National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Appendix D. Performance Measure Survey Results

« Previous: Appendix C. Performance Measure Evaluation Process
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Performance Measure Survey Results." 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 124
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Performance Measure Survey Results." 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 125
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Performance Measure Survey Results." 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 126
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Performance Measure Survey Results." 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 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Performance Measure Survey Results." 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 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Performance Measure Survey Results." 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 129
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Performance Measure Survey Results." 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 130
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Performance Measure Survey Results." 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 131
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Performance Measure Survey Results." 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 132
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Performance Measure Survey Results." 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 133
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Performance Measure Survey Results." 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 134
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Performance Measure Survey Results." 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 135
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Performance Measure Survey Results." 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 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Performance Measure Survey Results." 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 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D. Performance Measure Survey Results." 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 138

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.

D-1 APPENDIX D. PERFORMANCE MEASURE SURVEY AND RESULTS

D-2 Community Building and Engagement The majority of the performance measures under Community Building and Engagement scored well in each individual category and overall. However, two measures—number of free “how to use transit” trainings each year and number/percent of schools included in the enhance safe routes to school program—scored poorly in most categories and overall. In addition, four respondents indicated ‘I Don’t Know’ for whether the enhance safe routes to school program is applicable to their agency. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a U.S. Department of Transportation program that promotes walking and biking to school through infrastructure improvements, enforcement, tools, safety education, and incentives19. The number of ‘I Don’t Know’ responses may indicate a lack of knowledge about the program, or a lack of applicability. Overall, measures under Community Building and Engagement scored lowest under Monitoring and Implementation, which is expected as there are often no systems in place to track many of these measures such as the number of community-based organization events sponsored by/attended by staff each year. Table D-1. Community Building and Engagement Performance Measure Scoring Performance Measure Metric’s Applicability Universal Applicabi lity Realistic and Attainable Monitoring/ Implementat ion Well Understood Overall Score Rank in Category Overall Rank Number of customer complaints responded to by type of complaint 4.33 4.30 4.45 4.00 4.10 21.19 1 5 Percentage of transit stops with transit schedule and route information provided 4.30 4.27 4.36 3.90 4.20 21.04 2 8 Overall satisfaction with the transit system by user group (e.g., non-drivers, people with disabilities, environmental justice populations, gender, age, choice riders) 4.36 4.20 4.10 3.90 4.40 20.96 3 12 Number/percent of employees receiving customer service or engagement training (e.g., equity and social justice, hospitality, conflict resolution) by type of training 4.10 4.00 4.09 3.90 3.50 19.59 4 29 19 See https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/Safe-Routes-to-School-Programs

D-3 Performance Measure Metric’s Applicability Universal Applicabi lity Realistic and Attainable Monitoring/ Implementat ion Well Understood Overall Score Rank in Category Overall Rank Number/percent of projects that follow a public participation/engagement plan 4.18 3.64 4.09 3.50 3.70 19.11 5 33 Number of planning studies led or collaborated on per year 3.80 3.64 4.09 3.70 3.80 19.03 6 36 Number of community-based- organization events sponsored by/attended by transit staff 3.89 3.50 3.90 3.44 3.78 18.51 7 43 Number of free “how to use transit” trainings each year 3.40 3.10 3.78 2.89 3.67 16.83 8 65 Number/percent of schools included in the Enhance Safe Routes to School program 3.43 3.20 3.30 3.11 2.89 15.93 9 70

D-4 Economic Impact Respondents generally felt that most of the Economic Impact performance measures were applicable to their agencies, with the exception of ‘dollars spent marketing the benefits of transit.’ However, in most cases respondents rated the measures as more challenging to achieve and/or monitor over time. The lower score may be because some economic measures are not entirely (or at all) within the agency’s control, such as number of jobs located within ½ mile of a transit stop. Transit systems often attract surrounding development, but the transit agency may not have control over what type of development occurs in close proximity to stations. In these cases, transit agencies may need to obtain data from outside sources or partner with local jurisdictions to measure the data. Four respondents indicated ‘I Don’t Know’ for whether the ‘number of projects that had an ex-post economic impact study conducted’ would be reasonable to track over time and use as a continuous process improvement benchmark. As indicated in Section 4.2.2., measures in the economic impact category are expected to be more challenging to measure, and may require outside assistance from other agencies or consultants. The research team included a measure of the number of ex-post studies conducted rather than a specific economic impact measure, as it would indicate whether the agency was spending resources to assess the economic benefits of transit projects, while providing flexibility on the object of study. The percent increase in value of land near rail station areas relative to other areas scored relatively high under Metric’s Applicability and Well Understood, but very low under Realistic and Attainable. This suggests that transit agencies may need to invest more resources into measuring the change in land values near rail stations or partner with outside agencies to obtain this data. The dollars spent marketing transit received the lowest score under Metric’s Applicability. This measure was developed to address the objective “Politically Leverage Economic Benefits,” which focuses on communicating the benefits of transit and partnering with local government, businesses, and other stakeholders. Table D-2. Economic Impact Performance Measure Scoring Performance Measure Metric’s Applicability Universal Applicabi lity Realistic and Attainable Monitoring /Implement ation Well Understood Overall Score Rank in Category Rank Overall Number/percent of employees who take public transit to work 4.36 4.20 4.00 3.56 4.33 20.45 1 18 Number and percent of jobs located within 1/2 mile of a transit stop 4.45 4.00 3.36 3.56 4.44 19.82 2 24 Number and dollar value of D/M/WBE contracts awarded as a percentage of all contracts awarded 4.00 3.89 3.82 4.13 3.88 19.71 3 25

D-5 Performance Measure Metric’s Applicability Universal Applicabi lity Realistic and Attainable Monitoring /Implement ation Well Understood Overall Score Rank in Category Rank Overall Percent workforce living near transit stops by income level 4.36 4.00 3.27 3.44 4.00 19.08 4 35 Number of new housing units within 1/2 mile of a rail or TOD station 4.09 3.50 3.36 3.33 4.11 18.40 5 45 Number of new jobs within 1/2 mile of a rail or TOD station 4.09 3.50 3.36 3.22 4.11 18.29 6 46 Dollars spent marketing the benefits of transit 3.09 3.18 3.64 3.50 4.00 17.41 7 57 Percent increase in value of land near rail station areas relative to other areas 3.91 3.36 2.90 3.11 3.89 17.17 8 60 Number of projects that had an ex-post (following project implementation) economic impact study conducted 3.44 3.11 2.67 3.17 3.33 15.72 9 71

D-6 Employees and Workforce With the exception of parental leave tracking, the Employees and Workforce measures generally scored well under Metric’s Applicability. Many of the employee workforce measures scored lower in the Well Understood category. Most of the measures included in this category are fairly standard measures that are included in well-recognized frameworks (such as the GRI Standards), and are commonly reported by publicly traded companies. It is possible that respondents scored these measures lower under Well Understood because of the number of sub-categories included in the measure as-written (e.g., gender, age group, etc.). It is possible that the measure’s average score under Realistic and Attainable was lower for the same reason. The ‘number of employee recognition awards given each year’ had the second-lowest score under Metric’s Applicability. Employee recognition programs may not be well developed at some agencies, or they may not be implemented across the transit agency. Some measures under this goal could be addressed by combining them, such as the ‘number of interviewers who received anti-bias training,’ which could be addressed under the overall training performance measure. The ‘number of employees who participate in health and wellness initiatives’ did not score well under Realistic and Attainable and Monitoring and Implementation, suggesting that this measure would need to be more clearly defined, and transit agencies would need to develop a feasible way to measure over time. The ‘total number of employees that took parental leave’ scored the lowest overall under the Employees and Workforce goal. As parental leave is an increasingly important benefit to employees, many of whom are part of a dual working parent household, the panel may want to consider this or other measures to evaluate the effectiveness of parental leave programs and policies. This measure is an excellent example of the measures that may be beneficially carried forward despite a low score. Table D-3. Employees and Workforce Performance Measure Scoring Performance Measure Metric’s Applicability Universal Applicabi lity Realistic and Attainable Monitoring /Implement ation Well Understood Overall Score Rank in Category Rank Overall Employee retention rate by gender and age group 4.50 4.27 3.90 4.10 3.80 20.57 1 16 Ratio of the basic salary and remuneration of women to men for each employee category by significant locations of operation 4.30 4.27 4.00 4.10 3.80 20.47 2 17

D-7 Performance Measure Metric’s Applicability Universal Applicabi lity Realistic and Attainable Monitoring /Implement ation Well Understood Overall Score Rank in Category Rank Overall 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 4.10 4.18 3.64 3.90 3.80 19.62 3 26 Number/percent of vacant posts filled internally by promotion or transfer (%) 4.00 3.91 3.91 3.80 3.70 19.32 4 32 Employee engagement/satisfaction score 4.50 4.00 3.82 3.60 3.10 19.02 5 37 Number/percent of employees trained by type of training, level and gender (e.g., leadership, management, anti-bias, anti- harassment training) 4.00 3.80 3.36 4.00 3.11 18.27 6 47 Total number and rate of new employee hires during the reporting period by age group, gender, ethnicity, disability and veteran status 4.00 3.50 3.36 3.60 3.70 18.16 7 49 Number of employee recognition awards given each year by type 3.55 3.40 4.00 3.50 3.30 17.75 8 52 Number/percent of interviewers who received anti-bias training 3.70 3.80 3.45 3.44 3.22 17.62 9 55 Total number of employees that took parental leave, by gender by number of weeks (paid vs unpaid) 3.30 3.50 3.30 3.20 3.50 16.80 10 67

D-8 Financial The majority of the performance measures in under Financial scored well under each criterion as well as overall, with slightly lower scores under the Well Understood criteria. This suggests that transit agencies could work to ensure that these important financial measures are explained to internal and external stakeholders and benchmarked against other agencies to improve understanding. The ‘percentage of the agency’s procurement budget spent on local suppliers’ scored the lowest under the Realistic and Attainable criteria, and second-lowest under the Monitoring and Implementation criteria. While this is a more challenging measure to track, agencies could narrow the measure’s scope to track only certain goods and services based on quantities purchased or dollar value spent. The measure related to the value of the agency’s benefit plan did not score highly enough to be considered as a top measure. It should be noted that many agencies may face a significant risk of exposure for unfunded benefits plans, and the panel may want to consider carrying forward this or other measures to evaluate the level of risk to a transit agency.20 Table D-4. Financial Performance Measure Scoring Performance Measure Metric’s Applicability Universal Applicabi lity Realistic and Attainable Monitoring /Implement ation Well Understood Overall Score Rank in Category Rank Overall Total and percent revenue by type (e.g., capital, operating, etc.) and by source (e.g., fare, local, state, federal, etc.) 4.40 4.20 4.18 4.10 4.10 20.98 1 10 Operating cost per revenue hour and passenger mile by mode 4.64 4.18 4.36 4.30 3.50 20.98 1 11 Total expenses by type and mode (e.g., service, maintenance, admin, workforce) 4.55 4.18 4.27 4.30 3.50 20.80 3 13 Farebox recovery ratio 4.36 4.09 4.27 4.30 3.30 20.33 4 20 Percentage of capital projects within +- 10% of the original budget 4.18 3.91 4.30 3.90 3.80 20.09 5 21 Percentage of revenue and non-revenue vehicles (by type) that exceed the useful life benchmark 4.00 3.89 4.50 4.33 3.33 20.06 6 22 20 For example, a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report argues that required contributions to employee and retiree benefits under certain economic scenarios would jeopardize the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s ability to provide some transit service: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694418.pdf

D-9 Performance Measure Metric’s Applicability Universal Applicabi lity Realistic and Attainable Monitoring /Implement ation Well Understood Overall Score Rank in Category Rank Overall Percentage of capital project costs supported by local funding, public- private partnerships, or other cost recovery mechanisms 4.33 3.80 4.27 3.90 3.30 19.61 7 27 Number of projects and programs that have undergone formal sustainability or resilience assessments during planning and/or design 4.36 3.80 3.40 3.67 3.44 18.67 8 39 Number/percent of RFPs that include sustainability criteria 3.90 3.90 3.64 3.70 3.50 18.64 9 41 Percentage of the procurement budget that is spent on suppliers local to operations (such as % of products and services purchased locally) 4.10 3.67 3.36 3.40 3.70 18.23 10 48 The estimated value of the organization's defined benefit plan obligations and other retirement plans by funding type (funded/unfunded) 3.78 3.22 3.78 3.38 3.13 17.28 11 59

D-10 Mobility and Accessibility The Mobility and Accessibility goal included the most measures of any category (18). The majority of the measures scored well under Metric’s Applicability. However, about half of the measures scored did not score highly under Realistic and Attainable and/or Monitoring and Implementation. This could be attributed in part to the fact that several of the proposed measures would require passenger surveys and/or partnering with external agencies. Many of the lowest-scoring measures would require survey data, and generally scored poorly under the Realistic and Attainable criteria. While these measures may not be included in any existing surveys, transit agencies could consider modifying existing ridership/passenger satisfaction surveys to collect data necessary to track these measures. In some cases, transit agencies may be able to partner with external agencies to obtain data. The ‘percentage of housing units with X miles of a rail station or transit-oriented development (TOD) areas that are affordable’ scored high under Metric’s Applicability (4.22), but very low under Realistic and Attainable (2.73). Measures like this may be excellent candidates for transit agencies to measure through partnerships without outside organizations, as the outcome is particularly applicable to the broader public policy goals. The ‘ratio of vulnerable populations and non-vulnerable populations within service areas that live within ¼ mile of a high-frequency transit stop’ is another measure that scored well under Metric’s Applicability, but lower under Realistic and Attainable. The ‘number of participants in a low- income fare program as a percentage of low-income riders’ also scored more highly under Metric’s Applicability – but this should be considered somewhat cautiously, as four respondents indicated “I Don’t Know” for this question. Table D-5. Mobility and Accessibility Performance Measure Scoring Performance Measure Metric’s Applicability Universal Applicabi lity Realistic and Attainable Monitoring /Implement ation Well Understood Overall Score Rank in Category Rank Overall Percent of vehicles ADA accessible 4.50 4.44 4.36 4.10 4.30 21.71 1 2 Percent of stations/stops ADA accessible 4.50 4.50 4.36 4.10 4.20 21.66 2 3 Percent of transit stops with bicycle parking by type 4.10 4.33 4.18 4.00 4.50 21.12 3 6 Percent of buses equipped with bicycle racks 4.00 4.10 4.36 4.10 4.50 21.06 4 7 Percent of bus stops with shelters 3.90 3.91 4.18 4.10 4.30 20.39 5 19

D-11 Performance Measure Metric’s Applicability Universal Applicabi lity Realistic and Attainable Monitoring /Implement ation Well Understood Overall Score Rank in Category Rank Overall Sidewalk connections, bike facility connections, pedestrian safety improvements included in project planning and design (measured in dollars or miles funded) 4.40 4.30 3.64 3.78 3.78 19.89 6 23 Percent of population within service area that lives within 1/4 mile of a transit stop 4.33 4.00 3.82 3.67 3.78 19.60 7 28 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) 4.13 3.89 3.18 3.67 4.22 19.08 8 34 Number of employers and schools that have discounted transit fare programs 4.00 3.44 3.90 3.30 4.00 18.64 9 40 Percent passenger station access modeshare (active, shared mobility, drive and park) 4.56 3.22 3.18 3.89 3.78 18.63 10 42 Vulnerable population within ¼-mile of transit stop by type (low-income, limited English proficiency [LEP], aged, disabled) 4.11 4.00 3.60 3.11 3.67 18.49 11 44 Percent of riders who are low income, minority, limited English proficiency, ADA, or senior by mode 3.89 4.10 3.10 3.00 3.67 17.76 12 51 Count of bikes on board all mode, and parked at facilities recorded annually 3.80 3.44 3.10 3.56 3.78 17.68 13 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) 4.22 3.60 2.73 3.33 3.78 17.66 14 54

D-12 Performance Measure Metric’s Applicability Universal Applicabi lity Realistic and Attainable Monitoring /Implement ation Well Understood Overall Score Rank in Category Rank Overall Portion of household income devoted to public transit by lower income households 3.67 3.67 2.78 3.25 4.00 17.36 15 58 Ratio of vulnerable populations and non- vulnerable populations within service areas that live within 1/4 mile of a high- frequency transit stop 4.11 3.50 3.00 3.11 3.44 17.17 16 61 Number of participants in a low-income fare program as a percentage of low- income riders 3.88 3.50 3.00 3.00 3.56 16.93 17 63 Average time per trip spent commuting for work or school during peak periods via transit vs private vehicles (minutes) 3.50 3.20 2.82 3.11 4.00 16.63 18 68

D-13 Safety and Emergency Preparedness The majority of measures under Safety and Emergency Preparedness scored well under each criterion and overall. Some measures with similar areas of focus received substantially divergent scores, such as the ‘number of transit collisions per year compared to car collisions per year’ (overall score of 18.9) and ‘ratio of involuntary transit fatalities per X miles compared to passenger vehicle fatalities per X miles’ (overall score of 17.78). For the latter measure, five respondents indicated “I Don’t Know” under Metric’s Applicability; this is an excellent example of a measure where it is critical to consider the normalizing factor; the measure may have scored higher if it was measured per year instead of per mile. Despite the lower scores for these measures, prioritizing one of these measures would be useful toward overcoming a negative perception of safety that many transit agencies face. While the average score of ‘perceived safety on transit’ scored well, four respondents indicated “I Don’t Know” under Metric’s Applicability. Individuals struggling with homelessness pose a significant challenge for many transit agencies, particularly in urban areas. Sheltering or loitering in public facilities can cause disruption to transit service and sanitation issues. When homelessness coincides with or conceals criminal activity, there may be safety concerns for transit employees and passengers. The research team did not identify specific performance measures relating to homelessness during the literature review. However, TCRP Synthesis 121: Transit Agency Practices in Interacting with People who are Homeless provides good case studies and findings on the subject (2016)21. One leading indicator of a transit agency’s capacity to address the impact of homeless individuals on transit is by measuring the ‘number of staff trained in interacting with the homeless’. This measure scored low under all criteria (with the exception of Metric’s Applicability). This may be indicative of the need for more research to develop a suitable performance measure in this area. The ‘number of resilience actions underway’ also scored poorly overall, and worst under the Well Understood criteria, which could reflect a lack of understanding on the subject of resilience The ‘percentage of track segments by mode that have performance restrictions’ received a particularly low overall score, which may be reflective of the fact that this measure is only applicable to rail operations. In addition, half of the respondents indicated “I Don’t Know” as a response to all five questions about this performance measure. It is also possible that agencies may not yet be familiar with the requirement to report this measure; it must be reported to the FTA under the 2016 transit asset management (TAM) rule, but TAM reporting requirements only began in late 201722. Many of the measures that fell under the new ‘Health and Wellness’ objective were applicable to a number of the goals, and initially the research team assigned measures to a variety of APTA goals. However, the APTA Recommended Practice explains that the Safety and Emergency Preparedness goal is related to preserving the “well-being of riders, staff and the general public.” Promoting and protecting health-related outcomes falls under the umbrella of ‘well-being;’ therefore the research team suggests expanding the Safety and Emergency Preparedness goal to Health, Safety, and Emergency Preparedness. The two ‘Health and Wellness measures were not highly scored in the survey, however, ranking 21 See https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23450/transit-agency-practices-in-interacting-with-people-who-are-homeless 22 See https://www.transit.dot.gov/TAM/gettingstarted/htmlFAQs

D-14 11 and 13 out of all the measures under the Safety and Emergency Preparedness goal. This may reflect the relative novelty of this set of outcomes to transit agencies, and also the fact that these measures do not have a strong nexus with measures already reported to other agencies. Table D-6. Safety and Emergency Preparedness Performance Measure Scoring Performance Measure Metric’s Applicability Universal Applicabi lity Realistic and Attainable Monitoring /Implement ation Well Understood Overall Score Rank in Category Rank Overall Total number of reportable fatalities (passenger, worker, patron, public) by mode 4.50 4.20 4.45 4.40 4.30 21.85 1 1 Total incidences of crime on transit agency property by type of crime 4.40 4.20 4.20 4.40 4.30 21.50 2 4 The number and rate of recordable and reportable work-related injuries/illnesses by mode 4.40 4.00 4.00 4.40 4.20 21.00 3 9 Percent of stations and vehicles with video surveillance 4.30 4.20 3.91 4.20 4.10 20.71 4 14 Average score of perceived safety on transit based on scale 1 - 10, by transit mode 4.63 4.10 3.80 3.80 4.30 20.63 5 15 Percent of full-time equivalent employees that meet internally developed safety, security, and emergency preparedness training and certification guidelines 4.00 3.90 4.00 3.78 3.89 19.57 6 30 The number of close calls identified by operation type (e.g., bus operations, rail operations, maintenance shops, etc.) 4.22 3.90 3.80 3.89 3.67 19.48 7 31 Transit collisions per year compared to car collisions per year 3.67 3.70 3.64 4.10 3.80 18.90 8 38 Ratio of involuntary transit fatalities per X miles compared to passenger vehicle fatalities per X miles 3.71 3.40 3.33 3.33 4.00 17.78 9 50 Number of operations staff trained in interacting with the homeless 4.00 3.30 3.50 3.33 3.44 17.58 10 56

D-15 Performance Measure Metric’s Applicability Universal Applicabi lity Realistic and Attainable Monitoring /Implement ation Well Understood Overall Score Rank in Category Rank Overall Number/percent of employees who participate in health and wellness initiatives, including biking and walking to work23 4.00 3.50 3.18 3.00 3.33 17.02 11 62 Number of resilience actions underway or complete 3.90 3.30 3.40 3.38 2.88 16.85 12 64 Portion of transit riders that walks or cycles sufficient for fitness and health (15 minutes or more daily)24 3.30 3.67 2.73 3.11 4.00 16.81 13 66 Percentage of track segments (by mode) that have performance restrictions25 3.75 2.67 3.14 3.50 3.33 16.39 14 69 23 Note that this measure was included under the Employees and Workforce goal in the survey, and later moved to the Safety and Emergency Preparedness goal. 24 Note that this measure was included under the Mobility and Accessibility goal in the survey, and later moved to the Safety and Emergency Preparedness. 25 Note that this measure was included under the Financial goal in the survey, and later moved to the Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Next: Appendix E. References »
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!