National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

TCRP Report 130: Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide (2009)
Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)

Citation Manager

Transportation Research Board. "Equal Risks, Equivalent Safety." TCRP Report 130: Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
25
bottomleft bottomright
Page
25
Front Matter (R1-R12)
Research Objective (1-1)
Report Output (2-2)
Business Case (3-4)
Train Control Technology (5-5)
Grade Crossing Hazards (6-6)
Requirements for Concurrent Shared-Track Operations (7-7)
Practical Shortcuts (8-8)
Advancing the Shared-Track Concept (9-9)
Introduction (10-10)
Reader's Guide to the Final Report (11-11)
Scope of Work for Project A-27 (12-12)
Research Approach (13-13)
Characteristics of a Shared-Track Corridor (14-14)
Freight Operations Perspective (15-16)
Why Share Track? (17-17)
The Business Model (18-18)
Business Model Structure (19-19)
The Business Case (20-20)
Shared-Track - A Practical Business Case Structure (21-22)
Role of the Designated State Safety Organization (23-23)
Methods for Risk Analyses (24-24)
Equal Risks, Equivalent Safety (25-25)
Underpinning the Case for Shared-Track (26-26)
The Role of Command and Control Systems in Shared-Track (27-27)
1) Train Control System Functions (28-28)
2) Train Control System Design Parameters (29-29)
4) Train Control - Emerging Technology - PTC and CBTC (30-30)
System and Integration Testing - Vendor Role (31-31)
8) Issues Unique to Train Control for Shared-Track (32-32)
Auxiliary Safety Critical Systems (33-33)
9) Fail-Safe Train Separation (34-35)
2) Regulatory and Practical Requirements (36-37)
4) Functional Design of a Communications System (38-38)
2) Regulatory Mandates (39-39)
4) The Rulebook (40-40)
5) Rules and Procedures for Shared-Track (41-41)
Background (42-42)
2) Diesel Multiple Units and Electrical Multiple Units (43-43)
2) Crash Energy Management (CEM) (44-44)
3) Propulsion System (45-45)
5) Other Considerations (46-46)
Vehicles for Shared-Track Applications (47-47)
3) Standardization (48-48)
Applying Technology to Shared-Track Operations - A Brief Guide (49-50)
Shared-Track Operations - The North American Experience (51-51)
2) Former Private Freight Railroad Owner Becomes a Privileged Tenant (52-52)
4) Pressure to Commingle Is Heaviest on Lines with Higher Freight Densities* - A Review of Different Solutions (53-53)
6) Transit Operators Choosing to Avoid Commingling Sacrificed Service Quality and Efficiency (54-54)
Business Case Template (55-55)
Alternatives Analysis (56-56)
Reasons to Consider Noncompliant Equipment (57-57)
Service Characteristics to Justify the Choice of a Light Rail System (58-58)
Structures Considerations (59-59)
Cost and Ridership Analyses (60-60)
Cost Analysis for Signal System Alternatives (61-62)
System Capital Cost Assessment (63-63)
System Operating Cost Assessment (64-65)
Alternatives Evaluation (66-66)
Introduction (67-67)
Risk Analysis and Modeling Methodology (68-70)
Results and Risk Analysis Findings (71-72)
Safety Case Findings (73-73)
San Diego Trolley (74-74)
Achievable Incremental Steps (75-75)
Practical Shortcuts For Shared-Track (76-76)
Demonstration Project (77-77)
Application of Risk Analyses Methodology to the Demonstration Project (78-78)
Data Collection Plan (79-79)
San Diego Trolley, Inc. (80-80)
Barriers to Implementation (81-81)
Shared Track - The Potential Market (82-82)
Shared-Track Operation - An Evolving Concept (83-84)
Bibliography (85-86)
Appendix 1 - Abbreviations (87-87)
Appendix 2 - Glossary of Shared-Track Definitions (88-92)
Appendix 3 - TCRP A-27 Research Task Descriptions (93-97)
Appendix 4 - Relative Cost Comparison of Train Control Systems (98-99)
Appendix 5 - Sample Operating Rulebook Table of Contents (100-100)
Appendix 6 - Vehicle Cost Drivers (101-101)
Appendix 7 - Some Examples of Current Production LRV and MU Vehicle Types (102-105)
Appendix 8 - Shared-Track System Status (106-106)
Appendix 9 - Shared-Track Configuration and Operational Alternatives (107-109)
Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications (110-110)

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 25
Shared-Track: Laying the Foundation--Policy and Strategy 25 Achieving Safety Equivalence Equivalent safety is not expressly defined in 49 CFR 211, the legal basis for wavier petitions and approved deviations from the Code of Federal Regulations (see Task 9, subsection "The Waiver Process"). Federal law requires: . . . the petition should explain how a level of safety at least equal to that afforded by the FRA rule will be provided by the alternative measures the petitioner proposes . . . requires a quantitative risk analysis of the risk of collision . . . (49 CFR 211, Appendix A, Section II, Part 2, Paragraph C). In other parts of 49 CFR 211, the concept of equivalent safety is often cited. The lack of explicit definition leaves this familiar and oft-quoted term open to interpretation both by regulators and petitioners. The prospective operator should endeavor to satisfy federal regulators on a practi- cal level by addressing several concerns as part of its waiver petition. · How is equivalent safety measured or evaluated in this project? · What is the appropriate and acceptable method for comparing the safety of a fully compliant operation to the proposed shared-track project? · Is the validity of the comparison limited or qualified in any way? Comparing measures of safety equivalence with standards for other modes of transportation merits incorporation in any analysis. This multi-modal risk analysis should consider the null alternative (doing nothing), increased auto use, travel by bus, etc., that might result if a shared- track system is not built. Such an approach has been used for proposed Mag-Lev systems and air travel to determine overall risk, rather than mode specific risk. Equal Risks, Equivalent Safety Equivalent safety is best understood in terms of equal risks. Risk levels assumed for a federally compliant system must remain unchanged for any operating alternatives proposed for the project. Risk is defined as likelihood multiplied by consequence. Likelihood is the probability of a haz- ardous condition arising. Consequence is the severity of the hazard. Likelihood itself is a com- plex product of probability of a train encountering a hazardous event, number of trains and train miles operated in a given time, and number of passengers on each train. Together likelihood and consequence measure the total exposure of life and property to potential hazards. Table 4 pro- vides a simple illustration of the three major constituents of total risk assessment. Table 4. Illustration of three parts of total risk. Likelihood Probability Period Consequences Definition Chance of a hazard event Units of transportation The average amount affecting each unit of services operated in a of damage done given transportation service. given time period. that a hazard event occurs. Aviation Chance of a plane crash on Number of flights Average number of Example a given flight. operated per day. lives lost given a plane crash. Shared-Track Chance of an intrusion Number of light rail Average loss of life Example accident affecting a light vehicle trips operated per and property given rail vehicle and a freight day; number of freight that an intrusion event train. trains operated per day. occurs. Source of History of hazard events Operating plan and Accident history Data provides a probability per ridership projection provides unit of service. defines the units of quantification of Assumptions are made transportation services to severity of each type where there is insufficient be provided each day. of accident. data.