National Academies Press: OpenBook

Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation (2019)

Chapter: Appendix C. Performance Measure Evaluation Process

« Previous: Appendix B. Interview Summaries
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C. Performance Measure Evaluation Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25461.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C. Performance Measure Evaluation Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25461.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C. Performance Measure Evaluation Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25461.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C. Performance Measure Evaluation Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25461.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C. Performance Measure Evaluation Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25461.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C. Performance Measure Evaluation Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25461.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C. Performance Measure Evaluation Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25461.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C. Performance Measure Evaluation Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25461.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C. Performance Measure Evaluation Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25461.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C. Performance Measure Evaluation Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25461.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C. Performance Measure Evaluation Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25461.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C. Performance Measure Evaluation Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25461.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C. Performance Measure Evaluation Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25461.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C. Performance Measure Evaluation Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25461.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C. Performance Measure Evaluation Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25461.
×
Page 123

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

C-1 APPENDIX C. PERFORMANCE MEASURE EVALUATION PROCESS Based on feedback from the project kickoff meeting and panel teleconference, the research team developed the following process to evaluate and refine the list of performance measures: Step 1: Characterization: The research team characterized each performance measure by the categories identified in Table C-1 and eliminated redundant measures. Step 2: Qualitative Screening: The research team qualitatively screened the performance measures using evaluation criteria approved by the panel and refined the list to a desired range of approximately 60 to 80 measures. Step 3: Validation: The panel and members of the APTA working group on social and economic sustainability completed a survey evaluating the refined measures using the established evaluation criteria. Step 4: Refinement: Based on the results of the survey and feedback from the panel, the research team revised the refined list of measures to identify a list of “top measures.” PERFORMANCE MEASURE CHARACTERIZATION The research team first characterized each performance measure using the eight categories identified in Table C-1. The purpose of categorization was to allow the research team to filter and sort measures by different features that were identified as important in the APTA Recommended Practice or during panel meetings. Measures were also reconciled – if the intention behind two measures could be captured in a single measure with some rephrasing, the research team eliminated and/or modified the measures in order to reduce redundancy. Table C-1. Performance Measure Categorization Category Purpose Characterization Process Alignment with Goals/Objectives Determine if the measure clearly connects to goals and objectives identified in the APTA Recommended Practice for Social and Economic Sustainability Each measure was mapped to an APTA social and economic goal and objective Agency Characteristics Identify the type of agencies that the measure would apply to The research team identified which mode(s) the measure is applicable to and whether the measure applies to rural and/or urban geographies Type of Metric Identify a mix of different types of measures Each measure was characterized as input, process, output, or outcome measure Environmental Justice (EJ) Enable consideration of environmental justice ‘Yes’ indicates that a measure could be evaluated for environmental justice considerations and ‘No’

C-2 Category Purpose Characterization Process indicates that the measure likely cannot account for environmental justice Span of Control Avoid too many measures that are not within the agency’s span of control ‘Yes’ indicates that the measure is expected to be within an agency’s control and ‘No’ indicates that it is not likely to be within an agency’s control Social/Economic Include a mix of social and economic measures Each measure was identified as a social or economic measure. When there is overlap, the research team selected the best fit. Internal/External Include a mix of measures with internal and external impacts Each measure was characterized as having primarily internal (within the agency) or external (outside of the agency) social and/or economic impacts Alignment with Goals Each of the performance measures was initially mapped to one goal and corresponding objective identified in the APTA Recommended Practice on Social and Economic Sustainability. Table C- 2 identifies the goals, the nexus with social and economic outcomes, whether the goal measures internal or external progress, and the number of measures that align with that goal out of the 606 measures. Some measures did not strongly align with the APTA Recommended Practice and consequently were screened out of the subsequent list of refined measures. Table C-2. Social and Economic Sustainability Goals Goal Social Economic No. of Measures Internal External Internal External Community Building and Engagement: Engage diverse groups to improve transit service, create hospitality in customer service, and demonstrate good will through engagement techniques and commit to good design in the public realm. X X 62 Economic Impact: Support the economic growth of our regions and the nation. X X X 108 Employees and Workforce: Create a conducive and supportive environment for all employees. X 86 Financial: Ensure the reliability of transit services through financial stability. X X 71

C-3 Goal Social Economic No. of Measures Internal External Internal External Mobility and Accessibility: Make it easier for people of all abilities to affordably and reasonably access different goods and services to meet their daily needs. X X 128 Safety and Emergency Preparedness: Ensure operations are safe and do not compromise the well- being of riders, staff or the public. X X X X 151 Alignment with Objectives Each of the performance measures was also mapped to one objective identified in the APTA Recommended Practice on Social and Economic Sustainability. Objectives are listed in Table C- 3. In addition, the research team added a new objective called ‘Health and Wellness’ to reflect the panel’s desire to include performance measures that demonstrate how transit agencies can provide health and wellness benefits to employees and passengers. As shown in Table C-3, some objectives were mapped to a large number of measures while others were only mapped to one or two measures. Table C-3. Social and Economic Sustainability Objectives Goal Objectives No. Measures Community Building and Engagement Community engagement 16 Rider engagement 17 Collaboration and partnerships 13 Good design elements 16 Economic Impact Measure and communicate economic benefits of transit 65 Extend economic reach of public transportation 8 Understand distributional effects on specific areas or groups 34 Politically leverage economic benefits 1 Employee Workforce Employee recruiting 12 Employee retention 17 Organizational culture and workforce engagement 57 Financial Fiscal responsibility 59 Sustainable investments 7 Procurement strategies 5 Mobility and Accessibility Affordability (housing and transportation) 23 Access 71 Multimodal connectivity 34

C-4 Goal Objectives No. Measures Safety and Emergency Preparedness Safety 137 Security 7 Health and wellness (proposed) 5 Emergency Preparedness 2 Mode The research team aligned each performance measure with one or more of the following transit modes: rail, bus, paratransit, biking and all if the measure applied to any mode. The majority of performance measures were identified as potentially applicable to any mode (549). Measures exclusive to rail was the next-largest category, with 38 measures. Urban/Rural The research team also indicated if the measure would apply to urban and/or rural transit agencies. It is expected that suburban transit agencies may align more closely with either the urban or rural measures depending on their geography and the type of service they offer. The research team determined that the majority of performance measures could potentially apply to transit agencies in any geography (592 measures). The actual relevance of each measure would depend on specific agency characteristics. A very small minority of measures would be most relevant in an urban context (14 measures); these included measures of a station’s walk-score, employee commute mode, and density of development near transit stations. Type of Metric Each measure was characterized as input, process, output, or outcome measure according to the following definitions identified in Well Measured (Litman 2016 p 15): • Process – the types of policies and planning activities, such as whether the organization has a process for collecting and publishing performance data, and public involvement. • Input – the resources that are invested in particular activities, such as the level of funding spent on various activities or modes. • Output – direct results, such as the miles of sidewalks, paths and roads, and the amount of public transit service provided. • Outcome – ultimate results, such as the number of miles traveled and mode share, average travel speeds, congestion and crowding, number of accidents and casualties, energy consumption, pollution emissions, and user satisfaction. The majority of measures were characterized as outcome measures (468 measures), followed by input measures (67 measures), output measures (52 measures), and process measures (19 measures). This result is expected, as outcome measures are easier to define and measure.

C-5 Could Measure Consider Environmental Justice The research team considered whether a transit agency could evaluate each performance measure from an environmental justice perspective.18 For example, if an agency conducted a customer satisfaction survey, they could ask questions relating to environmental justice, such as income level and ethnicity. The results could then be assessed by respondent type. Another example would be to report the number of transit agency stations that host farmers markets. While the measure as worded does not account for environmental justice, a transit agency could report the number of stations hosting farmers markets that serve a high percentage of environmental justice populations. More than a third of the performance measures could be used to consider environmental justice, 229 measures in total. Span of Control Transit agencies are generally concerned about measures which may not be fully within their control. While this is understandable social and economic measures are often influenced by the integrated policies of more than one public agency action. In addition, public agencies many share compatible objectives and beneficially collaborate on a shared performance measure/goal that would better reflect the activities of each individual agency. For example, a city may have a goal to increase livability. A transit agency may heavily influence this goal in terms of enhancing access, but likely does not have influence on housing affordability. While some agencies may elect to adopt shared measures, other agencies may prefer to only include measures within their control. While span of control will vary by agency, the research team identified if a measure is generally expected to be within an agency’s control or not. As shown in Table C-4, the majority of the measures that are anticipated to be outside of an agency’s control fall under Economic Impact or Mobility and Accessibility. In the long run, it may be necessary to develop relationships between transit agencies and other organizations in order to collect data, and/or to meaningfully move the needle. Table C-4. Measures within Agency’s Control and Outside Agency’s Control by Goal Goal Within Agency's Control Outside Agency's Control Community Building and Engagement 62 0 Economic Impact 50 58 Employees and Workforce 86 0 Financial 67 4 Mobility and Accessibility 60 69 Safety and Emergency Preparedness 148 3 Grand Total 473 133 18 According to Executive Order 12898, an ‘Environmental Justice (EJ) Population include low-income and minority populations. For more information, see https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_EJ_Circular_7.14-12_FINAL.pdf

