FTA State of Good Repair Roundtable July 8-10, 2009

1. Raymond Friem Chief Operating Officer Metro St. Louis, MO 314-982-1445 rfriem@metrostlouis.org FTA State of Good Repair RoundtableJuly 8-10, 2009

2. Prepared by the Transit Vehicle Maintenance Division of Bi-State Development Agency May 23, 2002 Scheduled Maintenance Initiative“THE PLAN”

3. Mission Statement • Develop an affordable solution for the long-term maintenance of the Agency’s MetroBus and Call-A-Ride vehicle fleets while improving customer satisfaction and system reliability.

4. Previous Experiences • Rolling stock declines in operability and desirability from in-service date to retirement date. • Major maintenance investments made in the declining years of bus life cycle. • Maintenance costs vary widely between fiscal years. • Maintenance level of effort not coordinated with rolling stock capital investment cycle.

5. Situation Prior to the Plan • Three Garages • Three completely different Business Models • Inconsistent mechanic-to-bus, mechanic-to-operating mile ratios. • Average fleet MDBF less than 4,500 miles, varies by garage. • Main Shop (Central Repair) • 15% of fleet awaiting repair • Average turn-around for bus is 117 days. • For Sale (Scrap fleet) 20% of buses. decommissioned have drive train components with less than 35,000 miles.

6. Business Concept: MetroBus • Perform specific maintenance at regularly scheduled intervals based on unit mileage. • Replace single major overhaul at 400,000 miles with smaller scale rebuilds at 200,000. • Perform comprehensive body and minor drive train scheduled repairs at 100,000 mile intervals. • Perform pre-programmed tune-ups, and minor scheduled activities at 50,000 mile intervals. • Utilize central maintenance facility assets in support of preventative maintenance efforts; reduce focus on break-down maintenance. • Perform pre-failure overhauls on individual components. • Implement vehicle configuration management system.

7. Business Concept: Call-A-Ride • Pre-programmed overhaul activities at 50,000-mile intervals • Development of standard work procedures through M4 system • Full integration of Call-A-Ride into storeroom system

8. Goals & Objectives • 1st year goals • Achieve departmental consensus on pre-programmed maintenance activities. • Complete audit of original manufacturer suggested maintenance intervals against consensus recommendations. • Develop bill of materials/parts requirements for support groups in advance of need. • Develop standard work procedures for pre-planned and routine maintenance activities. • Determine mechanic abilities/training requirements for proper completion of all maintenance activities.

9. Goals & Objectives • 3-year goals • Rework inspection maintenance program to better support pre-programmed maintenance intervals. • Implement service writer concept (used by profitable maintenance businesses in automotive industry). • Improve and standardize data acquisition. • Free up existing staff to be more involved with quality of tasks performed and overall product on the street. • Full implementation of planned maintenance activities.

10. Impact on Support Departments • Create automated interdepartmental interface to work order system, provide for reasonable pre-notification of impending maintenance activity. • Reduce reliance on last-minute parts acquisition procedures which are overused and less accountable than standard storeroom procedures. • Reduce number of mechanic trips to storeroom window.

11. Impact on Support Departments • Review facility (production plant) capabilities, upgrade as necessary • Determine “Choke Points” where out-of-service equipment could impact. maintenance productivity. • Hoists, Dynamometers • Electrical Service • Portable Diagnostic Test Equipment for Field Maintenance functions

12. Program Risks • Risks • Pre-programmed maintenance outline is fatally flawed at it’s inception • Assumptions on component life cycles erroneous • Missed or non-addressed components • Addressing risk • Monitoring of existing system reports • Service delays • Road calls • Customer complaints • Implement mean distance between failure measure. • Specific to unit and subsystem

13. Other Performance Monitoring Sources • Negative Contacts, Equipment, Bus/Van/Rail • Compiled by Customer Service Department • Monthly Road-calls • From Transit Operations • Subsystem Mean Distance Between Failure Analysis • New measure under development • Financial Performance • Corporate financial statements

14. Anticipated Program Rewards • Vehicle maintenance expenses become more predictable • Improved “curb appeal” and quality in passenger compartment • Predictable vehicle reliability over entire life cycle • Improved maintenance productivity without significant increase in costs

15. “Plan Costs” vs. Historical Total Maintenance Costs

16. “Plan Costs” vs. Historical Main Shop Costs

17. Key Issues • Near term • Review per-unit replacement schedule, develop interim maintenance programs to extend service life as necessary. • Resist temptation to reduce maintenance costs in short term. • Long term • “Right Sizing” of human assets between maintenance work-sites could cause changes in location of jobs. • Current information often lacks sufficient detail. Data acquisition sources and content require additional review. • Analytical skills development needed in Supervisory Staff. • Increase coordination between capital and operating expense plans.

18. Potential Bus Replacement Scenarios

19. Bus Replacement Cash Outlay Options

20. “Plan” Performance: State of Good repair 2002-2009

21. MetroBus Road Call Analysis

22. State Of Good Repair Key Indicators • Measurable • Improved MDBF • Lower maintenance cost per operated mile • Improved fuel economy • Fewer passenger complaints against rolling stock

23. State of Good Repair Lagging Indicators • Less training on equipment, more training on system • Existing staff has more “research” time • “Isolated Failures” are really fleet problems that haven’t drawn attention to themselves….yet! • This will lead to detailed study of apparent minutia…. But let it go. You never know where it will lead.

24. State of Good Repair Lagging Indicators • Improved Test Procedures • System and Subsystem certifications. • Newest Fleet is averaging no more than 10% above fleet average annual miles operated. • Oldest fleet is conversely averaging less than 10% below fleet average.

25. State of Good Repair Lagging Indicators • Time in Shop is Dramatically Reduced • Buses in the shop are there for scheduled activities. • No more Maintenance “Campaigns” • Updates / Modernizations slotted into most practical maintenance cycle. • Fleet achieves conformed state. • Tremendous Savings in parts cost.

26. State of Good Repair Lagging Indicators • With a little coaching…A TEAM is Born • Intermodal or inter-garage competitiveness replaced with an ongoing discussion about best practices. • Union personnel picking from one location to another find identical tools, procedures and practices in place. • Mechanics are more prepared to become supervisors, supervisors are more promotable.

27. State of Good Repair - Coaching Tips • Develop One Common Measure for All Managers – Incorporate into Evaluations • Modal or garage-level measures still necessary and important but are a lesser measure.

28. State of Good Repair - Coaching Tips • Rotate Key Manager Assignments • Central Repair Area Supervisors learn the impact of their teams’ work on finished product. • Garage Supervisors assigned to Central Repair learn the level of difficulty involved in meeting the customer expectation. • Eliminate “It was Good When I Had It!”

29. “Inspect to Fail = Expect to Fail” State of Good Repair: