Transit Asset Condition Reporting (2011)

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.

35 APPENDIX B Detail Summary of Survey Responses TABLE B1 DOES YOUR AGENCY POSSESS A COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF YOUR OPERATING INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS? TABLE B2 DOES YOUR AGENCY MAINTAIN THIS INVENTORY ON A PERIODIC BASIS? TABLE B3 WHAT IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF DATA FOR THIS ASSET INVENTORY DATA? TABLE B4 HOW DO YOU USE THIS INVENTORY? TABLE B5 ARE YOU WILLING TO ANSWER MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS ON HOW YOUR TRANSIT AGENCY TRACKS ITS ASSETS, ASSESSES THEIR CONDITION AND USES THE INFORMATION TO DEVELOP INVESTMENT STRATEGIES AND UNDERTAKE CAPITAL PLANNING? TABLE B6 DOES THE INVENTORY INCLUDE? TABLE B7 DOES YOUR ASSET INVENTORY COVER, TO SOME DEGREE, ALL MODES OF SERVICE PROVIDED? TABLE B8 IF NO, PLEASE DESCRIBE BELOW WHY CERTAIN SERVICES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE INVENTORY TABLE B9 WHAT TYPE OF MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND DATABASE DO YOU USE TO RECORD AND UPDATE ASSET DATA? TABLE B10 HOW DO YOU STORE THE ASSET DATA? Respondents Percentage Yes 98 No 2 100 n = 42. Respondents Percentage Yes 98 No 2 100 n = 40. Respondents Percentage Asset Inspection 20 Fixed Asset Ledger/Counting Data 40 Maintenance Management System 13 Combination of One or More of the Above 28 100 n = 40. Respondents Yes No Financial Reporting Purposes (i.e., fixed asset ledger) 78% 22% FTA Regulatory Purposes 87% 13% Maintenance Management 81% 19% Asset Condition Assessment 86% 14% Investment Strategy Development 74% 26% Capital Planning Purposes 97% 3% Agency Funding Purposes 87% 13% 84% 16% n = 38. Average Respondents Yes No Are you willing to do the detailed survey? 90% 10% n = 41. Respondents Yes No Revenue Vehicles 95% 5% Support Vehicles 89% 11% Passenger Stations 97% 3% Fixed Guideway Infrastructure 88% 12% Maintenance Buildings 94% 6% Administrative Buildings 97% 3% Average 93% 7% n = 37. Respondents Percentage Yes 59 No 41 n = 37. Responses: Our agency contracts out for all paratransit service. The vehicles used for the paratransit service are owned by the vendors, and therefore are not included in our inventory process. Metro does not own assets on the vanpool program. Respondents Percentage Non-networked Electronic Spreadsheet/Database 22 Networked Electronic Spreadsheet/Database 54 Other system 24 100 n = 37. Respondents Percentage Financial Information Database 38 Internally Developed Database 22 Off-the-Shelf, Asset Management Database 16 Consultant Developed Database 5 Contractor Developed Database 3 Other Database 16 100 n = 33.

36 TABLE B11 WHERE DO YOU STORE THE PRIMARY (not backup) ASSET DATA? TABLE B12 WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY OF UPDATE FOR COMPLETE ASSET INVENTORY? TABLE B13 CAN YOU PROVIDE US WITH SAMPLES OF THE FORMS OR SHEETS USED TO COLLECT THE ASSET INFORMATION IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT OR SAMPLES OF THE ASSET INVENTORY? TABLE B14 DO YOU HAVE A DEDICATED AGENCY STAFF TO MAINTAIN AND UPDATE THE ASSET INVENTORY? TABLE B15 IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND DEPARTMENTS IN WHICH THEY WORK TABLE B16 DO YOU USE DESIGNATED, BUT NOT DEDICATED, AGENCY STAFF TO MAINTAIN AND UPDATE THE ASSET INVENTORY? TABLE B17 IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND DEPARTMENTS IN WHICH THEY WORK TABLE B18 DO CONTRACTORS SUPPORT YOUR AGENCY’S EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN AND UPDATE THE INVENTORY? Respondents Percentage In-house 81 Combination of In-house and Off-site at Contractor 19 100 n = 36. Respondents Percentage Periodically (i.e., annually, bi-annually, etc.) 78 As Changes Occur (i.e., irregularly) 22 100 n = 36. Respondents Percentage Yes 63 No 37 100 n = 30. Respondents Percentage Yes 42 No 58 100 n = 36. Department No. of People FTE Finance 1 1 Finance 1 0.5 Finance 3 3 Chief Operating Officer 1 1 General Accounting 1 1 Accounting 2 2 Accounting 1 1 Accounting 2 0.25 Accounting 4 4 Transit Operations 1 Maintenance 1 Asset Accounting 2 1.5 Transportation 1 Materials Management Public Transit 1 1 Budget 1 1 23 17.25 Respondents Percentage Yes 59 No 41 100 n = 37. Department No. of People FTE Cap Program Management 1 1 Finance 1 1 Knowledge Management Planning 2 0.5 Property Service 1 1 5 3.5 Respondents Percentage Yes 16 No 84 100 n = 37. TABLE B19 PLEASE ESTIMATE THE NUMBER OF CONTRACTOR PERSON HOURS USED PER UPDATE CYCLE Department No. of People FTE Information Technology 3 3 3 3 TABLE B20 DO YOU ASSESS THE CONDITION OF SOME OR ALL OF YOUR ASSETS AGENCY-WIDE? Respondents Percentage Yes 89 No 11 100 n = 37. TABLE B21 DO YOU ASSESS THE CONDITION OF SOME OR ALL OF YOUR ASSETS AGENCY-WIDE? Respondents Percentage Age (only) 13 Periodic Condition Inspection (only) 3 Combination of Age and Condition Inspections 81 Other 3 100 n = 38.

37 TABLE B25 CAN YOU PROVIDE US WITH SAMPLES OF THE FORMS OR SHEETS USED TO COLLECT THE ASSET INFORMATION IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT OR SAMPLES OF THE ASSET INVENTORY? TABLE B23 AT WHAT LEVEL OF ASSET AGGREGATION DOES YOUR AGENCY RECORD AND ASSESS ASSET CONDITION? Respondents Percentage Individual assets (e.g., bus by bus, bridge by bridge, or station by station) 24 Individual asset purchase class (e.g., all 2001 diesel 40 ft buses, all #1 cars for heavy rail line) 5 Asset type (e.g., stations, revenue vehicles, service vehicles, garages) 14 Various breakdown schemes depending on asset type 57 n = 37. TABLE B24 AT WHAT LEVEL OF SERVICE AGGREGATION DOES YOUR AGENCY RECORD AND ASSESS ASSET CONDITION? Respondents Percentage Mode (e.g., bus, light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail) 24 Line or Region (e.g., Red line, North division) 2 Combination of Mode and Line/Region 22 Do Not Use Service Aggregation Coding 46 n = 37. Respondents Percentage Yes 47 No 53 100 n = 30. Respondents Percentage Periodically (i.e., regular intervals such as annually) 61 Varying Based on Asset Type or as Changes Occur 39 100 n = 36. Respondents Yes No Perform infrastructure needs assessment 86% 14% Estimate current magnitude of state-of- good-repair backlog 70% 30% Project future magnitude of state-of- good-repair backlog 68% 32% Prepare an agency funding appeal for additional funding 83% 17% Determine agency investment priorities 81% 19% Estimate magnitude of state-of-good- repair backlog 67% 33% Other applications (please explain below) 51% 47% Average % 74% 26% n = 36. TABLE B22 WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY OF CONDITION OF UPDATE TO THE ASSET CONDITION DATABASE? TABLE B26 DOES YOUR AGENCY USE THE AGE/CONDITION ASSESSMENT TO: TABLE B27 OTHER APPLICATIONS EXPLANATION: TABLE B28 DOES YOUR AGENCY USE THE INVENTORY AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT TO ESTIMATE A BACKLOG OF NEEDED REPLACEMENT AND RENEWAL INVESTMENTS? Responses “What-if” analyses—e.g., what will future backlog be at various annual investment levels? Annual budget preparation (capital replacement element thereof) Asset databases inform the development of the agency- wide Twenty Years Needs and Five Year Capital Program Determining depreciation schedule based on age or condition Insurance risk, financial planning, service planning, budgeting Only priority and safety repairs are reported in backlog. Routine repairs addressed as maintenance, but backlog not tracked routinely across divisions owing to maintenance management differences Plan and program our capital projects Reporting requirements (federal, etc.) Validation of adequacy of existing asset maintenance programs Respondents Percentage Yes 61 No 39 100 n = 36.

38 TABLE B30 PLEASE PROVIDE THE BACKLOG ($) BY INVESTMENT TYPE: TABLE B31 WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME FOR YOUR AGENCY’S CAPITAL PROGRAM? TABLE B32 IS THE RENEWAL CYCLE OF YOUR AGENCY’S CAPITAL PROGRAM (i.e., 5-year fixed, 5-year rolling, 10-year, etc.) LINKED TO THE DURATION OF ITS PLANNING CYCLE? TABLE B33 IS THE RENEWAL CYCLE OF YOUR AGENCY’S CAPITAL PROGRAM LINKED TO THE FREQUENCY ASSET INVENTORY UPDATE? TABLE B34 PLEASE INDICATE THE PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN OF YOUR AGENCY’S CURRENT CAPITAL PROGRAM BY THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES. PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE SUMS EQUAL 100% TABLE B35 PLEASE EXPLAIN OTHER ABOVE: TABLE B36 HAS THE TRANSIT ASSET CONDITION SYSTEM BEEN USED TO CHANGE CAPITAL FUNDING PRIORITIES TO IMPROVE THE SGR OF THE AGENCY? Item Responses Fixed five years (e.g., 2005–2009, then 2010–2014) 1 Rolling five years (e.g., 2005–2009, then 2006–2010) 1 Fixed ten years (e.g., 2005–2014, then 2014–2023) 3 Rolling ten years (e.g., 2005–2014, then 2006–2015) 2 Other 10 Respondents Percentage Yes 71 No 29 100 n = 35. Respondents Percentage Yes 40 No 60 100 n = 36. Item Responses State of Good Repair (SGR) Investments 27 Service Expansion 21 Enhancements to Existing Assets 21 Other 11 Response 4.6% accessibility and 23.4% state transit commitments included in the MBTAís 5-year capital program Capital funds will primarily be directed toward replacement buses Incorporates service and capacity expansion, and customer enhancements Information derived from FY09 Budget Book Lines 32 and 33 above include revenue vehicle procurement and are for the period 2009–2015 Maintaining current service Normal replacement projects Other is replacement of temporary World Trade Center (WTC) station. Original WTC station destroyed by terrorism on 9/11 Program administration, environmental remediation, and insurance Safety and administration Security and smart fare card projects Item Responses Revenue Vehicles (heavy rail) Revenue Vehicles (light rail) 4 Revenue Vehicles (buses) Revenue Vehicles (commuter rail) 5 Revenue Vehicles (ferries) Revenue Vehicles (vans) 8 Support Vehicles (e.g., tow trucks) Passenger Stations 16 7 12 4 13 Track 10 Power Signals 11 Tunnels Bridges 8 Maintenance Buildings Administrative Buildings 7 11 9 15 All Other Assets 15 Respondents Percentage Yes 58 No 42 100 n = 33. TABLE B29 IN WHAT YEAR DOLLARS? Respondents Percentage 2008 22 2009 30 2010 30 Other 17 n = 23.

39 TABLE B37 PLEASE DESCRIBE HOW THE TRANSIT ASSET CONDITION SYSTEM HAS BEEN USED TO CHANGE CAPITAL FUNDING PRIORITIES TO IMPROVE THE SGR OF THE AGENCY? Respondents Percentage Yes 58 No 42 100 n = 33. Responses: Vehicles were determined to have an expensive flaw in the rail vehicle pivot pin. A capital project was created and funding moved to cover these repairs. This is typical of our methodology. The asset condition system is used as basis for identifying 20-year needs. Based on this assessment, priorities are reviewed and ranked. From this, a 5-year capital program is developed and adjusted as necessary based on overall needs. Intermediate asset condition assessments are used to adjust capital program priorities as needed. The asset condition system is used to determine remaining life for some assets. Agency recently went through a strategic prioritization of capital needs. Asset condition informed the prioritization process. The asset database provides a uniform point of comparison between different categories of capital assets. The database also provides a quantifiable justification to demonstrate the need for capital investment. Calculating the SGR backlog (about $2.7 billion in 2006) more clearly showed policy makers that the MBTA needed to invest its limited dollars in SGR projects, and the future impact if maintenance not funded at sufficient levels. The state also agreed to fund expansion and other commitments, so as not to take away funding from SGR. Determination of existing (or future) condition of assets helps us prioritize. For instance, when the age and/or mileage of our fleet indicate a need for an “unanticipated” bus purchase, we might put off making some other capital purchase. Or if a regulatory need arises which requires immediate action, i.e. contamination at a maintenance facility, other capital purchases might be delayed. Condition Assessment Studies conducted to assess the condition of the revenue fleet and signal system led to determination to replace revenue fleet and signal systems in tandem rather than alternatives such as service life extensions or deferred action. Note: On previous page no backlog is shown for revenue fleet or signal system because they are in process of being replaced and old equipment is being scrapped as new equipment is accepted. As the system has been restored and improved over the past 25 years, the need for ongoing work for state of good repair and normal replacement has been highlighted by the asset condition surveys. Although we have yet to go through a CIP cycle since the adoption of MTC’s Regional Transit Capital Inventory, we previously utilized our own in-house effort (BART’s 30 Year Plan) to refocus our capital priorities on railcar rehabilitation/replacement and developing a funding strategy for maintaining state of good repair for our 43 rail stations. Has provided visibility to our current assets out in the field and determines replacement needs and costs. It has provided a means for correction and/or validation of SGR assumptions incorporated into the 20-year financial plan. The level of need for maintenance facilities is very large; the total picture of our asset condition has been used to justify investment of non-customer facing assets. First the agency identifies what assets are no longer in a state of good repair using condition information, age, whether or not the assets meet certain performance standards, and other measures. We then direct our capital dollars to eliminate the backlog of conditions relating to that asset type. Example: 25+ years of a station rehabilitation program had only addressed about half of stations. A detailed survey of components was undertaken (part of condition inventory), and now a targeted component investment program is proposed to address deficient conditions on a component level. Under the current economic conditions, a portion of 5307 funding was used for maintenance activities rather than purchasing vehicles. The systems assets are reviewed each year by members of the capital programs department. Over the past several years due to age and condition a greater emphasis has been placed on maintaining our current assets. Additionally, as capital funding is harder to obtain it is much more difficult if not impossible to consider expansion. Bus acquisition plan involves replacement of 100 buses per year out of a total fleet of 1,320. Result is an improved state of good repair. The asset condition system is used to identify current and future needs. The priority projects in the yearly capital program are developed based on the condition assessments. TABLE B38 WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN A BEST PRACTICES CASE STUDY AS PART OF THIS PROJECT?