Safety Performance of Combinations of Traffic and

Roadway Cross-Sectional Design Elements

at Straight and Curved Segments
Juneyoung Park, Ph.D. 1; and Mohamed Abdel-Aty, Ph.D., P.E., A.M.ASCE 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This study develops various crash modification factors (CMFs) for combinations of traffic and roadway cross-sectional elements
at noncurved (i.e., straight) and curved roadway sections using the cross-sectional method. Generally, a CMF estimates the expected changes
in crash frequency after a single specific treatment is implemented on a roadway. The results indicate that increasing lane width, increasing
shoulder width, and their combination are safety effective in reducing crash frequency in general. In particular, it was found that crash
frequency decreases as the lane width increases until 3.51 m (11.5 ft) width and it increases as the lane width exceeds 3.51 m. The crash
rates start to decrease again after 3.81 m (12.5 ft). The results also indicate that the developed nonlinearizing link function derived nonlinear
relationship between crash rates and lane width, and this relationship was clearly reflected in the generalized nonlinear models (GNMs).
Moreover, there is a significant interaction impact between lane and shoulder widths at segments with a horizontal curve whereas the in-
teraction term is not significant at noncurved segments. It was also found that the CMFs for increasing lane and shoulder widths are decreas-
ing as annual average daily traffic (AADT) level increases. Based on the findings from this study, it is recommended to apply the proposed
methodology of utilizing the GNMs with interaction terms in the cross-sectional method to (1) estimate more accurate CMFs for single
treatments and combinations of treatments and (2) reflect the nonlinearity of crash predictors and interaction impacts among variables.
DOI: 10.1061/JTEPBS.0000033. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Crash modification factors; Generalized nonlinear models; Cross-sectional method; Shoulder and lane widths;
Traffic volume.

Introduction
In order to evaluate safety effectiveness of specific treatment on a
roadway segment or intersection, various crash modification factors
(CMFs) have been estimated and introduced in the Highway Safety
Manual (HSM) (AASHTO 2010). A CMF can be calculated by
observational before–after studies [e.g., comparison group (CG),
empirical Bayes (EB), and full Bayes (FB) methods] or the
cross-sectional method (Carter et al. 2012). Although it is known
that observational before–after studies have higher quality and
the method was found to be a superior approach to the cross-
sectional method (Gross et al. 2010; Park et al. 2014), the cross-
sectional method has been commonly applied to calculate CMFs
because of its easiness in obtaining data compared to the
before–after approaches (Abdel-Aty et al. 2014). To conduct the
before–after approaches, it is required to have sufficient sample size
for both treated and untreated sites with enough crash data for be-
fore and after periods (AASHTO 2010). Moreover, development of
safety performance function (SPF) is needed to estimate predicted
crash frequency in the EB method. On the other hand, the cross-
sectional method requires enough sample size for both treated and
1
Research Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental and
Construction Engineering, Univ. of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816
(corresponding author). E-mail: jypark@knights.ucf.edu
2
Professor and Chair, Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Construction
Engineering, Univ. of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816. E-mail:
m.aty@ucf.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 14, 2016; approved on
October 26, 2016; published online on February 17, 2017. Discussion
period open until July 17, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Transportation
Engineering, Part A: Systems, © ASCE, ISSN 2473-2907.
untreated sites at the same time period. Also, the cross-sectional
method has been widely applied to estimate CMFs because
(1) it is difficult to isolate the effect of a single treatment from
the effects of the other treatments applied at the same time using
the before–after method (Harkey et al. 2008), and (2) it would be
practically infeasible to conduct the prescribed before–after study
on specific treatments related to the changes of widths of roadway
cross section elements (Carter et al. 2012).
In the cross-sectional method, the CMF can be estimated using
the coefficient associated with a variable for specific treatment ob-
tained from crash prediction models [or safety performance func-
tion (SPF)] (Lord and Bonneson 2007). To develop SPFs, the
generalized linear model (GLM) with negative binomial (NB) dis-
tribution has been commonly used to account for overdispersion.
Two types of variable format (binary and continuous) can re-
present the safety effects of specific treatments (or roadway fea-
tures) using the SPFs in the cross-sectional analysis. It should be
noted that for the continuous formatted traffic and roadway char-
acteristic parameters [e.g., shoulder width, median width, annual
average daily traffic (AADT), etc.], the GLM may bias estimates
when the explanatory variable shows a nonlinear relationship with
response variable because the GLM is linear-based analysis and
controlled by its linear model specification. According to Lee et al.
(2015) and Park and Abdel-Aty (2015), the CMF in the GLM
is a fixed value and cannot account for nonlinear effects of the
treatment.
Therefore, a methodology of utilizing generalized nonlinear
models (GNM) for crash analysis has been recommended (Lao et al.
2014). In order to account for nonlinearity of predictors in the
GNM, it is required to develop nonlinearizing link function based
on the nonlinear relationship between response and explanatory

© ASCE 04017015-1 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, -1--1

 variables (Lao et al. 2014; Park and Abdel-Aty 2015, 2016; Lee
et al. 2015). According to Lao et al. (2014), the developed GNMs
showed that right shoulder width, AADT, grade percentage, and
truck percentage have nonlinear effects on rear-end crashes. It
was concluded that the GNMs can better reflect the nonlinear
relationships than GLMs. Similarly, Lee et al. (2015) estimated
CMFs for changes of lane width using GNMs through development
of nonlinearizing link functions to account for the nonlinear
relationship between crash rates and lane width. The study demon-
strated that the CMFs estimated using GNMs clearly reflect varia-
tions in crashes with lane width, which cannot be captured by the
CMFs estimated using GLMs. However, both studies investigated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
only the main effects of each variable, but not the effects of inter-
action between variables. Park and Abdel-Aty (2015) developed
GLMs, GNMs, and multivariate adaptive regression splines
(MARS) models to evaluate the safety effects of multiple roadside
treatments on rural multilane roadways and compared their perfor-
mances. In particular, the GNMs were utilized to reflect nonlinear-
ity of predictors, and the MARS models were developed to account
for both nonlinear effects and interaction impacts among variables.
The result showed that the MARS models showed better model fit
than the GNMs. However, according to Lee et al. (2015), the evalu-
ation of MARS models is complex because it includes more param-
eters and the rate of change is assumed to be fixed within a given
range of a variable although the rate can vary within that range.
Thus, the objective of this study is to estimate CMFs for com-
binations of multiple traffic and roadway cross-sectional elements
(i.e., AADT, lane width, and shoulder width) at curved and non-
curved sections on rural two-lane roadways through the develop-
ment of GNMs. In this study, the GLMs were also developed to
compare model performance with and without nonlinear predictors.
The remainder of this study is organized as follows. The “Safety
Impacts of Lane and Shoulder Widths” section reviews previous
studies for safety effects for changes of lane and shoulder widths.
The “Data Preparation” section presents data preparation. The
“Methodology” section describes methodologies of estimating
the CMFs using GNMs in the cross-sectional method. The “Results
and Discussion” section presents and discusses the results. The fi-
nal section draws conclusions. In this study, crash severities were
categorized according to the KABCO scale as follows: fatal (K),
incapacitating injury (A), non-incapacitating injury (B), possible
injury (C), and property damage only (O). The estimated GLMs,
GNMs, and nonlinearizing link functions were developed based on
English measurements.
Safety Impacts of Lane and Shoulder Widths
Generally, it has been known that a wider lane reduces crash
frequency (Harwood et al. 2000; Lord and Bonneson 2007; Labi
2011; Haleem et al. 2013). The HSM also suggested that an in-
crease in lane width decreases crash frequency based on the studies
by Zegeer et al. (1988) and Griffin and Mak (1987). This is mainly
because a wider lane increases the separation between vehicles in
adjacent lanes and allows larger deviation of vehicles from the
center of the lane (Akgügör and Yıldız 2007). Moreover, a wider
lane helps drivers to have less pressure as the distance from the
other objects on both sides of their vehicles increases (Yang et al.
2013). Although an increase in lane width has been shown to be
effective in reducing crashes, some studies found opposite effects.
Hauer (2000) suggested that an increase in separation of vehicles
on wider lanes tends to increase vehicle speeds and reduce spacing
between vehicles. Consequently, an increase in lane width may
rather increase crash frequency. Mehta and Lou (2013) also found
© ASCE 04017015-2
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, -1--1
that an increase in lane width can increase crash frequency on rural
two-lane roads and rural four-lane divided roads in Alabama.
Petritsch (2009) explored previous studies about safety impacts
of lane width and concluded that narrowing lanes to less than
the standard width (i.e., 3.66 m) might not decrease safety based
on the roadway types.
Gross et al. (2009) reported that effects of lane width on crash
frequency can be either positive or negative based on the variation
in shoulder width. Thus, they suggested that CMFs be determined
considering interaction between lane width and shoulder width.
Similarly, Bonneson et al. (2007) found that there are interaction
impacts between lane width and shoulder width in the model
formulation, allowing the effects of shoulder width to vary across
different lane widths. Lee et al. (2015) estimated CMFs for changes
of lane width using GNMs. This study developed nonlinearizing
link functions to reflect the nonlinear effects of lane width and
speed limit on crash frequency. The CMFs estimated using the
GNMs reflect that narrower lanes reduce crashes for the lane width
less than 3.66 m (12 ft) whereas wider lanes reduce crashes for lane
widths greater than 3.66 m. It was concluded that the CMFs esti-
mated using GNMs clearly reflect variations in crashes with lane
width, which cannot be captured by the CMFs estimated using
GLMs. This study also included an analysis of interactions between
lane and shoulder widths.
Similar to the findings regarding lane width, many researchers
have found that wider shoulders are effective in reducing crashes
(Hadi et al. 2000; Jovanis and Gross 2008; Harkey et al. 2008;
Ben-Bassat and Shinar 2011; Zeng and Schrock 2013; Park et al.
2014, 2015; Park and Abdel-Aty 2015). On the other hand,
Stamatiadis et al. (2009) claimed that wider shoulders may encour-
age higher operating speeds because they may communicate to the
driver the presence of wider space for correcting errors. Some
studies explained associated interaction effects between lane width
and shoulder width due to the differences in local conditions.
Because both lane and shoulder widths are among the most
important cross-sectional elements for roadway design and they
are installed simultaneously next to each other, there might be a
combination effect of these two features. According to Gross et al.
(2009), the effects of lane width on crash frequency were neither
consistently positive nor negative due to the variation in shoulder
widths. Thus, they suggested that CMFs be determined considering
the interaction between lane width and shoulder width. However,
it is worthwhile to mention that the safety effects of combinations
of lane and shoulder widths at curved and noncurved roadway
segments have not been investigated.
In this study, the safety effects of combinations of multiple traf-
fic and roadway characteristics were investigated and the GNMs
including multiple interaction impacts were developed for curved
and noncurved rural two-lane roadway segments.
Data Preparation
The HSM suggested that for the cross-sectional method, typically 3
to 5 years of crash data is needed to develop crash prediction
models (AASHTO 2010). Moreover, it is required to have suffi-
cient sample size in the cross-sectional method when many varia-
bles are included in the crash prediction models. This ensures large
variations in crash frequency and variables, and helps to better
understand their inter-relationships (Lee et al. 2015).
Five years (2008–2012) of crash data and traffic and roadway
characteristics data were obtained from Crash Analysis Resource
System (CARS) and Roadway Characteristics Inventory (RCI)
historical databases. Both data sets are maintained by the Florida
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.
 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Target Segments
Variable Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum
Number of crashes
Number of KABCO crashes 3.831 7.886 0 81
Number of KABC crashes 2.209 4.612 0 44
Number of KAB crashes 1.502 3.216 0 31
Traffic and roadway geometric characteristics
AADT (veh=day) 4,484.485 3,551.692 1,004 36,000
Length (km) 2.166 2.401 0.163 8.206
Lane width (m) 11.698 0.742 9 15
Lane width category 2.74 m: 19 sites, 2.90 m: 18 sites, 3.05 m: 311 sites, 3.20 m: 36 sites, 3.35 m: 219 sites, 3.51 m: 71 sites,
3.66 m: 1,995 sites, 3.81 m: 67 sites, 3.96 m: 31 sites, 4.27 m: 30 sites, 4.57 m: 19 sites
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Shoulder width (m) 1.937 0.956 0.305 4.877

Maximum speed limit (kph) 81.825 13.570 40.234 96.561
Horizontal curve (1: curved Curved segments: 156 sites (287.158 km), straight segment: 2,660 sites (5,814.788 km)
section, 0: noncurved section)
Shoulder type [1: paved, 0: others Paved shoulder: 1,749 sites (3,519.167 km), nonpaved shoulder: 1,067 sites (2,582.780 km)
(lawn, gravel, marl, gutter, etc.)]

Department of Transportation (FDOT). It should be noted that in expðβ k þ SEβ k Þ − expðβ k − SEβ k Þ
order to use the most stable, accurate, and complete data set, five SE ¼ ð2Þ
2
years of data ranging from 2008 to 2012 were obtained because
of the ongoing updates of the crash reporting and data collecting
Generalized Linear and Nonlinear Models
system in Florida.
In this study, each roadway segment has uniform geometric For the development of SPF (or crash prediction model), the GLM
characteristics during the five-year period except changes of annual with negative binomial (NB) has been widely utilized because of its
average daily traffic (AADT). A segment is represented by roadway strength to account for overdispersion. The functional form of
identification numbers and beginning and end mile points. AADT GLM (i.e., NB regression model) is shown in Eq. (3)
in 2010 was used as an average AADT in the 2008–2012 period.
Roadway characteristics data from the RCI system for the target N predicted;i ¼ exp½β 0 þ β 1 lnðAADTi Þþ · · · þβ k ðX ki Þ ð3Þ
segments were matched with crash data by roadway ID and seg-
It is best to note that the GLM may bias estimation results when
ment mile point for each segment. A total of 2,816 rural two-lane
there are nonlinear relationship between response and explanatory
roadway segments with 6,101.947 km (3,791.574 mi) in length
variables because the GLM is controlled by its linear-based speci-
were identified for the analysis. Table 1 presents the descriptive
fication. In detail, because the CMF developed by the GLM is as-
statistics of the parameters for the target segments.
sumed to be fixed because of the linear model analysis, it cannot
account for nonlinearity of treatment. In order to account for the
Methodology nonlinear relationship between crashes and roadway characteris-
tics, Lao et al. (2014) proposed a development and application
of GNM using a nonlinearizing link function to assess the safety
Cross-Sectional Method effects of treatments. The nonlinearizing link function can be
In the HSM, it is suggested that the cross-sectional analysis can be described in any functional form including linear, quadratic, log,
used to estimate CMFs when the date of the treatment installation is power, etc., for different values of y. The functional form of the
unknown and the data for the period before treatment installation are nonlinearizing link function (U ðyÞ ) is determined based on the
not available. Also, according to the Park and Abdel-Aty (2015), the
cross-sectional method is a useful approach to estimate CMFs when
there are insufficient crash data before and after a specific treatment
that is actually implemented. In the cross-sectional method, the CMF
is calculated by taking the ratio of the average crash frequency
of sites with the feature to the average crash frequency of sites with-
out the feature (Carter et al. 2012). Therefore, the CMFs can be esti-
mated from the coefficient of the variable associated with treatments
as the exponent of the coefficient when the form of the model is
log-linear (Lord and Bonneson 2007) as shown in Eq. (1)
CMF ¼ exp½β k × ðxkt − xkb Þ ð1Þ

If a geometric characteristic is expressed as a binary variable

[e.g., treatment (= 1) or no treatment (= 0)], the CMF will be
expðβ k Þ or the odds ratio of the linear predictor k (xkt ). However,
it is worth noting that the GLM represents the effect of each pre-
dictor x on crash frequency as a single coefficient for all values of
Fig. 1. Development of nonlinearizing link function for lane
x—i.e., β (Lee et al. 2015). The standard error (SE) of the CMF can
width
be calculated by Eq. (2) as follows (Harkey et al. 2008):

© ASCE 04017015-3 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, -1--1

 Table 2. Estimated Parameters of GNMs with Interaction Terms
KABCO KABC KAB
Parameter Coefficient SE p-value Coefficient SE p-value Coefficient SE p-value
Constant −6.3034 0.4717 <0.0001 −7.1376 0.4748 <0.0001 −7.2995 0.4918 <0.0001
Ln(AADT) 0.7517 0.0949 <0.0001 0.7957 0.0989 <0.0001 0.7746 0.1028 <0.0001
Segment length 0.5119 0.0255 <0.0001 0.5323 0.0251 <0.0001 0.5335 0.0253 <0.0001
LnðAADTÞ × ULW 0.1526 0.0749 0.0416 0.1414 0.0795 0.0753 0.1380 0.0826 0.0948
LnðAADTÞ × shoulder width −0.0191 0.0015 <0.0001 −0.0201 0.0016 <0.0001 −0.0206 0.0016 <0.0001
Curve × shoulder width × lane width 0.0066 0.0023 0.0045 0.0071 0.0023 0.0018 0.0062 0.0024 0.0084
Curve × Lnðsegment lengthÞ 0.4402 0.1656 0.0078 0.5125 0.1726 0.0030 0.6500 0.1935 0.0008
Dispersion 2.8910 2.5436 2.4095
Log likelihood −5,548.6478 −4,465.8456 −3,785.0021
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Akaike information criterion (AIC) 11,113.2955 8,947.6911 7,586.0042

Table 3. Estimated Parameters of GLMs

KABCO KABC KAB
Parameter Coefficient SE p-value Coefficient SE p-value Coefficient SE p-value
Constant −4.5041 0.7905 <0.0001 −5.3311 0.7892 <0.0001 −5.4738 0.8125 <0.0001
Ln(AADT) 0.7864 0.0568 <0.0001 0.8114 0.0566 <0.0001 0.7832 0.0583 <0.0001
Length 0.5235 0.0255 <0.0001 0.5447 0.0251 <0.0001 0.5481 0.0253 <0.0001
Lane width −0.0716 0.0521 0.1696 −0.0664 0.0524 0.2046 −0.0642 0.0539 0.2333
Shoulder width −0.1518 0.0126 <0.0001 −0.1614 0.0130 <0.0001 −0.1692 0.0136 <0.0001
Curve (1: roadway with 0.4362 0.1651 0.0082 0.4660 0.1612 0.0038 0.4402 0.1637 0.0071
horizontal grade, 0: no)
Dispersion 2.9189 2.5731 2.4397
Log likelihood −5,556.0241 −4,473.9065 −3,793.1717
Akaike information criterion (AIC) 11,126.0482 8,961.8129 7,600.3435

relationship between the logarithm of crash rate and the variable the analysis to improve model fit (Lao et al. 2014; Park and
y (Lao et al. 2014; Lee et al. 2015; Park and Abdel-Aty 2015). Abdel-Aty 2015)
The functional form of GNM is shown in Eq. (4) 8
< ¼ 0.99−0.09ðLanewidth−11.5Þ Lanewidth ≤ 11.5
N predicted;i ¼ expfβ 0 þ β 1 lnðAADTi Þ þ β k ðX ki Þ þ γ l ½Uðyli Þg 2
U LW ¼ 1.00 −0.08ðLanewidth−12.5Þ 11.5 < Lanewidth ≤ 12.5
:
ð4Þ ¼ 0.14−0.38ðLanewidth−15.0Þ 12.5 < Lanewidth
Because U ðyÞ varies with y, the CMF using GNM can be esti- ð6Þ
mated by Eq. (5) as follows (Lee et al. 2015):
CMF ¼ expfγ l × ½Uðylt Þ − Uðylb Þg ð5Þ Table 4. Developed CMFs for Changes of Lane Width at Noncurved
Roadway Segment
KABCO KABC KAB
Results and Discussion Changes of AADT
lane width (veh=day) CMF SE CMF SE CMF SE

Nonlinearizing Link Function 3.05 m 3,000 1.25 0.02 1.23 0.02 1.22 0.02
3.20 m 1.18 0.01 1.17 0.01 1.16 0.01
To account for the nonlinear effect of lane width on crashes, the 3.35 m 1.12 0.01 1.11 0.01 1.10 0.01
nonlinearizing link function was developed based on the relation- 3.51 m 0.93 0.01 0.93 0.01 0.93 0.01
ship between the logarithm of crash rates [ln(CR)] and lane width Base: 3.66 m 1.00 — 1.00 — 1.00 —
as presented in Fig. 1. Crash rate was defined as the number of 3.81 m 1.02 0.01 1.02 0.01 1.02 0.01
crashes per mile. It is worth noting that the interaction effects be- 3.96 m 0.63 0.02 0.65 0.02 0.66 0.02
4.11 m 0.50 0.02 0.53 0.02 0.53 0.03
tween the crash rates and other explanatory variables (i.e., AADT,
4.27 m 0.39 0.02 0.42 0.03 0.43 0.03
length, shoulder width, and speed limit) were also investigated, but 3.05 m 15,000 1.30 0.02 1.28 0.02 1.27 0.02
it did not capture the nonlinear effects from any other parameters. A 3.20 m 1.22 0.01 1.20 0.01 1.19 0.01
linear regression line was also fitted to the observed data, but it does 3.35 m 1.14 0.01 1.13 0.01 1.13 0.01
not reflect the nonlinearity of predictor. It was found that the 3.51 m 0.92 0.01 0.92 0.01 0.92 0.01
observed crash rate initially decreased as lane width increases to Base: 3.66 m 1.00 — 1.00 — 1.00 —
3.51 m but it increased when the lane width was greater than 3.81 m 1.03 0.01 1.03 0.01 1.03 0.01
3.51 m. The crash rates start to decrease again after 3.81 m. The 3.96 m 0.57 0.02 0.60 0.02 0.60 0.02
nonlinearizing link function was derived based on those three 4.11 m 0.43 0.02 0.46 0.02 0.47 0.02
ranges of lane width as shown in Eq. (6). The developed nonlinea- 4.27 m 0.32 0.02 0.36 0.02 0.37 0.02
rizing link function can be used as a nonlinear predictor in Note: All CMFs are significant at a 95% confidence level.

© ASCE 04017015-4 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, -1--1

 Table 5. Developed CMFs for Changes of Shoulder Width at Noncurved Developed Generalized Nonlinear Models
Roadway Segment
Tables 2 and 3 present the developed GNMs and GLMs for differ-
KABCO KABC KAB ent crash severities (i.e., KABCO, KABC, and KAB). The GNMs
Changes of AADT
shoulder width (veh=day) CMF SE CMF SE CMF SE and GLMs were also developed for other severity levels such as
1.22 m 3,000 1.36 0.01 1.38 0.01 1.39 0.01 KA, K, O, CO, BCO, etc., but the results were not statistically
1.37 m 1.26 0.01 1.27 0.01 1.28 0.01 significant. The GNMs were developed using the nonlinearizing
1.52 m 1.17 0.01 1.18 0.01 1.18 0.01 link function (U LW ) and the GLMs were also estimated to compare
1.68 m 1.08 0.01 1.08 0.01 1.09 0.01 model performance. According to Aarts and van Schagen (2006),
Base: 1.83 m 1.00 — 1.00 — 1.00 — Lee et al. (2015), and Park and Abdel-Aty (2015), it is worthwhile
1.98 m 0.93 0.01 0.92 0.01 0.92 0.01 to investigate interaction impacts among multiple roadway
2.13 m 0.86 0.01 0.85 0.01 0.85 0.01 characteristics and inclusion of interaction terms can improve
2.29 m 0.80 0.01 0.79 0.01 0.78 0.01
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the model fit. It was found that the GNMs with multiple interaction
2.44 m 0.74 0.01 0.73 0.01 0.72 0.01
1.22 m 15,000 1.44 0.01 1.47 0.01 1.49 0.01
terms [LnðAADTÞ × U LW , LnðAADTÞ × Shoulder width, Curve ×
1.37 m 1.32 0.01 1.34 0.01 1.35 0.01 Shoulder width × Lane width, Curve × LnðSegment lengthÞ] pro-
1.52 m 1.20 0.01 1.21 0.01 1.22 0.01 vided better model performance [i.e., smaller Akaike information
1.68 m 1.10 0.01 1.10 0.01 1.10 0.01 criterion (AIC) value] than the GLMs. In detail, the results show
Base: 1.83 m 1.00 — 1.00 — 1.00 — that both lane and shoulder widths interact with AADT. The results
1.98 m 0.91 0.01 0.91 0.01 0.91 0.01 also show that there is an interaction impact between lane and
2.13 m 0.83 0.01 0.82 0.01 0.82 0.01 shoulder widths at curved sections. It should be noted that an in-
2.29 m 0.76 0.01 0.75 0.01 0.74 0.01 teraction term between lane and shoulder widths at noncurved sec-
2.44 m 0.69 0.01 0.68 0.01 0.67 0.01
tions was also utilized but it was not significant for all types of
Note: All CMFs are significant at a 95% confidence level. different severity levels. This may be because both increasing lane

Table 6. Developed CMFs for Changes of Lane Width at Curved Roadway Segment
CMF (SE)
Shoulder width ¼ 1.22 m Shoulder width ¼ 1.83 m Shoulder width ¼ 2.44 m
AADT Changes of lane width KABCO KABC KAB KABCO KABC KAB KABCO KABC KAB
a a a a b b b
3,000 3.05 m CMF 1.18 1.16 1.16 1.15 1.13 1.13 1.12 1.10 1.10
SE 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
3.20 m CMF 1.13b 1.12b 1.12b 1.11b 1.10 1.10 1.09 1.07 1.07
SE 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07
3.35 m CMF 1.09 1.08 1.07 1.07 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.05
SE 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07
3.51 m CMF 0.92b 0.92b 0.92b 0.91a 0.91a 0.92b 0.91a 0.91 0.91b
SE 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05
Base: 3.66 m CMF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
SE — — — — — — — — —
3.81 m CMF 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.05
SE 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
3.96 m CMF 0.65a 0.67a 0.67a 0.65a 0.68a 0.68a 0.66a 0.69a 0.69a
SE 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
4.11 m CMF 0.52a 0.55a 0.55a 0.53a 0.56a 0.56a 0.54a 0.57a 0.57a
SE 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
4.27 m CMF 0.42a 0.45a 0.45a 0.43a 0.46a 0.47a 0.44a 0.47a 0.48a
SE 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
15,000 3.05 m CMF 1.24a 1.21a 1.21a 1.20a 1.18a 1.18a 1.17a 1.15b 1.15b
SE 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.08
3.20 m CMF 1.17a 1.15a 1.15a 1.15a 1.13b 1.13b 1.13b 1.11 1.11
SE 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
3.35 m CMF 1.11b 1.10b 1.10 1.10b 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.07 1.07
SE 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07
3.51 m CMF 0.90a 0.91a 0.91b 0.90a 0.91a 0.91a 0.89a 0.89a 0.90a
SE 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Base: 3.66 m CMF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
SE — — — — — — — — —
3.81 m CMF 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.05
SE 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
3.96 m CMF 0.59a 0.61a 0.62a 0.60a 0.62a 0.63a 0.60a 0.63a 0.64a
SE 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
4.11 m CMF 0.45a 0.48a 0.49a 0.46a 0.49a 0.50a 0.47a 0.50a 0.51a
SE 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
4.27 m CMF 0.35a 0.38a 0.38a 0.35a 0.39a 0.39a 0.36a 0.40a 0.40a
SE 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
a
Significant at a 95% confidence level.
b
Significant at a 90% confidence level.

