Safety Evaluation of Corner Clearance

at Signalized Intersections

PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-HRT-17-084 FEBRUARY 2018

Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296
FOREWORD

The research documented in this report was conducted as part of the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA’s) Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study 

(ELCSI-PFS). FHWA established this PFS in 2005 to conduct research on the effectiveness of 

the safety improvements identified by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

Report 500 Guides as part of the implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan. The ELCSI-PFS studies provide a crash modification factor and benefit–cost economic 

analysis for each of the targeted safety strategies identified as priorities by the pooled fund 

member States.

This study evaluates corner clearance at signalized intersections in the State of California and the 

City of Charlotte, North Carolina. For limited corner clearance on the approach corners, the 

results indicate statistically significant reductions in total, fatal and injury, and rear-end crashes. 

The results also indicated reductions in sideswipe and nighttime crashes, and increases in rightangle and turning crashes. This study suggests that removing access on mainline receiving 

corners to improve corner clearance—with reasonable assumptions for cost, service life, and the 

value of a statistical life—can be cost effective for reducing crashes at signalized intersections. 

This document is intended for safety engineers, highway designers, planners, and practitioners at 

State and local agencies involved with AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan implementation.

Jonathan Porter, Ph.D.

Acting Director, Office of Safety

Research and Development

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for 

the use of the information contained in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to 

ensure continuous quality improvement.
TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No.

FHWA-HRT-17-084

2. Government 

Accession No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Safety Evaluation of Corner Clearance at Signalized Intersections

5. Report Date

February 2018

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 

Thanh Le, Frank Gross, Tim Harmon, and Kimberly Eccles

8. Performing Organization 

Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

VHB

8300 Boone Blvd., Ste. 700

Vienna, VA 22182-2626

10. Work Unit No.

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-13-D-00001

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period

Final Report; June 2015–

September 2017

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HRDS-20

15. Supplementary Notes

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety Research and Development managed this study 

under the Development of Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) program. The FHWA Office of Safety Research 

and Development Program and Task Manager was Ms. Roya Amjadi (HRDS-20).

16. Abstract

This study evaluates corner clearance at signalized intersections under the Development of Crash Modification 

Factors program for the Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study. Geometric, traffic, and 

crash data were obtained for signalized intersections with various corner clearances from the State of California

and the City of Charlotte, North Carolina. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted to estimate the effects of 

corner clearance while controlling for other differences among study sites. The estimated CMFs indicated that 

more limited clearance (i.e., driveway(s) within 50 ft of the signalized intersection) on receiving corners was 

associated with increases for all crash types, based on the data included in this analysis. These increases were 

statistically significant at the 90-percent level or greater for total, fatal and injury, rear-end, sideswipe, right-angle, 

and nighttime crashes. Only the results for turning crashes were not statistically significant at the 90-percent level. 

For limited corner clearance on the approach corners, the results indicated statistically significant reductions in 

total, fatal and injury, and rear-end crashes. The results also indicated reductions in sideswipe and nighttime 

crashes, and increases in right-angle and turning crashes, but none of these results were statistically significant at 

the 90-percent level.

17. Key Words

Corner clearance, signal, intersection, low-cost, safety 

improvements, safety evaluations, access management, 

driveways

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the 

public through the National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

http://www.ntis.gov

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

57

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized.
ii

* SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.

(Revised March 2003)

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL 

gal gallons 3.785 liters L 

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius o

C 

or (F-32)/1.8 

ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N 

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 

VOLUME 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 

MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit o

F 

ILLUMINATION 

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2

 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 3

BACKGROUND ON STRATEGY ......................................................................................... 3

BACKGROUND ON STUDY.................................................................................................. 4

LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 5

CHAPTER 2. OBJECTIVE......................................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 3. STUDY DESIGN.................................................................................................. 9

ACCOUNTING FOR POTENTIAL ISSUES AND SOURCES OF BIAS ......................... 9

General Issues........................................................................................................................ 9

Issues Specific to Cross-Sectional Models......................................................................... 10

SAMPLE SIZE CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................. 12

PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING.................................................................................. 13

CHAPTER 4. METHODOLOGY............................................................................................. 15

CHAPTER 5. DATA COLLECTION....................................................................................... 17

CALIFORNIA DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................ 17

CHARLOTTE DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................ 20

INTERSECTION, TRAFFIC, AND CRASH DATA.......................................................... 20

CORNER CLEARANCE, INTERSECTION, AND CORRIDOR 

CHARACTERISTICS............................................................................................................ 21

DATA SUMMARY................................................................................................................. 23

CHAPTER 6. DEVELOPMENT OF SAFETY PERFORMANCE FUNCTIONS .............. 25

CRASH PREDICTION MODEL FOR TOTAL CRASHES ............................................. 27

CRASH PREDICTION MODEL FOR FATAL AND INJURY CRASHES .................... 28

CRASH PREDICTION MODEL FOR REAR-END CRASHES ...................................... 28

CRASH PREDICTION MODEL FOR SIDESWIPE CRASHES ..................................... 29

CRASH PREDICTION MODEL FOR RIGHT-ANGLE CRASHES............................... 30

CRASH PREDICTION MODEL FOR TURNING CRASHES......................................... 30

CRASH PREDICTION MODEL FOR NIGHTTIME CRASHES ................................... 31

CHAPTER 7. CROSS-SECTIONAL EVALUATION RESULTS ........................................ 33

AGGREGATE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 33

DISAGGREGATE ANALYSIS............................................................................................. 36

CHAPTER 8. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.................................................................................. 37

CHAPTER 9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................. 39

CHAPTER 10. DISCUSSION.................................................................................................... 41

APPENDIX. EXAMPLE INTERSECTIONS.......................................................................... 43

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................... 47

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 49
iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Photo. Signalized intersection with limited receiving corner clearance.......................... 3

Figure 2. Schematic. General layout of study site .......................................................................... 4

Figure 3. Screenshot. Select study location in Google® EarthTM (circle added by research 

team to indicate intersection of interest) ............................................................................. 19

Figure 4. Screenshot. Locate and verify intersection in HSIS data file........................................ 19

Figure 5. Screenshot. Example of Charlotte data layers in ArcGIS ............................................. 21

Figure 6. Screenshot. Measuring corner clearance in Google® EarthTM...................................... 23

Figure 7. Equation. Model for total crashes.................................................................................. 27

Figure 8. Equation. Model for fatal and injury crashes ................................................................ 28

Figure 9. Equation. Model for rear-end crashes ........................................................................... 28

Figure 10. Equation. Model for sideswipe crashes....................................................................... 29

Figure 11. Equation. Model for right-angle crashes..................................................................... 30

Figure 12. Equation. Model for turning crashes........................................................................... 30

Figure 13. Equation. Model for nighttime crashes ....................................................................... 31

Figure 14. Screenshot. Intersection with limited approach corner clearance from Google® 

MapsTM................................................................................................................................ 43

Figure 15. Screenshot. Intersection with limited receiving corner clearance from Google® 

MapsTM................................................................................................................................ 44

Figure 16. Screenshot. Intersection with limited corner clearance on all mainline corners 

from Google® MapsTM........................................................................................................ 45

Figure 17. Screenshot. Intersection without limited corner clearance on all mainline 

corners from Google® MapsTM........................................................................................... 46
v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. ZINB model estimation results adapted from Kwigizile et al. ......................................... 5

Table 2. Crashes per site-year from data collection sites.............................................................. 13

Table 3. Data summary for signalized intersections and corner clearance................................... 24

Table 4. Model parameters for total crashes................................................................................. 27

Table 5. Model parameters for fatal and injury crashes................................................................ 28

Table 6. Model parameters for rear-end crashes........................................................................... 29

Table 7. Model parameters for sideswipe crashes........................................................................ 29

Table 8. Model parameters for right-angle crashes ...................................................................... 30

Table 9. Model parameters for turning crashes ............................................................................ 31

Table 10. Model parameters for nighttime crashes....................................................................... 31

Table 11. Results for total crashes................................................................................................ 33

Table 12. Results for fatal and injury crashes............................................................................... 34

Table 13. Results for rear-end crashes.......................................................................................... 34

Table 14. Results for sideswipe crashes ....................................................................................... 34

Table 15. Results for right-angle crashes...................................................................................... 35

Table 16. Results for turning crashes............................................................................................ 35

Table 17. Results for nighttime crashes........................................................................................ 35

Table 18. BC ratios for removing receiving corner access points from a site with limited 

clearance on two receiving corners..................................................................................... 38

Table 19. Recommended CMFs for limited approach corner clearance ...................................... 39

Table 20. Recommended CMFs for limited receiving corner clearance ...................................... 39
vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AADT annual average daily traffic 

B/C benefit–cost

CMF crash modification factor

DCMF Development of Crash Modification Factors

ELCSI-PFS Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FID feature identifier

GIS geographic information system

GPS global positioning system

HSIS Highway Safety Information System

KML Keyhole Markup Language

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

PDO property-damage-only

SE standard error

USD United States dollar

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

ZINB zero-inflated negative binomial
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Federal Highway Administration established the Development of Crash Modification 

Factors (DCMF) program in 2012 to address highway safety research needs for evaluating new 

and innovative safety improvement strategies by developing reliable quantitative estimates of 

their effectiveness in reducing crashes. The ultimate goal of the DCMF program is to save lives 

by identifying new strategies that effectively reduce crashes and to promote those strategies for 

nationwide implementation by providing measures of their safety effectiveness and benefit–cost

(B/C) ratios through research. State transportation departments and other transportation agencies 

need to have objective measures of safety effectiveness before investing in broad applications of 

safety countermeasures. Forty State transportation departments provide technical feedback on 

safety improvements to the DCMF program and implement new safety improvements to 

facilitate evaluations. These States are members of the Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety 

Improvements Pooled Fund Study, which functions under the DCMF program.

This study investigates the safety effects of corner clearance on the mainline at four-leg, 

signalized intersections. Previous studies have explored various access management techniques 

and the effects of access points on safety at a corridor level. However, little quantitative 

information is available for the safety effects of driveways located near the corners of a 

signalized intersection and the effects of access management strategies on intersection crashes.

The research team obtained crash, geometric, and traffic data for four-leg, signalized 

intersections with various corner clearances in California and Charlotte, North Carolina, then 

conducted a cross-sectional analysis to estimate the effects of corner clearance while controlling 

for other factors. The team used propensity score matching to select reference intersections with 

similar characteristics to those with limited corner clearances. The analysis controlled for 

changes in safety due to differences in traffic volume and other differences among intersections 

with various corner clearances. The base condition for the evaluation was a four-leg, signalized 

intersection without limited clearance on all mainline corners.

The estimated crash modification factors (CMFs) indicated that more limited clearance on 

receiving corners (i.e., driveway(s) on receiving approaches within 50 ft of the signalized 

intersection) was associated with increases for all crash types, based on the data included in this 

analysis. The estimated CMFs indicated that more limited clearance on receiving corners was 

associated with increases for all crash types, based on the data included in this analysis. The 

following CMFs for one and two receiving corners, respectively, were statistically significant at 

the 90-percent level for these crash types:

• Total crash—1.33 (standard error (SE) = 0.11) and 1.76 (SE=0.30).

• Fatal and injury—1.29 (SE = 0.11) and 1.68 (SE = 0.29).

• Rear-end—1.36 (SE = 0.14) and 1.86 (SE = 0.38).

• Sideswipe—1.31 (SE = 0.14) and 1.71 (SE=0.38).

• Right-angle—1.42 (SE = 0.20) and 2.02 (SE = 0.56).

• Nighttime—1.29 (SE = 0.13) and 1.67 (SE = 0.35).
2

The CMFs for turning crashes were 1.22 (SE = 0.15) and 1.49 (SE = 0.36) for one and two 

receiving corners, respectively. These were the only results that were not statistically significant 

at the 90-percent level.

For limited corner clearance on the approach corners, the results indicated statistically significant 

reductions in total, fatal and injury, and rear-end crashes. The results also indicated reductions in 

sideswipe and nighttime crashes and increases in right-angle and turning crashes, but none of 

these results were statistically significant at the 90-percent level. In other words, each additional 

mainline approach corner with at least one driveway within 50 ft of the corner was statistically 

associated with decreases in these crash types. Although nonintuitive, this may be the result of 

localized congestion on the approach corners of an intersection. The total CMFs for one and two 

approach corners were 0.82 and 0.67 (SE = 0.08 and 0.13), respectively. Similarly, the CMFs for 

fatal and injury were 0.79 and 0.62 (SE = 0.08 and 0.13). The CMFs for rear-end crashes were 

0.79 and 0.63 (SE = 0.09 and 0.15). The estimated CMFs for sideswipe, right-angle, turning, and 

nighttime crashes indicated a mix of no changes, a slight increase, or a slight decrease in crashes 

associated with limited clearance on the approach corners, and none of these results were 

statistically significant.

The disaggregate analysis sought to identify those conditions under which the strategy is most 

effective. Several variables were considered in the disaggregate analysis, including major and 

minor road traffic volume, number of lanes on the major and minor road, posted speed limit, 

driveway density, and presence of left- and right-turn lanes. The disaggregate analysis did not 

indicate any differential effect of corner clearance at the 80-percent confidence level.

The economic analysis, based on total crashes and assuming a 10-year service life, resulted in an

average B/C ratio of at least 294 to 1 for most intersections when removing or relocating access 

at one or more mainline receiving corners with limited corner clearance. With the United States 

Department of Transportation–recommended sensitivity analysis, these values could range from 

162 to 1 up to 405 to 1. While this research suggests the presence of driveways on mainline 

approach corners does not increase total, fatal and injury, rear-end, and sideswipe crashes, more 

research is required before agencies may consider this as a strategy for reducing crashes.

These results suggest that removing or relocating driveways on the mainline receiving corners 

can be cost effective in reducing crashes at signalized intersections.
3

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND ON STRATEGY

Corner clearance is defined as the distance between an intersection and the nearest driveway or

access point along the approach. Adequate corner clearance is an important factor in the safety 

and operations at intersections. AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and 

Streets (also known as “The Green Book”) notes that driveways should not be located within the 

functional area of an at-grade intersection or in the influence area of an adjacent driveway.(1)

However, the presence of conflicting driveways within the functional area is often unavoidable, 

especially in urban environments. Limited corner clearance, or the presence of driveways in 

proximity to intersections, is suspected to have negative effects on operational efficiency, 

capacity, and safety due to driveway turning movements conflicting with vehicles at the larger 

intersection.

While inadequate corner clearance is a concern for all types of intersections, signalized 

intersections develop recurring queues within the functional area of the intersection that can lead 

to conflicts with vehicles turning into and out of driveways. Approaches to signalized 

intersections also have more lanes on average than other types of at-grade intersections, which 

can cause difficulties for drivers leaving driveways to weave and maneuver into their desired 

lanes.

Figure 1 shows a photo of a signalized intersection with limited corner clearance. Refer to the 

appendix for further examples of intersections included in this study.

©VHB.

Figure 1. Photo. Signalized intersection with limited receiving corner clearance.
4

States have proposed access management strategies to balance the safety and operational 

efficiency of intersections while maintaining access to properties along and adjacent to the 

roadway. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 500 Guide, 

Volume 12: A Guide for Reducing Collisions at Signalized Intersections, notes that improving 

access management near signalized intersections is one of seven objectives for improving the 

safety of signalized intersections.

(2)

Inadequate corner clearance is often a reason why access 

management strategies are proposed at intersections during safety reviews. However, there is 

limited information available about the quantitative safety effects of corner clearances. This 

study serves to address the need for research into the safety effects of corner clearances on the 

mainline approach and receiving corners at four-leg, signalized intersections. Figure 2 shows a 

general layout of a study site in this evaluation, illustrating the measurement of corner clearance 

and defining mainline approach and receiving corners.

Source: FHWA.

Figure 2. Schematic. General layout of study site.

BACKGROUND ON STUDY

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) established the Development of Crash 

Modification Factors (DCMF) program in 2012 to address highway safety research needs for 

evaluating new and innovative safety improvement strategies by developing reliable quantitative 

estimates of their effectiveness in reducing crashes. The ultimate goal of the DCMF program is 

to save lives by identifying new safety strategies that effectively reduce crashes and to promote 

those strategies for nationwide implementation by providing measures of their safety 

effectiveness and benefit–cost (B/C) ratios through research. State transportation departments 

and other transportation agencies need objective measures for safety effectiveness and B/C ratios 

before investing in broad applications of new strategies for safety improvements. Forty State 

transportation departments provide technical feedback on safety improvements to the DCMF 

program and implement new safety improvements to facilitate evaluations. These States are 
5

members of the Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study, which 

functions under the DCMF program.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The research team conducted a literature review concentrated on the safety effects of corner 

clearance distance as well as access spacing and various management strategies regarding 

property access. Most evaluations to date have focused on corridor safety effects rather than 

intersection safety. The following provides a summary of the salient research related to specific 

strategies.

Kwigizile et al. examined changes in the number of crashes at urban signalized intersections as a 

result of corner clearance and other variables.(3) A zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) model 

was selected from four model forms as the best model for determining the safety effects of the 

treatment. The authors modeled corner clearance as the number of corner clearances (i.e., 

number of access points) and the average corner clearance in feet, with a maximum of 250 ft. 

Table 1 shows the ZINB model results.

The results indicate that increased corner clearance and fewer access points yield fewer crashes. 

Commercial driveways with limited corner clearance led to higher crash rates than residential 

access. Signals with higher minor road volumes had a higher number of crashes. Crashes 

generally increased with the addition of left-turn lanes and through lanes, with through lanes 

leading to a greater increase. 

Table 1. ZINB model estimation results adapted from Kwigizile et al.(3)

Explanatory Variables Coefficient Statistic

Regression part

Commercial land use 0.377 3.59

Traffic flow ratio (minor AADT/major AADT) 0.063 2.00

Natural logarithm of average corner clearance –0.509 –3.26

Number of left turn lanes 0.208 2.60

Number of through lanes 0.112 3.80

Constant 3.929 4.74

Inflation part

Number of corner clearance –0.564 –2.57

Natural logarithm of average corner clearance –0.873 –1.57

Constant 4.375 1.48

AADT = annual average daily traffic.

7

CHAPTER 2. OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research was to examine the safety effects of various corner clearances at 

signalized intersections in the State of California and the City of Charlotte, North Carolina,

measured by changes in crash frequency. Target crash types included the following: 

• Total—all crashes within 250 ft of intersection (all types and severities combined).

• Fatal and injury—all injury crashes within 250 ft of intersection fatal injury, 

incapacitating injury, non-capacitating injury, and possible injury.

• Rear-end—all crashes within 250 ft of intersection and the accident type coded as rearend.

• Sideswipe—all crashes within 250 ft of intersection and the accident type coded as 

sideswipe.

• Right-angle—all crashes within 250 ft of intersection and the accident type coded as 

broadside or angle.

• Right and left turn—all crashes within 250 ft of intersection and the driver’s action prior 

to collision coded as turning right or turning left.

• Nighttime—all crashes within 250 ft of intersection and light condition coded as dusk, 

dark, and dawn.

A further objective was to address the following questions:

• Do effects vary by level of traffic volume on major and minor routes?

• Do effects vary by lane configuration of major and minor routes?

• Do effects vary by posted speed limit on the major route?

• Do effects vary by median presence on the major route?

• Do effects vary by presence of turning lanes on the major route?

The evaluation of overall effectiveness included the consideration of the removal of driveway 

costs and crash savings in terms of the B/C ratio. 

Meeting these objectives placed some special requirements on the data collection and analysis 

tasks, including the need to do the following:

• Select a large enough sample size to detect, with statistical significance, what may be 

small changes in safety for some crash types.

• Identify appropriate study sites with varied corner clearances.

• Properly account for changes in safety due to differences in traffic volume and other 

factors unrelated to corner clearance.

9

CHAPTER 3. STUDY DESIGN

While the current state-of-the-art method for developing high-quality crash modification factors 

(CMFs) is to employ an Empirical Bayes before–after study design, several factors can preclude 

its use. One of these factors is the availability of treatment information, including the installation 

date and location for the treatment of interest. For strategies such as closing or opening an access 

point (driveway) and changing the corner clearance, there is often insufficient information to 

determine the exact timing of the treatment. Obtaining records of traffic and crashes before and 

after the change is likely infeasible. Using FHWA’s A Guide to Developing Quality Crash 

Modification Factors, the research team determined that a rigorous cross-sectional study design 

would serve as a suitable alternative.(4) The following study design considerations include steps 

to account for potential biases and sample size considerations in cross-sectional analysis.

ACCOUNTING FOR POTENTIAL ISSUES AND SOURCES OF BIAS

An observational cross-sectional study design is a type of study used to analyze a representative 

sample at a specific point in time. The researcher estimates the safety effect by taking the ratio of 

the average crash frequency for two groups, one with the feature of interest and the other without 

the feature of interest. The feature of interest could also be a continuous variable, and the safety 

effect is estimated based on the predicted crash frequency at different values of the variable 

representing the feature of interest. In this case, the feature of interest is the corner clearance. For 

this method to work, the study sites should be similar in all regards except for the feature of 

interest. In practice, this is difficult to accomplish, and researchers typically use multivariable

regression models to estimate the safety effects of the feature of interest while controlling for 

other characteristics that vary among sites.

Multivariable regression models use explanatory variables, such as geometric and operational 

characteristics, to predict a response variable, such as frequency of crashes. While crosssectional models provide a means to estimate the safety effects of treatments, these models are 

susceptible to a number of biases that researchers should account for during sampling and 

modeling. The research team identified the following issues and biases from the Recommended 

Protocols for Developing Crash Modification Factors that are potentially applicable to this 

study.(5) A list of general issues with safety evaluations is provided in the next section, followed 

by a list of potential biases specific to cross-sectional studies. The research team made an effort 

to address all applicable biases.

General Issues

• Measure of effectiveness. Direct measures of safety effectiveness, including crash 

frequency and severity, are preferable over surrogate measures. This study employed a 

crash-based analysis to evaluate the safety impacts of corner clearance at signalized

intersections.

• Exposure. Neither crash frequency nor severity alone provides adequate information to 

determine the safety effectiveness of a particular design feature. Exposure is an important 
10

factor in assessing crash risks. This study used traffic volumes on the major and minor 

roads (i.e., total entering volume) of each intersection as explanatory variables.

• Sample size. Crashes are rare and random events. It is necessary to include a sufficient 

number of sites and/or years in the study sample with enough crashes to develop a valid 

relationship between the treatment and safety effect. The following section, Sample Size 

Considerations, presents a lengthier discussion of sample size for this study.

• Site selection bias. In highway safety, transportation departments often select sites for 

treatment based on need. In other words, sites with the highest crash frequency, severity, 

or potential for improvement are addressed first. When countermeasure evaluations use 

these sites exclusively, the results of the evaluation are only applicable to sites with 

similar safety issues. The research team selected sites for this study based on the 

intersection type of interest (i.e., four-leg, signalized intersections) with various corner 

clearance and geometric characteristics, rather than crash experience. The research team 

used propensity score matching, discussed later in this chapter, to select suitable 

reference sites and to help to mitigate potential site selection bias.

• Crash data quality. There is no national standard for crash data reporting. Although 

many States adopt some or all of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria data 

elements, there is a lack of uniformity in crash data across jurisdictions, and most crash 

data are susceptible to issues with data quality and timeliness. It is necessary to account 

for these types of issues in the study design and analysis. For example, if the reporting 

threshold varies among States in the study, and crash data from those States are 

aggregated in modeling, then the analyst should account for the difference in thresholds. 

The data used in this research are from the Highway Safety Information System (HSIS) 

database, which ensures a higher level of quality control and documentation in each 

participating State than data obtained directly from State agencies.

Issues Specific to Cross-Sectional Models

• Control of confounding factors. Confounding factors are significant predictors of the 

response variable and are associated with the treatment in question. Driveways near the 

corners of signalized intersections are often present at higher traffic volumes, but they are 

not a consequence of higher volumes (e.g., gas stations, businesses in high-traffic areas). 

Traffic volume is also a significant predictor of crashes and is, therefore, a potential 

confounding factor. Consequently, the model accounts for it as an independent variable. 

While difficult to control for all potential confounding factors, the research team

considered and addressed these factors to the extent possible in the study design and 

evaluation. The research team used propensity score matching, discussed later in this 

chapter, to select suitable reference sites and to help to mitigate potential confounding 

effects. 

• Omitted variable bias. It is difficult to account for the potential effects of omitted 

variable bias in an observational cross-sectional study such as this. The research team

addressed omitted variable bias to the extent possible by carefully considering the 

roadway and traffic characteristics that the models should include. With the rich data in 
11

HSIS, the research team tested a wide range of variables in the models and selected 

suitable variables for the final models. There was some potential for omitted variable bias 

due to other factors the models do not include directly, such as weather, driver 

population, and vehicle fleet. The results of this research indicate that factors relating to 

corridor operations may have improved the models.

• Selection of appropriate functional form. The research team applied generalized linear 

modeling techniques to calibrate crash prediction models. The research team specified a 

log-linear relationship using a negative binomial error structure, following the state of the

art in modeling crash data. The negative binomial error structure is recognized as more 

appropriate for crash counts than the normal distribution used in conventional regression 

modeling. The negative binomial error structure also has advantages over the Poisson 

distribution, allowing for overdispersion that is often present in crash data.

• Correlation among independent variables. Correlation refers to the degree of 

association among variables. A high degree of correlation among the predictor variables 

makes it difficult to determine a reliable estimate of the effects of specific predictor 

variables. The research team examined the correlation matrix to determine the extent of 

correlation among independent variables and used it to prioritize variables for inclusion.

• Overfitting of prediction models. Overfitting is related to the concept of diminishing 

returns. At some point in the analysis, adding additional independent variables to the 

model is unnecessary because they do not significantly improve the model fit. Overfitting 

also increases the opportunity to introduce intercorrelation between independent 

variables. The research team considered several combinations of predictor variables and 

employed relative goodness-of-fit measures to penalize models with greater estimated 

parameters.

• Low sample mean and sample size. The research team dismissed low sample mean as a 

potential issue as many sites had experienced one or more crashes during the study 

period. The research team addressed sample size through preliminary sample size 

estimates (see Sample Size Considerations) and during the early stages of the study and 

analysis.

• Temporal and spatial correlation. Temporal correlation may arise if a study uses 

multiple observations for the same site. In this study, the research team aggregated 3

years of data into a single observation at each site. The research team dismissed temporal 

correlation as a potential issue as a result. Spatial correlation was a potential issue. To 

help account for spatial correlation, the research team selected the sample corridors from 

various regions of California to achieve diversity of sites with respect to weather, 

topography, and driver population.

• Endogenous independent variables. Endogeneity occurs when one or more of the 

independent variables depend on the dependent variable. For example, States may install 

left-turn lanes due to the frequency of left-turn crashes at an intersection, and thus their 

presence depends on crash frequency. The potential concern in an observational crosssectional study is incorrectly associating treatments with higher crashes when compared 
12

with sites where the treatments are absent and may be prone to lower crash frequency. 

The research team used propensity score matching, discussed later in this chapter, to 

select suitable reference sites and to help to mitigate potential endogeneity issues.

SAMPLE SIZE CONSIDERATIONS

For crash-based studies, the total number of crashes is the primary measure of sample size, rather 

than sites or years. However, including a sufficient number of sites and years in the study is 

necessary to attain an adequate sample of crashes. Further, selecting sites based on features of 

interest, and not crash history, is important to minimize the potential for site selection bias and 

increase the applicability of the results.

The number of locations required for multivariable regression models depends on a number of 

factors, including the following:

• Average crash frequency.

• The number of variables desired in a model.

• The level of statistical significance desired in a model.

• The amount of variation in each variable of interest across sample sites.

The determination of whether or not the sample size is adequate can only be made once 

preliminary modeling is complete. If the variables of interest are not statistically significant, then 

more data are required to detect statistically significant differences, or it is necessary to accept a 

lower level of confidence. Estimation of the required sample size for cross-sectional studies is 

difficult, and it requires an iterative process, although through experience and familiarity with 

specific databases it is possible to develop an educated guess. 

Table 2 presents the average crashes per site-year for the sample sites by number of approach 

and receiving corners with clearance less than 50 ft. The 275 sites represent nearly 1,225 total 

crashes per year and are reasonably representative of the range of site characteristics at four-leg, 

signalized intersections. While there was no formal stratification of the data by site 

characteristics during site selection, the research team included sites with a range of traffic 

volumes and other characteristics among sites to increase the practical applicability of the results. 

This sample data are likely sufficient to develop reliable cross-sectional models. The information 

in table 2 should not be used to make simple comparisons of crashes per year between different 

groups, since it does not account for factors, other than the strategy, that may cause a change in 

safety between groups. Such comparisons are properly done with the regression-based analysis,

as presented later.
13

Table 2. Crashes per site-year from data collection sites.

Corner Clearance

Less than 50 ft

Zero 

Approach 

Corner Sites 

(Crashes per 

Site-Year)

One 

Approach 

Corner Sites 

(Crashes per 

Site-Year)

Two 

Approach 

Corner Sites 

(Crashes per 

Site-Year)

All Sites 

(Crashes per 

Site-Year)

Zero receiving corners 141

(4.99)

31

(1.98)

5

(1.33)

177

(4.36)

One receiving corner 41

(6.05)

30

(3.78)

4

(1.75)

75

(4.91)

Two receiving corners 13

(2.72)

7

(6.48)

3

(1.22)

23

(3.66)

Combined 195

(5.06)

68

(3.23)

12

(1.44)

275

(4.45)

PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING

In experimental studies, researchers select a sample from the reference population and apply the 

treatment randomly to one group while leaving another group untreated for control purposes. 

Using this approach, the treatment and control groups are similar, and the only difference is the 

presence of treatment. This helps to ensure the treatment effect does not include effects due to 

other differences between the two groups.

In observational studies, it is desirable to replicate the random assignment of treatment while 

accounting for the fact that States often select sites for treatment based on safety and operational 

performance measures. Matching treatment and reference sites that have similar characteristics 

helps to reduce the potential for site selection bias and confounding factors. Selecting reference 

sites that are geometrically and operationally similar to treatment sites provides a more reliable 

comparison in cross-sectional studies, and propensity score matching is a rigorous approach to 

match treatment and reference sites.

This study employed propensity score matching to select reference sites that closely match the 

treatment sites in terms of general site characteristics. Propensity score matching was based on 

regression modeling. The research team developed a regression model to estimate scores (i.e., 

the probability of treatment or nontreatment) for all treatment and non-treatment sites based on 

site characteristics. The research team then used propensity scores to select reference sites most 

comparable with treatment sites for forming the study sample. Detailed discussions of propensity 

score matching and its application in traffic safety research are available in papers by 

Rosenbaum and Rubin, and Sasidharan and Donnell.(6,7)

It is important to note that in this study there were no “treated” or “untreated” sites. The 

“treatment” of interest in this study was corner clearance at signalized intersections, and its value 

varies. Therefore, the terms “treatment,” “treated,” and “untreated” are all nominal, and the 

discussions related to these terms need to be considered in that context. A group of intersections 

with similar values for corner clearance was considered “treated” and the rest “untreated.” 

Specifically, intersections with at least one corner with a clearance less than 50 ft on the mainline 
14

belonged to the treatment group (treated), while those with no corners with a clearance less than 

50 ft on the mainline were considered the reference group (untreated). 

The research team implemented this process in an effort to group intersections with similar 

corner clearances in the same category. This process also allowed the research team to use the 

propensity score matching technique to account for differences among sites with corner 

clearances less than 50 ft and sites with corner clearances greater than 50 ft. Moreover, the 

process allowed the research team to explore additional corner clearance distances as potential 

cutoff points for separating the dataset into two categories and applying the propensity score 

matching. Therefore, the research team tested the following corner clearance distances: 50, 75, 

100, 150, 250, and 500 ft.
15

CHAPTER 4. METHODOLOGY

The research team used an observational cross-sectional study design for the evaluation. At the 

most basic level, the safety effect was estimated by taking the ratio of the average crash 

frequency for two groups, one with the treatment and the other without the treatment. The two 

groups of sites should be similar in all regards except for the presence of the treatment. This is 

difficult to accomplish in practice, and the research team adopted the propensity score matching 

technique to match treatment and reference sites while using multivariable regression modeling 

to control for other characteristics that vary among sites.

The research team employed multivariable regression to develop the statistical relationships 

between the dependent variables and a set of predictor variables. In this case, crash frequency 

was the dependent variable; the research team considered several predictor variables, including 

treatment presence, traffic volume, and other roadway characteristics. The regression coefficients 

for each predictor variable represented the expected change in crash frequency due to a unit 

change in the predictor variable with all else being equal.

The research team applied generalized linear modeling techniques to develop the crash 

prediction models and specified a log-linear relationship using a negative binomial error 

structure. The negative binomial error structure has advantages over the Poisson distribution in 

that it allows for overdispersion of the variance that is often present in crash data.

After developing a propensity score-matched dataset, the research team employed the following 

protocol to develop the multivariable models: 

• Step 1—Develop base models with traffic volume only. 

• Step 2—Explore the value of including other predictor variables. 

• Step 3—Select the final model with the variable of interest (corner clearance), traffic 

volume, and other predictor variables as appropriate. 

The research team determined the appropriate form for the base models (Step 1) according to the 

procedure outlined in Hauer.(8) The research team added predictor variables to the base models 

and assessed them one at a time to determine the appropriate functional form and value added. 

The team then used various functional forms to assess potential relationships between crash 

frequency and continuous variables (e.g., speed limit) and to determine if the continuous 

variables could be best represented as continuous or indicator variables (e.g., use indicator 

variables for different speed limits). In this process, the research team also used a correlation 

matrix to consider correlations among predictor variables and prioritize the inclusion of 

correlated variables in the final models. Once the research team had included a variable in the 

model, they examined estimated parameters and associated standard errors (SEs) to determine 

the following:
16

• Is the direction of effect (i.e., expected decrease or increase in crashes) in general 

agreement with expectations?

• Does the magnitude of the effect seem reasonable?

• Are the parameters of the model estimated with statistical significance?

• Does the estimated overdispersion parameter improve significantly?
17

CHAPTER 5. DATA COLLECTION

The analysis and discussions presented in this study relied on two data sets: one from the State of 

California and the other from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina. The original plan was to 

collect data from California with geographical representation from both the northern and 

southern regions of the State. After the preliminary analysis of California data, the FHWA

approved another effort to collect additional data from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina. The 

data sources for these two study areas differed in many ways and required the research team to 

develop separate data collection methods for each dataset. The following sections discuss the 

details of data collection efforts.

CALIFORNIA DATA COLLECTION

The California data for this study came from the following separate sources:

• Prior FHWA study. The research team obtained corner clearance, key geometric 

features, and operational characteristics from a geographic information system (GIS) 

database developed under a previous FHWA-funded project entitled Safety Evaluation of 

Access Management Policies and Techniques.(9)

• HSIS. The research team obtained intersection, roadway, and 3 years (2009–2011) of 

traffic and crash data from the HSIS database.

The current study relied on GIS files compiled under the prior FHWA study to identify candidate 

intersections for this evaluation. In that study, the researchers collected the original data and 

developed the GIS files using a combination of tools and techniques, including global 

positioning system (GPS) location tagging, narrated video logs in the field, and manual 

measurements in ArcGIS.(9) The GIS files provided intersection locations, traffic control type 

(i.e., stop-controlled or signalized), and corner clearance at signalized locations. The HSIS data 

supplemented the GIS dataset with annual average daily traffic (AADT), reported crashes, 

number of lanes, lane width, speed limit, and other geometric characteristics. The GIS dataset 

included California and several other States. The research team initially considered all these 

candidate States. Ultimately, California was the only dataset collected and used for this study. 

California HSIS files provided cross-street name for each intersection, a key piece of information 

to linking GIS and HSIS data. 

The research team implemented the following key steps in the data collection effort:

• Step 1—Generate the latitude and longitude of all intersections in GIS using ArcGIS’s 

Calculate Geometry tool. Export the attribute tables from ArcGIS into text file format,

and then import the data into MS Excel and separate the intersections by traffic control 

type (i.e., stop-controlled or signalized).

• Step 2—Use Keyhole Markup Language (KML) to convert signalized intersection 

locations (GPS coordinates) from Step 1 into place markers for Google® EarthTM. Import 

KML files into Google® EarthTM.
18

• Step 3—Check candidate intersections to determine if they meet the following criteria:

o At least 500 ft from another signalized intersection and at least 350 ft from a stopcontrolled intersection. This effort used the Ruler tool in Google® EarthTM for 

distance measurement.

o No irregularity in terms of configuration and operation (e.g., no frontage roads, no 

extreme skew angle) or location (e.g., not at freeway interchange).

• Step 4—Locate the intersection in the HSIS file, and mark it with the feature identifier 

(FID) for that same intersection from GIS. The FID is a unique identifier from ArcGIS 

and shown in the Google® EarthTM KML files. The research team used the cross-street

names to relate sites across the two datasets. The street names of the upstream and 

downstream intersections were available for additional verification. The FID allows data 

matching from HSIS and GIS. In this step, the analyst also used the Google® EarthTM

measurement tool to measure the length of right- and left-turn lanes on the mainline.

Figure 3 and figure 4 illustrate the process with an example of an intersection on Route 82 in 

Northern California. In this example, the analyst identified a signalized intersection at Henderson 

Avenue in Google® EarthTM. This intersection is approximately 670 ft from the nearest stopcontrolled intersection (Sycamore Terrace); there are no other stop-controlled intersections 

within 350 ft, and no other signalized intersections within 500 ft of this intersection. It meets the 

two criteria listed in Step 3 above, and the analyst selected it as a candidate. The cross-street

name—Henderson Avenue, as shown in figure 3—was located in the HSIS intersection 

inventory in figure 4. The nearby intersection, Sycamore Terrace, was used to confirm the 

location of interest.
19

©2016 Google®.

Figure 3. Screenshot. Select study location in Google® EarthTM (circle added by research 

team to indicate intersection of interest).

(10)

Source: FHWA, data acquired from HSIS.

Figure 4. Screenshot. Locate and verify intersection in HSIS data file.

The research team used milepost, county, and route numbers to identify and link crashes from 

the HSIS crash data files to each intersection. The team included all crashes that occurred within 

a 500-ft influence zone from the center of the intersection (i.e., 250 ft upstream and 250 ft 

downstream). They used the number of vehicles involved and crash severity to develop multiple 

vehicle and fatal and injury data categories. The research team used accident type (ACCTYPE) 

and movement preceding accident (MISCACT) to identify crashes for rear-end, sideswipe, rightangle, and turning (left-turn and right-turn) categories.
20

CHARLOTTE DATA COLLECTION

The data for Charlotte, North Carolina, came from the following two sources:

• HSIS. The research team obtained intersection, traffic, and crash data files from HSIS. 

The data came in GIS shapefiles that allowed the research team to employ various spatial 

analysis tools in GIS to process the data. The GIS data also provided intersection location

information for data collection from Google® EarthTM.

• Google® EarthTM. The research team obtained corner clearance, intersection 

configuration, number of lanes, driveway density, and the general characteristics of the 

corridor on which the intersection is located from Google® EarthTM using satellite 

imagery, Street ViewTM images, and measurement tools.

These two data sources are further described in the following sections.

INTERSECTION, TRAFFIC, AND CRASH DATA

The GIS shapefiles were a part of a raw dataset processed from HSIS. The roadway shapefiles

included all roadway segments in Charlotte, North Carolina. Key attributes of each segment 

included AADT and number of lanes. Intersection shapefiles have information on location (GPS 

coordinates) and traffic control types (e.g., signalized and stop-controlled). Crash data shapefiles 

had location information (GPS coordinates) and key crash characteristics to identify and separate 

crashes by crash type and severity. The research team imported these data files into ArcGIS as 

separate layers and used spatial and analytical tools to perform the following tasks:

• Determine intersection type. The research team used the type of traffic control in the 

attribute table of the intersection data layer to separate all signalized intersections. These 

candidate study locations went through a second round of screening, removing candidate 

intersections within 500 ft of another signalized intersection or within 350 ft of another 

stop-controlled intersection. The research team extracted identification number, location 

information (GPS coordinates), and intersection description (names of intersecting 

routes) for the final list of candidate intersections for supplemental data collection using 

Google® EarthTM (discussed in the next section).

• Determine number of legs, number of lanes, and AADT for each approach. The 

research team overlaid intersection and roadway layers, and used spatial analysis tools in 

ArcGIS to create a 10-ft buffer around each intersection, represented by the center of the 

intersection. The number of roadway segments within each 10-ft buffer represented the 

number of legs. In this process, the research team determined the number of lanes by 

approach and the maximum, minimum, and average AADT values associated with the 

roadway segments. The AADT values included 3 years of data (2009–2011). The

research team used the AADT and number of lanes for classifying the mainline and cross 

street (i.e., the approach with more lanes and larger AADT was designated as the 

mainline). 
21

• Identify and count crashes for each intersection. The research team used spatial and 

analytical tools in ArcGIS to count and assign crashes to each intersection. Specifically, 

they used a 250-ft buffer around each intersection and tallied the crashes within the 50-ft

buffer assigned to each intersection. The Charlotte Department of Transportation 

recommended a 150-ft radius for assigning intersection crashes; however, for consistency 

with the California dataset, the research team decided to use a 250-ft radius from the 

center of each intersection. In addition to the total crash count, the research team used 

key crash characteristics, including severity, crash type, and light condition to identify 

fatal and injury, rear-end, right-angle, sideswipe, and nighttime crashes. The dataset 

included 3 years of crash data (2009–2011).

Figure 5 shows a screen capture of ArcGIS, illustrating these tasks. The lines represent 

roadways, and each circle represents the 250-ft radius from the center of an intersection. Each 

dot represents a crash. If a dot falls within a circle, that crash is counted and assigned to the 

intersection. It is also worth noting that crashes are assigned to intersections based solely on 

location (within 250 ft from the center of intersection).

Source: FHWA, data acquired from HSIS.

Figure 5. Screenshot. Example of Charlotte data layers in ArcGIS.

CORNER CLEARANCE, INTERSECTION, AND CORRIDOR CHARACTERISTICS

The research team used KML to create place markers in Google® EarthTM for all candidate study

intersections exported from ArcGIS, as described in the previous section. Intersection location 

information (GPS coordinates) was used to place a marker at the center of each intersection. 

Intersection identification numbers and descriptions were coded to attach to each marker for easy 

identification and verification of the location. After creating and importing the KML file into 
22

Google® EarthTM, the research team manually collected and confirmed the following data 

elements:

• Corner clearance. The research team used the measurement tool in Google® EarthTM to 

measure the distance from the corner to the nearest driveway.

• Number of driveways. The research team counted the number of driveways on both 

sides of the road and the length of the segment in which these driveways were located. 

The count and measurement extended two to three traffic signals upstream and 

downstream from the signalized intersection of interest. Number of driveways and 

distance were used to calculate the driveway density.

• Median type. The research team visually determined the type of median in the vicinity of 

the intersection.

• Presence and lengths of turning lanes. The research team collected both the presence 

and lengths of exclusive left- and right-turn lanes.

• Type of land use. The research team used Google® Street ViewTM to visually determine 

the land use type (i.e., residential, commercial, or mixed-use) in the vicinity of the 

intersection. 

In this process, the research team also verified number of legs, number of lanes, and the 

designation of the mainline and cross streets collected using the GIS tools described in the 

previous section. In some instances, the research team identified discrepancies between GIS data 

and Google® EarthTM related to intersection configuration and number of lanes. For 

discrepancies, data from Google® EarthTM were used.

Figure 6 shows the use of the measurement tool for collecting corner clearance from Google®

EarthTM. At this location, there are no driveways or access points within 250 ft of the signalized 

intersection along the mainline. As such, this site was a candidate reference site.
23

©2016 Google®.

Figure 6. Screenshot. Measuring corner clearance in Google® EarthTM.

(11)

DATA SUMMARY

The research team collected and aggregated 3 years of data for the analysis. Table 3 presents the 

summary of the final dataset with 275 signalized intersections included in the analysis. The final 

dataset accounts for the dataset corrections discussed in chapter 6 and propensity score matching. 

Indicator variables are either 0 or 1, indicating the absence or presence of the characteristic, 

respectively. The mean value of an indicator variable represents the proportion of sites for which 

the indicator is 1. For example, the indicator for 50 mph or higher posted speed on the mainline

in table 3 has a mean value of 0.44. This implies that 44 percent of locations have a posted speed 

of 50 mph or higher (indicator value = 1) and 56 percent of locations have a posted speed of less 

than 50 mph (indicator value = 0). It is worth noting that there are overlaps between turning 

crashes and other crash types (e.g., a rear-end crash can be related to a turning maneuver, so it 

was also coded as a turning crash).
24

Table 3. Data summary for signalized intersections and corner clearance.

Description Mean Min Max

Number of total crashes (crashes/3 years) 13.4 0 166

Number of fatal and injury crashes (crashes/3 years) 5.7 0 51

Number of rear-end crashes (crashes/3 years) 6.9 0 99

Number of sideswipe crashes (crashes/3 years) 1.9 0 31

Number of angle crashes (crashes/3 years) 3.7 0 36

Number of turning (right or left) crashes (crashes/3 years) 1.9 0 16

Number of nighttime crashes (crashes/3 years) 3.6 0 65

AADT on the mainline (vehicles/day) 37,945 10,406 93,000

AADT on the cross street (vehicles/day) 8,598 500 48,000

Indicator for intersection in Northern California (1 if in 

Northern California, 0 otherwise) 0.45 0 1

Indicator for intersection in Southern California (1 if in 

Southern California, 0 otherwise) 0.36 0 1

Indicator for intersection in Charlotte (1 if in Charlotte, 0 if in 

California) 0.19 0 1

Number of approach corners with clearance of 50 ft or less 0.33 0 2

Number of receiving corners with clearance of 50 ft or less 0.44 0 2

Number of approach corners with clearance of 75 ft or less 0.46 0 2

Number of receiving corners with clearance of 75 ft or less 0.61 0 2

Number of approach corners with clearance of 100 ft or less 0.64 0 2

Number of receiving corners with clearance of 100 ft or less 0.79 0 2

Number of approach corners with clearance of 150 ft or less 0.90 0 2

Number of receiving corners with clearance of 150 ft or less 0.96 0 2

Number of approach corners with clearance of 250 ft or less 1.14 0 2

Number of receiving corners with clearance of 250 ft or less 1.19 0 2

Indicator for mainline with posted speed of 50 mph or more 

(1 if 50 mph or higher, 0 otherwise) 0.44 0 1

Indicator for mainline with 11 ft or narrower lanes (1 if 11 ft 

or narrower lanes, 0 otherwise) 0.31 0 1

Indicator for residential area (1 for residential, 0 otherwise) 0.16 0 1

Driveway density (driveways/mile) 41.74 0 111
25

CHAPTER 6. DEVELOPMENT OF SAFETY PERFORMANCE FUNCTIONS

This chapter presents the crash prediction models. The research team used generalized linear 

modeling to estimate model coefficients assuming a negative binomial error distribution, which 

is consistent with the state of research in developing these models. In specifying a negative 

binomial error structure, the modeling analysis iteratively estimated the dispersion parameter, k, 

from the model and the data. For a given dataset, smaller values of k indicate relatively better 

models.

The research team first generated a correlation matrix for all potential explanatory variables. The 

correlation between predictors was key to minimizing the negative effects of multicollinearity. 

Having two highly correlated variables in a model may result in erratic changes of the estimated 

coefficients and lead to biased model estimation results. The correlation matrix was used as 

guidance throughout the model specification and development process.

The safety performance function development began with the simplest functional form in which 

only traffic volumes were included. Each potential predictor was then added to the model, and 

the goodness of fit was evaluated. During the initial examination of data, the research team found 

that the cross-street AADTs at some locations appeared abnormally small for signalized 

intersections. Seven of the 400 candidate study locations had fewer than 100 vehicles per day on 

the cross streets; therefore, the research team examined locations with up to 500 and 1,000 

vehicles per day, and the number of locations increased to 17 and 34, respectively. All of these 

intersections with abnormal AADTs were located in California. The research team conducted a 

thorough examination of these intersections in Google® EarthTM, Google® Street ViewTM, and 

HSIS, looking at 10 years of HSIS roadway data. The effort confirmed that no mistakes had been 

made in matching the traffic volumes. The abnormally low AADT values had originated from 

the HSIS data files. Visual verification suggested that these very low AADT values appeared to 

be improbable. Aerial images in Google® EarthTM showed long vehicle queues and large parking 

lots on the cross streets at a majority of these intersections. Although this was not enough for a 

reliable estimate of the cross-street AADT, the evidence demonstrated the inaccuracy of these 

very low AADT values. The research team examined the impacts of these low AADT values on 

the model parameters by estimating and comparing several models for total crashes as follows:

• Model 1—Include all intersections with cross-street AADT as originally collected (i.e., 

include sites with abnormally low AADT values).

• Model 2—Exclude 17 intersections with cross-street AADT less than 500 vehicles per 

day.

• Model 3—Replace all AADT values less than 500 vehicles per day with 500 vehicles per 

day for 17 intersections.

• Model 4—Replace all AADT values less than 1,000 vehicles per day with 500 vehicles

per day for 34 intersections.
26

• Model 5—Replace all AADT values less than 1,000 vehicles per day with 1,000 vehicles

per day for 34 intersections.

The results showed minimal differences among these five models. In the end, the research team 

selected Model 3, replacing the cross-street AADT values for 17 intersections with values of 500 

vehicles per day. The data summary presented in table 3 for 275 intersection reflects this 

correction.

The data for this study represent three regions: Northern California, Southern California, and the 

largest city in North Carolina. It is reasonable to assume that these three regions might have 

inherently different characteristics that can affect the safety outcomes or at least crash counts at 

signalized intersections. These elements could be unknown, immeasurable, or unavailable for the 

analyses conducted in this study. For example, the climate and the driver population in Charlotte 

are probably not the same as those in California. The research team tested this assumption by 

estimating crash prediction models using separate subsets of data from each of the three regions 

and comparing the model parameters. The test results revealed little difference between Northern 

and Southern California in this regard, so all intersections from California were considered as 

one group. The tests indicated larger differences between Charlotte and California sites, but the 

95-percent intervals of the model parameters still overlapped. This process and its results 

supported the decision to analyze all intersections together as a single dataset and use an 

indicator to account for the inherent differences between California and Charlotte.

The research team developed crash prediction models separately for total, fatal and injury, rearend, sideswipe, right-angle, and right- and left-turn crashes at signalized intersections. 

Combinations of clearances on both approach and receiving corners were tested. The research 

team decided to use a corner clearance of 50 ft for all models after considering the overall model 

fit and the practicality of potential applications. The following sections present the crash 

prediction models for these crash types. The definition of variables included in the final crash 

prediction models are as follows:

• TOTAL = predicted number of total crashes (all types and severities) in 3 years.

• FI = predicted number of fatal and injury crashes in 3 years.

• REAREND = predicted number of rear-end crashes in 3 years.

• SIDESWP = predicted number of sideswipe crashes in 3 years.

• ANGLE = predicted number of right-angle crashes in 3 years.

• TURN = predicted number of right- and left-turn crashes in 3 years.

• NIGHT = predicted number of nighttime crashes in 3 years.

• CLT = indicator for intersections from Charlotte (1 if intersection from Charlotte, 0 if

intersection from California).
27

• MLAADT = AADT on the mainline (vehicles/day).

• XSTAADT = AADT on the cross street (vehicles/day).

• AADT = total entering volume at intersection (MLAADT + XSTAADT).

• APPCOR50 = number of approach corners with clearance of 50 ft or less.

• RECCOR50 = number of receiving corners with clearance of 50 ft or less.

• SPD50PLUS = indicator for posted speed (1 if 50+ mph on mainline, 0 otherwise).

• LW11LESS = indicator for mainline with 11-ft or narrower lanes.

• DRWYDEN = driveway density (average number of driveways on both sides of the road 

per mile).

• RESID = indicator for land use type where the intersection is located (1 if it is mostly 

residential, 0 otherwise).

CRASH PREDICTION MODEL FOR TOTAL CRASHES

Figure 7 presents the functional form of the crash prediction model.

Figure 7. Equation. Model for total crashes.

Table 4 presents the model parameters for total crashes.

Table 4. Model parameters for total crashes.

Variable Coefficient Estimated 

Value SE P-Value

Mainline AADT β1 0.616 0.128 <0.01

Cross-street AADT β2 0.295 0.051 <0.01

Indicator for intersection in Charlotte β3 2.365 0.174 <0.01

50 mph or higher posted speed β4 0.497 0.118 <0.01

Mainline with 11-ft lane or narrower β5 –0.492 0.127 <0.01

Number of approach corners with 

clearance of 50 ft or less β6 –0.199 0.099 0.05

Number of receiving corners with 

clearance of 50 ft or less β7 0.282 0.084 <0.01

Intercept term β8 –7.442 1.281 <0.01

Dispersion parameter (k) — 0.517 0.058 —

—Not applicable.
28

CRASH PREDICTION MODEL FOR FATAL AND INJURY CRASHES

Figure 8 presents the functional form of the crash prediction model.

Figure 8. Equation. Model for fatal and injury crashes.

Table 5 presents the model parameters for fatal and injury crashes.

Table 5. Model parameters for fatal and injury crashes.

Variable Coefficient Estimated 

Value SE P-Value

Mainline AADT β1 0.685 0.134 <0.01

Cross-street AADT β2 0.257 0.054 <0.01

Indicator for intersection in Charlotte β3 1.978 0.173 <0.01

50 mph or higher posted speed β4 0.331 0.124 <0.01

Mainline with 11-ft lane or narrower β5 –0.349 0.125 <0.01

Number of approach corners with 

clearance of 50 ft or less β6 –0.238 0.104 0.02

Number of receiving corners with 

clearance of 50 ft or less β7 0.258 0.085 <0.01

Intercept term β8 –8.464 1.344 <0.01

Dispersion parameter (k) — 0.431 0.063 —

—Not applicable.

CRASH PREDICTION MODEL FOR REAR-END CRASHES

Figure 9 presents the functional form of the crash prediction model.

Figure 9. Equation. Model for rear-end crashes.

Table 6 presents the model parameters for rear-end crashes. In table 6, driveway density has a 

negative coefficient estimate. This indicates that an increase in driveway density is statistically 

associated with a reduction in rear-end crashes. It is important to emphasize that the driveway 

density in this context represents the longer roadway segment on that corridor. The driveway 

density in this model does not suggest that having more driveways near an intersection reduces 

rear-end crashes.
29

Table 6. Model parameters for rear-end crashes.

Variable Coefficient Estimated 

Value SE P-Value

Mainline AADT β1 0.827 0.155 <0.01

Cross-street AADT β2 0.263 0.060 <0.01

Indicator for intersection in Charlotte β3 1.910 0.204 <0.01

50 mph or higher posted speed β4 0.332 0.153 0.03

Mainline with 11-ft lane or narrower β5 –0.461 0.159 <0.01

Number of approach corners with 

clearance of 50 ft or less β6 –0.234 0.119 0.05

Number of receiving corners with 

clearance of 50 ft or less β7 0.311 0.101 <0.01

Driveway density β8 –0.006 0.003 0.05

Intercept term β9 –9.529 1.542 <0.01

Dispersion parameter (k) — 0.670 0.080 —

—Not applicable.

CRASH PREDICTION MODEL FOR SIDESWIPE CRASHES

Figure 10 presents the functional form of the crash prediction model.

Figure 10. Equation. Model for sideswipe crashes.

Table 7 presents the model parameters for sideswipe crashes.

Table 7. Model parameters for sideswipe crashes.

Variable Coefficient Estimated 

Value SE P-Value

Mainline AADT β1 0.663 0.178 <0.01

Cross-street AADT β2 0.388 0.076 <0.01

Indicator for intersection in Charlotte β3 1.968 0.222 <0.01

50 mph or higher posted speed β4 0.618 0.172 <0.01

Mainline with 11-ft lane or narrower β5 –0.346 0.166 0.04

Number of approach corners with 

clearance of 50 ft or less β6 –0.186 0.139 0.18

Number of receiving corners with 

clearance of 50 ft or less β7 0.269 0.109 0.01

Indicator for residential area β8 –0.601 0.212 <0.01

Intercept term β9 –10.560 1.825 <0.01

Dispersion parameter (k) — 0.466 0.096 —

—Not applicable.
30

CRASH PREDICTION MODEL FOR RIGHT-ANGLE CRASHES

Figure 11 presents the functional form of the crash prediction model.

Figure 11. Equation. Model for right-angle crashes.

Table 8 presents the model parameters for right-angle crashes.

Table 8. Model parameters for right-angle crashes.

Variable Coefficient Estimated 

Value SE P-Value

Intersection AADT β1 0.641 0.196 <0.01

Indicator for intersection in Charlotte β2 3.260 0.270 <0.01

50 mph or higher posted speed β3 0.732 0.196 <0.01

Mainline with 11-ft lane or narrower Β4 –0.822 0.211 <0.01

Number of approach corners with 

clearance of 50 ft or less β5 0.031 0.158 0.84

Number of receiving corners with 

clearance of 50 ft or less β6 0.352 0.137 0.01

Intercept term β7 –7.014 2.079 <0.01

Dispersion parameter (k) — 1.096 0.182 —

—Not applicable.

CRASH PREDICTION MODEL FOR TURNING CRASHES

Figure 12 presents the functional form of the crash prediction model.

Figure 12. Equation. Model for turning crashes.

Table 9 presents the model parameters for turning (right- or left-turn) crashes.
31

Table 9. Model parameters for turning crashes.

Variable Coefficient Estimated 

Value SE P-Value

Intersection AADT β1 0.923 0.189 <0.01

Indicator for intersection in Charlotte β2 2.560 0.236 <0.01

50 mph or higher posted speed β3 0.574 0.186 <0.01

Mainline with 11-ft lane or narrower β4 –0.537 0.181 <0.01

Number of approach corners with 

clearance of 50 ft or less β5 0.004 0.147 0.98

Number of receiving corners with 

clearance of 50 ft or less β6 0.199 0.120 0.10

Intercept term β7 –10.270 2.018 <0.01

Dispersion parameter (k) — 0.639 0.124 —

—Not applicable.

CRASH PREDICTION MODEL FOR NIGHTTIME CRASHES

Figure 13 presents the functional form of the crash prediction model.

Figure 13. Equation. Model for nighttime crashes.

Table 10 presents the model parameters for nighttime crashes.

Table 10. Model parameters for nighttime crashes.

Variable Coefficient Estimated 

Value SE P-Value

Mainline AADT β1 0.986 0.164 <0.01

Cross-street AADT β2 0.282 0.069 <0.01

Indicator for intersection in Charlotte β3 2.675 0.217 <0.01

50 mph or higher posted speed β4 0.501 0.160 <0.01

Mainline with 11-ft lane or narrower β5 –0.463 0.154 <0.01

Number of approach corners with 

clearance of 50 ft or less β6 –0.067 0.129 0.60

Number of receiving corners with 

clearance of 50 ft or less β7 0.257 0.103 0.01

Intercept term β8 –12.720 1.669 <0.01

Dispersion parameter (k) — 0.545 0.089 —

—Not applicable.

33

CHAPTER 7. CROSS-SECTIONAL EVALUATION RESULTS

AGGREGATE ANALYSIS

Table 11 through table 16 present the estimated CMFs and related SE for each of the following 

target crash types.

• Total—all crashes within 250 ft of intersection (all types and severity levels combined).

• Fatal and injury—all injury crashes within 250 ft of intersection.

• Rear-end—all crashes coded as “rear-end” within 250 ft of intersection.

• Sideswipe—all crashes coded as “sideswipe” within 250 ft of intersection.

• Right-angle—all crashes coded as “right-angle” within 250 ft of intersection.

• Turning—all crashes coded as “right-turn” or “left-turn” within 250 ft of intersection.

• Nighttime—all crashes with lighting condition coded as “dark,” “dawn,” or “dusk” 

within 250 ft of intersection.

This study presents aggregate results by number of approach and receiving corners with 

driveways within 50 ft of the intersection. The study presents results separately for the number of 

approach corners (i.e., one or two) and number of receiving corners (i.e., one or two) compared 

to no driveways within 50 ft of the intersection on the approach or receiving corners, 

respectively. 

For total crashes, the CMFs were 0.82 and 0.67 for corner clearance of 50 ft or less on one and 

two approach corners, respectively, compared to no driveways within 50 ft of both approach 

corners. The CMFs were 1.33 and 1.76 for corner clearance of 50 ft or less on one and two 

receiving corners, respectively, compared to no driveways within 50 ft of both receiving corners. 

All CMF estimates were statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level.

Table 11. Results for total crashes.

Number of Corner(s) With Limited Clearance CMF SE

1 approach corner with driveway(s) within 50 ft 0.82** 0.08

2 approach corners with driveway(s) within 50 ft 0.67** 0.13

1 receiving corner with driveway(s) within 50 ft 1.33** 0.11

2 receiving corners with driveway(s) within 50 ft 1.76** 0.30

**Statistically significant results at the 95-percent confidence level.

For fatal and injury crashes, the CMFs were 0.79 and 0.62 for corner clearance of 50 ft or less on 

one and two approach corners, respectively, compared to no driveways within 50 ft of both

approach corners. The CMFs were 1.29 and 1.68 for corner clearance of 50 ft or less on one and 
34

two receiving corners, respectively, compared to no driveways within 50 ft of both receiving 

corners. All CMF estimates were statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level.

Table 12. Results for fatal and injury crashes.

Number of Corner(s) With Limited Clearance CMF SE

1 approach corner with driveway(s) within 50 ft 0.79** 0.08

2 approach corners with driveway(s) within 50 ft 0.62** 0.13

1 receiving corner with driveway(s) within 50 ft 1.29** 0.11

2 receiving corners with driveway(s) within 50 ft 1.68** 0.29

**Statistically significant results at the 95-percent confidence level.

For rear-end crashes, the CMFs were 0.79 and 0.63 for corner clearance of 50 ft or less on one 

and two approach corners, respectively, compared to no driveways within 50 ft of both approach 

corners. The CMFs were 1.36 and 1.86 for corner clearance of 50 ft or less on one and two 

receiving corners, respectively, compared to no driveways within 50 ft of both receiving corners. 

The CMF estimates were statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level.

Table 13. Results for rear-end crashes.

Number of Corner(s) With Limited Clearance CMF SE

1 approach corner with driveway(s) within 50 ft 0.79** 0.09

2 approach corners with driveway(s) within 50 ft 0.63** 0.15

1 receiving corner with driveway(s) within 50 ft 1.36** 0.14

2 receiving corners with driveway(s) within 50 ft 1.86** 0.38

**Statistically significant results at the 95-percent confidence level.

For sideswipe crashes, the CMFs were 0.83 and 0.69 for corner clearance of 50 ft or less on one 

and two approach corners, respectively, compared to no driveways within 50 ft of both approach 

corners. These two CMF estimates were not statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence 

level. The CMFs were 1.31 and 1.71 for corner clearance of 50 ft or less on one and two 

receiving corners, respectively, compared to no driveways within 50 ft of both receiving corners.

The CMF for one corner was statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level, and the 

CMF for two corners was statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence level.

Table 14. Results for sideswipe crashes.

Number of Corner(s) With Limited Clearance CMF SE

1 approach corner with driveway(s) within 50 ft 0.83 0.12

2 approach corners with driveway(s) within 50 ft 0.69 0.19

1 receiving corner with driveway(s) within 50 ft 1.31** 0.14

2 receiving corners with driveway(s) within 50 ft 1.71* 0.38

*Statistically significant results at the 90-percent confidence level. 

**Statistically significant results at the 95-percent confidence level.

For right-angle crashes, the CMFs were 1.03 and 1.06 for corner clearance of 50 ft or less on one 

and two approach corners, respectively, compared to no driveways within 50 ft of both approach 

corners. Neither CMF estimates were statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence level. 

The CMFs were 1.42 and 2.02 for corner clearance of 50 ft or less on one and two receiving 
35

corners, respectively, compared to no driveways within 50 ft of both receiving corners. The CMF 

estimate for one corner was statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level, and the 

CMF for two corners was statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence level.

Table 15. Results for right-angle crashes.

Number of Corner(s) With Limited Clearance CMF SE

1 approach corner with driveway(s) within 50 ft 1.03 0.16

2 approach corners with driveway(s) within 50 ft 1.06 0.34

1 receiving corner with driveway(s) within 50 ft 1.42** 0.20

2 receiving corners with driveway(s) within 50 ft 2.02* 0.56

*Statistically significant results at the 90-percent confidence level. 

**Statistically significant results at the 95-percent confidence level.

For turning (right- or left-turn) crashes, the CMFs were 1.00 and 1.01 for corner clearance of 50 

ft or less on one and two approach corners, respectively, compared to no driveways within 50 ft 

of both approach corners. The CMFs were 1.22 and 1.49 for corner clearance of 50 ft or less on 

one and two receiving corners, respectively, compared to no driveways within 50 ft of both 

receiving corners. None of these CMF estimates were statistically significant at the 90-percent 

confidence level.

Table 16. Results for turning crashes.

Number of Corner(s) With Limited Clearance CMF SE

1 approach corner with driveway(s) within 50 ft 1.00 0.15

2 approach corners with driveway(s) within 50 ft 1.01 0.30

1 receiving corner with driveway(s) within 50 ft 1.22 0.15

2 receiving corners with driveway(s) within 50 ft 1.49 0.36

For nighttime crashes, the CMFs were 0.94 and 0.87 for corner clearance of 50 ft or less on one 

and two approach corners, respectively, compared to no driveways within 50 ft of both approach 

corners. These two CMF estimates were not statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence 

level. The CMFs were 1.29 and 1.67 for corner clearance of 50 ft or less on one and two 

receiving corners, respectively, compared to no driveways within 50 ft of both receiving corners. 

The CMF estimate for one receiving corner was statistically significant at the 95-percent 

confidence level, and the CMF for two corners was statistically significant at the 90-percent 

confidence level.

Table 17. Results for nighttime crashes.

Number of Corner(s) With Limited Clearance CMF SE

1 approach corner with driveway(s) within 50 ft 0.94 0.12

2 approach corners with driveway(s) within 50 ft 0.87 0.23

1 receiving corner with driveway(s) within 50 ft 1.29** 0.13

2 receiving corners with driveway(s) within 50 ft 1.67* 0.35

*Statistically significant results at the 90-percent confidence level. 

**Statistically significant results at the 95-percent confidence level.
36

DISAGGREGATE ANALYSIS

The objective of the disaggregate analysis was to identify specific CMFs by crash type and 

different conditions. The analysis could also reveal those conditions under which the strategy 

was more effective. The research team considered several variables in the disaggregate analysis, 

including major and minor road traffic volume, number of lanes on the major and minor road, 

posted speed limit on the mainline, driveway density on the mainline, and presence of left- and 

right-turn lanes on the mainline. The multivariable regression models included interaction terms 

to investigate the potential differential effects of corner clearance with respect to the interacted 

variable. For example, the interaction term for major road traffic volume and number of major 

road approaches with driveways within 50 ft is the product of the two variables. A statistically 

significant interaction term would indicate an apparent differential effect of corner clearance 

across different traffic volumes or the other variables of interest.

The analysis results indicated that none of the interaction terms were statistically significant at 

even an 80-percent confidence level. While these results indicated no differential effect of corner 

clearance, the sample size may have been too small to detect differential effects at the desired 

level of confidence.
37

CHAPTER 8. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The research team conducted an economic analysis to estimate the cost-effectiveness of changing 

corner clearance at mainline access points near signalized intersections. The economic analysis 

examined the effect on total crashes from removing mainline access points on the receiving 

corners of four-leg, signalized intersections within a corner clearance distance of 50 ft. Due to 

the cross-sectional nature of this study and the uncertainty around the results—which is 

discussed further in chapter 10—the research team does not advocate adding access points on 

approaches as a crash-reduction measure at this time. However, the research team expects no 

safety disbenefits in total crashes from keeping access points with limited corner clearance (less 

than 50 ft) on the mainline approach corner for an average intersection. The research team used 

the total CMF rather than considering separate effects of fatal and injury and property-damageonly (PDO) crashes because the CMFs by severity are relatively consistent with total crashes 

(i.e., within 10-percent difference).

For this analysis, the research team assumed increasing corner clearance involved the removal of 

driveways with corner clearance of 50 ft or less by installing concrete curbing and a sidewalk in 

place of the mainline access for a commercial property. The intent was to shift traffic to an 

existing access on the cross street or further downstream (corner clearance more than 50 ft) on 

the mainline. The cost did not include the construction of a new access point, which, if 

necessary, would drastically increase the estimated cost of the treatment. The research team

assumed that another mainline or cross-street access could continue to provide access to the 

property. Based on cost information for concrete sidewalks with curb and gutter from NCHRP 

Report 500: Volume 10: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians, curbing costs an 

average of $15 per linear foot, and walkways cost $11 per square foot.(12) Assuming a sidewalk 

width of 6 ft, the average installation cost is $81 per linear foot of curb and sidewalk. Although 

most access points are narrower, the analysis used a conservative assumption of 100 ft of curb 

and sidewalk to connect walkways on either side of an existing driveway. Given these 

assumptions, the construction cost for removing access points was approximately $8,100 per 

access point per corner. The research team assumed that the construction cost per corner was the 

same regardless of the number of corners treated.

The research team assumed that the service life of the treatment was 10 years. Although the 

corner clearance will not deteriorate, the research team used a conservative service life of 10 

years as a period in which significant maintenance and operations costs are unlikely. As such, 

this study assumes annual maintenance and operations costs to be negligible. 

The FHWA Office of Safety Research and Development suggested using the Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A-4 as a resource for the real discount rate of 7 percent to 

calculate the present value benefits and costs of the treatment over the service life.(13) With this 

information, the analysis used a capital recovery factor of 7.02.

The research team used FHWA mean comprehensive crash costs by crash geometry as a basis 

for the benefit calculations.(14) The mean comprehensive crash cost for a fatal and injury crash 

was $158,177 in 2001 U.S. dollars (USD). The cost for a PDO crash was $7,428 in 2001 USD. 

The research team weighted these values using the distribution of crash severities across study 
38

sites (i.e., approximately 43 percent fatal and injury crashes) to determine the mean 

comprehensive cost of a total crash as $71,553 in 2001 USD. At the time of analysis, the 

research team updated this value to 2016 USD by applying the ratio of the United States 

Department of Transportation (USDOT) 2016 value of a statistical life of $9.6 million to the 

2001 value of $3.8 million, yielding an aggregate 2016 cost of $176,998 for a total crash.(14,15)

To determine the safety benefits of increasing corner clearance, the research team analyzed the 

safety effects of removing access points with less than 50 ft of corner clearance on one or both 

mainline receiving corners of an average signalized intersection that had two receiving corners 

with limited clearance. Table 2 gives an average crash frequency of 4.36 crashes per site per year 

at four-leg, signalized intersections with no limited corner clearance on receiving corners. The 

research team multiplied this average crash frequency by the total CMFs of 1.33 and 1.76 from 

table 11 to estimate the crash frequency at sites with limited clearance on one (5.80 crashes per 

site per year) and two receiving corners (7.67 crashes per site per year). The research team used 

the differences in crash frequency between sites with two and one limited clearance corners (1.87 

crashes per site per year) and two and zero limited clearance corners (3.31 crashes per site per 

year) as the average reduction of total crashes in each scenario. 

The research team calculated the annual economic benefits by multiplying the total crash 

reduction per site per year by the average cost of a total crash, and then annualizing the result 

over the service life. USDOT recommended conducting a sensitivity analysis by assuming values 

of a statistical life of 0.55 and 1.38 times the 2016 value as lower and upper bounds.(15)

Researchers can apply these factors directly to the estimated B/C ratios. Table 18 presents the

results. 

Table 18. BC ratios for removing receiving corner access points from a site with limited 

clearance on two receiving corners.

Number of Access Points With 

Limited Corner Clearance Removed Lower B/C Average B/C Upper B/C

1 161.6 293.9 405.5

2 285.7 519.4 716.7

These results suggest that removing access on mainline receiving corners to improve corner 

clearance—with reasonable assumptions on cost, service life, and the value of a statistical life—

can be cost effective for reducing crashes at signalized intersections.

It is important to note that these results represented the change in total crashes under average 

conditions with several cost assumptions. The research team recommends conducting an 

economic analysis to determine if improving corner clearance is likely to be cost effective for 

specific sites where proposed projects are considered. Table 11 through table 17 list the CMFs 

for other crash types and severities that analysts should use when considering the safety effects 

of corner clearance.
39

CHAPTER 9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this study was to undertake a rigorous cross-sectional evaluation of the safety 

effects, as measured by crash frequency, of mainline corner clearance at four-leg, signalized 

intersections. The study compared signalized intersections with various corner clearance using 

data from the State of California and the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, to examine the effects 

on specific crash types: total, fatal and injury, rear-end, sideswipe, right-angle, turning, and 

nighttime crashes. The study did not investigate the effects of corner clearance on the cross-street 

approaches, or intersections with three legs or more than four legs.

Table 19 and table 20 present the recommended CMFs for numbers of approach and receiving 

corners with limited clearance, respectively, at signalized intersections based on the aggregate 

analysis results. The disaggregate analyses by traffic volumes, number of lanes, posted speeds, 

driveway density, and the presence of exclusive right- and left-turn lanes indicated no differential 

effects of corner clearance on the specific crash types. However, the sample size may have been

too small to detect differential effects at the desired level of confidence.

Table 19. Recommended CMFs for limited approach corner clearance.

Crash Type

CMF for 1 Approach 

Corner With Driveway(s) 

Within 50 ft (SE)

CMF for 2 Approach 

Corners With Driveway(s) 

Within 50 ft (SE)

Total crashes 0.82** (0.08) 0.67** (0.13)

Fatal and injury crashes 0.79** (0.08) 0.62** (0.13)

Rear-end crashes 0.79** (0.09) 0.63** (0.15)

Sideswipe crashes 0.83 (0.12) 0.69 (0.19)

Right-angle crashes 1.03 (0.16) 1.06 (0.34)

Turning crashes 1.00 (0.15) 1.01 (0.30)

Nighttime crashes 0.94 (0.12) 0.87 (0.23)

**Statistically significant results at the 95-percent confidence level.

Table 20. Recommended CMFs for limited receiving corner clearance.

Crash Type

CMF for 1 Receiving 

Corner With Driveway(s) 

Within 50 ft (SE)

CMF for 2 receiving 

Corners With Driveway(s) 

Within 50 ft (SE)

Total crashes 1.33** (0.11) 1.76** (0.30)

Fatal and injury crashes 1.29** (0.11) 1.68** (0.29)

Rear-end crashes 1.36** (0.14) 1.86** (0.38)

Sideswipe crashes 1.31** (0.14) 1.71* (0.38)

Right-angle crashes 1.42** (0.20) 2.02* (0.56)

Turning crashes 1.22 (0.15) 1.49 (0.36)

Nighttime crashes 1.29** (0.13) 1.67* (0.35)

*Statistically significant results at the 90-percent confidence level. 

**Statistically significant results at the 95-percent confidence level.
40

The introduction of access points in proximity to the intersection area increases the number of 

potential conflict points on the approaches. Logically, this is expected to increase crashes. The 

estimated CMFs indicated that more limited clearance on receiving corners was associated with 

increases for all crash types, based on the data included in this analysis. These increases were 

statistically significant at the 90-percent level or greater for total, fatal and injury, rear-end, 

sideswipe, right-angle, and nighttime crashes. Only the results for turning crashes were not 

statistically significant at the 90-percent level. For limited corner clearance on the approach 

corners, the results indicated statistically significant reductions in total, fatal and injury, and rearend crashes. The results also indicated reductions in sideswipe and nighttime crashes, and 

increases in right-angle and turning crashes, but none of these results were statistically 

significant at the 90-percent level. The next section discusses these results in more detail.

