Assessment of Overpass Structures Pedestrian Access

TECHNICAL GUIDELINE
Assessment of Overpass Structures with Pedestrian

Access for the Risk of Thrown Projectiles
Prepared by
STRUCTURES ENGINEERING
TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE
June 2006
MAIN ROADS Western Australia Technical Guideline Page 1 of 16

Assessment of Overpass Structures with Pedestrian Access for the Risk of Thrown Projectiles
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... 3
2. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 3
3. PURPOSE............................................................................................................................................... 4
4. RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL............................................................................................................. 5
4.1 LIKELIHOOD INDICATORS................................................................................................................. 6
4.2 CONSEQUENCE INDICATORS ............................................................................................................ 8
5. RISK RANKING ..................................................................................................................................... 8
6. RISK TREATMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 9
6.1 ENGINEERING TREATMENTS ............................................................................................................ 9
6.2 ADMINISTRATIVE TREATMENTS................................................................................................... 11
7. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES .................................................................................................. 12
7.1 TREATMENT OPTIONS ...................................................................................................................... 12
7.2 ALARP PRINCIPLE .............................................................................................................................. 13
8. FUNDING OF TREATMENTS ........................................................................................................... 13
9. RISK MONITORING PLAN................................................................................................................ 13
10. FORMS.................................................................................................................................................. 15

1. INTRODUCTION
Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) is responsible for the care, control and management
of the main road and highway network throughout Western Australia. MRWA owes a duty of
care to those utilising the road reserve and associated facilities, to ensure they are safe and
not exposed to injury. It is an accepted community norm that providing motorists drive
according to the road rules their safety is assured on the road network. Throwing or
dropping objects from overpass structures onto roadways has the potential to cause serious
injury or death and results in considerable outrage and concern in the community.
MRWA has developed a Policy for the management of risks associated with such events and
this Technical Guideline forms part of that Policy.
The Guideline outlines the technical details associated with:
The risk assessment process;

Assigning a risk rating for existing or proposed overpass structures with pedestrian
access and ranking the structures;
Considerations for treatments of risk; and
Monitoring and review procedures.
2. BACKGROUND
In WA the incidents of objects being thrown from pedestrian overpasses or road bridges with
pedestrian facilities have been infrequent and generally caused minor damage.
There is a general lack of data available from local sources to allow a meaningful quantitative
assessment of the risk level and trend in WA. Recorded incidents based on correspondence
in MRWA show an increase in the number of incidents involving objects being thrown from
bridges or overpasses, or persons jumping from bridges near or onto boats.
This problem has been recognised world wide, and Authorities charged with the
responsibility for management of the issue have taken a variety of risk management
approaches.
While there is little to no data available to allow a quantitative analysis of risks associated
with this issue, one can reasonably conclude that the likelihood of a catastrophic event (i.e.
fatality or multiple fatality) occurring is rare.
Research indicated that the use of formal risk assessment processes was very limited
throughout Australia, the United States of America, UK and New Zealand, and policies for
the treatment of this type of exposure had generally taken a conservative approach either by
treating all overpass structures or taking a ‘wait and see’ approach where sites were treated
on a case-by-case basis, usually after an event had occurred. Some organisations had
developed risk assessment methodologies for evaluating the risk at existing sites using a
multi-criteria evaluation model. These models principally looked to predict the likelihood of
an out-of-course event occurring based on several key indicators. Queensland Main Roads
had undertaken specific studies on the influence that the size of objects dropped and the
speed of travelling vehicles had on the likely consequences of an incident.
Following a detailed investigation into this issue a risk assessment model incorporating
elements of both likelihood and consequence was developed for application on overpass
structures with pedestrian access in WA.

3. PURPOSE
This Guideline was developed to provide:
An understanding of the need for a structured approach to the management of risks

associated with objects being thrown from overpass structures;
Guidance on the use of the prescribed Risk Assessment Model;
Guidance on the interpretation of risk ratings for the determination of effective risk
treatments; and
Guidance for the monitoring and review of the performance of the prescribed Risk
Assessment Model and treatments.
The Guideline covers the risks that are associated with thrown or dropped objects from
overpass structures with pedestrian access, covering both pedestrian only structures and
road bridges with pedestrian facilities.
The Guideline does not evaluate the risk or prescribe treatments associated with
premeditated criminal events or suicide events. Assessment of the circumstances
surrounding such events or trends of similar events shall be assessed on a case-by-case
basis.

4. RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL
Risk levels are determined under AS/NZS 4360 by assessing the likelihood and
consequence of an undesirable event. The following tables outline several indicators that
have been assessed as contributing to either the likelihood of an event occurring or the
severity of the consequences of that event.
RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL

Location: Bridge No.
Traffic Volume: vpd Road Under:
Date: Vol:
Assessor: Speed:
CATEGORY - Likelihood INDICATOR / POSSIBLE POINTS SCORE
1.0 History There are records of more than one There is a record of an Nil
1.1 Record of incidents at structure incident occurring over the last 2 years incident where objects have
being assessed been thrown from the bridge
over the last 2 years
15 10 0
1.2 Screened structure or record of The structure is within 1km of a screened The structure is within 1km Nil
incident on structure near by overpass structure of a bridge where reports
have been received
7 5 0
1.3 Maintenance workers report debris Yes No
thrown from overpass
3 0
2.0 Social Indicators
2.1 Police advise there are active Yes No
juvenile gangs operating in the area
5 0
2.2 Vandalism or graffiti reported or Vandalism Graffiti None
observed on or near the structure 3 2 0
3.0 Pedestrian Category < 500m 500m – 1km 1km to 2km 2km+
3.1 The structure is near a school,
playground, park or juvenile attraction 10 7 3 0
3.2 The structure is near a club, hotel or
other adult entertainment facility 5 3 2 0
4.0 Outlook and Usage Low Medium High
4.1 The site is exposed to surrounding
buildings 5 3 1
4.2 The Structure Type Pedestrian Shared with Shared 5000 – Shared 15000 – Shared
Only < 5000 vpd 15000 vpd 25000 vpd 25000+ vpd
10 7 5 3 2
4.3 Loose material is in the vicinity Various size close Various size within Small within 100m > 100m
by 100m
7 5 3 0
5.0 Pedestrian Volume Significant Generators Some Generators < 300m Minor Generators < 300m
< 300m
5.1 The volume of pedestrians using the
overpass structure. Generators e.g. 5 3 1
schools, bus and train station, high
residential area.
TOTAL SCORE ( L )
CATEGORY - Consequence CONSEQUENCE MATRIX CONSEQUENCE

MULTIPLIER
1.0 ROADWAY Speed/Volume 60 – 70 kph 70 – 90 kph 100+ kph SCORE ( C )
5000 – 10k vpd 1.5 1.9 2.1
10k – 30k vpd 1.8 2.4 2.7
30k+ vpd 2.0 2.7 3.0
2.0 WATERWAY 1.0
3.0 FREIGHT RAIL 1.5
RISK RATING RR = Likelihood Score ( L ) x Consequence Multiplier ( C )

4.1 Likelihood Indicators
Risk Assessors undertaking the evaluation of bridge sites will be required to establish a
score for each of the following indicators.
4.1.1 History
4.1.1.1 Recorded Incidents
Research has shown that while single incidents can occur at sites, there is on occasions a
pattern of incidents that gives rise to increased likelihood of an out-of-course event occurring.
Records of such events can be sourced from:
MRWA correspondence or ministerial correspondence;

MRWA crash information; or
Police crash records.
Scoring reflects singular or multiple incidents.
4.1.1.2 Nearby Treated Structures
Where the structure, or proposed structure, is in the vicinity of an already treated bridge, or a
bridge where incidents have been recorded, the Assessor should score the site accordingly.
4.1.1.3 Debris Reports
This indicator looks at records of debris that has been found in the vicinity of an overpass
structure that may be linked to the dropping of an object. Such reports may have occurred
through phone contact to MRWA or via MRWA contractors undertaking maintenance work or
inspections on the network.
This indicator recognises that incidents of objects or material being dropped from overpass
structures may occur without any resultant damage to vehicles or pedestrians below. The
assessment aims to recognise all such incidents and attempt to minimise the occurrence of
such through appropriate treatments.
4.1.2 Social Indicators
These indicators consider the potential connection between certain antisocial behaviour and
the occurrence of an out-of-course event. This information can be obtained by contacting
local Police and Local Authority Rangers.
4.1.2.1 Active Youth Gangs
Police and Rangers will be able to outline if there are active youth gangs operating in the
vicinity of the overpass structures with pedestrian access.
4.1.2.2 Graffiti and Vandalism
The Assessor must inspect the bridge site and immediate surrounds and observe if there is
evidence of graffiti or vandalism. Persons responsible for this type of vandalism may also be
known to Police or the local Rangers and Assessors should make relevant inquiries about
such.

4.1.3 Pedestrian Category
This indicator looks to establish a profile of pedestrians using these facilities. A review of
previous incidents indicates that often young children, not fully understanding the
consequences of their actions have been involved in the throwing of objects.
4.1.3.1 Child Attractors
Assessors will need to establish what attractors are near or in the vicinity of the overpass
structure such as:
Schools;
Playgrounds;
Parks; or
Other juvenile attraction.
The evaluation model takes into account the proximity of the attractors to the structure and
Assessors can obtain this information from a map of the area and/or their site inspection.
4.1.3.2 Adult Facilities
The evaluation model also takes into account the influence that adult recreation facilities may
have on the probability of an out-of-course event occurring. Alcohol can impair normal
judgment and venues where alcohol is available are of particular interest. Venues such as:
Clubs;
Hotels;
Sports venues; or
Other adult recreation/entertainment facilities
should be identified by the Assessor. The evaluation model takes into account the proximity
of the venues to the structure and Assessors can obtain this information from a map of the
area and/or their site inspection.
4.1.4 Outlook and Usage
4.1.4.1 Exposure to Surrounding Buildings
This indicator is rated as low, medium or high exposure. The Assessor will need to visit the
site and assess the level of exposure. Where houses or other buildings overlook the
overpass with uninterrupted view a rating of high should be given. If there is a low level of
lighting for night time use and there are no premises that overlook the site, a low rating
should be provided.
4.1.4.2 Structure Type
The evaluation model takes into account whether the overpass is a pedestrian/cyclist only
type facility or a shared facility with traffic. On bridges carrying traffic, the Assessor will
provide a score based on the amount of traffic moving over the bridge each day. Vehicle
flows can be gathered from MRWA or the Local Authority. Where information is not available
Assessors may need to undertake sample peak hour counts and estimate traffic flows.

4.1.4.3 Loose Material
This indicator considers the availability of material in the vicinity of the overpass structure
that might be thrown or dropped.
4.1.5 Pedestrian Volume
An estimate of pedestrian usage is gathered by determining whether there are significant

pedestrian generators such as train stations, schools or shopping centres. Assessors should
consider whether the pedestrian facility is used as a significant route between residential
centres. Sample flows may need to be gathered where there is no information available.
4.2 Consequence Indicators
The evaluation model utilises a matrix where the speed and volume of traffic of vehicles on
the roadway below the overpass structure is used to determine a multiplying factor. Traffic
volumes are available from MRWA or the Local Authority, and the zoned speed limit can be
used for the speed rating.
5. RISK RANKING
To assist risk managers determine suitable treatments and prioritise implementation

strategies based on the level of risk determined for each site, the Pareto Principle was
utilised to determine risk levels. The Pareto Principle sometimes known as the 80/20 rule
holds true for many aspects in our daily lives and can be generally stated as “Most of the
effects are due to a few of the causes”. The Pareto Principle is widely used in risk
management to identify the significant hazards contributing to the majority of risk.
Having determined the risk rating for the overpass structure from the Evaluation Model,
utilising the formula, RISK RATING RR = Likelihood Score (L) x Consequence Multiplier (C),
the bridge sites can be ranked as Low, Moderate, High or Very High risk based on the
following scores:
Score Risk Category

0 - 69 Low Risk
70 - 99 Moderate Risk
100 - 139 High Risk
140 and above Very High Risk
These levels may be subject to adjustment following more detailed application of the
evaluation model. The table is intended to act as a guide for the ranking of overpass
structures with pedestrian access and should be used in conjunction with local knowledge of
the site, the aspects (indicators) that have contributed to the risk rating and sound
engineering judgment.
The scores and risk ranking of each site will form the basis for decisions about the type of
treatment that is required and the priority for implementation of treatment strategies, albeit
that these decisions also need to be made in the broader context of the availability of funds
and the involvement of others in the risk treatment process.

6. RISK TREATMENTS
The determination of risk treatments is undertaken utilising the risk treatment process
recommended under AS/NZS 4360, i.e. avoid the risk, transfer the risk in full or in part,
reduce the likelihood, or reduce the consequences.
Risk treatments include options to eliminate the risk through the use of underpasses where
possible or to undertake a range of engineering, education, enforcement and/or
administrative type treatments that would assist in modifying the likelihood of an event
occurring.
The following range of treatment options should be considered. These options are not
exhaustive and risk managers shall consider the circumstances that are contributing to the
risk at individual sites when determining the most appropriate and effective course of action.
Screens or canopies.
Short term increased security or specific education programs following an incident.
Place video cameras following the recording of an incident.
Upgrading of lighting of the structure.
Security by local Police, local Rangers, Neighbourhood Watch.
Remove material – level of treatment in accordance with site safety audit.
Warning signs such as “Under Surveillance”.
Integrated education programs – existing school based policing education programs.
Toll free Crime Stoppers number posted on bridge sites.
Design criteria – consider risks at design stage and design out if possible.
At many sites it is unlikely that any one risk treatment will provide the complete solution and
risk managers should consider the range of treatments that will provide the most effective
control. Where treatments exceed available funds, implementation strategies should outline
the priority order in which individual risk treatments should be implemented.
6.1 Engineering Treatments
6.1.1 Warning Signs
The use of this type of treatment is usually accompanied by a broader education and/or
enforcement program developed as part of a broad risk management strategy. Signs are
considered a low level treatment strategy. The signage should provide a simple message
such as “Bridge Under Surveillance”.
As an alternative suggestion, signage containing the number of the toll free Crime Stoppers
line may prompt other users to advise the police of incidents that may lead to an undesirable
event.
Signs need to be placed in a conspicuous location to maximise their effectiveness.
6.1.2 Lighting
The provision of lighting makes it more difficult for persons to be hidden from view at night.
Lighting is considered a medium level treatment. Good lighting may significantly reduce the

opportunity for perpetrators to go unnoticed at night. Due consideration needs to be given to
glare for oncoming traffic and light spillage to surrounding or adjacent buildings.
Lighting was considered to be an expensive option, particularly when being retrofitted to

structures. Given the uncertain effectiveness of this type of treatment careful consideration
to the benefit-cost ratio of the treatment would need to be given prior to its implementation.
6.1.3 Video Surveillance
The presence of surveillance cameras provides a deterrent to some potential wrongdoers,

and there has been a significant use of this type of treatment throughout public areas in the
Perth metropolitan area over the past decade. However this level of surveillance and
response is not always necessary, practicable or cost effective. Given the long distances
involved in some of the bridge crossings, clear identification of the perpetrators may be
difficult.
Some economies of scale may be able to be obtained where surveillance cameras are used
for other purposes such as security at train stations or MRWA network monitoring. Risk
managers would need to weigh the effectiveness or benefits of this type of treatment against
the whole-of-life cost, and consider other treatments that may be just as effective and less
costly in the long term.
6.1.4 Mesh Screens
The provision of mesh screens is considered to be a very high level treatment, only
warranted when the risk of a site is assessed to be very high. While the erection of screens
will significantly reduce the likelihood of an object being thrown or dropped from a structure,
depending on the design of the mesh, there is still some level of opportunity for these out-of-
course events to arise. The use of mesh screens would almost completely reduce the
likelihood of a person being thrown from an overpass structure or suicide by jumping. When
considering this type of treatment, risk managers need to take at least the following into
account:
The strength requirements of the screen and ongoing maintenance requirements;

Site distances and clearances for safe movement of traffic;
The aesthetics of the screening;
When retrofitting mesh structures, designers need to determine whether the existing
bridge structure has adequate structural capacity; and
Other risks that may arise from the placement of screens.
Ideally screening should be incorporated into the design stage of new overpass structures
with pedestrian access in order that the designer can provide the necessary balance
between serviceability and aesthetic appeal to ensure the structure is in harmony with the
surrounding environment. The screen can then be fitted at any latter stage if needed.
6.1.5 Non-mesh Screens (Partially or Fully Enclosed)
The use of toughened glass or acrylic/polycarbonate products allows for an uninterrupted

view and reduces the aesthetic intrusion, however the cost of the treatment is relatively
expensive, is subject to graffiti and other vandalism and is therefore difficult to maintain.
There is considerable heat build up in fully enclosed structures and there is a potential for
glare causing problems for motorists and occupants of nearby buildings. The provision of
these types of screening is considered to be a very high order treatment.

6.2 Administrative Treatments
Administrative type treatments are the lowest category on the risk treatment hierarchy and by
their very nature require considerable diligence to ensure their effectiveness. Ideally
treatments in this category need to be incorporated into a formal management system that
ensures a structured consistent approach is applied which maximises the effectiveness of
the treatment.
6.2.1 Reducing Material Available
There is sufficient evidence that many of the incidents involving objects being thrown or
dropped from overpass structures are largely opportunistically motivated. So the availability
of material near the structure is a critical factor in the likelihood of these events occurring.
Parties responsible for the management of surrounding areas on the approaches to the
structures can play a valuable role by ensuring roadside furniture such as signs, poles, guide
posts, manhole and gully covers, lighting fixtures etc. are secured, well maintained and
regularly checked. There have been some recorded incidents where guideposts have been
removed by vandals and thrown from overpasses. The likelihood of an opportunistic type
incident can be reduced by instigating good maintenance practices that ensure the
availability of loose material such as stones, building materials (bricks, concrete etc.) and
debris from trees and other objects that can be used as projectiles are, as far as reasonably
practicable, removed from the area.
6.2.2 Education
Education treatments incorporate both consultative and communication mechanisms, and

while it is considered a low order risk treatment measure, potentially it provides the most
effective long term solution to a problem that may be considered to arise out of a deeper
societal problem.
It is clear from past incidents that children and youths appear to be the group that is most
likely to initiate an incident. As such it is considered that any proposed education program
should target this group, rather than the broader public.
Neighbourhood Watch and RoadWise Groups may be utilised to provide a higher level of
community awareness and monitoring of trouble spots.
6.2.3 Enforcement
It is understood that WA Police resources are stretched, and there may be limited opportunity
to provide specific enforcement resources to this area. Where sites have been identified as
high risk, surveillance by either Police or local Rangers is considered a valuable element in a
broader treatment program that may also include the erection of signs, increased lighting and
the placement of surveillance cameras.
Ideally monitoring and policing activities should form part of existing patrols in the vicinity of
the structure. Risk managers should also consider circumstances where police/security
surveillance may need to be initiated on a short term basis such as after reports of
suspicious behaviour or a near miss incident.

7. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
7.1 Treatment Options
Risk managers need to choose the most effective treatment strategies based on the
individual circumstances at each site.
The table below outlines a schedule of risk treatments that may be appropriate for a range of
likely hazards associated with objects being thrown from overpasses.
Risk Managers may choose to implement one or a combination of treatments listed under the
relevant risk rating category. Depending on circumstances the most effective treatment plan
may be a combination of lower order treatments and specific treatments recommended
within the relevant risk rating category, or just lower order treatments. The schedule
suggests a ranking for consideration of treatments within each risk category. A ranking of
one (1) indicating that this type of treatment should be considered first before moving to
higher order treatments. The schedule does not suggest exclusivity of any treatment listed
and risk managers are encouraged to choose a combination of treatments to suit the risk
profile requirements of each site. The schedule should be used as a guide only and risk
managers are encouraged to also use local knowledge of the site, the aspects (indicators)
that have contributed to the risk rating and sound engineering judgment when deciding on
the most effective treatment.
RISK RISK TREATMENT TREATMENT OPTIONS

SCORE RATING RANK
Very High Place screens or canopies
140+ 4
Risk
Place or upgrade lighting where records of incidents have
3 occurred at night
Place security cameras with ongoing video surveillance, subject
2 to the economic viability of the surveillance
Consider treatments as per High Risk sites
1
Improve security, such as placing security cameras or security
100 - 139 High Risk 2 camera boxes with appropriate signs or concentrated
surveillance
Consider treatments as per Moderate Risk sites
1
Moderate Provide short term surveillance following an incident such as
70 - 99 3
Risk routine patrols by Police or local Rangers if applicable
Sites where a record of an incident exists should be prioritised
2 for school education programs i.e. where local schools within
vicinity of site are identified as a highly likely hazard source
Consider treatments as per Low Risk sites
1
Place appropriate signage, e.g. bridge number for easy
0 - 69 Low Risk 2
identification, Crime Stoppers toll free number etc.
Ensure maintenance of approaches to site where applicable
1
Liaise with Local Government to raise this issue as part of the
1 Neighbourhood Watch or similar community safety awareness
programs
Formalise inspection and maintenance regimes to ensure desired
1 maintenance standards are being met
Where bridges or overpasses are at the design stage, specifically
1 address this issue as part of the existing project management
risk management process
Accept risk, do nothing
1

7.2 ALARP Principle
Risk Managers should consider the ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ ALARP principle when
considering strategies for the treatment of the risk determined through the evaluation model.
The ALARP concept combines considerations of the cost of reducing the risk against the
level of risk exposure. In general two levels can be defined. Firstly, the level where risk is
considered negligible and can be accepted without specific treatment other than monitoring.
The second level is where risk is intolerable and the activity must cease or be eliminated
(except in exceptional circumstances), unless the risk can be reduced.
Between these two levels is the region where costs and benefits are taken into account.
When a risk exposure approaches that intolerable level, the expectation is that the risk will be
reduced unless the cost of reducing the risk is grossly disproportionate to the benefits
gained.
All treatment options associated with the evaluation of the overpass sites should be subject
to benefit-cost ratings for comparison against other competing road safety funds. The
treatment program should look to provide the most effective treatment in the most cost
efficient manner.
By way of example, screening a bridge that is ranked as a ‘very high’ risk but without a
recorded incident in the last 2 years may not be the most effective treatment. The Risk
Manager would need to consider the elements that are contributing to the risk ranking and
determine whether treatments such as instituting a maintenance program to ensure materials
are kept clear of the site together with increased informal surveillance of the site by local
Rangers or Police and the placing of a security camera box with signage may be sufficient
control. If reports of an incident occurred, the risk manager may then choose to either, place
a screen depending on the regularity of such reports or choose an alternative such as the
placement of a security camera. If the perpetrators of the incidents could be identified from a
local source, a specific education program may also be considered an effective treatment.
8. FUNDING OF TREATMENTS
The responsibility for the risk evaluation of bridge sites, the implementation of risk treatments
and review of the risk management program shall lie with the bridge owner.
Treatments identified through this process will be considered for funding under the Road
Safety Program.
9. RISK MONITORING PLAN
All treatments shall be evaluated for effectiveness as required by AS/NZS 4360, Risk
Management. The monitoring program should encapsulate at least the following:
1. Ongoing review of the management practices put in place as part of low level treatments
It would be expected that reviews of this nature would be implemented on an ongoing basis
as part of other asset management and standard development programs.
2. Ongoing collection and review of incident data

In order that reasoned decisions can be made in respect to risk issues that arise out of
pedestrians throwing or dropping objects from overpass structures, accurate easily
accessible data should be available. It is essential that a comprehensive data gathering
strategy is developed to ensure that information coming through these various sources is

directed to a single control point. At this point the information can be translated into an
agreed format and be available for future reviews and risk evaluations. It is proposed that
Metro Region nominate a position that will provide the single point of contact and monitor
and record incidents.
3. Periodic revaluation of the bridge stock

Bridge stock on high risk sites, such as the freeway network should be assessed every two
and a half years and at other locations every 5 years. This process would allow treatments
to be planned over a five (5) year management time frame which could be adjusted
periodically where revaluations from high risk sites or incident records required such.
The table outlined below summarises the monitoring program.
Review Effectiveness of Management Treatment Options

½ Continuous Review ¾
Gather Incident Data
½ Continuous Review ¾
Revaluate risk rating at high risk sites
Ø
Revaluate risk rating of all bridge stock
Å
Review risk evaluation and treatment methodologies
Å
Yr 0 Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5
4. Periodic review of risk evaluation and treatment methodologies

As outlined previously the risk evaluation criteria and methodology have been based on the
interpretation of empirical information available at the time of this report. Extensive use of
the model may identify circumstances that need to be accounted for in the evaluation model,
or identify a need to adjust weightings used within the scoring system to better reflect risk
exposure associated with this issue.
Given the expected timeframe for the implementation of any risk management program, it is
likely that a formal review of the process should take place at least every five (5) years.

10. FORMS
Overpass Risk Evaluation Form 10.1.
RISK EVALUATION (Form 10.1)

Location: Bridge No.
Traffic Volume: vpd Road Under:
Date: Vol:
Assessor: Speed:
CATEGORY - Likelihood INDICATOR / POSSIBLE POINTS SCORE
1.0 History There are records of more than one There is a record of an Nil
1.1 Record of incidents at structure incident occurring over the last 2 years incident where objects have
being assessed been thrown from the bridge
over the last 2 years
15 10 0
1.2 Screened structure or record of The structure is within 1km of a screened The structure is within 1km Nil
incident on structure near by overpass structure of a bridge where reports
have been received
7 5 0
1.3 Maintenance workers report debris Yes No
thrown from overpass
3 0
2.0 Social Indicators
2.1 Police advise there are active Yes No
juvenile gangs operating in the area
5 0
2.2 Vandalism or graffiti reported or Vandalism Graffiti None
observed on or near the structure 3 2 0
3.0 Pedestrian Category < 500m 500m – 1km 1km to 2km 2km+
3.1 The structure is near a school,
playground, park or juvenile attraction 10 7 3 0
3.2 The structure is near a club, hotel or
other adult entertainment facility 5 3 2 0
4.0 Outlook and Usage Low Medium High
4.1 The site is exposed to surrounding
buildings 5 3 1
4.2 The Structure Type Pedestrian Shared with Shared 5000 – Shared 15000 – Shared
Only < 5000 vpd 15000 vpd 25000 vpd 25000+ vpd
10 7 5 3 2
4.3 Loose material is in the vicinity Various size close Various size within Small within 100m > 100m
by 100m
7 5 3 0
5.0 Pedestrian Volume Significant Generators Some Generators < 300m Minor Generators < 300m
< 300m
5.1 The volume of pedestrians using the
overpass structure. Generators e.g. 5 3 1
schools, bus and train station, high
residential area.
TOTAL SCORE ( L )
CATEGORY - Consequence CONSEQUENCE MATRIX CONSEQUENCE

MULTIPLIER
1.0 ROADWAY Speed/Volume 60 – 70 kph 70 – 90 kph 100+ kph SCORE ( C )
5000 – 10k vpd 1.5 1.9 2.1
10k – 30k vpd 1.8 2.4 2.7
30k+ vpd 2.0 2.7 3.0
2.0 WATERWAY 1.0
3.0 FREIGHT RAIL 1.5
RISK RATING RR = Likelihood Score ( L ) x Consequence Multiplier ( C )

Risk Treatment Form 10.2.
RISK TREATMENTS (Form 10.2)

RISK SCORE: RISK RATING:
RECOMMENDED TREATMENT:
Score Risk Category

0 - 69 Low Risk
70 - 99 Moderate Risk
100 - 139 High Risk
140 and above Very High Risk
NOTES:

POLICY
Assessment of Overpass Structures with Pedestrian

Access for the Risk of Thrown Projectiles
Prepared by
STRUCTURES ENGINEERING
TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE
June 2006
MAIN ROADS Western Australia Policy Framework Page 1 of 5

CONTENTS
1. CONTEXT.................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 LEGAL ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................ 3
2. POLICY STATEMENT............................................................................................................................... 4
3. POLICY PRINCIPLES ............................................................................................................................... 4
4. SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
5. POLICY OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................................................. 5
6. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................ 5

1. CONTEXT
1.1 Legal Environment
Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) is responsible for the care, control and management
of the main road and highway network throughout Western Australia. MRWA owes a duty of
care to those utilising the road reserve and associated facilities, to ensure they are safe and
not exposed to injury. Legal opinion by Blake Dawson and Waldron1 provides an in-depth
opinion as to MRWA’s liabilities and exposures, and confirms MRWA’s common law and
statutory duties as follows:
Statutory
“The Main Roads Act 1930 (WA) establishes the commissioner of Main Roads as a
corporate body and sets out the powers and duties of the office. The Commissioner is
responsible for the care, control and management of the land over which the highway or
main road is declared and has the power to implement protective measures to avoid the risk
of harm.”
Common Law
“The Commissioner also owes a duty at common law to take reasonable care to avoid
foreseeable risks of injury to visitors to the land. The Commissioner owes a duty to take
such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to ensure that visitors to the land are not
injured by reason of the state of the land or by what Main Roads has done or omitted to do in
relation to the land and the objects on it”.
1.2 Corporate Environment
MRWA’s stated purpose is “To provide safe and efficient road access that will enhance
community lifestyles and ensure economic prosperity”.2
In the Perth metropolitan area there are hundreds of pedestrian bridges and road bridges
containing footpaths that cross waterways, road carriageways or rail freight lines with many
of these over the freeway or major highways.
While there is little long term statistical data available as to the frequency of incidents
involving objects being dropped or thrown, or persons jumping from overpass structures, it
would appear from available records that there is an increasing trend emerging of this
dangerous antisocial behaviour.
The use of a formal risk assessment as a management process has been adopted as a
means of identifying and understanding the level of risk exposure on the network, and is
considered integral to the effective management of road user safety.
The following Treasurer’s Instruction requires Accountable Officers/Authorities and managers

to focus on the risk exposure of an organisation and take the necessary action to manage
that exposure.
“The Accountable Officer or Authority shall ensure that there are procedures in place for the
periodic identification, assessment and treatment of risks inherent in the operations of the
department or statutory authority, together with suitable risk management policies and
practices, and that these are documented in the accounting manual or other relevant policy
manuals.” 3

2. POLICY STATEMENT
MRWA will undertake risk identification and assessment, and determine suitable treatments
in accordance with the procedures prescribed in MRWA document, “Technical Guideline –
Assessment of Overpass Structures with Pedestrian Access for the Risk of Thrown
Projectiles”5 on all existing and proposed overpass structures within the prescribed area.
3. POLICY PRINCIPLES
MRWA will liaise with Local Authorities, WA Police, Ministry for Education and Training and
the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, and other relevant agencies to acquire their
assistance in the development and promotion of public awareness and education programs
concerning this issue. This may be in the form of targeted programs for specific incidents or
a more generic program for overall education and awareness.
The funding of risk treatments will be subject to comparison with other road safety and
improvement projects and the availability of funds. Treatment Programs will take into
account the risk score allocated to each overpass structure with the higher score rating being
accorded the highest priority, all other matters being equal.
Nothing in this policy will prevent the consideration of individual sites singled out for special
consideration based on a specific circumstance.
4. SCOPE
This policy outlines strategies for the management of risks that are associated with thrown or
dropped objects from overpass structures with pedestrian access, covering both pedestrian
only structures and road bridges with pedestrian facilities.
The policy is applicable for the management of risk for incidents that arise out of unplanned,
opportunistic actions of individuals that can be limited, reduced or eliminated by the
application of suitable treatments following a risk assessment of the site.
There are documented constraints in treating those risks that arise out of a person
determined to commit a criminal offence by throwing objects or persons from an overpass
structure or persons committing suicide by jumping from the structure. These types of
offences will be managed through a specific assessment on a case-by-case basis and are
not covered by this policy. Where incident records highlight a trend, suitable treatments may
then best be determined to manage the trend.
All sites within the Perth metropolitan area shall be assessed in accordance with the
implementation and monitoring frequency outlined in the technical guideline5. All other sites
outside the metropolitan area shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis as the need arises.

5. POLICY OBJECTIVES
The policy is intended to provide a guide to the elimination or reduction of risk associated
with incidents involving thrown objects from overpass structures with pedestrian access. It is
intended to provide a structured risk management process based on recognised standards
as a means to eliminate or reduce risks associated with opportunistic incidents involving
persons throwing objects from overpass structures.
Where incidents vary from opportunistic delinquent acts towards more serious intentional
criminal actions, the policy further commits MRWA to consider trends that might arise out of
such incidents and consider appropriate treatments to effectively manage such trends.
The policy would seek to meet the community’s normal expectations of network safety while
ensuring scarce resources are utilised in the most cost effective manner.
The policy outlines both the relationships needed to be developed between key stakeholders
to meet the policy aims of reducing risks across the network, and the engineering treatments
that may be utilised to eliminate or reduce risks at individual sites where a structured risk
assessment methodology deems consideration of such.
The policy, through the associated Technical Guideline, sets out a structured methodology
for assessing risks, prioritising treatments, and reducing and managing risk both at existing
overpass structures with pedestrian access and for proposed structures.
6. REFERENCES
1. Legal Opinion, Blake Dawson Waldron (August 2000) – Development of a policy for
pedestrian protective screening.
2. Main Roads Western Australia Annual Report 2004-2005.
3. Treasurer’s Instruction 109 – Risk Management.
4. Australian Standard, AS/NZS 4360-2004, Risk Management.
5. Main Roads Western Australia (June 2006) Technical Guideline – Assessment of

Overpass Structures with Pedestrian Access for the Risk of Thrown Projectiles.


Assessment of Overpass Structures Pedestrian Access

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment of Overpass Structures Pedestrian Access

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNICAL GUIDELINE

Assessment of Overpass Structures with Pedestrian

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Technical Guideline Page 1 of 16

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Technical Guideline Page 2 of 16

The Guideline outlines the technical details associated with:

 The risk assessment process;

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Technical Guideline Page 3 of 16

This Guideline was developed to provide:

 An understanding of the need for a structured approach to the management of risks

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Technical Guideline Page 4 of 16

RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL

CATEGORY - Consequence CONSEQUENCE MATRIX CONSEQUENCE

RISK RATING RR = Likelihood Score ( L ) x Consequence Multiplier ( C )

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Technical Guideline Page 5 of 16

4.1.1.1 Recorded Incidents

 MRWA correspondence or ministerial correspondence;

Scoring reflects singular or multiple incidents.

4.1.1.2 Nearby Treated Structures

4.1.1.3 Debris Reports

4.1.2 Social Indicators

4.1.2.1 Active Youth Gangs

4.1.2.2 Graffiti and Vandalism

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Technical Guideline Page 6 of 16

4.1.3.1 Child Attractors

4.1.3.2 Adult Facilities

4.1.4 Outlook and Usage

4.1.4.1 Exposure to Surrounding Buildings

4.1.4.2 Structure Type

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Technical Guideline Page 7 of 16

4.1.5 Pedestrian Volume

An estimate of pedestrian usage is gathered by determining whether there are significant

4.2 Consequence Indicators

To assist risk managers determine suitable treatments and prioritise implementation

Score Risk Category

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Technical Guideline Page 8 of 16

6.1 Engineering Treatments

6.1.1 Warning Signs

Signs need to be placed in a conspicuous location to maximise their effectiveness.

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Technical Guideline Page 9 of 16

Lighting was considered to be an expensive option, particularly when being retrofitted to

6.1.3 Video Surveillance

The presence of surveillance cameras provides a deterrent to some potential wrongdoers,

6.1.4 Mesh Screens

 The strength requirements of the screen and ongoing maintenance requirements;

6.1.5 Non-mesh Screens (Partially or Fully Enclosed)

The use of toughened glass or acrylic/polycarbonate products allows for an uninterrupted

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Technical Guideline Page 10 of 16

6.2.1 Reducing Material Available

Education treatments incorporate both consultative and communication mechanisms, and

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Technical Guideline Page 11 of 16

7.1 Treatment Options

RISK RISK TREATMENT TREATMENT OPTIONS

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Technical Guideline Page 12 of 16

9. RISK MONITORING PLAN

2. Ongoing collection and review of incident data

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Technical Guideline Page 13 of 16

3. Periodic revaluation of the bridge stock

The table outlined below summarises the monitoring program.

Review Effectiveness of Management Treatment Options

4. Periodic review of risk evaluation and treatment methodologies

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Technical Guideline Page 14 of 16

Overpass Risk Evaluation Form 10.1.

RISK EVALUATION (Form 10.1)

The risk assessment process;

An understanding of the need for a structured approach to the management of risks

MRWA correspondence or ministerial correspondence;

The strength requirements of the screen and ongoing maintenance requirements;