Pavement maintenance considering traffic accident costs

  • Rita Justo-Silva
  • Adelino FerreiraEmail author


Worldwide, more than 1.25 million people die annually in road traffic accidents and between 20 and 50 million more are injured. By 2030, highway-related crashes are projected to be the 5th leading cause of death in the world. Road accidents have several contributing factors, including roadway conditions, vehicle conditions, and factors related to the road users. While some of these factors have been studied extensively by researchers very few focused on quantifying the relationship between accidents frequency and pavement quality. Before 1990s, due to the lack of pavement data collection technology, it was very difficult to carry out state-wide scale studies relating pavement quality and road safety. However, in the past decades, there has been a huge growth and awareness in the importance of road safety, leading to a significant increase of research in the topic. Researchers started to study other contributing factors to accidents occurrence and due to the development of high-speed friction measurement tools, agencies can now include friction into network level Pavement Management Systems (PMSs). The objective of this article is to contribute to the incorporation of safety concerns into Pavement Management by performing an exploratory analysis to assess the impact in the agency, user and total costs of performing two different maintenance policies. The methodology consisted in evaluating the evolution of the condition of the road pavements using pavement performance prediction models, followed by the prediction of the expected number of accidents and, finally the calculation of the agency and user costs. The results obtained provided a strong starting point to understand the requirements to solve this type of problems that not only affect road agencies but also the society in general.


Road safety Accident prediction models Pavement management Pavement performance prediction models HDM-4 Models 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The author Rita Justo-Silva is grateful to the Portuguese Foundation of Science and Technology for her MIT-Portugal PhD Grant (PD/BD/113721/2015). The authors wish to acknowledge the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.


