Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit (2005)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

11 Surveys designed to gain a better understanding of underlying philosophies, policies, and other considerations involved in light rail maintenance were received from maintenance staff of 11 agencies. The questions asked and the responses submitted are shown in Appendix B. To the right of the multiple-choice answers in Appendix B is the total of each response. Some of the questions requested that the respondents rank the top two or three possible answers. The two right-most columns of the table note both the number of times a particular response was listed as the most important factor, as well as its weighted total. Responses were weighted as follows: a “1” was given a weight of “3,” a “2” a weight of “2,” and a “3” a weight of “1.” Many questions included “other” as a possible response. The pages following the questionnaire in Appendix B note any comments or clarifications provided. STAFFING PHILOSOPHIES AND POLICIES Initial and Ongoing Staff Levels The first part of the survey probed basic philosophies and policies agencies used initially to establish and then maintain their maintenance staffs. Some noted that their initial staff levels were based in part on consultant recommendations. Other agencies surveyed the industry themselves or used their own historic staff formulas. After the initial staff levels were implemented, ongoing levels were determined based primarily on service quality policies and experience with man- power availability. Contracting Out One-third of the respondents had considered contracting out most if not all of the maintenance functions. (The Hudson– Bergen LRT Line contracts out all maintenance as part of a design–build–operate–maintain contract.) The main reason the responding LRT systems gave for not contracting out most maintenance functions were existing collective bargaining agreements. The second most noted reason was the desire to better control maintenance quality. Maintenance Standards Most agencies indicated that they had maintenance standards and goals. The majority had standards for interior and exte- rior cleaning and for periodic maintenance. Two agencies had standards for time allowed before repairing TVMs and before replacing burned-out lamps at stations. Both are important matters to a system’s customers. Three noted a standard for the timely repair of broken crossing gates, a clear safety issue. Ninety percent of responding properties indicated that they adequately and consistently monitored the standards and goals they had. Benchmarking A majority of the respondents attempted to match their main- tenance performance to those of the industry’s best systems (benchmarking). Twenty percent benchmarked “quite a bit,” and one-third compared themselves with the best in certain specific areas. The two indicators most used for comparison are “miles between revenue vehicle failures” and “mainte- nance expenses per revenue vehicle-mile.” The first, how- ever, is difficult to use because there clearly seems to be a difference in how systems define the term “revenue vehicle failure.” Systems ranged from no revenue vehicle mechani- cal failure every 1,400 vehicle revenue-miles to one every 53,000 miles. This range seems large for systems that have relatively new LRVs. “Maintenance expenses per revenue vehicle-mile” is also an indicator that is difficult to compare because the cost-of-living (and therefore wage rates) vary extensively across the country. Train Lengths Off-Peak One way to lower maintenance costs is to minimize unnec- essary revenue car-miles. However, this can mean breaking and assembling train lengths two or three times a day. Do LRT operators minimize revenue vehicle-miles in this way? The answer is yes based on the responses obtained. Two of the agencies have off-peak ridership that is too high to allow single-car operation off-peak. Of the nine that can drop cars after the morning peak period, eight do. LABOR ISSUES The second group of questions involves labor issues. Labor- related issues were seen affecting maintenance productiv- ity only by some systems. Quality-of-service policies and age of equipment were noted to be more important determi- nants of maintenance productivity. That the age of equipment CHAPTER THREE RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE

was noted is interesting because this review shows no clear industry-wide correlation between age of equipment and maintenance productivity. However, the provisions of labor agreements, expanded benefits and time-off rules in labor con- tracts, high manpower turnover rates, and new laws like the federal FMLA were all noted by at least one agency or another as a significant productivity issue. Training A number of maintenance managers reported that collective bargaining agreements may sometimes affect their ability to advance good workers and/or provide cross-training. These agreements also can make it more difficult to manage vaca- tion, sick, and unscheduled time off. To encourage better atten- dance maintenance managers often give financial bonuses for good attendance over a given period of time. Other incen- tives mentioned included “earned” days off for good atten- dance, counting unused sick days toward pension, and ad hoc awards for performance including attendance. Agencies also provide monetary incentives for meeting or exceeding stan- dards such as fleet availability and on-time performance. On-the-job training is the primary means of training new workers, and 3 of the 11 agencies use such training exclu- sively. Other maintenance organizations train employees only for the jobs they perform and fewer still cross-train employees (if allowed) and/or train for advancement. Tight budgets were noted by a number of agencies as a constraint to training. Overtime Every agency polled found it more cost-effective to allow overtime than to hire new staff. The reason appears to be the high cost of added benefits, etc. However, there are draw- backs to overtime, especially if there is a significant amount of it. Some managers noted that overtime is less productive than regular time because younger workers tend to work more overtime than older, more experienced workers. Less experi- enced workers also learn more working with older workers, but there is less opportunity for that during overtime work. It is worth noting that there are almost no part-time main- tenance employees in the industry. Of the 1,867.5 vehicle maintenance full-time equivalents (FTEs) reported in the 2003 NTD, 3 were part-time. Of the 1,520.5 nonvehicle main- tenance employees reported, 1 was part-time. Combined, of the 3,388 LRT maintenance employees, 4 were part-time: one-tenth of one percent. The use of part-time employees is clearly not seen as a way to increase productivity. VEHICLE-RELATED ISSUES Issues related to rail vehicle maintenance was a third sec- tion of the questionnaire. When asked what was considered the single main indicator of good vehicle maintenance the 12 responses were evenly divided between “percent of fleet available for revenue service” and “number of annual revenue service breakdowns.” The latter response was also the pri- mary indicator against which agencies could compare them- selves. As noted earlier, there is no standard definition of what constitutes a chargeable revenue service breakdown. In two systems, the director of system maintenance (or equivalent position) and the manager of vehicle maintenance defined the term differently. Issues with Vehicle Design There is little standardization among the various LRVs pro- cured by transit systems. As such, there are often initial vehicle design issues and/or long-term problems in obtain- ing spare parts. However, one-half the survey responders believed that their new vehicle’s design issues were ade- quately corrected under warrantee provisions. Correspond- ingly, one-half believed that the corrections could have gone further. At least one system set up its own internal vehicle engineering group to correct their vehicle’s design issues. Spare Parts All responding agencies reported serious delays in receiving spare parts, especially from foreign suppliers. All but one noted that lower maintenance costs could be achieved if more LRV parts were common. This is a big problem for LRV maintenance. To help manage the problem, just over one-half of survey respondents stated that they worked with other prop- erties to procure common parts, exchange common parts, and/or exchange information about common parts. (Some maintenance managers indicated that there is evidence that some standardization is occurring among certain manufac- turers in recognition of this problem.) Work Standards Forty percent of respondents had developed work standards for tasks associated with preventive maintenance. Of those that had, 75% indicated that their standards were being ade- quately monitored. There is a reluctance within the industry to set standards for repair work; no property had developed such work standards. Although some repairs (e.g., body work) depend on the extent of damage, many repairs would seem to lend themselves to an expected length of repair (e.g., window replacement). As to whether more effort was being expended on preventive LRV maintenance or repair of broken subsys- tems or parts, most systems indicated that they have a good balance between the two. LRV Maintenance Outsourcing Most LRV repair is being done in-house. Outsourcing is reserved primarily for specialty repairs. The repair function

13 most outsourced is motor repair/overhaul, followed by uphol- stery, electronic repair, brake repair/overhaul (in part), and the repair of the maintenance equipment itself. Two systems completing the survey contract for daily car cleaning. MAINTENANCE OF WAY ISSUES The fourth section of the survey asked questions about MOW. As with vehicle maintenance, the survey respondents were evenly split when it came to selecting the single main indi- cator of good guideway maintenance. One-half stated that it was “ride quality determined by periodic testing,” the other half that it was the “total of all annual revenue service delays due to track conditions.” The definition of revenue service delays was not requested, but there are likely several in use. Representation Nine of the 11 systems surveyed had virtually all MOW func- tions covered by collective bargaining agreements. Respon- dents indicated that there is no clear evidence that these agree- ments have significantly affected maintenance costs. Most systems do not get any maintenance help from other public agencies. Those that do primarily receive it in the form of street repairs between mixed-flow light rail tracks. Contracting Out MOW Functions Light rail properties contract out some right-of-way mainte- nance functions. Most contract out landscape maintenance, and 3 of the 11 properties surveyed outsourced communi- cation subsystem repairs (e.g., CCTV, public information systems, and field radios). Several other functions are out- sourced by one or more systems: wayside trash removal, graffiti removal, and some signal subsystem repairs. STATION-RELATED ISSUES The final section of the questionnaire asked several questions about the maintenance of stations and other fixed facilities. Most systems responded that “a low number of things need- ing to be fixed based on periodic inspections” as the best indi- cator of good facilities maintenance. “Cleanliness” came in second. Public Information Systems Most systems have either CCTV or automatic train informa- tion systems or both. Half of the properties indicated that the maintenance of one or both of these systems was greater than expected. Contracting Out Station Maintenance Functions Nine of the 11 properties surveyed had escalators and/or ele- vators. Of those nine, all but one contracted out their mainte- nance. The maintenance and repair of the maintenance vehi- cles and the repair of buildings were also often outsourced. These were the only areas of station maintenance for which more than one or two LRT properties outsourced work. In general, LRT systems contracted out few station mainte- nance functions.