Practices for Wayside Rail Transit Worker Protection (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

52 A 300% increase in the number of track worker fatalities and injuries from 2003 to 2008 clearly demonstrates an industry- wide issue regarding right-of-way (ROW) employee safety and protection. The objective of this study is to report the state of knowledge and practice regarding wayside worker protection programs at selected transit agencies and to docu- ment the state of the practice, including lessons learned and gaps in information. The research revealed that, in the wake of these incidents, some rail transit systems took aggressive actions to form task forces or reconstitute “Rules Committees” to revisit ROW rules and procedures and make necessary improvements, enhance employee training programs, and implement more comprehensive auditing and investigative processes. Most of these were collaborative efforts, involving labor and manage- ment representatives from several departments. Three major findings were identified as a result of this endeavor. First, there is an effort at every one of the five systems included in the study to improve continually the safety and level of protection for their ROW workers. Second, deviations in systems’ program depth and complexity varied. Some of these deviations were based on the environmental and oper- ational hazards and characteristics of the systems, whereas others reflected organizational cultural characteristics or historical practices. Third, aside from a high-level standard developed by APTA for work zone safety in rail transit, there are no national resources, standards, or consensuses relating to rail transit track worker safety programs. There were a number of similarities and differences in the track worker protection programs of the five systems studied. Collectively, the employees interviewed at each agency expressed a sense of pride in their work and their affiliation with their respective organizations, as well as a sense of accom- plishment in improving track worker safety. Without fail, every employee, from senior manager to junior laborer, stated that his or her workplace was safer than in the past. The programs are continually evolving, based on reviewing and refining practices and training programs; testing of new technologies; auditing rules compliance; and, in some cases, tracking and analyzing data on incidents, near misses, and other metrics. Although there is a sense of conviction and commitment on the part of the managers responsible for daily oversight of maintenance-of-way work and safety, there is also a level of uncertainty concerning the depth and degree to which managers can evaluate the program other than the obvious measure of the number of accidents or incidents. Sentiments echoed at several of the systems were, “How safe is safe?” and “How do we know if what we are doing is enough, too much, or just right?” Down at the track level, where safety practices actually get used, front-line employees at one system stated that they had a good understanding of the rules, but not the hazards that the rules are intended to protect them from. This under- scores the priorities that system managers must highlight on a daily basis. There is a clear need to emphasize rules com- pliance and a consistent pattern of enforcement and disciplinary actions for violations. This is achievable through implementing and communicating clear, easily understood, and structured rules and procedures. Yet there is also a need to focus on hazard recognition and mitigation—on both systemic and individual levels. This can be accomplished through engaging and interactive training programs, labor–management partner- ships, safety campaigns, and a top-down and bottom-up prioritization of safe practices and principles. The two prin- ciples or approaches are not mutually exclusive but, rather, complementary. Implementing a program that incorporates both concepts will bring an agency closer to establishing a safety culture within the organization and implementing a sustainable and practical approach to system safety. New or “out-of-the-box” approaches to reduce track worker hazard exposure could also be explored more extensively in the rail transit sector. For example, railroads—such as Class 1 freight railroads—have been using vehicle-mounted video and sensor-based technologies for years to inspect track gauge, wear, and metal fatigue. The possible use of this technology in rail transit applications could significantly reduce the need to put lone or small groups of inspectors on the ROW. Most of the study interviewees concur that these small, roving inspection teams are at a greater risk than are crews at larger, established work sites. Specific findings within the study revealed a number of factors that the systems identified as significant in their track worker safety protection: • The importance of rules and procedures to provide struc- ture, guidance, and administrative oversight of employees and contractors working on, around, or near the ROW; CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

53 • A basic strategy of ROW-specific rules and enabling procedures, supported by frequent training and consis- tent enforcement, has been implemented by all the agencies studied, with some variation of emphasis on one component or another. • A number of training initiatives have been implemented to train, inform, and prepare track workers better to carry out their duties safely. Most of the training programs use lecture and presentation delivery methodologies. A number of programmatic consistencies in work site practices exist across the agencies interviewed, but signi- ficant deviations exist in such elements as staffing levels, terminology, protection level determination, established “safe distances,” or the use of equipment in protective mea- sures. Environmental and operational factors play a role in this to some extent—such as the amount of elevated ROW or the off-peak headways between trains—however, other variations in the tolerance for lone workers, the process for setting up flagging, the length of training, and methodology for perform- ing audits and investigations do not appear related to these factors. Additional research, as well as an effort to develop a comprehensive model plan based on an industry consensus of successful practices, could help identify true, factor-based deviations and establish baseline standards and consistencies. Such a plan could help drive the dialogue within the indus- try and agencies regarding the need for balanced, proactive approaches to improving safety, and also provide the resources to help implement or enhance safety protection programs. Post-work analysis, such as safety audits, incident reporting, data analysis, and other follow-up actions, is an area that can easily be neglected owing to other demands and priorities, some agency personnel report. Industry efforts to develop comprehensive practices for auditing work sites, as well as identifying off-the-shelf software applications and relevant guidelines for customizing them to efficiently track accident, near miss, and rules violations data could make these practices more practical, productive and widespread. Building on these findings, further studies could explore a variety of topics, including: 1. The development of a rail transit track worker protection program guidance document, including a “Model Plan” that outlines, in some level of detail, the steps in developing or updating a program; core practices of a program; optional practices that could be considered, depending on specific hazards or characteristics; train- ing elements; incident tracking methods; and other components. This document would help create a more detailed baseline for a track worker protection program than is currently available and help increase industry- wide consistency in program implementation and management. 2. An assessment of current practices and programs for tracking accidents, incidents (such as minor injuries), near misses, and rules violations with an emphasis on trend analysis–based initiatives, as opposed to disciplinary-based programs. A second phase in this effort could be to develop a standard tracking and analysis program and guideline that transit systems could use to enhance their ongoing data analysis and continuous improvement efforts. 3. The development of performance measures with which transit systems could gauge the overall effectiveness, from both safety and risk perspectives, of their track worker protection program and consider the “value added” of a variety of approaches and practices. This tool would help answer the question, “Do we know what we’re doing is the right thing?” 4. The development of a comprehensive and interactive ROW hazards training program and collateral materials for maintenance-of-way workers to increase industry- wide consistency in hazard identification, reporting, and mitigation, ultimately to increase track worker safety. The program could be developed in a manner similar to other national courses in the public transit sector, taught as an off-the-shelf course or customized by an agency to incorporate system rules, procedures and specific hazards. 5. The development of a similar, comprehensive, high- quality training course for supervisors, focusing on hazard assessments and mitigation and on managing rules compliance within the work force. Ultimately, the way an agency practices track worker safety is the result of how front and mid-level supervisors routinely inform and educate their subordinates on safe practices and enforce rules and procedures. This program could be developed in a similar fashion as the training initiative outlined previously. 6. The exploration of the use of technology-based inspection methods, such as rolling stock- or high-rail vehicle-mounted video cameras and sensors in the railroad industry, their applicability to the rail transit environment, and their utility in reducing hazard expo- sures to track inspectors. 7. An assessment of the current practices and system standards for defining and establishing safe zones in rail transit environments, such as niches, platforms, between-tunnel passageways, and other areas deemed acceptable areas of refuge during train movement, along with practices of marking safe zones and un- available or restricted zones such as those with no clearance, or niches or passageways that are occupied by fixed equipment.