臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：鐵路平交道交通事件因子與改善對策之研究
作者：林治平
作者(外文)：Jhy-PyngLin
校院名稱：國立成功大學
系所名稱：交通管理科學系
指導教授：胡守任
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2015
主題關鍵詞：鐵路平交道；列車到達時間；自動遮斷桿；交通事故頻率；撞斷遮斷桿；類別迴歸分析；邏輯斯迴歸；大型車；風險評估；Highway-rail grade crossing；Time to train arrival (TTA)；Auto-barrier gate；Crash frequency；Gate-breaking；Classification regression analysis；Logistic regression；Heavy vehicle Risk assessmen
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:0
鐵路平交道事故往往造成高死亡率，而且容易造成列車嚴重延誤。依據交通部臺灣鐵路管理局(以下簡稱：臺鐵)的統計資料顯示，每一平交道事故之平均死亡率約37%、所造成之總列車延誤則達320分鐘之久；另一方面，在2006年以前，臺鐵尚未在平交道裝置監視錄影器，每年平均被公路車輛撞斷之平交道自動遮斷桿高達3000支以上，其中以大型車所撞斷之比率最高，而大型車往往是造成重大傷亡事故之主因。因此，如何防範平交道事故，一直是鐵路部門重要的議題之一。
針對上述課題，本研究分別建立平交道事故原因與防範對策之分析模型，據以探討影響交通事故與撞斷遮斷桿之因素，以瞭解造成平交道交通事故之可能原因與對應的改善方法。首先以類別迴歸模型(Classification Regression Model)闡述事故率(CCY)與火車到達時間(TTA)之關係，TTA乃是將過去研究所使用之視距(Sight Distance)轉換成時間因子，本研究除驗證了愈短TTA之平交道，是愈容易發生交通事故，亦將CCY-TTA回歸曲線引入關聯表中分析進而瞭解平交道類別與撞擊事故特性之關係。因撞斷遮斷桿事件率(BCY)較高之平交道，也容易發生交通事故，另應用邏輯斯迴歸模型(Logistic Regression Model)，分別針對三種車輛所造成的不同遮斷桿事件型態之探討，也證明大型車輛最容易卡在平交道並撞斷遮斷桿。因此，本研究利用三級階層模型(Three-layer Hierarchical Model)分析大型車行經某些同時具有一個以上高危險因子之平交道，是否具有更高之交通事故率及撞斷遮斷桿事件率。另外，本研究應用交通事故率及事件率降低模型(Crash and Gate-breaking Reduction Models)探討三種先進設備(包括：監視攝影機、列車方向指示器，以及障礙物偵測器)對於降低個別平交道之事故率與綜合改善之效果，分析結果發現安裝兩個先進設備以上之平交道事故改善之邊際效果是十分有限。最後，本研究利用風險評估方法中之加總模型(Additive Scores Model)及乘方模型(Multiplicative Scores Model)，個別探討平交道之不同時期之總風險與平均風險值，進而比較改善措施(Countermeasures)前後之效果，以作為臺鐵將來改善平交道風險之參考。
In Taiwan, over one-third of the crashes occurring at highway-rail grade crossings (HRGXs) are fatal and result in serious train delays. In addition, more than 3,000 auto-barrier gates were broken by highway vehicles every year before 2006. It is therefore a critical issue for the Taiwan Railways Administration (TRA) to eliminate traffic collisions at HRGXs. This research develops several integrated models to explore the causal relationships between crash frequency/ gate-breaking frequency and specific risk factors, as well as to investigate the effects of respective countermeasures on preventing HRGX incidents. Especially sight distance of locomotive engineer (train driver) is the first time to be converted into time factor (TTA) for the HRGX crash analysis. A classification regression model was employed to investigate the causal relationship between time to train arrival (TTA) and crash frequency. Also HRGX with a shorter TTA is validated having significantly associated with higher crash rate. The CCY-TTA regression equations are successfully functional to explore collision trend in the conjunction table which is paired by HRGX attributes and crash characteristics. Meanwhile HRGX with a higher gate breaking frequency is likely to have higher traffic collision frequency. The logistic regression models were developed for the analysis of gate-breaking frequencies in which three highway vehicle modes were analyzed under three gate breaking types. Every mode shows various consequences of gate-breaking frequency by different HRGX attributes. Especially heavy vehicles conducting half of gate-breaking incidents are easier to break the gates at the HRGX near intersection than that near station. In addition, a three-layer hierarchical model toward incidents related to heavy vehicles was developed to identify the key factors and combination of the factors that best explain crash and gate-breaking frequency. Further, the before-and-after effects of three control and warning devices, including law-enforcement camera and video, LED train approaching indicator, and obstacle detector, on the reduction of crash/gate-breaking rates were evaluated. The pure and interaction effects of these three advanced devices on improving the safety levels of HRGXs were analyzed. As a result the small marginal effectiveness of combined two and three advanced devices means that an over-investment was at some HRGXs in Taiwan. Finally, a risk assessment conducted by assigning the methodology of the risk evaluation process is carried out in order to analyze the total risk and average risk levels for an HRGX. By comparing before and after existing countermeasures in different periods, the results in terms of risk evaluation of an HRGX would therefore be beneficial to the TRA to reduce HRGX crashes and gate-breaking incidents.
