You are on page 1of 8

Analyzing Raised Median Safety Impacts

Using Bayesian Methods


Grant G. Schultz, Daniel J. Thurgood, Andrew N. Olsen,
and C. Shane Reese
years to more accurately determine the effectiveness of roadway
safety measures.
One newly released tool to aid in transportation safety analysis is
the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) published by AASHTO (1). The
HSM was developed to incorporate the explicit role of highway safety
in decisions on roadway planning, design, maintenance, construction,
and operations. Currently, there are no such widely accepted tools
available for agencies responsible for managing the safety of roadways. As a result, safety considerations often carry little weight in
decision making.
The purpose of this paper is to summarize a statistical methodology
that can be used to analyze the effectiveness of roadway safety
treatments. The paper analyzes the effectiveness of raised median
installations in Utah by using a hierarchical Bayesian model to
compare crash distributions before and after installation of a raised
median. The paper first presents an overview of the background
necessitating the research and then discusses the safety model developed for use in the research. The raised median analysis site selection
and data collection components are then addressed, followed by the
analysis results for individual sites and a combined site analysis.
Finally, conclusions and recommendations are presented.

Because traffic safety studies are not performed in a controlled environment such as a laboratory, but rather in an uncontrolled real-world
setting, traditional analysis methods often lack the capability to evaluate
the effectiveness of roadway safety measures adequately. In recent
years, however, advanced statistical methods have been used in traffic
safety studies to determine the effectiveness of such measures more
accurately. These methods, especially Bayesian statistical techniques,
can account for the shortcomings of traditional methods. Hierarchical
Bayesian modeling is a powerful tool for expressing rich statistical models
that more fully reflect a given problem than traditional safety evaluation
methods could. This paper uses a hierarchical Bayesian model to analyze the effectiveness of raised medians on overall and severe crash frequency in Utah by determining the effect each newly installed median
has on crash frequency and frequency of severe crashes at study sites
before and after installation of the medians. Several sites at which raised
medians have been installed in the past 10 years were evaluated with
available crash data. The results show that the installation of a raised
median is an effective technique to reduce the overall crash frequency
and frequency of severe crashes on Utah roadways, with results showing
a reduction in overall crash frequency of 39% and frequency of severe
crashes of 44% along corridors where raised medians were installed. The
results also show that hierarchical Bayesian modeling is a useful method
for evaluating effectiveness of roadway safety measures.

Background
Because traffic safety studies are not performed in a controlled
environment, such as a laboratory, but rather in an uncontrolled
real-world setting, traditional analysis methods often lack the capability to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of roadway safety
measures. However, safety studies have historically had to rely on
these traditional methods because of the complexity of more effective models. Fortunately, the development of advanced statistical
software and methodologies in recent years has helped overcome
the complexity of the models and made advanced statistical methods more attainable. These advanced statistical methods, especially
Bayesian statistical methods, have the capabilities to account for the
shortcomings of traditional methods and have thus been used in recent

Raised Medians
In this study, the safety data collection and analysis techniques developed are applied to study sites at which raised medians have been
installed throughout the state of Utah. A raised median is a physical
barrier, such as a concrete or landscaped island, in the center portion
of the roadway that separates opposing lanes of traffic and is designed
so that it is not easily traversed. Raised medians are appropriate in
some, although not all, locations and have been found to be most
useful on high-volume, high-speed roadways (2).
Raised medians have frequently been used as an access management technique to improve roadway safety in two primary ways:
(a) raised medians reduce the number of conflict points by allowing
turning movements to be made only at designated openings or at
signalized intersections, and (b) raised medians provide a physical
barrier separating opposing traffic in an effort to eliminate head-on
collisions (3).
Raised medians are not always used to mitigate one specific
type of crash or factor (2). Raised medians have been installed for
beautification purposes, as an access management technique, as a
traffic calming device, for pedestrian refuge, and for various other
purposes (3). Regardless of the purpose, raised medians have had a

G.G. Schultz, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 368 Clyde


Building, and A.N. Olsen, 223 TMCB, and C.S. Reese, 208 TMCB, Department
of Statistics, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602. D.J. Thurgood, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Brigham Young University, 5865 West,
10100 North, Highland, UT 84003. Corresponding author: G.G. Schultz, gschultz@
byu.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2223, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2011, pp. 96103.
DOI: 10.3141/2223-12
96

Schultz, Thurgood, Olsen, and Reese

positive impact on safety that has generally been well documented


in the literature. For example, researchers have shown that roadways
with raised medians generally experience lower crash rates than
roadways of similar use and annual average daily traffic (AADT)
that are undivided or include a two-way left-turn lane (28). These
analyses were generally conducted using traditional before-andafter approaches to analyze crash statistics. Over the past several
years, more statistically rigorous methodologies for safety analysis
have emerged.

Safety Analysis
To determine the safety of a site during analysis, it is essential to
first define what safety is and how it is measured. Roadway safety
is usually defined and evaluated by recorded numbers of crashes or
crash rates. Severity of crashes also plays an important role in the
understanding of roadway safety. For example, one site may experience considerably more crashes than another site. However, the
second site may have a much larger proportion of severe, even fatal,
crashes. Therefore, both frequency of crashes and severity of crashes
are essential in determining the safety of a facility.
One of the key reasons it is difficult to understand why crashes
occur is that crashes are usually not the result of one factor, but instead
the combination of several events, circumstances, and factors. The
combination of multiple events can significantly alter the amount of
risk a driver may face. Even if it were possible to account for all
possible factors that lead to a crash, the ability to predict a crash is
not absolute. The key principle is that understanding the nature of
crashes is a vastly complex and random process when only the known
factors are considered. It is also important to remember that unknown
factors also contribute to crashes. The complexity of known and
unknown contributing factors can be overcome through the development and use of proper statistical tools that can correctly model
crash characteristics and behavior. To properly analyze crash statistics, it is essential to analyze the characteristics of crash statistics to
determine the proper statistical tools to use.

Characteristics of Crashes
One of the key concepts of a crash study is that although there are
trends and factors that increase the likelihood of crashes, the occurrence of a crash is not completely predictable. Crashes, by nature,
are random events. The frequencies of crashes will naturally fluctuate
from year to year. Fluctuations in crash frequency make it difficult
to determine whether a reduction in the number of crashes is a result
of a specific treatment, changes in site conditions over time, or a result
of natural fluctuations from stochastic processes. These fluctuations
present a phenomenon referred to as regression-to-the-mean (RTM)
bias. The RTM phenomenon expects that a value that is determined
to be extreme will tend to regress to the long-term average over
time. This means that a period of high crash frequencies at a site
is statistically probable to be followed by a period of low crash
frequencies (9).
Traditional methods have been used for many years to analyze
crash statistics. Traditional methods use relatively straightforward
before-and-after approaches to compare the crash frequency or rate
of an entity immediately before an improvement was made with the
crash frequency or rate directly after the improvement to determine
the effectiveness of the treatment (9). One of the problems with

97

many traditional analysis methods is that they do not account for the
RTM bias. If the RTM bias is not accounted for, the effectiveness of
a specific treatment is likely to be inaccurately reported.

Predicting Crashes
The RTM bias provides evidence of limitations when short-term
data are used for analysis, which would lead to the assumption
that using data for longer periods provides a better representation
of crash behavior at a site. However, there are problems associated
with this method as well. The characteristics of a site, such as traffic
volume, weather, and pavement condition, change over time. Some
of these characteristics, such as weather, continually fluctuate. Other
factors, such as pavement condition and roadway markings, deteriorate gradually over years of use. These latter factors create a
legitimate limitation when using long-term crash statistics for site
analysis.
Factors contributing to crashes can never be completely controlled
or maintained, providing a level of difficulty in accurately predicting
crashes. Crash data are statistically classified as count data and by
nature are nonnegative integers; therefore generalized linear models
are insufficient because the assumption that the dependent variable
is continuous is not true for crash studies (10). Previous studies have
suggested the use of Poisson models or negative-binomial models
as more appropriate for count statistics (1113).

Empirical Bayesian Method


Several methods have been developed that more accurately determine
the effectiveness of a safety measure than traditional methods by
combining observed crash statistics with predicted values obtained
by the use of safety performance functions (SPFs), crash modification
factors (CMFs), and local calibration factors (1). In recent years,
interest in the use of various Bayesian approaches in traffic safety
studies has increased significantly. One of the common methods being
used in safety studies is the use of the empirical Bayesian (EB) method
of analysis. The EB method corrects for the RTM bias by determining
the expected crash frequency of an entity. The EB method combines
an estimation of the crash frequency of the study site with characteristics of similar sites using SPFs to estimate the predicted number
of crashes. The EB approach is demonstrably better suited to estimate
safety than traditional methods (9).
The EB method does suffer from deficiencies of its own. Perhaps
most prominent is the need to spend time, resources, and effort on the
estimation of SPFs required for implementation of the EB method.
Another major disadvantage of the EB approach is that the SPF is
estimated using aggregate crash data for more than a year. Therefore,
to accurately apply this model, the units of crash frequencies per
three years needs to be maintained (i.e., annual crash data cannot be
used in place of three-year aggregated data) (14). The EB method
is also applicable only when both predicted and observed crash
frequencies are available for a roadway network. Additionally,
the EB approach has been criticized for its inability to incorporate
uncertainties in the model parameters. The EB approach assumes
the parameters are error free and can be replaced simply by their
estimates for the posterior analysis. These limitations can be overcome
with the use of the flexible modeling associated with the hierarchical
Bayesian method (15).

98 Transportation Research Record 2223

Hierarchical Bayesian Method


In recent years, a full or hierarchical Bayesian approach has been
suggested as a useful alternative to the EB approach. Though
more complex, the hierarchical Bayesian approach has several
advantages over the EB approach in that the hierarchical approach
is believed to require less data for untreated reference sites, it better
accounts for uncertainty in data used, and it provides more detailed
causal inferences and more flexibility in selecting crash count
distributions (16).
In a hierarchical Bayesian analysis, prior (before) information
and all available data are integrated into posterior (after) distributions
from which inferences can be made; therefore, all uncertainties are
accounted for in the analyses. Hierarchical Bayesian methods may
well be less costly to implement and may result in safety estimates
with more realistic standard errors. A study performed by Iowa State
University argues that with the use of a hierarchical Bayesian
approach, it is possible to improve on the prediction of the expected
number of crashes at a site while at the same time avoiding the need
to obtain estimates of SPFs or CMFs (17).
One important difference between hierarchical Bayesian and
the EB approach is the manner in which the model parameters are
determined. In the EB approach, model parameters are dependent
on the data only. Model parameters are estimated using techniques
involving the use of crash data such as the maximum likelihood
technique. However, to produce results close to the true population
parameters, maximum likelihood estimators frequently require large
amounts of data. In the hierarchical Bayesian approach, the prior
distributions are fixed by modelers and are combined with the data
to create a joint posterior distribution. In situations in which fewer
data are available, the prior distribution simply receives comparatively more weight in the posterior distribution, and a valid result is
produced. Hence, hierarchical Bayesian methods are still reliable
with fewer data points when priors are chosen carefully. Priors also
account for RTM bias if the data observations are extreme. There
has been increased interest in this approach over the past few years
because of the modeling flexibility associated with these methods (15).
The hierarchical Bayesian method was applied to evaluate the
safety effect of conversion from stop to signalized control at rural
intersections in California. The results were then compared with
those from the EB method, and it was found that the hierarchical
Bayesian method can provide results similar to, if not better than,
those of the EB approach (18).

Safety Model Development


Because of the limitations and published concerns of traditional
analysis methods, and the benefit of using Bayesian techniques to
account for RTM bias and therefore more accurately evaluate safety
benefits, a hierarchical Bayesian model was constructed as the analysis
tool for this study. The analysis provides an opportunity to estimate
the safety impacts of the installation of raised medians in Utah. The
model uses crash frequency (overall crashes and severe crashes) and
AADT data for selected analysis sites as inputs (although the model
is developed such that other covariates may also be included). The
details of the model can be found in the literature (19, 20); the basic
model development is included in this section to aid the reader in
understanding the analysis performed.
For the model development, it was assumed that yi is Poisson
distributed as outlined in Equation 1. The Poisson distribution is

used because of the nature of crash data classified as count data. The
Poisson distribution also allows for an exposure parameter, which
in this case is the length of the roadway segment. The number of
crashes per mile (or severe crashes per mile), rather than the number
of crashes solely, is then modeled for each roadway segment. Data
from segments with varying segment length may thus be included
in the same model appropriately.
yi ~ Poisson ( i )

(1)

where yi is the number of crashes per mile for each AADT segment
and qi is the mean number of crashes per mile.
The estimation of the mean number of crashes per mile is calculated
using Equation 2.
log ( i ) = A Ai + B Bi + 1AADTi

(2)

where

b = regression coefficient of the independent variable


(A represents the after period, B represents the before
period, and 1 corresponds to AADT),

Ai = 1 if the ith observation is from the after period and
0 otherwise,

Bi = 1 if the ith observation is from the before period and
0 otherwise, and
AADTi = AADT for the ith observation.
The analysis result of this model is the consideration of two
intercepts, one for the before period and one for the after period,
with the coefficient for AADT constrained to be the same for both
periods. The log transformation was chosen as part of the standard
Poisson regression procedures (21). The prior distribution for each
bj where j {A, B, 1} is normally distributed as discussed in the
literature (12) and specifically defined in Equation 3.
j ~ norm ( 0, 1)

(3)

The priors, p(bj), were selected with mean zero because previous
analyses of this type have not been performed on the chosen roadway segments to suggest higher or lower mean values for the prior
distributions. Zero mean values allow the posterior distributions of
the coefficients to be positive or negative according to the data without the prior pulling the posterior results in one way or the other. The
posterior distribution, p(bA, bB, b1y), for the b parameters, up to a
constant, is expressed in Equation 4.
( y ) P ( y ) ( A ) ( B ) (1 ) =

n
i =1

e(

Xi )

( e(
n

i =1

yi Xi )

)e

1 2 2 2
2 A + B +1

(44)

where
Xi = matrix with Ai, Bi, and AADTi as its columns;
b = matrix of parameters bA, bB, and b1; and
n = total number of observations.
Because of the complexity of the normalizing constant of the posterior distribution, rather than deriving the distribution theoretically,
Markov chain Monte Carlo methodology is used to sample from
the posterior distribution using the scaled distribution shown in
Equation 4 (12, 13, 22, 23). The results of the algorithm are several

Schultz, Thurgood, Olsen, and Reese

thousand random draws from the posterior distribution for each of


the bj parameters. Inference and conclusions may be made on the
basis of these random draws because they represent the appropriate
marginal posterior densities.
In this study, frequencies of both overall and severe crashes are
analyzed. The ability to consider more than one type of crash without
recalibrating SPFs or CMFs is one of the flexibility features of the
hierarchical Bayesian approach, which can be immensely helpful if
a safety project is targeted to reduce a specific type of crash. Each
of the raised median sites is analyzed individually, which allows for
insights as to why the project may be effective at one study site but
not at another. The sites are also combined to perform an overall
analysis of the effectiveness of raised medians.

Raised Median Analysis

99

An overall analysis on frequency of all crashes and a severe crash


analysis on frequency of severe crashes were performed for the raised
median study sites. Crash severity refers to the severity corresponding to the most severe of injuries sustained as a result of a crash.
According to the National Safety Council, There are five mutually
exclusive categories of injury severity for classification of road
vehicle (crashes) (26). The five categories are fatal, incapacitating
injury, nonincapacitating evident injury, possible injury, and non
injury. A common abbreviation for these severity levels is the KABCO
scale, with each letter representing fatal through noninjury levels of
severity, respectively. The five severity classifications are mutually
exclusive because a crash is classified according to the most severe
injury (e.g., a crash with a fatality and a minor injury is classified as
a fatal crash, not a fatal crash and a minor injury crash). In this study,
severe crashes were determined to be crashes indicated on the report
as fatal (K) or incapacitating injury (A).

Site Selection
Before a detailed crash analysis is conducted, study sites need to
be selected. The study sites that have been selected for analysis where
raised medians have been installed are discussed in this section. For
crash analysis purposes, the study sites will be roadway segments
where raised medians have been installed, as outlined in previous
research in Utah (24). The following study sites were selected for
analysis:
1. University Parkway (SR-265), Mile Point 1.21 to 1.96;
2. Alpine Highway (SR-74), Mile Point 2.40 to 4.29;
3. 400/500 South (SR-186), Mile Point 5.48 to 7.53;
4. St. George Boulevard (SR-34), Mile Point 0.00 to 1.74; and
5. SR-36, Mile Point 59.29 to 60.82.
Listed mile points are current mile points at the time of this study.
More detail on the study sites is available in the literature (25).

Data Collection
Raw crash statistics were provided by the Utah Department of Transportation (DOT) Traffic and Safety Division from the Utah DOT
crash database. The database contains records and statistics obtained
from police reports for crashes that occurred on Utah roadways. At the
time of this study, consistent data were available from 1998 to 2008.
AADT data are used to measure total volume of vehicle traffic of a
highway or road. Previous research has determined that a relationship
exists between crashes and AADT. Although the exact relationship
is still not entirely known, it is known that the relationship is generally nonlinear (9). However, AADT is still an important parameter
in predicting crash frequency and was used as a covariant in the
development of the model.
Locations of crashes are reported as the mile point at which the
crash occurred on the corresponding roadway. However, mile points
on Utah highways have undergone several changes over the past
10 years. Shifts in mileposts are usually the result of either a realignment of the roadway or an extension added on to either end of the
roadway. Although the segments of each roadway of interest were
held constant through each analysis year, corresponding mile points
have changed over the course of the study period. To ensure that
data for the correct segment was used for each analysis year, correct
mileposts were verified through the Utah DOT.

Analysis Results
Individual Site Analysis Results
A hierarchical Bayesian analysis was performed at selected study
sites at which raised medians have been installed. An analysis was
performed on overall crash frequency and severe crash frequency
for each segment. The results of the hierarchical Bayesian model
before and after the raised median installation were used to calculate
a percent change in crash frequency. In addition to the percent change,
the probability that the crash frequency (overall or severe) decreased
was calculated. The probability of reduction helps to identify the
statistical significance of the change.
The analysis of the individual study sites at which raised medians
have been installed showed three of the five study sites experienced
a statistically significant (greater than 95% probability) reduction
(26% to 43%) in the overall crash frequency. The probability of
difference for the remaining two sites (SR-265 and SR-74) was too
low to confidently determine whether a reduction or increase occurred
(although the results for SR-74 were practically significant at a 93%
probability of decrease). In these situations the mean is increasing,
but not at a statistically significant rate. Table 1 provides a summary
of the impact of raised medians on all crashes.
Similar to the overall crash analysis, several of the study sites
also showed a reduction in the frequency of severe crashes. Table 2
provides a summary of the impact of raised medians on severe crashes.
The results indicate that three of the five study sites experienced a
significant (greater than 95% probability) reduction (60% to 67%)
in the frequency of severe crashes along the segment after raised
medians were installed. The analysis indicated an increase (55%)
may have occurred at one of the remaining sites (SR-74); however,
the probability of a difference was too low to confidently determine
if a reduction or increase occurred. The final site (SR-36) showed a
90% probability (practically significant) that a decrease of 43%
occurred. More detailed analysis results for both overall and severe
crash frequencies are provided in the literature (25).

Results of Combined Site Analysis


The safety impacts of all study sites chosen for analysis combined
are discussed in this section. Two types of plots are produced for
each analysis performed. The first plot is a plot of the actual data.

100 Transportation Research Record 2223

TABLE 1 Summary for All Crashes



Study Site
University Parkway
Alpine Highway
400/500 South
St. George Boulevard
SR-36

State
Route
County
265
74
186
34
36

Utah
Utah
Salt Lake
Washington
Tooele

The data plot displays the actual data points and the mean of the
posterior predictive distribution, which is a representation of the mean
regression line through the points from a Bayesian perspective. The
reduction is calculated by taking the mean of the posterior distribution
of differences between the two intercepts. The mathematical details
are discussed in the literature (19, 20), but are conceptually equivalent
to taking the after curve and dividing it by the before curve to obtain
the percent reduction.
The second plot produced for the overall analysis results is the
plot of the distribution of the differences between the before and
after periods. The difference plots display the posterior distributions
of differences between the before and after intercepts of the model.
Negative values indicate that the after time period saw a reduction
in crashes. Because the exact form of the posterior distributions is
unknown, the model uses simulated draws from the posterior with
the Markov chain; because those draws represent the actual posterior distribution, the proportion of the draws less than zero represents the probability that there was a reduction in crashes from the
before time period to the after time period.
Figure 1 displays the overall crash frequency for the before and
after periods as a function of AADT. The overall analysis results
indicate a 39% reduction in overall crash frequency after the raised
medians were installed. Figure 2 shows the corresponding probability
distribution of the differences between the before and after periods
for overall crashes. The entire distribution of differences in Figure 2
is less than zero, indicating a 100% probability that a reduction in
overall crash frequency occurred after raised medians were installed.
The analysis results of severe crashes display an even greater
reduction. Figure 3 displays the results for all study sites at which
raised medians were installed. The severe crash analysis results on
all study sites show a 44% reduction in severe crash frequency after
raised median installation. Figure 4 shows the corresponding probability distribution of the differences between the before and after
periods for severe crashes. As with the overall analysis, the entire
distribution of differences shown in Figure 4 is less than zero, indi-

Year of
Installation

Probability of
Reduction (%)

Percent
Change

2002
2002
2001
2006
2005

38
93
100
100
100

3
-19
-29
-26
-43

cating a 100% probability that a reduction in severe crash frequency


occurred after raised medians were installed at the study sites.

Conclusions
The analysis in this report was performed with a hierarchical
Bayesian model developed to analyze the effectiveness of various
treatments for improving roadway safety. The model is a valuable
tool with various applications to transportation safety. As part of this
research, the model was applied to study sites at which raised medians
had been installed throughout the state of Utah. This study analyzed
the effectiveness of raised medians on roadway safety by determining the effect each newly installed median has had on frequency of
overall crashes and of severe crashes at the study sites. An analysis
was performed on individual sites at which raised medians have been
installed as well as an overall analysis on all study sites grouped
together.
The results of the raised median analysis indicated a significant
improvement in both crash frequency and frequency of severe crashes
along corridors where raised medians were installed. Results from
all study sites combined show that the overall crash frequency was
reduced by 39% and the frequency of severe crashes was reduced
by 44% after the installation of raised medians along the study sites.
The reduction in frequency of severe crashes is anticipated to be a
result in the change in types of collisions. This study provides further and more statistically significant evidence that installing raised
medians is an effective technique to reduce crash frequency, especially
severe crashes caused by sideswipes or head-on collisions.
The model developed for this research can be expanded to
determine the impact of other safety measures on various crash
types. Additionally, AADT was the only covariate used in this study.
The model has been developed such that additional covariates may
be included in the analysis. Selection of the appropriate covariates to
be used depends on the scope of the study being performed. Finally,

TABLE 2 Summary of Severe Crashes



Study Site
University Parkway
Alpine Highway
400/500 South
St. George Boulevard
SR-36

State
Route
County
265
74
186
34
36

Utah
Utah
Salt Lake
Washington
Tooele

Year of
Installation

Probability of
Reduction (%)

Percent
Change

2002
2002
2001
2006
2005

100
41
100
99
90

-60
55
-67
-61
-49

101

50

Crashes per Mile per Year


100
150

200

Schultz, Thurgood, Olsen, and Reese

10,000

20,000

30,000
AADT

40,000

50,000

FIGURE 1 Crash frequency for all raised median study sites.

FIGURE 2 Distribution of differences for crashes on all raised median study sites.

Severe Crashes per Mile per Year


5
10

15

102 Transportation Research Record 2223

10,000

20,000

30,000
AADT

40,000

50,000

FIGURE 3 Severe crash frequency for all raised median study sites.

FIGURE 4 Distribution of differences of severe crashes for all raised median study sites.

Schultz, Thurgood, Olsen, and Reese

one of the important elements of transportation safety planning is


identifying locations that experience an unusually high crash frequency. The model outlined in this report can be used to identify
outlier sites for various types of crashes. The raised median analysis
revealed several outlier sites that experienced an unusually high crash
frequency in either overall or severe crashes. Further exploration can
be performed to identify any factors that contribute to the unusually
high crash frequency that can be mitigated.

Acknowledgments
This research was made possible with funding from the Utah DOT
and Brigham Young University. Special thanks to Robert Hull, W.
Scott Jones, Tim Taylor, David Stevens, Mitsuru Saito, Steven Dudley,
and others at the Utah DOT and the university who played key roles
as members of the technical advisory committee and provided input
to the research.

References
1. Highway Safety Manual. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2010.
2. Center for Transportation Research and Education. Access Management
Toolkit: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions. Continuous Raised
Medians, No. 18. Iowa State University, Ames. http://www.ctre.iastate.
edu/research/access/toolkit/18.pdf. Accessed May 8, 2010.
3. Access Management Manual. Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003.
4. Gluck, J., H.S. Levinson, and V. Stover. NCHRP Report 420: Impacts of
Access Management Techniques. TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1999.
5. Eisele, W.L., and W.E. Frawley. Estimating the Safety and Operational
Impact of Raised Medians and Driveway Density: Experiences from
Texas and Oklahoma Case Studies. In Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1931, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005,
pp. 108116.
6. Gattis, J.L., R. Balakumar, and L.K. Duncan. Effects of Rural Highway
Median Treatments and Access. In Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1931, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005,
pp. 99107.
7. Parsonson, P.S., M. Waters, and J.S. Fincher. Georgia Study Confirms
the Continuing Safety Advantage of Raised Medians over Two-Way
Left-Turn Lanes. Presented at 4th National Conference on Access Management, Portland, Ore., Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2000.
8. Schultz, G.G., J.S. Lewis, and T. Boschert. Safety Impacts of Access
Management Techniques in Utah. In Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1994, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007,
pp. 3542.

103

9. Hauer, E. Observational BeforeAfter Studies in Road Safety. Pergamon


Press, Oxford, England, 1997.
10. Liu, P., J.J. Lu, and H. Chen. Safety Effects of the Separation Distances
Between Driveway Exits and Downstream U-Turn Locations. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 40, 2008, pp. 760767.
11. Miranda-Moreno, L.F., L. Fu, F.F. Saccomanno, and A. Labbe. Alternative Risk Models for Ranking Locations for Safety Improvement. In
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 1908, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 18.
12. Bolstad, W.M. Understanding Computational Bayesian Statistics.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, N.J., 2010.
13. Carlin, B.P., and T.A. Louis. Bayesian Methods for Data Analysis, 3rd ed.
Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Fla., 2009.
14. Powers, M., and J. Carson. BeforeAfter Crash Analysis: A Primer for
Using the Empirical Bayes Method Tutorial. Report FHWA/MT-04-0028117-21. Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, 2004.
15. Sloboda, B. Transportation Statistics. J. Ross Publishing, Fort Lauderdale,
Fla., 2009.
16. Persaud, B., B. Lan, C. Lyon, and R. Bihm. Comparison of Empirical Bayes
and Full Bayes Approaches for BeforeAfter Road Safety Evaluations.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 42, 2010, pp. 3843.
17. Carriquiry, A.L., and M.D. Pawlovich. From Empirical Bayes to Full
Bayes: Methods for Analyzing Traffic Safety Data. Iowa State University, Ames, 2004. http://www.dot.state.ia.us/crashanalysis/pdfs/eb_fb_
comparison_whitepaper_october2004.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2010.
18. Lan, B., B. Persaud, C. Lyon, and R. Bihm. Validation of a Full Bayes
Methodology for Observational BeforeAfter Road Safety Studies and
Application to Evaluation of Rural Signal Conversions. Accident Analysis
& Prevention, Vol. 41, 2009, pp. 574580.
19. Olsen, A.N., and C.S. Reese. Hierarchical Bayesian Models for Evaluation of Traffic Project Efficacy and Identification of Dangerous Roadway
Segments. Technical report. Department of Statistics, Brigham Young
University, Provo, Utah, 2010.
20. Olsen, A.N., G.G. Schultz, D.J. Thurgood, and C.S. Reese. Hierarchical
Bayesian Modeling for Before-and-After Studies. Presented at 90th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011.
21. McCullagh, P., and J.A. Nelder. Generalized Linear Models, 2nd ed.
CRC Press, LLC, Boca Raton, Fla., 1989.
22. Gelman, A., J.B. Carlin, H.S. Stern, and D.B. Rubin. Bayesian Data
Analysis, 2nd ed. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Fla., 2004.
23. Hamada, M.S., A.G. Wilson, C.S. Reese, and H.F. Martz. Bayesian
Reliability. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, New York, 2008.
24. Schultz, G.G., and J.S. Lewis. Assessing the Safety Benefits of Access
Management Techniques. UDOT Report UT-06.08. Utah Department of
Transportation, Research Division, Salt Lake City, 2006.
25. Schultz, G.G., D.J. Thurgood, A.N. Olsen, and C.S. Reese. Transportation Safety Data and Analysis: Volume 1: Analyzing the Effectiveness of
Safety Measures Using Bayesian Methods. UDOT Report UT-10.12a. Utah
Department of Transportation, Research Division, Salt Lake City, 2010.
26. Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, 5th ed.
National Safety Council, Itasca, Ill., 1990.
The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for
the facts and accuracy of the information, and are not necessarily representative
of the sponsoring agency.
The Access Management Committee peer-reviewed this paper.

You might also like