Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society

Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society / 2015 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2015 |Article ID 357579 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/357579

Cuiping Zhang, Xuedong Yan, Meiwu An, Hui Zhao, "Spatial Influence Analysis of Traffic Safety in Diverging Areas between Freeway Segments and Off Ramps", Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, vol. 2015, Article ID 357579, 9 pages, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/357579

Spatial Influence Analysis of Traffic Safety in Diverging Areas between Freeway Segments and Off Ramps

Academic Editor: Francisco R. Villatoro
Received01 Aug 2015
Accepted23 Nov 2015
Published10 Dec 2015

Abstract

There tend to be more crashes occurring in freeway diverging segments due to increasing traffic conflicts between diverging vehicles and nondiverging vehicles. The diverging segments have a safety impact on the precedent basic segments and the following off ramps. It is always a challenge to accurately define the safety influential area of freeway diverging segments. In previous studies, fixed buffer in size is pregiven for crash frequency analysis in diverging segments, which lacks theoretical and practical support. In this study, the safety influential area was investigated from the statistical point of view. Data from a geocoded GIS crash database for Colorado Springs metropolitan area was used; the statistically significant factors associated with crash frequency were examined for the spatial influence of freeway diverging segments. Also, the generalized linear models with negative binomial link function were applied to predict the crash frequency for freeway diverging segments and off ramps based on the influential area. The results may give some insights into the causation of crashes on diverging segments and off-ramp intersections.

1. Introduction

Traffic crashes have caused substantial economic loss, injuries, and fatalities in our society. Traffic safety has become a serious concern among policymakers, engineers, and planners during transportation project planning and design. Many studies have been conducted to investigate contributing factors to the crashes and develop statistical models for prediction and analyses of traffic crashes. These studies have been performed at either an area level such as traffic analysis zones or a road level such as highway segments.

The area-level safety analyses are associated with traffic analysis zones (TAZs) which are typical units in transportation planning process. Since a TAZ is a geographic unit for inventorying socioeconomic data and estimating trip generation, the area-level crash analysis usually focuses on examining the relationship between crashes and both socioeconomic factors and network variables [1, 2]. The road-level safety analyses can be further categorized into segment level and intersection level. The segment-level safety analyses have concentrated on identifying the effects of traffic characteristics [3, 4], road design characteristics [5, 6], driver behavior [7], pavement conditions [8], and so forth, on crash frequency. For the intersection-level safety analyses, it is usually further classified into crash analysis of signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections. For the signalized intersections, a lot of researches have been conducted in the past decades which relate crashes with intersection geometry [9, 10], road environment [11], traffic-related variables [12], and so forth. What should be pointed out is that since the continuous increment of the unsignalized intersection crashes, more and more research attention has also been paid to this type of safety recently. For the unsignalized intersections related safety analysis, Haleem et al. [13] used a Bayesian reliability method to reduce level of uncertainty in predicting crashes at 3-leg and 4-leg unsignalized intersections. Several significant variables were identified, including traffic volume on major roads, existence of stop signs, number of right and/or left turn lanes, median type on major roads, and left/right shoulder widths. Abdel-Aty et al. [14] used multivariate adaptive regression spines (MARS) models to forecast angle crashes at unsignalized intersection. It was found that traffic volume on major roads, distance to the nearest signalized intersection upstream, distance between successive unsignalized intersections, median type on major roads, percentage of trucks on major roads, and size of intersection have important impacts on safety performance of unsignalized intersections.

The junction of a freeway diverging segment and an off ramp can be regarded as a special unsignalized intersection. A typical freeway diverging segment at an off ramp is illustrated in Figure 1. At the diverging area, a vehicle trying to leave freeway sometimes needs to make lane change to exit or even brake sharply to avoid missing exit if it is in the inside lane. Diverging areas are exposed to a relatively higher risk of crash compared to basic freeway segments. Several studies are conducted to investigate contributing factors for crashes at diverging areas [1519]. It was found that weather condition, alcohol involvement, ramp ADT, ramp lengths, and speed-change lanes were strongly related to crash occurrence at diverging areas.

To make freeway diverging segments and off ramps safer, identifying contributing factors and implementing engineering countermeasures are critical. Accurately distinguishing the accidents on freeway diverging segments from off ramps is a vital precursor of safety related applications such as accident risk modeling, risk mapping, and accident hotspot identification [20]. In previous studies, intersection safety researches generally suggested that crashes associated with an intersection include all the crashes that occurred within a 250-foot length of two intersecting roads upstream and downstream from the intersection [21]. It was regarded as the safety influence area of an intersection. This practice is adopted in many state DOTs (Departments of Transportation) in the US since it is consistent with intersection functional area. Drivers start to perceive the intersection and begin maneuvers from a distance upstream. The process of maneuvers and deceleration might cause conflict and potential for crashes. Similarly, crashes that happened in freeway diverging areas might be relevant to driving maneuvers from a distance of freeway segments upstream or off ramp downstream. However, the 250-foot radii used for a typical intersection safety influence area will not apply on the junction of diverging segments and off ramps since traffic characteristics and driving behaviors on freeways are distinct from urban streets. Therefore, this paper aims to study safety influence area for the junction of freeway diverging segments and off ramps and examine statistically significant factors for crash frequency using the crash database provided by the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (PPACG). It is discussed that the predetermined influence area may not be suitable. The influence area should be investigated in a more comprehensive way and be determined specifically for the area studied.

The rest of the paper is organized into 4 sections. In the next section, methodology used in this paper, including buffer technique of GIS and negative binomial (NB) regression model, is briefly reviewed; in Section 3, regression results are presented and discussed in detail. Conclusions and extensions are included in Section 4.

2. Methodology

2.1. Data Preparation

Two freeways across the Pikes Peak metropolitan area in Colorado state of the United States are selected for this study. Geocoded crash data for the metropolitan planning region is provided by PPACG, together with traffic data and the road network data. All the three sets of data are prepared in GIS format. From the road network data, 72 freeway diverging segments at off ramps were identified in the area. Figure 2 illustrates a typical freeway diverging area at off ramp which is located on highway I-25 in the area.

All accident records in the crash dataset are categorized by types of accident: fatal, injury, and Property Damage Only (PDO). And each accident record involves at least one vehicle. Total accidents were counted from July 2006 to December 2010.

The crash frequency was set to be dependent variable. For the independent variables, they are identified from highway geometric design, traffic control and operation, traffic volume, and pavement condition data based on literature reviews and engineering judgments. The selection of independent variables in this study follows three rules listed below:(1)Variables have a meaningful interpretation from the engineering perspective.(2)Variables can be associated with an off ramp.(3)There is a weak correlation among the selected variables.

It is worth noting that colinearity may exist among the independent variables. As is well known, the colinearity could lead to serious confounding problems and inflate variance in estimation. The misleading results could make it difficult to explain the relationships between crash frequency and the independent variables intuitively. After conducting colinearity analysis, 9 continuous variables and 6 nominal variables were finally selected. All the 15 variables represent unique aspects of the diverging area’s characteristics and are listed in Tables 1 and 2.


VariablesDescriptionSumMeanStd. deviationMaximumMinimum

Ramp.LengthThe length of a ramp in mile11.670.160.100.540.03
Ramp_ADTAverage daily traffic of a ramp361.825.034.1814.730.02
Up_Interstate.LengthThe length of up interstate in mile33.100.460.542.780.01
Up_Interstate_ADTAverage daily traffic of up interstate2689.5337.3514.9264.0811.78
Down_Interstate.LengthThe length of down interstate in mile19.730.270.170.790.03
Down_ADTAverage daily traffic of down interstate2327.7632.3313.2458.4810.66
IRIPavement roughness in inches per mile101.291.410.402.430.00
Median_WidthMedian width in feet524.307.287.1518.300.00
Speed_LimitSpeed limit4327.8560.1112.4274.5631.07

Notes: the number representing average daily traffic (ADT) is in thousand.

VariablesDescriptionsValues and meaningsFrequency
01

Ramp.LanesNumber of lanes of a ramp0, 1; 0 denotes 1 lane; 1 denotes 2 lanes5715

Up_Interstate.LanesNumber of lanes of up interstate0, 1; 0 denotes 1 and 2 lanes; 1 denotes 3 and 4 lanes4032

Down_Interstate.LanesNumber of lanes of down interstate0, 1; 0 denotes 1 and 2 lanes; 1 denotes 3 and 4 lanes4527

Median_TypeMedian type (1 to 4 scale): 1 = curbed;
2 = positive barrier; 3 = unprotected; and 4 = none
0, 1; 0 refers to scale 1, scale 2, and scale 3; 1 refers to scale 44329

PSRPresent serviceability rating (0 to 5 scale):
0 = extremely deteriorated pavement;
5 = pavement in excellent condition
0, 1; 0 denotes rating 3.5; 1 denotes rating 2.5, rating 3, rating 3.9, and rating 4.16012

Truck_PercentPercent truck related0, 1; 0 denotes 4, 6, 7, and 9 percent; 1 denotes 11 percent2745

2.2. Data Processing Using Buffer Technique of GIS

To estimate the proper size of safety influential area of freeway diverging segments at off ramps, buffers with gradually increasing size are utilized for the purpose of analysis. For a GIS-based traffic safety analysis, a buffer is useful for proximity identification of highway facilities. The buffer technique in GIS can be applied to accurately measure the target objects in units of distance. It can be seen that the bigger buffer size will lead to more crashes in the diverging area. However, much bigger buffer size might contain some crashes irrelevant to this diverging area. And smaller buffer size may not include all the crashes which are related to the diverging area. Therefore, a desirable buffer size is worth being investigated in order to better represent the related accidents. And gradually increasing buffer size in a certain distance unit can be used to explore the optimal safety influence area of the diverging area. Creating buffers at an interval of 50-foot increments may not result in a reasonable analysis by overrepresenting crashes while creating buffers at an interval of 1 foot may bring about overwhelming data processing and analysis. In this study, a series of buffers from 30-foot radius to 300-foot radius with an interval of 30-foot increments were created using ArcGIS 10 software.

To have deeper insights into the selected factors, for each buffer size, the influential factors were analyzed using NB regression model.

2.3. Negative Binomial Regression Model

In this study, the NB regression model was developed to identify the significant contributing factors to crash frequency and estimate the influential area of freeway diverging area [22, 23]. The basic formulation of Poisson regression is as follows:where is the probability of accidents occurring at a diverging area per year. In this model, is both the mean and variance parameters of . Therefore, is equal to the expected accident frequency for diverging area . Parameter is estimated by the following equation:where is the independent variable and is the coefficient of independent variable.

The structure of Poisson regression model iswhere is the estimated variance of the accident frequency and is the estimated mean of the accident frequency.

It is noted that accident frequency often demonstrates overdispersion pattern, which may violate the assumption of Poisson regression model. Overdispersion may cause standard errors of the estimates to be underestimated (i.e., a variable may appear to be a significant predictor when it is in fact not significant). To confirm the pattern, basic statistical analysis is conducted and the results are shown in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the variances of accident frequencies are greater than the means, which indicates that the crash frequency data are overdispersed. As Poisson regression is applicable under the assumption of equidispersion, that is, the mean is equal to the variance of the dependent variable, the Poisson model is no longer proper for analyzing the accident frequencies in this study. However, as an extension of Poisson regression, NB regression can be well used under the condition of overdispersion.


VariableMeanStd. deviationVarianceMinimumMaximum

Crash_30feet0.612.174.69015
Crash_60feet2.697.5456.78061
Crash_90feet4.3810.19103.79070
Crash_120feet5.7513.02169.57096
Crash_150feet7.9617.77315.790134
Crash_180feet10.0423.98574.940190
Crash_210feet13.1327.08733.290199
Crash_240feet14.7827.91778.880208
Crash_270feet16.6929.23854.550218
Crash_300feet18.9929.96897.390221
Average9.5018.11328.100140

In the NB regression model, an error term is introduced to account for the bias caused by the overdispersion as shown in where is a gamma distribution error with mean 1.0 and variance . The resulting NB distribution equation is

Separating out of this expression produces the unconditional distribution of . The equation can be written as where and .

