january dc circulator audit

8/18/2019 January DC Circulator Audit

1/29

VEHICLE & MAINTENANCE EVALUATION

DC Circulator

Conducted January 11 – 14, 2016

by Transit Resource Center


2/29

Table of Contents

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 3

Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

Work Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 8

List of Buses & Records Inspected ................................................................................................................ 8

Analysis of Bus Inspections ........................................................................................................................... 9

Evaluation Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 9

Overall Bus Condition ................................................................................................................................. 10

Defect Spreadsheets ................................................................................................................................... 11

Analysis of Bus Defects ............................................................................................................................... 12

“A” Defect Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 14

Analysis of 2009 Van Hool Buses Owned by First Transit ........................................................................... 15

Analysis of Buses Not Available for Service ................................................................................................ 16

Analysis of Records Review and Fluids Analysis ......................................................................................... 19

Methodology ............................................................................................................................................... 19

PMI Schedule Adherence ............................................................................................................................ 21

Repair of Defects Identified During PMIs ................................................................................................... 21

Mechanic Training & Certification .............................................................................................................. 22

Management of Fluid Analysis Program ..................................................................................................... 24

Other Improvements .................................................................................................................................. 25

Contested Defects ....................................................................................................................................... 25

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 25

Appendix A – Excel Spreadsheet Reports ................................................................................................... 27

Appendix B – “A” Defect List ....................................................................................................................... 28


3/29

List of TablesTable 1 - All Defects January 2016 Bus Inspection.......................................................................................... 4

Table 2 - Defect Comparison All Buses August 2015 & January 2016 ............................................................ 5

Table 3 - Defect Comparison Van Hool Buses August 2015 & January 2016.................................................. 5

Table 4 - Buses Inspected ................................................................................................................................ 8

Table 5 - Total Number of Defects by Bus Category ..................................................................................... 12

Table 6 - Average # of Defects by Bus Category ........................................................................................... 13

Table 7 - Defect Comparisons ....................................................................................................................... 13

Table 8 - Comparison of "A" Defects by Bus Category ................................................................................. 15

Table 9 - Comparison 0f 2009 Van Hool Buses Leased by First Transit ........................................................ 15

Table 10 - Buses Down for an Extended Period ............................................................................................ 17

Table 11 - Buses on Property & Currently Out of Service as of 1/11/16 ...................................................... 19

Table 12 - PMI Schedule Adherence ............................................................................................................. 21

Table 13 - A/C Repairs by Certified Mechanics ............................................................................................. 22


4/29

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 3

Background

Transit Resource Center (TRC) was contracted by the District of Columbia government's Department of

Transportation (DDOT) in August of 2015 to evaluate 42 of the oldest buses in its fleet. The buses

inspected at that time consisted of two sub fleets: 29 2003/04 Van Hool models placed in service in

2005; and 20 2009 Van Hools placed in service in 2009 and 2010. DDOT owns the buses and contracts

with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) for them to oversee a private

contractor that operates the service and maintains the buses. Currently the private operator is First

Transit.

With 29 of the earlier Van Hool models approaching the end of their 12-year useful life as defined by

the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DDOT’s primary objective for work conducted in August 2015

was to have TRC determine the condition of the overall fleet, the condition of individual buses, the

ability of WMATA and First Transit to maintain these buses in a state of good repair, and to prioritize theremaining useful life of the Van Hool fleet. The evaluation included a series of recommendations to

extend the service life of all Van Hool buses.

The August 2015 fleet inspection revealed an exceptionally high number of defects, a total of 924 or an

average of twenty-two (22) defects per bus. Although the industry does not have universally accepted

standards, this number of defects is considered excessive based on other maintenance evaluations

conducted by TRC. Most alarming was the number of “A” defects identified during the August 2015

inspection. “A” category defects are serious safety defects that should render a bus out of service until

repaired. There were a total of 120 “A” category defects, an average of 2.9 per bus. Of the 42 buses

inspected, 40 of them had at least one “A” defect, leaving only two of the Van Hool buses on property

at time of inspection fit for operation.

Based on the August 2015 findings, TRC conducted a follow-up fleet inspection in January 2016 to

determine if improvements were made to the fleet and whether First Transit had taken positive steps to

revise its preventive maintenance program. This report presents the finding of the second evaluation. It

consisted of inspecting 22 buses that included a mix of Van Hool buses as well as the 2014 New Flyer

buses. Five buses also had vital fluids tested as an additional maintenance performance indicator.

As part of this audit, the records of 11 buses selected at random were reviewed todetermine if:

Preventive maintenance (PM) inspections are being performed at prescribed intervals;

Mechanics are properly documenting defects found during the PM inspections and a

documented process exists to get those defects repaired;

Refrigerant-related conditioning repairs are being made by EPA certified mechanics;

Mechanics have Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) certifications as proof of their

competency;


5/29


Sufficient training is provided to mechanics; and

Whether the fluids analysis program is being administered properly.

For the two DDOT buses unavailable for service for an extended period of time, TRC conducted a walk-

around inspection of those buses to note condition. TRC also reviewed bus records for all buses

currently unavailable for a physical inspection to determine why buses are down, when they are

expected back in service, and what it will take to get them to resume service.

Summary

This report section captures the most significant aspects of the audit findings beginning with a summary

of defects identified as part of the bus inspection. Table 1 below presents those defects categorized by:

All buses inspected

2003/2004 Van Hool buses

2009 Van Hool buses owned by DDOT 2009 Van Hool buses owned by First Transit

2014 New Flyer buses

Table 1 - All Defects January 2016 Bus Inspection

Category

All Buses

Inspected

03/04

Van Hool

09 Van Hool

Owned by

DDOT

09 Van Hool

Owned by FT

2014

New

Flyer

Number of Buses Inspected 22 7 4 6 5

Total Number of Defects 201 88 42 50 21

Average # of Defects per Bus 9.1 12.6 10.5 8.3 4.2 Total Number of Safety Critical “A” Defects 11 6 3 2 0

Average # of “A” Defects per Bus 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.0

As indicated in Table 1, the 22 buses inspected had an average of 9.1 defects per bus. The 2003/04 Van

Hool buses had the highest average number of defects per bus at 12.6, compared to only 4.2 defects

per bus for the 2014 New Flyer buses, the newest of the fleet no more than a year old. The 2009 Van

Hool buses owned by First Transit had an average of 8.3 defects per bus, compared to an average of

10.5 defects per bus for the other sub fleet of 2009 Van Hool buses.

Whereas Table 1 identifies defects from the most current audit, Tables 2 and 3 which follow compare

defects from the last two inspections, first in Table 2 for all buses and then in Table 3 for the two sub

fleets common to both inspections: 2003/04 Van Hool and 2009 Van Hool.


6/29


Table 2 - Defect Comparison All Buses August 2015 & January 2016

August 2015

All Buses

January 2016

All Buses

Number of Buses Inspected 42 22

Average # of Defects per Bus 22.0 9.1

Average # of “A” Defects per Bus 2.9 0.5

As noted in Table 2, the average number of defects per bus for all buses inspected fell by nearly 60%,

9.1 for this audit compared to an average of 22 defects per bus last audit. Safety-critical “A” defects

were reduced even further, an average of 0.5 defects per bus compared to nearly three per bus the

previous audit, an 83% reduction. It is obvious that significant steps were taken in the past four months

to improve fleet condition. The improved performance can be attributed to the new management put

in place by First Transit since the last audit and the dedication of that team to improve maintenance

operations and overall fleet condition. However, although the improvements could be considered

impressive, a closer look at the day to day operations records reveals that an average of 15-20 buses are

consistently down on any given day for repairs. This number of buses down and unavailable for service,

regardless of improvements on the audited fleet, still highlights needs for additional improvements to

the fleet conditions.

When making an appropriate comparison between the two audits, it must be noted that the January

2016 audit included five 2014 New Flyer Buses whereas the August 2014 inspection did not. Newer

buses typically have fewer defects when compared to older buses. Table 3 which follows compares the

average number of defects for both sub fleets of Van Hool buses, which provides a more accurate

assessment of the improvements made during the last five months. For these comparisons, the six 2009

Van Hool buses owned by First Transit are grouped together with the other sub fleet of 2009 Van Hool

buses.

Table 3 - Defect Comparison Van Hool Buses August 2015 & January 2016

August 2015

03/04 Van Hool

January 2016

03/04 Van Hool

August 2015

09 Van Hool

January 2016

09 Van Hool

Number of Buses Inspected 22 7 20 10

Average # of Defects per Bus 26.8 12.6 16.7 9.2

Average # of “A” Defects per Bus 3.7 0.9 1.9 0.5

As indicated in Table 3, both sub fleets of Van Hool buses experienced a reduction of defects, an

average 12.6 per bus for the 2003/04 Van Hool sub fleet for this audit to more than double (26.8) last

audit. For the 2009 Van Hools, an average 9.2 defects per bus was experienced this audit compared to

nearly 17 per bus last audit. The reduction of defects, especially with regard to “A” defects, represents a

substantial improvement from the August audit.


7/29


Other aspects of the audit revealed:

The workshop is significantly cleaner and better organized. Space previously used for storage is

now in the process of being converted to an additional work bay, which is greatly needed and

will help improve productivity.

The spare parts room has been completely reorganized with new shelving and a more complete

inventory of spare parts needed to facilitate repairs.

The organization of maintenance records has improved but yet continues to lack sufficient

detail such as a listing of defects that exist on the bus at time of inspection and a description of

when and how the defects from that inspection were repaired.

Whereas the last audit had seven categories with more than one defect per bus on average,

this audit only had three such categories: exterior body condition, engine/engine

compartment, and driver’s controls.

All refrigerant-related air conditioning (AC) repairs examined were performed by EPA certified

personnel as required by federal regulation. Efforts are underway to increase AC training by

bringing in First Transit instructors in an effort to increase the number of mechanics with EPAcertification.

In addition to increasing the number of EPA certified mechanics needed to perform air

conditioning repairs, First Transit appears committed to escalate training to increase the

number of mechanics with ASE (Automotive Service Excellence) certifications. Related to the

bullet above, those mechanics that pass ASE AC testing also receive EPA certification as a result.

Although obvious that an organized campaign was put into place to reduce bus defects, there

continues to be lack of documentation indicating that defects are being repaired as a result of

the PM inspection process. Steps are being taken to correct this by providing mechanics with

instruction on how to properly conduct PM inspections and improving the PM documentation

process by instructing mechanics to note how defects were repaired including an accounting of

their time and parts used.

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

intervals revealed that nine of 11 buses (82%) were done on time compared to 11 of the 12

buses (92%) last audit. Steps are needed to improve this key performance indicator.

Testing results of 15 vital fluid samples taken by TRC revealed abnormalities consistent with

providing an early warning of possible impeding damage, not maintenance neglect.

Little if any changes were made to First Transit’s own fluid analysis program. It does not appear

that fluid samples are being taken and analyzed.

During the time TRC made its review, 30% of the total fleet of 67 buses was down for repair,

leaving 47 buses available to meet a peak demand of 48 buses, which highlights the need for

continued maintenance improvements to meet daily service requirements. Having 30% of the

fleet down for repairs is unacceptable by any standard; FTA only allows a spare ratio of 20%.

Inspection of the two 2003/04 Van Hool buses that have been out of service since March and

May of 2015 revealed they will not be available to resume service until June/July of this year

because of needed bodywork and engine repairs.


8/29


13 defects were contested; all of which were removed from the defect totals because they

were incorrectly identified by TRC based on follow-up information provided by WMATA.

While there was obvious progress, additional effort is needed to reduce the number of bus

defects and buses down for repair, improve the preventive maintenance function such that

defects are repaired on a regular basis as opposed to targeted campaigns, a record-keeping

system is put in place to systematically document defect repairs, and mechanics receive the

training and certification they need to effectively and efficiently maintain fleet condition.

Recommendations for First Transit include:

Continue efforts to reduce defects by improving the preventive maintenance program to improve

bus availability and customer satisfaction;

Once the dedicated campaign to repair defects is over, make certain that mechanics and

operators are identifying defects as part of regular inspections, that a process exists to repair

those defects, and that all noted defects are documented from identification to repair;

Revamp the fluid analysis program and related record keeping system to make certain theprogram is being used as an early detection of possible engine and transmission failure;

Take corrective action to buses 1120 and 1144 based on the fluid analysis findings;

Improve the on-time performance of PM inspection intervals;

Take steps to reduce the number of buses down for repairs from 30% to 25% by the next audit in

May;

Initiate a comprehensive training program to instruct mechanics and bus operators to properly

identify and report defects as part of their inspection responsibilities;

Increase the number of mechanics certified to perform air conditioning repairs;

Continue efforts to train mechanics and prepare them for ASE certification; and Follow through with plans to hire an additional two or three mechanics.

Recommendations for WMATA include:

Improve its oversight function of First Transit by becoming familiar with and following up on all

recommendations listed above. Making First Transit aware that its performance is being

monitored and providing them with a scorecard on a continual basis will help insure progress at

an accelerated pace.

WMATA oversight functions should include:

-

A more thorough inspection of defects that exist on buses using those identified by TRC as a

checklist to confirm that they have in fact been repaired;

-

Checks of daily operator reports, PM inspection sheets and work orders to determine if they

are more descriptive and complete, and that follow-up repairs are being made;

-

Checks of the fluid analysis program to determine if records are properly filed and

abnormalities recommended by the lab are acted upon;


9/29


-

Monitoring of training provided to mechanics and resulting ASE certifications;

-

Monitoring of spare parts inventory control and parts ordering process;

-

More rigorous monitoring of down buses to determine why these buses are inoperable and

to make certain steps are being taken by First Transit to improve bus availability; and

-

Determine whether two or three additional mechanics have been added to staff and

continually monitor the mechanic-to-bus ratio.

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

throughout this report are based on more complete data contained in Excel spreadsheets included on a

separate CD.

Work Approach

A team of three bus inspectors was assigned to physically inspect the buses, conduct road tests, and

draw oil samples. The Project Manager organized the overall inspection process, performed the Recordsand Fluids Analysis Audit and prepared the final report.

List of Buses & Records Inspected

TRC selected 22 buses at random from the entire DDOT fleet for a physical fleet inspection. Table 4

which follows shows the 22 buses inspected along with the 11 buses selected at random for a Records

Audit, and the five buses selected for the Fluids Analysis. A listing of buses on- and off -property that

were not available for inspection and the reasons why is shown in Table 9.

Table 4 - Buses Inspected

Fleet Inspection

Records (R) &

Fluids Analysis (FA)

2003/2004 Van Hool

1101

1106 1106 (R & FA)

1110

1116

1120 1120 (R & FA)

1122

1125 1125 (R)

Subtotal 2003/2004: 7 2009 DDOT Van Hool

1131 1131 (R)

1135

1138

1141 1141 (R & FA)

Subtotal 2009: 4

2009 Van Hool

Owned by First Transit


10/29


Fleet Inspection

Records (R) &

Fluids Analysis (FA)

1144 1144 (R & FA)

1145

1146 1146 (R)

1147

1148 1148 (R) 1149

Subtotal 2009 Owned by FT: 6

2014 New Flyer

2004 2004 (R)

2008

2013 2013 (R & FA)

2014

2018 2018 (R)

Subtotal 2014 New Flyer: 5

TOTAL: 22

TOTAL:

11 Records

5 Fluids Analysis

Analysis of Bus Inspections

Evaluation Methodology

Specific defects noted during the bus inspections were classified under 18 functional categories:

1)

Accessibility Features

2)

Air System/Brake System

3)

Climate Control

4)

Destination Signs

5)

Differential

6)

Driver's Controls

7)

Electrical System

8)

Engine Compartment

9)

Exhaust

10)

Exterior Body Condition

11)

Interior Condition

12)

Lights

13)

Passenger Controls

14)

Safety Equipment

15)

Structure/Chassis/Fuel Tank

16)

Suspension/Steering


11/29


17)

Tires

18)

Transmission

An “A/B” designation system was used to denote safety related defects requiring immediate repair from

those that could be repaired at a later time.

A – Indicates a safety critical defect that when identified during a regularly scheduled PMI

requires immediate repair and would keep the vehicle from returning to revenue service

until the defect is corrected.

B – Indicates a non-critical defect, the repair of which could be deferred to a later time,

preferably before the next scheduled PMI.

“A” category defects were agreed upon by First Transit prior to conducting the evaluation. A copy of the

“A” defects used for the bus inspections is attached as Appendix B. TRC informed First Transit

management of “A” category defects immediately after they were identified. First Transit agreed to repair

“A” defects before the bus would be placed back into service. First Transit was also given an opportunity

to contest defects as soon as they were brought to their attention. (Contested defects are shown at the

end of the report).

A third “BR” classification was used during the previous audit to note those “B” defects that were

“R”eported to First Transit upon being identified because TRC considered them to have safety

implications. Although TRC inspectors continued to inform First Transit of any defect it thought had even

the most remote safety implication, the “BR” classification has been removed from this and subsequent

audits because the classification was never intended as a performance indicator.

TRC shared the entire list of preliminary defects found during each day’s inspections with First Transit

management with the understanding that all defects would be reviewed by TRC and may change based

on that review. The sharing of defects is intended to keep First Transit informed of TRC’s findings as part

of a cooperative and objective evaluation process. TRC inspectors also worked with First Transit personnel

to confirm operation of certain controls in advance of the inspections to ensure defects were legitimate

and not the result of the inspectors not being familiar with specific bus equipment.

Overall Bus Condition

As indicated in Tables 1 and 2 above, the average number of defects for all buses inspected fell

significantly to 9.1 defects per bus compared to 22 last audit. The average, however, can be skewed by

the five newer 2014 New Flyer added to the mix, buses that were not included in the last audit. Buses

that are only a few years old should have fewer defects. When the five 2014 New Flyer buses are

removed from the total, leaving a comparison of only the Van Hool fleet, the number of defects per bus


12/29


averages 10.6, which is still more than a 50% reduction in defects since August. The drop in defects

certainly is a step in the right direction given the timeframe between audits.

The number of “A” defects, those based on state and federal requirements that would cause a vehicle

to be taken out of service until repaired, also experienced a significant drop. “A” defects fell from an

average of 2.9 per bus last audit to 0.5 per bus this audit, a more than 80% reduction in this critical

defect category. Despite the improvement, however, one in every two buses inspected was operating

with an “A” defect.

Although the number of defects found on the DDOT fleet is much improved, there is room for

continued progress. Using the Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA), Albany, New York, as an

appropriate example where the same TRC inspection crew is used, inspections there typically yield an

average of about five defects per bus and an average of one “A” defect for nearly 3 buses inspected

(0.3). A short-term goal should be to match the performance of CDTA, with a long term goal of matching

PRTC where inspections average about three defects per bus and one “A” defect for nearly 13 busesinspected (0.08).

Defect Spreadsheets

All defects identified during the inspections were entered in a database, which was used to generate a

series of detailed Excel reports. The following Excel spreadsheets produced by TRC for DDOT are

included as a CD attachment to this report:

Defect Summary – All Buses

Defect Summary – 2003/2004 Van Hool Buses

Defect Summary – 2009 Van Hool Buses Combined Defect Summary – 2009 DDOT Van Hool Buses

Defect Summary – 2009 Van Hool Buses Owned by First Transit

Defect Summary – 2014 New Flyer

Static Defects – All Buses

Defects by Category – All Buses

“A” Defects – All Buses

“B” Defects – All Buses

Defects by Category – 2003/2004 Van Hool Buses

Defects by Category - 2009 Van Hool Buses Combined

Defects by Category – 2009 DDOT Van Hool Buses

Defects by Category- 2009 Van Hool Owned by First Transit

Defects by Category – 2014 New Flyer Buses

Total Buses Inspected


13/29


Analysis of Bus Defects

As indicated above, all defects identified were categorized under 18 specific bus areas. Tables 5 and 6

summarize all bus defects under each of the 18 functional categories. The two tables further categorize

defects under the three sub fleets. Table 5 shows the total number of defects, while Table 6 shows a

number of average defects per bus in each of the 18 bus areas where averages of more than one per

bus are highlighted in red.

Table 5 - Total Number of Defects by Bus Category

Defects by Bus Category

(Total Number of Fleet Defects)

Defect Category All Buses

2003/04 Model

Year Van Hool

2009 Model Year

Van Hool

2014 Model Year

New Flyer

Exterior Body Condition 60 23 37 0

Engine/Engine Compartment 44 20 16 8

Safety Equipment 14 5 7 2Driver’s Controls 33 17 13 3

Interior Condition 12 6 5 1

Lights 7 3 0 1

Accessibility Features 7 3 0 1

Suspension/Steering 5 1 4 0

Passenger Controls 9 4 3 2

Structure/Chassis/Fuel Tank 4 4 0 0

Exhaust 0 0 0 0

Air System/Brake System 2 2 0 0

Climate Control 0 0 0 0

Electrical System 1 0 1 0

Transmission 3 0 0 3Tires 0 0 0 0

Destination Signs 0 0 0 0

Differential 0 0 0 0

Defect Totals: 201 88 92 21

Buses Inspected: 22 7 10 5


14/29


Table 6 - Average # of Defects by Bus Category

Defects by Bus Category

(Total Number of Average Defects per Bus)

Defect Category All Buses

2003/04 Model

Year Van Hool

2009 Model Year

Van Hool

2014 Model Year

New Flyer

Exterior Body Condition 2.7 3.3 3.7 0Engine/Engine Compartment 2.0 2.9 1.6 1.6

Safety Equipment 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.4

Driver’s Controls 1.5 2.4 1.3 0.6

Interior Condition 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.2

Lights 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2

Accessibility Features 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2

Suspension/Steering 0.2 0.1 0.4 0

Passenger Controls 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4

Structure/Chassis/Fuel Tank 0.2 0.6 0 0

Exhaust 0 0 0 0

Air System/Brake System 0.1 0.3 0 0

Climate Control 0 0 0 0Electrical System 0.1 0 0.1 0

Transmission 0.1 0 0 0.6

Tires 0 0 0 0

Destination Signs 0 0 0 0

Differential 0 0 0 0

Average Defects per Bus: 9.1 12.6 9.2 4.2

Buses Inspected: 22 7 10 5

As noted in Tables 5 and 6, exterior body condition ranks highest with an average of 2.7 defects per bus

for all buses inspected compared to nearly 6 per bus last audit. Categories with an average of over one

defect per bus include Exterior Body Condition, Driver’s Controls, and Engine/Engine Compartment.

Categories with no defects found for any of the buses inspected include Exhaust, Climate Control, Tires,

Destination Signs, and Differential.

Table 7 compares the average number of defects in each of the 18 bus categories for the last two audits.

The defect categories are presented in descending order beginning with those with the highest per-bus

defect averages from the August 2015 audit. Doing so provides a clear comparison of defects between the

two audits and highlights the improvements in specific bus areas. Those areas with an average of more

than one defect per bus are highlighted in red.

Table 7 - Defect Comparisons

Defect Category August 2015 January 2016 Exterior Body Condition 5.8 2.7 Engine/Engine Compartment 2.9 2.0 Safety Equipment 2.9 0.6 Driver’s Controls 2.7 1.5


15/29


Defect Category August 2015 January 2016 Interior Condition 2.4 0.5 Lights 1.5 0.3 Accessibility Features 1.2 0.3 Suspension/Steering 0.6 0.2 Passenger Controls 0.5 0.4 Structure/Chassis/Fuel Tank 0.3 0.2 Exhaust 0.3 0 Air System/Brake System 0.2 0.1 Climate Control 0.2 0 Electrical System 0.1 0.1 Transmission 0.1 0.1 Tires 0.1 0 Destination Signs 0.1 0 Differential 0.02 0 Defect Total: 924 201 Buses Inspected: 42 22 Average Defects per Bus: 22.0 9.1

As shown in Table 7, there were seven bus areas in August 2015 with an average of more than one defect

per bus, compared to only three categories four months later in January. The most impressive reductions

were found in Safety Equipment, Lights, and Interior Condition categories where defects were reduced

fivefold. Accessibility Features were reduced four fold, while Exterior Body and Driver’s Controls were cut

in half.

“A” Defect Analysis

As indicated earlier, “A” defects are those that require immediate repair as acknowledged by First Transit.

Whereas last audit revealed nearly three “A” defects per bus, this audit averaged 0.5 (one for every two

buses inspected), more than an 80% reduction. It is obvious that First Transit’s maintenance program has

been improved in these past four months. The reduction in “A” defects for this audit is remarkable.

However, it is not certain if the intensive campaign to repair these critical defects can translate into a

sustainable program where defects are identified and repaired as part of the standard PM process. To

date First Transit has not provided WMATA with a preventative maintenance program plan specific to the

DC Circulator.

Table 8 which follows compares the number of “A” defects from the last two audits classified under each

of the 18 bus areas. “A” defects were found in five of the 18 bus categories compared to 10 bus

categories last audit. The most significant reductions came in Safety Equipment, Accessibility Features,

and Air System/Brake System areas that have significant safety potential. Again, those areas with an

average of more than one “A” defect per bus are highlighted in red (none for this audit).


16/29


Table 8 - Comparison of "A" Defects by Bus Category

A” Defects by Bus Category

(Total Number of Defects/Average per Bus)

Defect Category

“A” Defects

August 2015

“A” Defects

January 2016

Safety Equipment 73/1.74 6/0.27Accessibility Features 27/0.64 2/0.09

Air System/Brake System 6/0.14 1/0.05

Tires 4/0.09 0

Driver’s Controls 3/0.07 0

Interior Condition 3/0.07 0

Structure/Chassis/Fuel Tank 1/0.02 0

Exhaust 1/0.02 0

Lights 1/0.02 1/0.05

Electrical System 1/0.02 0

Exterior Body Condition 0 0

Engine/Engine Compartment 0 1/0.05

Suspension/Steering 0 0Passenger Controls 0 0

Climate Control 0 0

Transmission 0 0

Destination Signs 0 0

Differential 0 0

“A” Defect Total: 120 11

Buses Inspected: 42 22

Average “A” Defects per Bus: 2.9 0.5

Analysis of 2009 Van Hool Buses Owned by First Transit

TRC was asked to conduct a separate analysis of six 2009 Van Hool buses owned by First Transit. Table 9

which follows compares the defects between those buses and a sampling of the other 2009 Van Hool

buses. Those areas with an average of more than one “A” defect per bus are highlighted in red.

Table 9 - Comparison 0f 2009 Van Hool Buses Leased by First Transit

Analysis of 2009 Van Hool Buses Leased by First Transit


Defect Category

2009 Van Hool Buses


2009 Van Hool Buses

Owned by DDOT Exterior Body Condition 22/3.7 15/3.7 Engine/Engine Compartment 11/1.8 5/1.2 Safety Equipment 3/0.5 4/1.0 Driver’s Controls 3/0.5 10/2.5 Interior Condition 3/0.5 2/0.5Lights 1/0.2 2/0.5

Accessibility Features 0 3/0.7


17/29


Analysis of 2009 Van Hool Buses Leased by First Transit


Defect Category 2009 Van Hool Buses


2009 Van Hool Buses

Owned by DDOT Suspension/Steering 4/0.7 0

Passenger Controls 2/0.3 1/0.2

Structure/Chassis/Fuel Tank 0 0Exhaust 0 0Air System/Brake System 0 0Climate Control 0 0Electrical System 1/0.2 0Transmission 0 0Tires 0 0Destination Signs 0 0Differential 0 0Defect Total: 50 42 Buses Inspected: 6 4 Average Defects per Bus: 8.3 10.5

When compared to the six 2009 Van Hool buses owned by the DDOT, where an average of 10.5 defects

per bus were found, the same buses owned by First Transit had an average of 8.3 defects per bus. Based

on the small sample size, it is difficult to determine from the results whether one group of buses is being

maintained any differently than the other. The 20% difference in the number of defects between the two

sub fleets could easily occur when comparing a different mix of buses within the same sub fleet. The

average number of exterior body defects was identical at 3.7 for the two sub fleets. However, Safety

Equipment and Driver’s Controls are two areas where defects were substantially higher on buses owned

by DDOT. Despite the differences, the results do not substantiate a finding that one sub fleet is being

maintained better or worse than the other.

Analysis of Buses Not Available for Service

TRC reviewed all buses currently not available for service as part of this evaluation. The buses are

reviewed in three categories:

1.

Buses that have been down for an extended period of time;

2.

Buses on-property and temporarily out of service; and

3.

Buses off -property and temporarily out of service.

Each bus was reviewed to determine why it was down and when it was expected to resume service.

Buses that have been down for an extended period were also given a walk-around inspection to assess

their general condition.

Two buses that have been down for an extended period, #1102 and #1104, are 2003/2004 Van Hools.

Bus 1102 has been out of service since May 2015, while Bus 1104 has been inactive since March 2015.

Both are out of service primarily because of engines. With about 225,000 miles each, they are in need of

rebuild. A backlog of work by the local Cummins dealer indicates that engine work cannot be completed

until May 2016. The need to then repair body damage and replace missing parts will keep the buses


18/29


unavailable for service until June/July 2016. Table 10 which follows reviews Buses That Have Been Down

for an Extended Period by providing their general condition as revealed by the walk-around inspection.

Table 10 - Buses Down for an Extended Period

Bus General Condition

Estimated Timetable

for Return to Service #1102

03/04 Van Hool

Poor overall general appearance, tired paint and worn graphics

Various body damage

Extensive body damage right-middle and left-rear

Moisture and dirt trapped between side glass and vandal shield,

giving windows a dirty appearance

Cats sleeping in bus, hair on seats, needs cleaning

Missing farebox

Missing front camera

June/July 2016

#1104

03/04 Van Hool

Poor overall general appearance, tired paint and worn graphics

Various body damage

Moisture and dirt trapped between side glass and vandal shield,

giving windows a dirty appearance

Cats sleeping in bus, hair on seats, needs cleaning

Missing grill panel, left-side top

Missing farebox

Tape on rear window left over from glass replacement

Missing right-front headlamp

Missing rear seat cushion

Water leak, left-side center

Gap in center door, needs adjustment (probable cause of water

leak)

June/July 2016

As of Monday, January 11, a total of eighteen (18) buses were either on- or off -property in need of repair.

Add in the two buses already down for an extended period (1103 and 1104) and the total jumps to 20. To

meet weekday peak service requirements, 48 buses are needed. On this day, 30% of the total fleet of 67

buses was down for repair, leaving 47 buses available to meet a peak demand of 48 buses. Because three

of the buses are operational and only need defroster blower motors, currently on order from New Flyer,

they were temporarily put in service to barely meet peak demand.

A two-month review reveals a similar number of down buses. According to WMATA’s daily monitoring for

the period December 2015 thru January 2016, 13-16 buses were consistently down on a given day in

December for mechanical reasons. That number rises to 17-20 buses in January, most likely due to the

onset of winter.

The review of down buses highlights the need for continued improvements to meet daily service

requirements, especially when the spare ratio is already close to 30% when compared to peak weekdaydemand. In addition to its daily monitoring of down buses, it is recommended that WMATA follow up with

First Transit to make certain steps are being taken to improve bus availability.

Table 11 which follows shows buses on- and off -property currently out of service as of January 11, the

reason why they are out of service, and the date they are expected to resume service. While some may

argue that Van Hool’s unique mid-ship engine placement, European design, and off -shoring sourcing of

spare parts justifies a larger spare ratio, it is interesting to note from Tables 10 and 11 that only one of the


19/29


20 buses not available for service (#1111) can be attributed to a specific Van Hool defect. The remaining

deficiencies are related to body damage and made-in-the-USA Cummins engine problems.


20/29


Table 11 - Buses on Property & Currently Out of Service as of 1/11/16

Bus

Number Reason Why Buses Out of Service

Date Expected

Back in Service

Buses Currently Off Property for Repair

1132 At body shop January 13 or 141123 At Cummins engine distributor awaiting engine repair May 1

1128 At Cummins engine distributor awaiting engine repair May 1

1142 At Cummins engine distributor awaiting transmission repair January 12

1132 At body shop January 14




Total buses currently off property for repair: 8

Buses currently on property for repair

2010 Awaiting Cummins representative to make engine repair Possibly by January 15


1140 Awaiting various unscheduled maintenance repairs January 12

2005 Awaiting Cummins representative to make engine repair Possibly by January 152016 Awaiting Cummins representative to make engine repair Possibly by January 15


2007 Awaiting defroster blower motor from New Flyer Unknown



1111 Awaiting unscheduled maintenance repair of middle door

malfunction, awaiting part

Unknown

Total buses currently on property for repair: 10

Total buses currently on and off property for repair: 18*

* Does not include the two buses already down for an extended period, which brings the total to 20 buses in need of

repair.

Analysis of Records Review and Fluids Analysis

Methodology

Eleven buses were selected at random by TRC for the Records and Fluids Analysis Audits. The records

examination set out to determine if:

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

Repairs had been performed properly and made promptly;

Qualified mechanics performed refrigerant-related air conditioning maintenance tasks

by virtue of documented training certification (a federal requirement);

Mechanics are certified through the Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) program and

receive regular training; and

The fluids analysis program is being administered properly.


21/29


PM Intervals

To determine if preventive maintenance inspections (PMIs) were performed correctly and on time, TRC

examined the PMI records of the 11 buses selected at random. Mileage between the last two PMIs was

calculated to determine if the inspections were performed on time (within 10% or 600 miles of the

scheduled 6,000-mile interval).

Repairs

To determine if repairs were performed properly and made promptly, two audit procedures were used:

1)

PMI sheets going back three PMIs were examined for each of the 11 buses selected at

random to determine if and when defects noted during the PMI process were repaired.

2)

Defects from the previous PMIs were then compared to determine if any defects were

repeated from one PMI to the next.

From this comparison TRC could determine if defects were repaired or if they were simply noted on

subsequent inspections.

Mechanic Qualification

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

certification, TRC selected five air conditioning (AC) repairs at random from work orders.

TRC examined AC-related work orders to identify a) the nature of the repair, and b) the mechanics

performing the actual work. TRC then asked to see the appropriate AC certification card for the mechanicperforming the repair to determine if they are certified to perform the tasks.

TRC also inquired about the number of mechanics with ASE certifications. ASE is a nationally recognized

program that verifies mechanic competence through testing and certification. A review was also made of

the training provided to mechanics since the last audit.

Fluids Analysis Management

To determine if the fluids analysis program is being administered properly by First Transit, TRC examined

the oil analysis records (engine oil and transmission fluid only -- First Transit does not sample coolant) for

each of the 11 buses selected at random for the Records Inspection. TRC noted if the fluid analysis was

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

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

other maintenance providers routinely use fluid analysis to provide an early indication of impending

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

looked for evidence that First Transit is making use of the fluids analysis results (e.g., acting on

recommendations made by the lab).


22/29


TRC also drew engine oil, transmission fluid, and coolant samples from five buses selected at random and

reviewed those results (15 samples total). In reviewing the results, TRC looked for evidence of

inappropriate levels of deterioration resulting from improper maintenance.

PMI Schedule Adherence

The records review revealed that 9 of the 11 buses (82%) had their PM inspections done on time compared

to 92% last audit. For one bus, 1106, the 6,000 mile inspection was past due by 4,813 miles. The other was

past due by 1,680 miles. PMI intervals are considered “on time” if performed on or before 6,600 miles

(“late window” of 10% or 600 miles). For reference, FTA requires that 80% of PM inspections be done on

time using the 10% window. First Transit has moved to an electronic information system, and records were

easy to access. Table 12 which follows shows the PMI intervals for each of the 11 buses selected at

random.

Table 12 - PMI Schedule Adherence

Bus # PMI Mileage Intervals Notes

2009 Model Year Van Hool

1144 5,397 On time

1146 6,443 On time

1148 6,075 On time

1131 5,569 On time

1141 7,680 Late

2003/2004 Model Year Van Hool

1106 10,813 Late

1120 5,664 On time

1125 6,209 On time

2014 Model Year New Flyer

2004 6,215 On time

2013 5,308 On time

2018 6,247 On time

Performing PM inspections on time is important because it ensures that vital fluids are replenished on a

regular basis, which extends the life of major components. Conducting inspections on time also provides

a regular opportunity for mechanics to note defects and to make repairs in a timely fashion. It is

recommended that steps be taken to perform PM inspections 100% on time.

Repair of Defects Identified During PMIs

TRC reviewed the last three PMI files for all 11 buses chosen at random to determine if repairs were

performed properly and made promptly. During the last audit conducted in August, TRC noted that PMI

files did not contain the level of detail needed to make these determinations even though work orders


23/29


have provisions on them to allow mechanics to make such notions. For this audit, TRC found little

change. It continues to be extremely difficult to determine why a particular repair was made. It appears

that mechanics continue to simply “check off” each inspection item as being satisfactory with little or no

notations made regarding any of the defects existing on the buses. A more complete PMI document is

one where all defects noted during the inspection are clearly identified. Using TRC’s inspection of bus

1145 as an example, the PM inspection sheet would include the following defects:

-

Oil pan leaking

-

Front crankshaft seal leaking

-

Secondary solenoid wires not connected

-

Panel, curbside below fuel door damaged

-

Passenger chime signal behind modesty panel inoperative

-

Automatic release for front and rear escape hatch inoperative.

Using First Transit’s new paperless shop initiative, notations would be made as to whether each defect

was corrected during the PM inspection or scheduled for repair at a later time. In each case, time andparts needed to facilitate each repair would be recorded. Currently, there is little evidence of this

documentation. WMATA in its oversight function should continually check PM inspection sheets to make

certain defects are being identified and a follow-up process exists to track each repair.

Although the number of defects has been substantially reduced since the last audit, the progress appears

to be the result of a targeted campaign rather than a systematic improvement in the preventive

maintenance program. However, interviews with First Transit management make it clear that they are

committed to implementing more effective preventive maintenance as an ongoing process to improve

fleet condition. Time will reveal whether this is the case.

TRC continues to recommend that First Transit initiate a comprehensive training program to instruct

mechanics how to properly perform a preventive maintenance inspection. The same applies to daily pre-

trip inspections required of bus drivers.

Mechanic Training & Certification

TRC set out to determine if qualified mechanics are following federal requirements by performing air

conditioning (AC) maintenance tasks by virtue of documented certification required by the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA). To confirm First Transit’s adherence to this requirement, five refrigerant-related

AC repairs were selected at random. Table 13 which follows lists the five AC repairs examined and the

mechanics who conducted the repairs.

Table 13 - A/C Repairs by Certified Mechanics

Bus # Date HVAC Repair Mechanic

1131 9/15/15 AC weak. Add refrigerant. Blake

1109 9/16/15 AC not cooling. Add refrigerant. Blake


24/29


Bus # Date HVAC Repair Mechanic

1134 9/21/15 Low AC. Recover and replace refrigerant. Blake

1106 9/21/15 Replace condenser fan motor. Blake

1129 9/21/15 Replace blower motor. Gonzalez

TRC then asked First Transit to provide an EPA certification card for each of the mechanics who performed

the AC repairs. An AC card was provided for Blake. Although Mr. Gonzales could not provide proof of EPA

required certification, the work performed did not involve the handling of refrigerant. Although this

review found AC repairs that involved the handling of refrigerant were all performed by an EPA certified

mechanic, there is an acute shortage of EPA certified mechanics. First Transit is in the process of providing

training to increase the number of these mechanics; TRC recommends this be monitored.

Regarding training, it became obvious during the interviews that the new management at First Transit

recognizes the deficiency and is taking steps to improve mechanic proficiency. Although there are no

federal requirements for mechanic skills, Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) is a nationally recognized

voluntary program that verifies mechanic competency through testing and certification. First Transit isproviding access codes to mechanics, which will allow them to study and then take ASE tests to achieve

certification. Mechanics are now able to go online and prepare for ASE training. First Transit management

is also able to go online to review the time spent by each mechanic preparing for ASE certification and

their progress.

A trainer from First Transit’s headquarters has already provided training for PM inspections, brakes,

farebox, air conditioning, I-Pad training needed for its paperless shop initiative, and destination sign

training, much of it directed to achieving ASE certification. Additional training is being planned. First

Transit’s intent is to have their shop ASE Blue Seal certified, a program where the majority of mechanics

are ASE certified and other requirements are met.

During the last audit TRC calculated the ratio of buses to mechanics 8.4:1 (67 buses divided by 8

mechanics). That ratio remains the same despite the addition of one new mechanic who replaced

another. Although national standards do not exist because of the many variations among transit agencies,

the number of mechanics appears to be low given the duty cycle and operating conditions of DDOT buses.

First Transit recognizes this and is planning to add another two or three mechanics to its staff, which is

recommended to yield a more favorable mechanic/bus ratio. Although there is no scientific way to

calculate the effect additional mechanics should have on fleet condition, the addition of two mechanics, a

25% increase, should in theory lead to a 25% reduction in defects from a current average of 9.1 for allbuses inspected down to 6.8 per bus. Additional mechanic training should then bring the average down to

around five defects per bus to match CDTA’s performance.


25/29


Management of Fluid Analysis Program

As part of its maintenance program, First Transit takes engine oil and transmission fluid samples at each

PM inspection and sends those fluid samples to a laboratory for testing and evaluation to determine if

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

common as a way of providing early warning of any engine or transmission problems before they can

escalate. During its evaluation, TRC set out to determine if:

a)

Fluid samples were taken at each PMI;

b)

Fluid records were filed and could be easily accessed; and

c)

First Transit is making use of the fluids analysis results as part of its maintenance program.

Last audit, TRC was not able to make the necessary determinations because fluid analysis reports for each

bus examined were not filed by bus number, and instead haphazardly existed in one large file.

For this audit, fluid analysis record keeping was virtually unchanged. The clerk who had the responsibility

for maintaining these files was fired since the last audit and the replacement has not yet been found.

Based on the deficient recordkeeping, it could not be determined if fluid samples are taken at the

appropriate intervals or if First Transit is using the fluid analysis program to provide early warnings of

potential engine and transmission-related failures. It is recommended that First Transit rectify this

deficiency and begin using the fluid analysis program as intended. It is also recommended that WMATA

include the monitoring of First Transit’s fluid analysis program as an essential oversight role. A complete

list of steps that should be taken by WMATA to improve its oversight function of First Transit is included in

the Summary. On a positive note, First Transit does conduct an analysis of the bulk oil it purchases to

make certain specifications are met. This is a noteworthy activity.

TRC drew engine, transmission, and coolant fluid samples from five buses selected at random (15

samples) to provide another level of fluid condition verification. The results from TRC’s lab are shown

below. The two lab recommendations highlighted in bold require separate steps be taken, steps that

should be verified by WMATA as part of its oversight role. TRC will review whether action was taken as

part of its next audit.

Engine Oil:

All five (5) engine oil samples taken were found normal.

Transmission:

Of the five transmission samples taken, there was only one abnormality.

1120 – Caution: Increase in Copper level noted. Silicon level (dirt/sealant material) satisfactory. Water

content acceptable. Viscosity within specified operating range. Action: Resample at a reduced service

interval to further monitor.


26/29


Coolant

Of the five transmission samples taken, there was only one abnormality.

1144 – Abnormal: pH level is normal. Glycol level is normal. Nitrites are low . Recommend adding SCA-

{Coolant concentrate} as per manufacturer’s recommendations to raise inhibitor level . Re-sample atnormal recommended interval.

Based on the findings, there is no evidence to suggest that First Transit is neglecting maintenance to

engines and transmissions that would cause accelerated deterioration. The findings are consistent with

fluid analysis providing an early indication of potential problems. Action required by the lab to buses 1120

and 1144, however, are recommended to prevent the possibility of any future damage.

Other Improvements

Several improvements were made or are being contemplated by First Transit to improve its maintenance

program. Portable bus washing equipment and alternative cleaning options are being investigated to

improve bus cleanliness and appearance.

First Transit is also investigating ways to better utilize the cramped bus parking area. One idea is to lease a

nearby parking lot from WMATA, possibly using it as an employee parking. Right now the cramped

conditions are causing accidents among buses.

Contested Defects

A total of 13 defects were contested, 10 pertaining to dashboard mounted door switches where electricaltape is being used to keep them in the override position. The other three pertain to equipment

manufactured by Clever Devices that has not been activated on New Flyer buses. After reviewing the

defects and the explanations provided, all 13 were removed from the totals and are not shown on the

accompanying spreadsheets. TRC removed the defects because they are not the type of defects that

mechanics would be expected to write up as part of their PM inspections. However, because the taping of

switches is not a permanent solution to prevent operators from using the switches, TRC will note them as

defects for the next audit, giving First Transit ample time to seek a solution and make needed

modifications. The same holds true for inactivated Clever Devices equipment. Even though the

equipment may not be functioning, TRC will expect any wiring routed to that equipment to be properly

secured.

Recommendations

Recommendations from the summary are repeated here. For subsequent audits, TRC will investigate and

report on the status of each recommendation. For this audit they include:


27/29


Continue efforts to reduce defects by improving the preventive maintenance program to improve

bus availability and customer satisfaction;

Once the dedicated campaign to repair defects is over, make certain that mechanics and

operators are identifying defects as part of regular inspections, that a process exists to repair

those defects, and that all noted defects are documented from identification to repair;

Revamp the fluid analysis program and related record-keeping system to make certain the

program is being used as an early detection of possible engine and transmission failure;

Take corrective action to buses 1120 and 1144 based on the fluid analysis findings;

Improve the on-time performance of PM inspection intervals;

Take steps to reduce the number of buses down for repairs from 30% to 25%;

Initiate a comprehensive training program to instruct mechanics and bus operators to properly

identify and report defects as part of their inspection responsibilities;

Increase the number of mechanics certified to perform air conditioning repairs;

Continue efforts to train mechanics and prepare them for ASE certification; and

Follow through with plans to hire an additional two or three mechanics.


28/29


Appendix A – Excel Spreadsheet Reports

See attached file: DC_MasterDefectSheet_Jan 2016_Final toDDOT.xlsx


29/29

Appendix B – “A” Defect List

“A” Defects

Fire extinguisher

Headlights

Wipers

Cracked windshield in driver’s view

Seat belts, driver

Turn signals

Horn

Emergency flashers

Brake lights

Air pressure/Air leaks

Brake lining thickness – flush/forward with pin

Tire tread depth @ 2/32 rear; 4/32 front

Fuel leak

Exposed wires

Proximity to exhaust – oil, harness, etc

Oil/Grease on brakes (saturated)

Wheelchair Ramp inoperative

Wheelchair securement equipment

Kneeling

Sharp edges

Tripping hazard – interior

Critical steering/suspension play, wear Sensitive edges – doors – not working at all

Tire pressure below 80 psi

Wheel lug nuts

Exhaust leak into bus

Back-up alarm

Excessive oil in air system

Missing emergency exit signs

Emergency window won’t open

ABS dash light on

Stop request signaling system

Excessive oil leak – dripping, puddles

january dc circulator audit

Documents