Analysis of Injury Severity of Work Zone Truck-Involved Crashes in South Carolina for Interstates and Non-Interstates
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Data Description
3.2. Methodology
3.2.1. Mixed Logit Model
3.2.2. Marginal Effect
3.2.3. Likelihood Ratio Test
4. Results
4.1. Driver Characteristics
4.2. Work Zone Characteristics
4.3. Collision Characteristics
4.4. Roadway and Environmental Characteristics
4.5. Temporal Characteristics
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Khattak, A.J.; Targa, F. Injury severity and total harm in truck-involved work zone crashes. Transp. Res. Rec. 2004, 1877, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse. National Estimates of Total and Injury Work Zone Crashes. 2022. Available online: https://workzonesafety.org/ (accessed on 29 July 2022).
- Ahmed, F.; Siddiqui, C.; Huynh, N. Analysis of contributing factor of truck involved crashes at work zones in south Carolina and their temporal stability. J. Transp. Res. Board Transp. Res. Rec. 2022, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- South Carolina Department of Public Safety. South Carolina Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2020–2024. 2022. Available online: https://dc.statelibrary.sc.gov/bitstream/handle/10827/36727/DPS_Strategic_Highway_Safety_Plan_2020-2024.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 29 July 2022).
- Khattak, A.J.; Schneider, R.J.; Targa, F. Risk factors in large truck rollovers and injury severity: Analysis of single-vehicle collisions. Transp. Res. Rec. 2003, 40, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
- Khorashadi, A.; Niemeier, D.; Shankar, V.; Mannering, F. Differences in rural and urban driver-injury severities in accidents involving large-trucks: An exploratory analysis. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2005, 37, 910–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uddin, M.; Huynh, N. Truck-involved crashes injury severity analysis for different lighting conditions on rural and urban roadways. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 108, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uddin, M.; Huynh, N. Injury severity analysis of truck-involved crashes under different weather conditions. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 141, 105529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.; Zhang, S.; Xing, Y.; Lu, J. Identifying the factors contributing to the severity of truck-involved crashes in Shanghai River-Crossing Tunnel. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, P.; Fan, W. Analyzing injury severity of rear-end crashes involving large trucks using a mixed logit model: A case study in North Carolina. J. Transp. Saf. Secur. 2022, 14, 723–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, R.; Asgari, H.; Azimi, G.; Rahimi, A.; Jin, X. Analysis of fatal truck-involved work zone crashes in Florida: Application of tree-based models. Transp. Res. Rec. 2021, 2675, 1272–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Federal Highway Administration(FHWA). Implementing the Rule on Work Zone Safety and Mobility. 2005. Available online: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/41325 (accessed on 4 April 2023).
- Islam, M. An analysis of motorcyclists’ injury severities in work-zone crashes with unobserved heterogeneity. Int. Assoc. Traffic Saf. Sci. 2022, 46, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, M.; Alnawmasi, N.; Mannnering, F. Unobserved heterogeneity and temporal instability in the analysis of work-zone crash-injury severities. Anal. Method Accid. Res. 2020, 28, 100130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, E.; Tarko, A.P. Modeling safety of highway work zones with random parameters and random effects models. Anal. Methods Accid. Res. 2014, 1, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mannering, F.L.; Shankar, V.; Bhat, C. Unobserved heterogeneity and the statistical analysis of highway accident data. Anal. Methods Accid. Res. 2016, 11, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.; Hernandez, S. Roadway classifications and the accident injury severities of heavy-vehicle drivers. Anal. Method Accid. Res. 2017, 15, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khodabakhshi, A.; Ahmed, M.M. Practical advantage of crossed random intercepts under Bayesian hierarchical modeling to tackle unobserved heterogeneity in clustering critical versus non-critical crashes. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2021, 149, 105855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behnood, A.; Mannering, F. The effect of passengers on driver-injury severities in single-vehicle crashes: A random parameters heterogeneity-in-means approach. Anal. Methods Accid. Res. 2017, 14, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behnood, A.; Al-Bdairi, N.S.S. Determinant of injury severities in large truck crashes: A weekly instability analysis. Saf. Sci. 2020, 131, 104911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seraneeprakarn, P.; Huang, S.; Shankar, V.; Mannering, F.; Venkataraman, N.; Milton, J. Occupant injury severities in hybrid-vehicle involved crashes: A random parameters approach with heterogeneity in means and variances. Anal. Methods Accid. Res. 2017, 15, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, M.; Mannering, F. The role of gender and temporal instability in driver-injury severities in crashes caused by speeds too fast for conditions. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2021, 153, 106039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anastasopoulos, P.C.; Mannering, F.L. An empirical assessment of fixed and random parameter logit models using crash- and non-crash-specific injury data. Accid. Anal.Prev 2011, 43, 1140–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chang, L.Y.; Chien, J.T. Analysis of driver injury severity in truck-involved accidents using a non-parametric classification tree model. Saf. Sci. 2013, 51, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weng, J.; Meng, Q.; Yan, X. Analysis of work zone rear-end crash risk for different vehicle-following patterns. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 72, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Osman, M.; Paleti, R.; Mishra, S.; Golias, M.M. Analysis of injury severity of large truck crashes in work zones. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 97, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, M.; Ma, C.; Zheng, C.; Chen, Z.; Yang, T. Injury severity of truck-involved crashes in work zones on rural and urban highways: Accounting for unobserved heterogeneity. J. Transp. Saf. Secur. 2022, 14, 83–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, K.; Hassan, M. Identifying the Factors Contributing to Injury Severity in Work Zone Rear-End Crashes. J. Adv. Transp. 2019, 2019, 4126102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, F.; Mingtao, S.; Ma, X. Investigation on the injury severity of drivers in rear-end collisions between cars using a random parameters bivariate ordered probit model. Int. J. Envrion. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dong, B.; Ma, X.; Chen, F.; Chen, S. Investigating the differences of single-vehicle and multivehicle accident probability using mixed logit model. Adv. Traffic Saf. Methodol. Technol. 2018, 2018, 2702360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, X.; Chen, F.; Chen, S. Empirical analysis of crash injury severity on mountainous and non-mountainous interstate highways. J. Adv. Transp. 2015, 16, 715–723. [Google Scholar]
- Milton, J.C.; Shankar, V.N.; Mannering, F.L. Highway accident severities and the mixed logit model: An exploratory empirical analysis. Accid. Anal. Prev 2008, 40, 260–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, S.; Jones, S.; Dye, D. Comprehensive analysis of single- and multi-vehicle large truck at-fault crashes on rural and urban roadways in Alabama. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 67, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Washington, S.; Karlaftis, M.G.; Mannering, F.; Anastasopoulos, P. Statistical and Econometric Methods for Transportation Data Analysis, 1st ed.; Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- O’donnell, C.; Connor, D.H. Predicting the severity of motor vehicle accident injuries using models of ordered multiple choice. Accid. Anal. Prev. 1996, 28, 739–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, K.; Shirani-Bidabadi, N.; Shaon, M.R.R.; Zhao, S.; Jackson, E. Correlated mixed logit modeling with heterogeneity in means for crash severity and surrogate measure with temporal instability. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2021, 160, 106332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Naik, B.; Tung, L.W.; Zhao, S.; Khattak, A.J. Weather impacts on single-vehicle truck crash injury severity. J. Saf. Res. 2016, 58, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Federal Highway Administration(FHWA). Work Zone Management Program. Available online: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/designbuild.htm (accessed on 4 April 2023).
