Accident Analysis and Prevention 194 (2024) 107371

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

Crash modification factors of rumble strips on horizontal curves of two-lane

rural roads: A propensity scores potential outcomes approach
Tanveer Ahmed a, Asif Mahmud b, Vikash V. Gayah c, *
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, 406 B Sackett Building, University Park, PA 16802, United States
b
Kittelson & Associates, Incfc 409 N 2nd Street, Suite 201, Harrisburg, PA 17101, United States
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, 231L Sackett Building, University Park, PA 16802, United States

A B S T R A C T

Horizontal curves are known to be more crash-prone than tangent sections particularly with respect to roadway departure crashes. Rumble strips are an effective
countermeasure to mitigate various types of roadway departure crashes. While existing studies on the safety effectiveness of rumble strips have primarily used before-
after study designs or cross-sectional methods for crash modification factor (CMF) estimation, these methods often suffer from imbalanced datasets and larger
standard errors, especially when the sample size is small. To address this, this study applies the propensity score potential outcome (PSPO) framework to estimate
CMFs for centerline rumble strips, shoulder rumble strips, and their combined application on horizontal curves. In addition to contributing to the development of
CMFs by crash severity, this study also examines the effects of rumble strips on collision types, highlighting their impact on vehicle maneuvering and collision
characteristics. The analysis is conducted on horizontal curves on two-lane rural roads in Pennsylvania, utilizing crash data from 2017 to 2021. The PSPO method
effectively reduces bias between sites with and without rumble strips, and the resulting statistical models align with engineering judgment. The findings indicate that
centerline rumble strips reduce opposite direction sideswipe and head-on crashes but increase run off the road and hit fixed object crashes. Shoulder rumble strips,
either alone or in combination with centerline rumble strips, decrease crash frequencies for most types except opposite direction sideswipe and head-on crashes.
However, shoulder rumble strips alone are more effective at reducing crash frequencies on horizontal curves than when combined with centerline rumble strips.

1. Introduction
Horizontal curves are known to be more crash-prone than tangent
sections (Hummer et al., 2010). Proper maneuvering is required for
drivers to stay on the road on curved sections, and failure to do so may
lead to roadway departure or head-on crashes. Crashes on horizontal
curves constitute more than 25 percent of the total number of fatal
crashes in the United States (Federal Highway Administration, 2019).
Hence, improving traffic safety on curves has been of major concern for
transportation agencies. Although different countermeasures to mitigate
crashes exist, accurate quantification of the effectiveness of these
countermeasures on curves is necessary.
Rumble strips are an effective solution to the most common crash
types on horizontal curves: roadway departure and head-on crashes. The
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) describes rumble
strips as “undulation on traveled lane boundaries with a rough texture
designed to provide a haptic alert for inattentive drivers driving over
them” (FHWA, 2012). They are a form of low-cost countermeasure with
high benefit-cost ratios, and thus they are used widely by practitioners.
There are three common types of rumble strips: center line rumble strips
(CLRS) are milled along the center line of the road with marking painted
on it; shoulder rumble strips (SHRS) are generally placed on the shoul­
der between pavement marking and outside edge; and edge line rumble
strips (ELRS) are milled on the edge line with pavement marking placed
on the rumble strips. Generally, SHRS and ELRS prevent runoff the road
(ROR) and hit fixed object (HFO); while CLRS prevent opposite direction
sideswipe (ODS) and head on (HO) crashes. Numerous studies have
attempted to quantify the effectiveness of rumble strips at mitigating
crashes on roadway segments, both on tangent and curve sections. Most
of these studies have shown a positive impact of rumble strips at
reducing various crash types on different facilities. A summary of these
is provided in Table 1 (tangent sections) and Table 2 (curve sections),
including crash modification factors (CMFs) estimated for rumble strips
that indicate their associated safety effectiveness.
While the impact of rumble strips on tangent road segments has been
studied extensively, less is known about their impact when applied on
horizontal curves. The impact of a countermeasure on a curve is
different from its impact on tangent section because the impact of crash
contributing factors differs across these locations. For example, the
relationship between safety performance and traffic volume was found
to differ on tangent and curve sections (Gooch et al., 2018); specifically,
the parameter estimate for traffic volumes (and other variables) from a

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tpa5285@psu.edu (T. Ahmed), amahmud@kittelson.com (A. Mahmud), gayah@engr.psu.edu (V.V. Gayah).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2023.107371
Received 30 June 2023; Received in revised form 26 October 2023; Accepted 1 November 2023
Available online 8 November 2023
0001-4575/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Ahmed et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 194 (2024) 107371

Table 1 Table 2
CMFs of rumble strips on tangents on two-lane lane rural highways. CMFs of rumble strips on curves on two-lane lane rural highways.
Study Methoda RS Applicable crash CMF SE Study Methoda RS Applicable CMF SE
frequency category crash
frequency
(Persaud EB CLRS Total 0.880 0.030
category
et al., EB CLRS Injury 0.860 0.046
2004) EB CLRS ODS-HO 0.750 0.087 (Torbic, 2009) EB CLRS Total 1.035 0.065
EB CLRS ODS-HO (Injury) 0.750 0.097 EB CLRS Fatal and 0.936 0.081
(Torbic, EB SHRS Total 0.941 0.057 Injury
2009) EB SHRS Fatal and injury 0.920 0.080 EB CLRS ODS-HO 0.529 0.099
EB SHRS ROR-HFO 0.838 0.081 (Khan et al., EB SHRS ROR 0.863 0.175
EB SHRS ROR-HFO 0.636 0.097 2015)
(Fatal and injury) (Galgamuwa CS CLRS Lane 0.94 0.026
EB CLRS Total 0.920 0.043 and Departure
EB CLRS Fatal and Injury 0.851 0.059 Dissanayake, CS SHRS Lane 0.95 0.020
EB CLRS ODS-HO 0.507 0.069 2019) Departure
(Sayed et al., EB CLRS ROR (left) - HO 0.707 – CS CLRS- Lane 0.89 0.015
2010) EB SHRS ROR (right) 0.775 – SHRS Departure
EB CLRS - ROR-HO, 0.786 – CS CLRS Lane 0.95 0.020
SHRS Departure
(Karkle et al., EB CLRS Total (correctable) 0.708 0.098 (Fatal and
2013) EB CLRS Fatal and Injury 0.660 0.141 injury)
EB CLRS Cross-over 0.328 0.151 CS SHRS Lane 0.94 0.020
EB CLRS ROR 0.808 0.141 Departure
(Torbic et al., EB CLRS - ODS-HO, ROR-HFO 0.650 0.105 (Fatal and
2014) SHRS injury)
EB CLRS - ODS-HO, ROR-HFO 0.604 0.123 CS CLRS- Lane 0.87 0.036
SHRS (Fatal and Injury) SHRS Departure
(Kay et al., EB CLRS Total 0.842 – (Fatal and
2015) EB CLRS - Total 0.828 – injury)
SHRS CC CLRS Lane 0.87 0.077
(Lyon et al., EB CLRS - Total 0.800 0.025 Departure
2015) SHRS CC SHRS Lane 1.25 0.112
EB CLRS - Injury 0.771 0.034 Departure
SHRS CC CLRS- Lane 0.75 0.102
EB CLRS - ROR-HFO 0.742 0.041 SHRS Departure
SHRS CC CLRS Lane 0.88 0.087
EB CLRS - ODS-HO 0.700 0.064 Departure
SHRS (Fatal and
EB CLRS - ROR-HFO, ODS-HO 0.733 0.035 injury)
SHRS CC SHRS Lane 0.81 0.077
a Departure
EB – Empirical Bayes before-after methodology. (Fatal and
injury)
tangent Safety Performance Function (SPF) was found to be significantly CC CLRS- Lane 0.51 0.077
SHRS Departure
different from that from curve SPF. Therefore, it is important to sepa­
(Fatal and
rately quantify the impact of countermeasures on curves. Evidently, the injury)
impact of rumble strips in reducing crashes have been found to be (Himes et al., EB ELRS Total 0.75, 0.79 0.09, 0.04
different on curves compared to tangent segments (Gooch et al., 2018; 2017) EB ELRS Injury 0.64, 0.79 0.14, 0.07
Torbic, 2009). Among the few studies that specifically examined the EB ELRS ROR 0.74–0.78 0.05–0.11
(Babiceanu and EB CLRS Total 0.966 0.07
impact of rumble strips on curve sections, the majority of these found Fontaine, EB CLRS Fatal and 0.908 0.10
SHRS and CLRS both effectively reduce crashes on curves (Babiceanu 2018) injury
and Fontaine, 2018; Galgamuwa and Dissanayake, 2019; Gooch et al., EB CLRS ODS-HO 0.832 0.22
2018; Himes et al., 2017; Persaud et al., 2022; Torbic, 2009). However, EB CLRS ODS-HO, 0.905 0.10
ROR-HFO
some of these studies have reported that CLRS were associated with an
EB CLRS ODS-HO, 1.095 0.17
increase in crash frequencies (Babiceanu and Fontaine, 2018; Persaud ROR-HFO
et al., 2022). (Persaud et al., 2022) found that a combined application of (Fatal and
SHRS and ELRS is more beneficial in terms of total crash frequency Injury)
compared to their individual application, but less effective than the (Persaud et al., EB CLRS Total 1.022 0.073
2022) EB CLRS Single 0.983 0.080
application of ELRS alone for run-off-road and hit fixed object crashes Vehicle ROR-
(ROR-HFO). However, the total length of curve segments utilized for HFO
analysis in this study was only 83.8 km. EB ELRS Total 0.597 0.078
The majority of these existing studies on the safety effectiveness of EB ELRS Single 0.455 0.080
Vehicle ROR-
rumble strips have used the Empirical Bayes (EB) before-after study
HFO
design for CMF estimation, while two studies have used cross-sectional EB CLRS- Total 0.489 0.171
methods for CMF estimation (Galgamuwa and Dissanayake, 2019; Park ELRS
et al., 2014). However, both of these approaches present significant EB CLRS- Single 0.534 0.164
challenges. The before-after design often lacks pre-implementation or ELRS Vehicle ROR-
HFO
post-implementation data, making it challenging to assess the true
a
impact of rumble strips. Consequently, this limitation results in large EB – Empirical Bayes before-after methodology; CS – cross-sectional model;
standard errors in the estimated CMFs. On the other hand, the with- CC – case control study.
without studies that utilize cross-sectional methods use datasets that

2
T. Ahmed et al.
are often imbalanced in terms of presence of treatment; i.e., there are
many more curve sections without the treatment than with the treat­
ment. Other features might also differ between sites with and without
rumble strips resulting in a biased estimate of CMFs, specifically when
the sample size is small. To address these limitations and bridge this
research gap, this study uses the propensity score potential outcome
(PSPO) framework to balance the dataset based on the likelihood of each
curve section having rumble strips and uses subsequent cross-sectional
modeling to estimate reliable CMFs of centerline rumble strips, shoul­
der rumble strips, and their combined application on horizontal curves
in two-lane rural roads of Pennsylvania. In addition to contributing to
the development of CMFs, this paper also distinguishes the effects of
rumble strips by collision type, as opposed to just crash severity. This is
significant because rumble strips affect the way a vehicle maneuvers on
a roadway or a curved segment, which consequently alters the manner
of collision.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 de­
scribes the PSPO methodological framework used for data balancing and
estimating CMFs. This is followed by a description of data that was used
for model development in Section 3. Section 4. provides the estimation
results for PSPO method as well as results from models and discusses
goodness of data fit. Finally, the overall findings and future research
direction are presented in Section 5.
2. Methods
This section describes the PSPO framework adopted in this paper to
estimate CMFs for rumble strips. Section 2.1 provides the justification of
the PSPO method and the matching process. Section 2.2 describes the
NB regression model used for estimating rumble strip CMFs.
2.1. Propensity scores – Potential outcomes framework
For various reasons, the number of road segments that receive a
specific treatment may be different from the number of untreated seg­
ments. Such imbalance can lead to biased estimates of the effectiveness
of the proposed treatment. This imbalance can be overcome through an
observational epidemiological approach (Hauer, 2010). An example of
such an approach is a case-control study that matches segments with and
without the given treatment based on some pre-selected factors. The
PSPO framework is a selection mechanism used to match locations with
and without a treatment in a way that simulates a randomized experi­
ment, even while using non-random data (Guo and Fraser, 2010; Hirano
and Imbens, 2005; Holmes, 2014). The framework estimates the pro­
pensity of all observation units to receive a specific treatment and then
matches treated and untreated sites based on this propensity score
(Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983). The PSPO framework has gained
attention among researchers in transportation safety due to its superi­
ority compared to other methods (Li et al., 2019). Studies have used the
PSPO method to better understand safety effect of various treatment
such as, signal installation (Aul and Davis, 2006), child safety restraint
effectiveness (Durbin et al., 2009), speed cameras (Li et al., 2013),
design exception (Wood et al., 2015a), intersection lighting (Sasidharan
and Donnell, 2014, 2013), lane widths (Wood et al., 2015b), continuous
green T intersections (Wood and Donnell, 2016), tangents and curves
(Gooch et al., 2018, 2016), transit signal priority (Song and Noyce,
2019), effect of cellphone distraction (Lu et al., 2020), and dual appli­
cation of shoulder and centerline rumble strips (Li and Donnell, 2020).
Three assumptions are necessary for reliable performance of the
PSPO framework and valid causal inference: Stable Unit Treatment
Value Assumption (SUTVA), Positivity, and Unconfoundedness. Details
on these assumptions are provided in (Gooch et al., 2018, 2016; Guo and
Fraser, 2010; Hirano and Imbens, 2005; Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983).
Considering these assumptions, the first step of PSPO framework is to
calculate propensity score of road segments in receiving treatment. In
this study, the ‘treatment’ is defined as the presence of any type of
3
Accident Analysis and Prevention 194 (2024) 107371
rumble strip on a given curve section.
The propensity score is estimated based on measurable characteris­
tics of the curve sections. A binary logit model is adopted in this study to
estimate these propensity scores. Let i = 1, 2, ⋯, N denote the index for
individual curve sections, where N is the total number of curve sections
being considered. The probability function under binary logit formula­
tion is given by:
eβXi
P(RSi |Xi ) = E(yi ) = (1)
1 + eβXi
where RSi denotes the presence of rumble strip on curve section i, Xi is
the vector of explanatory variables for curve section i, and β is the vector
of corresponding coefficients to be estimated. To avoid omission bias, all
explanatory variables, irrespective of statistical significance, are
considered in this analysis (Gooch et al., 2018). To estimate parameters
β, the method of maximum likelihood is adopted. The likelihood func­
tion is given by:
∏
N
L(RS) = P(RSi |Xi ) (2)
i=1
Selecting the parameters that maximize this likelihood function in
Equation (2) provides a model that best fits the observed data. As
Equation (2) typically provides extremely small numbers, the natural log
of Equation (2) is typically maximized instead. The estimated β co­
efficients are then applied in Equation (1) to calculate the probability
that the road segment receives treatment.
Treated road segments are then matched with the untreated road
segments based on the propensity scores outputted by the binary logit
model. The goal of the matching process is to replicate a randomized
experiment, wherein sites exhibiting similar features, determined by
their propensity scores, are allocated randomly into either a treated or
untreated group (Schafer and Kang, 2008). A thorough review of
existing matching methods employed within the PSPO framework is
presented in (Lan and Srinivasan, 2021). Existing studies have utilized
various matching methods that include 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching
(Dehejia and Wahba, 2002), K:1-nearest neighbor matching, radius
matching (Dehejia and Wahba, 2002), Mahalanobis metric matching
(Karwa et al., 2011; Rubin, 1980; Schafer and Kang, 2008), and kernel
matching (Heckman et al., 1997). The most widely used matching
method is the nearest neighbor (NN) which is a greedy algorithm as it
tends to match each treated sites with the most similar control based on
the propensity score. Within the NN, matching can undertake a 1:1 or a
K:1 approach and can be matched with or without replacement. 1:1 NN
selects a control site for every treated site that is within a pre-specified
threshold also known as the caliper width. This is especially helpful
when a dataset has many treated and control entities generating a
dataset with the most similar characteristics effectively reducing bias of
the estimated CMFs. However, an issue of the 1:1 NN method is that it
discards many observations which may lead to imprecise estimates.
Conversely, K:1 NN selects K control sites for each treated site, many of
which may not be similar. While a larger dataset yields more precise
CMF estimates, a lack of similarity between sites risks those estimates
being biased. Matching with replacement involves allowing one control
site to be matched to multiple treated sites, which can reduce bias in
situations where there are few suitable control sites for each treated site.
However, this approach complicates inference and may lead to treat­
ment effect estimates based on a limited number of controls.
To reduce the bias of estimated CMFs, this study has adopted the 1:1
NN approach, in which each treated segment is matched with one un­
treated road segment. To maintain the quality of matching, a caliper
width of 10 percent of the standard error of estimated propensity scores
is applied. Due to this caliper width, the treated segments without any
untreated segments within close propensity score are unmatched and
removed from the database. The NN algorithm used in this study
T. Ahmed et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 194 (2024) 107371

conducts matching without replacement, i.e., when an untreated
segment is matched with a treated segment it is removed from further
matching.
A matched dataset is then created with only the matched treated and
untreated curve sections. The quality of the matching is quantified
through the amount of bias in each of the potential explanatory variables
between the treated and untreated road segments. A common way to
quantify this bias is through the standardized bias (SB) measure, which
considers the difference between the distribution of a variable in treated
and untreated set (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983). The formula for SB is
given by:
μk,untreated − μk,treated
SBk = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
σ2 k,treated +σ 2 k,untreated
2
where k is the index for each explanatory variable, μk,untreated is the
sample mean of variable k in untreated segment set, μk,treated is the
sample mean of variable k in treated segment set, σ2 k,untreated is the
sample variance of variable k in untreated segment set, and σ 2 k,treated is
the sample variance of variable k in treated segment set. In general, a
standardized bias value of less than 10 % in magnitude is considered as
unbiased (Austin, 2011).
2.2. CMF estimation
where, βx denotes the coefficient of treatment indicator variable x and
SEβx denotes the standard error of βx from the NB model.
The data fit of the NB model can be examined using log-likelihood
and AIC values, where smaller values indicate a better statistical
might. Cumulative residual (CURE) plots are also used to visualize the fit
of the model to the observed data. A CURE plot is a graphical tool uti­
lized for assessing the adequacy of a crash prediction model’s fit and
determining whether a model is transferable to other contexts or loca­
tions (Hauer et al., 2012; Srinivasan and Bauer, 2013). The plot shows
the sorted cumulative residuals of a model as a function of a given
explanatory variable or predicted value. Assuming that this should
follow random walk process, the standard deviation for the CURE values
(3)
can be estimated as follows:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
σ2 (i)
σ CURE = σ s (i) 1 − 2s (9)
σ s (n)
where σCURE is the standard deviation of the CURE plot, σ 2s (i) is the cu­
mulative sum of the squared residuals from 1 to observation i and, σ 2s (n)
is the is the cumulative sum up to the nth squared residual. A good CURE
plot can be determined by assessing whether the model errors are
random or systematic. If the errors are random, the residuals should
follow a random walk process, and the CURE plot should oscillate
around the zero line, mostly contained within the ±2σ CURE bounds.

After the matched database is created using the PSPO framework, the
3. Data
CMF for the treatment can be estimated using traditional cross-sectional
methods. Here, an SPF is developed using these matched data that es­
This study utilizes data from two-lane rural state roads in Pennsyl­
tablishes a relationship between the predicted crash frequency and a set
vania over a five-year period (2017 to 2021). The analysis database was
of explanatory variables, including the presence of the treatment.
compiled by merging data from the following sources:
Negative binomial (NB) regression is adopted in this study to develop
this SPF, due to its ability to handle overdispersion in count data, as is
1) Inventory of all horizontal curves on state owned roads provided by
expected in crash outcomes. Let j denote the crash type considered for
the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT);
analysis. The expected crash frequency of crash type j on road segment i
2) PennDOT Roadway Management System (RMS) database, contain­
is given by:
ing information such as segment ID, length, and road characteristics,
λij = γXi + ∊ij (4) which was used to identify all two-lane rural roadway segments;
3) Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA), which included infor­
where γ is the set of coefficients associated with explanatory variable set mation on traffic volumes such as annual average daily traffic
Xi and ∊ij is a random error term which is such that exp(∊ij ) has a gamma (AADT);
distribution. Under NB specification, the probability of observing y 4) Supplemental data collected by the Pennsylvania State University
number of crashes of crash type j on road segment i is given by: (Donnell et al., 2014) that provided roadway characteristics for in­
( ) dividual roadway segments; and,
Γ α1j + yij [ ]yij [ ]α1 5) Pennsylvania Crash Information Tool (PCIT), which provided crash
αj λij 1 j

P(yij ) = ( ) (5) data for all state roads within Pennsylvania.

1 + α λ
j ij 1 + α λ
j ij
Γ α1j yij !
The data merging and matching process involved combining several
datasets to create a comprehensive dataset for the study. First, the
where Γ(.) denotes gamma function and αj is overdispersion parameter
dataset defining curves on state roads was merged with RMS data to
specific to crash type j. Similar to the binary logit model, the method of
identify all two-lane rural roads. This was done by using PennDOT’s
maximum likelihood (ML) is adopted to estimate γ and αj parameters.
linear referencing system, which matches observations with using the
The likelihood function is given by:
County code, State route number, segment ID, and offset within each
∏
N segment. Next, collected roadway geometric and features associated
Lj = P(yij ) (6) with each two-lane rural road segment was assigned to associated curve
sections within that segment. For curves that begin in one segment but
i

Given the categorical nature of the target variables (presence of SHRS, end in another, the roadway features of the first segment were assumed
presence of CLRS, and presence of SHRS and CLRS combined), the CMFs to prevail in the curve. These features consist of both categorical and
can be directly estimated from the resulting SPF using (7) while the continuous variables including:
standard errors of the estimates can be determined using (8) (Al-Marafi
and Somasundaraswaran, 2023). The contribution of these variables • Lane width
towards the expected crash frequency corresponds to their CMFs. • Posted speed limit (PSL)
• Total width of left and right shoulders
CMF x = eβx (7) • Width of paved left and right shoulders
• Roadside hazard rating (RHR)
eβx +SEβx − eβx − PennDOT engineering district
SEβx
•
SEx = (8)
2 • Presence of centerline rumble strips and,

4
T. Ahmed et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 194 (2024) 107371

• Presence of shoulder rumble strips Table 4

Summary statistics of available data (N = 156,073).
Note that access density on each roadway segment was available but Feature Mean Std. dev. Min Max
was not used as the access density for the entire segment does not apply
Length (miles) 0.082 0.063 0.010 0.707
to every curve section located inside. Similarly, the indicator variable AADT (vehicles/day) 2454.401 2395.905 55 28,955
denoting the presence of passing zones was available for each roadway Lane width (ft) 10.860 1.132 8 18
segment but not considered as most curve sections on undivided roads Width of paved left shoulder (ft) 2.517 2.115 0 12
prohibit passing. Width of paved right shoulder (ft) 2.569 2.127 0 13
Roadside Hazard Rating (RHR) 5.003 0.771 1 7
Next, annual traffic volumes were assigned to each curve section Degree of curvature 7.695 7.196 1.910 127.324
using the data available from the PASDA database. A unique AADT was Central Angle (degrees) 26.743 21.219 5.002 149.208
obtained for each year in the analysis period for each roadway segment Total crashes 0.111 0.401 0 11
while observations with missing traffic volumes or other variables in Fatal and Injury crashes 0.053 0.255 0 9
Runoff the road and hit fixed object 0.066 0.283 0 5
specific years were removed. Finally, crashes occurring on the curve
crashes
sections during each calendar year were merged to the curve dataset Opposite direction sideswipe and 0.008 0.092 0 3
from the PCIT datasets. For each year, the Crash Record Number (CRN) head-on crashes
of each crash occurring on each curved section was obtained by logically Percent of observations with feature
checking whether the offset location of a crash lies between the start and Posted speed limit between 15 and 1.90 %
30 mph
the end of a curve on a roadway segment. This was done to identify the Posted speed limit between 35 and 27.75 %
crashes that occurred specifically on the curves and not on other seg­ 40 mph
ments of the roadway. Finally, for each year, the CRN numbers of the Posted speed limit 45 mph and 70.35 %
crashes occurring on each section were matched with those from the above
Presence of only centerline rumble 16.17 %
PCIT database to obtain the collision type and severity of each crash.
strips
which were then used to categorize crashes into four types (Table 3). Presence of only shoulder rumble 1.50 %
After compiling the dataset, potential outliers were identified and strips
removed. In addition, correlation and interdependency between Presence of both centerline and 4.79 %
explanatory variables were checked to confirm that no strong correla­ shoulder rumble strips

tion exists, ensuring the dataset was consistent and ready for analysis.
A total of 31,193 unique curve segments were obtained which rep­ 4. Results
resented approximately 2,547.76 miles of roadway. For the five-year
study period, a total of 155,963 curve-years of data were available This section describes the outcome from PSPO matching process, as
with a combined length of 12,738.80 mile-years. The final dataset well as the estimate of the CMF for rumble strips along curve sections
contained variables corresponding to the geometry of the curved obtained from the NB statistical models. An evaluation of the quality of
segment such as length (miles), lane width (ft), width of paved shoulders the match and the overall fit of the statistical models are also provided.
(ft), degree of curvature—defined as 5729.58/curveradius in feet—cen­
tral angle of the horizontal curve (degrees), and roadside hazard rating
(RHR). A total of 120,921 curve sections did not have any rumble strips 4.1. Data matching
and were considered as the control group, while a total of 35,042 curve
sections had at least one type of rumble strip and were considered as the The objective of matching with the PSPO framework is to mimic a
treatment group. Among the curve sections with rumble strips, 25,224 randomized experiment to obtain sites with and without a treatment
had only centerline rumble strips (CLRS), 2,341 had only shoulder that are as similar as possible. As the study aims to estimate CMFs of
rumble strips (SHRS), and 7,477 had both centerline and shoulder each type of rumble strips (either CLRS, SHRS, or CLRS-SHRS) it is more
rumble strips (CLRS-SHRS). A total of 17,316 crashes were reported meaningful to conduct separate matching and analysis for individual
within the offsets of the curves during the study period. Out of these rumble strip type (i.e., setting the treatment group as a site with CLRS
crashes, 8,261 were fatal or resulted in injuries (FI). ROR-HFO and control group as a site without CLRS). However, given the smaller
accounted for the most crashes with a total of 10,363. ODS-HO sample sizes for each individual type of rumble strip treatment, specif­
accounted for 1,242 crashes. Summary statistics of the variables used ically sites with only SHRS and the combination of CLRS and SHRS, the
in the unmatched dataset are shown in Table 4. estimation is likely to yield CMFs that are statistically insignificant as
demonstrated from previous studies. Therefore, the treatment group was
carefully selected to be a set of curve sections that have any rumble
strips, while the control group includes curve sections without a rumble
Table 3 strip. The binary logistic regression model that relates the probability of
Categories of crashes considered.
a given curve section having rumble strips along its length (either CLRS,
Category Collision type Crash severity Number of SHRS, or CLRS-SHRS) is provided in Table 5. This model was estimated
crashes
using all 35,042 curve sections with rumble strips and 120,921 curve
Total crashes All All 17,316 sections without rumble strips. When selecting variables for the logistic
FI crashes All Killed 8,261 regression model, a systematic approach was followed. Key factors such
Suspected serious
injury
as exposure was captured by including AADT and curve length; regional
Suspected minor factor that determines the decision making process of treatment
injury implementation was incorporated using PennDOT engineering district;
Possible injury and other geometric features that influence the propensity of road seg­
Injury/ unknown
ments receiving rumble strip treatments such as lane width, paved
severity
ROR-HFO Runoff the road All 10,363 shoulder width, posted speed limit, roadside hazard rating and degree of
crashes Hit fixed object curvature were included. Since the purpose of this logistic regression
ODS-HO Opposite direction All 1,242 model was to estimate the probability that a road segment is treated,
crashes sideswipe related variables are included in the model regardless of the statistical
Head-on
significance of the parameter estimates. As shown, curve sections that

5
T. Ahmed et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 194 (2024) 107371

Table 5
Binary logit model parameters for propensity score estimation.
Variable β σ Pr(>|z|)

(Intercept) − 5.942 0.107 < 0.001

Natural log of curve length (mi) − 0.010 0.017 0.540
Natural log of AADT (veh/day) 0.466 0.009 < 0.001
District 2 0.600 0.031 < 0.001
District 3 − 0.118 0.033 0.002
District 4 0.697 0.033 < 0.001
District 5 − 0.468 0.039 < 0.001
District 6 0.460 0.047 < 0.001
District 8 0.210 0.032 < 0.001
District 9 1.102 0.031 < 0.001
District 10 − 0.170 0.035 < 0.001
District 11 0.402 0.045 < 0.001
District 12 − 0.370 0.036 < 0.001
Posted speed limit between 15 and 30 mph − 0.812 0.065 < 0.001
Posted speed limit greater than 45 mph 0.439 0.016 < 0.001
Lane width (ft) − 0.001 0.006 0.091
Width of left paved shoulder (ft) 0.058 0.010 < 0.001
Width of right paved shoulder (ft) 0.024 0.010 0.013
RHR 4, 5 0.279 0.034 < 0.001
RHR 6, 7 0.348 0.037 < 0.001
Degree of curvature − 0.007 0.002 < 0.001
Central Angle of horizontal curve (degree) 0.005 0.001 < 0.001
Fig. 1. Standardized bias of explanatory variables.
Goodness of fit
Number of observations 155,963
Log-likelihood value − 6710.2
Pseudo R-squared 0.081
AIC value 152,809

are more likely to have rumble strips installed are those that are longer,
have higher traffic volumes, high higher speed limits, have wider
shoulders, have higher central angles, and those that have higher
(worse) values of roadside hazard rating.
The propensity score for each road segment was calculated using the
parameter estimates from Table 5. Using the nearest 1:1 neighbor
matching method with a caliper width of 10 %, 34,627 curve sections with
rumble strips were matched with similar curve sections without rumble
strips based on the propensity scores. The remaining curve sections were
excluded from the analysis. A summary of the treated and untreated ob­
servations from the matched data is given in Table 6. The standardized
bias was used to evaluate the quality of the matching; Fig. 1 provides the
standardized bias values for the unmatched (i.e., original) and matched
databases for comparison. The mean absolute standardized bias for the Fig. 2. Overlap test between untreated and treated groups.
explanatory variables before matching was 17.25 %, while the mean
standardized bias of the matched dataset was 0.80 %. This represents a 4.2. CMF estimation
significant improvement in the average bias of variables in the data. Fig. 1
also shows that the standardized biases of all individual variables Unique NB models were estimated using the matched dataset to es­
considered were improved in the matched dataset and were all well within timate the CMF of rumble strips for the four crash frequency categories
the 10 % limit. Furthermore, an overlap test was performed to compare the defined in Table 3. For each model, various combinations of indepen­
propensity score distributions of the treatment and control groups of the dent variables were considered to determine the most appropriate model
matched data. Fig. 2 shows significant overlap between the histograms of that described that crash outcome. The objective was to develop a model
the propensity scores for both groups indicating the units are comparable that not only demonstrated a good fit, as evidenced by goodness-of-fit
and co-variates are well balanced. indicators, but also made sense in the context of road safety and

Table 6
Summary of matched data.
Treated, observations = 34,627 Untreated, observations = 34,627
Feature Mean Std. dev. Min Max Mean Std. dev. Min Max

Length (miles) 0.088 0.066 0.010 0.588 0.089 0.068 0.010 0.707
AADT (vehicles/day) 3072.156 2545.868 139 28,305 3201.368 2891.975 76 28,955
Lane width (ft) 11.015 0.971 8 18 11.010 1.220 8 18
Width of paved left shoulder (ft) 3.139 2.147 0 12 3.146 2.219 0 12
Width of paved right shoulder (ft) 3.182 2.138 0 11 3.187 2.227 0 13
Roadside Hazard Rating (RHR) 4.949 0.747 1 7 4.933 0.747 1 7
Degree of curvature 6.951 6.170 1.910497 100.5189 6.917 6.224 1.90986 127.324
Central Angle (degrees) 26.892 21.296 5.002 147.118 26.818 21.419 5.002 149.208
Percent of observations with feature Percent of observations with feature
Posted speed limit 45 mph and above 80.07 % 80.26 %

6
T. Ahmed et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 194 (2024) 107371

engineering judgement. Alternative functional forms of continuous in­

dependent variables such as the Hoerl function was also explored to
improve model fit (Hauer, 2015). In each model, three binary indicators
were included to describe the rumble strip type that may be present on
the curve section: only CLRS, only SHRS, or a combination of CLRS-
SHRS. Each of the models are described in the subsections below.

4.2.1. Total crashes

Table 7 shows the resulting SPF of total crash frequency. The model
includes seven explanatory variables, in addition to the three indicator
variables included to represent the rumble strip combinations. The co­
efficients of all non-rumble strip related variables were statistically
significant and consistent with engineering intuition. Variables related
to exposure—natural log of curve length and traffic volume—were
associated with an increase in expected total crash frequency. This is
intuitive as longer curved segments or those carrying a higher volume of
traffic are expected to be associated with more crashes. To improve the
quality of the estimated CMFs, the regular form of the curve length
variable was also added to the model which was found to have a
negative coefficient meaning longer curves are associated with a Fig. 3. Predicted crash frequency vs Curve length.
decrease in total crash frequency. It is not surprising as the model first
captures the effect of curve length through the natural log form which is SHRS or both CLRS and SHRS were associated with a decrease in crash
positively associated with crashes. In order to further investigate the frequency, suggesting they are effective countermeasures in reducing all
impact of curve lengths on total crash frequency, their relationship is crash types on horizontal curves. Both estimates were significant at the
plotted in Fig. 3 for three different AADT values (25th percentile AADT, 95 % confidence level. However, the combination of SHRS and CLRS
median AADT and 75th percentile AADT). It is evident that the increase was associated with a smaller decrease in crash frequency than SHRS
in curve length leads to a higher total crash frequency for different AADT alone.
values despite the opposite signs of the regular and log form of curve
lengths present in the mode. A higher degree of curvature and a central 4.2.2. Fatal and injury crashes
angle greater than 20 degrees indicates more challenging driving con­ Table 8 presents the SPF developed for crashes that result in fatality
ditions, making it difficult for drivers to maneuver their vehicles effec­ and/or injury. The impact of curve length, AADT, degree of curvature,
tively. Consequently, more crashes are likely to occur on these sharper and central angle was found to be consistent with the total crash fre­
curves. Furthermore, combined shoulder width less than 10 ft provides quency model. The relationships between rumble strip presence and FI
limited space for maneuvering and reduces the margin of error for crash frequency were also consistent with the total crash frequency
drivers, resulting in an increase in crash frequency as supported by model. Specifically, the presence of SHRS and combined CLRS and SHRS
(AASHTO, 2010; Le and Porter, 2013; Noland and Oh, 2004). The was found to be significantly associated with a decrease in FI crash
negative coefficient of the indicator variable for posted speed limit frequency, while only CLRS did not show a significant effect. Within the
greater than 45 mph infer reduced crash frequencies. Generally, roads range of observed data and the considered variables, the impact of
with higher posted speed limits have better design consistency resulting posted speed limits, lane width or paved shoulder widths on FI crash
in improved traffic flow as drivers are more focused and aware of their frequencies was not statistically significant and therefore was not
surroundings. This has also been supported in previous literature (Gooch included in the model.
et al., 2016; Islam et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2017; Mohammadnazar et al.,
2021; AASHTO, 2011). 4.2.3. Run off road and hit fixed object crashes
The presence of only CLRS did not show a statistically significant ROR-HFO crashes involve only one vehicle and occur on high cur­
relationship with total crash frequency. However, the presence of only vature road segments when drivers fail to keep their vehicles along the
roadway and/or collide with fixed objects outside of the traveled way.
Table 7
Safety performance function model results for: total crash frequency.
Table 8
Variables β σ Pr(>|
Safety performance function model results for: Fatal and injury crash frequency.
z|)
Variables β σ Pr(>|
(Intercept) − 6.193 0.216 < 0.001
z|)
Natural log of curve length (mi) 1.033 0.050 < 0.001
Curve length (mi) − 1.615 0.363 < 0.001 (Intercept) − 6.388 0.286 < 0.001
Natural log of AADT (veh/day) 0.798 0.016 < 0.001 Natural log of curve length (mi) 1.064 0.071 < 0.001
Degree of curvature 0.046 0.002 < 0.001 Curve length (mi) − 2.262 0.511 < 0.001
Central angle > 20 degrees 0.242 0.035 < 0.001 Natural log of AADT (veh/day) 0.759 0.021 < 0.001
Width of combined paved shoulder <= 10 ft 0.179 0.033 < 0.001 Degree of curvature 0.046 0.003 < 0.001
Posted speed limit greater than 45 mph − 0.075 0.024 0.002 Central angle > 20 degrees 0.294 0.049 < 0.001
Presence of only Centerline rumble strip 0.010 0.025 0.704 Presence of only Centerline rumble strip 0.007 0.035 0.841
Presence of only Shoulder rumble strip ¡0.156 0.063 0.013 Presence of only Shoulder rumble strip ¡0.269 0.090 0.003
Presence of Centerline and Shoulder rumble ¡0.088 0.039 0.025 Presence of Centerline and Shoulder rumble ¡0.106 0.054 0.048
strip strip
Goodness of fit Goodness of fit
Number of observations 69,254 Number of observations 69,254
Number of crashes 9,685 Number of crashes 4,549
Log-likelihood value − 52,321.99 Log-likelihood value − 30,964.06
Pseudo R-squared 0.10 Pseudo R-squared 0.087
AIC value 52,346 AIC value 30,984

7
T. Ahmed et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 194 (2024) 107371

Therefore, it is no surprise that these crashes comprise almost 59.8 % of Table 10

all crashes in the dataset. The SPF developed for this combined crash Safety performance function model results for: ODS-HO crash frequency.
frequency type is provided in Table 9. In line with intuition, the presence Variables β σ Pr(>|
of higher (worse) Roadside Hazard Ratings of 6 and 7 shows a significant z|)
positive association with ROR-HFO crash frequency. Interestingly, the (Intercept) − 12.513 0.564 < 0.001
presence of CLRS was found to increase the likelihood of ROR-HFO Natural log of curve length (mi) 0.881 0.075 < 0.001
crashes at the 95 % confidence interval. The presence of only SHRS, Natural log of AADT (veh/day) 1.165 0.057 < 0.001
however, was found to be significantly associated with a decrease in Degree of curvature 0.052 0.005 < 0.001
Central angle > 15 degrees 0.433 0.133 0.001
ROR-HFO crash frequency as they tend to alert inattentive drivers Width of combined paved shoulder < 10 ft 0.233 0.093 0.013
leaving the traveled way. A combined application of CLRS - SHRS was Posted speed limit greater than 50 mph − 0.250 0.084 0.003
also shown to reduce ROR-HFO crashes but does not appear to be as Presence of only Centerline rumble strip ¡0.142 0.085 0.096
effective as the application of only SHRS. Again, this may be because of Presence of only Shoulder rumble strip ¡0.301 0.219 0.169
Presence of Centerline and Shoulder rumble 0.132 0.265
the potential negative impact of CLRS. ¡0.147
strip
Goodness of fit
4.2.4. Opposite direction sideswipe and head on crashes Number of observations 69,254
ODS-HO crashes involve two vehicles moving in opposite direction Number of crashes 727
and usually occur when drivers fail to keep their vehicles inside the lane Log-likelihood value − 7,200.634
Pseudo R-squared 0.106
and hit a vehicle moving on the opposite lane. The SPFs for this com­ AIC value 7,222.6
bined crash frequency type in Table 10 shows that the explanatory
variables are consistent with previous models. CLRS demonstrated a
reduction in the occurrence of ODS-HO crashes at a 90 % confidence et al., 2022; Torbic, 2009) The presence of CLRS primarily alerts drivers
level. However, presence of SHRS, alone or in combination with CLRS when the vehicle starts to creep toward the opposite lane on two-way
did not exhibit statistically significant associations with ODS-HO crash two-lane roads. Thus, the frequency of head-on collisions is reduced
frequency. This may be since ODS-HO crashes constitute only 7.1 % of by approximately 13 % which can be seen from the CMF of 0.868.
all the crashes in the dataset. However, it is possible that the sudden vibration from accidentally
CURE plots showing the cumulative residuals of the predicted driving over these strips that may trigger overcorrection maneuvers,
crashes were used to evaluate the quality of the estimated SPFs; these are causing drivers to lose control of their vehicle and depart the road
shown in Fig. 4 for the four SPFs developed in this paper. The figures (Gooch et al., 2016; Khan et al., 2013). This explains the nearly 7 %
suggest that the cumulative residuals (denoted by the blue line) gener­ increase in ROR-HFO crash frequency when CLRS are applied.
ally stay within the upper and lower bounds (denoted by the red line) of On the other hand, the presence of only SHRS has been found to be
two standard deviation boundaries most of the time. Specifically, 99.7 beneficial and associated with a reduction of total crash frequency, FI
%, 99.0 %, 92.4 % and 95.9 % of the cumulative residuals were found to crash frequency and ROR-HFO crash frequency by 14.4 %, 23.6 % and
lie within the boundaries for total, FI, ROR-HFO and ODS-HO crashes 13.4 %, respectively. These findings are in line with the results of pre­
respectively indicating a good fit. vious studies in the literature (Galgamuwa and Dissanayake, 2019;
Himes et al., 2017; Khan et al., 2015; Persaud et al., 2022). Only SHRH
4.3. CMF summary and discussion was also found to be associated with a reduction in ODS-HO crash fre­
quency but was not significant. This is expected, as SHRS alerts the
A summary of the estimated CMFs of rumbles strips for the different driver when the vehicle starts to depart from the traveled way. The
crash frequency types is provided in Table 11, along with crash reduc­ sudden impact of driving over SHRS may cause drivers to over-steer and
tion factors (CRFs). The CMF of CLRS for total crashes and FI crashes was enter the opposite direction, leading to head-on collisions.
found to not be statistically significant, meaning only applying CLRS on There is no consistency in the literature on the combined application
horizontal curves could have both positive or negative impacts. This is of CLRS and SHRS on two-lane rural roads. Previous studies have re­
consistent with existing CMFs of CLRS from previous studies from ported such combined application may be both more or less effective
Table 2 that report both crash reduction and crash increase but insig­ than horizontal curves with only SHRS (Galgamuwa and Dissanayake,
nificant parameter estimates (Babiceanu and Fontaine, 2018; Persaud 2019; Persaud et al., 2022). In this study, the combined application of
CLRS and SHRS has been found to be less effective in reducing crash
frequency compared to application of only SHRS. Since CLRS was found
Table 9
to be effective in reducing the frequency of of ODS-HO crashes only,
Safety performance function model results for: ROR-HFO crash frequency.
while associated with an increase in ROR-HFO crashes, it is possible that
Variables Pr(>|
β σ
its presence in curves with a combined rumble strip treatment reduces
z|)
the overall effectiveness. This finding suggests that implementing both
(Intercept) − 3.314 0.283 < 0.001 CLRS and SHRS may not be as effective as only SHRS.
Natural log of curve length (mi) 1.251 0.057 < 0.001
Curve length (mi) − 2.222 0.485 < 0.001
Natural log of AADT (veh/day) 0.518 0.027 < 0.001 5. Conclusion
Curve length * AADT (veh-mi) − 1.57e- 0.000 0.004
04 This study used a cross-sectional analysis to help understand the
Degree of curvature > 20 degrees 1.374 0.078 < 0.001
Roadside Hazard Rating 6, 7 0.136 0.034 0.005
relationship between rumble strip presence on horizontal curves and
Presence of only Centerline rumble strip 0.067 0.031 0.039 crash frequency. Three types of rumble strip applications – only
Presence of only Shoulder rumble strip ¡0.143 0.078 0.066 centerline rumble strips (CLRS), only shoulder rumble strips (SHRS),
Presence of Centerline and Shoulder rumble ¡0.075 0.048 0.105 and both centerline and shoulder rumble strips in combination (CLRS-
strip
SHRS) were considered, as well as found categories of crash frequency:
Goodness of fit
Number of observations 69,254 total, fatal and injury (FI), run off the road and hit fixed object (ROR-
Number of crashes 5,595 HFO), and opposite direction sideswipe and head on (ODS-HO). The
Log-likelihood value − 36,957.987 propensity scores-potential outcomes (PSPO) framework was used to
Pseudo R-squared 0.068 simulate a randomized experiment that balances features on sites with
AIC value 36,982
and without rumble strips. The proposed method was applied to

8
T. Ahmed et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 194 (2024) 107371

Fig. 4. CURE plots (a) Total crashes; (b) Fatal and Injury crashes (c) Run off road and hit fixed object crashes; (d) Opposite direction sideswipe and head on crashes.

horizontal curve segments on two-lane rural roads in Pennsylvania, strips compared to curve sections without rumble strips. The resulting
considering crash data from 2017 to 2021, inclusive. The resulting statistical models to describe crash frequencies were found to conform to
dataset covered 31,687 unique horizontal curves and 2,568.343 miles of engineering judgment and provide a relatively good fit to the observed
roads. data. The application of CLRS was found to be associated with reduced
Overall, the PSPO method was found to significantly reduce bias frequency of ODS-HO crashes, but increased frequency of ROR-HFO
among numerous independent variables in curve sections with rumble crashes. The application of SHRS alone or in combination with CLRS,
was found to be associated with reduced frequency of all crash types
considered, except ODS-HO crashes. Overall, CLRS - SHRS was associ­
Table 11
ated with smaller reduction in crash frequency (of all types) compared to
Summary of estimated CMFs for rumble strips.
only SHRS.
Crash Treatment CMF Standard CRF % Significance One limitation of this was that adjacent horizontal curve segments
type error
were treated independently. However, correlations between driving
Total Only CLRS 1.010 0.025 − 1.0 % Not significant behavior and other unobserved features likely exist among segments in
Only SHRS 0.856 0.054 14.4 % Significant at 95
close proximity. To account for this spatial heterogeneity, a conditional
%
CLRS - 0.916 0.036 8.4 % Significant at 95 autoregressive (CAR) model can be adopted in the link function of NB
SHRS % specification, as in (Huang et al., 2010, 2017, 2010). Other methods such
FI Only CLRS 1.007 0.035 − 0.7 % Not significant as Intervention Time Series Analysis approach can also be employed to
Only SHRS 0.764 0.069 23.6 % Significant at 95 tackle temporal variations in crashes e.g., seasonality and serial autocor­
%
CLRS - 0.899 0.049 10.1 % Significant at 95
relation (Hossain et al., 2023). Moreover, approximately 89 % of the curve
SHRS % sections have zero crash observations. To account for excess zeros, several
ROR- Only CLRS 1.069 0.031 − 6.9 % Significant at 95 methods have been proposed in the traffic safety literature such as zero
HFO % inflated model (Pew et al., 2020; Raihan et al., 2019), finite mixture NB-
Only SHRS 0.867 0.078 13.3 % Significant at 90
Lindley model (Islam et al., 2022) that may be considered.
%
CLRS - 0.928 0.048 7.2 % Not significant
SHRS CRediT authorship contribution statement
ODS-HO Only CLRS 0.868 0.074 13.2 % Significant at 90
% Tanveer Ahmed: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation.
Only SHRS 0.740 0.163 26.0 % Not significant
CLRS - 0.863 0.114 13.7 % Not significant
Asif Mahmud: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation. Vikash
SHRS V. Gayah: Conceptualization, Methodology.

9
T. Ahmed et al.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the Pennsylvania Depart­
ment of Transportation (PennDOT) for providing the data used in this
study.
Disclaimer
The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors who are
responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The
contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the
Federal Highway Administration or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
at the time of publication. This paper does not constitute a standard,
specification or regulation.
Author Contributions
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study
conception and design: T. Ahmed, A. Mahmud, V. Gayah; analysis and
interpretation of results: T. Ahmed, A. Mahmud, V. Gayah; draft
manuscript preparation: T. Ahmed, A. Mahmud, V. Gayah. All authors
reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.
References
Al-Marafi, M.N., Somasundaraswaran, K., 2023. A review of the state-of-the-art methods
in estimating crash modification factor (CMF). Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect 20,
100839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100839.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2010.
Highway Safety Manual. Washington DC.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2011. A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington DC.
Aul, N., Davis, G., 2006. Use of Propensity Score Matching Method and Hybrid Bayesian
Method to Estimate Crash Modification Factors of Signal Installation. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1950 (1), 17–23.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198106195000103.
Austin, P.C., 2011. An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects
of Confounding in Observational Studies. Multivariate Behav Res 46 (3), 399–424.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786.
Babiceanu, S.E., Fontaine, M.D., 2018. Examining the safety effect of centerline rumble
strips on curves on rural two-lane roads. Transportation Research Board 97th Annual
Meeting. Transportation Research Board, Washington DC.
Dehejia, R.H., Wahba, S., 2002. Propensity Score-Matching Methods for
Nonexperimental Causal Studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics 84 (1),
151–161. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465302317331982.
Donnell, E., Gayah, V., Jovanis, P., 2014. Safety Performance Functions. University Park.
Durbin, D.R., Elliott, M.R., Winston, F.K., 2009. A propensity score approach to
estimating child restraint effectiveness in preventing mortality. Stat Interface 2 (4),
437–447. https://doi.org/10.4310/SII.2009.v2.n4.a5.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2012. 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices with Revision Numbers 1 and 2. Washington D.C.
Federal Highway Administration, 2019. Horizontal Curve Safety [WWW Document].
accessed 10.24.22. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/countermeasures/hor
icurves/.
Galgamuwa, U., Dissanayake, S., 2019. Evaluation of the safety effectiveness of lane-
departure countermeasures on two-lane undivided roadways using crash
modification factors. Journal of Transportation Safety & Security 11 (4), 377–397.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19439962.2017.1419523.
Gooch, J.P., Gayah, V.V., Donnell, E.T., 2016. Quantifying the safety effects of horizontal
curves on two-way, two-lane rural roads. Accident; Analysis and Prevention 92,
71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.03.024.
Gooch, J.P., Gayah, V.V., Donnell, E.T., 2018. Safety performance functions for
horizontal curves and tangents on two lane, two way rural roads. Accident; Analysis
and Prevention 120, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.07.030.
10
Accident Analysis and Prevention 194 (2024) 107371
Guo, S., Fraser, M.W., 2010. Propensity Score Analysis Statistical Methods and
Applications. Psychometrika 75 (4), 775–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-010-
9170-8.
Hauer, E., 2010. Cause, effect and regression in road safety: A case study. Accident;
Analysis and Prevention 42 (4), 1128–1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aap.2009.12.027.
Hauer, E., 2015. The Art of Regression Modeling in Road Safety. The Art of Regression
Modeling in Road Safety. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12529-9.
Hauer, E., Bonneson, J.A., Council, F., Srinivasan, R., Zegeer, C., 2012. Crash
Modification Factors. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 2279 (1), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.3141/2279-08.
Heckman, J.J., Ichimura, H., Todd, P.E., 1997. Matching As An Econometric Evaluation
Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme. Review of
Economic Studies 64, 4. https://doi.org/10.2307/2971733.
Himes, S., Gross, F., Persaud, B., Eccles, K., 2017. Safety Evaluation of Edge-Line Rumble
Stripes on Rural Two-Lane Horizontal Curves. Washington D.C.
Hirano, K., Imbens, G.W., 2005. The Propensity Score with Continuous Treatments. pp.
73–84. doi:10.1002/0470090456.ch7.
Holmes, W.M., 2014. Using Propensity Scores in Quasi-Experimental Designs. SAGE
Publications Ltd, London. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452270098.
Hossain, A., Sun, X., Rahman, A., Khanal, S., 2023. Safety evaluation of centerline
rumble strips on rural two-lane undivided highways: Application of intervention
time series analysis. IATSS Research 47 (2), 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
iatssr.2023.05.001.
Huang, H., Abdel-Aty, M.A., Darwiche, A.L., 2010. County-Level Crash Risk Analysis in
Florida: Bayesian Spatial Modeling. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 2148 (1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.3141/2148-04.
Huang, H., Zhou, H., Wang, J., Chang, F., Ma, M., 2017. A multivariate spatial model of
crash frequency by transportation modes for urban intersections. Anal Methods
Accid Res 14, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amar.2017.01.001.
Hummer, J.E., Rasdorf, W., Findley, D.J., Zegeer, C.V., Sundstrom, C.A., 2010. Curve
Collisions: Road and Collision Characteristics and Countermeasures. Journal of
Transportation Safety & Security 2 (3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19439961003734880.
Islam, M.S., Ivan, J.N., Lownes, N.E., Ammar, R.A., Rajasekaran, S., 2014. Developing
Safety Performance Function for Freeways by considering Interactions between
Speed Limit and Geometric Variables. Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board 2435 (1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.3141/2435-
09.
Islam, A.S.M.M., Shirazi, M., Lord, D., 2022. Finite mixture Negative Binomial-Lindley
for modeling heterogeneous crash data with many zero observations. Accident;
Analysis and Prevention 175, 106765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106765.
Karkle, D.E., Rys, M.J., Russell, E.R., 2013. Safety Effectiveness of Centerline Rumble
Strips in Kansas. Journal of Transportation Safety & Security 5 (1), 1–26. https://doi.
org/10.1080/19439962.2011.642069.
Karwa, V., Slavković, A.B., Donnell, E.T., 2011. Causal inference in transportation safety
studies: Comparison of potential outcomes and causal diagrams. The Annals of
Applied Statistics 5, 2B. https://doi.org/10.1214/10-AOAS440.
Kay, J., Savolainen, P.T., Gates, T.J., Datta, T.K., Finkelman, J., Hamadeh, B., 2015.
Safety Impacts of a Statewide Centerline Rumble Strip Installation Program.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2515
(1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.3141/2515-05.
Khan, M., Abdel-Rahim, A., Williams, C.J., 2015. Potential crash reduction benefits of
shoulder rumble strips in two-lane rural highways. Accident; Analysis and
Prevention 75, 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.11.007.
Khan, G., Bill, A., Chitturi, M., Noyce, D., 2013. Safety evaluation of horizontal curves on
rural undivided roads. Transportation Research Record 2386, 147–157. https://doi.
org/10.3141/2386-17.
Lan, B., Srinivasan, R., 2021. Comparison of Crash Modification Factors for Engineering
Treatments Estimated by Before-After Empirical Bayes and Propensity Score
Matching Methods. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 2675 (1), 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198120953778.
Le, T.Q., Porter, R.J., 2013. Safety Effects of Cross-Section Design on Urban and
Suburban Roads, in: Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting.
Transportation Research Board , Washington DC.
Li, L., Donnell, E.T., 2020. Incorporating Bayesian methods into the propensity score
matching framework: A no-treatment effect safety analysis. Accident; Analysis and
Prevention 145, 105691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105691.
Li, H., Graham, D.J., Majumdar, A., 2013. The impacts of speed cameras on road
accidents: An application of propensity score matching methods. Accident; Analysis
and Prevention 60, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AAP.2013.08.003.
Li, H., Graham, D.J., Ding, H., Ren, G., 2019. Comparison of empirical Bayes and
propensity score methods for road safety evaluation: A simulation study. Accident;
Analysis and Prevention 129, 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.05.015.
Liu, J., Khattak, A.J., Wali, B., 2017. Do safety performance functions used for predicting
crash frequency vary across space? Applying geographically weighted regressions to
account for spatial heterogeneity. Accident; Analysis and Prevention 109, 132–142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.10.012.
Lu, D., Guo, F., Li, F., 2020. Evaluating the causal effects of cellphone distraction on
crash risk using propensity score methods. Accident; Analysis and Prevention 143,
105579. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AAP.2020.105579.
Lyon, C., Persaud, B., Eccles, K.A., 2015. Safety Evaluation of Centerline Plus Shoulder
Rumble Strips. McLean, VA.
Mohammadnazar, A., Mahdinia, I., Ahmad, N., Khattak, A.J., Liu, J., 2021.
Understanding how relationships between crash frequency and correlates vary for
multilane rural highways: Estimating geographically and temporally weighted
T. Ahmed et al.
regression models. Accident; Analysis and Prevention 157, 106146. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.aap.2021.106146.
Noland, R.B., Oh, L., 2004. The effect of infrastructure and demographic change on
traffic-related fatalities and crashes: a case study of Illinois county-level data.
Accident; Analysis and Prevention 36 (4), 525–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-
4575(03)00058-7.
Park, J., Abdel-Aty, M., Lee, C., 2014. Exploration and comparison of crash modification
factors for multiple treatments on rural multilane roadways. Accident; Analysis and
Prevention 70, 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.03.016.
Persaud, B., Lindley, I., Eskandar, M., Rajeswaran, T., 2022. Safety evaluation of centre
line, edge line, and dual application rumble strips on Ontario two-lane rural roads.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 49 (11), 1696–1702. https://doi.org/
10.1139/cjce-2022-0232.
Persaud, B.N., Retting, R.A., Lyon, C.A., 2004. Crash reduction following installation of
centerline rumble strips on rural two-lane roads. Accident; Analysis and Prevention
36 (6), 1073–1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2004.03.002.
Pew, T., Warr, R.L., Schultz, G.G., Heaton, M., 2020. Justification for considering zero-
inflated models in crash frequency analysis. Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect 8,
100249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100249.
Raihan, M.A., Alluri, P., Wu, W., Gan, A., 2019. Estimation of bicycle crash modification
factors (CMFs) on urban facilities using zero inflated negative binomial models.
Accident; Analysis and Prevention 123, 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aap.2018.12.009.
Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B., 1983. The central role of the propensity score in
observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70 (1), 41–55. https://doi.org/
10.1093/biomet/70.1.41.
Rubin, D.B., 1980. Bias Reduction Using Mahalanobis-Metric Matching. Biometrics 36
(2), 293. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529981.
Sasidharan, L., Donnell, E.T., 2013. Application of propensity scores and potential
outcomes to estimate effectiveness of traffic safety countermeasures: Exploratory
analysis using intersection lighting data. Accident; Analysis and Prevention 50,
539–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.05.036.
11
Accident Analysis and Prevention 194 (2024) 107371
Sasidharan, L., Donnell, E.T., 2014. Propensity scores-potential outcomes framework to
incorporate severity probabilities in the Highway Safety Manual crash prediction
algorithm. Accident; Analysis and Prevention 71, 183–193. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.AAP.2014.05.017.
Sayed, T., deLeur, P., Pump, J., 2010. Impact of Rumble Strips on Collision Reduction on
Highways in British Columbia, Canada: Comprehensive Before-and-After Safety
Study. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board 2148 (1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.3141/2148-02.
Schafer, J.L., Kang, J., 2008. Average causal effects from nonrandomized studies: A
practical guide and simulated example. Psychological Methods 13 (4), 279–313.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014268.
Song, Y., Noyce, D., 2019. Effects of transit signal priority on traffic safety: Interrupted
time series analysis of Portland, Oregon, implementations. Accident; Analysis and
Prevention 123, 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AAP.2018.12.001.
Srinivasan, R., Bauer, K.M., 2013. Safety Performance Function Development Guide:
Developing Jurisdiction-Specific SPFs. Washington DC.
Torbic, D.J., Bauer, K.M., Hutton, J.M., 2014. Delta Region Transportation Development
Program: Rural Safety Innovation Program Evaluation Final Report. Washington DC.
Torbic, D.J., 2009. Guidance for the Design and Application of Shoulder and Centerline
Rumble Strips. Washington DC.
Wood, J.S., Donnell, E.T., Porter, R.J., 2015a. Comparison of safety effect estimates
obtained from empirical Bayes before-after study, propensity scores-potential
outcomes framework, and regression model with cross-sectional data. Accident;
Analysis and Prevention 75, 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.11.019.
Wood, J., Donnell, E.T., 2016. Safety evaluation of continuous green T intersections: A
propensity scores-genetic matching-potential outcomes approach. Accident; Analysis
and Prevention 93, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.04.015.
Wood, J.S., Gooch, J.P., Donnell, E.T., 2015b. Estimating the safety effects of lane widths
on urban streets in Nebraska using the propensity scores-potential outcomes
framework. Accident; Analysis and Prevention 82, 180–191. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.aap.2015.06.002.