• No results found

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Board Action/Information Summary

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Board Action/Information Summary"

Copied!
20
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

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 in accordance 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 the Employee 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 all injuries and meet the Authority’s target are listed further in this document.

(2)

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 Injuries

For 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; and

2. 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 have reduced 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 where safety 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.

(3)

• 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 Injuries

For 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-Board and 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; and

4. 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 Preventable Collisions.

• 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

(4)

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

Project

Department/Office: SAFE

Previous Actions z Briefied Safety & Security Committee on quarterly safety report in October 2014.

Anticipated actions after presentation

z Continue to be proactive in mitigating and alleviating

employee and customer hazards that may lead to incident/injury.

(5)

  0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Per Million Trips

Chart 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 Number of Contributing Collisions

Rate Per Million

Trips

Chart 2: Bus Passenger Injury Rates

(6)

    0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 Per Million Trips

Chart 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 Million Miles

Chart 4: Bus Collision Rates

(7)

    0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Per Million Miles

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)

(8)

      0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

16

Chart 7: Smoke & Fire Incidents

Smoke

Fire

0 1 2 3

Table 8: Suicides

2012

2013

2014

(9)

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

1.8

0.5

0.7

0.6

0.4

0.3

0.6

3.2

0.4

0.1

0.7

0.2

0.6

0.6

1.2

0.7

0.6

1.0

0.5

1.2

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.1

3.2

0.2

0.9

0.5

0.9

0.5

0.2

0.2

0.5

0.4

0.5

0.6

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

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

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

All

Other

Caught In/By Repetitive Motion Exposure Stress

Pursuit/Arrest Assault Pushing/Pulling Lifting/Lowering Struck By/Against Collision‐related Slip/Trip/Fall

(10)
(11)

Safety Report

Moving Metro Forward

Safely

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Safety and Security Committee

January 22, 2015

(12)

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

(13)

Statistical Review

Employee Injury Rate –

per 100 Employees

Injury Types

CY14

Slip/Trip/Fall 25% Collision-related 21% Struck By/Against 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

P

er

200,

000

H

ou

rs

2013

2014

Trend - 2014

(14)

Statistical Review

Customer Injury Rate -

per million trips

O

N

D

CYTD

T

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

P

er

M

illio

n

P

as

se

n

ge

r

Tr

ip

s

2013

2014

Trend - 2014

(15)

Bus Customer Injury Rate

Injuries per one million passenger trips

Trending Points

Injury

Type

2013 2014

Change

YOY %

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

(16)

Injury

Type

2013 2014

Change

YOY %

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

(17)

Employee & Customer Injury Rate

Five Year Trend

Reduction based on CY10 vs CY14

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

(18)

Department

2013 2014

Change

YOY %

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

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

(19)

Corrective Action Plans

22

305

87

58

17

2

5

5

20

50

2008

2011

2012

2013

2014

(20)

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

References

Related documents

A bead of mass ‘m’ is released from rest at A to move along the fixed smooth circular track as shown in figure.. In the figure, the ball A is released from rest when the spring is

Los PEB son aquellos programas “destinados a favorecer el desarrollo de la competencia comunicativa mediante la potenciación del aprendizaje de la lengua extranjera

The mainstay treatment for advanced prostate cancer worldwide focuses on hormonal ablation with medical castration through luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) agonists

The average estimated time spent on designing, modifying and/or verifying on-chip communications networks was 28 percent (for the respondents that knew their estimate time).. The

• Where the pool is in shared use and clearly divided between programmed and un- programmed swimming activities, suitably qualified teachers/coaches may take responsibility (both

Examples of research-based methods of engagement commonly taught in GI framework-based professional development include (but are not limited to) training teachers to provide

This table reports the average excess returns ( E Œr e  ) to strategies formed by sorting on 1) the variables used in factor construction (market capitalization,

Phase III study of TAK-700 plus prednisone for patients with advanced prostate cancer previously treated with chemotherapy Closed to enrollment – active follow-up.