IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v122y2022icp64-76.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of user perception to define level of service criteria of rail road grade crossing: An exploratory statistical approach

Author

Listed:
  • Vivek, Adheesh Kumar
  • Mohapatra, Smruti Sourava
  • Jena, Suprava

Abstract

Acquiring a clear insight into road users' perception of level of service (LOS) at rail road grade crossings (RRGCs) can be beneficial for the development of strategies for creating a safe and comfortable commuting environment for road users. This study examines road users' (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorized two-wheelers, motorized three-wheelers, cars, and commercial vehicles) perceptions and elicits the impact of LOS on the identified factors. In this context, initially, a pilot survey was carried out at RRGCs, but road users’ low participation response rate reflected the infeasibility of conducting the survey at RRGCs. Therefore, an extensive survey was conducted in the residential areas, shopping areas, and fuel stations in the vicinity of 21 RRGCs from nine different Indian states, and 7588 responses were collected. First, importance-satisfaction (IS) analysis is carried out to figure out the most important and satisfying factors perceived by road users. The results of the IS analysis reveal that out of the total considered variables, seven variables, namely gate blockage time before the train arrives (BBT), followed by crossing surface quality (CSQ), lateral visibility (LV), road width (RW), gate blockage time after the train departs (BAT), presence of heavy vehicles (PHV), and road marking and warning signs (MWS), are in need of immediate improvement. Subsequently, an ordered probit model is developed to examine the influence of factors over perceived LOS. The ordered probit model results demonstrate that LOS at RRGCs deteriorates with an increase in perception-related factors like BBT, time taken by train to cross the RRGC (TCT), BAT, distance between the gates (DBG), PHV, and presence of pedestrians (PP). On the other hand, RW, CSQ, LV, MWS, and aesthetics (AES) positively impact perceived LOS, signifying that increasing these variables improves perceived LOS. Moreover, age, trip type, trip duration, and trip frequency are among the socio-demographic and trip-related characteristics that have been found to have a considerable impact on perceived LOS. Hence, our research presents the policy tools that planners and policymakers could utilize to enhance the operational performance of RRGCs.

Suggested Citation

  • Vivek, Adheesh Kumar & Mohapatra, Smruti Sourava & Jena, Suprava, 2022. "Evaluation of user perception to define level of service criteria of rail road grade crossing: An exploratory statistical approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 64-76.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:122:y:2022:i:c:p:64-76
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.04.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X22001020
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.04.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jensen, Mette, 1999. "Passion and heart in transport -- a sociological analysis on transport behaviour," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 19-33, January.
    2. Moon, Young J. & Coleman, Fred, 2003. "Dynamic dilemma zone based on driver behavior and car-following model at highway-rail intersections," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 323-344, May.
    3. Peñabaena-Niebles, Rita & Cantillo, Victor & Luis Moura, José, 2020. "The positive impacts of designing transition between traffic signal plans considering social cost," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 67-76.
    4. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521142373.
    5. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521194204.
    6. Jou, Rong-Chang & Kou, Cheng-Chen & Chen, Yi-Wen, 2013. "Drivers’ perception of LOSs at signalised intersections," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 141-154.
    7. Cavill, Nick & Kahlmeier, Sonja & Rutter, Harry & Racioppi, Francesca & Oja, Pekka, 2008. "Economic analyses of transport infrastructure and policies including health effects related to cycling and walking: A systematic review," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 291-304, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhu, Dianchen & Sze, N.N. & Feng, Zhongxiang & Chan, Ho-Yin, 2023. "Waiting for signalized crossing or walking to footbridge/underpass? Examining the effect of weather using stated choice experiment with panel mixed random regret minimization approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 144-169.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. William H. Greene & Mark N. Harris & Rachel J. Knott & Nigel Rice, 2021. "Specification and testing of hierarchical ordered response models with anchoring vignettes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 31-64, January.
    2. Hanna Dudek & Joanna Landmesser, 2012. "Income satisfaction and relative deprivation," Statistics in Transition new series, Główny Urząd Statystyczny (Polska), vol. 13(2), pages 321-334, June.
    3. Andrew Powell & Pilar Tavella, 2012. "Capital Inflow Surges in Emerging Economies: How Worried Should LAC Be?," Research Department Publications 4782, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    4. Chappell, Henry W. & McGregor, Rob Roy, 2018. "Committee decision-making at Sweden's Riksbank," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 120-133.
    5. Charlie Tchinda & Marcus Dejardin, 2021. "Are Business Policy Measures in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic to Be Equally Valued? An Exploration According to SMEs Owners’ Business Expectations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-42, October.
    6. Patricia Cubí‐Mollá & Mireia Jofre‐Bonet & Victoria Serra‐Sastre, 2017. "Adaptation to health states: Sick yet better off?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1826-1843, December.
    7. Ahmad Adeel & Bruno Notteboom & Ansar Yasar & Kris Scheerlinck & Jeroen Stevens, 2021. "Sustainable Streetscape and Built Environment Designs around BRT Stations: A Stated Choice Experiment Using 3D Visualizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.
    8. Jeffrey A. Edwards & Tara R. Wade & Mark L. Burkey & R. Gary Pumphrey, 2014. "Forecasting the Public's Acceptability of Municipal Water Regulation and Price Rationing for Communities on the Ogallala Aquifer," Journal of Economic Insight, Missouri Valley Economic Association, vol. 40(1), pages 1-30.
    9. Simona Iammarino & Elisabetta Marinelli & Elisabetta Marinelli, 2011. "Is the Grass Greener on the other Side of the Fence? Graduate Mobility and Job Satisfaction in Italy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(11), pages 2761-2777, November.
    10. Ermagun, Alireza & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2018. "To bid or not to bid: An empirical study of the supply determinants of crowd-shipping," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 468-483.
    11. Mohit Batham & Soudeh Mirghasemi & Mohammad Arshad Rahman & Manini Ojha, 2021. "Modeling and Analysis of Discrete Response Data: Applications to Public Opinion on Marijuana Legalization in the United States," Papers 2109.10122, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    12. Mahdi Rezapour & F. Richard Ferraro, 2021. "The impact of commuters’ psychological feelings due to delay on perceived quality of a rail transport," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.
    13. Migliardo, Carlo, 2012. "Heterogeneity in price setting behavior, spatial disparities and sectoral diversity: Evidence from a panel of Italian firms," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 1106-1118.
    14. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2023. "The rationalizability of survey responses," Economics Working Papers 1863, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    15. Evans, Keith S. & Teisl, Mario F. & Lando, Amy. M. & Liu, Sherry T., 2020. "Risk perceptions and food-handling practices in the home," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    16. William H Greene & Mark N Harris & Christopher Spencer, 2013. "Estimating the Standard Errors of Individual-Specific Parameters in Random Parameters Models," Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre Working Paper series WP1309, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School.
    17. Patricia H. Born & E. Tice Sirmans, 2019. "Regret in health insurance post‐purchase behavior," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 22(2), pages 207-219, July.
    18. Nordström, Jonas & Thunström, Linda, 2013. "The Impact of Price Reductions on Individuals' Choice of Healthy Meals Away from Home," Working Papers 2013:21, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    19. Vassilopoulos, Achilleas & Klonaris, Stathis, 2016. "Determinants of transition in artificially discrete Markov chains using microdata," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 17-20.
    20. Woo, C.K. & Ho, T. & Shiu, A. & Cheng, Y.S. & Horowitz, I. & Wang, J., 2014. "Residential outage cost estimation: Hong Kong," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 204-210.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:122:y:2022:i:c:p:64-76. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.