FTA State Safety Oversight Program Annual Report for 2000

Printer Friendly Version


Images referenced in this document can be viewed in the PDF version only. If you need an accessible version of the visual content please contact xxxx@dot.gov

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

                       Form Approved

                  OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.  Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank)

 

2. REPORT DATE

February 2002

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Final Report

March 2001-December 2001

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

State Safety Oversight Program Annual Report for 2000

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

 

TM20A/U2169

 

6. AUTHOR(S)

Robert J. Adduci, Annabelle Boyd, and James E. Caton

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Department of Transportation

Research and Special Programs Administration

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

55 Broadway, Kendall Square

Cambridge, MA  02142-1093

8.  PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

 

DOT-VNTSC-FTA-02-04

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Transit Administration

Office of Program Management,

Office of Safety and Security

400 7th St. SW

Washington, DC  20590

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

 

DOT-FTA-MA-90-5006-02-01

 

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

 

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

 

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) State Safety Oversight Rule (49 CFR Part 659) requires oversight for all rail transit agencies in revenue operation after January 1, 1997.  This report summarizes activities performed to implement the State Safety Oversight Program during Calendar Year 2000.  This report is a compilation and analysis of rail fixed guideway system accident and crime statistics.  Information provided by State Oversight Agencies documenting the safety and security performance of the rail transit industry in 2000 is presented, including a discussion of the probable causes of accidents and unacceptable hazardous conditions.

 

14. SUBJECT TERMS

State safety oversight; safety; security; annual report; data; planning; design and construction project development phases; rail transit industry performance

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

76

16. PRICE CODE

 

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
 OF REPORT

                Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
 OF THIS PAGE

                Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
 OF ABSTRACT

                Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

 

NSN 7540-01-280-5500  Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18
298-102
 

Acknowledgements

 

 

The State Safety Oversight Program Annual Report for 2000 represents the cooperative efforts of many people.  For their guidance and technical direction, the authors give special thanks to Mr. Hiram J. Walker of the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Office of Program Management, Mr. Harry Saporta, Mr. Jerry Fisher, Mr. Roy Field, and Mr. Frank McCarron of FTA's Office of Safety and Security; the State Safety Oversight Agencies, who implement the State Safety Oversight Program and provide the data, procedures, and policies upon which this report is largely based; the American Public Transportation Association, FTA's National Transit Database Program, the Transportation Research Board, and the National Transportation Safety Board, who all provided additional data to support state reports and analysis.  Finally, the authors wish to thank Mr. James Harrison, Mr. Robert Adduci, and Mr. Jerry Powers of the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center for their invaluable contributions of statistical data, insights, and suggestions.  Their combined efforts greatly improved the content of this report.



Table of Contents

 

Section

Preface

Executive Summary

Introduction

1. State Safety Oversight Overview

            Rule Requirements

2. Rail Transit in the United States

            Rail Grade Crossings

            Rail Grade Crossings

 

            Addressing New Starts

3. Safety and Rail Transit

            Comparison between 1999 and 2000

            Comparison between 1999 and 2000

 

4. Principal Findings from SSO Annual Reporting

            Accidents

            Accidents

 

            Fatalities

            Injuries

            Probable Cause

            Corrective Action Plans

5. Security Data

            Comparison between 1999 and 2000

            Comparison between 1999 and 2000

 

6. State Safety Oversight Audit Program

Appendix A. 2000 Annual Reporting Template

 

 
List of Figures

 

Figure

1. SSO Program Development Process. 4

2. Current Map of States Affected by Part 659. 9

3. Ridership Growth - 1994-2000. 12

4. Fatalities per 100 Million Passenger Miles - 1991 through 2000 (including suicides) 26

5. Injuries per 10 Million Passenger Miles - 1991 through 2000. 26

6. Fatalities per 10 Million Passenger Trips - 1999 and 2000. 27

7. Fatalities per 100 Million Passenger Miles - 1999 and 2000. 27

8. Injuries per 100,000 Unlinked Passenger Trips - 1999 and 2000. 28

9. Injuries per 10 Million Passenger Miles - 1999 and 2000. 28

10. Total Reported Accidents - 1999 and 2000. 30

11. FTA Reportable Accidents by Type - 1999 and 2000. 31

12. CY 2000 Accidents by Mode/Type. 32

13. Accident Results by Rail Grade Crossing Characteristics. 33

14. FTA Reportable Fatalities - Excluding Suicides. 33

15. Reported Fatalities by Mode - Excluding Suicides. 34

16. FTA Reportable Fatalities by Type - 1999 and 2000. 34

17. Fatalities by Mode/Type - Excluding Suicides. 35

18. FTA Reportable Injuries - 1999 and 2000. 36

19. Total Injuries by Mode - 1999 and 2000. 37

20. CY 2000 Injuries by Mode/Type. 37

21. CY 1999 Injuries by Mode/Type. 38

22. Probable Cause for Reported Accidents - Excluding "Other"*. 39

23. Rail Fixed Guideway System Crimes by Type - 2000. 43

24. Violent Crimes by Mode per Million Passenger Miles. 44

25. Violent Crimes by Mode per 10 Million Passenger Trips. 44

26. Property Crimes by Mode per Million Passenger Miles. 45

27. Property Crimes by Mode per 10 Million Passenger Trips. 45

28. Crime Categories by Mode per 10 Million Passenger Trips. 46

29. Crime Categories by Mode per Million Passenger Miles. 46

30. Crimes per 10 Million Passenger Trips - 1999 and 2000 Heavy Rail 47

31. Crimes per Million Passenger Miles - 1999 and 2000 Heavy Rail 47

32. Crimes per 10 Million Passenger Trips - 1999 and 2000 Light Rail 48

33. Crimes per Million Passenger Miles - 1999 and 2000 Light Rail 48

34. SSO Audit Deficiency Findings by Category. 52

35. SSO Audit Area of Concern Findings by Category. 52

 

 

 
List of Tables

 

Table

1. States and RFGS Affected by Part 659 - by FTA Region. 6

2.Categorization of Designated Oversight Agencies. 7

3. Number of RFGS in Affected States. 7

4. Oversight Agency Resources Allocated to State Safety Oversight 7

5. Average Weekday Unlinked Passenger Trips, 2000 . 11

6. Average Weekday Public Transportation Ridership, Fiscal Year 2000. 12

7. Heavy Rail Service Profile - 2000. 14

8. Light Rail Service Profile - 2000. 15

9. 1999-2000 Comparison: Annual Passenger Unlinked Trips and Passenger Miles. 17

10. Rail Agencies Initiating New Service by Early 2001. 18

11. Rail Transit Projects On-line between 2000 and 2003. 19

12. Increase in rail Grade Crossings since 1997. 20

13. Grade Crossing Characteristics. 22

14. Transportation-related Fatalities, 1995 to 2000. 24

15. Reported 2000 Fatalities and Injuries by Rail Transit Mode. 25

16. FY 2000 Rates of Fatality and Injury by Rail Transit Mode. 25

17. Probable Cause Percentages by Accident Type and Mode. 40

18. NTD - FBI Crime Data Relationship. 42

19. Number of Crimes by Mode/by Category. 43

 



Preface

 

A primary objective of the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) State Safety Oversight Program has been to create a nationwide infrastructure to provide effective safety and security monitoring and evaluation for rail transit. Information presented in the State Safety Oversight Program Annual Report for 2000 demonstrates the success of this program in not only requiring and documenting the activities performed by rail transit agencies to address safety and security issues, but also in promoting an operating culture more attuned to safety and security concerns.

 

Safety requirements for FTA's State Safety Oversight Rule (49 CFR Part 659) went into effect January 1, 1997. Approaching the Rule's 5-year anniversary, rail transit safety oversight in the United States has been transformed.

 

In 1997, there were 6 designated state agencies overseeing the operations of 12 rail transit systems. By the end of 2000, there were 22 designated oversight agencies implementing Part 659 requirements for 35 rail transit systems.  In anticipation of "New Start" Systems initiating revenue service in the next 5 years, 6 additional states have designated oversight agencies, bringing the total as of this report to 28 State Safety Oversight Agencies (SOAs).

 

Accomplishments of the Program since its inception include the following:

 

  • Development of system safety programs and system safety program plans (SSPPs) at 36 rail fixed guideway systems (RFGS) which meet minimum requirements specified by the SOAs and FTA, including operational provisions for hazard analysis, internal safety audit programs, and formal determination of probable cause resulting from accident investigations.

 

  • Development of system security programs and system security program plans (Security Plans) at 35 RFGS which address the security of passengers and employees, and clearly identify transit agency responsibilities for security.

 

·         Development and approval of investigation procedures at 36 RFGS which ensure collection and evaluation of evidence sufficient to support probable cause determinations and the development of corrective actions.

 

·         Performance of over 500 investigations using these procedures.

·         Development, approval, and implementation of 396 corrective action plans to address determinations of probable cause resulting from these investigations.

 

  • Implementation of hazard analysis programs at 35 RFGS sufficient to support identification, reporting, and resolution of unacceptable hazardous conditions during transit operations.

 

·         Investigation and resolution of more than 100 unacceptable hazardous conditions.

 

  • SOAs conduct of more than 40 Three-Year Safety Reviews at the rail transit agencies within their jurisdiction to assess implementation of system safety and security program and to make determinations regarding the efficacy of the programs.

 

·         Development, approval, and implementation of over 700 corrective actions to address findings from State Three-Year Safety Reviews.

  • Implementation of internal safety audit programs at 36 RFGS, resulting in almost 1,000 corrective action plans developed and implemented to address rail transit findings.

 

  • For the first time, collection and analysis of probable cause data from rail transit agencies regarding accidents and unacceptable hazardous conditions.

 

The State Safety Oversight Program emphasizes use of a systems approach to address safety and security, promoting application of management and engineering principles to identify and resolve safety hazards and security vulnerabilities. Through ongoing implementation of system safety and security programs, monitored by SOAs, the rail transit industry is now performing formalized assessments to balance hazards and controls, which ultimately can ensure the maximum protection for passengers, employees, others, system property, and the environment within the limits of available resources.

 

Ultimately, establishing and evaluating baseline measures for safety and security performance supports oversight and industry activities to develop programs that:

 

  • Establish and assure compliance with rail transit agency safety and security strategies, objectives, and standards.
  • Foster early integration of safety, security, reliability, maintainability, and quality assurance into rail transit operations.
  • Improve methodologies for risk identification and assessment, and provide recommendations for risk mitigation and acceptance.
  • Provide investigation, analysis, and recommendations for critical safety and security decisions.
  • Sponsor the innovation and rapid transfer of safety, security, reliability, maintainability, and quality assurance technologies, processes, and techniques to improve system performance.

Executive Summary

 

The Calendar Year (CY) 2000 was one of accomplishments and challenges for the State Safety Oversight Program. Analysis of data reported by rail transit agencies and State safety oversight agencies for 2000 indicates:

 

Service

 

  • Combined, the rail transit agencies affected by 49 CFR Part 659 provide approximately 10 million daily unlinked passenger trips, accounting for 30 percent of all trips taken on public transportation.

 

  • This level of ridership is the highest ever for rail transit, and marks a 5 percent increase from a decade ago.

 

  • Further growth in ridership is expected throughout the decade as the substantial increases in Federal funding under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century are translated into operational service. Since January 1, 2000, 10 rail transit agencies have initiated major projects into revenue service.  By the end of 2003, 15 more agencies will bring projects online. By 2010, more than 40 major rail transit projects will have been initiated into revenue service. Combined, these projects will reflect a national investment in excess of $30 billion. 

 

  • Since 1991, annual passenger miles have more than doubled for light rail service and the number of light rail operations has increased from 14 to 20.

 

  • Prompted by major ridership gains in New York and Washington, D.C., heavy rail transit has experienced a 30 percent increase in passenger miles over the same 10-year period.

 

  • Since 1997, 346 rail grade crossings have been introduced into revenue service on light rail extension and new start projects. The vast majority of these grade crossings are protected or traffic-controlled.

 

Safety

 

  • In CY 2000, rail transit agencies reported 3,192 incidents that met the 49 CFR Part 659.5 definition of accident.  This total represents an increase of approximately 22 percent over CY 1999 totals (2,627).  These 3,192 incidents resulted in 102 fatalities and 3,371 injuries.

 

  • Of the 102 reported fatalities, 61 were the result of suicides and trespassing incidents.  The remaining 41 fatalities represent a 5 percent increase when compared to 1999.

 

  • The 3,371 injuries attributable to FTA reportable accidents in CY 2000 represent an increase of roughly 20 percent when compared to CY 1999 totals (2,839). When compared to 1999, injuries resulting from:

 

·         Collisions decreased by 47 percent.

·         Rail Grade Crossing incidents declined roughly 43 percent.

·         72 percent of injuries from Rail Grade Crossing incidents occurred at traffic-controlled crossings.

·         Fires decreased by 1/3.

·         Other reportable incidents rose by 22 percent (reflecting improved reporting of "single-person injuries" such as passenger slips, trips, and falls resulting from clarifications made during FTA's SSO Audit Program).

 

  • In CY 2000, there was a reduction in reportable collisions and rail grade crossings, while reported fires, derailments, and single-person accidents all increased over CY 1999 totals.

 

  • With only 41 fatalities and approximately 3,000 injuries requiring hospitalization attributed to operations that provide 2.89 billion unlinked passenger trips, rail transit remained the safest mode of transportation in 2000.

 

Causal Data

 

  • For the total 3,192 reported incidents, the number of reported accidents for which the probable cause was determined to be an "other vehicle" rose from a 23 percent share of probable causes in CY 1999 to a 35 percent share in CY 2000.  Also of note, the category of cause "pedestrian" was determined as the probable cause in 11 percent of CY 2000 accidents, up from 2 percent in CY 1999.  However, accidents in which "rule violation" was determined as the cause decreased over the same period, from 22 percent in CY 1999 to 6 percent in CY 2000. Other key findings include:

 

·         82 percent of light rail collisions were caused by either pedestrians or other vehicles.

·         47 percent of the heavy rail collisions were caused by actions of a passenger.

·         Operating rule and procedure violations were identified as the probable cause in approximately 10 percent of the total number of collisions and derailments (all modes combined).

 

Other SSO Program Activity

 

·         In 2000, eight states conducted Three-Year Safety Reviews.  These reviews resulted in findings that required RFGS to submit a total of 310 corrective action plans (CAPs).   Of the 310 submitted CAPs, 308 were approved for implementation by the SOA. 

 

  • In addition to the findings from the Three-Year Safety Reviews conducted at the RFGS, 10 RFGS submitted corrective actions for SOA approval as the result of internal safety audits.  These corrective actions numbered 497, with 330 being approved for implementation.  Of the 497 CAPs submitted, 151 remain open. 

 

Security

 

Rail transit agencies reported the following:

 

·         Violent crimes for 2000 decreased by 3 percent from 1999 totals.

  • Property crimes increased 1 percent over the same period.

·         Quality of life crimes increased by 35 percent (reflecting improved consistency in reporting as a result of FTA's Transit Security Audit Program).


Introduction

 

The State Safety Oversight Program Annual Report for 2000 has been prepared by FTA's Office of Safety and Security to document the activities and performance of State Safety Oversight Agencies, and the rail fixed guideway systems within their jurisdictions, for the calendar year 2000. Results from this report assist these organizations in developing management structures and work programs to effectively plan, implement and evaluate safety and security-related programs for passenger service.

 

The State Safety Oversight Program Annual Report is an evolving document. Last year's inaugural edition followed an encyclopedic approach, providing a baseline of information on various aspects of the programs developed and implemented by FTA, State Safety Oversight Agencies, and rail transit systems to address both 49 CFR Part 659 requirements and basic safety and security performance levels. This second edition streamlines the initial approach, focusing exclusively on following State Safety Oversight Program elements:

 

  • Overview of Requirements;
  • State Safety Oversight Community;
  • Rail Transit Industry Service and Safety Measures for 2000;
  • Principal Safety Findings from 2000 Annual Reports; and
  • Rail Transit Industry Security Measures for 2000.

 

Safety and Security Community

 

This report uses the following acronyms to refer to key participants in the State Safety Oversight Program:

 

  • DOT - United States Department of Transportation
  • FTA - Federal Transit Administration
  • SOA - State Safety Oversight Agency designated to implement 49 CFR Part 659 requirements (also referred to as Oversight Agency)
  • RFGS - Rail Fixed Guideway System as defined in 49 CFR Part 659.5 (also referred to as rail transit agency or rail agency)
  • NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board
  • NTD - National Transit Database
  • APTA - American Public Transportation Association

 

Information Sources

 

Information presented in this report comes from three sources:

 

  • 2000 National Transit Database Safety and Security Reports. Over the last decade, rail transit systems reported first safety - then later security - data directly to FTA.  All rail transit agencies receiving direct federal financial assistance under FTA's formula grant program must report this data annually to retain eligibility for federal funds.  This information is collected on Form 405 of the National Transit Database Reporting System. Safety incidents that meet the following definition must be reported:

 

·         Involve property damage exceeding $1,000;

·         Require medical treatment of a passenger or an employee, either on-site or in a hospital; and

·         Result in a fatality within 30 days.

 

Security incidents are reported according definitions developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for the Uniform Crime Reporting System. 

 

  • 2000 Annual Reports. FTA's State Safety Oversight Rule (49 CFR Part 659.45) requires that, by March 15 of each year, SOAs must submit to FTA an annual report summarizing oversight activities for the preceding 12 months, including a description of the most common probable causal factors of accidents and unacceptable hazardous conditions. In 1999, in response to congressional concern and NTSB recommendations, FTA developed an Annual Reporting Template to facilitate the collection of causal data in a format that could be quantified at year's end. 1999 was the first year for collecting causal data in this format under the State Safety Oversight Program. (Prior to 1999, causal data collected in the annual report was descriptive in nature and not quantifiable.) FTA continued this approach in 2000: SOAs made Annual Report submissions using FTA's Annual Reporting Template for 2000 (see Appendix A).

 

  • 2000 Audit Program. The State Safety Oversight Audit Program provides FTA with the opportunity to identify the requirements of Part 659 that have been most difficult for SOAs to implement.  Further, it supports communication with the states that results in the greater sharing of technical information, the solicitation of best practices, and the development of activities that promote an increased coordination between all stakeholders responsible for ensuring that system safety and security objectives are being identified and met each year. 

 

Use of Information Presented in this Report

 

The information contained in this report supports national and local efforts to monitor and continually improve transit safety and security. Application of NTD and Annual Report data enables FTA, SOAs, and RFGS to quantify the reasons for transit accidents, leading to the identification of safety and security deficiencies and their ultimate resolution. In this way, all involved parties can more effectively work toward the goal of eliminating transit-related deaths, injuries, and property damage.

 

The State Safety Oversight Rule affects many different types of rail transit operations, including heavy rail, light rail, trolleys, cable cars, inclined planes, and automated guideways. Every attempt has been made to standardize safety and security performance measures across a series of service indicators to support industry-based assessments of aggregate data. However, the range of operating requirements and the importance of local operating conditions limit the utility of individual agency comparisons to the industry baselines and averages contained in this report. SOAs and RFGS are advised to use caution in their application of these measures.


Chapter 1.

State Safety Oversight Overview

 

In response to congressional concern regarding the potential for catastrophic accidents and security incidents on rail transit systems, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) added Section 28 to the Federal Transit Act (codified at 49 U.S.C. Section 5330).  This section required FTA to issue a Rule creating the first state-managed oversight program for rail transit safety and security.

 

FTA published "Rail Fixed Guideway Systems; State Safety Oversight" on December 27, 1995 (codified at 49 CFR Part 659), subsequently referred to as the State Safety Oversight Rule or Part 659. This Rule sets forth FTA's requirements to improve the safety and security of RFGS. Only those states with RFGS meeting the following definition must comply with FTA's State Safety Oversight Rule:

 

"Any light, heavy or rapid rail system, monorail, inclined plane, funicular, trolley, or automated guideway that is included in FTA's calculation of fixed guideway route miles or receives funding under FTA's formula program for urbanized areas and is not regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)." (§659.5)

 

Rule Requirements

 

FTA's Final Rule for State Safety Oversight requires each state with an RFGS operating within its borders to designate an Oversight Agency with sufficient legal authority to comply with the minimum requirements established in Part 659.  Specifying the exact details of how the Oversight Agency operates is beyond the scope of Part 659, and is left for each Oversight Agency to determine. FTA does not require a single approach to establishing the legal, financial, or procedural mechanisms used to provide oversight.

 

FTA's State Safety Oversight Audit Program outlines seven distinct functions that must be performed for compliance:

 

·          Oversight Agency Designation and Authority (§659.21);

·          Oversight Agency Program Management (§659.47, §659.23, §659.31, and §659.45);

·          System Safety/Security Program Standard Preparation and Adoption and RFGS System Safety/Security Program Plan Review and Approval Process (§659.31 and §659.33);

·          Accident/Unacceptable Hazardous Conditions Investigations and Corrective Actions (§659.39, §659.41, and §659.43);

·          Three-Year Safety Reviews (§659.37);

·          Requiring and Reviewing RFGS Internal Safety Audit Process Reporting (§659.35); and

·          Oversight Agency Certification and Reporting to FTA (§659.45 and §659.49).

 

The requirements are further sub-divided into the following:

 

·         The obligation of the state to designate the Oversight Agency.

 

·         The authorities and responsibilities of the Oversight Agency in developing the requirements and programs necessary to comply with FTA's State Safety Oversight Program.

 

  • The role of the rail transit system in complying with the program developed by the Oversight Agency.

 

The State

 

The primary responsibility of the state is to designate an Oversight Agency (or Agencies) to oversee the safety of the rail transit systems operating within its borders. When the rail system operates only within a single state, that entity must be an agency of the state; when it operates in more than one state, the affected states may designate a single entity to oversee that system.  In neither case may the state designate the rail transit system as the Oversight Agency.

 

The Oversight Agency

 

The designated State Oversight Agency is required by Part 659 to perform seven distinct functions.  These activities constitute the core of FTA's State Safety Oversight Rule.  The Oversight Agency must:

 

         Develop a System Safety Program Standard (Program Standard).  This written document defines the relationship between the Oversight Agency and the rail transit system and guides the rail transit system in developing itsSystem Safety Program Plan (SSPP).

 

·         The Program Standard must, at a minimum, comply with APTA's Manual for the Development of Rail Transit System Safety Program Plans (APTA Manual) and include specific provisions addressing the personal security of passengers and employees.

 

         Require, review and approve, and monitor the implementation of an SSPP that complies with the Oversight Agency's Program Standard at each rail transit system. By January 1, 1997, the Oversight Agency must review and approve, in writing, the rail transit system's SSPP.  The security provisions of the SSPP, however, do not have to be approved initially by the Oversight Agency until January 1, 1998.  After the initial approvals, the Oversight Agency must review, as necessary, the rail transit system's SSPP and determine whether it should be updated.

 

         Require each rail transit system to report the occurrence of accidents and unacceptable hazardous conditions within a period of time specified by the Oversight Agency. The Oversight Agency must investigate such events in accordance with established procedures. The Oversight Agency may conduct its own investigation, use a contractor to conduct an investigation, or review and approve the investigation conducted by the rail transit system or the NTSB, or use a combination of these methods.

 

         Require the rail transit system to implement a Corrective Action Plan.  The Oversight Agency must require the rail transit system to minimize, control, correct, or eliminate hazardous conditions identified during investigations, in accordance with a Corrective Action Plan drafted by the rail transit system and approved by the Oversight Agency. 

 

         Conduct on-site visits at each rail transit system at a minimum of every 3 years to perform a formal Safety Review.  In a Safety Review, the Oversight Agency must assess whether the rail transit system's actual safety and security practices and procedures comply with its SSPP. Once this Review is completed, the Oversight Agency must prepare a report containing its findings and recommendations, an analysis of the efficacy of the rail transit system's SSPP, and a determination of whether the SSPP should be updated.

 

         Require the rail transit system to conduct safety audits according to the Internal Safety Audit Process detailed in the APTA Manual (Checklist Number 9).  In addition, the Oversight Agency must require the rail transit system to compile and submit an Annual Audit Report for review.

 

         Report to FTA.  The Oversight Agency must submit three kinds of reports to FTA: an Initial Submission, an Annual Submission, and a Periodic Submission.

 

The Rail Transit System

 

While the requirements in Part 659 are directed at the states and the Oversight Agencies, the rail transit agencies play an important role in the State Safety Oversight Program.

 

To comply with Part 659, the Oversight Agency must require each rail transit system within its jurisdiction to perform the following activities (at a minimum):

 

         Develop an SSPP that complies with the Oversight Agency's Program Standard.

 

         Classify hazardous conditions according to the APTA Manual Hazard Resolution Matrix

 

         Report, within the time frame specified by the Oversight Agency, any accident or unacceptable hazardous condition. 

 

         Obtain the Oversight Agency's approval of a Corrective Action Plan and then implement the Plan so as to minimize, control, correct, or eliminate the particular unacceptable hazardous condition.

 

         Conduct safety audits that comply with the Internal Safety Audit Process, APTA Manual (Checklist Number 9).  

 

         Draft and submit to the Oversight Agency a report summarizing the results of the safety audit process.

 

 


Graphical Representation

 


Figure 1 depicts the relationship between FTA, the state, and the RFGS as each element of Part 659 is implemented, and serves as a guide when documenting the procedures necessary to carry out rule requirements.

Figure 1. SSO Program Development Process


State Safety Oversight Community

 

In 2000, 22 SOAs had been designated to implement Part 659 requirements for a total of 35 RFGS (See Table 1).  Combined, these 35 rail transit agencies operated:

 

  • 12 heavy rail systems; and
  • 33 light rail systems (including automated guideways, inclined planes, trolleys, and cable cars).

 

Six of the Oversight Agencies had previous experience with the provision of safety oversight.  The remaining 16 Agencies were created to implement Part 659 requirements. 

 


SSO Affected Community CY 2000

FTA Region

State

SOA

Agency

RFGS

Mode

1

MA

DTE

Department of Telecommunication & Energy

Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority

HR

LR

2

NJ

NJDOT

New Jersey Department of Transportation

Hudson-Bergen Light Rail System

LR

New Jersey Transit

LR

NY

PTSB

Public Transportation Safety Board

New York City Transit

HR

Niagara Frontier Transit Authority

LR

NJ/PA

DRPA

Delaware River Port Authority

Port Authority Transit Corporation

HR

3

DC

TOC

Tri-State Oversight Committee

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

HR

MD

MDOT

Maryland Department of Transportation

Maryland Transit Authority

HR, LR

PA

PennDOT

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority

HR, LR

Port Authority of Allegheny County

LR, IP

Cambria County Transit Authority

IP

4

FL

FDOT

Florida Department of Transportation

Metro-Dade Transit Authority

HR, AG

Jacksonville Transportation Authority

AG

GA

GDOT

Georgia Department of Transportation

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

HR

TN

TDOT

Tennessee Department of Transportation

Chattanooga Area Rapid Transit Authority

IP

Memphis Area Transit Authority

LR

5

IL

RTA

Regional Transit Authority

Chicago Transit Authority

HR

MI

CIS

Michigan Department of Consumer & Industry Services

Detroit People Mover

AG

OH

ODOT

Ohio Department of Transportation

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

HR, LR

WI

WisDOT

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Kenosha Transit

LR

6

LA

LADOTD

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

New Orleans Regional Transit Authority

LR

TX

TxDOT

Texas Department of Transportation

Galveston Island Transit

LR

Dallas Rapid Transit

LR

7

MO

MCRS

Missouri Motor Carrier and Rail Safety

Bi-State Development Agency

LR

8

CO

CPUC

Colorado Public Utilities Commission

Denver Regional Transit District

LR

UT

UDOT

Utah Department of Transportation

Utah Transit Authority

LR

9

CA

CPUC

California Public Utilities Commission

Bay Area Rapid Transit

HR

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

HR, LR

San Francisco Municipal Railway

LR, CC

San Diego Trolley, Inc.

 LR

Sacramento Regional Transit District

LR

Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority

LR

10

OR

ODOT

Oregon Department of Transportation

Portland Tri-Met

LR

WA

WDOT

Washington Department of Transportation

King County Metro

LR

Seattle Center Monorail

AG

Table 1. States and RFGS Affected by Part 659 - by FTA Region


SOAs have a variety of legal authorities, including safety responsibilities that exceed FTA minimum requirements. The majority of SOAs are divisions of state Departments of Transportation or Public Utilities Commissions, empowered by enabling legislation or gubernatorial order to implement Part 659 regulations (see Table 2).  Table 3 presents the states and the number of RFGS within their jurisdictions.

 

Ten states have designated at least 1 full-time equivalent to the implementation of 49 CFR Part 659 requirements; 12 states have designated less than .5 FTA.  The level of resources varies according to the number and operations of the RFGS overseen.

 

Table 4 presents the allocation of personnel to implement 49 CFR Part 659 requirements.

 

Table 2.Categorization of Designated Oversight Agencies

Agencies Designated by States

2000 Reporting Year

Number

Department of Transportation

12

Utilities Commission or Regulator

3

State Economic Development Department

2

Regional or County Transportation Authority

1

Multi-state Oversight Committee

1

Consumer Industry & Services

1

Transportation Safety Board

1

Port Authority

1

Total

22

 

Table 3. Number of RFGS in Affected States

Number of RFGS within State Jurisdiction

2000 Reporting Year

1 RFGS

2 RFGS

3 RFGS

6 RFGS

CO, DC, GA, IL, LA, MA, MD, MI, MO, OH, OR, UT, VA, WI

FL, NJ, NY, TN, TX, WA

PA

CA

14

6

1

1

 

Table 4. Oversight Agency Resources Allocated to State Safety Oversight

 

SOA Resource Allocation

No. States

 Avg. FTE per State

Total - States

22

1.4

States with more than 1 RFGS

8

2.3

States with 1 RFGS

14

.9

Note: There were total of 12 States that designated less than .5 FTE


Between the publishing dates for FTA's Annual Report for 1999 and this report, there have been a number of changes to the SSO community.  Both the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail System and Kenosha Transit initiated revenue service in CY 2000, April and July respectively.  This increased the total number of SOAs by one with the addition of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to provide safety oversight of Kenosha Transit (an existing SOA-New Jersey Department of Transportation-assumed safety oversight of the Hudson-Bergen line). 

 

In early 2001, the New Jersey Department of Transportation also assumed safety oversight responsibilities for the Port Authority Transit Corporation (PATCO), as the Delaware River Port Authority was no longer able to perform this function.  This change was coordinated with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. 

 

Further, with the initiation of revenue service for the Bi-State Development Agency's (BSDA) Metrolink Extension in the state of Illinois, the St. Clair County Transit District was officially designated in 2001 to provide oversight for BSDA's Illinois operations.

 

Finally, the Detroit Department of Transportation's Detroit Trolley service was recognized as an RFGS, increasing the total of RFGS overseen by the Michigan Department of Consumer & Industry Services to two.

 

With these changes, at the time of this report, there are 22 SOAs providing safety oversight for 36 RFGS.  Within the next 3-5 years, FTA expects that an additional seven New Start transit agencies will initiate revenue service requiring the designation of an additional six state oversight agencies.  Figure 2 depicts the recent changes, as well as the projected changes for the soon-to-be-affected states.


 

 

Figure 2. Current Map of States Affected by Part 659

 

Chapter 2.

Rail Transit in the United States

 

In 1991, rail transit provided 7.5 million daily passenger unlinked trips. One decade later, the nation's 36 major rail transit systems provide approximately 10 million daily unlinked passenger trips, a gain of 25 percent (see Table 5).

 

Table 5. Average Weekday Unlinked Passenger Trips, 2000

 



State

Modes

Rail Transit Agency

Average Daily Rail Transit Ridership

Part 659 Oversight Agency

CA

HR

HR,LR

LR, CC

LR

LR

LR

BART (San Francisco)

LACMTA (Los Angeles)

Muni (San Francisco)

San Diego Trolley

Sacramento RTD

Santa Clara Valley TA

348,000

125,000

145,000

85,000

30,000

28,500

California PUC

 

 

 

CO

LR

Denver RTD

30,500

Colorado PUC

DC-MD-VA

HR

Washington Metro

815,000

TOC

FL

HR, AG

AG

Miami Metro-Dade

Jacksonville TA

50,000

2,500

Florida DOT

GA

HR

MARTA (Atlanta)

265,000

Georgia DOT

IL

HR

CTA (Chicago)

496,000

Illinois RTA

IL

LR

Bi-State Development Agency

12,000

St. Clair County (IL only)

LA

LR

New Orleans RTA

25,000

Louisiana DOTD

MD

HR, LR

Baltimore MTA

76,000

Maryland DOT

MA

HR, LR

MBTA (Boston)

675,000

Massachusetts DTE

MI

AG

LR

Detroit People Mover

Detroit Trolley

4,000

1,000

Michigan CIS

MO

LR

Bi-State Development Agency

42,000

Missouri MCRS

(Missouri operations only)

NJ

LR

LR

HR

Newark Light Rail

Hudson-Bergen Light Rail

Port Authority Transit Corporation

17,000

10,000

37,000

 

New Jersey DOT

NY

HR

LR

NYCT (New York City)

NFTA (Buffalo)

5,900,000

24,000

New York PTSB

OH

HR, LR

Cleveland

12,000

Ohio DOT

OR

LR

Portland Tri-Met

70,000

Oregon DOT

PA

HR, LR

LR, IP

IP

SEPTA

PA Transit (Pittsburgh)

CCTA (Cambria County)

400,000

25,000

2,000

 

Pennsylvania DOT

TN

LR

IP

MATA (Memphis)

CARTA (Chattanooga)

3,500

1,000

 

Tennessee DOT

TX

LR

LR

Dallas (DART)

GIT (Galveston)

40,000

1,000

Texas DOT

UT

LR

UTA (Salt Lake City)

25,000

Utah DOT

WA

LR

AG

King County (Seattle)

Monorail (Seattle)

500

1,000

Washington DOT

WI

LR

Kenosha Transit

600

Wisconsin DOT

 

 

36 Agencies

9,825,100

 


Rail transit now accounts for roughly 30 percent of all trips taken on public transportation. (See Table 6.)  While other land transportation modes are experiencing reductions in passenger miles, rail transit is posting an average annual increase of 4.1 percent.

 

Table 6. Average Weekday Public Transportation Ridership, Fiscal Year 2000

Mode

Average Weekday Unlinked Passenger Trips

Percent of Total

Bus

20,000,000

61.8%

Commuter Rail

1,500,000

4.5%

Demand Response

360,000

1%

Ferry Boat

165,000

.5%

Heavy Rail

8,525,000

27%

Light Rail (including automated guideways, cable cars, inclined planes, and trolleys)

1,300,000

3.8%

Trolleybus

381,000

1.2%

Vanpool

51,000

.2%

TOTAL

31,818,000

100%

 

Since 1991, annual passenger miles have more than doubled for light rail and the number of systems providing service has increased from 14 to 20.  Prompted by major ridership gains in New York and Washington, D.C., heavy rail transit has experienced a 30 percent gain in passenger miles over the same period (see Figure 3).

 

Figure 3. Ridership Growth - 1994-2000


Table 7 (Heavy Rail) and Table 8 (Light Rail) present general service data reported for 2000 by those RFGS affected by State Safety Oversight.   For both of these tables, automated guideway, cable car, and inclined plane systems have been incorporated in the Light Rail Service Profile.  The following service characteristics were compiled from 2000 NTD data:

 

  • Annual Passenger Miles
  • Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles
  • Annual Passenger Unlinked Trips
  • Average Weekday Unlinked Trips
  • Average Length of Unlinked Passenger Trip
  • Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours

 


NTD ID

Agency

State

Mode

Annual Passenger Unlinked Trips

Annual Passenger Miles

Annual Vehicles Revenue Miles

Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours

Average Weekday Unlinked Trips

Average Length of Unlinked Passenger Trip (miles)

1003

Boston-MBTA

MA

HR

138,259,519

473,924,299

20,663,407

939,246

448,385

3.43

2008

New York City Transit

NY

HR

1,677,506,585

8,319,909,312

323,176,760

17,497,114

5,512,652

4.96

2075

Philadelphia-PATCO

NJ

HR

10,581,143

93,220,498

4,097,782

141,303

37,972

8.81

3019

Philadelphia-SEPTA

PA

HR

89,551,788

400,453,946

16,239,192

880,942

296,175

4.47

3030

Washington-Metro

DC

HR

218,273,257

1,190,448,841

48,243,553

2,260,586

738,225

5.45

3034

Baltimore-MTA

MD

HR

13,608,659

70,639,677

4,223,008

169,067

47,795

5.19

4022

Atlanta-MARTA

GA

HR

83,796,606

503,490,135

21,561,493

817,423

273,990

6.01

4034

Miami - Dade TA

FL

HR

14,080,200

110,086,397

5,986,001

233,639

47,237

7.82

5015

Cleveland-RTA

OH

HR

7,341,096

54,008,892

2,064,918

95,671

24,079

7.36

5066

Chicago-RTA-CTA

IL

HR

176,250,504

1,002,999,223

55,635,175

2,699,455

589,383

5.69

9003

San Francisco-BART

CA

HR

90,974,498

1,184,094,227

57,377,586

1,535,442

310,268

13.02

9154

Los Angeles County Metro

CA

HR

27,957,650

74,729,093

3,567,756

185,571

83,230

2.67

 

Heavy Rail Totals

 

 

2,548,181,505

13,478,004,540

562,836,631

27,455,459

8,409,391

5.29

Table 7. Heavy Rail Service Profile - 2000


NTD ID

Agency

State

Mode

Annual Passenger Unlinked Trips

Annual Passenger Miles

Annual Vehicles Revenue Miles

Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours

Average Weekday Unlinked Trips

Average Length of Unlinked Passenger Trip (miles)

0001

Seattle-Metro Transit

WA

LR

447,141

468,273

42,271

11,809

1,016

1.05

0008

Portland-Tri-Met

OR

LR

24,362,806

140,859,890

5,052,156

291,964

73,562

5.78

1003

Boston-MBTA

MA

LR

73,549,312

157,925,504

6,324,839

421,656

255,598

2.15

2004

Buffalo-Niagara Frontier

NY

LR

6,568,165

15,438,446

894,809

74,048

23,155

2.35

2080

New Jersey Transit

NJ

LR

4,107,641

10,058,944

540,518

45,312

16,045

2.45

2080

NJT - HBLRS

NJ

LR

244,951

649,618

1,197,570

12,122

3,181

2.65

3019

Philadelphia-SEPTA

PA

LR

24,994,338

61,538,772

3,084,370

304,854

83,123

2.46

3022

Pittsburgh-PATransit

PA

LR

7,358,650

33,216,196

1,824,708

125,136

24,592

4.51

3034

Baltimore-MTA

MD

LR

8,490,434

59,171,875

2,736,359

172,051

27,415

6.97

4003

Memphis Area TA

TN

LR

1,241,196

1,032,138

313,067

39,020

3,482

0.83

5003

Kenosha Transit

WI

LR

33,660

63,954

10,176

10,176

147

1.90

5015

Cleveland-RTA

OH

LR

4,318,422

24,851,922

1,141,863

73,455

14,062

5.75

5119

Detroit DOT

MI

LR

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

6032

New Orleans-RTA

LA

LR

5,365,482

13,238,188

672,510

77,270

14,963

2.47

6056

Dallas-DART

TX

LR

11,433,508

60,197,211

2,419,280

152,885

37,682

5.26

7006

St. Louis-Bi-State Dev.

MO

LR

14,165,766

95,326,967

2,528,479

101,405

41,454

6.73

8001

Salt Lake City-UTA

UT

LR

6,132,356

49,672,144

1,505,996

75,212

20,077

8.10

Table 8. Light Rail Service Profile - 2000

Table 8. Light Rail Service Profile - 2000 (cont.)

NTD ID

Agency

State

Mode

Annual Passenger Unlinked Trips

Annual Passenger Miles

Annual Vehicles Revenue Miles

Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours

Average Weekday Unlinked Trips

Average Length of Unlinked Passenger Trip (miles)

8006

Denver-RTD

CO

LR

6,675,202

28,222,709

1,458,759

108,187

22,467

4.23

9013

San Jose-Santa Clara VTA

CA

LR

7,913,730

35,757,928

2,421,865

163,350

25,576

4.52

9015

San Francisco-Muni

CA

LR

41,610,126

108,793,016

4,314,232

474,018

134,619

2.61

9019

Sacramento RTD

CA

LR

8,626,868

45,867,205

2,222,044

109,062

29,102

5.32

9054

San Diego Trolley

CA

LR

28,743,326

188,268,785

7,090,499

329,385

83,474

6.55

9154

Los Angeles County Metro

CA

LR

29,859,558

208,824,385

4,658,489

195,998

91,324

6.99

3012

Cambria County

PA

IP

121,779

20,761

19,186

16,534

1,076

0.17

0023

Seattle-Monorail Transit

WA

MO

2,463,597

2,217,237

207,056

27,180

6,806

0.90

3022

Pittsburgh-PATransit

PA

IP

411,332

61,778

2,776

1,080

280

0.15

3022

Pittsburgh-PATransit (PT)

PA

IP

806,650

96,712

28,294

4,950

2,204

0.12

4001

Chattanooga Area RTA

TN

IP

447,229

447,229

19,492

5,316

1,124

1.00

4034

Miami - Dade TA

FL

AG

4,230,225

4,407,744

986,509

90,637

14,295

1.04

4040

Jacksonville-JTA

FL

AG

563,102

233,346

203,244

18,547

2,054

0.41

5141

Detroit Transportation

MI

AG

1,485,856

1,783,698

380,940

34,636

4,151

1.20

9015

San Francisco-Muni

CA

CC

9,206,274

10,546,292

5,236,420

129,672

25,154

1.15

 

Light Rail and Others Totals

 

335,978,682

1,359,258,867

59,538,776

3,696,927

1,083,260

4.05


When compared to 1999 service data (see Table 9), it is clear that both annual passenger trips and passenger miles have increased from 1999 totals, with light rail service seeing an increase of over 10 percent. 

 

Table 9. 1999-2000 Comparison: Annual Passenger Unlinked Trips and Passenger Miles

Modes

Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips

Annual Passenger Miles

 

1999

2000

Increase

1999

2000

Increase

Heavy Rail

2,444,720,733

2,548,181,505

4%

12,567,040,684

13,478,004,540

7%

Light Rail

288,585,587

316,242,638

10%

1,190,168,592

1,339,444,070

13%

Other

19,508,290

19,736,044

1%

18,823,068

19,814,797

5%

All Modes

2,752,814,610

2,884,160,187

5%

13,776,032,344

14,837,263,407

8%

 

While almost all light rail systems nationwide are experiencing ridership growth, a large portion of the 10 percent increase in CY 2000 numbers can be attributed to the Utah Transit Authority's North/South Line, which initiated revenue service in late 1999, as well as the initiation of service on Hudson-Bergen's Light Rail Transit System.

 

Initiation of revenue service at Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority's Red Line Extension helped contribute to the growth in heavy rail ridership numbers.  An increase of approximately 5 percent in New York City Transit's ridership totals (now nearly 5 million daily) also added to this year's rise.

 

Further growth in ridership is expected throughout the decade as the substantial increases in Federal funding under TEA-21 are translated into operational service. Since January 1, 2000, 10 rail transit agencies have initiated major projects into revenue service (see Table 10).  Between September 2000 and the end of 2003, 15 more agencies will bring projects online (see Table 11).  By 2010, more than 40 major rail transit projects will have been initiated into revenue service. Combined, these projects will reflect a national investment in excess of $30 billion.


RFGS

Location

Project   Name

Month of Service

Mode

Daily Ridership

Safety Contact

BSDA

St. Louis

St. Clair County Extension

5-01

Light Rail

14,500

Pamela McCombe

314-982-1400

RTD

Denver

Southwest Corridor Project

7-00

Light Rail

8,400

David Genova

303-299-4038

Hudson-Bergen

Newark

MOS-1, Phase I

4-00

Light Rail

34,900

Nagal Shashidhara

201-209-2549

MOS-1, Phase II

11-00

JTA

Jacksonville

Skyway Express

11-00

Monorail

2,200

Don Chapman

904-630-3123

Kenosha Transit

Wisconsin

Heritage Trolley System

6-00

Light Rail (trolley)

600

Jim Lawlor

262-653-4290

LACMTA

Los Angeles

North Hollywood Extension

6-00

Heavy Rail

60,000

Vijay Khawani

213-922-7275

MARTA

Atlanta

North Line Extension

12-00

Heavy Rail

33,000

Gene Wilson

404-848-4900

SCVTA

San Jose

Tasman East Light Rail

5-01

Light Rail

3-4,000

Nanci Eksterowicz

408-321-5593

SF Muni

San Francisco

F Market and Wharves Lines

3-00

Historic Streetcar

3-5,000

Harvey Becker

415-351-3461

 

WMATA

 

Washington , DC

Outer F Route Extension

3-01

Heavy Rail

43,350

Fred Goodine

202-962-2297

Table 10. Rail Agencies Initiating New Service by Early 2001

 

 




RFGS

Location

Project   Name

Projected Date of Service

Mode

Daily Ridership

Safety Contact

BART

San Francisco

 

West Bay (SFO Airport) Extension

2002

Heavy Rail

70,000

Len Hardy

510-464-4870

A/B Car Rehabilitation

2002

Heavy Rail

n.a.

Len Hardy

510-464-4870

DART

Dallas

Blue Line (North) Ext.

Phase I

Phase II

Phase III

Red Line (North Central)

Phase I

Phase II

 

9-24-01

Spring 2002

Fall 2002

 

Summer 2002

2003

 

 

Light Rail

 

 

 

 

 

20,000

 

 

38,000

Henry Hartberg

214-928-6010

 

Denver RTD

 

Denver

Platte Valley Corridor Extension

March 2002

Light Rail

15,000

David Genova

303-299-4038

HART

Tampa

Tampa Vintage Trolley

Spring 2002

Light Rail (trolley)

n.a.

Joe Diaz

813-623-5835

Hudson-Bergen

Newark

MOS-2, Phase A

Fall 2001

Light Rail

4,900

Nagal Shashidhara

201-209-2549

MDTA

Miami

Palmetto Extension

2002

Heavy Rail

5,000

Bonnie Todd

305-375-4240

Muni

San Francisco

New LRVs/Automatic Train Control Upgrade

2002

Light Rail

n.a.

Harvey Becker

415-351-3461

NCS

Newark

Barnch Brook Extension

Fall 2001

Light Rail

5,000

Paul Lidaka

973-491-7811

NYCT

New York City

Queens Boulevard Line Connector

Fall 2001

Heavy Rail

50,000

Cheryl Kennedy

718-243-4780

Sacramento

RTD

Sacramento

Folsom Extension

December 2003

Light Rail

7,000

Bill Grizard

916-321-2846

South Line

2003

n.a.

SEPTA

Philadelphia

Market-Frankford Elevated Upgrade

2003

Heavy Rail

n.a.

Ron Hopkins

215-580-7911

SNJLRTS

Trenton to Camden, NJ

Southern New Jersey Light Rail

2003

Light Rail

4,500

n.a.

Tren Urbano

San Juan, Puerto Rico

Tren Urbano Rail Transit Project

2003

Heavy Rail

100,000

Rafael Jiminez

787-765-0927

Tri-Met

Portland

Airport MAX LRT Extension

September 10, 2001

Light Rail

7,500

Mike Russell

503-962-6408

UTA

Salt Lake City

University Extension

November 29, 2001

Light Rail

7,600

Ed Buchanan

801-352-6603

Medical Center Extension

2003

Light Rail

4,500

Table 11. Rail Transit Projects Online between 2000 and 2003


 Rail Grade Crossings

 

Agency

Rail Grade Crossings Reported for 2000

Increase since 1997

Baltimore-Maryland-MTA

38

 

Boston-MBTA

31

 

Buffalo-NFTA

7

 

Cleveland-RTA

24

2

Dallas-DART

64

 

Denver-RTD

34

 

Galveston-Island Transit

2

 

Kenosha Transit

27

27

Los Angeles County Metro

103

26

Memphis-MATA

41

16

New Jersey Transit

1

 

New Jersey-Hudson-Bergen

19

19

New Orleans-RTA

293

 

Philadelphia-SEPTA

336

 

Pittsburgh-PAT

44

2

Portland-Tri-Met

110

55

Sacramento-RT

101

15

Salt Lake City-UTA

61

61

San Diego Trolley

135

65

San Francisco-Muni

216

25

San Jose-Santa Clara VTA

97

33

Seattle-Metro

14

 

St. Louis-Bi-State

12

 

Total

1810

(+) 346

Light rail is an attractive public transportation alternative for many reasons: its relatively low capital cost, its ability to operate both on and off streets, and its capacity to transport passengers with frequent stops in heavily congested areas. However, unlike heavy rail systems, which operate largely within exclusive right-of-way, the majority of light rail transit systems operate portions of their systems within unrestricted right-of-way on city streets, in mixed traffic, within median strips, and in pedestrian malls. This situation results in numerous, and sometimes continuous, roadway-light rail grade crossings. In some cases, light rail systems share grade crossings with mainline railroads.

 

Rail grade crossings and intermingling with street traffic create an operating environment for light rail transportation wrought with the potential for catastrophic occurrences. With at least 10 new light rail systems planned in the next decade, and an equal number of extensions under design and construction for existing light rail service, this vulnerability will only increase.

 

Table 12 highlights the rising number of rail grade crossings introduced into revenue service since 1997.

 

Table 13 provides additional information on the characteristics of these crossings.

 


Rail Transit Agency

1999 NTD Total Reported Grade Crossings

Total Rail Grade Crossings

Protected Grade Crossings

Traffic-Controlled Grade Crossings

Unprotected Street-running Grade Crossings

Shared Use Track? (Yes/No)

FRA Waiver Required? (Yes/No)

Shared Use Operations? (Yes/No)

SRTD

86

101

49

30

22

No

No

Yes

LACMTA

103

103

28

75

0

No

No

Yes

SCVTA

97

97

26

71

0

Yes

Yes

No

SDTI

135

135

83

30

22

Yes

No

Yes

SF MUNI - LR

216

216

15

201

0

No

No

No

SF MUNI - Historic

125

135

21

123

0

No

No

No

SF MUNI - Cable Car

77

77

1

76

0

No

No

No

RTD

34

34

3

31

0

No

No

Yes

CTA

25

25

25

0

0

No

No

Yes

MTA

38

38

33

0

5

Yes

Yes

Yes

MBTA

31

31

0

28

3

No

No

Yes

NO RTA

293

293

1

30

262

No

No

Yes

BSDA

12

12

12

0

0

No

No

Yes

NJT-NCS

0

1

0

1

0

No

No

No

HBLRT

0

19

2

19

0

No

No

No

NFTA

0

0

0

7

0

No

No

No

GCRTA

24

24

3

21

0

No

No

Yes

Tri-Met

110

110

35

62

12

No

No

Yes

SEPTA

46

46

290

0

0

No

No

No

PAT

44

36

8

0

0

No

No

No

MATA

41

41

20

20

1

No

No

No

DART

64

64

39

25

0

No

No

Yes

GIT

2

2

0

2

0

No

No

No

UTA

61

61

35

22

4

Yes

Yes

Yes

Kenosha

0

27

27

4

0

No

No

No

Totals

1,664

1,694

756

878

331

4

3

13

Table 13. Grade Crossing Characteristics


Addressing New Starts

 

FTA's Office of Safety and Security is continuing its support of New Starts through provisions of technical assistance to aid states in their development of an SSO Program, as well as to the Transit agency to help in its preparations to meet safety and security requirements.  FTA's Compliance Guidelines for States with New Starts Projects help guide states, affected by Part 659, in the development of safety oversight programs that meet FTA requirements.

 

The Office of Safety and Security is also promoting system safety through its Safety Certification Initiative, for which it has established a System Safety Task Force with the American Public Transportation Association to draft a Safety Certification Handbook for the industry to support the application of system safety principles in the planning, design, and construction phases of major rail transit projects. 

 

The Handbook is intended as an introductory reference on safety certification for rail transit safety, project development, and project management personnel. It describes the main concepts and benefits of a safety certification program (SCP). It outlines the Task Force's safety certification guidance, and provides information, sample forms and text to support preparation of key SCP elements, including:

 

·         Safety Certification Management Plan

·         Safety Design Criteria

·         Hazard Management Policy and Plan

·         Verification & Conformance Checklists

·         Formal Certification

 

The Handbook is due to be released in early 2002.


Chapter 3.

Safety and Rail Transit

 

Deaths and injuries are a major cost in transportation. Transportation fatalities rank third as the cause of lost years of life in the United States (behind heart disease and cancer).  Historically, the rail transit industry provides the safest means of passenger transportation available in the United States.  Table 14 presents annual fatalities by mode of transportation between 1995 and 2000, as reported by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics in the Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2000 and the NTSB. For the six years between 1995 and 2000, the number of fatalities in rail transit has been a full order of magnitude less than other modes of transportation, or approximately .2 percent of the total.

 

Table 14. Transportation-related Fatalities, 1995 to 2000

Mode

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Aviation (including air carriers, commuter air, on-demand air taxi, and general aviation)

963

1,089

753

667

693

777

Highway (including commercial and personal vehicles)

41,817

42,065

42,013

41,471

41,717

41,800

Rail (including freight, commuter railroads, and rail-grade crossings)

1,146

1,039

1,063

1,008

932

701

Rail transit (including heavy and light rail, automated guideways, cable cars, inclined planes and trolleys)

94

80

80

77

101

107

Waterborne (shipping and recreational boating)

875

759

867

844

834

801

 

FTA is committed to supporting the efforts of rail transit systems to further reduce the number of accidents, injuries and incidents. The highest priority of the DOT is to "promote the public health and safety by working toward the elimination of transportation-related deaths, injuries, and property damage."  FTA's Safety Brochure series outlines activities to promote this priority. 

 

Although great progress has been made over the last few decades, the potential for catastrophic occurrence remains. Effective integration of rail transit into city streets and major rail transportation corridors requires vigilance in the design, construction and operation of these systems.

 

 

 

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2000, the nation's rail transit system reported 107 transit-related fatalities to the NTD, of which 47 were suicides. These agencies also reported 12,005 injuries, defined as

 

"Any physical damage or harm to a person requiring medical treatment, or any physical damage or harm to a person reported at the time and place of occurrence. For employees, an injury includes incidents resulting in time lost from duty or any definition consistent with a transit agency's current employee injury reporting practice."

Table 15 provides totals, by mode of service, for fatalities, injuries, and suicides, reported to NTD in 2000.

 

Table 15. Reported 2000 Fatalities and Injuries by Rail Transit Mode

Mode

Number of Systems

Fatalities

Injuries

In-service

Suicides

Heavy Rail

12

38

39

10,634

Light Rail

32

22

8

1,371

Total

44

60

47

12,005

 

NOTE: For Tables 15 and 16 and Figures 4 and 5, the modal category "Light Rail" includes automated guideways, cable cars, trolleys, and inclined planes.

 

Table 16 presents NTD fatality and injury statistics as rates for each mode, standardized across key indicators of service such as passenger trips and passenger miles.  Both fatality and injury rates for each mode of service over a 10-year period are discussed below.

 

Table 16. FY 2000 Rates of Fatality and Injury by Rail Transit Mode

Mode

Number of Systems

Fatalities per 10 million Passenger Trips

Fatalities per 100,000,000 Passenger Miles

Injuries per 100,000 Passenger Trips

Injuries per 10,000,000 Passenger Miles

Heavy Rail

12

0.30

0.57

0.42

7.89

Light Rail

32

0.89

2.21

0.41

10.09

 

Figure 4 presents 10-year trend information for fatalities reported to NTD by mode, standardized by passenger miles.  Figure 5 presents injuries, again using passenger miles for standardization and covering the period from 1991 through 2000.  Fatality and injury trends are pointed downward with the exception of fatalities for light rail modes. While the fatality rate has risen from 1.41 to 2.21 per 100 million passenger miles, it is important to note that over the same period, total passenger miles on light rail systems have increased 12.4 percent and unlinked passenger trips have increased approximately 10 percent.

