Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document (2019)

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.

128 A P P E N D I X D Performance Measure Survey and Results Community Building and Engagement The majority of the performance measures under the “Community Building and Engagement” goal area scored well overall and for each labeled criterion. However, two measures—“Number of free ‘how to use transit’ trainings each year” and “Number/percentage of schools included in the Enhance Safe Routes to School program”—scored poorly under most criteria 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. DOT program that promotes walking and biking to school through infrastructure improvements, enforcement, tools, safety education, and incentives.20 The number of “I Don’t Know” responses may indicate either a lack of knowledge about the program or a lack of applicability. Overall, the measures evaluated for “Community Building and Engagement” scored lowest under the criterion labeled “Monitoring/Implementation.” This result was expected because, for many of these measures (e.g., “number of community-based organization (CBO) events sponsored by/attended by transit staff each year”), no systems are in place to track them. Table D-1 presents the scores for “Community Building and Engagement” performance measures evaluated by the following criteria: • Metric’s [Measure’s] Applicability, • Universal Applicability, • Realistic and Attainable, • Monitoring/Implementation, and • Well Understood. The table also reports the overall score for each measure, its rank within the category, and its overall rank across all goals, measures, and criteria examined. 20 See https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/Safe-Routes-to-School-Programs.

Table D-1. Community Building and Engagement performance measure scoring. Performance Measure Metric’s Applicability Universal Applicability Realistic and Attainable Monitoring/ Implementation 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/percentage 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 Number/percentage 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 (CBO) 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/percentage 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

130 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 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 1/2 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 (following project implementation) economic impact study conducted” measure would be reasonable to track over time and useful as a continuous process improvement benchmark. As indicated in the report, measures of economic impact are expected to be more challenging to develop, and they may require outside assistance from other agencies or consultants. Rather than including a specific economic impact measure, the research team included a measure of the number of ex-post studies conducted as this measure 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 “Percentage of increase in value of land near rail station areas relative to other areas” measure scored relatively high under the evaluation criteria “Metric’s Applicability” and “Well Understood,” but very low under the criterion “Realistic and Attainable.” This result 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 the benefits of transit” measure 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 presents the scores for Economic Impact performance measures evaluated by the following criteria: • Metric’s [Measure’s] Applicability, • Universal Applicability, • Realistic and Attainable, • Monitoring/Implementation, and • Well Understood. The table also reports the overall score for each measure, its rank within the category, and its overall rank across all measures, categories, and criteria examined.

Table D-2. Economic Impact performance measure scoring. Performance Measure Metric’s Applicability Universal Applicability Realistic and Attainable Monitoring/ Implementation Well Understood Overall Score Rank in Category Rank Overall Number/percentage of employees who take public transit to work 4.36 4.20 4.00 3.56 4.33 20.45 1 18 Number and percentage 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 Percentage of 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 Percentage of 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

132 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document Employees and Workforce With the exception of parental leave tracking, the “Employees and Workforce” measures generally scored well under the “Metric’s Applicability” criterion. Many of the employee workforce measures scored lower under the “Well Understood” criterion. Most of the measures included under “Employees and Workforce” are fairly standard measures that are included in well-recognized frameworks (such as the GRI Standards), and they are commonly reported by publicly traded companies. It is possible that respondents scored these measure lower under “Well Understood” because of the number of sub-categories included in some measures as they were written (e.g., the parental leave measure can be subcategorized by gender, age group, number of weeks, and paid or unpaid leave). It also is possible that this 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 the “Metric’s Applicability” criterion. 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 clarified by breaking them into their essential parts—count, measure, qualifier, and normalization factor—and recombining the parts into a subset of specific, customized measures (see “Refine Measures for Agency Context” in Section 4 of the report). For example, the overall training measure “Number/percentage of employees trained by type of training, level, and gender (e.g., leadership, management, anti-bias, anti-harassment training)” could be separated into several measures, including “Number of employees who received anti-harassment training,” “Number of interviewers who received anti-bias training,” and others. The “Number of employees who participate in health and wellness initiatives” measure did not score well under the criteria “Realistic and Attainable” and “Monitoring and Implementation,” suggesting that this measure needs to be more clearly defined and that transit agencies would need to develop a feasible way to measure it over time. The “Total number of employees that took parental leave” measure scored the lowest overall under the “Employees and Workforce” goal. Given that parental leave is an increasingly important benefit to employees, many of whom are part of dual working parent households, transit agencies may want to consider this or other measures to evaluate the effectiveness of parental leave programs and policies. The parental leave measure is an excellent example of the measures that may be beneficially carried forward despite a low score. Table D-3 presents the scores for “Employees and Workforce” performance measures evaluated by the following criteria: • Metric’s [Measure’s] Applicability, • Universal Applicability, • Realistic and Attainable, • Monitoring/Implementation, and • Well Understood. The table also reports the overall score for each measure, its rank within the category, and its overall rank across all measures, categories, and criteria examined.

Table D-3. Employees and Workforce performance measure scoring. Performance Measure Metric’sApplicability Universal Applicability Realistic and Attainable Monitoring/ Implementation 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 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/percentage 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/percentage of employees trained by type of training, level, and gender (e.g., leadership, management, anti-bias, and 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/percentage 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 and by number of weeks (paid vs. unpaid) 3.30 3.50 3.30 3.20 3.50 16.80 10 67

134 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document Financial The majority of the performance measures related to the “Financial” goal scored well under each criterion as well as overall, with slightly lower scores under the “Well Understood” criterion. This result suggests that transit agencies could work to ensure that these important financial measures are explained to internal and external stakeholders and benchmarked against those used by other agencies to improve understanding. The “Percentage of the agency’s procurement budget spent on local suppliers” measure scored the lowest under the “Realistic and Attainable” criterion, and second-lowest under the “Monitoring and Implementation” criterion. Although this measure is challenging 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 benefits plan did not score highly enough to be considered as a top measure. It should be noted, however, that many agencies may face a significant risk of exposure for unfunded benefits plans; consequently, despite the low score of this measure, it may be advisable to consider carrying forward this or other measures to evaluate the level of risk to a transit agency.21 Table D-4 presents the scores for “Financial” performance measures evaluated by the following criteria: • Metric’s [Measure’s] Applicability, • Universal Applicability, • Realistic and Attainable, • Monitoring/Implementation, and • Well Understood. The table also reports the overall score for each measure, its rank within the category, and its overall rank across all measures, categories, and criteria examined. 21 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.

Table D-4. Financial performance measure scoring. Performance Measure Metric’sApplicability Universal Applicability Realistic and Attainable Monitoring/ Implementation Well Understood Overall Score Rank in Category Rank Overall Total and percentage of revenue by type (e.g., capital, operating) and by source (e.g., fare, local, state, federal) 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 2 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 Fare box 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 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/percentage 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 (e.g., % of products and services purchased locally) 4.10 3.67 3.36 3.40 3.70 18.23 10 48 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

136 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document Mobility and Accessibility The Mobility and Accessibility goal included the most measures of any category (18 measures). The majority of the measures scored well under the “Metric’s Applicability” criterion. 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 these measures generally scored poorly under the “Realistic and Attainable” criteria. Although these measures may not be included in any existing surveys, transit agencies could consider modifying existing ridership/passenger satisfaction surveys to collect the data necessary to track them. 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” measure scored high (4.22) under the “Metric’s Applicability” criterion, but scored very low (2.73) under the “Realistic and Attainable” criterion. Measures like this may be excellent candidates for transit agencies to track and assess through partnerships with outside organizations, as the outcome is particularly applicable to broader public policy goals. The “Ratio of vulnerable populations and non-vulnerable populations within service areas that live within 1/4 mile of a high-frequency transit stop” measure also scored well under the “Metric’s Applicability” criterion, but it scored lower under the “Realistic and Attainable” criterion. The “Number of participants in a low-income fare program as a percentage of low-income riders” measure also scored more highly under “Metric’s Applicability,” but this result should be considered somewhat cautiously, as four respondents indicated “I Don’t Know” for this question. Table D-5 presents the scores for “Mobility and Accessibility” performance measures evaluated by the following criteria: • Metric’s [Measure’s] Applicability, • Universal Applicability, • Realistic and Attainable, • Monitoring/Implementation, and • Well Understood. The table also reports the overall score for each measure, its rank within the category, and its overall rank across all measures, categories, and criteria examined.

Table D-5. Mobility and Accessibility performance measure scoring. Performance Measure Metric’sApplicability Universal Applicability Realistic and Attainable Monitoring/ Implementation Well Understood Overall Score Rank in Category Rank Overall Percentage of vehicles ADA accessible 4.50 4.44 4.36 4.10 4.30 21.71 1 2 Percentage of stations/stops ADA accessible 4.50 4.50 4.36 4.10 4.20 21.66 2 3 Percentage of transit stops with bicycle parking by type 4.10 4.33 4.18 4.00 4.50 21.12 3 6 Percentage of buses equipped with bicycle racks 4.00 4.10 4.36 4.10 4.50 21.06 4 7 Percentage of bus stops with shelters 3.90 3.91 4.18 4.10 4.30 20.39 5 19 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 Percentage 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 Percentage 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 Percentage of passenger station access mode share (active, shared mobility, drive and park) 4.56 3.22 3.18 3.89 3.78 18.63 10 42 Vulnerable population within 1/4 mile of a transit stop by type (low-income, limited English proficiency, aged, disabled) 4.11 4.00 3.60 3.11 3.67 18.49 11 44 Percentage 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

Performance Measure Metric’sApplicability Universal Applicability Realistic and Attainable Monitoring/ Implementation Well Understood Overall Score Rank in Category Rank Overall Count of bikes on board all modes, 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% of area median income) 4.22 3.60 2.73 3.33 3.78 17.66 14 54 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

Performance Measure Survey and Results 139 Safety and Emergency Preparedness The majority of measures listed 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 “Transit collisions per year compared to car collisions per year” (overall score 18.9) and “Ratio of involuntary transit fatalities per X miles compared to passenger vehicle fatalities per X miles” (overall score 17.78). For the latter measure, five respondents indicated “I Don’t Know” under the criterion “Metric’s Applicability.” This result provides an excellent example of a performance measure for which it is critical to consider the normalizing factor (discussed in Section 4 of the report). This measure may have scored higher if it was measured per year instead of per mile. Despite the lower scores they received, prioritizing one of these measures could be useful toward overcoming a negative perception of safety that many transit agencies face. The “Average score of perceived safety on transit” measure scored well overall, but four respondents indicated “I Don’t Know” under the criterion “Metric’s Applicability.” Individuals struggling with homelessness pose a significant challenge for many transit agencies, particularly in urban areas. People sheltering or loitering in public facilities can cause sanitation issues and disruptions to transit service. When homelessness coincides with or conceals criminal activity, safety concerns for transit employees and passengers also may arise. The research team did not identify specific performance measures related to homelessness during the literature The “Percentage of track segments (by mode) that have performance restrictions” measure received a particularly low overall score, which may reflect the fact that this measure applies only to rail operations. In addition, half the respondents responded “I Don’t Know” to all five questions about this performance measure. It is 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 2017.23 Of the new measures that were categorized under the Health and Wellness objective, many were applicable to a number of the goals, and initially the research team assigned these measures to a variety of APTA goals. The APTA Recommended Practice explains that the “Safety and Emergency Preparedness” goal relates to preserving the “well-being of riders, staff and the general public,” and 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.” In the survey, however, the two performance measures that related to health and wellness did not score highly, ranking 11 and 13 out of all the measures under the “Safety and Emergency Preparedness” goal. This result 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 being reported to other agencies. Table D-6 presents the scores for “Safety and Emergency Preparedness” performance measures evaluated by the following criteria: • Metric’s [Measure’s] Applicability, • Universal Applicability, • Realistic and Attainable, • Monitoring/Implementation, and • Well Understood. The table also reports the overall score for each measure, its rank within the category, and its overall rank across all measures, categories, and criteria examined. 22 See https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23450/transit-agency-practices-in-interacting-with-people-who-are-homeless. 23 See https://www.transit.dot.gov/TAM/gettingstarted/htmlFAQs. review. However, TCRP Synthesis of Practice 121: Transit Agency Practices in Interacting with People Who Are Homeless (Boyle 2016) provides effective case studies and findings on the subject.22 One leading indicator of a transit agency’s capacity to address the impact of homeless individuals on transit is the “Number of operations staff trained in interacting with the homeless.” With the exception of the “Metric’s Applicability” criterion, however, this measure scored low for all criteria. This result may indicate the need for more research to develop a suitable performance measure in this area. The “Number of resilience actions underway or complete” also scored poorly overall, and worst under the “Well Understood” criterion, which could reflect a lack of understanding on the subject of resilience

Table D-6. Safety and Emergency Preparedness performance measure scoring. Performance Measure Metric’sApplicability Universal Applicability Realistic and Attainable Monitoring/ Implementation 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 incidence of crime on transit agency property by type of crime 4.40 4.20 4.20 4.40 4.30 21.50 2 4 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 Percentage 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 a scale of 1–10, by transit mode 4.63 4.10 3.80 3.80 4.30 20.63 5 15 Percentage 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 Number of close calls identified by operation type (e.g., bus operations, rail operations, maintenance shops) 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 Number/percentage of employees who participate in health and wellness initiatives, including biking and walking to work24 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)25 3.30 3.67 2.73 3.11 4.00 16.81 13 66 Percentage of track segments (by mode) that have performance restrictions26 3.75 2.67 3.14 3.50 3.33 16.39 14 69 24 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. 25 Note that this measure was included under the “Mobility and Accessibility” goal in the survey, and later moved to the “Safety and Emergency Preparedness” goal. 26 Note that this measure was included under the “Financial” goal in the survey, and later moved to the “Safety and Emergency Preparedness” goal.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

Social and Econom ic Sustainability Perform ance M easures for Public Transportation: Final G uidance D ocum ent TCR P Research Report 205 TR B TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED ISBN 978-0-309-48086-4 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 4 8 0 8 6 4 9 0 0 0 0