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

San Mateo County Transit District

San Carlos, CA · ~293 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
1.2
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

San Mateo County Transit District runs at 26% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Urban transit systems, mixed mode (e.g., bus, commuter rail, subway combinations) workplace, earning a grade A.

San Mateo County Transit District: 1.2 TCR = 26% of Urban transit systems, mixed mode (e.g., bus, commuter rail, subway combinations) BLS 4.5 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

San Mateo County Transit District safety composite

San Mateo County Transit District scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 95% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 51%), 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).

B

83/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 1.17 per 100 workers

Safer than 95% of industry peers

DART rate
A 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 93% 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

−2.2

2018→2021

San Mateo County Transit District injury rate improved

San Mateo County Transit District's TCR fell 2.2 from 2.2 in 2018 to 0.0 in 2021. Peak filing year was 2018 at 2.2 TCR. In 2021, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2018=2.2 · 2019=0.8 · 2020=1.6 · 2021=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 485111 · San Carlos, CA AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 1.2 · 26% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #4/75
  • PHOTO Fife, WA- Valley Ave…
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 10 inj
  • SIZE ~293 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Fife, WA- Valley Avenue (0.0 TCR gap)

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

San Mateo County Transit District in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows San Mateo County Transit District averages 1.2 TCR (26% of the Urban transit systems, mixed mode (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

San Mateo County Transit District TCR series: 2018=2.2 · 2019=0.8 · 2020=1.6 · 2021=0 · BLS 4.5

Where San Mateo County Transit District falls in its industry

421 Urban transit systems, mixed m establishments

Safer than 95% 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 #4 safest of 75 Urban transit systems, mixed m employers in California.

San Mateo County Transit District (293 employees, TCR 1.2) 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 San Mateo County Transit District
San Mateo County Transit District (293 employees, TCR 1.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 217 employees and a TCR of 5.8

San Mateo County Transit District has more employees than the Urban transit systems, mixed mode (e.g., median and a lower 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
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 1.6 1.2 3 1 0
2019 0.8 0.8 2 0 0
2018 2.2 1.3 5 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

485111 · CA · San Carlos

421 Urban transit systems, mixed mode (e.g., bus, commuter rail, subway combinations) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 57 employers in San Carlos, 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 Fife, WA- Valley Avenue 1.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Alstom Transport USA Inc. 1.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Location 60 1.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Midlothian, TX - Rail Port Parkway 1.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE JVKS Harvest Solutions, LLC dba: AgSocio 293 FTE
STATE-SIZE Design 293 FTE
STATE-SIZE kdc/ one Sunburst 293 FTE
STATE-SIZE Hygiena 293 FTE
CITY-NEAR Rudolph and Sletten 686 FTE
CITY-NEAR Sutter Bay Medical Foundation (30507) 534 FTE
CITY-NEAR Palo Alto Medical Foundation (378-10145) 387 FTE
CITY-NEAR PENINSULA DIVISION SERVICE CEN 282 FTE
NAT-TCR Carroll County Memorial Hospital 1.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Jewell Marble Falls 1.2 TCR
NAT-TCR AVFX - Boston 1.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Bk #5453 1.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE Virginia Gay Hospital 293 FTE
NAT-SIZE Custom 293 FTE
NAT-SIZE Pepperidge Farm 293 FTE
NAT-SIZE The Ritz-Carlton Dove Mountain 293 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: 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.