U.S. Department EVALUATION OF OPTIONS FOR of Transportation Federal Railroad IMPROVING AMTRAK’S PASSENGER Administration ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Office of Research and Development Washington, DC 20590
DOT/FRA/ORD-05/06 Final Report This document is available to the public through the National December 2005 Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. This document is also available on the FRA Web site at www.fra.dot.gov. Notice
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof.
Notice
The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED December 2005 Final Report December 2005 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
Evaluation of Options for Improving Amtrak’s Passenger Accountability System RR93/CB043
6. AUTHOR(S) Ronald Mauri and Joseph Mergel 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION U.S. Department of Transportation REPORT NUMBER
Research and Innovative Technology Administration DOT-VNTSC-FRA-05-08 John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
55 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02142-1093 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING U.S. Department of Transportation AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Federal Railroad Administration Office of Research and Development DOT/FRA/ORD-05/06 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW Mail Stop 20 Washington, DC 20590 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) In investigating the derailment of Amtrak's Auto Train on April 18, 2002, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported that an accurate count of persons on the train at the time of the accident was not available at the accident scene. NTSB noted that emergency response would be improved with accurate count data at the accident scene and issued a Safety Recommendation to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) that it develop and implement an accurate passenger and crew accountability system. This report assesses the weaknesses in Amtrak’s passenger accounting system, the costs of improving it, and the potential safety and business benefits of an improved system. It finds that while technically feasible, the recommendation is impractical given Amtrak’s business model and would not provide the desired safety benefits. It also identifies alternative improvements to Amtrak’s passenger accounting system that can be the basis for future cost-effective Amtrak initiatives.
14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Passenger Accountability, Amtrak, National Transportation Safety Board, Federal Railroad 208 Administration, Safety, Emergency Response 16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unlimited Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 298-102
METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) 1 inch (in) = 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) = 0.04 inch (in) 1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0.4 inch (in) 1 yard (yd) = 0.9 meter (m) 1 meter (m) = 3.3 feet (ft) 1 mile (mi) = 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) = 1.1 yards (yd) 1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi)
AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE) 1 square inch (sq in, in2) = 6.5 square centimeters 1 square centimeter (cm2) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, in2) (cm2) 1 square foot (sq ft, ft2) = 0.09 square meter (m2) 1 square meter (m2) = 1.2 square yards (sq yd, yd2) 1 square yard (sq yd, yd2) = 0.8 square meter (m2) 1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi2) 1 square mile (sq mi, mi2) = 2.6 square kilometers 10,000 square meters (m2) = 1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres (km2) 1 acre = 0.4 hectare (he) = 4,000 square meters (m2)
MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) 1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gm) 1 gram (gm) = 0.036 ounce (oz) 1 pound (lb) = 0.45 kilogram (kg) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (lb) 1 short ton = 2,000 pounds = 0.9 tonne (t) 1 tonne (t) = 1,000 kilograms (kg) (lb) = 1.1 short tons
VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) 1 teaspoon (tsp) = 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter (ml) = 0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz) 1 tablespoon (tbsp) = 15 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 2.1 pints (pt) 1 fluid ounce (fl oz) = 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 1.06 quarts (qt) 1 cup (c) = 0.24 liter (l) 1 liter (l) = 0.26 gallon (gal) 1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (l) 1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (l) 1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (l) 1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft3) = 0.03 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft3) 1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd3) = 0.76 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd3)
TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT) [(x-32)(5/9)] °F = y °C [(9/5) y + 32] °C = x °F QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION 0 1 2345 Inches Centimeters 0126 3 4 5 7138 9 10 1112 QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSION
°F -40° -22° -4° 14° 32° 50° 68° 86° 104° 122° 140° 158° 176° 194° 212°
°C -40° -30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100°
For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and Measures. Price $2.50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286 Updated 6/17/98
ii Table of Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary...... vii
1. Background and Purpose...... 1 1.1 Background...... 1 1.2 Objective...... 1
2. Types of Amtrak Routes...... 3
3. Amtrak Route Characteristics...... 7 3.1 Service Characteristics and Ridership ...... 7 3.2 Stations...... 7 3.2.1 Station Staffing ...... 7 3.2.2 Passenger Boardings ...... 8 3.2.3 Station Intervals...... 9
4. Rail Passenger Accountability Systems ...... 11 4.1 Amtrak’s Existing System ...... 11 4.1.1 Introduction...... 11 4.1.2 Types of Train Riders and Ticketing Procedures ...... 11 4.1.3 Boarding Procedures...... 12 4.1.4 Conductor’s Ticket Pouch...... 14 4.1.5 Amtrak’s Printed Train Manifest and Arrow CRS ...... 17 4.1.6 Conclusions on Amtrak’s Existing Passenger Accounting Systems ...... 21 4.2 Past Initiatives to Improve Amtrak’s Passenger Accounting System...... 22 4.3 Amtrak’s Current Initiative to Improve Passenger Accounting ...... 25 4.4 Foreign Systems...... 27 4.4.1 Eurostar Service...... 27 4.4.2 British Rail...... 28 4.4.3 Japanese Intercity Passenger Trains...... 28 4.4.4 French Intercity Railways...... 30
5. Amtrak Accident History...... 31 5.1 Accident Data for Reserved versus Unreserved Trains ...... 31 5.2 Accident Details...... 32
iii Table of Contents (continued)
Section Page
6. Value of an Accurate System for Accounting for Persons on Board Amtrak Trains ...... 41 6.1 Role of Passenger Accounting in Recent Fatal Accidents...... 41 6.2 Factors Affecting Passenger Survivability in a Train Accident...... 50 6.3 Emergency Responders’ Perspective on the Value of an Accurate Manifest.....52 6.4 Hypothetical Scenario in Which Survivability is Affected by Passenger Accounting...... 55 6.5 Conclusions about the Value of an Accurate System for Accounting for Persons on Board Amtrak Trains...... 55
7. Alternative System Concepts for Improved Passenger Accounting: Description and Evaluation...... 59 7.1 Introduction...... 59 7.2 Alternatives for Improved Passenger Accounting ...... 61 7.2.1 Base Case...... 64 7.2.2 Improved Onboard Paper-Based System...... 66 7.2.3 Automated Onboard Ticket Collection System ...... 67 7.2.4 Automated Onboard Ticket Collection System with Improved Information Transfer...... 71 7.2.5 Electronic Tickets with Platform Readers and Car Door Readers...... 75 7.2.6 Electronic Tickets with Car Door Readers ...... 80 7.3 Potential Benefits of Electronic Ticketing...... 84 7.4 Conclusions...... 87
Bibliography ...... 93
Acronyms...... 95
Appendices:
A. Amtrak Manifest Samples...... 97
B. Passenger On-Board Record Procedures from Amtrak Service Standards Manual for Train Service and On-Board Service Employees...... 105
C. Passenger Accountability Forms...... 109
D. Summary of NTSB Accident Reports and Briefs Related to Amtrak Accidents, 1993 to 2003 ...... 115
E. Emergency Preparedness Guidelines for Passenger Trains...... 159
iv Table of Contents (continued)
Section Page
F. Amtrak Injury/Fatality Accidents by Type of Service ...... 163
G. Amtrak Route Characteristics by Route...... 169
H. Cost Estimate Assumptions for System Improvements...... 179
I. Excerpts from Amtrak’s FY 2005-2009 Strategic Plan...... 189
v List of Tables
Table Page
1. Selected Characteristics: Amtrak Routes...... 7
2. Station Staffing by Type of Route ...... 8
3. Passenger Boardings by Station Type by Route...... 9
4. Amtrak Passenger Casualties...... 33
5. Amtrak Passenger Casualty Accidents by Type of Service (1993 to 2003)...... 34
6. Amtrak Accidents Subject to NTSB Reports/Briefs...... 38
7. Characteristics of the Alternative Passenger Accountability Systems ...... 62
8. Automated Onboard Ticket Collection System ...... 69
9. Automated Onboard Ticket Collection System with Improved Information Transfer...... 73
10. Electronic Tickets with Platform Gate Readers and Car Door Readers ...... 78
11. Electronic Tickets with Car Door Readers ...... 82
12. Alternative Systems’ Cost Summary...... 89
vi
Executive Summary
Background
In investigating the derailment of Amtrak’s Auto Train on April 18, 2002, near Crescent City, Florida, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) observed that an accurate count of persons on the train at the time of the accident was not available at the accident scene. It took NTSB almost 5 months to develop such a count. NTSB noted that emergency response may be improved with accurate passenger- and crew-count data at the accident scene and thus on August 15, 2003, issued the following Safety Recommendation, R-03-12, to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA):
In cooperation with the Transportation Security Administration, develop and implement an accurate passenger and crew accountability system for all long- distance, overnight, and reserved passenger trains that will immediately provide an accurate count and identity of the people on board the train in case of an emergency at any time during the trip.
NTSB also issued similar, concurrent recommendations to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) (R-03-13), and to Amtrak (R-03-10).
FRA must assess the feasibility of implementing this recommendation, and develop a response to the NTSB. FRA has requested that the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) undertake an effort to define options for such an accountability system and assess the feasibility of implementing them.
Objectives
This study has two objectives: (1) to define one or more options for a real time manifest1 system for passengers and crew aboard Amtrak long-distance, overnight, and reserved trains; and (2) to assess the feasibility of developing and implementing such system(s).
The improved system should be capable of providing an accurate listing of all persons on board at all times, including limited personal information to be used as part of an emergency response (i.e., name, and perhaps also age or age category, gender, and contact person/number).
1 In this report a passenger manifest is a list of the number and names of the passengers on board a train and could include other persons (crew). Under current practices, Amtrak’s “manifest” provides the names of first class and sleeper passengers holding reservations. However, it only has a count (without names) of coach reservations and is not checked against the number and names of passengers actually on board. Thus it is not a comprehensive passenger accounting system (manifest) as envisioned by NTSB.
vii The feasibility assessment includes information on the required institutional changes, constraints, implementation costs, and the expected benefits in an emergency situation, including the system’s expected reliability and effectiveness.
The system options considered do not include security functions such as options for linkages to other security databases for passenger screening, which may be the subject of a follow-on study.
The following tasks were performed to meet the study objectives:
1. Describe the existing Amtrak operations and passenger processing systems.
2. Identify Amtrak’s past or planned initiatives to create or improve passenger processing procedures and systems, especially regarding manifests.
3. Describe passenger reservation, ticketing, and control processes for a small sample of foreign passenger rail systems.
4. Describe the role of passenger count and identification information in a rail accident and emergency response environment, and the expected benefits of the improved system.
5. Describe options for an improved passenger accountability system and estimate their development, capital, and operating costs, and assess the feasibility of implementing an improved system.
Conclusions in Brief
• Rail passenger accidents in which passenger accountability could be an issue are rare events.
• Amtrak’s current passenger accountability system does not and cannot meet the NTSB’s requirement for accurately knowing the number and identity of passengers on reserved trains at all times.
• Amtrak’s business model includes open access to its trains. To meet NTSB requirements, Amtrak would need to make a fundamental change from an open to a controlled access business model. The changes include the following:
o Elimination of onboard sales and replacement by one or more of the following: