|
|
TFHRC Home > Safety > Safety Publications > Safety Effects of Differential Speed Limits > Appendix G
Table 14 showed that while the removal of sites with extremely high and low ADT affects the results of the statistical tests, the relationship between ADT and crashes is still unclear. Researchers may speculate that various types of relationships exist. For example, an investigator could argue that a high ADT/low speed situation results in more vehicle interaction, which would therefore increase the likelihood of a property damage only crash, but lessen the likelihood of a serious crash.
The data employed in these histograms were the total crash rates and related ADTs from two States: Arizona and Virginia. The highest 5 percent and lowest 5 percent of ADTs were removed from the data set, because they were regarded as extreme conditions. Figures 51-53 relate ADT to crash rates for Arizona (where no speed limit change was instituted), the Virginia data when DSL was in place, and the Virginia data where USL was in place.
Figure 53 suggests that, in Arizona, as the ADT increases, the total crash rate decreases, which would in fact support a β2 ADT exponent less than 1.0. However, figures 52 and 53 do not show a comparable trend.
The effect of two independent variables (ADT and speed limit type) was assessed on the total crash rate for both Arizona and Virginia, as illustrated in table 34 and the ANOVA results in tables 35 and 36 for Arizona and Virginia, respectively. In table 35, no significant difference was found between the before and after period, noting the p values of 0.137 and 0.129 for Arizona and Virginia. However, ADT did have a significant influence on total crash rates in both States. Meanwhile, the interaction of these two variables was significant in Arizona but not in Virginia.
Table 34. ANOVA variable definitions.
| Variable | State | Level | Definition | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Speed Limits | Virginia |
1 | 1991-1993 | Year |
| 2 | 1995-1999 | Year | ||
Arizona |
1 | 1991-1995 | Year | |
| 2 | 1996-1999 | Year | ||
| ADT | Virginia |
1 | 0-14,999 | ADT Value |
| 2 | 15,000-27,499 | ADT Value | ||
| 3 | 27,500-39,999 | ADT Value | ||
Arizona |
1 | 0-14,999 | ADT Value | |
| 2 | 15,000-27,499 | ADT Value | ||
| 3 | 27,500-39,999 | ADT Value | ||
| 4 | 40,000-52,499 | ADT Value | ||
| 5 | 52,500-65,000 | ADT Value |
Table 35. ANOVA Arizona results.
| Source | Type III Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corrected Model | 692,674.348a | 9 | 76,963.816 | 22.487 | 0.000 |
| Intercept | 365,693.055 | 1 | 365,693.055 | 106.848 | 0.000 |
| Speed Limit Type (DSL or USL) | 7,570.345 | 1 | 7,570.345 | 2.212 | 0.137 |
| ADT | 480,476.984 | 4 | 120,199.246 | 35.096 | 0.000 |
| Speed Limit Type (ADT) | 36,564.203 | 4 | 9,141.051 | 2.671 | 0.031 |
| Error | 8,529,027.298 | 2,492 | 3,422.563 | - | - |
| Total | 18,507,548.500 | 2,502 | - | - | - |
| Corrected Total | 9,221,701.646 | 2,501 | - | - | - |
Table 36. ANOVA Virginia results.
| Source | Type III Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corrected Model | 59,074.774a | 5 | 11,814.955 | 9.438 | 0.000 |
| Intercept | 1,034,578.071 | 1 | 1,034,578.071 | 826.446 | 0.000 |
| Speed Limit Type (DSL or USL) | 2,891.319 | 1 | 2,891.319 | 2.310 | 0.129 |
| ADT | 45,023.284 | 2 | 22,511.642 | 17.983 | 0.000 |
| Speed Limit Type (ADT) | 746.468 | 2 | 373.234 | 0.298 | 0.742 |
| Error | 2,121,868.836 | 1,695 | 1,251.840 | - | - |
| Total | 6,480,839.204 | 1,701 | - | - | - |
| Corrected Total | 2,180,943.611 | 1,700 | - | - | - |
Previous | Table of Contents | Next
FHWA-HRT-05-042 |
 |