Posts about FTA

Root Cause Analysis: Whenever accidents happen, root cause analyses must be conducted to identify the root causes, or hazards, that led to the accident. NTSB conducted an excellent root cause analysis of the Red Line crash. The problem with relying on root cause analyses alone is that systems with very, very few accidents present few opportunities to identify root causes, and the root causes of each accident are statistically likely to be different.

Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA): A more proactive approach to hazard analysis is to identify all of the ways in which a system might fail. These are the system's failure modes. Loss of train detection by the automatic train control system was the failure mode implicated in the Red Line crash. But there are dozens of other failure modes. FMEA identifies as many failure modes as possible, identifies the causes of each failure mode, and then prioritizes the actions that would correct each cause by the severity and likelihood of the effects of their failure mode and the cost of the corrective action.

NTSB rightly identified the deeper cause of the Red Line crash as not the failure of track circuit modules but an institutional failure to address safety. This institutional failure, though, was unhelpfully generalized as the "lack of a safety culture." How does one get a "safety culture"? NTSB's recommendations are sorely lacking in detail on this topic, with no mention of hazard analysis or FMEA. The result, as has been said, is a tone of petulance by the NTSB.

When WMATA calmly, systematically begins to conduct hazard analysis, publicly displays the resulting prioritized list of Corrective Action Plans in its monthly Vital Signs report, and then updates the list itself (as hazard analyses are conducted continuously) and the status of each plan, then people will think of WMATA as having a "safety culture".

In this regard, the FTA was much more helpful than the NTSB in the FTA Audit's recommendations for a "Hazard Management Program". The institutional root cause of the Red Line crash, unidentified by NTSB, was described perfectly by the FTA: "There is no evidence that safety analysis is being performed to prioritize hazards for elimination and mitigation."

Will cooler heads at WMATA prevail? Preliminary signs are not encouraging. The WMATA Board criticized the failure to implement over 100 Corrective Action Plans. Similarly, a WMATA official told the Riders Advisory Council, in explaining why the new 7000 series of rail cars will forego longitudinal seating, that if there were anything it could do, no matter what, to improve safety, then they would be remiss in skipping it.

Both of these incidents portray a shell-shocked WMATA that is reflexively saying "of course" to any idea that could improve safety. This emotional response to safety is precisely what leads to the false "safety vs cost" trade-off. A proactive hazard analysis program, however, must prioritize this list of ideas because it has produced far more corrective action plans than there is money or time to ever implement.

This results in a lean safety agenda that prioritizes CAPs with a high safety return on investment, not those that will only push large volumes of riders into cars for a minimal improvement in safety. That's why the FTA asked WMATA for its list of "top ten" hazards that it plans to address.

Furthermore, it's unclear if FMEA and Hazard Analysis are skills that exist within WMATA. The recent WMATA Vital Signs monthly report of Key Performance Indicators, such as passenger injuries and bus on-time performance, is to be commended for transparently monitoring and reporting metrics. But the discussions of "Why did performance change?" and "Actions to improve performance" for each KPI seem so arbitrary that it appears no root cause analyses were conducted for each KPI that was below target. Hopefully new Chief Safety Officer James Dougherty can bring these skills to WMATA.

It's time for calm, proactive analysis to replace emotional, reactive safety initiatives. The Metro Board and GM, as well as journalists and bloggers, can be more helpful by asking the right questions, as the FTA did, instead of exposing every safety idea that WMATA has not implemented as indicative of an agency with no "safety culture."

Similarly, Metro decided not to explore having 4 doors per side on each car. Many other systems have 4 doors on cars of this length. New York even has 4 doors on many 60-foot cars, compared to Metro's 75-foot cars. More doors mean the car can load and unload faster, reducing dwell times and keeping trains moving. That increases capacity as well, because the faster each train gets in and out of the busiest stations, the sooner another train can come in and the more trains Metro can run overall.

Why has Metro chosen to forego this opportunity? They say it's because of safety. According to Debo Ogunrinde in a presentation made to the Riders' Advisory Council, the engineers believe there's some safety benefit to transverse seating. Having seats in front of and behind some riders could keep them from sliding into other riders or flying toward the end of the railcar in the event of a crash.

The argument is similar for doors. Fewer doors mean stronger car walls. Of course, the wall strength wasn't the problem in the June 2009 Red Line crash, where the cars telescoped, but there could be crashes where it matters.

That's probably right. But is it worth sacrificing capacity? Consider that overcrowded platforms and escalators present their own safety hazards. And overcrowding is a certainty, while train crashes are hopefully avoidable.

And the more crowded Metro gets, the more people will drive. If they do, they're much less safe. After the crash, BeyondDC calculated that driving Metro is 34 times safer per passenger mile than driving. Is the benefit of transverse seating 34 times greater than longitudinal?

Unfortunately, Metro's engineers don't have (or haven't been willing to share) any sort of quantifiable assessment of the safety value of transverse seating. It's just "some." But we can't tell if it's more of a safety benefit than the safety benefit of less crowded platforms and escalators. And we don't know if it's more of a safety benefit than the benefit of moving a few more people by rail instead of by car.

Mr. Ogunrinde said that Metro felt if there were anything it could do, no matter what, to improve safety, then they would be remiss in skipping it. But is that really true? Why haven't they designed the cars with seatbelts? What about four-point harnesses like on military jets? Airbags? Padded walls? If fewer doors is stronger, why are there still windows on the cars? Why don't the cars have foam peanuts filling their space, which riders can worm their way through? Maybe Metro should run every train at 10 mph?

When the FTA first announced its desire to regulate trainsit safety, I worried that this shortsighted tradeoff is exactly what would happen. Regulators whose sole responsibility is to prevent deaths or injuries in crashes would push transit systems to make changes that reduce the risk of crashes but increase other risks, like crowding and driving. That's what happened when the Federal Railroad Administraton over-regulated commuter and intercity railroads to make cars heavier and therefore slower, harming the overall value of rail passenger service.

FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff has assured everyone this is not what the FTA would do. He said,

We must remember that, despite WMATA's safety challenges, every Washington area commuter is safer traveling on WMATA than they are traveling on our highways. Thus, we cannot allow any degradation in WMATA's reliability and performance such that commuters opt to abandon Metro in favor of our already congested highways. We must also caution against any proposals that will reduce significantly WMATA's existing capacity, forcing more commuters onto our highways. Any actions or proposals pushing WMATA riders onto our highways simply will degrade safety and worsen congestion in the region.

Hopefully he's right and the FTA will avoid following the FRA's path. But Metro is going ahead and doing the same thing all by themselves. I can understand the viewpoint of the railcar designers as well. If someone is hurt in a crash, people might ask why the railcars weren't designed differently. But if people are hurt in stations, the questions won't revolve around the railcars. And if people die out on the roads, nobody (except maybe us) asks why that person couldn't have been on transit, where they would have been safer.

I don't know if the current political climate allows Metro to design its railcars for the maximum capacity and with the overall transportation safety picture in mind instead of the narrow goal of safest railcars at any operational cost.

Certainly Congress keeps hammering at safety without really analyzing the big picture. Yesterday, a Senate committee approved this year's $150 million federal contribution, but Senator Barbara Mikulski attached conditions that all money be spent on safety and WMATA report quarterly on its progress on safety. The focus on safety is important, but the big picture is more complex than a sound bite.

The Board is supposed to take the broader view. Can they? Is it politically feasible to approve railcars with higher capacity, which will cut down on unsafe overcrowding and reduce reliance on dangerous cars even though some engineers say that transverse seating is safer to some, undetermined and vague degree?

Hopefully they will, asking staff to go back to the longitudinal seating as well as evaluating whether it would bring additional cost to build railcars with 4 doors. Riders in 2030 would be glad they did.

Update: What about articulated cars, where the doors between some cars are replaced with flexible sections creating, in effect, double-length cars or even making the whole train a car? Mr. Ogunrinde said they had rejected that for three reasons.

First, security agencies say it would make things more difficult, perhaps by letting a suspect roam through the train to evade capture. That seems a little dubious. Second, there aren't examples in the US of these working in heavy rail environments. However, there are plenty of examples around the world. But third, and the one that is somewhat persuasive to me, Metro's existing facilities aren't set up to be able to handle articulated cars, making it very costly to switch.

page/2

page/2

The full Commission didn't even approve these letters, despite their appearing on official NCPC letterhead. According to people who've spoken with various NCPC representatives, some members don't personally like wires, or aren't convinced that streetcars are worth the money. Some commenters here share some of these concerns.

However, appointees of the President, the Park Service, DoD, GSA, and Congress should not be deciding what individual DC neighborhoods should look like or what is or isn't a prudent investment of capital dollars. That's why we have a democratic political process of home rule, and that's what democracy is about. People get to decide for themselves instead of having some "king" decide for them.

Bryant also expresses concern that the public be involved in the streetcar planning. That is important, but since when is this NCPC's responsibility? They haven't done the same for other, not so federal items in the past.

H Street wants the streetcar. Downtown businesses want the streetcar. Georgia Avenue wants the streetcar. It doesn't affect the federal government if there are streetcars there, even ones with wires, except right past the national parks and on the view corridors. The NCPC members should stop trying to be the Mayor of DC and worry about the real federal interest instead of their personal interest.

We're working on a page for you to reach out to NCPC members about this, but in the meantime, feel free to email your Councilmembers and the Mayor. Thank them for their streetcar support so far and encourage them to stand up for our right to home rule.

Transit dollars in the United States are scarce. So for as long as the University has opposed a surface alignment, MTA has called for one. Burying the line across campus would be prohibitively expensive, and without meeting federal cost-effectiveness criteria, the project won't get built.

But the University continues to waste time and resources studying infeasible routes. The new proposal calls for a tunnel running south of the McKeldin Mall, south of Tydings and Francis Scott Key Halls. The map below shows a rough alignment. Neither MTA nor UM were able to provide information about the specific route the tunnel would take.

The locally preferred alternative is shown in purple. The new UM proposal
is in blue, with the tunnel section darker. (larger map)

In regards to this new proposal, "no agreement has been made," said Dr. Ann Wylie, VP of Administrative Affairs.

Michael Madden explained that MTA had studied the tunnel alignment at the request of the University, but the results found that the tunnel was "not viable." Dr. Wylie pointed out that MTA's main objections to tunneling are cost-related. She indicated that the University was looking into funding.

Unfortunately, though, federal cost-effectiveness guidelines don't take into account merely the amount of federal funding, but the entire cost of the project. Even if UMD was able to fund the full additional cost of the tunnel, it could still kill the project.

But there was more to object to in the Diamondback's article than an inaccurate headline and getting the main point wrong. Despite overwhelming support among students, the reporter did not include the sentiments of a single person supportive of the Purple Line, not even a tunneled Purple Line.

The article dwells on the major problems some claim the Purple Line will bring to campus: crime and maimed pedestrians. The article fails to mention a single benefit of the Purple Line.

And to drive her point home, the reporter brings evidence to the table about the destructiveness of rail in a campus environment. Years of disruptive construction were followed by a divided campus and pedestrian fence corrals at the University of Minnesota, she says. The implication is that the "electric train" there has ruined the aesthetic quality and the pedestrian mobility of the campus.

But there's one problem with this argument: Minnesota's Central Corridor, which will link Minneapolis and Saint Paul, hasn't opened yet. In fact, construction only started a few months ago and hasn't even reached the University of Minnesota.

The fact of the matter is that rail can peacefully coexist in campus and urban environments. Streetcars cross a pedestrian plaza at Portland State University and the University of Pennsylvania has several trolley lines nearby.

The University of Maryland will benefit greatly from this investment. Students, faculty, and staff will see improved access to the region. And the elimination of cars from Campus Drive (a part the Purple Line project) will actually improve pedestrian safety in the center of campus.

Of course, the reporter could have a point. In the video below, watch normally orderly Germans flee from a careening tram in Berlin's Alexanderplatz.

Update: the Diamondback has published an updated article.

page/2

page/2

Chairman Towns and Members of the Committee,

Thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is David Alpert and I am the District of Columbia Vice-Chair of the WMATA Riders' Advisory Council. I also report on and advocate for transit and better urban design through my Web site, GreaterGreaterWashington.org.

The Riders' Advisory Council was established by WMATA in September 2005 and serves as the riders' voice within WMATA. The Council provides feedback to the Board and customer input to Metro staff. Council members are appointed by the Board of Directors. The Council consists of 21 members, two from each of the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia, two appointed at-large and the Chair of the Accessibility Advisory Committee. Members use Metro's transit services—Metrobus, Metrorail and MetroAccess—and represent a diverse mix of ages, backgrounds and ways in which they use Metro.

WMATA experienced its worst year in history in 2009, and suffered a substantial loss of public confidence. The June 2009 crash on the Red Line and subsequent track worker fatalities catalyzed that change, and accelerated awareness of the larger problem, the growing disrepair of the Metrorail infrastructure.

Despite the challenges faced by WMATA, it remains a vital asset to the Washington region. A recent Washington Post poll found that 80% of riders rate the system positively. During this past month, Metrorail recorded three of its top five highest ridership days (April 1st, 2nd and 7th). This underscores the region's dependence on Metro and also highlights the need to redouble efforts to maintain and expand the system.

WMATA, its new Interim General Manager Mr. Sarles, and its future permanent General Manager as well as all employees must ensure that safety is their top priority. We need the best safety managers and a culture from the top that ensures that all employees respect and follow the safety recommendations. One day, hopefully very soon, the immediate safety crisis will be a memory.

At that time, we will wrestle with the much more difficult task of repairing a system that is chronically underfunded, both from federal transportation spending rules which contain built-in biases against transit funding, to state and local fiscal decisions which fail to adequately fund a system that has brought hundreds of billions of dollars in economic value to the region.

Failing to keep the system in a state of good repair also seriously threatens safety. While certainly not as dramatic as the incidents that have occurred over the past year, crowded platforms following service disruptions, crumbling platform tiles and out-of-service elevators and escalators are significant, recurring safety concerns.

Ensuring stable and sufficient capital funding for Metro is necessary to improve safety. As WMATA prepares to enter into its next capital plan on July 1st of this year, governments must also provide the resources necessary to adequately maintain Metro's safety and service, from specific safety recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board to the everyday yet critical maintenance challenges.

Renewing the local Metro Matters funding agreement, which is currently under negotiation, is essential. Recent news reports have revealed that Maryland, in particular, has deferred some 2010 capital payments, may defer additional payments i n 2011, and may not be able to renew its multi-year commitment to capital funding. In the Washington Post poll, 62% of respondents said that the region should "provide more public transportation options, such as trains or buses" rather than "expanding or building roads."

The Council appreciates Congress's support for the $150 million annual federal capital funding for WMATA last year and hopes Congress will continue to provide these funds. Unfortunately, even continuing that appropriation annually and renewing the Metro Matters agreement leaves WMATA about $3.4 billion short of its identified capital needs over the next 10 years.

In addition, WMATA must secure support for its Operating Budget. Closing the currently-projected $190 million operating budget gap for FY2011 will likely require both significant fare increases and substantial service cuts. Proposed cuts could create long headways up to 30 minutes on rail and an hour or more on some buses, increasing crowding and driving many choice riders away from transit. Others would eliminate some service entirely early in the morning and late at night, stranding riders who depend on Metro to get to work at those hours. The General Manager's proposed budget even shortened rush hour trains and eliminated Yellow Line service at many times.

During recent public hearings on WMATA's proposed operating budget and imminent fare increases and service reductions, riders expressed a clear preference for increased fares over reductions in service. However, fares cannot be raised too greatly lest riders, especially the most vulnerable, be priced off of Metro.

Riders are not the only ones who benefit from good transit. The entire region benefits economically. The federal government benefits from greater productivity. And drivers benefit from reduced congestion on roadways. For that reason, the Riders' Advisory Council and transit advocacy groups have asked local jurisdictions to increase their contributions enough to forestall severe service cuts.

The Northern Virginia counties have taken the greatest steps in this area, explicitly making room in their budgets for greater support for transit. Elected leaders including some DC Councilmembers and many Maryland state delegates and county councilmembers have expressed their support. However, there remains a great deal of uncertainty about the amount the funding jurisdictions can or will ultimately provide.

Over the long term, federal, state and local governments must recognize the tremendous asset that Metro represents to the region and support it accordingly. A majority of residents in the aforementioned poll said that the region should find new ways to fund Metro, even if that meant raising some taxes.

Metro's budget difficulties are certainly not unique among the nation's transit systems. A recent study released by the American Public Transit Association noted that 84% of transit systems in the United States are planning to raise fares and/or decrease service, or have already done so. Metro does provide uniquely direct value to the federal government, and therefore we hope Congress and the states can work together to explore long-term funding sources.

In the midst of all of these challenges, WMATA must also find a new, permanent General Manager. The Council hopes that as the Board begins its search it will solicit input from all of Metro's stakeholders, including its riders and its employees.

Riders have expressed their vision for improvements at Metro. They want more reliable service, greater focus on customers, and clearer, more direct and more frequent communication from Metro, especially when things go wrong. While the General Manager must ensure a safe system, the region also needs a GM able to improve service quality and communicate effectively with the public to restore confidence. The Board should seek a candidate able to address Metro's long-term as well as short-term challenges and listen to stakeholders' views about those challenges.

Safety should top the list of Metro's core values. Effective oversight is also critical to maintaining safety and customer confidence in transit. Still, safety cannot exist in a vacuum. Statistics show that commuting by rail is approximately 34 times safer than driving, and many riders make a daily decision between the two.

Mandates that improve safety while maintaining service quality can greatly enhance transit; mandates that impair service in the long run in the name of safety will only drive commuters to other, more dangerous modes of travel. Transit must be safe; it also must not be permanently hamstrung in ways that actually make travelers across all modes less safe.

We are pleased that Congress is taking a strong interest in the safety and success of the Washington area's transit system. At the same time, safety for commuters in our nation's capital does not start and end with Metrorail. A US Department of Agriculture employee was killed by a driver after the recent snowstorm when the employee tried to walk to the Branch Avenue Metrorail station in Prince George's County, Maryland, where the sidewalks had not been cleared. A military truck closing roads for the recent nuclear security summit killed a bicyclist last week right in downtown DC.

WMATA safety issues have received considerable press recently, but the degree of press attention has been so great specifically because Metrorail fatalities are so rare, while fatalities on roadways are common to the point that we have become inured to these tragedies. This Congress should not ignore these larger safety concerns, and could draw needed attention to them by also conducting oversight into the ways in which our roadway designs, snow removal policies, and traffic law enforcement succeed or fail at maximizing the safety of commuters on all modes.

A safe, reliable, well-maintained and adequately funded Metro system will enrich the entire region, notably including the federal government. I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony and would be happy to answer any questions you may have.