welcome and introductions · 2017. 10. 20. · june 28-29, 2017 3 5 agenda –june 29, 2017 8:00am...

June 28-29, 2017

1

Center for Urban Transportation Research | University of South Florida

CUTR Transit Standards Working Group

June 28 – 29, 2017 l Pueblo, CO

2

Welcome and Introductions

• Lisa Stabler – President, TTCI

• Safety Briefing – Ruben Peña, TTCI

• Transit Standards Working Group Facilitator –James Tucci, P.E., WSO-CSSD, TSSP, FCP – K & J Safety and Security Consulting Services, Inc., President & Chief Engineer

June 28-29, 2017

2

3

CUTR Working Group Members

• Kurt Wilkinson, TriMet

• Ni Lee, BART

• Scott Sauer, SEPTA

• Ron Nickle, MBTA

• Paul Goyette, Lee Tran

• Rich Czeck, GCRTA

• Larry Baker, KCATA

• Vijay Khawani, LAMetro

• Will Jones, Greeley-Evans Transit

• Susan Hausmann, TxDOT

• Jeff Hiott, APTA

• Brian Alberts, APTA

• Charlie Dickson, CTAA

• Ed Watt, ATU

4

Agenda – June 28, 2017

8:00am Welcome and Introductions

8:40am Latest/Current Regulatory Activity

10:15am Working Group Subcommittee Project Updates

12:00pm Working Lunch

12:45pm Review Focus Areas

1:45pm Breakout 1 – Rank and Weight Focus Areas

3:35pm Breakout 2 – Priority Ranking Methodology

5:00pm Adjourn

6:30pm Working Group Dinner

June 28-29, 2017

3

5

Agenda – June 29, 2017

8:00am Discussion from Day 1

8:30am Metallurgy/Rail Defects Presentation

9:30am TTCI Facility Tour

11:30am Working Lunch

12:30pm Groups Present and Discuss Prioritization

2:00pm Discuss Safety Standards Strategic Plan

2:40pm Breakout 3 – Safety Standards Strategic Plan Input

4:40pm Session Review and Wrap Up

6

LATEST/CURRENT REGULATORY ACTIVITY

June 28-29, 2017

4

7

FTA General Directives

• Safety Advisory 17-1 – Stop Signal Overruns (WMATA Special Directive 16-5 and ProposedGeneral Directive 17-1)

• Right-of-Way Worker Protection (RWP) – (if published)

8

FTA Safety Directive

• WMATA – April 24, 2017 RWP

– Safety Directive 15-1

– Safety Directive 16-2

• Other Agencies

June 28-29, 2017

5

9

FTA Rules Update

• 49 CFR 625 Transit Asset Management (TAM)

– Subpart D Performance Management Requirements

• 49 CFR 630 National Transit Database Asset Inventory

– Reporting Requirements

– TAM Guidebook

10

FTA Rules Update (cont’d)

• 49 CFR 670 Public Transportation Safety Program

– Subpart D – National Public Transportation Safety Plan

• 49 CFR 673 Proposed Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan

• 49 CFR 674 State Safety Oversight

• Status - Preventing Transit Worker Assault

June 28-29, 2017

6

11

BREAK

12

WORKING GROUP SUBCOMMITTEE PROJECT UPDATES

June 28-29, 2017

7

Transportation Technology Center, Inc., a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads

© TTCI/AAR. p13

Event Data Recorder for

Transit Rail Vehicles

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p14

® EDR Status

♦ Task 1 – Complete

●Industry need

●Literature search

●Gap Analysis

♦ Task 2 - 95% complete

●Data collection

▲Finalizing last data collection forms received

●Modifications to current standards

●Recommendations

▲Revised completion data of June 30, 2017 to add recommendation related to data retention of EDR data after download

June 28-29, 2017

8

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p15

® NTSB Reports

♦ Safety Recommendation R-10-022 – In June 2009, an inbound

WMATA train struck a stopped inbound train. The accident results

in 9 deaths due to the telescoping of one train car onto another.

The 1000-series Metrorail cars involved in the accident were not

equipped with onboard event recorders and as a result NTSB

investigators had to compile other source of information to

determine speed, braking performance, and position time history of

the colliding train. As a result, the NTSB recommended to WMATA

“Develop and implement a program to monitor the performance of

onboard event recorders and ensure they are functioning

properly.”*

*National Transportation Safety Board. 2010 “Safety Recommendation R-10-022.”

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p16

® NTSB Reports

♦ Safety Recommendation R-02-19 – Two rear-end collisions

occurred within 2-month period in 2001 at CTA. The investigation

found deficiencies in CTA management approach to ensuring rules

compliance and also in the data loggers performance related to

preserving time. As a result of the two accidents, the NTSB

recommended to the FTA “Require that new or rehabilitated

vehicles funded by Federal Transit Administration grants be

equipped with event recorders meeting Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers Standard 1482.1 for rail transit vehicle event

recorders.”*

*National Transportation Safety Board. 2002 “Safety Recommendation R-02-019”

June 28-29, 2017

9

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p17

® NTSB Reports

♦ Multiple NTSB recommendations to the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) regarding event recorders with

hardened crashworthiness and fire-protecting

standards, maintenance criteria to confirm event

recorders are working

●National Transportation Safety Board. 1998 “Safety Recommendation R-98-030.”



© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p18

® Other Transportation Modes

Implementation of EDRs (black boxes)

♦ Aviation industry mandated in 1967

♦ Automobile industry mandated in 2006 EDR installation

for newly manufactured personal automobiles

June 28-29, 2017

10

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p19

® FTA Report Recommending EDR Use in

Rail Rapid Transit Systems

♦ Basic Event Recorder – Records accident and incident data that

can be used for analysis by transit management and government

investigators. Primarily used for accident/incident investigation.

♦ Enhanced Event Recorders – Records all basic event recorder data,

but also records performance functions that could be used by

maintenance personnel and engineering/management for diagnosis

and monitoring of system performance.

♦ Monitoring and Diagnostic Recorders – Provides all basic and

enhanced event recorder data collection, but allows the data to be

used in real time for the operator and for historical performance

data. This type of EDR may record more data functions and store

data for longer periods of time.

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p20

® Industry Stakeholder Discussion

♦ All new rail vehicles being procured should have EDRs

installed

♦ Equipping EDRs on older equipment going through mid-

life rehabilitation or on legacy equipment may be too

costly and/or not feasible.

●Should allow for waiver for existing fleets or legacy equipment to be exempt from EDR requirement

♦ Universal format of data from EDRs would be nice

♦ Consider incident/accident EDRs different than EDRs

collection other data for operation/maintenance related

activities

♦ Data security related to alternative data downloads

June 28-29, 2017

11

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p21

® Standards and Regulations

♦ Regulations for freight and commuter locomotives

♦ Standards

Country Transportation

Mode

Document Title Applicability Specification

Type

USA Freight/Commuter

Rail

FRA 49 CFR

229.135

Event Recorders Any train operating

>30mph

Data Collection


Rail

FRA 49 CFR

Part 229.25

and 229.27

Inspection and

Test for Event

Data Recorders

Any train operating

>30mph

Design


Rail

FRA 49 CFR

Appendix D to

Part 229

Criteria for

Certification of

Crashworthy

Event Recorder

Memory Module

Any train operating

>30mph

Design

Country Transportation

Mode

Document Title Applicability Specification

Type

USA Freight Rail AAR MSRP

Standard S-

5512

Event Recorders for

Locomotives

Locomotives Design & Data

Collection

USA All Rail Modes APTA-RT-VIM-

RP-015-03

Recommended Practice

for On-Board Recording

Equipment Periodic

Inspection and

Maintenance

Any rail vehicle

equipped with

EDR

Data Collection

USA All Rail Modes IEEE Standard

1482.1

Standard for Rail Transit

Vehicle Event Recorder

Any locomotive Design & Data

Collection

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p22

® Comparison Between IEEE 1482.1 and

CFR Regulation

♦ Similarities

●Data storage – Both define the minimum amount of EDR data to store in memory as 48 hours of data

●Data collected – Both specifications define the signals to be recorded

▲FRA 49 CFR 229.135 criteria is aimed at locos/DMU/ EMUs

▲IEEE 1482.1 standard lists additional signals for transit vehicles. IEEE 1482.1 standard does list a correlation between IEEE specification and 49 CFR 229.135.