  1. [1]
    American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials, Highway Safety Manual, First Edition, AASHTO, Washington DC, 2010.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials, Highway Safety Manual, First Edition, 2014 Supplement, AASHTO, Washington DC., 2014.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    R. Srinivasan, D. Carter, K. Bauer, Safety Performance Function Decision Guide: SPF Calibration vs. SPF Development, FHWA, The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, NC, USA, 2013.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    R. Srinivasan, K. Bauer, Safety Performance Function Development Guide: Developing Jurisdiction- Specific SPFs. Report FHWA-SA-14-005. FHWA, The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, NC, USA, 2013.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    G. Bahar, E. Hauer, User’s Guide to Develop Highway Safety Manual Safety Performance Function Calibration Factors. Project No. HR 20 — 7(332). National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), NAVIGATS Inc., Washington DC, USA, 2014.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    ROSEBUD Consortium, Examples of assessed road safety measures — a short handbook, Research Project, 2006.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    SUPREME, Handbook for measures at the Country level. SUPREME Consortium, research project, 2007.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    SUPREME, Handbook for measures at the European level. SUPREME Consortium, research project, 2007.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. Elvik, A. Hoye, T. Vaa, Sorensen M.: The Handbook of Road Safety Measures, 2nd Edition, Emerald Group Publishing Ltd, 2009.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    CEDR, Best Practice on Cost Effective Road Safety Infrastructure Investments, Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR) Report, 2008.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    CEDR, Forgiving Roadsides Design Guide, Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR) Report, 2012.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    NHTSA, Countermeasures that work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide For State Highway Safety Offices. 7th edition. Report No. DOT HS 811 727. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington DC, 2013.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    PRACT, Predicting Road Accidents — A transferable methodology across Europe. Inventory and Critical Review of existing APMs and CMFs and related Data Sources. CEDR Call 2013, Safety, 2016.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    C. Chan, B. Huang, X. Yan, S. Richards, 2009. Relationship Between Highway Pavement Condition, Crash Frequency, and Crash Type. Journal of Transportation Safety and Security, Vol.1:4:268–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. B. Odoky, H. G. R. Kerali, Analytical Framework and Model Descriptions, The Highway Development and Management Series, Vol. 4, PIARC, France, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    D. Lord, F. Mannering, The statistical analysis of crash-frequency data: a review and assessment of methodological alternatives, Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Prac. 44 (5) (2010) 291–05.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    M. Castro, R. Paleti, C. Bhat, A latent variable representation of count data models to accommodate spatial and temporal dependence: application to predicting crash frequency at intersections, Transp. Res. Part B 46 (1) (2012) 253–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    M. G. Karlaftis, I. Golias, Effects of road geometry and traffic volumes on rural roadway accident rates, Accid. Anal. Prevention 34 (3) (2002) 357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    J. Kuttesch, Quantifying the relationship between skid resistance and wet weather accidents for Virginia data, (Doctoral dissertation), Virginia Tech, Virginia, USA, 2004.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    R. Davies, P. Cenek, R. Henderson, The effect of skid resistance and texture on crash risk, Inter. Conf. Surface Friction for Roads and Runways, Christchurch, NZ, 2005..Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    R. M. Larson, T. E. Hoerner, K. D. Smith, A. S. Wolters, Relationship between skid resistance numbers measured with ribbed and smooth tire and wet accident locations. State Job Number 134323. Tranp. Res. Board, Washington DC, USA, 2008.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    P. C. Anastasopoulos, F. L. Mannering, A note on modeling vehicle accident frequencies with random-parameters count models, Accid. Anal. Prevention 41 (1) (2009) 153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    C. Chan, B. Huang, X. Yan, S. Richards, Investigating effects of asphalt pavement conditions on traffic accidents in Tennessee based on the pavement management system (PMS), J. Adv. Transp. 44 (3) (2010) 150–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    S. Labi, Efficacies of roadway safety improvements across functional subclasses of rural two-lane highways, J. Safety Res. 42 (4) (2011) 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    P. C. Anastasopoulos, V. N. Shankar, J. E. Haddock, F. L. Mannering, A multivariate Tobit analysis of highway accident-injury-severity rates, Accid. Anal. Prevention 45 (1) (2012) 110–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    E. Izeppi, S. Katicha, G. Flintsch, R. McCarthy, Pavement Friction Management Program Pilot Demonstration, Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research, Virginia, USA, 2015.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    J. Lee, B. Nam, M. Abdel-Aty, Effects of Pavement Surface Conditions on Traffic Crash Severity, J. Transp. Eng. 11 (10) (2015) 1–11.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    R. Haas, R. W. Hudson, L. C. Falls, Pavement Asset Management, Wiley-Scrivener, Canada, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    K. Ozbay, D. Jawad, N. Parker, S. Hussain, Life-cycle cost analysis: state of the practice versus state of the art, Transp. Res. Rec. 1864 (2004) 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Federal Highway Administration, Life-cycle cost analysis primer. FHWA-IF-02-047. FHWA, Office of Asset Management, Washington DC, USA, 2002, p. 1–36.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    P. Thoft-Christensen, Infrastructures and life-cycle cost-benefit analysis, Struct. Infrastr. Eng. 8 (5) (2010) 507–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    R. Ellis, Z. Herbsman, Development for improved motorist user cost determinations for FDOT construction projects. Report no 0510748. University of Florida, Department of Civil Engineering, Gainesville, Florida, USA, 1997, p. 1–276.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, User benefit analysis for highways manual. NCHRP Project 02-23. AASHTO, ECO Northwest and Kittelson and Associates, Inc., Parsons., Washington DC, USA, 2003.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    D. Lee, M. Burris, Highway economic requirements system — state version (HERS-ST). Technical report. Federal Highway Administration FHWA, Office of Asset Management, Washington DC, USA, 2005, p. 1–372.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    A. Donário, R. Santos, The Economic and Cost of Road Accidents. The Portuguese Case, Lisboa, Portugal, 2012.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    J. R. McCarthy, Performing Network Level Crash Evaluation Using Skid Resistance, (Master Thesis), Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Virginia, USA, 2015.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Road Pavements Laboratory, Research Center for Territory, Transports and Environment, Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations