National Academies Press: OpenBook

Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit (2005)

Chapter: Chapter Four - Case Studies

« Previous: Chapter Three - Results of Questionnaire
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13547.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13547.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13547.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13547.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13547.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13547.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13547.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13547.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13547.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13547.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13547.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13547.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13547.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13547.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13547.
×
Page 28

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.

Four light rail systems were chosen for detailed analysis of their maintenance staffs. Two criteria were used in the selec- tion. First, the four represented a range of light rail system ages and organizational structures. Second, they included the four main climate types. The four selected light rail systems were: • San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI) is the oldest (1981) “new” light rail system and is the only one that operates light rail service only. San Diego has a mild, dry climate. • The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) operates Salt Lake City’s new (1999) light rail service, as part of a two- mode system. Salt Lake City’s climate ranges from hot to freezing, but has little rain or snow. • The Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) operates Portland’s light rail service (inaugurated in 1986) as part of a bus–rail transit sys- tem. Portland has a cool, wet climate. • The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority’s (RTA’s) older, established Shaker Heights Line was sub- stantially renovated in 1989 and is operated as part of a three-mode transit service. Cleveland’s climate ranges from hot to cold and gets a great deal of rain and snow. Each of the case study systems was visited and discus- sions were held with the director of light rail maintenance (or equivalent) and most maintenance managers. Information was collected on the organizational structure of the light rail maintenance staff, on each maintenance job title and func- tion, and on the number of manager, labor, and clerical posi- tions employed. This information was categorized by the fol- lowing functional areas: • LRV maintenance, • Track maintenance, • Substation and overhead catenary (power) maintenance, • Signal and communication systems (signal) maintenance, • Station maintenance, • Facilities maintenance, • Fare equipment maintenance, • Stores (parts) management, and • Maintenance administration (if needed). In cases where maintenance functions may be grouped under one manager and cost center—for example, station and facilities maintenance and power and signal maintenance— the managers helped clarify how many employees worked on what specific functions. 14 SAN DIEGO TROLLEY, INC. In the late 1970s, the responsibility to construct and operate San Diego’s new light rail system was given to a new agency. SDTI has since operated the country’s only single-mode light rail service with all necessary support staff under its direct control. [Some of these support services, such as human resources, will be transferred this year (2005) to the umbrella Metropolitan Transit Development Board as a consolidation of such functions among the board’s subsidiary transit providers.] After initial deliberation, the agency decided to develop and operate the light rail system itself. The organizational structure of SDTI has rail operations and maintenance under the Vice-President of Operations. This position oversees the superintendents of LRV mainte- nance, wayside maintenance, and operations (Figure 4). Facil- ities maintenance, fare equipment maintenance, and stores management are under the Vice-President of Administration, who oversees the Facilities Manager, the Revenue Manager, and the Stores Manager (among others). The following dis- cussion of SDTI is based on its FY2005 budget and board- approved staff levels. LRV Maintenance There are three job descriptions in the area of LRV mainte- nance: Electromechanic–LRV, Lineman–LRV, and Assistant Lineman–LRV. According to the job descriptions, all three positions are virtually identical except for the entry qualifi- cations and training responsibilities. A candidate for the assis- tant lineman position must (among other things) qualify for the SDTI Assistant Lineman Apprenticeship Program and be able to lift 50 lb unaided. Electromechanics and linemen must have already passed the SDTI Apprenticeship Program or have previous education and experience equal to or greater than the program; the 50-lb lifting requirement is absent. Line- men must help train assistant linemen, and electromechanics must help train the other two. SDTI’s organization shows an assistant superintendent in both the LRV maintenance and MOW areas. There are a total of 80 LRV maintainer positions, 10 man- agement (salaried) positions, and 2 clerical positions in LRV maintenance. The system has a total fleet of 123 LRVs, 83 of which are used during peak periods. SDTI operated 7,079,000 revenue vehicle-miles in 2004. CHAPTER FOUR CASE STUDIES

15 MOW Maintenance Light rail maintenance organizations often have the MOW functions under one manager. SDTI is an example of this organizational structure. The Superintendent of Wayside Maintenance handles all the administrative duties for the working functional groups under him. Three management and two clerical positions perform these administrative duties. The classification and job description pattern described above for LRV maintenance is identical for power and signal maintenance. The personnel classification for those working in these areas is MOW maintainers. The three relevant job descriptions are: Electromechanic–MOW, Lineman–MOW, and Assistant Lineman–MOW. The qualifications for these positions reflect those for the LRV positions down to the 50-lb lifting requirement. Although this unit’s training course has the very same name as the LRV maintainer’s, the program for MOW positions is tailored to substation, catenary, signal, and communication equipment repair. Although all MOW maintainers can work in any of the four functional areas, in general at any given time, SDTI managers estimate that approximately half of the 31-person force works on traction power and catenary repair and half on signals and communication repair. The four management positions in the group are divided in the same proportion. Weather typically does not play a major role in SDTI’s MOW. Strong winds during certain times of the year can affect crossing gates (as many as 27 have broken in one day.) Moreover, the little annual precipitation that San Diego does receive can come in a few intense storms and cause occa- sional track washouts. Track maintenance has its own group composed of 2 track supervisors, considered management positions within SDTI, and 14 track “servicepersons” (maintainers). Track main- tainers do not yet have an established apprenticeship pro- gram, although SDTI just (FY2005) approved a Training Supervisor—Wayside position for both the power/signal and the track maintenance areas. The MOW maintenance group maintains 96.6 mi of track. Facilities and Station Maintenance This maintenance group and the next two discussed here come under SDTI’s Vice-President for Administration (see Fig- ure 4). Reporting to this vice-president are a manager of facil- ities, six facilities supervisors, and an administrative assistant. The unit has one labor position—serviceperson—of which there are 59. The manager estimates that 1 FTE supervisor and 10 serviceperson FTEs work repairing SDTI’s nonstation facilities, such as the yards and shops complex. The remain- ing 5 supervisors and 49 servicepersons clean and repair the system’s 49 stations. Fare Equipment Maintenance This maintenance function is also found under the Vice- President for Administration, specifically under the Revenue = Management; = Labor; = Clerical; - - - = Non-Maintenance. Superintendent of Wayside Maintenance Superintendent of LRV Maintenance Assistant Superintendent Track Supervisor (2) Trackperson (14) MOW Supervisor (4) MOW Maintainer (31) LRV Quality Control Assistant Superintendent Maintenance Supervisor (6) Training Supervisor LRV Maintainer (80) Clerk Typist/ Data Clerk (2) Clerk Typist/ Data Clerk (2) Vice-President of Operations Training Supervisor Superintendent of Transportation Admin. Asst. Vice-President of Administration Facilities Manager Facilities Supervisor (6) Serviceperson (59) Revenue Manager Maintenance Supervisor Revenue Maintainer (13) Stores Manager Storekeeper (8) Accounting Manager Admin. Asst. Clerk Typist/ D. Clerk (0.5) FIGURE 4 San Diego Trolley, Inc., structure of LRT maintenance organization.

16 Outside Contracting Table 7 shows what percentage of nonutility costs were expected to be contracted out by SDTI in its FY2005 budget year as a percentage of total costs (wage and nonwage) for each maintenance function. The highest percentage of out- side contracts is in the track maintenance area and probably reflects the relatively low level of track maintenance planned this particular year. Of the outside contracts let for track maintenance, 71% is planned for track maintenance services and contracted track crews. The greatest dollar amount of outside services is in LRV maintenance. Fully 63% of those costs are for interior car cleaning services, most of the rest is for contracted accident repair and vandalism repairs. Of the contracted services in the signal and communications area 80% is for crossing gate maintenance and repair. In all, SDTI plans to expend 11.3% of its maintenance expenditures on outside services. UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY Salt Lake City’s light rail system opened in 1999. It is one of the newest LRT systems in the country, with only the Hudson– Bergen (2002), Houston (2003), and Minneapolis (2004) systems opening since then. It operates in a climate of large temperature extremes, but with little annual rain or snow. UTA, a multimodal service provider, is organized into three business units. One supplies the actual bus and rail tran- sit services and another business services support for the oper- ating units, with a third not directly involved with operations. The Rail Services Business Unit has both rail operations and rail maintenance under a Rail Service General Manager (Fig- ure 5). The rail maintenance functions are separated into an LRV maintenance group and an MOW maintenance group. Rail station maintenance is managed out of UTA’s Support Manager. The position manages the operating aspects of rev- enues as well as the maintenance of fare equipment. Under the Maintenance Supervisor there are 13 revenue maintain- ers responsible for maintaining and repairing the system’s 119 TVMs. Stores Management Every maintenance department must have some place to store and retrieve parts needed in the repair of the system’s rolling stock and fixed facilities. San Diego’s stores group is under the Vice-President of Administration, although it is housed in the yards and shops complex. The Stores Manager oversees eight storekeepers. Manpower Ratios Table 5 summarizes the maintenance staff of San Diego Trolley by functional area. There are 240 total FTEs. This is 2.5 (vehicle and nonvehicle) maintenance employees per track-mile, 2.9 employees per VOMS, or 3.2 employees per 100,000 revenue car-miles. Of the 240, 38% are involved in the maintenance of the LRVs, 7% are involved with fare equipment maintenance, and 4% with stores management. Of the remaining employees, 23% maintain the wayside, 23% the stations, and 3% other fixed facilities. Table 6 tabulates the productivity indices of SDTI’s main- tenance staff. The first row arrays the ratio of management staff to labor (nonclerical) staff. It shows a range of between 5.2 and 8.9. The overall average is 5.9. For the main areas of vehicle and wayside maintenance the range is between 7 and 8. The next rows calculate the number of employees needed to maintain a unit of the system, be it a vehicle, a mile of trackway, or a fare vending machine. Maintenance of Way Category To ta l LR V M ai nt en an ce A dm in ist ra tio n Tr ac k M ai nt en an ce Tr ac tio n P ow er an d Ca te na ry M ai nt en an ce Si gn al s an d Co m m u n . M ai nt en an ce St at io n M ai nt en an ce Fa ci lit ie s M ai nt en an ce Fa re C o lle ct io n Eq u ip m en t M ai nt en an ce St or es M an ag em en t Managers 29.5 10 3 2 2 2 5.5 1.5 2.5 1 Labor 205 80 0 14 15 16 49 10 13 8 Clerical 5.5 2 2 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 Total 240 92 5 16 17 18 55 12 16 9 TABLE 5 SAN DIEGO TROLLEY’S LRT MAINTENANCE STAFF (FTEs)

17 Services Business Unit under the Manager of Facilities Main- tenance. This position is responsible for maintaining all of UTA’s facilities (except for the rail yards and shops), includ- ing rail stations and bus stops. There are two levels of management, a minimal number of maintenance worker classifications, and no clerical staff. UTA’s structure does not have an assistant superintendent level of management. LRV Maintenance In its first 5 years the LRT fleet increased from 10 vehicles to 46. To keep up with this growth the LRV maintenance unit has had to increase its staff accordingly. The training of the staff is done through courses at local community colleges, in- house classes, on-the-job training, and training by equipment vendors. Electromechanics must pass tests that demonstrate their proficiency. LRV maintainers are encouraged to work in diverse areas and typically do. Some workers gravitate to a particular specialty. Positions are usually filled internally, typically from the rail services employees. Were it not for the growth of the fleet, there would not be many job openings: only one electro- mechanic has left in 5 years. Fully 67% of LRV maintenance employees have a perfect attendance record, and only 1% to 2% is absent more that a few times a year. The FMLA has not had any effect. UTA’s rail fleet is 46 vehicles, of which 39 are typically needed during peak periods. UTA operated 2,355,000 revenue vehicle-miles in 2004. MOW Maintenance Two groups are on the organization chart—MOW and facilities—but in practice there are three: track, line, and facilities maintenance. Each unit has two related job classifi- cations. In track maintenance there are the Rail Maintenance Supervisor and Rail Maintenance Workers (six positions). In facilities maintenance there are the Facilities Maintenance Manager and the Class A Mechanics (three positions). Maintenance of Way Productivity Index (employees = managers + labor + clerical) U ni ts In vo lv ed LR V M ai nt en an ce A dm in ist ra tio n Tr ac k M ai nt en an ce Tr ac tio n Po w er a n d Ca te na ry M ai nt en an ce Si gn al s an d Co m m u n ic at io n M ai nt en an ce St at io n M ai nt en an ce Fa ci lit ie s M ai nt en an ce Fa re C o lle ct io n Eq u ip m en t M ai nt en an ce St or es M an ag em en t Workers per Manager N/A 8 N/A 7 7.5 8 8.9 6.7 5.2 8 Employees per LRV (peak) 83 1.11 0.11 Employees per LRV (fleet) 123 0.75 0.07 Employees per Track-Mile 96.6 0.05 0.17 0.18 0.19 Employees per Station 49 1.12 Employees per Maintenance Facility 2 6.00 Employees per TVM 119 0.13 Notes: N/A = not available; TVM = ticket vending machine. TABLE 6 SAN DIEGO TROLLEY’S STAFF PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS Maintenance Area Percent of Total Costs LRV Maintenance Track Maintenance Traction Power Maintenance Signals and Communication Maintenance Station Maintenance Facilities Maintenance Fare Equipment Maintenance 14.1 16.6 3.3 9.8 14.4 13.4 3.8 TABLE 7 SAN DIEGO’S OUTSIDE CONTRACTING COSTS TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE COSTS

For line maintenance there is the MOW Supervisor (3 posi- tions) and the Line and Signal Technician (15 positions). These 18 people maintain and repair substations, overhead catenary, signals, grade-crossing gates, and TVMs. Each supervisor and technician is expected to work on any of these and does. An estimate of the percentage of time the three supervisors spend on these areas is 10% on substations, 20% on TVMs, and 70% on signals and crossing gates. The tech- nicians divide their time a little differently. There is now a program to replace all catenary hangers and two technicians have been assigned that work. Another 1.3 FTEs maintain the substations, which require little attention. The remaining 11.7 FTEs spend 75% of their time on the signal system and 25% on TVM repairs. To work on the signal system a technician has to complete two levels of Union Pacific’s signal school and have a period of on-the-job training. It is believed that costs are low because the system was designed and built with good drainage and track structure (130-lb rail with concrete ties), the staff tries to get ahead of any problems (such as with the hanger replacement pro- gram), and the system is relatively new. Weather is not seen as a major maintenance factor. As with LRV maintenance, staff turnover is low: in 5 years only one line technician and one supervisor have left. The system operates more than 38.9 track-miles and has 65 grade crossings. It has one yard and shop complex and 62 TVMs. 18 Station Maintenance Station maintenance is done by the Support Services Business Unit by a group of employees who maintain all bus garages and other UTA facilities, bus stops, and rail stations. (The MOW workers also do light maintenance at stations, such as touch-up painting and changing light bulbs.) The manager in charge estimates that station maintenance takes 1.65 manage- ment FTEs and 4 labor FTEs. The station maintenance crews are supported by the outside contracts described here. UTA has no clerical staff assigned to any maintenance functions. An office coordinator assigned to the Rail Service General Manager spends approximately 10% of that posi- tion’s time doing data entry; however, the remainder of the data is entered by the supervisors or technicians themselves. This results in only valuable data being kept; those data are useable and to the point. Manpower Ratios Table 8 arrays UTA’s rail maintenance staff by function. The total number of rail maintenance staff is 86.7 FTEs, for an average of 2.23 employees per track-mile, 2.9 employees per VOMS, or 3.7 employees per 100,000 revenue vehicle-miles. Fifty-three percent of the staff works in LRV maintenance, 26% in MOW (track, power, signals) maintenance, approxi- = Management; = Labor; = Clerical; - - - - - - - = Non-Maintenance Positions. Manager of Vehicle Maintenance Manager of Maintenance of Way Vehicle Maint. Supervisor (5) Electromechanics (25) Rail Service Employees (14) Journeyist Parts Supervisor Class A Mechanics (3) MOW Supervisors (4) Line & Signal Technicians (15) Facilities Supervisor Rail Maintenance Workers (6) Rail Service General Manager Tech. Services Supervisor Manager of Operations Executive Asst. Parts Clerk (4) Office Coord. Project Admin. Buyer Support Services General Manager Manager of Facilities Maintenance Maintainer (4) FIGURE 5 Salt Lake City UTA’s structure of LRT maintenance organization.

19 mately 7% in station maintenance, with the rest in facilities and TVM maintenance and stores management. Table 9 calculates the system maintenance productivity factors. Overall there is one management employee for every 4.9 maintainers. Outside Contracting UTA contracts out a substantial amount of station maintenance work, as indicated in Table 10. The county of Salt Lake, through an interagency agreement, performs periodic sweep- ing of parking lots, snow removal at parking lots, landscaping Maintenance of Way Category To ta l LR V M ai nt en an ce A dm in ist ra tio n Tr ac k M ai nt en an ce Tr ac tio n P ow er an d Ca te na ry M ai nt en an ce Si gn al s an d Co m m u n . M ai nt en an ce Fa ci lit ie s M ai nt en an ce Fa re C o lle ct io n Eq ui pm en t M ai nt en an ce St at io n M ai nt en an ce St or es M an ag em en t Managers 14.7 6 1 1 6 0 0.3 0 2. 0 1 1 0.6 1.7 1 0 4Labor 72 40 0 3.3 8.8 3 2.9 4 Clerical 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 86.7 46 1 7 3.6 10.9 4 3.5 5.7 5 TABLE 8 SALT LAKE CITY’S LRT MAINTENANCE STAFF (FTEs) Maintenance of Way Productivity Index (employees = managers + labor + clerical) U ni ts In vo lv ed LR V M ai nt en an ce A dm in ist ra tio n Tr ac k M ai nt en an ce Tr ac tio n P ow er an d Ca te na ry M ai nt en an ce Si gn al s an d Co m m u n ic at io n M ai nt en an ce Fa ci lit ie s M ai nt en an ce Fa re C o lle ct io n Eq u ip m en t M ai nt en an ce St at io n M ai nt en an ce St or es M an ag em en t Workers per Manager N/A 6.7 N/A 6 11 4.2 3 4.8 2.4 4 Employees per LRV (peak) 39 1.18 0.11 Employees per LRV (fleet) 46 1.00 0.07 Employees per Track-Mile 38.9 0.03 0.18 0.09 0.28 Employees per Station 23 0.25 Employees per Maintenance Facility 1 4.00 Employees per TVM 62 0.06 Notes: N/A = not available; TVM = ticket vending machine. TABLE 9 SALT LAKE CITY’S STAFF PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS

maintenance, and asphalt repairs. The contract is for $300,000 per year. Station glass and vandalism repairs are done through an outside contract; approximately $100,000 was spent on these repairs in 2004. A private contractor also provides sta- tion cleaning services through a $75,000 per year contract, and other outside contractors perform another $25,000 per year on station repairs that are beyond the abilities of the UTA’s crews to handle. The LRV maintenance area has no outsourced repair work to speak of, and the MOW area con- tracts out functions such as track inspection, geometry car ser- vices, and weed control. 20 TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON This system was inaugurated in 1986 and has expanded to its present 3-line, 62-station, 82-mi network. TriMet’s organization structure has all rail maintenance functions under a Director, Rail Maintenance (Figure 6). There are four basic groups under this position: LRV main- tenance (done at two facilities), MOW maintenance, main- tenance administration, and stores management. Although TriMet allocates the expenses of the director and his sup- port administrative staff to both LRV and MOW mainte- nance, for this study that unit will be kept separate. The dis- cussion that follows is based on FY2004 staff and actual year-end expenditures. LRV Maintenance Portland has had three generations of LRVs. It established its own vehicle engineering group to manage vehicle upgrades. This group is considered to be a very necessary unit to address vehicle design and overhaul issues and to help train LRV mechanics. TriMet started with a single yard and shop complex (Ruby Junction) in 1986, but added a second, smaller yard and shop Maintenance Area Percent of Total Costs LRV Maintenance Track Maintenance Traction Power Maintenance Signals and Commun. Maintenance Facilities Maintenance Fare Equipment Maintenance Station Maintenance 0.1% 4.1% about 50% TABLE 10 SALT LAKE CITY’S OUTSIDE MAINTENANCE COSTS TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE COSTS = Management; = Labor; = Clerical. Manager MOW Maint. Manager LRV Maintenance (Elmonica) MOW Supervisors (8) Training Supervisor (2) Asst. Supervisors (12) Signal Journey./Appr. (9) Substation Journey./Appr. (6) OCS Journey./Appr. (11) Comm. Tech./Asst. (5) TVM Journey./Appr. (11) Track Maintainers (8) MOW Laborers (9) Plant Mech. (10) Station Cleaners (20) Landscapers (6) LRV Training/Engr. Supervisors (4) Engineering Tech. Asst. Supervisor (3) Journey./Appr. (63) LRV Cleaners (13) Helper/Janitors (3) Non-Rev. Mech. (2) LRV Maint. Supervisor (4) LRV Maint. Supervisor (4) Maintenance Spec./Asst. (4) Asst. Storekeeper Maint. Systems Analyst Director Rail Maintenance MOW Engrs. (2) Fare Equip. Engr. (1) Manager MOW Programs Manager LRV Maintenance (Ruby Junction) Admin. Manager (RJ & Elm.) Coordinator Emp. Programs Clerk–MMIS (2) Asst. Super. (3) Journey./Appr. (23) LRV Cleaners (10) Helper/Janitors (2) Clerk–MMIS (2) Storekeeper Partsman (2) Jr. Partsman (2) FIGURE 6 Portland TriMet’s structure of LRT maintenance organization. (Some job titles have been modified for clarity.) MMIS = maintenance management information system.

21 facility on the opposite side of downtown (Elmonica) when it extended its Blue Line to the Hillsboro area. The main facility remains at Ruby Junction, where all major LRV repair work is done. TriMet has one job classification for LRV maintainers: LRV Maintenance Technician. There are two levels involved, an apprentice and a journeyman. A journeyman can work alone and sign off on inspections. Both the apprentice and journeyman can work on any aspect of LRV maintenance and repair within the limits of his or her experience and train- ing. To make sure there will be enough trained LRV jour- neymen available when needed, LRV maintenance managers start a group of prequalified candidates on a 30-month train- ing program every year or so. These groups have included from 10 to 19 students. Experience shows that 30% of the students do not complete the program. In the 7 years since 1998, 37 journeymen and apprentices have left the agency (an average of 7% each year) and 54 apprentices have been trained in 6 groups (76 started the training). This training– replacement cycle has kept a pool of well-trained apprentices available for advancement. Early on, TriMet LRV maintenance contracted out a lot more of its maintenance, but now contracts an ever-decreasing amount owing to union requests and a desire for better qual- ity control. The LRV maintenance group currently has 119 LRV maintenance technicians, 15 management positions, and 2 clerks. TriMet does its own LRV cleaning in-house and has a staff of 23 for this function. It has a fleet of 95 vehicles, of which 83 are used during peak service. TriMet operated 6,775,000 revenue vehicle-miles in 2004. MOW Maintenance As seen in Figure 6, all MOW maintenance personnel report to a single Manager, MOW Maintenance. Under this manager are eight MOW supervisors, one each for track/ laborers, substations, overhead catenary, signals, communi- cations, cleaners/landscapers, facilities, and fare equipment. Under them are 12 assistant supervisors: two each for track, substations, overhead catenary, and cleaners/landscapers; one each for signals, communication, facilities, and fare equip- ment. These eight functional groups are supported by an engi- neering and training staff of five. The entire MOW group has 98 MOW maintainers, 14 management staff, and 3 clerical staff. The system has 88.6 track-miles, with 62 stations and 2 yards and shops facilities. It is clear that TriMet emphasizes training. As with the LRV maintenance group, the MOW maintenance group has its own training staff. There are five functional areas that require dif- ferent applicant prerequisites: traction power substation main- tainers, overhead traction electrification maintainers, rail communication system technician, signal maintainer, track maintenance technician, and fare equipment/LRT lift techni- cian. As with LRV maintainers, the advancement path is apprentice to journeyman, although advancement is typically within one’s selected function. Although Portland’s climate has a fair amount of annual precipitation, it is spread out over the year and weather is not seen as a maintenance problem. The two MOW problems noted were downtown curb rail, especially in the fall with leaves, and overhead catenary section insulators. Stores Management The Storekeeper reports directly to the Director of Rail Main- tenance, but is physically located at the Ruby Junction yard. There are two assistant storekeepers and four partsmen in this group. The reason for the two assistants reflects the need to service the two yards. Manpower Ratios Table 11 summarizes TriMet’s maintenance staffing by func- tion. The entire LRT maintenance staff equals 279 FTEs. This is 3.4 maintenance employees (vehicle and nonvehicle) per track-mile, 4.8 employees per VOMS, or 4.9 employees per 100,000 revenue car-miles. Of the 279 FTEs, 40 are manage- ment, 5 are clerical, and 234 are maintainers; this is an over- all maintainer-to-manager ratio of 5.9. Forty-nine percent are involved in LRV maintenance, 25% in MOW maintenance, 13% in station maintenance, and 3% in facilities maintenance. Overall division management (3%), fare equipment (5%), and stores management (2%) make up the remaining 10%. Table 12 calculates TriMet’s maintenance productivity indicators. There is one management position for every eight LRV maintainers. For MOW, the ratio of management posi- tions to MOW maintainers ranges from 8 to 34. One would expect there to be more management presence in the signal and communications area because of its critical importance and technical nature, and perhaps the opposite explains the high ratio for station maintenance. Contracting Out Maintenance Tasks Portland undertakes a limited amount of contracting out in the area of LRV maintenance except for the laundry services contract. Table 13 shows what percent of nonutility costs were contracted out in FY2004 as a percentage of total costs (wage and nonwage) for each maintenance functional area. Of note is the percentage of signal and communications maintenance and repair that was contracted out. The next highest percent was for track maintenance, and those contracts involved rail grinding (37%), rail maintenance (39%), equipment rental (14%), and bridge repair (10%). Elevator repair constituted 58% of outside contracts in station maintenance, and almost all the outside contracts in the facilities maintenance area were

for building repairs. In all, 4.6% of the maintenance expendi- tures were for outside services. GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RTA is a multimodal (bus, rapid transit, light rail, and Com- munity Response Transit) system that has served the city of 22 Cleveland and all other cities in Cayahoga County since 1975. The light rail network operates over 30 mi; the rapid transit lines over 38 mi. The light rail line was opened originally in 1920 and was substantially rebuilt in the mid-1980s. Major rail track rehabilitation is currently underway. It is one of the country’s oldest, continuously operating light rail systems. RTA is unique in the light rail industry in that the light rail and rapid transit systems are both maintained by the same Maintenance of Way Category To ta l M ai nt en an ce A dm in ist ra tio n LR V M ai nt en an ce A dm in ist ra tio n Tr ac k M ai nt en an ce Tr ac tio n P ow er an d Ca te na ry M ai nt en an ce Si gn al s an d Co m m u n ic at io n M ai nt en an ce St at io n M ai nt en an ce Fa ci lit ie s M ai nt en an ce Fa re C o lle ct io n/ LR T Li ft Eq ui pm en t M ai nt en an ce St or es M an ag em en t Managers 8 15 7 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 Labor 0 119 0 19 21 16 34 8 12 5 Clerical 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 279 234 40 5 8 136 10 20 23 18 35 9 14 6 TABLE 11 PORTLAND’S LRT MAINTENANCE STAFF (FTEs) Maintenance of Way Productivity Index (employees = managers + labor + clerical) U ni ts In vo lv ed LR V M ai nt en an ce A dm in ist ra tio n Tr ac k M ai nt en an ce Tr ac tio n P ow er an d Ca te na ry M ai nt en an ce Si gn al s an d Co m m u n ic at io n M ai nt en an ce St at io n M ai nt en an ce Fa ci lit ie s M ai nt en an ce Fa re C o lle ct io n/ LR T Li ft Eq ui pm en t M ai nt en an ce St or es M an ag em en t Workers per Manager N/A 8 N/A 19 10.5 8 34 8 6 5 Employees per LRV (peak) 83 1.64 0.07 Employees per LRV (fleet) 95 1.43 0.06 Employees per Track-Mile 88.6 0.11 0.23 0.26 0.20 Employees per Station 62 0.56 Employees per Maintenance Facility 2 4.50 Employees per TVM 183 0.08 Notes: N/A = not available; TVM = ticket vending machines. TABLE 12 PORTLAND’S STAFF PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS

23 staff, and both types of railcars are maintained in the same yard and shops. Until 1984 there were three shops (two for rapid transit and one for LRT); however, expectations of effi- ciencies owing to centralization and a capitally funded mod- ernization program resulted in the three shops being com- bined into one new shop. The shop’s major function is being a running repair facility for rapid transit and light rail cars with a small amount of heavy repair and overhaul work being performed as staffing, budget, and time permit. The RTA system runs mostly single-car trains in peak as well as base service, and runs some two-car trains in the peak periods owing to ridership requirements. Of the 48 LRVs pur- chased when the light rail line was rehabilitated, 16 are used during peak service; of the 60 rapid transit cars available, 22 are used during peak service. The eight football games and about three special events each year at the Cleveland Browns Stadium require approximately 32 LRVs to handle the crowds. The result of this fleet size versus peak period needs is that one-third of the fleet is stored for a month at a time, and then another one- third replaces them the next month. This is called “inventory rotation” by RTA staff. Through inventory rotation all the rail- cars are maintained to be able to function acceptably and safely. Cleveland operated 954,000 revenue vehicle-miles in 2004. The organizational structure of the RTA’s Rail District has all operating and maintenance functions under a District Director. There are four managers under this director over- seeing transportation, rail equipment maintenance, power and way maintenance, and facilities maintenance, as shown in Fig- ure 7. The responsibilities of the maintenance managers are typical for LRT systems, except that they include both LRV and rapid transit cars. The functional manager estimated that 60% of his employ- ees worked on LRT maintenance and the remaining 40% on rapid transit. Maintenance Area Percent of Total Costs LRV Maintenance Track Maintenance Traction Power Maintenance Signals and Communication Maintenance Station Maintenance Facilities Maintenance Fare Equipment Maintenance 0.07 18.4 4.2 20.6 7.0 7.8 0 TABLE 13 PORTLAND TRIMET’S OUTSIDE CONTRACTING COSTS TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE COSTS Management = ; Labor = ; Clerical = -------- = Non-Maintenance Positions. Manager Facilities Manager Power and Way Supervisor Rail Stations (2) Asst. Supervisor Maint. (1) Janitor Leader (3) Janitor (30) Supervisor Power Asst. Supervisor (2) Maintainer (7) Laborer (22) Sp. Eq. Mech. Ldr. (1) Sp. Eq. Mech. (2) Supervisor Track Load Dispatcher (4) Rail Shop Supervisor (2) Asst. (1) Secr. (1) (Rail) District Director Supervisor Janitorial Services Manager Transportation Supervisor Overhead Manager Rail Equipment Assistant Supervisor (5) Stenographer (1) Ld. Maintainer (1) Maintainer (17) Clerk/Typist (1) Adminr. Handler (2) Maintenance Leader (3) Maintenance Technician (7) Maintainer (8) Maintenance Helper (4) Supervisor Signals Lead Tech. (3) Technician (8) Maint. Tech. (12) Maintainer (4) Laborer (10) Supervisor Lines (2) Maintainer (13) Maint. Planner Maint. Planner Electronics Tech. (3) Motor Repr. Ldr. (1) Machinist (1) Mechanic (4) Body Mechanic (8) A/C Mechanic (4) Brake Mechanic (2) Electrician (7) Maintainer (32) Servicer (15) Upholsterer (1) Laborer (1) Material Handler Leader FIGURE 7 Cleveland RTA’s structure of rail maintenance organization (light rail and rapid transit).

LRV Maintenance Owing to budget constraints, over the last 10 years the num- ber of LRV and rapid transit maintenance positions has dropped from 115 to 86—from 104 to 86 in the last 3 years alone—and an additional 9 positions remain frozen and unfilled. Inventory rotation lessens somewhat the LRV main- tenance load. RTA has received federal funding to perform a mid-life overhaul of 34 of the LRVs. This project is primar- ily contracted out, with some work being performed by RTA maintenance staff. The contractor has begun to deliver rebuilt cars. Maintenance of the LRV fleet is a challenge owing to the fleet’s age, parts availability, escalation of costs, and avail- able staff to do this work, in addition to the required mainte- nance of the rapid transit fleet. The organization chart lists a number of specialized LRV maintenance positions; there are 14 job descriptions below the management levels in the LRV maintenance area. Labor agreements allow workers to shift between maintenance jobs as they advance. This increases efficiency and allows for a certain amount of cross-training. However, once a mainte- nance worker achieves the highest level, he/she is restricted from working out of position. For example, a worker can work primarily as an electrician for many years, but will also work, gain experience, and train in other areas as needed. However, if he or she applies for and is selected as a senior- level brake mechanic, from then on this individual cannot do an electrician’s tasks. Many of RTA’s LRV mechanics were hired in the 1970s and are close to having the 30 years of service required for full retirement. 24 Based on RTA’s experience with railcar maintenance, maintaining the LRV takes twice as much work as maintain- ing the rapid transit cars. Rail stores are also housed within the LRV maintenance group. The 2005 approved budgeted positions consist of four parts handlers, one leader and three clerks. MOW Maintenance The MOW department includes four main functional units— track, power, overhead, and signals and communications— headed by a manager with support staff. The employees in each of these functional units are specialists, and there are several job descriptions within each unit. There are three to five designated MOW positions reflecting the more formal levels of advancement. Most training is developed and pro- vided in-house by power and way staff as part of normal duties. The LRT train control and signal system is main- tained by the signal department. Current LRV train control consists of cab-signaled and computerized central train con- trol territory, automated braking system territory, dark (no signal) territory with some station protection signals, and dark territory. The MOW manager indicated that the percentage of time MOW staff worked on light rail could be fairly approximated by the track-miles of LRT to the total LRT and rapid transit track-miles. The LRT system has 33 track-miles, or 44% of RTA’s total track-miles. RTA has a crew of three charged with operating and maintaining special equipment and the nonrevenue vehicles used by the division. Note: N/A = not available. Maintenance of Way Category To ta l LR V M ai nt en an ce A dm in ist ra tio n Tr ac k M ai nt en an ce Tr ac tio n P ow er a n d Ca te na ry M ai nt en an ce Si gn al s an d Co m m u n ic at io n M ai nt en an ce St at io n M ai nt en an ce Fa ci lit ie s M ai nt en an ce Fa re C o lle ct io n/ LR T Li ft Eq ui pm en t M ai nt en an ce St or es M an ag em en t Managers 8.8 3.1 0.9 0.45 1.75 0.45 1.8 0.2 N/A 0.1 Labor 127 51.2 0.4 15 13.6 16.3 22 6.5 N/A 2 Clerical 1.8 1.3 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.1 N/A 0 Total 137.6 55.6 1.3 15.4 15.4 16.8 24.2 6.8 N/A 2.1 TABLE 14 CLEVELAND’S LRT MAINTENANCE STAFF (FTEs)

25 Notes: N/A = not available; TVM = ticket vending machine. *These functional areas have less than one manager FTE overseeing the maintainers. This results in manager-to-employee ratios greater than the number of employees performing the work. Maintenance of Way Productivity Index (employees = managers + labor + clerical) U ni ts In vo lv ed LR V M ai nt en an ce A dm in ist ra tio n Tr ac k M ai nt en an ce Tr ac tio n Po w er a n d Ca te na ry M ai nt en an ce Si gn al s an d Co m m u n ic at io n M ai nt en an ce St at io n M ai nt en an ce Fa ci lit ie s M ai nt en an ce Fa re C o lle ct io n/ LR T Li ft Eq ui pm en t M ai nt en an ce St or es M an ag em en t Workers per Manager N/A 17.9 N/A 30.2* 8.8 36.2* 12.2 32.5* N/A 20* Employees per LRV (peak) 16 3.48 0.13 Employees per LRV (fleet) 48 1.16 0.04 Employees per Track-Mile 33.0 0.40 0.47 0.47 0.51 Employees per Station 39 0.62 Employees per Maintenance Facility 1 6.80 Employees per TVM 13 N/A TABLE 15 CLEVELAND’S STAFF PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS Sa n D ie go Sa lt La ke C ity Po rtl an d (O reg on ) Cl ev el an d Total Maintenance Employees 240 87 279 138 Employees per VOMS 2.9 2.9 4.8 9.2 Employees per 100,000 Revenue Vehicle-Miles 3.2 3.7 4.9 14.7 Employees per Track-Mile 2.5 2.23 3.4 4.2 Percent of Staff in: LRV maintenance 38% 53% 49% 40% Maintenance of way 23% 25% 25% 36% Station maintenance 23% 7% 13% 17% Facilities maintenance 5% 5% 3% 5% TVM maintenance 7% 4% 5% N/A Stores management 4% 6% 2% 2% Overall maintenance administration 0% 0% 3% 0% Notes: N/A = not available; VOMS = vehicle operated in maximum service; TVM = ticket vending machine. TABLE 16 TOTAL MAINTENANCE STAFF STATISTICS FOR CASE STUDY CITIES Station and Facilities Maintenance These functions are both managed by the Manager, Facili- ties. Under him are two supervisors for stations and facilities, and a supervisor for janitorial services. The manager esti- mates that approximately 80% of staff time is allocated to station cleaning and maintenance, 20% to the maintenance of the yards and shops. These crews spend 50% of their time on LRT and 50% on rapid transit stations. RTA has 34 light rail stations and one rail maintenance facility. Fare Equipment Maintenance RTA collects fares on its light rail system using the train operator and a farebox. Outbound it collects fares on enter- ing; inbound it collects fares on exiting. There are 13 TVMs, which are all at rapid transit stations. For this reason, the summary of staff that follows indicates “not applicable” in the fare equipment column. Manpower Ratios Table 14 summarizes RTA’s maintenance staff by functional area. There are approximately 137.6 FTEs performing light rail maintenance. This is 4.2 total maintenance employees per track-mile, 9.2 employees per VOMS, or 14.7 employees per 100,000 revenue car-miles. Of that number, 8.8 FTEs are

26 System M ai nt en an ce E m pl oy ee s pe r Tr ac k- M ile M ai nt en an ce E m pl oy ee s pe r V O M S M ai nt en an ce E m pl oy ee s pe r 10 0, 00 0 Re v en u e Ca r- M ile s Si m pl ic ity o f O rg an iz at io na l St ru ct ur e N um be r o f M ai nt en an ce Po sit io ns in O rg an iz at io n Salt Lake City 2.2 2.9 3.7 Simple 16 San Diego 2.3 3.4 4.2 2.9 3.2 Simple 23 Portland 4.8 4.9 Moderate 37 Cleveland 9.2 14.7 Moderately complex 53 Note: VOMS = vehicle operated in maximum service. TABLE 17 COMPARISON OF MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES WITH ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND JOB POSITIONS Notes: When the number of manager FTEs assigned is less than one, the number of maintainers shown will be greater than the actual number. N/A = not available. *Buffalo’s survey response indicated no manager position for this function. LRT System LR V M ai nt en an ce Tr ac k M ai nt en an ce Tr ac tio n P ow er a n d O ve rh ea d M ai nt en an ce Si gn al an d Co m m u n ic at io n M ai nt en an ce St at io n M ai nt en an ce Fa ci lit ie s M ai nt en an ce Fa re C o lle ct io n Eq u ip m en t M ai nt en an ce St or es M an ag em en t Case Study Cities Cleveland’s RTA 17.9 30.2 8.8 36.2 12.2 32.5 N/A 20 Portland’s TriMet 8 19 10.5 8 34 8 6 5 Salt Lake City’s UTA 6.7 6 11 4.2 2.4 3 4.8 4 San Diego’s SDTI 8 7 7.5 8 8.9 6.7 5.2 8 Other Cities Buffalo’s NFTA 6.25 4 6.5 20 24 24 * — Dallas’ DART 5.7 3.5 6.1 2.6 3.1 1.25 5.9 — Philadelphia’s SEPTA 8.4 6 5 2.5 8 4 5 — Possible Common Range 6–8 5–7 6–10 4–8 8–12 4–8 5–6 4–7 TABLE 18 MAINTAINER-TO-MANAGER RATIOS OF SOME LRT SYSTEMS

27 Table 15 calculates RTA’s maintenance productivity indi- cators. The number of peak period LRVs increases the num- ber of employees per vehicle ratio; the number of total rail- cars makes this corresponding ratio low. Contracting Out Maintenance Tasks For several reasons, the number of outsourced contracts for parts of LRT maintenance could not be calculated for the RTA. Before this year, RTA did not keep separate line item accounts for LRT and rapid transit maintenance expenditures. SUMMARY OF CASE STUDIES This section of the report compares the case study cities. It introduces similar data from Buffalo’s Niagara Frontier Tran- sit Authority (NFTA), the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Author- ity (DART), and Philadelphia’s Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA) that became available (see Appen- dix C). The summary tables include a “common range” that new and existing systems may use when considering mainte- nance staff issues. The common ranges are not numerical aver- ages of the data displayed, but are suggestions based on the systems reviewed. Table 16 arrays some basic maintenance staffing statis- tics of the four case study cities. Its top section indicates the total number of maintenance employees (management, main- tainers, and clerks) per unit of measure. The lower portion shows the percentage of total maintenance staff involved in each functional area. All systems have the largest percent- age of their staffs in rail vehicle maintenance. Except for Cleveland, the systems have one-quarter of their staffs in the MOW (MOW administration, track, power, and signals). Cleveland’s percentage may be higher because of its cli- mate. The widest range is in station maintenance (7% to 23% of staff), most probably related to the amount of sta- tion maintenance done through contracts. Salt Lake City, for example, does a lot of its station maintenance through the county’s public works department. Portland’s organiza- tional structure is the only one that has staff doing overall administration for the rail maintenance department. It con- sumes 3% of its staff and another 3% for MOW adminis- tration. The other systems have administrative positions for their MOW maintenance units and in two cases for their management, 127 are maintainers, and 1.8 are clerical for an overall maintainer-to-manager ratio of 14.4. Of the 138 total FTEs, 41% perform LRV maintenance, 58% are in MOW maintenance, and the remaining 1+% are MOW management or stores management. Productivity Indicator (employees = managers + labor + clerical) LR V M ai nt en an ce E m pl oy ee s pe r P ea k LR V LR V M ai nt en an ce E m pl oy ee s pe r F le et L RV M O W A dm in ist ra tiv e St af f pe r T ra ck -M ile Tr ac k M ai nt en an ce E m pl oy ee s pe r T ra ck -M ile TP a nd O CS M ai nt en an ce Em pl oy ee s p er T ra ck -M ile S & C M ai nt en an ce E m pl oy ee s pe r T ra ck -M ile St at io n M ai nt en an ce Em pl oy ee s pe r S ta tio n Fa ci lit ie s M ai nt en an ce Em pl oy ee s p er Y ar d TV M M ai nt en an ce E m pl oy ee s pe r T V M St or es St af f p er F le et L RV Case Study Cities Cleveland’s RTA 3.48 1.16 0.04 0.47 0.47 0.51 0.62 6.80 N/A 0.04 Portland’s TriMet 1.64 1.43 0.11 0.23 0.26 0.20 0.56 4.50 0.08 0.06 Salt Lake City’s UTA 1.18 1.00 0.03 0.18 0.09 0.28 0.25 4.00 0.06 0.07 San Diego’s SDTI 1.11 0.75 0.05 0.17 0.18 0.19 1.12 6.00 0.13 0.07 Other Cities Buffalo’s NFTA 1.26 1.07 0.32 0.40 1.21 1.69 1.56 0.12 — Dallas’ DART 1.37 1.21 0.03 0.38 0.39 0.52 0.95 7.18 0.17 — Philadelphia’s SEPTA 6.57 5.35 0.35 0.82 0.28 0.33 3.75 16.67 N/A — Possible Common Range 1.2–1.6 1.0–1.5 0.03–0.05 0.17–0.38 0.18–0.40 0.20–0.40 0.4–1.0 4–7 0.06–013 0.06–0.07 Notes: N/A = not available; TP = traction power; OCS = overhead catenary systems; S & C = signal and communications; TVM = ticket vending machine. TABLE 19 PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS OF SOME LRT SYSTEMS

28 LRV maintenance units as well, but no overall administra- tive staff positions. Table 17 compares the employees per unit of measure for each agency with the agencies’ organizational structures and the number of job classifications. The table was developed by looking at each system’s organization chart (see Figures 4–7). Salt Lake City’s organizational structure has two management levels. Salt Lake City also has few separately titled positions in its organization chart. San Diego, Portland, and Cleveland show increasing organizational complexity and number of maintenance positions. Table 18 compares the maintainer-to-manager ratios by maintenance function. All systems include in the manager cat- egory supervisors not represented by a bargaining unit. (In cases where an agency has less than one manager FTE in a maintenance function the resulting maintainer-to-manager ratio will indicate more maintainers than the system actually has.) Almost all the systems have maintainer-to-manager ratios of between six and eight for LRV maintenance. This ratio also seems fairly representative for MOW maintenance. Per- haps because station maintenance is a less skilled function, the station maintainer-to-manager ratios are slightly higher; that is, fewer supervisors direct more workers. The ratio drops back into the four-to-seven range for facilities maintenance, fare machine maintenance, and stores handling. Table 19 arrays the staff productivity indicators by case study agencies. Three other agencies (NFTA, DART, and SEPTA) provided staff data that are incorporated in the table. For LRV maintenance, two productivity indicators are shown: LRV maintainers per vehicle operated in maximum service and LRV maintainers per vehicle available. The sec- ond indicator is added because many systems have higher spare ratios that may unfairly skew their productivity indica- tors. The common range seems to be 1.2–1.6 maintainers per available railcar. The productivity indicators in the MOW area are stated in terms of employees per track-mile. There is, of course, no ideal number with which all properties can be compared; however, approximately 0.2 to 0.4 track maintainer, power (substation and overhead) maintainer, and signal (signal and communications) maintainer for every track-mile in the sys- tem appears to be a common scope. The clerk-to-maintainer ratios of the seven properties are shown in Table 20. The Salt Lake City system has none at all; supervisors and technicians at this agency enter their own data. A common number seems to be one clerk/secretary/ assistant for each 35 maintainers or less. System Maintainer-to-Clerk Ratio Cleveland’s RTA 80:1 Portland’s TriMet 47:1 Salt Lake City’s UTA 72:0* San Diego’s SDTI 37:1 Buffalo’s NFTA 18:1 Dallas’ DART 27:1 Philadelphia’s SEPTA 34:1 *Salt Lake City LRT system has no clerks. TABLE 20 MAINTAINER-TO-CLERK RATIOS OF SOME LRT SYSTEMS

Next: Chapter Five - Conclusions »
Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 61: Maintenance Staffing Levels for Light Rail Transit examines light rail maintenance staffing practices and factors important in their development at U.S. transit agencies. It covers the areas of maintenance functions, new light rail start-up, and management in attempting to give better insight into the variables affecting maintenance staffing.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!