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

Division 20

Los Angeles, CA · ~543 workers · 7 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
12.4
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Division 20 runs at 275% 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 20: 12.4 TCR = 275% of Mixed mode transit systems (e.g., bus, commuter rail, subway combinations) BLS 4.5 · 7y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Division 20 safety composite

Division 20 scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 61% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 11%), 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

39/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 12.37 per 100 workers

Safer than 11% of industry peers

DART rate
C 3.06 per 100 workers

Safer than 61% 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

−1.4

2017→2024

Division 20 injury rate improved

Division 20's TCR fell 1.4 from 9.3 in 2017 to 7.9 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2021 at 20.0 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.25× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=9.3 · 2019=10.7 · 2020=13.6 · 2021=20.0 · 2022=15.2 · 2023=9.8 · 2024=7.9

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

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

Grade F · TCR 12.4 · 275% of ind

  • DART 3.1 DART
  • RANK #59/75
  • PHOTO Division 1
  • BOOK 7y book
  • INJ 352 inj
  • SIZE ~543 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Division 1 (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Division 20 in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Division 20 averages 12.4 TCR (275% 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 20 TCR series: 2017=9.3 · 2019=10.7 · 2020=13.6 · 2021=20 · 2022=15.2 · 2023=9.8 · 2024=7.9 · BLS 4.5

Where Division 20 falls in its industry

421 Mixed mode transit systems (e. establishments

Safer than 11% 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 #59 safest of 75 Mixed mode transit systems (e. employers in California.

Division 20 (543 employees, TCR 12.4) 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 20
Division 20 (543 employees, TCR 12.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 217 employees and a TCR of 5.8

Division 20 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 7.9 3.1 52 10 0
2023 9.8 5.6 48 15 0
2022 15.2 8.0 61 24 0
2021 20.0 12.5 59 31 0
2020 13.6 6.8 43 13 0
2019 10.7 4.8 51 16 0
2017 9.3 6.7 38 12 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 Division 1 12.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Bend, OR 12.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Division 3 12.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Omnitrans West 12.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE BEST Contracting Services Inc 543 FTE
STATE-SIZE 64030153-153001 ST. ELIZABETH COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 543 FTE
STATE-SIZE Home Chef - San Bernardino 542 FTE
STATE-SIZE General Atomics - Gray Butte 544 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 Trio Development Corporation 12.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Eickman's Processing Co. Inc. 12.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Home Care of North Carolina 12.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Advantage Seamless, Inc. 12.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE Gerdau Fort Smith Mill 543 FTE
NAT-SIZE Nightingale's Nursing & Attendants 543 FTE
NAT-SIZE HGCORP 543 FTE
NAT-SIZE Broadway Office Complex 543 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, 2020, 2019, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.