Authors | Focus | Methodology | Injury Severity Levels | Primary Findings |
---|---|---|---|---|
Khattak and Targa [1] | Compare injury | Ordered probit | Fatality, severe injury, | Crashes involving |
severity of truck- | moderate injury, | trucks led to more | ||
involved and | minor injury, | severe injuries | ||
non-truck involved | no injury | than non-truck | ||
crashes | involved crashes | |||
especially in work | ||||
zones | ||||
Osman et al. [26] | Investigate causal | Multinomial logit, | Serious injury, | GORL works best. |
factors contributing | nested logit, | injury, no injury | Primary factors include | |
to injury severity | ordered logit, | high speed limits, daytime, | ||
in truck involved | generalized ordered | no control of access, | ||
crashes | logit (GORL) | rural principal arterials | ||
Yu et al. [27] | Compare factors for | Mixed logit (MXL), | Fatality/incapacitating/ | PPO outperforms MXL. |
rural and urban | partial proportional | non-incapacitating, | Lack of restraint & DUI | |
highways | odds logit (PPO) | possible injury, PDO | are most influential. | |
Unique factors across | ||||
rural and urban highways | ||||
Zhang and Hassan [28] | Rear-end crashes | Random parameter | Severe injury, | Speeding, foggy weather, |
ordered probit | injury, no injury | weekends, nighttime, | ||
heavy vehicles are more | ||||
likely to lead to | ||||
severe injury | ||||
Gupta et al. [11] | General truck-involved | Ordered logistic | Fatal, injury, | Pedestrian involvement, |
work zone crashes | decision trees, | PDO | lighting conditions, safety | |
random forests | equipment, driver condition | |||
and age, and work zone | ||||
location are the primary | ||||
contributors to fatal crashes |
Speed Category | Total Observation | Injury (%) | PDO (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Less than 60 mph | 1748 | 305 (17.45) | 1443 (82.55) |
Greater than or equal to 60 mph | 1305 | 260 (19.92) | 1045 (80.08) |
Variables | Speed < 60 mph | Speed ≥ 60 mph | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | Std. Dev. | Mean | Std. Dev. | |
Driver Characteristics | ||||
Gender (1 if female driver is at | ||||
fault in a crash, 0 otherwise) | 0.15 | 0.35 | 0.11 | 0.32 |
Younger drivers (1 if age of at-fault | ||||
driver are group below 35 years, 0 otherwise) | 0.26 | 0.44 | 0.25 | 0.43 |
Middle-aged drivers (1 if age of at-fault | ||||
driver is between 35 and 50 years, 0 otherwise) | 0.24 | 0.47 | 0.24 | 0.43 |
Older drivers (1 if age of at-fault driver | ||||
is above 50 years, 0 otherwise) | 0.35 | 0.47 | 0.29 | 0.46 |
Driving too fast (1 if the contributing factor | ||||
of crash is driving too fast, 0 otherwise) | 0.28 | 0.45 | 0.39 | 0.49 |
Distracted (1 if the contributing factor | ||||
of crash is distracted, 0 otherwise) | 0.04 | 0.2 | 0.01 | 0.08 |
Failed (1 if the contributing factor of crash | ||||
is failed to yield right of way, 0 otherwise) | 0.08 | 0.27 | 0.02 | 0.15 |
Improper usage (1 if the contributing factor | ||||
of crash is improper lane usage, 0 otherwise) | 0.31 | 0.46 | 0.38 | 0.49 |
Under influence (1 if the contributing factor | ||||
of crash is under the influence, 0 otherwise) | 0.02 | 0.13 | 0.02 | 0.14 |
Crash Characteristics | ||||
1 vehicle (1 if the number of vehicles | ||||
involved in a crash is 1 or more, 0 otherwise) | 0.06 | 0.24 | 0.06 | 0.23 |
2 vehicles (1 if the number of vehicles | ||||
involved in a crash is 2, 0 otherwise) | 0.84 | 0.37 | 0.77 | 0.42 |
3+ vehicles (1 if the number of vehicles | ||||
involved in a crash is 3 or more, 0 otherwise) | 0.10 | 0.30 | 0.17 | 0.37 |
Rear end (1 if manner of collision | ||||
is rear end, 0 otherwise) | 0.30 | 0.46 | 0.37 | 0.48 |
Sideswipe (1 if manner of collision | ||||
is sideswipe, 0 otherwise) | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0.38 | 0.48 |
