Traverses, Delays and Fatalities at Railway Level Crossings in Great Britain

Andrew Evans, Peter Hughes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This paper investigates relationships between traverses, delays and fatalities to road users at railway level crossings in Great Britain. A ‘traverse’ means a passage across a level crossing by a road user, who may be a pedestrian, cyclist, or occupant of a road vehicle. The paper finds that the road users with the highest fatality rate per traverse are pedestrians at passive crossings. Their rate is about three orders of magnitude higher than that of users with the lowest risk, who are road vehicle occupants at railway-controlled crossings. The paper considers the choice between automatic and railway-controlled crossings on public roads. Railway-controlled crossings are widely used in Britain. They are about one order of magnitude safer than automatic crossings, but they impose greater delays on users. A formula is developed to give the overall delay to road users at either type of crossing in terms of the numbers of road users and trains per day, and in terms of the length of time that the crossing must be closed to the road to allow the passage of one train. It is found that automatic level crossings cause substantially less delay than railway-controlled level crossings. The official monetary values of road user delay and of preventing a fatality were used to estimate the valuations of delays and fatalities at hypothetical but representative automatic and railway-controlled crossings. These valuations were then used to explore the effect of replacing representative railway-controlled with automatic crossings or vice-versa. It is found that the valuation of the reduced delays from adopting automatic crossings typically outweighs the valuation of the losses from the increased casualties. However, in practice Britain has chosen to retain a large number of railway-controlled crossings, which implies accepting the delays in return for a good level crossing safety record. Finally, an analysis is carried out to determine the additional risk of typical car and walk journeys that involve traversing a level crossing compared with similar journeys that do not. It is found that the additional risk is small for motor vehicle journeys, but substantial for walk journeys.
LanguageEnglish
Pages66-75
Number of pages10
JournalAccident Analysis and Prevention
Volume129
Early online date22 May 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2019

Fingerprint

road user
German Federal Railways
road
Motor Vehicles
Railroad cars
pedestrian
Safety
United Kingdom
motor vehicle
Pedestrians
cause

Cite this

@article{1d66eed5bd6b4b26b78cb0c8eeda86cb,
title = "Traverses, Delays and Fatalities at Railway Level Crossings in Great Britain",
abstract = "This paper investigates relationships between traverses, delays and fatalities to road users at railway level crossings in Great Britain. A ‘traverse’ means a passage across a level crossing by a road user, who may be a pedestrian, cyclist, or occupant of a road vehicle. The paper finds that the road users with the highest fatality rate per traverse are pedestrians at passive crossings. Their rate is about three orders of magnitude higher than that of users with the lowest risk, who are road vehicle occupants at railway-controlled crossings. The paper considers the choice between automatic and railway-controlled crossings on public roads. Railway-controlled crossings are widely used in Britain. They are about one order of magnitude safer than automatic crossings, but they impose greater delays on users. A formula is developed to give the overall delay to road users at either type of crossing in terms of the numbers of road users and trains per day, and in terms of the length of time that the crossing must be closed to the road to allow the passage of one train. It is found that automatic level crossings cause substantially less delay than railway-controlled level crossings. The official monetary values of road user delay and of preventing a fatality were used to estimate the valuations of delays and fatalities at hypothetical but representative automatic and railway-controlled crossings. These valuations were then used to explore the effect of replacing representative railway-controlled with automatic crossings or vice-versa. It is found that the valuation of the reduced delays from adopting automatic crossings typically outweighs the valuation of the losses from the increased casualties. However, in practice Britain has chosen to retain a large number of railway-controlled crossings, which implies accepting the delays in return for a good level crossing safety record. Finally, an analysis is carried out to determine the additional risk of typical car and walk journeys that involve traversing a level crossing compared with similar journeys that do not. It is found that the additional risk is small for motor vehicle journeys, but substantial for walk journeys.",
keywords = "safety, accidents, fatalities, level crossings, road users, Railways",
author = "Andrew Evans and Peter Hughes",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.aap.2019.05.006",
language = "English",
volume = "129",
pages = "66--75",
journal = "Accident Analysis and Prevention",
issn = "0001-4575",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

Traverses, Delays and Fatalities at Railway Level Crossings in Great Britain. / Evans, Andrew; Hughes, Peter.

