National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendix B - Survey Questionnaire
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24691.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24691.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24691.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24691.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24691.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24691.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24691.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24691.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24691.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24691.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24691.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24691.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24691.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24691.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24691.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24691.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24691.
×
Page 94

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.

78 Planning and design for fire and smoke incidents in UndergroUnd Passenger rail systems RESPONDENT INFORMATION 1. Date: 2. Contact Information Name of Respondent: Agency Name: Title of Respondent: Agency Address: 3. Agency Size Small (<100 peak rail vehicles) 6 21.4% Medium (100–499 peak rail vehicles) 12 42.9% Large (500+ peak rail vehicles) 10 35.7% Respondent e-mail address: Respondent Telephone Number: SourceS 4. What sources does your agency use in planning and design for fire/smoke incidents in underground portions of the rail system? (Check all that apply.) NFPA 130, Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems 100.0% 28 APTA RP PS-005-01a, Recommended Practice for Fire Safety Analysis 50.0% 14 of Existing Passenger Rail Equipment APTA SS-E-013-99, Rev 1, Standard for Emergency Lighting Design 39.3% 11 for Passenger Cars National Incident Management System (NIMS) 53.6% 15 Presidential Directive No. 5 25.0% 7 Local standards and guidelines 50.0% 14 Other 28.6% 8 Other includes: (1) Best practices information from FRA, NTSB, FTA and/or Industry peers. We also use information from emergency exercises and drills. (2) Previous experiences, site spe- cific applications. (3) We have developed our own Engineering Design Guidelines and Standard Practices for the Design and Construction of Fire and Life Safety fixed assets. (4) OSHA Require- ments Uniform Building Code APTA RT-S-VIM-020-08 NFPA 130 (Chapter 8 – Vehicles) FRA 49 CFR 238.103 (Appendix B – Test Methods and Performance Criteria for the Flammability and Smoke Emission Characteristics of Materials used in Passenger Cars and Locomotive Cabs) z FRA 49 CFR 238 (Passenger Equipment Safety Standards) z FRA 49 CFR Subpart D (includes 38.71– 38.97 ADA) Major Test Standards which are referenced in the CDRL 24 and RTM 21. ASTM E-119 (Floor Fire Test) z ASTM E-648 (Critical Radiant Flux) z ASTM E-162 (Flame Spread) z ASTM E-662 (Smoke Density) z BSS 7239 (Toxic Gas Generation) Fire and Life Safety Analysis (CDRL 48). (5) The agency does not have any significant infrastructure underground. However all of the checked items are used in planning and design as well as host railroad (CSX, NS) design standards. (6) I would recommend you review our APTA Rail Safety Award submission for 2015 which has a lot of good information in it regarding this subject. (7) FRA regulations. 5. If you do not use NFPA 130, why not? Not familiar with this standard 0.0% 0 Other sources are adequate for our needs 0.0% 0 We do use NFPA 130 95.0% 19 Other 5.0% 1 Other includes: (1) We use NFPA 130 for all new projects. Some parts of our system may pre-date this consensus standard. aPPendix c summary of survey results

79 6. Briefly describe how your agency implements NFPA 130 Responses summarized in Table 34, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. New construction and emergency planning Guidance Use the local municipalities Fire Department as incident commanders, performs drills and table top exercises, and generally follow the spirit of the regulation. NFPA 130 is used in our design criteria for underground stations and guideways We utilize NFPA 130 as a Reference Standard to our internal guidelines Coordination between different players to respond seamlessly During the design of our facilities we follow NFPA 130 Guide Lines. During Construction and maintenance of life safety systems we utilize licensed contractors to install and test these systems. Planning and design of revenue and non-revenue structures Incorporated at design stage We strive to use NFPA 130 standards whenever it is practical to do so. We are following NFPA 130 very closely, but the main system is our Emergency Ventilation System with up to 4000 different ventilation scenarios. Inspection and design We incorporate, by reference, into our Design Criteria Manual Design of tunnels civil and ventilation Use that as baseline for the design criteria NFPA was utilized in the design and buildout of our system and is still utilized whenever any modifications are made. It is integral to our Design Criteria Standards in Engineering and used in the Safety & Security Certification Process NFPA 130 is a “best practice” so efforts are made to comply but it is not mandatory. Use as a standard, but other code may conflict with this. So an agreement and understanding must be met ASSeSSment 7. Please characterize the following elements as major challenges, minor challenges, or not an issue related to underground fire/smoke incidents at your agency. Major challenges have a significant actual or potential effect on your agency’s ability to respond to and resolve the situation; minor challenges are a concern but do not rise to the level of life-and-death issues. Major Minor Not a challenge challenge challenge Difficulty in accessing the site 20% 50% 30% Timely detection 15% 40% 45% Inadequate ventilation 10% 30% 60% Intensity of fire 25% 55% 20% Training of agency personnel 10% 35% 55% Training of first responders 5% 45% 50% Confusion at the scene of the fire 10% 60% 30% Establishing chain of command at the scene 5% 50% 45% Passenger evacuation 15% 65% 20% Sufficient number of trained and proficient transit 15% 35% 50% staff to support training of emergency responders Comments include: (1) Our infrastructure is vintage to the turn of the century and often access is restricted. (2) The chief issues we have are getting the first responders (FRs) to commit to regular and routine training. The agency has heavily emphasized its commitment to training throughout our area, and has made significant progress and conducted extensive training, however, the level of commit- ment among the FRs seems to hinge on budget money and where a few hours can be pulled out of other training arrangements. In addition, training often occurs with in-service units who frequently get called out of training and return after a significant portion of the training has occurred. The sec- ond major challenge is the location of our facility relative to the locations of training events. While our route might transect a “first-due” area for FRs, our maintenance and storage facilities are often located several dozen miles from the agencies requesting training and hands-on visits to the yards is not always possible. Especially when our equipment isn’t in the yards during the business day, train- ing is relegated to special mid-day circumstances, weekends and some evenings. (3) All of these are challenges. Don’t have much more to say since we haven’t had a fire to date in the tunnel. (4) The above listed topics can vary from MAJOR to MINOR depending on the specific incident and the exact location. Training also is a variable although we feel we do well most of the time, and work closely with the City Fire Department. (5) We have not had any fires in the tunnel that I am aware of. There was one incident where a car had penetrated the portal and was stuck on the track, while attempting to get free the tires of the car spun and created smoke so we did have smoke but no fire. That was cleared

80 almost immediately. There have been trash can fires in the stations but those have been at the surface and were incipient stage only. (6) Difficulty in accessing the site—there are some areas within the transit tunnel that requires walking several thousand feet, or taking a train to perform a recon w/ FD on board > Early detection, but also what are the SOPs to be followed upon a fire alarm activation for the different disciplines w/ in the transit agency? > Intensity of fire—there has only been one large fire in one of our power-substations that prevented first responders quick access into the building due to the need to secure/shut down the power supply coming from the power company 8. Please describe the one major challenge in planning and design for underground fire/smoke incidents. Responses summarized in Table 25, Chapter 4 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. The limited amount of references or standards regarding design for underground train fires affecting tunnel and platform environments. Some of the challenges during planning and design are that many times in the industry the safety engineers are not on board during this stage and are brought in later. I find this happens in many cases. When this happens hazards are not designed out during the planning and development stages of the project. It is really important to have your safety team involved very early in the design. Some other challenges are locations, high water tables and spacing. These variables can make the evacuations challenging. Even choosing fire suppression systems, placement of steps/escalators and elevators. Having more than one emergency evacuation route from a tunnel or station. The proximity of other buildings and structures that could be affected by fire/smoke incidents. Ensuring that all of your exhaust fans are working and you have replacement parts and that you are managing your assets and identifying those that are critical. Of course ensuring that your agency is in a state of good repair and that you have defined it based on your operating environment. Long term main- tenance plans, budgets and testing procedures must be addressed. Having an independent QA of your system is critical. Ensuring that all personnel involved in the process are aware of the applicable standards and their purpose. Regulation VS. responder wants VS budget radio communications—too many agencies wanting antennas in the tunnel There are inherent challenges to any tunnel environment and we seek to rectify those during the planning and design phase. One challenge would be in dealing with multiple shafts. One major challenge for this agency during the design of our underground system was being able to provide a train detection system that would indicate the zones where a smoke event was occurring. We solved this problem by posting reflectorized signs indicating the zone numbers and by posi- tioning cameras at each zone that send the video data back to the control center. Due to the length of our tunnel and the presence of only one shaft we had to figure out what should be our best options. Moreover the end portal of our tunnel leads to an underground facility which is our central station. A portion of our subway system is joined with a sister transportation agency. The joint subway system was designed and built over 40 years ago. Although from a life fire safety system perspective our two systems should be analyzed as one system, it has been difficult coordinating projects such as new SCADA systems that help integrate the two systems. Fire heat release rates is always a challenge for the many types of equipment operated on the system. Determining the exact location of the fire/smoke condition. Our biggest challenge is the age of our system and city and how new designs for fire/smoke incidents can meet the standards with the limitations of a legacy system. Project scope and cost requirements increase greatly. Our agency has limited to no experience with this as all of our critical facilities are above ground, however, we do operate through a tunnel owned by Amtrak and the chief challenge from this experience would be managing the ventilation. Our equipment is diesel powered and regardless of the force of the air moving through the tunnel by natural and mechanical means, the train occupy- ing much of the bore diameter slows the air speed and smoke can congregate depending upon the incident circumstances. Evacuation route considerations Pre-existing infrastructure space constraints There is so many ventilation scenarios to design, depending on so many factors, that it can be really difficult to manage the entire system and keep it up to date. I believe that the principal difficulty is to validate your theoretical scenarios with real life. It takes a lot of experience to analyze the situation. Mid car train fire in tunnel The age of the system and incorporating new technology Old infrastructures built pre-NFPA-130, constructed with equipment designed only for general ven- tilation, as well as some stations with limited egress capacity, some with only one egress from each platform. 3-D Ventilation modeling during final design, given the different configurations of each subway station. 24/7 operation $

81 Real Estate and Right of Way for emergency access None Design and planning are limited somewhat by funds available, and by the existing physical “room” to build the system and its appurtenances. Our emergency fans and system work extremely well when removing smoke. I filled up a section of the tunnel with smoke many years ago utilizing smoke machines for an exercise/drill. The intent was to have the fire department attempt to travel through the smoke to the accident scene but as soon as the emergency fans were turned on the smoke was completely cleared within 30 seconds and we were not able to get it to build up any more. The only challenge I can think of is the cost of running the fans for an extended period of time during a full scale drill. Ensuring a customized approach based on engineering analysis of ventilation, heat, smoke, loading and other considerations based on the specifics of the location. Existing infrastructure built nearly 100 years ago so stations and tunnels are not up to 21st century codes. Very difficult for older stations/tunnel to be retrofitted to comply with current code I am not familiar with a “GOOD” smoke detection system on the market that would work in a dirty transit tunnel environment 9. Please describe any “lessons learned” that would benefit other transit agencies. Responses summarized in Table 28, Chapter 4 of the report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Training first responders frequently. Document the training—both transit document and FD needs to document. Lessons from previous incidents—hot wash with all responders. What went well, what did not. Funding for equipment for first responders. Control Center FD liaison. Every incident is a lesson learned. Timely notification to first responders is critical of any fire/smoke incident. Keep first responders aware of the environment via training is also important. A clear line of communication between the transit agency and first responders is important especially during the initial response in order to orient the first responders as they arrive. Performing an exhaustive test of the integrated systems and controls to ensure it all works in concert and as designed before closure of any project regardless of sign-off by AHJs. We provide rail familiarization training for the fire units that would respond to our system. The City Fire Department is the primary response group and all fire houses along the rail system get refresher training on a regular basis. The Fire Training Academy has also made this training a part of their curriculum and all new firefighters get it. This has been the case for over 10 years. Engineers and Contractors are great for designing complex systems and installing them (e.g., emer- gency ventilation), but don’t seem to provide much in the way of operations manuals or monthly tests designed to test operation of the system as a whole. Our experience seems to indicate that you get plenty of manuals on individual pieces of the system and how to maintain it or test that piece. Proper use of the ventilation system thru training in field as well as desk top exercises Retrofitting existing system to meet new ridership demand is a needed from time to time and is very difficult. Suggest to leave sufficient real estate for future use particularly for life safety system. Interagency cooperation and operations support. Not having ongoing training. Not having a companywide SOP. Not updating technology. Not planning a budget for safety. Maintaining a very good working relationship with the local fire department through all phases of the project leading up to the certificate of occupancy. This includes having the local fire department serve as part of the tunnel rescue team during the construction of the underground workings. Need to test ventilation equipment and keep control staff trained. Beside our Underground Fire Prevention Training Center, used to train our staff and local police and fire department, we are not a “model” for other agencies so it’s hard to pinpoint a “lessons learned.” Consider potential impacts of ventilation fan directed air flow on passenger evacuation route selection. For example, the best route may be against the wind and venturi effect when passing cars in the tunnel may be significant. Hold frequent emergency training exercises and simulations to guide your approach to design. As close as possible, maintain a debris free right-of-way. Especially around third rail transitions. Be realistic in your planning. Clearly identify the difference between a nuisance fire and a fully engulfed scenario. Understand your risks affording you the best system possible. There was an incident in which two work crews, one from our agency and another with our sister agency working near the same local had ventilation fans configured in a way which would have been appropriate for each subway on its own, however in combination ended up unintentionally discharging smoke into our subway. It demonstrated the importance of communicating and coordinating actions between our respective organizations. Provide jet type fans in tunnels that are capable of evacuating smoke in a predetermined direction through use of preprogrammed scenarios. During a smoke/fire event the controllers are able to select the zone and event location and activate a preset scenario that automatically sets fans and louvers to the correct position exhausting smoke and providing a safe evacuation path for passengers. Drill, drill, drill is the name of the game to stay current and prepared. Also, communications with passengers is the biggest lesson learned. Keeping them informed during an incident is paramount.

82 Develop a tunnel standard. Install only primary response and then include IOP channels 1. Ensure you have long term maintenance plans. 2. Budget for future repairs, inspections and testing. 3. Follow through on emergency response exercises and drills. 4. Train your employees. 5. Review SOPs/EOPs annually or post an event. 6. Ensure all employees receive NIMS training as appropriate. 7. Customers’ safety awareness campaigns. 8. Train all of your jurisdictional fire departments and police or any agencies you interact with frequently. 9. Update emergency telephone list for control centers. 10. Test the system frequently. In regard to planning, we utilize designated command post locations for emergency forces to respond to as a regular practice, which we incorporate life safety monitoring and control equipment in. It also benefits us to establish a forward operating command post which aides in providing real time information and a better coordinated response to incidents. next GenerAtion 10. Has your agency explored new technologies to prevent or minimize the impact of underground fires on your system? Responses summarized in Table 26, Chapter 4 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. No We have heat detection in our vent shafts. The fans come on and remove smoke, but that is not new technologies. We are looking at new types of chemical fire agents in various locations. A local agency commissioned a study to determine if retrofitting naturally ventilated tunnels with a fan system was affordable, practical, and necessary. The study concluded that, with few exceptions, tenability times can be achieved with natural ventilation. No, we have not. We have stayed current but not necessarily explored new technologies No new technologies have been implemented since construction in 2005. We have recently installed a new SCADA system that is tied into our Operations Control Center. This system will have the capability of configuring standardized responses to incidents depend- ing on the location of an incident inside the subway. We are also implementing a new blue light emergency phone system and new radio systems, which shall greatly improve the capacity and reliability of our emergency communications systems. Yes Yes, early detection such as video analytics None N/A Yes. For example, our agency is working with the State DOT to install infrared detectors to continuously scan the tunnel roadway for heat signatures providing early response for fires. The company has commissioned studies in the past and we are currently commissioning an updated study on tunnel egress and fire life safety to identify new and existing technologies to assist in the design of fire life safety systems and response protocols. Beside ventilation system, we didn’t look at something else, like water mist or onboard fire suppression system or so on. Looking at onboard fire suppression as a test prototype install Yes Currently considering onboard mist suppression Yes, we constantly review new technologies. We use tried and true—SCADA, ICS, NFPA 130. Not lately By removing/eliminating elements from stations, tunnels and vehicles that could add to the fire load. No Not that I am aware of Yes. We implemented a new VESDA system for smoke detection rather than relying on emergency responders to activate ventilation in the most favorable way depending on location of the fire. As we upgrade our system we install materials that minimize smoke generation and place non-flammable and non-combustible materials wherever possible. We have upgraded most of our underground stations with new fire and alarm systems and notification systems to the Control Center. Continue to learn about new technology Look at other transit properties’ alarm systems. Gather intel on other’s SOPs on emergencies and tunnel ventilation. 11. Are there any promising approaches that your agency has undertaken or is planning that would be of interest to other rail agencies for managing underground fire/smoke incidents? Responses summarized in Table 27, Chapter 4 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Still crawling, nothing promising yet We are in the process of a consultant study for ventilation in our tunnels. The results of that study are due late this year.

83 Yes. Again, consult APTA Award Application for details. Should be public knowledge/document. Operations, training and constant maintenance of all systems Not that I am aware of, other than the use of ICS in all responses. We have developed a monthly run test of emergency ventilation sequences in our subway system. Three sequences are tested each week, so therefore each of 39 sequences is run at least once each quarter. This was a “historic” development for us and seems to be working well. Preventative maintenance is the key factor to reduce risk from fire. Effective training . . . yielding a good positive result will reduce human error which will have significant impact on overall risk control. Consistent maintenance and debris removal Addition of onboard fire suppression could allow consideration of reduced design fire size, allowing reduced requirements for retrofit of ventilation equipment. Linear heat detection. Using mode tables that the control center is trained to use See above Using computer models to simulate smoke and heat flow in order of designing an optimized ventilation system. In the event of fire incident in the station, the agency has installed mechanical door-assists on egress doors to overcome forces created by the emergency ventilation system. Train, train, train—with staff, first responders, management, etc. None Yes, for the rail cars there is a detection/suppression system We undertake site-specific planning. Although they are expensive and time consuming, we need to perform more emergency drills. This will improve emergency responses. Automated preset scenarios that are in use at our agency provide a more coordinated response between Jet fans and supply/exhaust louvers thus reducing the possibility of forcing air in competing directions. None No The most important approach currently is to train your staff, maintenance, operators, Supervisors, control rooms and first responders. The key is the drill and exercise to determine any weaknesses in your system. No 12. Based upon your experience, do you have any recommendations for specifications or design features for inclusion in the design of new tunnels or retrofit of legacy tunnels? What would the “ideal” fire prevention and response system look like to you? How would it be different from today? Responses summarized in Table 29, Chapter 4 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. As designed to NFPA standards, our tunnel system with evacuation routes, Tunnel Ventilation System (TVS) and fire suppression connections appear to be ideal. As a recommendation, prior to startup, the disabled community in our main city lobbied for and were granted a change associated with operation of the elevators in the tunnel station. During a fire/smoke evacuation scenario, the elevators remain operational to allow for disabled self-evacuation. The TVS pumps air through the elevator shafts to maintain air flow. At this time no, but I would recommend reviewing any national incident reports related to fire prevention and evacuation and researching new technology on fire prevention in tunnels. I would also recommend looking at any materials used in your tunnels for flammability and on your vehicles. Material linings that don’t burn, smoke or retain heat are products we reviewed and trialed but were never able to receive funding. System detection/event location presents one of our biggest challenges. A hardened system not sub- ject to the elements with some sort of graphical user interface integrated with a pre-populated SCADA system would be ideal. None Cameras are critical to early response. Multi-directional ventilation. N/A Based on our experience with “wet” standpipe systems in running, we recommend “dry” standpipes in our new tunnels going forward. This allows for cost for maintenance (including heat trace elements) and the on-going electrical costs for heat trace systems. You have to consider every aspect in order to design an ideal system. NFPA 130 surely define[s] the ideal system but for me, ventilation system have to be the critical one. Positioning and sizing ventilation facilities is critical. Rehabilitation of existent facilities is sometime hard to do because you cannot build your ventilation system as exactly as you want to. Ideal would be a transverse ventilation system that isolates the smoke and extracts it near the source of the fire, instead of a longitudinal system that sends the smoke along the tunnel (where passengers may be located).

84 Would recommend having the ventilation placed at the top of the tunnel. Also increasing the amount of emergency exits. The ideal system would be able to detect an issue, eliminate a false alarm, instruct the control center on how to manage other vehicles and finally direct first responders No Tunnel systems need segregation of the tubes, SCADA for ventilation control, according to ventilation modeling. Reduce or eliminate to the extent possible any combustible material Our ventilation system is a result of existing tunnel retrofits as we are a legacy system. When there is an opportunity to modify station, tunnels, etc., updating the vent system, etc. characteristics is made part of any analysis. At grade HMI panels are one thing we added on a recent project (2012 year completion). These allow remote operation of emergency ventilation in case communication is lost with the control center, and allows control by a local Supervisor or Incident Commander should that be needed or desired. We are fully implemented with new detection and communication system. No fire life-safety system though is without potential problems and on-going routine testing to ensure adequacy is a must. Considering the limited resources, it’s important for any system to be practical and as “automatic” as possible. As we’ve learned from recent events, a system may not be effective when it is controlled by people. The basic human error factors are always in play but when you also place those controls with an already overtaxed rail operations controller you increase your risk of error. Automation in detection and activation are key to any modern system. Analytical camera in every room to double check room for hazards and smoke/fire A drop down list from the fire zone for every station’s room with contents, mean of access (key) purpose and known hazards within room A way to bring up the fire zone remotely and wireless access and to examine the room thru the use of a lap-top viewing the analytical cameras. Tunnel ventilation control at or near the kiosk. In-house telephone at street level for FD access if not able to access station phone/ controls DefinitionS 13. How does your agency define “underground” for a station or asset? Is there a minimum length of tunnel used in the definition? Responses summarized in Table 6, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Underground, surface, and elevated “Underground” is simply defined by the limits of the tunnel. Our tunnels are all actually underground so it’s an easy definition for us. Subterranean We have both underground and above ground stations and track. They are defined fairly simply, and is self-explanatory. There is no minimum length of tunnel that is used. They are either physically underground or not. Anything inside of our portal is underground; anything outside of it is above ground. Our system is pretty much a straight line. I do not know of an official definition of underground used by our agency. For our agency it’s quite simple, when you go through our tunnel portal (only one place in the system) you are either outdoors or in an underground tunnel, there is a clear demarcation point. Any cover structure longer than 200 ft. We use NFPA 130 Below grade (street level or under river, etc.). No—Length of tunnels Same as NFPA-130 Underground-anything below grade Tunnel—over 1,000 ft. Any alignment where we cannot freely vent to the atmosphere Our subway is entirely underground so it’s easy for us to define the word “underground.” I think that the criteria of the 1,000 ft in length, as defined in NFPA 130, is good. Our agency defines our subway stations as “enclosed” in-line underground facilities as opposed to a “cut-and-cover” in-line station. The minimum length for the Agency is 200 feet. N/A “Underground” is not formally defined internally. 800 feet We are generally consistent with NFPA 130 Any fully enclosed area that is over 150 ft in length. Any right-of-way that is below grade. No minimum is used. No minimum length covered on all 4 sides Underground would be properties with floor levels 30¢ below the lowest level of exit discharge as referred to in the City Building Code There is no minimum tunnel length. Underground is underground as opposed to elevated, embankment, or cut. A tunnel, portal or a closed in station that is below grade. No definition for length. I’m not aware of a minimum length definition for our systems.