Since there is an additional parameter in NB regression model, the model structure becomesParameter relates the mean of the variance which is estimated using maximum likelihood estimation.

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Regression Results

The NB model statistics analysis was conducted using the SPSS software package (Version 19.0). A stepwise method was applied for identifying the significant explanatory variables. The chi-square statistic () was also used for understanding the statistical differences for the variables due to the relatively small sample size of this study.

Table 4 summarizes the estimation results of the NB regression model with all the 15 variables for each buffer size. It is noteworthy that the dispersion parameter is significantly different from zero. This confirms the appropriateness of the NB model rather than the Poisson model. The coefficients of dependent variables interpret the degree to which the explanatory variables contribute to the crashes. Taking 30-foot buffer as an example, the positive coefficient of variable Up_Interstate_ADT implies that the frequency of crashes in the diverging area increases as the traffic amount increases. Other variables with a positive coefficient include Ramp.Lanes, PSR, Up_Interstate.Length, IRI, Median_Width, and Speed_Limit. In contrast, the variables with a negative sign imply that the increasing values of these variables can reduce the crash frequency. These variables include Median_Type, Ramp_ADT, Up_Interstate.Lanes, Down_Interstate.Lanes, Truck_Percent, Down_Interstate_ADT, Ramp.Length, and Down_Interstate.Length.


Variables30 feet60 feet90 feet120 feet150 feet180 feet210 feet240 feet270 feet300 feet
Coef.-VCoef.-VCoef.-VCoef.-VCoef.-VCoef.-VCoef.-VCoef.-VCoef.-VCoef.-V

(Intercept)−3.887 0.486−1.7110.493−4.7940.044−3.2100.134−4.1570.024−5.1740.003−3.1030.077−2.4880.102−1.8370.221−.8170.583
Ramp.Lanes = 01.7420.068.3960.517.7000.257.7330.189.8430.067.9810.025.8350.043.8930.016.8550.021.4190.251
Up_Interstate.Lanes = 0−.6430.512−1.5250.008−.8810.134−.6900.176−.4840.270−.5380.211−.3120.459−.2790.471−.4060.302−.6260.107
Down_Interstate.Lanes = 0−.1680.876.7130.309.8810.210.9950.1061.3630.0121.6460.001.9550.055.8870.051.8970.0511.0890.020
PSR = 01.4350.196.6310.286.5420.408.1100.845.2450.595.2020.643−.2000.669−.2260.564−.2600.502−.3720.333
Median_Type = 0−.6990.618−.6050.428−.5970.411−.5290.419−.8940.112−.5620.304.4670.371.3200.502.4940.319.6130.203
Truck_Percent = 0−1.6020.365−.3550.6991.3930.0931.3360.0761.3770.0431.5580.0191.0840.1011.2080.0451.3520.0261.1340.064
Ramp.Length−5.5080.315−5.0800.086−4.3750.154−3.3810.188−2.2600.294.1600.932.2490.894−.2510.880−.1420.932−.4990.751
Ramp_ADT−.0190.860−.1370.207−.0680.325−.0400.471.0080.843.0170.677−.0090.828.0020.951−.0190.588−.0360.306
Up_Interstate.Length.8830.062.7980.060.4060.358.3970.306.1300.671.1850.544.2000.537.2040.475.2950.307.0430.871
Up_Interstate_ADT.0190.858.1370.206.0680.324.0400.469−.0080.846−.0170.680.0090.824−.0020.956.0200.584.0360.304
Down_Interstate.Length−4.2150.225−.2830.897−.1530.945−.4050.824−.1760.909−.6870.639−1.3280.372−1.5390.249−1.7280.202−1.0670.398
Down_Interstate_ADT−.0190.857−.1370.206−.0680.324−.0400.470.0080.845.0170.679−.0090.825.0020.954−.0190.585−.0360.305
IRI.1780.861.3240.588.2700.709.0150.982.1400.792.3730.455−.1450.793−.2800.522−.3470.420−.5280.226
Median_Width.1520.169.0010.983.0340.515.0240.625.0370.401.0200.646−.0580.165−.0370.334−.0410.305−.0660.085
SPEED_LIMI.0090.784.0100.510.0210.090.0120.245.0130.188.0130.139.0170.046.0130.078.0100.191.0130.094
.6171.1101.3631.112.830.783.766.625.659.649

