System-Specific Spare Bus Ratios Update (2014)

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.

7 the respondents by geographic region and fleet size (with agency bus fleet size noted in parentheses). Figure 1 graphically illustrates the distribution of the 38 respondents surveyed across fleet size groups and geographic regions. Of the 38 respondents, five (13%) were in the small fleets group; nine (24%) in the medium fleets group; seven (18%) in the large fleets group; nine (24%) in the very large fleets group; and eight (21%) in the mega fleets group. (It should be noted that within the mega-sized group, the New York City Transit Bus fleet is nearly twice the size of the next largest fleet, New Jersey Transit.) Of the 38 respondents, the largest geographic representa- tion reflected the most populous regions. The U.S.–Northeast, U.S.–Northwest (including Northern California), and the U.S.–Southwest (including Southern California) each had eight agencies (21%) reporting. KEY FLEET ATTRIBUTES AMONG SURVEYED TRANSIT AGENCIES The following section provides an overview of the key fleet attributes reported among the transit agencies surveyed, including service delivery model, annual vehicle-miles, bus fleet spare ratios, fleet mix diversity, and contingency fleets. Agency Service Delivery Models Survey respondents were asked to choose from the follow- ing classifications those that best described the agency’s ser- vice delivery business model(s): either directly operated (and maintained) and/or contracted bus services. Agencies that delivered their transit services solely through direct opera- tion (i.e., with in-house staff) represented 76% (29) of the survey respondents; agencies that utilized both direct opera- tion and privately contracted services represented 16% (six) of the respondents; and agencies that delivered their transit services solely through contracting represented 8% (three) of the respondents. Table 2 summarizes this respondent distri- bution by service delivery model and fleet size group. Annual Vehicle-Miles by Fleet Size Survey respondents were asked to report their fleet’s annual vehicle-miles. For agencies that have both directly operated This chapter describes the methodology and results of a comprehensive survey of transit agencies conducted for this TCRP synthesis to illuminate the current state of bus fleet spare ratios and related transit agency experiences, challenges, opportunities, and practices. DESCRIPTION OF THE SURVEY METHODOLOGY To achieve the objectives of this synthesis, an on-line sur- vey questionnaire was developed that focused on the various attributes affecting spare bus needs and fleet spare ratios, and actions that agencies have implemented toward reducing their fleet spare ratios and their results. Questions were designed to gather information concerning agencies’ bus fleet(s) used to deliver fixed-route and other scheduled general public transit services. This survey did not cover ADA paratransit services or vanpool vehicles. The survey questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix A. A core sample of 48 transit agencies was developed based on: (1) geographic/climatic distribution; (2) bus fleet size; (3) past participation in the 1995 TCRP Synthesis 11: System- Specific Spare Bus Ratios; and (4) prior known interest in the topic. Five bus fleet size groupings were established for this survey: small fleets (25–99 buses); medium fleets (100–249 buses); large fleets (250–499 buses); very large fleets (500–999 buses); and mega-fleets (1,000 buses or more). A link to complete the survey on-line was e-mailed to a con- tact person at each agency in the core sample. Telephone calls and/or e-mails were sent to agencies included in the core sam- ple before and after survey distribution to identify the correct survey respondent and encourage prompt responses, followed by friendly reminders in the form of e-mails and/or phone calls. If an agency indicated that it was unwilling or unable to respond, an alternate agency was identified (with similar fleet size and geographic attributes) and contacted. Infor- mation from APTA and other sources were used to identify and/or follow up with survey participants. The University of South Florida Center for Urban Transportation Research Bus Fleet Maintenance ListServe was also employed to identify potential survey participants as needed. A total of 38 completed survey responses were received, tabulated, analyzed, and summarized for inclusion in this synthesis (a 79% response rate). Table 1 lists and organizes chapter three SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS: SYSTEM-SPECIFIC SPARE BUS RATIOS

Bus Fleets 25–99—Small 100–249—Medium 250–499—Large 500–999—Very Large >1,000—Mega U.S. North-Central Connect Transit, Bloomington, IL(29) CATA, Lansing, MI (96) None None CTA, Chicago, IL (1,792) Northeast None *Centro, Syracuse, NY (167) *GCRTA, Cleveland, OH (452) *COTA, Columbus, OH (308) *RTA, Dayton, OH (263) *PA Transit, Pittsburgh, PA (714) *MBTA, Boston, MA (910) *NYCT MTA, NY (4,431) *NJ Transit ,NJ (2,382) Northwest VRT, Boise, ID (43) Pierce Transit, Tacoma, WA (234) LTD, Eugene, OR (117) *VTA, Santa Clara, CA (426) SamTrans, San Mateo, CA (287) *Tri-Met, Portland, OR (594) *AC Transit, Oakland, CA (569) *KC Metro, Seattle, WA (1,503) South-Central None *RTA, New Orleans, LA (137) None *DART, Dallas, TX (644) None Southeast StarMetro, Tallahassee, FL (67) Sumter County , FL (25) None None *MDT, Miami, FL (818) None Southwest CityBus, Culver City, CA (52) RTA, Riverside, CA (171) LBT, Long Beach, CA (220) Sun Tran, Tucson, AZ (237) RTC, Las Vegas, NV (397) *MTS, San Diego, CA (260) OCTA, Orange County, CA (561) *RTD, Denver, CO (1,003) CANADA Central None None None Winnipeg Transit, MB (565) None East None London Transit, ON (192) None None *TTC, Toronto, ON (1,857) STM, Montreal, QC (1,728) West None None None Edmonton Transit, AB (972) *Coast Mtn Bus, Vancouver (BC) (1,107) *Participated in 1995 TCRP Synthesis 11 Survey. Note: Number of buses in each fleet is in parentheses (2012 reported). TABLE 1 PARTICIPATING U.S. AND CANADIAN TRANSIT BUS FLEETS BY SIZE AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION FIGURE 1 Distribution of the 38 survey respondents across bus fleet size groups and geographic regions.

9 and contracted fleet operations, their fleets were combined. Table 3 summarizes the distribution of respondents by their 2012 annual vehicle-miles operated and fleet size grouping. Generally speaking, the larger the fleet, the greater the num- ber of annual miles. Agency Bus Fleet Spare Ratios Survey respondents were asked to report their vehicles available for maximum service (VAMS), that is, their total active bus fleet; their vehicles operated in maximum service (VOMS); their peak bus fleet; and the fleet’s spare bus ratio. Notably, responses indicated that surveyed agencies did not all use the same spare bus ratio definition specified by the FTA. FTA guidelines state that for bus fleets, the basis for deter- mining a reasonable spare ratio takes local circumstances into account. FTA specifies that the number of spare buses in the active fleet for grantees operating 50 or more fixed- route revenue vehicles is not to exceed 20% of the number of VOMS. The spare ratio is expressed as a percentage for example, 100 vehicles required and 20 spare vehicles is a 20% spare ratio. The FTA formula for calculating the spare ratio can be expressed as: [ ]=Spare Ratio VAMS – VOMS VOMS FTA allows agencies to stockpile buses that have reached the end of their service lives in an inactive contingency fleet in preparation for emergencies. Such buses must be properly stored, maintained, and documented in a contingency plan. FTA specifically allows the exclusion of contingency fleet buses from the calculation of the spare ratio. The spare ratio guideline is rooted in FTA policy as communicated through: • FTA Circular C5010.1D, Chapter IV, Section 3i • FTA Circular C9030.1C, Chapter V, Sections 9.a (5)-(6). Since there was some variation among definitions used by responding agencies to compute their spare ratio, there needed to be a common basis upon which to analyze survey spare ratio data. To this end, the spare ratios reported were recomputed with the VAMS and VOMS data provided by the respondents, using the FTA formula. Table 4 further breaks down the fleets and their recomputed spare ratios by fleet size group, and separately for directly operated and contracted fleets. Of the 35 directly operated fleets surveyed, 17 (49%) were within the 20% FTA spare ratio guideline, while an equal number exceeded the 20% threshold (with one non-response). Most of the directly operated fleets, 26 of 35 (74%), had spare ratios at or below 25%. Looking at spare ratios by directly operated fleet size group, two of the six large fleets; five of the nine very large fleets; and five of eight of the mega-fleets had spare ratios at or near the FTA 20% spare ratio guideline. Generally speaking, the mega-fleets, with their access to greater financial resources and support infrastructure, may be able to operate with leaner spare ratios than smaller fleets. Of the nine contracted fleets surveyed, only three operated at a 20% ratio or below, while Service Delivery Model Small Fleets 25–99 Buses Medium Fleets 100–249 Buses Large Fleets 250–499 Buses Very Large Fleets 500–999 Buses Mega Fleets >1,000 Buses Total Directly Operated Only 4 6 5 8 6 29 Directly Operated and Contracted — 2 1 1 2 6 Contracted Only 1 1 1 — — 3 Total 5 9 7 9 8 38 Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 2 AGENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS BY FLEET SIZE GROUP 2012 Vehicle-Miles Operated Small Fleets 25–99 Buses Medium Fleets 100– 249 Buses Large Fleets 250– 499 Buses Very Large Fleets 500–999 Buses Mega Fleets >1,000 Buses Total 0 to 4,999,999 5 3 — — — 8 5,000,000 to 9,999,000 — 3 3 — — 6 10,000,000 to 49,999,999 — 2 4 9 3 18 50,000,000 to 99,999,999 — — — — 4 4 >100 million — — — — 1 1 Total 5 9 7 9 8 38 Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF THE NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR 2012 ANNUAL VEHICLE MILES OPERATED AND FLEET SIZE GROUPING (COMBINED DIRECTLY OPERATED AND CONTRACTED)

10 five of the nine fleets had a spare ratio larger than 20%. One of the nine contacted fleets did not supply sufficient data to calculate the spare bus ratio. Figure 2 summarizes the distribution of respondents by their computed (2012) spare ratios and fleet size groups. The figure illustrates that the largest number of respondents, 13 of 38 (34%) had spare ratios between 16% and 20%; and another 10 respondents (26%) had spare ratios between 21% and 25%. (In Canada, an agency’s spare bus fleet spare ratio is purely a local decision. There is not a federal or provincial trans- portation entity comparable to the FTA that has a spare ratio target or guideline.) Spare Ratios Small Fleets 25–99 Buses Medium Fleets 100– 249 Buses Large Fleets 250–499 Buses Very Large Fleets 500–999 Buses Mega Fleets >1,000 Buses Total Directly Operated 11%–15% 1 — — 1 2 4 16%–20% — 4 2 4 3 13 21%–25% 2 1 2 2 2 9 26%–30% — 3 — 1 1 5 30%–39% 1 — — 1 — 2 >40% — — 1 — — 1 Not Reported — — 1 — — 1 Total 4 8 6 9 8 35 Contract Operated 11%–15% — — — 1 1 16%–20% 1 — 1 — — 2 21%–25% — 1 — — — 1 26%–30% — — — 1 1 2 30%–39% — 1 1 — — 2 >40% — — — — — 0 Not Reported — 1 — — — 1 Total 1 3 2 1 2 9 Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF THE NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR COMPUTED 2012 SPARE BUS RATIOS AND FLEET SIZE GROUPING—FOR DIRECTLY OPERATED FLEETS AND CONTRACTED FLEETS FIGURE 2 Distribution of the number of respondents by their computed 2012 spare bus ratios and fleet size grouping—combining both directly operated and contracted fleets.

11 Looking at agency spare ratio trends over past five years, 16 of the 35 (46%) directly operated agency fleets were able to reduce their spare ratios from 2008 to 2012; 13 (37%) increased their spare ratio over this period; and five (14%) stayed the same. Agency Fleet Mix Diversity Over the years, transit fleets have become more diverse, con- taining different mixes of bus types or sub-fleets that have unique size, capacity, and operating attributes. The survey asked respondents to indicate how many of the following bus types were used as sub-fleets by their agencies: • Less-than-30-foot buses • 30-foot buses • 35-foot buses • 40-foot standard buses • Over-the-Road (OTR) three-axle buses • 60-foot articulated standard buses • Double-decker buses • Special mall shuttle buses (Denver only) • Trolley buses (catenary). Tables 5 and 6 summarize the distribution of respondents by fleet size groups and the number of sub-fleets they operate. Of the 35 directly operated fleets surveyed, 24 (68%) had three or more different sub-fleets. Of the nine agencies with contract fleets, four had three or more sub-fleets, while five had only one or two. By fleet size grouping, four of eight medium fleets and all six large fleets had three or more sub-fleets. Agency Contingency Fleets Agencies have the option of keeping a reserve contingency fleet. These are often older buses that are not available for revenue service, but can be held in an inactive status for non-revenue uses or rapid activation for emergency needs. Contingency fleet buses are not included in the FTA spare ratio formula (nor are they included in the 20% spare ratio guideline). Although maintaining a contingency fleet can provide an agency with added flexibility for non-revenue activities, this flexibility comes at the cost of storing and maintaining these inactive vehicles. Eighteen of the 38 survey respondents (47%) reported that they maintained an inactive contingency fleet. KEY VARIABLES AFFECTING SPARE RATIOS The survey collected detailed information concerning some of the key variables that may have an effect on agency spare bus needs and spare ratios. The following section provides an overview of some of those key variables and survey No. of Sub-fleets Small Fleets 25–99 Buses Medium Fleets 100–249 Buses Large Fleets 250– 499 Buses Very Large Fleets 500–999 Buses Mega Fleets >1,000 Buses Total 1 Sub-fleet — 2 — — 2 4 2 Sub-fleets 1 2 — 4 — 7 3 Sub-fleets 2 2 3 2 3 12 4 Sub-fleets 1 1 1 3 2 8 5 Sub-fleets — 1 2 — — 3 6 Sub-fleets — — — — 1 1 Total 4 8 6 9 8 35 Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 5 DISTRIBUTION OF THE NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS BY FLEET SIZE GROUPINGS AND THEIR NUMBER OF SUB-FLEETS—FOR DIRECTLY OPERATED FLEETS ONLY No. of Sub-fleets Small Fleets 25–99 Buses Medium Fleets 100–249 Buses Large Fleets 250–499 Buses Very Large Fleets 500–999 Buses Mega Fleets >1,000 Buses Total 1 Sub-fleet 1 — — — — 1 2 Sub-fleets — 2 — 1 1 4 3 Sub-fleets — — 2 — — 2 4 Sub-fleets — 1 — — 1 2 5 Sub-fleets — — — — — 0 6 Sub-fleets — — — — — 0 Total 1 3 2 1 2 9 Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 6 DISTRIBUTION OF THE NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS BY FLEET SIZE GROUPINGS AND THEIR NUMBER OF SUB-FLEETS—FOR CONTRACTED FLEETS ONLY

12 responses to questions on fleet-related attributes and service and operating environmental attributes. Survey respondents were asked to provide information concerning fleet-related attributes, including average age, the number of advanced on-board technologies in the fleet, and alternative fueling/energy technologies; and their impacts on their agency’s spare vehicle needs and spare ratio levels. Survey respondents were also asked to provide information concerning service and operating environmental attributes, which included agency service profiles and special vehicle features required, special or intermittent service requirements, peak-to-base ratios, unique climatic conditions, and duty cycles; and the impacts these factors had on agency’s spare vehicle needs and spare ratio levels. This overview is followed by a summary of survey responses reflecting the relative importance of each variable on the respondent’s spare bus needs and fleet spare ratio. Average Age Of the 38 agencies surveyed, 23 (61%) had fleets with an average age between 6.0 and 8.9 years old. Only eight (21%) reported an average age of more than 8.9 years. Figure 3 summarizes the distribution of respondents by the average age of the buses in both directly operated and contract oper- ated fleets The survey then asked whether the average age or cumu- lative mileage of agencies’ fleets affected their spare bus needs and fleet spare ratio. Of the 38 surveyed agencies, 22 (58%) indicated “Yes” while 16 (42%) responded “No.” Although counter-intuitive to the survey responses described earlier, further analysis of survey data did not indi- cate an appreciable correlation between the average age of an agency’s fleet and its spare ratio. Figure 4 plots survey responses and depicts the correlation of a fleet’s average bus age with spare ratios over time (for 2012, 2010, and 2008). Using regression analysis, a regression line was plotted for each of the three measured years and a coefficient of deter- mination (“r-squared”) was calculated. The r-squared is interpreted as the “goodness of fit” of a regression line. The higher the coefficient of determination (the closest to 1.0), the better the variance of the dependent variable (spare ratio) is explained by the independent variable (average bus age). In this case, the r-squared values for 2012, 2010, and 2008 (0.07, 0.03, and 0.01, respectively) demonstrated limited (statistical) explanatory value of average fleet age versus the spare ratio. Given the relatively small sample size, caution would be advised in concluding that there is no appreciable correlation between the average age of an agency’s fleet and its spare ratio. In their comments, many survey respondents indi- cated that as buses age, more maintenance (and downtime) is required to keep the vehicles in a state of good repair. Many indicated that older vehicles need more repair, and require longer repair times, as a result of corrosion and replacement part shortages, thus increasing the need for spare buses. Advanced On-Board Technology The survey asked respondents to indicate which of the fol- lowing systems were present in their entire fleet: • On-board electronic fare collection • Automatic vehicle location (AVL) • Bus stop enunciation • Automatic passenger counters • Digital radio communication • Data transmission (including mobile data terminals) • Wireless Internet access • On-board surveillance • Advanced emissions control • Regenerative braking • Electronic head signs • Closed area networks • Remote diagnostics • Hazard detection/response systems. Table 7 summarizes the distribution of respondents by the total number of advanced technology systems within their fleets. Of the 38 agencies surveyed, 16 (42%) had either nine or 10 on-board advanced technology systems in their entire fleet. Twenty-five of the 38 respondents (66%) had more than eight on-board technology systems to maintain in their FIGURE 3 Distribution of number of survey responses by average bus fleet age—combined directly operated and contracted fleets.

FIGURE 4 Correlation of average bus age (years) with spare ratio over time—both directly operated and contracted fleets. (a) (b) (c)

14 fleet. Only 12 of the 38 (32%) respondents had eight or fewer on-board technology systems to support. The number of these systems appears to be increasing over past five years, though for some agencies this number has been stable. The survey then asked respondents if the number of advanced on-board technology systems present in fleet affected their spare bus needs and fleet spare ratio. Of the 38 surveyed agencies, 19 (50%) responded “No” while an equal number indicated “Yes.” As with average bus age, analysis of reported survey data indicated a limited correlation between the number of advanced technology systems on board an agency’s buses and its spare ratio. Figure 5 plots survey responses and depicts the correlation of the number of advanced technology systems present in the survey respondent’s fleet with spare ratios over time (for 2012, 2010, and 2008). Using regression analysis, a regression line was plotted for each of the three years and the coefficient of determination (“r-squared”) was calculated. In this case, the r-squared values for 2012, 2010, and 2008 (0.04, 0.03, and 0.02, respectively) demon- strate limited explanatory value of the number of on-board advanced technology systems versus the spare ratio. Again, given the relatively small sample size, caution would be advised in concluding that there is no appreciable correlation between the number of advanced technologies in an agency’s fleet and its spare ratio. In their comments, several survey respondents reported that the advanced tech- nologies on board buses in their fleets require downtime for repairs, have additional lead times for parts, and necessitate more frequent maintenance and servicing (which results in increased labor hours). Respondents also indicated that presence (or lack) of these systems may affect the sched- uled and unscheduled maintenance work, training, vendor maintenance, or other issues requiring spare buses, therefore, directly and/or indirectly, impacting their spare ratios. Alternative Fueling/Energy Technologies The survey asked respondents to indicate which of the fol- lowing fuel/energy systems were employed in their combined fleet: • Gasoline • Diesel • Compressed natural gas (CNG) • Liquified natural gas • Propane • Hybrid-electric (gasoline) • Hybrid-electric (diesel) • Battery-electric • Fuel cell • Electric trolley (catenary) • Other. Table 8 summarizes the fuel/energy propulsion systems rep- resented among the surveyed agency fleets and the frequency of use. Clearly, diesel continues to be the predominant fueling and propulsion system for buses in the respondent fleets. Diesel buses are used by 35 of the 38 agencies responding (92%); followed in frequency by hybrid-electric buses, present in 24 fleets (63%); and CNG buses, present in 17 fleets (45%). Only five agencies (13%) were exclusively diesel-powered. The number of buses operated with an alternative fuel/energy system appears to have increased over the past five years. Many agencies are experimenting with hybrid and other tech- nologies by introducing and, where successful, incrementally expanding their alternatively-powered fleets. The survey then asked respondents if the fuel/energy pro- pulsion systems used by their fleet affected their spare bus needs and spare ratio. Of the 38 surveyed agencies, 21 (55%) responded “No,” whereas 16 (42%) indicated “Yes” (with one non-response). Number of Advanced Technology Systems on-Board Buses (2012) Occurrences 0–2 1 3–4 2 5–6 5 7–8 4 9–10 16 11–12 5 13–14 3 15 + 1 No response or not applicable 1 Total 38 Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 7 DISTRIBUTION OF THE NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS BY THE NUMBER OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS ON BOARD PRESENT WITHIN THEIR ENTIRE FLEET—BOTH DIRECTLY OPERATED AND CONTRACTED COMBINED

15 (a) (b) (c) FIGURE 5 Correlation of number of advanced technology systems in the fleet with its spare ratio over time—both directly operated and contracted fleets.

16 (23 agencies, or 60%); shuttle services (15 agencies, or 39%); and BRT by 14 agencies (37%). The survey then asked respondents if the types of services provided by their agencies affected spare bus needs or fleet spare ratio. Of 38 agencies, 22 (58%) responded “No,” while 16 (42%) indicated “Yes.” Special Vehicle Needs The survey asked respondents to indicate which of the follow- ing special vehicle features are essential to providing particular types of agency transit services: • High passenger-carrying capacity (more than a standard 40-ft bus) • Special exterior branding with unique paint scheme • Exterior wood trim (e.g., for trolley replicas) • Ability to maneuver in confined areas • Luggage racks/storage • Premium seating and other interior amenities • Low floor • More than one door • Other. Table 11 tallies the essential vehicle features that are critical to the effective delivery of the mix of an agency’s services, and the frequency of representation. There did not appear to be any strong correlation patterns between the presence of particular fueling/energy systems and spare ratios. Table 9 depicts the fuel/energy systems reported within agency fleets, cross-tabbed by the agency spare ratio category. All fuel/energy types could be found in fleets at all spare ratio levels. Agency Service Profiles The survey asked respondents to indicate which of the follow- ing transit service types their agency delivers with its combined fleets: • Bus rapid transit (BRT) • Commuter express (non-BRT) • Regional trunk • Local route • Neighborhood circulator/feeder • Shuttle • Other. Clearly, local routes continue to be the predominant category of service type delivered by buses in the respon- dent fleets, as all 38 agencies provide this type of service (Table 10). The second most frequent service was neigh- borhood circulator/feeder service, provided by 24 agencies (63%); followed by non-BRT service commuter express Presence of Fuel/Energy System in Respondent Fleets in 2012 Occurrences Gasoline 6 Diesel 35 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 17 Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) 2 Hybrid-Electric (diesel and gasoline) 24 Fuel Cell 1 Electric Trolley (overhead catenary) 4 Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 8 OCCURRENCES OF DIFFERENT FUEL/ENERGY PROPULSION SYSTEMS AMONG RESPONDENT BUS FLEETS—BOTH DIRECTLY OPERATED AND CONTRACTED 2012 Spare Ratio Combined Directly Operated and Contracted Occurrences of Fuel/Energy System in Respondent Fleets Gasoline Diesel CNG LNG Hybrid (diesel-hybrid or gasoline hybrid) Fuel Cell Electric Trolley (overhead catenary) 11%–15% 1 4 2 — 2 — — 16%–20% 2 13 6 — 9 1 2 21%–25% 2 9 4 2 6 — 1 26%–30% 1 5 2 — 3 — — 30%–39% — 2 3 — 2 — — >40% — 2 — — 2 — 1 Total 6 35 17 2 24 1 4 TABLE 9 OCCURRENCES OF DIFFERENT FUEL/ENERGY PROPULSION SYSTEMS AMONG RESPONDENT BUS FLEETS CROSS-TABBED BY SPARE RATIO CATEGORY—COMBINED DIRECTLY OPERATED AND CONTRACTED

17 • “Plug buses” for overloads and/or schedule compliance/ “catch-up” • Training • Other emergency or special need • None of the above or not applicable. Table 12 summarizes the types of special or intermittent services needs as represented among the surveyed agency fleets. The most frequently reported special or intermittent service needs requiring bus fleet support are training (32 of 38 agencies, or 84%) and special events/exhibitions (31 agencies, or 82%). Important, but less frequently men- tioned, are other emergency or special needs (24 agencies, or 63%); and plug buses and back-up bus bridges, each reported by 23 agencies (60%). The survey then asked respondents whether meeting these special or intermittent service requirements affected their spare vehicle needs and spare ratio. Twenty-two agencies (58%) responded “No,” whereas 15 (39%) indicated “Yes” (with one non-response). The most frequently reported essential feature was more than one door, reported by 29 of the 38 agencies (76%); fol- lowed by a low floor (reported by 28 agencies, or 74%); and special exterior branding, listed by 25 agencies (66%). Important, but less frequently noted, were high capacity (19 agencies, or 50%), and premium seating and luggage racks/storage (each listed by 13 agencies, or 34%). The survey then asked respondents if the lack of available buses equipped with these specialized features affected their ability to meet daily pullout requirements of any services. Of the 38 surveyed agencies, 27 (71%) responded “No,” whereas 10 (26%) indicated “Yes” (with one responding “not applicable”). Special or Intermittent Service Needs The survey asked respondents to indicate which of the follow- ing services their fleet is called upon to deliver in addition to regular service: • Special event or exhibition transportation • Back-up “bus bridges” in case of rail interruptions Transit Service Types Delivered by Respondent Bus Fleets in 2012 Occurrences Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 14 Commuter Express (non-BRT) 23 Regional Trunk 10 Local Route 38 Neighborhood Circulator/Feeder 24 Shuttle 15 Other 4 Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 10 SUMMARIZES THE TRANSIT SERVICE TYPES REPRESENTED AMONG THE SURVEYED AGENCY FLEETS AND THE FREQUENCY OF REPRESENTATION—OCCURRENCES OF DIFFERENT TRANSIT SERVICE TYPES DELIVERED BY RESPONDENT BUS FLEETS— BOTH DIRECTLY OPERATED AND CONTRACTED Essential Vehicle Features That Are Needed to Effectively Deliver an Agency’s Mix of Transit Services Occurrences High passenger-carrying capacity more than a standard 40-ft bus 19 Special exterior branding with unique paint scheme 25 Exterior wood trim (e.g., for trolley-replicas) 2 Ability to maneuver in confined areas 10 Luggage racks/storage 13 Premium seating and other interior amenities 13 Low floor 28 More than one door 29 Other 5 None 1 Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 11 OCCURRENCES OF DIFFERENT ESSENTIAL VEHICLE FEATURES THAT MUST BE AVAILABLE ON VEHICLES IN RESPONDENT BUS FLEETS—BOTH DIRECTLY OPERATED AND CONTRACTED

18 Duty Cycles The survey asked respondents to indicate the relative propor- tion of its bus operations that fall within three intensity levels of duty cycles: • Heavy (intensive stop/start/dwell) • Medium (moderate stop/start/dwell) • Light (infrequent stop/start/dwell). Responses are detailed in web-only Appendix D. Respondents were then asked whether duty cycles affected spare bus needs and fleet spare ratio. Twenty-six (68%) responded “No,” while 10 (26%) reported “Yes” (with two “no response”). Fleet, Service, and Operations: Relative Influence on Required Spare Buses The survey asked respondents to indicate the relative degree to which each factor listed here influences the number of spare buses that their agency is required to maintain: • Alternative fuel/energy systems in fleet • Special vehicle needs or features required on certain routes • Age or mileage of the fleet • Advanced on-board technology systems • Intensity of duty cycles • Requirements to meet special service demands (e.g., emergencies, rail interruption support, “plug” buses for overloads or schedule catch-up, etc.) • Peak-to-base ratio (and resulting available bus mainte- nance time window) • Other (if not listed, refer to next question). Each of the respondents was asked to rate the relative influence of each factor on a scale of zero to four: • 4—Significant influence • 3—Moderate influence Peak-to-Base Ratios The peak-to-base ratio is a measure of the amount of non- revenue time between the peak periods that buses may be available for PM inspections and other necessary mainte- nance activities. The survey asked respondents the greatest number of buses required for service during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods and the smallest bus requirement during the base period—i.e., the off-peak period in between the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. Responses and the calculated peak-to-base ratios are detailed in Appendix D (available on-line only). The survey then asked respondents if their agency’s peak- to-base ratio, and the resulting available bus maintenance time window, affected their spare bus needs and fleet spare ratio. Of the 38 agencies, 23 (60%) responded “No,” while 14 (37%) indicated “Yes” (with one non-response). Unique Climatic Conditions and other Operating Factors Respondents were asked to indicate which of the follow- ing unique climatic or other environmental conditions their agency operates transit services under: • Extreme heat • Extreme humidity • Extreme cold • Heavy snow and/or ice • Salt or other corrosive elements • Steep hills • Extremely rough pavement • Other. The responses of the surveyed agencies on the conditions each agency reported are detailed in web-only Appendix D. The survey then asked whether these conditions in their service area affected spare vehicle needs and fleet spare ratio. Nineteen of the 38 agencies (50%) responded “No,” while 15 (39%) indicated “Yes” (with four “not applicable”). Special or Intermittent Services Needs Occurrences Special Event or Exhibition 31 Back-Up “Bus Bridges” for Rail Interruptions 23 “Plug Buses” for Overloads and/or Schedule Compliance/“Catch-up” 23 Training 32 Other Emergency or Special Need 24 None of the Above or Not Applicable 2 Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 12 TYPES OF SPECIAL OR INTERMITTENT SERVICES NEEDS THAT MUST BE SUPPORTED BY VEHICLES IN RESPONDENT’S BUS FLEETS—BOTH DIRECTLY OPERATED AND CONTRACTED

19 Level of Maintenance Staffing Respondents—including technicians who actually work on the vehicles and their systems and sub-systems, but not fuel- ers, cleaners, tire-servicers, etc.—were asked to compute the ratio of technicians to buses. Responses were provided in different formats, making comparisons difficult. Each survey response to this question is detailed in web-only Appendix D. Level of Training and Unmet Needs The survey requested information concerning the type of training that is regularly provided to agencies’ maintenance staff, including in-house, manufacturer/vendor supported, and other outsourced training. The survey also requested information concerning any training needs that are not being addressed and why. Following are some of the responses received to the latter question: • Electronic training on vehicle wiring; anti-lock systems training • Soft skills (computer, windows, memo-writing skills, record keeping), owing to lack of funding and schedule conflicts to maintain the required numbers of buses • Hybrid-electric maintenance training owing to lack of available trainers at the original equipment manufac- turer level; limited employee training availability dur- ing peak service times • Budget constraints have tightened training sessions as a result of limitations on internal training staff availabil- ity when doing training. • Some vendor and major component training is missed as a result of lack of manpower to back-fill while in training. • Frequency of training and refresher training because of a lack of staff to back-fill • Not enough staff to back-fill technicians while in training. Training space is used for vehicle maintenance/repair/ retrofits. • Quality assurance is not addressed because of a lack of training staff. • 2—Limited influence • 1—No influence • 0—Not applicable. The result was a weighted ordering of each factor in terms of its relative influence on the number of spare buses that the collective survey respondents are required to maintain (see Table 13). According to the weighted scores provided by the survey respondents, two factors appear to have the greatest influ- ence on the number of spare buses that are required to sup- port an agency’s services and maintenance requirements: (1) the age/mileage of the fleet, with a weighted score of 112; and (2) the intensity of duty cycles, with a weighted score of 100. The next most influential factors are peak- to-base ratio and available service window—each with a weighted score of 90—and special vehicle needs, with a weighted score or 89. AGENCY FLEET MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS Surveyed agencies were asked to provide information con- cerning their fleet maintenance programs, which may have an effect on (and be affected by) their spare bus needs and spare ratio. The following section provides an overview of some of those key variables and survey responses to ques- tions on agency fleet maintenance programs. Survey respondents were asked to provide information concerning maintenance program attributes, including: level of maintenance staffing; training and unmet needs; fleet replacement/rehabilitation programs; out-of-service criteria; maintenance facility and depot constraints; fleet reliability; and ongoing maintenance activities. Following is a summary of reported results. This is fol- lowed by a summary of survey responses reflecting the relative importance of each attribute on the agency’s spare bus needs and fleet spare ratio. Factors Impacting Spare Bus Needs Weighted Score Relative Order of Influence (#1 = greatest influence, #7 = least influence) Age or Mileage of Fleet 112 1 Intensity of Duty Cycle 100 2 Peak/Base Ratio and Available Service Window 90 3 Special Vehicle Needs 89 4 Advanced On-Board Technology 85 5 Alternative Fuel/Energy Systems 83 6 Requirements to Meet Special Service Demands 82 7 Other 15 8 Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 13 RELATIVE ORDERING OF FACTORS INFLUENCING AGENCY SPARE BUS NEEDS

20 Out-of-Service Criteria The survey queried respondents concerning the criteria under which a bus is pulled from service, as one of the fac- tors that may influence spare bus requirements. Respondents were asked to indicate which of the following out-of-service criteria they apply through policy or procedure: • Any defect that precludes the safe operation of the bus • Any defect that limits the accessibility of the bus (mal- functioning lift, ramp, kneeling mechanism, etc.) • Any defect that adversely affects customer com- fort (e.g., malfunctioning air conditioning or heating system) • Any cosmetic damage or blemish (body dents, graffiti, scratched windows, torn seat, etc.) • Lack of cleanliness (based on acceptable agency standard) • Any defect that limits the collection of revenue (mal- functioning fare box, smartcard reader, etc.) • Any defect that limits customer information (e.g., mal- functioning head-signs, automated stop announcement) • Other. The responses are summarized in Table 15. Detailed informa- tion on the specific out-of-service criteria reported by each agency is contained in web-only Appendix D. The most frequently reported out-of-service criteria are defects that preclude or limit safe operation (all 38 agencies); accessibility (34 agencies, or 89%); and customer comfort Fleet Replacement Rehabilitation Schedule The survey asked respondents whether their agency has an established bus replacement and/or major rehabilitation schedule for: • Heavy-duty large buses (30-ft to 48-ft, and 60-ft articulated) • Medium-to-light-duty small buses (16-ft to 30-ft, including cutaways). The responses are summarized in Table 14. Detailed information on the specific schedules reported by agencies and further clarifying background they provided is contained in web-only Appendix D. Thirty-four of the 38 respondents (89%) indicated they have an established fleet replacement schedule, although many also expressed that adhering to the schedule was con- tingent on available funding. At 18 of 38 agencies (47%), a schedule was set for the replacement only of heavy-duty coaches; 16 (42%) had a replacement schedule for both heavy-duty buses and medium/light-duty vehicles. Seventeen respondents (45%) indicated they have an established fleet rehabilitation schedule. The schedule was applicable to the rehabilitation of heavy-duty coaches only for 15 of the 38 (39%) agency fleets; only two of 38 (5%) had a rehabilitation schedule for both heavy-duty buses and medium/light-duty vehicles. Response Replacement Schedule Rehabilitation Schedule Yes (for Heavy-Duty and Medium/Light-Duty Buses) 16 2 Yes (for Heavy-Duty Buses Only) 18 15 No (neither Heavy-Duty nor Medium/Light-Duty Buses) 4 18 No Response 0 3 Total 38 38 Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 14 RESPONSE TO WHETHER OR NOT AGENCY HAS AN ESTABLISHED BUS REPLACEMENT AND/OR REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Out-of-Service Criteria Occurrences Any defect that precludes the safe operation of the bus 38 Any defect that limits the accessibility of the bus (e.g., malfunctioning lift, ramp, kneeling mechanism, etc.) 34 Any defect that adversely affects customer comfort (e.g., malfunctioning air conditioning or heating system) 32 Lack of cleanliness (based on acceptable agency standard) 25 Any defect that limits the collection of revenue (e.g., malfunctioning farebox, smartcard reader, etc.) 22 Any defect that limits customer information (e.g., malfunctioning head-signs, automated stop announcement 19 Any cosmetic damage or blemish (e.g., body dents, graffiti, scratched windows, torn seat (etc.) 7 Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 15 TABULATION OF OUT-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA WITH WHICH TO PULL SUB-STANDARD BUSES FROM REVENUE SERVICE—BOTH DIRECTLY OPERATED AND CONTRACTED

21 Twenty-one of the 38 (55%) survey respondents pointed to constraints associated with a limited number of mainte- nance bays and a need to shuttle vehicles between facili- ties. Eighteen of 38 (47%) reported the inability to support certain bus types as a constraint; and 17 (45%) complained of the need to shuttle vehicles between facilities for certain maintenance operations. Nine of 38 (24%) reported no facil- ity constraints. The survey also asked respondents if these facility con- straints affected their spare vehicle needs and fleet spare ratio. Of the 38 surveyed agencies, 24 (63%) responded “No,” whereas nine (27%) indicated “Yes” (the remaining five responded “not applicable”). Maintenance Program: Relative Influence on Required Spare Buses The survey requested respondents to indicate the relative degree to which each maintenance program factor listed here influences the number of spare buses that their agency is required to maintain: • Level of maintenance staffing in key skill areas • Level of training • Fleet replacement/rehab schedule • Out-of-service criteria (when bus is removed) • Fleet reliability (measured by mean distance between mechanical failures) • Maintenance facility constraints (at one or more garages/depots). Each of the respondents was asked to rate the relative influence of each factor on a scale of zero to four (with zero indicating the factor was not applicable to that agency): • 1—No influence • 2—Limited influence • 3—Moderate influence • 4—Significant influence. The result was a weighted ordering of each factor in terms of its relative influence on the number of spare buses that the collective respondents are required to maintain (see Table 17). (32 agencies, or 84%). Important, but less frequently listed, were lack of cleanliness (25 agencies, or 66%); inability to collect revenue (22 agencies, or 58%); and impaired cus- tomer information (19 agencies, or 50%). Fleet Reliability The survey requested information from respondents concern- ing the reliability of their directly operated and contracted fleets, as measured by the average annual mean distance between mechanical failures. Respondents were asked to provide these data for five years (2008–2012). The survey also asked the respondents for the definition of mechanical failure they used for the purpose of their calcula- tions. There was a wide range of definitions used, making comparisons of the data difficult. There were also no discern- ible trends that could be discerned from the data regarding increased or decreased reliability. Appendix D (web-only) contains each agency’s survey response with their reported fleet reliability data over the five-year period, along with the definition used. Maintenance Facility/Depot Constraints The survey requested information from respondents concern- ing any physical constraints at their maintenance facilities or depots that limit the functionality or flexibility of their main- tenance activities as one of the factors that may influence spare bus requirements. Respondents were asked to indicate which of the following constraints are present: • Limited number of maintenance bays or lifts • Inability to support certain bus types (e.g., articulated buses, CNG fueling, etc.) • Need to shuttle vehicles between facilities for certain maintenance needs (e.g., major component overhaul, PMs, paint/body, etc.) • None. The responses are summarized in Table 16. Detailed infor- mation on the specific physical constraints at their mainte- nance facilities as reported by each agency is contained in web-only Appendix D. Constraint Occurrences Limited number of maintenance bays or lifts 21 Inability to support certain bus types (e.g., artics, CNG fueling, etc.) 18 Need to shuttle vehicles between facilities for certain maintenance needs (e.g., major component overhaul, PMs, paint/body, etc.) 17 None 10 Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 16 CONSTRAINTS LIMITING FUNCTIONALITY AT MAINTENANCE FACILITIES

22 • 3—Moderate influence • 4—Significant influence. The result was a weighted ordering of each factor in terms of its relative influence on the number of spare buses that the collective survey respondents are required to maintain (see Table 18). According to the weighted scores provided by the sur- vey respondents, three factors appear to have the great- est influence on the number of spare buses required to support an agency’s revenue transit services and mainte- nance requirements: PM inspections/resulting actions with weighted score of 113; major component rebuild with a score of 112; and running repair with a score of 108. The next factors drop off significantly in scoring, and their rela- tive influence on the spare fleet: body and paint (with a weighted score of 94); scheduled mid-life overhauls (75); and daily servicing (65). OTHER FACTORS AND CHALLENGES The survey also collected detailed information concerning some of the other factors and challenges that may have an effect on agency spare bus needs and spare ratios. The fol- lowing section provides an overview of survey responses to questions concerning financial challenges; compliance with FTA spare ratio guidelines; Canadian funding impacts; agency spare ratio sufficiency; steps taken and solutions implemented; and suggested changes in policy and practices. According to the weighted scores provided by the survey respondents, the first five of these six factors have similarly strong influences on the number of spare buses that are required to support an agency’s services and maintenance requirements. Out-of-service criteria and fleet replacement/rehab schedule both had a weighted score of 100; level of training had a weighted score of 97; maintenance staffing had a weighted score of 96; and fleet reliability a score of 95. Maintenance facility constraints had far less impact, with a weighted score of only 73. On-Going Maintenance Activities: Relative Influence on Required Spare Buses The survey asked respondents to indicate the relative degree to which each on-going maintenance activity listed here influ- ences the number of spare buses that their agency requires: • PM inspections/resulting actions • Major component rebuild • Scheduled midlife overhauls • Minor/routine repair (i.e., running repair) • Body and paint • Daily servicing. Survey respondents were then asked to rate the relative influence of each factor above on a scale of zero to four, with zero indicating not applicable: • 1—No influence • 2—Limited influence Relative Ranking of Factors Influencing Spare Bus Needs Weighted Score Relative Order of Influence (#1 = greatest influence, #5 = least influence) Out-of-Service Criteria 100 1 (tie) Fleet Replacement/Rehab Schedule 100 1 (tie) Level of Training 97 2 Level of Maintenance Staffing in Key Skill Areas 96 3 Fleet Reliability 95 4 Maintenance Facility Constraints 73 5 Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 17 RELATIVE ORDERING OF MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FACTORS INFLUENCING AGENCY SPARE BUS NEEDS Relative Ranking of Influences on Spare Bus Needs Weighted Score Relative Order of Influence (#1 = greatest influence, #6 = least influence) PM Inspections/Resulting Actions 113 1 Major Component Rebuild 112 2 Running Repair 108 3 Body and Paint 94 4 Scheduled Mid-life Overhauls 75 5 Daily Servicing 65 6 Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 18 RELATIVE ORDERING OF ON-GOING MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES INFLUENCING AGENCY SPARE BUS NEEDS

23 years. Nineteen of the 38 (50%) surveyed agencies responded “Yes,” while an equal number answered “No.” Of those agencies that responded “Yes,” nine indicated that they were required to submit an action plan to the FTA specifying how they planned to get to a 20% spare ratio level. Two agencies reported that they had received “an annual conditional waiver.” One agency mentioned that the “FTA provided an exemption that expires this federal fiscal year,” and another responded that “communication between FTA and the agency [had] resolved the issue of exceeding the spare ratio threshold.” Canadian Funding Impacts The survey asked Canadian respondents if there have been any impacts of federal and/or provincial funding on their agency’s spare ratio. Table 20 summarizes their responses. As previously noted, an agency’s spare bus fleet spare ratio is purely a local matter in Canada. There is not a com- parable federal or provincial organization (such as the FTA in the United States) that has a spare ratio target or guideline. Agency Spare Ratio Sufficiency The survey asked respondents if their current spare ratio was sufficient to meet the agency’s maximum operating require- ments and their optimal maintenance program. Twenty-one (21) of the 38 (55%) surveyed agencies responded “Yes,” whereas 17 of the 38 (45%) answered “No.” Among reasons reported by those that responded “No” are: • Overall budget constraints limiting the number of required maintenance staff positions, the availability of needed training, and retirement of older buses at the end of their useful life. • The high average age of the fleet and resulting lack of reliability of revenue buses and spares. • Advanced propulsion technologies and high-tech on- board equipment are more complex and maintenance intensive—and in some cases (e.g., gasoline-hybrids) more unreliable—drawing on the spare bus fleet. Financial Challenges The survey asked respondents whether financial challenges have affected their agency’s spare bus needs and spare ratio. Of the 38 survey respondents, 22 (58%) replied “Yes” and 16 (42%) responded “No.” The survey then asked respondents to indicate whether their agency has experienced the following specific financial challenges: • Reduced maintenance staffing levels • Reduced capital dollars available for needed training • Transit service reductions resulting in unused vehicles (and expansion of the spare vehicle fleet) • Reduced capital dollars available for needed bus replacement • Reduced funds available for state of good repair. The responses are summarized in Table 19. Nineteen (19) of the 38 (50%) survey respondents iden- tified reduced capital dollars for needed bus replacement as the primary factor affecting agency spare bus needs and spare ratios; 16 (42%) pointed to reduced maintenance staffing levels as having the greatest impact; and 13 (34%) identified transit service reductions resulting in unused vehicles. In addition to those challenges, other financial issues were mentioned by survey respondents: • On-going funding challenges have changed service lev- els, spare ratios, and staffing levels. • Must keep buses past their 12-year useful life; these older buses have a lower MDBF (mean distance between failures) and are out of service more often. • Vehicle condition standards have been lowered and deferred maintenance on the rise. • There have been no employee pay raises for three years and increased contributions towards benefits (pension and health). Compliance with FTA Spare Ratio Guidelines The survey asked respondents if their agency had exceeded the FTA’s 20% spare ratio guideline in any of the past five Specific Financial Challenges Affecting Spare Ratios Occurrences Reduced capital dollars available for needed bus replacement 19 Reduced maintenance staffing levels 16 Transit service reductions resulting in unused vehicles (and expansion of the spare vehicle fleet) 13 Reduced funds available for state of good repair 9 Reduced dollars available for needed training 7 No financial challenges affecting spare ratios 16 Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 19 TABULATION OF SPECIFIC FINANCIAL CHALLENGES

24 • The movement of retired buses into a contingency fleet • The sale of buses to reduce the overall number of vehi- cles in the fleet to meet reduced transit service levels • The replacement of coaches in smaller groups, allowing for reduced decommissioning batches • Focused effort on and closer supervision of the manage- ment of small sub-fleet spares and division-to-division resource sharing • Implementation of annual bus purchases through a 10-year contract with a single supplier that incorpo- rates minimal specification changes from year to year, which also reduces training requirements and spare parts issues • Decline or deferral of some special requests to a better time (when more spare buses are available); allocation of different spare ratios to different fleet types at each depot; revision of spare factors for each depot quarterly so that each depot is assigned the appropriate number of buses • Working to establish CNG as a reliable alternative fuel choice • Dedication to long-term asset management strategy. Suggested Changes in Practice and Policy When asked whether respondents believe that a 20% spare ratio for their fleet is realistic for their agency, 14 of the 38 (37%) surveyed agencies responded “Yes,” whereas 24 of the 38 (63%) answered “No.” Following is a sample of respondent comments: • Each service type has its own unique operating character- istics, maintenance demands, and, in many cases, special- ized vehicle and accessory requirements. To fully meet the needs of the range of transit service types offered, the spare ratio must be sufficient within the sub-fleet(s) of vehicles that support each service type. All buses in the entire fleet are not necessarily interchangeable in their ability to support all service types. • Challenges in meeting preventive maintenance inspection/repair intervals while meeting revenue ser- vice bus pullout requirements. • Challenges in attracting and retaining qualified techni- cians, etc. • Difficulty in obtaining needed parts can delay getting buses out of the shop and back in service (and freeing up spare buses). • Lack of sufficient spare buses and staffing to address long- term repairs, bus retrofits, equipment installation, special campaigns, fleet-wide defects, decommissioning, corro- sion damage, and non-routine maintenance requirements. • The mix of multiple specialty sub-fleets needed to support different service designs [and resulting] requirements for unique vehicle characteristics prevent inter-operability between sub-fleets and can limit the use of available spare buses. • Demands for spare buses to support special services and training bus needs in addition to regular revenue pullout have resulted in a reduction in available repair time. Steps Taken and Solutions Implemented The survey asked respondents if their agency has been able to reduce its spare ratio over the past five years. Eighteen (18) of the 38 (47%) surveyed agencies responded “Yes,” whereas 20 of the 38 (53%) answered “No.” Among actions taken to accomplish this reduction reported by those agencies that responded “Yes” are: • Acquisition of newer vehicles (reducing the average fleet age) to improve vehicle reliability and availability • Obtaining corporate commitment to a leaner fleet (and the resources required to accomplish this) • Standardizing of the fleet, with fewer unique sub-fleets and specialized vehicles • Improved maintenance practices and launch of an aggressive PM program Agency Impact(s) London Transit (Ontario) No significant impact. Winnipeg Transit (Manitoba) Improved funding from gas tax and other programs has allowed Winnipeg’s fleet replacement program of 30 to 31 buses purchased per year to be uninterrupted for over ten years. Edmonton Transit (Alberta) In the past, there has been sufficient capital funding for fleet replacement and bus refurbishment. In the future, however, more limited capital dollars are expected for bus replacement and refurbishment with resulting challenges in fleet management. Coast Mountain Bus, Vancouver (British Columbia) On-going funding challenges at provincial/regional governmental levels have reduced spare ratios, service and staffing levels. STM, Montreal (Quebec) No impact. Toronto Transit Commission (Ontario) TTC relies on city/provincial/federal funding partners for financial support to maintain a safe and reliable bus fleet. There have been no notable or significant financial challenges that have impacted the fleet spare ratio over the last few years. Source: Responses to Transit Agency Survey. TABLE 20 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES REGARDING IMPACTS OF FEDERAL AND/OR PROVINCIAL FUNDING LEVELS ON SPARE RATIOS

25 • Improved training for maintenance staff and the resources to do so • Stabilizing reliability of alternative fueling and advanced technologies (e.g., gasoline-hybrids) • Increased commonality in buses and bus technologies • Implementing proactive maintenance programs to reduce life-cycle costs, improve reliability, and minimize down time because of mechanical failures • Pursue greater uniformity in bus fleet; maximize inter- changeability of buses in the fleet to allow flexibility in order to meet service demands; avoid specialty vehicles for specific routes to facilitate meeting pull-out with limited spare buses. • Allow for spare ratios to be calculated at the sub-fleet level, defined by different vehicle configurations or applications; allow for spare ratio fluctuations owing to changes in service delivery quantities and requirements during useful life of vehicles in fleet; allow for spare ratio realignment through vehicle replacement plans and allow flexibility for spare ratio deviations; exclude training vehicles from calculation of spare ratio. • Improved workforce productivity and work planning practices; improved maintenance diagnostics; imple- mentation of standard repair times and annual employee expectations, etc.; changes in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that would provide for part-time main- tenance staff or swing shifts • Changes to improve and expand maintenance facility capacity, staffing levels, overtime, comp time, internal job functions versus external, staff productivity, inven- tory levels, inventory cycle counts, vehicle in-service time, vehicle technical complexities, cleaning cycles, PM cycles, and planned versus unplanned maintenance, etc. • Minimizing need for continuous practice of having a contingency fleet • Continuation of the dialogue between APTA and FTA concerning changes to FTA’s 20% Spare Ratio Guide- line would be a positive step. • Without sufficient bus replacement funding, [the agency] must operate older, less reliable buses longer. • With added vehicle support systems such as security, vehicle location systems, radio system, passenger count- ing systems, fare collection systems, etc., requiring more time and routine service, it is difficult to maintain and operate within the 20% spare ratio. • It is challenging to achieve maintenance requirements with running a (rubber-tired, overhead catenary) trol- ley system. If the system goes down or must be taken down for construction, a 20% spare ratio will not be sufficient. • Aged facilities are not as accessible for our growing articulated fleets. • Smaller and underfunded systems cannot get by with a 20% spare ratio. • With a small fleet, 20% is a workable spare ratio. The 20% spare ratio is currently viewed as being too large—a minimum spare ratio is best with which to cost-effectively operate the fleet. The final survey question asked respondents what changes in practice, policy, or additional resource(s) would best improve their agency’s ability to reduce its fleet spare ratio. Following is a sample of responses: • Any actions that result in improved vehicle perfor- mance and reliability • Steady state funding for timely bus replacement and overhaul to enable retirement of vehicles at the end of their useful life [no longer than 12 years/500,000 miles] as opposed to keeping buses until replacement funding is found • More employees to perform maintenance work; main- tain all staffing positions, mechanics, supervisors, etc., as “filled”; more qualified mechanics to work on buses with advanced technologies