Many types of statistical models have been proposed for estimating accident risk in transport networks, ranging from basic Poisson and negative binomial models to more complicated models, such as zero-inflated and hierarchical Bayesian models. However, little systematic effort has been devoted to comparing the performance and practical implications of these models and ranking criteria when they are used for identifying hazardous locations. This research investigates the relative performance of three alternative models: the traditional negative binomial model, the heterogeneous negative binomial model, and the Poisson lognormal model. In particular, this work focuses on the impact of the choice of two alternative prior distributions (i.e., gamma versus lognormal) and the effect of allowing variability in the dispersion parameter on the outcome of the analysis. From each model, two alternative accident estimators are computed by using the conditional mean under both marginal and posterior distributions. A sample of Canadian highway-railway intersections with an accident history of 5 years is used to calibrate and evaluate the three alternative models and the two ranking criteria. It is concluded that the choice of model assumptions and ranking criteria can lead to considerably different lists of hazardous locations.