circulator audit by district department of transportation

8/18/2019 Circulator Audit by District Department of Transportation

1/45

ClrcuLat or

d

istrict epartment of Transportation

VEHICLE

M INTEN NCE

EV LU TION

irculator

Conducted August 24-28

2015

y Transit

Resource Center


2/45

l r U L O ~ O r

Table of ontents

Background and Summary ...................................................................................................... .................... 3

Evaluation Criteria and Methodology .................................................................................

.

.................. 6

Fleet Inspection .......................................................... ......................

........................................... 6

Records and Fluids Analysis Audit ................................................................................................... 8

l ist

of Buses and Records Inspected.............. ................................ ........... ........... ...........

...

........ 9

Analysis of Vehicle Inspections ................................................................................................................... 11

Overall Bus Condition ... ........................................... .................................................................. 11

Defect Spreadsheets .............. ..

.

.

......

............................

......................................................11

Analysis

of

Bus Defects .................................................................................................................. 12

A Defect Analysis ............................................................................ .......................................... 15

Analysis of Records Review ............................ ........................ ................................................................... 16

PMI Schedule Adherence ............................................................................................................... 16

Repair of Defects Identified During PMis ...................................................................................... 17

WMATA Maintenance Oversight ................................................................................................... 18

Mechanic Training Certification .....

.......................................................................................... 19

Management of Fluid Analysis Program ........................................................................................21

Useful Life Analysis

of

Van Hool Buses .......................................................................................................23

Factors Contributing to Useful Life ... ......................... .............................................. .................. 23


3/45

lrcuLacor

istrict Department of Transportation

ist

o

Tables

Table

1 All

Defects ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Table 2

Buses

lnspected ................................................................................................................................ 9

Table 3

Buses

Not lnspected .....................................................

................................................................

11

Table 4 -Defects

by

Bus Category .................................................................................................................

12

Table 5 - A Defects by Bus

Category

............ ......

. ......... ..... .............. .

15

Table

6 PMI Schedule

Adherence ...............................................................................................................16

Table 7

A/C

Repairs by Certified Mechanics ...........................

.................................................................19

Table 8

Current Bus

Age

..........................................................................................................

.................

28

Table

9

Current Bus Mileages ........................................ ...........................................................................

29

Table 10 Major Component Rebuild Replacement Status .......................................................................30


4/45

I WircuLacor

ackground and Summary

Transit Resource Center

(TRC) was

contracted by the District o Columbia government s Department of

Transportation

(DDOT)

to evaluate 49 of

its

Van Hool buses, the oldest in its fleet.

These buses

consist o wo

subfleets: 29 2003/04 models placed in

service

in 2005; and 20 2009

models

placed in service in 2009

and 2010.

DDOT

owns the

buses and

contracts with the Washington Metropolitan

Area

Transit Authority

(WMATA)

for them

to oversee a

private contractor

that operates

the

service

and maintains

the buses. Currently the

private operator

s

First Transit.

The evaluation

by

TRC consisted of a physical inspection of42 of he

49

buses

because seven of he 2003/04 models

were

off property for repairs. TRC

also

conducted

an

inspection of related records and

an

analysis

o

essential

drivetrain fluids and verification

o

worker qualifications. With 29 of the

earlier

models approaching the end

of heir

12-year

useful life as defined

by

the

Federal

Transit Administration (FTA) in about two

years, DDOT's

primary

objective for

this

work

was

to

have

TRC determine the condition of the overall fleet, the condition

o individual

buses,

the ability of

WMATA

and

First

Transit

to maintain

these

buses in

a

state

of

good

repair; and

to prioritize the

remaining

useful

life

of the Van

Hool fleet The evaluation

concludes with aseries of

recommendations

to

extend

the service

life

of all Van

Hool

buses being maintained by WMATA/First Transit for

DDOT.

The fleet inspection revealed that

all

of the Van

Hool

buses

were

dirty inside and

out,

and would greatly benefit

from a

horough,

detailed cleaning. Dirty

buses

could be interpreted by passengers that the agency does not value

their patronage. There are two primary reasons for dirty

buses.

First Transit

lacks

formal

bus

washer equipment and

instead

uses

a

high pressure spray gun

to

wash

DDOT buses.

This

type

of

equipment

is

typically

used

to

de-grease

engines and bus

undercarriages. The use ofthis equipment s extremely hard on

bus

paint

and

to externally-applied

graphics, which must also

endure

the harshness o outdoor storage. Secondly, First Transit lacks a

detailed

cleaning


5/45

C I

r ULOcO

r

d

istrict

Department of

Transportation

defect, leaving only

two of

the

Van Hool buses on

property

at

time

of

inspection

fit

for

operation .In

contrast, the last PRTC

audit

revealed an average

of

only 0.08

/1:'

defects per bus (one A defect

for

nearly 13 buses inspected). The average number

of

A defects found during the last

CDT

inspection in

Albany was 0.4 per bus (one A defect for nearly 3 buses inspec:ted). Again, the number

of

safety-critical

A:' defects found on the Van Hool fleet, almost three (3) per bus on average, is unacceptable by any

standard.

able

below summarizes

the

defects found on all

42

buses categorized by 2003/2004 and 2009

subfleets.

s

indicated in the summary table,

the

number

of interior

and exterior defects

that

tend

to

be

more cosmetic in nature averaged 8.2 per bus

for all42

buses inspected. Cosmetic defects such as body

damage, peeling graphics, and damaged seats and flooring, wh ile

not

critical

to the

daily operation

of the

bus from a mechanical standpoint, help

to

create a negative passenger experience. The table also reveals

a higher number

of

defects for

the

2003/2004 subfleet compared

to

2009 model year buses. The

2003/2004 subfleet also averaged almost four (4) safety-critica l A defects per bus.

Table All Defects

Category

Total Number of Defects 924

Average #

o

Defects

per Bus

22.0

Average# of Cosmetic Defects per

Bus

(interior/exter ior defects)

8.2

Average#

of

Mechanical Defects per

Bus

(net

of

cosmetic defects)

13.8

Total Number

of

Safety Critical A Defects

120

Average# of A Defects per

Bus

2.9

2003/2004

Model Year

Z2 buses

590

26.8

9.7

17.1

81

3.7

2009

Model Year

ZO

bu ses

334

16.7

6.4

10.2

39

1.9


6/45

Clf CULOcor

District Department of Transportation

• The six categories

with

an

exceptionally high

number

of

defects, more than one per bus on

average, include: exterior body condition, engine/engine compartment, safety equipment,

driver s controls,

interior

condition, lights, and accessibility features.

• t could

not

be determined

if

all refrigerant-related air conditioning

(AC)

repairs examined were

performed by EPA certified personnel as required by federal regulation.

• The review

of

PMI records revealed that First Transit does not have a process to follow up on

defects identified during

PM

inspections. This

is

evident by

the

exceptionally high

number of

defects found on each bus.

• Information placed on repair orders including any actions taken

to

correct those defects is vague,

making

it

difficult

to

reconstruct maintenance histories on each bus.

• On-time adherence to preventive maintenance inspections (PMis) scheduled at 6,000-mile

intervals revealed that 11 of the 12 buses (92 ) were done on time.

• Testing results

of

36 vital fluid samples taken is consistent with First Transit s adherence to PM Is;

the on-time changing

of

vital fluids at regular intervals indicated no significant neglect

to the

bus

engines and transmissions.

Regarding a prioritization

of

buses

to

be retired,

TRC

did

not

find any reason

to

retire any

of the

first

of the

29 2003/2004 buses

that

began service in 2005 before

the

end

of their

useful life period in about

two

years

from no'I(V.

There is also no reason

to

believe that the 2009 subfleet could not make

it

through its useful life

ending in 2022, assuming the recommendations made as part

of

this report are implemented. There was

no structural damage found

or

any significant rust that would prematurely sideline these buses. The vast

majority

of

defects found were the result

of

neglected maintenance. Once repaired and buses thoroughly

cleaned,

TRC

does not find any reason

for the

early retirement

of

any

of

the

Van Hool buses.

Unfortunately, the cycle for rebuilding and replacing engines and transmissions comes at a time when the


7/45

ClrcuLot or

d


• establish a detailed cleaning operation

to

make

the

buses are more presentable

to

the public inside

and out

• consider requiring First Transit to purchase more appropriate bus washing equipment or change Its

current washing procedures to something

less

harsh

• have First Transit revisit Its maintenance program and apply what it assured in its original proposal

to

DDOT which will improve bus conditions in the long-term

• consider having the oldest buses repainted and new graphics applied

• consider a midlife overhaul

for

the 2009 sub

fleet

to

extend

bus

life beyond the 12-year cycle and

to make those buses more appealing

for

passengers

• have First Transit plan

for an

increased number

of

engine and transmission replacements/rebuilds

• have WMATA revisit its current maintenance oversight program to more thoroughly inspect buses

and identi fy defects generate reports to

DDOT

th t reflect the true condition of the fleet and state

of good repair and be more aggressive in holding First Transit responsible for correcting noted

deficiencies.

lastly DDOT itsel f needs to do a better job monitoring fleet condition and performance to ensure th t its

contractors are fully abiding by contract requirements to provide safe reliable and appealing bus service.

A more comprehensive list

of

recommendations is found in Section

6.

Audit details are presented in the various sections found in the body of this report. Various tables used

throughout this report are based on more complete data contained

in Excel

spreadsheets Included on a

separate CD.

Evaluation riteria and Methodology


8/45

lrcuLocor


A team

of

three inspectors physically inspected each bus

as

if

they were conducting a preventive

maintenance inspection (PM

I .

Specific defects noted during the bus inspections were classified under 18

functional categories:

1

Accessibility Features

2 Air System/Brake System

3)

Climate Control

4)

Destination Signs

5

Differential

6

Driver's Controls

7 Electrical System

8 Engine Compartment

9) Exhaust

10) Exterior Body Condition

11) Interior Condition

12) Lights

13) Passenger Controls

14) Safety Equipment

15) Structure/Chassis/Fuel Tank

16) Suspension/Steering

17) Tires

18) Transmission


9/45

ClrcuLot or

d


First Transit was also given

an

opportunity

to

contest defects

as

soon

as

they were brought

to their

attention.

A

third

BR classification was used

to

note those B defects

th t

were R eported

to

First Transit upon

being identified because TRC considers them

to

have safety implications and recommends th t Immediate

action be taken

to

rectify them even though they are not on the safety critical A list.

TRC shared

the

entire list of preliminary defects found during each day's inspections with First Transit

management

with the

understanding

th t

all defects would

be

reviewed by

TRC

and may change

based

on

th t

review. The sharing

of

defects was Intended

to

keep First Transit Informed

of

TRC's findings

as

part

of

a cooperative and objective evaluation process.

TRC

Inspectors also worked with First Transit personnel to

confirm operation of certain controls in advance of the inspections

to

ensure defects were legitimate and

not the result

o

he inspectors not being familiar

with

specific Van Hool bus equipment

Records

and Fluids

nalysis udit

Twelve buses were selected at random by TRC for the

Records

and Fluids Analysis Audits. The records

examination set out

to

determine if:

• Preventive maintenance (PM) had been performed correctly and at prescribed intervals;

•

Repairs

had been performed properly and made promptly;

• Qualified mechanics performed refrigerant-related air conditioning maintenance tasks

by virtue

of

documented training certification (a federal requirement); and

• The fluids analysis program

is

being administered properly.

PM Intervals


10/45

, r ULOcO r

District Department

of

Transportation

Mechanic Qualification

To

determine if qualified mechanics performed maintenance tasks by virtue of documented training and

certification, TRC selected five air conditioning

AC)

repairs at random from work orders.

TRC examined AC-related

work

orders to identify a) the nature of the repair, and b) the mechanics

performing

the

actual work. TRC then asked to see the appropriate AC certification card for

the

mechanic

performing the repair to determine

if

hey are certified

to

perform the tasks.

TRC also inquired about

the

number of mechanics with Automotive Service Excellence ASE) certifications.

ASE is a nationally recognized program that verifies mechanic competence through testing and certification.

Once restricted

to

the automobile and trucking industries, a dedicated transit bus program was established

about ten years ago.

Fluids Analysis Management

To determine if

the

fluids analysis program

is

being administered properly by First Transit,

TRC

examined

the

oil analysis records engine oil and transmission fluid

only--

First Transit does

not

sample coolant)

for

each of the 12 buses selected at random for the Records Inspection. TRC noted if the fluid analysis was

being performed at the appropriate PMI interval, if fluid analysis records were properly filed for easy

reference, and if any actions were being taken as a result of the fluid analysis findings. First Transit and

other maintenance providers routinely use fluid analysis

to

provide an early indication of impending major

component failures so preventive action can be taken to prevent catastrophic failures.

TRC

also looked for

evidence that First Transit

is

making use of the fluids analysis results e.g., acting on recommendations

made by

the

lab).

TRC

also drew engine oil, transmission fluid, and coolant samples from 12 buses selected

at

random and


11/45

,

lrcuLacor

d

istrict Department

o

Transportation

Fleet

Inspection

Records Flu1ds Analysis

1105

1106

1107

1108

1109

1110

1111

1113

1115

1116

1117

1118

1120

1121

1122

1124

1125

1126

1127

1129

Subtotal2003 2004: 22

2009 Van

Hool

1130

1131

1132

1133

1134

1135

1136

1137

1107

1110

1113

1114

1117

1120

1122

1127

1131

1132


12/45

~ l r c u a c o r


*

Bus

1114 had

its

fluids

taken

on

Sunday

ugust

23

as

one

of

the

12

buses selected at

random

but

was

later

taken off property

for

air conditioning repairs

and

was not

available

during

the week for

a physical

inspection.

Table 3 which follows shows the seven buses that were off-property

and

could not

be

inspected. All of the

buses

that could not

be

inspected were 2003/2004 models; all 2009 models were inspected.

Table

3 -

Buses

Not Inspected

2003 2004

Van ool

1102

1104

1123

1128

1112

1119

1114

Total: 7

Analysis of Vehicle Inspections

Overall

Bus

Condition

Reason

engine repairs

engine repairs

engine repairs

engine

repairs

accident

damage

accident

damage

AC

repairs

The DDOT

Van

Hool fleet was found

to

have an el


13/45

ClrcuLat=or

d

istrict Depart

me nt

of Transportation

•

Defect

Summary-

All Buses

•

Defect

Summary- 2003/2004

Buses

•

Defect

Summary- 2009

Buses

•

Static Defects -Al l Buses

•

Defects by

Category-

All

Buses

•

A Defects

-Al l Buses

•

A Defects by

Category-

All Buses

•

BR Defects

-Al l

Buses

•

BR Defects by Category- All Buses

•

B Defects -Al l Buses

•

Static Defects -

2003/2004

Buses

•

Defects by

Category- 2003/2004 Buses

•

A Defects -

2003/2004

Buses

•

BR

Defects- 2003/2004

Buses

•

B Defects -

2003/2004

Buses

•

Static Defects -

2009

Buses

•

Defects by

Category- 2009

Buses

•

A Defects - 2009 Buses

•

BR Defects -

2009

Buses

•

8

Defects -

2009

Buses

•

Buses

Inspected

Analysis

of

Bus Defects

As indicated above, all the defects identified were categorized under 18 specific bus areas. Tables 4 (A and


14/45

District

Department of Transportation

Suspension/Steering

27 12 15

Passenger Controls

22

18 4

Structure/Chassis/Fuel Tank

12 12

0

Exhaust

11

11 0

Air System/Brake System

9

6 3

Climate Control

8

5 3

Electrical System

4

4 0

Transmission

4 1

3

Tires

4

1 3

Destination Signs

3

3

0

Differential

1

1

0

Defect Totals:

924

590 334

Buses Inspected: 42 22 20

Defects by Bus Category (B)

total number of avera e defects per bus)

2003 04

2009

Model Model

Defect Category All Buses

Year Year

Exterior Body Condition

5 8

6 6 4 9

Engine/Engine Compartment

2 9

3 5 2 3

Safety Equipment

2 9

4 3

1 5

Driver s Controls 2 7

3 2 2 2

Interior Condition

2 4

3 1 1 5

Lights

1 4

1 7 1 1

Accessibility Features

1 2

0 9 1 5

Suspension/Steering

0 6 0 5 0 7

Passenger Controls

0 5

0 8 0 2

Structure/Chassis/FuelTank


15/45

lrcuLocor

d


Categories

with

an

average

of

over one defect per

bus

include lights and accessibility features (i.e.,

wheelchair accommodations, kneeling, etc.).

The exceptionally high number of exterior body condition defects is due in part to the extremely tight

quarters existing both in

the

parking area and the maintenance facility itself. Other contributing factors

include outdoor storage of these buses, use of high-pressure hand-held jet washers Instead of more

traditional drive-through washer equipment, lack of an on-site body shop to facil itate such repairs, and the

typical body damage that occurs during daily revenue service operation. Because these defects tend

to

be

cosmetic in nature,

they

are easily overlooked in favor of dedicating manpower

to

repairing more critical

mechanical defects, especially those needed

to

keep buses operational for daily service requirements.

Regardless of the reasons, the outward bus appearance is most noticeable to the public and passengers.

The combination of

dirty

exteriors and the exceptionally high number of exterior body defects give the

Van

Hool buses an undeserving run-down appearance.

Engine and engine compartment defects were also high at

an

average of nearly 3 defects per bus. The vast

majority

of

these were engine oil leaks, which develop over

time

on

any heavy duty diesel engine. Repair

of these defects require

that

they first be identified during routine P inspections and then scheduled

for

repair. Like cosmetic exterior body defects, most oil leaks are

not

mechanically critical

to

the operation of

the vehicle and are e.asy

to

overlook and defer

as

long

as

oil leaks are topped-off on a regular basis. The

easy solution is to replace oil as part of the daily service line inspections when buses are fueled. However,

the process does not solve the problem.

Leaks

only intensify in time, resulting in the spilling

of

oil

on

public

streets and

the

parking facility. Leaks also spread flammable oil onto

the

engine and other bus components,

which

can

lead

to

fires and

other

catastrophic failures. The correct solution

is

to

repair oil leaks

as

soon

as

they are discovered to minimize the negative consequences.


16/45

~ r ULOcO

Interior defects are much like exterior body condition defects in

that

they tend to be cosmetic in nature

and not critical to

bus

operation.

Like

body defects, however, they have

an

effect on passenger comfort and

convenience. Defects like panels and other interior equipment

that is

loose or missing, tripping hazards,

damaged modesty panels, and other such defects are readily visible to passengers and do

not

contribute

to

creating a welcoming environment, especially when interiors lack cleanliness. Again, the 99 interior

condition defects identified during the inspections are

easy

to overlook and point to a general lack of

preventive maintenance.

When the

two

subfleets are looked at individually, model year 2003/2004

buses

had a higher percentage

of

the defects compared to the newer 2009 models.

This

holds

true

for virtual ly each of the 18 bus areas

inspected. These findings are also consistent

with

neglected maintenance

as

the older buses have more

time in which to accumulate defects.

A Defect Analysis

As indicated earlier, A defects are those that are critical in nature and when identif ied require immediate

repair as agreed to by First Transit. BR defects are t o s ~ that while not on the criticai''/J:' defect list, do

have safety implications. As a result, A and BR defects were noted

to

First Transit personnel

as

soon

as

they were discovered by the Inspection team.

Any inspection

that

reveals an average of nearly three P:' defects per

bus

is an indication that the

maintenance program

is

not effective and needs immediate attention.

As

noted, all but

two of

the

42

Van

Hool buses

had

at least one ''N' defect.

As

a result, 40 of the 42

Van

Hool buses inspected should

not

have

been in service. The spreadsheet entitled P:' Defects by Category shows all of the safety critical defects


17/45

ClrcuLaeor

Interior Condition

Structure/Chassis/Fuel Tank

Exhaust

lights

Electrical System

Exterior Body Condition

Engine/Engine Compartment

Suspension/Steering

Passenger Controls

Climate Control

Transmission

Destination Signs

Differential

A: Defect Total:

Buses Inspected:

Average An Defects per Bus:

Analysis

of

Records Review

PMI Schedule Adherence

3

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

120

42

2.9

d.

istrict Department

of

Transportation

In addition

to

the physical bus inspections, TRC examined the records of 12 buses at random to determine

i PMis are being done

at

scheduled 6,000-mile Intervals. PMI Intervals are considered on

time If

performed on

or

before 6,600 miles ( late

window of

10 or 600 miles).

Although First Transit is requiring all of its operations to move to an electronic information system,

the

majority

of

records Inspected

for

this evaluation were located

In

manual files. Manual records were


18/45

~ l r c u L a t o r

Bus

tl

PMI

Mileage Intervals

1117 6558

112

71 8

1122

5723

1127

6595

2 9 Model

Year

1131

5569

1132

5766

1138 6584

1146

56 8

,

On time

Late

On

time

On time

On time

On time

On

time

On

time

The review of records by TRC revealed that 11 of the 12 buses

(92 )

had their PM inspections done on time.

Although the goal for performing

PM

inspections on- time is 100%, the result here is acceptable.

Performing

PM

inspections on

time

ensures

that

vital fluids are replenished on a regular basis, which

extends the life

of

major components. Conducting inspections on-time also provides a regular opportunity

for

technicians to note defects and to make repairs In a timely fashion.

As

noted below, however, First

Transit

is

deficient in its ability

to

thoroughly Identify defects and respond

with

needed repairs. WMATA

has

also lacked the necessary oversight to make note that

the

repairs are conducted in a timely fashion.

