Bart Case Presentation 4m4l5y

The BART Case Group : Nashmia Shoaib(6556). Aqsa Anees(6562).

BART(BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT):

An automated train system. Constructed in San Francisco in the early 1970’s. BART system: Had its genesis in late 1947.

When a t Army–Navy review board recommended the construction of a tunnel underneath San Francisco Bay for highspeed train service between San Francisco and Oakland.

San Francisco BART commission Due to the geographical limits imposed by the

San Francisco bay, much of commuting takes place through bridges.  The California state government then formed the San Francisco BART Commission, Which was: * to study the transportation needs of the Bay area. *make recommendations to the government.

New Technologies in BART BART ---new technology, --- fully automated

(ATC).

control systems

The trains would have “attendants,” but

would not be under direct control by humans. BART ---an experiment on a very large scale. None of the control technologies were previously tested in a commuter rail system . Any innovative engineering design has not previously tested components.

Unique and problematic feature of system There were no

fail-safe methods of train control all control was based on redundancy. “Fail safe” implies that if there is a failure, the system will revert to a safe state.

2 Distinct Phases There are two distinct phases of this type of engineering project,  Construction  Operation.

Each requiring different skills.

Contractor  Contracts for design and construction of the railroad infrastructure

were awarded to a association of large engineering firms known as: Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Tudor, and Bechtel (PBTB).  PBTB began construction on the system in January of 1967

In 1967, a contract was awarded to Westinghouse to design and build the ATC. In 1969, A contract to supply 250 railroad cars was awarded Rohr Industries .

Management Structure at BART By design, BART was organized with a very open management structure. Employees were given great freedom to define what their jobs demand and to work independently and were encouraged to take any concerns that they had to management. Unfortunately, there was also a very diffuse and unclear chain of command that made it difficult for employees to take their concerns to the right person.

Engineering issues involved There were three distinct engineering issues involved in BART:  The design and construction of rail beds,

tunnels, bridges, etc.  The design and manufacture of the railcars.  The design and implementation of a system for controlling the trains.

Three Key players in BART The key players in this case were three BART engineers working on various aspects of the ATC: Roger Hjortsvang, Robert Bruder, Max Blankenzee.

Hjortsvang The first to be employed by BART was Hjortsvang. Hjortsvang spent 10 months in working with the engineers who were deg the ATC. He became concerned about:  

the lack of testing of some of the components of the ATC the lack of oversight of Westinghouse by BART. Westinghouse(Was the firm working with engineers who were deg the ATC)

After returning to San Francisco, Hjortsvang began raising some of these concerns with his management.

Bruder Bruder ed BART after Hjortsvang. Bruder was working in a different group than Hjortsvang. Also concerned about:  Westinghouse

test procedures  Testing schedule

but unable to get his concerns addressed by BART management.

They were told that BART management was satisfied with the test procedures of Westinghouse. Management felt that Westinghouse had been awarded the contract due to: experience engineering

skills Was trusted (should be trusted to deliver what was promised)

Blankenzee  Blankenzee then ed BART.  Before ing BART, Blankenzee had worked for

Westinghouse on the BART project, knew about how Westinghouse was approaching its work.  Also concerned about the testing and

documentation of the ATC.

Ethical Behavior of Engineers After speaking with their supervisors the

engineers decided to notify the problem to upper management. Hortsvang wrote an unsigned memo to

several levels of BART management that summarized the problems he perceived.  Anonymous memo viewed with doubt by

management.

Ethical Behavior of Engineers In January 1972, they ed Board of

Directors of the BART  indicating

that their concerns were not being taken seriously by lower management.

This action---in direct conflict with the General

Manager of BART---against his policy

Ethical Behavior of Engineers The engineers also consulted an outside

Engineering Consultant, Edward Burfine, who evaluated the ATC on his own and came to conclusions similar to those of the three engineers.

Involvement of a member of board of directors. Dan Helix,(Member of the board of directors )  Spoke with the engineers and took them seriously.  Distributed Memos to other of the board

and Also released them to a local newspaper  BART management was upset and tried to locate

the source of this information.

Ethical Behavior of Engineers The three engineers  Initially lied about their involvement.  Later revealed themselves as source of leak.  Then the engineers’ positions within BART became weak.

Dismissal of the engineers.  After revealing themselves, they were offered

the choice of resignation or firing.  All refused to resign and were dismissed on

the grounds of disobedience,  They all suffered as a result of their dismissal.

Role of IEEE As the legal proceedings, the IEEE attempted to assist the three engineers. They( IEEE) declared that each of the engineers had a professional duty to keep the safety of the public.

Incident came out On 2nd October , 1972,

a BART train overshot the station at Fremont, California, and crashed into a sand embankment. No fatalities, but five persons were injured.

Reason of accident The accident was due to

Malfunction of a crystal oscillator,  Part of the ATC,  Which controlled the speed commands for the

train.

Reports after Accident  There were several investigations and reports

after accident like: Trains were often allowed too close to each other; Sometimes a track was  Indicated

but not occupied  & sometimes not indicated track was occupied

Ethical issues in Technical Presentation Under BART's management system,

1- technical decisions were made by non-technical staff.

2-BART decision-makers, were not trained in engineering

Ethical behavior of Engineers vs. Management BART incident is sometimes seen as a case of

three ethical engineers trying to protect the public. They talked to their supervisors but not

entertained After which they decided to notify upper

management

Facts They ed of Board of directors

and also consulted an outside Engineering Consultant, A of the board of directors, Dan Helix,

spoke with the engineers and appeared to take them seriously. Distributed Memos and Report of consultant to

other of the board.  He also released them to a local newspaper,

The real question is… Is taking an ethical stand worth risking your

position and carrier over? To these engineers the answer was a resounding

YES

They were not willing to risk public safety to

keep their company happy. After a public scandal each worker was dismissed. They face a lot of financial and emotional problems.