The number of accidents at level railway crossings, especially crossings without gate barriers/attendants, is still very high due to technical problems, driving culture, and human error. The aim of this research is to provide road maps application based on ergonomic visual displays design that can increase awareness level for drivers before crossing railway crossings. The double awareness driving (DAD) map information system was built based on the waterfall method, which has 4 steps: defining requirements, system and software design, unit testing, and implementation. User needs to include origin-destination location, geolocation, distance & travel time, directions, crossing information, and crossing notifications. The DAD map application was tested using a usability test to determine the ease of using the application used the System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and an Electroencephalogram (EEG) test to determine the increase in concentration in drivers before and immediately crossing a railway crossing. Periodically, the application provides information on the driving zone being passed; green zone for driving distances > 500 m to the crossing, the yellow zone for distances 500m to 100m, and the red zone for distances < 100 m. The DAD map also provides information on the position and speed of the nearest train that will cross the railway crossing. The usability test for 10 respondents giving SUS score = 97.5 (satisfaction category) with a time-based efficiency value = 0.29 goals/s, error rate = 0%, and a success rate of 93.33%. The cognitive ergonomic testing via Electroencephalogram (EEG) produced a focus level of 21.66%. Based on the results of DAD map testing can be implemented to improve the safety of level railroad crossings in an effort to reduce the number of driving accidents.

1. Anderson, C. (2023). Fatal Florida train crash highlights dangers of private, unguarded crossings that exist across US | AP News. Available online: https://apnews.com/article/florida-train-suv-crash-family-killed-a7f40bba6b4508f4c59a44b9d0c77a8b (accessed on 25 September 2023).
2. Bao, S., Wu, L., Yu, B., & Sayer, J. R. (2020). An examination of teen drivers’ car-following behavior under naturalistic driving conditions: With and without an advanced driving assistance system. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 147, 105762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105762
3. Caird, J. K., Edwards, C. J., Creaser, J. I., & Horrey, W. J. (2005). Older Driver Failures of Attention at Intersections: Using Change Blindness Methods to Assess Turn Decision Accuracy. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 47(2), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720054679542
4. Carofiglio, V., de Carolis, B., & D’Errico, F. (2019). A BCI-based Assessment of a player’s state of mind for game adaptation. CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
5. Dezhkam, B., & Eslami, S. M. (2017). A review of methods for highway-railway crossings safety management process. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(3), 561–568. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/632
6. Endsley, M. R. (2017). Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Situational Awareness, 9–42. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315087924-3
7. Evans, A. W. (2011). Fatal train accidents on Europe’s railways: 1980–2009. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(1), 391–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.09.009
8. Ghasemzadeh, A., & Ahmed, M. M. (2019). Quantifying regional heterogeneity effect on drivers’ speeding behavior using SHRP2 naturalistic driving data: A multilevel modeling approach. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 106, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.06.017
9. Guo, Z., Pan, Y., Zhao, G., Cao, S., & Zhang, J. (2018). Detection of Driver Vigilance Level Using EEG Signals and Driving Contexts. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 67(1), 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1109/tr.2017.2778754
10. Hofbauer, M., Kuhn, C. B., Puttner, L., Petrovic, G., & Steinbach, E. (2020). Measuring Driver Situation Awareness Using Region-of-Interest Prediction and Eye Tracking. 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM). https://doi.org/10.1109/ism.2020.00022
11. Hogan, D., Crawford, J., Smit, D., & Smith, P. (2017). Wayfinding in the built environment stage 2 & 3: Final report, Brisbane, Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation.
12. Hong, W.-T., Clifton, G., & Nelson, J. D. (2023). Railway accident causation analysis: Current approaches, challenges and potential solutions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 186, 107049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2023.107049
13. Hussain, A., & Mkpojiogu, E. O. C. (2016). Usability evaluation techniques in mobile commerce applications: A systematic review. AIP Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4960889
14. Johnson, P. M. (2015). An investigation of railroad-highway grade crossing consolidation rating in Iowa. https://doi.org/10.31274/etd-180810-3941
15. Kasalica, S., Obradović, M., Blagojević, A., Jeremić, D., & Vuković, M. (2020). Models for ranking railway crossings for safety improvement. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 3(3), 85. https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta20303085k
16. Kaushik, P., Moye, A., Vugt, M. van, & Roy, P. P. (2022). Decoding the cognitive states of attention and distraction in a real-life setting using EEG. Scientific Reports, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-24417-w
17. Li, C., Tang, T., Chatzimichailidou, M. M., Jun, G. T., & Waterson, P. (2019). A hybrid human and organisational analysis method for railway accidents based on STAMP-HFACS and human information processing. Applied Ergonomics, 79, 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.12.011
18. Li, Q., Ng, K. K. H., Yu, S. C. M., Yiu, C. Y., & Lyu, M. (2023). Recognising situation awareness associated with different workloads using EEG and eye-tracking features in air traffic control tasks. Knowledge-Based Systems, 260, 110179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2022.110179
19. Mironer, M., Coltman, M., McCown, R. (2000). Assessment of Risks for High-Speed Rail Grade Crossings on the Empire Corridor. US DOT/FRA.
20. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability testing. Usability Engineering, 165–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-052029-2.50009-7
21. Oron-Gilad, T., & Borowsky, A. (2015). Hazard Awareness in Driving: Measurement and Training. The Cambridge Handbook of Applied Perception Research, 592–612. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511973017.036
22. Pamuła, T., & Pamuła, W. (2021). Detection of Safe Passage for Trains at Rail Level Crossings Using Deep Learning. Sensors, 21(18), 6281. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21186281
23. Park, P., Parisien, J., Sahaji, R., Cozier, C. (2021). Development of geographic information system to identify potential high collision locations in Saskatoon. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, Interim Report.
24. Rahman, Md. M., Sarkar, A. K., Hossain, Md. A., Hossain, Md. S., Islam, Md. R., Hossain, Md. B., Quinn, J. M. W., & Moni, M. A. (2021). Recognition of human emotions using EEG signals: A review. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 136, 104696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104696
25. Rangra, S., Sallak, M., Schön, W., & Vanderhaegen, F. (2015). Human Reliability Assessment under Uncertainty—Towards a Formal Method. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 3230–3237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.874
26. Read, G. J. M., Cox, J. A., Hulme, A., Naweed, A., & Salmon, P. M. (2021). What factors influence risk at rail level crossings? A systematic review and synthesis of findings using systems thinking. Safety Science, 138, 105207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105207
27. Saccomanno, F.F., Fu, L., Park, P. (2017). Decision support tool for prioritizing safety improvement programs at high-risk grade crossings. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering university of Waterloo.
28. Sagberg, F., Selpi, Bianchi Piccinini, G. F., & Engström, J. (2015). A Review of Research on Driving Styles and Road Safety. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 57(7), 1248–1275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815591313
29. Schlatter, T., & Levinson, D. A. (2013). Visual usability principles and practices for designing Digital Applications. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers is an imprint of Elsevier.
30. SUS: A “Quick and Dirty” Usability Scale. (1996). Usability Evaluation In Industry, 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781498710411-35
31. Tuwanakotta, J. L., & Tanaamah, A. R. (2022). Evaluation of Usability Quality Between InDriver and Maxim Applications Using Usability Scale (SUS) and Usability Testing Methods. SISTEMASI, 11(3), 630. https://doi.org/10.32520/stmsi.v11i3.2001
32. Widyanti, A., & Qurratu Ainizzamani, S. A. (2017). Usability evaluation of online transportation’ user interface. 2017 International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation (ICITSI). https://doi.org/10.1109/icitsi.2017.8331762
33. Wijayanto, T., Marcillia, S. R., Lufityanto, G., Wisnugraha, B. B., Alma, T. G., & Abdianto, R. U. (2021). The effect of situation awareness on driving performance in young sleep-deprived drivers. IATSS Research, 45(2), 218–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2020.10.002
34. Zhang, B., de Winter, J., Varotto, S., Happee, R., & Martens, M. (2019). Determinants of take-over time from automated driving: A meta-analysis of 129 studies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 64, 285–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.04.020