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

2. 23 October 2006 n° 2 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin The legal bases for developing CSTs at EU level l 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; … “ l 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) l 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)

3. 23 October 2006 n° 3 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin Main aims of establishing CSTs at EU level l 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 l Harmonise the way safety is monitored and reduce existing differentiation in the safety performance of railway systems in Member States l Avoid that “safety arguments” are unduly used by Member States for creating barriers to the entry into the respective national markets by newcomers

4. 23 October 2006 n° 4 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin Two main options for safety targeting l Option 1: targeting the individual/collective risk of incurring into a given category of consequences of a given category of accidents. l 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.

5. 23 October 2006 n° 5 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin The approach taken by the European Railway Agency for developing CSTs A two step approach: l 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) l Then derive CSTs from NRVs, by iteratively setting targets and checking the outcomes of the impact analysis, until an optimum is reached

6. 23 October 2006 n° 6 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin How many NRVs and CSTs ? CSTs At least 6 at MS level (according to Art.7 SD) Passengers Staff Level Crossing Users Unauthorised persons on railway premises Others + Societal Risks NRVs At least 6 (NRVs) x 23 (MSs) = 138 NRVs One NRV for: - each correspondent CST - each MS, excepted MS without railway systems (Malta and Cyprus) = 23 + NRVs for parts of the railway system ( where feasible ) + CSTs for parts of the railway system ( where feasible )

7. 23 October 2006 n° 7 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin How to measure NRVs and CSTs ? CSTs NRVs Expressed in terms of RISK ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Will have the same unit of measure which is adopted for quantifying RISK Measurement: Dimensional Definition: RISK of a given event = Frequency of the event [ n.of events / ] (*) train*km, pax*km, tonn*km X Consequences of the event [ Consequences / event ] = [ Consequences / ] Unit of Time Unit of Product (*) Unit of Time Unit of Product

8. 23 October 2006 n° 8 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin NRVs: the list of formulae and scaling factors which has been selected by the CST WG Category at riskPreferred complete formulae Preferred scaling factors Passengers NRV 1.1 Number of pax fatalities and weighted serious injuries per year arising from significant accidents / n. of passenger train*km per year Passenger train*km per year NRV 1.2 Number of pax fatalities and weighted serious injuries per year arising from significant accidents / n. of passenger*km per year Passenger*km per year EmployeesNRV 2 Number of employee fatalities and weighted serious injuries per year arising from significant accidents / n. of train*km per year Train*km per year Level crossing users NRV 3 Number of level-crossing user fatalities and weighted serious injuries per year arising from significant accidents / (n. of Train*km per year / n. of LCs) Train*km per year per LC (To be further discussed by a specific Taskforce) OthersNRV 4 Yearly number of fatalities and weighted serious injuries of persons belonging to the category “others” arising from significant accidents / n. of train*km per year Train*km per year Unauthorised persons on railway premises NRV 5 Number of fatalities and weighted serious injuries of unauthorised persons on railway premises per year arising from significant accidents / n. of train*km per year Train*km per year Whole society NRV 6 Number of fatalities and weighted serious injuries to persons per year arising from SIGNIFICANT ACCIDENTS / n.of train*km per year Train*km per year

9. 23 October 2006 n° 9 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin NRV and CST for passengers risk  NRV 1 ;CST 1 NRV and CST for staff risk  NRV 2 ;CST 2 NRV and CST for level crossing users risk  NRV 3 ;CST 3 NRV and CST for unauthorised persons risk  NRV 4 ;CST 4 NRV and CST for risk to others  NRV 5 ;CST 5 NRV and CST for societal risk  NRV 6 ;CST 6 Common Safety Indicators for 1st set, only data from 2006 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 and data feeding 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. 23 October 2006 n° 10 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin Data for Common Safety Indicators as defined by Annex I of the safety Directive CST 1 CST 2 CST 3 CST 4 CST 5 CST6 ? 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 K = Killed SI = Seriously Injured

11. 23 October 2006 n° 11 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin EUROSTAT data CST 1 CST 2 ~CST 3 ~CST 4 ~CST 5 CST 6 ? Issues:  Uncertainty for CST 3, CST 4, CST 5  Need to check that suicides data are not included in “ Accidents to persons caused by RS in motion” K = Killed SI = Seriously Injured

12. 23 October 2006 n° 12 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin Commonalities amongst Member States: the most exposed categories of individuals (year 2004 – Source: Eurostat) The most exposed category of individuals in 2004 was the category « others » (i.e. not passengers, nor employees)

13. 23 October 2006 n° 13 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin (year 2004 – Source: Eurostat) Most of the fatalities in 2004 were due to « accidents at level crossings » and to « individual accidents to persons caused by RS in motion » Commonalities amongst Member States: accidents causing the majority of fatalities

14. 23 October 2006 n° 14 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin 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. The differentiation of statistical data amongst European Countries: a first problem to face

15. 23 October 2006 n° 15 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin (year 2004 – Source: Eurostat) 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).

16. 23 October 2006 n° 16 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin …same order of magnitude of variation for the number of passenger fatalities per billion train*km (0,06  3). The differentiation of statistical data amongst European Countries: a first problem to face

17. 23 October 2006 n° 17 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin Coping with data insufficiency l It is evident from Eurostat data for 2004 and 2005 that 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) l 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 l 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

18. 23 October 2006 n° 18 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin Comparability analysis of data Comparability analysis: National time series vs. Eurostat time series l Case 1: consistency of the two different time series l Case 2: inconsistency of the two different time series Eurostat Case 2: Case 1:

19. 23 October 2006 n° 19 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin Treatment of data l Averaging and forecasting techniques: u Moving averages, exponential smoothing, trend lines etc u Objective is to find NRVs less sensitive to annual random fluctuations and influence from low frequency/high impact accidents u The approach may also facilitate setting targets for annual risk reduction Raw data Estimated long term trend Outcome of averaging and smoothing Risk

20. 23 October 2006 n° 20 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin A descending long-term trend for passenger fatalities

21. 23 October 2006 n° 21 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin MS A MS B MS C MS D MS E MS F MS G Risk NRVs = National Reference Values of safety performance for each MS Lowest impact CST Weighted impact CST Highest impact CST Common Safety Targets – how to set up 1st set of CSTs from NRVs ? Optimal impact CST (best overall « Cost / Benefit » ratio ?) ΔRDΔRD ΔRFΔRF ΔR X = 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. 23 October 2006 n° 22 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin ERA’s CST WG: overall flowchart of activities and deliverables

23. 23 October 2006 n° 23 R.Piazza, P.Mihm and C.Cassir Developing CSTs for the European Railway System IRSC 2006, Dublin Thank you for your attention!