Transportmetrica A: Transport Science

ISSN: 2324-9935 (Print) 2324-9943 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttra21

School Zone Safety Modeling in Countermeasure

Evaluation and Decision

Juneyoung Park, Mohamed Abdel-Aty & Jaeyoung Lee

To cite this article: Juneyoung Park, Mohamed Abdel-Aty & Jaeyoung Lee (2018): School Zone
Safety Modeling in Countermeasure Evaluation and Decision, Transportmetrica A: Transport
Science, DOI: 10.1080/23249935.2018.1519646

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23249935.2018.1519646

Accepted author version posted online: 05

Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ttra21
 1 Publisher: Taylor & Francis & Hong Kong Society for Transportation Studies Limited

2 Journal: Transportmetrica A: Transport Science

3 DOI: 10.1080/23249935.2018.1519646

4
5
6
7 School Zone Safety Modeling in Countermeasure Evaluation and Decision
8
9
10 Juneyoung Park*
11
12 Department of Transportation and Logistics Engineering
13 College of Engineering Science
14 Hanyang University, South Korea
15 +82-31-400-5151
16 Fax: +82-31-436-8147
17 juneyoung@hanyang.ac.kr
18 * Corresponding Author
19
20
21 Mohamed Abdel-Aty
22
23 Jaeyoung Lee
24
25 Department of Civil, Environmental and Construction Engineering
26 University of Central Florida
27 Orlando, Florida 32816-2450
28 (407) 823-2733
29 Fax: (407) 823-3315
30
31
32
33
 2

1 ABSTRACT

2 Safety of school zone areas has been an important topic in the transportation field because the
3 school zones might cause a risk for the school-aged pedestrians and bicyclists, and motorists due
4 to many types of travel activities near schools. This paper assessed the safety effects of roadway
5 features in school zone areas using the cross-sectional method. In order to estimate more reliable
6 regression model, this study explored the performance of five different types of alternative crash
7 prediction models (i.e., negative binomial (NB), random effects negative binomial (RENB),
8 Poisson inverse Gaussian (PIG), random effects Poisson inverse Gaussian (REPIG), and two-
9 component finite mixture of negative binomial (FMNB-2) models). Roadway geometric and
10 crash records data in school zones on urban arterials in Florida were obtained and used for the
11 analysis. The results indicated that the REPIG models provide the most accurate crash
12 predictions compared to the NB, RENB, PIG and FMNB-2 models. Moreover, the results
13 showed that increasing shoulder and lane widths, installation of flashing beacon at school zone
14 speed limit sign, and decreasing number of driveways were safety effective in reducing crash
15 frequency at school zone areas. The findings from this study offer transportation practitioners
16 and policy makers a dependable reference to enhance safety in schools based on the empirical
17 evidence. The study also provides insights into school zone design and selection of sites that
18 need implementation of treatments for reducing motorized and non-motorized crashes.

19

20

21 Key words: Traffic Safety; School Zone; Motorized and Non-motorized Crashes; Random
22 Effects Poisson Inverse Gaussian; Cross-sectional Method
 3

1 INTRODUCTION

2 Traffic safety is the vital factor and priority for school zone areas because the school zones
3 sometimes pose a risk for the school-aged pedestrians and bicyclists, and motorists alike due to a
4 lot of traffic activities during arrival time and dismissal time. Moreover, these activities can
5 make young pedestrians and inexperienced drivers distracted and risky. For this reason, traffic
6 safety in school zone areas on urban roadways has been one of the important issues in
7 transportation studies. According to the Milam and Royo (2009), more than 53 million children
8 in the U.S. spend almost a quarter of their walking hours on school property and up to 25 percent
9 of the more than 14 million unintentional injuries to children each year happen in and around
10 schools. Moreover, the traffic safety facts report by the National Highway Traffic Safety
11 Administration (NHTSA) (2016) showed that around 50% of school-age fatal crashes took place
12 from 7 to 8 a.m. and from 3 to 4 p.m. than any other hours of the day. Previous studies
13 (Stevenson et al., 1996; Lightstone et al., 2001; Yiannakoulia et al., 2002) reported that the rate
14 of collisions per school travel hour was around three times the rate of crashes at other times and
15 motor vehicle crashes with children are a leading cause of injury and death in children. Also, it
16 was found that crashes in school zones were associated with different factors such as human
17 activities, school neighborhood parameters, and roadway geometric characteristics (Warsh et al.,
18 2009). Although the safety issue in school zone areas has been considered as an important topic,
19 there are few studies that have investigated the relationship between school-related factors and
20 crashes (Schrader, 1998; Abdel-Aty et al., 2007; Clifton and Kreamer-Fults, 2007; Strawderman
21 et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2015).

22 The emphasis of quantifying the safety effects of roadway geometric designs has been addressed
23 to improve the explicit role of highway safety in making decisions on transportation planning,
24 design, and operations. For this reason, the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) (AASHTO, 2010)
25 was introduced by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) to provide a science-based
26 technical approach for safety analysis. The HSM introduces analytical methods to quantify the
27 safety effects of decisions and treatments (or countermeasures). Among four main parts of the
28 HSM, part D provides a variety of crash modification factors (CMFs) for safety treatments on
29 roadway segments and at intersections. A CMF is a factor that can estimate potential changes in
30 crash frequency as a result of implementing a specific treatment. The CMF can be estimated by
31 observational before-after studies or the cross-sectional method (Gross et al., 2010; Carter et al.,
32 2012; Park et al., 2014a; Wu et al., 2015; Guerrieri and Mauro, 2016; Park et al., 2016b; La
33 Torre et al., 2017). The cross-sectional method is also known as safety performance functions
34 (SPFs) or crash prediction models.

35 In order to develop SPFs, the negative binomial (NB) model (known as Poisson Gamma) has
36 been commonly applied in the past decades due to its strength to account for the over-dispersion
37 issue (Abdel-Aty and Radwan, 2000; Hauer, 2004; Washington et al., 2005; Lord and Bonneson,
38 2007; Fitzpatrick et al., 2008; Lord and Mannering, 2010; Manuel et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2015;
 4

1 Park and Abdel-Aty, 2015). The NB regression model assumes that a stochastic component is
2 introduced into the relationship between traffic crashes and covariates. However, there are
3 several important potential issues (e.g., correlation, spatial effect, heterogeneity, etc.) and biases
4 (e.g., selection bias, omitted variable bias, modeling flexibility, etc.) (Hauer, 2004; Lord and
5 Mannering, 2010; Gross and Donnell, 2011; Carter et al., 2012; Park, 2015; Park and Abdel-Aty,
6 2016; Kuo and Lord, 2017). Thus, in this paper, several alternative approaches (i.e., random
7 effects negative binomial (RENB), Poisson inverse Gamma (PIG), random effects Poisson
8 inverse Gamma (REPIG), and two-component finite mixture negative binomial (FMNB-2)
9 models) have been explored and compared to develop more reliable crash prediction models. The
10 random effects (RE) models were suggested by Shankar el al. (1998) to be employed in the
11 application of traffic crash data. Since roadway geometric and traffic parameters are likely to
12 have location-specific effects, the RE models might be more appropriate to account for the
13 unobserved heterogeneity by introducing random variations (Chin and Quddus, 2003;
14 Anastasopoulos and Mannering, 2009; Ibrahim et al., 2011; Chen and Tarko, 2014). In the k-
15 component finite mixture (FM-k) model, it is assumed that the observations of a sample arise
16 from more than two unobserved components with unknown proportions. It has been known that
17 the FMNB model is a useful approach to handle crash data where the data were drawn from
18 heterogeneous populations (Park and Lord, 2009; Park et al., 2014b). The PIG distribution is a
19 mixture of the Poisson and the inverse Gaussian (known as Wald distribution) distributions, and
20 has been known as an alternative approach to the NB models due to its modeling flexibility when
21 a longer tailed distribution is present and there is larger kurtosis (Folks and Chhikara, 1978; Dean
22 et al., 1989; Chou and Steenhard, 2009; Zha et al., 2016). The PIG distribution is a special type
23 of the Sichel (SI) distribution (Wu et al., 2014), which is a mixture of Poisson distribution and
24 generalized inverse Gaussian distribution. An advantage of the PIG model is that its framework
25 is easily estimated by Maximum likelihood method (Held et al., 2005). A further advantage is
26 that the likelihood function of the PIG distribution has a closed form hence, enabling the
27 regression parameter to be easily obtained through Maximum likelihood estimation (Zha et al.,
28 2016). Although the PIG model provides the flexibility to handle highly dispersed crash data,
29 there is a lack of studies that investigated its application in traffic safety analysis for various
30 crash types.

31 While several previous studies investigated the traffic issues in school zone areas, there are only
32 few studies that assessed the safety effects of specific roadway treatments for school zone
33 roadways for different crash types. Thus, the primary goal of this research is to evaluate the
34 safety effects of multiple roadway features in school zone areas by development of CMFs. In this
35 study, the cross-sectional method was applied to estimate the CMFs. Various alternative
36 statistical modeling approaches were introduced and compared to acquire better estimates in
37 terms of accuracy and reliability.

38
 5

1 DATA DESCRIPTION AND PREPARATION

2 According to the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices), a school zone is
3 defined as a designated roadway segment approaching, adjacent to, and beyond school buildings
4 or grounds, or along which school related activities occur. In this study, school zones on urban
5 arterials in Florida were identified based on the MUTCD standards using the Roadway
6 Characteristic Inventory (RCI) system maintained by the Florida Department of Transportation
7 (FDOT). The road geometry data for school zone areas were obtained for 7 years (2007-2013)
8 and crash records during school zone speed limit operation time were also collected for 7 years
9 (2007-2013) from the RCI and Crash Analysis Reporting System (CARS) database. The CARS
10 contains crash data for Florida State from 2003 and the RCI database provides current and
11 historical roadway characteristics data and reflects features of specific sites for the selected dates.
12 A segment is represented by roadway identification numbers and beginning and end mile points.
13 Roadway characteristics data from RCI system for the target sites were matched with crash data
14 by roadway ID and segment mile point for each segment. In this study, only the crashes that
15 occurred during the school zone operation time in school zone areas were collected for the
16 analysis. Although the RCI database provide more than 200 roadway characteristics for a
17 specific roadway site in a given date, it does not have information of more detailed roadway
18 features such as number of non-signalized intersections, number of driveways, number of signs,
19 installation of flashing beacons, number of crosswalks, etc. Therefore, an extensive effort by the
20 research team was conducted to identify those additional roadway cross-section elements by
21 using Google Earth and Street-view applications. A total of 208 urban school zone areas with
22 36.902 miles in section length were identified for the analysis. There are two types of school
23 zone areas: 1. school zone areas with segments only and 2. school zone areas with both segments
24 and intersections. Heavy vehicle related crashes were identified based on VEHTYPE1
25 (representing the vehicle type of at-fault vehicle) and VEHTYPEk (representing the vehicle
26 types of next vehicles) parameters in the CARS and heavy vehicle is including truck, bus, van,
27 and recreational vehicles (RVs). For the application of cross-sectional method, it is
28 recommended in the HSM that crash prediction models are developed using the crash data for
29 both treated and untreated sites for the same time period. The descriptive statistics of the
30 parameters for the identified school zone areas on urban roadways are presented in Table 1.

31

32 METHODOLOGY

33 Negative Binomial Model

34 The NB distribution has been popularized instead of the Poisson due to its benefit to overcome
35 the problem of over-dispersion (Miaou, 1994; Kulmala, 1995; Shankar et al., 1995; Shankar et al.,
36 1998; Abdel-Aty and Radwan, 2000). In the NB model, it is assumed that the count of crashes on
37 a roadway section is Poisson distributed with a mean λ, which itself is a random variable and is
 6

1 gamma distributed, then the distribution of frequency of crashes in a population of roadway

2 sections follows a negative binomial probability distribution (Kulmala, 1995; Hauer, 1997).

3 yi|λi≈ Poisson (λi)

4 λ ≈ Gamma (a,b)

5 where,

6 a = shape parameter,

7 b=scale parameter.

8 Then, P(yi) ≈ Negbin (λi, k)

yi 1 k
=  1 k  y i   k i   1 
9     [1]
y i !  1 k   1  k  i 

 1  k
 i



10 where,
11 y = number of crashes on a roadway section per period,
12 λ = predicted number of crashes per period on the roadway section,
13 k= over-dispersion parameter.

