Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
37 Public Transportation Agency Case Studies Process As an initial outreach effort, the research team distributed a 22-question survey (see Appen- dix B) via e-mail to the 19 transit agencies shown in Table 1 to gain a general understanding of the ESR policies and/or programs at those transit agencies. Another four agencies that were contacted by the research team were not included in this study because they lacked established policies or procedures related to ESR. The transit agencies included in this study have ESR systems of varying maturity, ranging from less than 1 year to more than 20 years, as presented in Figure 2. The methods by which safety hazard reporting can occur at these agencies include hard copy forms; online submissions through apps, intranet, or e-mail; and by phone via hotlines, texts, or voicemail (Figure 3). Because many of the respondent transit agencies have multiple methods available for reporting hazards, the summations of the reporting methods available exceed 100%. Figure 4 identifies the characteristics of the ESR systems in place at the case study locations. More than 90% of responding transit agencies provide an anonymous reporting option for their employees or other reporters, with 85% responding that reports are considered confi- dential. Only 16% of the responding transit agencies use a third party to manage their ESR system and collect data. Table 2 compares the characteristics of the case study transit agen- cies, including reporting methods, age of the ESR system, anonymity, confidentiality, and involvement of collective bargaining in the development of the ESR system. General Observations and Findings Anonymity and confidentiality are two characteristics of ESR systems that allow employees to report hazards or close call events that they may not otherwise feel comfortable sharing because of fears of retribution, punishment, or embarrassment. One of the most prominent benefits of using a third party to manage an ESR system is the ability to emphasize the anonymity or con- fidentiality of the reporters. Anonymous data are recorded so the information shared can never be linked to the subject who supplied it, whereas confidential data are recorded in such a way that the information is not immediately identified with the subject who supplied it, but such a link is possible through record assignment. The biggest benefit to confidentiality, as opposed to anonymity, is the ability to garner follow-up information if it is necessary to understand the reported hazard from a holistic perspective. The transit agencies were asked whether they had solicited input from frontline employees regarding reporting program improvements. The majority of the agencies (79%) indicated that they had solicited feedback from employees through methods that included a section on C H A P T E R 3
38 Characteristics and Elements of Nonpunitive Employee Safety Reporting Systems for Public Transportation Table 1. Transit agencies included in the study. Transit Agency Location Big Blue Bus Santa Monica, California Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Austin, Texas Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, dba LYNX Orlando, Florida Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Chicago, Illinois Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) Cleveland, Ohio Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) Jacksonville, Florida King County Metro Seattle, Washington Lane Transit District (LTD) Springfield, Oregon Lee County Transit (LeeTran) Fort Myers, Florida Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) Los Angeles, California Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) Baltimore, Maryland Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Boston, Massachusetts Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) Atlanta, Georgia Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) Miami, Florida Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) Sacramento, California Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) Sarasota, Florida Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) Portland, Oregon Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Washington, DC 16% 10% 42% 32% <2 years 5â10 years2â5 years >10 years Figure 2. Age distribution of respondent agencyâs nonpunitive employee safety reporting systems. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Phone (hotline, text, voicemail) Hard copy forms Online (intranet/Internet/app) Figure 3. Reporting methods used by the case study agencies.
Public Transportation Agency Case Studies 39 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Was your collective bargaining unit involved in the original design of your reporting program? Do you utilize a third party to manage the system and collect data? Is reporting considered confidential? Can safety reports be made anonymously? Figure 4. Characteristics of employee safety reporting systems. Transit Agency Location Agency Sizea Methods by Which Reporting Can Occur A ge o f E SR S ys te m (y ea rs ) A no ny m ou s Co nfi de nti al CB U In vo lv em en t H ar d Co py /P ap er F or m O nl in e Em pl oy ee P or ta l E- m ai l H ot lin e M ob ile A pp lic ati on In P er so n Th ir d- Pa rt y Sy st em Big Blue Bus Santa Monica, CA Small â â â â 4 â â â Capital Metro Austin, TX Medium â 2 â â â LYNX Orlando, FL Medium 6 â CTA Chicago, IL Large â 5 â â â GCRTA Cleveland, OH Medium â 8 â â JTA Jacksonville, FL Small â 2 â King County Metro Seattle, WA Large â â¥20 â â LTD Springfield, OR Small â â¥20 â LeeTran Ft. Myers, FL Small â 1 â â LA Metro Los Angeles, CA Large â â¥20 â MTA Baltimore, MD Medium â â â 10 â MBTA Boston, MA Large â â â â â¥15 â â MARTA Atlanta, GA Large â â 6 â â â MDT Miami, FL Medium â â â â â¥15 â â â SacRT Sacramento, CA Small â 8 â â â SCAT Sarasota, FL Small â â 1 â â â SEPTA Philadelphia, PA Large â â â â â â â¥20 â â â TriMet Portland, OR Medium â â 7 â WMATA Washington, DC Large â â â 6 â â â a By number of unduplicated passenger trips: large = more than 125 million, medium = 25â125 million, small = less than 25 million. Table 2. Comparative characteristics of employee safety reporting systems.
40 Characteristics and Elements of Nonpunitive Employee Safety Reporting Systems for Public Transportation the hazard report form itself, at meetings, in person, via a survey, and through e-mail. While four of the 19 agencies indicated they had not yet solicited feedback on their nonpunitive ESR system, all indicated their intent to solicit feedback in the future. When asked specifically about safety culture surveys within their organization, JTA, LA Metro, MTA, MDT, and WMATA all indicated that they had disseminated safety culture surveys to their employees to gauge safety culture perceptions. Policies and Reporting Practices Of the 19 transit agencies that responded to the survey, more than half (10 agencies, or 53%) indicated that they had a policy in place that explicitly distinguishes between what type of event is reportable through the nonpunitive ESR system and what type of event is considered a negligent or illegal action that may result in discipline. Of the remaining nine transit agencies, either the agency had not instituted a policy or its policy did not distinguish between reportable nonpunitive and punishable events. Employees can report the unsafe acts of another employee, just as they can report any other hazard or unsafe act within the organization. According to all respondent transit agency representatives, reports about another employee are handled in the same manner as any other hazard or unsafe act reported; however, several transit agency representatives reported addi- tional challenges related to obtaining key details about events associated with reports of unsafe acts by peer employees. A preestablished hazard report review team, inclusive of all departments, is in place at nine of the 19 respondent transit agencies. The other 10 that have nonpunitive ESR systems in place have review teams with members that vary by location, department, or area of expertise. Ten of the 19 responding transit agencies developed their ESR system without the use of guidance documents, local regulations, or recommended practices. The other nine transit agencies used SMS implementation guidelines or guidance from FRA or the California Public Utilities Commission. Four of the responding transit agencies were familiar with FTAâs SMS Implementation Pilot, including CTA, which has been a pilot site since December 2014. However, it is important to note that the FTA SMS Implementation Pilot was not focused on nonpunitive ESR, but rather on drafting a comprehensive safety management policy, conduct- ing safety culture surveys, training leadership, and developing plans to realistically implement the necessary sequence of events to systematically improve safety. Four other responding transit agencies had heard of the FTA SMS Implementation Pilot but were not following the develop- ment of the pilots when they were establishing their nonpunitive ESR systems, as shown in Figure 5. Eleven of the transit agencies that responded to the survey were not aware of FTAâs SMS Implementation Pilot Program. Training When asked whether nonpunitive ESR system training was tailored by employment posi- tion within the agency, 68% of the responding transit agencies indicated that they do not tailor their training by employment position. The other 32% indicated that their training varies by employment position and provides extensive training for employees who are involved with investigations and implementation of mitigation. Many transit agencies contract specific services (e.g., paratransit services), and, thus, may have contracted employees who report to a separate management company or other sub- contractor. Transit agency representatives were asked whether they provide nonpunitive ESR system training to their contracted personnel, and a majority (63%) indicated that they do not provide training to their contracted personnel.
Public Transportation Agency Case Studies 41 Through follow-up correspondence with the transit agencies, the majority (90%) revealed that their contracted employees have some of the same options to report safety concerns as any other agency employee, including the use of safety hotlines. Three respondent transit agencies, LA Metro, MTA, and MBTA, indicated that their contracted employees typically report safety concerns to their respective employers, who then theoretically share the details with the transit agency when necessary. MTA representatives mentioned that the agency is currently working with various contracted services providers to transition to MTAâs reporting tools to ensure the maintenance of a centralized, all-encompassing hazard log. When asked whether they had a specific clause in their service contracts that defines ESR protocols for contracted employees, all respondent transit agencies except WMATA indicated there is no specific clause. WMATA provided an example of its policy, Article 67âSafety Requirements, Section 2.67.1 (see Appendix D), which details the contractorâs responsibility to ensure compliance with the most stringent provisions of applicable statutes and regulations, and the WMATA System Safety Program Plan and Safety Rules and Procedures Handbook. Similarly, TriMet representatives indicated their contracted employees are subject to their Contractor Safety Guide & Rules, which requires that a site safety plan be approved by TriMetâs Safety Department and incorporated into the work contract. Stakeholder Input Another characteristic of a nonpunitive ESR system that is imperative to consider is the role of stakeholder input in the design and implementation phases of a reporting program. Examples of stakeholders include accountable executives, managers and supervisors, operations and safety representatives, and labor union representation. As Figure 6 shows, the CBU played a role in the original design and implementation of nearly half (nine of 19, 47%), of the respond- ing transit agenciesâ hazard or near miss reporting programs. Of the remaining 10 agencies, ⢠Three of the representatives were unable to confirm the involvement of their labor union in the development or implementation phases of their reporting programs due to the legacy nature of the ESR system, as the programs were instituted prior to their employment with the agency. ⢠Another three agencies reported that open communication occurred between management and labor union representation, but that no direct involvement took place. ⢠Two transit agencies reported no official hazard reporting policy in place and that only limited guidance had currently been developed. Not Familiar 58% Familiarâ Utilized Pilot Information 21% Familiarâ Not Utilized 21% Familiar 42% Not Familiar Familiar FamiliarâUtilized Pilot Information FamiliarâNot Utilized Figure 5. Agency familiarization with FTA Safety Management System Implementation Pilot.
