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.

50 A P P E N D I X A Literature Review Summary 1. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Reporting Standards (GRI Standards) Author(s): Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Publisher: GRI Year: 2016 (revised 2018) Source Information: Voluntary sustainability reporting standard to communicate to stakeholders about an organization’s impacts on the economy, environment and/or society. The GRI Standards replace the earlier GRI G4 Standards. Web Link: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/ Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X Abstract The GRI Standards are the most widely accepted global standards for sustainability reporting. They feature a modular, interrelated structure, and represent the global best practice for reporting on a range of economic, environmental, and social impacts. The universal Standards apply to all organizations preparing a report in accordance with the GRI Standards: • GRI 101: Foundation—includes the 10 reporting principles (next table), the basic process for using the GRI Standards for sustainability reporting, and information on how to use and reference the Standards; • GRI 102: General Disclosures—covers contextual information about the organization and its sustainability reporting practices; and • GRI 103: Management Approach—covers the organization’s management approach for each material topic.

Literature Review Summary 51 • Materiality: Organizations should select topics material to their organization. Materiality is defined as topics that (1) reflect the reporting organization’s significant economic, environmental, and social impacts or (2) substantially influence the assessment and decisions of stakeholders. • Completeness: Requires the report to include material topics and their boundaries sufficient to reflect significant economic, environmental, and social impacts to enable stakeholders to assess performance. • Comparability: Information is selected, compiled, and reported consistently so that stakeholders can analyze changes in the organization’s performance over time and compare it to other organizations’ performance. • Reliability: Report information and the processes used in preparation of the report are gathered, recorded, compiled, analyzed, and reported in a way that can be subject to examination and that establishes the quality and materiality of the information. • Timeliness: Requires the organization to report on a regular schedule so that information is available in time for stakeholders to make informed decisions. There are various topic-specific Standards organized in three series: • Economic topics (200 Series)—Standards related to economic topics (e.g., Economic Performance, Anti-corruption); • Environmental topics (300 Series)—Standards related to environmental topics (e.g., Water, Waste, Emissions); and • Social topics (400 Series)—Standards related to social topics (e.g., Employment, Child Labor). Stakeholder mapping and materiality assessment are key topics covered in the GRI Standards. Organizations often map their impacts through a materiality matrix (see sample figure titled “Figure 3: Visual representation of prioritization of topics”). In accordance with the GRI Standards, organizations only report on material topics. The research team notes from personal experience that most organizations do not correctly map their material impacts in accordance with the GRI Standards. Most organizations consider the economic, environmental and social impacts to their organization. In accordance with the GRI Standards, materiality should instead consider the significance of the environmental, social, and economic impacts. Another example from Johnson and Johnson can be viewed at the following website: http://healthforhumanityreport.jnj. com/our-approach/setting-priorities. 10 Reporting Principles Content Quality • Stakeholder Inclusiveness: Requires the reporting organization to identify its stakeholders, and explain how the organization has responded to their reasonable expectations and interests. • Sustainability Context: Requires the reporting organization to present the organization’s performance in the wider context of sustainability. • Accuracy: Reported information is sufficiently detailed for stakeholders to assess the reporting organization’s performance. • Balance: Reported information reflects positive and negative aspects of the reporting organization’s performance to enable a reasoned assessment of overall performance. • Clarity: Information is reported in a manner that is understandable and accessible to stakeholders.

52 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document Source: GRI 101: Foundation (2016), p. 11 Relevant performance measures from the GRI Standards have been included in the Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures Database. Key Points The GRI Standards are the gold standard for sustainability reporting. The Standards include widely accepted list of performance measures for some of the elements covered in the APTA Recommended Practice on Economic and Social Sustainability (employee workforce, health and safety, financial). In addition, the Standards provide guidance on how to determine which topics are material to the organization and how to engage stakeholders. Although the Standards are most often used by publicly traded companies, during the literature review the research team noted that a few transit agencies are reporting in accordance with the GRI Standards. Similar to ISO Standards, the GRI Standards provide a good framework from which to ground an organization’s sustainability program and performance measures.

Literature Review Summary 53 2. Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Sustainable and Livable Transport Planning Author(s): Litman, T. Publisher: Victoria Transport Policy Institute Year: 2016 Source Information: This report provides guidance on the use of indicators for sustainable and livable transportation planning. Web Link: http://www.vtpi.org/wellmeas.pdf Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X X X Abstract This report provides a comprehensive review of existing research on transportation performance indicators for sustainability and livability. The report builds on several related reports published by Litman. It describes factors to consider when selecting sustainable transportation indicators, identifies examples of indicators and indicator sets, and provides recommendations for selecting sustainable transport indicators for use in a particular situation. Litman distinguishes between sustainability, which is a “balance of economic, social and environmental goals,” and livability, which refers to the “subset of sustainability goals that directly affect community members” (p. 6). Indicators (or performance measures/metrics) measure progress toward goals and objectives. The type of indicator selected to measure sustainability or livability goals can significantly influence analysis of success. Litman indicates that “both sustainability and livability support more comprehensive and integrated planning … which shifts focus from mobility-based to accessibility-based transport planning” (p. 12). Accessibility-based planning considers additional planning objectives such as improved mobility for non-drivers, energy conservation, improved safety, improving alternative modes, and so forth. Litman outlines the following process for identifying indicators (p. 13): 1. Vision and Goals (what we ultimately want to achieve); 2. Objectives (way to achieve goals); 3. Targets (specific, reasonable, measurable objective that we want to achieve); 4. Outcomes (ultimate changes in activities and impacts); and 5. Performance Indicators (specific factors that are measured to indicate progress toward goals). Performance indicators can be categorized as (p. 15): • Process (the types of policies and planning activities, such as whether the organization has a process for collecting and publishing performance data, and public involvement); • Inputs (the resources invested in particular activities, such as the level of funding spent on various activities or modes); • Outputs (direct results, such as the miles of sidewalks, paths and roads, and the amount of public transit service provided); or

54 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document • Outcomes (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). It is generally ideal to use multiple types of performance indicators. The performance indicators may measure quantitative data (easy to measure) or qualitative data (other types of information). Litman indicates that “sustainable transportation economic indicators should reflect both the benefits and costs of motor vehicle use, and possibly that more motorized mobility reflects a reduction in overall accessibility and transport diversity, rather than a net gain in social welfare” (p. 21). Litman proposes different methods to evaluate aspects of livability. Equity can be assessed through a comparison of factors such as transport options, quality of service, and impacts between different socioeconomic groups. Health-related impacts from transportation can be measured through accidents that result in injuries, illness caused by pollution, and contribution to inadequate physical activity. Surveys can be used to measure community livability and cohesion and the value people place on historic and cultural resources. Litman provides numerous examples of sustainability and livability indicator frameworks, including some that specifically focus on transportation. Relevant performance measures are included in the Excel®-based Social and Economic Performance Measures Database that accompanies TCRP Research Report 205. It should be noted that the report includes many indicators that were not included in the database because they are not framed as performance measures (i.e., they do not measure progress). Litman provides guidance on what constitutes bad indicators (p. 66): • Narrow scope fails to reflect true sustainability. • Inadequate indicators to reflect intended goals. • Lack of a logical structure. • Considers intermediate objectives rather than outcomes. • Based on inappropriate reference units. • Fails to clearly define how the indicators are to be interpreted. • Fails to reflect total and lifecycle impacts. Litman suggests that transportation performance indicators should be (p. 75): • Comprehensive (indicators reflect various economic, social and environmental impacts, and various transport activities); • Quality (data collection practices reflect high standards to ensure that information is accurate and consistent); • Comparable (data collection is clearly defined and standardized to facilitate comparisons between various jurisdictions, times and groups); • Understandable (indicators are understandable to decision-makers and the public). The more the information is condensed into an index, the less meaning it has for specific decisions; • Accessible and Transparent (indicators, and the raw data they are based on, as well as analysis details, are available to all stakeholders); • Cost Effective (data collection for the indicators is cost effective);

Literature Review Summary 55 • Net Effects (indicators differentiate between net [total] impacts and shifts of impacts to different locations and times); and • Functional (indicators selected are suitable for establishing usable performance targets). Key Points Todd Litman, a recognized expert in transportation sustainability performance indicators, emphasizes the need to follow a systematic process in order to develop quality performance indicators. The type of indicator selected can influence whether the outcome is determined to be good or bad. Therefore, it is important to understand the outcome one is trying to measure, and how it connects to sustainability/livability goals. It is important to be realistic in selecting indicators that can be measured feasibly and reliably. Litman acknowledges the struggle between selecting a small number of indicators that are more easily measured versus a more comprehensive list of indicators, which may be unreasonable to track and interpret. This report suggests several factors to consider when developing indicators, and emphasizes the need to tailor indicators to specific situations and organizational needs.

56 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 3. Analyzing the Sustainability Performance of Public Transit Author(s): Miller, P., A. de Barros, L. Kattan, and S. C. Wirasinghe Publisher: Elsevier (Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 44) Year: 2016 Source Information: Introduces the Public Transit Sustainable Mobility Analysis Tool (PTSMAT) framework, which uses composite sustainability index techniques along with research into transport sustainability to propose a new transit analysis tool. Web Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920916000213?via%3Dihub Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X Abstract This paper presents a new framework that can be used by transit agencies to evaluate the sustainability of decision-making and planning efforts. The paper outlines the PTSMAT framework and provides an overview of data normalization, weighting, and indicator selection. The paper proposes a set of indicators to use based on literature review. The framework includes the traditional sustainability categories—environment, economy and society—as well as transport system effectiveness. Indicators for each category are incorporated into the framework. Normalization and weighting factors are then applied to achieve a total sustainability score. Relevant indicators are included in the Social and Economic Performance Measures Database. The framework application was tested using a TransLink project in Vancouver, BC, Canada. The paper evaluated six potential alignments for a TransLink project that included rapid rail transit (RRT), light rail transit (LRT), bus rapid transit (BRT), and two combination options. The social and economic measures used in the case study include: • Economic (capital costs, operating costs, contributions to gross domestic product, travel time); • Social (low-income population served, population served, jobs served, collision cost avoided); and • System effectiveness (ridership, corridor mode share, passenger-kilometers traveled). The weighting factors used significantly affect the results. The PTSMAT framework enables transit agencies to develop various weighting factors based on what criteria are most important to the agency/community served. Key Points The PTSMAT framework is a tool developed specifically for use by transit agencies to evaluate the sustainability of new projects. The study used indicators from the UITP’s Millennium Cities Database for sustainable transportation. Further testing is needed to evaluate the tool’s overall effectiveness.

Literature Review Summary 57 4. TCRP Report 186: Economic Impact Case Study Tool for Transit Author(s): Economic Development Research Group and Compass Transportation and Technology, Inc. Publisher: Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Year: 2016 Source Information: TCRP Project H-50, “Local Economic Development Measurement Tool for Transit,” which adapted an existing highway case study database to evaluate the economic and land development impacts of transit projects. Web Link: https://www.nap.edu/download/23525 Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X Abstract This report presents the results of a project that adapted an existing highway case study database webtool to evaluate the economic and land development impacts of transit investment projects. Seven case studies were piloted as part of this project to determine the viability of using the database. The case studies relied on ex-post (after transit projects have been completed) analysis. Impacts are based on the date of project completion, which does not account for impacts that many projects expect years after the project is completed. The case studies generally focused on measuring the economic development (new jobs created and new development of areas adjacent to the transit system investment sites or corridors) that can be reasonably linked to the transit investment. The job analysis excluded temporary construction jobs as well as additional indirect (supplier) or induced (worker-spending) impacts on jobs in a broader region. The Web-based tool identifies the estimated net direct impact of the project using seven outcome measures: • Number of jobs, • Income/wages ($M), • Output ($M), • Building development (1,000s of sq. ft.), • Direct private investment ($M), • Property value increase ($M), and • Property tax revenue ($M). Case studies can be searched by transit mode, project type, region, motivation (e.g., rail access, congestion mitigation, air quality ), urban/class level, and economic distress. The pre/post analysis uses national databases to report changes at the local, county, and state level in different outcomes. Once the database is built out, the tool could be used to help set reasonable expectations early in the planning process, screen a range of different project alternatives based on the estimated economic benefits of similar projects, and screen alternative proposals for a single transportation project.

58 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document The case studies first measure gross (pre/post) changes, then estimate net impacts after accounting for underlying pre/post trends economic trends, relative role of the transportation project in a larger package of improvements, and program interventions. Finally, the case studies attempt to determine the extent to which new business attraction merely reflects shifts in business locations from elsewhere “in the area.” In this study, challenges with defining impacts included: • Data availability (some data may be difficult to collect, and data may vary based on the spatial scale); • Defining area of impact (how to define the appropriate area of impact); • Gross versus net impact (defining the breadth of the study area); and • Distributional and equity impacts (not considered in this study). Estimating the economic development impact of transit is challenging. Development that occurs within walking distance (a 1/4-mile radius) of a new transit station can be considered a direct result of infrastructure investment. However, beyond this radius, it is difficult to identify direct benefits, particularly those associated with enhancing connectivity and access. The case studies demonstrated that the number of jobs attributable to transit varied. Local economic development impacts are correlated to a supportive business community, zoning flexibility, a growing regional economy, and good transportation network connectivity. The most significant impacts occurred “following the opening of new transit facilities where service improved access to underdeveloped land close to urban cores that would not have otherwise been able to develop as densely” (p. 2). The case studies demonstrate that economic development impacts are not always correlated with ridership changes (p. 16). Key Points This report provides several outcome performance measures that can be used to evaluate the economic impacts of transit investments. The limited number of pilot cases demonstrated that economic and land development impacts from transit can be measured, that the impacts vary widely by project type and location, and that the results can provide insight about community benefits that differ from ridership increases alone. This demonstrates the importance of selecting appropriate performance measures. For example, a project could be perceived differently using a performance measure associated with ridership versus a performance measure associated with economic development outcomes. The magnitude and form of local economic development impacts can vary depending on factors including type and magnitude of transportation access changes, availability of underdeveloped land nearby, area density and location relative to urban business centers, and goals regarding redevelopment and revitalization of neighborhoods. The report emphasizes that the qualitative information presented in the case study narratives are a key component, providing information on additional factors that contributed to the economic outcomes.

Literature Review Summary 59 5. Selecting Performance Measures for Transportation Planning: Developing a Facilitator’s Toolbox Author(s): Heller, A., J. Fischer, and L. Lane Publisher: Paper presented at 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Year: 2016 Source Information: The paper summarizes the results of five performance-based planning workshops. Web Link: n/a Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X Abstract Although transportation agencies have worked toward performance-based planning for several years, passage and implementation of MAP-21 and the FAST act have increased the burden on transportation-oriented agencies to develop robust performance-based planning processes. This paper describes tools that practitioners can use or adapt to facilitate the development of performance measures based on livability principles and best practices in a multi-stakeholder context. The paper describes a technology transfer project facilitated by two academic teams through five workshops in the southeastern United States. Through each workshop, participants were able to advance the use of performance measurement in their local or regional transportation planning processes. The paper describes the workshop methodology, planning context, and lessons learned from the five workshops. Tools are described that are specific to the development of performance measures and to using a collaborative environment to develop these measures. The report presents several findings for workshop facilitators supporting transportation agencies in the development of a performance-based planning and programming approach. Summarized briefly, the findings are: 1. Conducting the visioning exercise alongside the development of performance measures is a useful method for creating dialog between participants and selecting effective, well- grounded performance measures. 2. The FHWA Community Vision Metrics Tool includes more than 1,200 measures of livability.[That number has since increased to more than 1,700.] The sheer number of measures presents both opportunities and challenges for participants. Facilitators may find it helpful to select a subset of measures before a workshop, and should ground these measures in other important considerations, such as evaluation criteria, data needs, and steps necessary for implementation. 3. Performance measurement evaluation criteria are critical in order for participants to evaluate performance measures.

60 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 4. The type of performance measure should be considered in determining which measures are most appropriate for a planning organization or level of geography. These include (p. 11): • Input (typically leading measures that represent resources available to the inter- organization system). • Output (lagging indicators that reflect progress toward work products). • Outcome (lagging indicators that reflect changes in outputs). Outcome measures typically are more meaningful for the traveling public, political decision-makers, and stakeholders, but often fall outside the direct control of transportation professionals. • Process (measures that refer to activities within the system boundaries of a particular organization or partnership). • Efficacy (measures that consider both productivity and effectiveness, and can be used to measure the effectiveness of processes at achieving their intended purposes). • Efficiency (measures that indicate the change of inputs into outcomes or outcomes due to processes implemented by transportation professionals). 5. Workshop participants should be reflective of the needs and interests of the community, and should include technical staff, community members, and policy-makers. 6. The process of establishing a performance-based approach to planning and programming may require a series of conversations to address the organization’s culture, relationships (both within and outside of the organization), and planning procedures. 7. Performance management discussions can be very effective at fostering collaboration and consensus among workshop participants. These workshops should be seen as an opportunity for individual agencies to move out of their individual “silos.” Key Points Carefully considering the type of performance measure is a critical step in selecting performance measures, as is applying relevant quality criteria. Identifying measures that fall within the transportation agency’s sphere of influence also is an important consideration. Evaluating measures by these criteria can help to ensure that measures are both actionable and connected to outcomes that are carefully monitored by the public.

Literature Review Summary 61 6. Final Report: Livability Performance Measures to Transportation Plans and Projects Author(s): Lane, L., A. Amekudzi, J. Fischer, S. Brodie, A. Heller, and T. Mansfield Publisher: Southeastern Transportation Research, Innovation, Development and Education Center (STRIDE) Year: 2015 Source Information: A summary of workshops held with two agencies to develop sustainability performance metrics using the FHWA Community Vision Metrics Tool Web Link: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/29083 Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X X X Abstract This report focuses on workshops held to assist planning organizations in establishing livability- oriented performance measures. The report includes a summary of the workshop methodologies, results, lessons learned, and concludes with reflections on the project. Each workshop was developed in consultation with the host organization and was crafted with the goal of developing a set of performance measures that could be implemented in transportation plans or comprehensive transportation plans. The project leveraged the FHWA Community Vision Metrics Tool (reviewed in Resource # 9) during the workshop for two of the host organizations and prior to the workshop for three of the host organizations. In all cases, potential performance measures were linked to either goals or current performance management activities. Participants developed a more thorough understanding of performance-based planning by applying quality criteria to the performance measures identified. Two quality criteria were used over the course of the project: Quality Criteria used by Georgia Tech (SMART criteria) (p. 11): • S (Specific) o Is the desired outcome clear? o Who is the intended audience? o Is there a formula? • M (Measurable) o What data or modeling capacity is needed? o Who would be responsible for measurement? • A (Attainable/Achievable) o How do we “move the needle”? o What are the constraints? o Who would be responsible for achievement? • R (Realistic/Relevant) o Can this help translate our goals into actions? o Are we comfortable being held accountable for this?

62 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document • T (Time Sensitive) o Does this better address long- or short-range goals? o How often should this be measured? Quality Criteria used by NCSU (p. 13): • Understandable (meaningful and easy to understand for the general public and decision- makers). • Available (data supporting the measure are tracked over time at a relevant geographic scale). • Feasible (data supporting the measure do not entail significant costs and/or resources, i.e., advanced geographic information systems). • Relevant (the measure is robustly linked to the outcome and change in the measure implies progress toward the identified goal). • Because results from the workshops were largely shaped by the participants, future workshops should include as diverse a representation of community interests as possible. • When visioning occurs as part of a performance measures exercise, goals will be grounded in tangible outcomes and fewer implementation issues will develop later in planning. • Older, more sophisticated planning organizations may especially benefit from a series of conversations (in addition to a day-long workshop) to fully reorient organization culture to incorporate performance-based planning. • The Community Vision Metrics Tool provides more than 1,200 measures [now more than 1,700] that can be used to identify performance measures, including livability-oriented performance measures. To best take advantage of the tool’s measures and search features, iterative searches may be necessary. • It is essential to employ quality criteria to help participants critically evaluate the many performance measures included in the Community Vision Metrics Tool in order to work through challenges that may arise when implementing measures. • In order to use performance measures in a way that relates to customer experience and concerns, there is a need for agencies to understand the difference between types of performance measures and the best application of each type. • In order to introduce the concepts of performance-based planning, develop criteria, and interact with the Community Vision Metrics Tool, it may be beneficial to hold several workshops over a series of days. • Participants connect strongly to the concept of performance measurement. These workshops can develop relationships, neutralize biases, and co-create shared outcomes. Key Points The workshops demonstrate the importance of stakeholder engagement throughout the process of defining performance measures. The two groups of facilitators chose slightly different approaches that both supported transportation agencies’ adoption of performance measures but highlight a few important items. First, and somewhat counterintuitively, by limiting the workshop’s focus to a smaller initial set of measures (with support from agency staff), it is possible for participants to move more quickly through the smaller “database” and ultimately leave a single-day workshop High-level observations from the workshops include the following (p. 8):

Literature Review Summary 63 with a larger set of measures than if they are engaging with a more comprehensive database (such as the complete Community Vision Metrics Tool). Second, the two groups of facilitators selected very different criteria to support the agencies; doing this helps frame performance measurement in terms that the organization understands and adopts, and ultimately affects the performance measures chosen. A key first step is to reach consensus on the criteria used to evaluate the performance measures. Important observations that both facilitating groups shared include the importance of visioning as part of the performance management process, the importance of capacity building within planning organizations, the importance of an understanding of the types of measures, and the usefulness of using performance measurement planning as a method of building relationships between participants.

64 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 7. Transportation Performance Management for Livability and Social Sustainability: Developing and Applying a Conceptual Framework Author(s): Fischer, J. Publisher: Georgia Institute of Technology Year: 2014 Source Georgia Tech Theses and Dissertations [20814] Web Link: http://hdl.handle.net/1853/53031 Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X X X Abstract This dissertation focuses on developing an understanding of the multi-dimensional concept of quality of life. The dissertation begins with its objective: “The primary objective and contributions of this research are the development of such a conceptual framework—the stacked systems framework (SSF)—and a methodology for applying it to enhance transportation performance management in an inter-jurisdictional context” (p. xxiii). The dissertation examines theory and practice of transportation performance management, social sustainability, and “soft systems methodologies” in order to develop a process to unpack the intricate relationships between inter-organizational contexts, social resource outputs, and broader sustainability goals. The dissertation examines many social constructs, including livability, environmental justice, community impact assessment, context-sensitive solutions, and health impact assessment. The SSF is built upon four layers, with the foundation being the natural environment, followed by built infrastructure and technology, then sociotechnical operations, and finally socioeconomic situations at the top. The dissertation inventories numerous performance measures related to elements of the SSF framework, including organization structure, internal and external stakeholders, physical infrastructure and accessibility, mobility and reliability, affordability, safety, public health, and customer experience. The research includes a case study application that translates the components of the SSF into four phases of analysis: “Organizational Influence Profile,” “Feedback Space Profile,” “Performance Measurement Gap Analysis,” and “Metrics Testing.” The dissertation concludes with the broader significance and limitations of the SSF and suggestions for future research. Key Points • Transportation organization structures, processes, and associated decision-making influence social resource outputs and wider social sustainability outcomes. The relationship is complex due to the myriad connections between inputs, outputs, and outcomes. • It is possible to unpack the complexities through a framework that contextualizes the interactions between the natural and built environments and subsequent socioeconomic

Literature Review Summary 65 outcomes. Essential is “the concept of an organizational influence pathway, which decision-makers must identify and use to clearly link agency actions to the desired outcomes that are addressed by strategic goals” (Fischer 2014, p. 212). • Measures are important for agencies to track to understand how their programs, policies, and projects are delivering their goals related to social sustainability. • It is critical to consider transportation service quality as a social resource that supports livability and quality of life. • Stakeholder input, along with human resource management, is important to support organizational effectiveness. • Performance measures do not necessarily need to all be tracked at the same intervals. • Program measurement is an iterative process that requires reevaluation for optimum effectiveness. • When selecting metrics for performance-based decision-making, it is important to differentiate between performance measures and context measures. Performance measures can be directly linked to and influenced by actions taken by an agency, where context measures (such as population growth or funding receipts) influence decisions in transportation systems performance but do not necessarily reflect agency performance. • Four principles for designing a suite of performance measures include meaningfulness, practical measurability, comprehensiveness and balance, and conciseness. • Engaging external stakeholders (including elected officials, partner organizations, and the public) can influence the context in which performance strategies are implemented, thereby creating or removing obstacles for achievement. • Multijurisdictional collaboration among agencies is important to collect data.

66 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 8. NCHRP Report 750: Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 4: Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies Author(s): Booz Allen Hamilton Publisher: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Year: 2014 Source Information: NCHRP Report 750 Web Link: http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/170762.aspx Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X X Abstract The NCHRP Project 20-83 research series, of which this report is the fourth volume, examines long-range strategic issues and their implications for departments of transportation (DOTs) to help prepare DOTs for the challenges and benefits of increasing awareness of the environmental, social, economic, and social effects of the transportation system. NCHRP Report 750: Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 4: Sustainability as an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies focused on “providing methods and recommendations for transportation agencies to monitor progress toward a sustainable society” (p. 1). The research product includes definitions for key terms and concepts, forecasting plausible future scenarios, performing a present-future gap analysis, and assessing near-term tools. The research team focuses on providing strategies and recommendations that would support a triple-bottom-line (sometimes abbreviated TBL) sustainability policy system, considering economic, social, and environmental policy dimensions. Building on the widely accepted Brundtland Commission’s definition, the research team adopted several additional key assumptions of sustainability, including the following: • A sustainability focus must be long term, not short term; • Sustainability must be integrated into all policy areas, and not simply be treated as a stand- alone concept; and • For a DOT to develop economically, socially, and environmentally, the organization must first undertake institutional reform and support the work with strong institutions. The report finds that certain areas of sustainability policy are well defined and broadly practiced, including focus on environmental analysis, or evaluating certain assets (such as buildings or businesses). Currently, no state has a legislatively authorized sustainable transportation program. Furthermore, triple-bottom-line policy is neither explicit nor supported by institutional and funding arrangements currently. The report identifies certain trends in policy systems: • Safety (1950s and 1960s), • Compliance (1970s through the end of the twentieth century), • Green transportation (current),

Literature Review Summary 67 • Future sustainability/a sustainable transportation system (current transition), and • Society-sustainable policy (i.e., triple-bottom-line sustainability) in the future. Of note for this research project is a list of key interview research themes highlighting stakeholders’ concerns and observations when moving into a more sustainable policy system, including the following (pp. 233–234): • Sustainability is a complex, challenging idea; • Understanding of and support for sustainability is increasing; • Triple-bottom-line policy needs a fiscal element; • Social indicators are difficult to develop; • The current trend is to wait for demand rather than to develop demand; • Sustainability cannot be an add-on; it must inform culture and process; • One size will not fit all; • There is a need to build the business case for sustainability and show ROI [return on investment]; • Sustainability requires public involvement and stakeholder buy-in; and • Localities can lead in sustainability initiatives. Approximately 60% of state DOTs use performance measures or indicators that are related in some way to sustainability (mentioning either the environment, economy, and/or quality of life), and approximately 20% of DOTs use similar indicators for project prioritization. The report focuses on identifying challenges to transportation agencies, identifying functional gaps, identifying near- term tools and strategies, near-term tools, and opportunities for further development of sustainability tools. Key functional gaps facing transportation agencies include the following (p. 17): • Credible and widely applied performance measurement framework for a triple-bottom-line approach; • Application of lifecycle cost analysis (LCCA), total cost analysis (TCA), and sustainability accounting based on the triple-bottom-line; • Broad consensus on performance assessment processes to address the triple-bottom-line and the contribution of transportation to the triple-bottom-line; • Increased incorporation of the triple-bottom-line impact assessments in planning and programming; • Direct public- and private-sector engagement in needs development; • Market and business incentives for private industry to share and engage in triple-bottom- line goal setting and decision-making; • Integration of sustainability tools in decision-making; • Established multimodal, multiagency, multisector, and multijurisdictional planning and decision-making to address evolving regional needs and consensus on triple-bottom-line issues; and • Multimodal, multiagency, multisector, and multijurisdictional programming with clear mandates and authorities (e.g., for megaregions) to better leverage resources. The report highlights several tools that can be used to improve sustainability planning and programming. The report also presents a number of assessment and rating tools that focus on project delivery. Tools briefly touched upon include the Parsons Brinckerhoff Regional Impact

68 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document Scenario Model (PRISM) model, a proprietary transportation economic impact model, and HDR’s sustainability return on investment (SROI) tool. However, these tools were not developed specifically for transportation projects, and they may require a high degree of customization to be useful. They are not widely used by transportation agencies in the United States. The report also includes a tool to be used by transportation agencies to assess their maturity and progress toward supporting a triple-bottom-line sustainability policy system based on the sustainability maturity model developed as part of the report. After a series of questions, agencies can reference a table to determine their maturity level: Safe Mobility, Compliant Transportation, Green Transportation, Sustainable Transportation, or Support TBL [Triple-Bottom-Line] Sustainability. Key Points The report authors observe that the most critical need in adopting sustainability as an organizing principle is the lack of a simple and easily communicated tool for determining the return on investment (ROI) of sustainability. Agencies and state DOTs are at very distinct stages of development with regard to sustainability; in order to mature, several functional gaps must be addressed.

Literature Review Summary 69 9. Community Vision Metrics Tool Author(s): Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Publisher: FHWA Year: 2013 Source Information: Online database of more than 1,700 metrics across 12 topic areas Web Link: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/tools/community_vision/index.cfm Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X Abstract The FHWA Community Vision Metrics Tool is a user-friendly online planning tool for agencies to use in planning and with project development processes to achieve livable and sustainable outcomes. The tool contains more than 1,700 metrics across 12 topic areas that cover each of the elements identified in the 2018 APTA Recommended Practice on Social and Economic Sustainability for Transit Agencies (APTA Recommended Practice), with the exception of the Employees and Workforce element. The Community Vision Metrics Tool is intended to help practitioners in their efforts to assess the effects of improvements intended to create, develop, and enhance livable communities. The tool consists of a four-step process to search for performance indicators relevant to specific circumstances, communities, and quality-of-life goals. Step 1. Choose a Topic (accessibility, aesthetics and sensory, community amenities, community engagement, economic, housing, land use, mobility, natural resources, public health, safety, and socio-cultural); Step 2. Geographic Scale (city, city block, corridor, county, neighborhood, region, state, town, census boundary, American Indian reservation, traffic analysis zone); Step 3. Setting/Density (downtown, preserve, rural, small town, suburban, urban); and Step 4. Transportation Mode(s) (automobile, bicycle, bus, paratransit, pedestrian, rail, transit, truck, maritime, aviation). An extensive literature review was conducted as part of the FHWA project, as well as interviews with several transportation agencies. Copies of the literature review and interview summaries are provided online. Relevant performance measures from the Community Vision Metrics Tool have been included in the Social and Economic Performance Measures Database. Key Points It is important for performance measurement to respond to context. Many practitioners seek measures that can be applied universally, but context-based metrics are critical in order for livability performance measurement to truly suit the needs of diverse communities and regions. This easy-to-use, searchable database tool, enables users to search based on differing criteria— including different transit modes—to identify a list of potential performance measures that are applicable to the transit agency’s specific context.

70 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 10. TCRP Report 165: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3d Ed. Author(s): Kittelson & Associates, Inc., et al. Publisher: TCRP, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Year: 2013 Source TCRP Report 165 Web Link: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/169437.aspx Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X Abstract This manual provides current research-based guidance on transit capacity and quality of service issues and factors. It provides a framework for measuring transit capacity, availability, comfort, and convenience from the passenger and transit provider points of view. The manual discusses five key concepts: • Quality of service: The manual defines quality of service as “the overall measured or perceived performance of transit service from the passenger’s point of view” (p. 5-1). Quality of service performance measures focus on transit availability and transit comfort and convenience. • Capacity: Capacity refers to the maximum number of transit vehicles, persons or both that can travel past a particular location in a given period of time under specified conditions. The manual defines several performance measures related to capacity. • Speed and reliability: Speed and reliability influence passenger perceptions of quality of service. Speed and reliability also impact transit scheduling and number of vehicles required. • Definitions: The manual addresses the inconsistency in definitions used by the transit industry. For example, there is not a commonly accepted definition of level of service. The manual includes the following definitions (p. 5-1): o Transit performance measure: A quantitative or qualitative factor used to evaluate a particular aspect of transit service. o Quality of service: The overall measured or perceived performance of transit service from the passenger’s point of view. o Transit service measure: A quantitative performance measure that best describes a particular aspect of transit service and represents the passenger’s point of view. It is also known elsewhere as a measure of effectiveness. o Levels of service: Six designated ranges of values for a particular service measure, graded from “A” (best) to “F” (worst) based on a transit passenger’s perception of a particular aspect of transit service. • Local data: The manual provides guidance on appropriate data sources to use and emphasizes using local data wherever possible.

Literature Review Summary 71 Key Points The manual categorizes transit performance measures into the operator point of view, passenger point of view and vehicle point of view. Service measures are distinguished as a subset of performance measures that represents the passenger’s point of view. The manual indicates that in order to be useful, service measures need to be easy to measure and interpret.

