Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Board ... · employees are more concerned with unsafe working conditions while Bus employees see violations related to texting or not

TITLE:

Safety Report

PURPOSE:

To present to the Board of Directors a report on the state of safety within Metro. Including safety statistics, current actions, action plans on recomendations to audits, policies and other safety related information so the Board may be kept up to date and informed.

DESCRIPTION:

To ensure that safety is the priority within Metro and the necessary actions and policies are implemented to enhance the safety of our emloyees and customers.

FUNDING IMPACT:

None

RECOMMENDATION:

To present monthly to the Board of Directors.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Board Action/Information Summary

Action Information MEAD Number: Resolution: Yes No

Page 3 of 42

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Safety Report

Safety and Security Committee

October 28, 2010

Page 5 of 42

NTSB Recommendations

• Prior to the release of the June 22 2009 accident reportPrior to the release of the June 22, 2009 accident report WMATA had 12 recommendations from the NTSB

– 5 of the recommendations remain openp

• Following the release of the June 22, 2009 Accident report WMATA was issued 16 NTSB recommendationsp

– 15 recommendations were for identified problems that required system modifications

– 1 recommendation was for identified problems that required WMATA’s Board to correct.

Page 6 of 42

NTSB Recommendations

Item Related to NTSB Recommendations Prior to the June 22, 2010 Accident Report

Anticipated Completion

Date

2009

Improve corporate awareness of Sleep Apnea and sleeping disorders October 20, 2010

E i T k i it tibl t P iti O ill ti S t b 2011Examine Track circuits susceptible to Parasitic Oscillation September 2011

Improving testing of track circuits to ensure that they are functioning within design tolerances September 2011within design tolerances September 2011

Acquire technology to evaluate train control system data on a real time basis Under Review

Page 7 of 42

NTSB Recommendations

Anticipated FundingItem Related to NTSB Recommendations from the June 22, 2010 Accident Report

AnticipatedCompletion

Date

Funding Required (Millions)

2010Improve Internal Communications February 2011 $0.35 M

Hazard Identification and Management March 2011 $0.782 M

Safety Analysis- LOS conditions April 2011 $5 M

Parasitic Oscillation-Loss of Shunt Review September 2011 $2 M

Safety Reporting Program September 2011 $0.39 M

Cable Insulation Resistance Testing March 2012 $17.6 M

Safety Analysis – Condition and Technology Assessment April 2012 $5 MPage 8 of 42

NTSB Recommendations

Anticipated diItem Related to NTSB Recommendations from the June 22, 2010 Accident Report

AnticipatedCompletion

Date

Funding Required(Millions)

2010Wayside Communications January 2013 $10.4 MWayside Communications January 2013 $10.4 M

Installation and Maintenance- On Board Recorders January 2013 $11.8 M

Parasitic Oscillation-Track circuit Replacement April 2014 $60 M

Safety Analysis- ATC System Hazard Analysis May 2014 $67.0 M

Operational Data and On-Board Recorders Under Review $1.1 M

Removal of 1000 Series Rail Cars Under Review $835 MPage 9 of 42

Corrective Action Plans

Closed Openp

224 32256 TOTAL

224 32

0 50 100 150 200 250 3000 50 100 150 200 250 300

Page 10 of 42

Corrective Action Plans

2009

2010

25

2

4

1

2007

2008

54

14

13

9

Closed

2005

2006

27

49Open

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

2004 51 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Page 11 of 42

Days Worked – No Lost Time Injuries

Division Number of days

Glenmont Rail Inspection 1,267

Royal Street Bus Maintenance 548

Track Maintenance Red 427

New Carrollton Rail Inspection 365

Heavy Equipment Shop CMNT 351

Shops and Material Control SMNT 331S ops a d ate a Co t o S 33

Heavy Overhaul Shop Bus, CTF 326Page 12 of 42

Safety Survey ResultsSee attached memoSee attached memo

Page 13 of 42

Page 14 of 42

one safety concern that employees observed while on the job, as well as the most often reported, was unsafe working conditions. Third, there is a strong concern about retaliation, but in somewhat unexpected ways. Employee’s primary concerns were not that they would be fired or demoted. The strongest concerns cited were that it would be difficult for them to work amongst their peers, that the organization wouldn’t do anything about the report, and that the organization would not protect them against retaliation in their immediate work environment. Finally, mid-level management is the most positive about safety and WMATA’s safety culture in general. This finding is encouraging as mid-level management is paramount to your ability to establish a safety culture. CEB would like to offer some recommended next steps for WMATA to undertake in response to these findings. Some of these recommendations can be accomplished quickly while other recommendations will take more time. It is important for WMATA to remember that changing the culture of an organization is a process than can take years to fully achieve. In the next few months WMATA should be sure to communicate survey results across the organization as well as to the public. This should include high-level findings and next steps. We also recommend that WMATA address the individual safety incidents that were reported through the open-ended commentary section of the survey. These actions steps, if adopted, should be undertaken within the next three months. The next set of recommendations will take longer to implement and should be, if adopted, undertaken across the next six to nine months. WMATA should create new programs and initiatives geared towards promoting employees to raise concerns and follow safety procedures. Initiatives that fit into this category include increased communication related to non-retaliation, sharing “success stories” related to exemplary safety behavior from employees, and/or incentive programs that recognize/reward employees for exemplary safety behavior. Programs such as these both emphasize the importance of safe behavior at WMATA and also reassure employees that they will be protected for “doing the right thing.” The final recommendations are long-term initiatives for WMATA and can take as long as two years to fully implement. Because we found that safety cultures varied depending on functions within WMATA (for example, Rail employees are more concerned with unsafe working conditions while Bus employees see violations related to texting or not wearing safety belts), it will be critical for you to fully understand why this variation exists and then tailor solutions to address the different cultures. Some of the previous recommendations will help improve the culture universally but the more localized differences will need more intensive focus. You should consider leveraging the strength of your middle management to help drive the necessary changes. These employees had the strongest perceptions across WMATA and can serve as champions for other employees. We have greatly appreciated the opportunity to provide this service for WMATA and we look forward to continuing our partnership as you move forward with implementation steps. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or concerns.