85 14. How does your agency define a “fire/smoke” incident? (Check all that apply.) Visible flames 88.5% 23 Sight of smell of smoke 80.8% 21 Automatic alarm triggered 34.6% 9 Manual alarm triggered by operator 34.6% 9 Other (please specify) 23.1% 6 Other includes: (1) We view any of the above as a real time incident until we prove otherwise. Our procedures begin to go into effect once we receive any of the above triggers. (2) I am not privy to the definition of an incident. Operations staff can better answer this question. (3) Reportable = extinguishable flame Recordable = all other types. (4) Operators calling the OCC to report smoke or fire in the trainway. (5) By patrons or operations personnel advising our trainmaster by phone (in stations—house phones clearly marked, passenger assistance phones clearly marked) or by radio. (6) Any of the above list generate a “fire/smoke” incident. If the cause is immediately known, we would not necessarily deem it an emergency depending on location and cause. inciDentS AnD cAuSeS 15. Approximately how many underground fire/smoke incidents has your agency experienced in the past 12 months? A “major” incident is defined as causing a service disruption of 2 or more hours. Major Incidents None 82.6% 21 One 8.7% 2 Two 8.7% 2 Minor Incidents None 32.0% 8 Negligible-trash fires 4.0% 1 One 16.0% 4 Two 8.0% 2 Three 4.0% 1 Four 4.0% 1 Five 8.0% 2 Seven 4.0% 1 Less than 10 4.0% 1 11 4.0% 1 12+ 4.0% 1 89 4.0% 1 1,049 4.0% 1 16. What were the primary causes of major underground fire/smoke incidents? (Check all that apply.) Arcing-traction power 59.1% 13 Trash fire (accidental or deliberate) in tunnel 54.6% 12 Vehicle or vehicle equipment 36.4% 8 Trash fire (accidental or deliberate) in underground station 31.8% 7 Insulator 31.8% 7 Electric cable feeder 27.3% 6 Trash fire (accidental or deliberate) in vehicle 0.0% 0 Other (please specify) 36.4% 8 Other includes: (1) Overhead messenger wire was snagged by LRV pantograph, apparently after a tunnel ceiling mount casting failed on a hanger arm. This caused some arcing and smoke but power was shut down expediently. (2) Miscellaneous equipment. (3) Trash fire outside the tunnel portal with smoke intrusion into the tunnel bores. (4) N/A. (5) For question 13 above: we define major as resulting in delays greater than 60 minutes. (6) Other categories may apply but I cannot speak further on cause. I believe we may have feeder fires as well as electrical arcing. (7) Station a small spark near the attendant’s booth. Contacted facilities maintenance for repairs and corrective action. (8) Tie fires. Detection/Prevention 17. Does your agency have an early detection system for fire detection underground? Yes 55.6% 15 No 44.4% 12

86 18. Please check all elements that are included in the early detection system. CCTV 92.9% 13 Station smoke or heat detector 78.6% 11 Closed head sprinkler in station (heat) 64.3% 9 Tunnel smoke detector 42.9% 6 Inside vehicle detection (smoke or heat) 21.4% 3 Linear heat detector 14.3% 2 Video analytics 0.0% 0 Other 21.4% 3 Other includes: (1) Station heats in non-public areas and vent shafts. (2) Observations of collectors, janitors, operators and supervisory staff in the system. (3) Operations personnel or patrons input. 19. Has your agency adopted design standards or codes related to underground fire/smoke prevention and detection? Yes 69.2% 18 No 30.8% 8 20. How are these design codes and standards applied? Responses summarized in Table 11, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Previously answered NFPA 130 NFPA 130 and FRA regulations for vehicles Design! New construction and rehabilitation project specifications Through SOPs Via design reviews NFPA 130 is applied for new or rehab construction NFPA 13, 14 and 130 is wholly adopted by the Agency and our standard. NFPA 72 is referenced in our Design Criteria Manual and the basis for the Supervisory Monitoring Station at our Operation Control Center. As part of system upgrades We have developed heat release values and work with consultants to perform CFD Analyses and from there design ventilation systems. They are part of our design criteria that dictates their use In accordance with local regulations and supported SOPs Minimal requirements as per law or guidance Fire detection and suppression is included in new projects as well as included in the program of capital improvements. These standards are applied through our emergency actions plans and equipment updates and training. And through the use of systems modifications and upgrade when we can. During design phase (NFPA 130, etc.). In station not tunnels. Fire detection, suppression and ventilation are included into design. 21. Does your agency have a fire suppression system on-board the vehicles that operate in tunnels? Yes 7.7% 2 No 92.3% 24 22. Does your agency have a sprinkler system in tunnels? Yes, in all tunnels 3.7% 1 Yes, in some but not all tunnels 14.8% 4 No 81.5% 22 23. Does your agency have a sprinkler system in underground stations? Yes, in all underground stations 40.7% 11 Yes, in some but not all underground stations 25.9% 7 No 33.3% 9 24. As new techniques and regulations emerge, how does your agency change or augment its protocol and procedures to augment its response to underground fires? Are there “triggers” to retrofit the system? Responses summarized in Table 15, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. When new construction is planned We stay abreast of current and best practices, and incorporate into upgrades when deemed appropriate by risk and cost-benefit.

