Safety at railway level crossings (RLXs) is a worldwide issue that increasingly attracts the attention of relevant transport authorities, the rail industry, and the general public. The differences in the operation characteristics of varying types of warning devices, together with differences in crossing geometry, traffic, or train characteristics, leads to different driver behaviors at crossings. The aim of this study was to use traffic microsimulation modeling based on field video recording data to compare the safety performance of varying conventional RLX warning systems. The widely used microsimulation model VISSIM was modified to produce safety-related performance measures, namely, collision likelihood, delay, and queue length. The results showed that RLXs with an active warning system were safer than those with a passive sign by at least 17%. Integration of surrogate measures in conjunction with traffic simulation models determined which safety approach was more efficient for specified traffic and train volumes.
FordG., and MatthewsA.Analysis of Australian Grade Crossing Accident Statistics.Presented at 7th International Symposium on Railroad–Highway Grade Crossing Research and Safety, Melbourne, Australia, 2002.
5.
WigglesworthE.C., and UberC. B.An Evaluation of the Railway Level Crossing Boom Barrier Program in Victoria, Australia. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1991, pp. 133–140.
6.
TeyL.-S. and FerreiraL.Driver Compliance at Railway Level Crossings. In 33rd Australasian Transport Research Forum, ACT, Canberra, Australia, 2010.
7.
TeyL.-S.FerreiraL., and WallaceA.Measuring Driver Responses at Railway Level Crossings. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 43, No. 6, 2011, pp. 2134–2141.
8.
Australian Transport Council. National Railway Level Crossing Safety Strategy.ATC, Canberra, Australia, 2003.
9.
PerkinsS.R., and HarrisJ. I.Traffic Conflict Characteristics: Accident Potential at Intersections.Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1968.
10.
GarderP.Occurrence of Evasive Manoeuvres Prior To Accidents—Data from North Carolina Accidents. Proc., 2nd ICTCT Workshop, Munich, Germany, 1990, pp. 29–38.
11.
GlauzW.D., and MigletzD. J.NCHRP Report 219: Application of Traffic Conflict Analysis at Intersections.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1980.
12.
AmundsenF.H., and HydenC.Proceedings of First Workshop on Traffic Conflicts.Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo, Norway, 1977.
13.
ChinH.-C. and QuekS.-T.Measurement of Traffic Conflicts. Safety Science, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1997, pp. 169–185.
14.
ArcherJ.Developing the Potential of Micro-Simulation Modelling for Traffic Safety Assessment. Proc., 13th ICTCT Workshop, Corfu, Greece, 2000, pp. 233–246.
15.
SaunierN., and SayedT. A.Automated Analysis of Road Safety with Video Data. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2019, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 57–64.
16.
GarderP.Pedestrian Safety at Traffic Signals: A Study Carried Out with the Help of A Traffic Conflicts Technique. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 21, No. 5, 1989, pp. 435–444.
17.
MinderhoudM.M., and BovyP. H. L.Extended Time-to-Collision Measures for Road Traffic Safety Assessment. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2001, pp. 89–97.
18.
SayedT., and ZeinS.Traffic Conflict Standards for Intersections. Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 22, No. 1999, pp. 309–323.
19.
SayedT., BrownG., and NavinF.Simulation of Traffic Conflicts at Unsignalised Intersections with TSC-Sim. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 26, No. 5, 1994, pp. 593–607.
20.
ArcherJ.Traffic Conflict Technique—Historical to Current State-of-the-Art.Institution for Infrastructure, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2001.
AndersonI.B., and KrammesR.A., Speed Reduction as a Surrogate for Accident Experience at Horizontal Curves on Rural Two-Lane Highways. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1701, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 86–94.
23.
AbrahamJ., DattaT.K., and DattaS.Driver Behavior at Rail–Highway Crossings. In Transportation Research Record 1648, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 28–34.
24.
LeeN. S.US-36 Environmental Impact Statement and Basic Engineering: Methodology of Grade Crossing Evaluation. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2030, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 76–84.
25.
ArcherJ., and KosonenI.The Potential of Micro-simulation Modelling in Relation to Traffic Safety Assessment. Presented at ESS Conference, Hamburg, Germany, 2000.
26.
GettmanD., and HeadL.Surrogate Safety Measures from Traffic Simulation Models:Final Report. FHWA-RD-03-050. Office of Safety Research and Development, Turner–Fairbank Highway Research Center, FHWA, McLean, Va., 2003.
27.
BonsallP., LiuR., and YoungW.Modelling Safety-Related Driving Behaviour—Impact of Parameter Values. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 39, No. 5, 2005, pp. 425–444.
28.
GettmanD., and HeadL.Surrogate Safety Measures from Traffic Simulation Models. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1840, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 104–115.
29.
WiedemannR., and ReiterU.Microscopic Traffic Simulation: The Simulation System MISSION, Background and Actual State.CEC, Brussels, Belgium, 1992.
30.
CheuR.-L.Calibration of FRESIM for Singapore Expressway Using Genetic Algorithm. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 6, 1998, pp. 526–535.
31.
ShinarD., and RazS.Driver Response to Different Railroad Crossing Protection Systems. Ergonomics, Vol. 25, No. 9, 1982, pp. 801–808.
32.
MeekerF., FoxD., and WeberC.A Comparison of Driver Behavior at Railroad Grade Crossing with Two Different Protection Systems. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1997, pp. 11–16.
33.
CarlsonP.J., and FitzpatrickK.Violations at Gated Highway–Railroad Grade Crossings. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1692, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 66–73.
34.
CrooksR., CowieJ., FletcherN., KempsterR., and RoulstoneI.Level Crossing Equipment.Australian Rail Track Corporation, Adelaide, South Australia, 2006.