Page 15 of 42

Metrorail Safety Performance Indicators

Total Rail Incidents, YTD Through August

15

17

11

13 Rail IncidentsRail Incidents are collisions (vehicle to vehicle, vehicle

15 147

9to vehicle, vehicle 

to obstruction, 

vehicle to person or object placed

3

5

or object placed on the track), 

derailments, and suicides.

1

2009 2010

suicides.

Page 16 of 42

Metrorail Safety Performance Indicators

Rail Passenger Injury Rate, YTD Through August( illi i )

4.00

4.50

(per million passenger trips)

2.50

3.00

3.50

2010

2009

1 00

1.50

2.00

2.50 2009

2009 Average .47

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug0.00

0.50

1.00

A

2009 Average .47

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

2010 0.06 0.15 0.10 0.19 0.22 0.20 0.10 0.112009 0.27 0.12 0.26 0.05 0.05 4.04 0.10 0.22

Average

.14

.64Page 17 of 42

Metrorail Safety Performance Indicators

Suicides

3

4

2

32010

2009

2008

1

2008

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2010 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0

0Total

2010 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 02009 0 0 2 0 0 3 1 1 2 0 2 02008 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1

5

11

5Page 18 of 42

Metrorail Safety Performance Indicators

Fire Incidents, YTD Through August

05

1015

2010

2009

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

2010 6 9 10 11 8 10 4 42009 3 5 1 5 13 7 10 4

0

Tot 62

Tot 482009 3 5 1 5 13 7 10 4

40

Smoke Incidents, YTD Through August

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug0

10203040

2010

2009

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

2010 4 5 10 8 7 7 12 42009 2 2 6 12 5 8 16 34

Tot 57

Tot 85Page 19 of 42

Metrobus Safety Performance Indicators

Total Bus Collision Rate, YTD Through August( illi il )

0 020.040.060.0

(per million miles)

2010

2009Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

2010 43.9 51.7 38.1 41.4 27.9 46.1 51.1 51.52009 41 6 41 5 46 4 42 1 47 4 40 6 43 8 34 2

0.0 2009Average

44.0

42.22009 41.6 41.5 46.4 42.1 47.4 40.6 43.8 34.2

Preventable Bus Collision Rate, YTD Through August(per million miles)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug0.0

10.020.030.0

20102009

AverageJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

2010 14.3 16.9 12.4 12.8 9.0 20.4 24.2 14.82009 18.0 13.2 14.8 16.8 21.3 18.5 14.5 15.6

Average

15.6

16.6

Page 20 of 42

Metrobus Safety Performance Indicators

Bus Passenger Injury Rate, YTD Through August( illi i )

0 001.002.00

(per million passenger trips)

2010

2009Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

2010 0.42 1.41 1.46 1.11 1.26 1.43 1.44 0.962009 0 79 0 49 0 71 0 80 1 47 0 89 0 93 1 16

0.00 2009

Avg 1.19Avg 0.91

20

Bus Passenger Injuries, YTD Through August

2009 0.79 0.49 0.71 0.80 1.47 0.89 0.93 1.16 g

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug05

101520

2010

2009

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

2010 4 10 16 12 13 15 15 102009 8 5 8 9 16 10 11 13

Tot 95

Tot 80Page 21 of 42

Metrobus Safety Performance Indicators

Pedestrian Injuries, YTD Through August

3

4

2

3

2010

2009

1

2 2009

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug0

T t lJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

2010 0 2 1 3 2 0 0 02009 0 3 0 3 1 1 3 1

Total

8

12Page 22 of 42

MetroAccess Safety Performance Indicators

MetroAccess Total Accident Frequency, YTD Through August( illi il )

0 020.040.060.0

(per million miles)

2010

2009

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

2010 35.7 40.3 39.0 37.8 45.3 47.2 39.8 33.72009 33 7 21 5 32 6 27 3 37 9 45 8 35 5 35 7

0.0Average

39.9

33.82009 33.7 21.5 32.6 27.3 37.9 45.8 35.5 35.7

MetroAccess Preventable Acc. Frequency, YTD Through August(per million miles)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug0

2040 2010

2009

AJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

2010 23 13 18 15 28 19 19 152009 15 25 21 17 20 31 18 17

Average

19

21Page 23 of 42

MetroAccess Safety Performance Indicators

MetroAccess Passenger Injury Rate, YTD Through August( illi i )

50 0

60.0

(per million passenger trips)

40.0

50.0

2010

20.0

30.0 2009

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug0.0

10.0

AJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

2010 31.4 36.8 21.6 27.0 52.9 46.5 24.6 38.82009 6.3 17.5 10.5 20.3 5.3 46.6 30.3 25.7

Average

35.0

20.3Page 24 of 42

Metro Safety Performance Indicators

Employee Injury Rate, YTD Through August( 200 000 h )

9.00

10.00

(per 200,000 hours)

6.00

7.00

8.00

2010

3.00

4.00

5.00 2009

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug0.00

1.00

2.00

AJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

2010 5.38 8.70 5.29 5.88 6.53 7.21 4.68 5.592009 4.73 6.61 5.09 5.57 6.20 8.65 8.92 6.98

Average

6.16

6.59Page 25 of 42