Table 7. Illustrative Example Integrating Changes in Crash Rates and Injury Severity Gates + Crossing Flashing lights Flashing controls + lights + Bells (Elvik CMF and Vaa 0.55 2004) 0.162 CMFSEV Number Number of crashes for crashes reduced Number of crash injury reduced with crashes before distribution modified of gates injury of gates for severity injury severity) Number of 100 55 55 Crashes 36.87% 36.87% 30.90% PInj Number of 36.87 20.28 16.99 Injury Number of 63.13 34.72 38.01 Crashes PDO Expected (CMF × N) × PInj × (1 CMFSEV) – Crashes Number of Injury Expected (CMF × N) (CMF × N) × PInj × (1 – – Number of CMFSEV) PDO Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for Estimating Associations of Crossing Controls with Injury Severity PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS GENERATED BY THIS NURAIL PROJECT Wang, X., Liu, J., Khattak, A. J., & Clarke, D. (2016). Non-crossing rail-trespassing crashes in the past decade: A spatial approach to analyzing injury severity. Safety
Table 7. Illustrative Example Integrating Changes in Crash Rates and Injury Severity Crossing controls Flashing lights + Gates + Flashing lights + Bells CMF (Elvik and Vaa 2004) 0.55 CMFSEV 0.162 for crash injury distribution Number of crashes before of gates Number of crashes reduced of gates for injury severity) Number crashes reduced with modified injury severity Number of Crashes 100 55 55 PInj 36.87% 36.87% 30.90% Number of Injury Crashes 36.87 20.28 16.99 Number of PDO Crashes 63.13 34.72 38.01 Expected Number of Injury (CMF × N) × PInj × (1 – CMFSEV) Expected Number of PDO (CMF × N) – (CMF × N) × PInj × (1 – CMFSEV) Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for Estimating Associations of Crossing Controls with Injury Severity PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS GENERATED BY THIS NURAIL PROJECT Wang, X., Liu, J., Khattak, A. J., & Clarke, D. (2016). Non-crossing rail-trespassing crashes in the past decade: A spatial approach to analyzing injury severity. Safety
NURail2013-UTK-R06%20Final%20Report.docx