详情

原文传递 Accident Modification Factors for Traffic Engineering and ITS Improvements.

题名：	Accident Modification Factors for Traffic Engineering and ITS Improvements.
作者：	harkey, d. l. srinivasan, r. baek, j. council, f. m. eccles, k.
关键词：	traffic engineering,accident reductions,motor vehicle accidents,crash reduction factors (crfs),accident modification factors (amfs)/benefit cost analysis, crash data analysis, recommendations, highway safety, program planning, decision making, accuracy/intelligent transportation systems
摘要：	Crash reduction factors (CRFs) related to accident modification factors (AMFs) provide a quick way of estimating crash reductions associated with highway safety improvements. AMFs are used by many states and local jurisdictions in program planning to make decisions concerning whether to implement a specific treatment and or to quickly determine the costs and benefits of selected alternatives. AMFs are also key components of the latest safety-estimation tools and procedures, including the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) and the procedures now being developed for the Highway Safety Manual (HSM). Even though accurate AMFs are critically important to states and municipalities in their attempts to achieve the greatest return on their investment when choosing among safety treatments, there is no accepted standard set of AMFs. This is because the accuracy and reliability of many published AMFs is questionable, and no AMFs exist for many important safety treatments. This lack of reliability, accuracy, and comprehensiveness has been documented in this study, in prior work, and in ongoing HSM development efforts. The sources of the problem include the lack of AMFs for newer ITS treatments and for common combinations of treatments, the fact that AMFs vary with other factors such as traffic volume, a publication bias that results in publishing only positive findings, and crash migration and spillover effects that result from some treatments but are not accounted for in the AMF. However, the major problems with existing AMFs result from the poor data and poor evaluation methods used in their development. Often, AMFs are based on simple before-after studies of high-crash locations, and the results can be very biased toward over estimating accident reductions. / Supplementary Notes: Prepared in cooperation with North Carolina Univ. at Chapel Hill. Highway Safety Research Center., Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., Raleight, NC. and Ryerson University, Toronto (Ontario). Dept. of Civil Engineering. / Availability Note: Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; and email at orders@ntis.gov. NTIS is located at 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA, 22161, USA.
报告类型：	科技报告