PURPOSES : This study investigates the factors affecting extra-long tunnel accidents by integrating data on tunnel geometry, traffic flow, and traffic accidents and derives the underlying implications to mitigate the severity of accidents. METHODS : Two processes centered on three key data points (tunnel geometry, traffic flow, and traffic accidents) were used in this study. The first is to analyze the spatial characteristics of extra-long tunnel traffic accidents and categorize them from multiple perspectives. The other was to investigate the factors affecting extra-long tunnel traffic accidents using the equivalent property-damage-only (EPDO) of individual accidents and the aforementioned data as the dependent and independent variables, respectively, by employing an ordered logistic regression model. RESULTS : Gyeonggi-do, Gyeongsangnam-do, and Gangwon-do are three metropolitan municipalities that have a significant number of extra-long tunnel accidents; Busan and Seoul have the most extra-long tunnel accidents, accounting for 23.2% (422 accidents) and 18.6% (339 accidents) of the 1,821 accidents that occurred from 2007 to 2020, respectively. In addition, approximately 70% of extra-long tunnel traffic accidents occurred along tunnels with lengths of less than 2 km, and Seoul and Busan accounted for over 60% of the top 20 extra-long tunnels with accidents. Most importantly, the Hwangryeong (down) tunnel in Busan experienced the most extra-long tunnel traffic accidents, with 77 accidents occurring during the same period. As a result of the ordered logistic regression modeling with EPDO and multiple independent variables, the significant factors affecting the severity of extra-long tunnel traffic accidents were determined to be road type (freeway, local route, and metropolitan city road), traffic flow (speed), accident time (year, summer, weekend, and afternoon), accident type (rear end), traffic law violations (safe distance violation and center line violation), and offending vehicles (van, sedan, and truck). CONCLUSIONS : Based on these results, the following measures and implications for mitigating the severity of extra-long tunnel traffic accidents must be considered: upgrading the emergency response level of all road types to that of freeways and actively promoting techniques for regulating high-speed vehicles approaching and traversing within extra-long tunnels are necessary. In addition, the emergency response and preparation system should be reinforced, particularly when the damage from extra-long tunnel traffic accidents is more serious, such as during the summer, weekends, and afternoons. Finally, traffic law violations such as safe distance and centerline violations in extra-long tunnels should be prohibited.

PURPOSES : A highway operates in a continuous flow and has restricted access. When an accident occurs on a highway, the impact on the traffic flow is large. In particular, an accident that occurs in a tunnel has a more significant impact than an accident that occurs in a general section. Accordingly, the management agency classifies the tunnel as a dangerous section and manages a tunnel of more than 1000 m using the Tunnel Transportation Management System. The purpose of this study was to select dangerous tunnels that require intensive management for the efficient management of highway tunnels. METHODS : In this study, for the selection of dangerous tunnels for expressways, all highway tunnels were classified into five clusters by characteristics. The traffic accident severity — equivalent property damage only (EPDO) — for each tunnel cluster was derived through a traffic accident analysis. Based on the severity analysis results, the safety performance function (SPF) for each cluster was established, and the accident risk tunnel was selected based on the potential safety improvement (PSI) value of each tunnel calculated using the empirical Bayes (EB) method for each tunnel cluster. RESULTS : As a result of the analysis, accident risk tunnels were selected based on the PSI values of the tunnels for each highway tunnel group. Finally, 55 hazardous tunnels were identified as hazardous tunnels: 13 tunnels in Cluster 1, 3 tunnels in Cluster 2, 15 tunnels in Cluster 3, 18 tunnels in Cluster 4, and 6 tunnels in Cluster 5. CONCLUSIONS : After classifying all 1232 tunnels on the highway into five clusters according to tunnel characteristics, EPDO analysis was performed for each tunnel cluster. To this end, the SPF for each cluster was constructed, and accident risk tunnels were selected based on the PSI value of each tunnel calculated using the EB method for each tunnel cluster. The tunnel cluster was classified as a typical tunnel type. As a result, most of the first and second values were calculated from cluster E (long tunnel cluster).