Citation

Washington SP, Oh J. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2006; 38(2): 234-247.

Affiliation

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5306, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2006, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.aap.2005.08.005

PMID

16288710

Abstract

Transportation professionals are sometimes required to make difficult transportation safety investment decisions in the face of uncertainty. In particular, an engineer may be expected to choose among an array of technologies and/or countermeasures to remediate perceived safety problems when: (1) little information is known about the countermeasure effects on safety; (2) information is known but from different regions, states, or countries where a direct generalization may not be appropriate; (3) where the technologies and/or countermeasures are relatively untested, or (4) where costs prohibit the full and careful testing of each of the candidate countermeasures via before-after studies. The importance of an informed and well-considered decision based on the best possible engineering knowledge and information is imperative due to the potential impact on the numbers of human injuries and deaths that may result from these investments. This paper describes the formalization and application of a methodology to evaluate the safety benefit of countermeasures in the face of uncertainty. To illustrate the methodology, 18 countermeasures for improving safety of at grade railroad crossings (AGRXs) in the Republic of Korea are considered. Akin to "stated preference" methods in travel survey research, the methodology applies random selection and laws of large numbers to derive accident modification factor (AMF) densities from expert opinions. In a full Bayesian analysis framework, the collective opinions in the form of AMF densities (data likelihood) are combined with prior knowledge (AMF density priors) for the 18 countermeasures to obtain 'best' estimates of AMFs (AMF posterior credible intervals). The countermeasures are then compared and recommended based on the largest safety returns with minimum risk (uncertainty). To the author's knowledge the complete methodology is new and has not previously been applied or reported in the literature. The results demonstrate that the methodology is able to discern anticipated safety benefit differences across candidate countermeasures. For the 18 at grade railroad crossings considered in this analysis, it was found that the top three performing countermeasures for reducing crashes are in-vehicle warning systems, obstacle detection systems, and constant warning time systems.