72 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 11. Blueprint for Sustainability: One Department of Transportation’s Pursuit of Performance-Based Accountability Author(s): Maurer, L.; Mansfield, T.; Lane, L.; Hunkins, J. Publisher: Transportation Research Board (Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2357 [1]) Year: 2013 Source Information: This paper presents the approach the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) has taken to adopt sustainability as an agency value. The department’s blueprint for sustainability is a set of principles, objectives, performance measures and strategies that have been integrated into the overall strategic direction and policy framework of the North Carolina DOT. Web Link: https://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/2357-02 Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X Abstract This paper provides transportation practitioners with useful insights into how to integrate sustainability as an agency value and a decision-making framework. The process used by the North Carolina DOT relied on a combination of internal and external outreach, agency introspection, and conversations with senior leadership to conceptualize sustainability in a way that resonates with the agency’s culture and context. A variety of lessons, including the importance of flexibility, integration, and strategic coordination with related agency initiatives, can be derived from this process. The process began with the formation of two groups to manage the development of a blueprint for sustainability. An advisory group was made up of senior leadership, and a working group of North Carolina DOT managers representing a cross-section of department functional areas and modes. A research consultant team was hired to facilitate the process and deliver products. Development of the blueprint began with establishing the state of the practice within and outside the North Carolina DOT, determination of what sustainability means for the North Carolina DOT, development of the sustainability framework, and implementation and monitoring. The complete process is illustrated in a figure from Maurer et al.: Source: Maurer et al. (2013), p. 5, used with permission

Literature Review Summary 73 Determining what sustainability means for the North Carolina DOT was critical to gaining buy-in. The working group initially defined the following four areas of emphasis (p. 6): • Mobility, accessibility, and transportation-land use integration; • Financial and economic investment; • Environmental stewardship; and • Social investment. ces. Based on internal and external input, a detailed framework was developed that identified sustainability principles and objectives, the measures that would allow the North Carolina DOT to track performance, and strategies for how to move the gauge on the identified metrics. Principles related to social and economic sustainability include: • Moving people and goods: Efficient transportation network; • Choices: Options in how to travel; • Connectivity: Integration of transportation and land use; • Prosperity: Economic growth and development; • Accountability: Balance of needs and interests with available resources; • Healthy Communities: Livable communities and improved quality of life; and • Organizational responsibility: A sustainable organization. All existing department performance metrics were mapped to a relevant sustainability objective. The measures were screened on the basis of their applicability to the objectives and their level of measurement or influence. A literature review was conducted to address any gaps. The working group then reviewed and consolidated the performance measures through a facilitated process that involved the definition of a set of evaluation criteria established by the working group. The evaluation criteria included (p. 7): • Specific: The measure is clear and relates strongly to the sustainability principles and objectives; • Measurable: Success is easy to define, data are available and accurate, and measurement is repeatable; and • Attainable: The measure is within the control or influents of the North Carolina DOT and a target could be set. The final result was a list of 114 metrics—existing and new, characterized as primary and secondary—that could be used to track sustainability outcomes over time. Of the 114 measures, two-thirds already were being tracked by the department at some level. This process led to the revision of the principles, outcomes, and objectives. The framework ultimately was branded as the “accountability framework” to avoid the polarizing nature of the term “sustainability” and the belief that it is primarily associated with environmental concerns. The North Carolina DOT developed a communications plan to integrate the framework into DOT operations, including internal strategies to communicate the framework to employees at all levels, with an emphasis on demonstrating how employees can integrate the principles, objectives, and performance measures into their respective decision-making processes. Select A video was developed to describe the four areas and presented to internal and external stakeholders, followed by facilitated exercises to identify existing and new sustainable practi

74 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document performance measures are publicly available on the agency’s website via an interactive organizational performance dashboard: https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/our-mission/Perform ance/Pages/default.aspx. The authors of the paper identified the following lessons learned (pp. 13–14): • Advocate for support from senior leadership: Support from senior executive leadership was critical to success; • Be opportunistic about policy windows: The blueprint was able to take advantage of several key policy windows including state-mandated transportation reform and updates to the state Long-Range Transportation Plan; • Maintain flexibility over final product: A key factor in the success of the blueprint was the ability to maintain flexibility over the final outcome of the planning process based on feedback from stakeholders; • Do not let the perfect get in the way of the good: Another factor for success was the willingness of the policy-makers to part ways with their preconceived notions of what constituted the perfect plan and instead allow the blueprint to evolve to meet the agency’s needs; • Give employees a chance to find themselves in the framework: The process enabled meaningful participation by staff across the organization, allowing participants to think critically and see how their roles fit within the larger framework; • Embed the framework: The policy team coordinated with a variety of institutional policies and practices to fully integrate the blueprint into operations; and • Align performance measures with objectives: The blueprint emphasized the central role of performance measures. Performance measures were used to refine the principles and objectives developed early in the process rather than developed at the end of the process. For this reason, the authors emphasize the importance of identifying applicable metrics early in plan develop and using them as part of an iterative process. Key Points This paper provides detailed information the process of establishing goals, objectives and useful sustainability performance metrics. The North Carolina DOT’s experience demonstrates the importance of stakeholder collaboration to reaching consensus on a set of performance measure evaluation criteria at the onset in order to ensure the resulting measures are relevant and useful to the agency. The paper also details the agency’s experience embedding the sustainability framework and performance measures throughout the agency following adoption.

Literature Review Summary 75 Abstract This accessible and lay reader-friendly report reviews the state of economic analysis practice at several state DOTs around the country. Its relatively non-technical approach may make it a suitable study for DOT managers and decision-makers who desire an overview of transportation and economic development, including gaps in practice. This report defines economic development as “a transparent process or planned action that results in the retention and creation of sustainable jobs, wealth, and the improvement of quality of life” (p. 4). The project culminated in a scorecard of economic performance measures and their applicability to transportation decision-making. The electronic scorecard includes embedded links to source data, as well as information about tools that are available to analyzed economic impacts. The report cites and quotes a study prepared for the Oregon DOT that transportation is but one of many factors that affect economic development.1 That study even goes so far as to state that “. . . transportation projects are almost never the sole impetus for economic development” (p. 19). Other factors identified include labor force, quality of life, and access to markets and materials (Boarnet 1997). Oregon’s finding also supports the concept summarized in the report regarding the steps of stages or comprehensive transportation economic analysis. That concept takes the shape of a pyramid, with “System Performance” as the base, followed by “Benefit-Cost and Cost Effectiveness,” “Regional Economic Development,” and finally, “Livability” at the top. System performance is the foundation on which other economic impacts and benefits are built. This study repeats the messages of the importance of sustainable health outcomes and environmental systems and development, including land and resource use, resulting from transportation planning and projects. In urban areas, walkability and pedestrian friendliness are identified as core quality-of-life benefits. 1 Boarnet, M. G. (1997). “Highways and Economic Productivity: Interpreting Recent Evidence.” Journal of Planning Literature, 11(4), 476–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/088541229701100402. 12. Economic Effects of Public Investment in Transportation and Directions for the Future Author(s): Center for Neighborhood Technology and J. deBettencourt Publisher: State Smart Transportation Initiative (SSTI) Year: 2012 Source Information: Report prepared for SSTI—an effort of 19 state DOTs that promotes transportation practices that advance environmental sustainability and equitable economic development while maintaining high standards of governmental efficiency and transparency. Web Link: http://www.ssti.us/transportation-scorecard/ScorecardReport.pdf and http://www.ssti.us/transportation-scorecard/scorecard.html Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X X X

76 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document Many states factor economic outcomes into transportation planning and decision-making. The study summarizes survey results that indicated that nine states reported varying use of performance measures in agency performance tracking and long-range planning. Six of 23 responding states indicated the use of some economic measures; only one responding state had both measures and indicators. The Oregon DOT also is testing incorporating economic vitality into its decision-making process. Economic vitality measures in Oregon include the economic impacts of spending for construction, operations, and maintenance; the economic impacts of more efficient transportation services; the structural economic effects of more efficient transportation services; and local economic development and revitalization effects. Three states actually assign weights for economic benefits consideration in project prioritization. Kansas weights the effect at 25% and Wisconsin at 40%. The third state, North Carolina (at the time of this study), weights “economic competitiveness” at 10% for statewide tier assessment (interstate projects), and 5% for regional evaluations (U.S. routes); however, the projects are evaluated at division scale only (presumably due to the legislatively mandated “equity formula”), and not on a true statewide geography. Wisconsin is required by legislative mandate to factor in economic impacts. The one exception regarding economic performance measures relates to several states’ TED (Transportation Economic Development) programs. The study notes that “most [responding states] have clear performance indicators that serve as criteria for project selection.” Metrics include short-term and permanent jobs, average wage, capital investment, industry supported, state cost per job, and money invested in distressed communities. Oregon’s program focuses on reducing the cost of doing business in the date. Minnesota’s program focuses on high-wage job creation, and Kansas’ program focuses on projects for all modes that will “…create immediate opportunity to bring new employers or facilities to the state, locate in disadvantaged communities, make capital investments, and create or retain jobs in sectors that have been determined to be important to the Kansas economy: manufacturing, agriculture and food production, and warehousing” (p. 45). The study concludes with the following five emerging areas in transportation economic analysis (p. 59): • The importance of the geographic unit of analysis; • The role of local fiscal impacts such as property values and sales taxes in supporting investment; • The positive and negative impacts of induced development from investment; • The impact of agglomerative benefits and how and when they occur; and • The continued importance of community of practice—collaboration and evaluation. It especially notes the practice of combining techniques to fully capture the full array of meaningful factors that affect economic development. The SSTI study cited a study that found that purely qualitative methods (expert panels) may tend to underestimate economic development effects (especially induced growth) from projects, whereas quantitative methods sometimes overestimate the effect. It concludes that using input from qualitative expert panels to adjust and verify quantitative models may result in the most accurate results.

Literature Review Summary 77 Of interest is a table highlighting the usefulness of data sources and tools (including Census Transportation Planning Products, NEPA analysis, TREDIS) in addressing social and economic outcomes. Key Points The use of economic performance measures is a growing trend among state DOTs. For states, the most widely applied performance measures (at the time of the SSTI report) related to freight. In project development and prioritization, economic development has become a commonly applied criterion. However, in general, states take a variety of approaches to incorporating economic outcomes in transportation planning and decision-making. The report also highlights a useful tool, including many publicly available datasets and transportation planning tools (such as travel demand models) that can be used to measure social and economic outcomes.

78 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 13. TCRP Web-Only Document 56: Methodology for Determining the Economic Development Impacts of Transit Projects Author(s): Chatman et al. Publisher: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Year: 2012 Source TCRP Project H-39 Web Link: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/22765/methodology-for-determining-the-economic- development-impacts-of-transit-projects Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X Abstract This project sought to develop “a method for transit agencies to assess whether and under what circumstances transit investments have economic benefits that are in addition to land development stimulated by travel-time savings”(p. 1).The method can be used to evaluate new transit systems or significant capital investments in existing systems. The Web-only document was written to address a lack of research on productivity increases associated with agglomeration economies (economies of scale in density) caused by transit improvements. The document’s findings are focused on the metropolitan-area level, and it does not address development impacts of opening new transit lines. This research has been conducted more extensively in the United Kingdom and Australia, where wider economic impacts are studied more routinely. The paper largely developed a three-part approach to evaluate how transit systems affect agglomeration economics: a nationwide analysis, firm-level analysis, and case studies. The nationwide analysis found that strong statistical associations exist between transit capacity and two measures of agglomeration: (1) employment density of the principal cities within the metropolitan area, and (2) the total population of the metropolitan area (p. 3). The nationwide analysis is best suited for comparisons of rail projects rather than travel-time savings. The firm-level analysis showed mixed results. In one metropolitan area, the level of proximity to central business district (CBD) transit stations was associated with employment density reductions; in another, residential development suggested that there may be increases in employment density near transit stations along with a reduction in firm size. Case studies of three transit systems in the United States found a weak relationship between transit’s role in improving access to labor markets, partly because non-residential development was in a relatively early stage, and perhaps partly because of a lack of emphasis on transit’s role in attracting industry. The research suggests that transit systems need a substantial amount of time to mature in order for agglomeration benefits to be realized. The research team developed a spreadsheet tool that could be used by transit agencies to estimate the agglomeration-related economic benefits of rail investments, in the form of new systems or additions to existing systems.

Literature Review Summary 79 Key Points This research might best be used by a relatively large transit agency with a fairly mature transit system including a rail component. The United Kingdom and Australia would be good resources for transit agencies looking to inform an analysis of transit’s economic impact, as this research suggests a mature body of practice in both countries.

80 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 14. NCHRP Report 708: A Guidebook for Sustainability Performance Measures for Transportation Agencies Author(s): Zietsman, J., T. Ramani, J. Potter, V. Reeder, and J. DeFlorio Publisher: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Year: 2011 Source Performed under NCHRP Project 8-74 Web Link: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_708.pdf Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X Abstract This report provides an overview of and guide for incorporating the broader consideration of sustainability performance measures at state DOTs. The primary objective of the report is to support transportation agencies seeking to implement a performance-based planning and programming approach that explicitly factors in sustainability considerations. The report emphasizes starting gradually growing the framework over time. The report highlights sustainability efforts in states, MPOs, and other countries, including lessons learned. The report highlights 11 key sustainability goals that are recommended for transportation agencies to consider in adopting a sustainability focused approach. Sustainability Goal Definition Safety Provide a safe transportation system for users and the general public. Basic Accessibility Provide a transportation system that offers accessibility that allows people to fulfill at least their basic needs. Equity/Equal Mobility Provide options that allow affordable and equitable transportation opportunities for all sections of society. System Efficiency Ensure that the transportation system’s functionality and efficiency are maintained and enhanced. Security Ensure that the transportation system is secure from, ready for, and resilient to threats from all hazards. Prosperity Ensure that the transportation system’s development and operation support economic development and prosperity. Economic Viability Ensure the economic feasibility of transportation investments over time. Ecosystems Protect and enhance environmental and ecological systems while developing and operating transportation systems. Waste Generation Reduce waste generated by transportation-related activities. Resource Consumption Reduce the use of nonrenewable resources and promote the use of renewable replacements. Emissions and Air Quality Reduce transportation-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Source: Zietsman et al. (2011), p. 19

