Transportation departments, nonoperating · Michigan

Roscommon County Transportation Authority

Houghton Lake, MI · ~36 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
6.3
Avg TCR
3.2
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Roscommon County Transportation Authority runs at 198% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Transportation departments, nonoperating workplace, earning a grade D.

Roscommon County Transportation Authority: 6.3 TCR = 198% of Transportation departments, nonoperating BLS 3.2 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Roscommon County Transportation Authority safety composite

Roscommon County Transportation Authority scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 53% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 19%), 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 6.34 per 100 workers

Safer than 24% of industry peers

DART rate
F 3.3 per 100 workers

Safer than 19% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 53% 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

−5.4

2016→2018

Roscommon County Transportation Authority injury rate improved

Roscommon County Transportation Authority's TCR fell 5.4 from 8.7 in 2016 to 3.3 in 2018. Peak filing year was 2016 at 8.7 TCR. In 2018, DART was 0.52× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=8.7 · 2017=7.0 · 2018=3.3

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 926120 · Houghton Lake, MI ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 6.3 · 198% of ind

  • DART 3.3 DART
  • RANK #4/5
  • PHOTO District 12
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 6 inj
  • SIZE ~36 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: District 12 (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Roscommon County Transportation Authority in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Roscommon County Transportation Authority averages 6.3 TCR (198% of the Transportation departments, nonoperating BLS benchmark).

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

Roscommon County Transportation Authority TCR series: 2016=8.7 · 2017=7 · 2018=3.3 · BLS 3.2

Where Roscommon County Transportation Authority falls in its industry

208 Transportation departments, no establishments

Safer than 24% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.6.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Michigan alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #4 safest of 5 Transportation departments, no employers in Michigan.

Roscommon County Transportation Authority (36 employees, TCR 6.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 172 employees and a TCR of 3.6 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 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,000 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Roscommon County Transportation Authority
Roscommon County Transportation Authority (36 employees, TCR 6.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 172 employees and a TCR of 3.6

Roscommon County Transportation Authority has fewer employees than the Transportation departments, nonoperating median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.6. 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
2018 3.3 3.3 1 0 0
2017 7.0 7.0 2 0 0
2016 8.7 8.7 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

926120 · MI · Houghton Lake

208 Transportation departments, nonoperating employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,393 rated employers in Michigan with headcount on file · 25 employers in Houghton Lake, 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 District 12 6.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR MNDOT District 3 6.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR City of Phoenix F50 Strt Trans 6.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR MDTA Police Headquarters and Support 6.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE R & R ASPHALT INC 36 FTE
STATE-SIZE Blue Water Energy Center 36 FTE
STATE-SIZE Facilities 36 FTE
STATE-SIZE Grand Haven Office 36 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 2014 309 FTE
CITY-NEAR 2014 295 FTE
CITY-NEAR 2769 HOUGHTON LAKE 64 FTE
CITY-NEAR King Nursing & Rehabilitation Community 58 FTE
NAT-TCR Corrugated Supplies Company- Atlanta, LLC. 6.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Dean Dairy - Sharpsville 6.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Town of Hinesburg 6.3 TCR
NAT-TCR 717 - Katy 6.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE Building Solutions Since 1977 LLC 36 FTE
NAT-SIZE JAXS 36 FTE
NAT-SIZE Craftsman Plating & Tinning 36 FTE
NAT-SIZE J.W. Walker & Sons, Inc. 36 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: 2018, 2017, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.