ICTIS 2013 © ASCE 2013 1224

Evaluation Method of Arterial Highway Traffic Safety Based on AHP

Corresponding

Li YUAN1, Mengqian WU*

1
Lecturer, college of civil and transportation engineering, Hohai University
*Corresponding author, college of civil and transportation engineering, Hohai
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University At Boulder on 01/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

University

ABSTRACT
Road traffic accidents have become a major public hazard for all mankind.
Therefore, the study of traffic accidents is always an important subject to scholars all
over the world. A road safety evaluation is an effective way to identify potential
accidents and reduce accident severity. At present, the major methods of foreign
traffic safety evaluation include the rate of relative accidents, time series analysis,
regression analysis, systems analysis, and traffic conflicts. Based on the analysis of a
large number of accident statistics, these methods qualitatively analyze the factors
affecting traffic safety and use mathematical theories to establish the quantitative
relationships between traffic accidents and various factors, thus reflecting the safety
level of the road.
Based on the road conditions, traffic safety facilities, and traffic environment,
this paper analyzes the factors affecting the road safety and establishes a safety
evaluation system for arterial highways. The index-measuring approach is also
employed with an analytical hierarchy process, and the theoretical model of
evaluation methods is proposed.

1. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF EVALUATION SYSTEM

There are many factors affecting road safety. Road safety is a multiple
attribute problem. Considering the effect of various factors, an evaluation system
reflecting road safety is established. The system is based on the advice of experts
(such as road construction technicians, road maintenance technicians, automobile
transport personnel, etc.) and also meets the demands of managers and users. Table 1
shows that the system combines a qualitative and quantitative analysis, is
decomposed into several subsystems, and forms an ordered hierarchical structure.

ICTIS 2013
 ICTIS 2013 © ASCE 2013 1225

Table. 1 Safety evaluation index system of arterial highway

Goal level Principle level Parameter level
Horizontal radius
Stopping sight distance
Longitudinal gradient
Road condition
Lane width
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University At Boulder on 01/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Shoulder width
Pavement surface distress
Safety of Arterial
Traffic sign
Highway
Traffic marking
Traffic safety facilities
Protection facilities
Guiding facility
Interference factor
Traffic environment Traffic composition
Grade intersection

2. THE THEORETICAL MODEL OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAY SAFETY

EVALUATION METHOD
2.1. The hierarchical structural of evaluation index system
Combined with the traffic safety characteristics of arterial highways and the
safety evaluation index system, a comprehensive evaluation is carried out through the
method of AHP. As shown in Figure 1, Fij is an individual index and Fi is a large

category index.

ICTIS 2013
 ICTIS 2013 © ASCE 2013 1226

Horizontal radius
F11

Stopping sight
distance F12
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University At Boulder on 01/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Longitudinal Road conditions

gradient F13 F1

Lane width F14

Shoulder width F15

Pavement surface
distress F16

Traffic sign F21 Overall

score
Traffic marking F22 GQI
Traffic safety
facilities
Protection facilities
F2
F23

Guiding facility F24

Interference factor
F31
Traffic
Traffic composition
environment
F32
F3
Grade intersection
F33

Individual index large category index

Figure 1. The logic picture of the road safety

2.2. Determination of the weight value

The weight value reflects the difference in the degree of importance between
evaluation indexes as well as the status and role of each evaluation index. Wi is the

ICTIS 2013
 ICTIS 2013 © ASCE 2013 1227

weight of a certain large category index and Wij denotes the weight of a certain

individual index.
2.3. Assignment of evaluation index
Among the safety evaluation indexes of arterial highways, some are quantitative
while others are qualitative as it is best to consider both aspects. A five-score system
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University At Boulder on 01/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

is used to evaluate the index score. The higher the score is, the worse the safety
performance is. An expert estimation method is used on the premise that experts are
familiar with the indexes and can grade for every index by combining the actual
investigation circumstances of the road and the causes of the accidents, .
The key to assigning evaluation indexes is to determine the form of evaluation
criterion. According to the evaluation index system, the form of evaluation criterion is
made by combining the analysis data of road traffic accidents.
2.4. Determination of the index value at all levels
(1) The individual index value can be drawn from experts grading in
accordance with the form of evaluation criterion.
(2) The large category index value is the further convergence of the individual
index.
Fi  Wij Fij ( i  1,2,3，j  1,2    ) (1)

(3) The comprehensive evaluation value is the further convergence of the

large category index. The magnitude of the value reflects the safety performance of
the entire arterial highway. The formula is as follows:
3
GQI  Wi Fi (2)
i 1

Where GQI denotes the comprehensive safety evaluation index of the arterial

highway and Wi Fi stands for the evaluation sub-index of a certain evaluation index.

3. DETERMINATION OF EVALUATION INDEX WEIGHT

The relationship between the safety evaluation indexes of an arterial highway
is complex. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is an effective method to deal
with such issues. Based on the analysis of a complex decision problem, influence
factors, and internal relations, AHP can use less quantitative information to make the
decision process mathematical and find index weight accurately for a complicated
multi-objective, multi-criterion, or non-structured decision-making problem.
3.1. Construction of weight judging matrix
A paired judgment matrix is established from the second layer of the
hierarchical structure model to the last layer with the paired comparison method and
1~9 scaling method.

