CUTR Standards Working Group TTCI, Pueblo, CO … 2-3, 2017 1 1 CUTR Standards Working Group TTCI,...

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


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)


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


Transit Asset Management 49 CFR Part 625

CompleteFinal Rule


State Safety Oversight 49 CFR Part 674

CompleteFinal Rule


https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/national-public-transportation-safety-plan

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/11/2016-18920/public-transportation-safety-program

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/11/2016-18920/public-transportation-safety-program

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-07-26/pdf/2016-16883.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-03-16/pdf/2016-05489.pdf

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


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


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


♦ 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


♦ Construction


Excavation methods ASHTO LRFD Road Tunnel Design and Construction


Initial supports ASHTO LRFD Road Tunnel Design and Construction


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



© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p22


♦ 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


♦ Construction


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



© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p24


♦ 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


♦ Inspection


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)



© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p26


♦ 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


♦ 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


♦ 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


♦ 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


♦ 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



●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



●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



●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


Other1

One Only3

Supporting System Design Manuals

November 2-3, 2017

18

© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p35



●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


One Only6

Inspection Manuals

© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p36



●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


One Only8

Maintenance and Rehabilitation Manuals

November 2-3, 2017

19

© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p37


♦ 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


♦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


♦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


♦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


♦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


♦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


♦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


♦ 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


♦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


♦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


♦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


♦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


♦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



(MBTA) – existing tunnels

© TTCI/AAR, 10/30/2017. p52



(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


♦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



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


Authority(WMATA) – existing tunnels

Site Visits Data Collection


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



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


♦ 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


♦ 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


♦ 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


♦ 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


♦ 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


♦ 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


♦ 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


♦ 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

34

67

BREAK15 MINUTES

68

EVENT DATA RECORDER (EDR) FOR BUS TRANSIT

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


• 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


• 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

mailto:[email protected]



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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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

41

81

82

LIGHT RAIL – COLLISIONS AND FATALITIES

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


© 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


• 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


• 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


• 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.


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


• 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


• What I need from you:

November 2-3, 2017

55

109

Questions or Comments

Lisa Staes

[email protected]

Jodi Godfrey

[email protected]

Jennifer Flynn

[email protected]

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

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

http://www.apta.com/

November 2-3, 2017

63

Questions?

THANK YOU

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


• 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


• Facilities, systems, and equipment are designed, constructed, built, inspected, and tested in accordance with applicable codes, standards, criteria, and specifications.

144


• 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


• 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


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)


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?


© 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


© 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

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/summary.aspx

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

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


© 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


♦ 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


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


♦ Physical audit of all 24 elements of M-1003

♦ Performed by the QA Auditors

♦ May be required by Technical Committees


♦ 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

96

191

POTENTIAL NEW FOCUS AREAS

192

TRANSIT SECURITY –SUICIDES – RAIL MODES

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

https://www.volpe.dot.gov/rail-suicide-prevention

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

101

201

202

BUS RELATED POV & BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN INJURIES & FATALITIES

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


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


Pedestrian/bicycle

total, 43%

Occupant of Other Vehicle,

42%

People Waiting/Leaving,

6%

Other, 3%

Transit Vehicle

Operator, 3%

Transit Vehicle

Rider, 2%

206



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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

118

235

236

Next Steps

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







CUTR Standards Working Group TTCI, Pueblo, CO … 2-3, 2017 1 1 CUTR Standards Working Group TTCI,...

Documents

Transcript of CUTR Standards Working Group TTCI, Pueblo, CO … 2-3, 2017 1 1 CUTR Standards Working Group TTCI,...