Accident Analysis and Prevention 92 (2016) 15–21

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

Application of a random effects negative binomial model to examine

tram-involved crash frequency on route sections in Melbourne,
Australia
Farhana Naznin a,∗ , Graham Currie a , David Logan b , Majid Sarvi c
a
Institute of Transport Studies, Department of Civil Engineering, Building 60, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia
b
Monash University Accident Research Centre, Building 70, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia
c
Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Safety is a key concern in the design, operation and development of light rail systems including trams or
Received 30 October 2015 streetcars as they impose crash risks on road users in terms of crash frequency and severity. The aim of
Received in revised form 14 March 2016 this study is to identify key traffic, transit and route factors that influence tram-involved crash frequencies
Accepted 15 March 2016
along tram route sections in Melbourne. A random effects negative binomial (RENB) regression model was
developed to analyze crash frequency data obtained from Yarra Trams, the tram operator in Melbourne.
Keywords:
The RENB modelling approach can account for spatial and temporal variations within observation groups
Safety
in panel count data structures by assuming that group specific effects are randomly distributed across
Tram-involved crash frequency
Random effects negative binomial model
locations. The results identify many significant factors effecting tram-involved crash frequency including
tram service frequency (2.71), tram stop spacing (−0.42), tram route section length (0.31), tram signal
priority (−0.25), general traffic volume (0.18), tram lane priority (−0.15) and ratio of platform tram stops
(−0.09). Findings provide useful insights on route section level tram-involved crashes in an urban tram
or streetcar operating environment. The method described represents a useful planning tool for transit
agencies hoping to improve safety performance.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Public transport is becoming more important as mobility, acces-
sibility, and environmental problems are increasing in cities around
the world (Vuchic, 1981, Gakenheimer, 1999; Fouracre et al., 2003).
In addition to bus and rail, tram and light rail transit systems are
also available in different parts of the world; especially in Australia,
North America, many European cities and parts of Asia and Africa
(Topp, 1999; Fouracre et al., 2003). Trams/streetcars have a number
of attractive features including their high passenger capacity, good
comfort, and very low emission of pollutants compared to other
transport systems (Anna and Bruce, 2001; Cliche and Reid, 2007).
However trams present a range of inherent safety issues regard-
ing their design and operational characteristics, since they are large
and heavy vehicles operating in confined, mixed and complex envi-
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: farhana.naznin@monash.edu (F. Naznin),
graham.currie@monash.edu (G. Currie), david.logan@monash.edu (D. Logan),
majid.sarvi@unimelb.edu.au (M. Sarvi).
ronments with pedestrians and cars. Even at low speed trams have
been identified to have high crash risks compared to other vehicles
(Grzebieta et al., 1999). Previous studies have also identified that
trams impose more crash risk at intersections and along arterials
than buses, and this is likely due to the difference in methods of
operation between buses and trams (Cheung et al., 2008; Shahla
et al., 2009). Also trams are given priority along lanes, at inter-
sections and at tram stops to improve tram travel time, and to
provide efficient and reliable service to passengers (Yarra Trams,
2010; Currie et al., 2012). However implementation of tram prior-
ity measures adjust the nature of road spaces and have road safety
impacts on all road users (Naznin et al., 2015a,b).
Several macro level transit crash frequency models have been
developed in previous studies; most focus on bus transit, and eval-
uate key factors associated with bus-involved collisions (Quintero
et al., 2013; Goh et al., 2014). Only two previous studies have
attempted to identify the factors associated with tram-involved
collisions; but rather than considering tram-involved collisions
solely, they combined both tram and bus-involved collisions to
identify transit-involved crash causation factors (Cheung et al.,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.03.012
0001-4575/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
16 F. Naznin et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 92 (2016) 15–21
2008; Shahla et al., 2009). So the relative contribution of factors
influencing tram-involved collisions are not clear. Cheung et al.
(2008) developed zonal level transit-involved collision prediction
models for urban transit in Toronto, Canada using a negative bino-
mial regression structure. The results show that vehicle kilometers
travelled, transit kilometers travelled, arterial road length, transit
stop density, percent of near side stops and average posted speed
are significant indicators for transit-involved collisions. Shahla et al.
(2009) developed a negative binomial crash prediction model for
intersections in Toronto, Canada using five years of transit collision
data and pointed out that annual average daily traffic (AADT), public
transit and pedestrian traffic volumes, turn movement treatments,
public transit stop location, mode technology and availability of
transit signal priority technology have significant associations with
public transit related collisions at signalized intersections.
It is clear from the above discussion that the factors associated
with tram-involved collisions at a macro level are still unclear.
In addition, the previous studies only focused on North Ameri-
can transit network, so very little is known about the validity of
this prediction models in other countries, where traffic and tran-
sit environment vary considerably. Also the above mentioned two
relevant studies adopted the basic negative binomial structure to
model transit-involved crash counts and ignored the spatial and
temporal variations within the observation groups.
The most commonly used crash data modelling approaches
are poisson and negative binomial (NB) regression models
(Washington et al., 2010), as crash occurrences are discrete, non-