C-6 Social/Economic Although there is often overlap between social and economic goals and objectives, the research team categorized each measure as either predominantly social or economic to allow APTA and transit agencies to select measures according to their own priorities. When there is overlap, the research team selected the best fit. For example, measures relating to jobs or dollars were characterized as economic, while measures relating to people (such as percent of accessible facilities) were characterized as social. Internal/External Performance measures generally focus on measuring either impacts on the agency itself (internal) or impacts on the public or region the agency services (external). For example, all of the measures identified under the Employees and Workforce goal are categorized as internal while all of the measures identified under Mobility and Accessibility goal are categorized as external. The remaining goals include a mix of internal and external measures. This categorization allows transit agencies to select measures that specifically target internal or external impacts. Most measures were characterized as external (376 measures) versus internal (224 measures). In only few cases, a measure was identified as having both internal and external impacts (6 measures). For example, the ‘number/percent of employees who take public transit to work’ could be used to measure the percent of transit agency employees who take public transit (internal) or the percent of the workforce within the agency’s service area that takes public transit to work (external). QUALITATIVE SCREENING Following performance measure characterization, the research team qualitatively screened the measures using the following criteria approved by the panel: 1. Metric’s Applicability: How applicable is the measure to agency operations? 2. Universal Applicability: Is the measure expected to be universally applicable to all types and sizes of transit agencies? 3. Realistic and Attainable: Is the level of effort to collect and maintain the data to support this measure reasonable considering transit agencies resources? 4. Monitoring/Implementation: Is the measure reasonable to track over time and use as a continuous process improvement benchmark? 5. Well Understood: Is the measure understandable by transit agency stakeholders and/or by standard setting organizations? The research team reviewed all 606 measures identified during the literature review or added by the research team based on experience. The research team sought to develop a shorter list of measures that could be used as the basis for the survey as described below. The research team first identified redundant measures. Redundancy indicated that the measure was well-tracked (e.g., used by multiple agencies), and may well-reflect agencies’ current efforts to measure social and economic outcomes. Redundant measures were refined and consolidated. For example, many agencies measure customer satisfaction, but track the information differently (e.g., percent

C-7 customer satisfaction, overall transportation system satisfaction rating, overall satisfaction of the transit system by non-drivers/by people with disabilities). The research team evaluated each of these individual measures and created a single measure that the research team believed would best capture the goal of the various measures: ‘Overall satisfaction of the transit system by user group (e.g., non-drivers, people with disabilities, environmental justice populations, gender, age, choice riders).’ Based on experience working with transit agencies, the literature review and interviews with transit agencies, the research team eliminated measures that did not strongly align with criteria 1, 3, 4 and 5 to develop a refined list of 124 measures. Criteria 2 was used to ensure that the refined list included a sufficient number of measures that could be universally applicable. The research team reviewed measures by APTA goal category; the following sections summarize the research team’s general reasoning for eliminating measures by APTA goal. The team performed a second review of the measures to further refine them with a primarily focus on Criteria 3 (i.e., a measure would be cost prohibitive to monitor) and Criteria 4 (i.e., a measure is not expected to vary substantially over time). A total of 71 measures were identified for use in the survey (Table C-5). Table C-5. Measures Included in Survey by Goal APTA Goal Complete List Refined List Included in Survey Community Building and Engagement 62 20 9 Economic Impact 108 10 9 Employees and Workforce 86 17 10 Financial 71 19 11 Mobility and Accessibility 128 28 18 Safety and Emergency Preparedness 151 31 14 Grand Total 606 125 71 VALIDATION In order to validate the refined list of measures, the research team developed an online survey to get input from the panel members, members of the APTA Social and Economic Working Group, and transit agencies interviewed as part of this project. The survey’s objective was to validate the list of measures by asking participants to rank how well the measure aligned with the evaluation criteria using a Likert scale (Strongly Agree [5], Agree [4], Neither Agree nor Disagree [3], Disagree [2], Strongly Disagree [1], or I Don’t Know [0]). Participants were also to indicate which of the measures were currently being tracked by their agency. A copy of the survey is provided in Appendix D and a summary of the survey respondents is included in Table C-6. Ten individuals fully completed the entire survey; one individual completed part of the survey. All but two of the respondents are current or former transit agency employees. Several of the panel members do not work for transit agencies, and indicated that the survey questions were not relevant to them.