ICTIS 2013
 ICTIS 2013 © ASCE 2013 1228

3.2. Calculation of weight vector

Weight is characterized by the judgment matrix vector through the
normalization process derived. Steps are as follows:
(1) Standardizing judging matrix A by column:
aij
aij  n
i, j  1,2,  , n (3)
a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University At Boulder on 01/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ij
i 1

(2) Summing by row and obtaining sum wi :

n
wi   aij (4)
j 1

(3) Normalizing the sum and obtaining weight coefficient:

wi
wi  n
(5)
w i 1
i

3.3. Consistency check

In order to ensure the reasonability of the index weight, a consistency check
on the comparison matrix is needed. The formula of the consistency test indicator is
as follows:
1 n ( AW ) i
max  
n i 1 wi
(6)

max  n
CI  (7)
n 1
CI
CR  (8)
RI
Where n denotes the order of the comparison matrix, max is the largest

eigenvalue of the comparison matrix, CI denotes the consistency index, RI represents

the random consistency index whose value varies with n , and CR is the consistency
ratio. If CR<0, the comparison matrix consistency can be accepted and the feature
vector is the weight vector. Otherwise, the comparison matrix should be modified
until the conformance requirements are met.
According to the principle of AHP, the comparison matrix of the principle
level compared with the goal level as well as the parameter level compared with the
principle level is established. The largest eigenvalue and feature vector should then be
calculated. After a consistency check, the weight of the evaluation index is obtained.

ICTIS 2013
 ICTIS 2013 © ASCE 2013 1229

From the above analysis, the weight value of the evaluation index system can
be drawn as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. The weight of safety evaluation index system
Principle Principle
Parameter level Weight Parameter level Weight
level level
Horizontal
0.21 Traffic sign 0.3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University At Boulder on 01/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

radius
Traffic
Longitudinal
0.2 safety Traffic marking 0.13
gradient
facilities
Road Stopping sight Protection
0.3 0.32 0.2
conditions distance facilities
0.52 Lane width 0.12 Guiding facility 0.37
Interference
Shoulder width 0.11 0.32
factor
Traffic
Pavement Traffic
0.06 environment 0.45
surface distress composition
0.16
Grade
0.23
intersection

According to the formula for the comprehensive evaluation value and the
weight value, the evaluation model of the arterial highway is as follows.
F1  0.21F11  0.2F12  0.3F13  0.12F14  0.11F15  0.06F16 (9)

F2  0.3F21  0.13F22  0.2F23  0.37 F24 (10)

F3  0.3F31  0.45F32  0.23F33 (11)

GQI  0.52F1  0.32F2  0.16F3 (12)

4. DETERMINATION OF THE EVALUATION LEVEL

The level division of the arterial highway can not only evaluate traffic safety,
but also provide a reference for traffic safety design and safety improvement. A
progressive average method is used to analyze the range of the arterial highway safety.
The defined rank is as shown in Table 4.

ICTIS 2013
 ICTIS 2013 © ASCE 2013 1230

Table 4. Grading standards of the road safety

Safe service rank Score range Description
A 1.0~2.0 Very safe
B 2.1~3.0 Safe

C 3.1~4.0 Unsafe
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University At Boulder on 01/01/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

D 4.1~5.0 Danger

5. CONCLUSION
Safety evaluation plays a significant role in reducing the occurrence of
accidents and improving road traffic safety. This paper mainly studies safety
evaluation from road and environmental aspects, but people and vehicles are also
important safety factors. As many factors affect road safety, choosing the influencing
factors as evaluation indexes has an important impact on arterial highway safety
evaluations. Therefore, the scope and validity of the evaluation method also need
more application instances for further inspection.

REFERENCE
Goedell, D. (2000). Benefits assessment of advanced public transportation system
technologies. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Golob, T. F. and Recker, W. W. “Relationships among Urban Freeway Accidents,
Traffic Flow, Weather, and Lighting Conditions.” Journal of Transportation
Engineering, ASCE, July 2003, 342-353.
Hartigan, J. A.(1975), Clustering Algorithms, Wiley, New York.
Islam, M N, Seneviratne, P N, “Evaluation of design consistency of two-lane rural
highways.” Transportation research board: TRB. February 1994, 28-31.
Mohamed Abdel-Aty, Anurag Pande.(2005). “Identifying crash propensity using
specific traffic speed conditions.” Journal of Safety Research.2005, 97-108.
Richardson, B.(2000). “Role of motor-vehicle industry in a sustainable transportation
system.” Transportation Research Record: TRB, January 2007, 21–27.
Thomas F Golob, Wilfred W Recker(2004). “A method for relating type of crash to
traffic flow characteristics on urban freeways.” Transportation Research Part
A: Policy and Practice. January 2004, 53-80.

ICTIS 2013