negative and often infrequent and random. However the poisson
model has several limitations and one important constraint is that
the mean must be equal to variance. A number of previous studies
have identified that the crash data are significantly over dispersed
that means the variance exceeds the mean (Miaou, 1994; Abdel-
Aty and Radwan, 2000). The Poisson model cannot deal with over
dispersed crash data and resulted in an incorrect estimation of
the likelihood of crash occurrence. This problem was overcome by
introducing negative binomial model which can deal with over-
dispersed crash data (Washington et al., 2010).
When crash data is collected from N (1, . ., N) locations for T
(1, . ., T) time periods, the negative binomial model assumes that
there are N*T independent observations. The time variant nature
in crash data is being omitted by the NB model and standard error
of estimated coefficients may be underestimated. One way to over-
come this limitation by treating the crash data in a time series cross
sectional panel data structure with N location groups and T time
periods, and by considering individual effects in the NB model as
suggested by Hausman et al. (1984). Hausman et al. examined both
fixed and random definitions of the individual effects and devel-
oped random effects (RE) and fixed effects (FE) models. However
fixed effects models do not allow location specific variations, but
random effects models consider randomly distributed location spe-
cific variations. Shankar et al. (1998) has identified the random
effects negative binomial (RENB) model as more appropriate for
modelling median crossover crash frequencies in relation to geo-
metric and traffic variables in Washington State. Another study by
Chin and Quddus (2003) used the RENB model to investigate the
relationship between crash occurrence and the geometric, traffic
and control characteristics of signalized intersections in Singapore.
Both of the studies have found the RENB model suitable for the vari-
ables (i.e. geometric and traffic) which are likely to have location
specific effects. Also from analytical viewpoint, RENB models offer
advantages in terms of model transferability and updating (Shankar
et al., 1998; Lord and Mannering, 2010; Washington et al., 2010).
For the present study the random effects negative binomial
(RENB) modelling approach was deployed to identify the key traffic,
transit and route factors that influence tram-involved crash fre-
quency at a route-section level,1 as the available crash data follows
panel data structure and the variables are likely to have location
specific effects.
This paper is structured as follows. The next section provides the
details of sites and data source used in this study. Development of
the statistical regression model is then provided. The paper closes
with a discussion of the research findings and conclusions.
2. Site selection and data
Crash data used in this study was obtained from “Tram Inci-
dent Database” which is the ‘Yarra Trams’ crash reporting system
(Yarra Trams, 2014). The database contains all reported tram-
involved incidents on all tram routes in Melbourne. The incidents
are reported in two categories as ‘A’ and ‘B’ type incidents. ‘A’ type
incidents represent serious injury or death. The Police and Yarra
Trams (the tram operator) always investigate category ‘A’ type
crashes. Whereas the category ‘B’ type incidents represent minor
incidents including those without personal injury and tram drivers
are responsible for reporting this type of incident. For the present
study a total of 1177 tram-involved all injury crashes for 5 years
(between years 2009–2013) were analyzed which occurred along
101 tram route sections of selected 7 tram routes (tram routes num-
ber 1, 6, 19, 67, 70, 96 and 112). Each of the selected tram routes
cover both inner and middle Melbourne and comprises some tram
lane and signal priority measures as well as some platform tram
stops.2 Tram signal priority includes hook turns3 and turn bans for
general traffic and ‘T’ lights for tram exclusive movement. Whereas,
tram lane priority includes tramways, full-time and part-time tram
lanes where traffic is excluded at selected time periods of the day
(usually the peak period). Fig. 1 shows the selected 7 tram routes
in Melbourne with sign post locations.
Among 1177 tram-involved crashes, 93% were reported as tram
to other road vehicle/infrastructure collisions, 5% were tram to
pedestrian collisions and 2% were tram to tram collisions. The tram
incident database includes time and date of incident, sign posts
location of incident, tram route number, direction of travel, and
several tram driver and tram related features. Depending upon the
signpost locations tram route sections have been defined for this
study i.e. the distance between two consecutive signposts has been
defined as one section of tram route. Tram drivers are responsible
to report an incident at a sign post location that occurred in the last
route section they travelled.
Traffic volume data along selected tram route sections have been
collected from VicRoads’ arterial traffic volume data (VicRoads,
2014). Tram service frequency, stop density and average speed
of each tram routes were obtained from Yarra Trams network
development information system (Yarra Trams, 2011). Locations
of platform tram stops and location of tram lane and signal prior-
ity measures along tram route sections were obtained from Yarra
Trams (Yarra Trams Database, 2014) and VicRoads.
1
Results of this paper has been presented at the “Transportation Research Board
95th Annual Meeting, 2016” Naznin, F., Currie, G., Logan, D. & Sarvi, M. Exploring
Causes of Tram-Involved Crashes Using a Random Effects Negative Binomial Model.
Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting, 2016, Paper no: 16–1332. This
paper has never been submitted for publication in a research journal prior to this
submission.
2
Platform stops incorporate raised platforms next to tram tracks in the middle of
the road for passengers’ level entry into low floor trams and these stops are being
retro-fitted system-wide to replace older design stops (e.g. safety zone stops) in
Melbourne (Naznin et al., 2015a).
3
‘Hook Turn’ is a unique approach at many signalized intersections in Melbourne,
which relocates opposing turning traffic at intersections (Currie and Reynolds,
2011).
 F. Naznin et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 92 (2016) 15–21 17

Fig. 1. Location of selected tram routes in Melbourne.

Table 1
Summary statistics of variables for the RENB model.

Variables Min Max Average St. Dev

Crash frequency (collisions/year) 0 12 2.33 2.36

Year (2009 = 1, 2010 = 2, 2011 = 3, 2012 = 4, 2013 = 5) 1 5 – –
Section (section 1 = 1 to section 101 = 101) 1 101 – –
Traffic volume (AADT)a 1100 36,000 9585 6001
Section length (km) 0.1 2.45 0.89 0.61
Service frequency (Number of trams/week) 517 911 671.62 125
Average speed (Km/hr) 15 17 15.85 0.64
Stop spacing (km/stop) 0b 0.61 0.25 0.09
Platform stop ratio 0 1 0.33 0.42
Presence of tram lane priority (yes = 1, no = 0) 0 1 0.62 0.49
Ratio of intersections with tram signal priority (TSP) 0 1 0.44 0.41
a
The weighted average method is applied to compute the AADT value for sections that comprise more than one road segments.
b
One tram route section with length of 100 m does not include any tram stop at the beginning or end.

Table 1 provides a brief description and summary statistics of
the covariates used in crash frequency model for present study.
Key features of the input are:
• On average there were 2.33 crashes per annum (p.a.) per route
section; this value ranges from a minimum of zero and a maxi-
mum of 12 p.a.
• Traffic volume (AADT) was an average of 9585/link but ranges
from 1100 to a maximum of 36,000 AADT.
• On average route section length was 890m, tram service
frequency was 672 trams a week and average speed was
15.85kph. The average tram stop spacing was 250 m (maximum
610m/link).
• The average platform stop ratio was 33%. The platform stop ratio
was calculated as the number of platform tram stops among the
total number of tram stops along a selected route section.
• Lane priority was available on 62% of the links, as the average
value was recorded as 0.62.
• The average ratio of intersections with tram signal priority was
44%.
3. Methodology and modelling approach
3.1. Model formulation
The aim of this research is to identify the key traffic, transit and
route factors that influence tram-involved crash frequencies along
18 F. Naznin et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 92 (2016) 15–21
tram route sections. A wide range of crash frequency models have
been developed over past decades to gain a better understanding
of the factors that affect the crash causality and frequency depend-
ing upon the characteristics of available crash data and associated
variables (Washington et al., 2010).
The most commonly adopted crash data modelling approach,
the negative binomial (NB) regression model, was deployed for this
study and this model can handle over dispersed crash data. The NB
presumes that crash counts are independent for an entity for any
year. The form of negative binomial model used in present study is
as follows:
 
E (A) = exp ˛ + ˇX
where E(A) represents the predicted number of crashes per year; X
is the vector of explanatory variables; ␤ is the vector of estimable
parameter; ␣ is the intercept of the model. Model parameters were
estimated using the maximum likelihood technique.
For present study the crash data was collected from 101 tram
route sections for five years that means the data may have location-
specific effects and likely to be serially correlated. The best way
to model this data is by considering as cross sectional panel data
structure. If spatial effects exists in data but cannot be considered
as such, estimated standard errors of the regression coefficients
will be underestimated since each observation actually contributes
less information than actual (Chin and Quddus, 2003). The random
effects negative binomial (RENB) model was considered for this
study which incorporates a random location specific effects into
the relationship between the expected numbers of crashes and the
covariates.
The structure of the RENB model used in this study is as follows:
 
E (Ait ) = exp ˇXit + ui + εit
where E(Ait ) represents the predicted number of crashes along tram
route section i in year t, Xit is the vector of explanatory variables,
␤ is the vector of estimable parameter, εit is the vector of residual
errors, and ui represents the random effects for ith location group
and exp(ui ) is gamma distributed with mean 1 and variance ␣i ,
where ␣i is the over dispersion parameter in the NB model. The
RENB model allows the over dispersion parameter to vary randomly
across groups and assume that 1/(1 + ˛i ) follows beta distribution of
Beta(r, s) (Hausman et al., 1984; Shankar et al., 1998). Estimation of
two distribution parameters r and s, and model parameter ␤ were
conducted by maximum likelihood technique.
3.2. Variable selection process
A forward selection approach was considered for this study to
include the variables in the model. The basic model was set up
considering the intercept and the general traffic volume variable.
All other variables were added to the model one by one. The key
assumption of this approach is to incorporate a variable in the
model which is significant at the 95% level and can increase model’s
goodness of fit due to its inclusion. Before inclusion of variables
into the model, a correlation matrix was developed to examine
whether the variables of concern are highly correlated with other
variables. The basic idea was to avoid inclusion of both variables
which were highly correlated. Correlation among variables were
tested depending on the Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The cor-
relation was considered as high when the coefficient was more than
±0.7 (Hinkle et al., 2003; Mukaka, 2012).
3.3. Model goodness of fit
Model goodness-of-fit was tested and compared using the
McFadden pseudo R-squared value (McFadden, 1973). The McFad-
den pseudo R-squared is estimated as follow:
 
LL ˇ
2
R =1− (3)
LL (C)
where LL(ˇ) is the log-likelihood value of the full model and LL(C)
is log-likelihood value of the constant only model.
The another measure, R˛ 2 , proposed by Miaou et al. (1996) was
deployed in this study to determine how well the variance of data
is captured by the model relative to a fundamental model with no
(1)
variables (Shahla et al., 2009). This measure takes the NB dispersion
parameter and is estimated as follows:
˛
2
R˛ =1− (4)
1 + ˛max
where ␣ is the estimated over dispersion parameter for the selected
model and ␣max is the estimated over dispersion parameter for the
fundamental model containing only constant term.
4. Results and discussions
Table 2 presents the matrix of the Pearson’s correlation coef-
ficients among all variables considered for the model. The results
show that none of the variables are highly correlated with other
variables as the correlation coefficients are less than ±0.7 (Hinkle
et al., 2003; Mukaka, 2012).
Table 3 presents the parameter estimates obtained from both
the random effects negative binomial (RENB) and the negative
binomial (NB) model using the maximum likelihood technique in
STATA version 13 (STATACorp., 2013; 2013) statistical software.
The dispersion parameter estimated from the NB model was
(2) found to be significantly different from zero (␣ = 0.27), which sug-
gests that the negative binomial model structure was more suitable
than the poisson structure. The value of R␣2 was found as 0.84 for
the NB model, which is more than 0.7 and indicates that the NB
model formulation can explain the most of the variations in colli-
sion data (Miaou et al., 1996; Shahla et al., 2009). The results show
that the RENB model results in a significantly better log-likelihood
at convergence than the NB model. Also the RENB model improves
overall fit (R2 = 0.133) compared to the NB model (R2 = 0.098). Also
the likelihood-ratio test vs pooled test result indicates that the
panel estimation is significant compared to the pooled estima-
tion (STATA, 2014). In addition, the Hausman specification test
is insignificant, which suggests using the random effects model
instead of the fixed effects model. The results from the RENB model
will be explained below.
The analysis results showed that tram-involved crashes increase
with the increase in tram service frequency (␤= 2.71). These results
are as expected as higher tram service frequency is associated with
higher exposure between trams and other road users.
The analysis outcomes indicated that tram-involved crashes
considerably decrease with the increase in tram stop spacing
(␤= −0.42). The presence of more tram stops along tram route sec-
tions i.e. less spacing between stops, would mean trams have to
brake and accelerate at stops more frequently and increase the
chance of collisions between trams and other road users. This
finding is in agreement with previous study, where transit stop
density was found to be positively correlated with crash occurrence
(Cheung et al., 2008). In a mixed traffic tram operating environ-
ment, other vehicles have to stop at the rear of trams at tram stops
with older designs i.e. at curb side stops to allow passengers’ to
board and alight (Currie et al., 2011). This may increase rear end
collisions between trams and other vehicles at/near stops. In addi-
 F. Naznin et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 92 (2016) 15–21 19

Table 2
Pearson’s correlation coefficients among variables.

Traffic volume Section Length Service per week Average speed Stop spacing Platform stop ratio Lane priority TSP ratio

Traffic volume 1.0 0.160b −0.022 −0.072 0.143b 0.035 0.134b −0.044
Section Length 0.160b 1.0 0.029 −0.027 0.136b −0.406b −0.321b −0.326b
Service per week −0.022 0.029 1.0 0.108a −0.013 0.030 0.070 0.121b
Average speed −0.072 −0.027 0.108a 1.0 −0.285b −0.023 −0.011 −0.091a
Stop spacing 0.143b 0.136b −0.013 −0.285b 1.0 0.225b 0.170b 0.284b
Platform stop ratio 0.035 −0.406b 0.030 −0.023 0.225b 1.0 0.538b 0.395b
Lane priority 0.134b −0.321b 0.070 −0.011 0.170b 0.538b 1.0 0.522b
TSP ratio −0.044 −0.326b 0.121b −0.091a 0.284b 0.395b 0.522b 1.0
a
Correlation is significant at the 95% level (2-tailed).
b
Correlation is significant at the 99% level (2-tailed).

TABLE 3
Outcomes of the RENB model.

Variable Parameter estimates

Random effect negative binomial (RENB) model Negative binomial (NB) model

Intercept −16.20a (2.84) −18.97a (1.79)

Ln(AADT) 0.18a (0.092) 0.17a (0.064)
Ln(Section Length) 0.31a (0.091) 0.28a (0.059)
Ln(Services per week) 2.71a (0.34) 2.71a (0.22)
Average Speed 0.09a (0.001) 0.05a (0.003)
Stop Spacing −0.42a (0.08) −0.38 (0.05)
Platform stop ratio −0.08a (0.002) −0.04a (0.003)
Tram lane priority (yes = 1) −0.15a (0.081) −0.17a (0.06)
Proportion of tram signal prioritized intersection −0.25a (0.18) −0.25a (0.12)
Log-likelihood with constant only −1031.061 −1031.061
Log-likelihood at convergence −893.59 −929.7764
McFadden pseudo R2 0.133 0.098
Parameter, rb 57.84 (52.6)
Parameter, sb 4.34 (1.04)
Dispersion parameter, ␣ (95% CI) 0.27 (0.187 ∼ 0.394)
R␣2 c
0.84
Likelihood-ratio test vs. pooled: chibar2 = 65.59: Prob > = 0.000
Hausman Test: chi2 (8) = 10.47: Prob > chi2 = 0.216 > 0.05

Note: Standards errors are given in parentheses.

a
Significant at the 95% level.
b
Inverse of one plus the dispersion is assumed to follow a Beta(r, s) distribution in the RENB (STATA, 2016).
c
Outcome is not available.

tion safety zone stops, the older design stop, have a narrow waiting
area for passengers adjacent to a metal barrier in the middle of the
road, are known to have potential tram-involved crash risks and
the most common type of crash risk is passengers being struck by
trams (Currie and Reynolds, 2010). Finally tram stop density tends
to increase in central city areas where tram demand and pedes-
trian crossing volumes are higher. This factor might act to increase
exposure to crash risk. Overall less tram stops along tram route sec-
tions help to reduce the above mentioned potential tram-involved
crashes.
The analysis results also showed that tram-involved crashes
increase with the increment of tram route section length (␤= 0.31)
and general traffic volume (␤= 0.18). This is because, the longer
tram route section and higher traffic volume are the associated
with higher exposure between trams and other road users; and
these have been shown to be reliable predictors of crash frequency
by a previous study (Cheung et al., 2008).
The model suggested that tram route sections with a larger num-
ber of signalized intersections with tram signal priority experience
less crash occurrences (␤= −0.25). The result is in agreement with
authors other studies (Naznin et al., 2015b,c), which illustrate that
the presence of tram signal priority improves overall road safety
at intersections in Melbourne. However, the result is the opposite
of findings by Shahla et al. (2009), who examined transit safety at
intersections in Toronto and found that tram-involved collisions
increased at intersections due to the presence of tram signal pri-
ority. The design of tram signal priority features are different in
Melbourne compared to Toronto (Currie and Shalaby, 2008). In Mel-
bourne, a separate ‘T’ light is provided for tram movement, which is
a possible reason for reduced tram-involved crash occurrence, as ‘T’
lights are configured to give trams exclusive first departures before
the rest of traffic at intersections. This acts to segregate trams from
general traffic at intersection and reduce collision risks. Some Mel-
bourne traffic signals also operate a separate opposing turn traffic
exclusive turn arrow to clear turning traffic from the lane where
trams are operating; this is a form of priority to enable trams to
proceed without delay. In addition, ‘hook turns’ and turn bans in
Melbourne represent potential reasons for reduced crash occur-
rence between trams and other vehicles; factors backed up by the
research of Currie and Reynolds (Currie and Reynolds, 2011). More-
over, crash exposures at intersections along tram routes are higher
in Toronto compared to Melbourne, as the tram frequencies are
higher in Toronto; Toronto has an average of 12 trams/hr vs 8/hr
in Melbourne (Currie and Shalaby, 2008). These factors may act to
explain why the tram signal priority reduces tram-involved crash
occurrence in Melbourne.
The model outcomes also suggested that crash frequency for
tram routes with tram lane priority have approximately exp (−0.15)
or 0.86 times of the crash frequency for routes without tram lane
priority assuming all other variables are constant. That means, the
presence of tram lane priority is associated with a 14% reduction
in tram-involved crash occurrence at all severity levels. This find-
ing is in agreement with authors previous studies (Naznin et al.,
2015b,c), which showed that the introduction of tram lane priority
is effective in reducing total crashes along tram routes by 19.4%.
Also a study by Richmond et al. (2014) suggested that the presence
20 F. Naznin et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 92 (2016) 15–21
of dedicated streetcar right-of-way can reduce the rate of colli-
sions. Removing general traffic from tram tracks can help to reduce
collisions between trams and other vehicles.
The model also indicated that higher tram average speed
increases the tram-involved crash frequencies (␤= 0.09). Trams are
classified as heavy vehicles and require more stopping distance to
stop after braking compared to cars (Candappa et al., 2013). Trams
travelling at slower speeds reduces their stopping distance and
increases the probability that the tram can come to a complete stop
prior to a collision with other road users and thus can reduce the
probability of crash occurrence.
The results suggested that the presence of platform stops can
reduce tram-involved crash frequency (␤ = −0.09), as the platform
stops can alleviate the issues associated with older design tram
