| Literature DB >> 28036009 |
Can Chen1, Tienan Li2, Jian Sun3,4, Feng Chen5.
Abstract
Hotspot identification (HSID) is the first and key step of the expressway safety management process. This study presents a new HSID method using the quantitative risk assessment (QRA) technique. Crashes that are likely to happen for a specific site are treated as the risk. The aggregation of the crash occurrence probability for all exposure vehicles is estimated based on the empirical Bayesian method. As for the consequences of crashes, crashes may not only cause direct losses (e.g., occupant injuries and property damages) but also result in indirect losses. The indirect losses are expressed by the extra delays calculated using the deterministic queuing diagram method. The direct losses and indirect losses are uniformly monetized to be considered as the consequences of this risk. The potential costs of crashes, as a criterion to rank high-risk sites, can be explicitly expressed as the sum of the crash probability for all passing vehicles and the corresponding consequences of crashes. A case study on the urban expressways of Shanghai is presented. The results show that the new QRA method for HSID enables the identification of a set of high-risk sites that truly reveal the potential crash costs to society.Entities:
Keywords: crash; empirical Bayesian; expressway; hotspot identification; potential crash costs; risk assessment
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28036009 PMCID: PMC5295271 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14010020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The surveillance center of Shanghai.
Figure 2Time and speed distribution of crashes. (a) Time distribution of crashes; and (b) traffic flow speed distribution before crashes.
Figure 3The flowchart of crash risk assessment model.
Figure 4Distribution of arriving and leaving vehicles with time t. NCD: Non-Recurrent Congestion Delay; RCD: Recurrent Congestion Delay.
Figure 5Layout of detectors on the 52nd segment.
Figure 6Risk assessment results of segments.
Figure 7Top 10 hotspots based on quantitative risk assessment (QRA) and empirical Bayesian (EB). (a) top ten hotspots based on risk assessment; and (b) top ten hotspots based on the EB method.
Figure 8Relationships between and / for partial segments.
Figure 9Indirect and direct losses of different segments.