Track Maintenance Costs on Rail Transit Properties (2009)

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.

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS BUDGETS The limited survey responses here appear to indicate differences in opinions on adequacy of budgets between newer and older systems, with an apparent demarcation point in those opinions for system age between 20 and 30 years. Older systems believe that budgets are preset before assessing maintenance demand, whereas newer systems believe that budgets are based on needs. These results suggest that funding sources perpetuate maintenance levels that are present at the initiation of a transit’s life cycle. Although this may be suitable as a baseline reference for funding, aging systems require different annual funding assessments to help through system life-cycle transitions. The life-cycle transitions appear to occur at 20- to 30-year intervals, according to limited synthesis information here. The older agencies appear to believe that budgets are based on available funding and maintaining staff levels. The common comment is that budgets lack long-term programmed maintenance items. TRACK STANDARDS The interviewed agencies either have or are on the verge of having true track standardization. The cost of lack of uniform standards is reportedly significant, suggested as 50% premium on the basic cost of maintenance from errors (caused by similar but wrong parts on a job), lost time, and extra stocking costs. Those interviewed highlighted additional benefits of standardization to enhance the system with proven components and curtail entry of untried or undesirable components. Standardization further provides a means for communicating the correct concepts to other departments, to consultants and managers, resulting in compliant designs and maintenance. Standardization removes unproductive time of key personnel in educating staff, consultants, and managers on expected results. The interviewees also implied that track performance is achieved by adjusting track standards to the vehicles on their system. Solutions are being implemented through track standards. A comprehensive review of track maintenance costs might consist of documentation of industry agency construction and maintenance standards, along with an assessment of vehicle characteristics that affect track maintenance demand. 52

MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES The interviews and survey appear to indicate that maintenance may tend more toward emergency response than most would prefer. One respondent stated succinctly that an “ideal” maintenance strategy must embody the realities of limited track access time. The lack of track access time appeared to be the factor most often cited as the major added cost of rail transit compared to other rail applications. It appears from the limited survey and interviews that maintenance strategies are being tested and implemented as a routine responsibility, with some elements, such as rail lubrication, rail grinding, and advanced materials, advancing to the level of specified standards. The process is informal, but effective. LIFE-CYCLE MAINTENANCE DEMAND No information was received on this topic. A follow-on program is suggested to address issues of track component life expectancy and levels of maintenance required to attain or extend track component life. AGENCY MAINTENANCE UNIT COSTS This report asked about reasonable rail transit track maintenance costs, along with the factors that contribute to those costs. Limited survey and interviews show that the lack of track access appears to double maintenance costs. The bid responses also provide an idea of contractor unit costs to perform tasks, generally without train interference. Agencies report productively performing rail replacement under constrained conditions, measured by contractor rates from capital projects. It appears that transit agencies perform maintenance tasks without the access afforded to contractors for most capital projects. Compared with a contractor, an agency may have an additional premium for unplanned occurrences such as broken rails, whereas contractors reportedly have the advantage of planning. Agencies do not always appear to have that option. The practices to extend component life and increase reliability are partially documented in this report, and include rail lubrication, advanced rails, and rail grinding. A further study to benchmark current component life cycles would be appropriate to define the measures, technologies, and practices that will aid agencies’ efficiencies. 53

SUMMARY This synthesis documents limited agency survey and interview information on agency practices, innovations, and lessons learned in track maintenance costs. It includes a review of literature related to track maintenance costs. The literature indicates that track maintenance costs are beneficially affected by technology implementation in materials as well as in monitoring and detection devices. A primary reason for replacement of track components is wear- and fatigue-based failures. The economic modeling efforts identified in the literature review conducted during this study did not show any strong links between maintenance costs and the amount of traffic. This is likely because the modeling efforts identified used statistical methods relying on general characteristics of the track and vehicles rather than specific rail vehicle characteristics, track characteristics, and local rail traffic characteristics. Models do exist, however, that relate track maintenance costs to the specific characteristics of track, vehicles, and traffic. These models and the results of their specific applications are usually proprietary and not available to the public. The survey showed that reliable maintenance cost information would be most useful to agency staff as a tool to explain budget proposals, and to document for management as well as for funding sources the basis of budget requests. Younger agencies appear to believe that their budgets are based on maintenance demand and are reasonably adequate, whereas older agencies believe that their budgets are inadequate. The differences in these opinions appear to relate to a 20- to 30-year aging of system, among others factors at work. Estimates of specific track maintenance tasks showed consistency among older system level-of- effort estimates. These estimates also illustrate the interview opinions that the largest component of track maintenance cost is lack of track access. The productive cost to conduct a task has at least an equal unproductive cost caused by lack of track access. The respondents also reported that agencies are removing unproductive constraints and improving maintenance costs by implementing track standards. Limited survey and interview comments suggest that budgets are constructed more around maintaining staff levels than on maintenance demand. A consistent comment from agencies appears to be budget-related—the lack of programmed maintenance planning and a commitment to multiyear (budget) commitments to support programmed maintenance. The report suggests that compared to contractor costs, the agencies are efficient in conducting maintenance tasks. The agencies have a significant cost premium, however, associated with lack of track access that normally is not a constraint on contractors. 54

FINDINGS: GAPS IN INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE This report provides a limited view on factors that influence track maintenance costs. It should be considered a beginning. The gaps in information and knowledge are as follows: • Clear understandings of resources (skill base, equipment, time) and needs (maintenance demand, operations, track access, etc.). The survey for this project failed to elicit responses from non- agency designers, researchers, regulators, and public funding sources on their interest in track maintenance costs. Framing track maintenance costs in a manner that is relevant to different uses is critical and might be explored in the future. • Wear and degradation life-cycle mechanics. Based on this report’s results, these mechanics appear to have periods of 20 to 25 years. • Unit cost and unit levels of effort for specific track tasks, segregating productive effort from required indirect effort (preparation, waiting for access, etc.). • Assembly of readily available costs into databases for agency use, such as contract bid results. SUGGESTED RESEARCH NEEDS Research needs for track maintenance costs include the following: • Further development of demand-based maintenance budgeting tools, including a database system for collecting maintenance activity against specific track components, geometry, and traffic at specific locations • Further development of mechanistic relationships of track component wear, degradation, and fatigue from traffic loads, frequencies, and vehicle behavior • Further development of models that link the previous items specifically aimed at life-cycle cost planning with planning horizons greater than 30 years. • Further exploration of agency- or industry-wide track standards. 55