The economic analysis resulted in an average B/C ratio of at least 294 to 1 for most intersections 

when removing access at one mainline receiving corner with limited corner clearance. The 

analysis assumed another access to the property is available beyond 50 ft from the intersection or 

on the cross street. With the USDOT recommended sensitivity analysis, these values could range 

from 162 to 1 up to 405 to 1. Removing access at both mainline receiving corners provided a 

higher B/C ratio. This study based the economic analysis on total crashes only. Including other 

crash types would change the resulting estimate of the project benefit, and may have different 

effects for intersections with different crash type distributions than represented by the sample in 

this study. Further, the economic analysis did not include the effects of adding or removing 

driveways on the approach corners. While the results suggest that adding driveways on the 

approach corners may reduce specific crash types, these results require further study. As such, 

the economic analysis assumed there are no disbenefits—with respect to total crashes—to 

leaving existing driveways in place on the approach corners.

These results suggest that removing or relocating driveways on mainline receiving corners can 

be highly cost effective in reducing total crashes at four-leg, signalized intersections.
41

CHAPTER 10. DISCUSSION

The CMFs for limited corner clearance on the receiving corners were consistent with 

expectation, indicating statistically significant increases in total, fatal and injury, rear-end, 

sideswipe, right-angle, and nighttime crashes. For limited corner clearance on the approach 

corners, the CMFs were counterintuitive, indicating statistically significant decreases in total, 

fatal and injury, and rear-end crashes. Intuition and past research suggest that limiting corner

clearance (i.e., allowing driveways) on all corners would negatively affect safety due to complex 

and conflicting turning movements from the traffic into and, particularly, out of driveways in 

proximity to the functional area of the intersection. However, these particular CMFs in question 

(i.e., decreases in total, fatal and injury, and rear-end crashes for limited corner clearance on the 

approach corners) are among the most statistically significant results derived from this 

evaluation. The research team proposes a number of possible explanations for these results that 

are counter to the general hypothesis of the study.

As shown in table 3, rear-end crashes constitute more than half of all crashes, while angle

crashes account for approximately one-quarter of all crashes. The reduction in rear-end crashes

likely outweighs the increase in angle crashes and leads to the overall reduction in total crashes 

and fatal and injury crashes for this situation. Therefore, this discussion focuses on rear-end and 

angle crashes. The research team proposed the following potential hypotheses:

• The reduction in rear-end crashes on the approach corners may be associated with 

localized congestion from vehicles turning into and out of the driveways near the 

approach corners of an intersection. The vehicles turning into and out of driveways may 

lead to an increase in driveway-related angle crashes, as the CMFs indicate, although not 

with statistical significance. However, this reduction in operating speeds results in fewer 

rear-end crashes and likely fewer angle crashes within the adjacent signalized 

intersection, which tend to be more severe than driveway-related crashes. With a much 

higher proportion in overall crashes, the decrease in rear-end crashes is likely to be larger 

than any increase in angle collisions. This results in an overall reduction in total and fatal 

and injury crashes. The statistically significant driveway density coefficient in the model 

for rear-end crashes shown in table 6 seems to support this hypothesis.

• After passing through the signalized intersection, vehicles may accelerate. The 

interactions and conflicts from the turning vehicles (into and out of the driveways) on the 

receiving corners are likely to result in more crashes for all crash types. The turning 

vehicles from the cross streets also add to the overall traffic and likelihood of conflicts on 

the receiving corners. The mainline AADT on the receiving corners may not reflect this 

added traffic from the cross street and therefore is not captured in the model.

• The overall context of the sites with limited corner clearance is responsible for the 

difference rather than the specific effects of corner clearance. The limited corner 

clearance could be a surrogate for another factor that affects safety performance that is 

not captured in the models. That is, those intersections with more driveways on the 

approaches may have more traffic and are more likely to be congested than those without 

driveways on the approach simply by the nature of the roadway, not because of the 
42

presence of the driveway (e.g., stores and gas stations are there to serve the heavier 

traffic). The context of the intersection within the corridor is difficult to control for in a 

cross-sectional evaluation. In this study, the research team collected and analyzed 

corridor characteristic data elements, including driveway density (number of driveways 

per mile) and type of land use (residential, commercial, or mixed-use). The model 

estimation results suggest limited or no statistically significant effects of these elements 

on crashes. The evaluation set out to investigate the safety effects at intersections rather 

than the entire corridor and, as such, could not collect and include more corridor-related 

characteristics in the models or examine the effects on crashes along the related corridors.

Future research could explore the hypotheses proposed and discussed in this study. Crash 

prediction models that include operations-related factors—such as mean operating speeds, a 

speed profile for intersections along the mainline, or level of service—would greatly improve the 

results in determining the safety effects of corner clearance. Controlling for these types of factors 

may better explain the effects of corner clearance on rear-end and angle crashes and, therefore,

on total and fatal and injury crashes. Future research could also verify the results using data from 

other States. The results presented in this study are based on data from the State of California and 

the City of Charlotte, North Carolina.

Readers may be able to test the hypotheses anecdotally as well. If a comparison of intersections 

in a jurisdiction shows that intersections with limited corner clearance are located along more 

congested corridors and have similar crash type distributions to the sample intersections in this 

study, then the reduction in rear-end crashes due to limited corner clearance on the approach is 

probably a result of the area type rather than the corner clearance. Therefore, improving corner 

clearance on mainline approaches may be less likely to increase rear-end crashes as a result. If 

the area type and crash type distribution do not follow with this hypothesis and the sample data, 

the results of this evaluation may not be as accurate when applied to those sites.

Additionally, the sample intersections used in this evaluation were not selected as a result of 

safety concerns due to angle crashes. In practice, potential projects are more likely to address 

corner clearance at intersections with a higher proportion of angle or turning crashes than 

represented in this study. Consequently, projects addressing approach corners may have a higher 

chance of reducing total crashes and yielding a higher net benefit when improving corner 

clearance than implied in the results of this evaluation.
43

APPENDIX. EXAMPLE INTERSECTIONS

This appendix presents photos of intersections used in this study. Figure 14 displays a streetlevel view of a signalized intersection with limited corner clearance on a mainline approach 

corner. Figure 15 displays a street-level view of a signalized intersection with limited corner 

clearance on a mainline receiving corner. Figure 16 displays an aerial view of a signalized 

intersection with limited corner clearance on all mainline corners. Figure 17 displays an aerial 

view of a signalized intersection with unrestricted corner clearance on all mainline corners.

©2017 Google®.

Figure 14. Screenshot. Intersection with limited approach corner clearance from Google®

MapsTM.

(16)
44

©2017 Google®.

Figure 15. Screenshot. Intersection with limited receiving corner clearance from Google®

MapsTM.

(17)
45

©2016 Google®.

Figure 16. Screenshot. Intersection with limited corner clearance on all mainline corners

from Google® MapsTM.

(18)
46

©2016 Google®.

Figure 17. Screenshot. Intersection without limited corner clearance on all mainline 

corners from Google® MapsTM.

(19)
47

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety Research and 

Development under Contract DTFH61-13-D-00001. The FHWA Program and Task Manager for 

this project was Roya Amjadi.

49

REFERENCES

1. AASHTO. (2011). A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Sixth Edition, 

AASHTO, Washington, DC.

2. Antonucci, N.D., Hardy, K.K., Slack, K.L., Pfefer, R., and Neuman, T.R. (2004). Guidance 

for the Implementation of AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan: Volume 12: A Guide for 

Reducing Collisions at Signalized Intersections, National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program Report 500, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 

Washington, DC.

3. Kwigizile, V., Mulokozi, E., Xu, X., Teng, H., and Ma, C. (2014). “Investigation of the 

Impact of Corner Clearance on Urban Intersection Crash Occurrence.” Journal of 

Transportation and Statistics, 10(1), Research and Innovative Technology Administration, 

Washington, DC.

4. Gross, F., Persaud, B., and Lyon, C. (2010). A Guide to Developing Quality Crash 

Modification Factors, Report No. FHWA-SA-10-032, Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC.

5. Carter, D., Srinivasan, R., Gross, F., and Council, F. (2012). Recommended Protocols for 

Developing Crash Modification Factors, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

6. Rosenbaum, P. and Rubin, F. (1983). “The Central Role of the Propensity Score in 

Observational Studies for Causal Effects.” Biometrika, 70(1), pp. 41–55, Oxford University 

Press, Oxford, England, UK.

7. Sasidharan, L. and Donnell, E. (2013). “Application of Propensity Scores and Potential 

Outcomes to Estimate Effectiveness of Traffic Safety Countermeasures: Exploratory 

Analysis Using Intersection Lighting Data.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 50, pp. 539–

553, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

8. Hauer, E. (2015). The Art of Regression Modeling in Road Safety, Springer International 

Publishing, Switzerland.

9. Gross, F., Lyon, C., Persaud, B., Gluck, J., Lorentz, M., and Himes, S. (2015). Safety 

Evaluation of Access Management Policies and Techniques, Report No. FHWA-HRT-15-

038, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

10. “Select Study Location.” Map. Google Maps. May 9, 2016. Accessed May 9, 2016. 

https://goo.gl/maps/kHtcvksJ9Ly. Scale: 1:2,400 ft

11. “Measuring Corner Clearance.” Map. Google Maps. January 16, 2017. Accessed January 16, 

2017. https://goo.gl/maps/fYKZ9v6v3ZH2. Scale: 1:2,400 ft
50

12. Zegeer, C., et al. (2004). Guidance for the Implementation of AASHTO Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan: Volume 10: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians, National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 500, Transportation Research Board of the 

National Academies, Washington, DC.

13. Office of Management and Budget. (2003). Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis, Office of 

Management and Budget, Washington, DC.

14. Council, F., Zaloshnja, E., Miller, T., and Persaud, B. (2005). Crash Cost Estimates by 

Maximum Police-Reported Injury Severity Within Selected Crash Geometries, Report No. 

FHWA-HRT05-051, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.

15. U.S. Department of Transportation. (2016). “Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value 

of a Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses—2016

Adjustment (memo).” (website) Washington, DC. Available online: 

https://cms.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of%20a%20Stati

stical%20Life%20Guidance.pdf, last accessed September 9, 2017.

16. “Intersection with limited approach corner clearance.” Map. Google Maps. Accessed 

September 18, 2017. https://goo.gl/maps/USs22718v252. Scale 1:600 ft

17. “Intersection with limited receiving corner clearance.” Map. Google Maps. Accessed 

September 18, 2017. https://goo.gl/maps/fusMZBuYCEC2. Scale 1:600 ft

18. “Intersection with limited corner clearance on all mainline corners.” Map. Google Maps. 

May 9, 2016. Accessed May 9, 2016. https://goo.gl/maps/bxNdbqfXr732. Scale: 1:600 ft

19. “Intersection with unrestricted corner clearance on all mainline corners.” Map. Google Maps. 

May 9, 2016. Accessed May 9, 2016. https://goo.gl/maps/fenE7TiJcAH2. Scale: 1:600 ft

HRDS-20/02-18(200)E