SHORT LINE SAFETY INSTITUTE SAFETY MAKE $ENSE

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "SHORT LINE SAFETY INSTITUTE SAFETY MAKE $ENSE"

Samson Hall
6 years ago
Views:

1 SHORT LINE SAFETY INSTITUTE SAFETY MAKE $ENSE TRACK 205 FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION DEFINING A SAFETY CULTURE ASLRRA 2015 CONNECTIONS ORLANDO, FLORIDA MARCH 31, 2015

2 Concept and Process Chairman Ed McKechnie announce the concept for the focus on safety culture at the Annual Meeting in Atlanta In January, 2014 in response to Secretary Foxx outreach to short lines, President Rich Timmons sent a letter setting forth the idea of establishing a short line safety initiative Initially the program will be directed at short lines and regionals that haul crude through a pilot project Over the next few years, it will be expanded to all short lines and regional railroads ASLRRA is working with the FRA, UCONN, and Volpe to develop the project

3 Short Line Safety Institute Development Team Team Lead(s) Role Keith Borman Counsel, Program Development ASLRRA Mike Ogborn Team Leader, Program Development, Stakeholder Engagement, Liaison With ASLRRA Jo Strang Program Development, Subject Matter Expert Stakeholder Engagement Tom Streicher Program Development. Subject Matter Expert J R Sampson Coordinator FRA R&D Volpe Michael Coplen, M.A. Starr Kidda, Ph.D. Nicole Boyko, M.A. Juna Snow, Ph.D. Industrial/Organizational Development, Behavioral and Safety Culture Change, Program Evaluation Job Analysis, Grants Management, Project Evaluation Safety Culture Measurement Program Evaluation, Educational Evaluation UCONN Janet Barnes-Farrell, Ph.D. Safety Culture Measurement, Job Analysis 3

Short Line Safety Institute Evaluation Framework Mission: Enhance safety culture and safety compliance of short line and regional railroads through voluntary, non-punitive partnerships.

incidents FRA R&D Funding ASLRRA grant UCONN grant Volpe grant Congressional grant Activities Needs assessments Job analyses Literature reviews Stakeholder engagement strategies Organizational

reports Participant feedback Organizational structure Short line and regional railroads Management Employees FRA R&D Other railroads DOT at-large Congress Public Improved safety culture

4 Short Line Safety Institute Evaluation Framework Mission: Enhance safety culture and safety compliance of short line and regional railroads through voluntary, non-punitive partnerships. Context Inputs Outputs Outcomes What we invest What we get For whom What we see Priority Improve crude-by-rail transportation safety Situation Rapid increase in crude oil production and related incidents FRA R&D Funding ASLRRA grant UCONN grant Volpe grant Congressional grant Activities Needs assessments Job analyses Literature reviews Stakeholder engagement strategies Organizational planning FRA R&D Team Assessment Tools: Safety culture Safety compliance Interview protocols Educational Materials: Employees Managers Organizational Plan ASLRRA Team Onsite assessments Assessment reports Participant feedback Organizational structure Short line and regional railroads Management Employees FRA R&D Other railroads DOT at-large Congress Public Improved safety culture Fully-functioning Safety Institute Reduced accidents and injuries Ongoing assessments Education Research Increased safety conformance Use of Institute repository resources Context, Input, Implementation, and Impact Evaluation 4

5 Short Line Safety Institute Vision, Mission, and Strategic Goals Vision: For the short line and regional railroad industry to perform at a superlative level of safety Mission: To provide the leadership to enhance the safety culture and safety conformance of short line and regional railroads through voluntary, nonpunitive partnerships Strategic Goals: To enhance and improve safety practices and to increase the short line and regional railroad industry's culture of commitment to safety through assessing their safety culture, recommending how to improve it, and providing leadership, training and education about safety culture and conformance

6 Definition Of A Safety Culture The shared values, actions, and behaviors that demonstrate a commitment to safety over competing goals and demands

7 10 Core Elements of a Strong Safety Culture 1. Leadership Is Clearly Committed To Safety 2. The Railroad Practices Continuous Learning 3. Decisions Demonstrate That Safety Is Prioritized Over Competing Demands 4. Reporting Systems And Accountability Are Clearly Defined 5. There Is A Safety Conscious Work Environment 6. Employees Feel Personally Responsible For Safety 7. There Is Open And Effective Communication Across The Railroad 8. Mutual Trust Is Fostered Between Employees And The Railroad 9. The Railroad Is Fair And Consistent In Responding To Safety Concerns 10. Training And Resources Are Available To Support Safety

8 Compliance vs. Conformance Compliance is measured against an immovable standard Because the standard cannot change, the behavior must Compliance does not = Safety Conformance is measured against a chosen standard Chosen as a necessity Chosen as a best practice If behavior can t be changed, the standard may be changed.

9 Short Line Safety Institute Project Timeline Mission: Enhance safety culture and safety compliance of short line and regional railroads through voluntary, non-punitive partnerships. Pilot: Sample of RRs hauling crude Jan June 2015 June 2015 Jan 2016 Expansion: Additional RRs hauling crude Roll-out: RRs handling other hazardous materials Post-Jan 2016 Ongoing Implementation and Impact Evaluation 9

10 Pilot Project Launch Communication Process Safety Assessment Team Pre-Launch planning with Management Team Management Team Expectation setting and planning with employees SAT + Organization Stakeholders Run pilot with candor and commitment

11 Pilot Project - Phase 1 Develop selection criteria for pilot sites - completed Choose initial railroads to be assessed -- completed Develop templates - completed Develop recruitment and training protocols for assessors - completed Recruit, interview, and contract with assessors - completed Train the assessors to conduct the assessments - completed Contact railroads to be assessed and start process in progress

12 Pilot Project Phase 2 Prior to on-site assessment, the Coordinator discuss with senior manager the project, its scope, and the process and request safety related information All employees will be requested to complete surveys before assessors arrive Review will include field observations Assessors will review safety culture on the railroad through interviews with senior management, supervisory management, and employees on site

13 Pilot Project Phase 3 Assemble the data and analyze to determine elements to communicate back to railroad Assessors will brief management and leadership team on findings and recommendations Subsequent to the assessment, the assessors will provide management with written report on findings and recommendations ASLRRA Team will work with senior management on implementation plan Assessors will conduct follow-up visits

14 Assessment and Transition ASLRRA and R&D will assess the effectiveness of the Pilot Project and make adjustments as needed Pilot Project will transition to a permanent expanded program Over time the Institute will both conduct assessments and become an educational and training source for short lines The Institute will also develop data analysis and research capabilities

15 Short Line Safety Institute The Institute will heighten the intensity of the safety focus and involvement of short line and regional railroads and their management The goal of the Institute is to facilitate the strongest safety culture possible in all short line and regional railroads

17 Track 205: Finance & Administration $afety makes $ense 2015 ASLRRA Annual Convention Orlando, Florida

18 Why $afety makes $ense (cents) The 3 P s of Risk OURS OTHERS People X X Property X X Product X X

19 Why $afety makes $ense (cents) PEOPLE In an unsafe environment: We Risk our people We put other people at Risk Example: Lac Magantic Injuries Other (Evacuations)

20 Why $afety makes $ense (cents) PROPERTY In an unsafe environment: We Risk our property We Risk others property Example: Damaged Track, Bridges Equipment Rail Cars

21 Why $afety makes $ense (cents) PRODUCT In an unsafe environment: We Risk our product (which is our service) We Risk others product (our customers products) Example: Service Issues - Delays Product we are Hauling

22 Why $afety makes $ense (cents) PEOPLE Costs Associated with the P s Injuries FELA claims Medical Costs Extra labor while recuperating Lawsuits Bad Press Insurance Costs

23 Why $afety makes $ense (cents) PROPERTY Costs Associated with the P s Repair locomotive Repair Track Repair Cars Replace Cars Damage to others Property Lawsuits

24 Why $afety makes $ense (cents) PRODUCT Costs Associated with the P s Loss of Customer Goodwill We may become a Questionable Carrier Lawsuits Lading Losses Clean-up Issues, EPA, etc. Insurance Costs

25 Why $afety makes $ense (cents) Examples: Operating in a Safe Environment Union Pacific Reports Declines in Derailments (7% in 2014) 38% over the past 10 years Stock Price (value of company) has ZOOMED: 28% in 1 year 686% in 10 years CSX Most admired company, but Derailment on February 16, 2015 Stock Price February 17, 2015: DOWN.6% in one day Annualized decline of 219%

26 Why $afety makes $ense (cents) A Short Line Story Year 1 -Derailment Costs $400,000 Railroad s Annual Loss ($259,000) One Year Later - NO Derailments Railroad s Annual Profit $527,000 WHY? Started Program to Actively Improve Safety Culture Better Allocation of Resources

27 Why $afety makes $ense (cents) A Short Line Story Part 2 Year 1 (3) Derailments - Costs $600,000 Reduced Profits One Year later - Spent $50,000 on a Safety Program NO Derailments NO Injuries WHY? Started Program to Actively Improve Safety Culture Reduced Transportation Expenses by $300,000 Better Allocation of Expense Dollars

28 Why $afety makes $ense (cents) Use 45G Tax Credit to Fund Infrastructure Costs which improves the physical plant and increases Safety Begin a Safety program today Improve your Bottom Line, by Protecting your P s

29 James A. Bowers Contact Information Partner-in-Charge: Railroad Industry Bowers & Company CPAs PLLC 1700 AXA Tower II, 120 Madison Street Syracuse, New York Phone: (315) Website:

Institute March 31, 2015 Orlando, Florida MICHAEL COPLEN Senior Evaluator Office of

30 Safety Culture Change: Case Study Examples of Bottom-Line Benefits ASLRRA 2015 Connections Finance and Administration Breakout Session 205 $afety Make $ense: The Short Line Safety Institute March 31, 2015 Orlando, Florida MICHAEL COPLEN Senior Evaluator Office of Research and Development Office of Railroad Policy and Development Federal Railroad Administration

31 1999 Study: Compliance with Railroad Operating Rules and Corporate Culture Influences

32 Safety Culture in U.S. Railroad Industry Research and Evaluation Strategy, 2001 Identify, develop, and implement innovative safety culture pilot projects in U.S. railroad industry Develop safety culture interventions applicable across different organizations and environments Evaluate utilization, impact, and effectiveness of pilot projects Where successful, support broad-scale adoption and implementation across industry Develop a business case for safety culture in the railroad industry 32

33 Impact of CSA (P2P) and C 3 RS in U.S. Railroad Industry Approach Carriers Start Date Functions Outcomes Participative Safety Rules Revision ACBL, CSXT, KCS, CN-IC 1999 All Operating 30% reduction in reportable injuries Drop in liability claims Root-Cause Analysis Problem Solving Clear Signal for Action (CSA) Peer-to-Peer Feedback Continuous Improvement Safety Leadership Canadian Pacific 2003 Mechanical Amtrak 2001 Station Services Union Pacific 2005 Road Crews Union Pacific 2006 Yard Crews 50% drop in injury rates (all injuries) 76% drop in injury rates 71% drop in reportable injuries 79% drop in L.E. decertification rates 81% drop in derailments 65% drop in yard-derailment rates Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C³RS) Union Pacific Canadian Pacific New Jersey Transit Amtrak Road & Yard Crews 41% reduction in derailments at 1 site 90% drop in discipline cases 33 33

34 Current R&D Safety Culture Evaluations: Company-wide and Industry-wide pilots Short Line Safety Institute Amtrak Safe-2-Safer BNSF Safety Culture Initiatives Passenger Ops CSA Training Materials C3RS

35 FRA R&D Safety Culture Selected Bibliography Zuschlag, M., Ranney, J., Coplen, M. (2012). Impact Evaluation of an Organizational Change Program for Union Pacific Road and Yard Operations Shows Improved Safety Performance and Safety Culture. Safety Science (submitted for publication). Zuschlag, M., Ranney, J., Coplen, M., Harnar, M. (2012, November).Transformation of Safety Culture on the San Antonio Service Unit of Union Pacific Railroad. U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration. DOT-FRA-ORD Kath, L., Marks, K. & Ranney, J. (2010). Safety climate dimensions, leader member exchange, and organizational support as predictors of upward safety communication in a sample of rail industry workers. Safety Science, doi: /j.ssci Morrow, S. L., McGonagle, A. K., Dove-Steinkamp, M. L., Walker, C. T. Jr., Marmet, M., and Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2010). Relationships between psychological safety climate facets and safety behavior in the rail industry: A dominance analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(5), Coplen, M., Ranney, J. and Zuschlag, M. (2009, September). Decreases in Collision Risk and Derailments Attributed to Changing At- Risk Behavior Process at Union Pacific, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR09-20]. Coplen, M., Ranney, J. and Zuschlag, M. (2009, September). Improved Safety Culture and Labor-Management Relations Attributed to Changing At-Risk Behavior Process at Union Pacific, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR09-19]. Coplen, M. and Ranney, J. (2009, May). Safe Practices, Operating Rule Compliance, and Derailment Rates Improve at Union Pacific Yards with STEEL Process, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR09-08]. Raslear, T., Ranney, J. and Multer, J. (2008, December). Confidential Close Call Reporting System: Preliminary Evaluation Findings, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration, December 2008 [RR08-33]. Raslear, T., Ranney, J. and Multer, J. (2008, December). Confidential Close Call Reporting System: Preliminary Evaluation Findings, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration, December 2008 [RR08-33].

36 FRA R&D Safety Culture Selected Bibliography (cont.) Ranney, J., Wu, S., Austin, C., and Coplen, M. (2008, June). Positive Safety Outcomes of Clear Signal for Action Program at Union Pacific Yard Operations, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR08-09]. Zuschlag, M., Ranney, J. and Coplen, M. (2008, June). Promising Evidence of Impact on Road Safety by Changing At-risk Behavior Process at Union Pacific, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR08-08]. Ranney, J. and Nelson, C. (Coplen, M. COTR ). (2007).The Impact of Participatory Safety Rules Revision on Incident Rates, Liability Claims, and Safety Culture in the U.S. Railroad Industry. U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, DC [Report No. DOT/FRA/ORD-07/14]. Zuschlag, M., Ranney, J. and Coplen, M. (2007, February). Clear Signal for Action Program Addresses Locomotive Cab Safety Related to Constraining Signals, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR07-08]. Coplen, M., Ranney, J. and Zuschlag, M. (2007, February). Behavior-Based Safety at Amtrak-Chicago Associated with Reduced Injuries and Cost, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR07-07]. Coplen, M. (2007, January). Proactive Risk Management Safety Approaches for Managing Human-Factors-Caused Accidents in the Railroad Industry: Alternatives to Compliance. Pre-conference Human Factors Workshop #141. Transportation Research Board Annual Conference, Washington, D.C. Lee, M. and Ranney, J. (2006). Example of Investigation Best Practices: Interim Findings from an Evaluation of Canadian Pacific Railways' Investigation of Safety-Related Occurrences Protocol (ISROP), U.S. DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA. Ranney, J. and Lee, M. T. (2006, September). Canadian Pacific Railway Services 5-Alive Safety Program Shows Promise in Reducing Injuries, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR06-14]. Ranney, J. and Lee, M. T. (2006, September). Canadian Pacific Railway Investigation of Safety-Related Occurrences Protocol Considered Helpful by both Labor and Management, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR06-13].

37 FRA R&D Safety Culture Selected Bibliography (cont.) Ranney, J. and Zuschlag, M. (2006, September). Behavior-Based Safety at Amtrak-Chicago Associated with Reduced Injuries and Costs, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR06-12]. Coplen, M. (2006, January). Danger, people working: multi-modal lessons on improving safety through work process observations and process improvement methods. Pre-Conference Human Factors Workshop. Transportation Research Board Annual Conference, Washington, D.C. Ranney, J., Nelson, C. and Coplen, M. (2005). The Efficacy of Behavior-based Safety in the U.S. Railroad Industry: Evidence from Amtrak-Chicago. Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting, Pp. P Ranney, J. and Nelson, C. (2004). Impacts of Participatory Safety Rules Revision in U.S. Railroad Industry: An Exploratory Assessment. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp Ranney, J. (2004, January). Safety Rules Revisions Impact on Safety Culture, Incident Rates, and Liability Claims in the U.S. Railroad Industry: A Summary of Lessons-Learned, U.S. DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA. Coplen, M. (2003, August). FRA R&D Pilot Safety Initiative: Proactive Preventative Safety. Presentation on behavior-based safety at BNSF labor/management meeting. Alliance, NE. Coplen, M. and Ranney, J. (2003, January). The Impact of Safety Rules Revisions on Safety Culture, Incident Rates, and Liability Claims in the U.S. Railroad Industry, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration [RR03-03]. Ranney, J. (2003). Safety Culture: TRB Human Factors in Transportation Workshop 105. Pre-conference workshop presented at the 82nd Transportation Research Board Meeting, January 12, 2003, Washington, DC. Ranney, J. and Coplen, M. (2000). Assessing At-Risk Behavior in Railroad Operations. Presentation at Transportation Research Board Annual Conference. January, Coplen, M. (1999).Compliance with Railroad Operating Rules and Corporate Culture Influences: Results of a Focus Group and Structured Interviews. U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, DC [Report No. DOT/FRA/ORD-99/09].

38 Thanks to our team! Sponsors (FRA) Michael Coplen, FRA Office of Research and Development Tom Raslear, FRA Office of Research and Development Volpe Center Joyce Ranney, Ph.D. Michael Zuschlag, Ph.D. Nicole Boyko, Ph.D. Rail Industry Partners Amtrak Union Pacific Canadian Pacific New Jersey Transit CSXT KCS CN-IC ACBL

39 Contact Information: MICHAEL COPLEN

Mental Health Awareness & Trespass Prevention Strategies

Mental Health Awareness & Trespass Prevention Strategies Metra System Overview 83 million passenger trips in 2016 288,000 average weekday ridership 11 rail lines 487 route miles 686 weekday trains, plus