This paper examines extraboard operations at TriMet, the transit provider for the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area. The extraboard consists of a pool of operators who fill open work resulting from absences and other causes. Drawing on 7 years of daily operations data, the paper examines first the general performance of the extraboard in filling open work. The paper then presents statistical analyses focusing on open work patterns and the effects of selected work rules on operator utilization and service delivery. Last, suggestions are made for improving the efficiency of extraboard operations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KaysiI., and WilsonN. H. M.. Scheduling Transit Extraboard Personnel. In Transportation Research Record 1266, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 31–43.
2.
KoutsopoulosH.Scheduling of Extraboard Operators in Transit Systems. Transportation Science, Vol. 24, 1990, pp. 87–104.
3.
KoutsopoulosH., and WilsonN.. Operator Workforce Planning in the Transit Industry. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 21, 1987, pp. 127–138.
4.
MundleS.R., KrausJ.E., and HogeG. A.Impact of Labor Contract Provisions on Transit Operator Productivity. In Transportation Research Record 1266, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 23–30.
5.
PerinC.The Dynamics of Operator Absenteeism. In Transportation Research Record 1002, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1984, pp. 1–7.
6.
ShiftanY., and WilsonN.. The Absence Consequences of Overtime in the Transit Industry. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 3, 2001, pp. 25–40.
7.
StrathmanJ.G., BroachJ., and CallasS.. Analysis of Short-Duration Unscheduled Absences of Transit Operators: TriMet Case Study. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2111, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 185–194.
8.
MacDormanL., and MacDormanJ.. The Transit Extraboard: Some Opportunities for Cost Savings. Presented at Annual Meeting of the American Public Transit Association, Boston, Mass., 1982.
9.
Family and Medical Leave Act Regulations: A Report on the Department of Labor's Request for Information, 2007 Update.Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 2007.
10.
VolinskyJ.TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 33: Practices in Assuring Employee Availability.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999.
11.
Amalgamated Transit Union Division 757, and TriMet. Working and Wage Agreement Between Amalgamated Transit Union, Division 757 and TriMet, December 1, 2003–November 30, 2009. Portland, Ore.
12.
GertlerJ., PopkinS., NelsonD., and O'NeilK.. TCRP Report 81: Toolbox for Transit Operator Fatigue.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002.
13.
DeAnnuntisC.P., and MorrisW. P.Transit Extraboard Management: Optimum Sizing and Strategies. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2072, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 110–124.
14.
StrathmanJ., WachanaP., and CallasS.. Analysis of Bus Collision and Non-Collision Incidents Using Transit ITS and Other Archived Operations Data. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 41, 2010, pp. 137–144.
15.
DiMiliaL., SmolenskyM., CostaG., HowarthH., OhayonM., and PhilipP.. Demographic Factors, Fatigue, and Driving Accidents: An Examination of the Published Literature. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 43, 2011, pp. 516–532.
16.
BoxG., and TidwellP.. Transformation of the Independent Variables. Technometrics, Vol. 4, 1962, pp. 531–550.
17.
DixonW., MulerE., and SeligsonM.. Inequality and Political Violence Revisited. American Political Science Review, Vol. 87, 1993, pp. 979–993.
18.
ZellnerA.An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regression Equations and Tests for Aggregation Bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 57, 1962, pp. 348–368.
19.
PrattR.H., TurnbullK.F., EvansJ. E.IV, McCollomB.E., SpielbergF., VacaE., and KuzmyakJ. R.TCRP Web Document 12: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes: Interim Handbook.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2000. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_12.pdf. Accessed Dec. 31, 2010.
20.
Occupational Employment and Wages in Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton: May 2010. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2010. http://www.bls.gov/ro9/oesport.htm. Accessed Dec. 31, 2010.
21.
SmallK.The Scheduling of Consumer Activities: Work Trips. American Economic Review, Vol. 72, 1982, pp. 467–479.
22.
PerkV., FlynnJ., and VolinskyJ.. Transit Ridership, Reliability, and Retention. Report No. NCTR-776-07. National Center for Transit Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, 2008.
23.
TranSystems, Planners Cooperative, Inc., and Tom Crikelair Associates. TCRP Report 111: Elements Needed to Create High-Ridership Transit Systems.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007.
24.
BarnumD.TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 13: Use of Incentives to Attain Specified Performance Standards in Collective Bargaining for Mass Transit.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1987.
25.
HartmanR., KurtzE., and MoserE.. TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 3: Incentive Programs to Improve Transit Employee Performance.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994.
26.
MillerG., and KirbyR.. Financial Incentives for Improving Transit Productivity.Urban Institute, Washington, D.C., 1986.
27.
ScottK., and DedrickD.. The Influence of Financial Incentive Programs on Employee Performance and Organizational Productivity Within the Mass Transit Industry.Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1984.
