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.

114 A P P E N D I X C Performance Measure Evaluation Process Based on feedback from the project kick-off 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 according to 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 had been 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 to which the measure would apply. The research team identified the mode(s) to which the measure is applicable and whether the measure applies to rural and/or urban geographies.

Performance Measure Evaluation Process 115 Category Purpose Characterization Process 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 was 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 (out of 606 total measures) that align with that goal. 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 Community Building and Engagement: Engage diverse groups to improve transit service, create hospitality in customer service, and demonstrate goodwill 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 Measures Internal External Internal External Type of Metric Identify a mix of differing types of measures. Each measure was characterized as an input, process, output, or outcome measure. Environmental Justice Enable consideration of environmental justice. “Yes” indicates that a measure could be evaluated for environmental justice considerations and “No” indicates that the measure likely cannot account for environmental justice.

116 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document Alignment with Objectives Each performance measure was also mapped to one objective identified in the APTA Recommended Practice. The objectives are listed in Table C-3. 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, whereas other objectives were only mapped to one or two measures. 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 differing 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 Table C-3. Social and economic sustainability objectives. Goal Objectives No. of Measures Community engagement 16 Rider engagement 17 Collaboration and partnerships 13 Good design elements 16 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 recruiting 12 Employee retention 17 Organizational culture and workforce engagement 57 Fiscal responsibility 59 Sustainable investments 7 Procurement strategies 5 Affordability (housing and transportation) 23 Access 71 Multimodal connectivity 34 Community Building and Engagement Economic Impact Employee Workforce Financial Mobility and Accessibility Safety and Emergency Preparedness Safety 137 Security 7 Health and wellness* 5 Emergency preparedness 2 * New objective (proposed by TCRP J-11, Task 32 research team)

Performance Measure Evaluation Process 117 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 (592 measures) could potentially apply to transit agencies in any geography. The actual relevance of each measure would depend on specific agency characteristics. A very small minority of measures (14 measures) would be most relevant in an urban context. These measures 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 an input, process, output, or outcome measure according to the definitions identified in Well Measured (Litman 2016, p 15): • Input (measures of the resources that are invested in particular activities, such as the level of funding spent on various activities or modes). • Process (measures of policies and planning activities, such as whether the organization has a process for collecting and publishing performance data, and public involvement). • Output (measures of direct results, such as the miles of sidewalks, paths and roads, and the amount of public transit service provided). • Outcome (measures of 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 was expected, as outcome measures are easier to define and measure. Could the Measure Be Used to Consider Environmental Justice? The research team considered whether a transit agency could use each performance measure to consider questions from an environmental justice perspective.19 For example, an agency conducting a customer satisfaction survey could ask questions about topics that relate to environmental justice, such as income level and ethnicity. The results could then be assessed by respondent type. A less-direct example could be to measure and report the number and distribution of transit agency stations that host farmers’ markets. Taken in isolation, the number of stations with farmers’ markets does not address questions of environmental justice. However, if the transit 19 According to Executive Order 12898, an “Environmental Justice (EJ) Population” includes 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. 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 could be applied to any mode). The majority of performance measures (549 measures) were identified as potentially applicable to any mode. The next-largest category, with 38 measures, was exclusive to rail.

118 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document Span of Control Transit agencies are generally concerned about measures that may not be fully within their control. Although this concern is understandable, social and economic measures often are 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 or 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. Some agencies may elect to adopt shared measures, but other agencies may prefer to use only measures that are within their control. Although that span of control will vary by agency, for the 606 social and economic performance measures identified by the research team, an effort was made to identify whether or not a measure can generally be expected to be within an agency’s control. 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’sControl 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 Social/Economic Although social and economic goals and objectives often overlap, the research team categorized each measure as either predominantly social or predominantly economic in order to allow APTA and transit agencies to select measures according to their own priorities. When there was overlap, the research team selected the best fit. For example, measures relating to jobs or dollars were characterized as predominantly economic, whereas measures relating to people (such as percentage of accessible facilities) were characterized as predominantly social. agency also identifies which stations host farmers’ markets and which stations serve a high percentage of environmental justice populations, the resulting data could reveal whether the transit stations with farmers’ markets are making fresh food more available to these vulnerable populations. More than a third of the performance measures (229 measures in total) could be used to consider environmental justice.

Performance Measure Evaluation Process 119 the “number/percentage of employees who take public transit to work” could be used to measure the percentage of transit agency employees who take public transit (internal) or the percentage 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 that were 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 (see Appendix D). 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 customer satisfaction, overall transportation system satisfaction rating, overall satisfaction with 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 with 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 then reviewed measures by APTA goal category; the following paragraphs summarize the research team’s general reasoning for eliminating measures by APTA goal. 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, whereas all of the measures identified under the 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,

120 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 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 also were asked to indicate which of the measures were currently being tracked by their agency. A copy of the survey is provided in Appendix D, and summary information about the survey respondents is provided in Table C-6. Ten individuals 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. 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 The team performed a second review of the measures to further refine them with a primary focus on Criteria 3 (i.e., whether a measure would be cost prohibitive to monitor) and Criteria 4 (i.e., whether a measure is or is not expected to vary substantially over time). At the end of this review, a total of 71 measures were identified for use in the survey (see Table C-5).

Performance Measure Evaluation Process 121 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 the average scores was calculated for each of the 71 performance measures to form an overall score. Each response corresponded to a number (1 to 5), and the average of the results was 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 initially identified by the survey team conformed to the evaluation criteria. The rankings also could be used to narrow the measures to a more workable and higher priority number of measures, if desired by the panel. Table C-7 lists the performance measures that were included in the survey in order of the measure’s overall ranking. Detailed survey results and the findings for each goal (Community Building and Engagement, Economic Impact, Employees and Workforce, Financial, Mobility and Accessibility, and Safety and Emergency Preparedness) are summarized in Appendix D. In Appendix D the measures are ordered from highest overall score to lowest overall score by goal. A color scale also is used to emphasize the differences in scores for each individual question. Each score has been shaded with gradations of three colors (green, yellow, red) that correspond to high, medium and low scores, respectively. 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 Percentage of vehicles ADA accessible Mobility and Accessibility 2 Percentage of stations/stops ADA accessible Mobility and Accessibility 3 Total incidence 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 Percentage of transit stops with bicycle parking by type Mobility and Accessibility 6 Percentage 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 Number and rate of recordable and reportable work-related injuries/illnesses by mode Safety and Emergency Preparedness 9 Total and percentage of revenue by type (e.g., capital, operating) and by source (e.g., fare, local, state, federal) Financial 10 Operating cost per revenue-hour and passenger-mile by mode Financial 11 Interurban Transit Partnership 11,030,386 Bus, paratransit, vanpool, bus rapid transit (BRT), and shuttles Yes Yes FTA N/A N/A No Yes National RTAP N/A N/A No Partial Agency 2017 Annual Trips Modes Transit Agency Survey Complete

122 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document Performance Measure APTA Goal Rank Percentage of stations and vehicles with video surveillance Safety and Emergency Preparedness 14 Average score of perceived safety on transit based on a scale of 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/percentage of employees who take public transit to work Economic Impact 18 Percentage of bus stops with shelters Mobility and Accessibility 19 Fare box 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 percentage of jobs located within 1/2 mile of a transit stop Economic Impact 24 Number and dollar value of D/M/WBE [Disadvantaged, Minority, and/or Women-owned Business Enterprises] contracts awarded as a percentage of all contracts awarded Economic Impact 25 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 Percentage of population within service area that lives within 1/4 mile of a transit stop Mobility and Accessibility 28 Number/percentage 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 Percentage of full-time equivalent employees that meet internally developed safety, security, and emergency preparedness training and certification guidelines Safety and Emergency Preparedness 30 Number of close calls identified by operation type (e.g., bus operations, rail operations, maintenance shops) Safety and Emergency Preparedness 31 Number/percentage of vacant posts filled internally by promotion or transfer Employees and Workforce 32 Overall satisfaction with 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

Performance Measure Evaluation Process 123 Performance Measure APTA Goal Rank Percentage of 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/percentage of RFPs [requests for proposals] that include sustainability criteria Financial 41 Percentage of passenger station access mode share (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 1/4 mile of a transit stop by type (low-income, limited English proficiency, aged, disabled) Mobility and Accessibility 44 Number of new housing units within 1/2 mile of a rail or TOD [transit-oriented development] station Economic Impact 45 Number of new jobs within 1/2 mile of a rail or TOD station Economic Impact 46 Number/percentage 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 (e.g., % 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 Percentage 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 modes and parked at facilities recorded annually Mobility and Accessibility 53 Number/percentage of projects that follow a public participation/engagement plan Community Building and Engagement 33 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) Mobility and Accessibility 34 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) Mobility and Accessibility 54

124 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document Performance Measure APTA Goal Rank 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 [percentage of] household income devoted to public transit by lower-income households Mobility and Accessibility 58 Estimated value of the organization’s defined benefit plan obligations and other retirement plans by funding type (funded/unfunded) Financial 59 Percentage of 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/percentage 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 Number of free “how to use transit” trainings each year Community Building and Engagement 65 Portion of [percentage 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 and 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/percentage 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 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. Number/percentage of interviewers who received anti-bias training Employees and Workforce 55 Almost all measures were reported as being tracked by at least one respondent. The most commonly tracked measure was the “overall satisfaction with the transit system by user group” (9 respondents). Sixty-seven (67) measures were tracked by at least one respondent; 38 measures were tracked by four or more respondents. Only four measures were not tracked by any respondent.

Performance Measure Evaluation Process 125 Table C-8. Performance Measures Tracked Performance Measure Total Community Building and Engagement Overall satisfaction with 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/percentage of projects that follow a public participation/engagement plan 5 Number/percentage 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/percentage of schools included in the Enhance Safe Routes to School program 1 Economic Impact Number and dollar value of D/M/WBE contracts awarded as a percentage of all contracts awarded 4 Number/percentage of employees who take public transit to work 4 Number and percentage 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 Percentage of 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 Percentage of 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 Employees and Workforce Total number and rate of new employee hires during the reporting period by age group, gender, ethnicity, disability, and veteran status 6 Number/percentage of vacant posts filled internally by promotion or transfer 5 Total number of employees that took parental leave, by gender and 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/percentage 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/percentage of employees trained by type of training, level, and gender (e.g., leadership, management, anti-bias, and anti-harassment training) 2 Financial Total and percentage of revenue by type (e.g., capital, operating) and by source (e.g., fare, local, state, federal) 8

126 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document Performance Measure Total Operating cost per revenue-hour and passenger-mile by mode 8 Total expenses by type and mode (e.g., service, maintenance, admin, workforce) 8 Fare box recovery ratio 7 Percentage of capital projects within +/- 10% of the original budget 6 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 (e.g., % of products and services purchased locally) 2 Number/percentage 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 Mobility and Accessibility Percentage of bus stops with shelters 4 Percentage of stations/stops ADA accessible 5 Percentage of vehicles ADA accessible 5 Percentage 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% of area median income) 4 Number of employers and schools that have discounted transit fare programs 4 Percentage 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 1/4 mile of a transit stop by type (low-income, limited English proficiency, aged, disabled) 2 Percentage of riders who are low income, minority, limited English proficiency, ADA, or senior by mode 2 Percentage 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 modes, and parked at facilities recorded annually 2 Percentage of passenger station access mode share (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 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) 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 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 incidence of crime on transit agency property by type of crime 6

Performance Measure Evaluation Process 127 Performance Measure Total Number/percentage of employees who participate in health and wellness initiatives, including biking and walking to work 4 Number of resilience actions underway or complete 4 Number of close calls identified by operation type (e.g., bus operations, rail operations, maintenance shops) 4 Transit collisions per year compared to car collisions per year 4 Average score of perceived safety on transit based on a scale of 1–10, by transit mode 4 Percentage 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 Percentage of full-time equivalent employees that meet internally developed safety, security, and emergency preparedness training and certification guidelines 2 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 Social and Economic Performance Measures 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 “List of Performance Measures” in Section 3 of the report).