Thank you.
The second issue is railway crossings. As one who's relatively new to this, at least on first impression I think what you say seems to make a lot of sense. Railway crossings do have a lot to do with safety. Safety should be a factor where new ones are constructed. There should be more vigorous action to close down existing ones. It all seems to make eminent sense.
I guess my question is this. If it's all so sensible, why has it not already happened in more than a hundred years? You said there are multiple jurisdictions. You said you've consulted many stakeholders. When something that seems so obviously a good idea has not happened for many decades, there must be a reason. What are the obstacles to this?