© ASCE 04017015-5 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, -1--1

 width and a wider shoulder at curved segments are effective in
reducing specific crash types (e.g., run-off roadway, single vehicle
crashes, etc.) whereas both treatments at noncurved segments are
helpful for reducing multiple crash types and each treatment can be
more effective to decrease specific crash types in different condi-
tions at the same time. Lastly, the logarithm of segment length at
curved segments was found to be significant.
Crash Modification Factors
The CMFs for changes of lane and shoulder widths at noncurved
and curved roadway segments for different crash severities were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
CMFs then start to decrease again after 3.81 m of lane width. It
was also found that increasing shoulder width is more effective
to reduce severe crashes whereas increasing lane width is safety
effective in reducing total crash frequency.
Because both lane and shoulder widths interact with AADT, the
CMFs for changes of lane and shoulder widths can be developed
based on different AADT levels. Based on the mean value
of AADT from Table 1, two ranges of AADT level (1,000 to
5,000 veh=day and 5,001 to 36,000 veh=day) were categorized
and the most frequent AADT levels were selected from each group
to represent low and high traffic volumes. In Tables 4–7, the CMFs
were estimated for the selected two AADT levels (3,000 and

estimated using the cross-sectional method and presented in
Tables 4–7, respectively. It should be noted that segments
with 3.66 m lane width and 1.83 m shoulder width were selected
as baselines (i.e., CMF ¼ 1) based on the mean values from
Table 1. The results from linear predictor show that the CMFs
for changes of shoulder width consistently decrease as shoulder
width increases.
On the other hand, the results using the nonlinear predictor in
GNM indicate that the CMFs for changes of lane width decrease
until a certain point (3.51 m) and increase after this point. The
15,000 veh=day) to explore the variation of CMFs based on
AADT changes. The results show that the CMFs for changes
of lane and shoulder widths are more safety effective as AADT
level increases.
As presented in previous section, interaction impact between
lane and shoulder widths was captured at curved segments. The
results indicate that the CMFs for changes of lane width are lower
for the roadways with narrower shoulder. Similarly, the results also
show that the CMFs for changes of shoulder width are lower for the
roadways with narrower lanes. It should be mentioned that the

Table 7. Developed CMFs for Changes of Shoulder Width at Curved Roadway Segment
CMF (SE)
Lane width ¼ 3.05 m Lane width ¼ 3.66 m Lane width ¼ 4.23 m
Changes of
AADT shoulder width KABCO KABC KAB KABCO KABC KAB KABCO KABC KAB
a a a a a a a a
3,000 1.22 m CMF 1.19 1.20 1.23 1.16 1.17 1.20 1.13 1.13 1.17a
SE 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
1.37 m CMF 1.14a 1.14a 1.17a 1.12a 1.12a 1.15a 1.10a 1.10a 1.12a
SE 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03
1.52 m CMF 1.09a 1.09a 1.11a 1.08a 1.08a 1.10a 1.06a 1.06a 1.08a
SE 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03
1.68 m CMF 1.04 1.05b 1.05b 1.04 1.04 1.05b 1.03 1.03 1.04
SE 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Base: 1.83 m CMF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
SE — — — — — — — — —
1.98 m CMF 0.96 0.96 0.95b 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.96
SE 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
2.13 m CMF 0.92a 0.91a 0.90a 0.93a 0.93a 0.91a 0.94a 0.94a 0.92a
SE 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
2.29 m CMF 0.88a 0.87a 0.86a 0.90a 0.89a 0.87a 0.91a 0.91a 0.89a
SE 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
2.44 m CMF 0.84a 0.84a 0.81a 0.86a 0.86a 0.83a 0.89a 0.88a 0.85a
SE 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
15,000 1.22 m CMF 1.27a 1.28a 1.31a 1.23a 1.24a 1.28a 1.20a 1.21a 1.25a
SE 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 10.02 0.03
1.37 m CMF 1.19a 1.20a 1.23a 1.17a 1.18a 1.20a 1.15a 1.15a 1.18a
SE 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03
1.52 m CMF 1.12a 1.13a 1.15a 1.11a 1.11a 1.13a 1.10a 1.10a 1.12a
SE 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
1.68 m CMF 1.06a 1.06a 1.07a 1.05b 1.06a 1.06a 1.05b 1.05b 1.06a
SE 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Base: 1.83 m CMF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
SE — — — — — — — — —
1.98 m CMF 0.94a 0.94a 0.93a 0.95b 0.95b 0.94a 0.96 0.95 0.95b
SE 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
2.13 m CMF 0.89a 0.88a 0.87a 0.90a 0.90a 0.88a 0.91a 0.91a 0.89a
SE 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
2.29 m CMF 0.84a 0.83a 0.81a 0.85a 0.85a 0.83a 0.87a 0.87a 0.85a
SE 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
2.44 m CMF 0.79a 0.78a 0.76a 0.81a 0.80a 0.78a 0.83a 0.83a 0.80a
SE 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
a
Significant at a 95% confidence level.
b
Significant at a 90% confidence level.

© ASCE 04017015-6 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, -1--1

 Table 8. Summary of Developed CMFunctions
Noncurved segments Curved segments
Crash Changes of Changes of
types lane width (LW) shoulder width (SW) Changes of lane width (LW) Changes of shoulder width (SW)
KABCO exp½0.1526 × lnðAADTÞ exp½−0.0191 × lnðAADTÞ expf½0.1526 × lnðAADTÞ expf½−0.0191 × lnðAADTÞ × ðSW − BaseSW Þ
× ðU LW − BaseULW Þ × ðSW − BaseSW Þ × ðU LW − BaseULW Þ þ ½0.0066ðLW × SW − BaseLW × BaseSW Þg
þ ½0.0066ðLW × SW
− BaseLW × BaseSW Þg
KABC exp½0.1414 × lnðAADTÞ exp½−0.0201 × lnðAADTÞ expf½0.1414 × lnðAADTÞ expf½−0.0201 × lnðAADTÞ × ðSW − BaseSW Þ
× ðU LW − BaseULW Þ × ðSW − BaseSW Þ × ðU LW − BaseULW Þ þ ½0.0071ðLW × SW − BaseLW × BaseSW Þg
þ ½0.0071ðLW × SW
− BaseLW × BaseSW Þg
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

