Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 25


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 24
24 Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide transit system. As with conventional transit projects, the SSO usually requires a project System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) and safety certification. Typically Federal waiver approval will be contingent upon the approval of the SSPP by the SSO. The likely model of state safety oversight of shared-track operations should be basically iden- tical to the framework for conventional rail transit projects. The difference is a Federal waiver is required to operate under shared-track conditions. Federal regulators rely on state oversight for certain matters and vice versa. It is useful to dis- tinguish those elements that fall within FRA or FTA purview and those reserved for the SSO. Research indicates that the federal authorities provide oversight for issues directly related to track-sharing with the general system of railroads, i.e., all of the issues explicitly mentioned in the waiver request. The SSO should furnish safety supervision in all areas not covered by the con- tents of the waiver request as well as those cited within the petition. In addition, the SSO must supply oversight where the waiver application explicitly requests exemption from federal regu- lation on the basis of the state regulatory framework. Project planners are advised to engage the FRA, FTA, and SSO to confirm limits of jurisdic- tion and establish communications among all participants and coordinate provisions of the Waiver Petition for SSO participation. It is likely that transit agency will be asked to communicate separately to the SSO for the shared track operation. Major accidents have to be reported to the federal and state regulatory agencies separately. Typically, freight and transit operators would file separate reports, if the incident involved transit and freight trains. A jointly acceptable reporting format that satisfies the require- ments of the FRA, FTA, and SSO could be developed by prior agreement. It also will be neces- sary to develop an acceptable (to both the FRA and FTA) protocol to control, monitor, test, and discipline violations of drug and alcohol use policies. Typically states with large or extensive commuter rail or public rail transit systems are actively monitored by an SSO. Some examples include: New York--New York State Public Transportation Safety Board New Jersey--New Jersey Department of Transportation Office of State Safety Oversight California--California Public Utilities Commission In many states, SSO responsibility is delegated to the Highway Department. Methods for Risk Analyses Federal regulations state that an applicant must demonstrate an equivalent or acceptable level of safety. Safety equivalency is established by comparing the proposed operation with an "accept- ably safe" conventional operation. Federal regulations and policies do not define the relevant quantitative safety measure(s), nor do they identify comparisons of operating models deemed acceptably safe. The applicant proposes these measures and comparisons for consideration by the FRA. Such a process may involve a number of iterations to satisfy the safety authorities. Two such methods of risk analysis approaches are safety measures and comparisons of systems. Safety Measures--Estimated accident casualties among passenger train occupants, or a mea- sure of total harm combining current standard DOT values for injuries and fatalities with an estimate of accident costs. Comparison of Systems--Consider: 1. Same light passenger rail service without the freight operations; and 2. Typical commuter rail operation with typical train control systems operating over the same route combined with the same freight service.