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.

38 size grouping, four of eight medium fleets and six of six large fleets had three or more different sub-fleets. • According to the weighted scores provided by the sur- vey respondents, two factors appear to have the greatest impact on the number of spare buses that are required to support an agency’s services and maintenance require- ments: the age/mileage of the fleet (with a weighted score of 112); and intensity of duty cycles (with a weighted score of 100). • Twenty-three of 38 respondents (61%) reported their fleet vehicles had an average age between 6.0 and 8.9 years old. Only eight of 38 fleets (21%) had an aver- age age of more than 8.9 years. • When asked if the average age or cumulative mileage of their fleet affected their spare bus needs and fleet spare ratio, 22 of the 38 surveyed agencies (58%) indicated “Yes,” whereas 16 (42%) responded “No.” • Clearly, diesel continues to be the predominant fuel- ing and propulsion system for buses in the respondent fleets. Diesel buses are deployed by 35 of the 38 agencies responding (92%); hybrid-electric buses by 24 agencies (63%); and compressed natural gas buses by 17 (45%). Only five of the 38 responding agencies (13%) were exclusively diesel-powered. • Of the 38 total respondents surveyed, 25 (66%) had more than eight on-board technology systems to main- tain in their fleet; nine (24%) had more than 10. Only 12 of the 38 (32%) respondents had eight or fewer on- board technology systems to support. Numerous challenges in managing bus fleets and spare ratios were identified in both the survey and case examples. Many, though not all, of these difficulties are rooted in an agency’s financial challenges, which can be a determinant of spare bus requirements and a contributing factor to an agency’s spare ratio. Asked whether financial challenges have impacted each agency’s spare bus needs and spare ratio, 22 of the 38 sur- vey respondents (58%) replied “Yes” and 16 (42%) responded “No.” Those who identified such challenges listed reduced capital dollars for needed bus replacement; reduced mainte- nance staffing levels; and transit service reductions (resulting in unused vehicles) as the three major impacts. Other critical challenges were identified in the survey and case examples: • In meeting the needs of the range of service types offered, the spare ratio must be sufficient within the This chapter summarizes findings, reports promising practices, and shares suggestions for additional research. It also lists other potentially useful resources to practitioners. There is no “one size fits all” model when it comes to determining the optimal size of a bus fleet and its attendant spare ratio. Each agency’s bus fleet has unique attributes, service demands, environmental factors, and maintenance issues, some of which have adversely impacted some transit agencies’ abilities to keep lean spare ratios while not signifi- cantly affecting other agencies. FTA’s policy states that “the basis for determining a reason- able spare bus ratio takes local circumstances into account,” an indication of some flexibility with regard to the maximum number of spare buses allowed by FTA. The study found that FTA does grant some degree of latitude and considers local conditions when evaluating bus spares, particularly in their consideration of action plans they require of grantees that have exceeded the 20% threshold. In these action plans, grantees provide FTA with the approach they intend to take over a period of time to bring their spare ratio back to an acceptable level. Following is a recap of some of the more pertinent findings of the survey: • Of the 35 directly operated fleets surveyed, nearly half (17, or 49%) were within the 20% FTA spare ratio guideline, while an equal number exceeded the 20% threshold (there was one non-response). Most of the directly operated fleets, 26 of 35 (74%), had spare ratios at or below 25%. • Comparing spare ratios by directly operated fleet size groups indicated that five of the nine very large fleets and five of eight of the mega-fleets had spare ratios at or below the FTA 20% guideline. • Tracking agency spare ratio trends over past five years showed that 16 of the 35 (46%) directly operated agency fleets were able to reduce their spare ratio from 2008 to 2012; 13 (37%) increased their spare ratio over this period; and five (14%) stayed the same. • When asked whether respondents believed that a 20% spare ratio for their fleet is realistic for their agency, 14 of the 38 surveyed agencies (37%) responded “Yes,” whereas 24 (63%) answered “No.” • Of the 35 directly operated fleets surveyed, 24 of 35 (69%) had three or more different sub-fleets. By fleet chapter five CONCLUSIONS

39 sub-fleet(s) of vehicles that support each service type, with appropriate specialized vehicle and accessory requirements. All buses in an entire fleet are not neces- sarily interchangeable in supporting all service types. • Meeting the intensive and intermittent nature of some of the special service requirements has taxed bus fleets and their spare vehicles. • Extreme high and low temperatures, other severe climatic conditions, and in some cases altitude can all take a toll on bus performance and reliability. Weather-related and shorter-term issues include non-starts, cold buses, prob- lems with air, heating, and cooling system, suspension issues, and, with snow or ice, increased accidents involv- ing buses. Many longer-term winter weather impacts are related to salt corrosion. • Small and outdated maintenance facilities have limited agencies’ capacity to handle growing and diverse fleets, including the specialized needs of articulated and alter- natively fueled buses (e.g., compressed natural gas). The difficulty of expanding and building new facilities in developed urban areas further constrains the efficient expansion of fleet maintenance capacity. • The new bus technologies have increased requirements for preventive maintenance and repair procedures on increasingly complex vehicles. • Attracting and retaining qualified labor (both tech- nicians and management) is very difficult in many areas, not only in terms of the numbers of new employ- ees needed but also the specialized technical skills required. • There are numerous unmet training needs resulting from lack of resources or available trainers, including: – Soft skills (use of computer and software memo- writing skills, record keeping, etc.) – Hybrid training resulting from a lack of available trainers at the original equipment manufacturer level and limited employee training availability during peak service times – Some major in-house and/or vendor-provided com- ponent training (including refresher sessions) missed because of a lack of manpower to fill in while techni- cians are in training – Quality assurance not adequately addressed because of a lack of training staff. PROMISING PRACTICES To address some the challenges listed previously and others concerns, survey respondents and case example agencies sug- gested that sustainable funding for the timely replacement, rehabilitation, and overhaul of aging, high-mileage buses; improved vehicle performance and reliability; increased staffing and training resources; and facility upgrades would all be beneficial to cost-effective fleet management and the optimization of spare ratios. In addition to these general suggestions, several agencies shared promising practices and strategies, based on their own lessons learned, reporting that: • It is important to create and maintain a culture of dis- cipline and collaboration across all departments (e.g., maintenance, operations, planning) to manage the fleet within the given parameters of service demands, vehi- cle mix, funding, staffing levels, etc. Communication is key to preventing departments working in isolation “as silos,” without coordination, cooperation, or information- sharing. Focus and close supervision are also essential to managing small sub-fleet spares and facilitating inter- departmental resource sharing and assistance. • Avoiding large bus purchases whenever feasible is a sound practice. If all buses in a fleet reach the age of lessened reliability and require more frequent mainte- nance at the same time, it can greatly impact the spare ratio needs. Replacing buses in smaller groups reduces the likelihood that large numbers of vehicles will require intensive maintenance and/or retirement at the same time. At the end of the useful life of a large number of buses, an equally large group of replacements must be funded, procured, and commissioned—another signif- icant challenge involving multiple critical elements and durations, such as: technical specification develop- ment (three to six months); governing board approval for release of bid or request for proposal package (one to two months); bid processing time (two months); board and legal review of award (two to three months); issuance of purchase order (one to 10 weeks, depend- ing on pre-award approval and funding); and vehicle manufacture and delivery. Original equipment manu- facturers of heavy-duty transit buses typically have a 12- to 18-month time frame from purchase order to delivery. • Given this lengthy process, it is helpful to reduce the frequency of bus procurements through longer-term contracts with a single manufacturer. This allows the purchase of smaller numbers of buses over an extended period of time, also facilitating greater fleet homogene- ity with fewer suppliers and specification changes. • Breaking up the new bus purchases and old bus retire- ments into smaller orders is also more efficient in terms of spreading out staff time, because commissioning and de-commissioning buses is a very labor-intensive process requiring the transfer of systems, equipment, and numerous other electronic and mechanical on- board assets. • It is prudent to keep the bus fleet as homogenous and uni- form as possible, with a limited number of different bus types/sizes/manufacturers and fuel/propulsion technolo- gies, allowing for easier replacement and contributing to a lower spare ratio. Stocking parts, providing training, and conducting specialized maintenance for multiple, unique sub-fleets can be difficult and expensive.

40 • It is important to conduct the highest level of preventive and “preemptive” maintenance feasible, proactively maintaining buses to a high standard. For example, maintaining air system driers year-round to make sure the systems stay dry for the winter can prevent freeze ups; maintaining auxiliary fuel heaters year-round ensures heating systems work when the temperatures drop; and more intensively focusing on springtime radiator washing can avoid buses overheating in the summer. Wherever possible, avoid the trap of seeming to save money by doing the bare minimum required for preventive maintenance, then facing higher expenses later in the form of bus failures, service interruptions, and spare bus constraints. To minimize impact on peak- vehicle requirements, it is beneficial to schedule as many of these preemptive maintenance activities as possible on weekends or midday. • Assigning service trucks to perform repairs in the field, either at a scheduled meeting place en route or on-site for a stalled bus, can minimize spare bus change-outs. Real-time communication allows for quick adaptability for addressing issues. • A strong maintenance training program has a very high return on investment in terms of cost-effectively manag- ing the fleet and the spare bus ratio. In addition, the train- ing program is critical to ensuring that the maintenance staff has the capabilities and skills to support the fleet’s rapidly changing technologies. • Using bus mock-ups for maintenance training rather than taking a revenue coach out of service minimizes the draw on available spare buses. It may be possible to use retired buses as mock-ups, but their value as a training aid is often limited because of outdated technology. • Use of the contingency fleet buses and spares avail- able in off-peak period can support training needs while minimizing impacts to maintenance activities. The inac- tive contingency fleet can be helpful in getting new drivers oriented and initially trained. The use of active fleet coaches during the off-peak periods for driver and mechanic training can help keep spare buses available for peak-period demands. • Whenever feasible, design interoperability and flex- ibility into new services and branding schemes. This will make it possible to “lend” buses from different sub-fleets (beyond the ones dedicated for a particular service) to other services during periods of unusually high-demand and/or other operational challenges. • When evaluating and approving new transit services and/or new bus technologies, it would be beneficial to perform a full life-cycle cost analysis, including a real- istic assessment of the additional spare bus requirements to support the sub-fleet and services. Finally, true effectiveness in the optimization of spare ratios begins with governing board and executive manage- ment commitment to a “leaner” fleet, and the dedication of sustainable financial resources, staffing support, and internal policies to support that commitment. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH As noted in the literature review, there has been very limited research conducted on the management and optimization of spare bus fleets and spare ratios. There is little, if any, guid- ance to assist practitioners (i.e., transit agency maintenance, operations, and planning staffs) in “right-sizing” their spare bus fleets and making their overall vehicle maintenance and deployment more efficient. To this end, the following suggestions for additional research and development are offered: • A methodology (including tools, templates, and models) for fleet maintenance, operations, engineering, planning, and finance department departments to use in determin- ing the optimal number of spare vehicles relative to peak fleet needs (i.e., their spare ratio), integrating the various unique factors, conditions, services, fleet sizes, and prac- tices of a particular transit agency. This could include an evaluation tool that takes into consideration the weighted effects of all of the criteria mentioned throughout this document that impact the ability of an agency to deliver reliable service, including, but not limited to, daily maintenance requirements, training bus needs, special events and displays, other special requests for buses, and marketing/branding programs. • Opportunities to improve bus fleet reliability and per- formance, including best maintenance practices that provide the greatest return on investment • A comparative analysis of alternative fuel and energy propulsion systems, including full life-cycle costs, benefits, performance, reliability, and effective prac- tices among fleet managers operating vehicles with these systems (including actual experience related to spare vehicle support needs) • Best practices and tools for the optimization of main- tenance staffs, including, but not limited to: – Staffing levels, organization, and assignment – Workforce productivity and time standards – Work planning – Improved preventive maintenance approaches and diagnostics – Technical skill development and training • Methods and strategies to improve inter-departmental collaboration and “the breaking down of silos” (e.g., between maintenance, operations, and planning departments) • Best labor practices, including creative collective bar- gaining agreement language that has been negotiated in the United States and Canada resulting in improved fleet maintenance productivity and performance

41 • Creative procurement practices to enable longer-term purchasing under a single “umbrella” contract, enabling greater uniformity of buses and major components over an extended period • A review of all the implications that the wave of “baby boomer” retirements may have on skilled maintenance staffing, spare bus fleet needs, and resulting spare ratios; and solutions to address these implications • International experience and best practices in bus fleet operations and maintenance management, with a special focus on optimizing fleet size and controlling costs. Appendix C contains a proposed research problem state- ment for submittal to the TCRP program for potential fund- ing as a project, encompassing some of the suggestions cited previously. In closing, continuing the dialogue between APTA and the FTA on exploring potential changes to the FTA spare ratio guidelines would be highly constructive. This conversation could enable the exploration of opportunities to meet the chal- lenges facing the nation’s transit operators while addressing such federal interests as prudent investment of federal transit dollars, transit asset management, and state of good repair.