87 We committee with operations, maintenance, safety and facilities maintenance and develop checklist and processes and procedures to response to fires. We continue to review and access our system using our lifecycle management plan. Decisions are based on an engineering analysis. Mandatory or regulatory compliance is the driver Periodic review of our working systems and policies Not at this time due to the relative newness of our underground system. Relevant systems may or may not be evaluated for adaptation. Triggered upgrades are initiated during capital improvements to the system. The chief trigger is through a debrief of a training exercise. Secondary would be benchmarking at other properties. Our Design Criteria Manual is reviewed and updated for every new Project design Beside end of life of equipment, we do not have any other triggers Learn from industry incidents to determine if any changes are needed to protocols. Task force review. Updates to protocols and procedures. Changes reflected in training manuals and training curricula. Rule Book updates and sign-off of insert reception by all qualified staff. Operator counselling. “Red Top” notices at all work locations. As codes change or systems become obsolete Ours is a contemporary system. All new addition will meet latest codes We investigate them, establish a round table discussion and systems and techniques are implemented as necessary. We can change and update procedures in our accident/incident manual, and do same in our Emergency Management manual. There are no triggers to retrofit that I am aware of. The city Fire Department has used ICS as a response protocol since the system was built. Rail Control utilizes the pre-established emergency ventilation system settings that were programmed into our SCADA system if a fire occurs within the tunnel and/or stations. This was established when the system was designed. Regarding previous response, our sprinkler systems do not protect the platform as it is unheated. It does protect heated space beyond a vestibule. No. As regulations change the agency must comply in some cases; it may be “grandfathered” in others; or it may be granted variances by local authorities. Changing out components within stations is an easier task than renovating an entire stations or tunnel. The NFPA 130 standard was first published in 1983 and adopted by some jurisdictions several years later. Many rail stations were approved and built prior to the publication and adoption of NPFA 130 codes. While all rail stations satisfied codes at the time of their construction, they may not meet the current codes outlined in NFPA 130. 25. Are there workarounds for legacy systems to meet new requirements? Responses summarized in Table 16, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. The agency has improved or updated the stations over time, the work in the stations has not triggered any requirement to upgrade the stations to meet the current code, but the agency tries to incorporate or improve code compliance whenever possible Sometimes. Whether the agency is “grandfathered” or granted a variance, a risk assessment must be done to ensure we’re operating in the safest way possible. Sometimes those assessments result in changes to procedures or infrastructure. N/A No legacy systems All of our tunnels have ventilation, and most all of them have at least dry standpipes for water supply. We do have the ability to launch capital projects to address concerns on condition of existing systems, and we strive to meet new requirements anytime we undertake a rebuild or repair. None here Yes Yes No No We currently do not have any legacy systems N/A We have dry stand-pipe system installed in our tunnels. We have manned stations to assist with evacuations in the event of a fire. If possible—yes. What is meant by “work-arounds” No None Only during major overhaul or retrofit No We always try to modify our system to meet any new requirements to keep current to ensure the safety of our operating environment. No Not at this time.

88 mAnAGinG inciDentS 26. Briefly describe your agency’s protocol and procedures for responding to and managing underground fire/smoke incidents. Responses discussed in Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. They are outlined in our emergency action plans Bring trains to stations and hold with doors open. Investigate by CCTV and staff on scene, and dispatch emergency responders for confirmed fire/smoke events as appropriate. Initiate ventilation fans as necessary. We notification the operator responses based the emergency operating procedures for smoke in tunnels. OCC contacts that appropriate responders. And we work together with jurisdictional first responders and internal responders. Whenever possible trains are moved to a station platform before evacuation. Most fires subside when the power is removed with no other action needed. The Incident Commander from the local Fire Department is charged with directing the response. Notification to Rail Ops, Police and local FD, responders respond to portal and shaft locations. The Unified Command maintains direct contact with the control center to confirm operational plan. If the plan requires de-energizing of power and electrical systems, no entry is made until confirmation has been received. We follow our agency’s policies and procedures as well as drill on these requirements regularly. Identify the location. Deploy personnel to assess. Set up an incident command. We have standard operating procedures that are coordinated with local first responders. Smoke/fire monitoring equipment will also automatically notify the fire department and control center. Controller will assess the location and zone then select the EVOP scenario. A joint meet between agency personal and Fire will take place at the underground station (our station has 24 hour agency security coverage). The fire department will take command of the scene and direct agency [personnel]. N/A Our operations department has developed and utilizes a FTA-compliant Emergency Preparedness Plan. The agency conducts drills twice-a-year with our local fire departments. OCC apply a ventilation scenario chosen by our computerized system. If this system is down, we do have a manual system, where a scenario is apply based on fire and train position. A Chief of incident is named in the station where or near the fire. Train operator identifies train fire location and evacuation direction. Ventilation is provided to train operator and passengers. Call control. Call 911 Monitor situation and report When Fire and Smoke Plans A (vehicle), B (track level or platform) or C (stations) are invoked, ventilation protocols are activated based on location of incident and evacuation direction, based on information provided by site personnel.—Protocols activated by Power Control staff, based on direction of Transit Control.—For an incident in a station there is one protocol available, which is based on an all-exhaust scenario (with fans at end of platforms), using the next 3 or 4 adjacent stations as support.—For an incident in a tunnel there are two protocols available, based on a push- pull scenario, depending on the evacuation direction, using the next 3 or 4 adjacent stations as support.—Equipment sequence activation is done manually from Power Control, although plans are to move to automatic sequence activation of the equipment (with protocol being manually activated). Internal policy instructions dictate response by department and escalate as required ICS supported by internal procedures and trained/familiarized emergency responders. Contact local fire and agency staff will support Small incipient trash fires, train crews can put out with fire extinguisher. If fire is larger than incipient, then local Fire Departments are called for response. Also power removal may extinguish arcing. System alarms to Transit Police Dispatch simultaneous with local Fire Dept. The Fire Dept. would assume I.C. and would maintain it until the incident has been controlled and turned over to the agency. City Fire Department has used ICS as a response protocol since the system was built. Rail Control utilizes the pre-established emergency ventilation system settings that were programmed into our SCADA system if a fire occurs within the tunnel and/or stations. This was established when the system was designed. We have drilled with City Fire Department on our part of the response to incidents within our system, we will be a resource for them and be assigned to different sections of the ICS structure based on the incident. Upon initial notification to the Control Center, a call is made to the local fire department. Transit Police, Supervision and other agency personnel are dispatched. Power is removed. Train traffic will be prevented from entering the affected area. If the incident is deemed serious enough, passengers will be evacuated. The first agency responder is deemed the incident commander until emergency response personnel arrive. Upon their arrival, a unified command structure is established. The incident is managed by responders until completion. After the response agencies have finished, the agency will make repairs where needed and service will be restored. This is addressed and several SOPs and is currently being updated

89 27. For fires where other agencies also respond, check all the actions that your agency takes: Send staff to meet responder command staff at scene 96.2% 25 Set up multi agency command center or similar on your property 76.9% 20 Send staff to a central command center (not on your property) 50.0% 13 28. Does your agency use NIMS (National Incident Management System, i.e., Incident Command) to establish a chain of command and facilitate communication in responding to underground fire/smoke incidents? Yes, always 56.0% 14 Yes, usually 40.0% 10 No 4.0% 1 29. What fire size do you plan for in your protocol and procedures? System not designed to handle smoke 0.0% 0 0–10 MW 19.0% 4 10–30 MW 23.8% 5 Greater than 30 MW 23.8% 5 Other 33.3% 7 Other responses include: (1) We have defined specifically. (2) Plans are based on operating experi- ence. (3) I would have to refer to our design criteria. I can’t say offhand. It would serve no purpose for me to check a box above. (4) NFPA 130 Standards as are applicable. (5) No answer provided. (6) Info not available to me at this moment. (7) All sizes and types. 30. Is your agency aware of recent full scale tests where fire size was measured at 52–72 MW in existing vehicles (roughly four times larger than most systems are designed to handle)? Yes 33.3% 8 No 66.7% 16 31. Did these tests result in changes to protocol and procedures in existing tunnels? Yes 12.5% 1 No 87.5% 7 32. Did these tests result in changes in planning new tunnels? Yes (please describe below) 0.0% 0 No 100.0% 9 33. Within the past two years, has your agency made any changes to its standard operating procedures for managing underground fire/smoke incidents? Yes 32.0% 8 No 68.0% 17 34. Please describe briefly the changes to standard operating procedures and the reasons for the changes. Responses discussed in Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Updating procedures to address smoke in tunnels and better training for the controllers in OCC We’ve codified our procedures and added additional steps to meet responders at certain high-risk stations and locations. Modified to reflect the new controls in place Given the Agency is extending the train length (e.g., three- and four-car consists from the current two-car consist) we employed new ventilation modes to address rear of train fires. The principle change has been regarding drill frequencies Update SOPs as a result of FTA Safety Advisories Transit Police became the first responders We added additional information and modified the tunnel ventilation procedures due to fires at other transit agencies. We also used information from the NTSB and APTA. 35. Briefly describe your agency’s ventilation control system and how it is used/managed in underground fire/smoke incidents. Check all elements that apply. Ventilation control is designed to provide fresh air and/or cooling, 8.3% 2 not to remove smoke Ventilation control is designed to remove smoke only 4.2% 1

90 Ventilation control is designed to remove smoke and provide 70.8% 17 fresh air and/or cooling Ventilation control is used to remove smoke, although it is not designed 12.5% 3 for that purpose Other 16.7% 4 Other responses include: (1) Has a maintenance mode for removal of by-products of combustion from maintenance vehicles during non-revenue service hours. (2) Our tunnels are naturally ventilated, no ventilation control. (3) Ventilation is used to give an evacuation path free of smoke. (4) There are on a few locations that have mechanical ventilation. The systems were largely not designed for fire situations. They were designed for temperature control. Our tunnels are relatively shallow and rely on natural ventilation though vent wells placed throughout the tunnel. 36. How are ventilation fans controlled? All are controlled remotely by the operations center 45.5% 10 or other centralized location All are controlled manually at on-site fan controls 0.0% 0 Some are controlled remotely, others manually 0.0% 0 Some or all can be controlled either remotely or manually 40.9% 9 Other 13.6% 3 Other responses include: (1) All fans can be controlled from the central control room or at a panel at the station. There is also a maintenance mode of operation from the Electronics Equipment Room. (2) They can be controlled manually or by the operations center using procedures. (3) All are controlled automatically based on location of smoke detected and can be controlled by the Fire Department on scene remotely if needed. 37. Does your agency regularly and periodically test fan operation? Yes 92.0% 23 No 8.0% 2 38. How often does your agency test fan operation? Weekly 18.2% 4 Monthly 36.4% 8 Annually 9.1% 2 As needed due to maintenance issues 13.6% 3 Other 22.7% 5 Other responses include: (1) Quarterly during fire alarm testing. (2) I would have to look into this frequency. I don’t know offhand. (3) Every 45 calendar days. (4) 3–4 times a year. (5) Semiannually. trAininG 39. Does your agency’s training programs for its employees in responding to underground fire/smoke incidents include the following elements? (Check all that apply.) Review of Standard Operating Procedures for fire/smoke incidents 95.8% 23 on tracks, on vehicles, and in stations Incident Command System (ICS) training 91.7% 22 Hands-on training for use of portable fire extinguishers 70.8% 17 Field tests of Standard Operating Procedures for fire/smoke incidents 41.7% 10 (in transit yard or elsewhere) Review of how smoke management system is designed to operate 41.7% 10 Field tests of smoke management with live or artificial smoke 37.9% 9 Training on options if one or more fans fail to operate correctly 33.3% 8 40. Briefly describe any other elements of your agency’s training programs for its employees in responding to underground fire/smoke incidents. Responses discussed in Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Train special instructions PTEP Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness training This training is done during emergency exercises and drills and annual elevator testing we use canned smoke. We have used be shift toolbox or briefing to go over new procedures or scenarios. Each group within the agency receives training in accordance to their responsibility in an incident. IE—engineers and crew safe movement of passengers, decision to evacuate or shelter in place awaiting assistance. None

91 I cannot say. This is performed by others. Drills in tunnels Coordinate our training with local fire departments. How to manage firefighter in our facilities. Initial and recertification training for subway operation includes tunnel evacuation simulation with employees setting up evacuation ladders and power cut procedures N/A Crew refresher and 1st responder familiarizations Tabletop and full scale exercises. Our training dept. work in collaboration with the local Fire Dept. and does equipment familiarization training with them to ensure their staff is current and they in turn train themselves on procedures and use of equipment such as the dry standpipe and the special communications system present for them along the tunnel wall identified with special blue light. The train control center receives training on their procedures so they communicate properly with train operators and others until professional fire fighters arrive. Communicating with passengers and evacuation procedures. 41. How would you describe ongoing training with first responders from local jurisdictions? (Check all that apply.) Conduct joint training exercises in the field 91.7% 22 Conduct table-top training exercises 87.5% 21 Conduct classroom training exercises 58.3% 14 Meet on a regular basis to discuss fire response 58.3% 14 Meet on an ad hoc basis to discuss fire response 41.7% 10 Conduct on-line training exercises 20.8% 5 Other/varies by jurisdiction (please describe) 16.7% 4 Other responses include: (1) We have developed a first guidance training manual that includes a CD and Book and train the trainers for all jurisdictional responders. (2) Periodic drills. (3) All front line fire fighters along the rail line get rail familiarization training every few years. All new firefighters get the same training during the academy training. (4) The agency meets with all jurisdictional Fire/EMS stakeholders once a month thru the Council of Government committee. 42. Does your agency serve multiple jurisdictions with multiple first response teams? Yes 87.5% 21 No 12.5% 3 43. How often do you train each local first response team? Annually 38.1% 8 Every two years 4.8% 1 Ad hoc 23.8% 5 Other (please specify) 33.3% 7 Other responses include: (1) Frequently with multiple jurisdictions. (2) Every two years or if they request it due to new employees or trainees. (3) I don’t know. (4) We train first response teams at our major cities annually. Other municipalities that are connected via our network are trained on an ad hoc basis. (5) We reach out to all agencies annually and issue training certificates that expire after one year as a reminder to retrain. Response rate from agencies is on or about half with between 1,000–2,000 individual responders trained annually. (6) Every six months. (7) Almost on a weekly basis throughout the metropolitan area 44. Are your agency’s personnel who respond to fire/smoke incidents familiar and comfortable with NIMS – Incident Command System? Yes, all are familiar and comfortable with NIMS 41.7% 10 Yes, most are familiar and comfortable with NIMS 41.7% 10 Some are, some are not 12.5% 3 No, most or all are not familiar and comfortable with NIMS 4.2% 1 45. Are first responders in your city or service area familiar and comfortable with NIMS – Incident Command System? Yes, all are familiar and comfortable with NIMS 82.6% 19 Yes, most are familiar and comfortable with NIMS 13.0% 3 Some are, some are not 4.4% 1 No, most or all are not familiar and comfortable with NIMS 0.0% 0

92 46. What actions would be most useful in improving coordination with local jurisdictions in responding to underground fires? The most important action is training your jurisdictional responders and developing relationships with them. Ensuring that you give familiarization training on facilities and in your vehicles. Inviting them to discuss industry issues related to events in transit emergencies. A dedicated training staff to provide more frequent training for first responders. Staffing and cost limitations to physically present training has led to e-Learning objectives for both initial and refresher training. Continuous interface and communications. Increased drills between local fire and agency personnel. I answered any question having to do with NIMS to move this survey along. I am not familiar with the process. More training and exercises. Contact lists distributed to dispatchers A high-level commitment from the fire and police departments to emphasize rail training in their programs. In addition, a complex e-learning based training interface that retains email addresses and contact information of agencies and personnel trained and continues to provide bulletins of updated information and training announcements. . . . we’re working on that right now. More training and more drills. Training firefighters in our Underground Fire Prevention Training Center. More drills. To identify the location of the incident Multiple agency committees to review past incidents for areas of improvement, as well as combination of meetings ahead of large public events, including but not limited to staff exchange in OCC centers N/A We are still having problem with radio communication. Some jurisdictions are required to carry two radios when responding to underground. It is also required to switch mode when entering into tunnel and at-grade. None. That is because we train 1st responders and other crews as new facilities are placed into service, we feel that we have adequately updated personnel appropriately. More frequent training and discussions, particularly of Operations personnel with Emergency response personnel. Coordination is good at the present time. We are in the process of putting together a Fire Life Safety Committee with the City Fire Department. When this is finalized the coordination should get even better. Annual training and orientation to the underground environment. Training between the transit agency and the first responder on one classroom setting 47. Would you be willing to participate further as a case study, involving a telephone interview going into further detail on your agency’s experience, if selected by the TCRP panel for this project? Yes 66.7% 16 No 33.3% 8 48. Is there another transit system that you suggest we contact for this synthesis project? If you know of a contact at that system, please list the name also. Various responses.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

NO N-PRO FIT O RG . U.S. PO STAG E PA ID CO LUM BIA, M D PER M IT NO . 88 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 5 0 0 F ifth S tre e t, N W W a s h in g to n , D C 2 0 0 0 1 A D D R ESS SER VICE R EQ UESTED Planning and Design for Fire and Sm oke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail System s TCRP Synthesis 124 TRB ISBN 978-0-309-38982-2 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 3 8 9 8 2 2 9 0 0 0 0

Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 124: Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems documents the state-of-the-practice to address fire and smoke incidents. Fires in underground passenger rail tunnels require implementation of different measures in order to provide safety for the passengers and ensure structural and system integrity of the facilities and operating infrastructure. The publication addresses planning, design, and operations to address fire and smoke incidents, and identifies current practices including lessons learned, challenges, and gaps in information.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!