washington metropolitan area transit authority board action/information ... · washington...
TRANSCRIPT
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Board Action/Information Summary
TITLE:
SAFE 4th Quarter Report 2014
PRESENTATION SUMMARY:
The Department of Safety & Environmental Management (SAFE) Quarterly Report publicly communicates safety-related information and statistics.
PURPOSE:
The Metro SAFE Quarterly Report informs the Safety and Security Committee regarding the ongoing safety culture in the Metro system through established performance measurements inaccordance with Authority goals. Further, the public report increases communication to enhance safety of our employees, customers and surrounding Washington metropolitan area community. The Quarterly Safety Report will provide data for the period of September –December 2014, compared with the same period of time in 2013 and against the 2014 targets; in addition to summary status of Corrective Action Plans (CAPs).
DESCRIPTION:
Two key measures of a safety culture are the customer and employee injury rates. As such, both performance measures are included as part of Metro’s Strategic Plan. The 2014 targets are: Customer Injury Rate (CIR) at less than 1.8 injuries per million Passenger Trips and theEmployee Injury Rate (EIR) at less than 4.8 injuries per 200,000 work hours.
Key Highlights:
• Customer Injury Rate (CIR) – For the 4th Quarter, the CIR was 1.92; the CY14 rate was 1.96, which exceeds the corporate target rate of <1.8.
The top two quarter injury types are Slips/Trips/Falls (65%) and Vehicle Collision-related injuries (23%). Select actions underway or in development to reduce all injuries below the Authority’s target are listed further in this document.
• Employee Injury Rate (EIR) – For the 4th Quarter, the EIR was 3.72; the CY14 rate was 4.20. Both Quarterly and CYTD EIRs are below the target of <4.8. The top two injury types are Slips/Trips/Falls (25%) and Collision-related (21%). Data analysis does not reveal any specific trends. Select actions underway or in development to reduce allinjuries and meet the Authority’s target are listed further in this document.
• Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) - Currently, 81 CAPs have been closed with 82 remaining open and in-progress. There are no “Unacceptable” CAPs. Of the 82
Action Information MEAD Number:201262
Resolution:Yes No
Page 5 of 36
remaining open; 26 are defined by WMATA’s Hazard Analysis process as “Undesirable”, 33 as “Acceptable with review” and 23 are listed as “Acceptable without review”.
Background and History:
The Department of Safety & Environmental Management utilize two KPIs, the CIR and EIR, as overall indicators of improving the safety culture among employees and the riding public. Daily review of incidents, systematic inspections of facilities and regulatory programs, and employee/contractor training are effective uses of resources which ensure a safer workplace and environment for our employees and passengers. The EIR measures are based on the OSHA Recordable Injury Criteria and the CIR measures are based on National Transit Database (NTD) Reporting Criteria. The data in the attachments support the two KPIs.
Discussion:
Employee InjuriesFor employee injuries, Bus Operators and Mechanics (e.g. Car Maintenance, Bus Maintenance, and Elevator & Escalator) are the top two employee groups reporting injuries. Based on an initial review of injury reports, the leading injury causal factors were:
1. Inattentive actions where the employee was distracted, pre-occupied, or unfocused on their surroundings; and2. Non-preventable motor vehicle collisions where WMATA was not at fault.
The Authority continues to take a multifaceted approach to injury prevention that includes a renewed focus on performing thorough investigations of incidents and near misses, training personnel on OSHA mandated programs, and providing tailored safety data packages to operational groups. The safety data packages provide additional trending and analysis to front-line Supervisors and Managers.
Some departments and locations have performed better than others, and the lessons learned from the good performers are being transferred to those that need further assistance.
Common traits that have been identified at high performing departments that havereduced injury occurrences include:• Thorough injury investigations: The root cause of the investigation is identified and mitigated not only at the local level, but throughout the departments• Non-punitive injury investigation: Employees are free to discuss the factors that contributed to the injury without fear of being disciplined as a result.• Learning via the Local Safety Committee (LSC): Those that have been injured are required to report to the next LSC to discuss the injury, causes, and opportunities wheresafety improvement may occur. This provides not only a multi-level review of the injury, but gives the employee a sense of ownership if/when their ideas are used.• Heavily involved LSC: Those departments that have well attended and fully engaged LSCs also have the lowest injury rates. An active management / leadership in safety via the LSC has also resulted in lower EIRs for the respective departments.
Page 6 of 36
• Potential decrease in questionable injuries: Upon hearing that all injuries are being investigated, those that may have reported an injury to get out of work would think twice before doing so.• Well performing departments also incorporate safety into all aspects of the job.
Customer InjuriesFor customer injuries, all three modes experienced variations in their quarterly counts:• For Rail, there were decreases in Escalator injuries, but a slight increase in On-Boardand Rail Station-related injuries.• For Bus, there were decreases in collision-related injuries and a moderate increase in non-collision-related injuries.• Metro Access had increases in both collision-related and non-collision-related injuries.
The main key factors that contributed to injuries were:1. Customer inattention/distraction;2. Hard braking bus events (e.g., patron falls);3. Intoxication; and4. Falling while boarding/alighting.
For Bus-related injuries, the two main types are Collision-related and Slips/Trips/Falls.Bus: Collision-related Injuries• Cause: The majority of collision related customer injuries come from Non PreventableCollisions.• Action: Improved defensive driving training and the “We Care” program has improved driver response and interaction with the riding public.
Bus: Slips/Trips/Falls• Cause: The majority of Slips/Trips/Falls occur from hard breaking events and maneuvering through traffic.• Actions: Training operators to avoid hard breaking events by looking ahead and improving berthing locations has reduced falling injuries. In addition, providing customer outreach/education on proper riding techniques (e.g., holding onto handrails) is planned for CY15. Also, initial data review demonstrates a decrease in pedestrian injuries with buses equipped with amber strobes.
For Rail-related injuries, the main type is Slips/Trips/Falls. The corrective actions for these types of injuries are different for each source.Rail: Vertical Transportation• Cause: The majority injuries are the result of escalators being used as stairs when they are out of service.• Action: With the improvement of escalator availability, the injury rate has decreased by 19%.Rail: Facilities/Stations
• Cause: The majority injuries are the result of customers slipping on ice/snow and falling while intoxicated.• Action: Snow and ice removal methods have been improved, reducing resource deployment time to remove snow/ice from the stations. To decrease other types of falls, a customer outreach/education initiative on safety precautions will be targeted at station hot spots in CY15.
Page 7 of 36
Rail: On Board• Cause: The majority injuries are the result of customers falling when the train is in motion, possibly starting/stopping unexpectedly, and being caught in closing doors.• Action: Improvements are anticipated with the reintroduction to ATC and the introduction of the 7K series cars (e.g., removal of sudden stops, doors that slightly retract).
FUNDING IMPACT:
TIMELINE:
RECOMMENDATION:
To provide the Safety & Security Committee of the Board an quarterly report on the Authority's safety programs and progress.
Define current or potential funding impact, including source of reimbursable funds.Project Manager: James Dougherty
ProjectDepartment/Office: SAFE
Previous Actions Briefied Safety & Security Committee on quarterly safety report in October 2014.
Anticipated actions afterpresentation
Continue to be proactive in mitigating and alleviating employee and customer hazards that may lead toincident/injury.Next quarterly briefing is scheduled for March 26, 2015.
Page 8 of 36
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Per
Mill
ion
Trip
sChart 1: Rail Passenger Injury Rates
Escalator Transit Facilities Occupants On-Board
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Num
ber
of C
ontr
ibut
ing
Col
lisio
ns
Rat
e P
er M
illio
n Tr
ips
Chart 2: Bus Passenger Injury Rates
Other Collision Related 2013 Collisions 2014 Collisions
Page 9 of 36
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
Per
Mill
ion
Trip
sChart 3: Metro Access Passenger Injury Rates
Other Collision Related
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Per
Mill
ion
Mile
s
Chart 4: Bus Collision Rates
Preventable Non-Preventable
Page 10 of 36
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0P
er M
illio
n M
iles
Chart 5: Metro Access Collision Rates
Preventable Non-Preventable
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Chart 6: Bus Pedestrian/Cyclist Incidents (NTD Criteria - Transported From Scene)
2013 2014
Page 11 of 36
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16Chart 7: Smoke & Fire Incidents
Smoke Fire
0
1
2
3
Table 8: Suicides
2012 2013 2014
Page 12 of 36
Chart 9: Employee Injury Rate by Department
Injuries per 200,000 Hours Worked
MTPD – Transit Police, BTRA – Bus Transportation, ELES – Elevator/Escalator, RTRA – Rail Transportation, TRST – Track and Structures, BMNT – Bus Maintenance, CMNT – Car Maintenance, PLNT – Plant Maintenance, SMNT – Systems Maintenance, All Other – Administration and Other Sections
1.6 1.5 1.6 2.1 1.80.5 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3
0.6
3.2
0.4
0.10.7
0.2
0.6
0.6
1.2 0.70.6
1.00.5
1.20.2 0.3
0.3
0.13.2
0.2 0.9
0.50.9 0.5
0.2 0.2
0.5
0.4
0.50.6
0.5
0.1
3.7
0.5
0.2
0.2 0.1
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.3 0.3
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.10.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2 0.10.1
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
MTPD BTRA ELES RTRA TRST CMNT PLNT BMNT SMNT AllOtherCaught In/By Repetitive Motion Exposure Stress
Pursuit/Arrest Assault Pushing/Pulling Lifting/LoweringStruck By/Against Collision‐related Slip/Trip/Fall
Page 13 of 36
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 14 of 36
Safety Report Moving Metro Forward Safely
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Safety and Security Committee January 22, 2015
Page 15 of 36
MetroRail Yellow Line Incident
After the tragic incident on
January 12, 2015, Metro continues to
actively cooperate with the National
Transportation Safety Board’s
investigation. As hazards are identified,
Metro is ready to implement the
corrective actions necessary to remove
the risk and ensure the safety of our
riding passengers and employees.
Page 16 of 36
Statistical Review Employee Injury Rate – per 100 Employees
OCT NOV DEC CYTD TARGET 3.29 3.92 3.99 4.20 <4.8
Injury Types CY14
Slip/Trip/Fall 25%
Collision-related 21% Struck
By/Against 15%
Lifting/ Lowering
10%
Pushing/ Pulling
7%
Pursuit/ Arrest 5%
Assault 5%
Stress 4%
Exposure 3%
Repetitive Motion
3% Caught In/By 2%
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Per
200
,000
Hou
rs
2013 2014 Trend - 2014
Page 17 of 36
Statistical Review Customer Injury Rate - per million trips
OCT NOV DEC CYTD TARGET 1.54 1.87 2.43 1.96 <1.8
Slip/Trip/
Fall 65%
Collision-related 23%
Caught in/by 6%
Striking/ Struck
by 6%
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Per
Mill
ion
Pas
sen
ger
Trip
s
2013 2014 Trend - 2014
Page 18 of 36
Bus Customer Injury Rate Injuries per one million passenger trips Trending Points
Injury Type 2013 2014 YOY %
Change Injury Diff
Collision Related 1.44 1.48 3% + 3
Slips & Other Types
1.04 1.00 - 4% - 7
Total Rate 2.48 2.48 0 % - 4
Rate: Customer Injuries per 1 million Trips
Collision-related Cause: Majority from non-preventable collisions Action: Improvements from Defensive driving training & “We Care” program
Slips/Trips/Falls Cause: Majority from hard breaking events and maneuvering through traffic Action: Defensive driver training and customer outreach/education on proper riding techniques (e.g., holding onto handrails)
Page 19 of 36
Injury Type 2013 2014 YOY %
Change Injury Diff
Vertical Transport 0.72 0.58 -19% -30
Rail Facility 0.58 0.65 12% +13
On Board 0.10 0.15 57% +11
Total Rate 1.40 1.39 -1% -6
Rate: Customer Injuries per 1 mil trips
Vertical Transportation Cause: Slips and falls from escalators being used as stairs Action: Improve escalator availability Rail Facilities/Stations Cause: Slips/Trips/Falls due to winter weather (e.g., ice) Action: Snow and ice removal methods have been improved. Customer outreach/education on safety precautions will be targeted at station hot spots On Board Cause: Falls while the train is in motion; caught in door Action: Improvements anticipated with the reintroduction to ATC and the 7K series cars (e.g., removal of sudden stops, doors that slightly retract)
Rail Customer Injury Rate Injuries per one million passenger trips Trending Points
Page 20 of 36
Employee & Customer Injury Rate Five Year Trend Reduction based on CY10 vs CY14
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00EIR - 28% Reduction CIR - 6% Reduction 5 Year Trend
Page 21 of 36
Department 2013 2014 YOY % Change
Injury Diff
MTPD 8.07 7.28 -10% - 6 Bus Transportation 8.59 7.26 -15% - 30
Elev/Esc. Maintenance 7.98 7.13 -11% - 2 Rail Transportation 6.02 5.55 -8% - 6 Track Maintenance 3.66 4.06 11% + 3
Rail Car Maintenance 4.17 3.16 -24% - 10 Bus Maintenance 2.94 2.56 -13% - 3
Plant Maintenance 2.41 2.96 23% + 5 System Maintenance 1.72 1.10 -36% - 9
Admin Groups 1.20 0.87 -27% - 4 TOTAL 4.81 4.20 -13% - 62
Employee Injury Rate per 200,000 hours worked Trending Points
Common Successful Traits • Thorough investigations • Non-punitive investigations • Learning via the Local Safety
Committees (LSC) • Heavily involved LSCs • Senior management
Involvement • Complete safety incorporation
Page 22 of 36
Corrective Action Plans
22
305
87
58
17
2
5
5
20
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
2008
2011
2012
2013
2014
Closed OpenPage 23 of 36
Hazard Resolution Matrix of Open Corrective Action Plans
Frequency of Occurrence Hazard Categories
Catastrophic 1 Critical 2 Marginal 3 Negligible 4
A = Frequent 1A 2A 3A 4A
B = Probable 1B 2B 3B 4B
C = Occasional 1C 2C 3C 4C
D = Remote 1D 2D 3D 4D
E = Improbable 1E 2E 3E 4E
1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 3A 0 Unacceptable – Executive Leadership with Chief Safety Officer
1D, 2C, 2D, 3B, 3C 26 Undesirable - Executive Safety Committee decision required
1E, 2E, 3D, 3E, 4A, 4B 33 Acceptable with review by Executive Safety Committee
4C, 4D, 4E 23 Acceptable without review
0 0
0
1 0
0 0
5
6
0
0 0
14
14
7
10 2
4
6 13
Page 24 of 36