sustainability

Article
Proposed Methodology for the Calculation of
Overview Distances at Level Crossings and the
Inclusion Thereof in National Standards
Vladimír L’upták 1, *, Maria Stopkova 1 and Martin Jurkovič 2
1 Department of Transport and Logistics, Faculty of Technology, Institute of Technology and Business in
České Budějovice, 370 01 České Budějovice, Czechia; [email protected]
2 Department of Water Transport, Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications,
University of Žilina, Univerzitná 8215/1, 010 26 Žilina, Slovakia; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 15 May 2020; Accepted: 11 July 2020; Published: 15 July 2020


Abstract: The aim of this article is to find a rational solution for increasing the safety of level crossings
in the Czech Republic on the basis of a set of representative level crossings. The Czech Republic
was deliberately chosen because of its geographical location, the number of level crossings on the
network, and because, according to statistics from the Rail Safety Inspection Office, the country
ranks as one of the highest for the number of accidents at level crossings. The rational solution
being sought is one that achieves a balance between legislative, technical, and awareness-raising
measures. In the practical part, great emphasis is placed on the assessment of the current state of
Czech legislation. The identified discrepancies are resolved by adjusting calculations for overview
distances and proposing changes to incorrect provisions. The main contribution of this paper is
the comprehensive overview that it provides of level crossings and their safety. This overview
includes a description of the current state of affairs, i.e., the number of level crossings, their location,
classification, construction and type of equipment used, as well as an analysis of accidents and their
frequency. The latter is in relation to the proposed construction and technical solution and subsequent
assessment of the rationalisation possibilities and investments required to reconstruct or remove
existing level crossings, thereby affecting the accident rate.

Keywords: railway crossing; accident rate; legislation; overview distances; level crossing safety
equipment; warning signs; increase safety

1. Introduction
The Czech Republic covers an area of 78,863 km2 and has 9408 km of railway lines, which places
it among those European countries with the highest density of railway networks. The road network,
which stretches 1,300,000 km, is similarly dense. When taking these two factors into consideration,
it can logically be concluded that both networks combined to create a large number of level crossings.
In total, there are 7870 of them (data provided by the Railway Administration of the Czech Republic in
2019—hereinafter referred to as SŽDC), which is equivalent to 0.8 level crossings for every 1 km of
track. The safety, technical and transport solutions for this large number of level crossings form the
main focus of this work. Within this context, it is clear that every level crossing poses the risk of a road
user colliding with a railway vehicle. Unfortunately, accidents like these are not unusual and have
been occurring since the dawn of rail transport. In response, railway operators have continuously tried
to develop better and more sophisticated safety measures to prevent such accidents. These measures
include simple warning signs (e.g., “Attention train”), mechanical barriers and state-of-the-art collision
avoidance devices that utilise laser track detectors.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 5684; doi:10.3390/su12145684 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 5684 2 of 16

However, the fact remains that despite the railway operators’ best efforts, statistics show that the
number of fatal accidents at railway crossings is only declining at a very slow pace. This is despite
all sides acknowledging that the security devices used in the Czech Republic are among the most
technologically advanced and of a very high level. All level crossings must comply with ordinances
and standards, and all road users must comply with binding rules. The combination of these two
factors should virtually eliminate the risks of a collision with a train.
Within this context, however, human error must also be taken into account. This covers a plethora
of factors including lack of attention, overlooking safety warning signs and devices, as well as technical
and natural influences, such as insufficient overview and poor visibility. This is evidenced by the fact
that the majority of accidents occur at level crossings without barriers, which are equipped only with
warning crosses or light signalling devices. Between 2015 and 2018, the Railway Safety Inspection
Office recorded a total of 54 collisions at level crossings in the South Bohemia Region. Of these,
34 resulted in serious injury to those involved, and 13 in the loss of human life [1].
The aim of this article is to focus on the inconsistencies in Czech legislation and, in many
respects, the benevolent approach to this. This approach enables different interpretations of individual
provisions, even more so because of the inconsistency of existing standards and their nonbinding
nature, which in turn is a reflection of the outdated wording of the regulations. This problem is further
enhanced by the fact that other than the owner, no other authority is financially responsible for the
maintenance of level crossings. As a result, rail management authorities, in their efforts to increase safety
through the removal or closure of the most problematic and underused level crossings, often encounter
resistance from the local municipal authorities, the majority of whom argue for the creation of a barrier.
Unfortunately, this detracts from decreasing the number of level crossings, which would release more
money for the upgrade and maintenance of the riskiest and busiest traffic intersections.

2. Literature Review
The basis for this article is an analysis of legal standards and regulations in the Czech Republic,
namely the Act on Roads [2], the Act on Technical Requirements [3] and the Act on Road Traffic [4].
Similarly, standards and regulations on the design of crossroads [5], traffic management [6] and,
particularly, on the technical standards for level crossing control and safety equipment (hereinafter
referred to as CSE) [7] have also been taken into consideration. An important aspect within the
design of the case study is the road and motorway design standards [8], in synergy with the road
traffic regulations [9,10]. All these laws, decrees and standards were analysed for the purposes of
this research.
In some publications [11,12], the intrusion of vehicles onto a level crossing is approached on the
basis of detection and monitoring, whereas in others [13], it is approached in terms of warnings given
by means of ultrasound and wireless communication, in particular where it concerns level crossings in
rural areas, which is the case within our model examples. In Saunders et al. [14], the active elements
in road and level crossings are analysed. Within this context, it is important to evaluate the braking
distance, as discussed in [15]. In Widyastuti et al. [16], the authors look at a case study model of
level crossings in Blitar. The capacity of the railway infrastructure is also important, as discussed
in [17]. Capacity problems are mainly addressed by Gašparík [18] and Abramović [19,20], who point
to new approaches for identifying this important aspect of rail transport. In Addabbo et al. [21],
the safety of level crossings is studied in terms of targeted measurements and the analysis of the results.
The detection and tracking of unauthorised intrusions are dealt with in [22]. Different situations at
level crossings are analysed in [23]. An important element of this study is progressive and innovative
level crossing technologies, as discussed in [24–26].
Simulating the impact of selected national values on the braking curves of vehicles equipped with
ETCS is an integral part of, and one of the most important elements of, hazardous accidents at level
crossings [27]. The use of aerodynamic brakes on high-speed trains is analysed in [28], which is closely
related to train braking modes [29]. The calculation for braking distance is analysed and described
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5684 3 of 16

in [30]. The deceleration rate for the calculation of safe braking distance [31] and the adhesion aspects
involved in the calculation of safe braking distance [32] are preconditions for safety in emergency
situations at level crossings.
Another basis for the analysis conducted in this article is the behaviour of truck drivers [33] and
the methodology for researching the perceptions of drivers at level crossings [34]. A secondary problem
is the design of an ecological interface for the reworking of level crossings [35]. In Read et al. [36],
the authors addressed the issue of the warnings drivers are given when approaching passive level
crossings and those they are given by alarm systems when approaching automatic level crossings [37].
In Zaman et al. [38], a case study for modelling railway accidents using maps is documented. All these
sources were explored as a prerequisite for finding synergies with which to resolve the problems
surrounding level crossings.
In Stopka et al. (2015) [39], the authors addressed the quality of public passenger transport services
on the basis of the frequency and number of connections in public transport and the resulting higher
accident rate at both the regional and European levels. This study was followed up by another [40] that
sought to evaluate integrated public passenger transport on the basis of a case study and, secondarily,
in terms of the safety of integrated transport systems as a whole. Skrúcany et al. (2019) [41] assessed
the impact of the implementation of electric mobility in European countries, whereby the premise
for the reduction of the sector´s share in the production of greenhouse gases is the electrification of
regional and secondary lines. Electrification has a significant impact on the number of accidents at
level crossings, especially when vehicle height is exceeded, which is a particular problem during
seasonal work in agricultural fields when the frequency of agricultural vehicles crossing level-crossings
increases. These vehicles often collide with the overhead lines. It is also necessary to point out that
collisions at level crossings that end in tragic consequences may also be the result of breaches of traffic
safety and a lack of experience and practice among fresh drivers. These issues are looked at in depth
by Akaateba et al. (2015) [42] and Salmon et al. (2013) [43]. In both, the authors demonstrated, on the
basis of case studies, the psychological factors that influence professional drivers and recent graduates
of a driving school course.

