Maintenance Productivity Practices (2004)

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.

TCRP SYNTHESIS 54 Maintenance Productivity Practices A Synthesis of Transit Practice TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration

TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT SELECTION COMMITTEE (Membership as of June 2004) CHAIR SHARON GREENE Sharon Greene & Associates MEMBERS KAREN ANTION Karen Antion Consulting LINDA J. BOHLINGER HNTB Corp. ROBERT I. BROWNSTEIN Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. PETER A. CANNITO Metropolitan Transit Authority—Metro- North Railroad GREGORY COOK Ann Arbor Transportation Authority JENNIFER L. DORN Federal Transit Administration NATHANIEL P. FORD, SR. Metropolitan Atlanta RTA RONALD L. FREELAND Parsons Transportation Group FRED M. GILLIAM Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority KIM R. GREEN GFI GENFARE JILL A. HOUGH North Dakota State University ROBERT H. IRWIN British Columbia Transit JEANNE W. KRIEG Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority CELIA G. KUPERSMITH Golden Gate Bridge, Hwy. & Transport. Dist. PAUL J. LARROUSSE National Transit Institute DAVID A. LEE Connecticut Transit CLARENCE W. MARSELLA Denver Regional Transportation District FAYE L.M. MOORE Southeastern Penn. Transportation Authority MICHAEL H. MULHERN Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority STEPHANIE L. PINSON Gilbert Tweed Associates, Inc. ROBERT H. PRINCE, JR. DMJM+Harris JEFFREY M. ROSENBERG Amalgamated Transit Union BEVERLY A. SCOTT Sacramento Regional Transit District PAUL P. SKOUTELAS Port Authority of Allegheny County KATHRYN D. WATERS Dallas Area Rapid Transit EX OFFICIO MEMBERS WILLIAM W. MILLAR APTA MARY E. PETERS FHWA JOHN C. HORSLEY AASHTO ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR. Transportation Research Board TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LOUIS F. SANDERS APTA SECRETARY ROBERT J. REILLY TRB TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2004 (Membership as of July 2004) OFFICERS Chair: MICHAEL S. TOWNES, President and CEO, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA Vice Chairman: JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, Commissioner, New York State DOT Executive Director: ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director, Texas DOT SARAH C. CAMPBELL, President, TransManagement, Inc., Washington, DC E. DEAN CARLSON, Director, Carlson Associates, Topeka, KS JOHN L. CRAIG, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads DOUGLAS G. DUNCAN, President and CEO, FedEx Freight, Memphis, TN GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, Director, Metrans Transportation Center and Professor, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, USC, Los Angeles BERNARD S. GROSECLOSE, JR., President and CEO, South Carolina State Ports Authority SUSAN HANSON, Landry University Professor of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University JAMES R. HERTWIG, President, CSX Intermodal, Jacksonville, FL GLORIA J. JEFF, Director, Michigan DOT ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley RONALD F. KIRBY, Director of Transportation Planning, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments HERBERT S. LEVINSON, Principal, Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultant, New Haven, CT SUE MCNEIL, Director, Urban Transportation Center and Professor, College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs and Department of Civil and Material Engineering, University of Illinois, Chicago MICHAEL D. MEYER, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology CAROL A. MURRAY, Commissioner, New Hampshire DOT JOHN E. NJORD, Executive Director, Utah DOT DAVID PLAVIN, President, Airports Council International, Washington, DC JOHN H. REBENSDORF, Vice President, Network Planning and Operations, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Omaha, NE PHILIP A. SHUCET, Commissioner, Virginia DOT C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin LINDA S. WATSON, Executive Director, LYNX, Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando, FL EX OFFICIO MEMBERS MARION C. BLAKEY, Federal Aviation Administrator, U.S. DOT SAMUEL G. BONASSO, Acting Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. DOT REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, Chancellor, Polytechnic University and Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering THOMAS H. COLLINS (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard JENNIFER L. DORN, Federal Transit Administrator, U.S. DOT EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads JOHN C. HORSLEY, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials RICK KOWALEWSKI, Deputy Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. DOT WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transportation Association BETTY MONRO, Acting Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. DOT MARY E. PETERS, Federal Highway Administrator, U.S. DOT SUZANNE RUDZINSKI, Director, Transportation and Regional Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency JEFFREY W. RUNGE, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S. DOT ANNETTE M. SANDBERG, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, U.S. DOT WILLIAM G. SCHUBERT, Maritime Administrator, U.S. DOT JEFFREY N. SHANE, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S. DOT CARL A. STROCK (Maj. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ROBERT A. VENEZIA, Program Manager of Public Health Applications, National Aeronautics and Space Administration TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Transportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for TCRP MICHAEL S. TOWNES, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA (Chair) JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, New York State DOT JENNIFER L. DORN, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, University of Southern California, Los Angeles WILLIAM W. MILLAR, American Public Transportation Association ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board C. MICHAEL WALTON, University of Texas, Austin LINDA S. WATSON, LYNX, Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando, FL