A
Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty, 2014. Safety and Shipping Review, An Annual Review of Trends and Developments in Shipping Losses and Safety.

Anandarao, S. and C. D. Martland, 1998. Level crossing safety on East Japan Railway Company: Application of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Techniques, Transportation, 25 265-286.
Austin, R. D. and J. L. Carson, 2002. An Alternative Accident Prediction Model for Highway-Rail Interfaces, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 34, No. 1, 31-42.
Ayyub, B. M., 2003. Risk Analysis in Engineering and Economics, Chapman ＆ Hall/CRC, New York.
B
Benekohal, R. F. and J. C. Medina, 2006. Analysis of Drivers’ Opinions on Effectiveness of Traffic and In-Vehicle Receiver Control Devices at Rail-Highway Crossings, Proceedings of the 85th TRB Annual Meeting, CD-ROM, Washington, D.C.
Berg, W. D., K. Knoblauch and W. Hucke, 1982. Causal Factors in Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Accidents. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 847, 47-54.
C
Carlson, P. and K. Fitzpatrick, 1999. Violations at Gated Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Journal of the Transportation Research Board: Transportation Research Record, 1692: 66-73, No. 00-0259.
Chang, Y. H., J. H. Chen and P. C. Shao, 2014. Performance Evaluation on Airport Safety Management System in Taiwan, Safety Science (DOI: 10.106/jissci. 2014.12.006)
Cho, H., and L. R. Rilett, 2007. Improved Transition Preemption Strategy for Signalized Intersections Near At-Grade Railway Grade Crossing, Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 133, No. 8, 443-454.
Coleman, F. and K. Venkataraman, 2001. Driver Behavior at Vehicle Arresting Barriers: Compliance and Violations during the First Year at the McLean Site. Journal of the Transportation Research Board: Transportation Research Record, Record, 1754: 68-76, No. 01-0572.
Courage, K., and B. Kirkpatrick, 2003. Video Based Studies of Highway-rail Grade Crossings in the South Florida Railroad Corridor, The University of Florida Transportation Research Center, Final Report, UFTRC 891-3.
Curtis, P. and M. Carey, 2012, Risk Assessment in Practice, Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
D
DaSilva, M. P. and W. Baron, 2007. State-of-the-Art Technologies for Intrusion and Obstacle Detection for Railroad Operations, Technical Report, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, RITA, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Davey, J., A., N. S. Wallace and J. Freeman, 2008. The Experiences and Perception of Heavy Vehicle Drivers and Train Drivers of Dangers at Railway Level Crossings, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 40, 1217-1222.
Davey J., N. Ibrahim and A. Wallace, 2005. Motorist Behaviour at Railway Level Crossings: An Exploratory Study of Train Driver Experience.
Davey, J., A. Wallace, N. Stenson and J. Freeman, 2008. The Experiences and Perception of Heavy Vehicle Drivers and Train Drivers of Dangers at Railway Level Crossings, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 40, 1217-1222.
Davies, L., 2006. Annual Safety Performance Report, Rail Safety and Standards Board, London, U. K,.
Davies, L., 2007. Annual Safety Performance Report, Rail Safety and Standards Board, London, U. K,.

