Post on 01-Dec-2019
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