3. Analysis of Current Methods for the Construction of Level Crossings

A crucial contributory factor to the safety of level crossings is the means by which it is secured,
the choice being determined by geographical location, which affects overview, and local conditions such
as traffic intensity. The implication of this is that it is not necessary to install costly CSE in places where
the intensity of traffic is minimal, or, to the contrary, to construct unsecured level crossings in high-risk
places. However, at important junctions, there may be a mismatch between the norm and the regulations.

• Traffic intensity—Traffic intensity is an appropriate guide for determining the significance and
choice of safety measures. The Czech technical standard 73 6380 (hereinafter referred to as
ČSN 73 6380 standard [44]) states the formula for the transport moment calculation. The formula
is based on the measurement of the number of vehicles that pass on a road per hour within ten
hours. This number of vehicles is then multiplied by the average daily intensity of train services in
both directions. The figure for the average intensity of train services is used because, in addition
to the train services that run according to the timetabled schedule, rail traffic may also be affected
by irregularities such as movements between operating control points. In the case of the complete
upgrade of a level crossing, the ČSN 73 6380 [44] standard takes into consideration a traffic flow
intensity some fifty times higher for the calculation. For the assessment of existing safety measures,
the values of level intensities and capacities, dependent on the required level of traffic quality,
are used.
• Length and width—Level crossing length is measured along the road axis. For level crossings
without barriers, it is the distance of the intersections of this axis with the boundaries of the
danger zone. For crossings with barriers, it is the distance of the intersections of this axis with
the barrier bars. The crossing width is measured along the track axis and is equal to the distance
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5684 4 of 16

of the intersections of this axis with the boundary of the free width of the road to the crossing.
Sustainability
The width2020, 12, x adjacent
of the FOR PEER REVIEW
road should be at least 30 m from the edge of the rail track on either 4 of 15 side.
The minimum crossing width must be 5 m, with exception to pedestrian- and cyclist-only crossings.
The width of the adjacent road should be at least 30 m from the edge of the rail track on either
• Free height and free space—The free height measured between the crossing road and the overhead
side. The minimum crossing width must be 5 m, with exception to pedestrian- and cyclist-only
lines is given as the free height reduced by the set safe distance from the overhead line divided
crossings.
•by traction.
Free height Theand passage space along
free space—The theheight
free entiremeasured
length and acrossthe
between thecrossing
entire width
road andof the
thelevel
crossing must comply with the provisions set out in ČSN 73 6102. The free space
overhead lines is given as the free height reduced by the set safe distance from the overhead line is then defined
divided
along by traction.
the whole lengthThe
andpassage spaceand
free width along the entire length and across the entire width of the
height.
• level layout
Spatial crossingand must comply with
connection the provisions
to the set out intoČSN
road—According the 73 6102. Theafree
standards, space is then
minimum distance
defined
of 10 m must alongbe the whole length
observed between andthefreeborder
width and height.
of the junction and the danger zone of the level
SpatialInlayout
•crossing. the caseandof
connection to the road—According
newly constructed level crossings,to the
thisstandards,
is 30 m. Nota minimum
only does distance of
the distance
10 m must be observed between the border of the junction and the danger zone
to the nearest intersection play a major role in the resulting safety of the level crossing, but the of the level
crossing.
angle In the case ofas
of the intersection newly
well.constructed
For new level levelcrossings,
crossings, the
thisrequired
is 30 m. Not only does
crossing angletheisdistance
at least 75◦ .
to the nearest intersection play a major role in the resulting safety of the level crossing, but the
For existing crossings, it is recommended that this value be achieved during the design and
angle of the intersection as well. For new level crossings, the required crossing angle is at least
implementation of the earliest upgrade. The level crossing must not ascend, arch or be in a
75°. For existing crossings, it is recommended that this value be achieved during the design and
transitional location. The longitudinal inclination of the track to the adjacent road must not
implementation of the earliest upgrade. The level crossing must not ascend, arch or be in a
exceed 3%. The lateral slope
transitional location. is then given
The longitudinal by the course
inclination of theoftrack
the track´s vertical alignment.
to the adjacent road must not
• exceed 3%. The lateral slope is then given by the course of the track´s vertical alignment.on the basis
Construction–technical implementation of level crossings—Level crossings must,
Construction–technical
•of their technical design, implementation
marking, overview of level
andcrossings—Level
implemented security crossingsmeasures,
must, on the basis the
ensure
of their
safety of alltechnical
road users, design, marking,
including overview
persons and implemented
with reduced mobility and security measures,
orientation. Theensure the
construction
safety atoflevel
of roads all road users,on
crossings including
nationalpersons with reduced
and/or regional mobility
lines must and orientation.The
be demountable. Thelevel
construction
crossing structureof roads
mustatbelevel crossings
equipped on a
with national and/or
protective regional
wedge lines must
on both sides,bethe
demountable.
superstructure
The level crossing structure must be equipped with a protective
and the trackbed must be drained, and the shape of the rail used must be the same wedge on both sides,asthe
in the
superstructure and the trackbed must be drained, and the shape of the rail used must be the
adjacent section. The construction solution and/or modifications must correspond to the road
same as in the adjacent section. The construction solution and/or modifications must correspond
traffic flows and loads, whilst ensuring the safety of the rail transport operation.
to the road traffic flows and loads, whilst ensuring the safety of the rail transport operation.
3.1. Risk Analysis at Level Crossings Using the Ishikawa Method
3.1. Risk Analysis at Level Crossings Using the Ishikawa Method
The cause-and-effect diagram is sometimes also called the Ishikawa diagram or even the
The cause-and-effect diagram is sometimes also called the Ishikawa diagram or even the
herringbone
herringbonediagram
diagram (see Figure
(see Figure1).
1).Its
Its purpose
purpose isis to
todetermine
determinethe
the most
most likely
likely cause
cause of the
of the problem
problem
we are
we are trying to solve. This quality tool is usually used within a team, where all possible, and eveneven
trying to solve. This quality tool is usually used within a team, where all possible, and
unlikely,
unlikely, causes
causes of the
of the problem
problem wewearearetrying
tryingto
to solve
solve are
are generated
generatedthrough
through brainstorming.
brainstorming.

