Get documents about "Proposal for Rail Safety Awards Program (draft)
Shared by: HC12070405238
-
Stats
- views:
- 6
- posted:
- 7/3/2012
- language:
- pages:
- 12
Document Sample
Proposal for Rail
Safety & Security
Awards Program
(Draft)
June 2, 2011
Submitted by:
APTA Rail Safety Committee
Chair, Vijay Khawani
Prepared by:
Bill Grizard
Director – Safety
APTA
Michael Smith
Program Manager – Safety & Security
APTA
Proposal for Rail Safety & Security Awards Program
I. Background
The successful Bus Safety Awards program, which in 2010 was modified to
encompass Safety and Security, has been in place for nearly 100 years to
recognize fixed-route bus systems and operators. A similar Rail Safety Awards
program has been broached several times in the past but was not advanced
primarily because of concerns regarding the number of potential participants—
there were fewer than 25 rail transit systems in operation. Today there are over
60 passenger rail operations in the U.S. and eight in Canada, with many more
under development or construction.
Based on this trend of growth, and in recognition of many organizations’
dedication to safety and security across all rail modes including Urban Rail,
Commuter Rail, and Intercity/High Speed Rail, this proposal is to initiate and
sustain an APTA Rail Safety & Security Awards Program. Similar to the APTA
Bus Safety & Security Awards program, these awards would formally recognize
agencies that have achieved excellence in safety and security management and
facilitate the sharing of effective practices across the industry.
The APTA Rail Safety Committee has developed this proposal with the intent to
represent APTA’s objectives in the critical areas of safety and security, and
support its mission to strengthen and improve public transportation of all modes
through advocacy, innovation, and information sharing.
II. Benefits
The proposed APTA Rail Safety & Security Awards program would offer several
benefits to the industry, including:
Recognition of exemplary achievement of safety/security management
and in building a safety-oriented culture, thereby offering models to which
other agencies can refer in developing their own programs and culture;
An increase of industry awareness of current issues in safety/security;
Highlight safety as a core industry value to patrons, public and
government;
Continued inter-agency sharing of ideas and effective practices, through
the presentation of awards, APTA website, and continued dialogue in
conferences, committee meetings, forums, and other means;
Spur the development of innovative practices and sustain continual
improvement of rail industry safety and security process; and
Continued support of APTA’s mission and strategic goal to develop
“efficient, safe, and attractive systems and services that meet the current
1
Proposal for Rail Safety & Security Awards Program
and future needs of riders and engender a high level of customer
confidence.”
III. Proposed format
Safety & Security Excellence Awards would be presented in categories classified
by rail mode, as defined by the National Transit Database (NTD):
Commuter/Intercity Rail, Heavy Rail, and Light Rail (including streetcar and
‘intermediate’ rail) systems (see Appendix A for more detailed descriptions).
Unlike the Bus Award program’s separation of private contractors, it is proposed
that contracted rail systems be included in their respective modal categories.
Appendix B displays how current U.S. and Canadian rail systems would be
classified under this format.
A passenger rail system would not be permitted to submit nominations for more
than one mode, or for both safety and security, in any given year. Furthermore, a
system would not be permitted to nominate a program or project for which it also
submitted a nomination for the Bus Awards of the same year or any prior year,
unless a significant change from the previous submittal can be justified. The
APTA Safety and Security staff would carefully review submittals prior to judging
to ensure compliance with these policies.
A passenger rail system would be judged on its safety or security achievement,
success in building a safety-oriented culture within the system, and its outreach
to riders and the community on rail safety issues. Also see section entitled
“Criteria” below.
As in the Bus Awards program, a Gold Award would be issued representing the
top award in each of the three categories for both Safety and Security sections,
for a total of six potential awards. Honorable Mentions would also be issued to
those submittals in each category of exceptional merit.
In addition to recognizing the passenger rail system, information on the
successful programs and projects would be posted both to the APTA website and
Safety & Security Forum as industry best practices.
IV. Nomination procedures
Nominations for the APTA Rail Safety and Security Excellence Awards are
limited to no more than five pages and may include an additional three pages of
supporting evidence attesting to the results achieved. An agency may nominate
only one program or project each year in either safety or security, regardless of
2
Proposal for Rail Safety & Security Awards Program
the variety of rail modes it operates. Each nomination should include the
following:
A brief description and history of the safety or security problem and the
impact to the transit system;
The program or project that was implemented to address that problem and
the goals and objectives identified to fix the problem;
A summary of the specific results achieved and the related benefits to the
system (results should correlate directly to the specific program or project
and the evidence of such can be shown in more detail in the ‘supporting
evidence’ section)1; and
A description of how this practice could be beneficially applied to other rail
systems.
Entries shall be open to any type of safety or security program normally
associated with rail transportation such as, but not limited to: employee training,
customer awareness, rolling stock maintenance/configuration, facility
maintenance/design, environmental considerations, emergency preparedness, or
policing/security.
As is stipulated in the Bus Awards procedures, no proprietary or copyright
protected programs purchased from third party vendors which cannot be shared
openly as work products of the transit agency or contract provider will be
considered for any award.
All safety-related data and program summaries submitted should be accurate
and verifiable. Nominations will be submitted along with a cover sheet which,
along with identifying agency points of contact and award category, would require
the signature of the agency’s Chief Executive Officer, or equivalent, attesting to
the legitimacy of all information included. Should any nomination be discovered
to contain false or unverifiable information, it would be immediately disqualified.
V. Criteria
Program/Project Effectiveness – 30 PERCENT
Creating a safety culture within the organization begins at the top. The
organization should be able to demonstrate a high level of resource allocation
and management participation in the development and implementation of safety
initiatives. Does the program/project have a clear focus with specific intended
results? The organization should also be able to demonstrate results directly tied
to overall agency goals and objectives. Is there before/after data that will support
the efficacy of the program/project? At a minimum, each organization must
submit its safety data for the three years prior to the program/project
1
In the event that fatality data are pertinent to a submittal, suicide data may be omitted at the nominator’s discretion
if such data do not correlate to the specific program or project.
3
Proposal for Rail Safety & Security Awards Program
implementation date to demonstrate how the program or practice has effectively
influenced the achievement of goals and objectives. Other types of data to
document safety performance might include:
Statistics on accident claims paid indicating the economic benefit of safety
improvements
Data reflecting reduction in on-the-job injuries or customer injuries related
to a specific initiative
Trend data on public comments related to operational safety
Benefit Level – 35 PERCENT
The bottom line of an effective safety program should be reflected in the
organization’s key performance metrics. Organizations should submit evaluations
of safety projects, programs, and initiatives that reflect the benefits the
organization has derived from the program or practice. Organizations should be
able to demonstrate gains or efficiencies in a variety of formats by being able to
address some of the following questions:
What net financial benefits were accrued through implementation of this
program/project?
How do direct savings compare to the program/project costs?
What indirect or non-financial benefits were achieved?
Did the program/project address a significant issue facing the agency?
Innovation – 20 PERCENT
Public transportation is a dynamic, constantly changing environment that
challenges organizations to adapt to new situations. The organization should be
able to demonstrate methods used to advance safety issues that address these
external or internal circumstances. Organizations should submit descriptions of
innovative efforts that have a positive effect on the operating environment and
system safety, including but not limited to the following:
How does this program/project differ from traditional approaches to the
problem?
Does the program/project enhance common practices?
Does the program/project reflect a totally new or unusual approach?
How do the unique or innovative attributes of this program/project
contribute to the effectiveness/benefits achieved?
Transferability – 15 PERCENT
To be considered an Industry Leading Effective Practice, other transit providers
must be able to replicate the program and implement it with similar results.
Measures viewed as promising can then be implemented within other systems,
which over time, improves the entire industry. Organizations should submit
descriptions of initiatives they developed that can address the following:
Does this program/project address an issue that is of significance to many
agencies?
Can the program/project be reasonably incorporated by other agencies?
4
Proposal for Rail Safety & Security Awards Program
Is the program/project likely to be more attractive than other existing
approaches to the same types of safety issues?
These questions and examples are provided only as a guide. A successful
program should attain excellence in multiple criteria.
A similar list of criteria would be adapted to fit the security section of awards.
VI. Proposed award selection process
Initially, the Rail Safety Committee may deem it appropriate to appoint an Awards
subcommittee to assist APTA staff with outreach, nomination, judging, and
selection processes. Several current Rail Safety Committee members have
already expressed interest in moving the program forward, and would offer their
support.
