Yo rale tèks sa a nan PDF la otomatikman, epi li ka gen erè. PDF la se dosye ofisyèl la, kidonk tcheke l anvan ou konte sou sa a.
28 paj pa gen anpil tèks ou ka li isit la, oswa yo pa gen ditou, souvan paske se eskanè oswa desen. Gade PDF la pou sa yo.
Paj 1
ATTACHMENT #1
Regular SA&T meeting of 02/27/2007
Safety Advisory and Transportation
Committee Briefing
February 27, 2007
Paj 2
AGENDA
• Overview of Norfolk
Southern Railway
Company
• Formation and
organization of the
subsidiary Delaware
Business Unit (DBU)
• Railroad safety
• Hazardous materials
transportation by railroad
Paj 7
Since 1980, U.S. Class I railroads have spent $340
billion on track and equipment.
Capital Expenditures and Maintenance Expenses, Excluding Depreciation, in Billions of Dollars
10.0
8.0
Equipment
6.0
Track & Structures
4.0
2.0
0.0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004
Sources: AAR, Analysis of Class I Railroads, 1980 - 2004, based on R-1 Reports submitted by each Class I
railroad to the ICC/STB. Equipment: Lines 382+158-151-154-157. Track: Lines 378+149-147.
Note: Current year dollars.
Paj 8
Since 1991, U.S. Class I railroads have accelerated
capital spending on new rail.
Billions of Current Dollars
2.0
1.5
Capital Expenditures on Rail
1.0
0.5
Operating Expenses for Rail & Other Track Material
0.0
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Source: R-1 Reports submitted by each Class I railroad to the ICC/STB, 1987-2004.
Schedule 330, line 8, column e; Schedule 410, lines 1, 14, and 15, column h.
Paj 9
Delmarva Business Unit
• Created in 2006
• NS Eastern North Carolina parallels
• Capital budget challenges
• Amtrak Northeast Corridor Track Gateway
• Improved localized management
Paj 10
U.S. Railroad Safety Statistics:
Main Themes
• Railroads have dramatically improved safety over the
last two and a half decades.
• Railroads compare favorably with other industries &
transportation modes.
• The most troubling railroad safety problems arise
from factors largely outside railroad control.
• Railroads have implemented numerous and effective
technological improvements and company-wide safety
programs.
Paj 11
Derailments per million train-miles have dropped
65% since 1980 and 12% since 1990.
10
8.98
8
6
4
3.52 3.11
2
0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004
Sources: FRA website: http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/Prelim/2004/r01.htm & r02.htm (preliminary 2004 data)
FRA, Railroad Safety Statistics Annual Report, 1997-2004, Tables 1-1, 5-6.
FRA, Accident/Incident Bulletin, 1980-1996, Tables 19, 36.
Note: Excludes grade crossing accidents.
Paj 12
Train accidents per million train-miles have dropped
62% since 1980 and 8% since 1990.
12
11.43
10
8
6
4.73
4 4.33
2
0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004
Sources: FRA website: http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/Prelim/2004/r01.htm (preliminary 2004 data).
FRA, Railroad Safety Statistics Annual Report, 1997-2004, Tables 1-1, 1-2.
FRA, Accident/Incident Bulletin, 1980-1996, Tables 19, 36.
Note: Excludes grade crossing accidents.
Paj 13
Human factors-caused accidents per million train-miles
have dropped 46% since 1980 and 3% since 1990.
3.5
3.24
3.0
2.5
1.80
2.0
1.74
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004
Sources: FRA website: http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/Prelim/2004/r01.htm & r02.htm (preliminary 2004 data)
FRA, Railroad Safety Statistics Annual Report, 1997-2004, Tables 1-1, 5-9.
FRA, Accident/Incident Bulletin, 1980-1996, Tables 19, 36.
Note: Excludes grade crossing accidents.
Paj 14
Accidents with a hazmat release have declined 76%
since 1980 and 17% since 1990.
Train Accidents with a Hazmat Release
140
119
120
100
80
60
40
29
20 35
0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004
Sources: FRA, RR Safety Statistics Annual Report, 1997-2004, Tables 6-1. FRA, Accident/Incident Bulletin,
Table 26. Note: An accident may involve releases from more than one car.
AAR Analysis of FRA Train Accident Database through 2004.
Paj 15
Railroad Industry Safety Programs:
Hazardous Materials
• AAR North American Non-Accident Release (NAR)
Program
• Transportation & Community Awareness & Emergency
Response (TRANSCAER)
• ACC Responsible Care
• Operation Respond
• TTCI's Emergency Response Training Center
• TTCI's BOE Hazmat Inspections
• TTCI's BOE Hazmat Safety Information
Paj 16
Hazmat incident release rates have declined 72%
since 1980 and 58% since 1990.
Incidents per Thousand Hazmat Carloads
1.6
1.52
1.4
1.2
0.99
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.42
0.4
99.96% Incident Free
0.2
0.0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004
Sources: USDOT, Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Hazardous Materials Incidents
by Year & Mode. http://hazmat.dot.gov/files/hazmat/10year/10yearfrm.htm for 1995-2004.
Includes releases in train accidents as well as non-accident releases. ICC/STB Waybill Sample.
1995-2004. Carloadings adjusted to counter known hazmat underreportings of hazmat designations.
Paj 17
Railroads now have less than 1/4 of the hazmat accidents that
trucks have, despite roughly equal hazmat ton-mileage.
400
350
300
250
200 Truck
150 Railroad
100
50
0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Sources: USDOT, Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Hazardous Materials
Incidents by Year & Mode, from http://hazmat.dot.gov/pubs/inc/data/tenyr_accd.pdf. 11/14/2005
In 2003, both the truck and rail modes hauled an estimated 110 billion ton-miles of hazmat.
Paj 18
Grade crossing collisions have declined 71% since
1980 and 46% since 1990.
12,000
10,611
10,000
8,000
6,000
5,715
4,000
3,067
2,000
0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004
Sources: FRA, Railroad Safety Statistics Annual Report, 1997-2004, Table 1-1.
FRA Highway/Rail Crossing Accident/Incident & Inventory Bulletin,Table S,
FRA website: http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/Prelim/2004/r01.htm (preliminary 2004 data)
Note: Includes accidents involving pedestrians. Includes accidents at private crossings.
Paj 19
In 2004, 94% of rail-related fatalities were
grade crossing users and trespassers.
Grade Crossing
Users: 364
Trespassers: 482
Employees: 25
Passengers: 3 Others: 24
Sources: FRA website: http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/Prelim/2004/r03.htm (preliminary 2004 data).
FRA, Railroad Safety Statistics Annual Report 2004, Table 1-3.
Paj 20
Railroad Security
• After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the AAR & its member
railroads voluntarily conducted a comprehensive risk
assessment and implemented a security action plan with
four alert levels.
• The Security Plan encompasses over 1,300 critical
facilities (tunnels, bridges, yards, dispatch centers, etc.)
over a 142,000-mile nationwide rail network.
• The plan evolves in response to classified information
obtained through DHS and FBI.
• DHS has cited this plan as a model for other U.S.
industries.
Paj 21
Railroad Security:
Countermeasures include:
• Employee and customer awareness and training: e.g. to thwart
terrorist intelligence gathering, facilitate warning & recovery.
• Sharing of Intelligence on Threats:
– AAR Operations Center (24/7) collects, evaluates, and disseminates
information to railroads thru the Railway Alert Network (RAN)
– The Surface Transportation Information Sharing & Analysis Center (ST-
ISAC) collects, analyzes, and disseminates information on physical and
cyber-security threats to providers and users of surface transportation.
• Vetting employees & contractors.
• Controlling access to critical facilities and shipment info.
• Securing communications and data and ensuring message
integrity and best IT practices.
Paj 22
Security and Hazmats
• Municipal legislation on routing
• 2006 DOT DHS TIH Security Action Items
for Railroads
• 2006 TSA and FRA Railroad inspectors for
verification of compliance
• 2007 DHS TSA notice of action on TIH
routes
Paj 23
Railroads have lower employee injury rates than do
other major industry groups.
Lost Workday Injuries & Illnesses per 100 Full Time Employees, 2004
5
4
3
2
1
0
DS G ro ce ry ls
Ho te
RO Co tor
ns S
t ru es
A M an ctio
uf n
RA ac
Ag ring tu
IL Dep ar tm ri c ultu
en tS re
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb1487.pdf
to re s
Paj 25
ATTACHMENT #2
Regular SA&T meeting of 02/27/2007
Paj 36
ATTACHMENT #3
Regular SA&T meeting of 02/27/2007
Why Sprinkle townhouses
¾ In line with the Cities proactive approach
of fire protection.
¾ Improves the overall image of the city
¾ Fire determination made easier
¾ Meets the Cities mission statement of
having a safe City.
Paj 37
Benefits to the public
¾5 to 10 percent discount on homeowners
insurance.
¾Faster recovery for fire victims.
¾Fewer displaced families and less of a
drain on support services.
¾No standby fees for fire protection water.
¾Allows the City to make amends and trade
off for new construction
Paj 38
Benefits to the public
¾Fire protection remains intact even if the
property is sold or the occupant changes
¾Increases the survivability of the occupant.
¾Less potential for the loss of family
heirlooms and personal belongings.
¾Protection from fire spread from other
units.
¾Assists individuals unable to initiate self
preservation in surviving a fire.
Paj 39
Benefits to the public
¾Even when you are not at home the
Sprinkler System will be. Ready to stop
the fire and alert the Fire Department at a
moments notice. Yes, there is a cost, but
for the peace of mind that the Sprinkler
System gives us knowing that our home is
protected, it’s more than worth it.
Paj 40
Why Sprinkle Townhouses?
¾Good Fire Protection
• Early detection and suppression.
• Incorporates Technology as part of the Cities
Fire protection program.
• Less in service time for the Fire Department.
• Reduces the hazards to the Firefighters.
• Reduces Firefighting costs.
• Helps maintain a volunteer Fire Department.
Paj 41
Other considerations
¾Sprinkler systems need to be installed
during construction.
¾Cost of installation ranges from $2.00 to
$2.25 per square foot.
¾ Equal to or less than installing carpet in
the same area
Paj 42
Less Fire Damage
¾There is far less damage in the homes
with sprinklers!
– Average fire loss with sprinkler activation,
$2,166
– Average fire loss without sprinkler activation,
$45,019
Paj 43
Communities that currently sprinkle
townhouses
¾Newark, Delaware
¾Camden, Delaware
¾Silver Lake Blvd. Dover
¾City of New Castle, Delaware
¾Belfonte, Delaware
¾Beach area.
Paj 44
Why do we sprinkler
buildings?
• To avoid this
And this!