Begin with Phase -1 (Pre-concept) and Phase 0 (Concept & Planning) to consider how the technology may align with national safety priorities and stakeholder needs. The Literature Overview may be useful for understanding key Human Factors issues and known risks at level crossings  

Start with Phase 1 (Design) to understand user needs, interface design, and human-system interaction. Use the Interface Design Guidance for Level Crossing Warnings and Alerts, Human Factors Guidance for Evaluating Innovative Level Crossing Technologies, and Human Factors Risk Assessment Prompts to ensure your solution supports safe and intuitive user behaviour.

Human Factors specialists may be interested in reading up on all phases, but if the decision to trial has been made the focus will be on aspects of Phase 0 Concept and Planning and Phase 3 Testing and acceptance. Suggest using the Human Factors Guidance for Evaluating Innovative Level Crossing Technologies as a guide for planning the trial, as well as the Interface Design Guidance for Level Crossing Warnings and Alerts to support interface evaluation and the Human Factors Risk Assessment Prompts to support risk assessment. If new to level crossing safety projects, the Literature Overview and Generic Level Crossing Task Analyses may also be useful

Review Phase 4 (In-service) and potentially also Phase 5 (Decommissioning). These sections address operational integration and long-term maintenance considerations. Use the Human Factors Risk Assessment Prompts to identify risks in day-to-day operations and ensure the system remains usable and safe over time.

Start with the Literature Overview to build foundational knowledge of key safety issues, technologies, and human factors principles.

No. While this toolkit focuses on technologies, including innovative low-cost technologies, safety is best addressed through a combination of risk controls which may include infrastructure and warning upgrades (e.g. upgrade of passive crossing to flashing lights and boom barriers), changes to the road environment (e.g. speed limit reductions), behaviour change strategies (e.g. education and enforcement programs), and changes to organisational processes (e.g. vegetation maintenance programs). High-cost solutions (like grade separation) are also appropriate in some contexts.

Yes. The toolkit follows an adapted V-model and is compatible with other V models such as CENELEC EN 50126, AS 7470, ISO 9241-210, and other rail and road safety standards and guidelines (e.g., RISSB guideline: Integration of Human Factors Across the Project Lifecycle). Human Factors activities can be aligned with assurance milestones and safety case requirements within these models.

No. This toolkit intends to complement, rather than replace, existing engineering, assurance, or risk management frameworks. It highlights where and how Human Factors considerations and methods can be integrated into those existing processes.

This toolkit is designed to support the development of innovative technologies and solutions for level crossing safety. A key focus of innovation in level crossing safety has been the development of low-cost technologies, given traditional solutions can be costly. However, the toolkit could be useful to support Human Factors Integration in the development, evaluation, and implementation of any types of technologies, including innovative passive solutions. While the toolkit addresses both infrastructure-based and vehicle-based interventions, it is not intended to cover high-cost infrastructure upgrades (e.g. grade separation).

Yes. While the toolkit focuses on regional level crossings which are often passive, many of the Human Factors principles and methods are relevant across all crossing types and contexts.

ALCAM (the Australian Level Crossing Assessment Model) and LXM (the Level Crossing Management system) are tools commonly used to assess risk profiles at individual level crossings. The information provided by these tools can be used as an input into early decision-making during Phase -1 (Pre-concept) and Phase 0 (Concept and Planning) of the lifecycle to identify high-priority sites or to inform needs assessment. Human Factors methods and data can complement these tools by addressing behavioural and perceptual factors not captured in traditional engineering risk models.

Instead of assigning responsibility or blame to individuals interacting with level crossings, Human Factors approaches seek to understand how the design of the system in which people operate - the infrastructure, warnings, vehicles, environment, rules, procedures - shape human behaviour. The goal is to improve the system design so that unintentional non-compliances are less likely or, if they occur, are easier to recover from. Further, where possible that the motivations for intentional non-compliances are reduced and, if they do occur, that the consequences are mitigated. By addressing the system, rather than the individual, we have a greater opportunity to influence behaviour of all users.

Fail-safe in the context of railway technologies generally refers to the requirement for systems to revert to a ‘safe state’ in the case of a failure. Currently, for example, if active warning systems (e.g. flashing lights and boom barriers) lose the ability to detect trains, warnings will activate and continue to do so until the issue is rectified. Sometimes, concerns are raised that innovative, low-cost technologies for level crossing warnings do not provide this functionality and are at risk of ‘wrong-side failures’ (i.e. not activating for an approaching train). This concern can hinder the uptake of low-cost technologies. From a Human Factors perspective, technologies failing to a warning state may not be ideal, in that if road users experience warnings that fail often (i.e. activate with no train approaching) they may lose trust in the warning and cross against warning signals. The toolkit does not advocate for or against the adoption of fail-safe technologies. Instead, it encourages a risk-based approach that considers road user responses to different failure modes and aims to reduce risk so far as is reasonably practicable (SFAIRP).

No. Many level crossing risks are associated with road user behaviour, and road-side infrastructure plays a critical role in influencing perception, decision-making, and behaviour. This toolkit is intended to support both road and rail stakeholders to collaboratively manage risk at the interface.