Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online January 1, 2017

Alternative Approach for Combining Multiple Crash Modification Factors Using Adjustment Function and Analytic Hierarchy Process

Abstract

The safety effects of multiple treatments have recently emerged as an important issue of validation for the Highway Safety Manual procedures to improve performance of the predictive process. To estimate the combined safety effects of multiple crash modification factors (CMFs) more reliably, several combining approaches have been suggested. However, several critical issues still exist for the combining methods, such as overestimation, region-specific method, and a nonscientific approach. Therefore, this study suggests a novel adjustment method to combine multiple CMFs and to enhance the reliability of combining the safety effects of multiple treatments. Various combinations of CMFs for single and multiple treatments were estimated or obtained from previous studies and used for an exploratory analysis. Moreover, an alternative combining approach with the development of an adjustment function was suggested through comparison with the existing combining methods by using a multicriterion decision-making process. The results show that the proposed alternative combining method provides better estimates than the existing methods and can account for different roadway types and severity levels. Thus, it can be recommended that the safety effects of multiple treatments be estimated with the proposed new combining approach to overcome the overestimation issue and produce results that are more reliable.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Highway Safety Manual, 1st ed. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2010.
2. Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center and FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2014. http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org.
3. Park J., and Abdel-Aty M. Development of Adjustment Functions to Assess Combined Safety Effects of Multiple Treatments on Rural Two-Lane Roadways. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 75, 2015, pp. 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.12.012.
4. Gross F., and Hamidi A. Investigation of Existing and Alternative Methods for Combining Multiple CMFs. Highway Safety Improvement Program Technical Support, T-06-013. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2011.
5. NCHRP Research Results Digest 299: Crash Reduction Factors for Traffic Engineering and ITS Improvements. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005.
6. Park J., Abdel-Aty M., and Lee C. Exploration and Comparison of Crash Modification Factors for Multiple Treatments on Rural Multilane Roadways. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 70, 2014, pp. 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.03.016.
7. Elvik R. An Exploratory Analysis of Models for Estimating the Combined Effects of Road Safety Measures. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2009, pp. 876–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.05.003.
8. Turner B. Estimating the Safety Benefits When Using Multiple Road Engineering Treatments. Road Safety Risk Reporter 11, June 2011.
9. Garber N. J., and Hoel L. A. Traffic and Highway Engineering, 3rd ed. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, Calif., 2002.
10. Bahar G. Transportation Research Circular E-C142: Methodology for the Development and Inclusion of Crash Modification Factors in the First Edition of the Highway Safety Manual. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010.
11. Park J., and Abdel-Aty M. Assessing the Safety Effects of Multiple Roadside Treatments Using Parametric and Nonparametric Approaches. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 83, 2015, pp. 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.07.008.
12. Park J., Abdel-Aty M., Wang J., and Lee C. Assessment of Safety Effects for Widening Urban Roadways in Developing Crash Modification Functions Using Nonlinearizing Link Functions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 79, 2015, pp. 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.03.025.
13. Park J., and Abdel-Aty M. Evaluation of Safety Effectiveness of Multiple Cross Sectional Features on Urban Arterials. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 92, 2016, pp. 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.04.017.
14. Park J., Abdel-Aty M., Lee J., and Lee C. Developing Crash Modification Functions to Assess Safety Effects of Adding Bike Lanes for Urban Arterials with Different Roadway and Socio-economic Characteristics. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 74, 2015, pp. 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.10.024.
15. Park J. Exploration and Development of Crash Modification Factors and Functions for Single and Multiple Treatments. University of Central Florida, Orlando, 2015.
16. Abdel-Aty M., Park J., Wang J. H., and Abuzwidah M. Validation and Application of Highway Safety Manual (Part D) and Developing Florida CMF Manual, Phase 2. Project BDV24-977-05. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, 2016.
17. Park J., Abdel-Aty M., and Lee J. Use of Empirical and Full Bayes Before–After Approaches to Estimate the Safety Effects of Roadside Barriers with Different Crash Conditions. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 58, 2016, pp. 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2016.06.002.
18. Ryan T. P. Modern Regression Methods. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, N.J., 1997.
19. Kutner M., Nachtsheim C., and Neter J. Applied Linear Regression Models, 4th ed. McGraw-Hill Education, New York, 2004.
20. Carroll R. J., and Ruppert D. Transformation and Weighting in Regression. Chapman and Hall, New York, 1988.
21. Saaty T. L. A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 15, 1997, pp. 57–68.
22. Saaty T. L. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the AHP. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1994.
23. Park J., Oh C., and Chang M. A Study on Variable Speed Limit Strategy in Freeway Work Zone Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Journal of the Korean Society for Transportation, Vol. 31, No. 5, 2013, pp. 3–15. https://doi.org/10.7470/jkst.2013.31.5.003.
24. Triantaphyllou E., and Mann S. H. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision Making in Engineering Applications: Some Challenges. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1995, pp. 35–44.
25. Belton V., and Gear T. On a Short-coming of Saaty’s Method of Analytic Hierarchies. Omega, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1983, pp. 228–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(83)90047-6.
26. Saaty T. L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill International, New York, 1980.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: January 1, 2017
Issue published: January 2017

Rights and permissions

© 2017 National Academy of Sciences.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Juneyoung Park
Room 301A, CATSS ENG 2, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, College of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32816-2450
Mohamed A. Abdel-Aty
Room 211W, CATSS ENG 2, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, College of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32816-2450

Notes

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 56

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 4

  1. Applying an improved calibration method in the safety evaluation frame...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Road safety evaluation with multiple treatments: A comparison of metho...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  3. A review of the state-of-the-art methods in estimating crash modificat...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  4. Improving crash predictability of the Highway Safety Manual through op...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub