transit asset management plan - granicus

Transit Asset Management Plan

Prepared for

Southern California Regional Rail Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012

November 2016

1000 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90017

In cooperation with:

Intueor Consulting, Inc. System Metrics Group

ATTACHMENT A

TR0226161117SFB iii

Contents Section Page

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... vii ES.1 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... vii ES.2 TAM Plan Development Summary ..................................................................................... vii ES.3 TAM Policy, Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................... viii ES.4 Backlog and Twenty Year Needs .........................................................................................ix ES.5 TAM Implementation Plan .................................................................................................. x

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Contents ........................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 1-3 1.3 Project flow and TAM Plan development ........................................................................ 1-4

Current Capability and Condition Assessment ................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Baseline Findings.............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.1 Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.2 Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.3 Processes ............................................................................................................ 2-5 2.1.4 Systems ............................................................................................................... 2-5 2.1.5 Staffing Levels ..................................................................................................... 2-5 2.1.6 Funding ............................................................................................................... 2-5 2.1.7 Asset Condition Data .......................................................................................... 2-6

2.2 TAM Maturity Assessment ............................................................................................... 2-6 2.3 SCRRA’s Asset Inventory .................................................................................................. 2-8 2.4 Condition Assessment Methods .................................................................................... 2-13

2.4.1 GASB 34 Modified Approach ............................................................................ 2-13 2.4.2 Rail Asset Management System (RAMS) .......................................................... 2-15 2.4.3 Transit Economic Requirements Model Lite (TERM-Lite) ................................. 2-15

2.5 Application of Condition Assessment Methods on SCRRA Assets ................................... 2-17 2.6 Summary of SCRRA Condition Assessment Approaches ............................................... 2-21

Capital Rehabilitation and Replacement Investment Program ......................................................... 3-1 3.1 SGR Backlog ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Decision Support Tools and Capital Project Prioritization Approach .............................. 3-2

3.2.1 Use of Asset Management Support Systems ...................................................... 3-2 3.2.2 TERM-Lite ............................................................................................................ 3-3

3.3 20 Year Reinvestment Needs Forecast (financially unconstrained and constrained) ..... 3-4 3.3.1 Financially Unconstrained Analysis ..................................................................... 3-4 3.3.2 Financially Constrained Analysis ......................................................................... 3-5

Asset Management Policy, Goals and Objectives ............................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Asset Management Goals and Objectives ....................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Asset Management Policy ................................................................................................ 4-2 4.3 Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................................ 4-2 4.4 Drivers for SCRRA TAM Program Implementation .......................................................... 4-3

Gaps Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Gaps Analysis Process ...................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Gaps Identification ........................................................................................................... 5-2

CONTENTS, CONTINUED

iv TR0226161117SFB

5.3 Categorization of Asset Management Gaps .................................................................... 5-2 5.3.1 Asset Management Vision and Direction ........................................................... 5-3 5.3.2 Processes, Roles, Responsibilities ....................................................................... 5-3 5.3.3 Asset Inventory ................................................................................................... 5-3 5.3.4 Asset Condition ................................................................................................... 5-3 5.3.5 Lifecycle Management ........................................................................................ 5-3 5.3.6 Budgeting & Program Delivery ........................................................................... 5-4 5.3.7 Performance Measures....................................................................................... 5-4 5.3.8 Information Technology (IT) Systems ................................................................. 5-4

Implementation Program ............................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Program Timeframe ......................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Internal Organization ....................................................................................................... 6-2 6.3 Action Plan ....................................................................................................................... 6-4 6.4 Prioritization .................................................................................................................... 6-7

6.4.1 Investment Prioritization -- Approaches ............................................................. 6-7 6.4.2 Other Approaches ............................................................................................... 6-7 6.4.3 Investment Prioritization – SCRRA’s Ten Year Needs ......................................... 6-8

6.5 Asset Management Software Improvements Systems Analysis .................................... 6-10 6.5.1 EAM Peer Review .............................................................................................. 6-11 6.5.2 EAM Functionality ............................................................................................. 6-11 6.5.3 EAM Recommendations for SCRRA .................................................................. 6-12

6.6 Performance Measures .................................................................................................. 6-13 6.7 Continuous Improvement Plan ...................................................................................... 6-15

6.7.1 Stakeholder Involvement .................................................................................. 6-15 6.7.2 Performance Monitoring .................................................................................. 6-16 6.7.3 Risk Management ............................................................................................. 6-16

Appendix

A List of CAMRA Participants B List of Peer Transit Agencies C Gaps, Benchmarks, Actions, and Implementation Timeframe D Glossary of Terms E List of Abbreviations

CONTENTS, CONTINUED

TR0226161117SFB v

Tables

Table ES-1. SCRRA TAM Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................... viii Table ES-2. Action Plan Timeline (Needs Update) ....................................................................................... xi Table 1-1. Benefits of Transit Asset Management for SCRRA .................................................................... 1-1 Table 1-2. Expected FTA TAM Plan Requirements ..................................................................................... 1-4 Table 2-2. SCRRA Interview Participants (Part 2) ....................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-5. SCRRA Current Asset Management Systems ............................................................................ 2-8 Table 2-6. SCRRA’s Assets and Attributes .................................................................................................. 2-9 Table 2-7. Asset Inventory Valuation and Percent of Asset Base by Category ........................................ 2-12 Table 2-7. RAMS 6-point Condition Scale ................................................................................................ 2-15 Table 2-8. FTA’s 5-point Condition Scale ................................................................................................. 2-15 Table 2-9. Current Average TERM Lite Condition Scores ......................................................................... 2-16 Table 2-11. Track RCI Condition Assessment ........................................................................................... 2-18 Table 2-12. Bridge RCI Condition Assessment ......................................................................................... 2-19 Table 2-13. Tunnel RCI Condition Assessment ........................................................................................ 2-20 Table 2-14. Signals and Communications RCI Condition Assessment ..................................................... 2-20 Table 2-14. Limitations of Existing Condition Rating Systems ................................................................. 2-21 Table 3-1. Estimated Reinvestment Needs by SCRRA Asset Type in thousands of year of expenditure (YOE) dollars ............................................................................................................................................... 3-4 Table 4-1. SCRRA TAM Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................. 4-1 Table 5-1. Summary of SCRRA TAM Gaps by Business Process, Goals and Objectives ............................. 5-5 Table 6-1. Action Plan Timeline (NEEDS UPDATE) ..................................................................................... 6-2 Table 6-2. Gaps, Benchmarks and Proposed Actions ................................................................................ 6-5 Table 6-3. Developed Options Based on EAM Recommendations .......................................................... 6-12 Table 6-4. SCRRA TAM Performance Measures ....................................................................................... 6-13 Figures

Figure ES-1. TAM Development steps ........................................................................................................ viii Figure ES-2. SCRRA 20 Year Unconstrained Needs in Millions of YOE Dollars ............................................. ix Figure ES-3. SCRRA 10-Year Reinvestment Needs – By Investment Tier ...................................................... x Figure 1-1. Project Flow Illustration ........................................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 2-1. Asset Management Maturity Scale.......................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-2. CAMRA Workshop Summary Radar Plot ................................................................................. 2-7 Figure 2-3. Asset Inventory Valuation by Category ($millions in 2015)................................................... 2-12 Figure 2-4. Metrolink’s Current Percent of Assets Scoring below 75 on RCI ........................................... 2-14 Figure 2-10. Percent of Assets by Value Below TERM Lite Condition Ratio of 2.5 .................................. 2-17 Figure 3-1. TERM Lite Estimated SGR Backlog ($ thousands) .................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2. Metrolink's Rehabilitation Planning Process ........................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-3. TERM Lite Process for Projecting Reinvestment Needs .......................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-4. TERM Lite Multi-Criteria Analysis Prioritization Process ......................................................... 3-4 Figure 3-5. SCRRA 20 Year Unconstrained Needs in millions of YOE dollars ............................................. 3-5 Figure 3-6. SCRRA Constrained Backlog Projection in millions of YOE dollars .......................................... 3-5 Figure 3-7. Estimated Percentage (by value) of SCRRA’s Assets Beyond Useful Life under Funding Constraint ................................................................................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-8. Scenarios for Cumulative Reinvestment Needs....................................................................... 3-6 Figure 4-1. FTA TAM Business Processes ................................................................................................... 4-4 Figure 5-1. Process for Asset Management Gaps Identification ................................................................ 5-2 Figure 6-1. Example Internal Organization Structure for TAM Implementation ....................................... 6-3 Figure 6-2. TERM Lite Prioritization Scoring Based on Five Criteria .......................................................... 6-9 Figure 6-3. Investment Tier Thresholds ..................................................................................................... 6-9

CONTENTS, CONTINUED

vi TR0226161117SFB

Figure 6-4. SCRRA 10-Year Reinvestment Needs – By Investment Tier (Millions of $YOE) ....................... 6-9 ................................................................................................................................................................... 6-9 Figure 6-5. SCRRA 10-Year Reinvestment Needs – By Investment Tier ................................................... 6-10

TR0226161117SFB vii

Executive Summary The overarching goal of transit asset management (TAM) is to ensure that a transit agency’s assets are maintained and operated in a consistent, measurable state of good repair (SGR). The TAM Plan, a document required by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) per MAP-21 legislation for all agencies that receive federal funding, provides guideposts by which an agency can track progress toward a mature, data-driven asset management system. TAM involves all activities related to maintaining thousands of physical assets, such as rolling stock, maintenance facilities, and rail infrastructure, in SGR, and to provide of safe and reliable public transit service. MAP-21 also includes requirements for prioritizing reinvestments based on performance, condition, and risk assessment of assets that are within a provider’s direct capital responsibility.

The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), otherwise known as Metrolink, performs many of these maintenance and reinvestment tasks. Some of SCRRA’s current and historical strengths are around planning, design and construction of capital projects, and maintenance management. SCRRA also must work within its governance structure – namely, a joint powers authority with five different member agencies and subcontracted services. With the emergence of new best national best practices in asset management and Federal guidance, SCRRA has identified areas of asset management opportunity and growth for itself. These include, among others, TAM strategic planning/business planning; monitoring performance against the strategic plan; TAM leadership and governance; and asset data information/integration.

The FTA published its final rulemaking on Transit Asset Management. This rule, effective October 1, 2016, defines SGR and establishes the minimum Federal requirements for TAM development and implementation. Pursuant to the rule, SCRRA will also work with freight railroads and other third-party property owners to determine a reasonable method to inventory non-SCRRA-owned assets that are used in the provision of its transit services.

This TAM Plan was developed during 2015-16, reflecting the reality and SCRRA maturity at this time. The Plan is based on current asset management best practices, FTA guidance, and locally developed policies that reflect a practical and cost effective asset management implementation program for years to come. This TAM Plan is a living document and easily updatable to be consistent with future federal direction.

ES.1 Acknowledgements Development of the Plan included participation and input from many key stakeholders that have an important role in asset management, including SCRRA’s executive team, asset managers, Finance, IT, and Planning.

SCRRA would also like to acknowledge the Metrolink member agencies and the transit peer agencies interviewed as part of the benchmarking effort. These peer agencies included – Sound Transit, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority.

ES.2 TAM Plan Development Summary This effort was led by two SCRRA staff in the Planning Division, in close cooperation with asset class managers and specialists from other departments and executive staff. These asset class managers and specialists are responsible to plan, program and implement SGR for the various asset classes. The two staff in Planning have acted as an agency wide liaison role for TAM through this entire process in

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

viii TR0226161117SFB

conjunction with the consulting firm CH2M. The TAM Plan was the focus of a 15 month process, illustrated in Figure ES-1.

Figure ES-1. TAM Development steps

ES.3 TAM Policy, Goals and Objectives SCRRA adopted a new Transit Asset Management Policy to integrate TAM concepts throughout the agency. The following policy and purpose statements were specified as a supportive framework to implement an agency-wide TAM strategy.

Policy: SCRRA is committed to maintaining our assets in a State of Good Repair through financial stewardship and reinvestment, transparency and collaboration with its funding partners, promoting a culture that supports asset management across the organization, and focusing on high quality asset condition and performance information and a risk-based approach as the basis for decision making. Asset management shall support and lead to the timely implementation of projects and programs which maintains the Railroad’s Infrastructure, Systems, Equipment and Facilities in a State of Good Repair.

Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to communicate to management, to staff and to the public, the ongoing condition of SCRRA’s assets and to reinforce SCRRA’s commitment to maintain its assets in a State of Good Repair and foster a culture of continuous improvement in asset management planning and performance.

To implement the TAM policy, five goals were established to promote asset management principles throughout the agency. For each goal, objectives were identified with corresponding, measurable outcomes. Table ES-1 lists SCRRA’s TAM goals and objectives.

Table ES-1. SCRRA TAM Goals and Objectives

Area TAM Goal Objectives

Safety Maintain SCRRA assets in State of Good Repair to support a safe operating environment

Maintain equipment, infrastructure, systems, and facilities in SGR

Provide advanced notice of deteriorating asset to avoid or minimize repair on failure and reactive/crisis type repairs and replacements scenarios

Measure and manage TAM-related risks

Document root cause analysis for asset failures

TAM Baseline

Environmental

Assessment

Gaps Analysis

Goals and

Objectives

Performance

Measurement

Framework

TAM Plan

Delivery and

Implementation

1

23

4

5

8

Diagnostic

Phase

Blueprinting

PhaseImplementation

Systems Review

6

Short Term

Investment Plan

and Long Term

Requirements

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TR0226161117SFB ix

Table ES-1. SCRRA TAM Goals and Objectives

Area TAM Goal Objectives

Fiscal sustainability Build and promote financial sustainability through implementation of asset management best practices

Strengthen linkages between multi-year SGR needs, annual budget process and Capital Improvement Program

Prioritize SGR investment of existing assets over expansion and addition of new assets

Develop objective method to prioritize capital projects and assess trade-offs between competing investments

Implement minimum life cycle cost policy

Investing in assets/State of Good Repair (SGR)

Invest in SCRRA assets and SGR Implement TAM Plan and policy consistent with MAP-21 requirements

Establish clear capital replacement and rehabilitation plans, and monitor adherence

Develop asset management Systems approach

Organizational efficiency

Demonstrate organizational efficiency for asset management processes and outreach to member agencies

Build understanding and support for asset management at SCRRA executive level

Assess and implement tools to support data driven asset management decisions

Improve and expand communications with member agencies regarding well-documented SGR needs and priorities

People and TAM culture

Promote asset management culture at SCRRA

Advance awareness for TAM across all levels at SCRRA

Develop and retain well trained TAM workforce

ES.4 Backlog and Twenty Year Needs SCRRA’s State of Good Repair (SGR) backlog is estimated at approximately $588 million for the current fiscal year, which means $588 million would need to be programmed now to perform all the necessary reinvestments to address SCRRA’s assets that are in not in a SGR.

Through modeling, SCRRA has projected total unconstrained reinvestment needs over a 20 year period in Figure ES-2. There is considerable variability in year to year needs consistent with when assets reach their useful lives. Total need over 10 years is $1.79 billion and over 20 years $3.77 billion.

Figure ES-2. SCRRA 20 Year Unconstrained Needs in Millions of YOE Dollars

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

x TR0226161117SFB

SCRRA also categorized and prioritized reinvestment needs into three “investment tiers.” Each tier represents a different level of reinvestment priority, with Tier 1 representing highest priority needs, and Tier 3 lowest priority needs. Prioritization is conducted based on standard criteria including asset condition, reliability, safety/security and operations & maintenance costs. The results are shown in Figure ES-3 below, and point to bridges, trackwork, and systems/train control as being the largest and most critical needs. Additional documentation and rationale on prioritization is provided in the body of the report.

Figure ES-3. SCRRA 10-Year Reinvestment Needs – By Investment Tier

ES.5 TAM Implementation Plan Finally, this TAM Plan contains a roadmap for TAM implementation at Metrolink. This implementation program groups a number of different items ranging from critical initiatives, schedule, to governance and continuous improvement. Resulting actions from the plan have been grouped in bundles and are illustrated in Table ES-2 below.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TR0226161117SFB xi

Table ES-2. Action Plan Timeline (Needs Update)

Action Bundle

Short Term (0-2 years) Medium Term (2-4 years) Long Term (4+ years)

0 2 4

Lifecycle data collection

Operations and Maintenance Planning

Change Management

TAM Implementation

Decision Support Tools

Capital Planning

Risk-based Framework

Performance Measures

Data management

Shading depicts recommended start time period for a given action bundle.

SECTION 1

TR0226161117SFB 1-1

Introduction This Transit Assessment Management Plan (TAM Plan) sets out the SCRRA asset management approach as well as recommendations for maintenance and capital programs necessary to meet service, performance and achieve a State of Good Repair for SCRRA’s portfolio of assets.

Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that was formed in 1991 and comprises five county agencies that were tasked with reducing highway congestion and improving mobility throughout Southern California: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Orange County Transportation Authority, Riverside County Transportation Commission, San Bernardino Associated Governments and Ventura County Transportation Commission. SCRRA was formed in October 1992 to provide commuter rail service between six Southern California counties. SCRRA operates over a 512 route-mile network. During the past 23 years, SCRRA has expanded from three service lines, 11 stations and 2,300 daily boardings to seven service lines, 55 stations and 44,000 daily boardings. Revenue train operations are contracted out to Amtrak.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) defines TAM as a strategic and systematic process through which an organization procures, operates, maintains, rehabilitates and replaces transit assets to manage their performance, risks and costs over their lifecycle to provide safe, cost-effective, reliable service to current and future customers. The term “asset” refers to physical equipment and infrastructure including rolling stock, right-of-way, stations, facilities, systems, tools, etc. that make up SCRRA’s commuter rail system. This TAM Plan is a living document that provides a strategy to coordinate various interdependent business processes, activities and tools necessary to give SCRRA the ability to manage its assets at optimal efficiency.

This TAM Plan examines current TAM practices at SCRRA, experiences from peer agencies, FTA guidance, and recommends a set of action plans that will help ensure that the SCRRA system continues to provide a safe, reliable and high quality service in the long run. The benefits of the asset management activities described in this plan to SCRRA are listed below in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. Benefits of Transit Asset Management for SCRRA

Agency Business Benefits Results

Improved customer service

Improves reliability/ on-time performance and service operations; vehicle and facility cleanliness; reduces missed trips, speed restrictions.

Strengthens customer confidence in system safety and reliability.

Avoids or minimizes repair or replacement on failure (only fix when broke) scenarios often resulting in unplanned reactive crisis type repairs and replacements.

Focuses investments around customer-centered goals and metrics.

Improved productivity and focused, optimized and planned investments

Maintains assets more efficiently, using condition-based approaches and using predictive and preventive maintenance strategies (where these can be employed) to focus and optimize investments with sufficient lead times to avoid costly repairs/replacement on failure or crisis repairs while improving service delivery.

Benefits for SGR projects exceed expenditures. For example, a Benefit Cost Ratio of 2.6 to 2.8 was calculated for San Francisco Bay Area transit SGR funding.*

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION

1-2 TR0226161117SFB

Table 1-1. Benefits of Transit Asset Management for SCRRA

Agency Business Benefits Results

Optimized resource allocation

Helps implement the SGR commitments in Long Range and Short Range Transportation Plans.

Better aligns spending with an agency’s goals and objectives to obtain the greatest return from limited funds.

Incorporates life-cycle cost, risk and performance trade-offs into capital programming and operations & maintenance budgeting.

Improved stakeholder communications

Provides stakeholders with timely, accurate, and transparent SGR assessments and commensurate needs.

Allows SGR to be implemented in an organized, methodical manner.

Provides stakeholders with more accurate and timely customer-centered performance indicators.

Provides tools to communicate forecasted performance metrics (including level of service) based on different levels of funding.

*Source: USDOT, FTA. Asset Management Guide: Focusing on the Management of our Transit Investments, 2013 and Paterson, L. and Vautin, D. Evaluating User Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness for Public Transit State of Good Repair Investments, Paper submitted to the Transportation Research Board (TRB) 94th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. November 14, 2014.

1.1 Contents The TAM Plan has been structured to address all of FTA’s nine transit asset management MAP-21 rulemaking elements. These are listed in parentheses in the table below, numbered 1 through 9.

This TAM Plan consists of six sections and a series of appendices as follows below:

Section Contents TAM

Element

Section 1: Introduction Introduction to the document, including purpose and methodology.

N/A

Section 2: Capability and Condition Assessment

Broad description of the “current asset management situation” at SCRRA: baseline TAM capabilities and maturity based on interviews, workshops, benchmarking, and Systems review. Comprehensive description of and listing of SCRRA’s asset inventory. Condition assessment results, both physical inspections and modeled.

1, 2

Section 3: Capital Reinvestment Program

Description of SCRRA’s decision support tools and its capital project prioritization approach. Analysis of SCRRA capital asset backlog is provided, followed by both constrained and unconstrained needs projections.

3

FTA TAM Plan Elements:

1 – Inventory of Capital Assets

2 – Condition Assessment

3 – Decision Support Tools

4 – Investment Prioritization

5 – TAM and SGR Policy

6 – Implementation Strategy

7 – List of Key Annual Activities

8 – Financial Resources

9 – Evaluation


TR0226161117SFB 1-3

Section Contents TAM

Element

Section 4: Asset Management Policy, Goals and Objectives

SCRRA’s TAM policy, goals and objectives which form the basis for SCRRA’s vision for asset management. Drivers for SCRRA’s TAM policy consistent with FTA direction.

5

Section 5: Gaps Assessment Mechanism to cross reference the key drivers (i.e., SCRRA vision, FTA direction) with SCRRA’s current situation to generate the list of activities required for the TAM Plan Implementation.

N/A

Section 6 – TAM Plan Implementation

Roadmap for SCRRA’s Plan implementation: high level schedule; internal organization; list of actions/milestones/resources; investment priorities; systems/enterprise asset management ; performance measures; and process for continuous improvement.

4, 6, 7, 9

Appendices Glossary, List of Acronyms, Detailed Actions 8

1.2 Purpose One key purpose of this TAM Plan is to elevate the importance of transit asset management to the entire SCRRA organization. This has been accomplished through interviews with asset class managers and specialists, executives, workshops, and ongoing dialogue and discussion with asset owners throughout the process.

A second key purpose is for SCRRA to demonstrate compliance with all the FTA reporting requirements related to the MAP-21 rulemaking and the National Transit Database.

The third key purpose is to discuss a “roadmap” for TAM Implementation. This roadmap contains a program of activities which will guide SCRRA’s efforts in the short, medium and long term. Benefits, as identified above, in addition to compliance with FTA, are expected to include: improved customer service; improved productivity and reduced costs; optimized resources allocation; and improved stakeholder communications.

Finally the TAM Plan will support an orderly implementation of SGR programs and projects. The Plan offers a strategy to help avoid or minimize, the reactive, costly, crisis-type repair and replacement of assets.

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, or MAP-21, enactment requires that all FTA grant recipients develop TAM Plans that consider:

Building/completing SCRRA’s capital asset inventory

Describing the decision criteria for asset investment

Establishing appropriate condition and performance targets

Assessing and reporting the state of the assets against those targets

Describing the work required to meet these targets.

In July 2016, FTA issued the Final Rulemaking on Transit Asset Management and the National Transit Database (NTD) (docket number FTA-2014-0020).Table 1-2 summarizes these new reporting areas (nine “elements” for TAM and one for NTD).


1-4 TR0226161117SFB

Table 1-2. Expected FTA TAM Plan Requirements

Element Description

1 Asset Inventory List of transit capital assets and their condition (TAM and NTD)

2 Condition Assessment Asset condition ratings. Facilities/stations from on-site assessment

3 Decision Support Tools Methodology / tools used to create TAM plan (e.g., TERM Lite)

4 Investment Prioritization Prioritized list of SGR projects, using criteria such as safety and cost

5 TAM and SGR Policy Policies, strategies, executive directions to support goals for TAMP

6 Implementation Plan Processes to follow to achieve TAMP

7 List of Annual Activities Activities deemed critical to achieving TAM goals for the year

8 Financial Resources Estimate of financial resources necessary to implement TAMP

9 Evaluation Continuous TAM improvement plan with milestone and timelines

NTD Performance Measures Agency and FTA required performance measures / targets

In order to satisfy current and future requirements the following have been reviewed:

Global best practice

The International Standard for Asset Management Systems, ISO-55001:2014

The FTA Asset Management Guideline

In addition to meeting MAP-21 requirements, SCRRA’s TAM Plan outlines an approach for the agency to best manage and maintain its assets more effectively. The approach helps the agency with the following processes:

Implement business processes that integrate prioritized asset renewal needs based on condition and performance, with recommendations for programmed funding levels in the planning process and asset project selection in the annual budget process

Carry out a phased approach for the re-implementation of SCRRA’s current Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) Trapeze system to collect, track and report TAM inventory, performance and condition data

Implement an asset management culture at SCRRA and help demonstrate organizational efficiency for asset management processes and outreach to member/funding agencies

The TAM Plan is intended to be an iterative and collaborative process that will strengthen the SCRRA’s ability to manage and report on asset conditions, forecast costs for rehabilitation and replacement, and make optimal cost-effective investment prioritization decisions.

1.3 Project flow and TAM Plan development This effort was led by a SCRRA project manager in the Planning Division with support from the CEO, Division managers and asset managers. This TAM Plan development was the focus of a fifteen month process working with a Consultant, which can be summarized in nine steps shown in Figure 1-1.


TR0226161117SFB 1-5

Figure 1-1. Project Flow Illustration

The steps in the process are summarized as follows:

Step 1: Establish SCRRA’s TAM Baseline. An initial assessment was conducted to evaluate SCRRA’s current awareness of asset management issues and capabilities, as they relate to agency characteristics, business processes, capacity to maintain assets in SGR, and resource availability. The assessment consisted of interviews with key executive stakeholders and two half-day Comprehensive Asset Management Review and Assessment (CAMRA) workshops with stakeholder groups (asset class managers and specialists) aligned by major asset class.

Step 2: Assess SCRRA’s TAM Environment. Key asset management business processes were identified. Interviews of ten peers with similar operating characteristics/environments were conducted to understand how others are addressing TAM issues and responding MAP-21. Questions were included to better understand organizational characteristics, identify decision support tools, and solicit their feedback on lessons learned that may help SCRRA develop its TAM Plan and program. This set of information was also used to help identify SCRRA’s gaps related to TAM practices.

Step 3: Define SCRRA’s TAM Policy, Goals and Objectives. TAM goals and objectives unique to SCRRA were then developed to create the TAM direction and guide the development of the TAM implementation program. TAM goals and objectives support SCRRA’s overall mission, vision and organizational goals. This section provided the basis for the SCCRA TAM policy.

Step 4: Analyze Gaps. A gap analysis identified the differences between SCRRA’s current baseline TAM capabilities and best practices/TAM vision to determine key areas for improvement and to help develop and meet SCRRA’s TAM goals and objectives. The analysis provided an examination of gaps in practice relative to Federal guidance and best practices from other transit agencies. The gaps were organized by business process area and then matched to the TAM goals and objectives. This analysis forms the basis for the key actions and initiatives contained in the Implementation program.

Step 5: Establish Performance Measurement Framework. A framework was developed to provide a process for measuring SCRRA’s performance in achieving SGR against SCRRA’s TAM goals and objectives. The framework proposes candidate performance indicators to establish a baseline and monitor progress towards short-term and medium/long-term action plans to address asset management goals.

TAM Baseline

Environmental

Assessment

Gaps Analysis

Goals and

Objectives

Performance

Measurement

Framework

TAM Plan

Delivery and

Implementation

1

23

4

5

8

Diagnostic

Phase

Blueprinting

PhaseImplementation

Systems Review

6

Short Term

Investment Plan

and Long Term

Requirements

7


1-6 TR0226161117SFB

Step 6: Conduct Systems Review. A systems (information technology) review was conducted to document all the asset management systems used and planned at SCRRA. The review recommends an asset management solution that supports SCRRA’s TAM and state of good repair goals as well as SCRRA departmental needs. The solution entails a phased re-implementation of the Trapeze EAM platform.

Step 7: Formulate Short Term Investment Plan and Long Term Requirements. An analysis of short, medium and long term requirements was conducted using a customized version of FTA’s TERM Lite tool. The investment planning was iterative as it evolved multiple refinements of the asset data inventory and assumptions. Several scenarios were developed that evaluated the impact of both unconstrained and constrained funding.

Step 8: Develop TAM Plan and Implementation Program. The final step is SCRRA’s TAM plan and implementation program. The TAM Plan document rolls up key findings from each of the prior steps. The Implementation program identifies actions to close SCRRA’s TAM maturity gap and establish a high level framework to advance TAM goals and objectives. The roadmap for implementation includes a high level schedule; governance; list of actions/milestones/resources; investment priorities; systems/EAM; performance measures; and a process for continuous improvement.

SECTION 2

TR0226161117SFB 2-1

Current Capability and Condition Assessment This section details the current asset management situation at SCRRA at the time of the project – 2015-16. The baseline TAM capabilities and maturity are based on executive interviews, a maturity assessment, and peer agency benchmarking.

The section also contains a comprehensive description and delineation of SCRRA’s asset inventory. Finally, this section provides an overview of existing condition assessment methodologies utilized by SCRRA. These methods reflect, both physical inspections and modeled condition curves.

This section addresses the following FTA TAM Elements: 1 (Inventory of Capital Assets) and 2 (Condition Assessments).

2.1 Baseline Findings The agency asset management baseline was generated through a series of executive and stakeholders interviews and facilitated maturity workshops attended by a wide range of staff involved with SCRRA’s TAM functions.

This baseline assessment identified key strengths and weaknesses that served as reference in assessing gaps and recommending strategies to increase SCRRA’s TAM capabilities. Key strengths categories are: legal, regulatory, and statutory requirements; capital projects—planning, design and construction; emergency preparedness and response; maintenance management; and investigation of major asset failures and incidents. Key areas for improvement are: strategic planning/business planning; monitoring performance against the strategic plan; TAM policy and strategic asset management planning, TAM leadership and governance; TAM roles and responsibilities; master plan for development of asset management skills & competences; and asset data information/integration.

A total of 27 personnel within the Executive Office, Office of the Chief Planning and Project Delivery Officer, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, and Office of the Chief Finance Officer were conducted to determine the current resources available to manage SCRRA’s assets, and where the resources (human and systems) reside in the agency.

Tables 2-1 and 2-2 lists the SCRRA personnel who were interviewed.

Table 2-1. SCRRA Interview Participants (Part 1)

Executive Office Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Interim CEO

Chief Operating Officer

Chief Financial Officer

Manager, General Accounting

Manager, Budgets and Financial Analysis

Manager, Grants Administration and Fiscal Management

Financial Analyst

Office of the Deputy Chief Executive Officer Office of the Chief Operating Officer

Assistant Director, Contracts

Senior Director, Information Technology

Deputy Chief Operating Officer, PTC and Engineering

Director, System Safety

SECTION 2 – CURRENT CAPABILITY AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT

2-2 TR0226161117SFB

Table 2-2. SCRRA Interview Participants (Part 2)

Office of the Deputy Chief Operating Officer,

Planning and Project Delivery

Office of the Deputy Chief Operating Officer,

PTC and Engineering

Director, Planning and Development

Planning Manager

Planning Manager, Asset Data

Program Management Analyst

Director, Fare Collections Services

Assistant Manager, Inventory Control

Director, Maintenance of Equipment

Assistant Director, Maintenance of Equipment

Manager, Fleet and Facilities Maintenance

Interim Director, Engineering & Construction

Director, Signals and Communications

Assistant Director, Signal Systems

Manager, PTC Network Architecture

PTC Configuration Engineer

Assistant Director, Track and Structures Maintenance and Rehabilitation

Track Maintenance Engineer

Assistant Director, Standards and Design

Assistant Director, Capital Construction and Rehabilitation

Project Engineer (2)

Findings from the stakeholder summary are organized in to the following main subject areas:

Goals and Objectives

Roles and Responsibilities

Processes

Systems

Staffing Levels

Funding

SCRRA’s Asset Condition Data

2.1.1 Goals and Objectives Help develop an asset management systems approach that satisfies MAP-21 requirements.

Establish a TAM budget process based on known needs and priorities over a multi-year horizon. Metrolink has moved to a three-year budget process. However, the FTA has recommended a four-year planning period to promote fiscal alignment with the regional and statewide planning efforts required in Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STRIPs).

Determine an objective method to establish priorities, risks, and metrics to help with asset management decisions. Prioritization of projects should consider funding constraints.

TAM is to serve as a mechanism to identify and ask for funding from member agencies and provide justification for funding requests.

2.1.2 Roles and Responsibilities The roles and responsibilities inherent to implementing and maintaining the TAM plan follow four core functions: (1) Policy Enforcement or the Accountable Executive; (2) Overall planning & policy implementation; (3) Asset Ownership; and (4) Additional support (Finance & Information Technology). These functions are executed and managed by several departments that correspond to one or more of the agency’s business units. Table 2-3 specifies which departments and business units will oversee the four overarching TAM functions.


TR0226161117SFB 2-3

Table 2-3. Core TAM Functions and Departmental Responsibilities

TAM Function Department(s) Business Unit Sub-Unit

Agency-wide

Policy Enforcement

(Accountable Executive)

Office of the CEO

System Safety, Security and Compliance (SSEC)

Executive None

Planning & Policy Implementation

Planning + Development Operations Project Planning & Delivery

Asset Owners

Dispatching Operations & Services

Operations

Dispatching Services

Signals & Communication

Engineering & Construction

Public Projects

PTC Network Control Operations

T&S Rehabilitation Track

Positive Train Control (PTC), C+T Systems Management

Maintenance of Equipment (Rolling Stock)

Facilities + Fleet Management

Materials Management + Warehousing

Planning and Delivery (PPD)

Other Supportive Functions

Informational Technology

Deputy CEO None Finance, Budget, Purchasing, Contracts + Compliance

Implementation of the policy is a shared responsibility across all business units, sub-units and Departments within SCRRA. How each unit, sub-unit, and department correspond to a TAM function is shown in Table 2-4 and detailed below:

Executive Unit: This unit includes the Office of the CEO and the System and Safety Department. The CEO has overall responsibility for overseeing the development of asset management plans and procedures, in cooperation with the Department of System Safety, the executive leadership team, and reporting to the Board on the status of asset management for the enterprise. The CEO will also be the “accountable executive” with regards to FTA. Enforcement of the policy will be the responsibility of the CEO.

TAM Function: Policy Enforcement – The Executive Unit has overall responsibility for overseeing the development of asset management plans and procedures, in cooperation with the executive leadership team, and reporting to the Board on the status of asset management for the agency.

Operations Unit: The Operations Unit is categorized by four sub-business units who are the agency’s asset owners (Dispatch Services; Planning, Project and Delivery; PTC, C+S Systems Management; and System Safety) and includes, the Planning and Development Department that executes the day-to-day TAM responsibility of planning and implementation. These sub-units are managed by the agency’s Deputy Chief Operating Officers (DCOOs), who are responsible for overseeing several departments involved in operations. The departments service functions such as maintenance of equipment and facilities; material control; special projects; and serve as custodians of assets. Metrolink asset owners are the closest to the day to day tactical SGR activities. Most, but not all, reside in Operations. Asset owners are critical stakeholders in TAM.

Planning and Development Department – under the Sub-Unit of Planning and Project Delivery, coordinates asset management activities throughout the organization. This includes the development and managing necessary updates of the TAM plan, agency-wide database of assets and asset conditions, policy coordination with outside agencies such as Member Agencies and the FTA, The department will also manage the development and application of methods to prioritize projects to rehabilitate and replace assets. These efforts will result in facilitating all


2-4 TR0226161117SFB

internal coordination in the development of rehabilitation capital programming. This process will require that coordination occur with the Department of Finance during the construction of the rehabilitation budget. However, each of the Deputy Chief Operating Officers will also participate in the collective development of prioritizing projects for the capital budget for rehabilitation.

TAM Function: Asset Owners – The lead responsibility for maintaining SCRRA assets in a State of Good Repair is assigned to departments within the Operations Unit. The description of this unit is detailed in the following functional responsibility.

TAM Function: Overall Planning & Policy Implementation – The lead responsibility for developing and implementing the asset management function within SCRRA is within the Operations Business Unit, specifically under the Deputy Chief Operating Officer for Planning and Project Delivery who manages the Department of Planning + Development. Key responsibilities include the development and updating of the Transit Asset Management (TAM) Plan required for the FTA, the implementation of the TAM Plan, and required TAM Plan reporting.

Deputy CEO Unit: The Deputy CEO oversees several departments which include Finance and Information Technology (IT). These two departments hold essential responsibilities to managing the agency’s assets.

Finance Department - will support the policy by participating in technical working group discussions and strategy; providing asset management data and assumptions; and implementing TAM Plan actions. These may include adding detail to financial accounting data to facilitate linkage with asset management data; establishing a linkage between asset management and the budgeting process; developing life cycle cost procedures; implementing life cycle cost into procurement procedures; and other related activities.

Information Technology Department - will support the policy by participating in technical working group discussions and strategy, providing asset management data and supporting asset management and information systems necessary to implement the TAM Plan.

TAM Function: Other Supportive Functions – The responsibilities for implementing and maintaining the TAM plan will involve both the Finance and Information Technology departments. Both of these functions are managed by the Deputy CEO Unit.

Table 2-4. Business Unit and Departmental TAM Functions

Business Unit Department(s) TAM Function

Executive Office of the CEO

System Safety, Security and Compliance (SSEC)

Agency-wide Policy Enforcement

(Accountable Executive)

Operations Planning + Development Planning & Policy Implementation

Operations

Dispatching Operations & Services

Asset Owners

Signals & Communication

Engineering & Construction

Public Projects

PTC Network Control Operations

T&S Rehabilitation Track

Maintenance of Equipment (Rolling Stock)

Facilities + Fleet Management

Materials Management + Warehousing

Deputy CEO Informational Technology

Other Supportive Functions Finance, Budget, Purchasing, Contracts + Compliance


TR0226161117SFB 2-5

2.1.3 Processes The Planning and Development Department requests and obtains information on requested capital asset expansion, rehabilitation, and maintenance needs from departments throughout the agency. They compare those requests with available funding by county and after consultation with the asset class managers and specialists, recommend which requests will be funded for the next fiscal year and which requests cannot be accommodated. Planning and Development compiles capital asset needs over several years, especially to support the three-year planning horizon of the budget process. Each department identifies their needs in a different way; therefore, it is difficult to evaluate relative importance of needs across departments.

Due to funding challenges and a reactive approach to asset management, SCRRA has addressed some needs only after assets were “run to failure” or “fix when broken,” which is not optimal from a costing or customer service perspective.

2.1.4 Systems SCRRA has two primary systems in place that are used for asset management, AssetWorks (currently a Trapeze product) and Oracle. A third system, an infrastructure asset management system called Rail Asset Management System (RAMS) is currently being implemented for infrastructure starting first with structures (bridges), then signals and then the remaining infrastructure and systems.

AssetWorks is SCRRA’s materials management system for revenue and non-revenue vehicles. This system is used to track periodic revenue vehicle maintenance, order materials and supplies, and manage inventory. AssetWorks is also the repository for train operating information reported by the on-board crew.

Oracle is used primarily by the Office of Finance, for accounts receivable, accounts payable, purchase requisitions, and other financial information. While initially focused on bridges and track, RAMS is SCRRA’s asset management system currently in the early stages of implementation for infrastructure.

2.1.5 Staffing Levels Much of SCRRA’s operations and maintenance responsibilities are contracted out: operations

(Amtrak), track maintenance (Veolia/VTMI), signal maintenance (Mass Electric), vehicle maintenance (Bombardier), and security. Greater responsibilities would increase contract costs.

SCRRA has limited ability to add in-house personnel due to caps on headcount. Conflicting projects and programs including member agency and SCRRA driven new capital additions, betterments and expansions as well as third party expansion projects compete for time and resources of the SCRRA staff responsible for programming and implementing rehabilitation and replacement projects and programs. Staff responsible for infrastructure and systems would need to be increased to focus on rehabilitation and replacement projects and programs or the Authority would have to defer and delay new capital additions and betterments and third party projects.

2.1.6 Funding As a JPA, SCRRA receives its funding from five member agencies: Los Angeles County Metro, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), and Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC). The significant majority of SCRRA funding, including FTA formula funds, is allocated through these member agencies. SCRRA does not have its own dedicated direct funding source, and does not receive its full allocation of formula funding from most of its member agencies. FTA has reported that SCRRA has the most complex grant environment among any of its grantees.


2-6 TR0226161117SFB

2.1.7 Asset Condition Data While SCRRA currently collects physical condition data for a range of asset types, this condition data are not collected using a consistent format for a common purpose. Given these differences, condition data are not easily comparable across asset types—even when a common condition rating scale is used.

2.2 TAM Maturity Assessment Two half-day workshops with SCRRA Gateway Plaza and with Melbourne Plaza (operations) staff representing Guideways, Signals, Facilities, Vehicles, and Fare Collection using the Comprehensive Asset Management Review and Assessment (CAMRA) tool.

The CAMRA assessment tool and process was used to assess the current level of maturity of SCRRA based on 38 questions representing seven key areas of good transit asset management practice, with the questions being aligned to the requirements of MAP-21 and the FTA Asset Management Guide. These seven areas are as follows:

TAM Organizational Context: How well has SCRRA defined organizational objectives and the needs of internal and external stakeholders, and how do these shape the scope of the SCRRA TAM system?

TAM Vision & Leadership: Does SCRRA leadership lend its authority to supporting the TAM system through appropriate direction, organizational design, and resource allocation?

TAM Objectives and Targets (Ridership Forecasting, Regulations, Service Levels): How has SCRRA defined and quantified its external drivers of service performance and targets (such as growth forecasts and service impacts), and how well do these relate to the need for organizational objectives that could drive TAM processes and requirements?

TAM Information Requirements: How well does SCRRA define, record, analyze and control required TAM data and information?

Planning to meet TAM Objectives: What strategic and tactical planning processes does SCRRA utilize to ensure that risks are managed and that the right short-, medium- and long-term plans are developed for its assets?

Operational Planning and Control: What processes are in place to ensure that plans are implemented, necessary day to day maintenance requirements are defined and undertaken effectively and efficiently, and any failures are promptly repaired and restored?

TAM Enablers & Support: How well does SCRRA support the ongoing implementation, application and continual improvement of its TAM system through staff development, communications and change management processes?

The workshops included a facilitated discussion and an assessment of current practices for each question against a predefined 1-5 Maturity Scale, as shown in Figure 2-1. In addition to capturing the current score for each of the questions, an assessment was also made of the rate of improvement that was feasible in each of the areas over the Short- (through end of 2015), Medium- (through end of 2018) and Long-Term (year 2020 and beyond). The ultimate aim for is for SCRRA to achieve a Level 4 (Competence) or Level 5 (Excellence) over time for each of the 38 questions.


TR0226161117SFB 2-7

Figure 2-1. Asset Management Maturity Scale

The results of SCRRA’s assessment are consistent with other organizations at the same stage in development of their TAM programs. The results indicate that SCRRA is generally aware of TAM activities and is in a state of development to build a more mature level of capability.

The results for each question is displayed in the radar plot below for the two workshops (Figure 2-2):

Figure 2-2. CAMRA Workshop Summary Radar Plot

In order to support data management and decision making for TAM, agencies require decision support tools or software that can facilitate record keeping for thousands of assets, estimate life-cycle needs, manage ongoing maintenance requirements, and prioritize capital reinvestments. Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) systems are a common type of decision support tool for TAM, though EAM systems can also be used as a standalone computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) with additional tools used for capital program decision making. Table 2-5 provides is a brief summary of the Transit EAM System Industry Review and focuses primarily on EAM software. Supporting tools, such as TERM Lite, are described in Section 3 in greater detail.


2-8 TR0226161117SFB

Table 2-5. SCRRA Current Asset Management Systems

General Function Rolling Stock Facilities Track Signals

Positive Train

Control (PTC)

Bridges/ Structures

TVMs/ Fare

Media

Information Technology

(IT)

Asset Inventory & Information

AssetWorks Net Facilities Manual/ RAMS

Manual/ RAMS

Rational Suite

RAMS Asset Works

AssetWorks

Asset Configuration/ Modifications

Manual Rational Suite

Asset Condition & Performance

Manual Net Facilities Manual (GASB34)

Manual (GASB34)

Rational Suite

RAMS

Incident/Defect Management

AssetWorks Net Facilities Manual Manual reports

RAMS

Work Management (work orders)

AssetWorks Net Facilities RAMS IBM Jazz RAMS/ Manual

Materials/Inventory Management

AssetWorks Net Facilities Rational Suite

Asset Works

Purchasing & Receiving

Oracle/ AssetWorks

Oracle/ Net Facilities

Oracle/ AssetWorks

Oracle/ AssetWorks

Oracle Oracle Oracle Oracle

Capital Program/ Projects

Manual Primavera P6

Primavera P6

Primavera P6

Rational Suite

Primavera P6

AssetWorks

Reporting & Analysis Manual Net Facilities Track Analyst

Manual Rational Suite

RAMS

SCRRA uses a variety of software packages for asset management based on the type of asset (rolling stock, facilities, IT, etc.) and the function (inventory, purchasing, reporting, etc.). In some cases, SCRRA does not have a specialized software for its asset management process and instead relies on Excel Spreadsheets, Access Databases, or even paper-based processes. SCRRA’s primary EAM system is AssetWorks. Other software packages have been or will be deployed for linear assets to conform to departmental needs. These additional packages include:

Rail Asset Management System (RAMS) for tracks, signals, and structures

NetFacilities for facilities management

IBM Jazz for the Positive Train Control (PTC) system

Track Analyst for rails

Oracle for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

Primavera P6 for project scheduling

2.3 SCRRA’s Asset Inventory SCRRA’s asset inventory (including three expansion locomotives) is estimated to be $5.85 billion in value, meaning it will take $5.85 billion in 2015 dollars to replace all of SCRRA’s assets once they reach the end of their lives. A high level summary of SCRRA’s assets and their attributes are shown in Table 2-4.


TR0226161117SFB 2-9

Table 2-6. SCRRA’s Assets and Attributes

Asset Type Quantity Replacement Cost Date Built

Replacement Cycle Rehabilitation Cycle

Track, Tangent 1,728,556 track feet (327 track miles)

$581.74 per track foot

1955-2011

50 years 2 rehabs at 10% repl. cost

Track, Curved 520,580 track feet (99 track miles)

$581.74 per track foot

1990-2014

15 years 1 rehab at 10% repl. cost

Bridges 35,331 linear feet (265 bridges)

$30,000 per linear foot

1900-2014

80 years No rehabs. Annual capital maintenance at 0.25% replacement cost

Culverts 572 culverts $100,000 each 1891-2014


Tunnels 16,400 linear feet (6 tunnels)

$37,176.71 per linear foot

1876-1921


Locomotives 55 locomotives (including 3 expansion locomotives)

$6,024,657 - $6,632,524each

1992-2017

30 years 1 rehab at 50% repl. cost for MP36s. Progressive overhaul throughout life of F125s

Coaches 90 cab cars; 168 coach cars

$3,309,751 (cab); $2,999,461 (coach)

1992-2014

35 - 40 years Midlife overhaul at $1.35M/coach for older cars. Progressive overhaul throughout life for Guardian cars.

Non-Revenue Vehicles

146 (119 trucks; 9 heavy-duty trucks; 16 special; 2 car movers)

$30k (truck); $91k-$1.3m (special)

2005-2014

6 yrs (truck); 15-18 yrs (special)

-


2-10 TR0226161117SFB




Signals & Train Control

30 Wayside Detector

67 Intermediate Signal

20 Intermediate Signal – Automatic Transfer Panel

57 Back-up Battery System

5 Wayside Detector – Intrusion Detection Warning

7 Back-up Generator/UPS System

53 Electrocode Repeater

42 Crossing Remote Start Location, RTU

14 PTC Equipment

80 Radio Antenna

42 Roadway Crossing

300 Grade Crossings

89 Control Point, Interlocking

10 Control Point, Switch Machine94 Hand Throw Switch Machine

2 Control Point, Motorized Switch Machine

$7.5 m

$33.1 m

$10 m

$590k

$1.29 m

$2.69 m

$10.45 m

$10.86 m

$631k

$1.96 m

$6.3 m

$225 m

$133.5 m

$57.5 m

$2.35 m

$40 m

1996 – 2015

1990-2010

1996

2002-2012

2000-2015

2002-2014

1990-2010

1990-2010

2012

2002-2012

1990-2010

1965-2010

1990-2010

1995

1970 – 1997

1997

20 years

30 years

40 years

20 years

20 years

20 – 31 years

20 – 30 years

20 years

15 years

15 – 20 years

30 years

30 years

30 years

30 years

30 – 40 years

30 years

1 rehab @ 10% repl cost

2 rehabs: 1 @ 10% repl cost, 1 @ 50% repl cost


-

-

-


-

-

-

2 rehabs @ 33% repl cost



5 rehabs @ 10% repl cost2 rehabs: 1 @ 20% repl cost, 1 @ 80% repl cost

4 rehabs @ 3% repl cost


TR0226161117SFB 2-11




Communications 24 Fiber Optics Equipment

79 Ruggidized Network Equipment

40 Station Communication Shelters

1 NOX Monitoring System

12 Intrusion Detection System

114 Radio Equipment

11 Base Radio Stations

52 Radio Antennae

5 Communications Huts

$1.99 m

$409 k

$23 m

$78k

$3.75 m

$2.48 m

$27.5 m

$5.9 m

$776k

2012

2012

1994-2003

1992

1994-2009

2012-2013

1994-2000

2012-2013

2012

20 years

20 years

10 years

23 years

20 years

20 years

15 years

20-25 years

25 years

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ticket Vending Machines

132 TVMs $125,368 each 2008-2011

20 years -

Ticket Validators 140 validators $4k-$11k each 2000-2003

20 years -

Computer Equipment

50 units $6k-$2.8m each 2007-2013

6 years -

Station Platforms $1.3m square feet (55 stations)

$150 per square foot

1930-2014


Station Canopies 298 canopies $120,000 each 1930-2014

50 years -

Elevators and Escalators

34 elevators; 4 escalators

$600,000 each 1930-2014

25 years -

Pedestrian Walkways

58 walkways $1,500,000 each 1930-2014

80 years -

Parking Spaces 30,261 spaces $6,000 each 1930-2014


Facilities; Facility Equipment

not itemized $1m annually - - -

The valuation of SCRRA’s asset inventory is divided by category in Figure 2-3 and Table 2-5. Track and vehicles are the two asset types with the highest aggregate value.


2-12 TR0226161117SFB

Figure 2-3. Asset Inventory Valuation by Category ($millions in 2015)

Table 2-7. Asset Inventory Valuation and Percent of Asset Base by Category

Asset Category Valuation ($2015) % of Asset Base

Track $1,308,413,247 22.4%

Bridges/Culverts $1,138,143,766 19.5%

Tunnels $609,697,973 10.4%

Revenue Vehicles $1,151,057,689 19.7%

Non-Revenue Vehicles $15,968,218 0.3%

Signals & Train Control $543,719,834 9.3%

Systems, Other $101,440,210 1.7%

Stations $508,185,000 8.7%

Facilities $474,920,496 8.1%

Total $5,851,516,433 100.0%

Guideway related infrastructure including track, tunnels and bridges/culverts forms the largest share of SCRRA’s asset base at over $3.0 billion, which is about 52% of the inventory. Revenue vehicles form the second largest share with a valuation of over $1.1 billion or about 20% of the asset base.


TR0226161117SFB 2-13

2.4 Condition Assessment Methods The Authority utilizes three condition assessment methods for measuring the performance quality of an asset: (1) Government Accounting Standards Board Statement 34 (GASB 34) Modified Approach, (2) Rail Asset Management System, and (3) Transit Economic Requirements Model (TERM) Lite. Each assessment method is discrete and varies depending on the asset category and purpose of the analysis. The following sections provide an overview how these methods are applied across asset types. Table 2-6 categorizes each method by asset category and references two additional systems (i.e. NetFacilities and AssetWorks) where condition assessments are under development.

Table 2-8. Condition Assessment Systems and Rating Scales

Condition Assessment Method

GASB 34 NetFacilities RAMS AssetWorks TERM Lite

Ass

et

Typ

e Equipment X X

Rolling Stock X X

Infrastructure X X X

Facilities X X

Rating Scale 0 to 100 None 1 to 6 None 1 to 5

Approach On-site

Assessment On-site

Assessment On-site

Assessment On-site

Assessment Estimated Condition

2.4.1 GASB 34 Modified Approach GASB 34 requires a full condition assessment on all infrastructure assets every three years. As an alternative to conducting the condition assessment every three years, SCRRA has chosen to conduct an annual condition assessment of one third of its infrastructure assets so that all infrastructure assets will be reviewed over the three-year assessment period. At the end of the three-year period the results of the cumulative annual assessments determine the current condition of the infrastructure assets.

As part of its implementation of rule, SCRRA elected to use the GASB 34 Modified Approach that requires condition assessments be documented in such a manner that they can be replicated. Replicable condition assessments are those that are based on sufficiently understandable and complete measurement methods such that different measurers using the same methods would reach substantially similar results.

During FY 2002-03, the SCRRA Board adopted a minimum condition rating of 75 points (of a maximum of 100) as the minimum acceptable Railroad Condition Index (RCI) for the entire railroad network, including all subsystems. Over each three year period, SCRRA completes a condition assessment and assigns RCI scores to bridges, tunnels, track, signals and communication. The RCI does excludes rolling stock, facility and equipment assets from the assessment. These assets will need supplementary methods to assess the asset condition.

Limitations of the Current GASB 34-RCI Approach

The current method of assessing assets, assigning RCI scores, and reporting RCI scores has some areas for improvement. The recommended improvements are intended to prioritize critical SGR reinvestment needs.

The RCI rating method for track has limited informational effectiveness due to the scale at which track assets are being assessed. Assessing track segments at mile long segments results in tangent and curve


2-14 TR0226161117SFB

track between the same milepost receiving a single condition rating. This method is not optimal because curved track has a more rapid rate of wear and has additional safety considerations compared to tangent track. Separating curved and tangent track and assigning condition ratings to each section of curved track would improve the granularity and accuracy of analysis of SGR investment needs.

The method in which average RCI scores are calculated by line may obscure critical SGR needs within that line. In an average score, one asset with a very low score may be concealed by a larger amount of assets with higher scores. A marginal condition asset may have an outsize influence on operational efficiency or safety and its reinvestment should be prioritized regardless of the average condition of the line. The current method of calculating averages is a straight average by asset count (except for Tunnel assets, which are weighted by length). The calculation could more accurately reflect the average condition of assets by weighting assets by length, criticality, cost, or some other agreed upon weighting method.

Currently, an average condition for the entire rail infrastructure asset base is reported based on calculating an average of each asset type’s (tunnel, bridge, track, and signal and communications) average condition score. This average calculation is of limited information value because it weights each asset type equally, regardless of the number or value of assets within that type or the criticality of the assets. For example, the tunnels that are present on only two lines are weighted equally as all of the track assets on ten lines or branches. The average calculation for the entire rail infrastructure asset base could more accurately reflect the average condition of assets by weighting assets by length, criticality of asset type, cost, or some other agreed upon weighting method.

An alternative condition reporting method could be to report the percentage and/or replacement value of assets or track length scoring below an RCI score of 75, as seen below. The version of the condition measure in Figure 2-4 relies on the number of track segments, bridges, length of tunnel and quantity of signals and communication equipment below 75 and highlights a particular concern in tunnels. This would focus the asset management discussion on prioritizing reinvestment needs on marginal and poor condition assets.

It is important to note that the GASB34 condition assessment approach is for railroad infrastructure only, thus it excludes significant assets such as rolling stock, vehicles, facilities, fare collection equipment, and station fixtures.

Figure 2-4. Metrolink’s Current Percent of Assets Scoring below 75 on RCI


TR0226161117SFB 2-15

2.4.2 Rail Asset Management System (RAMS) RAMS is a Geographic Information System (GIS) web-based software that codes condition assessment data for bridges, crossings and culverts on a rating scale of 1 to 6. Condition data is collected onsite and defect codes are assigned to each asset with the intent of developing a task list in conjunction with a budgeting timeline. The coding method relies on objective field measurements coupled with narratives that accurately detail conditions as evidenced in the field. Both a condition and priority code is assigned to a particular condition and/or defect per the rating methodology outlined in Table 2-7.

Table 2-7. RAMS 6-point Condition Scale

Rating Condition Description

6 Good No problems are detected

5 Satisfactory

Minor exceptions or developing problem noted, monitor for next Periodic Maintenance (General) Inspection

4 Fair Defect is sound with minor problems, interim inspections may be necessary

3 Poor

Condition is sound but with serious or advancing problems, take appropriate action to protect trains, detailed inspection may be necessary or note requirement for interim inspections

2 Imminent Failure

Failure could occur at any time, take appropriate action to protect trains, detailed inspection is necessary

1 Failed Immediately stop trains, detailed inspection may be necessary

2.4.3 Transit Economic Requirements Model Lite (TERM-Lite) TERM Lite estimates the current physical condition of all transit assets recorded in the model’s database. Specifically, TERM uses asset decay curves to estimate the current condition of each asset and based on the asset’s type, age and useful life. The decay curves rating asset condition using FTA’s 5-point condition scale, which runs from excellent (5), through good (4), adequate (3), marginal (2) and poor (1) (see Table 2-8).

Table 2-8. FTA’s 5-point Condition Scale

Rating Condition Description

5 Excellent No visible defects, near new condition

4 Good Some (slightly) defective or deteriorated component(s)

3 Fair Moderately defective or deteriorated component(s)

2

Marginal

Defective or deteriorated component(s) in need of replacement

Note: Condition 2 indicates an asset (or significant portion of an asset) is close to, or in need of, rehab/replacement and should be considered a pending investment need.

1 Poor Asset is past its useful life and is in need of prioritized repair or replacement

The shape of the asset decay curves was derived from analysis of an FTA funded, nationwide condition assessment (condition data were obtained from over 40 different transit properties and included all major transit asset types). While the shape of the decay curves was determined by this national analysis, the slope of the curve applied to any give asset is determined by the user entered asset useful life for that asset (for this analysis, all useful life values are based on Metrolink data). Specifically, the decay


2-16 TR0226161117SFB

curves are designed to hit a condition of “2.5” when an asset attains its useful life (in years). TERM records the estimated condition value of all transit assets in the tool’s output file.

Modeled Condition – TERM Lite Output Considerations

The current average TERM Lite condition scores for Metrolink’s assets, weighted by replacement value, are shown in Table 2-13. The results illustrate that, on average, Metrolink’s assets are in adequate to good condition. On average, Tunnels fall below the 2.5 condition score that signifies end of useful life, and Signals and Communications systems average condition scores are approaching 2.5. SCRRA is in the process of updating condition assessment ratings for some assets, such as track and bridges; this may yield lower numbers than those suggested below.

Table 2-9. Current Average TERM Lite Condition Scores

Category & Sub-CategoryAvg.

Condition

Track 3.68

Bridges/Culverts 3.51

Tunnels 1.98

Revenue Vehicles 3.70

Non-Revenue Vehicles 3.23

Signals & Train Control 3.14

Signals 2.63

Train Control 3.16

Systems, Other 2.86

Communications 2.54

Equipment 3.32

Revenue Collection 3.76

Stations 3.30

Access 3.34

Platform 3.26

Facilities 4.11

Facilities 4.10

Layover Facilities 3.19

Communication 4.49

Servers 4.55

Facilities Systems 4.75

Layover Facilities Systems 4.37


TR0226161117SFB 2-17

Figure 2-10. Percent of Assets by Value Below TERM Lite Condition Ratio of 2.5

2.5 Application of Condition Assessment Methods on SCRRA Assets

2.5.1 Equipment & Rolling Stock Rolling stock and equipment asset data, specifically for non-revenue service vehicles is collected through on-site assessments for the purpose of facilitating maintenance work orders. This data is stored in the AssetWorks system but collective efforts do not currently include a condition assessment or rating scale. However, condition assessment data for these asset classes is modeled through TERM-Lite and assigned to the FTA 5-point rating scale.

2.5.2 Infrastructure

(a) Track

SCRRA applies both the RCI and TERM-Lite rating scales to track asset conditions.

RCI Analysis

For the RCI Method, lengths of track (by milepost marker) are assigned a score from 0 to 100 according to the following criteria:

Excellent (90 to 100) A track segment that exhibits no conditions of wear or degradation and is suitable for continued use for 5 plus years with only routine inspection and repair; essentially a “like new” condition.

Good (80 to 89) A track segment rated as good has some components that will require repair or replacement within the next 5 years, but it is expected to be fully serviceable for the next 5 years. Example: within a mile of track rated “Good” there may be one grade crossing needing replacement within 5 years and/or the defective wood tie count would be 400 to 600 per mile.


2-18 TR0226161117SFB

Fair (70 to 79) A track segment rated “Fair” will be in serviceable condition at the time of rating, but will require rehabilitation of two or more components within 5 years. Example: Track with tie count of 400 to 800 plus worn rail.

Poor (60 to 69) A track segment that is operating at less than full capability (e.g. speed restriction) due to maintenance conditions and will require rehabilitation of at least one component before becoming fully operational.

Critical (59 or below) A track segment that is operating at less than full capability and must have repairs or rehabilitation within the year in order to continue operation.

The methodology to assign scores consists of assessing and assigning a score to track asset components and summing component scores to arrive at the total RCI score from 0 to 100 for each track segment. Each component type has the maximum score as follows: rail: 30, ties: 25, crossings: 15, embankment: 15, turnouts: 15. This methodology places greater weight on rails and ties compared to other component assets.

The most recent condition assessment of SCRRA’s track inventory occurred during Fiscal Year 2013. For the purpose of assigning RCI scores, each track, including mainline, sidings and other track types, in each line was divided into segments of 1 mile or less, with the divisions occurring at mile posts where a track segment begins or ends.

Track segment scores were averaged for each line and branch to report an average condition score for that line or branch. The average score as of FY 2013 for each line and branch is shown in Table 2-9.

Table 2-11. Track RCI Condition Assessment

Line or Branch Average Condition Score

Orange 80

Olive 79

River 76

Valley 84

Ventura 77

Pasadena 65

San Gabriel 80

Rialto 51

Riverside Station 84

Redlands First Mile 91

TERM Lite Analysis

In order to reflect the current condition of assets when analyzing the SGR needs within TERM Lite, the RCI condition ratings were used to calculate “effective dates built” for the track asset base. The RCI ratings by mile post were cross referenced with the stationing of curve data in order to assign RCI scores to individual curved and tangent sections of track. Once the RCI scores were assigned to more granular track segments, the RCI score was transformed into an effective date built by charting the 0 to 100 score across average the useful life of a curved (15 year) or tangent (50 year) section of track. Curved track transforms to more recent effective dates built due to its shorter useful life, resulting in a range of 2000 to 2014. Tangent track scores were transformed to range from 1965 to 2014.


TR0226161117SFB 2-19

(b) Bridges, Crossings, Culverts, and Tunnels

Ongoing condition inspections of bridges, crossings and culverts are done on the RAMS platform. These inspections are coded and linked to a task priority code. However, individual bridges have been assessed by line and assigned an RCI score according to the following criteria:

Excellent (90 to 100) A bridge that exhibits no defects or wear and will require only inspections and routine repairs for the next 5 plus years; essentially a “like new” condition. A bridge fully compliant with current AREMA seismic ratings would be rated 95 or higher, a bridge compliant with recent past AREMA ratings could be rated between 90 and 95.

Good (80 to 89) A bridge that exhibits some minor indications of wear, damage, corrosion, or erosion, but is judged to only require inspections and routine repairs and not require rehabilitation for the next 5-10 years. A “Good” bridge may need seismic retrofit at some time in the future, depending upon current the AREMA rating criteria, but is not at risk according to recent past criteria or practical experience.

Fair (70 to 79) A bridge that while fully serviceable, exhibits some indications of corrosion, erosion, damage, or wear to the extent that it will require rehabilitation of some components within the next 5 years. Also a bridge that requires strengthening for load capacity or seismic capacity.

Poor (60 to 69) A bridge that will require repairs or rehabilitation within the next 1-2 years in order to prevent de-rating of load capacity or train speed.

Critical (59 or below) A bridge that is not operating at full capacity (e.g. load or speed restriction) due to damage or obsolescence and needs rehabilitation or replacement in order to be fully functional.

A condition assessment on Metrolink’s bridge and tunnel assets was completed during Fiscal Year 2013. Bridge RCI scores were averaged for each line to report an average condition score for that line. The average score as of FY 2013 for each line and branch is shown in Table 2-10.

Table 2-12. Bridge RCI Condition Assessment


Orange 82

Olive 85

River 96

Valley 78

Ventura 79

Pasadena 80

San Gabriel 83

The conditions of individual tunnels on the Ventura and Valley subdivisions were assessed in Fiscal Year 2013. Tunnels were assigned an RCI score by starting with a baseline score of 100 points and deducting points based on deficiencies in the tunnel. Each deficient condition could result in a deduction of points up to a maximum level as follows: lack of seismic reinforcement: 30 points, timber lining: 20 points, drainage problems: 15 points, structural problems: 10 points.

An average tunnel RCI score, weighted by tunnel length, was calculated for the Ventura and Valley lines. The average score as of FY 2013 for each line is shown in Table 2-11.


2-20 TR0226161117SFB

Table 2-13. Tunnel RCI Condition Assessment

Line or Branch Length Weighted Average Condition Score

Valley 71

Ventura 72

(c) Signals and Communications

Metrolink’s signals and communications assets comprise range of items including communication shelters, electric locks, control points, grade crossings, hand throw switches, ATS inductors, wayside detectors, and base radio sites. A condition assessment on Metrolink’s signals and communications assets was completed between 2012 and 2014. Individual assets were assessed by line and assigned an RCI score according to the following criteria:

Excellent (90+ Rating) – Signal and Communications equipment at a location rated as excellent exhibits no condition of wear or degradation and is suitable for continued use for 5 plus years with only routine inspection and repair; essentially a “like new” condition. Equipment in this category has no defects that would affect system operation or system integrity.

Good (80 to 89 Rating) – Signal and Communications equipment at a location rated as good has some components that will require repair or replacement within the next 5 years, but is expected to be fully serviceable for the next 5 years. Example: obvious visual defects and minor electronic equipment failures may exist due to fatigue.

Fair (70 to 79 Rating) – Signal and Communication equipment at a location rated as fair will be in serviceable condition at the time of rating, but will require rehabilitation of major components within 5 years. Example: electronic equipment, enclosures, and warning device appurtenances will need replacement or rehabilitation.

Poor (60 to 69 Rating) – Signal and Communications equipment at location rated as poor will be in serviceable condition at time of rating, but will require rehabilitation of major components within 1 year. Potential non-compliant issues with regulatory agencies may exist.

Critical (59 and below Rating) – Signal and Communications equipment at a location rated as critical, has major components that will require replacement to offset system operation and integrity failures. The location will require immediate major rehabilitation work.

Signals and Communications RCI scores were averaged for each line to report an average condition score for that line. The average score as of CY 2014 for each line and branch is shown in Table 2-12.

Table 2-14. Signals and Communications RCI Condition Assessment


Orange 89

Olive 89

River 85

Valley 87

Ventura 83

Pasadena 65

San Gabriel 84

Rialto 64


TR0226161117SFB 2-21

2.5.3 Facilities To inventory facility assets, Metrolink has recently adopted the use of NetFacilities, a Computerized Maintenance Management Software (CMMS). This web-based system supports maintenance and work order management. Data collected on NetFacilities does not funnel to a unified condition assessment rating scale.

2.6 Summary of SCRRA Condition Assessment Approaches Over time, Metrolink has incorporated different condition assessment approaches. However, within a given approach, (e.g., GASB-34) the methodology is not always applied consistently across asset types or user groups. The end result is a set of condition measures that may be useful within a given asset type (e.g., to compare track segment A with track segment B) but which cannot be used to support investment prioritization decision making across asset types (e.g., bridge A vs grade crossing B) as the condition measures are not comparable (Table 2-14).

Table 2-14. Limitations of Existing Condition Rating Systems

Method GASB-34 RAMS NetFacilities AssetWorks TERM Lite

Asset Types Most infrastructure

Not fleet

Bridges

Culverts

Track (under development)

Facilities Fleet & equipment

Revenue vehicles

All Asset Types

Limitations Condition ratings not comparable across asset types (within same dept.)

No ratings guide / scoring subjective

Condition ratings not comparable across asset types

No condition assessment data

No condition assessment data

May differ from actual condition

Given this situation, Metrolink is working toward adopting and implementing a single, agency-wide condition assessment rating scale and assessment methodology. Once a method and scale have been adopted, the agency will work to ensure the scale is applied consistently across all asset types and users groups, so that an assessed condition of “3” has the same meaning for rail cars as for trackwork and all other asset types. Two key points to keep in mind when evaluating potential rating approaches: FTA Performance Requirements for “Facilities”: requires that all grantees undertake (and report on) on-site condition assessments of all admin facilities, maintenance facilities, and passenger stations (including park & ride lots and garages) – all using FTA’s 5 point condition rating scale (For facilities the performance measure includes: (1) Administrative and maintenance facilities as well as (2) passenger and parking facilities. The equipment performance measure only includes non-revenue service vehicles. The rolling stock performance measure includes all revenue vehicles, by mode. Lastly, the infrastructure performance measure only includes rail fixed guideway. Lastly, NTD Asset Reporting will also require that grantees submit condition estimates (e.g., such as those produced by TERM Lite) for all asset holdings – including fleet, systems, track and structures.

SECTION 3

TR0226161117SFB 3-1

Capital Rehabilitation and Replacement Investment Program This section provides a description of SCRRA’s decision support tools for capital planning, as well as a summary of its capital project prioritization approach. The SGR backlog and a 20 Year reinvestment needs forecast is provided. This section addresses FTA TAM Elements, 3 (Decision Support Tools) and 4 (Investment Prioritization).

As background, the overall Railroad Condition Index (RCI) was 86 in 2012 and 81 in 2015, representing a 6% decrease in RCI. If that trend continues, the RCI will be below the board’s minimum condition rating of 75 between 2018 and 2019. Metrolink must efficiently balance its asset needs with its budgetary constraints to implement its Short Range Transit Plan and Capital Improvement Program, and prevent any further RCI degradation.

Metrolink has an Annual Rehabilitation budget dedicated to replacing or rehabilitating Metrolink’s assets. The Annual Rehabilitation budget is dependent on identification and justification of projects, and availability of funding. The annual funding stream is highly variable, having ranged from about $17.9 to $46.7 million dollars, which further complicates the process. It was common in previous years for identified rehabilitation projects to be de-scoped or deferred due to funding limitations. Deferring maintenance causes many undesirable affects to Metrolink including reduction in train speeds, headways, and reliability, higher O&M costs, fines, risk of failures leading to service disruptions. Many of these consequences can be mitigated with a proper capital rehabilitation improvement plan informed by asset management systems.

The capital rehabilitation and replacement investments described below illustrate the current size of Metrolink’s State of Good Repair (SGR) backlog, the tools used to support analysis, and the investments needed to reach a SGR.

3.1 SGR Backlog Assets that are in a SGR can operate to their designed purpose, without posing an unacceptable safety risk, and all of their life-cycle reinvestment needs have been met. To quantify the SGR backlog, FTA’s TERM Lite tool determines which assets exceed their useful lives, or have deferred capital maintenance needs (i.e., rehabilitation or annual capital maintenance) based on the asset inventory described in Section 2.2 and the relevant life-cycle activities. More specifics about the about TERM Lite methodology for estimating and projecting backlog can be found in Section 3.2.2.

Metrolink’s current SGR backlog is estimated to be approximately $588 million; meaning in 2015, it would take SCRRA $588 million to perform all the necessary reinvestment actions to address Metrolink’s assets that are not in a SGR. The composition of Metrolink’s backlog is shown in Figure 3-1.

SECTION 3 – CAPITAL REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT INVESTMENT PROGRAM

3-2 TR0226161117SFB

Figure 3-1. TERM Lite Estimated SGR Backlog ($ thousands)

Passenger cars make up the largest portion of the backlog due to the deferred rehabilitation of the Bombardier rail car fleet. Bridges and culverts make up the second largest portion of the current SGR backlog estimate, at just above $166 million in value. Track is the third largest portion of backlog needs, at just above $64 million. Locomotives and non-revenue vehicles form a negligible share of the backlog needs – with no locomotives in the current backlog.

3.2 Decision Support Tools and Capital Project Prioritization Approach

3.2.1 Use of Asset Management Support Systems As noted in Section 2, Metrolink utilizes multiple software packages to support asset management processes, most prominently AssetWorks. While this system provides a baseline for Metrolink’s asset inventory, it does not currently provide support for prioritizing asset investment needs, nor does it provide condition ratings consistently across asset types. RAMS does provide near-term guidance on prioritization, as it includes condition rating information that informs immediate maintenance and replacement needs. Similarly, the GASB 34 data provided on an annual basis provides information needed for immediate maintenance, replacement and rehabilitation of the assets surveyed.

Metrolink’s rehabilitation planning process forecasts projects for a three-year period during each budget period. The multi-year rehabilitation planning processes was initiated in 2012 to improve future- year planning, and to cope with the variable nature of Metrolink’s rehabilitation budget. It is common for identified rehabilitation projects to be de-scoped or deferred to future years due to funding limitations.

The planning process uses a bottom-up approach that depends on getting data from several asset management support systems including AssetWorks, RAMS, and GASB 34 data tables as shown below in Figure 3-2.


TR0226161117SFB 3-3

Figure 3-2. Metrolink's Rehabilitation Planning Process

The increasing rehabilitation needs from the latest 5-year forecast resulted in integrating the method above into the 10-year Strategic Planning process.

3.2.2 TERM-Lite Metrolink has incorporated use of TERM Lite to project and prioritize capital needs over a 10 to 20 year horizon to supplement the near-term project identification described above. TERM Lite is a FTA decision support tool that helps transit agencies, including Metrolink, with assessing agency SGR reinvestment needs and for prioritizing those needs given funding constraints. TERM Lite uses the process illustrated in Figure 3-3, to project reinvestment needs over a 20 year period. The inventory described in Section 2, along with pre-defined life-cycle activities (i.e., the cost and timing of rehabilitations, replacements and annual capital maintenance), is used by the model to predict future needs.

Figure 3-3. TERM Lite Process for Projecting Reinvestment Needs

The model then uses a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) approach to rank individual asset investments based on the criteria shown below in Figure 3-4. The prioritization criteria used in the model include: asset condition (age-based estimates), service reliability ratings, safety and security ratings, and O&M cost impacts. Asset conditions apply to individual assets as they decay, described above in Section 2, where the lower the condition the higher the priority for replacement. The ratings for the other criteria are based on the impact of each asset type on the defined outcome. For example, a revenue vehicle will be rated much higher for service reliability than the elevator in an administrative building. Each criterion is then weighted against others to determine how important those criteria are with respect to one another as shown below.

Asset Class Managers and Specialists from from individual departments develop proposals based on:

• GASB 34 Infrastructure ratings tables

• Programmed rehabilitation cycles

• Track geometry

• Tie Insepction Programs

• Rail profile measurements

• Ground Penetrating Radar

• Maintenance history data

• Visual Inspection and Maint. Reports

Subject matter experts within each department rank each proposal based on the following criteria using a 1 (low) to 5 (high) scale:

• Safety issue/risk

• Regulatory requirement

• Service-related

• Annual maintenance cost

• Prior-year deferral [Uses a binary 0(no), 1(yes) scale]

• Approaching Obsolescence and Support

All the projects are merged into a comprehensive database where senior management prioritize investment needs to propose a program of projects:

• Projects' rankings

• Budget

• Resources


3-4 TR0226161117SFB

Figure 3-4. TERM Lite Multi-Criteria Analysis Prioritization Process

TERM Lite considers all the possible reinvestment actions with their respective priority in a given year and reinvests in assets subject to funding constraints. This results in a SGR backlog forecast, where the lower priority assets are deferred for investment, and guidance on when each reinvestment should occur based on the higher priority rankings.

It is important to note that the prioritization routine in TERM Lite works at an individual asset level and only applies when there is a funding constraint. See Section 3.3 for the specific TERM Lite generated Metrolink 10 and 20 Year Reinvestment Needs Forecast (unconstrained and constrained) models.

3.3 20 Year Reinvestment Needs Forecast (financially unconstrained and constrained)

3.3.1 Financially Unconstrained Analysis For SCRRA’s Strategic Plan, the TERM Lite model was run with no funding constraint and 2.4% cost inflation. The resulting unconstrained analysis for the next 10 years is shown in Table 3-1 and indicates a total need of $1.8 billion over this timeframe. The purchase of 37 replacement locomotives, and three expansion locomotives from 2016 to 2017 is not included in the forecast, as that program is fully funded. Progressive overhauls for 40 new F125 locomotives and 137 Guardian rail cars are included in future years. Although progressive overhaul costs fluctuate each year depending on the type of overhaul work performed, costs were averaged throughout the modeling periods for the purpose of this forecast.

Table 3-1. Estimated Reinvestment Needs by SCRRA Asset Type in thousands of year of expenditure (YOE) dollars

A longer term analysis, of 20 years, is included here to highlight the needs that SCRRA is facing beyond the 10 years in the Strategic Plan. The needs from 2032 to 2035 are significant. Over the full 20 years SCRRA’s reinvestment needs total $3.77 billion (Figure 3-5).

Asset Condition

Score: Declining

condition yields

higher points

score

Service Reliability

Score: Reduced

risk of service

failures /

disruptions

Safety/Security

Score: Reduced

risks of injuries,

fatalities, property

O&M Costs

Score: Impact on

Operating &

Maintenance costs

Weighted Average Total Investment Score:

(Converted to 100 Point Scale; High Score = High Priority)

5%

damage

65% 15% 15% 5%

Backlog FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Total

Track $64,196 $9,791 $8,179 $15,858 $18,180 $30,313 $53,498 $32,827 $21,002 $64,849 $35,013 $353,706

Bridges/Culverts $166,084 $7,070 $9,539 $26,715 $8,413 $4,630 $4,868 $8,198 $9,202 $12,916 $4,834 $262,468

Tunnels $11,000 $1,061 $1,087 $1,113 $1,140 $1,167 $1,195 $1,224 $1,253 $1,283 $1,314 $22,836

Revenue Locomotives $0 $0 $536 $1,891 $1,936 $1,982 $2,030 $2,079 $10,006 $54,612 $2,232 $77,303

Passenger Cars $188,221 $7,681 $7,865 $8,054 $8,247 $8,445 $8,648 $8,855 $9,068 $9,285 $9,508 $273,878

Non-Revenue Vehicles $3,320 $1,871 $0 $193 $165 $982 $7,273 $2,158 $0 $257 $6,969 $23,189

Signals & Train Control $47,701 $41,928 $7,511 $1,460 $1,495 $67,366 $125,196 $5,248 $2,159 $1,979 $74,863 $376,905

Systems, Other $48,450 $530 $3,412 $1,523 $2,218 $2,203 $75 $1,475 $2,671 $3,132 $28,631 $94,318

Stations $54,690 $2,728 $12,586 $3,762 $1,979 $22,786 $3,303 $44,325 $50,760 $14,194 $29,188 $240,302

Facilities $3,874 $3,771 $4,113 $3,194 $7,122 $4,121 $5,210 $11,615 $3,652 $3,752 $9,758 $60,181

Total $587,537 $76,431 $54,828 $63,761 $50,894 $143,995 $211,295 $118,003 $109,773 $166,260 $202,311 $1,785,087


TR0226161117SFB 3-5

Figure 3-5. SCRRA 20 Year Unconstrained Needs in millions of YOE dollars

3.3.2 Financially Constrained Analysis SCRRA does not currently receive the level of funding required to meet the total reinvestment needs shown above. Since FY03, SCRRA has been averaging just over $30 million annually in reinvestment budget. To generate a funding constraint for the purposes of analysis, the budgets from FY15 and FY16 were spread over calendar years 2015 and 2016 and $40 million was used as a baseline for 2017 funding. The $40 million baseline was then inflated at 2.28% annually based on the historic growth of budgets from FY03 to FY16.

The resulting average annual budget constraint is approximately $50 million; whereas the 20 year unconstrained needs require an average of $180 million annually. The funding gap SCRRA is facing will increase the SGR backlog and impact the overall condition of their asset base. Figure 3-6 illustrates an increase in the SGR backlog from about $588 million to $3.2 billion over 20 years with the expected funding constraint.

Figure 3-6. SCRRA Constrained Backlog Projection in millions of YOE dollars

In addition to increasing the size and value of the SGR backlog, the funding constraint decreases the average condition of SCRRA’s current assets over time as rehabilitations and replacements are deferred. Figure 3-7 illustrates the increasing proportion of Metrolink assets in Marginal or in Poor condition (ratings 2 and 1, respectively) under the constrained funding scenario.


3-6 TR0226161117SFB

This decline in condition is also associated with more assets being kept beyond their useful life. The SGR backlog includes the value of these assets, along with any deferred rehabilitations or ACM.

Figure 3-7. Estimated Percentage (by value) of SCRRA’s Assets Beyond Useful Life under Funding Constraint

Given the growth in the backlog with the current budget constraint, TERM Lite was used to determine the level of increased funding needed to either (1) maintain the size of the current backlog, i.e. keep the backlog at $588 million, or (2) eliminate the backlog entirely by the end of the 20 year analysis. Figure 3-8 illustrates the resulting funding needs for each of the scenarios discussed and shows the increases needed to meet the SGR targets described above.

To maintain the size of the current backlog SCRRA would need $166 million annually.

To eliminate the backlog entirely by 2035 SCRRA would need $192 million annually.

Figure 3-8. Scenarios for Cumulative Reinvestment Needs

SECTION 4

TR0226161117SFB 4-1

Asset Management Policy, Goals and Objectives SCRRA has developed TAM goals and objectives to guide the agency’s action plans to improve TAM maturity. In addition, a policy statement has been developed to aid the process of formally adopting a SCRRA TAM Policy. Together, these form the basis for SCRRA’s vision for asset management.

This section addresses FTA TAM Element 5 (TAM and SGR Policy).

4.1 Asset Management Goals and Objectives SCRRA developed TAM goals and objectives as part of the TAM Plan development. The steps involved first reviewing SCRRA’s latest mission, vision and organizational goals from the 2015 Strategic Plan. Then SCRRA mapped the organizational goals to asset management. Finally, five TAM goals were established to implement the SCRRA asset management policy and to promote TAM activities and agency maturity. For each of these goals, objectives were identified. These objectives are intended to have outcomes that will help SCRRA advance its TAM goals. Table 4-1 lists SCRRA’s TAM goals and objective.

Table 4-1. SCRRA TAM Goals and Objectives

Area Proposed TAM Goal Proposed Objectives

Safety Maintain SCRRA assets in State of Good Repair to support a safe operating environment

Maintain equipment, infrastructure systems and facilities in SGR.

Strengthens customer confidence in system safety and reliability.

Provide advanced notice of deteriorating asset to avoid or minimize repair on failure and reactive/crisis type repairs and replacements scenarios.

Measure and manage TAM-related risks.

Document root cause for asset failures.

Fiscal sustainability Build and promote financial sustainability through implementation of asset management best practices

Establish linkages between multi-year SGR needs, annual budget process and Capital Improvement Program.

Prioritize SGR investment of existing assets over expansion and addition of new assets.

Develop objective method to prioritize capital projects and assess trade-offs between competing investments

Implement minimum life cycle cost policy.

Investing in assets/State of Good Repair (SGR)

Invest in SCRRA assets and SGR Develop TAM Plan and policy consistent with MAP-21 requirements.

Establish clear capital replacement and rehabilitation plans, and monitor adherence.

Develop asset management Systems approach.

SECTION 4 – ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICY, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

4-2 TR0226161117SFB

Table 4-1. SCRRA TAM Goals and Objectives

Area Proposed TAM Goal Proposed Objectives

Organizational efficiency

Demonstrate organizational efficiency for asset management processes and outreach to member agencies

Build understanding and support for asset management at SCRRA executive level



People and TAM culture

Promote asset management culture at SCRRA



4.2 Asset Management Policy Policy: SCRRA is committed to maintaining its assets in a State of Good Repair through financial stewardship and reinvestment, transparency, and collaboration with its funding partners, promoting a culture that supports asset management across the organization, and focusing on high quality asset condition and performance information and a risk-based approach as the basis for decision-making. The asset management program shall support and lead to the timely implementation of projects and programs which maintains the Railroad’s Infrastructure, Systems, Equipment and Facilities in a State of Good Repair.

Purpose: Communicate to the Board of Directors, management, staff, and external stakeholders the ongoing condition of SCRRA’s assets and to reinforce SCRRA’s commitment to maintain its system in a State of Good Repair; and foster a culture of continuous improvement in asset management planning and performance.

4.3 Roles and Responsibilities Implementation of the policy is a shared responsibility for all divisions within SCRRA.

Overall Responsibility: The Chief Operating Officer has overall responsibility for overseeing the development of asset management plans and procedures, in cooperation with the executive leadership team, and reporting to the Board on the status of asset management for the enterprise.

Day-to-Day Responsibility: The lead responsibility for the asset reporting function within SCRRA is within the Planning and Development Division, specifically under the Chief Planning and Project Delivery Officer. Key responsibilities include the development and updating of the TAM Plan required for FTA, and the development of the TAM Plan itself. Overall management of the Transit Asset Management program will reside with the Planning and Development Division.

Implementation or delivery of the repair and replacement project and programs will reside with the respective divisions – infrastructure and systems division, equipment, facilities, information technology, etc.

Division Support: All SCRRA Divisions will support the TAM policy, with particular support coming from the following divisions:

Operations: The Operations Division (e.g., Operations; Maintenance of Equipment; Special Projects) will support the policy by participating in technical working group discussions and strategy; providing asset management data and assumptions; and implementing TAM Plan actions. These


TR0226161117SFB 4-3

may include asset condition assessments; development and maintenance of risk registers; developing asset management criteria; providing effective preventive and corrective maintenance; and other asset management related activities.

PTC C&S plus Engineering and Construction (E&C) Division will support the policy by participating in technical working group discussions and strategy; providing asset management data and assumptions; and implementing TAM Plan actions and implementing and delivering the actual repair infrastructure and system and replacement projects and programs. These may include asset condition assessments; development of risk registers; documentation of new project costs; incorporation of life cycle management principles into asset design and construction; and other asset management related activities.

Finance Division (i.e., Finance; Information Technology; Purchasing, Contracts and Contract Compliance) will support the policy by participating in technical working group discussions and strategy; providing asset management data and assumptions; and implementing TAM Plan actions. These may include adding detail to financial accounting data to facilitate linkage with asset management data; establishing a linkage between asset management and the budgeting process; developing life cycle cost procedures; implementing life cycle cost into procurement procedures; and other related activities.

Enforcement Responsibility—Enforcement of the policy will be the responsibility of the CEO.

4.4 Drivers for SCRRA TAM Program Implementation Implementation of SCRRA’s TAM program should be driven by a number of drivers and enablers, among which the policy itself (highest level), TAM Plan implementation plan, FTA guidance and best practices.

The FTA Asset Management Guide: Focusing on the Management of our Transit Investments (FTA TAM Guide) published in 2012 was the primary source used to organize and describe best practices for gaps categorization (opportunities for improvement). The FTA TAM Guide provides the clearest picture of potential requirements as well as identifying practices in common use.

The FTA TAM Guide has five distinct Business Process “areas” as follows:

Asset Management Vision and Direction – Led by policy and strategic planning processes to address the question: “What policy and strategic objectives should the SCRRA TAM strategy advance?”

Lifecycle Management – Data-driven set of activities to evaluate the lifecycle cost, condition, and performance of each class of assets—ideally during the design/procurement stage.

Cross Asset Planning and Management – Enterprise-level decision-making processes, including capital planning and operations and maintenance budgeting used to communicate the level of service that can be delivered at different funding levels, and make performance-based decisions in financially constrained capital plans and budgets.

Information Technology Systems – A critical TAM component that allows for data-driven, performance-based decision making.

Enablers – Supportive processes and activities to ensure that the asset management business processes can be successful.

The five business process areas are depicted in Figure 4-1.


4-4 TR0226161117SFB

Figure 4-1. FTA TAM Business Processes

Source: Federal Transit Administration Asset Management Guide: Focusing on the management of our transit investments. 2010

SECTION 5

TR0226161117SFB 5-1

Gaps Analysis This section presents the results of the gaps analysis performed as a part of the development of SCRRA’s TAM Plan. A Gaps Analysis is a standard tool to document areas for improvement as a tool for action planning, in this case for asset management. This task represents a step in the “Blueprinting Phase” of the project and builds on the SCRRA environmental assessment and the development of TAM goals and objectives, including MAP-21 requirements. This assessment outlines the steps needed to achieve the goals in the short, medium, and long terms.

This gaps analysis is not a pessimistic assessment, and the term “Gaps” should not be considered negatively. Many of the gaps listed in this report represent alignment required to respond to requirements which did not previously exist (e.g., FTA MAP-21 reporting requirements), and simply recognize asset management best practices now emerging in the transit industry. The term “Gaps” can be equated to the term “Opportunities” for Asset Management, and against which specific actions or initiatives can be prescribed.

The gaps analysis is also an opportunity for SCRRA to take advantage of lessons learned other commuter rail and transit agencies in general, of the need to maintain the system in a State of Good Repair given limited resources. Examples of best practices include making better use of emerging information technology tools (e.g., integrated Enterprise Asset Management Systems), and better linking capital needs forecasting to the budgeting process. Transit agencies across the country face similar challenges.

5.1 Gaps Analysis Process The gaps analysis process will help to identify what actions may need to be taken by SCRRA to implement a data-driven, outcome-based, TAM approach to maintain SCRRA assets in a State of Good Repair to meet federal requirements and agency TAM goals and objectives.

Figure 5-1 illustrates this process. To determine the gaps, the project team first generated lists of all potential gaps identified through prior tasks in the diagnostic phase of the study to answer “Where are we today?”

These gaps were then categorized into a framework developed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and importantly, were linked to the SCRRA TAM goals and objectives, in order to identify the actions that will help SCRRA achieve MAP-21 compliance.

SECTION 5 – GAPS ANALYSIS

5-2 TR0226161117SFB

Figure 5-1. Process for Asset Management Gaps Identification

5.2 Gaps Identification The first step was to identify potential gaps. This identification was accomplished through four key activities from diagnostic tasks in the study that included:

Agency Staff Interviews – These interviews helped to determine the current resources available to manage SCRRA’s assets, where these resources (human and systems) reside in the agency, and understand personnel roles in the TAM processes. The interviews also helped identify the level of importance assigned to TAM within the agency.

Baseline Assessments - The Comprehensive Asset Management Review and Assessment (CAMRA) tool and process was used in two half-day workshops conducted in April 2015. The CAMRA workshops assessed the current level of maturity of SCRRA in key areas of good TAM practice, consistent with ISO 55000 Standards.

Peer Agency Benchmarking – The study team interviewed six peer agencies from around the country that operate commuter rail services similar to SCRRA to understand how they address asset management. The benchmarking identified organizational features and enabling tools that may be useful for SCRRA’s goal setting and implementation efforts.

SCRRA Member Agency Interviews – The study team interviewed key staff from SCRRA member agencies (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority [Metro], Orange County Transportation Authority [OCTA], Riverside County Transportation Commission [RCTC], San Bernardino Associated Governments [SANBAG], and the Ventura County Transportation Commission [VCTC]). These interviews provided additional context for the TAM Plan.

These discussions provided the foundation for the gap analysis. The team found that the same gaps could be identified from several sources. For example, the staff interviews, CAMRA workshop, and member agency interviews all indicated a need for improved project delivery and making a better case to funding partners for TAM investments.

5.3 Categorization of Asset Management Gaps The project team took the gaps identified from the previous study tasks and first mapped them into the five FTA TAM process summarized below and illustrated in Figure 5-1 above. For each FTA TAM Business

Deficiencies and

Gap

Identification

Executive Interviews

Member Agency

Interviews

CAMRA Workshops

Peer Benchmarking

Where we are

today…

Where we want to

be in the future…

What our TAM

Program Should

Look Like

Policies/

Goals/

Objectives

• Project

Prioritization

• Outcome-based

SGR

Performance

Measures

• Action Steps to

TAM Plan

Implementation


TR0226161117SFB 5-3

Process Area listed above, FTA further identifies specific “Elements” (Capital Planning and Programming, Decision Support Tools), which were also used in the comparison performed by the consultant team.

5.3.1 Asset Management Vision and Direction Staff interviews identified the lack of formal, documented processes as being a challenge. The CAMRA workshops identified vision and direction as being a major gap at SCRRA. In particular, the lack of a TAM Plan or other TAM-related plans, challenges with integrating various software systems, as well as outdated processes and documentation were considered major gaps.

5.3.2 Processes, Roles, Responsibilities Internal communications processes were cited by the staff as being a major gap. There is a great need to compare and prioritize asset needs across departments, which does not currently exist. Asset managers acknowledged the need for staff to coordinate across departments and functions for TAM to be successful. This was also cited in multiple peer benchmarking agency interviews as critical for successful TAM implementation.

There are currently no formally defined TAM roles and responsibilities at SCRRA. Some asset managers want a more active TAM role from contractors, but additional contractor responsibilities will most likely require change orders and added costs. Other peer agencies have successfully involved contractors with TAM, but doing so requires extensive oversight and auditing to ensure that TAM policies are being adhered to.

Limited ability to add in-house staff due to caps on headcounts along with staff turnover and a lack of succession planning have been concerns for SCRRA.

5.3.3 Asset Inventory Asset inventory issues were primarily obtained from the CAMRA workshops. The major gap is that there is no integrated TAM asset inventory program with consistent definitions, and data requirements. Where inventories do exist, not all of the assets are in the system, and the multiple systems contain different data fields and formats. (See discussion on IT Systems below for more information).

5.3.4 Asset Condition Both executive interviews and CAMRA workshop attendees indicated that physical condition data is not collected using a consistent format or for a common purpose. Moreover, the data that is collected is not comparable across asset types even when a common condition rating scale is used. Staff recommended that SCRRA actively consider steps to move to a single condition rating system and establish condition ratings criteria that permit comparisons across asset types (e.g., to help support investment prioritization). Current asset ratings generated for Governmental Accounting Standards Board 34 (GASB 34) reporting is subjective and dependent on individual inspectors. GASB 34 is also for infrastructure, thus other transit assets such as rolling stock, facilities, and equipment are not included in the GASB 34 report.

During the peer benchmarking process, the subjectivity of GASB 34 scoring was also highlighted at other agencies as being an issue that needs to be addressed through better training of inspectors so that there is a consistent standard by which assets are being compared.

5.3.5 Lifecycle Management Both interviewees and CAMRA participants cited SCRRA’s reactive approach to TAM as a major gap, while funding agency staff also cited high visibility equipment failures as being a major issue for the public (e.g., ticket vending machine breakdowns). Equipment is not optimally maintained and


5-4 TR0226161117SFB

sometimes run to failure, and there is currently no risk-based framework for TAM. While many of SCRRA’s assets date back to the agency’s initiation in 1992, some go back further than that. For example, some bridges are about 100 years old and are in poor condition.

5.3.6 Budgeting & Program Delivery The lack of dedicated direct funding for TAM activities from SCRRA member agencies was identified as a major deficiency. This finding came primarily from the staff interviews, but it was also mentioned in the CAMRA workshops. Member agency staff also indicated that timely delivery of projects was an issue, which in some cases results in SCRRA not receiving its full allocation of formula funding from its member agencies. SCRRA staff responded that the development of funding for SCRRA is difficult and the funding made available is subdivided into dozens of very small projects spread across 5 counties and 7 subdivisions and accordingly very difficult to efficiently and timely program and deliver projects. Additionally constrained SCRRA staff are called upon to support and deliver numerous capital expansion and betterment projects as well as external third party (i.e. a new grade separation or a new station) at the expense of delivering the replacement and rehabilitation program.

Some SCRRA staff reported that one mitigating option may be for SCRRA to have budgeting authority prior to receiving the funding allocation in order to expedite project startup.

5.3.7 Performance Measures The lack of consistent performance measures was identified through the CAMRA workshops as being a moderate gap. Asset-specific measures exist within asset groups, but at a more tactical level with some being anecdotal. Some measures are also customer facing, but the majority are technical in nature (e.g., revenue vehicle performance). Record keeping of performance reports could also improve in the organization.

5.3.8 Information Technology (IT) Systems Information systems were described by both asset managers and functional staff as being a major gap. Previously, there was no data/information control framework in place and manual work was required to put relevant inventory information into both AssetWorks and Oracle, which resulted in up to a 30 day lag in moving data between systems.

A great deal of effort has been devoted to cleaning up Oracle data and integrating the AssetWorks and Oracle systems, which has resulted in improved efficiency and data integrity. Currently, AssetWorks is used for management of assets such as rolling stock, fare collection equipment, IT equipment and inventory. The AssetWorks linear asset module is not utilized by the agency for rail infrastructure such as track, signals and structures. (Metrolink has begun implementing the Rail Asset Management system (RAMS) for linear assets, specifically for rail infrastructure.

There are multiple data sources and repositories that exist, but are not linked, and do not have robust data entry controls. Reports and performance measures are not in a centralized location.

Several gaps discussed above can span multiple business processes or elements, which are shown in the Table 5-1. The table also indicates which goals would be advanced should a particular gap be mitigated or eliminated. The black diamond symbol is used to represent which SCRRA TAM Plan goals each gap corresponds to.


TR0226161117SFB 5-5

Table 5-1. Summary of SCRRA TAM Gaps by Business Process, Goals and Objectives

FTA TAM Business

Process Areas FTA TAM Business Process Elements Gaps

SCRRA TAM Plan Goals

1.Maintain SCRRA assets

in State of Good Repair to

support safe operating

environment

2.Build and promote financial

sustainability through

implementation of asset

management best practices

3.Invest in SCRRA

assets and SGR

4.Demonstrate organizational efficiency for

asset management processes and

outreach to member agencies

5.Promote asset

management culture at

SCRRA

Lifecycle Management

Condition Assessment & Performance Monitoring

Physical condition data not collected using a consistent format or for a common purpose and not comparable across asset type even when common condition rating scale is used. GASB 34 scoring process can be subjective and dependent on individual inspectors No consistent performance measures/some anecdotal

Asset Inventory No formal TAM asset inventory program with definitions Not all assets in system

Lifecycle Management Planning

Reactive Approach to TAM, Equipment not optimally maintained and sometimes Run-to-Failure No risk-based framework

Information Technology Systems

Decision-Support Tools

No robust data entry for business systems (e.g., information in Oracle my not be reliable) AssetWorks and Oracle Systems recently linked Current AssetWorks version outdated, not well-understood and not well-used. Not clear what is being tracked (e.g., warranties) May not meet MAP-21 reporting requirements

Readily Available Data

Data/information control framework not in place Multiple data sources and repositories (e.g., RAMS) Performance Measures not in a centralized location Reports difficult to obtain


5-6 TR0226161117SFB

FTA TAM Business






environment





3.Invest in SCRRA

assets and SGR




5.Promote asset


SCRRA

TAM Vision and Direction

Plan

Formal TAM Plan under development. Other TAM-related plans may be required: -Business Processes and Procedures Master Plan -IT Master Plan -Communication and Change Management Plan -Learning and Development Program -TAM Skills and Competency Development Master Plan -Data Improvement Plan -

Policy

TAM Roles and Responsibilities are not clearly defined or assigned More active TAM role desired from contractors Limited ability to add in-house staff due to caps on headcounts Staff turnover and succession planning have been concerns for SCRRA Staff must be willing to work across department and functional boundaries for successful TAM

Strategy TAM Plan under development

Enablers

Communications No formal communication and change management approach in place

Leadership and Accountability

Staff must be willing to work across department and functional boundaries for successful TAM

Project Management

TAM Plan under development No formal communication and change management approach in place

Training

Learning and Development program needs include TAM No TAM Competency Framework Lack of institutional knowledge of AssetWorks hinders widespread use of the tool


TR0226161117SFB 5-7

FTA TAM Business






environment





3.Invest in SCRRA

assets and SGR




5.Promote asset


SCRRA

Values and Culture No continual improvement program in place Staff must be willing to work across department and functional boundaries for successful TAM

Cross Asset Planning and Management

Capital Planning and Programming

Difficult to compare needs across departments

Operations and Maintenance Budgeting

No dedicated direct funding, and SCRRA does not receive its full allocation of formula funding from its member agencies No process in place to prioritize projects with similar scores

Performance Modeling

Multiple data sources and repositories Not clear what is being tracked (e.g., warranties) Performance Measures not in a centralized location Reports difficult to obtain Difficult to compare performance across departments

Program Delivery

No dedicated direct funding, and SCRRA does not receive its full allocation of formula funding Fleet Plan difficult to adhere to due to funding constraints Stakeholders are concerned about delayed project delivery

SECTION 6

TR0226161117SFB 6-1

Implementation Program The TAM Plan implementation program is a guide for SCRRA to incorporate asset management principles into management practices and to establish the foundation for continual improvement and long-term maturity. This implementation program, or roadmap, regroups a number of different items ranging from critical initiatives, schedule, to governance and continuous improvement.

This section addresses the following FTA TAM Plan Elements: 4 (Investment Prioritization), 6 (Implementation Strategy), 7 (List of Key Annual Activities), and 9 (Evaluation Plan).

The subsections of the Implementation Program include:

Section 6.1 Program timeframe – presents the key Initiatives recommended for TAM implementation at SCRRA.

Section 6.2 Internal Organization – presents an example structure for the internal TAM organization. Obtaining executive sponsorship is critical for successful implementation. The FTA requires that each transit provider designates an “accountable executive” to ensure that the necessary resources are available to carry out the TAM Plan and the Transit Agency Safety Plan.

Section 6.3 Action plans – provides an overview of the sequence and duration of action plans, as these relate to the TAM Plan goals and objectives.

Section 6.4 Prioritization – discusses the relationship of the TERM Lite analysis results and SCRRA’s 10 year reinvestment plan.

Section 6.5 Asset management software – presents and assessment of SCRRA’s asset management systems, followed by a recommended migration program to upgrade the Trapeze EAM, formerly called AssetWorks EAM.

Section 6.6 Performance measures – presents an initial set of high-level performance measures that address each of the SCRRA TAM goals and objectives.

Section 6.7 Continuous improvement plan – presents the importance of regular reviews of TAM policies and procedures against established goals and objectives.

6.1 Program Timeframe The timeframe table provides a snapshot view of the implementation program, with bundles of related actions and their targeted timeframes for implementation.

A list of proposed actions for TAM Plan implementation has been developed, the details of which are in section 6.3 and in Appendix C. Proposed actions have been grouped into related bundles (listed below) and assigned a timeframe for action.


Data management



Capital Planning


Change Management

TAM Implementation

SECTION 6 – IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

6-2 TR0226161117SFB

Three timeframes are proposed for action implementation:

Short term – 0-2 years

Mid-term – 2-4 years

Long-term – 4+ years

Table 6-1. Action Plan Timeline (NEEDS UPDATE)

Action Bundle

Short Term (0-2 years) Medium Term (2-4 years) Long Term (4+ years)

0 2 4



Change Management

TAM Implementation


Capital Planning


Performance Measures

Data management

Shading depicts recommended start time period for a given action bundle.

Depending on the outcome of the FTA final rule for Transit Asset Management expected in early July 2016, SCRRA may work with freight railroads, and other third-party property owners, pursuant to existing agreements to determine a reasonable method for addressing reporting requirements for non-owned assets.

6.2 Internal Organization Establishing a structure for governance and obtaining executive sponsorship are critical for successful implementation. The FTA requires that each transit provider designates an accountable executive to ensure that the necessary resources are available to carry out the TAM Plan and the Transit Agency Safety Plan.

The development of SCRRA’s TAM Plan required engaging SCRRA executives, asset owners and stakeholders in various departments performing TAM related functions. This process helped provided visibility into TAM practices at SCRRA, increased awareness, and created an opportunity to educate staff on the importance of TAM practices.

Figure 6-1 shows an example organizational chart for TAM implementation and the relationships between staff and departments that should play a role in TAM. The various advisory and working groups, identified in the TAM action plans, will provide direction and help develop and implement business processes.

Accountable Executive Definition: A single, identifiable person who has ultimate responsibility of a public transportation agency; responsibility for carrying out transit asset management practices; and control and direction over the human and capital resources needed to develop and maintain both the agency’s Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), and the agency’s Transit Asset Management Plan in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5326.


TR0226161117SFB 6-3

Figure 6-1. Example Internal Organization Structure for TAM Implementation

Roles and responsibilities of each of the stakeholders in the organizational chart are described below. These stakeholders are important to establish a TAM culture at SCRRA and to ensure consistency and implementation of TAM practices agency-wide.

The Chief Executive Officer has overall responsibility for overseeing the development of asset management plans and procedures, in cooperation with the executive leadership team, and reporting to the Board on the status of asset management for the enterprise. The CEO is also known as the “accountable executive” with regards to FTA. The CEO is also responsible for enforcement of SCRRA’s TAM policy.

Executive Sponsors: Executive sponsors nominated by the CEO will provide guidance and leadership of the overall asset management effort within SCRRA. Executive sponsors set the overall policy direction and provide oversight for the TAM Program.

Member Agencies: Agencies representing the Joint Powers Authority. As funders of SCRRA, member agencies have a particular responsibility to be engaged in SCRRA’s capital reinvestment program and priorities. They are also good candidates to participate on the TAM Stakeholder Advisory Group.

TAM Liaison: The lead responsibility for the asset management function within SCRRA is within the Planning and Development Division, specifically under the Chief Operations Officer. This is a day-to-day responsibility to oversee the development of the TAM Plan and its implementation. This also includes facilitation of the TAM Technical and TAM Stakeholder Working Groups.

Division Support – All SCRRA Divisions will support SCRRA’s TAM policy, with particular support coming from the following divisions:

- Office of the COO – The Operations Divisions (e.g., PTC, C+S Systems Management, System Safety, Maintenance of Equipment; Facilities Maintenance, Material Control, Special Projects, Planning and Development) will support the policy by participating in technical working group discussions and strategy; providing asset management data and assumptions; and implementing

CEO(Accountable

Executive)

TAM Executive Sponsors

TAM Liaison(Operations)

Executive Governance

Finance

Engineering/ Construction

Others

TAM Stakeholder Advisory Group

TAM Technical Working Group

TAM Implementation

Marketing/Comms.

Operations

Member Agencies


6-4 TR0226161117SFB

TAM Plan actions. These may include functioning as asset custodians, performing asset condition assessments; development and maintenance of risk registers; developing asset management criteria; providing effective preventive and corrective maintenance; and other asset management related activities. PTC C&S plus Engineering and Construction will be responsible for delivering the repair and replacement programs and projects for infrastructure and systems.

– Finance & Information Technology (IT) – The Finance Division will support the policy by participating in technical working group discussions and strategy; providing asset management data and assumptions; and implementing TAM Plan actions. These may include adding detail to financial accounting data to facilitate linkage with asset management data; establishing a linkage between asset management and the budgeting process; developing life cycle cost procedures; implementing life cycle cost into procurement procedures; and other related activities. Information Technology – The Information Technology (IT) Division will support the policy by participating in technical working group discussions and strategy, providing asset management data, and implementing TAM Plan actions including asset management and information systems necessary to implement the TAM Plan.

– Marketing/Communications – This Division will be involved with respect to formulating and communicating TAM information to external stakeholders including funding partners and the public.

TAM Stakeholder Advisory Group: The TAM Stakeholder advisory group will include senior leadership overseeing TAM related processes and functions. Implementing the TAM Plan will require coordination between the various departments and staff performing TAM-related functions across SCRRA.

TAM Technical Working Group (TWG): The TAM TWG will serve as an advisory resource on technical issues, including setting standards, measuring performance and risk, and prioritizing needs for reinvestment among other TAM functions. The TWG should include staff with responsibility for managing specific assets or performing TAM-related processes.

Asset Owners: Asset owners are the closest to the day to day tactical SGR activities. Most, but not all, reside in Operations. Asset owners are critical stakeholders in TAM.

6.3 Action Plan The detailed action plan for implementing TAM Plan recommendations can be found in Appendix C. The actions presented below in Table 6-2 have been bundled to show the general outline of the implementation timeframe. The table is organized as follows:

Identified Gap: This is a full description of the gap identified in the Gaps Analysis

Proposed Action by Action Group: Individual actions, grouped by action bundle.

Proposed timeframe: estimated timeframe based on short-term, mid-term or long-term based on 0-2; 2-4, and beyond 4 years.


TR0226161117SFB 6-5

Table 6-2. Gaps, Benchmarks and Proposed Actions


6-6 TR0226161117SFB

TAM Gap Proposed Actions

Action Group: Risk-based Framework

Reactive Approach to TAM, Equipment not optimally maintained and

sometimes Run-to-FailureImplement TAM-based maintenance planning.

No risk-based frameworkEstablish risk-based register approach consistent with MAP-21 rulemaking.

Action Group: Change Management

Staff turnover and succession planning have been concerns for SCRRA

Ensure documentation of procedures and include in new staff onboarding.

Staff must be willing to work across department and functional boundaries for

successful TAM

Implement TAM Plan actions for Governance; Adopt TAM Policy

No formal communication and change management approach in place Developing an overall communication strategy both internally and with the

public will explain why maintenance, rehabilitation, and renewal

investments are needed.


successful TAM

Design cross-functional training and job opportunities to help engage staff

across department and functional boundaries for successful TAM

No formal Learning and Development program for TAM Provide general asset management training for affected employees and ask

for employee feedback.

Action Group: TAM Implemenation

No formal TAM Plan Formally adopting a policy for TAM with vision, goals and objectives to

make TAM a priority within the agency and to engage leaders to support

implementation of TAM actions.

No formally defined TAM Roles and Responsibilities Implement TAM Plan actions for Governance

More active TAM role desired from contractorsInclude TAM principles in RFPs.

No formal TAM Plan in place Formally adopting a policy for TAM with vision, goals and objectives to



No formal TAM Plan or other TAM-related plans in place Formally adopting a policy for TAM with vision, goals and objectives to



No TAM Competency Framework Provide general asset management training for affected employees and ask

for employee feedback.

Lack of institutional knowledge of AssetWorks hinders widespread use of the

toolProvide AssetWorks training for required personnel. Determine what

AssetWorks should track


successful TAMDesign cross-functional training and job opportunities to help engage staff

across department and functional boundaries for successful TAM.

Action Group: Performance Measures

No consistent performance measures/some anecdotal Implement TAM Plan actions for Performance Measures

Performance Measures not in a centralized locationCreate dashboard for current performance that is easily accessed by staff.

Reports difficult to obtainCreate dashboard for current performance that is easily accessed by staff.

Difficult to compare performance across departments Develop a consistent format and use federal TERM Lite condition rating scale. (More accurate

demonstration of needs will help justify funding requests.)

SCRRA TAM Plan Implementation Schedule

Long Term (4+ years)Short Term (0-2 years)

Medium Term (2-4 years)


TR0226161117SFB 6-7

6.4 Prioritization FTA’s MAP-21 requirements and best practices both call for the development and implementation of objective methods and processes to identify and prioritize required reinvestment actions. This is to help ensure that limited capital funds are allocated to those investments that best support SCRRA’s TAM objectives (including service quality, safety and reliability). As part of an ongoing TAM implementation and improvement process, it is recommended that SCRRA both build on work to date (i.e., initial implementation of asset level prioritization through TERM Lite) and also consider development of a more asset oriented and project oriented prioritization process.

6.4.1 Investment Prioritization -- Approaches TERM Lite Implementation: As a result of SCRRA’s adoption of TERM Lite, SCRRA is now able to

conduct a high level prioritization of investment needs at the asset level. Specifically, TERM Lite’s prioritization routine provides an assessment of reinvestment actions SCRRA can take to address the goals of improving asset conditions, service reliability, and safety and reinvestments to help reduce O&M costs. TERM Lite’s investment prioritization is intended to be “strategic” in nature and focused funding and investment requirements to address long-term investment goals and objectives.

TERM Lite Refinement: Some users (e.g., Chicago RTA) have developed modified versions of TERM Lite designed to provide enhanced prioritization support. Examples include:

– Investment Tier Analysis: Segmenting investment needs into “Tiers” (tier 1, tier 2, ...) to help focus attention on the highest scoring projects. Tiers are intended to break the backlog into more manageable groupings which make it easier to visualize first order priority asset replacement needs, second order priority needs, and so forth. The underlying scoring reflects both the estimated physical condition of those assets with reinvestment needs and the extent to which reinvestment in those assets is expected to contribute to improvement in system reliability and safety/security and potential to reduce operations & maintenance costs (based on the type of assets being replaced). Hence, Tier 1 investments will tend to address assets that are in poor condition assets and/or offer the highest potential investment returns in terms of reliability improvements or reductions in O&M costs, with decreasing expected returns for Tier 2 and 3 investments. This is further detailed below.

– Asset to Project Mapping: This approach uses TERM Lite’s existing prioritization scoring to group assets that are both related to each other (by location and/or function) and which also have upcoming reinvestment needs, into logical “projects”. Users can then use this information to help identify locations and time periods where these “projects” are forecast to occur and then determine if an actual coordinated reinvestment action is warranted.

6.4.2 Other Approaches While TERM provides support for strategic and asset level prioritization, SCRRA would also benefit from tactical / project level prioritization.

SCRRA should consider two approaches that are mutually supportive both with each other and with TERM Lite’s strategic prioritization:

– Business Case Analysis: Standard business case analysis (building off of existing SCRRA process) designed to analyze and rate projects based on implementation options for each investment options, the cost and operational implications of each (including both O&M and future reinvestment capital costs, including cost savings), and metrics for expected impacts on service reliability, safety, efficiency, rider experience and other desired impacts. Business case analyses should clearly


6-8 TR0226161117SFB

segment projects that are critical to addressing potential operational and safety risks (“must haves”) from those that, while potentially desirable, offer more limited operational benefits.

– Project Priority Scoring: Invariably there are more projects with good business cases than can be funded, and for this reason it is helpful to implement an objective project scoring system to help determine which projects should be funded first. Objective scoring systems are designed to score asset-associated projects on a range of criteria (e.g., safety, reliability, environmental benefits), with each criterion scored on a common scale (e.g., 1 to 5) and based on objective measures. Example criterion and measures include observed asset condition, recent asset performance (e.g., failure rates), relative asset criticality to system safety or reliability (e.g., based on asset type or location), and/or number of riders that would benefit from asset reinvestment. Criteria scores can then be grouped across all project assets and then combined into a single, overall score that can be compared across projects. While scoring results should only be used in combination with other decision factors (e.g., the potential need to coordinate across multiple investments and other planning efficiencies) scoring is most helpful in identifying those projects with the largest net benefits. There are a number of commercial prioritization scoring systems (Decision Lens, Expert Choice) that are effective but can tend to be expensive (including upfront calibration charges and recurrent licensing and update fees). Some operators have implemented less expensive, home grown solutions (e.g., using Excel) that rely on lists of staff identified project needs or condition data. While less expensive in the long run, these tools require time to develop and staff resources to update and maintain. Some consultants utilize project prioritization tools during assignment delivery and then provide to clients as a “leave behind” for their own use.

6.4.3 Investment Prioritization – SCRRA’s Ten Year Needs In addition to being used to assess SCRRA’s long-term reinvestment needs, the TERM Lite model has also been used to categorize SCRRA’s reinvestment needs for the next ten year period into three “Investment Tiers”. Within this analysis, each tier reflects a differing level of reinvestment priority, with “Tier 1” representing the highest priority needs (“what should we do first”) and “Tier 3” the lowest priority (“what do we do postpone if we have to”). The reinvestment tiers are based on default 100 point TERM lite prioritization scores. A brief description of the TERM Lite prioritization scoring process and conversion to investment tiers is described below.

TERM’s Default Prioritization Scoring: TERM Lite prioritizes reinvestment needs based on five investment criteria, including:

Estimated asset condition (decay curve based)

Reliability

Safety/Security

O&M costs

A user defined criteria (optional).

Specifically, each asset in the TERM inventory is evaluated and scored against these five criteria, with each criteria scored on a five point scale (with 5 being the highest priority). The five criteria scores are then converted to a weighted average, which is then further adjusted to a 100 point scale (Figure 6-2, the criteria weights displayed here were used for the SCRRA analysis below). Finally, to help prioritize SCRRA’s reinvestment needs, these scores have been grouped into three investment tiers using the based on the prioritization scoring thresholds outlined below (Figure 6-3).


TR0226161117SFB 6-9

Figure 6-2. TERM Lite Prioritization Scoring Based on Five Criteria

Figure 6-3. Investment Tier Thresholds

Tier Prioritization Score Thresholds

(100 point scale) Description

Tier 1 Over 75 Highest Priority (do first)

Tier 2 65 to 75 Mid-Level Priority

Tier 3 Under 65 Lowest Priority (do if funds available)

Prioritized SCRRA Needs: based on current TERM estimates, SCRRA faces roughly $1.8 billion in unconstrained reinvestment needs over the next ten years. This includes a roughly $588 million backlog of deferred needs and an additional $1.3 billion in normal reinvestment needs for the period 2016 through 2025. Figures 6-4 and 6-5 presents these needs segmented into the three investment tiers described above. Based on this assessment, the highest priority reinvestment needs by dollar value are concentrated in trackwork, bridge and train control (interlocking and crossings) replacement. SCRRA also faces other high priority (but lower total reinvestment needs) for stations and revenue vehicles. Tier 2 reinvestment needs are also concentrated in train control and guideway (track and bridges).

Figure 6-4. SCRRA 10-Year Reinvestment Needs – By Investment Tier (Millions of $YOE)

Source: Transit Economic Requirements Model (TERM) un-customized output, 2016

Asset Type Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Total

Facilities, Buildings $0.0 $0.2 $35.2 $35.4

Facilities, Equipment $0.8 $1.8 $22.2 $24.8

Guideway, Bridges $63.1 $157.0 $42.4 $262.5

Guideway, Trackwork $239.0 $0.0 $114.7 $353.7

Guideway, Tunnels $5.0 $17.8 $0.0 $22.8

Stations, Access $15.1 $11.1 $153.6 $179.8

Stations, Platform $30.6 $0.7 $29.1 $60.5

Systems, Communications $9.0 $25.6 $48.8 $83.3

Systems, ITS $0.0 $0.0 $11.0 $11.0

Systems, Train Control $47.7 $271.9 $57.3 $376.9

Vehicles, Non-Revenue $0.6 $1.8 $20.8 $23.2

Vehicles, Revenue $19.4 $188.2 $143.6 $351.2

Total $430.4 $676.1 $678.6 $1,785.1


6-10 TR0226161117SFB

Figure 6-5. SCRRA 10-Year Reinvestment Needs – By Investment Tier

There is currently a range of industry approaches to transit investment prioritization. The recommended approach is to look at prioritization from multiple viewpoints to assure optimal decision making. This includes the use of long-term, asset-based prioritization tools to assess and evaluate strategic priorities, combined with short-term project based scoring systems to help determine “what we do next”.

6.5 Asset Management Software Improvements Systems Analysis

Interviews with SCRRA staff revealed multiple challenges in using current software packages to support efficient TAM decision making. These challenges include, but are not limited to:

SCRRA’s primary equipment asset management system, AssetWorks, is perceived by some users not to be user-friendly and many of its available features cannot be accessed by SCRRA users, most notably the user report writing capability. SCRRA has created several manual data reports using Excel spreadsheets or even paper to circumvent the issues with AssetWorks reporting features.

Some data types are not recorded at the level of granularity needed for TAM analysis.

There has been little to no integration between the EAM software packages, and also little integration when mobile devices are used for inventory. This especially holds true when asset maintenance is contracted out.


TR0226161117SFB 6-11

There is a lack of IT staff dedicated to AssetWorks and implementation of non-AssetWorks EAM systems, and a lack of collaboration with users adopting solutions IT has developed.

Users in general are focused on the short-term day-to-day usage of systems and do not prioritize long-term process improvements mainly due to time constraints. This is exacerbated by high staff turnover. This is exacerbated by high staff turnover.

A functional EAM is desirable for balancing SCRRA’s asset needs. However, for various reasons, this goal may not be attainable in the short term.

6.5.1 EAM Peer Review The following five agencies were included in a peer review for EAM systems: Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transit Authority (MARTA), Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Sound Transit (Seattle), Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), and Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (SCVTA). At least three out of five of the peer agencies conform to the following processes:

Use a single software package for EAM across all asset types (of which the majority used AssetWorks or its newer version Trapeze EAM, IBM’s Maximo and SAP are also in use)

Use their primary EAM software comprehensively across asset management functions, supplemented by integrated specialty software (such as fueling systems, GIS, etc.)

Integrate their EAM systems with Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems and other software for financial, human resources and purchasing functions

Use mobile computing for asset management and inventory functions

Have more EAM system support than SCRRA

Have institutional business processes for reengineering the system and are dedicated to making system upgrades

As a result of these best practices, the majority of these agencies note that their EAM systems are user-friendly, well-accepted, and are generally satisfied with the system. Trapeze is being applied to rail with favorable results; several commuter rail agencies are using Maximo or Infor which are comparable to Trapeze. Other best practices include the use of systems with visualization and graphics, retaining external tools to work with and present data (such as business intelligence tools), and hosting EAM software within the transit agency.

6.5.2 EAM Functionality EAM systems have continued to grow in functionality in order to support more sophisticated TAM programs. EAM systems now focus on managing assets throughout their life-cycle instead of just on maintenance management or work orders. These functional augmentations include:

Expanded Asset Inventory & Information

Definable Asset and Location Hierarchies

Asset Configuration Management

Asset Condition Assessment Interface

Asset Transitioning

Asset Reliability & Performance Measurement

Capture of Life-Cycle Costs Across All Life Stages

Major Capital Maintenance Planning

Many of these functional augmentations are available in leading EAM packages such as Trapeze, IBM, and Infor. EAM systems often work in harmony with other specialized systems such as:

Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

SCADA

Automated Data Collection Systems

Yard Map/Lot Map and AVL

Scheduling and Forecasting

Inventory Optimization


6-12 TR0226161117SFB

Asset Degradation Modelling and Analysis

Decision Support Systems

Asset Specific Inspection Programs

Data Warehousing, Analysis, and Reporting

Product Life Cycle/Product Data Management

Automated Time Capture/Time Clock

6.5.3 EAM Recommendations for SCRRA The following are the conclusions gathered from the analysis of SCRRA, peer agencies and the EAM industry:

Over time, SCRRA should significantly enhance or redeploy its EAM support to promote a comprehensive and mature TAM program

SCRRA would greatly benefit from extensive EAM system, staff development, and support improvements

SCRRA would also benefit from a more coordinated approach to EAM and IT implementation using Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) instead of its current “siloed” approach

Based on these conclusions, three options (identified by number 1-2-3), some with sub-option versions (identified by letter 2a-2b), were developed (Table 6-2).

Table 6-3. Developed Options Based on EAM Recommendations

Option Sub-Option

1. Continue the current EAM strategy and initiate selected improvements

N/A

2. Implement new EAM 2a. For all assets

2b. For Vehicles/TVMs, but continue to implement RAMS and Net Facilities for other asset classes

3. Re-Implement AssetWorks 3a. For all assets

3b. For Vehicles/TVMs, but continue to implement RAMS and Net Facilities for other asset classes

It is recommended that in the short term SCRRA select option 1 which is to continue with the current EAM strategy and initiated selected improvements. SCRRA has begun deployment of RAMS for linear (infrastructure) assets such as bridges. Over time, the recommendation is to migrate to option 3, re-implementing AssetWorks.

The key question will be to establish whether the Trapeze Linear Asset module is a better long-term alternative for SCRRA’s requirements than RAMS. The resulting solution must support an inventory of asset data but also an interoperability between the collected inventory data, larger EAM structure and decision support tools.

The outcome of the functional requirements would determine whether SCRRA move to Option 3a or 3b (or, potentially, to a new EAM solution altogether). With Trapeze, the EAM would be the system of record for SCRRA’s transit assets.

Conceptually, the scope of the SCRRA EAM re-implementation includes:

EAM architecture design

Implementation planning

Comprehensive requirements development

Develop function design defining Trapeze configuration


TR0226161117SFB 6-13

Document “as is” business processes with corresponding reengineered “to be” processes

Conduct a gap analysis between SCRRA requirements and Trapeze EAM capabilities

Prepare design interfaces, data conversions, security and reporting for the re-implementation

Identify Trapeze modules, interfaces and additional software to be used

Develop technical analysis and design for identifying re-implementation computer platform and infrastructure requirements

Conduct full re-implementation tasks

The re-implementation of Trapeze EAM is a major effort spanning multiple years and will take as long as 3-5 years. SCRRA should take a phased approach such that roll-out phases of the re-implementation project can be achieved in 3-5 years; with planning, analysis, and design in in the next 1-2 years.

6.6 Performance Measures As part of the annual review process, SCRRA will review performance reporting to identify areas for improvement, and ultimately shape the refinement of the objectives, strategies, and implementing projects/actions for future iterations of this TAM Plan. This does not preclude mid-year review of performance reporting and interim adjustments to TAM objectives, strategies, and implementing projects/actions as needed.

Table 6-3 on the following page shows the proposed high-level performance measures that address each of the SCRRA TAM goals and objectives. Also shown in the table is a proposed implementation timeframe for each measure, broken down between near term (less than 3 years) and long term (more than 3 years). Note some measures are listed several times, to ensure each objectives was addressed by at least one measure.

SCRRA currently uses extensive operational level performance measures supporting SGR, including:

Age (Remaining Useful Life)

RCI condition scores for track, bridges, tunnels, signals

Car availability (by Fleet, car type)

Number of delays (actual and cascading)

Passenger complaints (by malfunction type: e.g., HVAV, door, PA)

Percent preventive maintenance inspections performed on schedule

Vehicle availability: by fleet/vehicle type/obligation/realization attribute, etc.

The measures highlighted in red are those that directly address the four FTA-mandated SGR performance measures for each asset category.

Table 6-4. SCRRA TAM Performance Measures

Tailored Performance Measures

ID Performance Measure

Implementation Timeframe

Goals Objectives Near Term

(<3 yrs)

Mid/Long Term

(>3 Yrs)

(1) Maintain SCRRA assets in State of Good Repair to support a safe operating environment

Document root cause analysis for asset failures

1.1.1 Number (frequency) of asset failures. Percent reduction in asset failures

Maintain equipment infrastructure and systems in SGR

1.2.1 Percent of facilities with a condition rating of less than 3.0 on the FTA TERM scale

1.2.2 Percent of all fixed guideway directional route miles with worn or marginal conditions or are approaching the end of useful life

1.2.3 Percent of rolling stock that have met or exceeded their ULB for all asset classes of revenue and non-revenue vehicles

1.2.4 Percent of revenue vehicles that have met or exceeded their ULB by asset class


6-14 TR0226161117SFB

Table 6-4. SCRRA TAM Performance Measures

Tailored Performance Measures

ID Performance Measure


Goals Objectives Near Term

(<3 yrs)

Mid/Long Term

(>3 Yrs)

1.2.5 Mean Miles Between Failure (MMBF) Already

Implemented

1.2.6 Mechanical Delays (and as a percent of total system delays) Already

Implemented

Measure and manage TAM-related risks

1.3.1 Percent of asset projects approved in budget that match priority for asset condition and system impact

(2) Build and promote financial sustainability through implementation of asset management best practices

Develop objective method to prioritize investments in capital rehabilitation projects and assess trade-offs between competing capital investments in additions and betterments

2.1.1

Percent Current SGR backlog approved in budget

SGR funding programmed in SRTP/LRTP.

Requested SGR Funding needs versus budgeted

Backlog of deferred maintenance by asset class (bridges, rail, ties, turnouts, active warning devices, etc.)

2.1.2 Percent of asset projects approved in budget that match priority for asset condition and system impact

2.1.3 Percent reduction in backlog

Establish linkage between multi-year SGR needs, annual budget process and Capital Improvement Program

2.2.1 Investment required to achieve SGR outcomes (e.g., maintain backlog). Percent annual reduction in backlog

2.2.2 Ratio of SGR assets approved in budget to SRTP/LRTP SGR programmed funding

2.2.3 Ratio of SGR needs to available funding

Implement minimum life cycle cost policy

2.3.1 Percent of related TAM Action Plan actions completed; percent deferred

2.3.2 TAM policy adopted

(3) Invest in SCRRA assets and SGR

Develop asset management Systems approach

3.1.1 Percent of assets with performance Targets

3.1.2 Percent of related TAM Action Plan actions completed; percent deferred

Develop TAM Plan and policy consistent with MAP 21 requirements

3.2.3 Percent of related TAM Action Plan actions completed/deferred

Establish clear capital replacement and rehabilitation plans, and monitor adherence

3.3.1 Backlog - Cost to bring assets into SGR

3.3.2 Backlog - Replacement Value

3.3.3 Backlog - Weighted average of (asset value * condition rating) versus (asset value * minimum condition rating)

3.3.4 Percent of assets with Performance Targets

(4) Demonstrate organizational efficiency for asset management processes and outreach to member agencies


4.1.1 Percent of assets with complete data in TAM database


4.2.2 Percent Current backlog approved in budget/SGR funding programmed in SRTP/LRTP

4.2.3 Percent of asset projects approved in budget that match priority for risk and resiliency

4.2.4 Percent reduction in backlog

(5) Promote asset management culture at SCRRA


5.1.1 TAM policy adopted


5.2.1 Percent of TAM related positions staffed and trained on TAM processes

5.2.2 Ratio of TAM related staff to total TAM staff needed


TR0226161117SFB 6-15

6.7 Continuous Improvement Plan The agency’s TAM Vision and this TAM Plan set objectives, strategies, and performance measures for continually improving how the SCRRA manages its assets. To successfully implement this TAM Plan and advance the agency’s TAM maturity, an annual review of progress and performance measures will influence the revision of these documents and the development of new projects to further SCRRA’s progress towards the TAM Vision.

Executive management (especially the accountable executive), will play a strong role in shaping objectives and performance targets in the TAM Plan. In addition, revisions to this TAM Plan will be reviewed and approved by SCRRA executive management to ensure alignment with other strategic planning documents.

TAM Plan will be reviewed and revised as necessary on an annual basis. These revisions will require input from various internal and external stakeholders. This input will also be coordinated through internal meetings each year. External stakeholder involvement will be coordinated through a variety of means as described below. SCRRA will strive to influence better asset performance, risk reduction, and agency cost savings with each revision of the TAM Plan.

6.7.1 Stakeholder Involvement The ability to efficiently manage SCRRA’s Transit Assets depends on more than just SCRRA employees, but on various external stakeholders as well. Member agencies, elected officials, customers/community, regulators, vendors, all have their own expectations from the transit system:

Member agencies: SCRRA depends to a large degree on its member agencies for funding and as such must collaborate very closely with LA Metro, OCTA, RCTC, SanBAG, and VCTC, especially with respect to communicating current and future reinvestment needs.

Customers/community: SCRRA would not exist if not for the customers that use its transit service. SCRRA’s customers depend on transit for jobs, education, healthcare, shopping, and entertainment. Additionally, SCRRA’s customers trust that the equipment and operators will get them to their destination safely. When a customer is injured due to infrastructure or equipment failure, or operator error, SCRRA risks losing its most important stakeholder.

Regulators: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and other agencies all directly influence how SCRRA’s transit assets are managed, through rulemaking and oversight. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the regional metropolitan planning organization is legislatively empowered to authorize the use of federal funds on transit projects, and since the institution of MAP-21, are also required to coordinate their state of good repair performance measures with SCRRA.

Vendors: The performance and pricing of service providers, contractors, consultants, material suppliers, and other vendors directly affect SCRRA’s ability to deliver projects on-time and on-budget. Issues with vendor performance and/or pricing may have a profound impact on the performance of the transit system at large.

This TAM Plan was written with an understanding of what each stakeholder expects from the transit system and is designed to help meet those expectations, while simultaneously balancing SCRRA’s internal priorities. Stakeholders should be engaged in meaningful ways in the implementation of the actions from this Plan.


6-16 TR0226161117SFB

6.7.2 Performance Monitoring As part of the annual review process, SCRRA will review associated performance reporting to identify areas for improvement, and ultimately shape the refinement of the objectives, strategies, and implementing projects/actions for future iterations of this TAM Plan. This does not preclude mid-year review of performance reporting and interim adjustments to TAM objectives, strategies, and implementing projects/actions as needed.

6.7.3 Risk Management Risk management will be an increasingly important driver of continuous TAM improvement, enabling SCRRA to progressively become more proactive with management decisions. Developing a risk management approach will guide the development of SCRRA’s risk management system, enabling future iterations of this TAM Plan to focus on the largest asset-related risks faced by the agency.

In the interim, SCRRA can use a simple risk register to identify what might impede TAM Plan implementation. The risk register would examine a risk’s cause and effect, as well as the risk “owner,” or the department responsible for addressing this area. Additionally, the register would include a risk category, since a risk’s outcome often impacts an organization in a predictable manner, even if the cause remains unforeseen. Lastly, the register would include a risk assessment matrix to quantify and prioritize risks as the product of impact probability and severity.

A department/unit of SCRRA should be made responsible for maintenance of the risk register and risk prioritization, perhaps the TAM liaison. Annual reviews of the TAM Plan will consider the under-managed risks identified through this process to shape the refinement of the objectives, strategies, and implementing projects/actions these documents contain.

Appendix A List of CAMRA Participants

TR0226161117SFB A-1

APPENDIX A

List of CAMRA Participants CH2M facilitated two half-day workshops with SCRRA Gateway Plaza staff and with Melbourne Staff (representing Guideways, Signals, Facilities, Vehicles, and Fare Collection) using its Comprehensive Asset Management Review and Assessment (CAMRA) tool. The CAMRA assessment tool and process was used to assess the current level of maturity of SCRRA based on 38 questions representing seven key areas of good transit asset management practice, with the questions being aligned to the requirements of MAP-21 and the FTA Asset Management Guide.

List of CAMRA Workshop Participants

Asset Management CAMRA Workshop # 1

April 20th 2015

Asset Management CAMRA Workshop # 2

April 21st 2015

Stuart Chuck, Stations

Christine Wilson, Finance & Budget

Mary Williams, General Accounting

Frank Feng, Accounting

Swagata Sengupta, Program Management

Karen Sakoda, Planning and Grants

Arun Chakladar, IT

Bill Doran, Manager of Asset Data

Wayne Mauthe, Track Maintenance

Tim Harris, Track Maintenance

Phil La Breche, Signals & Communications

Naresh Patel, Standards & Design

Darrell Maxey, Positive Train Control

Liz Lun, Bridges and Structures

Aaron Azevedo, Track Engineer

Rick Tripoli, Rolling Stock

Greg Harrington, Facilities

Roderick Diaz, Planning

Karen Sakoda, Planning and Grants

Nate Griffin, Inventory

Patricia Watkins, Engineering & Construction

Appendix B List of Peer Transit Agencies

TR0226161117SFB B-1

APPENDIX B

List of Peer Transit Agencies The study team conducted a peer agency benchmarking analysis to identify how other commuter rail operators have implemented TAM in their agencies. The following peer agency staff were interviewed as part of this effort.

List of Peer Transit Agencies and TAM Contacts

TRS ID

Agency State TAM Contact(s) TAM Contact Title,

Department/ Office TAM Contact

Phone(s) TAM Contact Email(s)

0040

Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit)

WA Todd Hayes Manager, Operations - Asset Planning & Programming

(206) 370-5669 [email protected]

1003 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

MA Eric Waaramaa

Rob Guptill

Deputy Director of Financial Planning Manager of Systems Integration

(617) 222-1622

(617) 222-5755

[email protected]

[email protected]

5118

Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra)

IL Holly Lown Waters

Manager, Grants Research and Development


9134 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain)

CA Pete Guttierez Manager, Maintenance of Way


4077 South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (TRI-Rail)

FL Brad Barkman Director, Operations (954) 942-7245 Ext. 7946

[email protected]

3019

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)

PA Laura Zale

Senior Asset Management Engineer, Operations Division/ Planning and Project Coordination Department


mailto:[email protected]




Appendix C Gaps, Benchmarks, Actions, and


TR0226161117SFB C-1

APPENDIX C

Gaps, Benchmarks, Actions, and Implementation Timeframe

FTA TAM Business Process Areas FT

A T

AM

Bu

sin

ess

Pro

cess

Elem

ents

Stat

e-o

f-

Pra

ctic

e

Ben

chm

ark

Gap

ID

Iden

tifi

ed

Gap

Leve

l of

effo

rt

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

Act

ion

gro

up

nam

e

No

tes

Lifecycle Management

Condition Assessment & Performance Monitoring

Asset condition data are updated on a periodic schedule sufficient to meet regulatory requirements and to provide timely and accurate information.

1.1

Physical condition data not collected using a consistent format or for a common purpose and not comparable across asset type even when common condition rating scale is used.

Develop a consistent format and use federal TERM Lite condition rating scale.


one time

Reference: FTA Asset Management Guide: fig 3-8, Section 3.2.2, pp 3-24 thru 3-26

The Agency establishes target conditions and/or performance targets as part of condition monitoring and reporting

1.2

GASB 34 scoring process can be subjective and dependent on individual inspectors. Scoring is for infrastructure only.

Provide GASB 34 scoring training for inspectors.


ongoing

Reference: FTA Asset Management Guide: fig 3-9, Section 3.2.2, pp 3-24

1.3

No consistent performance measures/some anecdotal

See Section 6.6 for performance measure implementation timeline

Performance measures

one time

Asset Inventory

Asset inventory and decision support tools provide consistent, readily available, and easily accessible information to support performance monitoring and decision making

2.1

No formal TAM asset inventory program with definitions

Develop asset inventory based on TAM principles.

Decision support tools

one time

Reference: FTA Asset Management Guide: Section 4.3, pp 4-4 and Section 3.3.1

2.2 Not all assets in system

Ensure all assets are tracked in asset inventory system.

Decision support tools

one time

Lifecycle Management Planning

Performance-based decision-making optimizes how and when O&M funds are expended, reflecting input from the lifecycle management plans.

3.1

Reactive approach to TAM. Equipment not optimally maintained and sometimes run-to-failure

Implement TAM-based maintenance planning.

Risk-based framework

one year

APPENDIX C – GAPS, BENCHMARKS, ACTION AND IMPLEMENATION TIMEFRAME

C-2 TR0226161117SFB


A T

AM

Bu

sin

ess

Pro

cess

Elem

ents

Stat

e-o

f-

Pra

ctic

e

Ben

chm

ark

Gap

ID

Iden

tifi

ed

Gap

Leve

l of

effo

rt

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

Act

ion

gro

up

nam

e

No

tes


3.2 No risk-based framework

Establish risk-based register approach consistent with MAP-21 rulemaking.

Risk-based framework

one-two years

Information Technology Systems

Decision-Support Tools

The Agency has lifecycle decision-support tools that help explore performance implications of a proposed program of projects, capital versus maintenance tradeoffs, and investments across categories

4.1

No robust data entry for business systems (e.g., information in Oracle my not be reliable)

Collect sufficient and accurate data to enable use of decision-support tools.

Data management

ongoing

Reference: FTA Asset Management Guide: Section 3.3.3, pp 3-45 thru 3-47

4.2

AssetWorks and Oracle Systems only recently linked

Ensure integration of systems and data-sharing capabilities.

Data management

one time

4.3

Current AssetWorks not well-understood and not well-used. Not clear what is being tracked (e.g., warranties)

Provide AssetWorks training for required personnel. Determine what AssetWorks should track.

Data management

ongoing

4.4 May not meet MAP-21 reporting requirements

Update to MAP-21 standards.

Data management

one time

Readily Available Data

Asset inventory and decision support tools provide consistent, readily available, and easily accessible information to support performance monitoring and decision making

5.1 Data/ information control framework not in place

Set up data collection to match performance measures reporting.

Data management

ongoing

Reference: FTA Asset Management Guide: Section 4.3, p 4-4 and Section 3.3.1

5.2

Multiple data sources, repositories and systems

Consolidate data entry systems, ensure that those in use can share data platforms.

Data management

Same as Gap ID 16.1; ongoing

5.3

Performance Measures not in a centralized location

Create dashboard for current performance that is easily accessed by staff.


Same as Gap ID 16.3; one time


TR0226161117SFB C-3


A T

AM

Bu

sin

ess

Pro

cess

Elem

ents

Stat

e-o

f-

Pra

ctic

e

Ben

chm

ark

Gap

ID

Iden

tifi

ed

Gap

Leve

l of

effo

rt

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

Act

ion

gro

up

nam

e

No

tes

5.4 Reports difficult to obtain



See above 5.3

TAM Vision and Direction

Plan

Principles of good asset management are articulated in an agency business plan and clearly recognized throughout the Agency as the driving force for resource allocation and utilization. Roles, responsibilities and resources are defined

6.1 No formal TAM Plan

Formally adopting a policy for TAM with vision, goals and objectives to make TAM a priority within the agency and to engage leaders to support implementation of TAM actions.

TAM implementa-

tion

Same as Gap IDs: 8.1, 11.1; one time

Reference: FTA Asset Management Guide: fig 3-2, Section 3.1.3, pg 3-10

6.2 No TAM-related plans in place


TAM implementa-

tion

one time with annual review

Policy

7.1

No formally defined TAM Roles and Responsibilities

See Section 4 for more discussion.

TAM implementa-

tion

one time

7.2 More active TAM role desired from contractors

Include TAM principles in RFPs.

TAM implementa-

tion ongoing

7.3

Limited ability to add in-house staff due to caps on headcounts

Reprioritize key staff roles toward TAM Plan implementation.

Capital planning

one time with annual review

7.4

Staff turnover and succession planning have been concerns for SCRRA

Ensure documentation of procedures and include in new staff onboarding.

Change management

one time


C-4 TR0226161117SFB


A T

AM

Bu

sin

ess

Pro

cess

Elem

ents

Stat

e-o

f-

Pra

ctic

e

Ben

chm

ark

Gap

ID

Iden

tifi

ed

Gap

Leve

l of

effo

rt

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

Act

ion

gro

up

nam

e

No

tes

Asset management engages staff across agency divisions and offices through effective communications.

7.5

Siloed departments discourage employee collaboration.

Design cross-functional training and job opportunities to help engage staff across department and functional boundaries for successful TAM.

Change management

Same as Gap IDs: 10.1, 13.2, 14.2

Reference: FTA Asset Management Guide: Section 5.3.2, Table 5-1, pp 5-4 thru 5-5

Strategy

Principles of good asset management are articulated in an agency business plan and clearly recognized throughout the Agency as the driving force for resource allocation and utilization. Roles, responsibilities and resources are defined

8.1 No formal TAM Plan in place


TAM implementa-

tion

Same as Gap IDs: 6.1, 11.1


Enablers

Communications

Asset management engages staff across agency divisions and offices through effective communications.

9.1

No formal communication and change management approach in place

Developing an overall communication strategy both internally and with the public will explain why maintenance, rehabilitation, and renewal investments are needed.

Change management


Leadership and Accountability


10

Siloed departments discourage employee collaboration.

Implement Asset Management policy as part of agency mission statement.

Change management

Same as Gap IDs: 7.5, 13.2, 14.2

Project Management

The agency uses sound project management principles.

11

Formally adopting a policy for TAM with vision, goals and objectives to make TAM a priority within the agency and

TAM implementa-

tion

Same as Gap IDs: 6.1, 8.1


TR0226161117SFB C-5


A T

AM

Bu

sin

ess

Pro

cess

Elem

ents

Stat

e-o

f-

Pra

ctic

e

Ben

chm

ark

Gap

ID

Iden

tifi

ed

Gap

Leve

l of

effo

rt

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

Act

ion

gro

up

nam

e

No

tes

to engage leaders to support implementation of TAM actions.


11

No formal communication and change management approach in place

Developing an overall communication strategy both internally and with the public will explain why maintenance, rehabilitation, and renewal investments are needed.

TAM implementati

on


Training

Asset management is well understood across the organization.

12 No formal learning and development program for TAM

Provide general asset management training for affected employees and ask for employee feedback.

Change management

ongoing

Reference: FTA Asset Management Guide: Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, Table 5-1, pp 5-4 thru 5-5

12 No TAM competency framework

Provide general asset management training for affected employees and ask for employee feedback.

TAM implementa-

tion ongoing

12

Lack of institutional knowledge of AssetWorks hinders widespread use of the tool


TAM implementa-

tion

one time

Values and Culture

Agency staff uses the language of asset management and it guides their day to day work decisions, in addition to broader agency strategic decisions.

13 No continual improvement program in place

Implement TAM Plan actions in Section 6.7 for Continuous Improvement Plan

Data management

ongoing


C-6 TR0226161117SFB


A T

AM

Bu

sin

ess

Pro

cess

Elem

ents

Stat

e-o

f-

Pra

ctic

e

Ben

chm

ark

Gap

ID

Iden

tifi

ed

Gap

Leve

l of

effo

rt

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

Act

ion

gro

up

nam

e

No

tes

Reference: FTA Asset Management Guide: Section 5.3.1, Table 5-1, pp 5-4

13

Staff must be willing to work across department and functional boundaries for successful TAM

Design cross-functional training and job opportunities to help engage staff across department and functional boundaries for successful TAM.

TAM implementati

on

Same as Gap IDs: 7.5, 10.1, 14.2; one time

Cross Asset Planning and Manage-ment

Capital Planning and Programming


14

Difficult to compare needs across departments

Develop a consistent format and use federal TERM Lite condition rating scale. (More accurate demonstration of needs will help justify funding requests.)

Capital planning

one time

Operations and Maintenance Budgeting

Performance-based decision-making optimizes how and when O&M funds are expended, reflecting input from the lifecycle management plans.

15

No dedicated direct funding, and SCRRA does not receive its full allocation of formula funding

O&M Planning

Same as Gap ID 17.1


15

No process in place to prioritized projects with similar scores

Implement TAM Plan action with respect to linking capital reinvestment needs with budgeting process; prioritizing projects across asset classes based on prioritization criteria

O&M Planning

ongoing

Performance Modeling

The Agency has life-cycle decision-support tools that help explore performance implications of a proposed program of projects, capital versus maintenance tradeoffs, and investments across categories

16

Multiple data sources, repositories and systems

Consolidate data entry systems, ensure that those in use can share data platforms.

Data management


Reference: FTA Asset Management Guide: Section 3.3.3, pp 3-45 thru 3-47

16 Not clear what is being tracked (e.g., warranties)


Data management

See 12.3


TR0226161117SFB C-7


A T

AM

Bu

sin

ess

Pro

cess

Elem

ents

Stat

e-o

f-

Pra

ctic

e

Ben

chm

ark

Gap

ID

Iden

tifi

ed

Gap

Leve

l of

effo

rt

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

Act

ion

gro

up

nam

e

No

tes

16

Performance Measures not in a centralized location


Data management


16 Reports difficult to obtain



Same as Gap ID 5.4; see 16.3

17

Difficult to compare performance across departments



see 16.3

Program Delivery

The Agency knows its costs for delivering its programs and services and periodically evaluates options for delivery

17

No dedicated direct funding, and SCRRA does not receive its full allocation of formula funding


Capital planning


Reference: FTA Asset Management Guide: Section 3.3.2, pp 3-39

The Agency has the ability to track actual project and service delivery against the plan so that changes can be made. A formal change process program exists

Reference: FTA Asset Management Guide: Section 3.3.2, pp 3-40 thru 3-41 and Section 3.3.1, pp 3-35

Program delivery measures are defined and tracked. Agency staff, policy-makers, and stakeholders are regularly informed of progress

17

Funding constraints limit ability to meet fleet plan reinvestment goals.


Capital planning

see 17.1


C-8 TR0226161117SFB


A T

AM

Bu

sin

ess

Pro

cess

Elem

ents

Stat

e-o

f-

Pra

ctic

e

Ben

chm

ark

Gap

ID

Iden

tifi

ed

Gap

Leve

l of

effo

rt

Pro

po

sed

Act

ion

Act

ion

gro

up

nam

e

No

tes

Reference: FTA Asset Management Guide: Section 3.3.2, pp 3-39 and Section 3.3.1, pp 3-35

17

Stakeholders are concerned about project delivery delays.

Set more realistic project delivery timelines and milestones.

Capital planning

ongoing

Annual hours dedicated

.5 FTE 1 FTE 2 FTEs

Appendix D Glossary of Terms

TR0226161117SFB D-1

APPENDIX D

Glossary of Terms Asset Management –a strategic and systematic process through which an organization procures, operates, maintains, rehabilitates, and replaces transit assets over their lifecycle to manage their performance, risks, and costs to provide safe, cost-effective, reliable service to current and future customers.

Capital Asset –includes equipment, rolling stock, infrastructure, and facilities for use in public transportation, owned or leased by the transit provider. The Federal Transit Administration typically considers five main categories for capital assets: Vehicles, Systems, Guideway Elements, Facilities and Stations.

Capital Asset Inventory –a register of an agency’s assets and information about those assets. The inventory can be at multiple levels of granularity depending on purpose.

Capital Expenditure –The expenses related to the purchase of equipment. Capital expenses do not include operating expenses that are eligible to use capital funds.

Condition Assessment –the process of inspecting the asset to collect data that is used to document and measure condition and performance. Condition assessment can also be carried out through modeling.

Lifecycle Management Planning –enables agencies to make better investment decisions across the lifecycle using management processes and data specific to each asset as a basis for predicting remaining useful life (including age, condition, historic performance, and level of usage). Transit asset management involves processes for managing and maximizing the performance of an asset while minimizing its costs throughout the course of its lifecycle

ISO 55000 –a set of standards for asset management developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) - a funding and authorization bill for federal surface transportation. Signed into law in July 2012, Section 20019 requires transit agencies to development of a Transit Asset Management Plan and to implement a Transit Asset Management System.

Operating Expenses –The expenses associated with the operation of the transit agency

Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) –The TAM SAG will include senior leadership overseeing TAM related processes and functions.

State of Good Repair (SGR) –an objective standard for measuring the condition of capital assets, including equipment, rolling stock, infrastructure, and facilities.

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) - program provides Federal credit assistance in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit to finance surface transportation projects of national and regional significance.

Technical Working Group (TWG) – Working level technical body that will include staff with responsibility for managing specific assets or working with TAM related processes.

Transit Asset Management Plan (TAM Plan or TAMP)– a plan developed by an agency that includes, at a minimum, discussion of current capital asset inventories and condition assessments, decision support project prioritization, and State of Good Repair performance.


C-2 TR0226161117SFB

Transit Economic Requirements Model (TERM Lite) – a decision support tool developed by the Federal Transit Administration to estimate future transit agency needs, backlog impacts and asset conditions.

Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM) – The miles that a vehicle travels while in revenue service.

Appendix E List of Abbreviations

TR0226161117SFB E-1

APPENDIX E

List of Key Abbreviations CAMRA Comprehensive Asset Management Review and Assessment tool

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CFO Chief Financial Officer

COO Chief Operating Officer

CTA Chicago Transit Authority, Chicago, IL

EAM Enterprise Asset Management system

ED Executive Director

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GASB Government Accounting Standards Board

JPA Joint Powers Authority

LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rule Making

NTD Federal Transit Administration National Transit Database

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PTC Positive Train Control

RCI Railroad Condition Index

RCM Reliability Centered Maintenance

ROW Right of Way

SCRRA Southern California Regional Rail Authority

SGR State of Good Repair

SRTP Short Range Transportation Plan

TAM Plan Transit Asset Management Plan

TERM Transit Economic Requirements Model

TERM Lite Regional/local version of TERM

TWG Technical Working Group

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

VRM Vehicle Revenue Miles

YOE Year of Expenditure

transit asset management plan - granicus

Documents