APTA Safety & Security staff, including staff advisors to the Rail Safety
Committee, would be tasked with selecting a panel every year, of five to eight
knowledgeable industry experts to serve as judges. As is the practice for
selecting Bus Awards judges, every effort would be made to develop a well-
rounded and unbiased panel, including the exclusion of representatives or
employees of any transit agency regardless of mode, so as to avoid any conflict
of interest. Carrying over at least three judges from the previous award year
would ensure a desirable blend of familiarity with the program and foster a
productive team dynamic during (teleconference) deliberations.
The solicitation of nominations would be carried out by APTA staff in February
and early March, through a variety of media, including the APTA website,
downloadable flyers, emails, and postcards. The final deadline for nominations
would be approximately April 30th of each year, at which point the selected panel
of judges would commence their deliberations via conference calls facilitated by
APTA staff. The winners would be announced at the annual APTA Rail
Conference in June. Immediately following the Conference, the nominations of
Gold Award and Honorable Mention recipients would be posted on the Safety
and Security section of the APTA website and shared through the Safety and
Security Forum. Additionally, award recipients may be invited to participate on a
session panel at the subsequent Rail Conference and share their story with
industry peers.
VII. Summary Statement
This paper represents the work product of the APTA Rail Safety Committee
which has met both as a working group to develop the proposal and in full
committee in December 2010 to vote to adopt the proposal for presentation to
5
Proposal for Rail Safety & Security Awards Program
the APTA Board of Directors, the APTA Awards Committee, and the APTA Staff
for consideration. It is a consensus product and satisfies one of the objectives of
the Rail Safety Committee FY 2011 Work Plan. The Rail Safety Committee
endorses this effort and believes that an awards program would be very
beneficial to the industry for all of the reasons cited in section II and would serve
to demonstrate to the public the serious effort, resources, and continuous
improvement undertaken by our industry to ensure the safety and security of our
employees, passengers and the general population. We therefore urge APTA to
expeditiously approve this proposal.
6
Proposal for Rail Safety & Security Awards Program
Appendix A: Definitions of rail modes, based on the National
Transit Database (NTD)
Source: American Public Transportation Association: 2010 Public Transportation Fact
Book, Washington, DC, April, 2010.
Three rail modes provide most rail transit service operated in the U.S.: heavy rail,
commuter rail, and light rail.
Commuter Rail is a mode of transit service (also called metropolitan rail, regional rail,
or suburban rail) characterized by an electric or diesel propelled railway for urban
passenger train service consisting of local short distance travel operating between a
central city and adjacent suburbs. Service must be operated on a regular basis by or
under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within
urbanized areas, or between urbanized areas and outlying areas. Such rail service,
using either locomotive hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars, is generally
characterized by multitrip tickets, specific station to station fares, railroad employment
practices and usually only one or two stations in the central business district. Intercity
rail service is excluded, except for that portion of such service that is operated by or
under contract with a public transit agency for predominantly commuter services. Most
service is provided on routes of current or former freight railroads.
Heavy Rail is a mode of transit service (also called metro, subway, rapid transit, or
rapid rail) operating on an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic.
It is characterized by high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating
singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails; separate rights-of-way from which all other
vehicular and foot traffic are excluded; sophisticated signaling, and high platform
loading.
Light Rail is a mode of transit service (also called streetcar, tramway, or trolley)
operating passenger rail cars singly (or in short, usually two-car or three-car, trains) on
fixed rails in right-of-way that is often separated from other traffic for part or much of the
way. Light rail vehicles are typically driven electrically with power being drawn from an
overhead electric line via a trolley or a pantograph; driven by an operator on board the
vehicle; and may have either high platform loading or low level boarding using steps.
7
Proposal for Rail Safety & Security Awards Program
Appendix B: Table of proposed categories, based on 2010
NTD *
Unlinked
pass. Trips Pass. Miles
Name Urbanized area Pop. Mode (thousands) (thousands)
CATEGORY 1 – Commuter/ Intercity Rail
New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ New York-Newark, NY-NJ-
TRANSIT) CT 17,799,861 CR 84,508.3 2,343,405.3
Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company New York-Newark, NY-NJ-
(MTA-MNCR) CT 17,799,861 CR 82,960.7 2,181,694.5
New York-Newark, NY-NJ-
MTA Long Island Rail Road (MTA LIRR) CT 17,799,861 CR 99,599.4 1,872,331.5
Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter
Railroad Corporation (Metra) Chicago, IL-IN 8,307,904 CR 76,937.6 1,749,113.8
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-
Authority (SEPTA) MD 5,149,079 CR 34,031.3 486,427.9
Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation
District (NICTD) Chicago, IL-IN 8,307,904 CR 4,180.4 117,468.7
Utah Transit Authority(UTA) Salt Lake City, UT 887,650 CR 1,429.6 35,451.8
Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority (MBTA) Boston, MA-NH-RI 4,032,484 CR 39,207.4 792,889.4
Counties of Los Angeles-
Southern California Regional Rail Authority Riverside-Ventura-San
(Metrolink) Bernardino-Orange, CA 11,789,487 CR 12,681.0 436,565.5
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board San Francisco-Oakland,
(PCJPB) CA 3,228,605 CR 10,914.6 272,796.1
Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) Baltimore, MD 2,076,354 CR 7,897.6 242,661.3
South Florida Regional Transportation
Authority (TRI-Rail) Miami, FL 4,919,036 CR 3,859.0 122,257.9
Virginia Railway Express (VRE) Washington, DC-VA-MD 3,933,920 CR 3,583.5 107,014.4
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit
Authority (ST) Seattle, WA 2,712,205 CR 2,668.6 63,640.3
North County Transit District (NCTD) San Diego, CA 2,674,436 CR 1,686.0 48,316.4
Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Stockton, CA 313,392 CR 805.2 37,755.6
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-
(PENNDOT) MD 5,149,079 CR 472.8 36,665.7
Northern New England Passenger Rail
Authority (NNEPRA) Portland, ME 188,080 CR 441.7 34,926.1
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington,
Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) TX 4,145,659 CR 1,124.2 18,830.1
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington,
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) TX 4,145,659 CR 1,593.0 18,758.3
Connecticut Department of Transportation
(CDOT) Hartford, CT 851,535 CR 506.5 10,144.6
Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) Nashville-Davidson, TN 749,935 CR 166.8 2,885.0
Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Vancouver, British
(Translink – “West Coast Express”) Columbia 2,116,581 CR 2,700.0 -
GO Transit (Metrolinx) Toronto, Ontario 5,113,149 CR 48,000.0 -
Agence metropolitaine de transport (AMT) Montreal, Quebec 3,635,600 CR 15,200.0 -
8
Proposal for Rail Safety & Security Awards Program
Category 1 total: 25
CATEGORY 2 – Heavy Rail
New York-Newark, NY-NJ-
MTA New York City Transit (NYCT) CT 17,799,861 HR 2,428,308.5 9,998,115.0
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority (WMATA) Washington, DC-VA-MD 3,933,920 HR 288,039.7 1,639,628.5
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit San Francisco-Oakland,
District (BART) CA 3,228,605 HR 115,227.7 1,448,529.1
Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Chicago, IL-IN 8,307,904 HR 198,137.3 1,183,980.8
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
(MARTA) Atlanta, GA 3,499,840 HR 82,984.0 593,419.4
Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority (MBTA) Boston, MA-NH-RI 4,032,484 HR 148,625.5 550,155.5
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-
Authority (SEPTA) MD 5,149,079 HR 92,065.2 412,839.2
Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation New York-Newark, NY-NJ-
(PATH) CT 17,799,861 HR 83,612.3 358,256.7
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Los Angeles-North
Transportation Authority (LACMTA) Hollywood- , CA 11,789,487 HR 43,584.6 217,965.0
Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) Miami, FL 4,919,036 HR 18,538.7 142,152.1
Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-
Port Authority Transit Corporation (PATCO) MD 5,149,079 HR 10,337.9 93,480.3
Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) Baltimore, MD 2,076,354 HR 13,894.3 67,155.2
The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit
Authority (GCRTA) Cleveland, OH 1,786,647 HR 7,639.3 54,293.2
Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating
Authority, dba: MTA Staten Island Railway New York-Newark, NY-NJ-
(SIRTOA) CT 17,799,861 HR 7,650.9 45,166.9
Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation
Authority (PRHTA) San Juan, PR 2,216,616 HR 8,699.6 44,783.8
Toronto Transit Commission – Subway Toronto, Ontario 5,113,149 HR 247,000.0 -
Societe de transport de Montreal (Metro;
STM) Montreal, Quebec 3,635,600 HR 296,000.0 -
Vancouver, British
Translink (Skytrain) Columbia 2,116,581 HR 92,000.0 -
Category 2 total: 18
CATEGORY 3 – Light Rail
Los Angeles-Long Beach-
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Pasadena/East LA-El
Transportation Authority (LACMTA) Segundo, CA 11,789,487 LR 43,122.6 306,848.4
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System
(MTS) San Diego, CA 2,674,436 LR 37,620.9 206,923.8
9
Proposal for Rail Safety & Security Awards Program
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation
District of Oregon (TriMet) Portland, OR-WA 1,583,138 LR 38,931.6 193,574.4
Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority (MBTA) Boston, MA-NH-RI 4,032,484 LR 73,804.3 186,782.5
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington,
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) TX 4,145,659 LR 19,437.6 151,754.7
Bi-State Development Agency (METRO) St. Louis, MO-IL 2,077,662 LR 19,696.1 143,815.9
Denver Regional Transportation District
(RTD) Denver-Aurora, CO 1,984,889 LR 20,635.1 134,036.5
San Francisco-Oakland,
San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) CA 3,228,605 LR 50,312.7 133,115.7
Sacramento Regional Transit District
(Sacramento RT) Sacramento, CA 1,393,498 LR 15,484.7 85,806.6
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-
Authority (SEPTA) MD 5,149,079 LR 29,497.1 72,149.5
Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Salt Lake City, UT 887,650 LR 14,752.5 71,120.8
Metro Transit Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 2,388,593 LR 10,221.7 61,059.2
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) San Jose, CA 1,538,312 LR 10,451.1 54,474.9
Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) Baltimore, MD 2,076,354 LR 7,915.6 53,742.6
Port Authority of Allegheny County (Port
Authority) Pittsburgh, PA 1,753,136 LR 7,141.8 33,255.5
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris
County, Texas (Metro) Houston, TX 3,822,509 LR 11,800.9 29,795.5
The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit
Authority (GCRTA) Cleveland, OH 1,786,647 LR 3,262.0 19,271.3
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority
(NFT Metro) Buffalo, NY 976,703 LR 5,680.5 14,623.4
New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ New York-Newark, NY-NJ-
TRANSIT) CT 17,799,861 LR 6,196.9 14,075.6
Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) Charlotte, NC-SC 758,927 LR 2,262.6 13,064.9
New Orleans Regional Transit Authority
(NORTA) New Orleans, LA 1,009,283 LR 4,230.4 8,223.5
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit
Authority (ST) Seattle, WA 2,712,205 LR 926.1 919.4
Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) Memphis, TN-MS-AR 972,091 LR 1,014.8 820.2
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit
Authority (HART) Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 2,062,339 LR 484.7 728.9
King County Department of Transportation -
Metro Transit Division (King County Metro) Seattle, WA 2,712,205 LR 413.3 378.2
Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) Little Rock, AR 360,331 LR 134.2 206.6
Kenosha Transit (KT) Kenosha, WI 110,942 LR 65.8 73.2
New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ New York-Newark, NY-NJ-
TRANSIT) CT 17,799,861 LR 15,134.5 82,953.9
North County Transit District (NCTD) San Diego, CA 2,674,436 LR 718.0 7,466.8
Edmonton Transit System (ETS) Edmonton, Alberta 1,034,000 LR 33,600.0 -
Calgary Transit (CTrain) Calgary, Alberta 1,079,310 LR 91,000.0 -
Toronto Transit Commission - streetcar Toronto, Ontario 5,113,149 LR 52,000.0 -
OC Transpo (O-Train) Ottawa, Ontario 1,130,761 LR 4,900.0 -
10
Proposal for Rail Safety & Security Awards Program
Category 3 total: 33
Total potential U.S./ Canada participants, as of 2010: 76
* Note: Canadian data are unverified and are to be considered estimates, included for the
purpose of showing potential category breakdowns. The NTD does not reflect Canadian transit
agencies.
Sources:
Canadian Urban Transit Association (2006). “Rail Transit in Canada”. Issue Paper 19.
“Rapid Transit in Canada.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit_in_Canada
11