Using the stepwise regression approach, it is found that, among the 15 independent variables, Ramp.Lanes, Ramp.Length, Ramp_ADT, and Speed_Limit are the most statistically significant variables in determining accident likelihood from 30-foot buffer to 300-foot buffer. The values of the significant independent variables are shown in Table 5. From the table, it can be seen that 90-foot buffer has the lowest value on average in estimating the crash frequency.


Variablesp value
30 feet60 feet90 feet120 feet150 feet180 feet210 feet240 feet270 feet300 feet

Ramp.Lanes0.3820.1250.0560.0390.0120.0020.0120.0190.0220.134
Ramp.Length0.2250.0220.0060.0070.0230.1440.0600.0150.0160.019
Ramp_ADT<0.001<0.001 <0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001<0.001
Speed_Limit0.0040.0620.0300.1020.0740.0910.1140.2560.6410.358
Average0.1530.0520.0230.0370.0270.0590.0470.0730.1700.128

To have an intuitive understanding of the relationship between crash frequency and the independent variables, a plot of value distribution of independent variables for different buffer sizes is presented in Figures 3(a)3(c). The value of Ramp_ADT is rather small for all buffer sizes, which means the traffic amount has a strong influence on the crash frequency, no matter what size of the buffer we take. Besides, it can also be observed that value distribution of the three variables, Ramp.Lanes, Ramp.Length, and Speed_Limit, varies monotonically with the buffer size. And all of the 4 different independent variables, Ramp.Lanes, Ramp.Length, Ramp_ADT, and Speed_Limit, have relatively low values at the 90-foot buffer. Figure 3(d) also gives the average value distribution of the 4 independent variables listed above for different buffers with a radius from 30 feet to 300 feet. It can be observed that the average value of Ramp.Lanes, Ramp.Length, Ramp_ADT, and Speed_Limit decreases rapidly at first and reaches the lowest value at the 90-foot buffer; then it starts a rising trend and gets to the second lowest value at the 150-foot buffer. The average value increases sharply from 180-foot buffer to 300-foot buffer and the possible reason may be that this area is highly influenced by interstate segment. Highlighted by the red circle, the lower value indicates that the areas from 90 feet to 150 feet around the off-ramp intersections are dominant in terms of traffic safety.

3.2. The Result Analysis

Table 6 gives the parameter estimates for the significant variables from 30-foot buffer to 300-foot buffer. For example, the crash frequency at 90-foot buffer size can be predicted by where denotes predicted crash frequency.


Parameter(Intercept)Ramp.Lanes = 0Ramp.Lanes = 1Ramp.LengthRamp_ADTSpeed_Limit

Crash_30feet.57540.313.049
Crash_60feet.6920.251.016
Crash_90feet.8190.195.016
Crash_120feet.8690.175.012
Crash_150feet1.0150.199.012
Crash_180feet1.2080.214.012
Crash_210feet.9360.214.011
Crash_240feet.457.8570.191.008
Crash_270feet1.201.8190.169.003
Crash_300feet1.469.5200.143.006

Dependent variables: Crash_30feet, Crash_60feet, Crash_90feet, Crash_120feet, Crash_150feet, Crash_180feet, Crash_210feet, Crash_240feet, Crash_270feet, and Crash_300feet.
Model: (Intercept), Ramp.Lanes, Ramp.Length, Ramp_ADT, Speed_Limit.
Set to zero because this parameter is redundant.

