VEHICLE & MAINTENANCE EVALUATION

DC Circulator

Conducted January 11 – 14, 2016

by Transit Resource Center
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
List of Tables
Table 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
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 the
remaining 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 to determine 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;

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 3

  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

09 Van Hool 2014

All Buses 03/04 Owned by 09 Van Hool New
Category Inspected Van Hool DDOT Owned by FT 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.

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 4

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

August 2015 January 2016

All Buses 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 January 2016 August 2015 January 2016

03/04 Van Hool 03/04 Van Hool 09 Van Hool 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.

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 5

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 EPA
certification.
 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.

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 6

  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 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% 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;

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 7

 - 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 Records
and 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

Records (R) &

Fleet Inspection 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

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 8

 Records (R) &
Fleet Inspection 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:
TOTAL: 22 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

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 9

 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

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 10

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 buses
inspected (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

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 11

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

Defect Category
Exterior Body Condition
Engine/Engine Compartment
Safety Equipment
Driver’s Controls
Interior Condition
Lights
Accessibility Features
Suspension/Steering
Passenger Controls
Structure/Chassis/Fuel Tank
Exhaust
Air System/Brake System
Climate Control
Electrical System
Transmission
Tires
Destination Signs
Differential
Defect Totals:
Buses Inspected:
(Total Number of Fleet Defects)
2003/04 Model 2009 Model Year 2014 Model Year
All Buses Year Van Hool Van Hool New Flyer
60 23 37 0
44 20 16 8
14 5 7 2
33 17 13 3
12 6 5 1
7 3 0 1
7 3 0 1
5 1 4 0
9 4 3 2
4 4 0 0
0 0 0 0
2 2 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0
3 0 0 3
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
201 88 92 21
22 7 10 5

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 12

Table 6 - Average # of Defects by Bus Category

Defects by Bus Category

(Total Number of Average Defects per Bus)
2003/04 Model 2009 Model Year 2014 Model Year
Defect Category All Buses Year Van Hool Van Hool New Flyer
Exterior Body Condition 2.7 3.3 3.7 0
Engine/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 0
Electrical 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

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 13

 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).

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 14

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

A” Defects by Bus Category

(Total Number of Defects/Average per Bus)
“A” Defects “A” Defects
Defect Category August 2015 January 2016
Safety Equipment 73/1.74 6/0.27
Accessibility 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 0
Passenger 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

(Total Number of Defects/Average per Bus)
2009 Van Hool Buses 2009 Van Hool Buses
Defect Category Owned by First Transit 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 2/0.5
Lights 1/0.2 2/0.5
Accessibility Features 0 3/0.7

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 15

 Analysis of 2009 Van Hool Buses Leased by First Transit
(Total Number of Defects/Average per Bus)
2009 Van Hool Buses 2009 Van Hool Buses
Defect Category Owned by First Transit Owned by DDOT
Suspension/Steering 4/0.7 0
Passenger Controls 2/0.3 1/0.2
Structure/Chassis/Fuel Tank 0 0
Exhaust 0 0
Air System/Brake System 0 0
Climate Control 0 0
Electrical System 1/0.2 0
Transmission 0 0
Tires 0 0
Destination Signs 0 0
Differential 0 0
Defect 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

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 16

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

Estimated Timetable
Bus General Condition for Return to Service
#1102 Poor overall general appearance, tired paint and worn graphics June/July 2016
03/04 Van Hool 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
#1104 Poor overall general appearance, tired paint and worn graphics June/July 2016
03/04 Van Hool 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)

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 weekday
demand. 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

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 17

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.

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 18

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

Bus Date Expected

Number Reason Why Buses Out of Service Back in Service
Buses Currently Off Property for Repair
1132 At body shop January 13 or 14
1123 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
1127 At body shop January 13
1107 At body shop January 14
1126 At body shop January 12
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
1103 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 15
2016 Awaiting Cummins representative to make engine repair Possibly by January 15
2017 Awaiting Cummins representative to make engine repair Possibly by January 15
2007 Awaiting defroster blower motor from New Flyer Unknown
2008 Awaiting defroster blower motor from New Flyer Unknown
2015 Awaiting defroster blower motor from New Flyer Unknown
1111 Awaiting unscheduled maintenance repair of middle door Unknown
malfunction, awaiting part
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.

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 19

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 mechanic
performing 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).

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 20

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

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 21

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 and
parts 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

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 22

 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 is
providing 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 all
buses 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.

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 23

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.

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 24

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 at
normal 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 electrical
tape 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:

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 25

  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.

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 26

Appendix A – Excel Spreadsheet Reports

See attached file: DC_MasterDefectSheet_Jan 2016_Final toDDOT.xlsx

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 27

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

Prepared by Transit Resource Center 28