Angle (1 if manner of collision | ||||
is angle, 0 otherwise) | 0.16 | 0.36 | 0.08 | 0.28 |
Fixed object (1 if 1st harmful event is | ||||
fixed object, 0 otherwise) | 0.07 | 0.26 | 0.09 | 0.28 |
Not fixed object (1 if 1st harmful event is | ||||
not fixed object, 0 otherwise) | 0.91 | 0.28 | 0.89 | 0.31 |
No collision (1 if 1st harmful event is | ||||
no collision, 0 otherwise) | 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.015 |
Roadway Characteristics | ||||
SC, US Primary (1 if crash occurred in | ||||
SC or US Primary, 0 otherwise) | 0.25 | 0.43 | 0.01 | 0.12 |
Interstate (1 if crash occurred in | ||||
interstate, 0 otherwise) | 0.59 | 0.49 | 0.98 | 0.14 |
County/secondary/ramp (1 if crash occurred | ||||
in county, secondary, or ramp, 0 otherwise) | 0.16 | 0.37 | 0.01 | 0.07 |
Curve (1 if crash occurred in a curve, | ||||
0 otherwise) | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0.03 | 0.17 |
Straight on grade (1 if crash occurred | ||||
in a straight on grade, 0 otherwise) | 0.11 | 0.32 | 0.12 | 0.33 |
Straight level (1 if crash occurred in a | ||||
straight level, 0 otherwise) | 0.83 | 0.37 | 0.84 | 0.37 |
Roadway (1 if first harmful event | ||||
occurred on roadway, 0 otherwise) | 0.90 | 0.29 | 0.89 | 0.32 |
Two-way undivided (1 if traffic-way | ||||
is two-way undivided, 0 otherwise) | 0.27 | 0.44 | 0.01 | 0.07 |
Environmental Characteristics | ||||
Dark (1 if crash occurred in a dark | ||||
lighting condition, 0 otherwise) | 0.28 | 0.45 | 0.26 | 0.44 |
Dawn or dusk (1 if crash occurred in a dawn | ||||
or dusk lighting condition, 0 otherwise) | 0.03 | 0.17 | 0.04 | 0.19 |
Daylight (1 if crash occurred in a daylight | ||||
lighting condition, 0 otherwise) | 0.69 | 0.46 | 0.69 | 0.46 |
Clear (1 if crash occurred in a clear | ||||
weather condition, 0 otherwise) | 0.87 | 0.34 | 0.85 | 0.36 |
Dry (1 if crash occurred in a dry | ||||
surface condition, 0 otherwise) | 0.89 | 0.30 | 0.89 | 0.32 |
Work Zone Characteristics | ||||
Shoulder/median (1 if work zone type is | ||||
shoulder or median, 0 otherwise) | 0.42 | 0.49 | 0.56 | 0.5 |
Lane closure (1 if work zone type is | ||||
lane closure, 0 otherwise) | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0.25 | 0.44 |
Lane shift/crossover (1 if work zone | ||||
type is lane shift or crossover, 0 otherwise) | 0.07 | 0.26 | 0.1 | 0.3 |
Activity area (1 if work zone location is | ||||
activity area, 0 otherwise) | 0.71 | 0.46 | 0.63 | 0.48 |
Before first sign (1 if work zone location | ||||
is before first sign, 0 otherwise) | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.06 | 0.5 |
Advanced warning (1 if work zone location | ||||
is advanced warning area, 0 otherwise) | 0.09 | 0.28 | 0.12 | 0.32 |
Termination/transition (1 if crash location is | ||||
termination or transition area, 0 otherwise) | 0.18 | 0.39 | 0.20 | 0.40 |
Workers present (1 if workers present, | ||||
0 otherwise) | 0.62 | 0.49 | 0.45 | 0.5 |
Temporal Characteristics | ||||
Weekday (1 if crash happens on weekday, | ||||
0 otherwise) | 0.89 | 0.30 | 0.87 | 0.33 |
Variable | Coefficient | t-Statistic | -Value | Marginal Effects | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Injury | PDO | ||||
Defined for injury | |||||
Rear end | |||||
(standard deviation of | |||||
parameter distribution) | 0.86 (1.037) | 4.02 (1.68) | 0.000 (0.09) | 0.064 | −0.064 |
Constant | −0.49 | −2.31 | 0.020 | ||
Two vehicles | −1.24 | −8.67 | 0.000 | −0.109 | 0.109 |
Interstate | −0.42 | −3.36 | 0.000 | −0.039 | 0.039 |
Dark | 0.42 | 3.52 | 0.000 | 0.017 | −0.017 |
Female | 0.53 | 3.54 | 0.000 | 0.011 | −0.011 |
Weekday | −0.40 | −2.62 | 0.009 | −0.441 | 0.441 |
Lane shift/crossover | −0.49 | −2.25 | 0.025 | −0.004 | 0.004 |
Under influence | −1.04 | −2.76 | 0.006 | 0.004 | −0.004 |
Model statistics | |||||
Number of observations | 3064 | ||||
Log-likelihood at zero, LL(0) | −2123.8 | ||||
Log-likelihood at convergence, | |||||
LL() | −1329.4 | ||||
= 1 − LL()/ LL(0) | 0.37 |
Speed Limit Category | Speed Limit Category | |
---|---|---|
<60 mph | ≥60 mph | |
<60 mph | - | 32.69 (10) () |
≥60 mph | 28.28 (12) () | - |
Variable | Coefficient | t-Statistic | -Value | Marginal Effects | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Injury | PDO | ||||
Defined for injury | |||||
Two vehicles | |||||
(standard deviation of | |||||
parameter distribution) | −2.37 (2.72) | −3.13 (3.12) | 0.002 (0.002) | −0.0044 | 0.0044 |
Constant | −2.40 | −5.78 | 0.000 | ||
SC, US primary | 1.10 | 3.85 | 0.000 | 0.2880 | −0.2880 |
Dark | 0.67 | 2.78 | 0.005 | 0.0176 | −0.0176 |
Female | 0.71 | 2.25 | 0.024 | 0.0096 | −0.0096 |
Age less than 35 | 0.51 | 2.32 | 0.020 | 0.0133 | −0.0133 |
Activity area | 0.49 | −2.12 | 0.034 | 0.0304 | −0.0304 |
Driving too fast | 1.09 | −4.48 | 0.000 | 0.0404 | −0.0404 |
Sideswipe | −0.86 | 2.81 | 0.005 | −0.0171 | 0.0171 |
Workers present | 0.45 | −2.01 | 0.004 | 0.0249 | −0.0249 |
Fixed object | −1.28 | 3.53 | 0.000 | −0.0097 | 0.0097 |
Model statistics | |||||
Number of observations | 1748 | ||||
Log-likelihood at zero, LL(0) | −1211.62 | ||||
Log-likelihood at convergence, | |||||
LL() | −730.77 | ||||
= 1 − LL()/ LL(0) | 0.397 |
Variable | Coefficient | t-Statistic | -Value | Marginal Effects | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Injury | PDO | ||||
Defined for injury | |||||
Constant | −2.42 | −7.40 | 0.000 | ||
Shoulder median | |||||
(standard deviation of | |||||
parameter distribution) | −1.1 (2.62) | 2.13 (3.74) | 0.033 (0.000) | 0.0325 | −0.0325 |
Multi vehicles | 1.82 | 7.20 | 0.000 | 0.0484 | −0.0484 |
Driving too fast | 0.61 | 2.52 | 0.012 | 0.0330 | −0.0330 |
Rear end | 0.96 | 3.86 | 0.000 | 0.0526 | −0.0526 |
Weekday | −0.71 | −2.68 | 0.007 | −0.0607 | 0.0607 |
Before first sign | 0.64 | −1.80 | 0.072 | 0.0051 | −0.0051 |
Dark | 0.95 | −4.16 | 0.000 | 0.0308 | −0.0308 |
Female | 0.65 | −2.35 | 0.019 | 0.0094 | −0.0094 |
Model statistics | |||||
Number of observations | 1305 | ||||
Log-likelihood at zero, LL(0) | −904.56 | ||||
Log-likelihood at convergence, | |||||
LL() | −567.27 | ||||
= 1 − LL()/ LL(0) | 0.37 |
Variable | Speed <60 mph | Speed ≥60 mph | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Injury | PDO | Injury | PDO | |
SC, US primary | ⇑ | ⇓ | ||
Dark | ⇑ | ⇓ | ⇑ | ⇓ |
Female | ⇑ | ⇓ | ⇑ | ⇓ |
Younger drivers | ⇑ | ⇓ | ||
Activity area | ⇑ | ⇓ | ||
Driving too fast | ⇑ | ⇓ | ⇑ | ⇓ |
Sideswipe | ⇓ | ⇑ | ||
Workers present | ⇑ | ⇓ | ||
Fixed object | ⇓ | ⇑ | ||
3+ vehicles | ⇑ | ⇓ | ||
Rear end | ⇑ | ⇓ | ||
Before 1st sign | ⇑ | ⇓ | ||
Weekday | ⇓ | ⇑ |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Madarshahian, M.; Balaram, A.; Ahmed, F.; Huynh, N.; Siddiqui, C.K.A.; Ferguson, M. Analysis of Injury Severity of Work Zone Truck-Involved Crashes in South Carolina for Interstates and Non-Interstates. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7188. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097188
Madarshahian M, Balaram A, Ahmed F, Huynh N, Siddiqui CKA, Ferguson M. Analysis of Injury Severity of Work Zone Truck-Involved Crashes in South Carolina for Interstates and Non-Interstates. Sustainability. 2023; 15(9):7188. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097188
Chicago/Turabian StyleMadarshahian, Mahyar, Aditya Balaram, Fahim Ahmed, Nathan Huynh, Chowdhury K. A. Siddiqui, and Mark Ferguson. 2023. "Analysis of Injury Severity of Work Zone Truck-Involved Crashes in South Carolina for Interstates and Non-Interstates" Sustainability 15, no. 9: 7188. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097188