An Analysis of Passengers’ Safety Risk at the Infrastructure Improvement Project of Railway Station

Constructing the elevated track at the Manggarai Railway Station has risk which potentially endangers the passengers’ safety due to its construction process is carried out within passengers’ activities around the railway station. This research aims to identify the hazard and risks, analyze the level and control the risk. Moreover, this study also aims to arrange the priority of serial alternative solutions regarding the handling the risk within the construction process of elevated track. This study used methods as follows: Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment, And Risk Control (HIRARC) and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). In addition, data triangulation was also done by involving three respondents in keeping with to ensure the validity. The analysis of HIRARC generated 11 hazards and risks namely 6 are classified into extreme risks, 4 are rated high risk and 1 is categorized as medium risk. The method of AHP is used to analyze the alternative ways of handling the risks and to find out the priorities above some alternative ways of handling the risks. The sequence of the alternative ways of handling the risks based on the top priority is as follows: (1) first priority by applying the switch over 5, (2) second priority by adding the KLB feeder, (3) third priority by increasing the service facility.


INTRODUCTION
The railway station of Manggarai which is located in South Jakarta is one of the busiest railways stations in Jakarta and planned to become a central stasion by 2025 [1]. The railway station of Manggarai serves the Commuter Line (CL) train with the routes heading to Jatinegara, Tanah Abang, Bogor, Bekasi dan downtown of Jakarta and it also serves the route to the airport [2]. In Indonesia, the first elevated track was operated since Constructing the elevated track at the Manggarai Railway Station has risk which potentially endangers the passengers' safety due to its construction process is carried out within passengers' activities around the railway station. This research aims to identify the hazard and risks, analyze the level and control the risk. Moreover, this study also aims to arrange the priority of serial alternative solutions regarding the handling the risk within the construction process of elevated track. This study used methods as follows: Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment, And Risk Control (HIRARC) and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). In addition, data triangulation was also done by involving three respondents in keeping with to ensure the validity. The analysis of HIRARC generated 11 hazards and risks namely 6 are classified into extreme risks, 4 are rated high risk and 1 is categorized as medium risk. The method of AHP is used to analyze the alternative ways of handling the risks and to find out the priorities above some alternative ways of handling the risks. The sequence of the alternative ways of handling the risks based on the top priority is as follows: (1) first priority by applying the switch over 5, (2) second priority by adding the KLB feeder, (3) third priority by increasing the service facility.
[2] 1992 [3]. In the recent time, the railway station of Manggarai has elevated track and it has started the operation since September 25th 2021. The elevated track is maximized for use of CL route Bogor to downtown Jakarta, and conversely [4] and it is still in the construction process of phase 1 which consists of 4 tracks. The railway station of Manggarai is extended to fit the necessity and now the construction of double track of route Manggarai to Cikarang is going on [5]. Besides, the elevated track construction process for phase 2 is also on going where it consists of 6 tracks. The elevated track is built with the goal to remove the conflict point between railway and road users and it is certainly also useful to separate the conventional railway tracks from the commuter line track [6]. The construction of new tracks is expected to make railway station of Manggarai becomes central railway, creates integrated mass transportation, and it is hopefully reliable for everyone especially passengers [7].
There are three main causative factors in construction works namely human factors, environmental factors and instrumental factors, and human factors provide the biggest probability [8]. The safety standard is requirement, guidance or reference to avoid the risk of accidents [9]. Risk is incident which potentially occurs and obviously causes loss for company [10]. Furthermore, accident is occurrence which causes injury/wound, harms the health and sometimes fatally causes the death [11].
To understand the situation of safety during the construction of elevated track at the railway station of Manggarai, here below are results based on interview to respondents. The findings as follows: The potential risk, incident, and accident maybe repeated due to the elevated track is still going on. The aim of this study is to analyze the impact of passengers' safety regarding the construction of elevated track viewed from the hazard of it, risk level, risk controlling, and alternative ways of handling risk to reduce the negative impact during the elevated track construction is going on.

RESEARCH METHOD
This study used method of Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment, and Risk Control (HIRARC) to evaluate the risk and used the method of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to analyze the priority scale (ranking) on the alternative ways of handling the risks. To obtain valid data from the respondents, the triangulation was conducted [12]. Respondents were selected by purposive sampling method based on criteria the ones who know, experience [13] and are in charge in the elevated track construction at the railway station of Manggarai. Respondents chosen were Station Master (SM), Vice Station Master (VSM) and Quality Control (QC).

Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment, and Risk Control (HIRARC)
Method of HIRARC has 3 phases [14] they are: a. Hazard Identification [3] This phase is defined as the process of identification on any possible probabilities of potential danger of a certain process so that the risks can be found. b. Risk Assessment After finding out the hazarad and its risk, afterwards, the risk assessment is conducted. Within the risk assessment, there are 2 parameters, namely (1) likehood, and (2) consequences, yielded in the table, refers to AZ/NZS 4360:2004 [15] and the description for each parameters is synchronized based on the condition in the field [16].   [15] and it also synchronizes into the condition in the field [18].

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Steps of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) are as follows [19]. 1. Describing the problems and determining the goals 2. Arranging the structure of hierarchy, started from main goal, criteria and alternatives.
3. Developing a matrix of comparison in pair [19] by using parameters of score of Saaty comparison scale [20].

Table 7 -Matrix of Comparison in Pair
Km3 Kmn  Two factors are equally significant 3 One factor is slightly less significant than another one. 5 One factor is more significant than another one. 7 One factor is much more significant than another one 9 One factor is extremely significant than another one 2,4,6,8 Two factors have closely same score 4. Data normalization Normalized data are obtained by dividing the score of each factor within the matrix by total score of matrix within one column to attain normalized score (Wij). At the end, the total amount of each column in the normalized matrix is same with 1 [19].
5. Calculating the eigen vector (ƛ). Eigen vector is score of average from normalized matrix and it is calculated for each line [19].
To simplify the analysis, all steps mainly step 2 up to step 5 can be summarized in the table as follows.
6. Calculating the eigen vector maximum [19]. Note: ƛ max = eigen vector maximum 7. Testing the consistency by using Consistency Index [19]. Score RI is taken from the table of random consistency index by considering the matrix scale. If the score of CR ≤ 10% the data is rated consistent and acceptable but, if CR >10%, the data is considered inconsistent and unacceptable [20]. 1,45 10 1,49 9. Arranging the priority (ranking). The priority is decided based on the total of score (weighting) the highest multiplication between on the each criterion and alternatives which is obtained from the output of analysis AHP [19].

Hazard and Risk Identification
Based on the observation and interview in the field by considering the standard of operating procedure on the developing the elevated track, it was found an activity with potential danger and potential risk which ruins the passengers' safety. The result of identification on potential danger and potential risk from the infrastructure process of elevated track at the railway station of Manggarai are illustrated as follows.

9.
Tower crane brings iron passes on the active track.
11. Endanger and ruin the passengers' safety and the train mobility. 11. Iron can befall the passengers and railway.
Based on the table 10, in the construction process there are 9 conditions, 11 dangerous potentials and 11 threatening risk which endanger the passengers' safety.

Risk Assessment
After identifying the dangers and risk, the next step is doing an analysis on the risk assessment to discover the level of risk.

1.
The activity of getting on and off of passengers is obstructed Passengers' accumulation/overloaded inside of the temporary platform can make the platform fall down and broken.

Risk Controlling
Based on the interview and consideration of risk controlling, the respondents stated that the suitable risk controlling are as follows: 1. Elimination a) Applying switch over 5 or synchronizing the timetable of train's arrival and departure, where the overall operation pattern of railway trip changes, and it affects to the passengers who cannot pass the area of construction. 2. Substitution a) Increasing the service facility so that the passengers can feel comfortable and secured although they are in the condition of railway station is under construction process. b) Operating KLB feeder (extra train) to fasten the process of passengers' mobility so they don't wait for long time at the railway station of Manggarai. 3. Engineering control a) Roof installation above the area of crossing so the passengers are secured and safe from things fall down from above of construction heavy equipments. b) Installing the safety line in the area of construction of elevated track. 4. Administration control a) Conducting join inspection regularly and carrying the supervision and giving briefing to the officers and workers of railway station and construction project when the potential danger arises. b) Giving a large banner in the area of construction project so that the passengers are careful and aware of dangers. c) Instructing the officer of announcer to remind and warn the passengers to be careful when they pass the area of construction. d) Conducting the safety briefing right before the job is getting started. This action is aimed to build the officers' and workers' awareness to prioritize the safety during working.

Personal Protection Equipment (PPE)
Requiring the officers and workers to wear Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) so that they are safe when something wrong meets them during working. This effort can minimize the risk.

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
To get the best way of handling the risk, there are 3 significant criteria to handle the risk, they are; passengers' safety (A1), Passengers' convenient (A2) and passengers' security (A3). From the risk control above, the respondents stated that 3 alternative ways are suitable with the 3 criteria. The alternative ways based on their statements are applying switch over 5 (E1), Improving the facility service (E2) and operating KLB Feeder (E3).  SM stated that A1 = 7 times more important compared to A2, A1 = 3 times more important than A3 and A3 = 3 times more important than A2. Here below is the result of analysis of comparison in pair on the criteria based on perspective SM.  Score CR = 0.0093 < 0,1 or 10% Therefore the calculation on the criteria is considered consistent. By using the same way, the result of analysis on the criteria comparison viewed from VSM and QC, comprehensively the result are drawn as follows: Moreover, conducting an analysis on each alternative option of each criterion based on respondents' point of view namely SM, VSM, and QC. In terms of A1, A2 and A3 on each E1, E2, and E3, the respondents stated of relationship as follows: *Note: 7x means E1 is 7x more important than E2.
By using the same method as shown in the table 14, comparison analysis of alternatives E was conducted on criteria A. The result of analysis as follows: Furthermore, analysis was done to determine the priority (ranking), of available alternatives based on each criterion. The biggest weighting is decided as prime or main priority (top ranking).  Tale 18 shows that the perspective of SM, from 3 criteria namely the passengers' safety (A1), the passengers' convenience (A2) and the passengers' security (A3) shows as follows: 1. The best alternative is switch over 5 (E1) 2. The second best alternative is operating KLB Feeder (E3) 3. The last alternative is improving the facility of service (E2).  Table 19 shows that perspective VSM, from 3 criteria namely the safety of passengers (A1), the convenience of passengers (A2), and the security of passengers (A3) shows findings as follows: 1. The best alternative is switch over 5 (E1), 2. The second alternative is operating KLB feeder (E3) 3. The last alternative is improvement of service facility (E2)