●Crashworthiness – IEEE 1482.1 uses the same criteria as Option A listed in 49 CFR 229.135

●Health monitoring of the system – Both specifications define EDR health monitoring by use of self-tests designed into the EDR. Only if self-tests indicate a failure, further testing and maintenance is completed.

June 28-29, 2017

12

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p23


CFR Regulation

♦ Differences

●Location

▲FRA 49 CFR 229.135 - Lead loco or in a loco that can record the specific information as it was in the lead locomotive

▲IEEE 1482.1 - one functioning EDR per transit car

●Age of EDR installed and type of locomotive/DMU/EMU –

▲FRA 49CFR 229.135 defines criteria for equipment based on year put into service

●Preservation of data after download –

▲FRA 49 CFR 229.135 lists the minimum time to preserve data after download of data as 1 Year

▲IEEE 1482.1 does not provide any criteria related to data after downloaded

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p24


CFR Regulation

♦ Differences

●Documentation related to working EDRs –

▲FRA 49 CFR 229.135 defines the required documentation to be filled out in relation to working EDRs and EDRs removed from service

▲IEEE 1482.1 does not require any documentation

●Data Collection sampling and filtering rates –

▲FRA 49 CFR does not define sampling or filtering rates

▲IEEE 1482.1 specification does

June 28-29, 2017

13

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p25

® Gap Analysis

♦ Two specifications target all the categories

●IEEE 1482.1

●AAR MSRP (Actually refers to IEEE 1482.1)Document Title Event Type Targeted Specification Category

Incident Operational/

Maintenance

Minimum Data

Requirements

Data

Collection

Method

Storage Rates Health

Monitoring of

EDR

Crashworthiness Output

49 CFR

229.135

Event Recorders Yes Yes but

would

require

modifications

X X X

FRA 49 CFR

Appendix B Part

229.25 and

229.27

Inspection and Test for

Event Data RecordersYes Yes but

would

require

modifications

X

49 CFR

Appendix D to

Part 229

Criteria for Certification

of Crashworthy Event

Recorder Memory

Module

Yes Yes but

would

require

modifications

X

AAR MSRP

Standard S-

5512 (note

References

IEEE)

Event Recorders for

Locomotives

Yes Yes but

would

require

modifications

X X X X X X

APTA-RT-VIM-

RP-015-03

Recommended Practice

for On-Board Recording

Equipment Periodic

Inspection and

Maintenance

Yes Yes but

would

require

modifications

X

IEEE Standard

1482.1



Yes Yes but

would

require

modifications

X X X X X X

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p26

® Gap Analysis

♦ Items Not Covered by Existing Specifications

●Universal Output

▲Subcommittee Recommendation to be discussed at end of presentation

●Data security related to alternative download methods

▲Subcommittee Recommendation to be discussed at end of presentation

●Data retention after download of data (IEEE1482.1 specifically)

June 28-29, 2017

14

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p27

® Discussion on Data Retention after Data

is Downloaded

♦ Data retention AFTER download brought up at end of

May

●As a result, emergency subcommittee meeting was called to discuss

♦ Differences between agencies and states

●State defined

●Data is kept until litigation has passed or statute of litigation has passed

♦ Data retention after download requirements would have

to specify reason for download (incident/accident vs.

operation/maintenance)

●Policy for operational/maintenance likely to be different than incident/accident data

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p28

® Specifications Outside of State Policy

♦ FTA Best Practices Procurement Manual (BPPM)

●Record retention for FTA grantees requires grantees to retain project related documents for three years following completion of FT funded project. It any litigation claim, negotiation, audit, or other action is started before the 3 year period, the records must be retained until completion of the action and resolution or until the end of the 3 year period, whichever is later.

♦ DOT Rule 49 CFR Part 40 Section 40.333 – Drug and

alcohol record keeping requires retention 5 years from

incident with positive drug test, alcohol concentration of

0.02 or greater, refusal to take test, and all follow-up test

♦ FRA 49 CFR 229.135 – Preserves EDR data download for

1 year

June 28-29, 2017

15

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p29

® Discussion continued on Data Retention

after Data Download

♦ Could NTD reportable accidents be used for data

retention policy applicability?

●Definition for serious injury is complicated….

♦ Recommendation discussion

●Agency has a policy for data retention but not defined by FTA but by state or litigation policy??

●Other ideas?

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p30

® Modifications to Specifications for

Applicability to Transit Rail Vehicles

Document Title Type of Rail Vehicle

Standard was Written

Modifications Required to Apply Standard to

Transit Vehicles

FRA 49 CFR

229.135

Event Recorders

(Details data to

collect only)

Train travelling >30 mph

with locomotive equipped

with EDR

Data to collect would need to be modified to

include

Multiple Automatic Train Control (ATC)

status

Passenger door status

Pantograph or third rail status

FRA 49 CFR

Appendix B Part

229.25 and

229.27

Inspection and

Test for Event

Data Recorders

Locomotive travelling > 30

mph

Would require modifications language referring

to FRA forms and requirements to report to FRA

if data is requested.

FRA 49 CFR

Appendix D Part

229

Criteria for

Certification of

Crashworthy Event

Recorder Memory

Module

Locomotive travelling >30

mph

No Changes required

AAR Manual of

Standards

(MSRP) Standard

S-5512

Event Recorders

for Locomotives

Locomotive Refers to IEEE 1482.1 specification but changes

would be required to refer to the specification for

transit rail vehicles specific data requirements

and not locomotive only data required.

APTA-RT-VIM-

RP-015-03

Recommended

Practice for On-

Board Recording

Equipment

Periodic Inspection

& Maintenance

Transit Rail Vehicles No Changes required

IEEE Standard

1482.1

Standard for Rail

Transit Vehicle

Event Recorder

Transit Rail Vehicles Retention of data after download

June 28-29, 2017

16

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p31

® Testing Required for EDRs

♦ Testing defined in specifications

●Crashworthiness of EDR (Fire, Shock, Fluid Immersion, Pressure, and more)

●Health of EDRDocument Title Testing Requirement

FRA 49 CFR

229.135

Event Recorders (Details

data to collect only)

FRA 49 CFR

Appendix B Part

229.25 and

229.27

Inspection and Test for

Event Data Recorders

Criteria for inspection of EDRs based on type of EDR

installed. Lists specific intervals to check.

FRA 49 CFR

Appendix D Part

229

Criteria for Certification of

Crashworthy Event

Recorder Memory Module

Criteria for crashworthiness and what tests need to be

completed.

AAR Manual of

Standards

(MSRP) Standard

S-5512

Event Recorders for

Locomotives

Refers to IEEE 1482.1 requirements

APTA-RT-VIM-

RP-015-03

Recommended Practice for

On-Board Recording

Equipment Periodic

Inspection & Maintenance

Recommends periodic inspection and test time intervals for

health of EDR system.

IEEE Standard

1482.1



Criteria for periodic inspection/test and crashworthiness but

does not define how to test. Crashworthiness criteria

defines the types of tests. Leaves the supplier responsible

for showing it meets the criteria.

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p32

® Data Collection of EDR Implementation in

Transit Rail Vehicles

♦ Data collection effort (similar effort completed in 2007

used as comparison)

●38 agencies responded in 2017

●37 agencies in 2017

●Missing a few agencies with larger rail fleets (WMATA, Tren Urbano, MTA-MD)

Vehicles Equipped with

EDR, 5013, 40%

Vehicles Not Equipped with

EDR, 7634, 60%

2017 Study 12,591 12647

3,246

5013

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

2007 Study 2017 Study

Vehicles in Fleet Vehicles Equipped with EDR

June 28-29, 2017

17

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p33

® EDR Implementation by Mode - 2017

♦ Light rail mode has 67% implementation of EDRs in

vehicles

♦ Heavy rail mode has 34% implementation of EDRs in

vehicles

Equipped with EDR, 3446, 34%

Not Equipped with EDR, 6705, 66%

Heavy Rail Vehicles



Light Rail Vehicles



Street Cars

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p34

® EDR Implementation – 2007 vs. 2017

♦ Implementation is increasing

●New vehicles being procured with EDRs

10,15110,747

2,2761,844

212 N/A

3,4462,614

1,529632

300

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007

Heavy Rail Vehicles Light Rail Vehicles Street Cars

Total Vehicles Equipped with EDRs

June 28-29, 2017

18

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p35

® Draft Final Report Recommendations

♦ Recommendation 1: FTA should consider mandating

the installation of EDRs on all new transit rail vehicles

and EDRs installed should meet or exceed the IEEE

1482.1 criteria.

●Transit vehicles not equipped with EDRs represent over 60% of the rail transit vehicles in service today. Accident investigation becomes more difficult when EDRs are not installed on transit vehicles. Multiple NTSB recommendations have identified the need for all transit vehicles be EDR equipped.

●IEEE 1482.1 is a standard that is an industry accepted standard as many agencies are using the standard in RFPs for new vehicles.

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p36


♦ Recommendation 2: FTA consider issuing a voluntary

standard for transit rail vehicles going through a mid-life

rehabilitation to implement EDRs meeting or exceeding

IEEE 1482.1 specifications. A voluntary standard for

existing fleets would allow for agencies with legacy

equipment or equipment that would be too costly to

implement EDRs.

●Transit vehicles not equipped with EDRs represent approximately 60% of vehicles in service today. EDR implementation during a mid-life rehabilitation may be impossible on legacy equipment or be too costly for the remainder of the life of the vehicle.

June 28-29, 2017

19

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p37


♦ Recommendation 3: FTA work with IEEE, APTA or other

SDOs to develop a standard for common data download

format (text or csv). This would allow EDR

manufacturers to have their own proprietary programs,

but also allow a review of data without any special

viewing software.

●Discussions with the industry stakeholders identified the need to a common data download format to allow for easy viewing of EDR data. This common download method could be useful for both agencies and for NTSB investigators. Data collection from agencies indicated multiple types of special software is required to view the data based on the type/manufacturer of EDR.

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p38


♦ Recommendation 4: FTA allow each agency the

flexibility to define local operational/maintenance EDR

data collection.

●EDR data collection for operational/maintenance decisions currently has varied use by agency as some use the data frequency (daily) and some use less regularly (weekly/monthly or as needed).

●Members of the working group representing transit agencies suggest that due to the varied needs of agencies and also the ability of some agencies to review and manage data, operational/maintenance data collection should be defined by agencies.

June 28-29, 2017

20

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p39


♦ Recommendation 5: FTA work with IEEE, APTA or other

SDOs to develop a separate standard for secure transfer

of data from WI-FI enabled EDRs.

●EDR specifications do not list any requirements for security of data related to download via the use of WI-FI.

♦ Recommendation 6???

●Data retention after download


© TTCI/AAR. p40

Emergency Lighting and

Signage for Rail Transit

Systems –

Standards Development

TTCI

MC Jones

June 28-29, 2017

21

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p41

® Emergency Lighting and Signage for Rail

Transit Systems

♦ Work Scope

●Task 1 - Background Research

▲Industry need

▲Literature review

●Task 2 – Applicability and Modification of Standards Analysis

▲Review literature found in Task 1 for applicability

▲Identify modifications that are required to implement

▲Identify testing needs (if any)

▲Industry data collection

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p42

® Definitions

♦ Emergency lighting – refers to lighting used during an

emergency (when normal lighting fails) inside the railcar

only

♦ Emergency signage – refers to the signs attached to the

car for emergency egress of people

♦ Low location emergency path markings (LLEP)

●Identify location of primary door exits and exit paths within low-location areas (includes lighting and signage requirements)

June 28-29, 2017

22

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p43

® Industry Need

♦ Several rail accidents over the past 20+ years have

identified standardized emergency lighting and signage

on passenger railcars.

●February, 1996, Silver Springs, Maryland (11 killed, 26 injured)-A collision between an Amtrak passenger train and a Maryland Area Rail Commuter (MARC) passenger train caused the fuel tank of the MARC train to be ruptured and as a result, a fire started. Due to the inability of passengers and emergency personnel to find and open the doors, NTSB recommended “all exterior emergency door release mechanisms on passenger cars be functional before a passenger car is placed in revenue service, that the emergency door release mechanism be placed in a readily accessible position and marked for easy identification in emergencies and derailments, and that these requirements be incorporated into minimum passenger car safety standards.”

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p44

® Industry Need Identified by Subcommittee

♦ Internationally recognizable signs

♦ Signs related to emergency exits near third rail

♦ Challenges may exist because signage could differ

greatly between agencies

June 28-29, 2017

23

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p45

® Emergency Lighting for Rail Transit

Systems

♦ Specifications categorized for type of requirements

●Location

●Illuminance criteria

●Power source

●Procedures for testing to meet illuminance criteria.

●Operating conditions

●Maintenance

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p46

® Emergency Lighting for Rail Transit

Systems

♦ Current specifications – Note two APTA specifications (one for

“Rail Transit” and one for “Passenger Rail Vehicles”

Country

(Type of Vehicle)

Document Location Illuminance Power Source Testing

Procedures

Operating

Conditions

Maintenance

US (Commuter) Title 49 CFR 238.115

Emergency Lighting

Yes Yes Yes No Yes No

US (Transit) APTA RT-VIM-S-

020-10 Emergency

Lighting System

Design fro Rail

Transit Vehicles

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

US (Freight) AAR Manual of

Standards, Section M

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

EU (Passenger) Requirements for

emergency lighting

on passenger rail

vehicles.

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

US (Passenger) APTA SS-E-013-99

Standard for

Emergency Lighting

on Passenger

Vehicles


EU (Passenger) EN 13272:2012 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Australia (Passenger) T HR RS 12001 ST

Interior and Exterior

Lighting for

Passenger Rolling

Stock

Yes Yes Yes No No No

OSHA regulations

(non-rail industry) Regulations 29CFR

Subpart 1910.37(b)

Yes No No No No No

June 28-29, 2017

24

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p47

® Comparison of APTA specification and EN

13272: 2012

♦ Differences between documents● Illuminance

▲APTA specifications define illuminance by foot-candles (lux) and Passenger railcar specification has requirements for equipment ordered and placed in service before OR after a date.

▲EN specification defines average illumination (lux)

● Testing

▲APTA Specifications must more rigorous in testing requirements

● Operating Conditions – APTA Specification specify conditions (vibration, shock, equipment orientation)

Country

(Type of

Vehicle)

Document Location Illuminance Power Source Testing

Procedures

Operating

Conditions

Maintenance

US (Transit) APTA RT-VIM-S-

020-10 Emergency

Lighting System

Design for Rail

Transit Vehicles


US

(Passenger)

APTA SS-E-013-99

Standard for

Emergency Lighting

on Passenger

Vehicles


EU

(Passenger)EN 13272:2012

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p48

®

Major Differences between APTA Specifications

for Passenger Cars and for Transit Vehicles

♦ Locations

●Passenger car specification includes toilet area

♦ Illuminance criteria

●Transit car specification does not separate requirements for older equipment

June 28-29, 2017

25

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p49

® Emergency Lighting Specifications

♦ Three documentsDocument Need Modifications for

Transit

APTA RT-VIM-S-020-10 (Transit)*No

APTA SS-E-013-99 Standard for Emergency

Lighting on Passenger Vehicles (Commuter)

Yes

BS EN 13272:2012 (European)Yes

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p50

® Emergency Signage for Rail Transit

Systems

♦ Specifications categorized for type of requirements

●Location of interior signs

●Location of exterior signs

●Sign size and letter size

●Illuminance criteria

●Component material


●Inspection and maintenance

June 28-29, 2017

26

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p51

® Emergency Signage for Rail Transit

Systems

♦ Current specifications

♦ Note: APTA has two specifications. Once is written for

“Passenger cars” and another for “Transit Vehicles”

●Major difference between APTA specifications

▲Passenger car specification has specifications related to cars purchased before April 7, 2008 and put in service before January 1, 2011

Country

(Type of

Vehicle)

Document Location

(Interior/

Exterior)

Sign Size and

Letter Size

Illuminance Component

Material

Operating

Conditions

Maintenance &

Inspection

US

(Passenger)

APTA PR-PS-S-002-98

Standard for Emergency

Signage for Egress/Access

of Passenger Rail

Equipment

Yes/Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

US (Transit) APTA-RT-VIM-S-021-10

Emergency Signage for

Rail Transit Vehicles

Yes/Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

US

(Passenger)

Title 49 CFR 238.123

Emergency Roof

Access

Yes Interior only No No No No No

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p52

®

♦ Three documents with criteria for all major categories

found in Task 1

Emergency Signage Specifications

Document Need Modifications for Transit

APTA RT-VIM-S-021-10 (Transit)*No

APTA PR-S-S-002-98 Standard for Emergency

Signage for Egress/Access to Passenger Rail

Equipment (Commuter)

Yes

Title 49 CFR 238.123 Emergency Roof AccessYes

ISO 7010Yes

June 28-29, 2017

27

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p53

® International Organization for

Standardization (ISO) Graphical Symbols

♦ ISO 7010 – more internationally

recognizable emergency signs

●Emergency Exit (E001 and E002)

●Break to obtain access (E08)

●Indication of how to open door (E018 and E019)

●No other specific signs that could be applicable

♦ If new symbols were to be adopted by

ISO, they would have to meet ISO

22727 requirements

●May be very difficult

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p54

® Emergency Exits Signage for Exit Near

Third Rail

♦ NO specifications/standard

♦ UMTA Recommended Emergency Preparedness

Guidelines for Rail Transit Systems

●Emergency exit paths should not require passengers to step over the third rail but no signage requirements

♦ Subcommittee recommendation to look at signage

related to roadway workers (underway)

June 28-29, 2017

28

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p55

® Low Location Emergency Path Markings

♦ APTA PR-PS-S-004-99 allows for electrically powered or

passive LLEP system

♦ APTA RT0VIM-S-022-10 (transit) allows for only passive

(non electrically powered) LLEP system

♦ Each APTA specification refers to the rail mode’s

corresponding emergency signage and lighting specs

and

●ASTM E2073-02 Standard Test Method for Photopic Luminance of Photo luminescent

Country

(Type of Vehicle)

Document

US (Passenger)APTA PR-PS-S-004-99, Rev. 2

Standard for Low-Location Exit Path Marking

US (Transit) APTA-RT-VIM-S-022-10

Low Location Emergency Path Markings for Rail Transit Vehicles

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p56

® LLEP Requirements

♦ LLEP Markings

●Location (prescriptive about where and line of site visibility

▲Primary door exit signs

▲Primary door exit marking/delineators

▲Exit path mark

●Material for both signs and markers

●Charging light and illuminance

●Testing requirements

●Reliability


●Maintenance and inspection

June 28-29, 2017

29

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p57

® Gap Analysis Summary

♦ APTA standards available may not cover all of the

industry need

●Internationally recognizable signs

●Emergency exit signage near third rail

♦ Other standards from other industry may be able to be

used but would likely need major modification and

potential rewrite/redesign

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p58

® Industry Data Collection Underway

♦ General – fleet size and type of implementation of

emergency lighting and signage

♦ Emergency lighting

●What standards were used for existing fleets (and future fleets)

♦ Emergency signage

●Suspect that agencies are using many different styles of signage (pictures, words, colors, illuminance). Requesting examples be sent.

●What standards were used for existing fleets (and future fleets)

●Has agency looked at more internationally recognizable signs (language vs. pictures)?

●Signage related to emergency exits near third rail

♦ LLEP Marking

●What standards were used?

●Fleet implementation

June 28-29, 2017

30

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p59

® Discussion

♦ Should standard only be applicable to to newly

procured transit vehicles?

♦ APTA specifications for transit vehicle adequate?

●Emergency lighting

●Emergency signage

▲Does not address internationally recognizable signs

▲Does not address third rail signs

●Low Location emergency path markings

▲Does not address internationally recognizable signs

▲Does not address third rail signs

♦ Vehicles undergoing mid-life refurbishment?

●Allow for waiver for non-implementation on older equipment or legacy equipment?

♦ Other?


© TTCI/AAR. p60

Crash Energy

Management (CEM) for

Transit Rail VehiclesTTCI

MC Jones

Enrico Sciandra

June 28-29, 2017

31

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p61

® CEM For Transit Rail Vehicles – Progress

Update

♦ Task 1 (100% complete)

●Industry need

●Available standards

●Gap analysis

♦ Task 2 (80% complete)

●Modifications to standards

●Data collection effort

●Recommendations

♦ Donation of (3) WMATA 4000 car series to FTA Safety

Standards Program

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p62

® NTSB Reports

♦ 1996 WMATA – 1 person killed

●“Undertake, with the assistance of qualified engineering support, a comprehensive evaluation of the design specifications of all series of Metrorail cars with respect to resisting carbody telescoping and providing better passenger protection, and make the necessary modifications, such as incorporating underframe bracing or similar features, to improve the crashworthiness for cars in the current and/or future Metrorail car”1

●WMATA found modifications to the 1000-series cars (Rohr-built) were impractical and embarked on procurement of the 5000 and 6000-car series.

1National Transportation Safety Board. 1996 “Safety Recommendation R-96-037”

June 28-29, 2017

32

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p63

® NTSB Reports

♦ 2004 – WMATA – Woodley Park – 20 people injured

●The NTSB recommended to WMATA to “either accelerate retirement of Rohr-built railcars, or if those railcars are not retired but instead rehabilitated, then the Rohr-built passenger railcars should incorporate a retrofit of crashworthiness collision protection that is comparable to the 6000-series railcars”2

●NTSB recommended to the FTA to “develop minimum crashworthiness standards to prevent the telescoping of transit railcars in collisions and establish a timetable for removing equipment that cannot be modified to meet the new standards.”

2National Transportation Safety Board. 2006 “Safety Recommendation R-06-002”

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p64

® NTSB Reports

♦ 2008 – MBTA Green Line – 1 fatality, 7 injured

●Although the two cars involved were equipped with anticlimbdevices, the understructure and end structure failed on both trolley cars, resulting in the loss of more than 10 feet of survivable space on both cars.3

●NTSB recommendations was exactly the same as the recommendation in 2004 for WMATA

3National Transportation Safety Board. 2009 “Collision Between Two Massachusetts Bay

Transportation Authority Green Line Trains Newton, Massachusetts May 28, 2008.” July 14, 2009

June 28-29, 2017

33

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p65

® NTSB Reports

♦ 2009 – WMATA -8 killed ad 80 injured

●WMATA Metrorail train with 1000-series cars struck a train with 3000-series and 5000-series cars, killing 8 and injuring 80. The collision caused telescoping of the train that was hit.

●The NTSB concluded that the “severity of the passenger injuries and number of fatalities was WMATA’s failure to replace or retrofit the 1000-series railcars after those were shown in a previous accident to exhibit poor crashworthiness.”4

4 “July 27, 2010 Railroad Accident Report – Collision of Two Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Metrorail Trains Near Fort Totten Station Washington, D.C. June 22, 2009.” July 27, 2010.

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p66

® National Transit Database (NTD)5

♦ Data does not provide detail to allow for direct correlation to

injuries or fatalities that could be prevented or minimized by

implementation of CEM

●Heavy rail collisions would most typically be with another train (limited interaction with automobiles)

▲Rate of injuries from heavy rail train to train collisions

─ Increased by over 400 percent

1 injury every 100 million vehicle revenue miles in 2011

5.5 injuries every 100 million vehicle revenue miles in 2013

These collisions could have severe consequences in terms of available space for survivability of passengers and operator if telescoping between the cars occurs and also due to injuries related to the interior fittings of the car

●Light rail or streetcar train to automobile collisions accounted for 71 percent of all light rail and streetcar collision injuries in 2013.

