Criteria for Assessing the Safety and Functionality of Tram Stops
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Stage 1: Definition of the main problem and identification of the analysis (evaluation) criteria.
- Step 2: Determining the weights for the various criteria of the analysis.
- Stage 3: Assessment of individual criteria for the analyzed alternatives.
- Step 4: Assessing the alternatives according to the weighting of each criterion.
- Assessment of the elements and selected parameters of the stop infrastructure in terms of their impact on the safety and functionality of stops.
- Assessment of the inter-relationship between safety and functionality criteria when analyzing individual factors.
- Selection of criteria for assessing the safety and functionality of tram stops based on a literature review.
- Conducting direct interviews among experts aimed to determine the impact of selected elements of stops on their safety and functionality.
- Analysis, interpretation, and classification of the obtained results following the proposed grouping criteria.
2. Literature Review
- Frequency of buses and trams stopping;
- Number of driving lanes;
- Number of pedestrians, cyclists, or passengers using or passing the bus/tram stop;
- Cycle lane or path and position relative to bus/tram stop;
- Pedestrian crossing nearby (with or without signals);
- Number of bus/tram stops along the stretch of road;
- Pavement or pedestrian islands;
- Lamp posts or surrounding lighting conditions;
- Season, weather, and driving conditions;
- Location relative to junctions and side roads;
- Road curvature and sighting possibilities;
- The number of parked cars.
3. Research Methods
- Adjusting the platform width to the passenger flow.
- Adjusting the platform length to the serviced tram.
- Raising the platform to a height adapted to the serviced tram.
- Presence of a stop shelter.
- Presence of the lighting of the stop shelter.
- Lighting of the entire stop zone.
- Presence of a detectable warning lane along the entire edge of the platform.
- Presence of a guidance path for the blind.
- Presence of a waiting place for people with disabilities.
- Presence of a bench in the stop area.
- Presence of trees in the stop area.
- Presence of greenery in the pots in the stop area.
- Direct vicinity of a bicycle path without its fencing.
- Direct vicinity of a bicycle path with a fence.
- Sharing the stop area with the pavement.
- Sharing the stop area with the pedestrian and bicycle path.
- The stop area is fenced off with a barrier.
- Separating the stop from the pedestrian route using a different surface type.
- Separating the stop from the pedestrian route by painting a line.
- Separating the stop from the bicycle path by using a different type of surface.
- Separating the stop from the bicycle path by painting a line.
- Presence of the passenger information board in the stop area.
- Presence of service point in the stop area. Adjusting the platform width to the passenger flow.
- Reduced safety or functionality—Ls, Lf, Lsf.
- No impact/negligible impact on safety or functionality—Ns, Nf, Nsf.
- Improved safety and/or functionality—Hs, Hf, Hsf.
4. Results
- X—factor numbers as specified in the previous part of the article;
- S: 1.22—the value of the average factor impact score on safety (in this case, 1.22);
- F: 0.12—the value of the average factor effect on functionality (in this case, 0.12).
- Presence of a detectable warning lane along the entire edge of the platform (7; S: 1.44; F: 0.81);
- The stop area is fenced off with a barrier (17; S: 1.15; F: 0.12).
- Presence of a stop shelter (4; S: 0.42; F: 1.50);
- Presence of a bench in the stop area (10; S: 0.03; F: 1.32);
- Presence of the passenger information board in the stop area (22; S: –0.26; F: 1.60).
