Flashing lights vs. Flashing lights (vs. passive passive signs) CMF = 0.26 Saccomanno et al., Bells vs. flashing light The addition of bells CMF Empirical Bayesian 2007 crossings = 0.45 Flashing lights (vs. passive Flashing lights vs. Austin and Carson, signs) CMF = 0.49 Poisson regression passive signs 2002; Elvik and Vaa, Gates (vs. flashing lights Negative binomial Gates vs. flashing lights 2004; Elvik et al., and bells) CMF = 0.55 Meta-analysis and bells 2009 Gates (vs. passive signs) Gates vs. passive signs CMF = 0.33 NOTES: CMF = Crash Modification Factor Table 2. Selected Studies on Crash Injury Severity and Behavioral Considerations Crossing Behavioral Authors/Year Methodology Key finding controls considerations STOP signs 12.4% crashes were fatal Descriptive Gates 31.8% crashes Raub, 2006 Yes No statistics were fatal Flashing lights 25% crashes were fatal Gates Lowest injury severity Flashing lights (vs. STOP Ordered logit signs) Higher injury Eluru et al., 2012 model (Latent Yes Yes severity segmented) Drove around or through the gates Higher injury severity 8.8% crashes were Cooper et al., Descriptive fatal Yes Yes 2012 statistics around gates 20.6% crashes were fatal Descriptive Active controls 9.11% statistics for the crashes were fatal control and injury Passive controls 6.82% Hao and Daniel, severity Yes No crashes were fatal 2014 Ordered probit Higher train/vehicle model for other speed higher injury factors severity Generalized logit No findings on crossing Hu et al., 2010 No No model controls
Flashing lights vs. passive Flashing lights (vs. passive signs) CMF = 0.26 Saccomanno et al., 2007 Empirical Bayesian Bells vs. flashing light crossings The addition of bells CMF = 0.45 Austin and Carson, 2002; Elvik and Vaa, 2004; Elvik et al., 2009 Poisson regression Negative binomial Meta-analysis Flashing lights vs. passive signs Gates vs. flashing lights and bells Gates vs. passive signs Flashing lights (vs. passive signs) CMF = 0.49 Gates (vs. flashing lights and bells) CMF = 0.55 Gates (vs. passive signs) CMF = 0.33 NOTES: CMF = Crash Modification Factor Table 2. Selected Studies on Crash Injury Severity and Behavioral Considerations Authors/Year Methodology Crossing controls Behavioral considerations Key finding Raub, 2006 Descriptive statistics Yes No STOP signs 12.4% crashes were fatal Gates 31.8% crashes were fatal Flashing lights 25% crashes were fatal Eluru et al., 2012 Ordered logit model (Latent segmented) Yes Yes Gates Lowest injury severity Flashing lights (vs. STOP signs) Higher injury severity Drove around or through the gates Higher injury severity Cooper et al., 2012 Descriptive statistics Yes Yes 8.8% crashes were fatal around gates 20.6% crashes were fatal Hao and Daniel, 2014 Descriptive statistics for the control and injury severity Ordered probit model for other factors Yes No Active controls 9.11% crashes were fatal Passive controls 6.82% crashes were fatal Higher train/vehicle speed higher injury severity Hu et al., 2010 Generalized logit model No No No findings on crossing controls
NURail2013-UTK-R06%20Final%20Report.docx