Proposal for Rail Safety & Security Awards Program

Proposal for Rail Safety & Security Awards Program
May 10, 2011
Submitted by:
APTA Rail Safety Committee
Chair, Vijay Khawani
Prepared by:
Bill Grizard
Director – Safety
APTA
Michael Smith
Program Manager – Safety & Security
APTA
  1. Background

The successful Bus Safety Awards program, which in 2010 was modified toencompass Safety and Security, has been in place for nearly 100 years torecognizefixed-route bus systems andoperators.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 modesthrough advocacy, innovation, and information sharing.

  1. 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 and future needs of riders and engender a high level of customer confidence.”
  1. 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 Bdisplays how current U.S. and Canadianrail 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.

  1. Nomination procedures

Nominations for the APTA Rail Safety and Security Excellence Awards are limited to no more than five pagesand 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 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.

  1. 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 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?
  • 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.

  1. 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 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.

Appendix A: Definitions of rail modes, based on the National Transit Database (NTD)

Source: American Public Transportation Association: 2010 PublicTransportation Fact Book, Washington, DC, April, 2010.

Three rail modes provide most rail transit serviceoperated in the U.S.: heavy rail, commuter rail, andlight rail.

Commuter Rail is a mode of transit service (alsocalled metropolitan rail, regional rail, or suburban rail) characterized by an electric or diesel propelledrailway for urban passenger train service consisting oflocal short distance travel operating between a centralcity and adjacent suburbs. Service must be operatedon a regular basis by or under contract with a transitoperator for the purpose of transporting passengerswithin urbanized areas, or between urbanized areasand outlying areas. Such rail service, using eitherlocomotive hauled or self-propelled railroadpassenger cars, is generally characterized by multitriptickets, specific station to station fares, railroademployment practices and usually only one or twostations in the central business district. Intercity railservice is excluded, except for that portion of suchservice that is operated by or under contract with apublic transit agency for predominantly commuterservices. Most service is provided on routes ofcurrent or former freight railroads.

Heavy Rail is a mode of transit service (also calledmetro, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail)operating on an electric railway with the capacity for aheavy volume of traffic. It is characterized by highspeed and rapid acceleration passenger rail carsoperating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails;separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicularand foot traffic are excluded; sophisticated signaling,and high platform loading.

Light Railis 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.
Appendix B: Table of proposed categories, based on 2010 NTD*

Name / Urbanized area / Pop. / Mode / Unlinked pass. Trips (thousands) / Pass. Miles (thousands)
CATEGORY 1 – Commuter/ Intercity Rail
New Jersey Transit Corporation(NJ TRANSIT) / New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT / 17,799,861 / CR / 84,508.3 / 2,343,405.3
Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company (MTA-MNCR) / New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT / 17,799,861 / CR / 82,960.7 / 2,181,694.5
MTA Long Island Rail Road(MTA LIRR) / New York-Newark, NY-NJ-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 Authority(SEPTA) / Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-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
Southern California Regional Rail Authority(Metrolink) / Counties of Los Angeles-Riverside-Ventura-San Bernardino-Orange, CA / 11,789,487 / CR / 12,681.0 / 436,565.5
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board(PCJPB) / San Francisco-Oakland, 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(PENNDOT) / Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-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
Fort Worth Transportation Authority(The T) / Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX / 4,145,659 / CR / 1,124.2 / 18,830.1
Dallas Area Rapid Transit(DART) / Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, 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 (Translink – “West Coast Express”) / Vancouver, British 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 / -
Category 1 total: 25
CATEGORY 2 – Heavy Rail
MTA New York City Transit(NYCT) / New York-Newark, NY-NJ-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 District(BART) / San Francisco-Oakland, 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 Authority(SEPTA) / Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD / 5,149,079 / HR / 92,065.2 / 412,839.2
Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation(PATH) / New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT / 17,799,861 / HR / 83,612.3 / 358,256.7
Los AngelesCounty Metropolitan Transportation Authority(LACMTA) / Los Angeles-North 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
Port Authority Transit Corporation(PATCO) / Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-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(SIRTOA) / New York-Newark, NY-NJ-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 / -
Translink (Skytrain) / Vancouver, British Columbia / 2,116,581 / HR / 92,000.0 / -
Category 2 total: 18
CATEGORY 3 – Light Rail
Los AngelesCounty Metropolitan Transportation Authority(LACMTA) / Los Angeles-Long Beach-Pasadena/East LA-El 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
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 Area Rapid Transit(DART) / Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, 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 Municipal Railway(MUNI) / San Francisco-Oakland, 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 Authority(SEPTA) / Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-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 ClaraValley 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 AlleghenyCounty(Port Authority) / Pittsburgh, PA / 1,753,136 / LR / 7,141.8 / 33,255.5
Metropolitan Transit Authority of HarrisCounty, 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 TRANSIT) / New York-Newark, NY-NJ-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 TRANSIT) / New York-Newark, NY-NJ-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 / -
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.