iRAP Road Attribute Risk Factors

Lane Width

This factsheet describes the road attribute risk factors used in the iRAP methodology for Lane Width. Lane
Width is the distance from the centre of the shoulder marking to the centre of the adjacent lane marking or
the centreline marking

About risk factors

Risk factors, sometimes called crash modification factors (CMF), are used in the iRAP Star Rating methodology to
relate road attributes and crash rates. Risk factors (or CMF) are described by the Crash Modification Factor Clearing
House as follows:
A crash modification factor (CMF) is a multiplicative factor used to compute the expected number of crashes
after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site.
For example, an intersection is experiencing 100 angle crashes and 500 rear-end crashes per year. If you
apply a countermeasure that has a CMF of 0.80 for angle crashes, then you can expect to see 80 angle
crashes per year following the implementation of the countermeasure (100 x 0.80 = 80). If the same
countermeasure also has a CMF of 1.10 for rear-end crashes, then you would also expect to also see 550
rear-end crashes per year following the countermeasure (500 x 1.10 = 550).

Related documents
This factsheet should be read in conjunction with:
Star Rating Roads for Safety: The iRAP Methodology.

Safer Roads Investment Plans: The iRAP Methodology.

Star Rating and Investment Plan Coding Manual.
Road Safety Toolkit (http://toolkit.irap.org).

Risk factors
Risk factors by road attribute category, road user type and crash type

Vehicle occupant Motorcyclist Pedestrian Bicyclist

Lane width Head-on Head-on
Run-off Run-off Along * Along * Run off
LOC LOC
Wide (>= 3.25m) 1.0 (1.0) 1.0 (1.0) 1.0 (1.0) 1.0 (1.0) 1.0 (1.0) 1.0 (1.0) 1.0 (1.0)
Medium (>= 2.75m to < 3.25m) 1.2 (1.05) 1.2 (1.05) 1.2 (1.05) 1.2 (1.05) 1.2 (1.05) 1.2 (1.05) 1.2 (1.05)
Narrow (>= 0m to < 2.75m) 1.5 (1.1) 1.5 (1.1) 1.5 (1.1) 1.5 (1.1) 1.5 (1.1) 1.5 (1.1) 1.5 (1.1)

LOC: loss of control. Figures in parenthesis () are urban values. * Risk of being struck by a vehicle or motorcycle.
Selection of risk factors
Various research studies have shown that crash rates increase as lane width narrows. The mechanism of the
relationship between lane width and crash rates depends upon a variety of factors, but particularly the ability of drivers
to maintain position and place within the lane at different speeds and the influence that adjacent or oncoming traffic
has on lane-keeping (in some circumstances, speeds decrease as lane widths narrow, but this issue is
accommodated in other parts of the iRAP model). Crash rates have also been shown to vary across a range of lane
widths and depend upon the presence and width of paved and unpaved shoulders (see for example Zegeer, 1987).
Relative crash rates with and with sealed shoulders (Zegeer, 1987)

The risk factors by iRAP were developed in consultation with ARRB Group. Originally, higher factors were proposed
though it was felt that the selected factors would better reflect the likelihood that the differential effect of lane width is
less in low- and middle-income countries if traffic flows are low. Where traffic flows are very low it is arguable that the
benefits of wide lanes in reducing weaving, passing or overtaking conflicts with other vehicles are less than when
flows are high. Heimbach et al. (1983) have shown that lane width has relatively little influence on crash rates on
urban arterial routes compared with rural settings (this may in turn be linked to travelled speeds).
In addition to the information on rural roads, Turner et al. (2009) report that information also exists on relative crash
performance and lane width for urban arterial roads. The findings from studies on the effects of urban surface arterial
width standards and cross-section treatments on crash frequencies are more variable than those pertaining to rural
arterial roads. This can be expected, given the complexity of urban arterial operations as related to the mix of through
traffic, local circulation, and property access functions they perform.
Within the range of practical lane widths (say 2.75m to 3.75m), Turner et al. say that lane width itself has only a small
effect on crash rates for urban arterial roads. The only study to find a statistically significant effect for lane width found
crash rates to reduce by 2 to 2.5% per 0.25 m increment in lane width (Heimbach et al., 1983).
Relative casualty crash risk for urban and rural arterials where speed limit is >= 80km/h, Queensland, Australia
(ARRB Group, Crash Rates Database, from Turner et al. (2009))

Turner et al. (2009) report on the effect of road width on pedestrians The width of the road to be crossed impacts on
the time that the pedestrian spends exposed on the roadway and the variance in lateral positioning that a vehicle can
take at the crossing point (Corben, Logan and Oxley, 2008). Wider roads generally make gap selection more difficult,
partly because it is more difficult to predict where on the cross-section of the road they will be when the approaching
vehicle intersects with their path. Additionally it takes longer to cross a wider road, increasing exposure to crash risk;
lateral position of the approaching vehicle(s) can be more uncertain; mean speeds are generally higher on wider roads;
and, there may be higher traffic volumes.

