The QR National integrated approach

The seemingly intractable issue of level crossing collisions has been the subject of countless industry studies over the years in just about every country of the world. While there has been excellent, robust work from committed and dedicated people, tragically there are still people dying every year. To address this Queensland Rail (QR) has moved beyond the operation of technical silos to form a taskforce that is representative of the challenge faced. Engineering, enforcement, education and innovation have established a multidisciplinary membership and engagement process. This has focussed on behavioural change initiatives through research and activation of strategy. This paper outlines QR’s journey to achieving its vision of being world class in safety through innovation and how QR is moving level crossing treatments that were designed for the horse and cart age to the 21st Century. Introduction On 27 November 2008 QR suffered the tragic loss of two train drivers in a level crossing collision at Rungoo, Cairns. Following this tragic event QR’s Chief Executive Officer, Lance Hockridge initiated the establishment of a Level Crossing Taskforce. In bringing a greater urgency to improving safety at level crossings, it employed a multifaceted strategy, incorporating the elements of education, enforcement, and engineering. Outside of this, a desire for a revolutionary solution heralded the commencement of QR’s innovation journey. BACKGROUND Level crossing accidents and fatalities are issues that are of concern to rail authorities around the world. In Australia for the five years through to June 2008, there was an average of 82 collisions at level crossings per annum, resulting in around 15 fatalities per annum (refer to table 1). Compared to other road accidents, level crossing accidents are more likely to result in fatalities or injury. Specifically:  Crossing accidents are three times more likely to involve a fatality  The serious injury risk for motor vehicle occupants in crossing accidents is 11 times greater.  The mean length of hospital stay for motor vehicle occupants in crossing accidents is almost three times greater than other road accidents. They are also more likely to result in greater property damage, and more likely to have long term social impacts on the community (lost contribution to home and work productivity and quality of life, medical costs, etc). Indeed the cost of crashes has been previously reported by the ARA to average between $180,000 per crash in urban areas and $430,000 for rural areas. Another study of Level Crossing accidents in 1999 conducted by the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics analysed the impact and cost to society in terms of lost productivity and quality of life. The potential extent and scope for impact on innocent victims is also much greater. In addition to this, level crossing accidents are also potentially the subject of legal action and intense media publicity where the actions of rail authorities and the public come under close scrutiny. This has been evidenced most recently with the high profile incidents at Kerang in 2007, when 11 people died and a further 20 were injured and in separate incidents in Mundoo, Rungoo and Mackay in North Queensland, Australia (when 4 people died) in 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively. With increasing volumes of both road and rail traffic, it is understandable to expect that the interface between these two transport modes will be the scene of increasing conflict in balancing the needs of the community, the economy and safety. In Australia, there has been great pressure on road authorities to provide for ever-increasing road traffic numbers and this has generally led to the reluctance to implement any capacity reducing treatments. Previously, the Australian Transport Council noted the high costs required to implement active protection measures such as boom gates and flashing lights, costing in the vicinity of between $150,000 and $300,000 per crossing. In terms of an Australia wide cost, it was estimated to range from $1.2 to $1.8 billion, not including maintenance. Other measures such as grade separation would of course be significantly greater than this. There have been some studies over the last decade that have sought to find causal factors related to level crossing accidents based on published accident reports, while other studies have employed survey based techniques on self reported behaviours. From an environmental perspective though, there has been no clear consensus on any particular factors. Time of day, day of week, weather and road conditions, alcohol, drugs, fatigue and speed all had some bearing, but were not overly significant. Human factors and the role of unintentional errors have also been extensively considered in several studies internationally; however the statistical contribution is currently not fully known or understood. Some significant themes were noted:  The higher incidence at rural or regional crossings versus suburban, particularly where passively protected (without flashing lights or boom gates);  The increasing prevalence of heavy vehicles  The high incidence of unreported rule breaking at crossings (all vehicle types)  Poor underlying driver attitudes to road rule compliance  Soundproof state of modern vehicles The increase in heavy vehicles involved in actual and near miss incidents is also of high concern, as these are most at risk of leading to fatalities and significant property damage. Statistics released by BITRE (Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics) have shown that for heavy vehicles:  Average loads per vehicle have increased significantly in recent years (by 35% between 1991 and 2005) and are expected to continue .  Total road freight for the 15 years through to 2006/07 more than doubled. 8  Road freight volumes are forecast to increase significantly (2.9% pa, equating to a doubling over the next 25 year period).  Projected increases in Freight, Coal and Passenger services predicted to double in some areas in next 10 years With increases in volumes and capacities, the likelihood of large cost catastrophic events will only increase. The accident at Kerang in June 2007, where 11 people died and a further 20 were injured is an example of the devastating potential of level crossing collisions involving heavy vehicles. The above has noted several challenges that needed to be addressed by the QR taskforce team. Bringing about a significant leap forward in level crossing safety requires overcoming a range of environmental, geographical, social and behavioural issues that shape the issue for the industry. There is also the challenge of delivering new and previously unthought-of solutions. The following sections outline the elements of QRs’ journey in this area. THE QR JOURNEY Integration The seemingly intractable issue of level crossing collisions has been the subject of countless industry studies over the years in just about every country of the world. Despite the significant work and resources focused on safety within the industry, there are still many people dying every year under circumstances that are arguably, very avoidable. While some countries have achieved significant reductions in incidents, it has been recognised that no one has yet “cracked the nut” on rail’s biggest safety challenge. From a strategic perspective, QR has adopted a target of zero level crossing incidents on the rail network. QR has a strong history with engineering excellence and pre November 2008 over 90% (approximately) of budget allocation at level crossings were spent on engineering solutions. Since April 2009 QR budget allocation has been proportionally shared among activities that support the multifaceted strategy of the traditional pillars of enforcement, engineering and education. While a significant amount of good work has occurred in this area, it was recognised that breakthrough change required a further element in this package, namely innovation. Figure 1 illustrates this multifaceted approach, supported by these important pillars. Figure 1: QR Strategic approach to level crossing safety Membership and engagement The level crossing taskforce engaged a broad expertise and diverse membership base from within QR, including Rail Safety experts, Signalling and Rolling stock engineers, the Infrastructure Owner, Train Drivers, Unions, Infrastructure Maintenance personnel, Train Operations staff, and representatives from Marketing, Communications, Legal and Finance. This all-inclusive approach has brought a greater collective focus and ownership to the level crossing problem. Progress and effectiveness of the Taskforce’s activities is monitored within internal governance protocols which includes oversight and authorisation by the QR Chief Executive Officer. Externally, the collaborative approach with State Government authorities including the Queensland Police Services, The Rail Safety Regulator, Road and local government authorities has assisted the process to identify, develop and implement the broad education, enforcement and engineering initiatives. Furthermore, this has also been facilitated through the consultative and engagement process within the community of stakeholders including Transport Workers Union, Motor Vehicle Authorities, RACQ, Queensland Trucking Association and Local Government. Operational Excellence QR recognises that improvements within its own operations can have an impact on level crossing safety, particularly reducing wait time for motorists at level crossings. To this end extensive work is being undertaken in relation to reducing wait time at crossings by: evaluating all crew change locations and their impact on wait time at level crossings; ensuring that when temporary speed restrictions are put in place around level crossings that priorities are given to lifting these; as well as prioritising train movement around passing loops and single line operations to minimise delays to the general public.