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.
43 A P P E N D I X C Survey Results
Agency Name/Location System Size Estimated Track Miles 2017 Passenger Miles Traveled 2019 Passenger Miles Traveled (Millions, Calculated) 2018 Passenger Miles Traveled (Millions, Calculated) Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico Less than 25 track miles 21.4 35,511,600 38 38 CATS, Charlotte, NC 26 to 50 track miles 38.6 22,711,900 39 32 Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN 26 to 50 track miles 44 102,035,200 108 107 Sound Transit, Seattle, WA 26 to 50 track miles 46.9 151,386,300 164 160 PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA 26 to 50 track miles 52.4 29,714,900 28 28 Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ 26 to 50 track miles 56.4 113,077,700 105 107 VTA, San Jose, CA 51 to 100 track miles 82.2 47,937,300 46 47 SDMTS, San Diego, CA More than 100 track miles 107 210,971,100 216 211 RTD, Denver, CO More than 100 track miles 120.2 175,410,900 173 181 LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA More than 100 track miles 210 723,711,900 598 693 BART, San Francisco, CA More than 100 track miles 224 1,808,935,700 1,727 1,756 CTA, Chicago, IL More than 100 track miles 224.1 1,359,029,700 1,290 1,334 WMATA, Washington, DC More than 100 track miles 233 1,326,262,700 1,373 1,308 SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA More than 100 track miles 254.58 409,012,400 403 417 MBTA, Boston, MA More than 100 track miles 293 716,727,300 718 738 NYCTA, New York, NY More than 100 track miles 665 10,683,847,800 10,781 10,407
Agency Name/Location 2019 Passenger Miles Traveled (Reported) NTD 2018 Actual Passenger Car Miles NTD 2018 Actual Passenger Car Miles (Millions) NTD 2018 Actual Passenger Car Miles per Track Mile Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico Revenue: 1,860,503; car: 1,964,286 1,395,376 1 65,204 CATS, Charlotte, NC 1,496,665 1 38,774 Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN 100,276,941 in 2018 5,474,572 5 124,422 Sound Transit, Seattle, WA 4.7 million 5,745,515 6 122,506 PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA 2,244,077 2 42,826 Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ 70,720 3,351,116 3 59,417 VTA, San Jose, CA 3,592,975 4 43,710 SDMTS, San Diego, CA 8,758,506 9 81,855 RTD, Denver, CO 12,253,481 12 101,942 LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA Unknown 25,786,303 26 122,792 BART, San Francisco, CA 78,611,702 79 350,945 CTA, Chicago, IL Approx. 1.4 billion 74,358,881 74 331,811 WMATA, Washington, DC 1,706,705,123 in 2018 84,271,268 84 361,679 SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA 20,067,638 20 78,826 MBTA, Boston, MA 718,235,590 29,905,677 30 102,067 NYCTA, New York, NY 359,360,705 359 540,392
46 Maintenance Planning for Rail Asset ManagementâCurrent Practices Agency Name/Location Opened Opened Before or After 1980 Most Commonly Used Rail Section Tee Rail % Girder Rail % Percentage of Rails Welded Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico 2004 After 115 RE 100% 0% 100% CATS, Charlotte, NC 2007 After 100% Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN 2004 After 115 RE 100% 100% Sound Transit, Seattle, WA 2009 After 115RE 95% PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA 1984 After 115 RE, 100 ARAB with strap guard 85% 15% 85% Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ 2008 After 115 Tee rail, R-53 Girder rail 30% 70% 100% VTA, San Jose, CA 1987 After 90% 10% SDMTS, San Diego, CA 1981 After 115 RE 100% 100% RTD, Denver, CO 1994 After 100% 100% LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA 1990 After 115 lb 100% 100% BART, San Francisco, CA 1972 Before 119 pound 100% 100% CTA, Chicago, IL 1892 Before 115 RE 100% 60% WMATA, Washington, DC 1976 Before 115 RE 100% 85-90% SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA 1906 Before 115 RE 66% 34% 84% MBTA, Boston, MA 1897 Before 115 RE 99% 1% 60% NYCTA, New York, NY 1904 Before 100-8 and 115 RE 100% 52%
Survey Results 47 Agency Name/Location Rail Defects Found in 2019 Rail Defects Found in 2018 Defects per Track Mile 2019 Defects per Track Mile 2018 Defects per Passenger Mile 2019 Defects per Passenger Mile 2018 Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico 2 2 0.0935 0.0935 0.05202326 0.05243425 CATS, Charlotte, NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sound Transit, Seattle, WA 4 2 0.0853 0.0426 0.02440563 0.01252131 PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA 8 12 0.1527 0.229 0.28338527 0.42716079 Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ 1 0 0.0177 0 0.00955336 0 VTA, San Jose, CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 SDMTS, San Diego, CA 2 0 0.0187 0 0.00927272 0 RTD, Denver, CO 0 45 0 0.3744 0 0.24856167 LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA 3 1 0.0143 0.0048 0.00501761 0.0014434 BART, San Francisco, CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 CTA, Chicago, IL 120 84 0.5355 0.3748 0.09304202 0.06298665 WMATA, Washington, DC 133 80 0.5708 0.3433 0.09685392 0.06118255 SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA 96 109 0.3771 0.4282 0.23794152 0.26119336 MBTA, Boston, MA 36 95 0.1229 0.3242 0.05012283 0.12864886 NYCTA, New York, NY 634 683 0.9534 1.0271 0.05880851 0.06562805
