❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding a double fatality near Coonarie Creek Bridge in 2017. The questions focus on Main Roads WA's duty of care, maintenance procedures, risk assessments, signage, and the role of PBS trucks. The answers largely defend MRWA's actions and processes.
AnsweredQoN 5845Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a double fatality on Coonarie Creek Bridge Southern Approach on 30 June 2017 at 3pm (IMS:300617 1500 13594), and I ask: (a) Does Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) have a duty of care to all
road users in Western Australian to ensure the minimisation of risk to road
users; (b) When was the bridge damage to the
southern approach of Coonarie Creek on Great Northern Highway approximately 165
kilometres south of Port Hedland first recognised or reported to MRWA; (c) How
long was the timeframe to action the works on Coonarie Bridge (i.e. from the time
the maintenance was first factored in by MRWA until the time when the
southern end of Coonarie Bridge was repaired). Please provide in detail; (d) Did MRWA receive any written or
verbal complaints from any party in relation to damaged expansion joints at Coonarie
Bridge? If so, please provide details; (e) Was
a safety management plan for the Coonarie Bridge maintenance scheduled around
June 2017 created? If so, please provide a copy; (f) Was
a safety risk assessment conducted on Coonarie Bridge prior to work commencing?
If so, please provide a copy; (g) Were
supplementary safety risk assessments conducted on Coonarie Bridge during the
time of commencement of road works and the completion of road works in June
2017? If so, please provide examples; (h) Did any risk assessment in relation
to the broken expansion gaps at Coonarie Bridge consider the danger to trucks
travelling at 60 KPH over a gap measuring approximately 150 mm and the
subsequent risk and reaction of a heavy truck engaging the dilapidated road section
at 60 KPH; (i) Is
a register of temporary speed limits stipulated during road works kept? If so
were the Coonarie Bridge reduction in limits from 110 KPH to 80 KPH to 60 KPH included on any
register? Please provide evidence if it exists; (j) What risk methodology did MRWA use to
formulate the reduced speed limits on Coonarie Bridge in June 2017 from
110 KPH to 80 KPH to 60 KPH; (k) Are regular inspections of roadside
signs to ensure signs are intact, upright and in good condition conducted; (l) If regular roadside sign inspections
are organised what is the frequency of these inspections; (m) Who was responsible to ensure
compliance in relation to signage maintenance and condition in June 2017 at
Coonarie Bridge; (n) Were any inspections conducted on
signage on Coonarie Bridge on 30 June 2017: (i) If so, who was the person who conducted the inspections and oversaw any corrective action required; (o) Why did the expansion joints on
Coonarie Bridge and several others bridges in the region collapse in 2017; (p) Does MRWA receive any remuneration
from users of Performance Based Standards (PBS) approved trucks in the Pilbara area for any perceived road
damage: (i) If so what amount of money has been
collected by MRWA from contractors using the PBS scheme since 2017; and (ii) If such funds are generated is the money allocated to local roads maintenance, or do the funds go into general revenue for MRWA; (q) What is the load bearing rate of expansion joints on Coonarie Bridge; (r) Are PBS trucks with large loads and
axle capacities responsible for damage to expansion joints on bridges such as
the one at the southern approach to Coonarie Creek bridge crossing; (s) How many incidents of road works
signs and speed limit signs falling over at Coonarie Bridge were reported from
the time the signs were erected till the completion of works around June 2017; (t) What calendar period were the signs
in place at Coonarie Bridge for the June 2017 maintenance at Coonarie Bridge; (u) Is there any stipulation within MRWA
requirements to construct signs of a more permanent nature if it takes more
than two weeks to remedy a maintenance job; (v) Speed limit signs had fallen over
around the time of the crash at 3:00 PM on 30 June 2017. By 4:30 PM on June 30,
2017 these signs had been reinstated. Who was responsible for resurrecting
these 80 and 60 KPH signs; (w) MRWA promptly repaired expansion
joints on the southern approach to Coonarie Creek bridge around 2 July 2017. Who
authorised these repairs; and (x) Was the Minister's
office approached a few days after the accident requesting that an independent investigation be launched: (i) If so, why was the request declined?
road users in Western Australian to ensure the minimisation of risk to road
users; (b) When was the bridge damage to the
southern approach of Coonarie Creek on Great Northern Highway approximately 165
kilometres south of Port Hedland first recognised or reported to MRWA; (c) How
long was the timeframe to action the works on Coonarie Bridge (i.e. from the time
the maintenance was first factored in by MRWA until the time when the
southern end of Coonarie Bridge was repaired). Please provide in detail; (d) Did MRWA receive any written or
verbal complaints from any party in relation to damaged expansion joints at Coonarie
Bridge? If so, please provide details; (e) Was
a safety management plan for the Coonarie Bridge maintenance scheduled around
June 2017 created? If so, please provide a copy; (f) Was
a safety risk assessment conducted on Coonarie Bridge prior to work commencing?
If so, please provide a copy; (g) Were
supplementary safety risk assessments conducted on Coonarie Bridge during the
time of commencement of road works and the completion of road works in June
2017? If so, please provide examples; (h) Did any risk assessment in relation
to the broken expansion gaps at Coonarie Bridge consider the danger to trucks
travelling at 60 KPH over a gap measuring approximately 150 mm and the
subsequent risk and reaction of a heavy truck engaging the dilapidated road section
at 60 KPH; (i) Is
a register of temporary speed limits stipulated during road works kept? If so
were the Coonarie Bridge reduction in limits from 110 KPH to 80 KPH to 60 KPH included on any
register? Please provide evidence if it exists; (j) What risk methodology did MRWA use to
formulate the reduced speed limits on Coonarie Bridge in June 2017 from
110 KPH to 80 KPH to 60 KPH; (k) Are regular inspections of roadside
signs to ensure signs are intact, upright and in good condition conducted; (l) If regular roadside sign inspections
are organised what is the frequency of these inspections; (m) Who was responsible to ensure
compliance in relation to signage maintenance and condition in June 2017 at
Coonarie Bridge; (n) Were any inspections conducted on
signage on Coonarie Bridge on 30 June 2017: (i) If so, who was the person who conducted the inspections and oversaw any corrective action required; (o) Why did the expansion joints on
Coonarie Bridge and several others bridges in the region collapse in 2017; (p) Does MRWA receive any remuneration
from users of Performance Based Standards (PBS) approved trucks in the Pilbara area for any perceived road
damage: (i) If so what amount of money has been
collected by MRWA from contractors using the PBS scheme since 2017; and (ii) If such funds are generated is the money allocated to local roads maintenance, or do the funds go into general revenue for MRWA; (q) What is the load bearing rate of expansion joints on Coonarie Bridge; (r) Are PBS trucks with large loads and
axle capacities responsible for damage to expansion joints on bridges such as
the one at the southern approach to Coonarie Creek bridge crossing; (s) How many incidents of road works
signs and speed limit signs falling over at Coonarie Bridge were reported from
the time the signs were erected till the completion of works around June 2017; (t) What calendar period were the signs
in place at Coonarie Bridge for the June 2017 maintenance at Coonarie Bridge; (u) Is there any stipulation within MRWA
requirements to construct signs of a more permanent nature if it takes more
than two weeks to remedy a maintenance job; (v) Speed limit signs had fallen over
around the time of the crash at 3:00 PM on 30 June 2017. By 4:30 PM on June 30,
2017 these signs had been reinstated. Who was responsible for resurrecting
these 80 and 60 KPH signs; (w) MRWA promptly repaired expansion
joints on the southern approach to Coonarie Creek bridge around 2 July 2017. Who
authorised these repairs; and (x) Was the Minister's
office approached a few days after the accident requesting that an independent investigation be launched: (i) If so, why was the request declined?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
12 February 2020
Responded by
Minister for Transport; Planning
Response time
3 days
(a) Yes
(b) The first signs of damage of the approach slab on Coonarie Bridge on GNH was identified on 13 June 2015 during a routine inspection.
(c) After the routine inspection, the required bridge improvements were prioritised and funded. Works were then designed and made ready for delivery in 2017. Works on Coonarie bridge were completed 6 September 2017. From the time the damage to the approach slab was reported until the start of the bridge repair works, Main Roads continued undertaking temporary repairs.
(d) No
(e)-(f) [See tabled paper no.]
(g) Yes:
(h) No expansion gaps were broken.
(i) Yes. The ‘register’ of the speed reductions was included in the register within the approved Traffic Management Plan.
(j) The risk assessment was completed in accordance with the guidance notes provided on the Main Roads website and in accordance with Australian Standard AS1742. Then subsequently endorsed by an independent Roadworks Traffic Manager (highest accreditation level) and reviewed and authorised by Main Roads for implementation.
(k) Yes
(l) Inspections were carried out three times a day at the Coonarie Bridge site.
(m) The Contractor is primarily responsible for compliance to the TMP. Main Roads undertakes reviews of the on-site traffic management during the works period.
(n) Yes
(i) The contractor’s Traffic Management Representative.
(o) The expansion joints did not collapse.
(p) Yes
(i) Total maintenance funding contributions collected from July 2017 – June 2019 was $22m across the Pilbara Region.
(ii) Maintenance funding contributions are allocated to maintenance of the relevant State Roads and National Highways within the Pilbara region.
(q) A ‘load bearing rate’ for expansion joints does not exist.
(r) No
(s) None.
(t) The signs were erected on 25 May 2017 and in place until 5 September 2017 when the works were complete.
(u) In Western Australia, the Code of Practice for Traffic Management for Works on Roads is a supplementary document to the Australian Standard for Traffic Management AS1742.3, that provides additional guidance to traffic management practitioners. AS1742.3 recommends that for signs which are required to be in situ for more than two weeks, to be mounted on more permanent posts. Whilst the Standard recommends this, the placement of temporary traffic management signs on a construction/maintenance site is dependent on a number of factors including the nature of the works, the site, prevailing traffic and work methodology, such that it is often not appropriate for all temporary traffic management signs to be permanently installed. The Code of Practice did not contain any additional guidance on the permanency of temporary traffic management signs. Following the receipt of the Coonarie Creek crash audit report, Main Roads took the opportunity to amend the Code, to better guide industry in relation to temporary traffic management signs in locations where they may be susceptible to falling over.
(v) The Contractor.
(w) The Expansion Joints were not ‘repaired’ on 2 July 2017.
(x) Yes
(y) Adequate processes are already in place to investigate incidences such as the Coonarrie Creek incident. As with all fatal crashes that occur on the State road network, Main Roads investigates and provides a detailed report to both the WA Police and Coroner’s office. That report found no road issues directly related to the cause or severity of the crash.
(b) The first signs of damage of the approach slab on Coonarie Bridge on GNH was identified on 13 June 2015 during a routine inspection.
(c) After the routine inspection, the required bridge improvements were prioritised and funded. Works were then designed and made ready for delivery in 2017. Works on Coonarie bridge were completed 6 September 2017. From the time the damage to the approach slab was reported until the start of the bridge repair works, Main Roads continued undertaking temporary repairs.
(d) No
(e)-(f) [See tabled paper no.]
(g) Yes:
(h) No expansion gaps were broken.
(i) Yes. The ‘register’ of the speed reductions was included in the register within the approved Traffic Management Plan.
(j) The risk assessment was completed in accordance with the guidance notes provided on the Main Roads website and in accordance with Australian Standard AS1742. Then subsequently endorsed by an independent Roadworks Traffic Manager (highest accreditation level) and reviewed and authorised by Main Roads for implementation.
(k) Yes
(l) Inspections were carried out three times a day at the Coonarie Bridge site.
(m) The Contractor is primarily responsible for compliance to the TMP. Main Roads undertakes reviews of the on-site traffic management during the works period.
(n) Yes
(i) The contractor’s Traffic Management Representative.
(o) The expansion joints did not collapse.
(p) Yes
(i) Total maintenance funding contributions collected from July 2017 – June 2019 was $22m across the Pilbara Region.
(ii) Maintenance funding contributions are allocated to maintenance of the relevant State Roads and National Highways within the Pilbara region.
(q) A ‘load bearing rate’ for expansion joints does not exist.
(r) No
(s) None.
(t) The signs were erected on 25 May 2017 and in place until 5 September 2017 when the works were complete.
(u) In Western Australia, the Code of Practice for Traffic Management for Works on Roads is a supplementary document to the Australian Standard for Traffic Management AS1742.3, that provides additional guidance to traffic management practitioners. AS1742.3 recommends that for signs which are required to be in situ for more than two weeks, to be mounted on more permanent posts. Whilst the Standard recommends this, the placement of temporary traffic management signs on a construction/maintenance site is dependent on a number of factors including the nature of the works, the site, prevailing traffic and work methodology, such that it is often not appropriate for all temporary traffic management signs to be permanently installed. The Code of Practice did not contain any additional guidance on the permanency of temporary traffic management signs. Following the receipt of the Coonarie Creek crash audit report, Main Roads took the opportunity to amend the Code, to better guide industry in relation to temporary traffic management signs in locations where they may be susceptible to falling over.
(v) The Contractor.
(w) The Expansion Joints were not ‘repaired’ on 2 July 2017.
(x) Yes
(y) Adequate processes are already in place to investigate incidences such as the Coonarrie Creek incident. As with all fatal crashes that occur on the State road network, Main Roads investigates and provides a detailed report to both the WA Police and Coroner’s office. That report found no road issues directly related to the cause or severity of the crash.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.