Figure
Figure 1. 1.Risk
Riskanalysis
analysis at
at level
level crossings
crossingsusing
usingthe
theIshikawa method.
Ishikawa method.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5684 5 of 16
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15

After applying
After applying the
the methodology,
methodology, the the conclusion
conclusion waswas drawn
drawn that
that in
in addition
addition toto the
the contribution
contribution
that human factors make to the number of accidents at level crossings, the lack of coordination
that human factors make to the number of accidents at level crossings, the lack of coordination of
of
regulations and
regulations andtechnical
technicalstandards
standardsalsoalsohas
hasa agreat
great influence.
influence. These
These regulations
regulations andand standards
standards willwill
be
be subject
subject to the
to the optimisation
optimisation of the
of the calculation
calculation methods
methods used
used in the
in the construction
construction of level
of level crossings.
crossings.

3.2. Overview of
3.2. Overview of Slowest
Slowest and
and Longest
Longest Road
Road Vehicles
Vehicles
The most important factor for ensuring safety at level crossings is a standardised overview.
The most important factor for ensuring safety at level crossings is a standardised overview. The
The situation at level
situation at level crossings
crossings equipped
equipped withwith a safety
a safety device
device is much
is much easiereasier
than than at level
at level crossings
crossings with
with only a warning cross. Firstly, when calculating the distance required to stop
only a warning cross. Firstly, when calculating the distance required to stop a vehicle before a a vehicle before
acrossing,
crossing,the
thedetermined
determinedspeed
speedtakes
takesinto
into consideration
consideration the
the CSE
CSE used. The overview
used. The overview distance
distance D
Dzz
should be 40 m for a maximum authorised speed of 50 km/h, and 20 m for an authorised
should be 40 m for a maximum authorised speed of 50 km/h, and 20 m for an authorised speed of 30 speed of
30 km/h.
km/h. ForFor functional
functional categoryCCroads,
category roads,these
thesedistances
distancesare
are reduced
reduced byby an
anadditional
additional55mm.(see
(see Figure
Figure2
and
2). Table 1).

Figure
Figure 2. Overview
2. Overview distancerequired
distance requiredto
to stop
stop before
before aalevel
levelcrossing with
crossing control
with andand
control safety
safety
equipment (CSE). Source: [44]. equipment (CSE). Source: [44].

Table1.
Table 1. Overview
Overview distance
distance LLrr..

ValueValue km/h
km/h 10 102020 30
30 40 5050 60 60
40
Recommended for roads and local roads [m] 16 32 48 64 81 97
Shortest for Recommended
main roads and for roads
local roadsand local roads
(categories A, B) [m] [m]12 162432 48
36 64
48 8160 97 72
Shortest for main roads and local roads (categories A,DB)
Shortest for minor roads and lanes (category C and subcategory 1) [m] [m]11 122124 36
32 48
42 6053 72 63
Source: [44].
Shortest for minor roads and lanes (category C and subcategory D1) [m] 11 21 32 42 53 63
Source:the
For level crossings with only a warning cross, [44].
situation is much more complicated. There are
several variables that can influence each other. These include both the aforementioned overview
For level crossings with only a warning cross, the situation is much more complicated. There are
distance Dz for safe stopping and the unobstructed overview of the track (front of the railway vehicle)
several variables that can influence each other. These include both the aforementioned overview
from a height of 1 m above the road, both in the field of vision of the road vehicle driver Lr and that of
distance Dz for safe stopping and the unobstructed overview of the track (front of the railway vehicle)
the slowest road vehicle Lp .
from a height of 1 m above the road, both in the field of vision of the road vehicle driver Lr and that
The slowest road vehicle is the vehicle moving at 5 km/h. This speed is based on the historical
of the slowest road vehicle Lp.
value of the speed with which animals can be driven across a level crossing. Many safety experts have
The slowest road vehicle is the vehicle moving at 5 km/h. This speed is based on the historical
called for an increase or an adjustment of this value to take into account different local conditions.
value of the speed with which animals can be driven across a level crossing. Many safety experts
In the still valid CSD regulation [45], longitudinal vehicles are taken into account when calculating
have called for an increase or an adjustment of this value to take into account different local
overview distances, whereby a length of 22 m is taken into consideration.(see Figure 3 and Table 2).
conditions. In the still valid CSD regulation [45], longitudinal vehicles are taken into account when
 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15

Sustainability 2020, 12, 5684

calculating overview distances, whereby a length of 22 m is taken into consideration.(see Figure 3 6 of 16
and Table 2).

FigureFigure 3. Driver’s
3. Driver’s overviewfrom
overview from the
the slowest
slowest road vehicle.
road Source:
vehicle. [39]. [39].
Source:
Table
Table 2. The2.shortest
The shortest distance
distance LpLpon
on category
category C C
and subcategory
and D1 roads.
subcategory D1 roads.
Line Speed [km/h]
Level Crossing Angle α [°] Line Speed [km/h]
◦
Level Crossing Angle α [ ] 10 20 30 40 50 60
90 10 30 20
60 9030 11940 149 50179 60
90 80 30 30 60
60 9090 120119150 149 180 179
80 70 30 31 60
62 9290 123120153 150 184 180
70 60 31 32 62
64 9692 127123159 153 191 184
60 50 32 34 64
68 101 96 135127169 159
202 191
50 45 34 36 68
71 106 101 141135176 169
211 202
45 36 [44].
Source: 71 106 141 176 211
Source: [44].
Currently, the greatest inconsistency between the ČSN 73 6380 [44] and SŽDC (ČSD) S 4/3
standards is the parameters regarding overview. The Czechoslovak Railways (ČSD) regulation [45]
Currently,
classifiesthe greatestaccording
overview inconsistency betweenastheeither
to observance ČSNvery
73 6380 [44]
good, and unfavourable,
good, SŽDC (ČSD) bad S 4/3orstandards
is the parameters regarding overview. The Czechoslovak Railways ( ČSD) regulation
insufficient. This closely corresponds to the choices made concerning the selected safety measures [45] classifies
overview according to observance as either very good, good, unfavourable, bad or insufficient.
and the adjustments made for local conditions. For the purposes of the regulation, the same variables
with acorresponds
This closely different designation
to the are used. made
choices The braking distance the
concerning B is selected
consideredsafety
to be the standard and the
measures
overview distance Dz, whereby the value of the undisturbed overview Lr is measured in the
adjustments made for local conditions. For the purposes of the regulation, the same variables with
regulation as 1.2 m above the road surface and marked as Lm. The field of vision of the driver of the
a different designation
slowest vehicle is are
the used.
same inThe braking
both. However, distance
what is B is considered
different to be
and essential is the standardofoverview
the possibility
distance halving
Dz , whereby the distances
the overview value ofLmthe
andundisturbed
Lp in the case ofoverview Lr isoverview.
an unfavourable measured incase
In the theofregulation
poor as
visibility,
1.2 m above the the
roadregulation
surfacegoesandeven furtherasand
marked Lmcuts
. Thethe field
brakingofdistance
vision Bofinthe
half, including
driver the slowest
of the
vehicle isabove, and inin
the same contrast
both. to the ČSN 73what
However, 6380 [44] standard,and
is different doesessential
not take into consideration
is the possibilitytheof
usehalving
of the
the P6 warning sign “Stop, give way!”.
overview distances Lm and Lp in the case of an unfavourable overview. In the case of poor visibility,
the regulation goesMethodology
4. Proposed even further forand cuts theofbraking
Calculation Overview distance B in half,
for the Slowest including the above, and in
Vehicle
contrast to the ČSN 73 6380 [44] standard, does not take into consideration the use of the P6 warning
In light of the statistics from the Rail Safety Inspection Office on the number of accidents at level
sign “Stop, give way!”.
crossings, including their consequences in terms of fatalities, injuries and property damage, it is
essential to devise effective procedures to mitigate the risks of such accidents occurring. Professional
4. Proposed Methodology
articles for Calculation
and studies published of as
abroad serve Overview
a valuablefor the of
source Slowest Vehicle
information on this. Given the
direct connection with the situation in the Czech Republic, these provide guidance for a possible
In light of the statistics from the Rail Safety Inspection Office on the number of accidents at level
crossings, including their consequences in terms of fatalities, injuries and property damage, it is essential
to devise effective procedures to mitigate the risks of such accidents occurring. Professional articles and
studies published abroad serve as a valuable source of information on this. Given the direct connection
with the situation in the Czech Republic, these provide guidance for a possible alternative approach.
Similarly, a comparative analysis of these guidelines that deal with a similar topic and the conclusions
drawn is equally interesting. Combined, these guidelines provide an unbiased point of view that can
be used to verify the correctness of any judgment concerning the proposed methodology. Assessing the
feasibility of the application of the proposed measures in practice is an important part of this proposal.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5684 7 of 16

