Safety concern with the level crossing at [Location] railway station

[Operator] response:

[Operator] acknowledges the referenced [State road regulatory authority] report that was accessed under right to information from the [State road regulatory authority]. This report is not an [Operator] report and appears to have been commissioned by [State road regulatory authority] at the time. In review of the report there are a number of level crossings that have a priority basis attached to them, in which [Location 1] is one. [Operator] proposes any questions relating to the report or proposed recommendations be directed to [State road regulatory authority] in the first instance as the owner of the report. 

[Operator] is aware [State road regulatory authority] had previously considered options for a grade separation of [Location 1] Station Road and connection to [Name] Rd at [Location 1], however is unable to provide further updates on the outcomes or current state of any options analysis/future state of projects led by [State road regulatory authority] as the lead agency relative to the [Location 1] level crossing. 

[Operator] can confirm recent upgrade works have occurred at [Location 1] relative to [Operator] yards on the east and west of the level crossing. These works were outside of the level crossing area and did not make any changes to the level crossing or immediate surrounding area. 

The identified level crossing at [Location 1] is compliant with the requirements for inspections and assessments of the level crossing as per [Operator's] level crossing standard [standard title]. These requirements include weekly, annual and five-yearly inspections. 

Noted in the REPCON is reference to the increased vehicle traffic at the level crossing. [Operator] cannot provide data on vehicle traffic information/volume but provides the data in respect to reported actual and near miss incidents at the [Location 1] level crossing in the [year - year] timeframe (supplied to the ATSB and ONRSR). 

Whilst the ATSB notes there are similar safety concerns to the findings identified in the [Name] Road, [Location 2] level crossing accident investigation [report number]. [Operator] reiterates as per the feedback provided for the draft report, the management of level crossings in [State] is a shared responsibility1 between the responsible road manager, in this case, the [City Council], and the rail infrastructure manager, [Operator].

As per the requirements of Rail Safety National Law, [Operator] has an interface agreement with the [City Council] relative to the level crossing. The inspection and maintenance responsibilities were supplied to the ATSB and ONRSR. 

1 Under Rail Safety National Law 2012 Section 107 both the road and rail manager are responsible for managing the safety risk at the road / rail interface. Under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 Section 249 provides for declaration of common area for the management of the road / rail interface.

City Council response:

We refer to REPCON Report RR2023-00037 providing the [Location 3] City Council (Council) an opportunity to comment / for Council action.

Safety issues – signalised intersection

The report raises concerns in relation to safety issues at the open level crossing (OLC) at [Location 1]. In particular, the report speaks of a road safety operation undertaken in [year] with a resultant report being provided to [State road regulatory authority]. We understand this to be the [State road regulatory authority] and [Operator]. The issues described include red light offences at the traffic lights, boom gates and vehicles queuing across the intersection due to limited space.

The traffic signals immediately adjacent to the [Location 1] OLC (aerial photograph supplied to the ATSB and ONRSR) are [State] [State road regulatory authority]) traffic signals, and the signalised intersection to a distance of 20 m from the signals is [State road regulatory authority] managed and controlled. This includes signs, lines and pavement markings. The signals operate in coordination with the [Location 1] OLC.

The report raises issues about potential queuing of traffic across the [Location 1] OLC when the signals are red, preventing through traffic from proceeding. Matters arising from the functioning of the signalised intersection should be referred to [State road regulatory authority] for consideration and comment.

Council Responsibilities

Subject to the [State road regulatory authority] management and control of the signalised intersection described above, Council has maintenance obligations in respect of the [Location 1] OLC pursuant to the [Agreement] it is party to with [Operator]. These include pavement condition on approaches to the [Location 1] OLC, as well as pavement markings (to a distance of 0.6 m from the outermost rail), yellow box markings, pedestrian pathways on approaches, street lighting and road signage, and vegetation clearance on approach.

Should [State road regulatory authority] propose changes to the signalised intersection, Council would welcome discussions with [State road regulatory authority] about those to ensure that any consequential impacts to areas within Council’s maintenance responsibilities beyond the [State road regulatory authority] intersection are coordinated.

Joint inspections – [Operator] / Council

On [date], Council and [Operator] will commence joint site inspections across all open level crossings in accordance with our [Agreement]. This is intended to ensure that the open level crossings, including road areas, comply with necessary safety standards and identify any rectifications required. The [Location 1] OLC will be inspected as part of those joint site inspections, in conjunction with [number] other sites.

If our understanding of the reported issue is not accurate, we would welcome further particulars (if available) which identify the concerns raised with the ATSB so that we can further consider any comments. 

[State road regulatory authority] response:

Please find [State road regulatory authority] response to REPCON Report RR2023-00037:

• [Operator]—as the responsible Rail Infrastructure Manager—together with City Council—the responsible road manager—share responsibility for identifying and managing any ongoing or changing safety risk at this level crossing through their [Agreement]. 
• [Operator] maintains level crossings as per the relevant level crossing safety standards. Level crossings can have active (flashing lights, boom arms) or passive (signage – for example, stop signs) safety measures. 
• [Location 1] level crossing is an active level crossing with current safety protections including boom arms, flashing lights, pedestrian gates and signage. 
• [State road regulatory authority] recognises that upgrading level crossings is important to ensuring it has an efficient, reliable, safe, and accessible transport system that meets customer expectations now and into the future. 
• While there is no current commitment to upgrade the [Location 1] station road level crossing, [State road regulatory authority] continues to progress the planning and delivery of priority level crossing upgrades throughout the region.
• As part of the [State region] City Deal, [State road regulatory authority] is working with the Australian Government, [State region] Council of Mayors, [Operator] and local governments including [Location 3] City Council, to deliver a [level crossing project] to identify and agree on high priority level crossings, for further detailed investigation. This project will include consideration of the [Location 1] Station road level crossing.

The [State] Government is committed to zero harm at level crossings across [State]. The [State] Level Crossing Safety Strategy [year to year] was followed by the [year] update: [safety strategy]. A review and update of the strategy is currently underway, setting out a roadmap for how [State] will meet the challenges involved in enhancing level crossing outcomes across regional and [State region].