 


 

Figure 4. Fatalities per 100 Million Passenger Miles - 1991 through 2000 (including suicides)

 

 

 

Figure 5. Injuries per 10 Million Passenger Miles - 1991 through 2000


Comparison between 1999 and 2000

 

As is clear from Figures 5 and 6, there was a decrease in the fatality rate per 10 million passenger trips for heavy rail of nearly 12 percent.  Light rail, however, experienced an increase of 61 percent in the fatality rate by passenger trips (see Figure 6).  However, when the fatality rate is standardized by passenger mile, the increase in the fatality rate is 5 percent less.  Heavy rail saw a decrease in the fatality rate for both standardizations (see Figure 7).

 

 

Figure 6. Fatalities per 10 Million Passenger Trips - 1999 and 2000

 

 

Figure 7. Fatalities per 100 Million Passenger Miles - 1999 and 2000


With the exception of a slight increase in the injury rates for heavy rail, overall injury rates were lower, with substantial decreases for "other" mode of service (automated guideway, cable car, trolleys, and inclined plane).  As Figure 8 indicates, the decrease for "other" service modes fell roughly 46 percent.  When standardized by passenger miles, the same trends follow (see Figure 9).

 

 

 

Figure 8. Injuries per 100,000 Unlinked Passenger Trips - 1999 and 2000

 

 

Figure 9. Injuries per 10 Million Passenger Miles - 1999 and 2000



Chapter 4.

Principal Findings from State Safety Oversight Annual Reporting

 

 This section contains principal findings for accidents and resulting injuries and fatalities reported to FTA for CY 2000.  Required by FTA's State Safety Oversight (SSO) Rule, SOAs report on annual activities, including accident data, for rail fixed guideway systems (RFGS) within their jurisdiction.  Findings for CY 2000 are based on the incidents reported that meet FTA's criteria for "accident" as defined in FTA's SSO Rule codified as 49 CFR Part 659.5.

 

Accidents

 

It should be noted that as a program like the SSO Program matures, reporting diligence matures as well.  Through FTA's ongoing SSO Audit Program, the Office of Safety and Security has made a concerted effort to clarify to States the accident data FTA expects to be collected and reported.  It is suspected that this clarification has brought with it an increase in the capturing of "single person events" - slips, trips, and falls - as well as more detailed causal information.

 

In CY 2000, RFGS reported 3,192 incidents that met FTA's definition of accident.  This total represents an increase of approximately 22 percent over CY 1999 totals (2,627).  Incidents on light rail service fell 28 percent (see Figure 10).

 

Figure 10. Total Reported Accidents - 1999 and 2000


Figure 11 depicts the total number of reported incidents by type for both CY 1999 and 2000. Of note, there was a reduction in reportable collisions and rail grade crossings, while reported fires, derailments, and single-person accidents all increased over CY 1999 totals.

 

·         Collisions decreased 33 percent.

·         Light Rail collisions decreased 29 percent.

·         Derailments increased 250 percent.

·         Rail Grade Crossing Incidents decreased 16 percent.

·         Fires increased 140 percent.

·         "Other" (single person incidents) increased 24 percent.

 

 

 
Figure 11. FTA Reportable Accidents by Type - 1999 and 2000


As mentioned above, RFGS reported a total of 3,192 accidents to SOAs meeting FTA's definition.  As depicted in Figure 11, of this total, 3,036 reported incidents were single-person events, leaving 156 total reported incidents for collisions, derailments, rail grade crossing incidents, and fires.  Figure 12 depicts the categorization of reported accidents by mode and by accident type. 

 

Key findings:

 

When excluding single-person events:

 

  • 79 percent of accidents were collisions and rail grade crossing incidents.
  • In 1999, 94 percent of accidents were collisions and rail grade crossing incidents.
  • Light rail accounted for 55 percent of all reported collisions.
  • Incidents at rail grade crossings accounted for 36 percent of reported accidents.

 

 

Figure 12. CY 2000 Accidents by Mode/Type

 

 


As depicted in Figure 11, accidents at rail grade crossings decreased 16 percent from 1999 to 2000.  Figure 13 indicates that of the 56 rail grade crossing incidents, an overwhelming 72 percent of injuries resulting from those incidents occurred at traffic-controlled crossings.  Interestingly, the only fatalities occurred at the protected crossings.

 

Figure 13. Accident Results by Rail Grade Crossing Characteristics

 

Fatalities

 

In CY 2000, rail transit agencies reported 102 fatalities to the SOAs.  This represents a 9 percent decrease from the 112 fatalities reported in 1999.  Of the 102 reported fatalities, 61 were the result of suicides and trespassing incidents.  The remaining 41 fatalities represent a 5 percent increase when compared to 1999 (see Figure 14).

 

Figure 14. FTA Reportable Fatalities - Excluding Suicides


The heavy rail service mode accounted for 70 percent of the reported fatalities, more than triple (8 to 29) its 1999 reported totals. Light rail fatalities fell by over 50 percent (28 to 12) (see Figure 15).  For other modes of service, including cable car, incline plane, and automated guideway, there were no fatalities reported in CY 2000

 

Figure 15. Reported Fatalities by Mode - Excluding Suicides

Fatalities resulting from reported collisions from CY 1999 to CY 2000 declined, from a total of 21 to 16, a decrease of 24 percent.   There were a total of 3 fatalities from rail grade crossing incidents reported in CY 2000, 83 percent lower relative to 1999 (see Figure 16).  For the second straight year, there were no reported fatalities from fires or derailments.

 

Figure 16. FTA Reportable Fatalities by Type - 1999 and 2000


Finally, in CY 2000, there were 22 fatalities in the "other" category that were not reported as suicides or trespassing incidents.  Roughly half of these fatalities were attributed to passenger falls from trains or platforms, while an additional 25 percent were incidents in which persons were struck by trains while on platforms or near stations.  This categorization differs from "other" fatalities reported in 1999 (see Figure 17).

 

 

Figure 17. Fatalities by Mode/Type - Excluding Suicides

Key findings:

 

·         Light rail transit experienced 92 percent of its fatalities resulting from collisions and rail grade crossing accidents.

·         Heavy rail fatalities due to collisions remained constant since 1999.

 


Injuries

 

A total of 3,371 injuries from FTA reportable accidents were reported in CY 2000.  This represents an increase of roughly 20 percent when compared to CY 1999 totals (2,839) (see Figure 18). When compared to 1999, injuries resulting from:

 

  • Collisions decreased by 47 percent.

·         Derailments rose from 1 to 119.

  • Rail Grade Crossing incidents declined roughly 43 percent.
  • Fires decreased by 1/3.
  • Other reportable incidents rose by 22 percent.

 

 

Figure 18. FTA Reportable Injuries - 1999 and 2000

 

While there was an increase in reported injuries for heavy rail accidents from CY 1999 to CY 2000-due in large part to an increase in slips, trips, and falls at heavy rail stations, injuries resulting from light rail incidents decreased by approximately 26 percent.  There was only a slight decrease in the number of injuries for other modes of service, 23 down to 21 (see Figure 19).

 

 

Figure 19. Total Injuries by Mode - 1999 and 2000

 

Figure 20 and Figure 21 portray the number of injuries reported in CY 2000 and 1999, respectively, by incident type for each mode of service. 

 

 

Figure 20. CY 2000 Injuries by Mode/Type


 

Figure 21. CY 1999 Injuries by Mode/Type

Key Findings:

 

In CY 2000:

 

·         Light rail transit accounted for 66 percent of the injuries resulting from collisions - up 2 percent from 1999.

·         Light rail experienced 57 percent of the injuries from collisions, grade crossing accidents, derailments, and fires - down 5 percent from 1999.

·         Injuries resulting from collisions on heavy rail fell 31 percent.

·         As the number of reported derailments for both heavy and light rail increased, so did the number of resulting injuries.

 


Probable Cause

 

For the second straight year under FTA's State Safety Oversight Program, causal data for accidents meeting FTA's definition were reported.  For the total 3,192 reported incidents, Figure 22 depicts the reported causal information.

 

 

Figure 22. Probable Cause for Reported Accidents - Excluding "Other"*

*Only those incidents totaling more than 2 percent of the total reported causes are shown above.

 

The number of reported accidents for which the probable cause was determined to be an "other vehicle" rose from a 23 percent share of probable causes in CY 1999 to a 35 percent share in CY 2000.  Also of note, the category of cause "pedestrian" was determined as the probable cause in 11 percent of CY 2000 accidents, up from 2 percent in CY 1999.  However, accidents in which "rule violation" was determined as the cause decreased over the same period, from 22 percent in CY 1999 to 6 percent in CY 2000.

 

Table 17 depicts probable cause percentages by accident type and mode.


Table 17. Probable Cause Percentages by Accident Type and Mode

Probable Cause

Collisions

Derailments

Rail Grade Crossings

Fires

Car Equipment Failure

 

HR

LR

Other

HR

LR

Other

HR

LR

Other

HR

LR

Other

Car Body

       

2%

17%

                 

     Propulsion Unit

                     

9%

25%

 

     Trucks

         

25%

     

2%

       

Human Failure

                           

     Operating Rule Violation

 

10%

2%

17%

75%

29%

     

33%

     

     Operating Procedures Violations

   

33%

 

14%

     

33% 

     

     Drug/Alcohol Violation

                         

     Fatigue

                           

     Inattentiveness

   

3%

2%

17%

 

29%

             

Operations

   

20%

                     

     Crowd Control

                           

     Improper Procedures

                     

25%

 

Track

                             

     Track Component Deficiency

         

14%

             

     Track Component Failure

         

14%

       

3%

   

Signal

                             

     Signal Component Deficiency

                         

     Signal Component Failure

                         

Cable

                             

     Cable Component Deficiency

                         

     Cable Component Failure

                     

25%

 

Other Vehicle

   

3%

42%

17%

       

85%

 

3%

   

Passenger

   

47%

9%

           

 33%

 

25%

 

Pedestrian

   

3%

40%

         

13%

       

Miscellaneous

   

13%

5%

             

84%

   

Total incidents for which probable cause was determined

30

43

5

4

7

0

0

48

3

32

4

0

 

Key Findings:

 

·         "Pedestrians" or "other vehicles" represented 82 percent of the reported probable causes for light rail collisions.