Davey, J., D. Wishart, J. Freeman, and B. Watson, 2007. An Application of the Driver Behavior Questionnaire in an Australian Organizational Fleet Setting, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 10, No. 1, 11-21.
Department of the Army, 2007. Mishap Risk Management, Pamphlet 385–30
Department of Statistics, 2007. Analysis of Traffic Accidents for the Taiwan Railway System. MOTC, Taiwan.
F
Farnham, W. L., 2000. Guarded Crossings: An In-depth Analysis of the Most Effective Railroad Crossing Protection.
Federal Highway Administration, 2002. Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Technical Working Group (TWG), November.
Federal Highway Administration, 2000. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Millennium Edition, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D. C., U.S.A.
Federal Railroad Administration, North Carolina “Sealed Corridor Phase I, Executive Summary and Treatment Techniques, Report to Congress, U.S. Department of Transportation.
G
Gil, M., J. Multer and M. Yeh, 2007. Effects of Active Warning Reliability on Motorist Compliance at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Gitelman, V., and A. S. Hakkert, 1997. The Evaluation of Road-rail Crossing Safety with Limited Accident Statistics. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 29, No. 2, 171-179.
Gou, M., and O. Bellavigna-Ladoux, 2003. Impact of Heavy Vehicles on Grade Crossing Safety – Conceptualization of a Design Tool, Working Paper.
H
Hu, S. R., C. S. Li and C. K. Lee, 2010. Investigation of Key Factors for Accident Severity at Railroad Grade Crossings by Using a Logit Model, Safety Science, 48, 186-194.
Hu, S. R. and J. P. Lin, 2012. Effect of train arrival time on crash frequency at highway-rail grade crossings: General classification regression model. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2298, 61-69.
Hu, S. R. and J. P. Lin, 2013. Effects of Three Advanced Devices on Preventing Crashes and Gate-Breaking Incidents at Highway–Rail Grade Crossings, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2384, 109-117.
Hu, S. R., J. P. Lin and C. K. Lee, 2013. Exploring Risk Factors of Crash and Gate Breaking Frequency of Heavy Vehicle at Highway-railroad Grade Crossings Using a Three-Layer Hierarchical Approach, Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 9.
I
International Atomic Energy Agency, 2001. Severity, Probability and Risk of Accidents during Maritime Transport of Radioactive Material, IAEA-TECDOC-1231.
International Civil Aviation Organization, 2008. Aviation Occurrence Categories
Definitions and Usage Notes. ICAO, Montreal, pp. 118.
International Civil Aviation Organization, 2009. Safety Management Manual. Doc
9859-AN/474, Seconded. ICAO, Montreal.
J
Jarrett R. and M. Westcott, 2010. Quantitative Risk, Australia National University Library Press.
Jensen, S. U., 2007. Passive Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings: Relevant Factors and Effects of Safety Measures, Technical Report, Trafitec, Denmark.
K

Karmperis Athanasios C., Anastasios Sotirchos, Ilias Tatsiopoulos and Konstantinos Aravossis, 2014. Risk Assessment Techniques as Decision Support Tools for Military Operations. Journal of Computations ＆ Modelling, Vol.4, No.1, 67-81
Khattak, A. J. and G. A. McKnight, 2008. Gate Rushing at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.2056, 104-108.
Khattak, A. J., 2009. Comparison of Driver Behavior at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings in Two Cities. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2122, 72-77.
L
Lord, D., S. P. Washington and J. N. Ivan, 2005. Poisson, Poisson-Gamma and Zero-Inflated Regression Models of Motor Vehicle Crashes: Balancing Statistical Fit and Theory. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 37, No. 1, 35-46.
Lord, D., S. P. Washington, and J. N. Ivan, 207. Further Notes on the Application of Zero-Inflated Models in Highway Safety. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 39, No. 1, 53-57.
Lord, D. and F. Mannering, 2010. The Statistical Analysis of Crash-Frequency Data: A Review and Assessment of Methodological Alternatives. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 44, No. 5, 291-305.
M
McKnight, G. A. and A. J. Khattak, 2007 Centerline Curbing Treatment at Railroad Crossings for Improved Safety, Proceedings of the 2007 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, Ames, Iowa.
Millegan, H., X. Yan, S. Richards and L. Han, 2009. Evaluation of Effectiveness of Stop Sign Treatments at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2122, 78-85.