In terms of rationalisation, the data on rail network density and the number of level crossings
reveal a difficult situation with regard to finding a uniform technical solution. However, for the
selected sample of level crossings, it was possible to propose some partial, economically acceptable
measures to improve safety measures that can feasibly be implemented on a general scale. This was the
top priority. Future areas of interest and possible applications of current state-of-the-art technologies,
including detection systems, ETCS technologies and new active safety features implemented directly
in vehicles are also highlighted.
The analysis and design are focused on the region of South Bohemia, which is a suitable candidate
because of the high density of level crossings and their geographical locations, thereby providing
relevant results that may be extrapolated to generate national statistics. Outputs from the level crossing
passport serve as a source of basic registration data.

4.1. Problematic Overview

The dual assessment of the overview is the first important area to consider. A good overview
of the track is a key factor for ensuring safe operation. It is often the case that the assessed overview
is only seasonal. Some crops planted in fields near a level crossing can grow to heights of over two
metres, thereby (completely) blocking the overview of the track. In reality, there is little that can be
done about this other than buying the land. It is important to note that it is impossible for the state to
invest resources for this purpose. This also applies to possible interventions concerning crops or the
cutting of trees.
If administrators want to properly secure and operate level crossings in order for the level crossings
to be subject to similar circumstances, then according to the applicable standard, there is no other
option than to install the P6 warning sign “Stop, give way!”. This ensures that the standardised values
Lr and Lp focus only on the slowest vehicle and that the value for the field of vision of the driver of the
road vehicle is no longer taken into consideration.

4.2. Proposal to Adjust the Speed of the Slowest Vehicle

In 2012, an update of ČSN 73 6380 (marked as Z2) was issued, which came into effect in 2013.
It was an attempt to unify the wording of the standard according to related laws and decrees. It sought
to repeal the ČSD S 4/3 regulation and uniformly subordinate the construction and technical execution
of all regulations to the current standard. The fundamental problem with this lies in the assessment
of the behaviour of the slowest vehicle on a level crossing and the algorithm for calculating this.
According to Z2, if the driver passes the danger zone on the remote side, it is assumed they will
start to accelerate uniformly. This substantially changes the situation and fully reflects the current
assessment of the overview at level crossings according to the ČSN 73 6102 (2017) standard. However,
when the proposal was put forward to increase the speed of the slowest vehicle up to 10–15 km/h,
as is the case in neighbouring states, it was met with immediate resistance. According to the current
conclusions, the increase could be in the range of 5–10 km/h, taking into account the current local
conditions. The overview distance Lp is therefore unnecessarily demanding when consideration is
given to the “historical” speed of 5 km/h and the support given to resisting the repeal of the ČSD S 4/3
regulation. (see Table 3).

Table 3. Vehicle group and overview determination.

Group Vehicle Vehicle Length [m] Uniform Acceleration [m/s2 ]

1 Car and van 6 2.2
2 Garbage truck, truck, bus 10 1.7
3 Articulated bus, tractor and trailer or semitrailer 18 1.3
4 Longest vehicle according to Act No. 361/2000 Coll. 22 1.2
Source: [39].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5684 8 of 16

In light of the current technical parameters of vehicles and the state of the infrastructure, it is
necessary to increase the speed to the maximum possible, thereby taking into account the local and
technical conditions. It is this change in the ČSN 73 6380 Z2 standard that provides the solution
to the disputed situation with regard to the placement of the P6 warning sign “Stop, give way!”.
The calculation for the speed of the slowest vehicle and its uniform acceleration from the 4 m border
from the axis of the track edge until it leaves the danger zone is taken into consideration. Thus,
vsn = 0 km/h is considered the initial speed, and the time tp = 0 s. The current method is correct
because the traffic restrictions used are, in many cases, inevitable and even required by the police of
the Czech Republic. The current wording of the standard or regulation does not address this, and the
calculated values are therefore based on a constant vehicle speed while passing through the danger
zone, without stopping before the level crossing. The provisions of amendment Z1 are therefore
currently in force, with Z2 revoked and replaced by amendment Z3 at the request of the Railway Safety
Inspection Office, with work on a proposed amendment Z4 underway (see Table 4).

Table 4. Driver’s observation and reaction time.

t1 [s]
Overview Conditions
Road Category
Recommended Smallest Recommended Smallest
Value Value Value Value
Main roads and local roads
2.0 1.5 3.5 2.0
(categories A, B)
Minor roads and lanes
1.5 1.0 3.5 1.0
(category C, subcategory D1)
Purpose-built roads
1.5 1.0 3.5 1.0
(field and forest roads)
Source: [44].

The unsolved and dangerous situation arising from the use of the P6 warning sign “Stop, give way!”
is also highlighted by Kubo [45], who analysed critical points in the region of South Bohemia. In particular,
he put the spotlight on one level crossing from 1950, which only features warning crosses and the P6
warning sign, with a line speed of 100 km/h, which is permissible under Decree 177/1995 Coll. on the
basis of § 88. [46].
The calculation proves that when applying the formula for the slowest vehicle with a length of
22 m, travelling at a constant speed of 5 km/h before and beyond the danger zone without stopping,
the overview distance complies with the ČSN 73 6380 Z1 standard. If the driver respects the markings
and brings the vehicle to a complete standstill, and then subsequently starts moving forward again,
the required overview distance increases by 18 m, which is unsatisfactory. Nobody responsible
(except the authors of the standard) is likely to address this. Placing the “Stop, give way!” sign,
therefore, eliminates the need to maintain the Lr decision field. In this case, however, the Lp ,
according to the ČSN 73 6380 Z1 standard, which is based on the formula and table values related
to the vehicle moving at a constant speed of 5 km/h for the whole time, is subsequently incorrectly
evaluated. For the sake of clarity, it is, therefore, necessary to calculate the minimum value of Lp for
the selected crossing pattern according to the valid standard, whilst maintaining a constant speed.
This value is then compared with the calculation for the vehicle that comes to a stop at the markings
and then accelerates back up to the intended speed of 5 km/h. When drawing up the formula for a
uniformly accelerating vehicle, it is necessary to consider the acceleration of the guide, depending on
the respective group of vehicle, as indicated in the ČSN 73 6102 standard, the observation and reaction
time of the driver according to the category of road, and the way in which the level crossing is secured
in terms of the ČSN 73 7380 (2004) standard. [47].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5684 9 of 16

The calculations in this article deal with actual values, which are taken into account by the
ČSN 73 6380 standard, as is the assessment of their correctness. According to the tables specified
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15
in the ČSN 73 6380 standard, the passport kept by the administrator evaluates overview distances
regardless of traffic
regardless restrictions.
of traffic TheThe
restrictions. calculations of the
calculations of overview distance
the overview for the
distance slowest
for the roadroad
slowest vehicle
vehicle
are currently flat-rate and based on the following formula
are currently flat-rate and based on the following formula (1): (1):

Vz  
Lp = = × D×p + D+
s (1)(1)
Vsn
where
where
Vz Vline
z line speed
speed on the
on the adjacent
adjacent section
section andand through
through the level
the level crossing
crossing [km/h]
[km/h]
Dp Dlevel
p level crossing
crossing length
length measured
measured along
along the the
roadroad
axisaxis
[m] [m]
Ds Dlength
s length of the
of the longest
longest roadroad vehicle
vehicle (maximum
(maximum permissible
permissible length
length of a of a truck
truck is 22ism)
22[m]
m) [m]
Vsn Vsnspeed
speed of the
of the slowest
slowest road
road vehicle
vehicle [km/h]
[km/h]

30
Lp = × (7.8 + 12) = 118.8 m.
305
= × 7.8 + 12 = 118.8 .
5
The overview conditions are satisfactory because the minimum standard required Lp of 118.8 m is
The overview conditions are satisfactory because the minimum standard required Lp of 118.8 m
less than the actual measured value of 128 m. (see Figure 4 and Table 5).
is less than the actual measured value of 128 m. (see Figure 4 and Table 5)

Figure 4. Situational drawing of level crossing P6133 with marked polygons. Source: authors.
Figure 4. Situational drawing of level crossing P6133 with marked polygons. Source: authors.

Table 5. Measured
Table inputinput
5. Measured datadata
Lp for
Lplevel crossing
for level P6133.
crossing P6133.

Length
Length of level
of the the level crossing
crossing 7.8 m7.8 m
Length of the longest
Length of the longest vehicle vehicle 12.0 m12.0 m
LineLine
speed through
speed the level
through crossing
the level crossing 30 km/h
30 km/h
Speed of the
Speed of slowest vehicle
the slowest vehicle 5 km/h5 km/h
Overview distance for the slowest L vehicle
Overview distance for the slowest Lp vehicle
p 128 m128 m
Uniform acceleration extrapolated for Dfor 2
Uniform acceleration extrapolated s 12
Dsm12 m 1.5 m/s
1.5 m/s2
Observation and and
Observation response time time
response according to Article
according 7.4, Category
to Article III road,
7.4, Category minimal
III road, minimal 2 s 2 s
Source: authors.
Source: authors.

In addition to to
In addition a warning
a warningcross,
cross,thethelevel
level crossing is is also
alsofitted
fittedwith
withthe the
P6P6 warning
warning signsign
“Stop,
“Stop, give way!”. If the driver stops their vehicle based on this command, the calculation
give way!”. If the driver stops their vehicle based on this command, the calculation parameters will parameters
willalso
alsochange.
change.Two
Twomoremorevariables
variablesareareadded
addedtotothetheformula
formula toto reflect
reflect this.
this. TheThe basic
basic formula
formula is
is based
basedonon
thethe cancelled
cancelled amendment
amendment toto theČSN
the ČSN73736380
6380Z2Z2standard
standardbut butdoes
doesnot
nottake
take into
into consideration
consideration the
the vehicle accelerating uniformly at the the maximum
maximum speedspeedlimit
limitthrough
throughthe thelevel
levelcrossing.
crossing.Instead,
Instead, it
it assumes
assumesthat
thatthe vehicle
the accelerates
vehicle acceleratesfrom
from0 to 5 km/h
0 to 5 km/handandcontinues
continuesat this constant
at this constantspeed while
speed while
passing through the danger zone. The proposed formula (2) is, therefore,
passing through the danger zone. The proposed formula (2) is, therefore, as follows:as follows:

Vz
Lp = = 3.6
× (t× + +
1 + ta + tk ) (2)(2)
3.6
⁄3.6 5⁄3.6
= = = 0.93
1.5
× 1.5 × 0.93
= = = 0.65
2 2
= + − = 7.8 + 12 − 0.65 = 19.15
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5684 10 of 16

Vp /3.6 5/3.6
ta = = = 0.93 s
Vz 1.5
Vz × t2a 1.5 × 0.932
D0 = = = 0.65 m
2 2
 
Dx = Dp + Ds − D0 = (7.8 + 12) − 0.65 = 19.15 m

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Dx 19.15 10 of 15

tk = = = 13.79 s
Vp /3.6 5/3.6
𝐷𝐷𝑥𝑥 19.15
where 𝑡𝑡𝑘𝑘 = = = 13.79 𝑠𝑠
𝑉𝑉𝑝𝑝 ⁄3.6 5⁄3.6
Vy line speed on the adjacent section and through the level crossing [km/h]
where
Dp level crossing length measured along the road axis [m]
Vy line speed on the adjacent section and through the level crossing [km/h]
Ds length of the longest road vehicle (maximum permissible length of a truck is 22 m) [m]
Dp level crossing length measured along the road axis [m]
Vp speed of the slowest road vehicle (5 km/h is considered) [km/h]
Ds length of the longest road vehicle (maximum2permissible length of a truck is 22 m) [m]
Vz uniform acceleration according to group [m/s ]
Vp speed of the slowest road vehicle (5 km/h is considered) [km/h]
D0 distance travelled from 0 to the speed of the slowest vehicle [m]
Vz uniform acceleration according to group [m/s2]
Dx distance travelled at a constant speed of the slowest vehicle [m]
D0 distance travelled from 0 to the speed of the slowest vehicle [m]
ta time taken to accelerate from 0 to the slowest vehicle speed [s]
Dx distance travelled at a constant speed of the slowest vehicle [m]
tk time required to drive distance Dx [s]
ta time taken to accelerate from 0 to the slowest vehicle speed [s]
t1 driver observation and response time [s]
tk time required to drive distance Dx [s]
t1 driver observation Vz and response time 30 [s]
Lp = × (t1 + ta + tk ) = × (1 + 0.93 + 13.79) = 131 m
𝑉𝑉ž 3.6 30 3.6
𝐿𝐿𝑝𝑝 = × (𝑡𝑡1 + 𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎 + 𝑡𝑡𝑘𝑘 ) = × (1 + 0.93 + 13.79) = 131 𝑚𝑚
3.6 3.6
When using the P6 warning sign “Stop, give way!”, the overview distances for the selected level
When using the P6 warning sign “Stop, give way!”, the overview distances for the selected level
crossing P6133 are unsatisfactory. This is because the minimum calculated length Lp of 131 m (for a
crossing P6133 are unsatisfactory. This is because the minimum calculated length Lp of 131 m (for a
vehicle starting after stopping) is greater than the actual measured length of 128 m. If all variables
vehicle starting after stopping) is greater than the actual measured length of 128 m. If all variables
are taken into consideration, in the case of acceleration from 0 km/h, the moment the front of the
are taken into consideration, in the case of acceleration from 0 km/h, the moment the front of the
approaching railway vehicle is observed, the driver of the slowest vehicle, with a distance of 12 m to
approaching railway vehicle is observed, the driver of the slowest vehicle, with a distance of 12 m to
cover, would not manage to cross the level crossing in time, and, therefore, a collision would occur.
cover, would not manage to cross the level crossing in time, and, therefore, a collision would occur.
For comparative purposes, calculations were also made for another level crossing,
For comparative purposes, calculations were also made for another level crossing, specifically
specifically P6139, located near the village of Újezdec. It is the most common type of single track level
P6139, located near the village of Újezdec. It is the most common◦ type of single track level crossing
crossing with a minimum length of 6.5 m, almost ideal angle of 105 , lying on a category B road with a
with a minimum length of 6.5 m, almost ideal angle of 105°, lying on a category B road with a P6
P6 warning
warning sign
sign “Stop,
“Stop, give give way!”
way!” on on
bothboth sides.
sides. (see(see Figure
Figure 5 and
5 and Table
Table 6) 6).

Figure 5. Situational drawing of level crossing P6139 with marked polygons. Source: authors.
Figure 5. Situational drawing of level crossing P6139 with marked polygons. Source: authors.

Table 6. Measured input data Lp for level crossing P6139.

Length of the level crossing 6.5 m

Length of the longest vehicle 22.0 m
Line speed through the level crossing 65 km/h
Speed of the slowest vehicle 5 km/h
Overview distance for the slowest Lp vehicle 374 m
Uniform acceleration extrapolated for Ds 22 m 1.2 m/s2
Observation and response time according to Article 7.4, local road, minimal 1s
Source: authors.

The calculation according to the current version of the ČSN 73 6380 standard is as follows:
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5684 11 of 16

Table 6. Measured input data Lp for level crossing P6139.

Length of the level crossing 6.5 m

Length of the longest vehicle 22.0 m
Line speed through the level crossing 65 km/h
Speed of the slowest vehicle 5 km/h
Overview distance for the slowest Lp vehicle 374 m
Uniform acceleration extrapolated for Ds 22 m 1.2 m/s2
Observation and response time according to Article 7.4, local road, minimal 1s
Source: authors.

The calculation according to the current version of the ČSN 73 6380 standard is as follows:

Vz   65
Lp = × Dp + Ds = × (6.5 + 22) = 370.5 m
Vsn 5

The overview distances are considered satisfactory because the standard minimum overview
distance required of 370.5 m is less than the actual distance measured of 374 m.
The calculation in the case of the stopping and starting of the slowest road vehicle, according to
our proposed new calculation methodology, is as follows:

Vz
Lp = × (t1 + ta + tk )
3.6
Vp /3.6 5/3.6
ta = = = 1.16 s
Vz 1.2
Vz × t2a 1.2 × 1.162
D0 = = = 0.81 m
2 2
 
Dx = Dp + Ds − D0 = (6.5 + 22) − 0.81 = 27.69 m
Dx 27.69
tk = = = 19.34 s
Vp /3.6 5/3.6
Vz 65
Lp = × (t1 + ta + tk ) = × (2 + 0.81 + 19.34) = 406.25 m
3.6 3.6
Even in this case, the overview distances are unsatisfactory because the minimum calculated
length Lp of 406.25 m (for a vehicle starting after stopping) is greater than the actual distance measured
of 374 m.

5. Results and Discussion

The first point of discussion is the willingness, or lack thereof, of the European Commission
and the government to resolve the issues concerning the maintenance of level crossings. At present,
in most cases, the only owner and manager is the state or the railway management authority. Everyone is
aware of the disproportionately high number of level crossings, but no one wants to hear the
administrator’s call for the need to reduce these numbers. That said, reliable accident statistics and
experience from abroad support such efforts. Within this context, it is clear that the safest level crossing
is one that does not exist. The solution is a radical approach in the form of share-based financing of the
maintenance of level crossings by the users from the regions and municipalities they are located in,
or more appropriate and effective legal regulations. The European technical standards may specify the
conditions for maintenance or removal of actual bypass routes with a maximum length.
According to the current inconsistent wording of national technical standards and the European
standards and regulations, it can be stated that the existing standards and regulations are the source
of the problem due to their possible misinterpretation. Therefore, it would be reasonable to discuss
amendments to the European technical standards dealing with this subject. After updating the proposed
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5684 12 of 16

calculation methodology, it would be possible to increase safety not only in the Czech Republic but
also in EU countries.
Even though the SŽDC S 4/3 regulation is to be repealed, the current state of affairs, by virtue of
all the related provisions, will continue to apply. The only solution is, therefore, to finalise the change
within the ČSN 73 6380 standard. The revised Z2 amendment fully reflects the requirements of the
current state of transport infrastructure and the technical characteristics of vehicles.
Overview distances are now satisfactory in many places. The result would be to limit cases by the
application of measures leading to misinterpretations of the current wording of this document, especially
the widely used combination of warming crosses and the mark No. P6 “Stop, give way” (see Table 7).
The calculation above demonstrates that the standard does not consider this situation, and therefore,
the calculation methodology is not applicable to this variant. On this basis, it can be concluded that it is
necessary to apply a new calculation methodology, for example, the proposed methodology, to national
standards and, in turn, to the technical specifications for the safe interoperability of level crossings.

Table 7. Comparison of standard values Lp and calculated values if P6 warning sign “Stop, give way!”
is installed.

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Line Speed Vz [km/h] 12 of 15

Length of the Crossing 6.5 m
10 20 30 40 50 60
ČSN 73 6380 Z1 57 114 171 228 285 342
ČSN 73Recalculated
6380 Z1 for P6 57 60 114119 179
171 239228 299 285
358 342
Recalculated for P6 60 119 179 239 299 358
Source: authors.
Source: authors.
For illustrative purposes, it is necessary to highlight the difference between the values given by
the standard and the
For illustrative calculation
purposes, it iswith regard
necessary toto the adjustment
highlight of the between
the difference local road
theand line given
values speeds.byThe
the
differences
standard anddo thenot seem sowith
calculation great, but to
regard it is
theimportant
adjustmenttoofrealise that
the local these
road and are
line minimum
speeds. Thevalues. (see
differences
Figure 6)
do not seem so great, but it is important to realise that these are minimum values (see Figure 6).

Comparison of standard values Lp and calculated

values
400
Shortest distance Lp [m]

350
300
250
200
150 ČSN 73 6380 Z1
100 Recalculated for P6
50
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Line speed Vz [km/h]

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Comparison
Comparisonofofstandard
standard values
values p and
Lp Land calculated
calculated values
values if P6ifwarning
P6 warning sign “Stop,
sign “Stop, give
give way!”
way!”
is is installed.
installed.

With regards
With regards to
to the
the signalling
signalling device,
device, the
the disproportionate
disproportionate prolongation
prolongation ofof the
the pre-ringing
pre-ringing times
times
is associated with a poor assessment of the speed of the slowest vehicle. Here, however, the described
is associated with a poor assessment of the speed of the slowest vehicle. Here, however, the described
change in
change in the
the calculation
calculation would
would partially
partially help.
help. It
It is
is definitely
definitely necessary
necessary to
to support
support efforts
efforts to
to gradually
gradually
deploy modern
deploy modern LED
LED signal
signal lighting
lighting andand to
to modernise
modernise existing
existing equipment
equipment because
because the
the visibility
visibility of
of
current signal lighting at intersections is really poor. This situation is largely related to obsolete
current signal lighting at intersections is really poor. This situation is largely related to obsolete
technology, but
technology, but also
also to
tothe
thecost
costofofreplacement,
replacement, which
whichis relatively high
is relatively duedue
high to the complexity
to the complexityof and
of
necessity for supervisory adjustments. Support for LED deployment is not even on the side of the
standard.

6. Conclusions
The aim of this article is to draw attention to fundamental shortcomings in the area of level
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5684 13 of 16

and necessity for supervisory adjustments. Support for LED deployment is not even on the side of
the standard.

6. Conclusions
The aim of this article is to draw attention to fundamental shortcomings in the area of level
crossing safety. This issue is well-known among the general public. Despite the accident rate
remaining stubbornly high, investment in this area is lacking. Unfortunately, few people realise that
the responsibility for this situation not only lies with irresponsible road users but also with the current
state of legislation and the unusually high number of level crossings. The consequence of the latter is
that it has resulted in the unilateral financing of maintenance, which, in turn, has generated a reluctance
to remove or reconstruct dangerous and unnecessary level crossings.
As was to be expected, tilting barriers proved to be the safest option. The recommendation should,
therefore, be clear with regards to this. Unfortunately, there are many locations where they should be
installed, but where it is often technically not possible to do so. The large percentage of accidents at level
crossings with interlocking safety devices requires further assessment of the basic safety parameters in
the calculation of visibility conditions. Due to the cancelled change to the ČSN 73 6380 Z2 standard,
the correctness of the calculation was verified in its current form. This turned out to be wrong because it
did not allow for the slowest vehicle to stop completely. This finding significantly changes the situation
and creates a potential danger at all level crossings without barriers and with only the P6 warning sign
“Stop, give way!”. This is not helped by the lack of compliance with regulations, laws and standards,
which leads to misinterpretations and the adaptation of provisions to current needs, which is not
acceptable. Given the seriousness of the errors found, it is necessary to repeal the disputed regulations
and to promptly update and amend the applicable standards, decrees and laws.
Urgent efforts are required to solve these elementary problems. It is paramount to start by
significantly reducing the number of level crossings. This can only be achieved through close
cooperation between the state, regions and municipalities. Of equal importance is the support of the
general public. All proposals will only be effective if they strictly adhere to the rules, regulations and
laws. This can be greatly helped through innovative education programmes aimed at increasing the
understanding of the basic functions of CSE.
It is also necessary to evaluate the possible extension of the methodology, which will form the
basis for future research, and which should be based on the new methodology presented. The case
study has also raised further questions that need to be considered. One of the most important issues
is the unification of individual national standards into one supranational standard that could be
implemented by the European Union by decree.
Another solution is the adoption of technical standards that would prohibit the construction of
level crossings in places where the safety and smoothness of road traffic flows are not maintained.
Within this context, the adopted technical measures should include the simplification and clarity of the
traffic situation near dangerous level crossings. Last but not least, when constructing new railway
lines and upgrading existing lines, it is important to build level crossings which completely eliminate
collisions between trains and road vehicles. All these issues will be the subject of further research.

Author Contributions: V.L’. and M.S. conceived and designed the manuscript; they elaborated its methodology,
processed the literature review, verified the results and performed the experiments; J.M. performed individual
calculations, realized the final manuscript corrections and supervised the formal revision of the manuscript.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5684 14 of 16

References
1. DIČR; Railway Safety Inspection Office. Emergency Statistic. Praha, 2019. Available online:
http://www.dicr.cz/statistiky-mimoradnych-udalosti (accessed on 27 February 2019).
2. Czech Republic, 1997. Act No. 13/1997 Coll., on Road Traffic, as Amended by Amended. © AION CS
2010–2019. Available online: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/1997-13 (accessed on 15 February 2019).
3. Czech Republic, 1997. Act No 22/1997 Coll., on the Technical Requirements for Products, and on a Change
and Addition to Certain Laws, as Amended by Amended. © AION CS 2010–2019. Available online:
https://zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/1997-22 (accessed on 19 February 2019).
4. Czech Republic, 2000. Act no. 361/2000 Coll., On Road Traffic and on Changing Certain Acts, as Amended
by Amended. © AION CS 2010–2019. Available online: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2000-361 (accessed
on 19 February 2019).
5. ČSN EN 12368 ED. 2, 2016. In Traffic Control Equipment—Signal Heads. [Řízení Dopravy na Pozemních
Komunikacích—Návěstidla]; Český Normalizační Institut: Prague, Czech, 2016.
6. ČSN 34 2650, 2010. In Railway Signalling and Interlocking Equipment—Level Crossing Protection
Equipment [Železniční Zabezpečovací Zařízení—Přejezdová Zabezpečovací Zařízení]; Český normalizační Institut:
Prague, Czech, 2010.
7. ČSN 73 6101, 2018. In Design of Highways and Motorways. [Projektování Silnic a Dálnic];
Český normalizační Institut: Prague, Czech, 2018.
8. ČSN 73 6102, 2007. In Design of Intersection on Highways [Projektování Křižovatek na Silničních Komunikacích];
Český normalizační Institut: Prague, Czech, 2007.
9. Ambros, J.; Perůtka, J.; Skládaný, P.; Tučka, P. Enhancing the insight into Czech railway level crossings’ safety
performance. Int. J. Rail Transp. 2020, 8, 99–108. [CrossRef]
10. Cai, N.; Chen, H.; Li, Y.; Peng, Y. Intrusion Detection and Tracking at Railway Crossing. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Advanced Manufacturing, Dublin, Ireland,
17–19 October 2019.
11. Garmabaki, A.H.S.; Marklund, S.; Thaduri, A.; Hedström, A.; Kumar, U. Underground pipelines and railway
infrastructure–failure consequences and restrictions. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2020, 16, 412–430. [CrossRef]
12. Rukmana, A.; Ikhsan, A.F.; Etnisa, M.M.; Sulisawati, H.; Nurichsan, I. Railway level crossing warning design
in rural area using ultrasonic sensor and wireless communication. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1402, 033084.
[CrossRef]
13. Saunders, W.J.; Mousa, S.R.; Codjoe, J. Market basket analysis of safety at active highway-railroad grade
crossings. J. Saf. Res. 2019, 71, 125–137. [CrossRef]
14. Wei, Z.; Núñez, A.; Liu, X.; Dollevoet, R.; Li, Z. Multi-criteria evaluation of wheel/rail degradation at railway
crossings. Tribol. Int. 2020, 144. [CrossRef]
15. Widyastuti, H.; Utami, A.; Dzulfiqar, Z.M. Model of queuing in the railway level crossing (case study: Imam
Bonjol railway level crossing in Blitar). IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 650, 012053. [CrossRef]
16. Gašparík, J.; Abramović, B.; Halás, M. New graphical approach to railway infrastructure capacity analysis.
Promet—Traffic—Traffico 2015, 27, 283–290. [CrossRef]
17. Gašparík, J.; Abramović, B.; Zitrický, V. Research on dependences of railway infrastructure capacity. Teh. Vjesn.
2018, 25, 1190–1195.
18. Meško, P.; Gašparík, J.; Lalinská, J. Railway capacity issues on slovak international corridors. In Proceedings of
the International Conference, 21st International Scientific Conference Transport Means 2017, Vilnius, Lithuania,
20 September 2017; p. 436.
19. Badanjak, D.; Barić, D.; Novačko, L. Current safety situation at level crossings in Croatia and the future
research. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2009, 108, 595–604.
20. Addabbo, T.; Della Giovampaola, C.; Fort, A.; Mugnaini, M.; Pozzebon, A.; Toccafondi, A.; Vignoli, V. Target
measurements influence on level crossing detection system safety determination. Measurement 2019, 135,
547–554. [CrossRef]
21. Cai, N.; Chen, H.; Li, Y.; Peng, Y. Intrusion Detection and Tracking at Railway Crossing. ACM International
Conference Proceeding Series. Available online: https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=
11600154611&tip=sid&clean=0 (accessed on 19 February 2019).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5684 15 of 16

22. Mane, S.S.; Shah, S.A.K. Object Tracking and Analysis for Detecting Various Situations at Level Crossings
of Railway-Road. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Computing, Communication,
Control and Automation, ICCUBEA 2017, Pune, India, 17–18 August 2017.
23. Taillandier, V. Smart Level Crossing. In Proceedings of the 2018 16th International Conference on Intelligent
Transport System Telecommunications, ITST 2018, Lisboa, Portugal, 15–17 October 2018.
24. Kampf, R.; Stopka, O.; Kubasakova, I.; Zitricky, V. Macroeconomic Evaluation of Projects Regarding the
Traffic Constructions and Equipment. Procedia Eng. 2016, 1538. [CrossRef]
25. Zitrický, V.; Černá, L.; Abramovič, B. The Proposal for the Allocation of Capacity for International Railway
Transport. Procedia Eng. 2017, 994. [CrossRef]
26. Koper, E.; Kochan, A.; Gruba, Å. Simulation of the Effect of Selected National Values on the Braking Curves
of an ETCS Vehicle. In Development of Transport by Telematics; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
27. Lee, M.K.; Bhandari, B. The application of aerodynamic brake for high-speed trains. J. Mech. Sci. Technol.
2018, 32, 5749–5754. [CrossRef]
28. Lubenets, N.A.; Lubenets, T.N. Train braking mode. In Naukovyi Visnyk Natsionalnoho Hirnychoho Universytetu;
National Mining University of Ukraine: Dnipro, Ukraine, 2012; Volume 6, pp. 41–46.
29. Peng, X.; Zhou, Y.Y.; Li, Q.Y.; He, X.Q. Brake distance calculation of CRH. In Proceedings of the
2012 4th Electronic System-Integration Technology Conference (ESTC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
17–20 September 2012.
30. Thurston, D.F. Deceleration rates for safe braking distance calculations. In 2017 Joint Rail Conference; JRC:
Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2017.
31. Thurston, D.F. Adhesion considerations in Safe Braking distance calculations. In 2015 Joint Rail Conference;
JRC: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2015.
32. Powrie, W.; Le Pen, L.; Milne, D.; Watson, G.; Harkness, J. Behaviour of under-track crossings on ballasted
railways. Transp. Geotech. 2019, 21. [CrossRef]
33. Kobaszyńska-Twardowska, A.; Galant, M.; Gill, A.; Smoczyński, P.; Kadziński, A. Methodology of research
on drivers perception at level crossings. In Proceedings of the MATEC Web of Conferences, 12th International
Road Safety Conference GAMBIT 2018, Gdaňsk, Poland, 12 April 2018.
34. Larue, G.S.; Watling, C.N.; Black, A.A.; Wood, J.M. Getting the Attention of Drivers Back on Passive Railway
Level Crossings: Evaluation of Advanced Flashing Lights. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2019, 2673,
789–798. [CrossRef]
35. Read, G.J.M.; Beanland, V.; Stanton, N.A.; Grant, E.; Stevens, N.; Lenné, M.G.; Thomas, M.; Mulvihill, C.M.;
Walker, G.H.; Salmon, P.M. From interfaces to infrastructure: Extending ecological interface design to
re-design rail level crossings. In Cognition, Technology and Work; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
36. Smoczyński, P.; Gill, A.; Kadziński, A. Modelling of railway accidents with accimap—Case study. In Proceedings
of the Transport Means, International Conference, Palanga , Lithuania, 2–4 October 2019; p. 113.
37. Zaman, S.U.; Hossairr, S.; Shahnaz, C. Automatic Rail Crossing Alarming System. In Proceedings of the
2018 IEEE International WIE Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, WIECON-ECE 2018,
Chonburi, Thailand, 14–16 December 2018; p. 129.
38. Stopka, O.; Šimková, I.; Konečný, V. The quality of service in the public transport and shipping industry.
Nase More 2015, 62, 126–130. [CrossRef]
39. Černá, L.; Zitrický, V.; Abramović, B. Methodical Manual for a Set of Transport Regulations in Railway
Passenger Transport. LOGI—Sci. J. Transp. Logist. 2020, 11, 13–24. [CrossRef]
40. Skrúcaný, T.; Kendra, M.; Stopka, O.; Milojević, S.T.; Figlus, T.; Csiszár, C. Impact of the Electric Mobility
Implementation on the Greenhouse Gases Production in Central European Countries. Sustainability
2019, 11, 4948. [CrossRef]
41. Akaateba, M.A.; Amoh-Gyimah, R.; Amponsah, O. Traffic safety violations in relation to drivers’ educational
attainment, training and experience in Kumasi, Ghana. Saf. Sci. 2015, 75, 156–162. [CrossRef]
42. Salmon, P.M.; Read, G.J.M.; Stanton, N.A.; Lenné, M.G. The crash at Kerang: Investigating systemic and
psychological factors leading to unintentional non-compliance at rail level crossings. Accid. Anal. Prev.
2013, 50, 1278–1288. [CrossRef]
43. ČSN 73 6380, 2004. Railway Level Crossings and Pedestrian Crossings. [Železniční Přejezdy a Přechody];
Český normalizační Institut: Prague, Czechia, 2004.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5684 16 of 16

44. ČSD S 4/3, 1985. Regulation for the Management and Maintenance of Level Crossings. [Předpis pro Správu a
Udržování Železničních Přejezdů a Přechodů]; Nakladatelství Dopravy a Spojů: Prague, Czechia, 1985.
45. KUBO, Jaroslav. Rationalization of Railroad Crossings in the South Bohemian Region [Racionalizace
Železničních Přejezdů na Území Jihočeského Kraje]. Bachelor Thesis, Institute of Technology and Business
in České Budějovice. 2019. Available online: https://is.vstecb.cz/th/vfulx/ (accessed on 5 February 2020).
46. Šimková, I.; Konečný, V.; Liščák, S.; Stopka, O. Measuring the Quality Impacts on the Performance in
Transport Company. Transp. Probl. 2015, 10, 113–124. [CrossRef]
47. Cempírek, V.; Rybicka, I.; Ljubaj, I. Development of Electromobility in Terms of Freight Transport. LOGI—Sci.
J. Transp. Logist. 2019, 10, 23–32. [CrossRef]

© 2020 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).