November 2-3, 2017
1
1
CUTR Standards Working Group TTCI, Pueblo, CO (6/28/2017)
2
CUTR Standards Working Group TTCI, Pueblo, CO (6/28/2017)
With a Little “Special Photo Editing”
November 2-3, 2017
2
Center for Urban Transportation Research | University of South Florida
CUTR Transit Standards Working Group
November 2 – 3, 2017 l Tampa, FL
4
Welcome and Introductions
• Dr. Robert Bertini – CUTR, Director
• Lisa Staes – CUTR, Director Transit Safety and Workforce Development Programs
• Safety Briefing – Jodi Godfrey, CUTR
• Transit Standards Working Group Facilitator –James Tucci, K & J Safety and Security Consulting Services, Inc., President & Chief Engineer
November 2-3, 2017
3
5
CUTR SAFETY BRIEF
• Location of emergency exits
• Evacuation routes and meeting location (suggest out the south main entrance of building and across Alumni Drive)
• Identify those with CPR training and their willingness to assist if needed
• Location of AED and identify those who know how to use the device along with their willingness to assist
• Identify volunteer who will call 911
• Location of fire extinguisher and volunteer to use the device
• Location of restrooms and water fountains
• USF lock down procedure
• Safe room location in the event of an intruder
6
Building Map – First Floor
November 2-3, 2017
4
7
CUTR Working Group Members
• Abhay Joshi, MARTA
• Brian Alberts, APTA
• Charlie Dickson, CTAA
• Colin Mulloy, HART
• Ed Watt, ATU
• Jeff Hiott, APTA
• Jim Fox, SEPTA
• Kurt Wilkinson, TriMet
• Ni Lee, BART
• Pat Lavin, WMATA
• Paul Goyette, Lee Tran
• Rich Czeck, GCRTA
• Ron Nickle, MBTA
• Stephan Parker, TRB
• Susan Hausmann, TxDOT
• Vijay Khawani, LAMetro
• Will Jones, Greeley-Evans Transit (CO)
8
Agenda – November 2, 2017
8:00am Welcome and Introductions
8:30am Working Group Subcommittee Project Updates
11:00am APTA Standards Program Process
11:45am Working Lunch
12:30pm New Focus Areas (Interactive/Discussion)
3:15pm APTA Safety Management Program
4:00pm Safety Certification for Projects
November 2-3, 2017
5
9
Agenda – November 3, 2017
7:30am Day 1 Recap – Discussion
8:00am Top 3 Safety Concerns Relevant to Events/Incidents
9:30am Briefing – SRI Process for Selecting Rail Research Projects andOverview of Implementation of Results of SRI Research into AAR Standards
10:45am Potential New Focus Areas (Interactive/Discussion)
11:30am Working Lunch
12:15pm Potential New Focus Areas (cont’d)
2:00pm Discussion of Sharing Research
2:30pm Session Review and Wrap Up
3:00pm Adjourn
10
Minutes Review Session #2June 28 – 29, 2017 | Pueblo, CO
Major Topics Covered Day 1
• Latest/Current Regulatory Activity
• Working Group Subcommittee Project Updates
• Review Focus Areas
• Breakout 1 – Rank and Weight Focus Areas
• Breakout 2 – Priority Ranking Methodology
Major Topics Covered Day 2
• Discussion from Day 1
• Metallurgy/Rail Defects Presentation
• TTCI Facility Tour
• Groups Present and Discuss Prioritization
• Discuss Safety Standards Strategic Plan
• Breakout 3 – Safety Standards Strategic Plan Input
• Session Review and Wrap Up
November 2-3, 2017
6
11
LATEST/CURRENT REGULATORY ACTIVITY
Transit Safety Rulemaking and Guidance – Timeline and Status
Regulation Rulemaking Timeline Status
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan 49 CFR Part 673
NPRMPublished: 2/5/2016
Comments Closed: 4/5/2016Final Rule in Development
Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program
49 CFR Part 672
NPRMPublished: 12/3/2015
Comments Closed: 2/1/2016Final Rule in Development
Preventing Transit Worker Assault NPRM
NPRMExpected: 2018
NRPM in Development
National Public Transportation Safety Plan
CompleteFinal Guidance
Published: 1/17/17
Public TransportationSafety Program49 CFR Part 670
CompleteFinal Rule
Published: 8/11/2016 Effective: 9/12/2016
Bus Testing 49 CFR Part 665
CompleteFinal Rule
Published: 8/11/2016 Effective: 9/12/2016
Transit Asset Management 49 CFR Part 625
CompleteFinal Rule
Published: 7/26/2016 Effective: 10/1/2016
State Safety Oversight 49 CFR Part 674
CompleteFinal Rule
Published: 3/16/16 Effective: 4/15/16
November 2-3, 2017
7
13
Updates – Meetings & Workshops
• APTA Annual Meetings and Expo
– October 8 – 11, 2017
• FTA Joint State Safety Oversight and Rail Transit Agency Workshop
– October 24 – 27, 2017
• Others
14
WORKING GROUP SUBCOMMITTEE PROJECT UPDATES
November 2-3, 2017
8
Transportation Technology Center, Inc., a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads
© TTCI/AAR. p15
Rail tunnel design,
construction, maintenance
and rehabilitation –FTA Working Group TTCI
Anna Rakoczy
Stephen Wilk
MC Jones
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p16
® Rail Tunnel – Outline
♦ Work breakdown / Scope
♦ Current Standards
●Structural Design
●Construction
●Supporting Systems
●Inspection
●Rehabilitation
♦ Industry Data Collection on Tunnels
♦ Site Visits
♦ Proposed Recommendations
November 2-3, 2017
9
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p17
® Rail Tunnel – Work Breakdown / Scope
♦ Objective – review of specifications and guidelines
♦ Work Breakdown
●Task 1 – Background research
▲Inventory of current standards
▲Technical requirements assessment
▲Data collection
●Task 2 – Applicability analysis and modification of standards
▲Review current standards and identify other specifications
▲Identify required standards
▲Identify standards that need modifications
♦ Status:
●Task 1 Report Published
●Draft Task 2 Report is in preparation. Will be submitted to FTA by November 7th.
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p18
® Rail Tunnel – Current standards
♦ Structural Design
●The rail transit tunnel structure should be designed for specified limit states to achieve the objectives of constructability, safety, and serviceability, with respect to issues of inspect ability, maintenance, and economy.
●The first edition of AASHTO LRFD Road Tunnel Design and Construction Guide Specifications, published in 2017, is the most comprehensive structural design document for tunnels. and could be adopted for rail transit tunnel design.
●However, the Transit Agencies Standards may be better to use since there are focused on rail transit operation. It is recommend to review and compare all Agencies Standards and AASHTO LRFD.
November 2-3, 2017
10
Rail Tunnel – Current standards
Main topic Documents
Geometric
requirements
ASHTO LRFD Road Tunnel Design and Construction
Transit Agency Standards
FHWA-NHI-10-034 Technical Manual for Design and
Construction of Road Tunnels – Civil Elements
AREMA Chapter 1
SRT TSI Section 4.2.16
Structural
component design
ASHTO LRFD Road Tunnel Design and Construction
Transit Agency Standards
ACI 318-08 and ACI-224R
PCI design handbook
AISC Steel Construction Manual
AWSD1.1/D1.1 Structural Welding Guide
ASCE-SEI Design of Wood Structures
ASTM and ANSI
Seismic design ASHTO LRFD Road Tunnel Design and Construction
Transit Agency Standards
NEHRP Requirements
AASHTO Guide Specification for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design
NCHRP Report 611
AREMA Chapter 9
Note: Codes/Standards and Guidelines fully applicable,
Supplementary Standards and Guidelines
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p20
® Rail Tunnel – Current standards
♦ Construction
●Tunnel construction involves the process of excavating the native material and assembling the tunnel structure in its desired location. The process is highly variable and depends on geological conditions and the level of disruption that is allowed in the surrounding environment.
●The first edition of AASHTO LRFD Road Tunnel Design and Construction Guide Specifications, published in 2017, is the primary document for construction standards that was developed based on the FHWA Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels – Civil Elements.
November 2-3, 2017
11
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p21
® Rail Tunnel – Current standards
♦ Construction
Main topic Documents
Excavation methods ASHTO LRFD Road Tunnel Design and Construction
Transit Agency Standards
Initial supports ASHTO LRFD Road Tunnel Design and Construction
Transit Agency Standards
Tunnel lining ASHTO LRFD Road Tunnel Design and Construction
AREMA Chapter 8
SRT TSI section 2
FHWA Tunnel Operations, Maintenance, Inspection, and
Evaluation TOMIE Manual
Ventilation during
construction
AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering Chapter 12 Part
4 and Chapter 1 Part 8
Note: Codes/Standards and Guidelines fully applicable,
Supplementary Standards and Guidelines
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p22
® Rail Tunnel – Current standards
♦ Supporting Systems
●Supporting systems are primarily focused on safety to ensure passenger egress and emergency response access during emergency situations.
●NFPA 130 – Standards for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems is recommended as the most relevant supporting system document that covers rail transit tunnels.
●Additional supplementary material that expands upon the NFPA 130 standards may be helpful for agencies.
▲For emergency ventilation, the NCHRP Report 836 (2016) roadway emergency ventilation best practices could be modified for rail transit tunnel use.
▲For security, APTA (2015) – Tunnel Security for Public Transit or TCRP Report 86/NCHRP Report 525 (2006) – Making Transportation Tunnels Safe and Secure could be updated.
November 2-3, 2017
12
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p23
® Rail Tunnel – Current standards
♦ Construction
Main topic Documents
Fire Detection,
Firefighting, and Fire
Resistance
NFPA 130 Section 6.2 – Fire Resistance of Tunnel
Structures and Materials
NFPA 130 Section 6.4.4 – Fire Detection
NFPA 130 Section 6.4.5 – Firefighting Points
NCHRP Report 836 – Fixed Fire Fighting Systems
Electrical System NFPA 130 Section 6.4.8 – Electrical Supply
Emergency Systems NFPA 130 Section 10– Emergency Communication and
Train Control
NCHRP Report 836 – Emergency Ventilations
Note: Codes/Standards and Guidelines fully applicable,
Supplementary Standards and Guidelines
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p24
® Rail Tunnel – Current standards
♦ Inspection
●Railway tunnel inspection and maintenance focuses on maintaining the tunnel serviceability over the lifespan of the tunnel.
●No standards exist specifically for rail transit tunnel inspection but there are few best practice reports that could be adopted:
▲Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel Inspection Manual is the most comprehensive document for rail tunnel inspection.
▲TOMIE Manual provides guidelines for road tunnels operation, maintenance, inspection and evaluation that can be adopted for rail transit use.
▲SRT TSI 4.5 covers maintenance rules for railway tunnels.
▲The AREMA Manual (Chapter 1.8) specifies potential defects in the tunnel.
▲AREMA Bridge Inspection Handbook, Chapter 11 – Tunnel Inspection describes tunnel inspection checklist.
November 2-3, 2017
13
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p25
® Rail Tunnel – Current standards
♦ Inspection
Main topic Documents
Inspection AREMA Bridge Inspection Handbook, Chapter 11 –
Tunnel Inspection
Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel Inspection Manual
TOMIE Manual
Maintenance AREMA Manual (Chapter 1.8)
SRT TSI section 4.5
Inventory Specifications for National Tunnel Inventory (SNTI)
Note: Codes/Standards and Guidelines fully applicable,
Supplementary Standards and Guidelines
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p26
® Rail Tunnel – Current standards
♦ Rehabilitation
●No standards exist specifically for rail transit tunnel rehabilitation.
●The FHWA Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels – Civil Elements is the only document that has guidelines about tunnel rehabilitation, including many methods of structural repairs for concrete, lining, steel and masonry. Despite focusing on road tunnels, the FHWA document would be a good base to develop rail transit standards or guidelines.
November 2-3, 2017
14
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p27
® Rail Tunnel – Current standards
♦ List of documents that can be adopted for rail transit
tunnelGeneral Topics Codes/Standards
available
Recommendations
/Guidelines
available
Comments
Structural
Design
AASHTO - LRFD Standard is ready to be implemented
but has missing aspects related to rail
operation
Construction AASHTO - LRFD Standard is ready to be implemented
but more construction methods could
be included
Supporting
System Design
NFPA 130 Standard is ready to be implemented
Ventilation: NCHRP
836 (2016)
The NCHRP Report 836 provides
relevant information but could be
updated to reflect rail transit tunnels
Security: APTA
(2015) & TCRP
Report 86/NCHRP
Report 525
The APTA guidelines lists security
technology that could potentially be
used to mitigate various threats but
do not provide details about
implementation. The NCHRP 525
guidelines could be updated to reflect
recent security innovations.
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p28
® Rail Tunnel – Current standards
♦ List of documents that can be adopted for rail transit
tunnel
General Topics Codes/Standards
available
Recommendations
/Guidelines
available
Comments
Inspection and
Maintenance
N/A Federal Highway
Administration.
FHWA-HIF-15-005,
TOMIE Manual,
Washington D.C.
2015.
Standards are not available for
Inspection and Maintenance. FHWA
guideline is ready to be implemented.
AREMA Bridge
Inspection
Handbook, Chapter
11 – Tunnel
Inspection
It is recommended to follow FWHA
standard of National Tunnel Inventory
for rail tunnels.
Rehabilitation N/A FHWA-NHI-10-034,
December 2009
Technical Manual for
Design and
Construction of
Road Tunnels – Civil
Elements
Standards are not available for
Rehabilitation.
FHWA Guideline is ready to be
implemented but more could be
extended to address issues in aging
rail tunnels
November 2-3, 2017
15
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p29
® Industry Data Collection on Tunnels
♦ Purpose of data collection:
●Identify tunnels types that are in service
●Standards/specifications used for:
▲Design of tunnels structure and supporting systems
▲Risk assessment plan
▲Inspection and maintenance
▲Rehabilitation
♦ Sent to transit and freight agencies on June 21 with
July 31 deadline. Deadline extended to August 11.
♦ Status: Out of the 37 transit agencies, 17 agencies
responded that their agency owns at least one tunnel.
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p30
® Industry Data Collection on Tunnels
♦ The results of the data collection covered the following
topics:
●Inspection frequency
●Risk assessment plans
●Manuals – Design
●Manuals – Supporting systems
●Manuals – Inspection
●Manuals – Maintenance
November 2-3, 2017
16
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p31
® Industry Data Collection on Tunnels
♦ The results of the data collection :
●Tunnel age – half of transit tunnels are over 50 years old. 15% are over 100 years old and 6% are under construction.
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p32
® Industry Data Collection on Tunnels
♦ The results of the data collection :
●Inspection frequency – half of transit agencies with tunnels inspect their tunnels in a one to three-year time range. Two agencies inspect at shorter and longer intervals.
Weekly1 6 Months
1
1 Year2
2 Years4
3 Years2
4 Years1
6 Years1
Not Provided
4
Inspection Frequency
November 2-3, 2017
17
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p33
® Industry Data Collection on Tunnels
♦ The results of the data collection :
●Manuals – Design: Transit agencies with tunnels use a wide range of Structural Design Manuals
AREMA5
US DOT -FHWA
3
ACI5
AISC5
Agency Standard
5
Other1
None / Not Provided
9
Structural Design Manuals
Two or More5
None / Not Provided
9
Agency Standard Only1
Other1
One Only2
Structural Design Manuals
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p34
® Industry Data Collection on Tunnels
♦ The results of the data collection :
●Manuals – Supporting Systems: Transit agencies with tunnels use a wide range of Structural Design Manuals
AREMA2
US DOT - FHWA2
ACI2
AISC2
Agency Standard4
Other3
None / Not Provided
Supporting System Design Manuals
Two or More4
None / Not Provided
8
Agency Standard Only2
Other1
One Only3
Supporting System Design Manuals
November 2-3, 2017
18
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p35
® Industry Data Collection on Tunnels
♦ The results of the data collection :
●Manuals – Inspections: three primary manuals are used for tunnel inspection, the FHWA/FTA Manual, the TOMIE Manual, and agency standards
FHWA/FTA Tunnel
Inspection Manual
11
TOMIE Manual
4
DOT Insepection
Manual1
Agency Standard
5
None / Not Provided3
Inspection Manuals
Two or more7
None / Not Provided
3
FHWA/FTA Inspection
Manual Only4
TOMIE Only1
Agency Standard Only1
One Only6
Inspection Manuals
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p36
® Industry Data Collection on Tunnels
♦ The results of the data collection :
●Manuals – Maintenance and Rehabilitation – three primary manuals: FHWA/FTA Road and Rail Tunnel Maintenance and Rehabilitation Manual
FHWA/FTA Tunnel Maintenace and Rehabilitation
10
TOMIE4
Agency Standard5
None / Not Provided2
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Manuals
Two or More5
None / Not Provided
1
FHWA/FTA Tunnel Maintenace and
Rehabilitation Only4
TOMIE Only1
Agency Standard Only4
One Only8
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Manuals
November 2-3, 2017
19
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p37
® Industry Data Collection on Tunnels
♦ General remarks from the data collection:
●Transit agencies with tunnels have a wide range of practices regarding tunnel design, inspection, and maintenance.
●The majority of transit agencies use design, inspection, and maintenance manuals that either were developed for roadway tunnels or guidelines published in 2005 (12 years prior to the publishing of this report), which may not have the most up-to-date practices.
●The transit agencies with multiple tunnels tend to have their own agency standards. It is unclear how these standards compare against each other and general guidelines published from FHWA or FTA.
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p38
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦ West Coast - September 5th – 8th
●San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit's (BART) – Transbay Tube and Fremont Central Park Subway in Oakland
●Los Angeles – Crenshaw line tunnels (new construction of cut and cover and bored tunnels)
November 2-3, 2017
20
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p39
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦Transbay Tube ●The Transbay Tube is a 3.6 miles (5.8 km) Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART) underwater rail transit tunnel.
●The tube lies at the bottom of the San Francisco Bay and has a maximum depth of 135 ft. (41 m) below sea level.
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p40
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦Transbay Tube ●Transbay Tube had required earthquake retrofitting, both on its
exterior and interior.
▲The fill packed around the tube was compacted to make it denser and less prone to liquefaction.
▲On the interior of the tube, BART began a major retrofitting initiative in March 2013, which involved installing heavy steel plates at various locations inside the tube that most needed strengthening, to protect them from sideways movement in an earthquake.
November 2-3, 2017
21
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p41
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦The Warm Springs Extension●The WSX is 5.4-miles of new track connecting the existing
Fremont Station south to a new station in the Warm Springs District of the City of Fremont.
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p42
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦The Warm Springs Extension●The cut-and-cover method was used for tunneling based on the
geological conditions and depth of the structure (relatively shallow).
●Two types of excavation supports were used during the construction: sheet piles and Cement Deep Soil Mixing (CDSM) walls to strengthen soil.
●The seasonal work restriction from October to April was retained. On top of that, birds nesting (several species seen on site) delayed construction activities.
November 2-3, 2017
22
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p43
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦Los Angeles – Crenshaw line tunnels ●The TBM tunnel consists of two circular tunnels with concrete
lining and cross passages at every 700-ft. intervals.
●Three excavation methods were used for the underground lines:
▲The cut and cover method was used for transition lines that connects below grade track to at grade track and stations.
▲The TBM was used to connect two below grade stations.
▲The sequential excavation method was used for the cross passages in TBM tunnel.
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p44
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦Los Angeles – Crenshaw line tunnels●Geological investigation using sonic coring methods revealed large deposits of natural gas which had to be considered during the design and construction process.
●The cut and cover method presented many issues because the line was planned directly underneath existing road structures and disruption of a traffic flow had to be minimized.
●Also, large amount of utility lines underneath the road structure had to be protected or moved. The cost of construction was increased to avoid delays related with relocating the utilities.
●Primary environmental issues encountered during construction were archeological discoveries: the artifact and fossil.
November 2-3, 2017
23
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p45
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦ East Coast - October 2nd – 5th
●New York City Subway (NYCT) – visit was focused on new design and inspection of existing tunnels
●Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) –inspection of existing tunnels and future rehabilitation
●Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority(WMATA) – visit was focused on new design and inspection of existing tunnels
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p46
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦New York City Subway (NYCT) – new design●NYCT uses their own standards, NYCT Design Guidelines (DG),
along with NY State Building Code, NFPA 130 and APTA Standards for tunnel structure and supporting systems.
●Examples of NYCT Design Guidelines (DG’s), i.e. ▲ Communication standards: DG 250 (Communications Engineering Design
Criteria and Guidelines), DG 259 (Fiber Optic Network Design Guidelines),
▲ Electrical Installation standards: DG 254 (Auxiliary Electrical Power, Lighting and Controls Engineering Design Criteria and Guidelines), DG 255 (Stray Current Control Design Guidelines), DG 256 (Power Substations Engineering Design Criteria and Guidelines), DG 257 (DC Connections Engineering Design Criteria and Guidelines).
▲ Mechanical Standards: DG 302 (Subway Emergency Ventilation Facilities), DG 303 (Pump Rooms), DG 312 (Flood Resiliency Design Guidelines).
▲ Structural Design Guidelines: DG 452 (Structural Design Guidelines - Subway and Underground Structures)
●Seismic design criteria are provided in NY State Building Code Chapter 16, ASCE 7-10 and NYC DOT Seismic Design Guidelines.
November 2-3, 2017
24
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p47
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦New York City Subway (NYCT) – new design●The shape of the tunnel is mostly dictated by the construction
method:
▲ Shallow construction usually uses the cut-and-cover method resulting in a rectangular structure.
▲Construction in rock uses mining method and usually results in a cavern structure, with an arch ceiling and flat base.
▲Deep construction using tunnel boring machine will result in a circular structure.
●Supporting Systems
▲NYCT is using both drained and undrained tunnels.
▲Passive ventilation is used for daily operations and bi-directional axial fans are typically installed to control fire/smoke in tunnels.
▲For train control (Signals), tunnels are built with conventional wayside signaling system. New tunnels will be built with CBTC (Communication Based Train Control).
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p48
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦New York City Subway (NYCT) – existing tunnels●For rehabilitation of tunnel structure, NYCT follows their own
standard, AREMA Manual where applicable, and ASCE-7.
●NYCT performs tunnel inspection in one-year intervals.
●Visual inspections and more advanced techniques (GPR, and Infra-red) in specific circumstances.
●The most common inspection finding is groundwater intrusion.
November 2-3, 2017
25
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p49
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦New York City Subway (NYCT) – existing tunnels●The primary purpose of structural rehabilitation is to restore
structural elements (steel/concrete – beams, columns, ceilings, walls, etc.) to a state of good repair, and to protect against future deterioration (e.g. via grouting).
●Structural repairs in general consist of
▲reinforcing existing steel beam and column elements via addition of structural steel sections (plates, angles, channels, etc.)
▲restoring concrete elements by removing loose/deteriorated concrete, and placing new concrete, or patching spalls with repair mortar (e.g. Sika products).
●Recommendations for new design tunnels based on the older tunnels examples: ensure waterproofing systems are meticulously installed.
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p50
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
(MBTA) – existing tunnels●Boston is the city with the oldest continuously working streetcar
system in the world. The Tremont Street Subway was the first rapid transit tunnel in the United States (120 years old).
●MBTA is currently working on developing an inspection handbook for their tunnels based on FHWA/FTA 2005 Tunnel Inspection Manual and TOMIE Manual.
●The inspection frequency varies and is usually limited to visual inspection – some tunnels are inspected only once per four years.
●The most common inspection finding are:
▲groundwater intrusion
▲presence of salty water
▲spalling concrete
▲rusted steel components
November 2-3, 2017
26
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p51
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
(MBTA) – existing tunnels
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p52
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
(MBTA) – existing tunnels●MBTA is looking for rating system that will help to schedule their
tunnels rehabilitation. Some tunnels are already 100 years old and they will require major repairs in the near future.
●MBTA has not performed a full rehabilitation on any of their tunnels. The largest maintenance work that was performed was to replace some steel columns that were severely corroded.
●Recommendations for new design tunnels
▲Design and build tunnels to be waterproof
▲New design should consider how to inspect and maintain the structure
▲Make the clearance bigger for utility structures and maintenance purpose
November 2-3, 2017
27
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p53
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority(WMATA) – new design●WMATA uses their own standards for structural design which is
based on ASD method. WMATA engineers prefer the ASD (allowable stress design) method as they consider it 30 percent more conservative than LRFD (load and resistance factor design) method.
●The shape of new tunnel is mostly dictated by the construction method.
▲Shallow construction usually uses the cut-and-cover method resulting in a rectangular structure
▲Deeper, longer structure are TBM (Tunnel Boring Machine) with circular shape.
▲If the tunnel is shorter NATM (New Austrian Tunneling Method) method is used.
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p54
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority(WMATA) – existing tunnels●WMATA is using TOMIE Manual for inspection.
●Visual inspections every weekend to ensure yearly inspection for each tunnel in the system.
●The most common inspection finding is the groundwater intrusion especially in older tunnels that was constructed without the waterproofing membrane or if the membrane deteriorated.
●The newest tunnels built after 1987 were constructed using New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM) - these tunnels have waterproofing system that performs well and the water intrusion is not an issue in those tunnels. The TBM tunnels are constructed with open face and the waterproofing system is built in between two layers of concrete liners.
November 2-3, 2017
28
Site Visits Data Collection
♦Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority(WMATA) – existing tunnels
Site Visits Data Collection
♦Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority(WMATA) – existing tunnels
●Recommendations for new design tunnels based on the older tunnels examples: For new tunnels, WMATA recommends to ensure redundancy of design structure and supporting systems.
November 2-3, 2017
29
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p57
® Site Visits Data Collection
♦Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority(WMATA) – existing tunnels●Emergency response plan is prepared in form of document for each new tunnel. The drills are performed in the tunnel itself and in the training tunnel.
▲WMATA own training tunnel that was opened in 2002 and designed to provide a realistic training environment for fire, police and emergency response departments from local jurisdictions. The tunnel training facility is the first of its kind in the country.
●Recommendations for new design tunnels based on the older tunnels examples: WMATA recommends to ensure redundancy of design structure and supporting systems.
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p58
® Proposed Recommendations
♦ Recommendation 1: Analytical comparison should be
made for structural design and construction standards
to promote minimum requirements for transit agencies
that own tunnels.
● Data collections show variety of standards use currently by transit agencies. Five transit agencies have their own standards for design and construction but there are other 12 transit agencies that do not have their own standards.
● AASHTO LRFD Road Tunnel Design and Construction 2017 gives minimum requirements to design a tunnel that will last 150 years. Some engineers think that LRFD method is less conservative than ASD method. However, the AASHTO LRFD Road Tunnel is 2017 edition and it is not very well known yet. More study will need to be performed to make the analytical comparison.
● Future study should be carry on comparison of transit agencies standards for rail tunnels design and construction and new edition of AASHTO LRFD Road Tunnel Design and Construction.
November 2-3, 2017
30
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p59
® Proposed Recommendations
♦ Recommendation 2: Implement latest version of NFPA
130 – Standards for Fixed Guideway Transit and
Passenger Rail Systems as a standard for new rail
transit tunnels.
●Retrofit and rehabilitated rail transit tunnels should also satisfy NFPA 130 requirements, if possible. Legacy systems with old tunnels that cannot satisfy NFPA 130 requirements (for example clearance not enough to have 3 feet wide walkways can file a waiver for exemption.
●This may potentially satisfy NTSB recommendations R-15-7 Part 4 and R-16-02.
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p60
® Proposed Recommendations
♦ Recommendation 3: Work with transit agencies and
relevant consulting companies to develop guidelines or
best-practices for emergency ventilation.
●Gap analysis indicates that available industry standards do not have details about emergency ventilation. NFPA 130 covers the basics of ventilation but does not have details on the best practices and how to implement them.
November 2-3, 2017
31
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p61
® Proposed Recommendations
♦ Recommendation 4: Work with transit agencies and
relevant consulting companies to develop guidelines or
best-practices for security against trespassing in
tunnels including identification of technologies that
could be used.
●Fatality and trespass prevention common solutions workshop (2008, 2012 and 2015) Right-of way Fatality & Trespass Prevention can provide background for the new guidelines on day-to-day security.
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p62
® Proposed Recommendations
♦ Recommendation 5: Work with APTA or another
Standard Development Organization (SDO) to create a
standard for tunnel inspection, maintenance and
rehabilitation based on the Highway and Rail Transit
Tunnel Inspection Manual and other available sources.
Standard should include the following:
●Minimum inspection frequency
●Rating for tunnels that will help to estimate when tunnel needs to be rehabilitated.
●Primary structural rehabilitation purpose - to restore structural elements to a state of good repair, and to protect against future deterioration.
November 2-3, 2017
32
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p63
® Proposed Recommendations
♦ Recommendation 6: FTA should consider creating a
standard for rail tunnels inventory similar to National
Tunnel Inventory (NTI) database of highway tunnels that
FHWA is administrating.
●Tunnel inventory is currently handled differently by each agency. Including a standard on inventory minimum requirements would be useful in implementing any other tunnel standards and evaluating impact to industry.
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p64
® Proposed Recommendations
♦ Recommendation 7: It is recommended for the FTA to
create a Handbook for all available standard that covers
design, construction, maintenance, inspection, and
rehabilitation for rail transit tunnels utilizing many of the
recommendations already listed.
●It is expected that this handbook would be a living document and would need to be evaluated and updated on a regular basis.
November 2-3, 2017
33
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p65
® Proposed Recommendations
♦ Recommendation 8: FTA should consider a third party
evaluator of potential technologies for waterproofing,
flood protection, inspection techniques, and repair. The
third party evaluator would evaluate the technology by
testing under certain conditions. The FTA could then
distribute the results to all transit agencies with any
potential recommendations to transit agencies including
how the technology could be implemented and used to
meet defined industry standards.
●Waterproofing systems depends on the construction methods and geological conditions. The system testing should provide a pros and cons of each waterproofing system technique.
●Waterproofing systems are exposed to conditions that are causing their deterioration. If they are a part of the structural component they should be evaluated for structural integrity.
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p66
® Proposed Recommendations
♦ Recommendation 9: An industry working group should
be formed by all transit agencies that own tunnels. This
working group could hold discussion during frequent
meetings to exchange knowledge about their tunneling
system.
●Agencies during the west coast and east coast visits expressed their interest to provide a method for communication between agencies with tunnels.
November 2-3, 2017
35
69
EDRs for Bus Transit Systems –SOW Outline
• Completed
– Needs assessment and data analyses
– Identification and evaluation of existing standards
– Gap analysis
– Findings and recommendations
– Draft final report distributed for comments
70
EDRs for Bus Transit Systems –Existing Standards/Guidance
• 49 CFR 563 – Not directly transit bus applicable due to weight limitations (includes buses manufactured after 9/1/2012 with GVWR < 8,500 lbs.) Includes data elements, format, capture requirements, crash survivability, and data retrieval requirements.
• SAE J2728 – Heavy Vehicle Event Data Recorder (HVEDR) Standard includes basic functionality with data element recommended practices mentioned specifically.
• APTA SBPG TS 87 alternative indicates EDRs should be installed, including location, communication lines, settings, minimum accelerometer equipment, and data collection guidance.
• NHTSA EDR Working Group identifies the data elements and survivability criteria suggested for heavy vehicle ERDs.
• NTSB Rec. H-10-007 suggests EDRs be required on all buses,including those over 10,000 lb. GVWR, and also suggests data elements and survivability criteria for those EDRs
November 2-3, 2017
36
71
EDRs for Bus Transit Systems –State Inquiries
• The research team reached out to representatives from each state in the U.S.– 40 states responded: indicated NO state
regulation requiring the use of EDRs on buses.
– Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and New York voluntarily use EDRs on buses.
• Florida requires that all buses purchased through the state procurement program be equipped with a vehicle data recorder which detects G-forces in three axes, detects reverse, brake, and turn signals.
– Many states use telemetric video data recorders such as DriveCam or SmartDrive.
72
• Table 1 compares the recommended data elements and Table 2 (next slide)compares the recommended survivability considerations for EDR technology
• The state inquiries performed for this study revealed that many states in the U.S. do not require the installation of EDR technology on their transit buses, and as such, they do not have any input on the adequacy or the efficacy of current EDR standards
EDRs for Bus Transit Systems –Gap Analysis
November 2-3, 2017
37
73
EDRs for Bus Transit Systems –Survivability Recommendations
Survivability Factor
49 CFR 563
(personal
vehicles)
APTA TS 87
alternative
NHTSA
EDR
Working
Group
SAE
J2728
HVEDR
NTSB
Rec.
H-10-007
Extreme temperature
Fire
Fluid immersion
Immersion
Impact shock
Mounting location
Penetration / static
crush
Power reserve/
independent power
Stored data
maintenance
74
EDRs for Bus Transit Systems –Findings
• Finding 1. Comprehensive data centric examinations require the collection and analysis of safety data.– EDR data collection and analysis aids in the
identification and mitigation of safety risks associated with transit bus. With the vast majority (79%) of injuries, and nearly two out of every five transit related fatalities occurring on the bus mode, implementing EDRs on public transit buses will provide opportunity to better understand bus safety from a holistic point of view.
– In lieu of typical black box EDRs, there is additional benefits to the transit bus industry that can be gleaned from telemetric video-based driver monitoring systems.
November 2-3, 2017
38
75
EDRs for Bus Transit Systems –Findings
• Finding 2. Harmonization of heavy vehicle EDR safety data allows for concentrated risk mitigation efforts and reasonable temporal and geographical comparisons to establish industry best practices. – Heavy vehicles, such as public transit buses, are unique
compared to personal vehicles, and as such, heavy vehicle EDR standards should include additional data elements and survivability criteria.
– The harmonization of EDR related heavy vehicle standards would allow for more complete trend analyses, which may shed light on temporal, geographical, and agency trends. These comparisons are only possible with longitudinal data.
76
EDRs for Bus Transit Systems –Recommendations
• Recommendation 1. FTA consider establishing, as a minimum requirement (or guidance) for transit agency accident review processes, the utilization of EDR data and visual evidence (or data from driver monitoring systems) to ensure the effective review of events and the identification of causal or contributing factors in those events. – There are currently no regulations requiring the use of
EDRs on public transit buses and the degree to which voluntary application of these technologies has been implemented is unknown.
– Recognizing the additional benefits that are gleaned from EDR information, accident/incident review guidance that encourages the installation and utilization of these technologies to aid in incident investigation should be considered.
November 2-3, 2017
39
77
EDRs for Bus Transit Systems –Recommendations
• Recommendation 2. FTA direct the performance of survivability testing of EDR or other event recording technologies setting minimum criteria for each of the survivability factors that have been identified. – There are several survivability factors that are
identified in the standards/guidelines that currently exist, which are delineated on slide 73. While each of the standards/guidelines require survivability of EDR technology, there are no minimum thresholds identified for the factors. The testing of survivability should be conducted to allow for future EDR installation and utilization guidance.
78
EDRs for Bus Transit Systems –Recommendations
• Recommendation 3. Using the results of Recommendation 2, as part of the guidance for the installation and utilization of EDR or other event recording technology, FTA may consider providing recommended minimum survivability considerations or voluntary standards for these units. – The benefits to requiring survivability of the
functional hardware of these technologies include the inherent ability to extract and utilize the data collected after collision or fire events. Setting minimum survivability criteria will ensure the data is available for analysis even in the most severe safety occurrences.
November 2-3, 2017
40
79
Questions or Comments
Lisa [email protected]
Jodi [email protected]
Jennifer [email protected]
80
APTA STANDARDS PROGRAM PROCESS View Presentation
November 2‐3, 2017
1
APTA Standards Development
Program
Objectives
• Provide an overview of APTA’s Standards Development Program
• Describe criteria for formatting standards documents
• Illustrate the document development process
• Discuss APTA provided resources for standards development activities
November 2‐3, 2017
2
Overview
• The goal of APTA’s standards development activities is to publish “standards”documents
Mission
To bring together the world’s leading experts in public transportation to organize, develop, implement and maintain standards that lead to safer and more efficient operations, provide better methods of system procurement, lower maintenance costs and encourage design and innovation.
November 2‐3, 2017
3
Types of Documents
• Standards ‐ A generally accepted practice, method, or prescribed manner by which something is achieved by authority as a rule, measure of quality, or value.
• Recommended Practices ‐ An established or usual way of doing something usually based on repeated actions or widely established processes.
• Guidelines ‐ Represents a common viewpoint of those parties concerned with its provisions and aims to streamline a particular processes according to a set routine or practice.
• White papers ‐ An authoritative report or guide that is written expressly to provide information about a complex issue and presents the industries prevailing philosophy on the subject matter.
• Technical Specifications ‐ An authoritative report or guide that is written expressly to illustrate information about a complex issue or processes.
• Training/Educational Materials ‐ Represents teaching or professional developmental resources that can be used to improve competencies of one’s skills, knowledge.
Overview
• APTA’s Board of Directors has directed the Standards Development Oversight Council (SDOC) to manage all standards development activities
• The standards development program consists of nine programs including:
• Accessibility
• Bus Transit Systems
• Passenger Rail Equipment SafetyStandards (PRESS)
• Procurement
• Rail Transit Systems
• Security for Transit Systems
• State of Good Repair
• Sustainability & Urban Design Standards for Transit Systems
• Technology
November 2‐3, 2017
4
Standards Development Activities
• Over 300 published documents located at: http://www.apta.com/resources/standards/Pages/default.aspx
• Principles of APTA’s Standards Development Program:• Openness – all stakeholders/affected parties may participate in standards development activities
• Transparency – records, processes open and publicly available (no secret meetings)
• Balance – No dominance of any working group by one stakeholder
• Consensus – Decisions by more than a simple majority (not unanimity). Account for view points from all concerned parties, reconcile conflicting arguments
• Due Process –Written, documented procedures including appeals process
Standards Development Activities
• All documents are developed at the Working Group level
• The working group’s chair or staff advisor will assign a document manager to coordinate the development of an individual or a set of documents
• The Document manager creates an outline of the document’s contents, manages the document template, assigns authors to write document sections, establishes deadlines and takes corrective actions when needed to ensure completion of document in a timely manner
November 2‐3, 2017
5
Document Management Process
Working Group (Contributors)
Officers
Document Manager(s)
Documents
Documents
Documents Staff Advisor
OfficersThe Chair and Vice Chair coordinate the maintenance of existing documents and development of new documents
Staff AdvisorsSupport the working group activities by arrange for resources such as editorial services, conference calls/webinars, face to face meetings, collaboration tools Working Group
Group of content experts/contributors who develop the content of standards documents
DocumentDefines a prescriptive method or best practices for delivery of a service, product or tool
Document Manager(s)creates a document plan, provides an outline of the document’s contents, assigns authors to write sections, establishes deadlines, manages document template and takes corrective actions when needed to ensure completion of document
Organization APTA Staff Advisors
Standards Development
Oversight Council
Standards Policy & Planning Committees
Technical Advisory Group
Working Groups Working Groups Working Groups
Sub‐working Groups
Sub‐working Groups
9 ‐ Standards Policy & Planning Committees
9 – Ad Hoc/On Demand Technical Advisory Groups
35 – Working Groups
12 – Sub‐working Groups
Note: This is an excerpt of APTA Standards Program organization chart, entire program not depicted.
November 2‐3, 2017
6
Development to Publications Flowchart
StandardsPolicy and Planning
Committee
Working Group
Technical Review
Public Comment
CEO Review
SDOC
Development• Document assigned to
working group• Working group creates
document plan and writes• Conducts ballot for
document approval • If approved, document
advances to next process
Publications• Advancement to public
comment and technical review; comments collected and resolved
• Advancement to CEO Review; comments collected and resolved
• Advancement to SPPC; Conduct ballot for final approval
• Publish document
Balloting
• All documents require a consensus vote from the authoring working group to advance the document to the next step in the development process
• A voting quorum is established when APTA receives at least two thirds votes from the active working group membership; which includes absentee ballots
• APTA must receive 75% affirmative votes
• Voting and balloting are conducted electronically
November 2‐3, 2017
7
Document Flowchart
NewProposal for New
Standard Submitted
Working Group Evaluates request
Standards Policy & Planning Committee Authorizes
Document Development (Consensus‐
based)
Publications Cycle
(Consensus‐based)
Publish, reaffirm, revised or withdrawn document
ExistingAppeal/Update
Request Submitted
Working Group Evaluates request
Standards Policy & Planning Committee Authorizes
Document Development (Consensus‐
based)
Publications Cycle
(Consensus‐based)
Publish, reaffirm, revised or withdrawn document
Resources
• APTA Staff Advisor• Agency – Reimbursement• Manual for Standards Development
• Editorial Review• Collaboration page
• Announcements• Task• Roster• Links• Documents• Calendar
November 2‐3, 2017
8
Thank you
APTA StandardsE: [email protected]
Contacts:Jeff Hiott, Director – Operations & StandardsP: (202) 496‐4881 E: [email protected]
Eugene Reed, Program Manager – Standards SupportP: (202) 496‐4827 E: [email protected]
November 2-3, 2017
42
83
Light Rail Collision Fatalities
84
Light Rail Fatality Trends
• 86.6% of light rail fatalities are due to collisions with persons
• The majority (68.2%) of all fatal collisions occur while the light rail vehicle is traveling straight and 52.9% involve head-on collisions
13 2 1
53 2 2
2
4
15
2
13 5
22
5
2
1
1
22
6
3
4
6
3 6
9
1
5
2
2 5 2
5
3
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Pedestrian Walking Along Tracks
Pedestrian Crossing Tracks
Pedestrian Not in Crosswalk
Pedestrian in Crosswalk
Pedestrian Bicyclist
Light Rail Pedestrian Fatalities
November 2-3, 2017
43
85
LR Pedestrian Collisions and Fatalities
86
LR Pedestrian Collisions and Fatalities
November 2-3, 2017
44
87
Discussion
• Grade crossing collisions – crossing arms do not work
– Loss of shunt – Lightweight rail vehicles and environmental factors
• Alternative technologies for notification of approaching train (feasibility and current implementation)
– Lights, sounds, speed bumps, and etc.
88
Questions – Light Rail Collisions with Persons and Fatalities
• Successful policies or practices that could be issued by FTA as guidance
• Infrastructure modifications
• Public information/outreach campaigns
• Technology applications
• Standards that may address
November 2-3, 2017
45
Transportation Technology Center, Inc., a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads
© TTCI/AAR. p89
Review of Standards for
Track Inspection and
Maintenance
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p90
® Scope of Work
♦ Track Inspection –
●What types of inspections are being done on track?
●What standards define track inspections?
●Frequency of inspections?
●Technologies being utilized for inspections?
♦ Track Maintenance –
●What standards define how maintenance should be performed and to what criteria?
●Program maintenance/track renewals vs. local maintenance
November 2-3, 2017
46
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p91
® Track Inspection Example Topics
♦ Manual/ visual inspection. These methods find visible defects
● Track geometry
● Rail condition: rail surface condition, wear and rail cracking
● Other track material: tie plates, fasteners, rail joints and track wires
● Crossties
● Ballast
● Subgrade/ drainage
● Special trackwork (including joint signal and track inspections)
Note: This work does not include components found in track related
to the power system (third rail system for example)
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p92
® Track Inspection Example Topics
♦ Automated inspection. These methods find visible flaws and also
locations that are below performance requirements.