In: Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 129, 01.08.2019, p. 66-75.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Traverses, Delays and Fatalities at Railway Level Crossings in Great Britain

AU - Evans, Andrew

AU - Hughes, Peter

PY - 2019/8/1

Y1 - 2019/8/1

N2 - This paper investigates relationships between traverses, delays and fatalities to road users at railway level crossings in Great Britain. A ‘traverse’ means a passage across a level crossing by a road user, who may be a pedestrian, cyclist, or occupant of a road vehicle. The paper finds that the road users with the highest fatality rate per traverse are pedestrians at passive crossings. Their rate is about three orders of magnitude higher than that of users with the lowest risk, who are road vehicle occupants at railway-controlled crossings. The paper considers the choice between automatic and railway-controlled crossings on public roads. Railway-controlled crossings are widely used in Britain. They are about one order of magnitude safer than automatic crossings, but they impose greater delays on users. A formula is developed to give the overall delay to road users at either type of crossing in terms of the numbers of road users and trains per day, and in terms of the length of time that the crossing must be closed to the road to allow the passage of one train. It is found that automatic level crossings cause substantially less delay than railway-controlled level crossings. The official monetary values of road user delay and of preventing a fatality were used to estimate the valuations of delays and fatalities at hypothetical but representative automatic and railway-controlled crossings. These valuations were then used to explore the effect of replacing representative railway-controlled with automatic crossings or vice-versa. It is found that the valuation of the reduced delays from adopting automatic crossings typically outweighs the valuation of the losses from the increased casualties. However, in practice Britain has chosen to retain a large number of railway-controlled crossings, which implies accepting the delays in return for a good level crossing safety record. Finally, an analysis is carried out to determine the additional risk of typical car and walk journeys that involve traversing a level crossing compared with similar journeys that do not. It is found that the additional risk is small for motor vehicle journeys, but substantial for walk journeys.

AB - This paper investigates relationships between traverses, delays and fatalities to road users at railway level crossings in Great Britain. A ‘traverse’ means a passage across a level crossing by a road user, who may be a pedestrian, cyclist, or occupant of a road vehicle. The paper finds that the road users with the highest fatality rate per traverse are pedestrians at passive crossings. Their rate is about three orders of magnitude higher than that of users with the lowest risk, who are road vehicle occupants at railway-controlled crossings. The paper considers the choice between automatic and railway-controlled crossings on public roads. Railway-controlled crossings are widely used in Britain. They are about one order of magnitude safer than automatic crossings, but they impose greater delays on users. A formula is developed to give the overall delay to road users at either type of crossing in terms of the numbers of road users and trains per day, and in terms of the length of time that the crossing must be closed to the road to allow the passage of one train. It is found that automatic level crossings cause substantially less delay than railway-controlled level crossings. The official monetary values of road user delay and of preventing a fatality were used to estimate the valuations of delays and fatalities at hypothetical but representative automatic and railway-controlled crossings. These valuations were then used to explore the effect of replacing representative railway-controlled with automatic crossings or vice-versa. It is found that the valuation of the reduced delays from adopting automatic crossings typically outweighs the valuation of the losses from the increased casualties. However, in practice Britain has chosen to retain a large number of railway-controlled crossings, which implies accepting the delays in return for a good level crossing safety record. Finally, an analysis is carried out to determine the additional risk of typical car and walk journeys that involve traversing a level crossing compared with similar journeys that do not. It is found that the additional risk is small for motor vehicle journeys, but substantial for walk journeys.

KW - safety

KW - accidents

KW - fatalities

KW - level crossings

KW - road users

KW - Railways

U2 - 10.1016/j.aap.2019.05.006

DO - 10.1016/j.aap.2019.05.006

M3 - Article

VL - 129

SP - 66

EP - 75

JO - Accident Analysis and Prevention

T2 - Accident Analysis and Prevention

JF - Accident Analysis and Prevention

SN - 0001-4575

ER -