Washington, DC: Top ten states given deadline for risk reduction plans

Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Ohio, and Texas have until August 27th, 2011, to complete five-year action plans that address the incidence of level crossing accidents. The deadline for having completed these plans is one year on from the implementation date of the final rule published by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) on June 28th, 2010.

The top ten states are those with the largest number of level crossing collisions recorded by FRA for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008.

The final rule says that the targeted states “can reasonably develop such plans within one year from the date this regulation goes into effect". The rule further says that a five-year period is appropriate because many of the remedial actions that may be included in these plans (e.g. closures and grade separations) may take up to five years to implement. In addition, any identified State that has already developed an action plan in conjunction with a recommendation from DOT's Office of Inspector General must ensure compliance with this final rule and must resubmit the plan as required.

The FRA received comments and held a public hearing in Washington on February 22nd, 2010. The FRA was urged to consider how many collisions occur in each state relative to the number of vehicles and the number of level crossings there. Also FRA was asked to take account of the actions each state had already taken to reduce level crossing collisions. But FRA declined both suggestions because Congress had made clear that the rule must identify the 10 states that have had the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions, on average, over the past three years and require them to produce an action plan. So much for a risk based approach to safety regulation.

(30th, June 2010)

From July 1st, 2010, an amendment to the Rail Safety Act 2006 (Vic) requires rail operators (rail infrastructure managers and rolling stock operators) and relevant road managers to have safety interface agreements which identify and assess risks that may arise from operations at level crossings
The new agreements  will replace the current requirement for interface coordination plans that relate to rail operators and other persons at interfaces, and introduce new complementary obligations on both rail operators and road managers.
A safety interface agreement is a joint agreement about managing risks to safety in relation to:

• Rail/rail interfaces: rail operations of one operator, in relation to rail operations of another operator
• Rail/public road interfaces: ‘rail or road crossings’ that include any public roadway or public pathway
• Rail/relevant road interface: ‘rail or road crossings’ that include any other roadway or pathway, such as non-public roads or paths.

Rather than a one-off process, safety interface agreements are intended to be ‘living documents’ that will require ongoing monitoring of risks, including regular audits to ensure that agreed control measures continue to be appropriate.
Safety interface agreements are likely to involve a wide range of parties, such as:

• Local councils: responsible for most public local roads and footpaths in Victoria
• VicRoads: responsible for public freeways, major highways, arterial roads and other types of road infrastructure
• Private road owners: those who own access roads to private properties
• The Crown: may own non-public roads like access roads in state forests
• Rail infrastructure managers and rolling stock operators: for example, Metro Trains Melbourne, V/Line or Australian Rail Track Corporation, as well as tourist and heritage operators and private sidings operators.

Public Transport Safety Victoria, the safety regulator has published aguidance document which can be found on-line at: www.ptsv.vic.gov.au/web26/home.nsf/headingpagesdisplay
/legislationrail+safety+legislationsafety+interface+agreements

(June 19th, 2010)