14 And, the expected number of crashes on a given roadway site can be estimated by equation 2 as
15 follow:

16 ( ) [2]

17 where,
18 = a vector of regression of parameter estimates,
19 = a vector of explanatory variables,
20 ( ) = a gamma distributed error terms with mean one and variance k.

21

22 Random Effects Model

23 It is known that the RE models might be more appropriate to account for the unobserved
24 heterogeneity by introducing random variations because roadway geometric and traffic
25 parameters are likely to have location-specific effects (i.e., group-specific variations). For this
26 reason, the RE modeling approach has been applied to develop crash prediction models (Chin
27 and Quddus, 2003; Anastasopoulos and Mannering, 2009; Aguero-Valverde, 2013; Yu et al., 2013;
28 Chen and Tarko, 2014; Naznin et al., 2016). According to Hausman et al. (1984), the unobserved
29 heterogeneity effects can be captured by the RE modeling approach considering both the fixed
30 and random definitions of the individual effects. Based on this finding, Shankar el al. (1998)
 7

1 introduced an application to utilize the RE models in traffic crash analysis. The study found that
2 the RENB models can significantly improve the explanatory power of crash prediction models.

3 The RE modeling approach can be adopted through introducing a random location-specific

4 effects term into the relationship between the expected numbers of crashes ( ̃ ) and the
5 covariates, , of an observation unit i in a given time period t as in equation 3 below (Chin and
6 Quddus, 2003):

7 ̃ ( ) [3]

8 where,
9 = a random location-specific effects.
10 = a vector of regression of parameter estimates.

11 In this study, two different spatial geographic units (i.e., district and county levels) were
12 considered to introduce a random location-specific effects term into the NB and PIG models. It
13 was found that using the district level random effects term always outperforms the RE models
14 with the county level random effects term. Therefore, in this study, the RE models with the
15 district level random effects term were estimated and explored.

16

17 Poisson Inverse Gaussian Mixture Model

18 The PIG model provides an attractive alternative in developing crash prediction models when a
19 longer-tailed distribution is observed. As described in the previous section, the assumption of a
20 gamma distribution for leads to a negative binomial model. In the PIG distribution, an inverse
21 Gaussian distribution is assumed for . The probability density function of can be written as
22 below (Dean et al., 1989):

( )
23 ( ) ( ) , [4]

24 where,
25 ( ) = probability density function of ,
26 ( ).

27 Then, the probability generating function for PIG( ) is

28 ( ) ∑ ( ) ( { ( )} ) [5]

29 where p(y) can be written for Pr(Y = y).

30 The PIG distribution can be described by as in equation 6 (Stasinopoulos and Rigby, 2012):
 8

( )
1 ( | ) ( ) { )
} [6]
(( )

2 where,

3 √ ,
{ ( )
4 ( ) ∫ , which is the modified Bessel function of the third kind
5 (Stasinopoulos and Rigby, 2012).

7 Finite Mixture Model

8 The FM model has been recognized as a superior modeling approach since the model
9 incorporates a combination of discrete and continuous representation of population heterogeneity.
10 The FM models can be estimated by two or more unobserved components with unknown
11 proportions. The probability density function of FM-K model distribution can be expressed as
12 shown in equation 7 (Park, 2010).

13 ( | ) ( | ) ( | ) [7]

14 where,
15 = the vector of all parameters = ( ),
16 = weight distribution (where, and ∑ ).

17 A single density ( ( | )) is referred to as the component distribution for component k (k=1, ,

18 K), and K is the number of components. More information for the derivatives for the FM-K
19 model can be found at the Frühwirth-Schnatter (Frühwirth-Schnatter, 2006). Previous studies also
20 found that the FMNB-2 performs better than the traditional NB model due to its strength to
21 account for the uncertainty of the crash occurrence and model flexibility (Park and Lord, 2009;
22 Park, 2010; Park et al., 2014b). Thus, the FMNB-2 models were analyzed for school zone crash
23 data and compared with the other GLMs in this study.

24 In order to compare the relative performance of different generalized linear regression models
25 (GLMs), the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was calculated as below:

26 ( ) [8]

27 where,
28 the number of parameters in the GLM,
29 = the maximum likelihood of the GLM.
 9

2 Cross-sectional Method

3 It has been known that the cross-sectional method is a useful approach to estimate CMFs if there
4 are insufficient crash data before and after for a specific treatment that is actually applied. Also,
5 the cross-sectional approach can be used to estimate CMFs when the date of the treatment
6 installation is unknown and the data for the period before treatment installation are not available.
7 Normally, the CMF can be estimated from the coefficient of the variable associated with
8 treatments as the exponent of the coefficient when the form of the model is log-linear (Harkey et
9 al., 2008; Carter et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2015).

10 In this study, the safety effects estimated by the random effects and finite mixture models could
11 vary by the random location-specific effects term and other covariates. For this reason, as
12 Anastasopoulos and Mannering (2009) explained, the marginal effects (i.e., ∂ /∂x, where is
13 defined as in Equation 3) have been used to provide the safety effects (i.e., CMF) of specific
14 parameter (or treatment). It is worth noting that the marginal effects can be presented as the
15 averages over the roadway segment to show the normalized safety impact (Anastasopoulos and
16 Mannering, 2009; Park et al., 2014 and 2016a). In order to provide the variance of estimated
17 safety effects from the random effects models, the delta method can be applied. This approach
18 expands to vector-valued functions of random vectors on the basis of deriving the asymptotic
19 variance of maximum-likelihood estimators. It takes the variance with expanding a function of
20 random variable about its mean based on a one-step Taylor approximation (Oehlert, 1992; Rice,
21 1994; Feiveson, 1999).

22 Although the cross-sectional method has been widely applied to calculate CMFs (Lord and
23 Bonneson, 2007; Harkey et al., 2008; Stamatiadis et al., 2009; Park et al., 2014a; Lee et al., 2015;
24 Park and Abdel-Aty, 2015), it should be applied with cautions due to several important potential
25 issues such as correlation, spatial effect, casual effect, omitted variable bias, etc. (Hauer, 2004;
26 Lord and Mannering, 2010; Carter et al., 2012; Park and Abdel-Aty, 2016). In order to control
27 potential confounding effects (Persaud et al., 1999; Collett, 2003; Hauer et al., 2004), possible
28 interaction effects among explanatory variables were investigated in this study.

29 Due to the potential limitations described above, it is suggested to use the results from the cross-
30 sectional method for checking general safety impacts and trends when (1) it is difficult to obtain
31 data for the before-after approaches, (2) it is difficult to isolate the effect of a single treatment
32 from the effects of the other treatments applied at the same time using the before-after method
33 (Harkey et al., 2008; Bahar, 2010), and (3) it is infeasible to conduct the prescribed before-after
34 study on specific treatments related to the changes of widths of roadway cross section elements
35 (e.g., lane width, median width, shoulder width, etc.) (Carter et al., 2012; Park et al., 2015).

36
 10

1 RESULTS

2 Estimated Modeling Results for Different Crash Types

3 Tables 2 to 5 present the evaluated NB, RENB, PIG, REPIG, and FMNB-2 models for total,
4 rear-end, heavy vehicle, and non-motorized crashes. In general, the estimated parameters were
5 statistically significant at a 90% confidence level except in two cases (i.e., the two components
6 of FMNB-2 models for rear-end and heavy vehicle crashes). Overall, the results of the estimated
7 NB, RENB, PIG, REPIG, and FMNB-2 models showed that crash frequency is higher for the
8 school zone areas with higher AADT and longer section length. Moreover, it was found that 1)
9 widening of shoulder width, 2) widening of lane width, 3) decrease of intersection density, 4)
10 decrease of number of driveways, and 5) installation of flashing beacon at school zone speed
11 limit sign reduce crash frequency. On the other hand, the crash frequency is higher for the school
12 zone areas with bike lane for total, rear-end, and heavy vehicle crashes. This may be because
13 there is higher chance for the roadways with bike lane to have narrower lane width. Also,
14 according to Sadek et al. (2007), drivers are more aware of bicyclists on the bike lane and show
15 abnormal driving patterns (e.g., decelerating suddenly, driving far from bicyclist, etc.). Hence, it
16 can be expected to have more traffic conflicts and crashes (e.g., sideswipe, rear-end, etc.) when
17 bike lane is installed on roadways with narrower lane width although bike lane can reduce bike-
18 related crashes. It is worth to note that various combinations of interaction terms among
19 explanatory variables were analyzed but there were no significant interaction terms except the
20 interaction between lane and shoulder widths.

21

22 Comparison of Models

23 The goodness-of-fit test was conducted based on the values of AIC and prediction accuracy was
24 compared based on the Mean Absolute Deviance (MAD). A better prediction performance is
25 indicated by small values of AIC and MAD. Overall, the results indicated that the REPIG models
26 provide better model fit than the NB, RENB, PIG, and FMNB-2 models for all different crash
27 types. This implies that the REPIG model can be an alternative to evaluate school zone safety
28 due to its strength to explain both highly dispersed crash pattern and unobserved heterogeneity
29 among different school zone areas simultaneously.

30 More specifically, the PIG models showed better model performance than the NB models. This
31 may be explained by the better flexibility of inverse Gaussian distribution in fitting the crash data
32 than the Gamma distribution (Zha et al., 2016). This also may be because a school zone can be
33 considered as a short corridor (combination of intersections and road segments) and there is a
34 high probability of highly dispersed crash pattern presence in corridor level. It implies that the
35 models with varying dispersion parameters could consider more variability of crash data.
36 Specifically, the PIG models have longer tails than the NB models since the mixing distribution
37 has a larger kurtosis. This result showed the PIG models would be an improvement over the
 11

1 Poisson models as it could handle the dispersion in the tails of the observed count distribution
2 accordingly.

3 Furthermore, the RE models performed better than the traditional NB and PIG models. This
4 indicates that the inclusion of location-specific random effects term into the GLMs can increase
5 the reliability of the model due to its strength to account for the unobserved heterogeneity across
6 target sites. In a linear regression setting, without identification of unobserved heterogeneity, it is
7 perhaps difficult to estimate the correct coefficient for the cross-section data types. It is
8 especially important to account for unobserved differences (e.g., physical and school
9 neighborhood characteristics) when evaluating a school related policy (Bogart and Cromwell,
10 2000).

11 From the modeling results for rear-end and heavy vehicle crashes, it can be concluded that the
12 NB and FMNB-2 models provide similar estimates. For non-motorized crashes, there were
13 similar estimated results among the NB, RENB, PIG, and REPIG models. It may be because
14 non-motorized crash data has large number of zeros compared to the other crash types. Even the
15 PIG models are more flexible than the NB models, more investigation is needed to check the
16 performance of prediction models for crash data with small sample mean. It is better noting that
17 due to the low crash frequency, the FMNB-2 model for non-motorized crashes was not
18 significant.

19

20 Evaluation of Safety Effects

21 In this study, the safety effects for various roadway features (i.e., treatments) in school zone
22 areas were evaluated using the cross-sectional method. The marginal effects were calculated
23 based on the REPIG models and they are statistically significant at a 95% confidence interval.

24 Figure 1 presents an example of safety effects of increasing lane width for total and heavy
25 vehicle crashes. The results showed that the CMFs for increase of lane width for total and heavy
26 vehicle crashes decrease as lane width increases.

27 Similar to the results of safety effects of lane width changes, it was found that the safety
28 effectiveness of increasing shoulder width is higher for the roadways with wider shoulder for
29 total and heavy vehicle crashes (Figure 2). The results also showed that the safety effects of
30 widening lane and shoulder widths are higher for heavy vehicle crashes compared to the total
31 crashes and it may be because heavy vehicles are more likely to be affected by the roadway
32 cross-section widths.

33 The safety effects for installing flashing beacon at school zone speed limit sign were estimated.
34 The results showed that for the school zones with speed limit sign with flashing beacon, the
35 number of rear-end crashes is expected to be reduced by 29% (i.e. modified by 71%) with 95%
 12

1 statistical significant level. According to the school zone standards in the MUTCD, an
2 installation of flashing beacon at school zone speed limit sign is optional. The result indicated
3 that the installation of flashing beacon is safety effective in reducing rear-end crashes. Similar to
4 this result, it was found from previous study that an addition of warning beacons may have
5 increased the distance that drivers yielded in advance (Shurbutt and Van Houten, 2010).

6 Figure 3 presents an example of the results of safety effects for decreasing number of driveways
7 in school zone areas for non-motorized crashes. It was found that higher safety effects can be
8 acquired when there is less number of driveways in the school zone area. The MUTCD suggests
9 that crosswalks should be marked at all intersections on established routes to a school where
10 there is substantial conflict between motorists, bicyclists, and student movements. The MUTCD
11 also advises to provide crossing supervision by adult crossing guards at crosswalks in school
12 zones. They shall stand at crosswalks to indicate that pedestrians are about to use or are using the
13 crosswalk, and that all vehicular traffic must stop. However, it was found during the extensive
14 data preparation process using Google Earth and Street-view applications that there are number
15 of driveways without crosswalk in the school zones. Thus, it can be suggested to install
16 crosswalks at driveways in school zones and provide crossing supervision when it is difficult to
17 decrease number of driveways.

18

19 DISCUSSION

20 School zones are supposed to keep young age students safe especially during the school arrival
21 and dismissal times. Since many types of travel activities happen in and near schools, enhancing
22 safety of school zone areas is very important. For this reason, this study assessed the safety
23 effects of multiple roadway cross-section elements in school zone areas on urban arterials for
24 different crash types by developing the CMFs. It should be noted that there is no CMFs for
25 school zone areas in the first edition of HSM. Five different types of GLMs (i.e., NB, RENB,
26 PIG, REPIG, and FMNB-2 models) were utilized and compared to develop more accurate and
27 reliable crash prediction models based on their model performances.

28 It was found that the REPIG model showed advantages over the NB, RENB, PIG, and FMNB-2
29 models in terms of goodness of fit statistics and relative performance of estimates. It may be
30 because a school zone can be considered as a short corridor (combination of intersections and
31 road segments) and there is a high probability of highly dispersed crash pattern presence in
32 corridor level. Moreover, the inclusion of site-specific random effects term in the NB and PIG
33 models provided better model fit than the traditional NB and PIG models. This indicates that the
34 RE modeling approach can increase the accuracy and reliability of crash prediction model due to
35 its strength to overcome the unobserved heterogeneity issue. Although this study explored
36 different modeling approaches to account for an issue of noisy data with adopting varying
37 dispersion values and providing random effects terms, it is needed to conduct more work to solve
 13

1 this problem using various field data. In particular, the results were similar to mixture models
2 that parameterize the extra random variation. Therefore, further research is suggested to explore
3 mixture distribution alternatives for the over-dispersed data in different crash cases.

4 The CMFs were estimated using the cross-sectional method based on the estimated parameters
5 from the REPIG models for different crash types. The results showed that widening shoulder
6 width and increase of lane width can reduce total and heavy vehicle related crashes. The results
7 also showed that the safety effects of widening lane and shoulder widths are higher for heavy
8 vehicle crashes compared to the effects for total crashes. Installation of flashing beacon at school
9 zone speed limit sign was found to be safety effective in reducing rear-end crashes. The results
10 of this study indicated that non-motorized crashes can be reduced as the number of driveways
11 decreases.

12 Based on the findings and limitations of this study, some future work can be suggested. More
13 work is required to further explore the performance of SPFs and CMFs by including additional
14 information such as school enrollments, socio-demographic data, actual volume of pedestrians
15 and bicyclists, etc. Also, this study can be extended to investigate crash data for different
16 roadway facilities (e.g., rural roadways, etc.) with different sample mean values.

17 This study offers transportation practitioners and policy makers a dependable reference to
18 enhance safety and health in schools based on the empirical evidence. The study also provides
19 insights into school zone design and selection of sites that need implementation of treatments for
20 reducing motorized and non-motorized crashes.

21

22 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

23 The authors wish to thank the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for funding this
24 research. This work was also supported by the research fund from Hanyang University. All
25 opinions and results are solely those of the authors

26

27 REFERENCES

28 Abdel-Aty, M. A., & Radwan, A. E. (2000). Modeling traffic accident occurrence and
29 involvement. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32(5), 633-642.
30 Abdel-Aty, M., Chundi, S. S., & Lee, C. (2007). Geo-spatial and log-linear analysis of pedestrian and
31 bicyclist crashes involving school-aged children. Journal of safety research, 38(5), 571-579.
32 Aguero-Valverde, J. (2013). Full Bayes Poisson gamma, Poisson lognormal, and zero inflated random
33 effects models: Comparing the precision of crash frequency estimates. Accident Analysis &
34 Prevention, 50, 289-297.
 14

1 American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2010. Highway Safety
2 Manual, 1st edition, Washington, D.C.
3 Anastasopoulos, P. C., & Mannering, F. L. (2009). A note on modeling vehicle accident frequencies with
4 random-parameters count models.Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(1), 153-159
5 Bahar, G. (2010). Methodology for the Development and Inclusion of Crash Modification Factors in the
6 First Edition of the Highway Safety Manual. Transportation Research E-Circular, (E-C142).
7 Bogart, W. T., & Cromwell, B. A. (2000). How much is a neighborhood school worth?. Journal of urban
8 Economics, 47(2), 280-305.
9 Carter, D., Srinivasan, R., Gross, F., and Council, F., 2012. Recommended Protocols for Developing
10 Crash Modification Factors. Final Report NCHRP 20-7 (314).
11 Chen, E., & Tarko, A. P. (2014). Modeling safety of highway work zones with random parameters and
12 random effects models. Analytic methods in accident research, 1, 86-95.
13 Chin, H. C., & Quddus, M. A. (2003). Applying the random effect negative binomial model to examine
14 traffic accident occurrence at signalized intersections. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35(2), 253-259.
15 Chou, N. T., & Steenhard, D. (2009). A flexible count data regression model using SAS® PROC
16 NLMIXED. In SAS Global Forum: Statistics and Data Analysis (Vol. 250, pp. 1-14).
17 Clifton, K. J., Kreamer-Fults, K., 2007. An examination of the environmental attributes associated with
18 pedestrian–vehicular crashes near public schools. Accident Analysis and Prevention 39, pp.708-715.
19 Dean, C., Lawless, J. F., & Willmot, G. E. (1989). A mixed poisson–inverse‐gaussian regression
20 model. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 17(2), 171-181
21 Feiveson, A. H. (1999). Explanation of the delta method. retrieved Nov, 28, 2013.
22 FHWA, USDOT. (2010). Manual on uniform traffic control devices (2009)
23 Fitzpatrick, K., Lord, D., & Park, B. J. (2008). Accident modification factors for medians on freeways and
24 multilane rural highways in Texas.Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
25 Research Board, (2083), 62-71.
26 Folks, J. L., & Chhikara, R. S. (1978). The inverse Gaussian distribution and its statistical application--a
27 review. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 263-289
28 Frühwirth-Schnatter, S. (2006). Finite mixture and Markov switching models. Springer Science &
29 Business Media.
30 Gross, F., Persaud, B., and Lyon, C., 2010. A Guide to Developing Quality Crash Modification Factors,
31 Report FHWA-SA-10-032, Federal Highway Administration.
32 Gross, F., & Donnell, E. T. (2011). Case–control and cross-sectional methods for estimating crash
33 modification factors: Comparisons from roadway lighting and lane and shoulder width safety effect
34 studies. Journal of safety research, 42(2), 117-129.
35 Guerrieri, M., & Mauro, R. (2016). Capacity and safety analysis of hard-shoulder running (HSR). A
36 motorway case study. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 92, 162-183.
 15

1 Harkey, D. L., Srinivasan, R.,Baek, J., Council, F. M., Eccles, K.,Lefler, N., Gross, F., Persaud, B., Lyon,
2 C., Hauer, E., Bonneson, J. A. Accident Modification Factors for Traffic Engineering and ITS
3 Improvements NCHRP Report 617, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
4 Hauer, E., (1997). Observational Before–after Studies in Road Safety: Estimating the Effect of Highway
5 and Traffic Engineering Measures on Road Safety, Pergamon Press, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, UK.
6 Hauer, E., 2004. Statistical Road Safety Modeling. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
7 Transportation Research Board, No. 1897, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
8 Washington, DC.
9 Hauer, E., Council, F.M., and Mohammedshah, Y., 2004. Safety models for urban four-lane undivided
10 road segments. Transportation Research Record 1897, Transportation Research Board, National Research
11 Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 96-105.
12 Hausman, J. A., Hall, B. H., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an
13 application to the patents-R&D relationship
14 Held, L., Höhle, M., & Hofmann, M. (2005). A statistical framework for the analysis of multivariate
15 infectious disease surveillance counts. Statistical modelling, 5(3), 187-199.
16 Ibrahim, J. G., Zhu, H., Garcia, R. I., & Guo, R. (2011). Fixed and random effects selection in mixed
17 effects models. Biometrics, 67(2), 495-503.
18 Kulmala, R. (1995). Safety at rural three-and four-arm junctions. Development and application of
19 accident prediction models (Vol. 233).
20 Kuo, P. F., & Lord, D. (2017). Estimating the Safety Impacts in Before-After Studies Using the Naïve
21 Adjustment Method.
22 La Torre, F., Domenichini, L., & Nocentini, A. (2017). Effects of stationary work zones on motorway
23 crashes. Safety science, 92, 148-159.
24 Lee, C., Abdel-Aty, M., Park, J., and Wang, J. Development of crash modification factors for changing
25 lane width on roadway segments using generalized nonlinear models. Accident Analysis and Prevention
26 75, pp.83-91, 2015.
27 Lightstone, A. S., Dhillon, P. K., Peek-Asa, C., & Kraus, J. F. (2001). A geographic analysis of motor
28 vehicle collisions with child pedestrians in Long Beach, California: comparing intersection and midblock
29 incident locations.Injury prevention, 7(2), 155-160.
30 Lord, D., & Bonneson, J. (2007). Development of accident modification factors for rural frontage road
31 segments in Texas. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
32 (2023), 20-27.
33 Lord, D. and Mannering, F., 2010. The Statistical Analysis of Crash-Frequency Data: A Review and
34 Assessment of Methodological Alternatives, Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 44, pp. 291-305
35 Manuel, A., El-Basyouny, K., & Islam, M. T. (2014). Investigating the safety effects of road width on
36 urban collector roadways. Safety science, 62, 305-311.
37 Miaou, S. P. (1994). The relationship between truck accidents and geometric design of road sections:
38 Poisson versus negative binomial regressions.Accident Analysis & Prevention, 26(4), 471-482.
 16

1 Milam, K., and Royo, J. (2009). Back to School Injury Statistics and Safety Tips. Safe Kids News, North
2 Carolina Department of Insurance.
3 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2016). School transportation-related
4 crashes. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
5 Naznin, F., Currie, G., Logan, D., & Sarvi, M. (2016). Exploring Causes of Tram-Involved Crashes Using
6 a Random Effects Negative Binomial Model. In Transportation Research Board 95th Annual
7 Meeting (No. 16-1332)
8 Oehlert, G. W. 1992. A note on the delta method. American Statistician 46: 27–29.
9 PARK, B. J. (2010). APPLICATION OF FINITE MIXTURE MODELS FOR VEHICLE CRASH DATA
10 ANALYSIS (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University).
11 Park, B. J., & Lord, D. (2009). Application of finite mixture models for vehicle crash data
12 analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(4), 683-691
13 Park, B. J., Lord, D., & Lee, C. (2014b). Finite mixture modeling for vehicle crash data with application
14 to hotspot identification. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 71, 319-326.
15 Park, B. J., Lord, D., & Wu, L. (2016a). Finite mixture modeling approach for developing crash
16 modification factors in highway safety analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 97, 274-287.
17 Park, J., Abdel-Aty, M., and Lee, C., 2014a. Exploration and Comparison of Crash Modification Factors
18 for Multiple Treatments on Rural Multilane Roadways. Accident Analysis and Prevention 70, pp.167-177.
19 Park, J. (2015). Exploration and development of crash modification factors and functions for single and
20 multiple treatments.
21 Park, J., and Abdel-Aty, M. Assessing the Safety Effects of Multiple Roadside Treatments using
22 Parametric and Nonparametric Approaches. Accident Analysis and Prevention 83, pp.203-213., 2015
23 Park, J., & Abdel-Aty, M. (2016). Evaluation of safety effectiveness of multiple cross sectional features
24 on urban arterials. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 92, 245-255.
25 Park, J., Abdel-Aty, M., & Lee, J. (2016b). Use of empirical and full Bayes before–after approaches to
26 estimate the safety effects of roadside barriers with different crash conditions. Journal of safety
27 research, 58, 31-40.
28 Persaud, B., Lyon, C., and Nguyen, T., 1999. Empirical Bayes Procedure for Ranking Sites for Safety
29 Investigation by Potential for Safety Improvement. Transportation Research Record 1665, pp. 7-12.
30 Rice, J. 1994. Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis. 2nd ed. Duxbury.
31 Sadek, W. A., Dickason, A., and Kaplan, J., 2007. Effectiveness of a Green, High-Visibility Bike Lane
32 and Crossing Treatment. Presented at 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
33 Washington, D.C.
34 Schrader, M. H., 1998. Study of Effectiveness of Selected School Zone Traffic Control Devices. Journal
35 of the Transportation Research Board 1692, pp.24-29.
36 Shankar, V., Mannering, F., & Barfield, W. (1995). Effect of roadway geometrics and environmental
37 factors on rural freeway accident frequencies. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 27(3), 371-389.
 17

1 Shankar, V., Albin, R., Milton, J., & Mannering, F. (1998). Evaluating median crossover likelihoods with
2 clustered accident counts: an empirical inquiry using the random effects negative binomial
3 model. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1635), 44-48.
4 Shurbutt, J., & Van Houten, R. (2010). Effects of Yellow Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons on
5 Yielding at Multilane Uncontrolled Crosswalks (No. FHWA-HRT-10-043).
6 Stamatiadis, N., Pigman. J., Sacksteder, J., Ruff, W., Lord, D. NCHRP Report 633: Impact of Shoulder
7 Width and Median Width on Safety, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
8 Washington, D.C., 2009.
9 Stasinopoulos, M., & Rigby, B. (2012). Generalized Additive Models for Location Scale and
10 Shape. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 54(3), 507-554.
11 Stevenson, M., Jamrozik, K., & Burton, P. (1996). A case-control study of childhood pedestrian injuries
12 in Perth, Western Australia. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 50(3), 280-287.
13 Strawderman, L., Rahman, M. M., Huang, Y., Nandi, A., 2015. Driver behavior and accident frequency in
14 school zones: Assessing the impact of sign saturation. Accident Analysis and Prevention 82, pp.118-125.
15 Warsh, J., Rothman, L., Slater, M., Steverango, C., & Howard, A. (2009). Are school zones effective? An
16 examination of motor vehicle versus child pedestrian crashes near schools. Injury prevention, 15(4), 226-
17 229.
18 Washington, S. P., Persaud, B. N., Lyon, C., & Oh, J. (2005). Validation of accident models for
19 intersections (No. FHWA-RD-03-037).
20 Wu, L., Zou, Y., & Lord, D. (2014). Comparison of sichel and negative binomial models in hot spot
21 identification. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2460),
22 107-116.
23 Wu, L., Lord, D., & Zou, Y. (2015). Validation of crash modification factors derived from cross-sectional
24 studies with regression models. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
25 Board, (2514), 88-96.
26 Yiannakoulias, N., Smoyer-Tomic, K. E., Hodgson, J., Spady, D. W., Rowe, B. H., & Voaklander, D. C.
27 (2002). The spatial and temporal dimensions of child pedestrian injury in Edmonton. Canadian Journal of
28 Public Health/Revue Canadienne de Sante'e Publique, 447-451.
29 Yu, R., Abdel-Aty, M., & Ahmed, M. (2013). Bayesian random effect models incorporating real-time
30 weather and traffic data to investigate mountainous freeway hazardous factors. Accident Analysis &
31 Prevention, 50, 371-376
32 Zha, L., Lord, D., & Zou, Y. (2016). The Poisson inverse Gaussian (PIG) generalized linear regression
33 model for analyzing motor vehicle crash data. Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, 8(1), 18-35
34 Zhao, X., Li, J., Zhang, G., Rong, J., 2015. A generic approach for examining the effectiveness of traffic
35 control devices in school zones. Accident Analysis and Prevention 82, pp.134-142.
36
37
38
 18

1
2 Table 1: Descriptive statistics of target sites

Variable Mean S.D. Min. Max.

Number of crashes
Total (all types) crashes 2.635 4.161 0 36
Heavy vehicle related crashes 1.207 1.860 0 10
Rear-end crashes 0.841 2.040 0 22
Non-motorized (pedestrian related
0.226 0.689 0 5
+ bike related) crashes
Traffic and roadway geometric characteristics
AADT (veh/day) 14104.976 10140.530 1500 49000
Section length (mile) 0.177 0.082 0.030 0.397
School zone speed limit (mph) 19.303 4.436 15 35
Number of driveways 2.058 1.960 0 14
Number of intersections 0.327 0.510 0 2
Density of intersections (per mile) 1.971 3.687 0 33.333
Number of crosswalks 1.135 0.799 0 4
Lane width (ft) 11.926 0.944 10 19
Shoulder width (ft) 3.909 2.280 1 12
Bike lane binary parameter 1: bike lane (17 sites), 0: no bike lane (192 sites)
Flashing beacon binary parameter 1: flashing beacon (182 sites), 0: no flashing beacon (27 sites)
3

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
 19

1
2 Table 2: Estimated parameters of different regression models for total crashes

FMNB-2
Variables NB RENB PIG REPIG Component Component
1 2
Intercept -5.1738 -5.3196 -5.4058 -5.2064 -5.0705 -24.2260
(p-value) (<.0001) (0.0039) (<.0001) (<.0001) (<.0001) (<.0001)
Log AADT 0.7968 0.7996 0.8270 0.7884 0.7905 2.8745
(p-value) (<.0001) (<.0001) (<.0001) (<.0001) (<.0001) (<.0001)
Section Length 0.8775 0.8819 0.8997 0.8774 0.9926 -0.0066
(p-value) (<.0001) (<.0001) (<.0001) (<.0001) (<.0001) (0.0838)
Bike Lane 0.6271 0.4499 0.6371 0.6349 0.7536
N/S
(p-value) (<.0001) (0.0557) (0.0124) (0.0105) (0.0003)
Shoulder width
-0.0048 -0.0054 -0.0047 -0.0061 -0.0064
Lane width N/S
(0.0026) (0.0320) (0.0872) (0.0217) (0.0148)
(p-value)
Intersection Density 0.0633 0.0718 0.0583 0.0681 0.0770
N/S
(p-value) (0.0242) (0.0016) (0.0112) (0.0005) (0.0002)
Dispersion (k) 0.6692 0.5212 0.4360 0.6005 0.3492 0.8845
Variance of Random
0.2113 0.7812
Effects N/A N/A N/A N/A
(0.1762) (0.4680)
(S.E)
Component
Proportion for N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.9594 0.0406
FMNB-2 Model
-2 Log Likelihood 784.2 768.4 775.1 739.6 755.9
AIC 798.7 784.4 789.1 768.3 777.9
MAD 1.589 1.521 1.546 1.423 1.497
3 N/S: not significant, N/A: not available