- —Response result value “i”;
- —Mean value of all scores;
- —Number of responses provided.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sierra-Varela, L.A.; Yepes, V.; Pellicer, E. A Review of Multi-Criteria Assessment of the Social Sustainability of Infrastructures. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 187, 496–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jato-Espino, D.; Castillo-Lopez, E.; Rodriguez-Hernandez, J.; Canteras-Jordana, J.C. A review of application of multi-criteria decision-making methods in construction. Autom. Constr. 2014, 45, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Penadés-Plà, V.; García-Segura, T.; Martí, J.V.; Yepes, V. A Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods Applied to the Sustainable Bridge Design. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zamarron-Mieza, I.; Yepes, V.; Moreno-Jimenez, J.M. A systematic review of application of multicriteria decision analysis for aging-dam management. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bueno, P.C.; Vassallo, J.M.; Cheung, K. Sustainability Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Projects: A Review of Existing Tools and Methods. Transp. Rev. 2015, 35, 622–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Corazza, M.V.; Favaretto, N. A Methodology to Evaluate Accessibility to Bus Stops as a Contribution to Improve Sustainability in Urban Mobility. Sustainability 2019, 11, 803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Szmagliński, J.; Grulkowski, S.; Birr, K. Identyfication of safety hazards and their sources in tram transport. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 231, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bauer, M.; Dźwigoń, W. Study method for pedestrian behaviour in the area of pedestrian crossings located at tram stops. MATEC Web Conf. 2017, 122i, 01001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guerrieri, M. Tramways in Urban Areas: An Overview on Safety at Road Intersections. Urban Rail Transit 2018, 4, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hedelin, A.; Bjornstig, U.; Brismar, B. Trams—A Risk Factor for Pedestrians. Accid. Anal. Prev. 1996, 28, 733–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marti, C.M.; Kupferschmid, J.; Schwertner, M. Tram Safety in Mixed Traffic. Best Practices from Switzerland. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2016, 2540, 125–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bujak, N.; Grulkowski, S.; Zariczny, J. Safety issues in the designing and constructing the tramway infrastructure. Arch. Inst. Civ. Eng. 2017, 25, 87–105. [Google Scholar]
- Currie, G.; Reynolds, J. Vehicle and Pedestrian Safety at Light Rail Stops in Mixed Traffic. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2010, 2146, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Currie, G.; Tivendale, K.; Scott, R. Analysis and Mitigation of Safety Issues at Curbside Tram Stops. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2011, 2219, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Currie, G.; Shalaby, A. Success and challenges in modernizing streetcar systems: Experiences in Melbourne, Australia and Toronto, Canada. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2006, 2006, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baier, R.; Benthaus, D.; Klemps, A. Potenziale zur Verringerung des Unfallgeschehens an Haltestellen des ÖPNV/ÖPSV. Bremerhav. Wirtsch. NW. 2007. Available online: https://opus4.hbz-nrw.de/opus45-bast/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/166/file/M190.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2022).
- Unger, R.; Eder, C.; Mayr, J.M. Child pedestrian injuries at tram and bus stops. Inj. Int. J. Care Inj. 2002, 33, 485–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brändli, H.; Kobi, R. Sicherheit an Bus- und Tramhaltestellen; ETH Zürich: Zürich, Switzerland, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Tubis, A.; Rydlewski, M.; Budzyński, M. Safety assessment of tram stops. J. KONBiN 2019, 49, 431–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Naznin, F.; Currie, G.; Logan, D. Safety impacts of platform tram stops on pedestrians in mixed traffic operation: A comparison group before–after crash study. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 86, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szaumkessel, D.; Winiewicz, M.; Dahlke, G. The criteria of assessment and design of the tram stops. Logistyka 2014, 4, 1282–1294. [Google Scholar]
- Dźwigoń, W. Warunki wymiany pasażerów na przystankach tramwajowych. Przegląd Komun. 2012, 1, 20–25. [Google Scholar]
- Makuch, J. Projektowanie Przystanków Tramwajowych dla Bezpieczeństwa i Wygody Pasażerów. Conference “Railway Tracks”. 1999. Available online: file:///C:/Users/MDPI/Downloads/Natalia_Bujak_Slawomir_Grulkowski_Jerzy_Zariczny_Aspekty_bezpieczenstwa_w_projektowaniu_i_budowie_infrastruktury_tramwajowej-1.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2022).
- Ou, D.; Yang, Y.; Yan, H. Analysis of tram conflict risk with pedestrian at the intersection based on ATA. In Proceedings of the 2016 Prognostics and System Health Management Conference, Chengdu, China, 19–21 October 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kruszyna, M.; Rychlewski, J. Influence of approaching tram on behaviour of pedestrians in signalised crosswalks in Poland. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013, 55, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bernhoft, I.M.; Carstensen, G. Preferences and behaviour of pedestrians and cyclists by age and gender. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2008, 11, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Deng, W.; Wang, J. Modelling pedestrians’ road crossing behaviour in traffic system micro-simulation in China. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2006, 40, 280–290. [Google Scholar]
- Yagil, D. Beliefs, motives and situational factors related to pedestrians’ selfreported behavior at signal-controlled crossings. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2000, 3, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tubis, A.A.; Skupień, E.T.; Rydlewski, M. Method of Assessing Bus Stops Safety Based on Three Groups of Criteria. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, R.O.; Hagen, O.H.; Berge, S.H. Bus stop design and traffic safety: An explorative analysis. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2021, 153, 105917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goh, K.C.K.; Currie, G.; Sarvi, M.; Logan, D. Bus accident analysis of routes with/without bus priority. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 65, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palus, W.; Husarek, P. Analiza funkcjonowania węzłów przesiadkowych w transporcie zbiorowym. Transp. Miej. I Reg. 2015, 11, 2–8. [Google Scholar]
- Olszewski, P.; Kurkowska, H.; Krukowski, P. Metodyka oceny wskaźnikowej węzłów przesiadkowych transportu publicznego. Transp. Miej. I Reg. 2014, 6, 4–9. [Google Scholar]
- Podciborski, T. A Method for Evaluating Tram Stops Based on Passenger Expectations and the Needs of Disabled Persons. In Environmental Engineering, Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Engineering, Vilnius, Lithuania, 27–28 April 2017; ICEE: La Vergne, TN, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Solecka, K.; Nosal Hoy, K.; Deryło, A. Assessment of transport interchanges for the needs of people with reduced mobility. Travel Behav. Soc. 2020, 21, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Askerud, C.; Wall, S. Evaluation of Bus Terminals Using Microscopic Traffic Simulation; Linköping University: Linköping, Sweden, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bryniarska, Z.; Żakowska, L. Multi-criteria evaluation of public transport interchanges. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 24, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kołodziejczyk, K. Funkcjonalność przystanków linii Tramwaju Plus we Wrocławiu. Transp. Miej. I Reg. 2012, 9, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
- Tubis, A.; Rydlewski, M.; Budzyński, M. Safety and Functionality Assessment of Tram Loops in Wrocław. JKONBiN 2021, 51, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, Y.; Li, W.; Wei, S.; Zhang, T. Research on Passenger’s Travel Mode Choice Behavior Waiting at Bus Station Based on SEM-Logit Integration Model. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Soczówka, P.; Żochowska, R. Interactions between tram passengers and road vehicles at tram stops—A pilot study”. Trans. Transp. Sci. 2020, 11, 64–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Analyzed Element | Element Structure | Estimated Deviation |
---|---|---|
Safety criterion | ||
Presence of guidance path for the blind | (8; S: 1.61; F: 1.16) | 0.52 |
Adjusting the platform width to the passenger flow | (1; S: 1.45; F: 1.63) | 0.59 |
The lighting of the entire stop zone | (6; S: 1.50; F: 1.27) | 0.59 |
