23 October 2006 n° 1 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System...
-
Upload
horace-horton -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of 23 October 2006 n° 1 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System...
23 October 2006n° 1
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
Developing Common Safety Targetsfor the European Railway System
Roberto Piazza, Peter Mihm and Christophe Cassir
IRSC, Dublin, 23 October 2006
23 October 2006n° 2
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
The legal bases for developing CSTs at EU level
Treaty establishing the European Community, in particular Article 71§1.c:“1. For the purpose of implementing Article 70 (common transport policy at EC level), and taking into account the distinctive features of transport, the Council shall (…) lay down:…
(c) measures to improve transport safety;…“
Directive 2004/49/EC, which, on the other hand, acknowledges that safety levels in the Community rail system are generally high, in particular compared to road transport, and requires:- that current safety performance of rail is not reduced in any Member State- that CSTs are developed, expressed in risk acceptance criteria (1st set of CSTs to be adopted by the European Commission by end of April 2009 - Article 7)
Mandate of the European Commission to the European Railway Agency – issued 16/12/2005(1st set of CSTs to be submitted to the European Commission by end of September 2008)
23 October 2006n° 3
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
Main aims of establishing CSTs at EU level
Limit differentiation of national policies in the field of safety targeting, as this may hinder the competitive potential of railway transport with respect to other transport modes by fragmenting the EU market
Harmonise the way safety is monitored and reduce existing differentiation in the safety performance of railway systems in Member States
Avoid that “safety arguments” are unduly used by Member States for creating barriers to the entry into the respective national markets by newcomers
23 October 2006n° 4
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
Two main options for safety targeting
Option 1: targeting the individual/collective risk of incurring into a given category of consequences of a given category of accidents.
Option 2: targeting the occurrence of possible
causes of accidents (i.e. broken rails/axles/wheels,
signal failures, n. of SPADs, etc.).
Dir.2004/49/EC (Art.7) mandates the development of CSTs
expressed in terms of risk acceptance criteria for
individuals and the society as a whole (i.e. option 1).
Option 2 may be used for complementary targets and/or
for 2nd set of CSTs.
23 October 2006n° 5
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
The approach taken by the European Railway Agency for developing CSTs
A two step approach:
First develop a quantitative baseline for understanding the level of safety performance of railway transport in the different Member States, expressed in terms of risk to individuals + societal risk (National Reference Values - NRVs)
Then derive CSTs from NRVs, by iteratively setting targets and checking the outcomes of the impact analysis, until an optimum is reached
23 October 2006n° 6
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
How many NRVs and CSTs ?
CSTs
At least 6 at MS level
(according to Art.7 SD)
Passengers
Staff
Level Crossing Users
Unauthorised persons on railway premises
Others
+Societal Risks
NRVs At least 6 (NRVs) x 23 (MSs) = 138 NRVs
One NRV for:
- each correspondent CST
- each MS, excepted MS without railway systems (Malta and Cyprus) = 23 +
NRVs for parts of the railway system (where feasible)
+CSTs for parts of the
railway system
(where feasible)
23 October 2006n° 7
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
How to measure NRVs and CSTs ?
CSTs
NRVs
Expressed in terms of RISK
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Will have the same unit of measure
which is adopted for quantifying RISK
Measurement:
Dimensional Definition:
RISK of a
given event
=
Frequency of the event
[ n.of events / ]
(*) train*km, pax*km, tonn*km
X
Consequences of the event
[ Consequences / event ]
=[ Consequences /
]Unit of Time
Unit of Product (*)Unit of Time
Unit of Product
23 October 2006n° 8
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
NRVs: the list of formulae and scaling factors which has been selected by the CST WG
Category at risk Preferred complete formulaePreferred scaling
factors
Passengers
NRV 1.1
Number of pax fatalities and weighted serious injuries per year arising from significant accidents / n. of passenger train*km per year
Passenger train*km per year
NRV 1.2
Number of pax fatalities and weighted serious injuries per year arising from significant accidents / n. of passenger*km per year
Passenger*km per year
Employees NRV 2Number of employee fatalities and weighted serious injuries per year arising from significant accidents / n. of train*km per year
Train*km per year
Level crossing users
NRV 3Number of level-crossing user fatalities and weighted serious injuries per year arising from significant accidents / (n. of Train*km per year / n. of LCs)
Train*km per year per LC(To be further discussed by a specific Taskforce)
Others NRV 4Yearly number of fatalities and weighted serious injuries of persons belonging to the category “others” arising from significant accidents / n. of train*km per year
Train*km per year
Unauthorised persons on railway premises
NRV 5Number of fatalities and weighted serious injuries of unauthorised persons on railway premises per year arising from significant accidents / n. of train*km per year
Train*km per year
Wholesociety
NRV 6Number of fatalities and weighted serious injuries to persons per year arising from SIGNIFICANT ACCIDENTS / n.of train*km per year
Train*km per year
23 October 2006n° 9
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
• NRV and CST for passengers risk NRV1;CST1
• NRV and CST for staff risk NRV2;CST2
• NRV and CST for level crossing users risk NRV3;CST3
• NRV and CST for unauthorised persons risk NRV4;CST4
• NRV and CST for risk to others NRV5;CST5
• NRV and CST for societal risk NRV6;CST6
Common Safety Indicatorsfor 1st set, only data from 2006
EUROSTAT datafor 1st set, full data from 2004, 2005, 2006 + partial data (w/o production data) from 2007
OthersVoluntary time series from MS
Extra normalisation (production) data
NRVs, CSTs and data feeding
NRVs & CSTs for parts of the railway system as defined by Article 3e of Dir. 2004/49/EC
Will specific data be available ?If not, careful assumptions and
estimates will be necessary
23 October 2006n° 10
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
Data for Common Safety Indicatorsas defined by Annex I of the safety Directive
K SI K SI K SI K SI K SI
Collisions
Derailments
Level-crossing accidents
Accidents to persons caused by rolling stock in motion
Fires in rolling stock
Others
Suicides
Total (excluding suicides)
Total relative to train km (excluding suicides)
Lev
el c
ross
ing
use
rs
Un
au
tho
rise
d p
erso
ns
Oth
ers
Nu
mb
er o
f a
ccid
ents
Pa
ssen
ger
s
Em
plo
yee
s
CST1 CST2 CST3 CST4 CST5
CST6 ?
Issues: The use of national definitions
for indicators (at least for 2006 annual safety report) poses a limit on the comparability of data for different MSs
Data will be available only for 2006 onwards
K = Killed
SI = Seriously Injured
23 October 2006n° 11
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
EUROSTAT data
K SI K SI K SI
Collisions
Derailments
Level-crossing accidents
Accidents to persons caused by rolling stock in motion
Fires in rolling stock
Others
Unknown
Total
Total relative to train(or pass) km
Oth
ers
Num
ber
of a
ccid
ents
Pas
seng
ers
Em
ploy
ees
CST1 CST2
~CST3
~CST4
~CST5
CST6 ?
Issues: Uncertainty for CST3, CST4, CST5
Need to check that suicides data are not included in “ Accidents to persons caused by RS in motion”
K = Killed
SI = Seriously Injured
23 October 2006n° 12
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
Commonalities amongst Member States:the most exposed categories of individuals
(year 2004 – Source: Eurostat)
The most exposed category of individuals in 2004 was the category « others » (i.e. not passengers, nor employees)
23 October 2006n° 13
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
(year 2004 – Source: Eurostat)
Most of the fatalities in 2004 were due to « accidents at level crossings » and to « individual accidents to persons caused by RS in motion »
Commonalities amongst Member States: accidents causing the majority of fatalities
23 October 2006n° 14
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
N.of fatalities per Mio train*km caused by railway accidents in countries of the European area
[(EU + EEA) Member States + Turkey] - years 2004 and 2005(source EUROSTAT - data for 2005 from DK, DE, ES, FR, IE, LU, NL, NO, PT, SE and UK not available)
Averagevalue for:
2004 = 0,922005 = 1,13(excluding
zero values)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
BE CZ DK DE EE GR ES FR IE IT LV LT LU HU NL AT PL PT SI SK FI SE UK TR NO
2004 2005
The N.of fatalities per Mio train*km caused by railway accidents in countries of the European area [(EU + EEA) Member States] in 2004 and 2005 lied in a range 0,05 3 (510E-8 310E-6 Fatalities/train*km), which means that there was a variation of two orders of magnitude between the best and the worst performing MS.
The differentiation of statistical data amongst European Countries: a first problem to face
23 October 2006n° 15
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
(year 2004 – Source: Eurostat)
The differentiation of statistical data amongst European Countries: a first problem to face
Also for the number of accidents per million train*km there was a variation of two orders of magnitude between the best and the worst performing MS (0,5 40) .
23 October 2006n° 16
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
Passenger fatalities per Bln passenger*km from railway acc.in countries of the European area
[(EU + EEA) member States + Turkey] - years 2004 and 2005(source EUROST AT - data for 2004 from LT and SI n.a.; data for 2005 from DK, DE, LT , PT , SI and UK n.a.)
Averagevalue for2004 and
2005(excluding
zero values):1,00
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
BE C Z DK DE EE GR ES FR IE IT LV LT LU H U N L AT PL PT SI SK FI SE U K TR N O
2004 2005
…same order of magnitude of variation for the number of passenger fatalities per billion train*km (0,06 3).
The differentiation of statistical data amongst European Countries: a first problem to face
23 October 2006n° 17
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
Coping with data insufficiency It is evident from Eurostat data for 2004 and 2005 that
there are significant differences in safety performance between MSs (two orders of magnitude variation of total FWI/train*km amongst Member States, as already shown)
There is a need to analyse why these large differences occur and also to study additional data to see how annual fluctuations might influence these results
A longer time series of national data would serve to average out some of the effects of the high-consequence low-frequence events and also to give more significance to the data for small Member States with few events
Data insufficiency: a second problem to face
23 October 2006n° 18
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
Comparability analysis of data
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year
FW
I (p
er
mil
lio
n p
as
se
ng
er
tra
in k
m)
Comparability analysis: National time series vs. Eurostat time series
Case 1: consistency of the two different time series
Case 2: inconsistency of the two different time series
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year
FW
I (p
er m
illio
n p
asse
ng
er t
rain
km
)
Eurostat
Eurostat
Case 2:Case 1:
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year
FW
I (p
er
mil
lio
n p
as
se
ng
er
tra
in k
m)
23 October 2006n° 19
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
Treatment of data
Averaging and forecasting techniques: Moving averages, exponential smoothing, trend lines etc Objective is to find NRVs less sensitive to annual random fluctuations and
influence from low frequency/high impact accidents The approach may also facilitate setting targets for annual risk reduction
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year
f
Raw data
Estimated long term
trend
Outcome of averaging and
smoothing
Ris
k
23 October 2006n° 20
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
A descending long-term trend for passenger fatalities
23 October 2006n° 21
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
MS
A
MS
B MS
C
MS
D
MS
E
MS
F
MS
G
Ris
k
NRVs = National Reference Values of safety performance for each MS
Lowest impact CST
Weighted impact CST
Highest impact CST
Common Safety Targets – how to set up 1st set of CSTs from NRVs ?
Optimal impact CST (best overall « Cost / Benefit » ratio ?)
ΔRD
ΔRF
ΔRX = range of tolerance for MS X in a given time horizon(will a range of tolerance for NRVs also have to be considered for
each MS ? It will depend on the approach finally adopted for setting CSTs)
23 October 2006n° 22
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
ERA’s CST WG: overall flowchart of activities and deliverables
Preliminary Draft
1. Progress report
5-year Workcalendar
Elaboration of the recommendation for 1st set of CSTs
09/0812/05 11/06
Pré-conditions
Development of a method for setting up 1st set of CSTs
Survey existing Safety targets
Definition of measurement units
Draft of recommen-dation for 1st
set of CSTs
Setting values for 1st set of CSTs
2. Progress report
Guidance and rules / procedures for use and enforcement of 1st set of
CSTs
Inputs from WG membersExisting safety targets; definitions, rules & prodedures for use at MS and Company level (operators, infrastructure manager, …)
Inputs
Drafting Structure and General part
Drafting Technical Part
Drafting Recommen-
dation
Recommendation laying down the 1st set of CSTs + accompanying report + draft
guidelines for use of 1st set of CSTs
11/0701/07 01/08 07/08
Consultation of social partners
Translation
Information of NSA Network
Final adjustment
Delivery of Recommenda
tion
Adoption by EC and Article 21
committee
Drafting Guideline for use of 1st set of CSTs
Annotated structure
Working plan strategy
Inputs from WG membersTime series / Pilot values at MS and Company level, additional information for benchmarking, …
WG members comments
Guidelines for use of 1st set
of CSTs
04/09
23 October 2006n° 23
R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.CassirDeveloping CSTs for the European Railway System
IRSC 2006, Dublin
Thank you for your attention!