Bus transit systems (except mixed mode) · Michigan

Capital Area Transportation Authority

Lansing, MI · ~378 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
5.8
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Capital Area Transportation Authority runs at 130% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Bus transit systems (except mixed mode) workplace, earning a grade D.

Capital Area Transportation Authority: 5.8 TCR = 130% of Bus transit systems (except mixed mode) BLS 4.5 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Capital Area Transportation Authority safety composite

Capital Area Transportation Authority scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 57% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 45%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

D

50/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 5.83 per 100 workers

Safer than 45% of industry peers

DART rate
C 3.17 per 100 workers

Safer than 57% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

TCR Δ

−2.0

2019→2024

Capital Area Transportation Authority injury rate improved

Capital Area Transportation Authority's TCR fell 2.0 from 7.1 in 2019 to 5.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2019 at 7.1 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.54× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2019=7.1 · 2020=5.6 · 2022=6.5 · 2023=5.0 · 2024=5.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 485113 · Lansing, MI ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade D · TCR 5.8 · 130% of ind

  • DART 3.2 DART
  • RANK #6/16
  • PHOTO South Central Illino…
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 105 inj
  • SIZE ~378 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: South Central Illinois Mass Transit District (0.0 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · Michigan employers → · Look up another →

Capital Area Transportation Authority in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows Capital Area Transportation Authority averages 5.8 TCR (130% of the Bus transit systems (except mixed mode) BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

Capital Area Transportation Authority TCR series: 2019=7.1 · 2020=5.6 · 2022=6.5 · 2023=5 · 2024=5 · BLS 4.5

Where Capital Area Transportation Authority falls in its industry

332 Bus transit systems (except mi establishments

Safer than 45% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 5.3.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Michigan alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #6 safest of 16 Bus transit systems (except mi employers in Michigan.

Capital Area Transportation Authority (378 employees, TCR 5.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 113 employees and a TCR of 5.3 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 0200400600 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Capital Area Transportation Authority
Capital Area Transportation Authority (378 employees, TCR 5.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 113 employees and a TCR of 5.3

Capital Area Transportation Authority has more employees than the Bus transit systems (except mixed mode) median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 5.3. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2024 5.0 3.2 16 3 0
2023 5.0 4.0 24 0 0
2022 6.5 3.5 25 1 0
2020 5.6 5.0 17 1 0
2019 7.1 5.2 23 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

485113 · MI · Lansing

332 Bus transit systems (except mixed mode) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,393 rated employers in Michigan with headcount on file · 410 employers in Lansing, MI · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR South Central Illinois Mass Transit District 5.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR 430 TAPS 5.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR 735 YOLO 5.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR 2662-6116 5.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE WM 4243 378 FTE
STATE-SIZE Henry Ford Columbus Medical Center 378 FTE
STATE-SIZE Great Lakes Water Authority - Adminstration 379 FTE
STATE-SIZE Three Rivers Corporation 379 FTE
CITY-NEAR Lansing Delta Township Assembly 2,608 FTE
CITY-NEAR General Motors Lansing Delta Township Assembly 2,446 FTE
CITY-NEAR LCC - Main 2,258 FTE
CITY-NEAR Lansing Grand River Assembly 1,648 FTE
NAT-TCR Daigle Brothers 5.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Calftech Corporation 5.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Stafford 5.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Kylll - Outerloop Building 2 5.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE Park District of Highland Park 378 FTE
NAT-SIZE ABIMAR FOODS North 378 FTE
NAT-SIZE 19-TROUP 378 FTE
NAT-SIZE Bartlett Park District 378 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2024, 2023, 2022, 2020, 2019. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.