Centre for Transport Studies, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Institute of Railway Research, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH, United Kingdom.
Accid Anal Prev. 2019 Aug;129:66-75. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2019.05.006. Epub 2019 May 22.
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.
本文研究了英国铁路平交道口的交通穿越、延误和道路使用者伤亡之间的关系。“穿越”是指道路使用者穿越平交道口,可能是行人、骑自行车的人或道路车辆的乘客。本文发现,死亡率最高的道路使用者是被动道口的行人。他们的死亡率比风险最低的道路使用者高出约三个数量级,后者是铁路控制道口的道路车辆乘客。本文考虑了在公共道路上选择自动道口和铁路控制道口。铁路控制道口在英国被广泛使用。它们比自动道口安全一个数量级,但对用户造成的延误更大。文中开发了一个公式,用于根据每天的道路使用者和火车数量,以及为了让一列火车通过而必须关闭道口的时间长度,来计算两种道口的总延误。结果发现,自动平交道口造成的延误明显小于铁路控制平交道口。文中使用道路使用者延误和防止死亡的官方货币价值来估计假设但具有代表性的自动和铁路控制道口的延误和死亡的价值。然后,使用这些价值来探讨用自动道口代替代表性的铁路控制道口或反之的效果。结果发现,采用自动道口减少延误的价值通常超过因增加伤亡而造成的损失的价值。然而,在实践中,英国选择保留大量的铁路控制道口,这意味着为了良好的道口安全记录而接受延误。最后,进行了一项分析,以确定与不穿越平交道口的类似旅程相比,典型的汽车和步行旅程穿越平交道口的额外风险。结果发现,对于汽车旅行,额外风险很小,但对于步行旅行,风险很大。