Text-Only Version Prepared by: TranSystems Corp. Medford, ma and: Planners Collaborative Boston, ma august 24, 2007 contents
|
|  Yüklə 1.11 Mb.
|
Initial 2005 Evaluation A key to providing reliable and on-time service is to ensure that runs created in the scheduling process are “covered” and that they pull-out on-time. Pull-out records for each service provider were therefore examined as part of the evaluation. The availability of drivers and “extraboard” drivers also was considered. At the time of the on-site visit, there were no scheduled extraboard drivers at JV. There also were no Road Supervisors to assist with same-day driver call-outs. If drivers call-out in the morning or just don’t show, dispatchers will reassign the first few trips while an attempt is made to call-in another driver. Office staff (including the Operations Manager) will sometimes be used to cover parts of runs. If another driver needs to be called in, this at beast typically means that trips in the first 1-2 hours need to be handled another way. Sometimes, if drivers are same-day call-outs, dispatchers will simply close the run and will add the trips to the Wait List to be same-day dispatched throughout the day. On the day that observations were being made at JV, two drivers were unexpected call-outs (both had 5:00 AM shift starts). In one case, another driver was contacted and was able to start covering the run at 8:00 AM (early trips were same-day dispatched). The second run was simply closed-out and all of the trips on that run were added to the Wail List to be same-day dispatched. VTS typically had about 5 to 8 drivers who call-out unexpectedly each day. It also was noted that VTS did not have any scheduled “extraboard” drivers whose main purpose is to cover runs when drivers call-out. They did however, have 10 to 15 “floaters” who are scheduled to provide dispatch with back-up throughout the day. VTS preferred not to use these “floaters” as extraboard drivers. Instead, their standard method of operation appeared to be to add trips on closed runs to the “Wait List” and keep the “floaters” available for assistance with same-day dispatching of trips. The four Road Supervisors at VTS were also regularly used to help cover runs or portions of runs. This included handling the first few trips on runs that are being “closed.” At VTS, between three and ten runs were closed on the weekdays examined. It also was noted that the availability of “floaters” each day varied considerably and was somewhat uneven between the morning and afternoon. On several days, there were as few as three floaters available in the morning or afternoon. As a result, a significant number of trips were added to the “Wait List” on many days. Run coverage at Kiessling was adequate and pullout usually occured without significant problems. Because Kiessling had seven road supervisors and usually had one or more spare drivers available, pullout did not typically pose a problem, even if there were unplanned absences. GLSS also appeared to have sufficient vehicles and drivers to carry out its daily set of runs. Over the three sample days examined, GLSS had 319 planned runs. No runs were cancelled, while 40 runs were added during the service days. GLSS appeared to be 23 drivers short of their internal goal. While efforts to attract more drivers had been made and 10 individuals were in training at the time of the visit, it was recommended that GLSS continue its efforts to hire and train additional drivers. Primary observations and recommendations made in 2005 regarding run coverage and pull-out are noted below.
Recent Efforts and Observations Following the initial evaluation in 2005, several actions were taken by the service providers to address the issues identified. JV added Road Supervisors and extraboard drivers. GLSS also added more drivers. The MBTA also added lift-vans to the fleet which addressed vehicle availability issues at JV. The MBTA also began closely monitoring the number of runs closed each day and considering the impact on daily on-time performance. The reports for December 2006 through February 2007 indicated that GLSS, KTI and JV typically closed fewer than five runs per weekday. VTS, however, continues to close 3 to 13 runs on most days. Other actions taken by VTS appear to have kept this from having a significant impact on on-time performance, though. VTS’ on-time performance in 2006 was 91%. It is recommended that the MBTA continue to track run coverage on a daily basis and continue to assess the impacts of closed runs on on-time performance. Driver Hiring, Training and Retention Initial 2005 Evaluation The availability of an adequate and stale driver workforce also was considered as part of the evaluation. Compensation and turnover were therefore considered. Driver training also was examined. It was noted that driver wages and compensation was relatively low and, as a result, turnover was high at some of the service providers. At JV, drivers were paid a $6.75 training wage. Sedan drivers then started at $9.00 per hour and van drivers start at $10.00 per hour. Driver wages went to $13-14 maximum. Benefits were provided after a 90 day probationary period. Benefits included five sick days per year, 11 paid holidays, two personal days per year, and two weeks of vacation per year after one year of employment. A health and dental plan was also provided, with the company picking up 50% of the cost. Short-term disability was also offered (with 25% company participation). And a simple IRA with a 3% company match was offered. As of the date of the on-site visit, JV employed a total of 85 drivers. A review of employment records for the previous year (April 2004 through April 2005) indicated that 33 drivers had left for various reasons during that period. This meant that driver turnover at JV was about 40% per year between April of 2004 and April of 2005. At Kiessling, the starting wage for van drivers was $10 per hour; for sedan driver, $9 per hour. At the time of the site visit, the average driver wage was $11.32 per hour. All drivers (as well as other hourly staff) received a minimum raise of 20 cents per hour every six months. KTI subsidized 50 percent of the health coverage for an individual. KTI stated that the main benefit it provided drivers was the regular assignment of overtime hours. Most shifts for full-time were 48 hours per week. Based on the driver roster at the time of the site visit, KTI had 84 drivers for RIDE service. Road supervisors were also available to cover runs as needed. The median length of service with KTI was 22 months. Of the 84 drivers, 32 (38 percent) had less than one year with KTI. Drivers at VTS (both sedan and van) were paid $7.00 per hour wage during training. At the completion of training, sedan drivers started at $8.76 per hour, and van drivers started at $10.30 per hour. The top end salaries were $11.66 for sedan drivers and $13.71 for van drivers. After a 90 day probationary period, drivers received 56 hours of combined sick and vacation leave for their first year of employment. One addition day of paid vacation was provided for each additional year of employment, up to a maximum of four weeks. Drivers also could elect to participate in group health insurance, dental insurance, life insurance and short and long-term disability programs. VTS covered 50% of the cost of health and dental insurance. A review of employee termination records showed that 7 sedans drivers and 11 van drivers had left or been terminate between October 1, 2004 and April 26, 2005. This suggests an annualized turnover of about 31 drivers (or about 17% of the total driver workforce). For paratransit operations, this is a relatively low turnover rate. The current training wage for GLSS drivers was $8.50 per hour. At completion of training, sedan drivers received $9.00 per hour, while van drivers received $9.50 per hour. The current high wages were $14.44 for sedan drivers and $14.67 for van drivers. Benefits included subsidized health and dental insurance, life insurance, pension, and a flexible spending account. According to the training supervisor and an operations supervisor (both of whom also have regular driving shifts), GLSS did not have its full complement of drivers. It’s goal was to have 162 drivers (most but not all full-time). At the time of the site visit, it was indicated that GLSS had about 140 drivers. Based on the driver roster at the time of the site visit, the median length of service was 39 months. Only 21 percent of the drivers had less than one year with GLSS. Primary observations and recommendations regarding the driver workforce were:
Recent Efforts and Observations Driver turnover has not been re-measured since the initial evaluation in 2005. The service providers have reported, however, efforts to recruit and retain more drivers. JV restructured its shifts to give drivers more hours and greater total take home pay. Many drivers in the JV operation now work 10 hour or longer shifts. GLSS also continued to make extra hiring efforts. Given the importance of a stable and experienced driver workforce, it is recommended that the MBTA continue to monitor driver availability and turnover. The MBTA should also continue to work with service providers, particularly VTS and JV, to lower the rate of driver turnover. It also is recommended that impacts of the longer shifts employed by some providers to increase total driver pay be monitored closely to ensure that service safety is not compromised. Consideration should also be given in future contracts to placing a high premium on contractors whose proposals demonstrate the ability to provide a stable and experienced driver workforce. Some approaches used by other transit agencies include: (1) requiring companies submitting proposals to be service providers to detail proposed compensation (including pay and fringe benefit details and proposed increases by year); (2) reviewing this information when considering competing proposals and giving strong consideration to proposals that will ensure a stable, experienced workforce; and (3) setting goals for non-disciplinary turnover and including contract incentives and disincentives to help achieve these turnover goals. Driver Interviews Initial 2005 Evaluation While on-site at each contractor location, drivers were interviewed for their input on how the service was working. About 15 drivers at each contractor site were interviewed. These interviews were conducted in private and drivers were informed that we were independent contractors and that the information provided would be treated as confidential. A standard set of interview questions was used at each location. Following is a summary of the information provided by these drivers. Most drivers did not appear to understand the on-time “pick-up window.” They seemed to feel that they needed to make pick-ups on or before the scheduled time listed on the manifest. A significant number of drivers also felt that the schedules they were given were too tight and that there was “not enough time to get from point A to point B.” At the same time, however, many of these same drivers indicated that they are late for pick-ups only rarely or occasionally. This could be due to their lack of understanding of the pick-up window. The times on the manifests may eventually work okay once the 15 minute window is factored in. This apparent inconsistency may also suggest that the initial schedules are too tight, but if dispatch assists and reassigns some trips throughout the day, the schedule becomes doable. There was a general sense that late pick-ups and circuitous routing is often caused by add-ons during the day or service. There also was a general sense that on-time arrivals for appointments are more of an issue than on-time pick-ups. And again, late drop-offs often seem to be related to same-day add-ons. Drivers generally did not indicate a problem with the accuracy of information on the manifests. Almost all drivers appeared to have a good understanding of no-show procedures. They all know to contact dispatch and will wait the required five minutes. If anything, they indicated that they waited longer than the required five minutes to avoid having to go back later should riders call asking for the vehicle to return. Several drivers indicated that additional map reading and familiarization with the service area would be helpful in the initial training. There was a mixed reaction about dispatch support. Many drivers felt dispatch would “help when they could,” but indicated that options to transfer trips might not exist during peak times. Several drivers also indicated issues with getting through to dispatch during peak hours. Recent Efforts and Observations Following the initial evaluation in 2005, several actions were taken by the service providers to address the issues raised by drivers. Re-training was done to increase driver understanding of the on-time pick-up window. Other areas of training were also strengthened – particularly at JV. Dispatch capacity also was added at JV and VTS to increase the effectiveness of support provided to the drivers. Vehicles and Vehicle Maintenance Initial 2005 Evaluation The adequacy of vehicle maintenance at each service provider was also evaluated. At each garage, a random set of vehicles was selected and the maintenance records for these vehicles were requested and examined. Compliance with preventative maintenance policies was evaluated. The process used to inspect vehicles before each pull-out and to promptly repair and deficiencies cited also was examined. A random day was selected at each service provider. The pull-out sheet was obtained and daily inspection forms were requested for that day to see if there was a completed inspection form for each run that pulled-out. Deficiencies noted on these forms were then tracked back through the maintenance shop to see when repairs were performed. The observations and recommendations made in 2005 on this part of the initial evaluation were:
Recent Efforts and Observations Following the initial evaluation in 2005, efforts were made to strengthen the daily vehicle inspection and recordkeeping process. Significant time was also spent working with and monitoring maintenance at JV to correct the deficiencies noted. The Contract Administrators in the MBTA Office of Transportation Access (OTA) also have continued to closely monitor maintenance activities. These efforts appear to have addressed the issues noted in 2005. On-Time Performance Initial 2005 Evaluation As detailed in the “Rider Comments and Complaints” section of this memorandum, the most common type of complaint voiced by THE RIDE riders was about on-time performance. Of the 1,425 complaints received by the MBTA between July 2004 and February 2005, 508 (36%) had to do with “promptness of pick-ups or drop-offs.” The number of complaints about on-time performance was almost twice as high as the next most common issue cited by riders. The review team therefore spent considerable time analyzing on-time performance and considering likely causes of these issues expressed by riders. In order to develop an independent estimate of on-time performance, the review team analyzed a sample of THE RIDE trips completed on March 16, 2005. To verify the performance reported by the service providers, the review team collected completed driver manifests for that day and developed on-time performance information based on the times entered on those manifests by drivers. Table 2.8 presents a summary of this analysis for pickups. As shown, 52% of the pickups in the sample were made within the 20-minute “pick-up window.” Another 37.4% of pickups were made early. A total of 89.4% of pickups were, therefore, made early or on time. Performance varied by service provider, with Kiessling showing just above average performance (90.5%), GLSS and VTS showing slightly below average performance (86.2% and 88.5% respectively), and JV showing above average performance (94.4%). In addition to analyzing on-time pickup performance, the review team also looked at on-time arrival performance. This was done by comparing actual arrival times recorded on driver manifests with appointment times indicated by riders. As noted above, appointment times were taken either from the driver manifests or from the Daily Posted Routes Report for service providers that did not show appointments on the manifests. Of the 609 trips analyzed, a total of 281 had appointment times. Some “going” trips did not have set appointments and were booked based on a desired pickup time. And return trips typically did not have an appointment time. Table 2.9 shows the result of the analysis of on-time arrival performance for March 16, 2005. As shown, 82.9% of all trips had drop-offs on or before the stated appointment times. Drop-offs were therefore after the appointment times about 17.1% of the time. Drop-offs were late by 1 to 15 minutes 13.9% of the time. Drop-offs were more than 15 minutes late 3.2% of the time. Table 2.8. On-Time Performance for THE RIDE Pick-Ups: March 16, 2005 (Editor’s note: Data in the table is presented in the following order: Number of trips or on-time categories; JV ; VTS; Kiessling; GLSS; Combined Number of Trips ; 123; 192; 127; 167; 609 % in Window (minus 5 to plus 15); 53.7%; 54.7%; 48.0%; 50.9%; 52.0% % in Window or Early; 94.4%; 88.5%; 90.5%; 86.2%; 89.4% All Early Trips; 40.7%; 33.8%; 42.5%; 35.3%; 37.4% 6 to 30 minutes early; 36.6%; 30.7%; 38.6%; 34.1%; 34.3% 31 to 60 minutes early; 4.1%; 3.1%; 3.9%; 1.2%; 3.1% Greater than 60 minutes early; 0%; 0%; 0.0%; 0.0%; 0% All Late Trips; 5.7%; 11.4%; 9.5%; 13.8%; 10.5% 16 to 30 minutes late; 1.6%; 10.4%; 7.1%; 9.0%; 7.6% 31 to 60 minutes late; 4.1%; 1.0%; 2.4%; 4.2%; 2.7% Greater than 60 minutes late; 0%; 0%; 0%; 0.6%; 0.2% Table 2.9. On-Time Performance for The RIDE Drop-Offs: March 16, 2005 (Editor’s note: Data in the table is presented in the following order: Number of trips or on-time category; JV; VTS; Kiessling; GLSS; Combined Number of Trips ; 55; 96; 56; 74; 281 All On-Time Trips/Early; 81.8%; 84.3%; 85.7%; 79.8%; 82.9% 0 to 15 minutes early; 40.0%; 42.7%; 46.4%; 35.1%; 40.9% 16 to 30 minutes; 18.2%; 19.8%; 23.2%; 23.0%; 21.0% Greater than 30 minutes; 23.6%; 21.8%; 16.1%; 21.7%; 21.0% All Late Trips; 18.2%; 15.6%; 12.5%; 20.3%; 17.1% 1 to 15 minutes;12.7%;13.5%;8.9%;17.6%;13.9 Greater than 15 mins;5.5%;2.1%;3.6%;2.7%;3.2% A detailed review of some of the trips on this sample day where drop-offs were late indicated that the pick-ups and drop-offs for a number of trips were scheduled very close. There were several examples where the promised time was within 10 to 20 minutes of the appointment time for relatively short, local trips. If delivered on-time, this type of scheduling provided customers with excellent service. They could be picked-up only a short time before their scheduled appointments. However, if the full “on-time” pick-up window of 15 to30 minutes was utilized on the day of service, riders would often not be picked-up until or after their appointment times. Or, if other pick-ups were added-on, and dispatchers were not focused on the appointment times, there would be a longer ride time and the drop-off would be late. Several observations and recommendations regarding on-time performance were made as a result of the 2005 on-site evaluation. These are listed below.
|