1 / 23

Developing Common Safety Targets for the European Railway System Roberto Piazza, Peter Mihm and Christophe Cassir IRSC,

Developing Common Safety Targets for the European Railway System Roberto Piazza, Peter Mihm and Christophe Cassir IRSC, Dublin, 23 October 2006. Treaty establishing the European Community, in particular Article 71§1.c:

ron
Download Presentation

Developing Common Safety Targets for the European Railway System Roberto Piazza, Peter Mihm and Christophe Cassir IRSC,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Developing Common Safety Targets for the European Railway System Roberto Piazza, Peter Mihm and Christophe Cassir IRSC, Dublin, 23 October 2006

  2. Treaty establishing the European Community, in particular Article 71§1.c: “1. For the purpose of implementing Article 70 (common transport policy at EC level), and taking into account the distinctive features of transport, the Council shall (…) lay down: … (c) measures to improve transport safety; … “ Directive 2004/49/EC, which, on the other hand, acknowledges that safety levels in the Community rail system are generally high, in particular compared to road transport,and requires: - that current safety performance of rail is not reduced in any Member State - that CSTs are developed, expressed in risk acceptance criteria (1st set of CSTs to be adopted by the European Commission by end of April 2009 - Article 7) Mandate of the European Commission to the European Railway Agency – issued 16/12/2005 (1st set of CSTs to be submitted to the European Commission by end of September 2008) The legal bases for developing CSTs at EU level

  3. Limit differentiation of national policies in the field of safety targeting, as this may hinder the competitive potential of railway transport with respect to other transport modes by fragmenting the EU market Harmonise the way safety is monitored and reduce existing differentiation in the safety performance of railway systems in Member States Avoid that “safety arguments” are unduly used by Member States for creating barriers to the entry into the respective national markets by newcomers Main aims of establishing CSTs at EU level

  4. Option 1: targeting theindividual/collectiverisk of incurring into a given category of consequences of a given category of accidents. Option 2: targeting the occurrence of possible causes of accidents (i.e. broken rails/axles/wheels, signal failures, n. of SPADs, etc.). Dir.2004/49/EC (Art.7) mandates the development of CSTs expressed in terms of risk acceptance criteria for individuals and the society as a whole (i.e. option 1). Option 2 may be used for complementary targets and/or for 2nd set of CSTs. Two main options for safety targeting

  5. A two step approach: First develop a quantitative baseline for understanding the level of safety performance of railway transport in the different Member States, expressed in terms of risk to individuals + societal risk (National Reference Values - NRVs) Then derive CSTs from NRVs, by iteratively setting targets and checking the outcomes of the impact analysis, until an optimum is reached The approach taken by the European Railway Agency for developing CSTs

  6. CSTs for parts of the railway system (where feasible) NRVs • One NRV for: • - each correspondent CST • each MS, excepted MS without railway systems (Malta and Cyprus) = 23 At least 6 (NRVs) x 23 (MSs) = 138 NRVs NRVs for parts of the railway system (where feasible) How many NRVs and CSTs ? Passengers At least 6 at MS level (according to Art.7 SD) Staff Level Crossing Users + CSTs Others Unauthorised persons on railway premises + Societal Risks +

  7. Will have the same unit of measure which is adopted for quantifying RISK Expressed in terms of RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA CSTs NRVs How to measure NRVs and CSTs ? Measurement: Dimensional Definition: Frequency of the event [ n.of events / ] (*) train*km, pax*km, tonn*km Consequences of the event [ Consequences / event ] RISK of a given event [ Consequences / ] Unit of Time Unit of Product (*) = X = Unit of Time Unit of Product

  8. NRVs: the list of formulae and scaling factors which has been selected by the CST WG

  9. NRVs, CSTs and data feeding Common Safety Indicators for 1st set, only data from 2006 • NRV and CST for passengers risk NRV1;CST1 • NRV and CST for staff risk  NRV2;CST2 • NRV and CST for • level crossing users risk NRV3;CST3 • NRV and CST for • unauthorised persons risk NRV4;CST4 • NRV and CST for risk to others NRV5;CST5 • NRV and CST for societal risk  NRV6;CST6 EUROSTAT data for 1st set, full data from 2004, 2005, 2006 + partial data (w/o production data) from 2007 Others Voluntary time series from MS Extra normalisation (production) data NRVs & CSTs for parts of the railway system as defined by Article 3e of Dir. 2004/49/EC Will specific data be available ? If not, careful assumptions and estimates will be necessary

  10. Data for Common Safety Indicators as defined by Annex I of the safety Directive • Issues: • The use of national definitions for indicators (at least for 2006 annual safety report) poses a limit on the comparability of data for different MSs • Data will be available only for 2006 onwards CST6 ? K = Killed SI = Seriously Injured CST3 CST4 CST5 CST1 CST2

  11. EUROSTAT data • Issues: • Uncertainty for CST3, CST4, CST5 • Need to check that suicides data are not included in “ Accidents to persons caused by RS in motion” ~CST5 ~CST3 ~CST4 CST6 ? K = Killed SI = Seriously Injured CST1 CST2

  12. Commonalities amongst Member States: the most exposed categories of individuals The most exposed category of individuals in 2004 was the category « others » (i.e. not passengers, nor employees) (year 2004 – Source: Eurostat)

  13. Commonalities amongst Member States: accidents causing the majority of fatalities Most of the fatalities in 2004 were due to « accidents at level crossings » and to « individual accidents to persons caused by RS in motion » (year 2004 – Source: Eurostat)

  14. The differentiation of statistical data amongst European Countries: a first problem to face The N.of fatalities per Mio train*km caused by railway accidents in countries of the European area [(EU + EEA) Member States] in 2004 and 2005 lied in a range 0,05  3 (510E-8  310E-6 Fatalities/train*km), which means that there was a variation of two orders of magnitude between the best and the worst performing MS.

  15. The differentiation of statistical data amongst European Countries: a first problem to face Also for the number of accidents per million train*km there was a variation of two orders of magnitude between the best and the worst performing MS (0,5  40) . (year 2004 – Source: Eurostat)

  16. The differentiation of statistical data amongst European Countries: a first problem to face …same order of magnitude of variation for the number of passenger fatalities per billion train*km (0,06  3).

  17. It is evident from Eurostat data for 2004 and 2005that there are significant differences in safety performance between MSs (two orders of magnitude variation of total FWI/train*km amongst Member States, as already shown) There is a need to analyse why these large differences occur and also to study additional data to see how annual fluctuations might influence these results A longer time series of national data would serve to average out some of the effects of the high-consequence low-frequence events and also to give more significance to the data for small Member States with few events Data insufficiency: a second problem to face Coping with data insufficiency

  18. Case 1: Comparability analysis of data Comparability analysis: National time series vs. Eurostat time series • Case 1: consistency of the two different time series • Case 2: inconsistency of the two different time series Case 2: Eurostat Eurostat

  19. Treatment of data • Averaging and forecasting techniques: • Moving averages, exponential smoothing, trend lines etc • Objective is to find NRVs less sensitive to annual random fluctuations and influence from low frequency/high impact accidents • The approach may also facilitate setting targets for annual risk reduction Risk Outcome of averaging and smoothing Estimated long term trend Raw data

  20. A descending long-term trend for passenger fatalities

  21. Common Safety Targets – how to set up 1st set of CSTs from NRVs ? Risk Lowest impact CST NRVs = National Reference Values of safety performance for each MS ΔRF ΔRD Optimal impact CST (best overall « Cost / Benefit » ratio ?) MS A MS C MS D MS B Weighted impact CST MS F MS G MS E Highest impact CST ΔRX=range of tolerance for MS X in a given time horizon (will a range of tolerance for NRVs also have to be considered for each MS ? It will depend on the approach finally adopted for setting CSTs)

  22. ERA’s CST WG: overall flowchart of activities and deliverables

  23. Thank you for your attention!

More Related