USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

A peer review analysis of Hillsborough Area Regional Transit

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
A peer review analysis of Hillsborough Area Regional Transit
Physical Description:
39 p. : ill. ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
University of South Florida College of Engineering
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Transportation -- Florida -- Hillsborough County   ( lcsh )
Genre:
local government publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Additional Physical Form:
Also issued online.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Center for Urban Transportation.
General Note:
"April 1988."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 025639265
oclc - 681623301
C01-00141
usfldc doi - C01-00252
usfldc handle - c1.141
System ID:
SFS0032251:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200229Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 025639265
005 20110909111002.0
008 101116s1988 flua l000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00141
C01-00252
035
(OCoLC)681623301
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE310.H55
b U55 1988
2 110
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
1 245
A peer review analysis of Hillsborough Area Regional Transit /
prepared by Center for Urban Transportation.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida College of Engineering,
[1988].
300
39 p. :
ill. ;
29 cm.
500
"April 1988."
5 FTS
530
Also issued online.
FTS
0 610
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority.
650
Transportation
z Florida
Hillsborough County.
773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.141
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.252
FTS
USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:002328876;
FTS



PAGE 1

A Peer Review Analysis of Hillsborough Area Regional Transit April, 1988 Prepared by The Center for Urban Transportation Research at The University of South Florida College of Engineering Tampa, Florida 33620

PAGE 2

INTRODUCTION The intent of this report was to provide a management tool for the evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness of The Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART). The common method for performance evaluation in the transit industry is the peer review analysis. In an effort to fulfill this goal a peer group was selected of other systems with similar physical characteristics. This group consisted of sixteen peer agencies whose peak vehicles ranged from 48 to 198. In 1985, HART had 135 peak vehicles. A list of the peers is furnished in Table 1. Eighteen performance indicators were chosen, in nine categories. These indicators describe either the efficiency (cost-related performance) o r effectiveness (service-related performance) of HART and the other agencies in providing transit service .. The information used in this analysis was derived from parameters available in the section 15 Reporting Data. The Section 15 data were provided by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration for the year 1985. This system of reporting data has been conducted annually for seven years. As systems have begun using the data, modifications to the reporting forms, definitions and titles have been made. To this end, performance evaluations will become an even more reliable form of performance assessment than in years past.

PAGE 3

Table 1 1 0 COD E STATE TRANSIT S YSTEtvl 3006 VA G r Richmond T C 4001 T N Chattanooga Area R T A 4002 T N Knoxvi l l e TA 4003 TN Memphi s Area T A 4004 TN Nashv ille M T A 4008 NC Charlotte TS 4027 F l Pinel las Suncoast TA 4029 F l Ft lauderdole-Browrd C nty 4035 Fl Orl ando TCT 4037 FL Wes t Palm Beach 4040 F l Jacksonvi l l e TA 4 041 F L Hillboroug h A r ea RTA 4042 A L Brmnghm -Jeffrson Cnty TA 6 002 TX Aust in T ronsit System 6006 T X El P aso PT A 6007 T X C I TRAN-Fort Worth

PAGE 4

PERFORMANCE Eighteen perfonnance indicators were chosen in nine categories. These indicators decribe either the efficiency (cost-related performance) or the effectiveness (service-related performance) of HART and the other agencies in providing transit services. Each of the indicators is designed to express the higher scores as better than the lower scores. These are the performance indicators that were chosen: Peer Selection Tools ( Used to choose the sixteen peers) 1) Vehicles Operated in Max Service 2) Average Speed of Vehicles (See Figures I-1, I-2, and Table 2) System Efficiency (OUtput per Dollar Cost) 1) Revenue Miles Per Operating Expense 2) Revenue Hours Per operating Expense service Effectiveness (Utilization of Service) 1) Total Unlinked Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour 2) Total Unlinked Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile cost Effectiveness (Farebox Recovery Rate) 1) Passenger Fare Per Operating Expense Safety 1) Total Vehicle Miles Per Accident 2) Total Revenue Hours Per Accident Labor Utilization 1) Total Vehicle Hours Per Employee 2) Total Revenue Hours Per operating Employee Vehicle Utilization 1) Total Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle 2) Total Vehicle Hours Per Peak Vehicle

PAGE 5

Maintenance Effectiveness l) Total Miles Per Maintenance Dollar 2) Total Miles Per Total Road calls 3) Total Miles Per Maintenance Employee 4) Peak Vehicle Per Maintenance Employee Peak Vehicle Per .1\dministrative Employee l) Peak Vehicle Per Administrative Employee. Each of the categories is briefly examined with tables and graphs showing the results of the comparative data analysis. The figures graphically illustrate IIARI"s location relative to the peer average and to each of the peers. The tables ind.icating system names, I.D. codes, and their respective values, follow each of the sect.ions

PAGE 6

f3 ...J > >< u. 0 I z . V EHIC LES OPER A T E D IN MAX SERVICE (List i n g s for eoc h of the pe ers) 200 190 180 170 16 0 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 7 0 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 .3006 4001 4002 400.3 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES Figure 1 1

PAGE 7

Q u. 0 0 UJ C/) A VERAGE SPEED O F VEHICLES (List i ngs for eoc h of the peers) 17 1 6 I AVERAGE "' 1 5 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 _t'(l V(l V ?I V ? I V {I V ( I V (' V (I t' ( I t' ( I r (I r (I r (I r ( I r (I r ( I 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 404 1 4 0 4 2 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 1 0 CODES Figure 1 2

PAGE 8

Ta b l e 2 PEAK ID CODE VEHICLES SPEED 3006 150 1 1 1 4001 71 1 5 4 4002 48 12.2 4003 142 15.8 4004 96 14.2 4008 100 13.6 4027 113 1 4. 1 4029 19 8 14. 3 4035 66 14.6 4037 4 8 16.2 404 0 151 1 5 2 404 1 135 15.6 4042 96 13.3 6002 93 13.0 6006 83 13.5 6007 102 1 2.6 MEA N 105.75.1 4 0 437-5 MAXI MU M 198 1 6 2 M I N IM UM 48 1 1 1 RANGE 150 5 1 STO DEV 39.61770 1.369748

PAGE 9

FINDINGS System Efficiency (Outpu t per Dollar cost) The two indicators in this section -l)revenue mile per operating expense, and 2) revenue hours per operating expense-are non-specific performance indicators commonly used by transit agencies to compare their systemwid e efficiency to other transit agencies. Revenue Miles Per Operating ExpenSe HARI''s output as v iewed by this parameter (0.505 mile/dollar) was higher (3 6 .5\) than that of the peers (0.370 milejdollar). (See Figure II-1 and Table 3). Revenue Hours Per Operating ExpenSe HARI''s output as viewed by thi. s parameter (0.0324 hours/dollar) was higher (23. 2%) than that of the peers (0.0263 hoursjdollar). (See Figure II2 and Table 3).

PAGE 10

a. X w & REVENUE MILES PER OPERATING EXPENSE (Listings for eac h of the peers.) 0.6 ---, HART 0.5 0.4 /AVERAGE = 0 .37 )} 17""""7"1 0.3 -'., Gi cr 0.2 0.1 % /j /;: % O .3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES Figure 1 1 1

PAGE 11

ll: w & !E REVENUE HOURS PER OPERATING EXPENSE 0 .034 I (lis\ings for each of \he peers. ) oo32 I 003 0.028 0 .026 0.024 0 .022 0.02 0018 0 .016 0 .014 0 .012 0 01 0.008 0006 0.004 0 .002 o V(l V(l V(l V(l V(l V(ll/ (II/ (I V(l V (11:':(1 V(l Y(l Y(l V(l Y(l 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES Figure II2

PAGE 12

I D CODE 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 402 7 4029 4035 4037 4040 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 MEAN MAXIM U M M I N itviUM RAN GE STD DEV Ta b l e 3 REV M I L E REV HOUR P E R PER OPER EXP OPER EXP 0.294232 0.026624 0 .33837 4 0.022003 0.309293 0 .025294 0.354230 0 .022461 0.39101 7 0.027577 0.328537 0.024226 0.397842 0 .02821 9 0.334495 0.023381 0.476386 0.032633 0 .432673 0 .026750 0 .448384 0.029479 0.505250 0.032431 0.302907 0.022760 0 .249484 0.019201 0.374460 0.027707 0.377507 0 .030020 0 .369692 0.026298 0.505250 0.032633 0.249484 0.019201 0 .255765 0 0 1 3 431 0 .067848 0.003701

PAGE 13

Service Effectiveness (Utilization of Service) The two indicators listed in this section -1) unlinked passenger trips per revenue hour, and 2) unlinked passenger trips per revenue mile --show the patronage for HART to be low when compared to its peers. Unlinked Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour Average Peer Utilization HART Percent Lower (See Figure III-1 and Table 4) 32.08 trips/hour 25.46 trips/hour 20.64 % Unlinked Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile Average Peer Utilization HART Percent Lower (See Figure III-2 and Table 4) 2. 35 trips/mile 1.63 30.64 %

PAGE 14

cr ::> 0 J: > ll! a: w a. (/) Q, I= ..J z ::> UNLINKED PASSENGER TRIPS PER REVENUE HOUR (Listings for each of the peers) 60 -L 50 r AVERAGE = 32.08 40 30 20 .... 1 0 o V(l V(l V(l V(l V(l V{ll' (II (I V(l V(l V(l V(l Y(l Y(l Y(l Y(l 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES Figure lll 1

PAGE 15

, UNLINKED PASSENGER TRIPS PER REVENUE M ILE (Lis t ings for each o f the peers) 5 4 3 2 / 1/71 ,::/,:1 1'""""7""1 v/ /'; o v,J V;JV(l v,e:J f & ( ( ( ( ( (" ( 1 3006 4001 4 002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4 0 2 9 4 035 4037 4040 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES F i g ure 111-2

PAGE 16

. . Ta b l e 4 U N L TRI PS UNL TRI P S PER PER 1 0 CODE REV H R R E V M l 3006 60.16449 5.444103 4001 25.60853 1 66521 8 4002 30.68536 2.509507 4003 38.52261 2.442652 4004 35.26420 2.487112 4008 41.43735 3 .055670 402 7 25.762 1 5 1 .827 348 4029 33.27832 2.326176 4035 26.1 4856 1. 791 232 4037 16.64168 1.028905 4040 37.12705 2 4 40949 4041 25.45520 1 .633957 4042 35.10129 2.637540 6002 28.55893 2 198078 6006 35.86679 2.653894 6007 17.68846 1 .406627 MEAN 32.08194 2 .346810 MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE STD DEV 60.1 6449 5. 444103 16.641 68 1 .028905 43.52281 4 4 1 5 1 98 9.996836 0.953065

PAGE 17

Cost Effectiveness (Farebox Recovery Rate) The farebox recovery rate is a ratio of the amount actually received from the riders to the amount needed to maintain the system. This ratio is typically low for transit systems, as indicated with a peer group of 33.1 %. Passenger Fare Per Operating Expense Average Peer Recovery Rate HART Percent lower (See Figure rv-1 and Table 5) 0.331 0.272 17.8 %

PAGE 18

Q. X w !5 w LL r/) r/) it PASSENGER FARE PER OPERATING EXPENSE 0.6 0.5 = 0.331 0.4 03 0.2 0.1 O V (I V ( I t' (I Y (I Y ( I Y (-1 r ( I .J...f .. U ( I r ( I t ( I Y (I t: ( I r ( I r ( l.l:..p 3006 400 1 4002 4003 4004 4008 4 027 29 4035 403 7 404 0 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES Figure IV1

PAGE 19

Tabl e 5 PASS FARE PER 10 CODE OPER EXP 3006 0.554 4001 0.402443 4002 0.285545 4003 0.441399 4004 0.443490 4008 0.399136 4027 0.234331 4029 0.1 97990 4035 0.314584 4037 0 194903 4040 0.366837 4041 0.271875 4042 0.351052 6002 0.147108 6006 0 .388 6007 0.302702 AVERAGE 0.330962 MAXIMUM 0.554 M INIMUM 0.147108 RANGE 0.406891 STD DEV 0.104660

PAGE 20

Safety HART's safety record as measured by 1) total vehicle miles per accident, and 2) total revenue hours per accident is listed below. In both categories HART falls belo" the peer group's average. Tota1 Vehicle Miles (x1000) Per Accident Average Peer Value HART Percent lower (See Figure V-1 and Table 6) 21.90 16.28 25.66 % Total Vehicle Revenue Hours (x1000) Per Accident Average Peer Value HART Percent lower (See Figure V-2 and Table 6) 1.46 0.94 35.62 %

PAGE 21

0 0 <( ffi 0. s a 13 UJ -' > u. 0 z TOTAL VEHICLE MILES PER ACCIDENT (Lis ti ngs fo r eac h of t h e peers ) w 50 40 30 l P/l !?a AVERAGE = 2 190\ 20 1 0 0 V ( I r (I Y (I r ( I r ( I Y ( I r ( I r ( I r ( I r ( I r ( I r f-1 t: (I r ( 1 y ( 1 I' (I 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 404 0 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 1 0 CODES Figure V-1

PAGE 22

.>4 .>. 2 .3 28 0 2.6 0 < 24 2.2 0 2 "' a: => 0 ::t: 1.8 "' 1.6 ..J 1.4 > !5 1.2 1 0.8 => z 0 6 0 4 0.2 0 T O T A L VEHI CLE REVENUE HOUR S PER ACCIDENT ( Listi ngs for each of the peers ) AV(RAG E == 1.46 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 402 7 4029 1035 40.>7 4040 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 1 0 CODES F i gure V-2

PAGE 23

I D CODE 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 AVERAG E MAXIMUM M I N I MUM RANGE S TD DEV Ta b l e 6 TOT lv11 REV H R PER PER ACCIDENT ACCIDENT 1 1 9 1706 0.979086 29.09122 1.89 1 228 13.951 8 1 1. 118181 38.78787 2.358787 18.86350 1.259241 15.41380 1.037 6 1 9 15.36832 1.007331 1 7 .43127 1 .106170 23.59526 1 .541 420 14.18268 0 .782 681 51.51746 3.335714 16.27981 0.942201 25. 1 1 703 1 .66 14.05921 1 .018039 21.78333 1.550595 23. 02035 1 8 2 2 155 2 1.89875 1 .463153 51.51746 3.33571 4 11.91706 0.782681 39.60039 2 .553032 1 0. 17956 0.63821 2

PAGE 24

Utilization The results of the labor effectiveness analysis as measured by 1) total vehicle hours per employee, and 2) total revenue hours per operating employee show HART to be more effective than the peer group's average. Total Vehicle Hours (Xl.OOO) Per Elnployee Average Peer Utilization HART Percent Higher (See Figure Vl-1 and Table 7) 1.09 1..18 7.63% Tota1 Revenue Hours (Xl.OOO) Per Operating Elnployee Average Peer Utilization HART Percent Higher (See Figure Vl-2 and Table 7) 23.24 23.81 2.45 %

PAGE 25

tl:l b ...J a: w 0.. 6' 8 C1i a: 5 :c :c w > 1.3 12 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0 .7 0.6 0.5 0 .4 0.3 0.2 TOTAL VEH HOURS PER EMPLOYEE (Listings fo r each of l h e peers) rAVERAG E = 1.09 f VJl 1> ,.. HART -0 r ( 1 r ( 1 1 f 1 1 f '-1 f f 1 ( 1 1 ( I r ( I 1 (-IX ( 1 r ( 1 r { 1 r ( 1 r ( 1 3006 400 1 4 002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 1J CODES Figure Vl1

PAGE 26

I TOTAL REVENUE HOURS PER OPERATING EMPLOYEE 30 28 26 2 4 22 20 18 -! h-. 16 14 1 2 10 8 6 4 2 HART 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 403 7 404 0 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES Figure V l-2

PAGE 27

Ta b le 7 RE V H RS VEH HRS P ER 10 CO D E PE R ElviP OP ElviP 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4041 404 2 6002 6006 6007 MEAN MAX IMUM MIN IMUM RA NG E STD DEV 1. 133502 1 6 79552 0.993548 29.08421 1.016457 18.56790 1.174541 25.82246 1 152404 24.6228 7 1.086547 19.96554 1.231991 2 7 .656 7 6 1.063104 22.62074 1.201758 25.0184 2 1.236925 27.13772 1.161144 27.24978 1. 1 77189 23.80877 1.082222 22.12462 0.643180 15.36628 0.976466 23.31523 1.133826 22.64260 1.091550 23.23746 1.236925 29.08421 0.643180 1 5. 36628 0 .59374 5 13.71792 0. 139141 3.832983

PAGE 28

Vehicle Utilization HART's vehicle utilization as measured by l) total vehicle miles per peak vehicle, and 2) total vehicle hours per peak vehicle proves to be more effective than the peer group's average. Total. Vehicle Kil.es (Xl.OOO) Per Peak Vehicle Average Peer Utilization HART Percent Higher (See Figure VII-1 and Table 8) 41.22 52.58 27.56% Total. Vehicle Hours (Xl.OOO) Per Peak Vehicle Average Peer Utilization HART Percent Higher (See Figure VII-2 and Table 8) 2.94 3.43 16.67%

PAGE 29

d :r: UJ > i w :r: w > -' < 5 f-TOTAL VEHICLE MILES PER PEAK VEHICLE 70 60 I HART 50 1 /AVERAGE= 41.22 40 30 20 10 0 r (I r-r-I r ( I r (I I" (I r ( U ( I r ( I r f 1 I ( 1 r f-LI' ( I r ( 1 r ( 1 r ( I r ( I 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4 041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES Figure Vll-1

PAGE 30

UJ > ..: -0 8 -(/) 0 :c :c UJ > ;;! .... 0 .... TOTAL VEHICLE HOURS PER PEAl< VEHICLE 4. 5 (Lis ti ngs f o r eoc h o f the peers ) 4 3 .51 1 / A HART rAVERAGE = 2 9 4 3 2.5 2 1 .5 I / J I / J I / J I / J I / A I / A I / .A I / A I / A I / A I/ A I / A I / /1 I / / 1 I/ /1 0.5 ...J / A I / A I/ A I / A I/ A I / A 1/ / I 1 / A 1/ A 1 / /1 1 / /1 1/ /1 1/ /1 1 / /1 1/ / I 1/j o 1:':( 1 V(ll"(l Y(l r(ll' (II' (I V ( l Y:f' V(l V(l t'(l t'(ll/ ( I t'(l I' ( I 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4041 404 2 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES Figur-e V l l 2

PAGE 31

10 CODE 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 404 1 4042 6002 6006 6007 MEAN MAXIMUM M I N I MUM RANGE STD DEV Tab le 8 TOT M l TOT H RS PER PER PEAK VEH PEA K VEH 33.0 5 2.977333 23.35492 1 5 18309 31.97291 2.702083 45.07042 3 .203521 4 1.46041 2.945833 32.369 2 .423 46.37699 3 .223893 41.37727 2.773737 60.41818 4.142424 52.88958 3.252083 42.98807 2.901324 52.57777 3.425185 35.32083 2.536458 38.54946 2 .905376 44.09156 3 .149397 37.69019 3.006862 41.22235 2.942926 60.41818 4.1 42424 23.35492 1.518309 37.06325 2 .624114 8.981832 0 .531304

PAGE 32

Maintenance Effectiveness This section was evaluated using four indicators: 1) total miles per maintenance dollars, 2) t<;>tal miles per total road calls, 3) total miles per maintenance employee, and 4) peak vehicle per maintenance employee. Total Hiles Per Maintenance Dollar Average Peer Value HART Percent Higher (See Figure VIII-1 and Table 9) Total Hiles Per Total Road Calls Average Peer Value HART Percent Lower (See Figure VIII-2 and Table 9) 1.83 3.09 68.85 % 2. 76 1.58 42.75% Total Miles (x1000) Per Maintenance Employee Average Peer Value HART Percent Higher (See Figure VIII-3 and Table 9) Peak Vehicles Per Maintenance Employee Average Peer Value HART Percent Higher (See Figure VIII-4 and Table 9) 76.30 106.10 39.06 % 6.12 7.59 24.02 % EVen though some of the above indicators could have been used in either the cost Effectiveness or Tabor Utilization sections of the report, this layout shows the effect of a relatively low maintenance budget on the average miles between road calls.

PAGE 33

... :?; <( ::> ::!: g TOTAL MILES PER MAINTENANCE DOLLAR (Listings fo r eoch o f l he pee rs.) 3 2 --3 28 2.6 2 4 = 7.83 2.2 -1 17/l 2 -1 1 8 I/ ./ 1.6 1.4 1 0 .8 06 0 4 02 0 V(l 1/(1 V(1 V(1 V(1 V(1 V(ll/ ( I V(l 1 V(i V(i Y(i Y(l 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 402 7 4029 4035 4037 4040 4 041 4042 6002 6006 600 7 SYSTEM 1 0 CODES Figure Vlll 1

PAGE 34

0 a: I-TOTAL M ILES PER TOTAL ROAD CALLS 5 4.5 4 AVERAGE = 2.76 3 5 3 2.5 6' 0 2 Q. """h 7 1 I-15 I :% 05 /% / O t'(li"{lt'(lt:(IY(!r(l 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 402 7 4 0 29 4035 4037 4040 4041 40 4 2 6002 6 006 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES F igur e VII I 2

PAGE 35

TOTAL M ILES PER MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEE (Lis t ings f o r each of the p eers.) 120 110 100 = 76 .3 9 0 80 ::-. g 7 0 6 0 5 0 40 30 2 0 1 0 /; /;: 1 ? o 3006 4001 4002 400 3 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4 041 404 2 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM I D CODES FigUIe V lll-3

PAGE 36

Q. ::;; UJ PEAK VEHICLE PER MAINTENANCE E M P LOYEE 9 8 AVERAGE == 6.12 1771 7 6 5 4 .3 I 0 V (I V (I V (I V ( I V ( I r I ( I r ( I I" ( t I ( I r ( I !" ( I 1/(11/(1 .3006 4001 4002 400.3 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 1 0 CODES F igure V l ll 4

PAGE 37

1 0 CODE Table 9 TOT M I L PER MNT EXP TOT M IL TOT lviiL PEAK VEH PER PER PE R ROAD CA L LMNT EMP MNT EtviP 3006 1.896058 1.941833 72.90441 7.443333 4001 1.494816 3.883372 5717931 4.146153 4002 1 .565106 3.410444 53. 8491 2 5.046692 4003 1 .897281 2.286530 78.52760 6.545.323 4004 2.184056 1.510512 78.97222 6 .427272 4008 1.713768 3.361266 67. 43541 5.909756 4027 2.840780 3.864749 106.5162 8.168161 4029 1.56787 1 2.371945 83.00607 6.697560 4035 2.677438 3.894 140 93.82588 6 921 5 1 8 4037 0 3 051322 1 12.8311 6.937777 4040 2 .11904 7 3.345979 79.06455 5.71 9321 4041 3.09597 4 1.5 75582 106.0986 7.592775 4042 1.536965 2.353088 58.26116 4.746588 6002 1.457950 4.561195 39.39670 4.014858 6006 1.329438 0.921581 52.05689 4. 155802 6007 1.968444 1 .869844 80.93473 7.390361 MEAN 1.834062 2.762 7 1 1 76.30375 6.116453 MAXIMUM3 .095974 4.561195112.8311 8 .1681 6 1 MINIMUM 0 0.921 581 39.39670 4.014858. R ANGE 3 .09597 4 3 .639614 73.43440 4.15330 2 STD DEV 0.692265 1.0 17708 20.56026 1.300905 *some volues were not repo(ted from 40.}7

PAGE 38

Administrative Effectiveness Figure IX-1 and Table 10 show administrative employee, a measure effectiveness. HART, with 23.71, is 26.07 % group average of 18.66. peak vehicles per of administrative higher than the peer

PAGE 39

z ::. UJ -' w > :.: <( PEAK VEHICLE PER ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEE 60 50 40 .30 20 J rAVERAC = 18.66 1 0 0 r ( 1 r: ? I r ( 1 v ( 1 r ( 1 r ( u { 1 r ( 1 r ( 1 I ( 1 r ( 1 r ( 1 I ( 1 r (I r_p 3006 4001 4002 400.3 4004 400 8 402 7 4 029 4035 4 0.3 7 404 0 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES Figure IX-1

PAGE 40

* Table 10 I D CODE 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4 041 4042 6002 6006 6007 MEAN MAXIMUM M INIMUM RAN GE STD DEV PEAK VEH PER ADMIN EMP 13.95625 8.983333 20.58730 15.16333 18.36363 1 3.461 11 37.94791 11.3471 0 54.68 28.26451 23.71 282 14.40828 7.402739 16.97402 13.33478 18.66169 54.68 '7.402739 47.27726 12.55920 Some vol ues wNe not r eported from