Investigating Public Perception Toward the Level Crossing Without Railway Gate Crossing (Case Study: at JPL 297 dan 294 Lamongan)

According to the Minister of Transportation regulation No. 36 article 4, year 2011 concerning the intersection of level crossings, the minimum distance between crossings is 800 meters. However, this regulation has not been well implemented at the level crossings of JPL 297, 295, and 294 at Sukodadi Village, Lamongan Regency. Since the regulations are not implemented yet, hence the accidents frequently occur. Therefore, this study was conducted to find out public perceptions of the planned closure of JPL 297 and 294. This study applied descriptive quantitative method by calculating LHR and vehicle queue lengths. Among the three JPLs, the JPL with the highest LHR was JPL 295 with the total of 249 vehicles per hour. Meanwhile, the longest queue of vehicles occurred at JPL 295 reaching 23 meters. Furthermore, the data were analyzed by using multiple linear regression. The findings claimed that the indicators of benefits involved convenience and safety in 180, 11,506 and 7,781, while the result of the public perception obtained 66.8%.


INTRODUCTION
The increasing number of accidents in the transportation sector has become a popular issue. Every year, the number of accidents related to the transportation especially in the land transportation and rail sectors are continue increase [1], [2]. The location of the intersection of highways and railroads are still become the collective work in the transportation area to be even better. The level crossing impact is also become a concern in motorized roads because it causes long queues of vehicles [3]- [6]. With a high volume of vehicles and trains being a top priority, it causes quite a long queue when the train is passing [7], [8].
The intersection of level crossings on highways frequently causes accidents between trains and motorized vehicles which cross the level crossings [9]. Congestion that frequently occurs at level crossings might be caused by various factors, for instance narrow roads, high traffic or vehicle volume, and inappropriate intersection locations [9]- [11]. Lamongan is one of the regencies which has high numbers of level crossings that frequently caused accidents. This issue happens due to unavailability of guards who stay in level crossings According to the Minister of Transportation regulation No. 36 article 4, year 2011 concerning the intersection of level crossings, the minimum distance between crossings is 800 meters. However, this regulation has not been well implemented at the level crossings of JPL 297, 295, and 294 at Sukodadi Village, Lamongan Regency. Since the regulations are not implemented yet, hence the accidents frequently occur. Therefore, this study was conducted to find out public perceptions of the planned closure of JPL 297 and 294. This study applied descriptive quantitative method by calculating LHR and vehicle queue lengths. Among the three JPLs, the JPL with the highest LHR was JPL 295 with the total of 249 vehicles per hour. Meanwhile, the longest queue of vehicles occurred at JPL 295 reaching 23 meters. Furthermore, the data were analyzed by using multiple linear regression. The findings claimed that the indicators of benefits involved convenience and safety in 180, 11,506 and 7,781, while the result of the public perception obtained 66.8% [38] and the distance between adjacent crossings. This condition makes motorized vehicles freely pass through the crossings regardless of their safety. Lamongan Regency has about 120 level crossings with crossing guards and those without crossing guards [12]. One of the level crossings in Lamongan Regency is located in Sukodadi Village. At JPL 297 with JPL 295, it only has 272 meters distance. On the other hand, from JPL 295 to 297 has 167 meters distance. This is no longer in accordance with the level crossings regulation of Ministry of Transportation (PM) No 36 Article 4 concerning the intersection and/or intersection between the railway line and other buildings. In this regulation, the minimum distance from one level crossing to another level crossing is at least 800 meters [13]. In addition, JPL 294 and JPL 297 do not have crossing guards and are located closed with other buildings, trees and crossing fences which make it difficult for motorists to see the arrival of trains at the crossing.
In accordance with the accident data taken from the East Java Provincial Transportation Service, the accidents frequently occur at JPL 294 with an average number of 5 incidents per month. On March 27 2021, there was an accident at JPL 297 which resulted 2 victims dead on the spot. This accident was caused by lack of understanding of level crossings and the absence of guards at JPL 297. This issue may lead to the possibility of crossing closure of JPL 294 and JPL 297 which are prone to accidents. The crossing has no guards and the position of JPL is closer with the distance less than 800 meters. The plan of JPL 294 and JPL 297 crossing closure will be diverted to JPL 295 where its condition is in line with PM regulation no 36 article 4 concerning the intersection and/or intersection of rail lines with highways.
Therefore, this research aimed at determining the public perception, especially from those who live at Sukodadi Village, Lamongan Regency on the JPL 294 and JPL 297 planned closure. From the research findings, it can be illustrated how the public perceptions regarding the JPL 297 and JPL 294 closure that will be diverted to JPL 295 as the main level crossings

