Deferred Maintenance Costs Fleets More Than They Think. Training Helps Reduce the Risk
- Apr 13
- 4 min read
Deferred maintenance has always been expensive. David Tod Geaslin’s article, The Disastrous Effects of Deferring Maintenance, makes that point clearly. A minor known issue can turn into a larger failure once collateral damage, downtime, labor disruption, lost service time, and operational consequences are added to the equation. His larger message is not just about repair cost. It is about escalation.
For fleet managers and transportation directors, that message is especially relevant today. Modern fleets are managing battery-electric vehicles, high-voltage systems, charging infrastructure, CNG systems, hydraulics, air brakes, and increasingly complex electrical controls. In that environment, a small unresolved issue does not simply sit still. A charging fault can become a service disruption. A high-voltage safety concern can delay repairs until outside support is available. A hydraulic leak, air-brake issue, or electrical fault can sideline equipment longer than expected if the shop cannot get to root cause quickly. The maintenance problem is real, but so is the capability problem.
That is where technician training enters the conversation. Maintenance is not deferred only because of budget pressure. It is also deferred when technicians lack the training to diagnose faults quickly, safely, and correctly. When a team is unsure how to work around high-voltage hazards, charging-system communication faults, CNG service procedures, or advanced electrical diagnostics, even manageable issues can linger longer than they should. Over time, that creates more opportunities for small problems to become bigger ones.
The broader safety case is well established. FMCSA says motor carriers targeted for interventions due to vehicle maintenance have a 65 percent greater future crash rate than the national average. That does not prove that training alone solves the problem, but it does reinforce a simple point: maintenance performance has real safety consequences.
Research from the transit sector gets closer to the training question. In a Transportation Research Board case study, the Ann Arbor Transit Authority found that employee skill level, especially troubleshooting skill, was the primary cause of road calls. To address that issue, the agency trained mechanics and also implemented a team-based maintenance model. Since 1985, it reported that road calls had decreased by 78 percent. That is an important finding, and it should be read carefully. The improvement was not attributed to training alone. It came from training combined with a different maintenance structure and accountability model. Still, it is strong evidence that technician skill level and maintenance execution are closely tied to reliability outcomes.
Another TRB synthesis supports the same direction of thought. It reports that Metro Transit shifted its focus toward training and making the correct repair the first time, rather than emphasizing speed alone. The same source states that if shops are appropriately equipped and employees are properly trained, effective and timely repairs will occur. For fleet leaders, that is the heart of the issue. Timely maintenance depends not only on having a work order system and a PM schedule, but also on having technicians who can accurately diagnose problems and complete the right repair the first time.
That lesson becomes even more important as fleets add electric vehicles and charging infrastructure. The Federal Transit Administration’s battery-electric bus guidebook says OEM training should be clearly outlined in procurement documents and should occur shortly after bus delivery to limit delays in revenue service deployment. The same report notes that agencies cited timing for training and delayed parts among the challenges they faced while deploying battery-electric buses. In other words, workforce readiness is part of fleet readiness. When training is delayed, operations can feel the impact.
FTA research on procuring and maintaining battery-electric buses adds a useful field perspective. One agency reported that the cost of proper training was less than the cost of an undiagnosed or misdiagnosed problem and unnecessary parts replacement. While it's understood that this is testimony from an experienced professional and not a statistical finding, it reflects a reality many fleet leaders already know from experience: misdiagnosis is expensive, and in complex systems it often extends downtime far beyond the original fault.
The takeaway is straightforward. Training is not separate from maintenance strategy. It is part of maintenance strategy. A fleet that invests in technician capability is better positioned to identify faults earlier, make timely repairs, reduce dependence on outside support for routine issues, and prevent avoidable escalation. That applies to EV charging systems and high-voltage vehicles, but it also applies to the core systems fleets depend on every day, including air brakes, hydraulics, CNG systems, and advanced electrical diagnostics.
No training program can eliminate every breakdown. But the evidence points in a clear direction. Deferred maintenance becomes more dangerous and more expensive when teams are not prepared to diagnose and repair problems early. Fleets that want better uptime, better safety, and better control over maintenance costs should treat technician training as operational risk management, not as an optional add-on.
If your fleet is adding EVs, charging infrastructure, high-voltage systems, CNG vehicles, hydraulics, or advanced brake and electrical systems, WTA can help your technicians build the skills to diagnose problems earlier, repair them correctly, and reduce avoidable downtime. Explore WTA training programs or contact us to discuss training at your facility.
Source Articles:
ACHR News article
FMCSA: The Impact of Vehicle Maintenance on Safety
TRB / TCRP Synthesis 22: Monitoring Bus Maintenance Performance
TRB / TCRP Synthesis 54: Maintenance Productivity Practices
FTA Report No. 0254: Guidebook for Deploying Battery Electric Buses
FTA Report No. 0253: Procuring and Maintaining Battery Electric Buses and Charging Systems
Comments