A Crash Counts by Severity Based Hotspot Identification Method and Its Application on a Regional Map Based Analytical Platform

  • Xinxin Xu
  • Ziqiang ZengEmail author
  • Yinhai Wang
  • John Ash
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes on Multidisciplinary Industrial Engineering book series (LNMUINEN)


This paper aims to develop a crash counts by severity based hotspot identification method by extending the traditional empirical Bayes method to a generalized nonlinear model-based mixed multinomial logit approach. A new safety performance index and a new potential safety improvement index are developed by introducing the risk weight factor and compared with traditional indexes by employing four hotspot identification evaluating methods. The comparison results reveal that the new safety performance index derived by the generalized nonlinear model-based mixed multinomial logit approach is the most consistent and reliable method for identifying hotspots. Finally, a regional map based analytical platform is developed by expanding the safety performance module with the new safety performance index and potential safety improvement functions.


Hotspot identification Crash severity Safety performance index Potential safety improvement index Regional map based analytical platform 



This research was supported by the Youth Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71501137), the General Programs of China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2015M572480), the International Postdoctoral Exchange Fellowship Program of China Postdoctoral Council (Grant No. 20150028), the project of Research Center for System Sciences and Enterprise Development (Grant No. Xq16B05), and also funded by Sichuan University (Grant No. skqy201647). The authors would like to give our great appreciation to the editors and anonymous referees for their helpful and constructive comments and suggestions, which have helped to improve this article.


  1. 1.
    Cheng W, Washington S (2005) Experimental evaluation of hotspot identification methods. Accid Anal Prev 37:870–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheng W, Washington S (2008) New criteria for evaluating methods of identifying hot spots. Transp Res Rec 2083:76–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deacon J, Zegeer C, Deen R (1975) Identification of hazardous rural highway locations. Transp Res Rec 543:16–33Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hauer E (1980) Bias-by-selection: overestimation of the effectiveness of safety countermeasures caused by the process of selection for treatment. Accid Anal Prev 12:113–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hauer E, Persaud B, Smiley A et al (1991) Estimating the accident potential of an Ontario driver. Accid Anal Prev 23:133–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hensher D, Greene W (2003) The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30:133–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laughland J, Haefner L, Hall J et al (1975) Methods for evaluating highway safety improvements. NCHRP 162, Transportation Research BoardGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mannering F, Shankar V, Bhat C (2016) Unobserved heterogeneity and the statistical analysis of highway accident data. Anal Methods Accid Res 11:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McFadden D, Train K (2000) Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Appl Econometrics 15:447–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Montella A (2010) A comparative analysis of hotspot identification methods. Accid Anal Prev 42:571–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Park B, Lord D, Lee C (2014) Finite mixture modeling for vehicle crash data with application to hotspot identification. Accid Anal Prev 71:319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Qu X, Meng Q (2014) A note on hotspot identification for urban expressways. Saf Sci 66:87–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stokes R, Mutabazi M (1996) Rate-quality control method of identifying hazardous road locations. Transp Res Rec 1542:44–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Train K (2003) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Washington S, Haque M, Oh J et al (2014) Applying quantile regression for modeling equivalent property damage only crashes to identify accident blackspots. Accid Anal Prev 66:136–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ye F, Lord D (2011) Investigation of effects of underreporting crash data on three commonly used traffic crash severity models multinomial logit, ordered probit, and mixed logit. Transp Res Rec 2241:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zeng Z, Zhu W, Ke R et al (2017) A generalized nonlinear model-based mixed multinomial logit approach for crash data analysis. Accid Anal Prev 99:51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xinxin Xu
    • 1
  • Ziqiang Zeng
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Yinhai Wang
    • 3
  • John Ash
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Tourism and Economic ManagementChengdu UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Uncertainty Decision-Making LaboratorySichuan UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Smart Transportation Applications and Research Laboratory, Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations