Click for next page ( 28


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 27
27 TABLE 19 PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS OF SOME LRT SYSTEMS Station Maintenance Employees S & C Maintenance Employees Track Maintenance Employees TVM Maintenance Employees LRV Maintenance Employees LRV Maintenance Employees MOW Administrative Staff Employees per Track-Mile Stores Staff per Fleet LRV TP and OCS Maintenance Facilities Maintenance Employees per Yard per Track-Mile per Track-Mile per Track-Mile per Fleet LRV per Peak LRV per Station per TVM Productivity Indicator (employees = managers + labor + clerical) 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 1.21.6 1.01.5 0.030.05 0.170.38 0.180.40 0.200.40 0.41.0 47 0.06013 0.060.07 Notes: N/A = not available; TP = traction power; OCS = overhead catenary systems; S & C = signal and communications; TVM = ticket vending machine. management, 127 are maintainers, and 1.8 are clerical for an dix C). The summary tables include a "common range" that overall maintainer-to-manager ratio of 14.4. Of the 138 total new and existing systems may use when considering mainte- FTEs, 41% perform LRV maintenance, 58% are in MOW nance staff issues. The common ranges are not numerical aver- maintenance, and the remaining 1+% are MOW management ages of the data displayed, but are suggestions based on the or stores management. systems reviewed. Table 15 calculates RTA's maintenance productivity indi- Table 16 arrays some basic maintenance staffing statis- cators. The number of peak period LRVs increases the num- tics of the four case study cities. Its top section indicates the ber of employees per vehicle ratio; the number of total rail- total number of maintenance employees (management, main- cars makes this corresponding ratio low. 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- Contracting Out Maintenance Tasks age of their staffs in rail vehicle maintenance. Except for Cleveland, the systems have one-quarter of their staffs in For several reasons, the number of outsourced contracts for the MOW (MOW administration, track, power, and signals). parts of LRT maintenance could not be calculated for the Cleveland's percentage may be higher because of its cli- RTA. Before this year, RTA did not keep separate line item mate. The widest range is in station maintenance (7% to accounts for LRT and rapid transit maintenance expenditures. 23% of staff), most probably related to the amount of sta- tion maintenance done through contracts. Salt Lake City, SUMMARY OF CASE STUDIES for example, does a lot of its station maintenance through the county's public works department. Portland's organiza- This section of the report compares the case study cities. It tional structure is the only one that has staff doing overall introduces similar data from Buffalo's Niagara Frontier Tran- administration for the rail maintenance department. It con- sit Authority (NFTA), the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Author- sumes 3% of its staff and another 3% for MOW adminis- ity (DART), and Philadelphia's Southeastern Pennsylvania tration. The other systems have administrative positions for Transit Authority (SEPTA) that became available (see Appen- their MOW maintenance units and in two cases for their

OCR for page 27
28 TABLE 20 maintenance function the resulting maintainer-to-manager ratio MAINTAINER-TO-CLERK RATIOS will indicate more maintainers than the system actually has.) OF SOME LRT SYSTEMS Maintainer-to-Clerk Almost all the systems have maintainer-to-manager ratios System Ratio of between six and eight for LRV maintenance. This ratio Cleveland's RTA 80:1 also seems fairly representative for MOW maintenance. Per- Portland's TriMet 47:1 haps because station maintenance is a less skilled function, Salt Lake City's UTA 72:0* the station maintainer-to-manager ratios are slightly higher; that is, fewer supervisors direct more workers. The ratio drops San Diego's SDTI 37:1 back into the four-to-seven range for facilities maintenance, Buffalo's NFTA 18:1 fare machine maintenance, and stores handling. Dallas' DART 27:1 Table 19 arrays the staff productivity indicators by case Philadelphia's SEPTA 34:1 study agencies. Three other agencies (NFTA, DART, and SEPTA) provided staff data that are incorporated in the table. *Salt Lake City LRT system has no clerks. For LRV maintenance, two productivity indicators are shown: LRV maintainers per vehicle operated in maximum service and LRV maintainers per vehicle available. The sec- LRV maintenance units as well, but no overall administra- ond indicator is added because many systems have higher tive staff positions. spare ratios that may unfairly skew their productivity indica- tors. The common range seems to be 1.21.6 maintainers per Table 17 compares the employees per unit of measure for available railcar. each agency with the agencies' organizational structures and the number of job classifications. The table was developed by The productivity indicators in the MOW area are stated in looking at each system's organization chart (see Figures 47). terms of employees per track-mile. There is, of course, no Salt Lake City's organizational structure has two management ideal number with which all properties can be compared; levels. Salt Lake City also has few separately titled positions however, approximately 0.2 to 0.4 track maintainer, power in its organization chart. San Diego, Portland, and Cleveland (substation and overhead) maintainer, and signal (signal and communications) maintainer for every track-mile in the sys- show increasing organizational complexity and number of tem appears to be a common scope. maintenance positions. The clerk-to-maintainer ratios of the seven properties are Table 18 compares the maintainer-to-manager ratios by shown in Table 20. The Salt Lake City system has none at maintenance function. All systems include in the manager cat- all; supervisors and technicians at this agency enter their own egory supervisors not represented by a bargaining unit. (In data. A common number seems to be one clerk/secretary/ cases where an agency has less than one manager FTE in a assistant for each 35 maintainers or less.