2011 CRC Showcase - Safety & Security Theme - Safer level crossings


Published on

Safer Level Crossings presentation from the 2011 CRC for Rail Innovation Showcase.

Presenters: Dr Chris Wullems, QUT and Peter Furnell, DoT Victoria

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2011 CRC Showcase - Safety & Security Theme - Safer level crossings

  1. 1. Safer Level Crossings Chris Wullems (QUT) Peter Furnell (DoT Victoria) Rail CRC Showcase - 24 th August 2010
  2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>R3.122 Affordable Level Crossings Project – Stage 2 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Commenced in March 2011 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Participants: </li></ul>
  3. 4. Affordable Level Crossings <ul><li>Some figures on level crossing incidents… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost of incidents on level crossings to rail industry and community </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>$116,279,817 per annum (2010 $) (Tooth & Balmford, RISSB Railway Level Crossing Incident Costing Model 2010) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Indicative costs only. Based on historical averages for number of incidents and casualties. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Does not include suicides </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>8838 public level crossings in Australia as of 2009 (RISSB Level Crossing Stocktake 2009) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>33% with active protection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>67% with passive protection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost of installing active protection at all passive level crossings in Australia is estimated to be between $1.2 billion and $1.8 billion (excluding maintenance costs) (Cairney, 2003) </li></ul></ul>
  4. 5. Affordable Level Crossings <ul><li>Collectively, passive crossings represent a significant safety issue </li></ul><ul><li>Why Affordable Level Crossings? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>They cost at least 25% of the cost of traditional crossing technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For a given investment, more crossings can be treated </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Greater safety benefit for same investment used to treat crossings using traditional technologies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not intended to be a replacement for traditional technologies on high-exposure crossings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Target environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Crossings on a single-track line with </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Relatively low vehicle and rail traffic </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Little passenger train services if any </li></ul></ul></ul>
  5. 6. Affordable Level Crossings (2) <ul><li>Key Issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can low-cost level crossings provide better safety benefits for the network than the current approach of incremental upgrades? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reliability issues of low-cost technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Do low cost warning devices need to have the same reliability as traditional warning devices? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Issue of liability should an accident occur and it is determined that the same accident would not have occurred on a traditional high-integrity level crossing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How to evaluate and compare systems build using alternative low-cost technologies? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Need for lifecycle evaluation scheme </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Value of solving these issues for industry </li></ul>
  6. 7. R3.122 Affordable Level Crossings – Stage 2 (1) <ul><li>Project objectives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To estimate lifecycle costs of LCLCWDs and conventional warning devices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Investigate human factors of unavailability – frequent / prolonged right-side failure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To trial candidate LCLCWDs for a period of 12 months – shadow mode </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To determine whether adoption of LCLCWDs can provide a better safety outcome for Australia than the current incremental upgrade approach </li></ul></ul>
  7. 8. R3.122 Affordable Level Crossings – Stage 2 (2) <ul><li>Expected outcomes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Set of requirements for LCLCWDs with safety and availability targets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Risk assessment model </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Human reliability assessment model </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lifecycle assessment criteria </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Where cost savings can be made </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Trial results </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Comparative performance and operational data (reliability, availability, maintainability) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Results from human factors study </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Effectiveness of various measures to improve performance of road users at level crossings that are unavailable (effective communication of crossing state) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  8. 9. Making the case for LCLCWDs (1) <ul><li>Safety is a key issue </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Types of failure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Wrong-side (dangerous failure) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Right-side (fail-to-safe) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Preliminary risk assessment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Limitations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Based on averaged annualized data – statistical uncertainty is a consequence of limited number of occurrences </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Objectives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>To provide an indication of the magnitude of risk passive level crossings pose to employees, passengers and the general public; </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>To evaluates the viability of low cost level crossing warning devices (LCLCWDs) as a risk mitigation option </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assumes RX5 road user interface (AS1742.7-2007) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Eliminates the need to estimate the change in risk from a road-user human factors perspective and constrains the comparison to the underlying technology </li></ul></ul></ul>
  9. 10. Making the case for LCLCWDs (2) <ul><li>Obstacles to adoption </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Concern as to whether rail operators would be liable should an accident occur at a crossing with a LCLCWD? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>where the use of a conventional high-integrity warning device would have most likely prevented the same accident </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Concern as to whether adoption of LCLCWDs would be prohibited by Rail Safety Act? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>If low-cost technology achieves risk to be eliminated or reduced so far as is reasonably practicable (SFAIRP), then it would be utilized consistently with the Rail Safety Act. (letter from Victorian transport safety regulator to Victorian Railway Crossing Safety Steering Committee) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  10. 11. Making the case for LCLCWDs (3) <ul><li>In considering cost of eliminating or reducing risk SFAIRP, practitioners must demonstrate that the likelihood of the risk eventuating is remote or that the cost is grossly disproportionate to the safety benefit. (National guideline for the meaning of SFAIRP, NTC) </li></ul><ul><li>For risk assessment: gross disproportion < 0.1 benefit to cost ratio (BCR) for risks to general public on level crossings </li></ul><ul><li>Grade separation (elimination of risk) is grossly disproportionate to safety benefit for a low-exposure level crossing with passive controls </li></ul>
  11. 12. Making the case for LCLCWDs (4) <ul><li>Reduction of risk SFAIRP applied to LCLCWDs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Treatment of a population of crossings with a given budget </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>but... accidents and fatalities occur at a single level crossing… will safety regulators and law courts accept the population treatment argument? </li></ul></ul>
  12. 13. Making the case for LCLCWDs (5) <ul><li>Using statistics, a simple cause-consequence model was developed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Intent to measure improvement to the success of the road user notices and makes a controlled stop gate with the installation of LCLCWDs. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More comprehensive model would elaborate range of causes and consequences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Types of trains and vehicles involved and their cargo, collision speeds, condition of the road surface, human factors, crossing topology and environmental factors </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Would require access to incident reports </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Not necessary for preliminary analysis </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>On average a collision in Queensland results in approximately 0.112 fatalities and 0.17 major injuries to general public and 0.025 serious injuries for employees </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Average of 7.8 collisions per year (2006-2010) </li></ul></ul>Near-miss occurrence stats RLX ALCAM data Collision stats
  13. 14. Preliminary risk assessment (1) <ul><li>Risk assessment involved </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hazard identification – passive level crossing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Train to motor vehicle collision at level crossing” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Not all hazards and causes were developed </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Risk assessment focused on hazards that can be avoided through treatment with low-cost active protection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analysis of potential losses associated with hazard </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Annualized averages of fatalities, major injuries on level crossings </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Person Equivalent Fatalities (PEF) – values used: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1 fatality = 10 major injuries </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1 major injury = 20 minor injuries </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analysis of mitigation options for hazard </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3 LCLCWD and 1 conventional warning option considered </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cost-benefit analysis for each option </li></ul></ul></ul>
  14. 15. Preliminary risk assessment (2) <ul><li>Determining mitigated safety losses </li></ul><ul><ul><li>51% reduction of collisions from passive to flashing lights (estimates by Elvik, Høye, Vaa, & Sørensen, 2009) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Further 45% reduction with boom gates </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Less effectiveness due to increased failure rate </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>There is a safety benefit when failed to safe (not prolonged / frequent) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Wrong-side failure reduces safety benefit </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increase of risk due to wrong-side failure estimated in terms of person equivalent fatalities (PEF) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Based on the assumption that a collision will occur when a vehicle and train are at the crossing in wrong-side failure </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Monetary value of mitigated loss </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Value of Preventing a Fatality (VPF) $6,287,873 (2010 $) (RISSB) (Tooth & Balmford, 2010) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Costs per crossing accident </li></ul></ul></ul>
  15. 16. Preliminary risk assessment (3) Estimated costs per crossing accident ( Tooth and Balmford 2010 ) Costs and benefits of population treatment of level crossings with passive control over 25 years – Queensland Gross disproportion
  16. 17. Costs include installation + ongoing maintenance Upgrade budget $10M/year
  17. 18. Negative safety benefit *Note that in order for option 1b to be accepted, the cost of both option 1c and option 2 would have to be demonstrated to be grossly disproportionate to the safety benefit.
  18. 19. Preliminary risk assessment (6) <ul><li>Refinement of risk assessment numbers and model as detailed figures become available </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Set safety targets </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Human factors aspects will be investigated </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Aims to inform availability targets </li></ul></ul>
  19. 20. Human Factors Aspects (1) <ul><li>Project investigates the effect of frequent / prolonged unavailability on road user behaviour </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Right-side failure (road user cannot distinguish failure mode from train approaching) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tail-ringing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Project aims to develop and evaluate various measures to improve performance of road users when warning is unavailable </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Through simulation – CARRS-Q advanced driving simulator </li></ul></ul>
  20. 21. Human Factors Aspects (2) <ul><li>Project informs development of availability targets for LCLCWDs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Using techniques including task analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Development of human reliability assessment models to quantify human error at level crossings </li></ul></ul>
  21. 22. Questions? <ul><li>For more information, please contact: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Chris Wullems (QUT) [email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Peter Furnell (DoT Victoria) [email_address] </li></ul></ul>