Mineta, N., 2004. Secretary’s Action Plan on Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Miranda-Moreno, L. F., L. Fu, F. F. Saccomanno and A. Labbe, 2005. Alternative Risk Models for Ranking Locations for Safety Improvement. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1908, 1-8.
Molenaar, K. R., D. B. Ashley and J. E. Diekmann, 2006. Risk Assessment and Allocation for Highway Construction Management, Guide to Risk Assessment and Allocation for Highway Construction Management.
N
Nam, D. and J. Lee, 2006. Accident Frequency Model Using Zero Probability Process. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1973, 142-148.
O
Ogden, B. D., 2007. Krove Engineering and DMJM. Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook. Revised 2nd edition, DTFH61-00-C-0003, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
P
Park, P. Y. J., 2007. Estimating Effectiveness of Countermeasures Based on Multiple Sources: Application to Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, Dissertation, Doctor of Philosophy, University of Waterloo, Canada.
Perry, P. and P. Simon, 2000. Project Risk Analysis and Management, Association of Project Managers (APM).

Pickering A., Stephen P Cowley, 2010. Risk Matrices: Implied Accuracy and False Assumptions Journal of Health ＆ Safety Research ＆ Practice Volume 2 Issue 1.
Ferguson R. W., 2004, A Project Risk Metric, The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University

S
Saccomanno, F. F., L. Fu and L. F. Miranda-Moreno, 2004. Risk-Based Model for Identifying High-Rail Grade Crossing Black Spots. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1862, 127-135.
Saccomanno, F. F., R. Grossi, D. Greco and A. Mehmood, 2001. Identifying Black Spots along Highway SS107 in Southern Italy Using Two Models. Journal of Transportation Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineering, 515-522.
Savage, I., 2006. Does Public Education Improve Rail-Highway Crossing Safety? Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 38, No. 1, 234-247.
Savage, I., 2006. Does Public Education Improve Rail-Highway Crossing Safety? Accident Analysis and Prevention 38(2), 310-316.
Segal, S. 2008. Risk Identification: A Critical First Step in Enterprise Risk Management, Risk Management, Issue No. 13.
Shao, P. C., Y. H. Chang and H. J. Chen, 2013. Analysis of an Aircraft Accident Model in Taiwan. Journal of Air Transport Management, 27(2013) 34-38.
Smith, A., 2006. Level Crossing Safety Performance Report, Rail Safety and Standards Board, London, U.K.
Spicer, T., 2010. Using Legislation as a Means of Improving Shared Responsibility at Railway Level Crossings and the Status of Level Crossing Safety Management Countermeasures in Victoria, Australia, proceedings of the 11th World Level Crossing Symposium, Tokyo, Japan.
Summers A. E. and W. H. Hearn, 2012. Risk Criteria, Protection Layers, and Conditional Modifiers, 2012 Process Safety Progress, Vol. 31, Issue 2, Pages 139–144.
T
Taiwan Railways Administration, 2011. Annual Railroad Safety Report in Taiwan. TRA, MOTC, Taiwan.
Taiwan Railways Administration, 2012. Annual Railroad Safety Report in Taiwan Area, TRA, MOTC, Taiwan.
Taiwan Railways Administration, 2013. Annual Railroad Safety Report in Taiwan Area, TRA, MOTC, Taiwan.
Tey, L. S. and L. Ferreira, 2010. Driver Compliance at Railway Level Crossings, Proceedings of the Australian Transport Research Forum, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Tanesaka, S., 2010. Efforts to Reduce Broken Crossing Bars, Railway and Electrical Engineering, Vol. 21, No. 8, 30-35.
Takeichi, S., 2010. Efforts to Prevent Accidents and Mitigate Train Operation Disturbances at Level Crossings, Proceedings of the 11th World Level Crossing Symposium, Tokyo, Japan.
Y
Yan, X., S. Richards and X. Su, 2010. Using Hierarchical Tree-Based Regression Model to Analyze and Predict Crash Risk at Passive Rail-Highway Grade Crossings. Accident Analysis ＆ Prevention, Vol. 42, Issue 1, January, 64-74.


 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：625（臺灣：624，外國：1） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2581353 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68378928
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上