Mixed mode transit systems (e.g., bus, commuter rail, subway combinations) · California

Division 2

Los Angeles, CA · ~491 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
10.0
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Division 2 runs at 222% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Mixed mode transit systems (e.g., bus, commuter rail, subway combinations) workplace, earning a grade F.

Division 2: 10.0 TCR = 222% of Mixed mode transit systems (e.g., bus, commuter rail, subway combinations) BLS 4.5 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Division 2 safety composite

Division 2 scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 21%), 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).

F

30/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 9.99 per 100 workers

Safer than 21% of industry peers

DART rate
F 7.18 per 100 workers

Safer than 25% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 51% 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

−0.6

2017→2024

Division 2 injury rate improved

Division 2's TCR fell 0.6 from 10.7 in 2017 to 10.2 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2017 at 10.7 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.72× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=10.7 · 2019=8.4 · 2021=10.0 · 2022=10.4 · 2023=10.3 · 2024=10.2

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 485111 · Los Angeles, CA ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 10.0 · 222% of ind

  • DART 7.2 DART
  • RANK #52/75
  • PHOTO 1953-4131
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 256 inj
  • SIZE ~491 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: 1953-4131 (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Division 2 in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Division 2 averages 10.0 TCR (222% of the Mixed mode transit systems (e.g., bus, commuter rail, subway combinations) BLS benchmark).

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

Division 2 TCR series: 2017=10.7 · 2019=8.4 · 2021=10 · 2022=10.4 · 2023=10.3 · 2024=10.2 · BLS 4.5

Where Division 2 falls in its industry

421 Mixed mode transit systems (e. establishments

Safer than 21% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 5.8.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #52 safest of 75 Mixed mode transit systems (e. employers in California.

Division 2 (491 employees, TCR 10.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 217 employees and a TCR of 5.8 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 05001,0001,500 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Division 2
Division 2 (491 employees, TCR 10.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 217 employees and a TCR of 5.8

Division 2 has more employees than the Mixed mode transit systems (e.g., bus, c median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 5.8. 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 10.2 7.2 53 12 0
2023 10.3 6.5 37 26 0
2022 10.4 8.3 41 18 0
2021 10.0 7.6 38 12 0
2019 8.4 7.0 43 11 0
2017 10.7 6.7 44 15 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

485111 · CA · Los Angeles

421 Mixed mode transit systems (e.g., bus, commuter rail, subway combinations) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 2,064 employers in Los Angeles, CA · 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 1953-4131 10.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR 1161 CHICAGO SCHEDULED TRANSIT OPERATIONS 9.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR 1953-1161 10.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Division 10 9.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE Monterey Park - Bld: 0701 - 15 491 FTE
STATE-SIZE FM 1 and FM 2 491 FTE
STATE-SIZE San Bernardino, CA - Santa Fe Way 491 FTE
STATE-SIZE IXL Learning Inc. - San Mateo 491 FTE
CITY-NEAR Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. 50,317 FTE
CITY-NEAR UC Los Angeles 40,333 FTE
CITY-NEAR LADWP 11,717 FTE
CITY-NEAR Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 10,346 FTE
NAT-TCR Prothro Chevrolet Co Inc 10.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Precision Metal Spinning 10.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Tidewater Contractors, Inc. 10.0 TCR
NAT-TCR 0373 - Smyrna 10.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE SICK Bloomington 491 FTE
NAT-SIZE Aerojet Rocketdyne - West Palm Beach 491 FTE
NAT-SIZE Missouri Cooperage 491 FTE
NAT-SIZE Aiken ORR (BAMG) 491 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, 2021, 2019, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.

Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.

Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.