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
 20

1
2
3 Table 3: Estimated parameters of different regression models for rear-end crashes

FMNB-2
Variables NB RENB PIG REPIG Component Component
1 2
Intercept -8.7271 -9.8647 -9.0145 -9.6001 -8.1064 -19.2186
(p-value) (<.0001) (0.0023) (<.0001) (<.0001) (<.0001) (0.1551)
Log AADT 1.0906 1.1838 1.0903 1.1283 0.9781 2.8870
(p-value) (<.0001) (<.0001) (<.0001) (<.0001) (<.0001) (0.0896)
Section Length 1.3013 1.1683 1.1539 0.8740 0.5455 5.7390
(p-value) (<.0001) (0.0004) (<.0001) (0.0095) (0.0371) (0.1267)
Flashing Beacon -0.3275 -0.6756 -0.0066
N/S N/S N/S
(p-value) (0.0338) (0.0097) (0.0838)
Intersection Density 0.0844 0.0850 0.0636 0.0681
N/S N/S
(p-value) (0.0183) (0.0144) (0.0787) (0.0952)
Bike Lane 0.6638 0.6339
N/S N/S N/S N/S
(p-value) (0.0569) (0.0563)
Dispersion (k) 1.0275 0.8747 0.4954 0.3985 0.1008 4.8107
Variance of Random
0.1343 0.6148
Effects N/A N/A N/A N/A
(0.1395) (0.2884)
(S.E)
Component
Proportion for N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.6966 0.3034
FMNB-2 Model
-2 Log Likelihood 419.5 416.34 410.3 390.2 407.7
AIC 429.5 428.34 422.3 414.6 425.7
MAD 2.143 2.138 2.092 1.967 2.102
4 N/S: not significant, N/A: not available

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
 21

1
2
3 Table 4: Estimated parameters of different regression models for heavy vehicle crashes

FMNB-2
Variables NB RENB PIG REPIG Component Component
1 2
Intercept -3.7089 -3.9345 -3.5962 -3.8547 -6.3253 -3.5377
(p-value) (0.0062) (0.0317) (0.0104) (0.0156) (0.0211) (0.1173)
Log AADT 0.5506 0.5568 0.5325 0.5587 1.0859 0.3435
(p-value) (<.0001) (0.0001) (<.0001) (0.0003) (0.0002) (0.1385)
Section Length 0.8665 0.8292 0.8482 0.8731 1.9207
N/S
(p-value) (0.0002) (0.0007) (<.0001) (0.0004) (0.0094)
Bike Lane 0.5106
N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S
(p-value) (0.0945)
Shoulder width
-0.0082 -0.0084 -0.0084 -0.0086 -0.0316
Lane width N/S
(0.0163) (0.0120) (0.0183) (0.0059) (0.1014)
(p-value)
Intersection Density 0.0971 0.1015 0.0893 0.0983 0.1242
N/S
(p-value) (0.0006) (0.0002) (0.0008) (<.0001) (0.0086)
Dispersion (k) 0.6325 0.5250 0.4728 0.6250 0.1938 0.5273
Variance of Random
0.1562 0.6960
Effects N/A N/A N/A N/A
(0.1393) (0.2905)
(S.E)
Component
Proportion for N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.5434 0.4566
FMNB-2 Model
-2 Log Likeli-hood 513.25 506.45 507.4 492.5 510.9
AIC 525.25 520.45 521.4 513.6 530.9
MAD 1.985 1.883 1.887 1.784 1.952
4 N/S: not significant, N/A: not available

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
 22

1
2
3
4 Table 5: Estimated parameters of different regression models for non-motorized crashes

Variables NB RENB PIG REPIG

Intercept -9.4504 -9.6588 -10.6889 -10.6610

(p-value) (0.0016) (0.0206) (0.0011) (0.0006)
Log AADT 0.7600 0.7810 0.9011 0.8958
(p-value) (0.0150) (0.0167) (0.0082) (0.0068)
Number of Driveways 0.1674 0.1664 0.1470 0.1484
(p-value) (0.0528) (0.0542) (0.0265) (0.0273)
Dispersion (k) 3.7957 3.6746 1.6602 1.5573
Variance of Random
0.0485 0.0749
Effects N/A N/A
(0.2193) (0.3191)
(S.E)
-2 Log Likeli-hood 216.46 216.4 216.5 214.6
AIC 224.5 226.4 224.5 224.3
MAD 2.814 2.815 2.814 2.809
5 N/S: not significant, N/A: not available

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
 23

CMF Total Crashes Heavy Vehicle Crashes

1

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8
1FT LANE WIDTH 2FT LANE WIDTH 3FT LANE WIDTH 4FT LANE WIDTH
INCREASE INCREASE INCREASE INCREASE

1
2 Figure 1: Example of safety effects for widening lane width
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
 24

CMF Total Crashes Heavy Vehicle Crashes

1

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8

0.75

0.7

0.65

0.6
1FT SHOULDER 2FT SHOULDER 3FT SHOULDER 4FT SHOULDER
WIDTH INCREASE WIDTH INCREASE WIDTH INCREASE WIDTH INCREASE

1
2 Figure 2: Example of safety effects for widening shoulder width
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
 25

CMF Non-motorized Crashes

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
1 DRIVEWAY CLOSE 2 DRIVEWAYS CLOSE 3 DRIVEWAYS CLOSE

2
3 Figure 3: Example of safety effects for decreasing number of driveways
4
5
6
7
8
9