● Component Condition: e.g. Machine vision, LIDAR and infrared inspection of track components
● Track geometry: e.g. rail bound inertial systems, push carts
● Rail flaws: e.g. ultrasonic, acoustic detection
● Right of way/ clearance: e.g. LIDAR measurement
● Track foundation: e.g. moving deflection and ground penetrating radar
● Track strength: e.g. moving deflection in vertical and lateral planes
● Ride quality/ VTI: e.g. instrumented revenue service cars.
Note: This work does not include components found in track related to the power system (third rail system for example)
November 2-3, 2017
47
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p93
® Track Maintenance Example Topics
♦ Local maintenance. This involves a small group or individual
making light repairs with hand tools,
● Track geometry
● Rail condition
● Crossties
● Ballast
● Subgrade/ drainage
● Special trackwork
♦ Program Maintenance/ Track Renewal
● Track component replacement: e.g. track renewal vs component replacement, order of component replacement
● Track geometry
● Rail flaws
● Right of way/ clearance
● Track foundation: ballast cleaning, subgrade strengthening
● Track strength
● Ride quality/ VTI
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p94
® Tasks in SOW
♦ Literature Review – U.S. Standards and Non-U.S.
Standards
●Track Inspection
●Track Maintenance
♦ Transit agency data collection – What are agencies
currently using for best practices of inspection and
maintenance?
●Will also survey Class 1 Railroads.
♦ Listing of technologies being used for inspection
including overview of level of implementation (i.e.
further testing needed?)
♦ Gap analysis – what standards do not exist for track
inspection and maintenance?
♦ Recommendations
November 2-3, 2017
48
© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p95
® Discussion
♦ Subgroup volunteers?
96
Concan, Texas March 29, 2017 NTSB Highway Collision
Crashworthiness of Less than 30-Foot Buses – SOW
November 2-3, 2017
49
97
Crashworthiness of Less than 30-Foot Buses – Dynamic Roll
98
Crashworthiness of Less than 30-Foot Buses – SOW
• Scope approved by FTA - September 2017– Task 1 - Background research and data collection
on need for, and existence of, standards has begun
• Additional tasks– Identify factors involved in events that lead to
injuries/fatalities
– Gap analysis of transit safety standards
– Applicability analysis and modification of existing standards
• Draft final report by March 31, 2018
November 2-3, 2017
50
99
Crashworthiness of Less than 30-Foot Buses – SOW
• Scope stemmed from Bus CEM Recommendation 3:Recommendation 3: FTA direct the study of four states that represent more than half (54 percent) of less than 30 feet purchased with FTA funds. This study will include the collection of transit incident data for those vehicles, including collisions and roll over events, and associated injuries and fatalities. The research team analysis would perform an analysis to establish the rate of injuries and fatalities resulting from these events. The states of New York, Pennsylvania, California, and Florida represent 54% of all vehicles of less than 30 feet purchased with FTA Section 5310 funding. This analysis would prove very useful in establishing the need for crashworthiness standards for paratransit vehicles.
100
• Paratransit body-on-chassis “less than thirty-foot buses” account for 34% of total vehicles purchased with FTA grant funds between 2011 and 2015.
• Paratransit trips are often
– Longer trips
– Operating in rural environments
– On two lane highways
– With higher traveling speeds
Crashworthiness of Less than 30-Foot Buses – Background
November 2-3, 2017
51
101
Crashworthiness of Less than 30-Foot Buses – Background
• Data difficulties
– Size and weight compatibility and operating environments make body-on-chassis medium sized bus occupants more susceptible to the possibility of injury or fatality when involved in a collision.
– FMVSS, FHWA Highway Statistics Series, and FARS fail to classify paratransit or cutaway vehicles leaving them in an “other” category, resulting in scarce data availability of cutaway collisions.
102
• Rural statistics– US population: 19%
– VMT: 30%
– Bus miles traveled: 37%
– Fatalities: 53%
– Share of fatally injured due to rollover: 39% (24% for urban)
• NHTSA reports that rural roads consistently have more annual fatalities and higher fatality rates per miles traveled than urban roads.
Crashworthiness of Less than 30-Foot Buses – Background
November 2-3, 2017
52
103
Crashworthiness of Less than 30-Foot Buses – Side Impact
• Side impact– APTA guidelines indicate a bus can be deemed side
impact crashworthy if the bus can withstand a 25 mph impact by a 4,000 lb. automobile at any point, excluding doorways, with no more than 3” of permanent structural deformation at seated passenger height, and no sharp edges or protrusions in the bus interior.
• APTA guidelines should be updated to use a side impact standard similar to FMVSS 214 or the IIHS side crash test (Olivares, 2009)
– BEA indicates that truck and SUV sales account for more than 60% of vehicles sold.
• The increased height and weight of “the typical vehicle” should be accounted for. (Kwasniewski et al., FDOT, IIHS, NHTSA)
104
• FMVSS 214 vs. IIHS side crash test vs. Florida standard
FMVSS 214IIHS side crash
testFlorida Standard
Bumper Height from
Ground330 mm (13 in.) 379 mm (14.9 in.)
Ford Explorer, Chevrolet S10, or Chevrolet C2500
Weight1,367.6 kg (3,015 lbs.)
1,500 ± 5 kg (3,307 lbs.)
Ford Explorer, Chevrolet S10, or Chevrolet C2500
Impact Angle 90 degrees 90 degrees 90 degrees
Impact Speed53 ±1.0 km/h
(33.5 mph)50 km/h
(31.1 mi/h)30 mph
Pass CriteriaCrash dummy head
injury criteria < 1,000
Crash dummy head injury criteria
< 1,000
Preserved residual space
Crashworthiness of Less than 30-Foot Buses – Side Impact
November 2-3, 2017
53
105
Crashworthiness of Less than 30-Foot Buses – Rollover
• Dynamic (R-66) versus quasi-static (FMVSS 220)– Florida Standard requires cutaway vehicles be tested via FE model
development, verification, experimental validation, final check using full scale rollover test, and calibration, with an additional requirement of an acceptable range for the Deformation Index which represents un-intruded residual space. (FDOT, 2007)
106
• Rollover – July 2014– Roadway crash in Florida
involving an aging passenger in paratransit bus resulted in minor injuries to the passenger and no injuries to the driver. The passenger compartment of the bus was proven to be safe. Compared to typical crashes, the reduced injuries in this case can be attributed to the improved design of paratransit buses Body-on-chassis bus rolled over its roof
three quarters of a turn before resting on its right side
Crashworthiness of Less than 30-Foot Buses – Rollover
November 2-3, 2017
54
107
Crashworthiness of Less than 30-Foot Buses – SOW
• One goal is to demonstrate the need for cutaway CEM standards:
Recommendation 4: If the analysis performed in Recommendation 3 demonstrates a need for paratransit vehicle crashworthiness standards, FTA may consider further examination of standards for body-on-chassis or “cutaway” vehicles, specifically supporting the utilization of UNECE R-66, expanded applicability of FMVSS, or the Florida Standard, as appropriate, as a national standard for the design and construction of these vehicles. There are very limited data that indicates that injuries or fatalities in paratransit and rural public transit collision events are specifically due to the structural integrity of cutaway vehicles. The study performed under Recommendation 3 may lend a better understanding through more robust data collection and analysis.
108
Crashworthiness of Less than 30-Foot Buses – SOW
• What I need from you:
November 2-3, 2017
55
109
Questions or Comments
Lisa Staes
Jodi Godfrey
Jennifer Flynn
110
BREAK15 MINUTES
November 2-3, 2017
56
APTA’s Safety and Security Programs, Projects and ActivitiesCUTR FTA Standards Working Group
Brian AlbertsDirector of SafetyAmerican Public Transportation AssociationNovember 2, 2017
Session Overview
• APTA Safety Management Audit Program Update
• Peer Review Program Update
• Standards Development
• APTA Safety and Security Awards Excellence Program
• APTA Conferences and Seminars
• Security, Risk and Emergency Management
• Additional Outreach and Member Engagement Efforts
• Questions & Answers
112
November 2-3, 2017
57
APTA Safety ManagementAudit Program Update
• Program is now more aligned with Safety Management Systems (SMS), and the requirements from the FTA (PTASP NPRM, SSO Rule and Program Rule) and the FRA (Part 270)
• Program now has a direct connection to Transit Asset Management (TAM); and
• Not only for rules compliance, but also continuous improvement of the safety of transit systems
APTA Peer Review Program Update
• Independent Peer Reviews help agencies address issues through SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) from within the transit industry
• Types of Peer Reviews:
• Safety & Security
• Bus Maintenance
• Information Technology (IT)
• Human Resources (HR)
• Technology
• Operations
114
November 2-3, 2017
58
Standards Development Program
• $ 1 Million dollars from FTA for Standards Development
• Budget and Work Plans
• APTA Standards Committee approved FY18 work plans for standards development activities in the following areas:
• Bus & Rail
• Safety & Security
• Sustainability and Urban Design
• Technology
New Marketing and Communications Outreach
• “Quarterly Review” – quarterly electronic newsletter
• Quarterly Webinar Series
Safety and Security Standards
• APTA is engaged in Standards Development for Safety and Security
• Safety: Currently working on developing a Standard for the “Pointing Procedure”
• Security: TSA has provided funding for security standards
• APTA staff, including Brian Alberts and Jeffrey Hiott, are on FTA’s Safety Standards Working Group
• APTA is developing Passenger Rail Equipment Safety Standards (PRESS) in conjunction with FRA
• PRESS is a collection of standards which apply to Commuter and Intercity Passenger Equipment (Rolling Stock and Operations)
116
November 2-3, 2017
59
APTA Safety and Security Awards Excellence Program
• Last year received over 20 applications for Bus and Rail Safety & Security Excellence Awards
• Held session at the APTA Annual Meeting in Oct 2017 to discuss Gold Award winners, including:
117
MARTA Heavy Rail Safety
LACMTA Heavy Rail Security
Metro MN Light Rail Safety
MTA MD Light Rail Security
SD MTS Large Bus Safety
GBT Mid-Size Bus Safety
KCATA Mid-Size Bus Security
BJCTA Small Bus Safety
APTA Conferences and Seminars
• 2017 APTA Bus & Rail Conferences • SMS Workshop in conjunction with TRB and AAR at
APTA Rail Conference in Baltimore, MD in June • NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt as Keynote Speaker
• TSA/FBI Security Roundtable prior to APTA Rail Conference
• Sessions at Bus and Rail conferences on SMS, Technology, Cybersecurity and Emergency Response
• 2017 Annual EXPO/Annual Meeting• Concurrent Sessions on SMS, SSO certification and
Managing Emergencies 118
November 2-3, 2017
60
FTA and FRA Participationat APTA Events
• FTA:• APTA Rail Conference – SMS Workshop and Sessions on
SMS and Employee Safety Reporting• APTA Risk Management Conference – SMS Keynote Address• APTA Annual Meeting/EXPO – Safety Committee Meeting;
Sessions on SMS and SSOA Certification and Best Practices• Mid-year Safety Meeting – FTA Updates, including
Rulemaking, SMS and SSOA Certification
• FRA:• PTC Summit (at APTA HQ in Washington, DC)• APTA Rail Conference – SMS Workshop and APTA Rail Safety
Committee Meeting• PRESS Standards working groups and meetings
119
APTA Mid-Year Safety Seminar
• Mid-year Safety Seminar (December 4-7, 2017) in Houston, TX
Sessions planned on the following topics:
• FTA/FRA Updates
• Safety Management Systems
• Safety and Technology
• Wheelchair & ADA Safety
• SSO Certification
120
For additional information on APTA’s Mid-year Safety Seminar, including registration, hotel and a draft program please go to: http://www.apta.com/mc/midyear-safety-seminar
November 2-3, 2017
61
Security, Risk and Emergency Management
• Facilitation of the APTA/TSA security standards working groups, including:
• Cyber;• Control and Communications;• Infrastructure and Risk; and• Emergency Management
• Hosted the Security Roundtable with TSA in June, 2017 prior to the APTA Rail Conference
• Hosted the Risk Management Seminar in August, 2017 in San Diego, CA
121
Security, Risk and Emergency Management
• Manage the Public Transit portal of the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN)
• Also manage the Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) for public transportation
• Facilitates calls during events and incidents with federal partners
122
November 2-3, 2017
62
APTA Study Mission to Asia
• 26 member delegation: two-thirds public sector, one-third private sector
• Ten–day mission to Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo
• Focus on safety culture, state of good repair and innovative operations
• Final report published September 2017 and available at http://www.apta.com
123
Additional Outreach and Member Engagement Efforts
• Hold regular Webinars for both Safety & Security • Monthly Safety Spotlight Webinar Series
• Recent Security Webinars on FirstNet and the impact of autonomous vehicles in law enforcement
• Gather feedback from industry regarding new regulation and rule making
• Including FTA and FRA-proposed safety rules and TSA security-related rules (to add to the docket)
124
November 2-3, 2017
64
127
SAFETY CERTIFICATION
JIM TUCCI
128
Safety Certification - Project
• What is it?
• What it is not.
• Benefits.
• Is it integral in an SMS?
November 2-3, 2017
65
129
FTA Typical Project Lifecycle
ConstructionPreliminary
Engineering
(PE)
Conceptual to
30% Design
Final Design
30%/60%/90%
Design
• Metropolitan
Planning
Organization (MPO)
• Long Range
Metropolitan
Transportation
Plan, 20 Yr Vision
• Alternatives
Analysis
• Major Investment
Study (MIS)
Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA)
Local & State Transit
Improvement Plan (STIP)
3 Year Plans
Prioritized List of Projects
for Funding
FTA Planning
• Testing
• Start-up
• Pre-Revenue
Service
3 Years 1-2 Years 1-2 Years 2-3 Years < 1 Year20 Years
Revenue
Service
Step 4: Perform
construction specification
conformance.
Includes Vehicle (Bus/Rail)
Specification Conformance
Process.
Step 5: Identify additional safety
and security test requirements
Step 6: Monitor testing & validation.
Step 7: Verify integrated tests.
Step 8: Track “Open Items”
Step 9: Verify operational readiness.
Step 10: Conduct final readiness
determination / Issue Safety &
Security Certification.
Agency Decision on
Certification Method:
• Self Certification
• Certification Consultant
3rd Party
• Designer of Record
• Construction Contractor
• Or any combination of the
above.
• PMP Development
• SSMP Development
+ Basic Certification
Methodology
• SSC Training
• TVA and PHAs
• SSC Plan
• SSRC
• FLSSC
• PDR, S&S
Design Review
• Data Base for
PHAs, SCILs &
NCRs/SSIRs
• Convert un-resolved
PHAs to OHAs
• SSPP Update
• SSP Update
• Track “Open
Items” PHAs,
SCILs, & NCRs
• Review Construction &
Vehicle Procurement
Change Orders
• Verify Operational CILs
• Emergency Exercises/Training
• Interim Operations Permits
• S&S Operational Hazard
Checklists & Inspections
• Pre-revenue Service
Operations Testing
• Final Verification Report
• Project Close out
Step 1: Identify certifiable elements
Step 2: Provide Input to the
development of the safety & security
design criteria
Step 3: Develop and complete design
criteria conformance checklists
Includes Vehicle Procurement (Bus/Rail)
FTA &
FHWA
Funding
FTA
Review &
Approval
FTA
Review &
Approval
Full Funding Grant
Agreement (FFGA)
Approval
Planning Phase
Safety & Security Certification Methodology Steps
Related Certification Activities and Tasks
• CDR S&S Design
Review
• VE Review
• Other S&S hazard
& vulnerability
analysis
• Track “Open
Items” PHAs,
SCILs, & NCRs
• Design Change
Review
DB & DBOM Contracts
130
Safety & Security Certification (SSC)
Program Development
Handbook for Transit
Safety and Security
Certification
November 2-3, 2017
66
131
Why SSC
• Recipients of Federal funding covered
under 49 CFR Part 633 are to address
safety and security in the PMP and
develop a SSMP and SSCP
• Circular 5800.1 SSMP Guidance
August 2007 Revised Circular 5200.1A -
SSMP Circular Update: States that
“SSC IS A REQUIREMENT”.
132
Why SSC (Cont’d)
• Rail State Safety Oversight (SSO) Program
49 CFR Part 659 659.19 SSPP
– (h) Certification requirements
659.23 SSP
– (b) TVA integration into the
certification process
• Increases passenger, public &
employee safety & security
• Ultimately saves resources.
49 CFR Part 659
Part IV
Friday
April 29, 2005
Department of Transportation
Federal Transit
Administration (FTA)
November 2-3, 2017
67
133
• A process applied to project development that
ensures all practical steps have been taken to
integrate operational S&S requirements into a
project and/or equipment procurements through
the application of System Safety and Safety
Engineering processes:
SSC
ConstructionPreliminary
Engineering
(PE)
Final DesignPlanning Phase • Testing
• Start-up
• Pre-Revenue
Service
3 Years 1-2 Years 1-2 Years 2-3 Years < 1 Year20 Years
Revenue
Service
Functional Period
134
SSC (Cont’d)
• A process to verify satisfactory compliance with a set of formal system S&S requirements based on:
Applicable local/State/Federal building codes
and standards
Project design criteria
Project drawings and specifications.
November 2-3, 2017
68
135
• Promotes an informed Project Team
management decision making process
throughout the entire project life cycle
• Involves issuing Certificates
of Compliance (COC)
Overall project/procurement
Individual contracts
Certifiable elements.
SSC (Cont’d)
136
• Addresses conditions (hazards/threats)
that could result in harm whether:
Unintentional (safety) - PHAs
Intentional (security) – TVA
• Manages these identified safety hazards
and vulnerabilities throughout the project
lifecycle, program, or activity through an
established risk management approach
(Hazard, Vulnerability, and Risk Based).
SSC (Cont’d)
November 2-3, 2017
69
137
• The SSC program typically encompasses
the civil, systems, and testing contracts
along with operational requirements.
Broken down into four main categories:
Facilities /
Equipment
Systems /
CommunicationsIntegrated
Testing
Operational
Requirements
Certification
Scope
SSC (Cont’d)
138
When Properly Scoped
The SSC program:
• Develops, documents, and communicates
S&S/EM criteria to guide design,
engineering, and specification for the
transit project/procurement
• Identifies S&S critical issues and develops
practical and cost effective requirements
to support their resolution.
November 2-3, 2017
70
139
• Uses hazard and vulnerability analysis
processes to evaluate the impacts of all
deviations (design and/or construction
change orders prior to approval)
• Develops management mechanisms to
track and control the incorporation of
S&S into the transit project.
When Properly Scoped (Cont’d)
140
SSC Benefits
• Improves functionality of system design
• Promotes effective and efficient use of resources
• Reduces the number of workarounds and change orders during construction and operation phases
• Reduces hazards in service and maintenance activities.
November 2-3, 2017
71
141
SSC Benefits (Cont’d)
• Appropriate codes, guidelines, and standards are reviewed to provide a basis for S&S consideration in the design criteria and specifications
• Drawings/Specifications are in conformance with the project design criteria.
142
SSC Benefits (Cont’d)
• Hazards and vulnerabilities are identified, assessed, and documented
• Action is taken to resolve identified critical and/or catastrophic hazards and vulnerabilities.
November 2-3, 2017
72
143
SSC Benefits (Cont’d)
• Facilities, systems, and equipment are designed, constructed, built, inspected, and tested in accordance with applicable codes, standards, criteria, and specifications.
144
SSC Benefits (Cont’d)
• Verification of:
Systems integrated testing
Pre revenue testing
Safety and security plans
Emergency management plans
Operating rules and procedures
Training requirements.
November 2-3, 2017
73
145
SSC Benefits (Cont’d)
• Personnel are trained and qualified to respond to emergencies and emergency response organizations are familiar with the transit system and its emergency procedures and inherent hazards.
146
SSC is NOT
• A contractual acceptance defined as an action by an authorized representative of the agency by which they assume full or partial ownership of the delivered project.
November 2-3, 2017
74
147
SSC is NOT (Cont’d)
• Warranty verification
• QA/QC
• Construction safety
• Value engineering
• Construction
management.
148
Project Team SupportTransit Executive
Management
TRANSIT PROJECT
Project Manager and
Management Team
Design Construction Testing Activation
(Start-up)
Safety and
Security
PolicyRoles and
Responsibilities
for Safety and
Security
Resource
Allocation,
Schedule Control,
Decision makingSafety & Security
Certification
Management
-Hazard Analysis
-Vulnerability
Assessments
-Safety/Security
Design Criteria
-Safety/Security
Design Specification
-Design Conformance
Certification
-Conformance with
Safety/Security
Specifications
-Management of Change
Orders/Deviations
-Construction Safety
-Ongoing Hazard
Resolution
-Construction Testing
-SSC-related Tests
-Construction
Conformance
Certification
-Ongoing Hazard
Resolution
-Ongoing Vulnerability
Resolution
-Integrated Testing
-Integration Testing
-Ongoing Hazard
Resolution
-Rulebook
-Procedures
-Training
-Drills
-Readiness
-Operation Turnover
-Final Safety Certification
November 2-3, 2017
75
149
1. Identify certifiable elements
2. Develop safety and security design criteria
3. Develop and complete design criteria conformance checklist
4. Perform construction specification conformance
5. Identify additional safety and security test requirements.
SSC Methodology: Ten Steps
Design
Phase
Construction
Phase
Testing
Phase
150
6. Perform testing and validation in support of the SSC program
7. Monitor and verify integrated tests for the SSC program
8. Manage open items in the SSC program
9. Verify operational readiness
10. Conduct final determination readiness/Issue Safety and Security Certification.
Testing
Phase
Activation
Start-up
Phase
SSC Methodology: Ten Steps
(Cont’d)
November 2-3, 2017
76
151
Safety and Security CertificationPlan (SSCP)
• Required by the SSMP
• A management tool used by the agency to
execute the SSC program
• Provides common ground
for understanding and
agreement among key
project members regarding
how the program will be
executed.
152
Committee Involvement
• Safety and Security Review Committee
(SSRC)
• Fire-Life Safety Committee (FLSC)
• System Change and Operations Review
Committee (SCORC)
• Configuration Management Review Board
• Design & construction change control
review board.
November 2-3, 2017
77
153
Safety Management System
• System Safety Program Plan Element
8, Safety and Security Certification,
should be incorporated into SMS
Component 3, Safety Assurance
• Hazard management in the Safety and
Security Certification Process is
addressed in SMS Component 2: Safety
Risk Management
154
Working Group Discussion• Does your agency have a Safety Certification
Plan?
• Is it Funded?
Through the Project?
Through S&S Budget?
• Is it Conducted by?
Agency In-House (S&S Staff)
Agency In-House (S&S Contractor)
Independent 3rd Party / Contractor (GAEC)
November 2-3, 2017
78
155
W G Discussion(Cont’d)
• Does your agency follow the Handbook for
Transit Safety Certification and Security
Certification?
• Is the Handbook sufficient to meet your
current unique certification needs?
• Is the Certification Handbook current?
• Is the SSOA included in your Safety
Certification process?
• Is the FTA included in your Safety
Certification process?
156
DINNER @ THE RUSTY PELICANTRANSPORTATION –USF BULLRUNNER
6:00PM – BUS LEAVES HOTEL
November 2-3, 2017
79
157
Adjourn – Day 1
• Questions
• Announcements
• Dinner – The Rusty Pelican
Day 2 – 11/3/2017
• Start time 7:30am
• Adjourn by 3:00pm
158
Agenda – November 3, 2017
7:30am Day 1 Recap – Discussion
8:00am Top 3 Safety Concerns Relevant to Events/Incidents
9:30am Briefing – SRI Process for Selecting Rail Research Projects andOverview of Implementation of Results of SRI Research into AAR Standards
10:45am Potential New Focus Areas (Interactive/Discussion)
11:30am Working Lunch
12:15pm Potential New Focus Areas (cont’d)
2:00pm Discussion of Sharing Research
2:30pm Session Review and Wrap Up
3:00pm Adjourn
November 2-3, 2017
80
159
DAY 2 – DAY 1 REVIEW
160
TOP 3 SAFETY CONCERNS RELEVANT TO EVENTS/INCIDENTS
November 2-3, 2017
81
161
Top 3 Safety Concerns
• Working Group Discussion
– In your experience as a transit professional
• What are your TOP 3 safety concerns?– What are the safety risks?
– What are your mitigation strategies and timeline?
» Short term?
» Long term?
• WG input /comments
• Does your agency have the resources?
Transportation Technology Center, Inc., a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017., p162
SRI PROCESS FOR SELECTING
RAIL RESEARCH PROJECTS AND
OVERVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION
OF RESULTS OF SRI RESEARCH
INTO AAR STANDARDS
VP Business Development
Firdausi (Dose) Irani
November 2-3, 2017
82
Transportation Technology Center, Inc., a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017., p163
AAR Strategic Research
Initiatives Program
Overview
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p164
® AAR Strategic Research Initiatives
Program
♦ Strategic Research Initiatives Program (SRI) addresses
current and future strategic issues relating to the North
American rail industry
♦ Research Objectives
Improve
Efficiency
Improve
Reliability
Improve
Safetyl Reduce track and equipment-related
derailments through technology development
l Reduce or eliminate line-of-road failures
l Increase productivity and reduce costs
November 2-3, 2017
83
Derailments per million train-miles have
dropped 82% since 1980 and 44% since 2000,
to a new low.
165 10/30/2017
0
2
4
6
8
10
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Sources: http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/summary.aspx (2014 data).
FRA, Railroad Safety Statistics Annual Report, 1997-2010, Tables 1-1, 5-6.
FRA, Accident/Incident Bulletin, 1980-1996, Tables 19, 36.
Note: Excludes grade crossing accidents. Data for 2014 are preliminary.
3.52
8.98
1.63
2.92
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p166
® Technology Roadmap Topical Areas
Trends and Drivers
Priority Technology DirectionsTechnology directions for specific areas of technology
Technology GoalsStrategic goals for technology development
Rolling
StockRTWC
Track and
Structures
RTWC
Motive
Power
TSWC/Loco
Operations &
Train ControlComms & Ops
Customer
Service
Railinc
November 2-3, 2017
84
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p167
® Priority Technology Directions
Industry Role Useful Necessary Essential
High
(80-100%)
•Wheel/rail interface
management
•Unified car &
component database
•Aerodynamic design
• Increased rolling stock &
component life
•Reduced in-service failures
•Reduced accidents
•Reduced life-cycle and total system
cost
•Automated health
monitoring/inspection
•Next generation tank car
• Increased car capacity & axle loads
including components & systems
Medium
(60-79%)
•Simplified
car design
•Zero reactive
maintenance
• Improved braking
capability including
ECP braking
• Improved asset
tracking
Low
(<60%) ®
Work best
accomplished
by a single
company
working alone
Work best
accomplished
through an
industry effort
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p168
® Priority Technology Directions
Industry Role Useful Necessary Essential
High
(80-100%)
•Wheel/rail interface
management
•Unified car &
component database
•Aerodynamic design
• Increased rolling stock &
component life
•Reduced in-service failures
•Reduced accidents
•Reduced life-cycle and total system
cost
•Automated health
monitoring/inspection
•Next generation tank car
• Increased car capacity & axle loads
including components & systems
Medium
(60-79%)
•Simplified
car design
•Zero reactive
maintenance
• Improved braking
capability including
ECP braking
• Improved asset
tracking
Low
(<60%) ®
TTCI
Focus
November 2-3, 2017
85
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p169
®
RTWC Prioritization ofTrack and Structures Technology Directions
November 2-3, 2017
86
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p171
®AAR Strategic Research Program
♦ Wheel/rail interface management
●Wheel/rail interface maintenance
●Root causes of rolling contact fatigue
♦ Improved car performance
● Integrated freight car truck
●Dynamic load environment
♦ Vehicle/track performance
●Effects of Impact loads on rail failure
●Loaded tank car/track interaction
♦ Heavy axle load implementation
●FAST/HAL Operations
●HAL revenue service monitoring
●HAL revenue service-Northern megasite
● Improved Track structure
♦ Improved braking systems
● Improved brake system performance
♦ Train condition monitoring
●Technology driven train inspection
●Automated cracked wheel detection
♦ Track integrity monitoring
●Phased array rail flaw inspection
♦ Improved car components and materials
●Strategies to prevent wheel failure
●Optimized HBD performance
♦ Special trackwork
● Improved special trackwork designs and materials
♦ Bridge research
●Bridge life extension
♦ Improved track components
● Improved rail welding
● Improved rail performance
♦ Improved performance track
● Investigation of rail wear Limits
● Improved tie/fastener system performance
♦ New technology implementation
●Equipment health monitoring technology
●Equipment and track technology implementation
Transportation Technology Center, Inc., a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads
© TTCI/AAR, 2016. p172
Overview of AAR
Interchange Rules and
Technical Standards
November 2-3, 2017
87
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p173
®
♦ Compatibility of rolling stock and components in
interchange service is ensured by compliance with
AAR’s interchange rules and technical standards.
● Interchange Rules (“Field and Office Manuals”)
●Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices
Interchange Rules and Standards
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p174
® Interchange Rules and Standards
Why Have Them?
November 2-3, 2017
88
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p175
® Interchange Rules and Standards
♦ General Purpose
●Ensure everyday effectiveness of interchange among subscribing companies
●Foster uniform compliance with agreed upon rules and standards
●Provide a system for billing of fair, compensatory charges for car repair
●Provide a system outlining repair limits, responsibility, and handling of disputes.
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p176
® Interchange Rules and Standards
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
MANUAL of
STANDARDS
REC. PRACTICES
STANDARDS
OFFICE MANUAL
FIELD MANUAL
INTERCHANGE
RULES
CLOSED CAR
OPEN TOP
LOADING RULES
MECHANICAL
INTERCHANGE RULES
&
STANDARDS
November 2-3, 2017
89
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p177
® Manual of Standards and Recommended
Practices
♦ Mandatory specifications and standards, as well as
recommended practices
♦ Published by specialty areas: brake equipment, tank
cars, locomotives, cushioning systems, wheels and
axles, bearings, general car design
♦ M-1003, AAR Quality Assurance Program
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p178
® www.aarpublications.com
November 2-3, 2017
90
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p179
® Pages from Manual of Standards and
Recommended Practices
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p180
® Ability to Conduct Destructive Tests
November 2-3, 2017
91
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p181
® AAR Certification Process
Controlling Lateral Force
in Curves M-976
Asymmetric
Wheel Flange
Wear
Contact
Fatigue
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p182
® Technical
M-1004
November 2-3, 2017
92
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p183
®
Chapter 10, Dynamic Requirements, covers:
• AAR Vehicle Dynamic Response, Simulation and
Testing Requirements • Empty constant curving including spirals
• Empty dynamic curving
• Empty twist and roll
• Empty hunting
Technical
M-1004
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p184
®
1
8
4
Chapter 11, Crashworthiness Requirements
Technical
M-1004
November 2-3, 2017
93
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p185
® Examples of SRI to Standards
♦ 4 limits for Wheel Impact Loads
♦ Acoustic Bearing Levels
♦ Truck Performance Limits
♦ Potential Automated measurement technologies for
components
●Wheel flange, rim
●Brake Shoe thickness
●Machine Vision based measurements or condition
▲ Missing components – bearing end cap bolts
▲ Damaged components – springs
▲ Safety Appliances
▲ Undercarriage equipment
♦ Track/Infrastructure Inspection and Root Causes thru
AREMA
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p186
® AAR M-1003 Quality Assurance
Specification
1985
1-Component
2-Auditors
Today
133-Components
47-AAR Auditors
♦ What is it?
● Railroad industry standard for a quality assurance program for products sold for North American use
♦ Why do we use it?
● Started with journal roller bearings
● Catastrophic failures decreased 50% after M-1003 initiated
♦ What’s its history?
● Companies want the certification to give
the industry the confidence in their products
● Increases safety and reduces costs
© Amsted Rail
Used with Permission
November 2-3, 2017
94
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p187
® North American M-1003 Quality Processes
♦ Approved by AAR Technical Committees
♦ Commodity-by-commodity basis
Approved
design
Approved Manufacturing
Process
Approved Quality
Process
Trial run of parts for some
components
QA Committee
approval
Ongoing
monitoring
♦ Approved by AAR Technical Committees
♦ Commodity-by-commodity basis
♦ Physical audit of all 24 elements of M-1003
♦ Performed by the QA Auditors
♦ May be required by Technical Committees
♦ Commodity-by-commodity basis
♦ Approved by AAR QA Committee
♦ Approved by AAR QA Committee YEARLY
AUDIT
♦ Uses MSRP Non-Conformance Process
♦ May also be required by Technical
Committees YEARLY INSPECTION
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p188
®
♦ Perform certification/recertification inspections
♦ Perform Office Manual Rule 88 inspections
♦ Perform special/follow-up inspections, as necessary
♦ Component test observation
♦ Work with AAR staff and Arbitration Committee to
direct restitution, if necessary
♦ AAR M-1003 Quality Assurance audits
Mechanical Inspection Department
November 2-3, 2017
95
© TTCI/AAR,10/30/2017, p189
®
Transportation
Technology Center, Inc.
®
190
BREAK15 MINUTES
November 2-3, 2017
97
193
Suicides in Transit: 2008 – 2016
194
Suicides by Transit Modes: 2008 – 2016
November 2-3, 2017
98
195
Suicides in Heavy Rail: 2008 – 2016
196
FRA Activities
• Working with Volpe – Rail Suicide Prevention Resource Page
https://www.volpe.dot.gov/rail-suicide-prevention
• Research and Prevention1) Suicide Countermeasure Pilot Projects
2) Media Reporting of Trespass and Suicide Incidents
3) Global Railway Alliance for Suicide Prevention (GRASP)
4) Trespasser Intent Determination
5) Demographic and Environmental Characteristics of Rail Suicides
6) GIS Mapping
November 2-3, 2017
99
197
Metra “Breaking the Silence”
• Collaborating with local, county officials and mental health community
• Partnering with Union Pacific, BNSF, and DuPage Railroad Safety Council
• Trains employees in warning signs and suicide intervention and in 2016 intervened in 39 cases
• “Question, Persuade, and Refer” (QPR)
• July 2017 suicide prevention signs installed
198
Discussion
• Impact on your agency
• Model or successful practices or mitigation measures
• Role of intrusion detection technologies
• Technologies for notifying control center or train operator
• Relevance to those without approved access (trespassers) and associated injuries/fatalities
November 2-3, 2017
100
199
Heavy Rail Fatalities – Trespassers
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2016
200
Questions – Suicides (and Trespasser Fatalities)
• Successful policies or practices that could be issued by FTA as guidance?
• Training
• Public information/outreach campaigns
• Technology applications
• Standards that may address
• Potential opportunities to work with FRA/Volpe and groups such as American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline
November 2-3, 2017
102
203
Bus Collision Injuries by Person Type: 2008 – 2016
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2016, shares less than 1% not included in the figure
Transit Vehicle
Rider, 61%
Occupant of Other Vehicle,
24%
Transit Vehicle
Operator, 9%
Pedestrian/bicycle
total, 5%
204
Bus Collision Injuries by Person Type: 2008 – 2016
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2016
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Occupant of Other Vehicle Pedestrian/bicycle total All Other
November 2-3, 2017
103
205
Bus Collision Fatalities by Person Type: 2008 – 2016
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2016, shares less than 1% not included in the figure
Pedestrian/bicycle
total, 43%
Occupant of Other Vehicle,
42%
People Waiting/Leaving,
6%
Other, 3%
Transit Vehicle
Operator, 3%
Transit Vehicle
Rider, 2%
206
Bus Collision Fatalities by Person Type: 2008 – 2016
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2016
3626 27 32 29 30 27
37 36
2328
37 32 34 28 35
41
25
1110
7 13 9 15 10
4
19
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Occupant of Other Vehicle Pedestrian/bicycle total All Other
November 2-3, 2017
104
207
Bus Collision Fatalities by Person Type: 2008 – 2016
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2016
51
%
41
%
38
%
42
%
40
%
41
%
38
% 45
%
45
%
33
% 44
% 52
%
42
% 47
%
38
% 49
%
50
%
31
%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Occupant of Other Vehicle Pedestrian/bicycle total
208
Bus Related Left Turn Movements & Rear End
Injuries & Fatalities
November 2-3, 2017
105
209
Fatalities by Vehicle Action: Left Turn Movements: 2008 – 2016
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2016, shares less than 1% not included in the figure
Going straight, 52.2%
Making a turn-left, 14.1%
Stopped, 10.7%
Leaving a stop, 9.1%
Making a turn-right, 4.2%
Making a turn-unknown, 4.1%
Making a stop, 1.8%
Other, 1.7%Negotiating a curve, 1.5%
210
Fatality Trend due to Left Turn Movements: 2008 – 2016
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2016
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
November 2-3, 2017
106
211
Share Fatal Collisions with Persons Due to Left Turn Movements: 2008 – 2016
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2016
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
212
Florida exceeds the national rate in bus rear-ended collisions
https://www.floridatsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Strategies-to-Prevent-Reduce-and-Mitigate-Bus-Collisions-FINAL.pdf
November 2-3, 2017
107
213
Rear-ended Injuries & Fatalities: 2008 – 2016
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2016, shares less than 1% not included in the figure
2%
7%
9%
9%
9%
20%
21%
23%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Other
Sideswipe
Rear-ending
Angle
Head-on
Side Impact
Other front impact
Rear-ended
Injuries
3%
4%
5%
10%
15%
21%
21%
22%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Rear-ending
Sideswipe
Other
Angle
Rear-ended
Head-on
Other front impact
Side Impact
Fatalities
214
Rear-ended Injuries as Share of Total Injuries Trend: 2008 – 2016
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2016, shares less than 1% not included in the figure
20
% 25
%
23
%
21
% 25
%
23
%
25
%
24
%
23
%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
November 2-3, 2017
108
215
Rear-ended Bus Major Event Trend: 2008-2016
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2016, shares less than 1% not included in the figure
626
705
692
683
685
714813
1,113
1,093
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
216
Rear-ended Collisions
Source: NTD Data January 2008 – May 2017
56%17%
16%
6%
2%
2%1%
Action of Bus at Moment of Impact
Stopped
Other
Going Straight
Making a Stop
Making a Turn
Leaving a Stop
Parked
79%
9%
8%
3%1%
Weather Conditions
Clear
Cloudy
Raining
Snowing
Unknown
November 2-3, 2017
109
217
Other Key Findings
• Rear-bus advertising may be distracting automobile drivers
218
Six Recommendations
1. Statewide Awareness Campaign• Emphasize need to be prepared to
stop when behind buses
2. Create Statewide Transit Collision Database
• With consistent data format
3. Support Innovate Bus Light Treatment
• Support necessary legislation
November 2-3, 2017
110
219
Six Recommendations
4. Eliminate Bus Rear Advertising• Counterproductive to safety
5. Support Bus Pullouts where posted speed >40 mph
6. Include Operator Date of Hire in Collision Logs
220
Assault-Related Bus Fatalities and Injuries
November 2-3, 2017
111
221
Bus Assault-related Total Injuries: 2008 – 2016
0
100
200
300
400
500
600To
tal A
ssau
lt-r
elat
ed In
juri
es
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2016
222
Bus Assault-related Total Fatalities: 2008 – 2017*
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2017; *2017 data represent January through May of 2017
0
1
2
3
Ass
ault
-rel
ated
Fat
alit
ies Transit Vehicle Rider
People Wait or LeaveOther
November 2-3, 2017
112
223
Bus Assault-related Injuries by Person Type: 2008 – 2016
0
100
200
300A
ssau
lt-r
elat
ed In
juri
es
Transit Vehicle Rider People Waiting or LeavingTransit Vehicle Operators Transit Employees
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2016
224
Share of Annual Bus Assault-related Injuries by Person Type: 2008 – 2017*
Injuries 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Transit Vehicle Rider 24.0% 31.7% 39.8% 43.2% 50.3% 47.1% 51.6% 52.7% 51.0% 45.7%
People Waiting or
Leaving16.3% 9.9% 10.0% 13.3% 12.9% 14.5% 14.7% 8.7% 11.8% 10.4%
Transit Vehicle
Operators51.1% 53.0% 42.5% 38.0% 32.1% 33.5% 28.0% 35.2% 32.6% 40.2%
Transit Employees 7.3% 3.0% 5.4% 4.3% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 2.8% 3.9% 1.8%
Pedestrian Not in
Crosswalk0.0% 0.5% 1.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Pedestrian in
Crosswalk0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Occupant of Other
Vehicle0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0%
Other Worker 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Other 1.3% 2.0% 1.2% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.7% 0.4% 0.2% 1.8%
Total Injuries 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2017; *2017 data represent January through May of 2017
November 2-3, 2017
113
225
Annual Share of Transit Vehicle Rider and Operator Injuries: 2008 – 2017*
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%Sh
are
of
An
nu
al A
ssau
lt-r
elat
ed
Inju
ries
Transit Vehicle Rider Transit Vehicle OperatorsSource: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2017; *2017 data represent January through May of 2017
226
Bus Assault-related Injury Trend of Top Two Location Types: 2008 – 2016
0
100
200
300
400
500
Ass
ault
-rel
ated
Inju
ries
On Vehicle Revenue FacilitySource: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2016
November 2-3, 2017
114
227
Bus Assault-related Injuries on the Transit Vehicle by Person Type: 2008 – 2016
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Transit Vehicle Rider Transit Vehicle Operators
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), Safety & Security (S&S) 40 Form (Major Incidents), 2008-2016
228
Questions – Transit Assaults
• Successful policies or practices that could be issued by FTA as guidance?
• Training content?
• Infrastructure modifications (onboard/on transit facilities)
• Lessons learned during FTA’s National Online Dialogue on Transit Worker Assaults
November 2-3, 2017
115
229
Telling the Story –Safety
Improvement Through Research and Demonstration
Venues and Options for Dissemination
and Discussion
230
Role of Research in SMS and the Standards Program
• Assist transit agencies function within SMS framework
• Identify effective safety practices and principles
• Evaluate impact of practice on transit safety
• Identify emerging hazards and evaluate risk
• Gauge effectiveness of safety interventions
• Improve safety data reporting and analysis
• Enhance ability to proactively track and manage safety performance
• Recognition of research results as a driver of safety improvements
November 2-3, 2017
116
231
Knowledge = Improved Safety
The industrywide adoption of voluntary standards, guidance documents, or
recommended practices will only occur through evidentiary processes and research activities
that extol the benefits of those standards and guidelines and the extensive dissemination of
those findings across the industry.
232
How Does the Industry Respond and Proactively Address
• Identify problems exist – through data driven methods
• Acknowledge that they are present
• Benefit from underlying research to evaluate and demonstrate mitigation strategies
• Benefit from experiences of peer agencies
• Benefit from effective transit safety research dissemination plan
November 2-3, 2017
117
233
Dissemination Options – How to Expand Current Offerings
• Biennial transit safety research and demonstration project summit
• Webinars/web-conferences
• Listening sessions
• Target presentations by FTA SRD/SRER demonstration project awardees
• TRB research and synthesis reports –expanding the reach
• Independent evaluations and lessons learned from public transportation agencies
• Tag on to existing event?
234
Who?
• Collaborators could include:
– Working Group
– FTA
– APTA
– CTAA
– TRB
– Other Modal Administrations
– AAR/TTCI
– CUTR
November 2-3, 2017
119
237
Project Team
CUTRLisa Staes – [email protected] Godfrey – [email protected]
K & JJim Tucci – [email protected] Dougherty – [email protected]
TTCIMary Clara Jones – [email protected] Peña – [email protected]
238
SEE YOU IN TBDFEBRUARY 2018