Background research and model development

Lynam (2010) explained the research background to the values used in earlier versions of the iRAP model. This
factor was used for run-off and head-on risk scores for vehicle occupants. Values for vehicle occupants were aligned
with those supplied by ARRB Group for the AusRAP model, which was focussed on high speed rural roads. The iRAP
model initially adopted the same values for urban areas although this valuation of risk was amended for version 3 of
the iRAP model.
The effect of lane width is not straightforward. Narrower lanes reduce the potential safety envelope around vehicles
but may also result in slower speeds. Elvik and Vaa (2004) suggest crash rates decline with increasing road width on
rural roads, but may increase slightly on urban roads. Increasing lane widths, within a standard design range, may
reduce crashes by up to 10%. Widening lanes by 0.5m at intersections is predicted to reduce motorcycle crashes by
4-6% (Harnen et al., 2003); lane widths of 3.2m or greater are predicted to have 34% fewer motorcycle crashes than
narrower lanes.
Analysis of road asset and crash data from Queensland, Australia indicated that lane width has no correlation with
casualty crash outcomes on 2-lane urban arterials with 60 km/h speed limit. There was, however, a strong correlation
for all other types of urban and rural arterial roads with a speed limit of 80 km/h and above (Turner et al., 2009).
However, recent work by ARRB Group has indicated that it is the overall seal width (lane and shoulder) that is most
crucial when determining risk. Consideration should be given to moving to a combined risk score in future. Within the
range of normal design practice for Australian sealed two-lane rural roads, crash risk decreases with increasing lane
width and increasing sealed shoulder width.
Turner et al. (2009) say: In terms of relating crash risk to width standard, the US work that commenced with Zegeer et
al. (1987) is probably the most relevant, mainly because of the scope and multi-variate analysis employed. Extensive
data was used to develop and calibrate crash prediction models (Figure 3.2 of Turner et al., 2009). The work was
sponsored by the US Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) with the intention of providing guidance on the
selection of lane and shoulder width standards for works undertaken within a resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation
(3R) program.
Risk factors in earlier versions of the iRAP model

Lane width Vehicle occupants, motorcyclists and bicyclists run-off

Wide (>= 3.25m) 1.0
Medium (>= 2.75m to < 3.25m) 1.1
Narrow (>= 0m to < 2.75m) 1.4

Primary references
The following publications are the primary references used in the selection of the iRAP road attribute risk factors. A
complete list of citations is available in: iRAP Road Attribute Risk Factors: Full Reference List.
Elvik, R, Hoye A, Vaa, T, and Sorensen, M. (2009). The Handbook of Road Safety Measures, Second Edition (2009)
Emerald Group Publishing Limited. ISBN 978-1-84855-250-0.
Lynam, D (2012). Development of Risk Models for the Road Assessment Programme. RAP504.12 and TRL Report
CPR1293, Published by iRAP and TRL and available at: http://www.trl.co.uk and at http://www.irap.org.
Mak, K. and Sicking, D. (2003). Roadside Safety Analysis Program Engineers Manual. Transportation Research
Board (TRB) National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 492. ISBN 0-309-06812-6.
Turner, B. Steinmetz, L., Lim, A. and Walsh, K. (2012). Effectiveness of Road Safety Engineering Treatments. AP-
R422-12. Austroads Project No: ST1571.
Turner, B., Affum, J., Tziotis, M. and Jurewicz, C. (2009). Review of iRAP Risk Parameters. ARRB Group Contract
Report for iRAP.
Turner, B., Imberger, K., Roper, P., Pyta, V. and McLean, J. (2010). Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessment Part 6:
Crash Reduction Factors. Austroads AP-T151/10. ISBN 978-1-921709-11-1.
University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center and U.S. Department of Transportation Federal
Highway Administration (2013). Crash Modification Factors Clearing House: http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/.

30 May 2013