For clarity, the estimated parameters are plotted in Figure 4 for all buffer sizes from 30 feet to 300 feet. From the figure, the positive sign of Ramp.Lanes’ coefficient indicates that an increase in the number of lanes contributes to a higher crash frequency, presumably because a multilanes exit is more complicated than a one-lane exit. There are usually more lane-changing maneuvers at the multilanes exit, which could increase sideswipe accidents. The coefficient for the variable of Ramp_ADT is also positive, indicating that the number of crashes increases with the increase of traffic volume diverging into ramp. Moreover, the coefficient of speed limit shows that, as the speed limit increases, the risk of accidents increases. A previous study reported that, controlling the other factors, purely increasing operation speed in road segments by 1% would approximately result in 2% increment in injury crash rate and 4% increment in fatal crash rate [24]. The only negative sign in the regression equation is for the variable of ramp length. It indicates that fewer crashes would occur at longer ramp while controlling the other variables. The reduced accident likelihood for a longer ramp is consistent with previous findings [2527]. The driving tasks of diverging from freeway segments into ramps require negotiating with other vehicles to change lanes, decelerating to exit from the main line, and accommodating the exiting traffic. A sudden change in speed and direction due to insufficient deceleration distance in a shorter ramp can raise the risks of both rear-end and sideswipe crashes.

As modeled in (8), when the ramp length was increased by 1 mile, the crash frequency would decrease by times. To have a more intuitive illustration of the relationship, Figure 5 presents the accident frequencies under different ramp length conditions. The numbers of ramp lanes are set as 1 and 2. Since Colorado has one of the highest speed limits in the United States, which are 75 mph for rural freeways, 65 mph for urban freeways, and 35 mph for off ramps, here we set the value of the variable “Speed_Limit” as 65 and 75 and the mean as 60.11. As is reported, shorter ramps yield higher crash risk for accident prediction. Furthermore, greater impact on the crash frequency could also be expected for the number of ramp lanes.

For predicting the accident frequency, the relationship between ramp ADT and crash frequency could be illustrated in Figure 6. As shown in the figure, when the ramp ADT was increased by 1 unit, the crash frequency would increase by times. Greater impacts of the number of ramp lanes on crash frequency could also be observed.

4. Conclusions and Extensions

The primary objective of this study was to explore the safety influence area of diverging areas between freeway segments and off ramps and the contributing factors of traffic crash frequencies in the areas. The data were collected at 72 diverging areas from the two freeways across the Pikes Peak region, Colorado, US. The NB models were developed to identify the relationships between crashes and explanatory variables. The analysis yielded some interesting results on the relationship between crash frequency and ramp-related variables at different buffer sizes ranging from 30 feet to 300 feet with a 30-foot increment.

The main results could be listed as follows:(1)Different from many previous studies, the generally increasing buffer sizes of the diverging area are adopted. The 4 statistically significant factors including Ramp.Lanes, Ramp.Length, Ramp_ADT, and Speed_Limit according to the deferent buffer sizes are reported.(2)Based on different size of influential area, the relationship between the number of ramp lanes, length of the ramp, ramp ADT, and the speed limit and the crash frequency is reported in Table 6. Specifically, the number of ramp lanes, ramp ADT, and the speed limit are positively correlated to the crash frequency, while the length of the ramp is negatively correlated to the crash frequency.

The findings of this study are expected to be beneficial to transportation engineers in addressing safety concerns and improving safety performances at off-ramp areas on freeways. From the results of the study, it can be found that key factors have different influence on crashes with buffer sizes changing. That is to say, the safety influence area of the diverging areas should be considered comprehensively. And the size of the influence area should be determined according to the area studied, rather than a fixed value. It is recommended that similar methodology of changing buffer size would be applied in identifying the traffic safety influence areas for freeway diverging areas and other types of intersections in road networks.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation (Grant no. 71210001) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2014YJS084).

References

  1. R. B. Noland and L. Oh, “The effect of infrastructure and demographic change on traffic-related fatalities and crashes: a case study of Illinois county-level data,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 525–532, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. C. Siddiqui, M. Abdel-Aty, and H. Huang, “Aggregate nonparametric safety analysis of traffic zones,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 317–325, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. H. Renski, A. J. Khattak, and F. M. Council, “Effect of speed limit increases on crash injury severity: analysis of single-vehicle crashes on North Carolina Interstate highways,” Transportation Research Record, vol. 1665, pp. 100–108, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  4. T. F. Golob and W. W. Recker, “Relationships among urban freeway accidents, traffic flow, weather, and lighting conditions,” Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 129, no. 4, pp. 342–353, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. J. Milton and F. Mannering, “The relationship among highway geometrics, traffic-related elements and motor-vehicle accident frequencies,” Transportation, vol. 25, no. 2–4, pp. 395–413, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. V. Shankar, F. Mannering, and W. Barfield, “Effect of roadway geometrics and environmental factors on rural freeway accident frequencies,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 371–389, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. M. A. Abdel-Aty and H. T. Abdelwahab, “Exploring the relationship between alcohol and the driver characteristics in motor vehicle accidents,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 473–482, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. C. Y. Chan, B. Huang, X. Yan, and S. Richards, “Investigating effects of asphalt pavement conditions on traffic accidents in Tennessee based on the pavement management system (PMS),” Journal of Advanced Transportation, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 150–161, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. S. Mitra, H. C. Chin, and M. A. Quddus, “Study of intersection accidents by maneuver type,” Transportation Research Record, vol. 1784, pp. 43–50, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  10. H. Huang, H. C. Chin, and M. M. Haque, “Severity of driver injury and vehicle damage in traffic crashes at intersections: a Bayesian hierarchical analysis,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 45–54, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. X. Yan, E. Radwan, and M. Abdel-Aty, “Characteristics of rear-end accidents at signalized intersections using multiple logistic regression model,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 983–995, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. M. Poch and F. Mannering, “Negative binomial analysis of intersection-accident frequencies,” Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 122, no. 2, pp. 105–113, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. K. Haleem, M. Abdel-Aty, and K. Mackie, “Using a reliability process to reduce uncertainty in predicting crashes at unsignalized intersections,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 654–666, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. M. Abdel-Aty and K. Haleem, “Analyzing angle crashes at unsignalized intersections using machine learning techniques,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 461–470, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. A. T. McCartt, V. S. Northrup, and R. A. Retting, “Types and characteristics of ramp-related motor vehicle crashes on urban interstate roadways in Northern Virginia,” Journal of Safety Research, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 107–114, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. T. F. Golob, W. W. Recker, and V. M. Alvarez, “Safety aspects of freeway weaving sections,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 35–51, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. J. P. Moon and J. E. Hummer, “Development of safety prediction models for influence areas of ramps in freeways,” Journal of Transportation Safety Security, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. S. S. Pulugurtha and J. Bhatt, “Evaluating the role of weaving section characteristics and traffic on crashes in weaving areas,” Traffic Injury Prevention, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 104–113, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. H. Chen, H. Zhou, J. Zhao, and P. Hsu, “Safety performance evaluation of left-side off-ramps at freeway diverge areas,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 605–612, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. L. Deka and M. Quddus, “Network-level accident-mapping: distance based pattern matching using artificial neural network,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 65, pp. 105–113, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. X. Wang, M. Abdel-Aty, A. Nevarez, and J. B. Santos, “Investigation of safety influence area for four-legged signalized intersections nationwide survey and empirical inquiry,” Transportation Research Record, vol. 2083, pp. 86–95, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. M. A. Abdel-Aty and A. E. Radwan, “Modeling traffic accident occurrence and involvement,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 633–642, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. D. Lord and F. Mannering, “The statistical analysis of crash-frequency data: a review and assessment of methodological alternatives,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 291–305, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. G. Nilsson, Traffic Safety Dimensions and the Power Model to Describe the Effect of Speed on Safety, Bulletin 221, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden, 2010.
  25. J. Bared, G. L. Giering, and D. L. Warren, “Safety evaluation of acceleration and deceleration lane lengths,” ITE Journal, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 50–54, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  26. H. Chen, P. Liu, J. J. Lu, and B. Behzadi, “Evaluating the safety impacts of the number and arrangement of lanes on freeway exit ramps,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 543–551, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. Z. Wang, H. Chen, and J. J. Lu, “Exploring impacts of factors contributing to injury severity at freeway diverge areas,” Transportation Research Record, no. 2102, pp. 43–52, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2015 Cuiping Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views1380
Downloads987
Citations

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.