Comprehensive Assessment of Temporal Treatments in Crash Prediction Models

This study conducted a comprehensive comparison of temporal treatments employed in crash prediction models. Nine groups of methodological approaches based on different ways of addressing temporal correlations, including the newly proposed time adjacency matrix, were developed. Moreover, three types of models were developed for each group in terms of spatial dependency. Finally, ten different assessment criteria were utilized for the evaluation purpose. All models and performance-checking criteria applied to 8 years of county-level crash counts in California. The modeling results illustrated that the space–time models consistently enhanced the precision associated with the intercepts. The serial and spatial correlations also appeared to be statistically significant. In terms of model complexity, the models with spatial correlations outperformed the ones without considering spatially structured heterogeneity, and the models accounting for the temporal dependency revealed more benefits compared with those without temporal treatments. The opposite trends were found by prediction-pertinent criteria based on the aggregation results, even though the first-order autoregressive process space–time models with spatiotemporal interaction claimed the first place of prediction in most cases. The correlation analysis among all ten criteria illustrated that the efficiency in reducing the effective number of parameters tended to have larger impacts on the value of deviance information criterion than did the mean deviance, which demonstrated the statistically significant correlations with all other prediction-related measures.

[1]  S Yagar,et al.  A temporal analysis of rain-related crash risk. , 1993, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[2]  Wen Cheng,et al.  New Criteria for Evaluating Methods of Identifying Hot Spots , 2008 .

[3]  A. Pettitt,et al.  Bayesian analysis of a time series of counts with covariates: an application to the control of an infectious disease. , 2001, Biostatistics.

[4]  D. Clayton,et al.  Bayesian analysis of space-time variation in disease risk. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  Gurdiljot Singh Gill,et al.  Bayesian spatiotemporal crash frequency models with mixture components for space-time interactions. , 2018, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[6]  Fred L. Mannering,et al.  The statistical analysis of crash-frequency data: A review and assessment of methodological alternatives , 2010 .

[7]  Sylvia Richardson,et al.  Use of Space–Time Models to Investigate the Stability of Patterns of Disease , 2008, Environmental health perspectives.

[8]  Dominique Lord,et al.  Multilevel Dirichlet process mixture analysis of railway grade crossing crash data , 2016 .

[9]  Helai Huang,et al.  Evaluating Spatial-Proximity Structures in Crash Prediction Models at the Level of Traffic Analysis Zones , 2014 .

[10]  Xuesong Wang,et al.  Modeling signalized intersection safety with corridor-level spatial correlations. , 2010, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[11]  Md. Mazharul Haque,et al.  Empirical Evaluation of Alternative Approaches in Identifying Crash Hot Spots , 2009 .

[12]  Roman Liesenfeld,et al.  Time series of count data: modeling, estimation and diagnostics , 2006, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[13]  Kerrie Mengersen,et al.  Evaluating the effect of neighbourhood weight matrices on smoothing properties of Conditional Autoregressive (CAR) models , 2007, International journal of health geographics.

[14]  Paul P Jovanis,et al.  Analysis of Road Crash Frequency with Spatial Models , 2008 .

[15]  David Barron,et al.  The Analysis of Count Data: Over-dispersion and Autocorrelation , 1992 .

[16]  Mohamed Abdel-Aty,et al.  Geographical unit based analysis in the context of transportation safety planning , 2013 .

[17]  Sudip Barua,et al.  Investigation of time and weather effects on crash types using full Bayesian multivariate Poisson lognormal models. , 2014, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[18]  Meiquan Xie,et al.  Comparison of Multivariate Poisson lognormal spatial and temporal crash models to identify hot spots of intersections based on crash types. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[19]  Wen Cheng,et al.  Evaluating Influence of Neighboring Structures on Spatial Crash Frequency Modeling and Site-Ranking Performance , 2017 .

[20]  P. Jovanis,et al.  Spatial analysis of fatal and injury crashes in Pennsylvania. , 2006, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[21]  Wen Cheng,et al.  Multimodal crash frequency modeling: Multivariate space-time models with alternate spatiotemporal interactions. , 2018, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[22]  Jonathan Aguero-Valverde,et al.  Full Bayes Poisson gamma, Poisson lognormal, and zero inflated random effects models: Comparing the precision of crash frequency estimates. , 2013, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[23]  Gurdiljot Singh Gill,et al.  Comparative analysis of cost-weighted site ranking using alternate distance-based neighboring structures for spatial crash frequency modeling , 2019 .

[24]  Timothy C. Coburn,et al.  Statistical and Econometric Methods for Transportation Data Analysis , 2004, Technometrics.

[25]  B. Mallick,et al.  Bayesian multivariate spatial models for roadway traffic crash mapping , 2006 .

[26]  Mohamed Abdel-Aty,et al.  Temporal and spatial analyses of rear-end crashes at signalized intersections. , 2006, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[27]  Meiquan Xie,et al.  Comparative evaluation of temporal correlation treatment in crash frequency modelling , 2018 .

[28]  David J. Lunn,et al.  The BUGS Book: A Practical Introduction to Bayesian Analysis , 2013 .

[29]  Xiaoxiang Ma,et al.  Multivariate space-time modeling of crash frequencies by injury severity levels , 2017 .