International Level crossing symposium, Tokyo, October 2010
The eleventh International Level Crossing Symposium, hosted by JR East, took place in Tokyo from October 25th to 29th, 2010. As with previous events in this series of conferences, delegates from around the world participated in a three day conference and an associated technical visit.
A common theme was the need for partnership between road and rail authorities with concerns expressed that insufficient numbers of highways professionals were participating in the conference – a challenge for the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) which has accepted the task of organising the next symposium in Great Britain in 2012.
A further common concern was the extent to which step change improvements in level crossing safety were proving very difficult to realise with many showing a flat line performance in recent years.
Looking at the presentations one by one, it is evident that common issues are being addressed in multiple places with slightly differing thought processes to deliver remarkably similar solutions. The challenge of making scare resources go further through international cooperation was recognised by some as an opportunity rather than a threat to their national approaches.
A keynote presentation by Len Porter, Chief Executive of RSSB set out the case for an asset management led approach to addressing level crossing risk. The progress made in the oil and gas sector through this approach was highlighted.
Akita Yonezawa from the Railways Bureau of Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism was the first speaker to introduce the requirement for all traffic to stop before proceeding over a level crossing. The law which dates back to 1933 was a regular discussion point both in the formal proceedings of the conference and in informal discussion on the fringes with most delegates not convinced of the merits of a law which is often ignored by motorists. However, the intent of the law to prevent vehicles from entering a crossing until an exit was assured was sound.
Mr Yonezawa also introduced the cost sharing mechanism in Japan with the state picking up 45% of costs, local authorities the same and thr railways, just 10%. Again the cost sharing models from around the world were the subject of much interest and informal discussion. When a railway only picks up 10% of the costs it is possible to see why it is prepared to pursue expensive technical solutions to secure limited benefit. Equally, in a cost sharing model where the bulk of the funding is from railway sources, it is possible to see how local government agencies push for a gold-plated solution.
Risk modelling was a core topic on the conference agenda and first introduced by Marcus Baerd from AD Little in the United Kingdom explaining the approach that REFER, the Portuguese national rail infrastructure manager has adopted with a good track record of reducing the number of crossings and upgrading those that must remain mindful of the risk levels at each crossing.
The French perspective was set out by Phillipe Feltz of RFF, the French national rail infrastructure manager, who addressed the issue of managing level crossing risk on lines that have previously been closed for up to 40 years. Here the issue is how many of the erstwhile level crossings could be eliminated, how many could be safely re-commissioned and how many had to be replaced by grade separated routes across the railway. On new lines the sponsoring ministry is looking to RFF to deliver a solution that delivers substantially better safety performance than on the existing network where a target of reducing the number of crossings by 50% over the coming decade.
Alistair McKenzie-Kerr from Human Engineering presented a paper on the Level Crossing Risk Management Tool-kit which has been further developed through the RSSB managed research programme and is in general use in Great Britain. The recent upgrade of the tool-kit has increased the number of mitigation measures available to practitioners in an easily searchable form.
Volpe Center’s Suzanne Horton considered what works best in reducing risk at level crossings. The presentation looked at the progress made in the period 1994 to 2003 during which there was a 41% reduction in incidents. The biggest improvements have been attributed to making trains more conspicuous and improvements in professional driver behaviour at level crossings and other education initiatives like Operation Lifesaver. Consolidation of crossings and upgrading of level crossings had also delivered substantive benefits.
Takeshi Omori from JR East explained the issues they face in managing risk at level crossings in densely populated urban areas such as the Tokyo conurbation. A low frequency – high consequence concern of JR East is the risk of a derailment with a secondary collision potential. For this reason JR East is deploying counter-measures to keep a derailed train clear of adjoining tracks through, for example, guard rails. The prevention of accidents where it is possible to detect an obstruction of the line is also a priority area with significant development of obstacle detection systems.
A Nordic perspective was provided by Antti Seise from Finland who explained how they were using video recordings gathered in a standard manner to improve the quality of the level crossing inventory and to inform decision making to best target resources to reduce risk arising at level crossings. However, it wasn’t clear how in practice all of the video recordings were contributing to a reduction in risk on Finland’s level crossings.
Manfed Steindl from Austrian railways together with Alfred Paukerl from EBE Solutions jointly introduced the Austrian contest and explained how they were working to improve the visibility of level crossings through understanding how motorists take in information on their approach to a level crossing. Solutions explained included lights embedded in the roadway which illuminate when a crossing closure sequence is initiated until the road is open to road traffic again. Vehicle activated signs which respond to an approaching road vehicle rather than a train were proposed as a cost-effective way of conditioning motorist behaviours.
INRETS, the French research institute which was involved in the European Union’s SELCAT project is a principal partner in a successor, PANsafer which has French Government rather than European backing. The project was introduced by Mohamed Ghazel who majored on stereo camera detection of obstacles and traffic congestion in the vicinity of a crossing. Also, Mr Ghazel explained how the project wished to develop ways of communicating level crossing information to motorists using satellite navigation systems. Later in the conference, Yassine Ruichek from the University of Technology Belfort-Montbeliard explained the 3D virtual simulation platform they are developing as a partner in the PANsafer project.
Kouji Hatabu from Japan’s Transportation Planning Association explored the issues associated with crossings which are closed to road traffic for very long periods, in extreme cases for more than 50 minutes in an hour. The issues faced by Japanese railways are mirrored on other systems where there are level crossings on urban rail networks. The Japanese approach is to minimise the time it takes to raise a barrier once a train has cleared the crossing and there is no other train requiring the crossing to be closed to road and using a radar ranging system to allow constant warning time to avoid the premature closure of the crossing for slower trains. However, the biggest benefits were shown to come from linking crossing operation to the automatic train protection system. This is delivering of up to two minutes benefit on each time the level crossing need to be closed to road traffic.
La Trobe University academic Jack Singh explained the work that they are doing with the support of the Australian railways to explore the possibilities of reducing level crossing risk through the development and deployment of intelligent transport systems (ITS). A key objective is to link the level crossing context to wider ITS work on situational awareness. The motor industry is investing heavily in on-board ITS systems and a challenge for rail is to cause these wider programmes to help address the risk of accidents at level crossings.
Yoshinubo Ito from JR East offered a further insight into actions being taken to reduce the number and severity of level crossing accidents in Japan. Tackling issues associated with winter weather and driving on Icy and snow covered roads was shown to be an area where benefits could be secured by installing heating to keep the level crossing surface free from snow and ice.
Amos Gellert from Israel Railways presented an Israeli perspective against a background of all crossings now being equipped with lights and barriers and an on-going programme to install Honeywell’s radar obstacle detection system at higher risk locations. The main thrust was that an accident had to be prevented before a motorist reaches the railway. Thus traffic lights on the approach to a level crossing which are activated by stopped or very slow moving road traffic beyond a level crossing were presented as a means of addressing the risk of traffic blocking-back onto a level crossing.
ITS was again discussed from an Australian perspective by Andry Rakotonirainy who again saw that improving situational awareness was the key to reducing the harm arising from accidents at level crossings. The key driver is the knowledge that as many as 60% of motorists admit they have run a red light at a level crossing with 10% of them getting a thrill from this. Levels of compliance at passive crossings are lower still. The key is finding the “Holy Grail” that cause motorists to behave differently. Clearly, this project offers transferable lessons worldwide if it delivers the technology as expected.
Toru Takeichi from JR West illustrated the similarities facing them in Osaka which are much the same as in Tokyo. Particular additional points which emerged strongly in this presentation were the need to address pedestrian safety issues and those associated with an ageing population. Another interesting element of the presentation was the use of blue lighting of level crossings which appears to be having a positive impact on safety. More scientific evaluation of the benefits of the blue lighting is needed. However, if this evaluation reduces the scale of safety improvement from the presently claimed 43%, it is likely to offer a cost-effective solution for wider adoption.
Another RSSB research project, that relating to blocking back, was presented jointly by Marcus Beard and Alastair McKenzie Kerr was very much a case of work in progress. The research team has plenty of before and after data available to help determine if vehicle activated signs are an effective route to address the blocking back risk. An interesting contrast with Israel where they have, as discussed earlier, developed and are adopting a sensor and traffic light solution to the blocking back issue.
Glen Barber from QR National (which is in the process of being privatised with a stock exchange floatation imminent) explained the process they have followed to develop “out of the box” thinking and how that this can then be used to develop novel solutions not previously considered. The intensive 90-day process has resulted in ten good proposals to address level crossing risk at locations when closure or grade separation s not possible. The presentation included an animation of “flipper” an idea derived from the pin-ball arcade game. In the level crossing context the deflection is of road vehicles through a revised highway approach to level crossings and a barrier that prevents vehicular intrusion and deflects them into an energy absorbing sandpit. This was a presentation to really capture the imagination through showing how innovative solutions can be quickly identified and developed to a viable concept stage.
Operation Lifesaver’s Reilly Mc Carren introduced the three E philosophy (Engineering, Education and Enforcement), highlighting the importance of moving beyond the face to face presentation and the use of internet based resources as a viral campaign. Distracted driving has been identified as a priority and this has been the subject of Operation Lifesaver public service announcements for radio and television. Operation Lifesaver Estonia’s conference next March looks to be a good opportunity to see how the Operation Lifesaver brand can work in a European context.
A second presentation from Finland by Anne Silla explored the use of speed bumps on the approach to level crossings, majoring on roads which do not have a “black-top” surface. The speed bumps on unmade roads need regular maintenance as their effectiveness over time is totally eliminated by the builds-up of lose material around the speed bumps.
Naomi Hatakeyama from Japanese research institute RTRI gave a presentation questioning the Japanese (and South Korean) practice of requiring all road traffic to stop before proceeding over a level crossing. The presentation and discussion afterwards suggested that the only reason that the rule remained was an overly-conservative approach. If there is a case for change as seems likely, this will require a united front of railway and highway interests presenting a business and safety case for change. At the moment this issue seems to be assigned to the “too difficult” category and therefore change remains unlikely.
Kirsi Pajunen from the European Rail Agency provided a comparative analysis of safety performance at Europe’s level crossings and explained how the Common Safety Target approach would over time level-up performance.
JR Hokkaido’s Jun Tadaki spoke as the first snow of the winter was falling in the North of Japan. This was particularly apposite as the thrust of this presentation was the disproportionate concentration of accidents at JR Hokkaido’s level crossings with 60% occurring in the December to March winter period. Mr Tadaki demonstrated how JR Hokkaido employs a broadly based approach using both engineered solutions and education initiatives. Of note in the context of winter weather was the use of non-slip rubberised crossing surfaces and measures to improve the conspicuity of crossings in inclement weather.
Terry Spicer spoke from the perspective of the ministry with lead responsibility in Victoria. The presentation was wide ranging considering both the case for and against using shock tactics within education campaigns and also the need to improve the interaction and collaborative efforts of rail and road authorities. Mr Spicer explained the legislative approach requiring an interface agreement developed jointly by road and rail authorities for all level crossings in Victoria. Overall, Victoria is making good progress was a key message as was the need for the 2012 symposium to better engage the roads sector.
European Level Crossing Forum chair, Alan Davies from RSSB, explained that previous speakers had used all his material. This was not the case as Mr Davies very effectively drew out the scale of engagement in the first European (2009) and first international level crossing awareness day (ILCAD) in June 2010. Against this background, the case for greater engagement of highways professionals, motoring organisations and enforcement agencies was essential. However, the rail sector must recognise that level crossing accidents are typically around 1% of road deaths and that it may not at first glance be apriority for them. However, catastrophic collisions on level crossings have a high political profile.
Steve Laffey from the Illinois Department of Transportation introduced delegates to the PEERS programme which provides grants to communities willing to engage in initiatives to reduce risk at level crossings. The presentation was strong on the link between education and enforcement and the role of the police. One idea that struck a chord was the provision of grants to fund police overtime and the deployment of officers on extra enforcement drives. A good pay-back was suggested with income from fines being double the value of the police overtime funded through the PEERS programme. Overall, this paper was an excellent example of data concerning inputs and effects at a tactical level which when used as suggested by Mr Laffey provides the business for further focused and targeted education and enforcement programmes which in the context of PEERS are 60% education and 40% enforcement driven.
Transport Canada’s Daniel Lafontaine provided a regulatory perspective, in particular in relation to trespass fatalities which have flat-lined in recent years. An important tool in the armoury is the ability to fine people for trespassing. However, this isn’t what will really change things unless there is a broadly based programme to counter these and level crossing risks. This requires community engagement and not just railway inputs. Transport Canada can be a catalyst for change – through, for example, funding Operation Lifesaver along with the Rail Association of Canada.
Libor Lochman from the Community of European Railways highlighted the differing road and rail sector perspectives on level crossing risk. It is important that the rail sector leverages greater road sector input to reducing risk at level crossings. Mr Lochman proposed that the European Level Crossing Forum should become the International Level Crossing Forum with better participation form the road side of things.
Michael Woods introduced a further RSSB research project looking at road signs and how they might be developed to take account of how they are seen and their meaning derived by road users. It is refreshing to hear of consideration of signs from a human factors perspective and not just that the Vienna Convention on road signs is more than 40-years-old and needs to be revised.
Erik Lachmann from equipment manufacturers Pintsch Bamag in Germany provided a technology based insight into the options available for addressing many of the concerns raised and discussed at the symposium. A key point was the importance of addressing the human factors associated with level crossing use in the design phase of a project rather than as an afterthought. Other key points were the need for standardisation and the development of modular systems having an appropriate safety integrity level.
Aidan Nelson (the author of this safety spotlight) from Community Safety Partnerships in the United Kingdom scanned the horizon and considered where dogma needs to be challenged to deliver fit for purpose level crossings at an affordable cost. Large scale closure programmes were considered as were ways of reducing the number of private level crossings. The differences in costs of providing an automatic half-barrier crossing in the developed world are unreasonably large and present a real opportunity to emulate best practice solutions. Speaking as a delegate who has attended all of this series of symposia since they took on a truly world-wide perspective, Mr Nelson commended Australia as a home of a lot of best practice that has taken them a long way since 2002 when the symposium was held at Monash University in Victoria.
The last presentation was from Olle Mornell of Sweden’s Trafikverket which is the new combined national road and rail authority. This milestone event was not really discussed in the presentation but was discussed extensively on the margins of the conference. Rather, the presentation provided a demonstration of a web-based level crossing inventory management tool which can when appropriately interrogated point users towards where there safety issues which need to be addressed. It did not come across as if this tool is used to prioritise at a national level – a missed opportunity.
All in all, the symposium was a very worthwhile opportunity to learn of new thinking and engage with an international array of level crossing safety practitioners. The only down-side was the near total absence of input from the roads and enforcement perspectives. It is very clear that the delegates in Tokyo have set RSSB, who will host the 2012 event in the United Kingdom, a real challenge to garner the required input from these constituencies. We can all help by providing the organising committee with details of our contacts in these disciplines to build a better database of possible participants for the 2012 symposium.
As always the staff of JR East was an exceptional host and the translation service provided was first class.
|