stops by providing safe and raised waiting platform for passengers
and can reduce the possibility of passengers being hit by trams
(Currie and Reynolds, 2010; Naznin et al., 2015a).
5. Conclusion
Previous research is limited in the field of investigating the fac-
tors influencing tram-involved crash frequency at a macro level.
The study aims to explore the safety effects of key traffic, transit
and route factors on tram-involved crash frequency for tram route
sections in Melbourne, Australia. A random effects negative bino-
mial (RENB) regression model was adopted for this study to model
crash frequency in relation to variables, as the available crash data
followed a panel data structure and the variables (traffic, transit
and route factors) are likely to have location specific effects.
The results showed that tram service frequency per week, tram
stop spacing, tram route section length, tram signal priority, general
traffic volume and tram lane priority have considerable association
with tram-involved crash occurrences. The average speed of the
tram and the proportion of platform tram stops are also linked to
tram-involved crash frequency but at a lower level in effect size.
The study findings provide useful insights on route section
level tram-involved crash occurrence and present useful planning
tools for transit agencies. There are numerous opportunities to
carry out further research in this field. In particular, further col-
lection of tram incident data could be undertaken as a means to
improve model validity and possibly identify other factors that can
be significant in explaining tram-involved crash frequency. Also
more advanced modelling approaches can be adopted as a way to
improve model fitness. Identifying key factors associated with dif-
ferent crash severity levels will also be a potential area for further
research.
Acknowledgements
This research is a part of wider Australian Research Council
Industry Linkage Program project LP100100159, ‘Optimizing the
Design and Implementation of Public Transport Priority Initiatives’
Institute of Transport Studies, Monash University in association
with the Transport Research Group, University of Southampton,
UK. The Principal Chief Investigator is Professor Graham Currie, the
Chief Investigator is Professor Majid Sarvi and the Partner Investi-
gator is Dr. Nick Hounsell.
The authors would like to thank the Australian Research Council
(LP100100159) for financial support of the research. The authors
would also like to thank Yarra Trams for their kind assistance in
collating data for this study.
References
Abdel-Aty, M.A., Radwan, A.E., 2000. Modeling traffic accident occurrence and
involvement. Accid. Anal. Prev. 32, 633–642.
Anna, T., Bruce, C., 2001. Improved Pedestrian Safety at Tram Stops. Monash
University Accident Research Centre.
Candappa, N., Corben, B., Yuen, J.,2013. Addressing the conflict potential between
motor vehicles and trams at cut-through locations. Monash University
Accident Research Centre, May 2013, Report no: 317 ISBN: 0-7326-23871.
Cheung, C., Shalaby, A.S., Persaud, B.N., Hadayeghi, A., 2008. Models for safety
analysis of road surface transit. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 2063,
168–175.
Chin, H.C., Quddus, M.A., 2003. Applying the random effect negative binomial
model to examine traffic accident occurrence at signalized intersections. Accid.
Anal. Prev. 35, 253–259.
Cliche, D., Reid, S., 2007. Growing Patronage-Think Tram? International Conference
Series on Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport—Hamilton
Island http://hdl.handle.net/2123/6034.
Currie, G., Reynolds, J., 2010. Vehicle and pedestrian safety at light rail stops in
mixed traffic. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 2146, 26–34.
Currie, G., Reynolds, J., 2011. Managing trams and traffic at intersections with hook
turns. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 2219, 10–19.
Currie, G., Shalaby, A., 2008. Active transit signal priority for streetcars: experience
in melbourne, Australia, and Toronto, Canada. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res.
Board 2042, 41–49.
Currie, G., Tivendale, K., Scott, R., 2011. Analysis and mitigation of safety issues at
curbside tram stops. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 2219, 20–29.
Currie, G., Goh, K., Sarvi, M., 2012. Exploring the Impacts of Transit Priority
Measures Using Automatic Vehicle Monitoring (AVM) Data , Australasian
Transport Research Forum (ATRF), 35th, 2012, Perth,Western Australia,
