Towards the adoption of low-cost rail level crossing warning devices in regional areas of Australia : a review of current technologies and reliability issues

This paper discusses major obstacles for the adoption of low cost level crossing warning devices (LCLCWDs) in Australia and reviews those trialed in Australia and internationally. The argument for the use of LCLCWDs is that for a given investment, more passive level crossings can be treated, therefore increasing safety benefits across the rail network. This approach, in theory, reduces risk across the network by utilizing a combination of low-cost and conventional level crossing interventions, similar to what is done in the road environment. This paper concludes that in order to determine if this approach can produce better safety outcomes than the current approach, involving the incremental upgrade of level crossings with conventional interventions, it is necessary to perform rigorous risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses of LCLCWDs. Further research is also needed to determine how best to differentiate less reliable LCCLWDs from conventional warning devices through the use of different warning signs and signals. This paper presents a strategy for progressing research and development of LCLCWDs and details how the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Rail Innovation is fulfilling this strategy through the current and future affordable level crossing projects.

Adoption of low-cost rail level crossing warning devices : an Australian case study

The objective of this chapter is to provide rail practitioners with a practical approach for determining safety requirements of low-cost level crossing warning devices (LCLCWDs) on an Australian railway by way of a case study. LCLCWDs, in theory, allow railway operators to improve the safety of passively controlled crossing by upgrading a larger number of level crossings with the same budget that would otherwise be used to upgrade these using the conventional active level crossing control technologies, e.g. track circuit initiated flashing light systems. The chapter discusses the experience and obstacles of adopting LCLCWDs in Australia, and demonstrates how the risk-based approach may be used to make the case for LCLCWDs.

Integrating driving and traffic simulators to study railway level crossing safety interventions : a methodology

Safety at Railway Level Crossings (RLXs) is an important issue within the Australian transport system. Crashes at RLXs involving road vehicles in Australia are estimated to cost $10 million each year. Such crashes are mainly due to human factors; unintentional errors contribute to 46% of all fatal collisions and are far more common than deliberate violations. This suggests that innovative intervention targeting drivers are particularly promising to improve RLX safety. In recent years there has been a rapid development of a variety of affordable technologies which can be used to increase driver’s risk awareness around crossings. To date, no research has evaluated the potential effects of such technologies at RLXs in terms of safety, traffic and acceptance of the technology. Integrating driving and traffic simulations is a safe and affordable approach for evaluating these effects. This methodology will be implemented in a driving simulator, where we recreated realistic driving scenario with typical road environments and realistic traffic. This paper presents a methodology for evaluating comprehensively potential benefits and negative effects of such interventions: this methodology evaluates driver awareness at RLXs , driver distraction and workload when using the technology . Subjective assessment on perceived usefulness and ease of use of the technology is obtained from standard questionnaires. Driving simulation will provide a model of driving behaviour at RLXs which will be used to estimate the effects of such new technology on a road network featuring RLX for different market penetrations using a traffic simulation. This methodology can assist in evaluating future safety interventions at RLXs.

How safe is safe enough? : a socio-technical view of low-cost level crossing safety

Low-cost level crossings are often criticized as being unsafe. Does a SIL (safety integrity level) rating make the railway crossing any safer? This paper discusses how a supporting argument might be made for low-cost level crossing warning devices with lower levels of safety integrity and issues such as risk tolerability and derivation of tolerable hazard rates for system-level hazards. As part of the design of such systems according to fail-safe principles, the paper considers the assumptions around the pre-defined safe states of existing warning devices and how human factors issues around such states can give rise to additional hazards.

An innovative information gathering and data analysis platform for railway level crossing safety data

This paper describes an innovative platform that facilitates the collection of objective safety data around occurrences at railway level crossings using data sources including forward-facing video, telemetry from trains and geo-referenced asset and survey data. This platform is being developed with support by the Australian rail industry and the Cooperative Research Centre for Rail Innovation. The paper provides a description of the underlying accident causation model, the development methodology and refinement process as well as a description of the data collection platform. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of benefits this project is expected to provide the Australian rail industry.

Modelling risk at low exposure railway level crossings : supporting an argument for low-cost level crossing warning devices with lower levels of safety integrity

This paper describes a risk model for estimating the likelihood of collisions at low-exposure railway level crossings, demonstrating the effect that differences in safety integrity can have on the likelihood of a collision. The model facilitates the comparison of safety benefits between level crossings with passive controls (stop or give-way signs) and level crossings that have been hypothetically upgraded with conventional or low-cost warning devices. The scenario presented illustrates how treatment of a cross-section of level crossings with low cost devices can provide a greater safety benefit compared to treatment with conventional warning devices for the same budget.

Improving level crossing safety through enhanced data recording and reporting : The CRC for Rail Innovation’s Baseline Rail Level Crossing Video project

This paper describes the work being conducted in the baseline rail level crossing project, supported by the Australian rail industry and the Cooperative Research Centre for Rail Innovation. The paper discusses the limitations of near-miss data for analysis obtained using current level crossing occurrence reporting practices. The project is addressing these limitations through the development of a data collection and analysis system with an underlying level crossing accident causation model. An overview of the methodology and improved data recording process are described. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of benefits this project is expected to provide the Australian rail industry.

A large scale quantitative study of pedestrian railway level crossing behaviour : deliberate violations, errors and deterrence

Every year a number of pedestrians are struck by trains resulting in death and serious injury. While much research has been conducted on train-vehicle collisions, very little is currently known about the aetiology of train-pedestrian collisions. To date, scant research has been undertaken to investigate the demographics of rule breakers, the frequency of deliberate violation versus error making and the influence of the classic deterrence approach on subsequent behaviours. Aim This study aimed to to identify pedestrians’ self-reported reasons for engaging in violations at crossing, the frequency and nature of rule breaking and whether the threat of sanctions influence such events. Method A questionnaire was administered to 511 participants of all ages. Results Analysis revealed that pedestrians (particularly younger groups) were more likely to commit deliberate violations rather than make crossing errors e.g., mistakes. The most frequent reasons given for deliberate violations were participants were running late and did not want to miss their train or participants believed that the gate was taking too long to open so may be malfunctioning. In regards to classical deterrence, an examination of the perceived threat of being apprehended and fined for a crossing violation revealed participants reported the highest mean scores for swiftness of punishment, which suggests they were generally aware that they would receive an “on the spot” fine. However, the overall mean scores for certainty and severity of sanctions (for violating the rules) indicate that the participants did not perceive the certainty and severity of sanctions as very high. This paper will further discuss the research findings in regards to the development of interventions designed to improve pedestrian crossing safety.

Trialling low-cost level crossing warning devices in Australia

This paper discusses the methodology and design of the Cooperative Research Centre for Rail Innovation’s national low-cost level crossing trial programme currently being conducted in Australia. Three suppliers of innovative low-cost level crossing warning devices were chosen through a tendering and evaluation process. The paper outlines the acceptance criteria that were used to select the suppliers and describes the different types of train detection technologies and innovative cost- reduction solutions that are being tested as part of the trial. The trial is being hosted by three major railways in three different regions in Australia, where systems from the three suppliers have been installed parallel to a baseline conventional track-circuit based level crossing at each site. The paper discusses our experience to date, the trialling process and the challenges that the project has confronted in order to develop a nationally consistent trialling programme.

In-vehicle railway level crossing warning systems : can intelligent transport systems deliver?

Intelligent Transport System (ITS) technology is seen as a cost-effective way to increase the conspicuity of approaching trains and the effectiveness of train warnings at level crossings by providing an in-vehicle warning of an approaching train. The technology is often seen as a potential low-cost alternative to upgrading passive level crossings with traditional active warning systems (flashing lights and boom barriers). ITS platforms provide sensor, localization and dedicated short-range communication (DSRC) technologies to support cooperative applications such as collision avoidance for road vehicles. In recent years, in-vehicle warning systems based on ITS technology have been trialed at numerous locations around Australia, at level crossing sites with active and passive controls. While significant research has been conducted on the benefits of the technology in nominal operating modes, little research has focused on the effects of the failure modes, the human factors implications of unreliable warnings and the technology adoption process from the railway industry’s perspective. Many ITS technology suppliers originate from the road industry and often have limited awareness of the safety assurance requirements, operational requirements and legal obligations of railway operators. This paper aims to raise awareness of these issues and start a discussion on how such technology could be adopted. This paper will describe several ITS implementation cenarios and discuss failure modes, human factors considerations and the impact these scenarios are likely to have in terms of safety, railway safety assurance requirements and the practicability of meeting these requirements. The paper will identify the key obstacles impeding the adoption of ITS systems for the different implementation scenarios and a possible path forward towards the adoption of ITS technology.

Effects of driver familiarity and prolonged or intermittent right-side failure on level crossing safety

This paper investigates the adverse effects of familiarity and human factors issues associated with the reliability of low-cost warning devices at level crossings. The driving simulator study featured a repetitive, low workload, monotonous driving task in which there were no failures of the level crossing (control) or prolonged or intermittent right-side failures (where the device reverts to a safe failure mode). The results of the experiment provided mixed support for the familiarity hypothesis. Four of the 23 participants collided with the train when it first appeared on trial 10 but safety margins increased from the first train to the next presentation of a train (trial 12). Contrary to expectations, the safety margins decreased with repeated right-side failure only for the intermittent condition. The limited head movement data showed that participants in the prolonged failure condition were more likely to turn their head to check for trains in the right-side failure trials than in earlier trials where there was no signal and no train. Few control participants turned their head to check for trains when no signal was presented. This research highlights the need to consider repetitive tasks and workload in experimental design and accident investigation at railway level crossings.

Somewhere between haste and delay... Investigating the interactions of road users and pedestrians in a dynamic rail level crossing environment

There are currently 23,500 level crossings in Australia, broadly divided into one of two categories: active level crossings which are fully automatic and have boom barriers, alarm bells, flashing lights, and pedestrian gates; and passive level crossings, which are not automatic and aim to control road and pedestrianised walkways solely with stop and give way signs. Active level crossings are considered to be the gold standard for transport ergonomics when grade separation (i.e. constructing an over- or underpass) is not viable. In Australia, the current strategy is to annually upgrade passive level crossings with active controls but active crossings are also associated with traffic congestion, largely as a result of extended closure times. The percentage of time level crossings are closed to road vehicles during peak periods increases with the rise in the frequency of train services. The popular perception appears to be that once a level crossing is upgraded, one is free to wipe their hands and consider the job done. However, there may also be environments where active protection is not enough, but where the setting may not justify the capital costs of grade separation. Indeed, the associated congestion and traffic delay could compromise safety by contributing to the risk taking behaviour by motorists and pedestrians. In these environments it is important to understand what human factor issues are present and ask the question of whether a one size fits all solution is indeed the most ergonomically sound solution for today’s transport needs.

Investigating the interactions of road users and pedestrians in a dynamic rail level crossing environment

There are 23,500 level crossings in Australia. In these types of environments it is important to understand what human factor issues are present and how road users and pedestrians engage with crossings. A series of on-site observations were performed over a 2-day period at a 3-track active crossing. This was followed by 52 interviews with local business owners and members of the public. Data were captured using a manual-coding scheme for recording and categorising violations. Over 700 separate road user and pedestrian violations were recorded, with representations in multiple categories. Time stamping revealed that the crossing was active for 59% of the time in some morning periods. Further, trains could take up to 4-min to arrive following its first activation. Many pedestrians jaywalked under side rails and around active boom gates. In numerous cases pedestrians put themselves at risk in order to beat or catch the approaching train, ignored signs to stop walking when the lights were flashing. Analysis of interview data identified themes associated with congestion, safety, and violations. This work offers insight into context specific issues associated with active level crossing protection.

Direct observations of pedestrian unsafe crossing at urban Australian level crossings

The number of pedestrian victims at Australian and foreign level crossings has remained stable over the past decade and it continues to be a significant problem. To examine the factors contributing to pedestrians’ unsafe crossing behaviours, direct observations were conducted at three black spot urban level crossings in Brisbane for a total of 45 h during morning and afternoon peak. In total, 129 pedestrians transgressed the active controls. More transgressions were observed at the crossings located in more populated suburbs in close proximity to large shopping centres and school zones, whereas the smallest number of transgressions were observed at the least populated locations. In addition to characteristics associated with the larger socio-economic area, the patterns of transgression could be associated with the properties of the existing safety equipment and the design of each level crossing (i.e. location of the platforms, number of rail tracks). Indeed, the largest number of crossed unoccupied but “at risk” rail tracks (where a train could have passed), was observed at the crossing with the least transgressions. Contrary to previous findings, younger adults were the most frequent transgressors. School children and elderly were most likely to transgress in groups. Potential directions for future research and more effective measures are discussed.