T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M TCRP SYNTHESIS 54 Maintenance Productivity Practices A Synthesis of Transit Practice CONSULTANT FRANK W. VENEZIA Lea+Elliott, Inc. Naperville, Illinois TOPIC PANEL UTPAL DUTTA, University of Detroit Mercy BRUCE HOBBS, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority FRANK LISLE, Transportation Research Board DARRYL PARHAM, Dallas Area Rapid Transit ALLEN PIERCE, Orange County Transportation Authority J.F. ROSAPEPE, Pierce Transit RONALD J. SHIPLEY, Pierce Transit LURAE STUART, American Public Transportation Authority JOHN P. WALSH, Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit MICHAEL CONNOR, Federal Highway Administration (Liaison) SUBJECT AREAS Public Transit Research Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in Cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2004 www.TRB.org

TRANSIT C OOP E R A T IV E RESEARCH PROGRAM The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, environ- mental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research is nec- essary to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Pro- gram (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report 213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions, pub- lished in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem-solving research. TCRP, modeled after the longstanding and successful National Coopera- tive Highway Research Program, undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of transit service provid- ers. The scope of TCRP includes a variety of transit research fields including planning service configuration, equipment, fa- cilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices. TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was authorized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi- ciency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement outlining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooperating organizations: FTA, the National Academy of Sciences, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB), and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research organization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee. Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodi- cally but may be submitted to TRB by anyone at anytime. It is the responsibility of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program by identifying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS Committee defines funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel, ap- pointed by TRB. The panels prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for de- veloping research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on disseminating TCRP results to the intended end-users of the re- search: transit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other supporting material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry practitioners. The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can coop- eratively address common operational problems. TCRP results support and complement other ongoing transit research and train- ing programs. TCRP SYNTHESIS 54 Project J-7, Topic SE-02 ISSN 1073-4880 ISBN 0-309-07013-9 Library of Congress Control No. 2004110115 © 2004 Transportation Research Board Price $18.00 NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative Research Program conducted by the Transportation Re- search Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the Na- tional Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the project concerned is appropriate with re- spect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical panel, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the Transit Development Corporation, the National Research Council, or the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the tech- nical panel according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Gov- erning Board of the National Research Council. Special Notice The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the Transit Development Corporation, the National Research Coun- cil, and the Federal Transit Administration (sponsor of the Transit Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or manu- facturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely be- cause they are considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project report. Published reports of the TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. r. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. D The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of ngineering. E The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president f the Institute of Medicine. o The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad- emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the ational Research Council. N The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board’s mission is to promote innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisciplinary setting, the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy by researchers and practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and disseminates research results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage more than 5,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

FOREWORD By Staff Transportation Research Board PREFACE Transit administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which in- formation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a conse- quence, full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solv- ing or alleviating the problem. There is information on nearly every subject of concern to the transit industry. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such use- ful information and to make it available to the entire transit community, the Transit Co- operative Research Program Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee author- ized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, TCRP Project J-7, “Synthesis of Information Related to Transit Problems,” searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, docu- mented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute a TCRP report series, Synthesis of Transit Practice. The synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each re- port in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those meas- ures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems. This synthesis will be of interest to transit agency staff responsible for vehicle mainte- nance and planning at their agencies. Staff can use this report to learn from the experi- ences of other agencies, as well as to compare their experiences with those of other agen- cies. It documents and summarizes transit agency experiences, using various maintenance productivity improvements and programming. The report summarizes the experiences of agencies that vary in size, union affiliation, and operating conditions. It provides descrip- tions of successful programs and creative modifications to existing programs. This report from the Transportation Research Board integrates information from sev- eral sources. It is based on data collected from a review of the relevant literature and a survey of transit agencies. Information was provided by 26 transit agencies. Survey re- sponses were supplemented by follow-up interviews with transit agency staff. A panel of experts in the subject area guided the work of organizing and evaluating the collected data and reviewed the final synthesis report. A consultant was engaged to collect and synthesize the information and to write the report. Both the consultant and the members of the oversight panel are acknowledged on the title page. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in re- search and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.

CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY 3 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Objective, 3 Methodology, 3 Synthesis Organization, 4 5 CHAPTER TWO DISCUSSION OF BUS MAINTENANCE PRODUCTIVITY Industry Standards, 5 Transit Agency Methodologies, 6 New Technology, 13 Union and Management Issues, 13 Training Concerns, 15 Quality Issues, 16 Update on Related Syntheses, 17 18 CHAPTER THREE TRANSIT AGENCY PROGRAMS AND ISSUES—CASE STUDIES Milwaukee County Transit System, 18 Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit, 19 Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas, 20 Orange County Transportation Authority, 21 King County Metro Transit—Seattle, 22 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 23 Coast Mountain Bus Company, 24 27 CHAPTER FOUR CONCLUSIONS 29 REFERENCES 30 BIBLIOGRAPHY 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 32 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

43 APPENDIX B CONDENSED SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSES 47 APPENDIX C MTA NYCT—ADDITIONAL STANDARD REPAIR TIMES INFORMATION 81 APPENDIX D HOUSTON METRO—ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON PAINTING 91 APPENDIX E ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY—ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON UNION AGREEMENT

TCRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT J-7 CHAIR FRANK T. MARTIN PBS&J, Tallahassee, FL MEMBERS DEBRA W. ALEXANDER Capital Area Transportation Authority, Lansing, MI DWIGHT FERRELL The Ferrell Group, Richardson, TX MARK W. FUHRMANN Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN ROBERT H. IRWIN British Columbia Transit, Victoria, BC PAUL J. LARROUSSE National Transit Institute, New Brunswick, NJ WADE LAWSON South Jersey Transportation Authority, Atlantic City, NJ DAVID A. LEE Connecticut Transit, Hartford, CT DAVID PHELPS Consultant, Moneta, VA HAYWARD M. SEYMORE, III Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc., University Place, WA PAM WARD Ottumwa Transit Authority, IA JOEL R. WASHINGTON Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, DC FTA LIAISON KAREN FACEN Federal Transit Administration TRB LIAISON PETER L. SHAW Transportation Research Board COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Programs CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS, Manager, TCRP EILEEN DELANEY, Editor TCRP SYNTHESIS STAFF STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Information Services JON WILLIAMS, Manager, Synthesis Studies DONNA L. VLASAK, Senior Program Officer DON TIPPMAN, Editor CHERYL Y. KEITH, Senior Secretary ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Frank W. Venezia, Lea+Elliot, Inc., Naperville, Illinois, was responsible for collection of the data and preparation of the report. Valuable assistance in the preparation of this synthesis was pro- vided by the Topic Panel, consisting of Michael Connor, Office of Engineering/Program Management, Federal Transit Administration; Utpal Dutta, Professor and Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineer- ing, University of Detroit Mercy; Bruce Hobbs, Assistant General Super- intendent of Bus Maintenance, Department of Operations, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; Frank Lisle, Senior Program Offi- cer, Transportation Research Board; Darryl Parham, Senior Manager, Dallas Area Rapid Transit; Allen Pierce, Manager, Maintenance, Orange County Transportation Authority; J.F. Rosapepe, Acting Vice President, Maintenance, Pierce Transit; Ronald J. Shipley, Vice President, Mainte- nance, Pierce Transit; Lurae Stuart, American Public Transportation Association; and John P. Walsh, Chief Maintenance Officer, Metro- politan Transportation Authority New York City Transit. This study was managed by Donna L. Vlasak, Senior Program Of- ficer, who worked with the consultant, the Topic Panel, and the J-7 project committee in the development and review of the report. Assis- tance in project scope development was provided by Jon Williams, Manager, Synthesis Studies. Don Tippman was responsible for edit- ing and production. Cheryl Keith assisted in meeting logistics and distribution of the questionnaire and draft reports. Christopher W. Jenks, Manager, Transit Cooperative Research Program, assisted TCRP staff in project review. Information on current practice was provided by many transit agencies. Their cooperation and assistance was most helpful.

MAINTENANCE PRODUCTIVITY PRACTICES SUMMARY Maintenance productivity concepts have been around since public transit agencies were founded. In the 1980s, transit agencies were compelled to set time standards for repetitive maintenance tasks, preventive maintenance programs, and repair functions. Repair times and written procedures for maintenance tasks were established and provided as productivity im- provement tools. Some were successful; others were not. The advent of computerized main- tenance record keeping in the 1990s facilitated data collection, analysis, and information dissemination, and supported faster problem solving. However, the nature of public transit agency operations requires that transit agencies continually strive to do more with less. Cur- rently, tight operating budgets are forcing transit agencies to look closely at productivity im- provements without compromising safety and quality. Transit agency operating budgets have been the subject of in-depth review to be more ef- ficient concerning the costs of performing maintenance. In response, public and political in- terests are increasing the pressure on transit agencies to be more efficient, reduce costs, and improve service before increasing fares. For public transit agencies to improve productivity, management must communicate a strong commitment down through the ranks of the agency, and the employee union must be included as a partner. Agencies that have already partnered with the employee unions to in- stitute productivity programs have shown success in demonstrating that a productivity im- provement program can provide a more efficient and safer use of personnel at a lower cost. The results of a survey and follow-up telephone interviews indicate that all transit agen- cies are interested in increasing productivity, and a large body of information and documen- tation is widely shared throughout the industry. Documented work procedures and processes are the first necessary steps. Some agencies have sufficient staff to generate their own documentation, whereas others modify documents obtained from the manufacturers and/or other transit agencies to conform to their own operating conditions. A few transit systems have provided internal documentation on standards for use by other agencies and have posted them on the TRB’s Transit Maintenance Webboard (http://webboard.trb.org/~A1E16). Many transit agencies use standards as a guide to what they expect their employees to meet when accomplishing a specific maintenance task, and some agencies use the standards as a goal. The term “standard repair time” is now being used to describe the proper proce- dures and time required to accomplish those procedures. However, most agencies will con- sider using a standard that includes a timely procedure, including safety and quality factors. The survey found that the most common performance indicators for ensuring quality, re- ducing costs, and improving productivity include road calls, repeat failures, making pullouts, component rebuild costs, and component life. Monitoring of those indicators is important. Also, incentive programs can be successfully integrated into productivity improvement pro- grams and simultaneously increase employee morale. The survey also indicated that integrating

2 parts kits and bills of material, special tools, and equipment produces positive improve- ments. All agencies agreed that training is an important factor in productivity improvement. The use of the electronic diagnostic features of the engine, transmission, and other components has been found to reduce overall diagnostics time. Additional training is always desired, es- pecially where there is new equipment and newer diagnostic technology. This synthesis summarizes the experiences of transit properties that vary in size, union affiliation, and operating conditions in using various maintenance productivity improve- ments and programs. It also provides descriptions of successful programs and creative modi- fications to existing programs.

3 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The economic slowdown has had an impact on many com- panies and organizations in both the public and private sec- tors throughout the country. Affected are the levels of nec- essary operating revenue relied on by public transit agencies. This economic climate is prompting everyone, including public transit agencies, to rethink current prac- tices and business methods, and it is prompting public tran- sit agencies to strive for productivity improvements and effi- ciency gains to be better, faster, and cheaper. Maintenance department budgets are typically the second largest com- ponent of the total operating costs of a transit system, and the maintenance budget is a frequent target for cost reduc- tions. Maintenance budget reductions will force transit agencies to further improve the productivity and efficiency of their maintenance practices or to consider outsourcing work that they would have normally done within the agency. In the past, transit agencies developed programs to im- prove the efficiency of general maintenance practices by using a wide variety of methods and procedures. Some methods have been successful, whereas others can only be classified as “dismal failures.” Transit agencies must now use their existing funding in the most efficient method pos- sible by improving and emphasizing productivity programs that will reduce costs and/or improve efficiency. The sav- ings will be used to adjust for unavoidable future budget cuts and for funding of continued productivity improve- ment tools, including training, diagnostic programs, tools and equipment, material review studies, and employee in- centive programs. Employee union concerns must be a prime considera- tion when emphasizing productivity improvements. Unions do not want to see a reduction in the workforce, and they must be willing to work as part of a team effort to improve productivity. A close working relationship of transit agen- cies with union representatives can provide the solid com- mon ground necessary for any productivity improvement program. A collective bargaining agreement delineates the rules and regulations that must be followed by both the un- ion maintenance employees and transit agency manage- ment. Most of the transit agencies’ collective bargaining agreements do not have specific wording on time standards for repair work that provide the basis of some productivity improvement programs. The efficient use of personnel is a key element in a productivity improvement plan, and a transit agency should consider the introduction of repair work time standards into the collective bargaining agree- ment. Transit agency management must present to union representatives how time standards can contribute to effi- ciency that may help to avoid service cuts and retain the existing personnel. This is not an easy process; however, it is a valuable and necessary one if the productivity plan is to be successful. Productivity improvement approaches require standard- ized processes and procedures to document and ensure that most maintenance employees are achieving the established standards. The initial processes and procedures should be developed by the transit industry and then refined with in- put from transit agency employees to adapt to local condi- tions and requirements. Time measurement should not be the only input used to define a standard. Factors that influ- ence the quality of the work product and employee safety should be included; otherwise, time lost as a result of on- the-job injuries will have a detrimental effect both on em- ployee morale and the productivity of the entire work area. In this synthesis, time, quality, and safety are included as primary concerns in developing standards with the objec- tives of achieving cost reductions in maintenance. OBJECTIVE The objective of this synthesis is to research and dissemi- nate information on operational productivity improvement within public transit agencies and from other sources to any agency that would be interested in maintenance effi- ciency improvements. METHODOLOGY A literature search on the World Wide Web has provided some information on the processes used to develop existing published practices that can be used to improve mainte- nance productivity. Most of the existing maintenance pro- ductivity documentation and data use industrial engineer- ing (IE) standards that were developed during and right after World War II to improve the output of factories for the war effort. Those standards have been continually refined since then. The basic idea of reducing costs has been ongo- ing from the onset of the standards. Transit managers have always been interested in reducing costs. When computer- ized record keeping began to mature, some transit systems began using this technology to gather data for productivity improvements.

4 To gather information on what transit agencies have been doing to improve productivity, the survey question- naire (see Appendix A) was distributed to a large variety of transit agencies in North America. The questionnaire was first posted on the APTA and TRB websites, before being mailed to selected transit agencies, to allow additional time for completing the request and to allow other agencies to express interest. Both of those websites were established for transit agency maintenance staff to post problems and receive responses from their peers. Of 70 transit agencies contacted, 26 completed and re- turned the survey. Telephone interviews were held with various respondents to gather additional information and clarifications. A matrix of the respondents is included as Appendix B. The survey was limited to documentation involving heavy- duty bus fleets and requested the following information: • A breakdown of the individual transit agency’s fleet; • Documented maintenance practices with standard times to accomplish the task; • Characteristics of the agency’s organization to per- form quality assurance for maintenance tasks; • Details on preventive maintenance (PM) programs, major repairs, and individual component rebuild; • Productivity measurement procedures; • Classification of maintenance personnel and union affiliation; • Methods of determining whether maintenance work should be done in-house or contracted to outside vendors; • Collective bargaining agreement clauses dealing with the setting of time standards; • New technology diagnostic tools that have aided pro- ductivity improvements; • Road calls and other performance-indicating docu- mentation methods that have aided maintenance productivity evaluation; • Maintenance productivity techniques and practices; and • Agencies’ willingness to share their programs or plans for this synthesis. SYNTHESIS ORGANIZATION Chapter two of this synthesis covers various areas of bus maintenance productivity and current practices of mainte- nance productivity improvement used by some of the pub- lic transit agencies. The examples used discuss how new technology can support productivity improvement, as well as how to address the critical success factors involving un- ion agreements, training concerns, preservation of quality, and safety. Chapter three features case studies that summa- rize programs and issues of the selected transit systems. Chapter four concludes with a summary of the findings and recommendations for further study. The report includes five appendixes. Appendix A repro- duces the survey questionnaire sent to the transit agencies, Appendix B features a matrix of the responding agencies and a condensed summary of their responses, Appendix C includes additional documents from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York City Transit (MTA NYCT), Appendix D includes additional documents from Houston Metro, and Appendix E provides additional documents from the Orange County Transportation Au- thority (OCTA).