Click for next page ( 9


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 8
8 7000 25 Annual LRV Maintenance Task- Average Vehicle Age in Years 6000 Task-Hours Average Age 20 5000 4000 15 Hours 3000 10 2000 5 1000 0 0 City eland s ouis s nd h on ia er nto ra lo o ore cisco Dalla ngele burg Dieg delph B u ffa Denv a Cla Portla Bost ame Baltim St. L Lake Fran Clev Pitts San Los A Phila Sant Sacr Salt San System FIGURE 1 Annual LRV maintenance task-hours by average age of vehicle. Table 3 shows information on each light rail system's sta- following illustrates the issue. A full-time worker is typically tions and maintenance facilities. Most light rail systems have paid for 2,080 h of work annually (52 weeks 40 h/week). at-grade stations. These stations, however, may be substan- How much of that time is really productive? Table 4 shows a tial, incorporating weather protection, raised platforms, simple analysis done in 1995 by Portland TriMet's vehicle closed circuit television (CCTV) and public address systems, maintenance department. The exact numbers will vary by ticket vending machines (TVMs), artwork, and large parking agency, and clearly some reduction in time (such as shift start- lots. The stations require ongoing cleaning and maintenance. TABLE 4 SEARCHING FOR PATTERNS TRIMET LABOR PRODUCTIVITY EXERCISE Description of Time Hours Factors noted in the previous section--and more--influence light rail system maintenance staffing. One would expect rela- Annual Pay Hours (straight time) 2,080 tionships between certain factors and LRV maintenance Lost Time Hours: efforts. For example, the average age of the LRV fleet should Vacation (2.5 week average = 100 h) (100) influence the amount of maintenance needed. The data, how- Holidays (6 days) (48) ever, do not suggest this, as can be seen in Figure 1. (Support- Floating holidays (3 days) (24) ing data are in Appendix A.) Nor could a relationship be found Birthday (1 day) (8) using such indicators as LRV maintenance task-hours ver- Absences (based on department's employee (104) sus revenue mechanical failures, maintenance task-hours per track-mile by climate type, and so forth. In short, enough fac- absentee rate of 5%) tors are apparently involved in each system's level of LRV Net After Lost Time Hours 1,796 maintenance that it is not possible to strongly link any one fac- Non-Task Hours: tor with any particular light rail maintenance effort. Moreover, Shift start-up and task assignments (15 min per shift) it is also not possible to perform a meaningful regression Coffee break (15 min) analysis given the limited sample. Again, outside influences Lunch break (45 min) that could affect maintenance effort might include budget con- Coffee break (15 min) straints, labor agreements, and organizational structure. Miscellaneous [e.g., bathroom (5 min)] Shift end, clean-up (15 min) PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS 110 min/shift x 230 shifts/yr x 1 h/60 min = 422 h (422) A major indicator of productivity is the number of annual task- Total Productive Hours per Year: 1,374 hours per employee. The fewer annual task-hours available, the more employees it will take to do the work required. The

OCR for page 8
Annual Task-Hours per VOMS Annual Task-Hours per Employee service. 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 San Baltim Dieg o ore St. L Dalla ouis s Clev Portla eland nd Salt Lake Buffa City lo Clev Denv eland er Buffa Baltim lo ore Denv Bost er on Sacr 2,080 hours ame Phila nto delph ia St. L ouis Dalla Phila s delph System ia System Sant a Cla Pitts ra burg Salt Lake h City Bost on Portla San nd Dieg o Pitts Sant burg a Cla h r a FIGURE 2 Annual LRV maintenance task-hours per employee. Los A San ngele Fran s cisco Sacr ame New nto ark San Los A Fran ngele cisco s FIGURE 3 Annual maintenance task-hours per vehicle operated in maximum 9

OCR for page 8
10 up meetings) could be considered productive. However, it have hours above 2,080, which may indicate a substantial is crucial to note how much productive time is reduced by amount of overtime per employee. The range is from 72% to various factors. Given the vacation, holiday, and sick time 107% of the 2,080-h baseline. The true range among LRT an employee receives each year, the maximum number of agencies of average annual task-hours per employee is prob- annual work hours per employee is approximately 1,900 ably narrower and most often toward the lower end. before overtime. Another productivity indicator is the annual number of task-hours needed to maintain one unit of product, in this Since the exercise in Table 4 was conducted, Congress case railcars. The number of annual task-hours to maintain passed the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which allows each LRV operated in maximum service (the peak period) as any employee to take additional time off for illness or family- reported in the NTD ranges from 1,230 to 4,650. Figure 3 related reasons. Ten additional FMLA days would lessen the shows LRT systems from least to most annual LRV mainte- 1,374 annual productive hours shown in Table 4 to approxi- nance task-hours per vehicle operated in maximum service mately 1,300. (VOMS) (see also Appendix A, Table A3). The broad range may result from a number of factors including vehicle design, The inevitable reduction of actual work time illustrated in maintenance budget, work rules, and available spare ratio. Table 4 makes it difficult to reconcile some of the "annual For example, the three agencies with the lowest task-hours maintenance hours per employee" figures reported in the per vehicle (San Diego, St. Louis, and Cleveland) also have NTD. The reported numbers are shown in Figure 2 for vehi- high spare ratios of 48%, 67%, and 320%, respectively. cle maintenance employees; reported annual maintenance- Cleveland has also had a budget problem that has affected its hours for nonvehicle maintenance employees are similar. ability to conduct as much maintenance as it wants. On the (Supporting data can be found in Appendix A, Table A2.) other hand, Sacramento and Salt Lake City have very tight The systems are listed by increasing number of average annual spare ratios. This may necessitate more maintenance on their task-hours per employee. A number of agencies report num- well-used fleets. The same broad range occurs for nonvehi- bers well in excess of 1,900 h, some exactly 2,080 h. A few cle maintenance.