TY  - JOUR
PY  - 1987//
TI  - Comparison of formulae for predicting rail-highway crossing hazards (abridgment) (discussion and closure)
JO  - Transportation research record
A1  - Faghri, Ardeshir
A1  - Demetsky, Michael J.
SP  - 152
EP  - 155
VL  - 1114
IS  - 
N2  - The need for improvement at a rail-highway crossing typically is based on the expected accident rate (EAR) in conjunction with other criteria carrying lesser weight. In recent years new models for assessing the need for improvements have been developed, and in the research reported here, five such models selected from a list established from a literature review and a user survey were evaluated. The selected models--the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Peabody-Dimmick, NCHRP Report 50, Coleman-Stewart, and New Hampshire--were evaluated using a data base maintained by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. In addition, the performance of the methods for predicting the EAR were compared by using the chi-square test and the power factor. The results indicated that the DOT formula outperformed the other four methods in both the evaluative and comparative analyses, and thus was recommended for use. The priority list produced by this formula is only one criterion used in determining the need to improve conditions at any crossing. This information must be supplemented by regular site inspections and other qualitative issues that cannot be feasibly incorporated into a mathematical formula.    Record URL:   http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1987/1114/1114-016.pdf<p /> <p>Language: en</p>
LA  - en
SN  - 0361-1981
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/
ID  - ref1
ER  -