RESEARCH METHOD
This study applied descriptive quantitative analysis, which in this study described the results of the crossing conditions on a plot of Sukodadi Village and LHR observations at JPL 297, 295, and 294. The samples were carried out by implementing cluster sampling technique. It means that the samples taken are representative of the entire sample which is made into a single population [14]. The survey data applied quantitative methods to describe traffic conditions and vehicle queue lengths. Meanwhile, perception survey data were analyzed by using multiple linear regression method to see the public perception regarding the closure plan of level crossing

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Referring to the data of level crossing accidents in East Java in 2021, level crossings in Lamongan Regency had an average of 10 -20 accidents every month with many of the victims were die. From January 2021 to May, there had been 5 accidents with fatalities [15]. According to the survey results, there were several deficiencies at JPL 294 and JPL 297 for instance, the inventory and condition of the crossing locations which were not in accordance with the regulations.

Planned closure of JPL 294 and 297
This closure plan was carried out based on the survey in location with the minister of transportation regulation no 36 article 3 concerning level crossings. The survey result of crossing conditions were used as a basis for analysis and consideration for the Sukodadi Village society regarding the plan for closing level crossings. The results could be seen in the table below:  This research involved the society at Sukodadi Village and there were 3 level crossings that lead to Sukodadi Village. Therefore, the 100 respondents were divided into 3 sampling locations around JPL 297, 295, and 294. The samples distribution result was described as follows:

Instrument Analysis Test
Instrument test was conducted to 30 respondents as aimed determining whether the results of each instrument was valid or not. In accordance with the testing result on 30 respondents, 30 statements were declared valid and were eligible for the sampling stage at Sukodadi Village.

Classical Assumption Test
Assumption test was completed to test whether the data had normal distribution, there was no multicollinearity, and there was no heteroscedasticity. The results of the classical assumption test were carried out after the questionnaires were distributed to 100 respondents at Sukodadi Village. The correlation result value between the independent variables namely the benefit variable (X1), the convenience variable (X2), and finally the safety variable (X3) all had VIF value less than 10. X1 with 1.104 value, X2 with 1.048, and X3 1,085. Meanwhile, the output tolerance for X1 was 0.906, X2 was 0.954, and X3 was 0.922, all of those results were lower than 0.1. To sum up, there was no multicollinearity in this stage.

Heteroscedasticity Test
Heteroscedasticity test was conducted to determine whether in the regression model there was variance inequality of the residuals from one to another observation or not. Heteroscedasticity purposed to describe the spread of the independent variables [16]. Good results of Heteroscedasticity test were illustrated the random pattern. The results of the heteroscedasticity test in this study was explained as follows:

Figure 2. Heteroscedasticity Test Result
The graph above was a scatter plot. The graph result illustrated that the patterns spread around the X axis (horizontal line 0) and Y (vertical line 0). The random distribution and spread in the top, below, left, and right of the X and Y axes on line 0 indicated that there was no heteroscedasticity in the regression model.  Table 14 confirmed that the value of R Square was 0.668 = 66.8%. Therefore, it could be concluded that the influence magnitude of the independent variable was 66.8% on the dependent variable.

CONCLUSION
According to the analysis results and discussion that had been carried out, the conclusion could be described as follows: