This paper presents a procedure for ranking rural unsignalized intersections that uses quantitative safety evaluations performed as part of the safety inspection process. The procedure might be effective for the selection of cost-effective treatments at intersections and might be quite helpful for administrations that do not have high-quality crash data and for those that manage low-volume roads for which crash data cannot give enough information to help prevent future crashes. The procedure evaluates a safety index (SI) that can be used to rank intersections for further investigation. The SI can be assessed whether crash data are available or not. If crash data are available and their quality is good, the SI can be effectively used in conjunction with the empirical Bayes (EB) estimate of frequency as ranking criteria. If crash data are not available or poor, the SI can be used as a proxy for crash data and becomes the only ranking criterion. Validation of the SI procedure was performed by comparing the results with EB safety estimates. The SI was assessed in 22 three-leg intersections in Italy. In the same intersections, a safety performance function was calibrated and the EB refinement technique was used to obtain a better estimate of existing safety performance. Correlation between SI values and EB safety estimates was highly significant, with 84% of the variation in the estimated number of crashes explained by the SI value. The results from a Spearman's rank correlation show that rankings from the SI and the EB estimate agree at the 99.9% significance level.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
NeumanT.R., PfererR., SlackK. L., HardyK.K., HarwoodD.W., PottsI.B., TorbicD. J., and Kohlman RabbaniE. R.. NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Volume 5: A Guide for Addressing Unsignalized Intersection Collisions. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003.
2.
Committee for Guidance on Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits. Special Report 254: Managing Speed, Review of Current Practice for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998.
3.
Police Enforcement Strategies to Reduce Traffic Casualties in Europe. European Transport Safety Council, Brussels, Belgium, 1999.
4.
CauzardJ. P.European Drivers and Road Risk. Project on Social Attitudes to Road Traffic Risk in Europe. SARTRE 3, Part 1, Report on Principal Results. Paris, 2004.
5.
MontellaA., PunzoV., and MontaninoM.Design and Evaluation of Speed Limits for an Automated Section Speed Control System. Presented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011.
6.
PsarianosB., PalaskasS., and StamatiadisN.Greek Guidelines for Setting Speed Limits. Presented at International Conference on Road Safety and Simulation, Rome, 2007.
7.
MontellaA., AriaM., D'AmbrosioA., GalanteF., MaurielloF., and PernettiM.. Simulator Evaluation of Drivers’ Speed, Deceleration and Lateral Position at Rural Intersections in Relation to Different Perceptual Cues. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 43, 2011, pp. 2072–2084.
8.
CharltonS. G.Perceptual and Attentional Effects on Drivers’ Speed Selection at Curves. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 36, 2004, pp. 877–884.
9.
CharltonS. G.The Role of Attention in Horizontal Curves: A Comparison of Advance Warning, Delineation, and Road Marking Treatments. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 39, 2007, pp. 873–885.
10.
RayB., KittelsonW., KnudsenJ., NeversB., RyusP., SylvesterK., PottsI., HarwoodD., GilmoreD., TorbicD., HanscomF., McGillJ., and StewartD.NCHRP Report 613: Guidelines for Selection of Speed Reduction Treatments at High-Speed Intersections. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008.
11.
MacaulayJ., GunatillakeT., TziotisM., FildesB., CorbenB., and NewsteadS.. On-Road Trial of Perceptual Countermeasures. CR 219. Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 2004.
12.
MontellaA., AriaM., D'AmbrosioA., GalanteF., MaurielloF., and PernettiM.. Perceptual Measures to Influence Operating Speeds and Reduce Crashes at Rural Intersections: Driving Simulator Experiment. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2149, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 11–20.
13.
HauerE., AlleryB. K., KononovJ., and GriffithM.S.How Best to Rank Sites with Promise. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1897, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 48–54.
14.
MontellaA.A Comparative Analysis of Hotspot Identification Methods. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 42, 2010, pp. 571–581.
Directive 2008/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Road Infrastructure Safety Management. Official Journal of the European Union. L 319/59. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Brussels, Belgium, 2008.
17.
Legislative Decree No. 35, 15/03/2011: Implementation of the Directive 2008/96/EC on Road Infrastructure Safety Management. Official Journal No. 81. President of Italian Republic, Rome, August 4, 2011.
18.
MadanuS., LiZ., and AbbasM.Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Highway Intersection Safety Hardware Improvements. ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 136, 2010, pp. 129–140.
19.
LiZ., LabiS., KarlaftisM., KepaptsoglouK., AbbasM., ZhouB., and MadanuS.Project-Level Life-Cycle Benefit–Cost Analysis Approach for Evaluating Highway Segment Safety Hardware Improvements. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2160, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 1–11.
20.
HarwoodD.W., BauerK. M., GilmoreD.K., SouleyretteR., and HansZ.N.Validation of U.S. Road Assessment Program Star Rating Protocol: Application to Safety Management of U.S. Roads. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2147, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 33–41.
21.
De LeurP., and SayedT.. Development of a Road Safety Risk Index. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1784, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 33–42.
22.
Road Infrastructure Safety Protection—Core Research and Development for Road Safety in Europe. Federal Highway Research Institute. http://ripcord.bast.de/. Accessed March 31, 2010.
23.
Directive 2008/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Road Infrastructure Safety Management. L 319/59 2008. European Parliament and Council of the European Union, Publications Office, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Nov. 19, 2008.
24.
MontellaA.Safety Reviews of Existing Roads: Quantitative Safety Assessment Methodology. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1922, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 62–72.
25.
MontellaA.Roundabout In-Service Safety Reviews: Safety Assessment Procedure. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2019, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 40–50.
26.
CafisoS., La CavaG., and MontellaA.. Safety Index for Evaluation of Two-Lane Rural Highways. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2019, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 136–145.
27.
CafisoS., La CavaG., and MontellaA.. Safety Inspections as Supporting Tool for Safety Management of Low-Volume Roads. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2203, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 116–125.
28.
CafisoS., La CavaG., MontellaA., and PappalardoG.A Procedure to Improve Safety Inspections Effectiveness and Reliability on Rural Two-Lane Highways. The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering, Vol. 1, 2006, pp. 143–150.
29.
KindlerE.E., AntonucciN. D., PottsI.B., NeumanT.R., and WoodsR.M.. IHSDM Intersection Diagnostic Review Model. FHWA-RD-02-045. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2003.
30.
AgentK.R., O'ConnellL., GreenE. R., KreisD., PigmanJ. G., TollnerN., and ThompsonE.Development of Procedures for Identifying High-Crash Locations and Prioritizing Safety Improvements. KTC-03-15/SPR250-02-1F. Kentucky Transportation Center, Lexington, 2003.
31.
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Transportation Association of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 1999.
32.
Design Manual of Roads and Bridges: Volume 6, Section 2, Part 6, TD 42/95. Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions. U.K. Highways Agency, London, 1995.
33.
The Canadian Guide to In-Service Road Safety Reviews. Transportation Association of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 2004.
34.
OdgenK.Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. Avebury Technical, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1996.
35.
ElvikR., and VaaT.The Handbook of Road Safety Measures. Elsevier Science, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2004.
36.
CafisoS., and Di GrazianoA.. Surrogate Safety Measures for Optimizing Investments in Local Rural Road Networks. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2237, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 20–30.