Presence of a detectable warning lane along the entire edge of the platform | (7; S 1.44; F: 0.81) | 0.59 |
Functionality criterion | ||
Adjusting the platform width to the passenger flow | (1; S: 1.45; F: 1.63) | 0.49 |
Adjusting the platform length to the serviced tram | (2; S: 1.34; F: 1.63) | 0.52 |
Presence of the lighting of the stop shelter | (5; S: 1.21; F: 1.31) | 0.64 |
Presence of the passenger information board in the stop area | (22; S: −0.50; F: 1.60) | 0.65 |
Analyzed Element | Element Structure | Estimated Deviation |
---|---|---|
Safety criterion | ||
Sharing the stop area with the pedestrian and bicycle path | (16; S: −0.85; F: −0.79) | 1.13 |
Direct vicinity of a bicycle path without its fencing | (13; S: −1.06; F: −0.60) | 0.99 |
Presence of the passenger information board in the stop area | (22; S: −0.26; F: 1.60) | 0.97 |
Separating the stop from the bicycle path by using different type of surface | (20; S: 0.32; F: 0.13) | 0.94 |
Separating the stop from the bicycle path by painting a line | (21; S: 0.11; F: −0.02) | 0.94 |
Presence of a stop shelter | (4; S: 0.42; F: 1.50) | 0.92 |
Analyzed Element | Element Structure | Estimated Deviation |
---|---|---|
Functionality Criterion | ||
Presence of the service point in the stop area | (23; S: −0.50; F: 0.55) | 1.20 |
Presence of trees in the stop area | (11; S: −0.82; F: −0.42) | 1.19 |
The stop area is fenced off with a barrier | (17; S: 1.15; F: 0.15) | 1.05 |
Presence of greenery in the pots in the stop area | (12; S: −0.45; F: −0.10) | 1.02 |
Sharing the stop area with the pavement | (15; S: −0.24; F: −0.29) | 1.01 |
Safety | Functionality | |
---|---|---|
Factors that influence reduced safety or functionality | Ls Presence of trees in the stop area (11; S: −0.82; F: −0.42) Presence of greenery in the pots in the stop area (12; S: −0.45; F: −0.10) Presence of the service point in the stop area (23; S: −0.50; F: 0.55) | Lf − |
Lsf Direct vicinity of a bicycle path without its fencing (13; S: −1.06; F: −0.60) Sharing the stop area with the pedestrian and bicycle path (16; S: −0.85; F: −0.79) | ||
Factors with neutral influence | Ns Presence of a bench in the stop area (10; S: 0.03; F: 1.32) Separating the stop from the pedestrian route by painting a line (19; S: 0.23; F: 0.13) | Nf Presence of greenery in the pots in the stop area (12; S: −0.45; F: −0.10) The stop area is fenced off with a barrier (17; S: 1.15; F: 0.12) |
Nsf Direct vicinity of a bicycle path with a fence (14; S: 0.10; F: 0.03) Sharing the stop area with the pavement (15; S: −0.24; F: −0.29) Separating the stop from the bicycle path by painting a line (21; S: 0,11; F: −0.02) | ||
Factors that influence improved safety and/or functionality | Hs Presence of a detectable warning lane along the entire edge of the platform (7; S: 1.44; F: 0.81) The stop area is fenced off with a barrier (17; S: 1.15; F: 0.12) | Hf Presence of a bench in the stop area (10; S: 0.03; F: 1.32) |
Hsf Adjusting of the platform width to the passenger flow (1; S: 1.45; F: 1.63) Adjusting of the platform length to the serviced tram (2; S: 1.34; F: 1.63) Raising the platform to a height adapted to the serviced tram (3; S: 1.27; F: 1.56) Presence of lighting of the stop shelter (5; S: 1.21; F: 1.31) Lighting of the entire stop zone (6; S: 1.50; F: 1.27) Presence of guidance path for the blind (8; S: 1.61; F: 1.16) Presence of a waiting place for people with disabilities (9; S: 1.05; F: 1.00) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rydlewski, M.; Tubis, A.A. Criteria for Assessing the Safety and Functionality of Tram Stops. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013162
Rydlewski M, Tubis AA. Criteria for Assessing the Safety and Functionality of Tram Stops. Sustainability. 2022; 14(20):13162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013162
Chicago/Turabian StyleRydlewski, Mateusz, and Agnieszka A. Tubis. 2022. "Criteria for Assessing the Safety and Functionality of Tram Stops" Sustainability 14, no. 20: 13162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013162