances with different campaigns related mainly to the human factor and the vehicle factor."

However, they warn "certain actions proposed by the ANSV that have failed to be effective," says the report. It is that the area developed specific software of determination of road risk, destined to relieve 6,000 kilometers of roads per quarter, to obtain a global map of national routes and their associated risk.

"The next step would be to expect that the results of the surveys, with a diagnosis through, culminate in the design of the proposed works for the remediation of the areas of road risk, thus fulfilling the proposed action," notes the AGN. But, "because of the disarticulation between the Agency and Roads, the circuit will not be able to be completed, and in this way, the studies will remain mere surveys without further utility, (since) they are not material or inputs of interest of the DNV."

In short, the Audit says that the ANSV "is developing products that have hitherto been ineffective, as long as it has not been possible to establish their usefulness."

Unifying Criteria

The AGN report did not limit itself to highlighting negative aspects of the management of the areas in question. Also, he added some recommendations, such as the need to unify a database that "is managed by a single agency and follows international standards."

It is that, on the one hand, the National Road Safety Agency receives data on accidents that are sent by the provinces. And, in parallel, National Highway operates with another methodology, known as the Traffic Accident Information System (SIAT).

The issue is that the AGN maintains that this basis is "outdated by not reporting the accidents of the last five years, a period corresponding to a strong and sustained increase in traffic," in which, moreover, it is estimated that the car park experienced a rate of decrease of 7% per year. And, on the other hand, the OCCOVI does not use the SIAT because "it does not include any data of the accidents in the physical area of ​​the road corridors concessioner."

In this multiplicity of criteria, it is that the General Audit of the Nation maintains that it is necessary to create a single database, and completed that "a second step should aim at the homogenization of collectors and adhesion of all provinces to the same protocol of registration.”