42 Characteristics and Elements of Nonpunitive Employee Safety Reporting Systems for Public Transportation ⢠One transit agency indicated its hazard reporting policy was a management policy with no discipline-related reference and, thus, stated there was no labor union involvement. ⢠One transit agency indicated that its labor unions had no past involvement in the devel- opment or implementation of its hazard reporting program but would be actively involved in any new policy development as the agency transitions to its PTASP, as required under 49 U.S.C. Part 673. When asked whether any language could be shared from the agencyâs CBA, seven transit agencies indicated the CBA did not include language related to the ESR system. SEPTAâs Bargaining Agreement Article XIâProductivity, Section 1102, Health and Safety, details the requirement of employees to âpromptly report hazardous conditionsâ (see Appendix D). Section 2 of JTAâs CBA requires that Every accident and incident shall be fully, properly, and completely reported by the Operator as per the terms of this Agreement and as otherwise provided for in the Rule Book upon the report form provided by the Company. Such report shall be prepared and delivered to the Company prior to the conclusion of the Operatorâs workday and in any case within twenty-four (24) hours of the incident unless the Operator is incapacitated. If the Operator is incapacitated, the Operator will provide the report to the Company as soon as is practicable. All accidents and incidents will be reviewed by Risk Management who shall render a decision of preventable or nonpreventable. A preliminary determination of preventability will be made by the Company and forwarded to the Operator with a copy being sent to the Union. The Union may request additional documentation, if any, from the Company. Performance Measures The 19 surveyed transit agencies were asked whether they currently track any performance measures to determine the efficacy of their nonpunitive ESR system. If a transit agency indicated it did track specific performance measures of its program, the research team asked the agency to elaborate on the measures tracked. Ten of the 19 transit agencies responded that they do not currently track any performance measures related to their nonpunitive ESR system. Two indi- cated that they were currently in the process of identifying the performance measures to be tracked to determine trends in program efficacy. The other seven transit agencies reported that they track and trend various performance measures related to their ESR system, including metrics related to the volume and status of hazard reports, descriptions of the hazard or event, contributing factors, and results. The performance metrics related to report volume and status include the following: ⢠Number of reports per month, ⢠Customer complaints, ⢠Open versus closed report status, ⢠Average days to closure, and ⢠Target closure date. Yes 47% Unknown 16% 16% 11% 5% 5% No 37% CommunicationâNo Input Limited/No Policy Management Policy Not in PastâInvolved in Future Figure 6. Collective bargaining unit involvement in design/ implementation of hazard reporting program.
Public Transportation Agency Case Studies 43 There are also performance metrics related to the description of the hazard or event and possible contributing factors that are reported through the survey, including ⢠Hazard/event classification, ⢠Reports by area (facility, equipment, system, security), ⢠Mode, ⢠Date of hazard/event reported, ⢠Party responsible, and ⢠Root cause. Finally, the surveyed transit agencies track and trend the following performance metrics as indicators of program efficacy: ⢠Workersâ compensation claims and costs, ⢠Lost time and non-lost-time injury rates per 200,000 work hours, ⢠Vehicle accident rates per 100,000 miles, and ⢠The experience modifier determined by the workersâ compensation insurance system. Table 3 compares the performance and policy considerations of the respondent transit agencies with regard to their ESR system, including the tracking of performance metrics, whether safety culture surveys have been conducted, and whether the policies in place explicitly define punitive exclusions of the ESR system. Transit Agency Location Track ESR System Performance Metrics Conduct Safety Culture Surveys Existing Formal Policy with Explicit Punitive Exclusions Big Blue Bus Santa Monica, CA â Capital Metro Austin, TX âa â LYNX Orlando, FL CTA Chicago, IL GCRTA Cleveland, OH â â JTA Jacksonville, FL â â â King County Metro Seattle, WA LTD Springfield, OR â â LeeTran Ft. Myers, FL â LA Metro Los Angeles, CA â â MTA Baltimore, MD â â MBTA Boston, MA MARTA Atlanta, GA â* MDT Miami, FL â SacRT Sacramento, CA â â SCAT Sarasota, FL SEPTA Philadelphia, PA â â TriMet Portland, OR WMATA Washington, DC â â â a In the process of identifying the performance measures tracked and trended to determine program efficacy at the time of the research report preparation. Table 3. Comparative employee safety reporting system performance and policy considerations.