Australia.
Fouracre, P., Dunkerley, C., Gardner, G., 2003. Mass rapid transit systems for cities
in the developing world. Transport Rev. 23, 299–310.
Gakenheimer, R., 1999. Urban mobility in the developing world. Transp. Res. Part
A: Policy Pract. 33, 671–689.
Goh, K.C.K., Currie, G., Sarvi, M., Logan, D., 2014. Bus accident analysis of routes
with/without bus priority. Accid. Anal. Prev. 65, 18–27.
Grzebieta, R., Rechnitzer, G., Daly, D., Little, P., Enever, D., 1999. Crash
Compatibility of Trams. Road safety research, policing, education conference,
Canberra, Act, Australia.
Hausman, J.A., Hall, B.H., Griliches, Z., 1984. Econometric Models for Count Data
with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship. National Bureau of
Economic Research Cambridge, Mass., USA.
Hinkle, D.E., Wiersma, W., Jurs, S.G., 2003. Applied Statistics for the Behavioral
Sciences, 5th Edition. Houghton Mifflin.
Lord, D., Mannering, F., 2010. The statistical analysis of crash-frequency data: a
review and assessment of methodological alternatives. Transp. Res. Part A:
Policy Pract. 44, 291–305.
McFadden, D., 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Front.
Econom., 105–142.
Miaou, S.-P., Lu, A., Lum, H.S., 1996. Pitfalls of using R2 to evaluate goodness of fit of
accident prediction models. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 1542, 6–13.
Miaou, S.-P., 1994. The relationship between truck accidents and geometric design
of road sections: poisson versus negative binomial regressions. Accid. Anal.
Prev. 26, 471–482.
Mukaka, M., 2012. A guide to appropriate use of Correlation coefficient in medical
research. Malawi Med. J. 24, 69–71.
Naznin, F., Currie, G., Logan, D., Sarvi, M., 2015a. Safety impacts of platform tram
stops on pedestrians in mixed traffic operation: a comparison group
before-after crash study. Accid. Anal. Prev. 86, 1–8.
Naznin, F., Currie, G., Sarvi, M., Logan, D., 2015b. An empirical Bayes safety
evaluation of tram/streetcar signal and lane priority measures in Melbourne.
Traffic Inj. Prev., 00–00.
Naznin, F., Currie, G., Sarvi, M., Logan, D., 2015c. Road Safety Impacts of
Tram/Streetcar Priority Measures?A Before-After Study Using Empirical Bayes
Method , Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting.
Quintero, L., Sayed, T., Wahba, M.M., 2013. Safety models incorporating graph
theory based transit indicators. Accid. Anal. Prev. 50, 635–644.
Richmond, S.A., Rothman, L., Buliung, R., Schwartz, N., Larsen, K., Howard, A., 2014.
Exploring the impact of a dedicated streetcar right-of-way on pedestrian motor
vehicle collisions: a quasi experimental design. Accid. Anal. Prev. 71, 222–227.
STATA, 2014. Stata 14 Documentation [Online]. Available: http://www.stata.com/
features/documentation/. [Accessed 14. 05. 15].
STATA, 2016. STATA manual [Online]. Available: http://www.stata.com/
manuals13/xtxtnbreg.pdf [Accessed March 2016].
STATACorp., 2013. 2013. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13 [Online]. College
Station, TX : StataCorp LP.
Shahla, F., Shalaby, A.S., Persaud, B.N., Hadayeghi, A., 2009. Analysis of transit
safety at signalized intersections in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Transp. Res. Rec.:
J. Transp. Res. Board 2102, 108–114.
Shankar, V., Albin, R., Milton, J., Mannering, F., 1998. Evaluating median crossover
likelihoods with clustered accident counts: an empirical inquiry using the
random effects negative binomial model. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res.
Board 1635, 44–48.
Topp, H.H., 1999. Innovations in tram and light rail systems. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.
Part F: J. Rail Rapid Transit 213, 133–141.
VicRoads, 2014. Arterial Road Traffic Volumes [Online] [Online]. Available: https://
www.data.vic.gov.au/data/dataset/arterial-road-traffic-volumes[Accessed 22.
10. 2014].
 F. Naznin et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 92 (2016) 15–21 21

Vuchic, V.R., 1981. Urban Public Transportation; Systems and Technology. Yarra Trams, 2011. Network Development: Yarra Trams Current Network. Yarra
Prentice-Hall. Trams, Victoria.
Washington, S.P., Karlaftis, M.G., Mannering, F.L., 2010. Statistical and Econometric Yarra Trams 2014. Tram Incedent Database. Melbourne.
Methods for Transportation Data Analysis. CRC Press.
Yarra Trams Database 2014. Raised Platform Stops − Completed: Personal data
collection.
Yarra Trams 2010. Tram Priority − Research, Modelling & Analysis of Tram Priority
on the Melbourne Network.