Road intersections ranking for road safety improvement: Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods

Fancello, Gianfranco; Carta, Michele; Fadda, Paolo · 2018 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.04.007

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This paper addresses the challenge of allocating limited financial resources for road safety improvements in urban networks. Since accident data is often unavailable or insufficient for comprehensive network analysis, the authors propose a methodology to rank road intersections based on geometric and traffic criteria rather than historical accident counts. The study aims to identify the most critical intersections to prioritize interventions, specifically comparing three multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods: TOPSIS, VIKOR, and Concordance Analysis. This comparison seeks to determine which method best overcomes the limitations of previous approaches, such as the threshold dependencies of ELECTRE III and the ranking difficulties of standard Concordance Analysis. The researchers applied these three MCDM methods to a real-world case study involving six intersections in Villacidro, Italy. The evaluation utilized eight specific criteria derived from direct surveys and traffic counts: sight distance, road signs and markings, intersection lighting, road surface maintenance, density of traffic conflict points, number of vehicles entering the intersection, percentage of heavy vehicles, and pedestrian flow. Criteria weights were assigned by a decision-maker with scientific support, prioritizing sight distance (22.5%), road surface condition, and traffic flow (17.5% each). The study included a sensitivity analysis to test the stability of the rankings generated by each method. The results demonstrated that while all three methods produced comparable hierarchies, TOPSIS performed best in generating a complete and consistent ranking of the critical road sections. TOPSIS effectively overcame the negative aspects associated with the other methods, such as the iterative complexity of Concordance Analysis and the compromise solution constraints of VIKOR. The final ranking identified intersection A1 (Via Scuole – via Don Bosco – via G.M. Angioi) as the most hazardous, followed by A4, A2, A3, A6, and A5. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the TOPSIS results, showing stable rankings despite variations in criterion weights. The significance of this work lies in providing urban road network managers with a reliable decision-support system for prioritizing safety interventions. By validating TOPSIS as the superior method for this application, the paper offers a practical tool for allocating resources to the most dangerous intersections based on observable geometric and traffic parameters. This approach allows for proactive safety management even in the absence of comprehensive accident data, ensuring that limited funds are directed toward locations with the highest potential for safety improvement.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• intersection design