A National Training and Certification Program for Transit Vehicle Maintenance Instructors (2015)

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.

12 Overview A feasible training and certification program is one that meets its original goals, is financially sustainable, withstands the risks it encounters, and adapts to changing needs and conditions. Chapter 2 summarizes the activities and findings of Task 1 Preliminary Feasibility Study, analyzing how a national training and certification program for transit vehicle maintenance instructors would be received and supported. More specifically, this chapter provides an estimated number of available vehicle maintenance instructors nationally, including in-house instructors (full-time and part-time), in-house mentors, contract instructors and other external instructors such as original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and community colleges. It assesses the interest and support among transit agencies in certifying vehicle maintenance instructors, and identifies barriers that may hinder agency participation. Understanding the population and industry needs enabled the Project Team to design targeted program and business plans later in the project that are not only feasible but also sustainable in the long run. A preliminary list was also developed in Task 1 with potential organizations capable to develop and deliver components of the vehicle maintenance instructor certification program. This list later became the starting point in the Project Team’s effort to provide examples of alternative training programs. Data Collection The Project Team utilized a targeted SME survey supplemented by face-to-face SME and stakeholder group discussions to assess the need for and interest in a national vehicle mainte- nance instructor training and certification program. The Task 1 surveys and discussions were not intended to include all agencies but only a representative sampling of industry SMEs. Data from existing sources such as the National Transit Database (NTD), TCRP reports, and APTA’s Public Transportation Fact Book were also collected to help generate the estimated number of instructors. SME Survey A brief survey was designed by the Project Team to probe research questions from both Tasks 1 and 2 with SMEs who have participated in previous national activities related to vehicle mainte- nance training standards and technician qualification program development. The survey ques- tionnaire was reviewed by the project panel, revised based on panel comments, and transferred to an online survey engine. After internal testing of the survey, the Project Team moved the quantitative questions toward the end of the survey to maximize the participation rate. C H A P T E R 2 Feasibility Study

Feasibility Study 13 The survey was emailed to three SME groups, who also received follow-up emails: • National Bus Maintenance Training (BMT) Committee sponsored by APTA, including bus maintenance training managers, trainers, frontline technicians and union training representatives. • National Transit Rail Vehicle Technician Training Committee sponsored by TCRP, includ- ing rail vehicle maintenance training managers, trainers, frontline technicians and union training representatives. • BFM-General (bus fleet maintenance) listserv for TRB Transit Fleet Maintenance Committee and friends, hosted by the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida [CUTR (Center for Urban Transportation Research) listserv]. This listserv includes bus fleet maintenance managers and training personnel, and is used to reach out to both large and small to medium, rural and paratransit agencies. The survey provided data to estimate the number of transit vehicle maintenance instructors across the industry, including those employed at transit agencies, trainers associated with OEMs, trainers who work on an as-needed contract basis, and employees whose duties may include training in addition to other responsibilities, including peer mentors. The survey asked respondents how likely their agencies were to participate in a national instructor certification program. A list of organizations that might be able to implement a certification program was also solicited from the respondents. SME and Stakeholder Group Discussions In addition to the survey, the Project Team facilitated discussions with the SMEs at the 2013 and 2014 National BMT Committee meetings and the National Rail Vehicle Technician Train- ing Committee in Silver Spring, MD on May 29, 2013. Questions probed were similar to those in the SME survey. The 2013 APTA Annual Meeting, and 2013 and 2014 APTA Bus and Rail Conferences were used as additional venues to gauge the interest from the industry. Informa- tion collected from various SME and stakeholder group discussions is incorporated into the feasibility study. Responses Complete survey responses were received from 49 respondents in an electronic or paper format. Not all respondents answered all questions. After the Project Team combined six additional BMT Committee member responses from the SME group discussion, 55 individual responses served as the basis for analysis in the database (Figure 2.1). Bus Maintenance Training Committee, 14, 26% Rail Vehicle Maintenance Training Committee, 10, 18% CUTR List- serv, 31, 56% Figure 2.1. Respondents by source.

14 A National Training and Certification Program for Transit Vehicle Maintenance Instructors Source Distribution Figure 2.1 shows the distribution for survey respondents according to the source. Bus Maintenance Training Committee. Eleven members of the BMT Committee participated in the SME group discussion at the January meeting in Phoenix and answered a significant number of the survey questions. When the survey was distributed to the BMT Committee via email later, the Project Team received five responses from members who had already provided input in the SME group and an additional three new responses. Combining these two sources, data was obtained from 14 individual members. When duplicate responses were received from the same individual, the electronic response containing the latest data was used for analysis. Rail Vehicle Technician Training Committee. Following the SME discussion at the Rail Vehicle Technician Training Committee meeting, rail committee members were provided with a paper copy of the survey in addition to the email they received earlier. Ten out of 15 active members of the National Rail Vehicle Maintenance Committee responded to the electronic or paper survey, a response rate of 67 percent. CUTR BFM Listserv. The CUTR listserv survey distribution generated 31 responses from an estimated membership of 350, generating a response rate of about 9 percent. However, active subscription to the listserv may be much lower given that some email addresses may be outdated and participants may have stopped monitoring listserv updates. The actual response rate may be higher. Respondent Characteristics, Agency Size and Mode Transit agency employees made up 93 percent of all respondents, representing 33 individual transit agencies. The remaining seven percent were primarily representatives from OEMs and transit consulting companies. One out of five respondents identified themselves as affiliated with a local union. Fixed-route bus service is provided by 45 (88 percent) of the respondents who identified their agency’s operating modes in the survey, 24 (47 percent) of the respondents operate heavy or light rail, and 23 (45 percent) paratransit. Of the responding agencies, 33 agencies or 65 percent operate multiple modes. About one in three of the agencies that provide fixed-route bus service are small to medium-sized, defined as operating fewer than 250 vehicles. Instructor Population One of the main objectives of the feasibility study was to estimate the vehicle maintenance instructor population and those likely to participate in an industry program for training and certifying instructors. These instructors or trainers can be categorized into five groups, with in-house instructors being the primary focus of this project: • In-house full-time or part-time vehicle maintenance instructors (employees of transit agencies), • In-house vehicle maintenance mentors (employees of transit agencies), • Instructors associated with OEMs, • Instructors associated with community colleges and technical/vocational schools, • Other instructors who work on an as-needed contract basis, such as retirees and consultants. In-house Vehicle Maintenance Instructors For many skilled technicians in transit maintenance occupations, training is delivered at their workplace by in-house trainers employed by the same agency as the technicians. Typically, these

Feasibility Study 15 transit maintenance trainers are former technicians who have been promoted. The SME survey collected detailed data on the number of vehicles in each transit mode and the number of full-time and part-time vehicle maintenance instructors employed by their agencies. Using these data points and the total fleet size of all U.S. agencies from the APTA 2012 Public Transportation Fact Book (American Public Transportation Association 2012), the Project Team estimated the number of full-time and part-time instructors for all transit agencies, as illustrated in Table 2.1. Approximately 557 full-time and 47 part-time instructors are employed by transit agencies across bus, heavy and light rail, and paratransit, a national total of 604 instructors. With 52,929 vehicle maintenance employees working in these four modes (commuter rail, trolleybus, and other modes are not included), this represents an employee–instructor ratio of 88:1. The Project Team utilized data from the 2010 Transit Training Survey (Transportation Learn- ing Center 2010a) (covering 55 percent of the transit workforce) to validate estimates generated from the survey. Agencies responding to the Transit Training Survey employed roughly one full-time equivalent (FTE) instructor for every 125 employees. With 52,929 vehicle maintenance employees working in bus, heavy/light rail and paratransit, this generates 423 vehicle main- tenance instructors. This estimate may be conservative, as the Transit Training Survey included operations, vehicle, and non-vehicle maintenance, as well as general administration employees. The actual instructor/vehicle maintainer ratio may be lower. Respondents to the survey reported an average maintenance instructor age of 46 across all four modes, with fixed-route bus maintenance having the most senior instructors—an average age of 49. Given that most transit maintenance workers are eligible to retire with 25 to 30 years of service, it is foreseeable that a large number of these instructors will meet this eligibility requirement in the next five to 10 years. This substantiates the increasing need to recruit, train, and qualify new instructors, either from existing transit mechanic ranks or from other industries. Fixed- Route Bus Heavy Rail Light Rail Paratransit Total/Average Average Fleet Size–Project F-19 Survey 635 136 92 124 Total Fleet Size for All Agencies 66,239 11,510 2,104 68,621 Total # of Vehicle Maintenance Employees for All Agencies 33,276 9,408 2,214 8,031 52,929 Full-time (FT) In-house Vehicle Maintenance Instructors–Project F-19 Survey estimated average 3.1 1.4 1.7 0.1 - Estimated # of Vehicles/FT Instructor 202.9 97.7 54.7 929.2 - Estimated # of FT Instructors for All Agencies 327 118 38 74 557 Part-time (PT) In-house Vehicle Maintenance Instructors–Project F-19 Survey estimated average 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 - Estimated # of Vehicles/PT Instructor 1,733 - 230 - - Estimated # of PT Instructors for All Agencies 38 0 9 0 47 Total Estimated FT & PT Instructors for All Agencies 365 118 48 74 604 Estimated # of Vehicle Maintenance Employees/Instructor 91 80 47 109 88 Estimated Instructor Average Age 49 44 46 45 46 Table 2.1. In-house instructor estimates.

16 A National Training and Certification Program for Transit Vehicle Maintenance Instructors Mentors In all transit work environments, on-the-job learning constitutes the major means of devel- oping and perfecting new skills. This is especially the case at smaller agencies with no formal training programs. Ideally, a trained mentor works with a less experienced colleague with an organized check list to assist the trainee in practicing the new skill to the point of mastery, known as formal mentoring. On the shop floor, mentors reinforce the training and instruction delivered in the classroom as a coordinated effort. Informal mentoring, which is far more prevalent, has inexperienced mechanics seeking assistance from anyone in the shop willing to help. Based on the SME survey, it is estimated that a national total of 3,300 maintenance employees fulfill a formal or informal mentoring role within a total vehicle maintenance cohort of 52,929 across these four modes, roughly 16 employees per mentor (Table 2.2). Contract Instructors Non-agency personnel can also provide training, through OEMs, technical schools and community colleges, or training firms with specific technology expertise. In fact, respondents to Metro Magazine’s 2014 Bus Maintenance Survey indicate that the vast majority of bus technicians receive their training from OEMs and vendors. (http://www.metro-magazine.com/resources/ images/maintenancesurvey2014.pdf.) Using the number of instructors contracted by transit agencies, as reported by the survey respondents, the Project Team estimated a national total of 392 vehicle maintenance instructors associated with OEMs, 24 with community colleges or tech- nical schools, and an additional 157 for-hire instructors that do not fall into any of the categories above. Detailed breakdown by mode is provided in Table 2.3. The actual number of contractors spending at least some time providing vehicle maintenance training in transit may be significantly greater than these estimates. For example, an OEM instructor who spends most of the time providing training to trucking companies and only a few days annually to transit technicians may not have been reported by the agency respondents. To obtain a more accurate estimate of these contractor instructors, additional information needs to be collected from transit OEMs and other vendors directly. Types of Instructors to Include When asked about the types of trainers/instructors the national training and certification program should cover, 94 percent of the F-19 survey respondents selected agency instructors (Figure 2.2). A little over half felt that in-house mentors should be covered. Forty-seven percent also selected instructors associated with OEM and community colleges. Seventeen percent of the respondents also listed retirees and consultants as other groups to be covered by the program. (See Table 2.1 for Average Fleet Size, Total Fleet Size, and number of vehicle maintenance employees) Fixed- Route Bus Heavy Rail Light Rail Paratransit Total/Average Mentors for Vehicle Maintenance Trainees–Project F-19 Survey estimated average 12.5 8.1 4.8 2.1 - Estimated # of Vehicles/Mentor 51.0 16.8 19.3 58.3 - Estimated # of Mentors for all Agencies 1,300 687 109 1,177 3,272 Estimated # of Vehicle Maintenance Employees/Mentor 26 14 20 7 16 Table 2.2. Mentor estimates.

Feasibility Study 17 (See Table 2.1 for Average Fleet Size, Total Fleet Size, and number of vehicle maintenance employees) Fixed- Route Bus Heavy Rail Light Rail Paratransit Total/Average # of OEM Vehicle Maintenance Instructors–Project F-19 Survey estimated per agency 1.7 0.2 0.4 0.3 - Estimated # of Vehicles/OEM Instructors 367.1 678.7 220.8 371.7 - Estimated # of OEM Instructors for all Agencies 180 17 10 185 392 # of Community College Vehicle Maintenance Instructors–Project F-19 Survey estimated per agency 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 - Estimated # of Vehicles/Community College Instructors 4057.4 - 273.5 - - Estimated # of Community College Instructors for all Agencies 16 0 8 0 24 Other Vehicle Maintenance Instructors (independent consultants, retirees, etc.)– Project F-19 Survey estimated per agency 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.1 - Estimated # of Vehicles/Other Instructors 670.6 - 82.8 2106.2 - Estimated # of Other Instructors for all Agencies 99 0 25 33 157 Table 2.3. Contract and other external instructor estimates. 94% 51% 47% 47% 17% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% In-house Instructors In-house Mentors OEM Trainers Community Colleges Other Figure 2.2. Types of instructors to include in a national program. Industry Interest and Support Interest in National Program Transit agencies potentially interested in a national transit vehicle maintenance instructor certification program would include all major bus and light, heavy, and commuter rail operations, a total of over 1,000 agencies. Some paratransit providers may also choose to participate. To gauge the level of interest among industry stakeholders at the early stage of program devel- opment, the Project Team asked SME survey participants “If a national training and certification program is to be implemented for transit vehicle maintenance instructors, how likely is your agency to participate?” Overall, nearly three out of four respondents are highly or somewhat likely to participate in the program (72 percent, Figure 2.3). At 73 percent, small to medium-sized bus agencies have a lower rate of likely participation than large bus agencies (81 percent).

18 A National Training and Certification Program for Transit Vehicle Maintenance Instructors Of those indicating that their agencies are unlikely to participate, respondents cited a range of reasons including: • Lack of national program details, for example, level of agency time commitment, program format, delivery methods, content and requirements; • Funding issues; • No in-house instructor to certify; and • Agency isolation from participating in national programs in general. At the APTA Workforce Development Subcommittee meeting held at the 2013 APTA Annual Meeting, there was strong interest in the possibility of upgrading the capabilities of technical trainers. The idea of a multi-agency Train-the-Trainer Consortium effort bringing together a group of agencies was discussed with interest among senior managers of several agencies. All the agency attendees agreed that they had issues with under-prepared trainers who had been promoted from the ranks of technicians without adequate further training in the arts of instruction. SME feedback at discussion sessions at the APTA Bus Maintenance Committee Meetings and National Transit Institute (NTI) Transit Trainers’ Workshop, as well as audience response fol- lowing presentations on Project F-19 at the 2014 APTA Bus and Rail Conferences continued to corroborate the industry’s need for a national program for instructors. Comments from partici- pants included broadening the scope to include other instructor groups in transit and related industries, such as commuter rail and Amtrak. Participants reasoned that most of the instructor skills needed (adult learning, communication and facilitation, mentoring, material develop- ment, etc.) are similar whether one is teaching a group of mechanics, operators, or first responders. Participants also noted that offering the program to others would make it more financially sus- tainable given the relatively low number of agency maintenance instructors. Other participants asked that limited travel budgets be considered and suggested extensive use of online and local course delivery to make the program more appealing. Conclusion Members of the national committees on bus and rail vehicle maintenance training have long articulated the need for improved instructor training programs and consistent national guidelines for validating instructor skills. During the SME group discussions conducted for the Project F-19 and the APTA Workforce Development Subcommittee meeting, themes such as aging of the instructor workforce and need for replacements over a short period of time resonated among participants. Throughout the Task 1 discussions and survey, participants expressed strong support for a national program to standardize instructor training and skills assessments. The idea of a national Train-the-Trainer Consortium was brought up by senior managers attending 28% 44% 12% 16% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Highly likely Somewhat likely Not very likely Not likely at all Figure 2.3. Likelihood of agencies to participate in a national program.

Feasibility Study 19 the Workforce Development Subcommittee and should be further explored. Enthusiasm for a national program was also high among survey respondents on the CUTR email list. At a minimum a national program will benefit the industry’s existing 500 to 600 in-house vehicle maintenance instructors. The benefits can be extended to a much larger group of in-house mentors and contracting instructors affiliated with OEMs, colleges and technical schools, and other organizations providing transit technical training. During the program plan development phase of Project F-19, the Project Team examined the differences in the competency requirements of these several groups of trainers and designed scalable training and skills validation programs to fit their differing needs.