Repair of efects dentified uring PM Is

TRC reviewed

the

last three PMI files for all 12 buses chosen at random to determine

If

repairs were

performed properly and made promptly. TRC examined

the

PMI files to determine if First Transit has:

• A process

in

place

to

distinguish those defects identified and repaired during

the

PMI

from

those scheduled

for

repair at a later date; and

• Actually followed up and repaired

the

defects Identified dur ing the previous PM I.


19/45

lrcuLacor

d


As

a result

of

this finding

it

is

strongly recommended

that

First Transit initiate a comprehensive training

program to instruct technicians on how

to

properly perform a preventive maintenance inspection. The

training should include all of the steps needed to thoroughly inspect each area

of

the bus, procedures for

noting repairs, and criteria to determine which defects should

be

immediately corrected from those

requiring follow-up repairs. A quality control oversight program

is

also needed where management spot

checks a bus after

the

technician has conducted his/her Inspection

to

verify

that

all defects existing on a

bus have been proper ly identified. Quality control oversight should also include provisions

to

determine if

follow

up

repairs have been initiated. Failure

to

identify defects as part of

the

preventive maintenance

inspection process has allowed defects to accumulate from one PM inspection to the next. When defects

are noted, there is lack

of

documentation that fully describes the fault and corresponding actions taken,

making it nearly impossible to keep accurate maintenance histories of each bus. These factors contribute

to the unacceptably high number

of

defects that currently exist on each Van Hool

bus

inspected.

The same applies

to

daily pre-trip inspections required of bus drivers. Quality control oversight

is

needed

to make sure drivers are thoroughly inspecting buses and noting any defects. To help Insure this, First Transit

is

planning

to

install Zonartechnology, which was mentioned in

their

proposal but never installed. Zenar

is

a paperless system where drivers use a hand-held device to make wireless contact with various sensors

mounted on the bus.

t

each station or zone, the driver Is prompted

with

a series of inspections

to

make.

For each inspection item, drivers are forced to note if no defects are found or make an entry

to

identify

any

abnormalities, which then get automatically communicated to the maintenance department as

an

action

item for

repair.

It is

recommended

that WMATA monitor the

progress of Installing Zonar and follow-up

to

determine i f First Transit

is

making appropriate use of its benefits.

WM T aintenance Oversight


20/45

~ l r c u L a t o r


causes

for

the

road calls

or

whether they were increasing

or

decreasing over time.

Such

reports would

be

useful to WMATA and DDOT

as

another useful Indicator to gauge First Transit's performance. t

is

also

recommended that WMATA convert the road call data into a measurable performance Indicator statistic,

the typical industry measurement is mean distance (miles) between failures (MDBT).

The review of pull-outs produced slmilarfindings. Missed pullouts refer to cases where the number of buses

needed to service each route was insufficient. Buses typically fall short on this requirement because there

is

some repair need

that

prevents

the

bus from operating. WMATA claims the track ing

of

missed pullouts

is

relatively new, which Is unusual given its importance as a key performance Indicator. The Excel reports

produced by WMATA show the number of buses needed to service each route on weekdays and weekends

along with the number of actual buses available on each day for that route. Deficiencies are highlighted in

red; but

not

In every case.

Reasons

for the missed pullouts are also included,

but

are also Insufficient and

often provided only in one-word explanations. As

with

road calls, there are no convenient summary report

that

would assist First Transit improve its performance and for WMATA and

DDOT

to gain a better

understanding of dally bus availability.

Based on these findings it Is recommended that WMATA

be

more thorough in its oversight responsibility.

Specifically, inspections should Include undercarriages as part of

the

inspection process, and a procedure

put In place

to

Insure First Transit follows up

with

repairs

to

correct defects noted by WMATA.

t

is also

recommended

that

WMATA improve Its monitoring and reporting

of

road calls and missed pullouts

as

more

useful indicators of First Transit's performance.

Mechanic

raining

Certification

TRC set out

to

determine i qualified mechanics are following federal requirements by performing air


21/45

lrcuLacor

d.


TRC

then

asked

First Transit

to

provide

an

EPA

certification card

for

each

of

the

mechanics who performed

the AC repairs. AC ca r

ds

were provided fo r T R C found that no longer works for First

Tran sit and t hey do not have

acc

ess t o his f ile, al though It

Is as

sum as one. ld not

provide proof

of

EPA required ce rtl ficat ion.- is said to

have

one but could not uce it .

Based

on the review, it could not be determined f all

HVAC

repairs involving refrigerant were performed by an

EPA certified AC technician. It is therefore recommended that additional steps taken to ensure all

HVAC

repairs involving refrigerant are performed by certified technicians to avoid any penalties.

The level of technician proficiency plays

an

Important role in keeping fleets properly maintained. Although

there are no federal requirements for technician proficiency, Automotive Service Excellence

ASE)

is a

nationally recognized voluntary program

that

verifies mechanic competency through testing

and

certification. Developed originally

for

the automotive industry,

the

program

was

expanded over the past

10 years to include transit bus technician certifications. An interview with First Transit management

revealed only two technicians hold ASE certifications, with one having had at least some

of

those

certifications lapse. Although First Transit claims

it

intends

to

increase the level of ASE certifications among

its technicians,

it

is

recommended

that

WMATA monitor this progress

as

part

of

its oversight role.

WMATA

should also consider imposing a goal for

ASE

certifications and experience. For example,

PRTC

requires all

mechanics to have

at

least one

ASE

certification, and five

5)

years experience on heavy duty trucks or

buses.

Alternately, mechanics may be graduates of a certified two-year technical/vocational institute

and

have

two

2) years experience with heavy duty trucks or buses.

PRTC

also requires that at least

33

percent

of

the maintenance staff be

ASE

Master Certified,

an

elevated status where a technician holds certifications

In every vehicle area (i.e., engines, brakes, etc.).

Training

Is

a universally recognized vehicle for technicians

to

obtain craft proficiency. When

asked

about

training, technicians receive about 4 hours per

year.

Without conducting a more thorough investigation

of


22/45

District Department o Transportation

ratio over

time

as

another performance indicator

that

it

shares

with

DDOT.

The technician deficit could be

contributing to the overall fleet condition.

anagement of Fluid nalysis Program

As part

of

its maintenance program First Transit takes engine oil and transmission fluid samples at each

PM

inspection and sends those fluid samples

to

a laboratory for testing and evaluation to determine if there

are

any

signs of deterioration that may lead to a substantial failure in the future. This practice is common

among transit agencies

as

a way of providing early warning

of

any engine or transmission problems before

they can escalate. During its evaluation,

TRC

set out to determine if:

a) fluid samples were taken at each PM I;

b fluid records were filed and had easy access; and

c)

First Transit is making use of the fluids analysis results

as

part

of

its maintenance program.

First Transit

uses

a scale

of

1-5,

where

1

indicates the sample finding

is

normal and

5

indicates the most

critical condition.

Unfortunately, TRC

was

not able to make the necessary determinations. Locating current fluid analysis

reports for each of the 12 buses examined was not an easy task. Reports were not filed

by

bus number,

and

instead haphazardly existed In one large file. Individual records were very difficult to locate. In

fact

the

clerk was asked to file each fluid analysis report by

bus

number during TRC s evaluation, a practice

that

should have already existed

as

part

of

a well-organized record keeping system.

Afte r reports were organized by bus number, the review revealed that reports were not up to date and very


23/45

ClrcuLacor

d.


111

Caution: All engine

wear

rates normal. High copper level in isolation

is

probably a result

of

leaching of oil cooler core/oil additive reaction and does not indicate wear. Silicon level dirt /sea lant

material) satisfactory.

Water content

acceptable. Viscosity

low

for specified

oil

grade. Action: Change oil

and filter s)

if

not already done. Resample

at

next recommended interval to

monitor

and establish wear

trend.

1113 Caution: Engine

wear

levels appear satisfactory for first sample. Silicon level dirt /sea lant material)

satisfactory.

Water content


low for

specified

oil

grade. Action: Change oil and

filter s) if not already done. Resample

at

a reduced service interval to monitor and establish wear

trend.

1114

Abnormal: Engine

wear

levels appear satisfactory

for

first

sample. Fuel

dilution

at prob lem level.

Silicon level dirt/sealant materia l) satisfactory.

Water

content acceptable. Viscosity

low

for specified oil

grade. Action: Check fuel

injection

system. Change oil and filter s)

if

not already done. Resample at a

reduced service

interval to monitor and

establish

wear trend.

1117

Abnormal:

Engine

wear


for

first

sample. High copper level In isolation

is

most likely a result of oil cooler core leaching/oil additive reaction and does not appear to Indicate wear.

Fuel dilution at problem level. Fuel

test

result re-checked and verified. Silicon level dirt/sealant material)

satisfactory.

Water content


low for

specified oil grade. Action: Check

fuel

injection

system. Change oil and filter s)

if not

already done. Resample

at

a reduced service

interval

to monitor

and

establish wear trend.

1127

Caution: Engine

wear


for

first sample.

Minor

fuel

dilution

occurring.

Silicon level dirt /sealant mater ial) satisfactory.

Water

content

acceptable. Viscosity low

for

specified oil

grade. Action: Check

fuel

injection system. Resample at next recommended interval to

monitor

and


24/45

ClrcuLat ;or


cases,

shown in bold above, are significant enough

to

warrant action in advance

of

the

next

PM

inspection.

As mentioned above, it is recommended

that

WMATA follow up

to

determine lfthese actions take place as

part of its oversight role.

Despite the poor recordkeeping,

the

findings of vital fluids sampled show that changing of these fluids at

regularly scheduled PM inspections are contributing to the relatively good health of critical and expensive)

drivetrain components. The fact

that

no coolant abnormalities were found

is

outstanding given

the

role this

fluid plays

with

extending

the

life

of

major components.

TRC

finds

that

the

changing

of

vital fluids

that

comes with conducting PM inspections on time shows no significant neglect to the bus engine and

transmission fluid samples tested. The warnings received from the lab are consistent with those that

provide an early notice of potentia l future damage. However, this does not relieve First Transit

from

making

better use of

the

early warning program.

Useful Life Analysis

of

Van Hool Buses

Factors Contributing to Useful Life

The ability of any vehicle to fulfill its useful life and travel beyond depends on many factors that include

how well vehicles are engineered and manufactured, how wel l vehicles keep

their

structural Integrity over

time, and how well vehicles are maintained

to

keep them

In

a state of good repair. Whether buses have had

a midlife overhaul is considered anotherfactor.

Engineering

and

Manufacturing Capability

Van

Hool is a Belgian-based company, a long-standing producer of a wide range of buses for city, suburban,


25/45

lrcuLacor

d


buses at Washington s National A irport In 1988. These Van Hool buses are stil l in operation

today

after more

than 25 years.

Despite these impressive credentials, it cannot be overlooked that Van Hool buses purchased by

DDOT

are

unique

to

the US transit market. Although they comply with all US federal safety standards, they contain design

features

and

other attributes different from typical

buses

produced in North America.

For

example, Van Hool

buses

have three doors, and some models have engines placed in the middle of he

bus

instead of at the rear as is common

in the US.Additionally, 2003/04 versions had their air-conditioning

systems

retrofitted in the US after buses were built,

unlike integral

designs

installed at time

of

manufacture. In addition, obtaining

spare

parts for those parts

exclusive

to

Van Hool could be difficult. These

aspects

unique to Van Hoof buses would e challenging to any maintenance

operation.

Despite these unique

aspects First

Transit was well aware

of the challenges in advance

of bidding for the work.

As

an

established maintenance provider with a proven track record at other properties,

First Transit

fully understands

the anomalies associated with unique

buses

and what it

takes

to

keep

these vehicles operational.

Structurallntegrltv

The ability

of

a bus

to

maintain its structural integrity over time is

another

important element in

determining useful life. The history of bus technology Is dotted with examples of cracking chassis due

to

the structural stresses placed on them, and buses that rust due to aggressive road salting, deficient

design, and inferior materials used in the construction process. While defective mechanical equipment

such

as

engines and brakes are relatively easy to replace and repair, structural and rust damage is far

more extensive, requiring substantially more time and materials to correct. In some

cases

inherent

designs make structura l repairs difficult because a repair made to one chassis/frame crack, for example,


26/45

~ l r c u L a t o r


mid ife overhauls from

the

list

of

eligible capital projects. In response

to

the

myriad

of

comments related

to

bus overhauls, however, FT

has

revised its position

to

include bus overhauls as an eligible capital

project. For rolling stock

to

be overhauled,

it

must have accumulated at least 40 percent

of

its useful life.

None of the Van Hool buses in the DDOTfleet have undergone a midlife overhaul. The earliest buses, now

ten years in service, are at a point where i t makes litt le sense

to

conduct comprehensive mid ife overhauls.

The 2009 models, however, are at

their

mid ife point

in their

life cycle. Certainly, the 2003/2004 models

would

have benefited

from

such

an

overhaul. However, given

the

annual mileage placed on these buses,

engines and transmissions

would not

have been due for rebuilds

or

replacements at

the

midlife point,

essential activities

that

typical ly take place as part of the midlife overhaul process. Given

that

engines in

the newer 2009 models are

less

robust than those fitted

to

the earlier

Van

Hool models, the timing may

be more appropriate

to

consider mid ife overhauls

for the

2009 fleet. (Additional information regarding

engine characteristics

is

provided in

the Major

Component Status section below).

Regardless

of

whether buses are refreshed as part

of

a continuous maintenance process

or

overhauled

at a specific point in

time as

a major undertaking,

each

maintenance provider

has

an obligation

to

keep

buses

in

a state

of

good repair. The lack

of

conducting a midlife overhaul

is not

sufficient reason

for

early

retirements.

FT

would not approve such retirements

if

this flee t were federally funded.

State of Good Repair

Regardless

of

whether buses are overhauled at midlife

or

not, they must be continually maintained and

kept in state good repair. The high numbers

of

defects in the Van Hool fleet documented in this report

are excessive but not uncommon.

s

part

of

its state

of

good repair initiative, FT estimated in 2013 that

more than 40 percent

of

the nation's transi t buses were in marginal

or

poor condition.


27/45

lrcuLocor

d


42 Van Hool buses inspected had at least one A defect, implying

that

40

of

the

Van

Hool buses, 95

of

all buses inspected, should not have been in service. Although a national standard regarding the number

of

safety defects per

bus

does not exist, the number found during this inspection would not substantiate

a finding

that

the Van Hooi fleet

is

being kept

In

safe operating condition.

When

it

comes to reliability, TRC examined the road call histories for the past year

and

a half

and

found

about 10-20 road calls per month, about 180 annually. Predominate causes offai lures found virtually every

month consist of coolant leaks, air leaks, engine shut-downs and door-related problems. Typical repairs

included replacing of coolant hoses and replacing/repairing air lines. Given the number of these faults, First

Transit should initiate addi tional inspections

of

coolant hoses and air lines

and

take other steps based

on

the road call data

to

improve its preventive maintenance program. Specifically, it is recommended that First

Transit implement its ,cutting edge technology

of

Predictive Maintenance Analytlcs listed

In

the

DDOT

proposal to

prevent unexpected vehicle failures by scheduling corrective maintenance. Doing

so

would

greatly lessen the number

of

road calls, improve reliability, and improve customer satisfaction.

As

indicated earlier,

TRC

also examined missed pullout data provided by

WMATA

as

another indicator

of

bus

reliability.

In

examining missed pullouts for the month of August

2015

there were at least 44 cases

where routes were operated with an Insufficient number

of

buses. Reasons given for missed pullouts

include engine problems, inoperative air conditioning, buses at the body

or

engine shop

for

repairs, air

system

leaks,

faulty destination signs, and others. Again,

WMATA has

only recently begun tracking this vital

performance indicator and does not

have

useful summaries

that

analyze

the

data in a meaningful way.

To

repeat recommendations offered above

(see WM ATA

Maintenance Oversight),

WMATA

should produce

more convenient summary reports

of

road calls

and

missed pullouts, add appropriate detail to those

reports, and set goals with First Transit

to

improve bus reliability and availability. .


28/45

•


indings Point to Neglected aintenance

While engineering, manufacturing and structural integrity aspects of the Van Hool fleet do not warrant

early retirement, the poor state of repair raises the question of early retirement. However, when trying to

determine remaining useful life for the

Van

Hool fleet, the question becomes whether the state of good

repair

is

reversible, and whether the cause of so many defects is the result of either inherent bus flaws or

a lack of proper maintenance.

To help make this determination

TRC

more closely reviewed

the

defects Identif ied

as

a result

of

Its fleet

inspections. In reviewing them,

TRC

found there were six

(6)

functional categories out of 18 categories th t

accounted

for

most of the Van Hool defects. They are as follows: Exterior Body Condition 244 defects),

Engine/Engine Compartment 124 defects), Safety Equipment 124 defects), Drivers Controls 115 defects),

Interior Condition 99 defects), and Lights 61 defects). Together these defects account for

83

of all defects

th t

existed on

the Van

Hool fleet inspected.

TRC

then reviewed

the

specific defects in each

of the

six bus

categories.

Exterior Body Condition defects appear

to

be

the

result of accident damage and use of high-pressure

washing equipment pulling away the applied graphics, defects th t would exist on any bus subjected to the

same use and conditions. The

tight

conditions existing

In

the

bus

storage and maintenance areas are likely

contributing factors

to

extensive body damage. Engine/Engine Compartment defects

are

also difficult to

pin on the

bus

manufacturer because

the

Cummins engines

fitted

in these buses are made

in

the

US

and

used exclusively on nearly every US transit bus. Most ofthese defects consist of oil leaks th t have not been

repaired. The third category

is

Safety Equipment, defects primarily consisting of emergency windows

th t


29/45

lr ULO cOr

d.


requests; and missing mud flaps defects

that

will appear in time on any bus and there Is little to attribute

to

the bus manufacturer. And although not counted as defects, the bus manufacturer cannot be held

accountable

for the

lack

of

inte rior and exterior cleanliness. Most defects listed above have one thing in

common they are not essential to daily bus operation and therefore can be neglected or deferred. In

doing so these faulty conditions accumulate over time resulting in road calls, buses that look worn

out

before their time, and a

fleet

that becomes unappealing to customers.

Regarding whether

the fleet

condition can be reversed,

TRC

finds

that

because

the

type

of

defects found

are the result

of

neglected maintenance, a program could be put in place to repair these defects.

Because

the existing maintenance program has resulted In putting the fleet In a state of disrepair, steps can be taken

to revitalize the maintenance program and reverse the mechanical and aesthetic condition of the

Van

Hool

fleet. First Transit certainly has the resources and proven ability to undertake such a task.

Bus ge

No factor plays a more influential role in determining

bus

retirements than bus

age.

Although 12 years

is

the

industry standard for heavy-duty bus replacement, most agencies are forced

to

keep transit buses

beyond this period because of funding constraints, procurement delays, and other factors. Some agencies

pride themselves on keeping buses in operation well beyond the 12-year period, up to 20 years In some

cases

as

a reflection

of their

maintenance prowess.

For DDOT the determination of remaining bus life must be based on when buses actually entered service

despite buses being built In earl ier years. Table8 which follows presentS that Information. Using a strict 12-

year replacement cycle,

the

first of the 29 buses delivered 1101-1129) would be due

for

retirement In July

2017, about 22 months from now.


30/45

~ l r c u o c o r

District Department

of

Transportation

the

end

of

their

useful life

is

not

uncommon. However, some agencies operate buses in dense urban

environments where average bus speed is low, and accumulate lower mileage despite

the number of

hours

they operate each

day.

Nevertheless, one must take mileage into consideration when determining

remaining useful life.

able which follows shows

the

current mileages

for the Van

Hoot bus fleet. A review of those mileages

shows buses in each sub

fleet

are accumulating roughly the same mileages, an indication that use and

reliability/unreliability) is consistent among the fleet. The review also indicates that the fleet is averaging

about 25,000 to 30,000 miles annually.

Table 9 - Current Bus Mileages

2003/2004 Van

Hool

lif ileage

000, rounded

10 years, one month service)

1101 239

1102

254

1103

244

1104

228

1105 224

1106 246

1107

233

1108

257

1109

256

1110

239

1111

216

1112

237

1113

243

1114

236


31/45

lrcuLocor

Major

omponent Status

1131

1132

1133

1134

1135

1136

1137

1138

1139

1140

1141

1142

1143

2009 Van

Hool

4 years, 11 months service)

196

185

190

188

178

193

195

192

197

181

192

190

199

1144

182

1145 154

1146 181

1147

191

1148 177

1149 177

Subtotal

2009: 20

TOTAL:49

d


Condition

of

major components such

as

engines and transmissions

is

also a determining factor regarding

bus retirements. Table 10 which follows shows the rebuild/replacement history of transmissions and

engines followed by buses in need of engine replacements. Due to variations in manufacturing, use and


32/45

1114

1116

1117

1120

1121

1126

1128

1129

2003/2004 Van Hool

1129

2009 Van Hool

1135

1136

2003/2004

Van

Hool

1102

1104

1123

1128

3 18 14

8 14 12

11 14 14

9 27 12

7 21 15

10 13 12

5 21 14

11 10 14

Engine Replacement

1 12 15

1 12 15

2 26 14

Buses In Need of Engine Replacement

d


205

192

224

218

238

184

181

214

214

161

153

254

228

240

204

A review of the 16 transmission rebuilds/replacements indicates all were needed on the 2003/2004 sub

fleet. Nine were needed prior

to

200,000 miles, while seven were done after

that

mileage.

Regarding engines, only three have been replaced

to

date. Two

ofthem

were needed in the 2009 sub fleet

at relatively low mileage 153,000 and 161,000 miles). Although the 2009 buses are newer, they are fitted

with Cummins ISB engines, which because oftheir design are not as robust as the ISL engines.

s

a result,

they typically will require replacements at mileages less than the 2003/2004 sub fleet equipped with the

more robust

ISL

engine. The other engine replacement at 214,000 miles, an ISL engine, also appears to

be


33/45

ClrcuLat or


the 2009 models with the

less

robust

ISB

engines

have

already been replaced in the 150 000 mile range

First Transit wi ll be facing

the

need

to

either rebuild or replace a substantial number of engines

as

well

as

transmissions in

the

near future. The onslaught of this activity In addition to the costs involved will

have

a

significant impact on manpower requirements

and

budgets and

can

potentially Impact

bus

availability.

Furthermore the timing

of

engine/transmission

needs

is not favorable in light

of

a 12-year replacement

cycle for the 2003/2004 sub fleet. Given that these

buses

have only about

two

years remaining to reach

their

12-year life replacing engines and transmissions in the coming months could be viewed as not being

cost-effective. Certainly

the

closer a bus gets

to the

end

of

its useful life engine/transmission

costs are

more difficult to justify. It is more favorable to

have

major component rebuilds/replacements coincide

closer

to

midlife where engines are replaced once and worn out just before the

bus

is retires. However

reality is such that this cannot always be the

case.

To those unaccustomed to heavy-duty vehicles the need to replace engines and transmissions in such

numbers could be interpreted as

an

ideal time in which to replace buses especially because

of

the cost

impact. However does

it

make economic

sense

to

retire entire

buses

because engines

and

transmissions

need

to be

rebuilt or replaced? It

is

a well understood fact in transit th t with

buses

lasting a minimum

of

12 years and traveling

up to

a

h lf

million miles they typically will require at least one engine

and

transmission rebuild/replacement. As a result agencies budget and plan for this activity accordingly.

Experienced fleet maintenance providers such as First Transit are also keenly familiar with duty cycles and

related engine/transmission wear and should have anticipated such rebuilds/replacements

In

its proposal

toWMATA.

Understanding

of

the cost implications some maintenance contracts include provisions where

the

transit

agency will

pay for

engine and transmission rebuilds/replacements after

the buses have

accumulated a


34/45

~ r c u L o c o r

istrict epartment

of

Transportation

• First Transit revitalizes its existing maintenance program

to

one

th t

matches what

it

assured in

its original proposal

to

ensure buses are kept in a state of good repair,

• First Transit begins preparations

to

plan

for

the rebuild and replacements of upcoming

bus

engines and transmissions as needed without placing a burden

on

existing manpower

allocations

or

jeopardizing general fleet condition,

• All defects are identified as a result of its periodic inspections and follow-up is made to correct

those defects, and

• Improve its performance monitoring of road calls and missed pullouts, and work with First

Transit to establish improvement goals.

The original thinking was th t

TRC

would produce an itemized listing of buses in need of immediate

replacements.

Based on

the findings, however, and assuming

the

actions listed above will take place, there

is no reason why all

of

the oldest

buses

that TRC inspected, 2003/2004 models, will

not be

able reach

their

full12-year useful life

and

go beyond

if

needed. Possible exceptions include those seven

buses th t

were

off

property

and

not inspected.

Of

the

defects found on the 22 2003/2004 buses that TRC did inspect, all

can

be repaired

and

none are

serious enough

to

warrant retirement. They are defects

th t

First Transit

and WMATA

allowed

to

accumulate over time.

As

stated earlier, body damage, oil leaks, emergency windows

th t

will

not

easily

open and the wide array of other defects found

on

these buses should not have been allowed to accrue,

but can be repaired. Once corrected, buses can be brought back

to

a state of good repair. These buses

appear to be structurally sound, and none inspected had devastating accident damage

or

noticeable

significant rust that would require extensive repair.

These

observations make it difficult

to

justify early

retirement

for

any of the

29

2003/2004

buses.


35/45

ircuLator

d

•


related problems). The number

of

road calls across the entire fleet would be reduced

if

steps were taken

to

improve

the

overall maintenance program.

Regarding high cost

of

operation per mile, a more in-depth Investigation would be needed to make an

informed determination. Given the nature

of

defects found during this inspection, the relatively poor

condition

of the

fleet, and findings

of

inadequate preventive maintenance initiatives, the high cost

of

operation appears to be

the

result

of

an ineffective and inefficient maintenance program. Newer buses

would certainly give First Transit a reprieve in

that

they tend to need less maintenance, but if

the

same

maintenance approach were applied

to

the new fleet, they too would need premature replacement.

In making a recommendation for retirements, the first batch of

29

2003/2004 buses that began operation

in 2005

with

about 10 years

of

service would obviously be the first candidates

for

retirement in about two

years. Two years from now, prioritizing 2003/2004

bus

replacements based on engine/transmission needs

or

structural or corrosion problems

that

may develop, would make sense but not at this time.

If DDOT could afford to retire buses before their 12-year anniversary, a logical option would be

to

base

retirements on

the

need

for

engine/transmission replacements and rebuilds because

of

their

costs. In

that

case, the following buses could be immediately retired: 1102, 1104, 1123, and 1128. However, the

retirement of buses

with

a

low

of only 204,000 miles bus 1128} and a high

of

only 254,000 miles bus 1102}

are difficult to justify, especially

for

bus 1128

that

recently had a transmission replacement/rebuild.

If

this

.option were followed, subsequent retirements beyond the four buses identified could also be based on the

need for engine/transmission replacements and rebuilds.

more sensible approach would be

to

hold First Transit accountable

to

contract provisions which will

extend service life and allow buses to achieve their full useful life potential. Recommendations for doing so

are provided below.


36/45

~ l r c u a c o r


• Monitoring causes

of

unscheduled maintenance

to

prevent emergency road calls, and

• Other programs

to

ensure peak vehicle performance.

An

example

of

First Transit's capability exists nearby at

PRTC

in Woodbridge

VA,

where buses maintained

by First Transit and evaluated by TRC using the same inspection criteria and inspection crews consistently

yields relatively few defects, recordkeeping is well organized, and buses there are found

to

be exceptionally

clean.

Despite the proven performance elsewhere,

an

evaluation

of

the

DDOT Van

Hool fleet reveals

th t

First

Transit and WMATA have both fallen short on

their

obligations. The recom mendatlons below

to

extend bus

life are divided

into

primary and secondary actions. Since WMATA

is

DDOT s contractor, the actions are

primarily those steps WMATA needs

to

take in cooperation with First Transit

to

Improve fleet condition and

maintenance reporting to DDOT. Primary actions represent broader steps th t should be taken, followed

by secondary steps th t support the primary actions.

rimary ctions

• Have First Transit immediately repair all safety cri tica i A defects found dur ing the inspection and

follow up on each

to

make sure they have been corrected. First Transit said it would immediately

correct these defects and

has

provided some documentation, which like all

other

documentation,

lacks sufficient detail.

• Have First Transit immediately repair aii BR defects found during the inspection and

follow

up on

each. Although

not

as safety critical

as

the 'W' defects, they do have safety implications

th t

need

to

be repaired

as

soon

as

possible.


37/45

lrcuLocor

d


dally, weekly, monthly and annually in fulfilling the maintenance program including a series of key

indicators on which its performance

is to

be evaluated. First Transit

is

well qualified

and

experienced to develop a comprehensive maintenance plan and related key performance

indicators using its original proposal and those recommended in this report.

• WMATA should revisit its current maintenance oversight of First Transit to more thoroughly inspect

buses and identify defects. The inspections need

to

include the underside

of

each bus. A follow-up

process

is

also needed to make certain defects identified have been repaired by First Transit. In

addition

to

moni toring fleet condition, WMATA should make certain

th t

First Transit

is

abiding by

the Maintenance Plan it develops, improve its monitoring of

key

performance indicators, examine

key maintenance records, and improve

the

way it reports First Transit s performance

to

DDOT.

• WMATA should work with DDOT on a plan

to

improve the outward appearance of the 2003/2004

sub

fleet

by painting those buses and applying a fresh set of graphics. Also consider a midlife

overhaul program

for

the 2009 sub fleet to extend bus life and

to

make those buses more appealing

for

passengers throughout

their

useful lives.

• Have First Transit Institute a program to address the onslaught of pending engine and transmission

rebuilds/replacements, understanding this activ ity will add significantly to workforce requirements

and impact budgets.

As

a final primary action, DDOT needs to be more diligent in its efforts to oversee

the

performance of its

contractor to ensure all buses are properly maintained and the fleet is not allowed to deteriorate.

econdary ctions


38/45

lr ULO cOr


• Have First Transit improve its

work

orders such

that

all

work

done on

DDOT

buses is clearly

identified and provides

an

accurate historical record. .

• Have First Transit institute quality measures (spot checks

to

make certain technicians and drivers

are thoroughly identifying defects, and repairs are initiated to properly correct them.

• Have First Transit improve its fluid analysis program such

that

record keeping

is

improved and steps

are taken

to

make better

use

of

results and recommendations offered by

the

testing laboratory.

It

is also recommended tha t WMATA include

the

monitoring

of

First Transit s fluid analysis program

as

an

essential oversight role.

• Work

with

First Transit to develop a definition for road calls (i.e., service interruptions), convert

road call data into a measurable performance Indicator statistic, and establish goals that could be

monitored to determine if First Transit s maintenance operation

is

improving,

or

deteriorating, over

time.

•

fter

WMATA establishes criteria

for

determining state of good repair, apply those benchmarks

to

the DDOT fleet as another measure of First Transit s maintenance performance.

• Have First Transit initiate additional inspections of coolant hoses and air lines and take

other

steps

based on the road call data to improve its preventive maintenance program.

• Have First Transit develop a more convenient summary report of missed pullouts and set goals for

First Transit to improve bus availability for daily service.


39/45

ClrcuLat or

d


Appendix Excel Spreadsheet Reports

See

attached file DC_MasterDefectSheet_Aug 2015_Final

toDDOT xlsx


40/45

lr ULOcor


ppendix B

-

A Defect

List

"A '

efects

•

Fire extinguisher

•

Headlights

•

Wipers

•

Cracked windshield in driver s view

•

Seat belts, driver

•

Turn signals

•

Horn

•

Emergency flashers

•

Brake lights

•

Air pressure/Air leaks

•

Brake lining thickness- flush/forward

with

pin

•

Tire tread depth

2/32

rear;

4/32 front

•

Fuel leak

•

Exposed wires

•

Proximity

to

exhaust- oil, harness, etc

•

Oil/Grease on brakes (saturated)

•

Wheelchair Ramp inoperative

•

Wheelchair securement equ ipment

•

Kneeling

•

Sharp edges

•

Tripping

hazard-

interior

•

Critical steering/suspension play, wear

•

Sensitive

edges- doors- not

working at all

Tire pressure below 80 psi


41/45

ClrcuLacor

d


ppendix

Recommended Timetable

for

Completing

ction

Items

ction Items Responsibility Due By

Completed By

Comments/Special Notes

I

Primary Actions

I

Repair all safety critical " \' defects found

Before each bus is allowed

I

First Transit

during

the

inspection

to

resume service

Follow-up to confirm all " \' defects have

WMATA

Within 30 days

of

been repaired notif icat ion by WMATA

Repair all BR defects found during

the

First Transit

Within 30 days of

inspection

notificat ion by WMATA

Follow-up

to

confi rm all BR defects have

WMATA

Withi n 60 days

of

been repaired

notification by WMATA

Repair remainder

of

defects found during

the

First Transit

Withi n 90 days of

inspection notificat ion by WMATA

Follow-up to confirm remainder of defects

WMATA

Within 120 days

of

have been repaired

notification by DDOT

Instit ute an ongoing detailed cleaning

First Transit

Within 60 days of

program to thoroughly clean bus interiors

withWM T

Consider contracting

out

and exteriors.

OVersight

notification by WMATA

with cleaning service

Revisit current preventive maintenance

program and

put into

place those practices

clearly articulated in

the

original proposal.

First Transit

Train technicians to identify defects as part of

withWM T Within 60 days of

their preventive maintenance inspections

Oversight notificat ion by WMATA

(PM

}

Implement quality control program to

periodically examine

PM Is to

make certain

technicians have iden tified all defects and

repairs have been made.

Prepared by Transit Resource Center

Page40


42/45

Clr CULO cor

d

District Department o Transportation

Based on revised maintenance program

submit a detailed Maintenance Plan that

clearly delineates the roles of technicians

managers/supervisors and drivers in carrying

First Transit

out their

maintenance responsibilities.

Include those actions needed to be taken

withWM T

Within 60

days

of

daily weekly monthl y and annually in

Oversight notif icat ion by WMATA

fulfilling the maintenance program including

a series

of

key performance indicators on

which its performance is to be evaluated.

Use

First Transit original proposal and recent

evaluation report for guidance.

Follow-up to confirm practices included in

First Transit proposal are

put

in place;

technicians are trained to properly perform

PM inspections;

Q

program

is

implemented

to verify PM inspections are properly

WMATA Within 60 days of

performed; revised Maintenance Plan

is

notificat ion by WMATA

submitted and being followed; daily weekly

monthly

and annual tasks delineated by staff

assignments are developed and followed; and

key performance indicators are established

and monitored.

Periodic inspection

of DDOT

buses

to

more

thoroughly identify defects. Include

inspections of bus underside. Establish

WMATA

Quarterly

I

follow-up process

to

make certain defects

identified have in fact been repaired by First

I

Transit.

Prepared by Transit Resource Center Page41


43/45

Clr CULOcor

d


Based on key performance indicators

established, develop a summary report ing

system that clearly indicates to First Transit

and

DDOT

whether

First Transit s

performance

is

improving

or

deteriorating

over time. Monitoring should include at

minimum:

• Number of bus defects identified

•

Within

30 days establish

including criticai A defects;

list of key performance

• mean distance between service

indicators and

how

they

interruptions (road calls);

will

be measured

• number of buses lacking to service

WMATA

• Within 60 days produce

routes

by

day (pull out data);

sample summary report

• number of echnicians with

ASE

for

DDOT

review

certifiCations;

• Provide reports on a

• bus to technician

ratio;

monthly basis

• hours and type of raining provided

to

technicians;

• lab findings regarding f

circulator audit by district department of transportation

Documents