·         The actions of passengers contributed to 47 percent of the reported probable causes for heavy rail collisions.

·         Operating rule and procedure violations continue to contribute to accident causes.


Corrective Action Plans

 

In addition to Part 659's requirement that corrective action plans (CAPs) be developed for all accidents and unacceptable hazardous conditions that meet FTA's SSO definitions, SOAs are required to review and approve corrective actions that result from the Internal Safety Audit Process and the Three-Year Review, that meet FTA's threshold for reporting.

 

In 2000, eight states conducted Three-Year Safety Reviews.  These reviews resulted in findings that required RFGS to submit a total of 310 CAPs.  Of the 310 submitted CAPs, 308 were approved for implementation by the SOA. 

 

In addition to the findings from the Three-Year Safety Reviews conducted at the RFGS, 10 RFGS submitted corrective actions for SOA approval as the result of internal safety audits.  These corrective actions numbered 497, with 330 being approved for implementation.  Of the entire 497 CAPs submitted, 151 remain open. 

 

It should be noted that not all of the corrective actions that resulted from internal safety audits and Three-Year Safety Reviews met FTA's threshold for reporting, thus SOAs were not required to track their implementation and resolution.  States and transit agencies, however, recognize the benefit of coordinating corrective action tracking activities to ensure their successful implementation.

 


Chapter 5.

Security Data

 

Many of the SOAs are beginning to collect security information from transit agencies.  Often, this information is related to security breaches or incidents in which a predetermined threshold has been broached.  However, currently there is not an SSO requirement to collect or compile security data.  The data presented in this chapter crime data from RFGS Form 405 submissions were reviewed and analyzed.  NTD Form 405 uses a system of classification (Part I and Part II crimes) based on definitions used by the FBI.  The relationship between the FBI definitions and the three sub-groupings used in this report is illustrated in Table 18.

 

Table 18. NTD - FBI Crime Data Relationship

NTD Classification

Violent Crimes

Property Crimes

Quality of Life Crimes

PART I

     

Homicide

u

 

 

Forcible Rape

u

 

 

Robbery

u

 

 

Aggravated Assault

u

 

 

Burglary

 

u

 

Larceny/Theft

 

u

 

Motor Vehicle Theft

 

u

 

Arson

 

u

 

PART II

 

 

 

Other Assaults

u

 

 

Vandalism

 

 

u

Sex Offenses

 

 

u

Drug Abuse Violations

 

 

u

Driving Under the Influence (DUI)

 

 

u

Drunkenness

 

 

u

Disorderly Conduct

 

 

u

Trespassing

 

 

u

Fare Evasion

 

u

 

Curfew and Loitering Laws

 

 

u

 

In all, affected RFGS reported a total of 103,357 crimes (see Figure 23).  This total is up from the 93,623 crimes reported for 1999. 

Table 19 divides total crimes by the aforementioned sub-groups for the purpose of analysis. 


 

Figure 23. Rail Fixed Guideway System Crimes by Type - 2000

 

Table 19. Number of Crimes by Mode/by Category

Mode of Service

Violent Crimes

Property Crimes

Quality of Life Crimes

 

1999

2000

1999

2000

1999

2000

Heavy Rail

4,398

4,082

44,136

37,811

19,905

28,980

Light Rail

632

801

18,355

25,286

6,197

6,397

Total

5,030

4,883

62,491

63,097

26,102

35,377

 

Key findings:

 

·         Violent crimes reported for 2000 decreased by 3 percent from 1999 totals.

  • Property crimes increased 1 percent over the same period.
  • Quality of life crimes also increased by 35 percent.

 

Figures 23-29 present crime data by mode and by categories using either passenger miles or passenger trips for standardization.  Increased standardization in the reporting of Form 405 security incidents, as a result of FTA's Transit Security Audit Program, is largely responsible for the increase in quality of life crimes.


 

Figure 24. Violent Crimes by Mode per Million Passenger Miles

Key findings:

 

·         Victimization rates for "Assaults" and "Other Assaults" are considerably higher for light rail than for heavy rail.  Part of this can be contributed to the environment in which light rail operates, as well as due to increased coordination between local police departments and transit police in these "overlapping" jurisdictions.

 

Figure 25. Violent Crimes by Mode per 10 Million Passenger Trips


 

Figure 26. Property Crimes by Mode per Million Passenger Miles

Key findings:

 

·         Rates of fare evasion are ~8 times higher for light rail systems than heavy rail. 

 

 

Figure 27. Property Crimes by Mode per 10 Million Passenger Trips

 


 

Figure 28. Crime Categories by Mode per 10 Million Passenger Trips

 

Key findings:

 

  • Both Figure 28 and Figure 29 indicate that violent crime accounts for a very small minority of crime occurring at rail transit systems. 

 

 

Figure 29. Crime Categories by Mode per Million Passenger Miles

 


Comparison between 1999 and 2000

 

When comparing crime rates for heavy rail between 1999 and 2000 the following findings can be made (see Figures 30 and 31):

 

·         Violent crimes have decreased (11 percent by Trips and 14 percent by Miles).

  • Property crimes are also down (18 percent by Trips and 20 percent by Miles).
  • Quality of Life crimes have increased (40 percent by Trips and 36 percent Miles).

 

 

Figure 30. Crimes per 10 Million Passenger Trips - 1999 and 2000 Heavy Rail

 

 

Figure 31. Crimes per Million Passenger Miles - 1999 and 2000 Heavy Rail

 


Key findings for Figures 32 and 33:

 

·         While violent crime increased 16 percent per passenger trip, the increase was only 13 percent when passenger miles were used as the standard.

·         Property crimes increased (26 percent by Trip and 23 percent by Mile).

·         Quality of Life crime decreased (5 percent by Trip and 8 percent by Mile).

 

 

Figure 32. Crimes per 10 Million Passenger Trips - 1999 and 2000 Light Rail

 

 

Figure 33. Crimes per Million Passenger Miles - 1999 and 2000 Light Rail



Chapter 6.

State Safety Oversight Audit Program

 

The State Safety Oversight Audit Program continues to be a priority for FTA's Office of Safety and Security.  The Audit Program provides FTA with the opportunity to identify the requirements of Part 659 that have been most difficult for SOAs to implement.  Further, it supports communication with the States that results in the greater sharing of technical information, the solicitation of best practices, and the development of activities that promote increased coordination between all stakeholders responsible for ensuring that system safety objectives are being identified and met each year.

 

Thus far (at the time of this report's production), FTA has audited 16 Oversight Agencies since the program began in the fall of 1998:

  • Ohio Department of Transportation
  • Florida Department of Transportation
  • Tennessee Department of Transportation
  • California Public Utilities Commission
  • Texas Department of Transportation
  • New York Public Transportation Safety Board
  • Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
  • Maryland Department of Transportation
  • Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development
  • Tri-State Oversight Committee
  • Massachusetts Department of Telecommunication & Development
  • New Jersey Department of Transportation
  • Illinois Regional Transportation Authority
  • Missouri Motor Carrier & Railroad Safety
  • Georgia Department of Transportation
  • Colorado Public Utilities Commission

 

 

To date, all audited states have addressed and fully resolved all findings of deficiency.  No funds have been withheld from a state for failure to comply with audit findings.

 

FTA's Office of Safety and Security intends to complete its first cycle of audits in Spring 2002.

 

Audit Findings

 

It is clear from Figure 34 and Figure 35 that the majority of audit findings occur in State implementation of requirements for SSPP and Security Plan review and approval and accident investigation.  While findings for the RFGS Internal Safety Audit Process category do not represent a large portion of the overall findings, the Internal Safety Audit Process finding of deficiency consistently indicates that the RFGS is not performing these audits or is performing them inadequately.  Therefore, though it is difficult to make an immediate distinction of its importance in this table, this category of finding certainly demands attention due to its level of criticality within the implementation of a system safety program plan and safety program. In response to audit findings, FTA has provided technical assistance to those states resolving deficiencies and areas of concern. "Best practices," including forms, reports, procedures, and on-site activities, have been distributed to states and shared with the SOAs.  At the end of the audit week, SOAs are given sample materials and flow charts that help to identify and describe the points of interaction necessary for effective program implementation.


 

 

 

Figure 34. SSO Audit Deficiency Findings by Category

 

 

Figure 35. SSO Audit Area of Concern Findings by Category


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A 2000 Annual Reporting Template


 

Table A1. State Contact Information

 

Name of Agency:

Name of Safety Contact:

Title:

A.                  Mailing Address:

 

 

 

 

B.                 Physical Address (if different from mailing address):

 

Phone:

 

Fax:

 

Email:

 

 

 


 

Table A2. RFGS Contact Information Safety Contact

 

SAFETY CONTACT

Name of Agency (acronym)

 Safety Contact

 

Mailing Address

 

Phone Number

Fax Number

Email

           
           
           
           
           
           
           

SECURITY CONTACT

Name of Agency

Security Contact