5 2013. “Rail Safety Statistics Report.” FTA

June 28-29, 2017

34

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p67

®Injury Mechanism and Standards to Address

♦ Primary collision● CEM targets reducing accelerations at impact and providing space for

survivability

● Design and structural performance standards to address carbodystructural stiffness (i.e.: compression load)

♦ Secondary collision● CEM increases secondary impact velocity in the first car

● Design and structural performance standards to address interior fixation performance (i.e. seats attachment and seat arrangement)

● Passenger performance targets human survivability criteria (related to secondary impact against interior fittings)

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p68

® CEM – Structural Performance

♦ CEM design

●Structure fails in controlled manner and as a result, vehicle behavior is more predictable

●Slows down crash event, reducing peak accelerations

●Creates crumple zone

●Less likely to leave the right-of-way

June 28-29, 2017

35

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p69

® Standards

♦ Available standards focused on transit rail vehicles

●EN 15227, Railway Applications: Crashworthiness Requirements for Rail Vehicle Bodies

▲Lists criteria based on type of rail vehicle

●ASME RT-1-2009: Safety Standard for Structural Requirements for Light Rail Vehicles

▲Includes Street cars

●ASME RT-2-2014: Safety Standard for Structural Requirements for Heavy Rail Transit Vehicles

●EN 12663, Railway Applications: Structural requirements for Railway Vehicle Bodies

Design for Strength Performance Based

Standard Design-based Structural performance-based Passenger performance-based

RequirementsStatic load the structure

must withstandEnergy absorption

(load versus displacement)Biomechanical limit values

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p70

® Standards

♦ Available standards focused on commuter rail (require

some modification)

●49 CFR 238.201 to 230 for TIER I

●49 CFR 238.401 to 429 for TIER II

●APTA-PR-CS-S-034-99 Standard for the Design and Construction of Passenger Railroad Rolling Stock

●EN 15227, Railway Applications: Crashworthiness Requirements for Rail Vehicle Bodies

June 28-29, 2017

36

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p71

®

Other Transportation Mode Standards to Consider

UN ECE 21 – evaluation of dashboard

stiffness through Head Injury Criteria

FMVSS 201 – evaluation of dashboard

stiffness through Head Injury CriteriaPossible assessment of dashboard stiffness

regarding femur load and knee displacement

Possible assessment through

Passenger Performance CriteriaSP

SP

D

SP

SP-PP

SP

PP

SP

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p72

® Crashworthiness Evaluation of Light Rail

Vehicle Interiors-Research Report Found

Injury mechanism Possible improvement

Contact between

head and seat back

(Head, neck )

Head rest and seat back

Contact between

occupants (Head,

neck and femur load)

Seat configuration to be

avoided

Contact with

passenger seated in

aft-facing seats or

with other passenger

in lateral facing seats

(head, neck, femur)

Compartmentalization

(padded barrier or divider

at both ends of the

seating section)

Contact with seat

back (head, neck

and femur). No

incursion into the

cabin considered

(can increase

injuries)

Seat configuration to be

avoided

Compartmentalization is a design that aim to confine

the passenger during the crash, thus preventing the

passenger impact against other passenger or stiff

structure.

June 28-29, 2017

37

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p73

® APTA-PR-CS-S-016-99 applicability to

heavy rail, light rail and streetcars

● Sled test for forward and rear facing seat configuration

▲Forward to investigate seat performance and injuries derived from secondary collision with the forward seat

▲Rear facing to evaluate neck and head injury criteria

● For applicability to heavy rail, light rail and streetcars:

▲Analyze seats layout to be tested

▲Revise crash pulse (depending on vehicle maximum velocity)

▲ Injury criteria directly applicable (depending on passenger percentile)

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p74

® Gap Analysis

♦ Industry need is standard(s) to address

●Structural integrity related to primary collision

▲Reduced and controlled collision

▲Survival space

●Passenger performance related to secondary collision

▲Strength and crashworthiness of interior fittings (handhold, seat attachments, and more)

▲Seat arrangement

♦ Standards identified

●Structural integrity – ASME Standards written for transit rail vehicles

●Passenger performance – Standards identified could be enhanced and/or requires modifications for transit rail vehicles

▲Head injury criteria is only used

▲Seat arrangement standard only for commuter

June 28-29, 2017

38

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p75

® Data Collection

♦ Industry data collection effort underway

●Identify implementation or planned implementation of CEM in transit vehicle fleets

●Specifications used in implementation

●Retrofit plans (if any)

●Assessment of effectiveness (modeling/testing/combination of both)

●Seat layout

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p76

® CEM Strategies

♦ WMATA 1000 to 6000 series

● Fully interoperable

● Built to same technological template

● Emphasis on technical commonality

♦ WMATA 7000 series

● Adopt new technologies, drop full interoperability

▲Replaceable absorption elements in anti-climber

▲Non replaceable main absorption elements between anti-climber and carbody bolster

♦ WMATA 8000 series

● According to ASME standard

♦ Honolulu

● According to mixed standard (ASME & EN 15227)

♦ MTBA

● CEM modular and replaceable

▲ Interoperability with old vehicle

▲Possible upgrading when old vehicle will be replaced

▲Possible different components according to maximum speed

June 28-29, 2017

39

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p77

® Conclusion

♦ The accident report and NTSB recommendations point out the

necessity of Crash Energy Management equipment

● CEM will address the structural integrity and survivability space but does not specifically address secondary impacts that can cause fatalities and injuries.

♦ To decrease injuries due to the secondary impact based on

research reports found could be obtained by compartmentalization,

but seat design and layout are important.

● No standards available in transit rail industry to use for compartmentalization, seat design and layout.

♦ Crashworthiness of interior fittings and evaluation of seat

performance could be investigated by means of other non-railway

standards, testing at component level and measuring the

passenger injury criteria.

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p78

® WMATA 4000 Car Series Donation to

Project

♦ FTA has acquired 3 WMATA 4000 car series cars for

Standards Development Project

♦ Could be used in CEM, EDR, Emergency Lighting and

Signage work or potential others.

June 28-29, 2017

40

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p79

® Internal layout

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p80

® Internal layout – seat installation

June 28-29, 2017

41

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p81

® Internal layout – operator’s space

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p82

® Internal layout – wheelchair

June 28-29, 2017

42

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p83

® Discussion on Recommendations

♦ Should CEM standards be implemented for new purchase of cars?

● Regulatory vs. voluntary?

♦ Should the ASME standards be recommended as the standard for

CEM?

♦ What about cars going through mid-life rehabilitation? Should they

be required to be retro-fitted?

● Investigate if vehicles can be retro-fitted and if it is economical in mid-life rehabilitation?

♦ Should evaluation of compartmentalization, seat design and layout

be completed to identify ways to reduce injury and death related to

secondary impacts?

♦ Should testing be completed to evaluate the ASME standards and

APTA standards related to head injury criteria and potentially other

injury criteria?

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p84

® Discussion continued

♦ Should CEM be evaluated for influence on secondary impacts? If

so, use of ATDs could help identify passenger survivability during

those secondary impacts and could be compared to automobile

passenger performance standards.

♦ Should this work account for wheelchair anchorages?

June 28-29, 2017

43

85

Crashworthiness/Crash Energy Management (CEM) for Transit Bus

86

Crashworthiness/CEM for Bus Transit Systems – Needs Assessment

• An analysis of the National Transit Database (NTD) Safety and Security 40 (S & S 40) major incidents database indicates

– 411 fatal transit bus involvements occurred between 2011 through 2015

– resulting in 427 fatal injuries

– demand response buses (typically cutaway vehicles) accounted for 32 of the 411 fatal transit bus involvements

• During that same timeframe, there were over

– 21,500 total collision events involving buses

– resulting in more than 40,600 non-fatal injuries

June 28-29, 2017

44

87

Crashworthiness/CEM for Bus Transit Systems – Standards that Exist

• Literature review of standards and specifications– Examples of Federal standards include:

• Title 49 CFR 571 sections 201-404 including, but not limited to:– §571.204 “Steering control rearward displacement”

– §571.205 “Glazing materials”

– §571.213 “Child restraint systems”

– §571.217 “Bus emergency exits and window retention and release”

– §571.302 “Flammability of interior materials”

• Some apply only to the driver’s seat, such as:– Title 49 CFR §571.207 “Seating systems”

– §571.208 “Occupant crash protection”

– §571.209 “Seat belt assemblies”

– §571.210 “Seat belt assembly anchorages”

• Some applicability is dependent on gross vehicle weight rating (10k lbs. or less)

– §571.201, Occupant protection in interior impact

– §571.214, Side impact protection

88


• Altoona Bus Research and Testing

–Safety tests include the Handling and Stability Test and a Braking Performance Test.

• The Handling and Stability Test ensures the operator can maneuver the bus through a double lane change at a speed of 45 miles per hour.

• The Braking Performance Test subjects the bus to a series of brake stops from specified speeds, in addition to the evaluation of the parking brake performance on a twenty percent grade for a five-minute time period

–While these tests are necessary, they do not confirm or establish the crashworthiness of the bus.

June 28-29, 2017

45

89


• Altoona Bus Research and Testing

–Safety Benefits from other Altoona bus tests include detecting defects that are directly related to safety:

• Bus fires

• Cracked CNG cylinder support brackets

• CNG fuel system cracks/ leaks

• Fuel tank leaks

• Fire detection/ suppression system failures

• High current electrical short circuits

• Broken steering/ suspension components

90


• State Standards/ Administrative Rules

– Some states have adopted FMVSS for vans or buses manufactured or operated in their state.• Minnesota Administrative Rules, Chapter 8840.5940(1) Rollover

Protection, calls applicability of FMVSS 49 CFR Part 571.216 or 220 to all vans and buses.

• Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter Trans 330.10 (12) Frame, calls applicability of 49 CFR §393.20, (20) Seating, and (30) Windows and Windshields

• Rule Chapter 14-90, Florida Administrative Code, Vehicle Equipment Standards and Procurement criteria - FMVSS 49 CFR Part 571, Sections 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 207, 209, 210, 217, 302, 403, and 404 and criteria for (8) emergency exits, (12) seat belts, and (13) safety equipment.

June 28-29, 2017

46

91


• Standards outside of U.S.– United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulations

• UNECE R-14: Seat belt anchorages and ISOFIX anchorages

• UNECE R-16: Seat belt restraint systems

• UNECE R-17: Seat anchorages (covers M3 vehicles not covered in UNECE R-80)

• UNECE R-25: Head restraints (headrests)

• UNECE R-34: Prevention of fire risks (collision related testing)

• UNECE R-36: General vehicle construction (load distributions and survivable space)

• UNECE R-43: Glazing materials

• UNECE R-66: Residual space available after rollover test

• UNECE R-80: Seats and seat anchorages

• UNECE R-114: Airbag replacement

• UNECE R-135: Pole Side Impact performance (only applies to buses that weigh less than 11,023 lbs.)

92


• Standards outside of U.S.

– Australian Design Rules• ADR Standard 3/03: Seats and seat anchorages

• ADR Standard 4/05: Seatbelts

• ADR Standard 5/05: Anchorage for seatbelts

• ADR Standard 8/01: Safety glazing material

• ADR Standard 34/02: Child restraint anchorages and child restraint anchor fittings

• ADR Standard 42/04: General safety requirements (includes external or internal protrusions)

• ADR Standard 59/00: Standards for omnibus rollover strength

• ADR Standard 68/00: Occupant protection in buses (seat performance)

June 28-29, 2017

47

93

Crashworthiness/CEM for Bus Transit Systems

• Other Guidelines and Recommended Practices– SAE Recommended Practice J2249_199901: Wheelchair tie-

down and occupant restraint systems for use in motor vehicles – technically focuses on requirements for vehicles that weigh less than 15,432 lbs. (7,000 kg) and notes that it may be possible to comply with desired results in larger vehicles without following the recommended practice

– FTA Vehicle Design Guidelines for low-floor vehicles: suggests buses operating in BRT environments provide adequate protection in the associated higher speeds

– APTA Procurement Guidelines: Section 6 – Technical Specifications 23.2: Crashworthiness (Note: Guidelines scheduled for review in FY 2018)

94

Crashworthiness/CEM for Bus Transit Systems

• Evaluation of current standards

– Secondary Impacts: Injury findings and recommendations from reviewed literature

• Frontal collisions – neck flexion or extension due to the lack of restraints and low seatback designs

– Compartmentalization designs and higher seatbacks

• Side impacts – head-to-head and head-to-body contacts and femur injuries of passengers seated on side facing seats

– Avoid side facing seating designs

• Rear-impacts – neck extension due to low seatback

– Higher seatback designs

• Austria study – mandate 3 point seat-belt system

June 28-29, 2017

48

95

Crashworthiness/CEM for Bus Transit Systems – Paratransit Body-on-chassis

• Rollover

– Dynamic (R-66) versus quasi-static (FMVSS 220)• UNECE R-66 adequately address the shortcoming of the FMVSS

220 standard test (Cichocki & Wekezer, 2007)

• “quasi-static load resistance testing of the roof structure does not give sufficient indication on how the structure will behave during a rollover accident.” (Gepner et al., 2010)

• Testing paratransit buses to the FMVSS 220 standard may lead to erroneous conclusions regarding bus strength and structural integrity (Bojanowski et al., 2011)

• the structural steel strain rate has no significant effect on the UNECE R-66 rollover test… the current quasi-static experimental approach used to investigate rollover crashworthy structural performance of paratransit buses is well grounded (Gepner et al., 2016)

96

• Rollover

– Dynamic (R-66) versus quasi-static (FMVSS 220) [Continued]• 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)


June 28-29, 2017

49

97

• 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

98


• Side impact

– 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

June 28-29, 2017

50

99


• 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)

100

Crashworthiness/CEM for Bus Transit Systems – NTSB Crashes

NTSB does not typically get involved in transit bus collisions. Like this 2016 NJ crash between two transit buses which resulted in 2 deaths and 17 injuries.

June 28-29, 2017

51

101

Concan, TX – March 2017: 13 fatalities – bus driver and 12 passengers

Davis, OK –September 26, 2014: 4 fatalities

Dolan Springs, AZ –January 2009: 7 passenger fatalities

102

Crashworthiness/CEM for Bus Transit Systems – NTSB Crashes

• NTSB Appenidx

Name

of crash

Location Date of

event

Type of Vehicle General Description Fatalities/

Injuries

Findings

NTSB/H

AR-

15/03

Davis,

Oklahoma

9/26/14 2008 Champion

Defender

32-passenger

medium-size bus

Bus rolled onto side

following an impact

with a truck-tractor

which had crossed

the median,

resulting in

passenger ejections.

4 fatalities,

11 injuries

Lack of; passenger

restraint system

use,

crashworthiness

side impact

standards, and

event data

recording deviceNTSB/H

AR-

10/01

Dolan

Springs,

Arizona

1/30/09 2007

Chevrolet/

Starcraft 29-

passenger

medium-size bus

Bus rolled 1.25 times

as a result of

overcorrection and

subsequent loss of

control.

7 fatalities,

10 injuries

Limitations of

medium sized bus

to retain and

protect passengers

in a rollover, and

need for EDR

device

HWY17

MH011

Concan,

Texas

3/29/17 2004 Ford E350

cutaway chassis

with 13-

passenger Turtle

Top Vanterra

medium-size bus

body

Front left corner

collision with pickup

truck that crossed

the center line.

13 fatalities,

1 injury

Primary evidence

indicates seat belt

use by all

occupants with no

EDR available. Still

under investigation

June 28-29, 2017

52

103

Crashworthiness/CEM for Bus Transit Systems – NTSB Recommendations

• Dolan Springs, AZ – HAR 10/01– H-10-2: develop regulatory definitions and classifications for each of the

different bus body types– H-10-3: improve roof strength, occupant protection, and window glazing

standards, include ALL buses with a GVWR above 10,000 pounds through rulemaking

– H-10-5-6: develop and require stability control system performance standards for new buses with a GVWR above 10,000 pounds

• Davis, OK – HAR 15/03– H-15-40: develop side-impact protection standard for all newly constructed

medium sized buses, regardless of weight– H-15-42 (Supersedes H-97-2): requires primary enforcement of the use of

seat belts for all passengers– Reiterates: H-99-50-51: develop and require roof strength performance

standards – H-99-49: recommends window glazing– H-10-3: described above

• Concan, TX – HWY17 MH011– Preliminary evidence leads to likely reiteration of the same crashworthiness

related recommendations

104

Crashworthiness/CEM for Bus Transit Systems – Needs Assessment/Gap Analysis

• 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

June 28-29, 2017

53

105


• 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.

106


• 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

June 28-29, 2017

54

107

Crashworthiness/CEM for Bus Transit Systems – Recommended Solutions

• With limited data available to prove the necessity of structural and secondary impact crashworthiness standards for general transit buses, voluntary guidance is recommended.

• Supplemental data supports the need to expand crashworthiness standard applicability to include body-on-chassis buses (medium-sized coaches). Additional detailed data collection and analyses will be required to support future rulemaking, given the lack of classification of body-on-chassis buses in currently available safety related databases.

108

Crashworthiness/CEM for Bus Transit Systems – Draft Recommendations

DRAFT Recommendation 1: FTA consider issuing crashworthiness/CEM standards for transit buses (those over 40 feet in length), including articulated vehicles, as voluntary and encourage the observance of existing standards established by APTA and those contained within the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, specifically FMVSS 214. There are currently no data that suggest that injuries and fatalities sustained by public transit riders in collision events were due to the loss of survivable space or intrusions within the cabin of transit buses. In addition, there is limited academic research that supports the need for national regulations related to the crashworthiness of transit buses or the utilization of CEM techniques or applications in the design and construction of these vehicles.

June 28-29, 2017

55

109


DRAFT Recommendation 2: FTA consider additional quasi-static or dynamic testing of interior fittings, including passenger seating devices, attachments, and tracking/anchorages, and seatback designs, as examples to address injuries and fatalities that have occurred as a result of secondary impacts associated with collision events. There are limited data to suggest that injuries or fatalities in transit bus collision events are specifically due to the design of vehicle seating and associated apparatus. However, there has been academic research that indicates that certain vehicle seatback designs and tracking/anchorage assemblies can increase the likelihood of injuries or fatalities in secondary collision impacts.

110

Recommendation 3: FTA direct the study of four states that represent the majority of vehicles 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 establish the rate of injuries and fatalities resulting from these events. The states of New York, Pennsylvania, California, and Florida represent over 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.


June 28-29, 2017

56

111


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.

112

Questions or Comments

June 28-29, 2017

57

113

Event Data Recorder (EDR) for Transit Bus

114

Event Data Recorders for Bus Transit Systems – SOW Outline

• Currently underway

– Background research and data collection/analysis

– Identify gaps in EDR bus standards

– Work with WG committee

• Draft recommendations of applicable standards and those that should be considered with modifications – target date: July 31, 2017

• NTSB reports provide EDR recommendations

• Draft final report by August 31, 2017

June 28-29, 2017

58

115

Event Data Recorders for Bus Transit Systems – Needs Assessment

• TCRP Synthesis 126 - Successful Practices and Training Initiatives to Reduce Accidents and Incidents at Transit Agencies shows EDRs are not universally used.

6%

14%

33%

33%

36%

67%

78%

78%

81%

86%

86%

94%

100%

0% 50% 100%

Collision avoidance…

Pedestrian warning…

Driver monitoring/…

Special rear vehicle…

Road or right-of-way…

Electronic data recorders

Stop announcements

Video data recorders

Exterior vehicle security…

Facility security cameras

Driver activated “panic” …

Onboard security cameras

Vehicle tracking system

116

Event Data Recorders for Bus Transit Systems – Needs Assessment

• EDRs continue to be universally recommended– The level of granularity decreases drastically when no

EDR is present in regards to the ability to investigate collisions to gain the necessary understanding of the leading factors.

– Responses to the call for comments on the National Public Transportation Safety Plan included recommendations from several respondents that event data recorders be included on all bus vehicles.

– FTA’s presentation, FTA Safety Program: Rulemaking Update and Transit Agency SMS Implementation on February 27, 2017 by Candace Key, identifies event data recorders as a proactive approach to identifying safety concerns as a part of the SMS pillar of Safety Assurance.

– NTSB recommendations (more on these later)

June 28-29, 2017

59

117

Event Data Recorders for Bus Transit Systems – Standards that Exist

• Examples of standards/rules that exist include:– Title 49 CFR 229.135 – Event recorders required for trains

operated over 30mph. Includes data elements, crashworthy, memory, and mounting location requirements. Not directly bus applicable.

– 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.

– SAE J1698 – Event Data Recorder Standard includes output data definitions, retrieval tool protocol, and compliance assessment recommendations.

– IEEE 1616 and 1616a - Motor Vehicle Event Data Recorders is applicable to both light and heavy duty vehicles and includes data collection, storage, retrieval, and export protocols for data elements.

118

Event Data Recorders for Bus Transit Systems – Other Guidelines

• Other EDR for bus guidelines– APTA Standard Bus Procurement Guidelines TS 87.

Event Data Recorders (EDR) “Alternative” indicates EDRs should be installed, including location, communication lines, settings, minimum accelerometer equipment, and data collection guidance.

– 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, and the data must be recorded and retained for a maximum of 60 seconds prior to an event and 15 seconds following an event.

June 28-29, 2017

60

119

Concan, TX – March 2017: 13 fatalities – bus driver and 12 passengers

Davis, OK –September 26, 2014: 4 fatalities

Dolan Springs, AZ –January 2009: 7 passenger fatalities

120

EDRs for Bus Transit Systems – NTSB Recommendations

• Dolan Springs, AZ – HAR 10/01– H-10-7 (requires all vehicles to be equipped)– H-10-14 (minimum standards for EDRs)– H-10-15 (requires EDR to meet set standards)

• Davis, OK – HAR 15/03– Reiterates: H-10-7 (requires all vehicles to be

equipped)– H-10-14 (minimum standards for EDRs)– H-10-15 (requires EDR to meet set standards)

• Concan, TX – HWY17 MH011– Preliminary evidence leads to likely reiteration of

the same EDR related recommendations

June 28-29, 2017

61

121

EDRs for Bus Transit Systems – NTSB Video System Recommendations

Note from SOW: “For the purpose of this activity, this will include the traditional form of event recorders or “black boxes” installed on public transit coaches and paratransit vehicles.”

• NTSB Safety Report: NTSB/SR-15/01 – Commercial Vehicle Onboard Video Systems– Onboard video systems on transit buses and other heavy vehicles

had a direct benefit in several previous accident investigations, especially regarding driver and passenger behaviors. Proactive use of this recorded information can result in long-term safety benefits.

– “The continued investigation of crashes with video recordings is essential to improve bus occupant protection and also to increase our knowledge of biomechanics, injury causation, and short- and long-term injury outcomes. Ultimately, this knowledge will lead to improvements in the lifelike quality of crash test dummies.”

– Safety Recommendation H-15-001 – incorporate procedures for collecting and using crash data from video-equipped buses.

– Safety Recommendation H-15-002 – ensure onboard video system provides visibility of the driver, each occupant seating location, forward of the vehicle, optimized frame rate, and low-light recording capability.

122

EDRs for Bus Transit Systems – Other Non-Transit Related Considerations

• NHTSA (2008) – Analysis of Event Data Recorder Data for Vehicle Safety Improvement– Focused on EDR file format and potential improvements,

assessment of crash types where EDR data exists, review of usefulness of data in accident reconstruction analyses, and determination of methods by which researchers could use EDR information.

• Congressional Research Service Report R43651 (2014) –“Black Boxes” in Passenger Vehicles: Policy Issues – “NHTSA is proposing that all new light vehicles have EDRs

installed in the future. Under previously adopted NHTSA rules, these devices have to capture at least 15 types of information related to the vehicle’s performance in the few seconds just before and immediately after a crash serious enough to result in deployment of airbags.”

– EDRs have the potential to make a significant contribution to highway safety.

June 28-29, 2017

62

123

Event Data Recorders for Bus Transit Systems – Other Research

• UNECE has considered EDR requirements several times dating back to 2004, and has vowed to continue to propose EDR inclusion as an agenda item to resume future consideration.

• FDOT/CUTR Report (2009) – Evaluation of Electronic Data Recorders for Incident Investigation, Driver Performance, and Vehicle Maintenance– “The public transit industry will benefit from the

expanded use of EDRs in transit vehicles.”

– EDRs have the potential to minimize frivolous lawsuits, assist in handling complaints, monitor bus operator performance, and provide indicators of poor performance of both the operator and the vehicle.

124

June 28-29, 2017

63

125

Event Data Recorders for Bus Transit Systems – Other Research

• Transportation Safety Board of CanadaRecommendation R15-03 (December 2015) –“The Department of Transport require commercial passenger buses to be equipped with dedicated, crashworthy, event data recorders.”– Transport Canada (TC) response – “There are no

United States or United Nations safety regulations requiring event data recorders (EDR) on large commercial vehicles of any type.”

• TC hired a consultant to conduct EDR research in March of 2017.

126

Event Data Recorders for Bus Transit Systems – Moving Forward

• Our questions to you:

– Are your bus fleets equipped with EDRs?

– Are you aware of any bus EDR standards or guidance that is not already mentioned?

– If you have telemetry or video based event recorders, do your EDRs capture anything your video based system does not capture?

– Do you have any current concerns regarding EDRs?

– What concerns might you anticipate if EDR standard applicability were expanded to be inclusive of all bus vehicles regardless of weight?

June 28-29, 2017

64

127

Questions or Comments


© TTCI/AAR. p128

Rail tunnel design,

construction, maintenance

and rehabilitation –FTA Working Group

TTCI

Anna Rakoczy

Stephen Wilk

MC Jones

June 28-29, 2017

65

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p129

® Outline

♦Work breakdown / Scope

♦ Industry needs

♦Literature Review

♦Data Collection

♦Site Visit

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p130

® 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

June 28-29, 2017

66

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p131

® Outline


♦ Industry needs


♦Data Collection

♦Site Visit

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p132

® Industry Needs

♦ Safe design, construction, and operations

●Example 1 - The Howard Street Tunnel fire

●Example 2 - Channel Tunnel fire

●Example 3 - Gerrards Cross Tunnel

June 28-29, 2017

67

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p133

® Industry Needs

– Howard Street Tunnel Fire

● Accident Number: DCA-01-MR-004

● Location: Baltimore, Maryland

● Date and Time: July 18, 2001, 3:08 p.m.

● Accident Type: Derailment and fire

● Companies: CSX Transportation

● Injuries: 5 (minor)

● Fatalities: None

● Cost: $12 million

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p134

® Industry Needs


♦ Derailment of 60-car CSX train transporting hazardous

material in the Howard Street Tunnel in Baltimore, Maryland

on July 18, 2001.

♦ Car numbers 46 through 56 derailed and became

disconnected from the first 45 cars.

● One of the derailed tank cars, carrying 28,600 gallons tripropylene, had ruptured and the escaping flammable liquid had caught fire.

● This fire had spread onto paper and wood products in other cars.

● Another tank car ruptured releasing 2,554 US gallons (9,670 L) of hydrochloric acid.

● Later, a 40-inch cast iron water main above the tunnel burst due to deformation, eventually releasing about 14,000,000 US gallons (53,000,000 l) of water.

● The fire burned for about 5 days

June 28-29, 2017

68

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p135

® Industry Needs


♦ Impact:

● Thousands of Baltimore workers were forced to leave their jobs and unable to come back for several days.

● The tunnel closing caused major disruption to CSX freight traffic, Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC) commuter trains, and to Central Light Rail Line trains and bus lines that traversed Howard Street.

● To avoid the Howard Street Tunnel, CSX had to reroute their trains, incurring a three- to four-day delay.

♦ No significant structural damages

♦ Tunnel officially reopened to traffic 6 days after accident

♦ A National Transportation Safety Board report took three

years to be prepared

♦ Investigation unable to find the accident cause

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p136

® Industry Needs

– Channel Tunnel Fire

♦ 1996 Channel Tunnel fire:

● Fire occurred on a train carrying Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and their drivers through the Channel Tunnel from France to the United Kingdom (UK)

♦ 2008 Channel Tunnel fire:

● The incident involved a France-bound Eurotunnel Shuttle train carrying heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and their drivers.

June 28-29, 2017

69

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p137

® Industry Needs

– Gerrards Cross Tunnel

♦ Railway tunnel located in Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire,

England.

♦ Partially collapsed during construction on 30 June 2005.

♦ No injures but a train heading towards the tunnel performed

an emergency stop.

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p138

® Outline


♦ Industry needs


♦Data Collection

♦Site Visit

June 28-29, 2017

70

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p139

® Rail Tunnel – Literature Overview

♦ Specifications related to the following major topics

●Design

●Transit tunnel security and risk assessment

●Construction

●Maintenance and structural monitoring

●Rehabilitation

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p140

® Rail Tunnel – Design

♦ Design research to include

●Planning process

●Geotechnical investigation

▲High groundwater pressure and inflow;

▲Unstable ground such as running sands,

▲Sensitive clays,

▲Faults and shear zones

●Permanent Lining

June 28-29, 2017

71

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p141

® Literature Review – Design

♦ Considerations:

●Geological and geotechnical conditions influence tunnel design

●Good knowledge of expected geological conditions is essential

♦ Design - Railway Specific:

●AREMA Manual (2016)

●LA Metro Rail Design Criteria – Section 5 –Structural/Geotechnical (2012)

♦ Design - Roadway Specific:

●FHWA – Design and Construction of Road Tunnels (2009)

●FHWA – Tunnel Operations, Inspection, and Evaluation (TOMIE) (2015)

♦ Other notable literature:

●Looking for specifications/guidelines for railway tunnels design and construction

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p142

® Literature Review – Other Design

♦ Liner finishes, refuge niches, drains, lighting,

communication, etc.

♦ Existing literature:

●AREMA

▲Refuge niches: 200 feet and staggered, size not specified

▲Install drains whenever groundwater encountered, drain type depends on groundwater constituents and effect of water aeration


June 28-29, 2017

72

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p143

® Rail Tunnel – Design Of Supporting

Systems

♦ Design research to include

●Major systems designed to support the tunnel system, i.e.

▲Mechanical

▲Electrical

▲Communication Design

▲Smoke Ventilation

▲Fire/smoke evacuation

▲Security systems

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p144

® Literature Review – Ventilation

♦ Considerations:

●Tunnel length, tunnel shape, train speed, etc.


●AREMA (Chapter 1 – Part 8 – Section 7)

▲Airflow requirements, air velocity, monitor gases


●Manuals typically list types of ventilation

Longitudinal Ventilation

FHWA/FTA Inspection Manual

June 28-29, 2017

73

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p145

® Rail Tunnel – Literature Overview

♦ Specifications related to the following major topics

●Design

●Transit tunnel security and risk assessment

●Construction

●Maintenance and structural monitoring

●Rehabilitation

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p146

® Rail Tunnel – Transit Tunnel Security Risk

Assessment

♦ Tunnel threat

●Explosive

●Chemical, biological or radiological

●Sabotage

♦ Vulnerability environment of tunnels

●Access, length, location, geography

♦ Tunnel security design:

●Emergency call station (ECS)

●Global Positioning System (GPS)

●Automated vehicle locator (AVL)

●Positive train control (PTC)

●Supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)

June 28-29, 2017

74

© TTCI/AAR, 6/21/2017. p147

® Literature Review – Security and Fire

Safety


●APTA – Tunnel Secur

welcome and introductions · 2017. 10. 20. · june 28-29, 2017 3 5 agenda –june 29, 2017 8:00am...

Documents