C-8 Table C-6. Summary of Survey Respondents Agency 2017 Annual Trips Modes Transit Agency Survey Complete LA Metro 409,580,106 Bus, Heavy Rail, Light Rail Yes Yes TransLink 406,840,000 Bus, SkyTrain (rapid transit), SeaBus, West Coast Express (commuter rail), Access Transit, Community Shuttles Yes Yes WMATA 354,635,583 Hard Rail, Bus, Access Yes Yes BART 132,808,841 Commuter Rail Yes Yes TriMet 99,695,112 Bus, Light Rail, Commuter Rail, LIFT Yes Yes Sound Transit 46,999,860 Hard Rail, Bus, Access Yes Yes TARC 13,150,822 Bus Yes Yes Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District 12,146,959 Bus Yes Yes Interurban Transit Partnership 11,030,386 Bus, Paratransit, Vanpool, BRT and Shuttles Yes Yes FTA N/A N/A No Yes National RTAP N/A N/A No Partial In order to facilitate the prioritization of the performance measures, the research team first filtered out any “I Don’t Know” responses, then calculated an average score for each question (evaluation criteria). The sum of average scores was calculated for each of the 71 performance measures to form an overall score. The average score for each question ranged from 1 to 5, with an average value of 3.8. The maximum possible overall score was 25, and the highest-scoring measure received an overall score of 21.85. The purpose of the survey and rankings was to confirm that the list of measures identified by the survey team conformed to the evaluation criteria. The rankings can also be used to narrow the measures to a more workable and higher priority number of measures, if desired by the panel. Findings from under each goal (Community Building and Engagement, Economic Impact, Employees and Workforce, Financial, Mobility and Accessibility, and Safety and Emergency Preparedness) are summarized in the Appendix D. In Appendix D, the measures are ordered from highest overall score to lowest overall score by goal. A color scale is used to emphasizes the differences in scores for each individual question. Each score is shaded with gradations of three colors (green, yellow, red) that correspond to high, medium and low scores, respectively. Table C- 7 lists the performance measures included in the survey in order of the measure’s overall ranking. Detailed survey results are included in Appendix D. Table C-7. Performance Measure Survey Overall Ranking Performance Measure APTA Goal Rank Total number of reportable fatalities (passenger, worker, patron, public) by mode Safety and Emergency Preparedness 1 Percent of vehicles ADA accessible Mobility and Accessibility 2

C-9 Performance Measure APTA Goal Rank Percent of stations/stops ADA accessible Mobility and Accessibility 3 Total incidences of crime on transit agency property by type of crime Safety and Emergency Preparedness 4 Number of customer complaints responded to by type of complaint Community Building and Engagement 5 Percent of transit stops with bicycle parking by type Mobility and Accessibility 6 Percent of buses equipped with bicycle racks Mobility and Accessibility 7 Percentage of transit stops with transit schedule and route information provided Community Building and Engagement 8 The number and rate of recordable and reportable work-related injuries/illnesses by mode Safety and Emergency Preparedness 9 Total and percent revenue by type (e.g., capital, operating, etc.) and by source (e.g., fare, local, state, federal, etc.) Financial 10 Operating cost per revenue hour and passenger mile by mode Financial 11 Overall satisfaction of the transit system by user group (e.g., non- drivers, people with disabilities, environmental justice populations, gender, age, choice riders) Community Building and Engagement 12 Total expenses by type and mode (e.g., service, maintenance, admin, workforce) Financial 13 Percent of stations and vehicles with video surveillance Safety and Emergency Preparedness 14 Average score of perceived safety on transit based on scale 1 - 10, by transit mode Safety and Emergency Preparedness 15 Employee retention rate by gender and age group Employees and Workforce 16 Ratio of the basic salary and remuneration of women to men for each employee category by significant locations of operation Employees and Workforce 17 Number/percent of employees who take public transit to work Economic Impact 18 Percent of bus stops with shelters Mobility and Accessibility 19 Farebox recovery ratio Financial 20 Percentage of capital projects within +- 10% of the original budget Financial 21 Percentage of revenue and non-revenue vehicles (by type) that exceed the useful life benchmark Financial 22 Sidewalk connections, bike facility connections, pedestrian safety improvements included in project planning and design (measured in dollars or miles funded) Mobility and Accessibility 23 Number and percent of jobs located within 1/2 mile of a transit stop Economic Impact 24 Number and dollar value of D/M/WBE contracts awarded as a percentage of all contracts awarded Economic Impact 25

C-10 Performance Measure APTA Goal Rank Percentage of employees per employee category in each of the following categories: gender; age group (under 30, 30 - 50, over 50); minority and/or vulnerable group; disability; veteran Employees and Workforce 26 Percentage of capital project costs supported by local funding, public-private partnerships, or other cost recovery mechanisms Financial 27 Percent of population within service area that lives within 1/4 mile of a transit stop Mobility and Accessibility 28 Number/percent of employees receiving customer service or engagement training (e.g., equity and social justice, hospitality, conflict resolution) by type of training Community Building and Engagement 29 Percent of full-time equivalent employees that meet internally developed safety, security, and emergency preparedness training and certification guidelines Safety and Emergency Preparedness 30 The number of close calls identified by operation type (e.g., bus operations, rail operations, maintenance shops, etc.) Safety and Emergency Preparedness 31 Number/percent of vacant posts filled internally by promotion or transfer (%) Employees and Workforce 32 Number/percent of projects that follow a public participation/engagement plan Community Building and Engagement 33 Percent of users satisfied with the safety and comfort of existing bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities by user type (e.g., men, women, youth, seniors) Mobility and Accessibility 34 Percent workforce living near transit stops by income level Economic Impact 35 Number of planning studies led or collaborated on per year Community Building and Engagement 36 Employee engagement/satisfaction score Employees and Workforce 37 Transit collisions per year compared to car collisions per year Safety and Emergency Preparedness 38 Number of projects and programs that have undergone formal sustainability or resilience assessments during planning and/or design Financial 39 Number of employers and schools that have discounted transit fare programs Mobility and Accessibility 40 Number/percent of RFPs that include sustainability criteria Financial 41 Percent passenger station access modeshare (active, shared mobility, drive and park) Mobility and Accessibility 42 Number of Community-Based-Organization (CBO) events sponsored by/attended by transit staff Community Building and Engagement 43 Vulnerable population within ¼-mile of transit stop by type (low- income, limited English proficiency [LEP], aged, disabled) Mobility and Accessibility 44 Number of new housing units within 1/2 mile of a rail or TOD station Economic Impact 45 Number of new jobs within 1/2 mile of a rail or TOD station Economic Impact 46

C-11 Performance Measure APTA Goal Rank Number/percent of employees trained by type of training, level and gender (e.g., leadership, management, anti-bias, anti- harassment training) Employees and Workforce 47 Percentage of the procurement budget that is spent on suppliers local to operations (such as % of products and services purchased locally) Financial 48 Total number and rate of new employee hires during the reporting period by age group, gender, ethnicity, disability and veteran status Employees and Workforce 49 Ratio of involuntary transit fatalities per X miles compared to passenger vehicle fatalities per X miles Safety and Emergency Preparedness 50 Percent of riders who are low income, minority, limited English proficiency, ADA, or senior by mode Mobility and Accessibility 51 Number of employee recognition awards given each year by type Employees and Workforce 52 Count of bikes on board all mode, and parked at facilities recorded annually Mobility and Accessibility 53 Percentage of housing units within X miles of rail station or TOD areas that are affordable (e.g., units for which monthly rent or mortgage is equal to no more than 30 percent of area median income) Mobility and Accessibility 54 Number/percent of interviewers who received anti-bias training Employees and Workforce 55 Number of operations staff trained in interacting with the homeless Safety and Emergency Preparedness 56 Dollars spent marketing the benefits of transit Economic Impact 57 Portion of household income devoted to public transit by lower income households Mobility and Accessibility 58 The estimated value of the organization's defined benefit plan obligations and other retirement plans by funding type (funded/unfunded) Financial 59 Percent increase in value of land near rail station areas relative to other areas Economic Impact 60 Ratio of vulnerable populations and non-vulnerable populations within service areas that live within 1/4 mile of a high-frequency transit stop Mobility and Accessibility 61 Number/percent of employees who participate in health and wellness initiatives, including biking and walking to work Employees and Workforce 62 Number of participants in a low-income fare program as a percentage of low-income riders Mobility and Accessibility 63 Number of resilience actions underway or complete Safety and Emergency Preparedness 64

C-12 Performance Measure APTA Goal Rank Number of free “how to use transit” trainings each year Community Building and Engagement 65 Portion of transit riders that walks or cycles sufficient for fitness and health (15 minutes or more daily) Mobility and Accessibility 66 Total number of employees that took parental leave, by gender by number of weeks (paid vs unpaid) Employees and Workforce 67 Average time per trip spent commuting for work or school during peak periods via transit vs private vehicles (minutes) Mobility and Accessibility 68 Percentage of track segments (by mode) that have performance restrictions Mobility and Accessibility 69 Number/percent of schools included in the Enhance Safe Routes to School program Community Building and Engagement 70 Number of projects that had an ex-post (following project implementation) economic impact study conducted Economic Impact 71 Performance Measures Tracked Respondents were asked to report if their agency tracked any of the performance measures. Nine of the survey respondents completed this question. Table C-8 lists each performance measure per category and indicates the number of respondents who reported that their transit agency tracks the measure. Almost all measures are tracked by at least one respondent. The most commonly tracked measure was the ‘overall satisfaction of the transit system by user group’ (9 respondents). Sixty-seven (67) of the measures were tracked by at least one respondent; 38 of the measures were tracked by four or more respondents. Only four measures were not tracked by any respondent. Table C-8. Performance Measures Tracked Performance Measure Total Community Building and Engagement Overall satisfaction of the transit system by user group (e.g., non-drivers, people with disabilities, environmental justice populations, gender, age, choice riders) 9 Number of customer complaints responded to by type of complaint 8 Number of planning studies led or collaborated on per year 6 Number/percent of projects that follow a public participation/engagement plan 5 Number/percent of employees receiving customer service or engagement training (e.g., equity and social justice, hospitality, conflict resolution) by type of training 4 Number of Community-Based-Organization (CBO) events sponsored by/attended by transit staff 3 Percentage of transit stops with transit schedule and route information provided 4 Number of free “how to use transit” trainings each year 2 Number/percent of schools included in the Enhance Safe Routes to School program 1

C-13 Economic Impact Number and dollar value of D/M/WBE contracts awarded as a percentage of all contracts awarded 4 Number/percent of employees who take public transit to work 4 Number and percent of jobs located within 1/2 mile of a transit stop 3 Number of new housing units within 1/2 mile of a rail or TOD station 2 Dollars spent marketing the benefits of transit 3 Percent increase in value of land near rail station areas relative to other areas 2 Number of new jobs within 1/2 mile of a rail or TOD station 1 Percent workforce living near transit stops by income level 1 Number of projects that had an ex-post (following project implementation) economic impact study conducted 0 Employee Workforce Total number and rate of new employee hires during the reporting period by age group, gender, ethnicity, disability and veteran status 6 Number/percent of vacant posts filled internally by promotion or transfer (%) 5 Total number of employees that took parental leave, by gender by number of weeks (paid vs unpaid) 5 Percentage of employees per employee category in each of the following categories: gender; age group (under 30, 30 - 50, over 50); minority and/or vulnerable group; disability; veteran 4 Employee engagement/satisfaction score 5 Number of employee recognition awards given each year by type 5 Employee retention rate by gender and age group 4 Number/percent of interviewers who received anti-bias training 3 Ratio of the basic salary and remuneration of women to men for each employee category by significant locations of operation 3 Number/percent of employees trained by type of training, level and gender (e.g., leadership, management, anti-bias, anti-harassment training) 2 Financial Total and percent revenue by type (e.g., capital, operating, etc.) and by source (e.g., fare, local, state, federal, etc.) 8 Operating cost per revenue hour and passenger mile by mode 8 Total expenses by type and mode (e.g., service, maintenance, admin, workforce) 8 Farebox recovery ratio 7 Percentage of capital projects within +- 10% of the original budget 6 The estimated value of the organization's defined benefit plan obligations and other retirement plans by funding type (funded/unfunded) 5 Percentage of revenue and non-revenue vehicles (by type) that exceed the useful life benchmark 6 Percentage of capital project costs supported by local funding, public-private partnerships, or other cost recovery mechanisms 5 Percentage of the procurement budget that is spent on suppliers local to operations (such as % of products and services purchased locally) 2 Number/percent of RFPs that include sustainability criteria 2 Number of projects and programs that have undergone formal sustainability or resilience assessments during planning and/or design 1

