| Literature DB >> 35565121 |
Sai Chand1, Zhuolin Li1, Abdulmajeed Alsultan2, Vinayak V Dixit1.
Abstract
Road traffic crashes cause social, economic, physical and emotional losses. They also reduce operating speed and road capacity and increase delays, unreliability, and productivity losses. Previous crash duration research has concentrated on individual crashes, with the contributing elements extracted directly from the incident description and records. As a result, the explanatory variables were more regional, and the effects of broader macro-level factors were not investigated. This is in contrast to crash frequency studies, which normally collect explanatory factors at a macro-level. This study explores the impact of various factors and the consistency of their effects on vehicle crash duration and frequency at a macro-level. Along with the demographic, vehicle utilisation, environmental, and responder variables, street network features such as connectedness, density, and hierarchy were added as covariates. The dataset contains over 95,000 vehicle crash records over 4.5 years in Greater Sydney, Australia. Following a dimension reduction of independent variables, a hazard-based model was estimated for crash duration, and a Negative Binomial model was estimated for frequency. Unobserved heterogeneity was accounted for by latent class models for both duration and frequency. Income, driver experience and exposure are considered to have both positive and negative impacts on duration. Crash duration is shorter in regions with a dense road network, but crash frequency is higher. Highly connected networks, on the other hand, are associated with longer length but lower frequency.Entities:
Keywords: Negative Binomial; crash duration; crash frequency; hazard-based; latent class
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35565121 PMCID: PMC9105438 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095726
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Crash frequency and the median crash duration of SA3. The zonal shapefile of SA3 was downloaded from the Australian Bureau of Statistics [64]. The original shapefile covered the entire state of New South Wales in Australia. Therefore, we trimmed the shapefile to restrict it to our study area, i.e., Sydney. Then we visualise our processed data (crash frequency and duration) spatially.
Descriptive statistics of the variables.
| Variable | Mean | SD | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median vehicle crash duration (minutes) | 37.15 | 9.06 | 21 | 72 |
| Crash frequency | 2171 | 1420.51 | 350 | 7159 |
|
| ||||
| Total number of roadside assistance services | 7.75 | 7.93 | 0 | 36 |
| Total number of emergency services | 0.93 | 1.26 | 0 | 6 |
| Total number of police stations | 2.50 | 2.33 | 0 | 11 |
| Total number of ambulance stations | 1.25 | 1.10 | 0 | 4 |
| Total number of public hospitals | 1.32 | 1.46 | 0 | 6 |
Rotated factor loading of all candidate variables.
| Candidate Variables | Component | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1—Inexperience and Unaffluent | 2—Land Use Homogeneity | 3—Density | 4—Responder | 5—Connectivity | 6—Hierarchy | 7—Exposure | 8—Public Transport Proportion | |
| Proportion of P2 license holders | 0.937 | |||||||
| Proportion of P1 license holders | 0.931 | |||||||
| Proportion of unrestricted license holders | −0.931 | |||||||
| Proportion of income earners | −0.916 | |||||||
| Average yearly income of income earner (in $10,000) | −0.863 | |||||||
| Proportion of white-collared workers among total employees | −0.835 | |||||||
| Proportion of LPG vehicles | 0.834 | |||||||
| Proportion of learners’ license holders | 0.798 | |||||||
| Proportion of vehicles older than 10 years | 0.729 | |||||||
| Proportion of vehicles aged between 5 to 10 years | −0.724 | |||||||
| Proportion of people who speak a language other than English at home | 0.649 | |||||||
| Total number of roadside assistance services | 0.607 | 0.523 | ||||||
| Average precipitation per day (in mm) | −0.591 | 0.441 | ||||||
| Proportion of vehicles aged less than 5 years | −0.562 | 0.422 | ||||||
| Pproportion of petrol powered vehicles | 0.927 | |||||||
| Proportion of diesel powered vehicles | −0.908 | |||||||
| Land use entropy | −0.823 | |||||||
| Proportion of heavy vehicles | 0.515 | −0.734 | ||||||
| Road length (km) | −0.670 | |||||||
| Proportion of individuals born overseas | 0.483 | 0.472 | ||||||
| Average daily temperature (°C) | 0.481 | 0.429 | ||||||
| Entropy of length-weighted spatial orientation of roads [ | −0.460 | |||||||
| Intersection density (intersections/sq.km.) | 0.920 | |||||||
| Road density (km/sq.km.) | 0.402 | 0.886 | ||||||
| Population density | 0.404 | 0.826 | ||||||
| Rratio of car users to other mode users | −0.738 | |||||||
| Proportion of families with children under 15 years | −0.698 | |||||||
| Number of speed cameras | 0.788 | |||||||
| Total number of emergency services | 0.787 | |||||||
| Total number of police stations | 0.783 | |||||||
| Total number of ambulance stations | 0.668 | |||||||
| Total number of public hospitals | 0.421 | 0.646 | ||||||
| Meshedness coefficient | 0.876 | |||||||
| Link-node ratio (# links/# intersections) | 0.873 | |||||||
| Average node degree | 0.713 | |||||||
| Proportion of Motorway, trunk and primary roads (MTP) | 0.850 | |||||||
| Average number of lanes | 0.693 | |||||||
| Entropy of length-weighted road type | 0.669 | |||||||
| Average daily weighted travel distance (in million-km) | 0.753 | |||||||
| Total number of registered vehicles (in 10,000) | 0.707 | |||||||
| The ratio of public transport users to other mode users | 0.500 | 0.522 | ||||||
Crash duration model estimation results.
| FPAFT Model—Logistic | LCAFT Model—Weibull | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class-1 | Class-2 | |||||
| B | B | B | ||||
| Constant | 3.59 | <0.01 | 3.65 | <0.01 | 3.60 | <0.01 |
| Inexperience and Unaffluent | - | - | −0.02 | <0.01 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
| Land use homogeneity | −0.13 | <0.01 | −0.14 | <0.01 | −0.12 | <0.01 |
| Density | −0.10 | <0.01 | −0.11 | <0.01 | −0.13 | <0.01 |
| Responder | - | - | - | - | −0.06 | 0.05 |
| Connectivity | - | - | 0.03 | <0.01 | - | - |
| Hierarchy | −0.08 | <0.01 | −0.03 | <0.01 | −0.09 | <0.01 |
| Exposure | - | - | −0.06 | <0.01 | 0.02 | 0.10 |
| Public transport proportion | −0.04 | 0.02 | −0.12 | <0.01 | - | - |
| Sigma (Scale parameter) | 0.06 | <0.01 | 0.01 | <0.01 | 0.06 | <0.01 |
| Class Probability | - | - | 0.37 | <0.01 | 0.63 | <0.01 |
| AIC | −64.1 | −84.4 | ||||
| BIC | −53.4 | −47.0 | ||||
| Loglikelihood | 38.03 | 63.22 | ||||
Crash frequency model estimation results.
| FPNB Model | LCNB Model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class-1 | Class-2 | |||||
| B | B | B | ||||
| Constant | 7.49 | <0.01 | 7.76 | <0.01 | 7.45 | <0.01 |
| Inexperience and Unaffluent | 0.24 | <0.01 | 0.41 | <0.01 | 0.14 | <0.01 |
| Land use homogeneity | 0.3 | <0.01 | 0.36 | <0.01 | 0.27 | <0.01 |
| Density | 0.3 | <0.01 | 0.55 | <0.01 | 0.27 | <0.01 |
| Responder | 0.22 | <0.01 | 0.47 | <0.01 | 0.24 | <0.01 |
| Connectivity | - | - | - | - | −0.08 | 0.07 |
| Hierarchy | 0.28 | <0.01 | 0.63 | <0.01 | 0.27 | <0.01 |
| Exposure | 0.28 | <0.01 | 0.5 | <0.01 | 0.21 | <0.01 |
| Public transport proportion | 0.12 | <0.01 | - | - | 0.16 | <0.01 |
| Alpha (Overdispersion parameter) | 0.06 | <0.01 | - | - | 82.24 | 0.03 |
| Class Probability | - | - | 0.32 | <0.01 | 0.68 | <0.01 |
| AIC | 677.3 | 624.5 | ||||
| BIC | 693.3 | 662 | ||||
| Loglikelihood | −329.64 | −291.27 | ||||