KAB exp½0.1380 × lnðAADTÞ exp½−0.0206 × lnðAADTÞ expf½0.1380 × lnðAADTÞ expf½−0.0206 × lnðAADTÞ × ðSW − BaseSW Þ
× ðU LW − BaseULW Þ × ðSW − BaseSW Þ × ðU LW − BaseULW Þ þ ½0.0062ðLW × SW − BaseLW × BaseSW Þg
þ ½0.0062ðLW × SW
− BaseLW × BaseSW Þg

Fig. 4. CMFunction for changes of lane width with AADT for

Fig. 2. CMFunction for changes of lane width with AADT for KAB crash
KABCO crash

Fig. 5. CMFunction for changes of shoulder width with AADT for

KABCO crash
Fig. 3. CMFunction for changes of lane width with AADT for
KABC crash

summarized as shown in Table 8. Figs. 2–7 provide examples of

visualizations of changes of CMFs for the straight roadway segments.
CMFs for changes of lane and shoulder widths were adjusted by the
interaction term for the roadways with horizontal curves.
As stated previously, in the cross-sectional method, the CMF Conclusion
is estimated using the coefficient of the variable associated with a
specific roadway characteristic in the exponential functional This study assesses the safety effects of combinations of traffic and
form. Thus, crash modification functions (CMFunctions) can be multiple roadway cross-sectional elements at straight and curved

© ASCE 04017015-7 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, -1--1


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. CMFunction for changes of shoulder width with AADT for
KABC crash
Fig. 7. CMFunction for changes of shoulder width with AADT for
KAB crash
Fig. 8. Comparison of CMFs by GNM and GLM
rural two-lane roadway segments considering the nonlinear rela-
tionship between lane width and crash rate. To reflect the nonlinear-
ity of predictor and obtain more reliable estimates, the GNMs were
developed using the nonlinearizing link function. In this study, the
CMFs for changes of lane and shoulder widths at noncurved and
curved roadway segments for different severities were estimated
using the cross-sectional method. It was found that increasing
shoulder width is more effective to reduce severe crashes whereas
© ASCE 04017015-8
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, -1--1
increasing lane width shows higher safety effects in reducing total
crash frequency. It was also found that the CMFs for changes
of lane and shoulder widths are more safety effective as AADT
level increases. Based on the interaction impact between lane
and shoulder widths at curved segments, the results indicated that
the CMFs for changes of lane width are lower for the roadways
with narrower shoulder whereas the CMFs for changes of shoulder
width decrease as lane width decreases.
Moreover, it was found that the safety effects of increasing
lane width show nonlinear variation whereas the CMF for
shoulder width consistently decreases as shoulder width in-
creases. In particular, the results showed that crash rates decrease
as the lane width increases until 3.51 m width and it increases as
the lane width exceeds 3.51 m. The crash rates start to decrease
again after 3.81 m. This nonlinear relationship between crash
rates and lane width is clearly reflected in the GNMs, which
cannot be captured in the GLMs. Fig. 8 presents an example
of comparison of CMFs by the GLM and GNM for all (KABCO)
crashes. The result indicates that the estimated CMFs using the
GLM may misrepresent actual safety effects of changing lane
width because the CMFs from the GLM show a fixed trend and
cannot account for nonlinear effects of the roadway safety treat-
ment. Thus, it can be suggested to apply the proposed methodol-
ogy of utilizing the GNMs when the crash rates have a nonlinear
relationship with specific parameters.
Furthermore, multiple interaction impacts were found and
considered in the GNMs. In particular, there was significant
interaction effect between lane and shoulder widths at curved
roadway sections whereas it was not found for noncurved sec-
tions. It was also found that both changes of lane and shoulder
widths interact with AADT. This indicates that it is worthwhile
to investigate interaction impacts among variables and that
including significant interaction terms, which are not correlated
with existing predictors, in SPFs improves the goodness of fit
of the models.
In order to overcome some limitations in this study, it is required
to conduct future work. In this study, there was insufficient sample
size for some lane width categories (2.74, 2.90, and 4.57 m). More
reliable estimates can be found when a large enough sample size for
different roadway characteristics is ensured. Moreover, it can be
suggested to develop SPFs for straight and curved roadway sections
separately when there are enough samples for each lane width
category for both roadway types. It is recommended that various
nonlinearizing link functions with multiple roadway characteristics
be developed to consider combined effects of the treatment and
external factors and further improve the performance of GNMs.
It is also recommended to utilize data mining and machine
learning techniques [e.g., MARS, generalized additive model
(GAM), etc.] to reflect the nonlinearity and interaction effects
among predictors at different ranges. However, it should be noted
that although these advanced approaches might provide better
model fits, there is a need to optimize the issue between complex-
ity for increasing model accuracy and applicability for the ease
of general implementation of the model when the CMF is esti-
mated using the cross-sectional method. Lastly, in further research
more robust validation methods such as cross-validation can be
considered.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) for providing the data that were used in this study, and for
funding this research.
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.
 Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
AADTi = annual average daily traffic of segment i (veh=day);
N predicted;i = predicted crash frequency on segment i;
SE = standard error of the CMF;
SEβk = standard error of the coefficient β k ;
xkt = linear predictor k of treated sites;
xkb = linear predictor k of untreated sites;
X ki = linear predictor k of segment I;
yli = nonlinear predictor l of segment i;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/13/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
β k = coefficients for the variable k; and
γ l = coefficients for the nonlinear predictor l.
References
Aarts, L., and van Schagen, I., 2006. “Driving speed and the risk of road
crashes: A review.” Accid. Anal. Prev., 38(2), 215–224.
AASHTO. (2010). Highway safety manual, 1st Ed., Washington, DC.
Abdel-Aty, M., Lee, C., Park, J., Wang, J., Abuzwidah, M., and Al-Arifi, S.
(2014). Validation and application of highway safety manual (Part D)
in Florida, Florida Dept. of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL.
Akgügör, A. P., and Yıldız, O. (2007). “Sensitivity analysis of an accident
prediction model by the fractional factorial method.” Accid. Anal. Prev.,
39(1), 63–68.
Ben-Bassat, T., and Shinar, D., 2011. “Effect of shoulder width, guardrail
and roadway geometry on driver perception and behavior.” Accid. Anal.
Prev., 43(6), 2142–2152.
Bonneson, J., Lord, D., Zimmerman, K., Fitzpatrick, K., and Pratt, M.,
2007. “Development of tools for evaluating the safety implications
of highway design decisions.” Rep. 0-4703-4, Texas Dept. of Transpor-
tation, Austin, TX.
Carter, D., Srinivasan, R., Gross, F., and Council, F. (2012). “Recom-
mended protocols for developing crash modification factors.” Final
Rep. NCHRP 20-7 (314), Univ. of North Carolina Highway Safety
Research Center, Chapel Hill, NC.
Griffin, L. I., and Mak, K. K. (1987). “The benefits to be achieved from
widening rural, two-lane farm-to-market roads in Texas.” Rep. No. IAC
(86-87)–1039, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX.
Gross, F., Jovanis, P. P., and Eccles, K., 2009. “Safety effectiveness of lane
and shoulder width combinations on rural, two-lane, undivided roads.”
Transp. Res. Rec., 2103, 42–49.
Gross, F., Persaud, B., and Lyon, C. A. (2010). “A guide to developing
quality crash modification factors.” Rep. FHWA-SA-10-032, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Hadi, M. A., Aruldhas, J., Chow, L. F., and Wattleworth, J. A. (2000). “Es-
timating safety effects of cross-section design for various highway types
using negative binomial regression.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1500, 169–177.
Haleem, K., Gan, A., and Lu, J. (2013). “Using multivariate adaptive
regression splines (MARS) to develop crash modification factors for
urban freeway interchange influence areas.” Accid. Anal. Prev., 55, 12–21.
Harkey, D. L., et al. (2008). “Accident modification factors for traffic en-
gineering and its improvements.” NCHRP Rep. 617. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
© ASCE 04017015-9
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, -1--1
Harwood, D. W., Council, F. M., Hauer, E., Hughes, W. E., and Vogt, A.
(2000). “Prediction of the expected safety performance of rural two-lane
highways.” Publication No. FHWA-RD-99-207, Federal Highway
Administration, McLean, VA.
Hauer, E. (2000). “Lane width and safety.” 〈http://ezrahauer.files.wordpress
.com/2012/08/lane-width-and-safety.pdf〉 (Mar. 1, 2015).
Jovanis, P., and Gross, F. (2008). “Estimation of safety effectiveness of
changes in shoulder width with case control and cohort methods.”
Transp. Res. Rec., 2019, 237–245.
Labi, S. (2011). “Efficacies of roadway safety improvements across
functional subclasses of rural two-lane highways.” J. Saf. Res., 42(4),
231–239.
Lao, Y., Zhang, G., Wang, Y., and Milton, J. (2014). “Generalized nonlinear
models for rear-end crash risk analysis.” Accid. Anal. Prev.,
62, 9–16.
Lee, C., Abdel-Aty, M., Park, J., and Wang, J. (2015). “Development of
crash modification factors for changing lane width on roadway
segments using generalized nonlinear models.” Accid. Anal. Prev.,
76, 83–91.
Lord, D., and Bonneson, J. A. (2007). “Development of accident
modification factors for rural frontage road segments in Texas.” Transp.
Res. Rec., 2023, 20–27.
Mehta, G., and Lou, Y. (2013). “Calibration and development of safety
performance functions for Alabama: Two-lane, two-way rural roads
and four-lane divided highways.” Transp. Res. Rec., 2398, 75–82.
Park, J., and Abdel-Aty, M. (2015). “Assessing the safety effects of multiple
roadside treatments using parametric and nonparametric approaches.”
Accid. Anal. Prev., 83, 203–213.
Park, J., and Abdel-Aty, M. (2016). “Evaluation of safety effectiveness of
multiple cross sectional features on urban arterials.” Accid. Anal. Prev.,
92, 245–255.
Park, J., Abdel-Aty, M., and Lee, C. (2014). “Exploration and comparison
of crash modification factors for multiple treatments on rural multilane
roadways.” Accid. Anal. Prev., 70, 167–177.
Park, J., Abdel-Aty, M., Lee, J., and Lee, C. (2015). “Developing crash
modification functions to assess safety effects of adding bike lanes
for urban arterials with different roadway and socio-economic
characteristics.” Accid. Anal. Prev., 74, 179–191.
Petritsch, T. (2009). “The influence of lane widths on safety and capacity:
A summary of the latest findings.” 〈http://nacto.org/docs/usdg
/lane_widths_on_safety_and_capacity_petritsch.pdf〉 (Mar. 1, 2015).
Stamatiadis, N., Pigman, J., Sacksteder, J., Ruff, W., and Lord, D. (2009).
“Impact of shoulder width and median width on safety.” NCHRP
Rep. 633, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, DC.
Yang, Q., Overton, R., Han, L., Yan, X., and Richards, S. H. (2013).
“The influence of curbs on driver behaviors in four-lane rural
highways—A driving simulator based study.” Accid. Anal. Prev.,
50, 1289–1297.
Zegeer, C. V., Reinfurt, D. W., Hummer, J., Herf, L., and Hunter, W. (1988).
“Safety effects of cross-section design for two-lane roads.” Transp. Res.
Rec., 1195, 20–32.
Zeng, H., and Schrock, S. (2013). “Safety-effectiveness of various types
of shoulders on rural two-lane roads in winter and non-winter
periods.” 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC.
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.