C-14 Mobility and Accessibility Percent of bus stops with shelters 4 Percent of stations/stops ADA accessible 5 Percent of vehicles ADA accessible 5 Percent of buses equipped with bicycle racks 6 Percentage of housing units within X miles of rail station or TOD areas that are affordable (e.g., units for which monthly rent or mortgage is equal to no more than 30 percent of area median income) 4 Number of employers and schools that have discounted transit fare programs 4 Percent of transit stops with bicycle parking by type 3 Average time per trip spent commuting for work or school during peak periods via transit vs private vehicles (minutes) 2 Vulnerable population within ¼-mile of transit stop by type (low-income, limited English proficiency [LEP], aged, disabled) 2 Percent of riders who are low income, minority, limited English proficiency, ADA, or senior by mode 2 Percent of population within service area that lives within 1/4 mile of a transit stop 3 Number of participants in a low-income fare program as a percentage of low-income riders 3 Count of bikes on board all mode, and parked at facilities recorded annually 2 Percent passenger station access modeshare (active, shared mobility, drive and park) 3 Sidewalk connections, bike facility connections, pedestrian safety improvements included in project planning and design (measured in dollars or miles funded) 1 Percent of users satisfied with the safety and comfort of existing bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities by user type (e.g., men, women, youth, seniors) 2 Ratio of vulnerable populations and non-vulnerable populations within service areas that live within 1/4 mile of a high-frequency transit stop 0 Portion of household income devoted to public transit by lower income households 0 Safety and Emergency Preparedness The number and rate of recordable and reportable work-related injuries/illnesses by mode 8 Total number of reportable fatalities (passenger, worker, patron, public) by mode 7 Total incidences of crime on transit agency property by type of crime 6 Number/percent of employees who participate in health and wellness initiatives, including biking and walking to work 4 Number of resilience actions underway or complete 4 The number of close calls identified by operation type (e.g., bus operations, rail operations, maintenance shops, etc.) 4 Transit collisions per year compared to car collisions per year 4 Average score of perceived safety on transit based on scale 1 - 10, by transit mode 4 Percent of stations and vehicles with video surveillance 5 Ratio of involuntary transit fatalities per X miles compared to passenger vehicle fatalities per X miles 3 Number of operations staff trained in interacting with the homeless 3 Percent of full-time equivalent employees that meet internally developed safety, security, and emergency preparedness training and certification guidelines 2

C-15 Percentage of track segments (by mode) that have performance restrictions 1 Portion of transit riders that walks or cycles sufficient for fitness and health (15 minutes or more daily) 0 REFINEMENT The purpose of the survey was to validate the list of top performance measures identified by the research team using the evaluation criteria. The complete list of performance measures is provided in the companion Excel® database. Based on the results of the survey and feedback from the panel, the research team assembled a list of top performance measures, which consisted of the following: • All measures with a total score of 18 or above based on the survey • All measures included in the survey under Mobility and Accessibility • The Safety and Emergency Preparedness measure relating to homelessness This process resulted in a total of 57 top performance measures (see Section 3.3).

Next: Appendix D. Performance Measure Survey Results »
Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) has issued a pre-publication version of TCRP Research Report 205: Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation, which explores a practical tool to help transit agencies of all sizes develop and use social and economic sustainability performance measures to plan, evaluate, and report on social and economic sustainability.

A sustainable transit agency provides environmental, social, and economic benefits to the communities it serves. Transit agency efforts to quantify these benefits have focused primarily on environmental sustainability. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) has developed guidance for transit agencies on how to use performance measures to quantify transit’s impact on environmental sustainability. APTA has yet to develop similar guidance to measure social and economic sustainability, which is the focus of this research project.

TCRP Report 205 is intended to complement the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Recommended Practice for Social and Economic Sustainability for Transit Agencies (2018). APTA’s Recommended Practice provides a framework for approaching economic and social sustainability, along with an overview of recommended practices; however, the document does not include performance measures, which are a key component to reporting progress and gauging success.

The report is presented with a companion Excel workbook that can be used by transit agencies to develop their own initial list of performance measures. The workbook includes 606 social and economic sustainability performance measures, as well as 93 transit service performance measures.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!