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:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Bus lines--Hillsborough County--Florida
Local transit -- Florida -- Hillsborough County   ( lcsh )
Genre:
letter   ( marcgt )

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:
usfldc doi - C01-00252
usfldc handle - c1.252
System ID:
SFS0032341:00001


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 ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s1988 flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00252
040
FHM
2 110
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
1 245
A peer review analysis of Hillsborough Area Regional Transit
260
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1988 April
4 610
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Lines (HART)
650
Bus lines--Hillsborough County--Florida
0
Local transit -- Florida -- Hillsborough County.
049
FHmm
773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.252



PAGE 1

A PEER REVIEW ANALYSIS OF IDLLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT April1988 Prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research 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 gro up 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 indica t ors were chosen, in nine categories. These indicators describe either the efficiency (cost-related performance) or effectiveness (service-related performance) of HART and the other agencies in p rovidin g transi t 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 th e 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, definitio ns 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

T a b l e 1 ID CODE S T ATE TRA N S I T SYSTEM 300 6 VA G r R ichmond T C 4001 T N Chatta noog a A r ea R T A 4002 TN Knoxvi ll e TA 4003 TN Mem p h i s A r ea TA 4004 TN NashvilleMTA 4008 N C Ch a r lott e TS 4027 F L Suncoast T A 4029 F L F t Laud e rdaleBrow r d Cn t y 4035 FL Orlando T C T 4037 F L West Palm Beach 404 0 F L Jacksonvi ll e TA 404 1 FL Hi llborough A r ea RTA 4042 A L Brmngh m J e ffrson Cnty T A 6002 TX Aus t i n T r o nsi t System 6006 T X E l Paso P T A 6007 TX CITRAN F o r t Wor t h 2

PAGE 4

PERFORMANCE MEASURES Eighteen performance indicators were chosen in nine categories. These indicators decribe either the efficiency (cost-related performance) or t he effectiveness (service-related performance) of HART and the other age nci es in p roviding transit s ervi ces 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 Opera ting Expense 2) Reven ue Hours Per Operating Expense Service Effectiveness (Utilization of Service) 1) Total Unlinked Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour 2) Total Unlinked Passenger Trips Per Reve nue 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 Operati ng Employee Vehicle Utilization 1) Total Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle 2) Total Vehicle Hours Per Peak Vehicle

PAGE 5

Maintenance Effectiveness 1) 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 Administrative Employee 1) Peak Vehicle Per Administrative Employee Each of the categories is briefly ex amine d with tables and graphs showing the results of the comparative data analysis. The figures graphically illus t rate HART's location relative to the peer average and to each of the peers. The tables indicating system names, I.D. codes and their respective values, follow each of the sections.

PAGE 6

CJ) () :X: i "" LL. 0 a: UJ m ::. ::> z VEHICLES OPERATED IN MAX SERVICE (listings for each o f the peers) 200 1 9 0 18 0 170 160 15 0 17/1 r AVERAGE = 105 14 0 13 0 120 1 10 100 90 80 70 60 50 4 0 30 20 1 0 0 -/ / / 300 6 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4 037 4040 404 1 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM ID CODES F igure I-1

PAGE 7

"' l5 (/J AVERAGE SPEED OF VEHICLES (Uslings for each of the peers) 1 7 I I AVERAGE = 16 15 14 -I 13 12 ; 11 J,, 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 HAAT 0 V(l V(l V(l V(l V(l V(Lt(l t(l t:(l V(l V(l V(l 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 402 7 4029 4035 4037 4 0 40 4 041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM ID CODES Figure l-2

PAGE 8

Tabl e 2 . PEAK I D CODE V E HICLES SP E E D 3006 150 11. 1 4001 71 15.4 4002 4 8 12.2 4003 142 15.8 4004 96 14.2 4008 100 13. 6 4027 113 1 4 1 4029 198 14.3 4035 66 14.6 4037 48 16.2 404 0 151 15.2 4041 135 15.6 4042 96 1 3 3 6002 93 13.0 6006 83 13.5 6007 102 12.6 MEAN 105.75 14.04375 MAX IMU M 198 16.2 MIN I MUM 48 1 1 1 RANGE 150 5. 1 STD DEV 39. 6 1 7 7 0 7

PAGE 9

FINDINGS System Efficiency (Output per Dollar Cost) The two indicators in this section l)revenu e mile per operating expense, and 2) revenue hours per operating expense -are non-specific performance indicators commonly used by transit agencies to compare their systemwide effic ie ncy to other transit agencies. Revenue Miles Per Operating Expense HART's output as viewed by this parameter (0.505 mile/dollar) was higher (36.5%) than that of the peers (0.370 mile/dollar). (See Figure ll-1 and Table 3). Revenue Hou .rs Per Operating Expense HART's output as viewed b y this parameter (0.0324 hours/dollar) was higher (23.2%) than that of the peers (0.0263 hours/dollar). (See Figure II-2 and Table 3). 8

PAGE 10

Q. X w !5 ffi <0 Q. REVENUE MILES PER OPERATING EXPENSE (Listings for eoch o f the peers.) HART 0.5 0.4 0 3 "1 7 I 0.2 0. 1 0 r (I r ( I r( I r ( I r ( 1 r ( 1 r ( 1 r ( 1 r ( 1 r { 1 r ( 1 r ( 1 r ( 1 r ( 1 r ( 1 r ( 1 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4 041 4 0 4 2 6 0 0 2 6006 6007 SYSTEM ID CODES Figure II-1

PAGE 11

0.. X "' 0.. 0 ..... ffi a. 0 a: REVENUE HOURS PER OPERATING EXPENS E 0 .031 (Listings for each o f l he p e e rs.) 0 .032 -HART I 0.03 0 .028 0 .021 nn 0 01 1 0 .012 0.0 I 0 .008 AVERAGE = 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4011 4042 6002 6006 600'/ SYSTEM ll COOES Figure II-2

PAGE 12

ID CODE 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 M EA N MAXIMUM M I NIMU M RANG!; STD OEV Tab l e 3 REV MILE REV HOUR PE R PER OPER EXP OPER EXP 0.294232 0.026624 0.33837 4 0.022003 0.309293 0.025294 0.354230 0.022461 0.391017 0.027577 0.328537 0 .024226 0.397842 0.028219 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 0.013431 0 .067848 0.003701 11

PAGE 13

Ser\'ice Effectiveness (Utilization of Se!:Vice) 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) Unlinked Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile Average Peer Utilization HART Percent Lower (See Figure III-2 and Table 4) 1 2 32.08 trips/hour 25.46 trips/hour 20.64% 2.35 trips/mile 1.63 30.64%

PAGE 14

a: :::> 0 J: iii a: a: w .... a. w (f) a. cc ... -' z :::> UNLINKED PASSENGE R TRIPS PER REVENUE HOUR (Listings for ea c h of t h e peers) 70 ---------------------. 60 L ,. 50 t'/J 1 AVE RAGE = 3 2.08 40 30 rd rd k : ' 10 0 ..1:-(-I V ( l V(l V(l V ( l V ( l V ( l V ( l I ( 1 v ( I r ( I r ( I [ ( I r (I r (I r ( I 3006 400 l 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM I D CODES Figure III-1

PAGE 15

lU ..J :;; > lU a: a: lU D.. .. ..J z ::> UNLINKED PASSENGER TRIPS PER REVENUE MILE (L i s tings for e a c h o f t h e peers) 6.--------------------------------------------------. 5 4 r/_,l r-AVERAGE = 2.35 3 2 1 0 t'( lt'(lr(lr(lr(lr(l r(IY ( Ir(lr(lr(!Y ( Ir(!r(IY(I Y(I 300 6 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 404 1 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES Figure III-2

PAGE 16

Table 4 U N L TRIPS UNL TRIPS PER PER 1 0 CODE REV H R REV M l 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 404 0 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE STD DEV 60.16449 5 .444103 25.60853 1.66521 8 30.68536 2 .509507 38. 52261 2.442652 35.26420 2.487112 41 .43735 3.055670 25.76215 1 .827348 33.27832 2.326176 26.14856 1.791232 16.64168 1 .028905 37. 1 2705 2.440949 25.45520 1 .633957 35.10129 2.637540 28.55893 2.198078 35.86679 2 .653894 17.68846 1.406627 32.08194 2.346810 60.1 6449 5.444103 16.64168 1 .028905 43.52281 4 4 1 5 198 9 .996836 0.953065 15

PAGE 17

Cost Effectiveness (Farebox Recovery Rate) The fa rebox recovery rate is a ratio of the amount actually received from the riders to the amount needed to maintain t he 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 IV -1 and Table 5) 16 0.331 0.272 17.8%

PAGE 18

.... ..... !.'< "' t5 II! it gj it PASSENGER FARE PER OPERATING EXPENSE (Listings for eoch of the peers.) 0.5 = 0.331 0.3 0.2 0.1 o r ( I r (I Y (I r (I r ( I r ( LLf-1 r ( u ( 1 r ( 1 r ( 1 r ( 1 r ( 1 r ( 1 r ( 1 r ( 1 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM D CODES Figure IV-J

PAGE 19

Table 5 PASS FARE PER ID 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 0.197990 4035 0.314584 4037 0. 194903 40 40 0.366837 4 041 0.271875 4042 0.351052 6002 0.147108 6006 0.388 6007 0.302702 AVERAGE 0.330962 MAXIMUM 0.554 MINIMUM 0.147108 RANGE 0.406891 STD DEV 0.104660 18

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 below the peer group's average. Total Vehicle Miles (xlOOO) Per Accident Average Peer Value HART Percent Lower (See Figure V-1 and Table 6) 21.90 16.28 25.66% Tota l Vehicle Revenue Hours (x1000) Per Accidcmt Average Peer Value HART Percent Lower (See Figur e V -2 and Table 6) 19 1. 46 0.94 35.62%

PAGE 21

0 6' 0 f "' 0 w ....1 0 iii > !5 m ::> z TOTAL VEHICLE MILES PER ACCIDENT (Listings for each of the peers.) 50 40 30 l VJl AVERAGE = 21.90\ 20 10 0 [(IY(lt:(IY(IY(IY(IIf-l[(i[(IY( li"( !Y(IY(I Y(iY(ILf-l 3006 4001 4002 4003 400 4 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 4041 4042 6002 600 6 6007 SYSTEM D CODES Figure V-1

PAGE 22

(.) (.) <( a: w a.. 0 0 0 en a: :::> 0 :r: w "' -' ..... () :r: w > LL 0 a: w <0 :::< :::> z TOTAL VEHICLE REVENUE HOURS PER ACCIDENT 3.4 3.2 3 2.8. 2.6 2 4 2 .2 2 f 8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0 8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 ( L isti ngs fo r each o f the pee r s .) AVERAGE = 1.46 3006 400 1 4 002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 404 1 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM ID CODES Figure V -2

PAGE 23

I D CODE 3006 4 001 4002 4003 4004 4008 402 7 4029 4035 4037 4 040 4041 404 2 6002 6006 6007 AVERAGE MAXIMUM M I N I M U M RAN G E STD DEV Tabl e 6 TOT M l REV HR PER P E R ACCIDEN T ACCIDENT 1 1 .91 706 0.979086 29 .09122 1 .891 228 1 3.95181 1 1181 8 1 38.78787 2 .358787 1 8.86350 1.259241 1 5 4 1380 1.03761 9 15.36832 1 .007331 1 7.43 127 1.106170 23.59526 1 .541420 14.18268 0 782681 5 1 .5 1 7 4 6 3.335714 16.27981 0 94220 1 2 5. 1 1 703 1.66 14.05921 1.018039 21.78333 1 .550595 23.02035 1 .822155 21.89875 1.463153 5 1.51746 3.3357 1 4 1 1 .91 706 0 .782681 39.60039 2.553032 1 0 1 7956 0.63821 2 22

PAGE 24

Labor 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 (x1000) Per Employee Average Peer Utilization HART Percent Higher (See Figure VI1 and Table 7) 1.09 1.18 7.63 o/o Total Revenue Hours (xlOOO) Per Operating Employee Average Peer Utilization HART Percent Higher (See Figure VI-2 and Table 7) 23 23.24 23.81 2.45 o/o

PAGE 25

1 3 1 2 1. 1 1 w w 0.9 >g D.. ::;; 0.8 w a: w 0 7 D.. N s C) 0.6 e. (/) a: :::> 0.5 0 J: J: w > 0.4 0.3 0 2 0 1 0 TOTAL VEH HOURS PER EMPLOYEE (L i s tings f o r e o c h of t h e p ee rs) A V E RAGE = 1.0 9 HAR T 3 0 0 6 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4 040 4 0 4 1 404 2 6002 600 6 6007 SYSTEM I D CODES Figur e VI1

PAGE 26

"' "' D.. (!I z 0 6' rn a: 5 :r [; a: -' g TOTAL REVENUE HOURS PER OPERATING EMPLOYEE (Listings f or eo ch of the 28 26 2 4 22 2 0 1 8 16 14 1 2 1 0 8 6 4 A VERAGE = 2 3.24 : V(1 V(1 V(1 V(1 Vd k(1 Vd Vd V(ll/ (1 V(1 k(1 V(1 Vd V(1 Vd 3 0 0 6 4 0 0 1 4 00 2 40 03 4004 4008 4 0 2 7 4 029 4035 4037 4040 4 ()4 1 404 2 6002 600 6 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES Figure IJI2

PAGE 27

I D CODE 3006 4001 400 2 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 404 1 4042 6002 6006 6007 MEAN MAX IMUM M I N IMUM R A NGE STD DEV Table 7 REV HRS VEH HRS PER PER E M P OP EMP 1.133502 16.79552 0.993548 29.08421 1.016457 1 8.56790 1 .17 4541 25.82246 1.15 2 404 24.62287 1.086547 19.96554 1 .231991 27.65676 1.063104 22.62074 1 .201758 25.01842 1.236925 2 7. 13772 1.16114 4 2 7.24978 1 177189 23.80877 1 082222 22.12462 0.643180 15.3662 8 0.97646 6 23.31523 1. 133826 22.64260 1.091550 2 3 .23746 1.236925 29.08421 0 .643180 15.3662 8 0.593745 13.71792 0.1 39141 3.832983 26

PAGE 28

V ehicle Utlll.zatl o n HART's vehicle utilization as measured by 1) total vehicl e miles per peak vehicle, and 2) total vehicle hours per peak vehicle proves to be mor e effective than the peer group's ave rage. Total Vehicle Miles (xlOOO) Per Peak Vehicle Average Peer Utilization HART Percent Higher (See Figure Vll-1 and Ta b l e 8) T o tal Vehicle Hours (xlOOO) Per Peak Vehic l e A v er ag e Peer Utilization HART P erce n t High e r (See F i gur e Vll-2 and T able 8) 27 41.22 52.58 27.56 % 2.94 3 .43 16.67%

PAGE 29

Q :c g;! ::.:: < w Q. a: w Q. s "' 0 00 e. en ::;: :c g;! -' i5 TOTAL VEHICLE MILES P E R PEAK V EHICLE (Lis ti n g s fo r eoch o r t h e p ee r s ) 60 50 /AVERAGE = 4 1.2? 40 30 20 10 O V(l V(l t"( l V ( l V(l t'(l t' ( l t'(l Y ( l Y(l t' ( l Y ( l t' ( l t'(l t'(l t'(l 3006 400 1 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4 0 29 4035 4037 4040 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES Fi gure VII-1

PAGE 30

w ...J (.) J: w > ll. c: w ll. 0 0 N 0 0 J: J: ...J g .... TOTAL VEH I CLE H OURS PE R PEAK VEHICLE (L isting s fo r e o ch o f t h e p eer s ) 4 3.5 3 (AVERAGE = 2 .94 2 5 2 1 5 1 0 5 O V (ll:"( l V ( l t'(l t'(l t'( l V ( l Y(l t"( l t::(l t"(l t'( l t' ( l t'(' t' ( l r ( l 3006 4001 4002 4003 4 004 4008 4 0 2 7 4 029 4 035 4037 4040 4041 4042 5002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES Figure VII-2

PAGE 31

1 0 CODE 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4040 404 1 4042 .6002 6006 6007 MEAN MAX I MUM MIN I MUM RANGE STD DEY T a b l e 8 TOT M l T O T HRS PER PER PEAK VEH PEAK VEH 33.05 2.977333 23.35492 1 .518309 31.97291 2.702083 45.07042 3.203521 4 1.46041 2.945833 32.369 2 .423 46.37699 3.223893 4 1.37727 2.773737 60.41 8 1 8 4.1 42424 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 4 1 .22235 2.94 2 926 60 .4 1 8 1 8 4. I 4 2 4 2 4 23.35492 1 .518309 37.06325 2.624 114 8.981832 0 .531304 30

PAGE 32

Maintenance Effectiveness This section was evaluated using four i ndi cators: 1) total miles per maintenance 2) total miles per total road calls, 3) total miles per maintenance employee, and 4) peak vehicle pe r maiJ;Itenance employee. Total Miles Per Maintenance Dollar Average Peer Value HART Percent Higher (See Figure VTII-1 and Table 9) Total Miles Per Total Road Calls Average Peer Value HART Percent Lower (See Figure VIII-2 and Table 9} 1.11.1 3.09 68.85% 2.76 1.58 .42.75% Total Miles (xlOOO) Per Maintenance Employee Average Peer Value HART Percent Higher (See Figure Vlll-3 und Tahlc I ) Peak Vehicles Per Maintenance Employee Average Peer Value HART Perc ent Higher (See Figure VIU-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 E ffe ctiveness o r Labor Utilization sections of the report, this layout shows the effect of a relatively low maintenance budget on the average miles betwee n road cal ls. 31

PAGE 33

.., ., & ::: l5 t. TOTAL MILES PER MAINTENANCE DOLLAR ( L istings for each o f t he peers.) 3 .2 IIAI"''"P' 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 1 8 1.6 1. 4 1.2 1 0.8 0 6 0.4 0.2 AVERAGE == 7 f7l 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 4029 4035 4037 4 0 4 0 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES Figure VI II -1

PAGE 34

(/) _. _. ..: () 0 <( 0 a: 1-., ffi ., a.. 6' 0 o :i 1-0 1-TOTAL MILES PER TOTAL ROAD CALLS (Lis ti ngs for each of t he peers.) 4.5 4 . .. AVERAGE = 2 76 3.5 3-j r/J r/J )t 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 O 1/ ( I V (I V ( I V ( I Y ( I t' ( I I' (I I" (I I" ( I t: ( I t: ( I r (I r (I t: (I r ( I r ( I 3006 4 00 1 400 2 4003 4004 4008 40 2 7 40 29 4035 4037 4 0 40 4 041 4 0 4 2 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM ID CODES F i gure VIII-2

PAGE 35

0.. :::; w !z :::; 0:: w 8 .... .... 0 .... TOTAL MILES PER MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEE 12 0 ( List i ngs for each of th e peers.) 11 0 100 I AVERAGE = 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 .30 0 6 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 40 27 4029 4035 4037 4040 4041 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES Figure VIII -3

PAGE 36

Q. !z "' "' > ::<: t:i a. PEAK VEHICLE PER MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEE 9 (Listings fo r each of the pe e r s. ) 8 AVERAGE = f/ J HART 1771 7 6 5 4 3 /) 1 o Yflrflrf'lt:f. :/;' lrf1rpr("'f11'f1r f I I f l r f I r f Lr f I 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 402 7 4029 4035 403 7 4040 4041 4042 6002 6006 6 007 SYSTEM 10 CODES Figu r e VIII-4

PAGE 37

I D CODE Tab l e 9 TOT MIL PER lviNT EXP TOT M I L T O T M I L PEAK VEH PER PER PFR ROAD CALLMNT Elvi P MNT EMP 3006 1 .896058 1.941833 72.90441 7.443333 4001 1.49481 6 3.883372 57. 1 7 931 4.146153 4002 1.565106 3.410444 53.84912 5.046692 4003 1.897281 2.286530 78.52760 6.545323 4004 2.1840561.510512 78.97222 6.427272 4008 1 7 13768 3.361266 67.43541 5.909756 4027 2.840780 .3.864 7 49 106. 5162 8. 1681 6 1 4029 1 .56787 1 2.371945 83.00607 6.697560 4035 2 .677438 3.894140 93.82588 6.921518 4037 03.051322112.83116.937777 4040 2.119047 3 .345979 79.06455 5.719321 4041 3.095974 1.575582 "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 2.762711 76.30375 6 1 1 6 453 MAXIMUM3.095974 4.561195112.8311 8 1 68161 M I N IMUM 0 0.921581 39.39670 4 .01 4858 RANGE 3 .09597 4 3.63961 4 73.43440 4.153302 STD D E V 0.692265 1 .017708 20.56026 1.300905 *some vol u es were not reported fro m 4037. 36

PAGE 38

Administrative Effectiveness Figure IX-1 and Table 10 show peak vehicles per administrative employee, a measure of administra t ive effectiveness. HART, with 23.71, is 26.07 % high e r than the peer group average of 18.66. 37

PAGE 39

0.. ::;; lU z ::;; c <( a: lU 0.. "' "' lU () J: lU > lU 0.. PEAK VEHICLE PER ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEE (Lis ti ngs for eo c h of the peers.) 50 40 3 0 2 0 J !:-AVERAGE = 18.66 V /1 V/1 I/ /1 HART 1 0 0 r(lr(lr(lr("("("("("(' I ( ( (1'(1'("(1 3006 4001 4002 4003 4004 4008 4027 402 9 4 035 4037 4040 404 1 4042 6002 6006 6007 SYSTEM 10 CODES F igure 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 INI MUM RAN GE STD DEV PEAK VEH PER ADMIN EMP 13.95625 8.983333 20.58730 15.16333 18.36363 13.46111 37.94791 1 1 .34710 54.68 28.26451 23.7 1282 14.40828 7.402739 16.97402 13.33478 18.66169 54.68 7.402739 47.27726 1 2.55920 Some values wefe n ot repoflt:d from +OJ7. 39