Distribution of Defects Agency Name/Location Detail Fracture Vertical Split Heads Horizontal Split Heads Joint Defects Weld Defects Engine Burn Defects Other (Number) Other (Please Identify) Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico Crown Squats CATS, Charlotte, NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN Sound Transit, Seattle, WA 0.95 0.05 PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA 1 2 1 4 Bolt hole crack 24%, surface condition 25% Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ Split web VTA, San Jose, CA SDMTS, San Diego, CA 1 1 RTD, Denver, CO 4 3 38 LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA 1 1 2 1 broken head, 1 split web outside rail area BART, San Francisco, CA CTA, Chicago, IL 14 0 0 7 39 59 1 1 web defect WMATA, Washington, DC 18 9 33 21 52 See survey for detailed list SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA 0 0 1 6 37 45 1 Split web (32, 2018), transverse fissure (1, 2018), head web sep. (1/2), piped rail (1, 2018) MBTA, Boston, MA 16 0 1 4 6 6 3 Split web (3) NYCTA, New York, NY 315 1 1 313 2 9 42 42/28 (breakout complete)
Distribution of Defects (%) Agency Name/Location Detail Fracture Vertical Split Heads Horizontal Split Heads Joint Defects Weld Defects Engine Burn Defects Other Other (Please Identify) Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico Crown squats CATS, Charlotte, NC Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN Sound Transit, Seattle, WA 95.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 12.5% 50.0% Bolt hole crack 24%, surface condition 25% Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ Split web VTA, San Jose, CA SDMTS, San Diego, CA 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% RTD, Denver, CO LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 50.0% 1 broken head, 1 split web outside rail area BART, San Francisco, CA CTA, Chicago, IL 11.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5.8% 32.5% 49.2% 0.8% 1 web defect WMATA, Washington, DC 13.5% 0.0% 0.0% 6.8% 24.8% 15.8% 39.1% See survey for detailed list SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 6.7% 41.1% 50.0% 1.1% Split web (32, 2018), transverse fissure (1, 2018), head web sep. (1/2), piped rail (1, 2018) MBTA, Boston, MA 44.1% 0.0% 3.4% 11.3% 16.9% 15.8% 8.5% Split web (3) NYCTA, New York, NY 46.1% 0.1% 0.1% 45.8% 0.3% 1.3% 6.1% 42/28 (breakout complete)
Distribution of Defect Groups Agency Name/Location Detail Fracture, Vertical Split Head, Horizontal Split Head Joint and Weld Defects Engine Burn, Other Method of Finding Defects # of Broken Rails Broken Rails/Track Mile Broken Rails/Defect Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico UT 0 0 CATS, Charlotte, NC UT 0 Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN 9 0.205 Sound Transit, Seattle, WA 95.0% 5.0% 0.0% Track inspection crews 0 0 PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA 12.5% 25.0% 62.5% UT 0 0 Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ NDT 7 0.124 7 VTA, San Jose, CA UT and hi rail SDMTS, San Diego, CA 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% UT 0 RTD, Denver, CO UT 2 0.017 LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% UT 0 0 BART, San Francisco, CA CTA, Chicago, IL 11.7% 38.3% 50.0% UT 22 0.098 0.183333333 WMATA, Washington, DC 13.5% 31.6% 54.9% UT, rail bound and hand testing 18 0.077 0.135338346 SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA 1.1% 47.8% 51.1% UT, track inspector, signal 6 0.024 0.0625 MBTA, Boston, MA 47.5% 28.2% 24.3% UT, track inspector, signal 4 0.014 0.111111111 NYCTA, New York, NY 46.4% 46.1% 7.5% UT, video, geometry inspection, service breaks 52 0.078 0.082018927
% Defects Found By For Rail Break Found by Track Circuits, Distribution of Miles Equipped With Agency Name/Location Ultrasonic Testing Eddy Current or Other NDT Track Circuits Visual Inspection by Track Inspector Other (Please Identify) Double Rail Track Circuit (Broken Rail Detection in Both Rails) Single Rail Track Circuit (Broken Rail Detection in Only One Rails) No Track Circuit (Use Alternate Means for Train Location and Separation) Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% All CATS, Charlotte, NC 37.46 - entire Blue Line, both tracks Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Sound Transit, Seattle, WA 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 95.0% PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ 5.0% 0.0% 90.0% 5.0% All VTA, San Jose, CA 90.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% SDMTS, San Diego, CA 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% All RTD, Denver, CO 96.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% All LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% All BART, San Francisco, CA All CTA, Chicago, IL 88.0% 0.0% 6.3% 9.2% All WMATA, Washington, DC 17.0% 0.0% 56.0% 28.0% All SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA 92.7% 0.0% 2.1% 5.2% 10% 75% 15% MBTA, Boston, MA 96.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 50% 30% 20% NYCTA, New York, NY 90.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0%
Does Agency Own Test Equipment? Agency Name/Location Broken Rail Derailments in Last 5 Years (See Survey for Details) Broken Rail Derailments/Broken Rail UT Other No Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico 0 GE USM Go CATS, Charlotte, NC 0 X Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN 0 0 X Sound Transit, Seattle, WA 0 No but plan to purchase UT PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA 0 X Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ 0 0 X VTA, San Jose, CA 0 X SDMTS, San Diego, CA 0 X RTD, Denver, CO 0 0 In process of purchasing LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA 0 X BART, San Francisco, CA 0 X CTA, Chicago, IL 1 0.009090909 X WMATA, Washington, DC 1 0.011111111 X UT contractor as supplement SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA 0 0 Several hand-held units used to verify visual defects MBTA, Boston, MA 1 0.05 X NYCTA, New York, NY 1 0.003846154 X
Survey Results 53 Agency Name/Location Do You Contract Inspection Services? Testing Contractor (If Available) Cost per Test Cost per Mile (Assuming ~30 Miles Tested per Day) Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico Yes Sperry Rail Services $37,000 $1,729 CATS, Charlotte, NC Yes Sperry Rail Services $5,258.33 $501.74 Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN Yes Sperry Rail Services $14,850 for mobilization and 3 days of testing $338 Sound Transit, Seattle, WA Yes Sperry Rail Services $6,500 $139 PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA Yes Sperry Rail Services Unsure Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ Yes Sperry Rail Services $5,000 mobilization, $1,000 per hour VTA, San Jose, CA Yes Sperry Rail Services $100,000 per year $1,217 SDMTS, San Diego, CA Yes Herzog $3,226.01 per 8-hour shift $121 RTD, Denver, CO Formerly Formerly Nordco and Herzog $20,000-$25,000 per test for 120 miles $208 LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA Yes Sperry Rail Services $85,000 for 210 miles of mainline track $405 BART, San Francisco, CA Yes Sperry Rail Services CTA, Chicago, IL Yes Sperry Rail Services Non-stop vehicle test = $9,285.45/day, hand test = $2,813.77/day $332 WMATA, Washington, DC Yes Ensco for camera, Sperry for UT SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA Yes Sperry Rail Services or Nordco MBTA, Boston, MA Yes Sperry Rail Services $850/mile $850 NYCTA, New York, NY Yes DPR Ultrasonic Technologies LLC $550 weekly rate plus consumables/inspection miles)
Frequency of Testing # of tests performed Agency Name/Location Frequency of UT testing Frequency of Other NDT Frequency of Visual Inspection Frequency of UT Testing/Year Frequency of Other NDT/Year Frequency of Visual Inspection/Week Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico Annual On every field weld performed 2x per week 1 Conditional 2 CATS, Charlotte, NC Annual None 1x per week 1 0 1 Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN Annual Only if surface defect found by visual inspection 2x per week 1 Conditional 2 Sound Transit, Seattle, WA Annual 1 PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA Annual Ride 1x per week, walk 1x per week 1 2 Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ Annual 2x per week 1 2 VTA, San Jose, CA Annual Weekly/Monthly 1 1 SDMTS, San Diego, CA Joint territory once every quarter, LRT and only one freight movement weekly tested annually Optical rail measurement, post-rail grinding 2x per week 1 Conditional 2 RTD, Denver, CO Annual 2x per week 1 2 LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA Annual Hi-rail or walked weekly 1 1 BART, San Francisco, CA 2x per year 2x per week 2 2 CTA, Chicago, IL Annual None 2x per week 1 0 2 WMATA, Washington, DC 3x annually, 2x with owned equipment, 1x by contractor 2x per week, camera 1x per year 3 1 2 SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA 2x per year 1x per week 2 1 MBTA, Boston, MA 2x per year New stringers - as welded, all thermite welds before revenue service is run 2 3 NYCTA, New York, NY 4x per year subway, 1x per year outside tracks (4x per week) 3x annual video inspection 2x per week 4 3 2
What Factors Affect Test Frequency? Agency Name/Location Method of Determining Test Frequency Defect History Age of Rail Traffic Environmental Conditions Characteristics of Rail Track Support Conditions Other Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico FTA Yes CATS, Charlotte, NC APTA rail transit insp. and maintenance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Defect growth Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN Metro Transit standard Internal standard Sound Transit, Seattle, WA APTA standards PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA Internal specs Industry standard Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ FRA standards Bridges VTA, San Jose, CA Yes Yes Location, speed, environmental conditions) SDMTS, San Diego, CA FRA 213 rules FRA 213 rules RTD, Denver, CO FRA/FTA LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA FRA requirement BART, San Francisco, CA FRA standards CTA, Chicago, IL FRA guidelines WMATA, Washington, DC Continuous testing in cold weather on mainline, then yards in warm weather Under eval. Deemed ineffective Under eval. Under consideration Alloy steel rail undergoing replacement Few to none SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA Historical precedent Historical precedent MBTA, Boston, MA As mandated - annually One test before winter NYCTA, New York, NY
Major Challenges and Constraints for Testing Agency Name/Location Are You Familiar With Risk-Based Scheduling of UT? Have You Adopted Risk- Based Scheduling of UT? Maintenance Windows Availability of Equipment Ability to Remove Defects in a Timely Manner Other Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico No No Yes CATS, Charlotte, NC Yes No, but open to it Yes No No Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN No No Yes Yes No Yes (contract language) Sound Transit, Seattle, WA No No Yes No No PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA No No None Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ No No Yes Yes Yes VTA, San Jose, CA Yes Informally Major challenge Engaging contractors to provide UT SDMTS, San Diego, CA Yes Not considered effective given number of defects found No No No RTD, Denver, CO No No Yes Yes No LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA No No Yes Yes No BART, San Francisco, CA Yes CTA, Chicago, IL No No Yes No No WMATA, Washington, DC Yes In process Few issues Primary issue, maintenance- based No SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA No No Yes Yes Zero tolerance policy, remove within 10 days MBTA, Boston, MA Yes No, would require change in state law, no data to support Yes Yes NYCTA, New York, NY Yes Yes
Survey Results 57 Do You Follow Any External Regulations or Procedures? Agency Name/Location Internal Standards for UT or Other Rail NDT to Include Frequency of Testing? FRA Title 49 Part 213.237 Other Can a Copy of Rail Test Standards Be Provided? Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico Yes, internal SOP TK-01-15 FTA track inspection guidelines Yes CATS, Charlotte, NC Yes Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN Yes Yes APTA for embedded track defects Yes Sound Transit, Seattle, WA APTA APTA standards yes PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA Yes Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ No Yes VTA, San Jose, CA Yes, annual, MTB-PR-6403 Yes Yes SDMTS, San Diego, CA No Yes Yes RTD, Denver, CO No internal standards, use FRA/FTA LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA No Yes BART, San Francisco, CA Yes Yes CTA, Chicago, IL Yes Yes WMATA, Washington, DC WMATA Standard Operating Procedure Adopted No SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA Combination of CFR regulations and internal Yes MBTA, Boston, MA Yes 220 CMR 151.11(3) NYCTA, New York, NY Yes, internal MW-1 No No
Agency Name/Location How Agency Measures Effectiveness of Defect Inspection/Testing Objective Measures Used Willing to Participate Further as a Case Study? Notes Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico Key performance indicators (see survey) # of rail breaks, # of rail defects, linear feet rail No CATS, Charlotte, NC Ground verification Yes Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN N/A, rely on contractor No Yes Sound Transit, Seattle, WA No Yes PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA Decrease in defects found Yes Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ Amount of defects If defects were found before fracture Yes VTA, San Jose, CA Industry standards, APTA and AREMA recommendations Industry standards, APTA and AREMA recommendations Yes Track mileage: http://data.vta.org/datasets/1efaa711cc8a4f50a4b436659c283893_3/data Minus 2*6.4 miles on center section of town (duplicated on one route) SDMTS, San Diego, CA No # of defects found between test Yes RTD, Denver, CO No Yes LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA No Yes BART, San Francisco, CA No Track miles estimated as double route miles from BART fact sheets CTA, Chicago, IL Year-end meeting (see survey for details) Yes (see survey) Yes WMATA, Washington, DC Under development Yes Track miles from APTA Fact Sheet SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA Periodically send defects to 3rd party for verification Yes Light rail includes SEPTA Trolley Routes; Heavy Rail includes SEPTA Market Frankford, Broad Street, Broad Ridge Spur, and Norristown High Speed Lines MBTA, Boston, MA Amount of broken rails between test campaigns Yes Track miles from https://www.ctps.org/data/calendar/pdfs/2019/MPO_0321_MBTA_TAM_Plan_2018.pdf NYCTA, New York, NY Yes (see survey)