Literature Review Summary 81 The report also cautions agencies to consider the type of performance measure during the selection process. Some measures may closely reflect actions taken by the agency (e.g., process measures), but will not be as meaningful to the community (e.g., outcome or output measures). Example outcome, output, and process measures are: Measure Example Outcome Change in the amount of waste generated by type, weight, or volume Output Change in the percentage of operational activities with a recycling plan or waste diversion goal Process An asset management system exists Source: Zietsman et al. (2011) p. 23 The report is accompanied by a CD-ROM that that contains an Excel-based performance measures compendium. The compendium includes a list of measures (e.g., “change in the number and severity of crashes”), along with their corresponding goals (e.g., “Safety”) and objectives (e.g., “Reduce the number and severity of crashes”). It also highlights whether those measures are relevant at a construction, maintenance, operations, planning, project, or programming level. The type of measure is identified, as well as the measure’s relevance to different transportation programs (including transit). Key Points The report provides a number of resources that would be useful for transportation agencies seeking to improve their performance management approach. A basic list of measures is a useful starting point for agencies seeking to incorporate principles of sustainability, and an understanding of the importance of the type of performance measure under consideration is also helpful in identifying a range of measures that are both actionable and meaningful is important. The report includes two useful tools: a self-assessment tool to determine how performance measures implementation is proceeding in their department, and a list of performance measures. The list of measures provides an excellent resource for transportation agencies seeking to examine a complete list of measures.

82 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 15. Evaluating Transportation Economic Development Impacts—Understanding How Transport Policy and Planning Decisions Affect Employment, Incomes, Productivity, Competitiveness, Property Values, and Tax Revenues Author(s): Litman, T. Publisher: Victoria Transport Policy Institute Year: 2010 Source Policy report prepared for VTPI Web Link: http://www.vtpi.org/econ_dev.pdf; http://www.dphu.org/uploads/attachements/ books/books_3286_0.pdf Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X Abstract This study by Todd Litman takes a contrarian approach to the economic benefits and impacts of transportation. It poses that in many contexts the economic costs of transportation are underrepresented, and that economic benefits often are marginal and diminishing, to the extent that costs actually exceed benefits. Important costs that are most often overlooked are parking (often publicly subsidized), vehicle ownership costs, and incremental costs of induced travel. The executive summary includes a list of traditional economic development impacts. It includes some traditional factors such as project expenditures, transport project cost efficiency and system efficiency, property values and development, and impact to specific industries; but adds the following as well: • Consumer expenditures, • Basic access (as opposed to mobility), • Retail and tourism, • Land use objectives, • Affordability (including transportation and housing), • Wealth accumulation, and • Other sustainability (social) outcomes. Litman notes research that indicates that about 4,000 annual VMT [vehicle-miles traveled] is an economic threshold after which economic costs exceed benefits. He goes on to say that “…excessive mobility can be as economically harmful as too little” (p. 100). His research supports policies to educate transportation planners about the negative aspects of VMT. He terms mitigation approaches mobility management or transportation demand management. He identifies the following as appropriate economic development indicators for economic analyses: • Income, • Employment, • Productivity (GDP), • Competitiveness (compared to competitors),

Literature Review Summary 83 • Investment, • Profitability, • Property values, • Business activity (sales), • Tax revenues, • Affordability, • Equity, and • Desired (social) outcomes. Litman goes on to advocate for accessibility-based planning, and cites techniques such as increasing land use accessibility (through mixed use and density), improving alternative modes of travel, improved logistical management, more efficient pricing (including congestion and parking pricing, tolls, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, improved mobility substitutes (telecommunications and delivery services) and improved user information. He states that “improving accessibility for disadvantaged groups provides both efficiency and equity and benefits,” and includes the following list of transportation equity objectives and indicators (p. 15): Equity Objectives Indicators Horizontal equity Whether similar groups and individually are treated equally. Individuals bear the costs they impose Whether individual consumers bear the costs they impose, and subsidies minimized unless specifically justified. Progressive with respect to income Whether lower-income people save and benefit overall. Benefits transport-disadvantaged [populations] Whether people with mobility constrains (such as physical disabilities) benefit overall. Improves basic mobility and accessibility Whether more socially valuable trips (emergencies, medical access, commuting, basic shopping) are favored. The report also identifies principles that distort transportation market decision-making, and identifies “Least Cost Planning” as an important potential reform. The paper also cites four key economic efficiency principles: user options, efficient pricing, vehicular prioritization (especially for higher value trips including freight and service delivery), more efficient modes, and particularly economic neutrality. Litman cites several studies that support his positions that areas with more transit and less sprawl are more productive, and that denser and more compact development is a more efficient form of land use. Benefits from the latter accrue to businesses, homes, agriculture, and also recreation. The report concludes with examples and case studies, as well as reform options such as transportation pricing. Litman identifies the characteristics of an efficient transportation system as one that is multimodal, well designed and maintained, and price efficient—including valuing higher value trips over lower value trips. Key Points Litman identifies a series of key issues that are not well captured in traditional economic development assessments for transportation projects. The report also highlights the important of capturing public costs that are often not assessed in economic development, including parking, vehicle ownership costs, and the incremental costs of induced travel. A key point in this research

84 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document is the notion that a net reduction in VMT may not be the most economically beneficial objective, and instead a reduction in VMT by class of trip (e.g., under five miles per trip, over 4,000 miles per year) might be a more appropriate objective. Trips associated with freight and service delivery, as well as trips made to access medical care, may also need to be prioritized differently. Horizontal equity, as well as equity with regard to transportation-disadvantaged populations, should also be considered in prioritization.

Literature Review Summary 85 16. Dallas Area Rapid Transit: Telling Our Sustainability Story (Presentation) Author(s): Shelton, K. Publisher: Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Year: 2018 Source Information: Kay Shelton provided an overview of DART’s sustainability journey during the 2018 APTA Sustainability & Multimodal Planning Workshop. In 2017, DART refreshed their sustainability approach based on the environmental and social issues that are most important to communities served by DART. Web Link: https://media.metro.net/docs/report_qualityoflife.pdf Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X X X Abstract DART’s revised sustainability approach started with a management survey and department interviews. DART assessed the degree of risk different environmental and social issues posed to DART communities (“not much of a threat,” “a legitimate concern,” or “a real threat”). DART then prioritized the following social, economic and environmental areas that DART has the greatest opportunity to impact. DART asked employees to describe in their own words how sustainability concepts and goals fit within the core mission/purpose of DART. Themes that emerged from the interviews included the need for communications and improved storytelling, overcoming perceptions and using technology as a change agent. DART’s revised sustainability approach places equal emphasis on the community, the agency, and the planet. Interdepartmental collaboration was key to developing the new approach, and will be key to implementing it. DART conducted two workshops to refine their focus areas and goal statements, targets and metrics, and stories. DART identified the following priorities within each pillar: Our Community Our Agency Our Planet • Diversity and Inclusion • Ridership and Access • Equity • Livable Communities • Safety and Security • Diversity and Inclusion • Employee Engagement • Financial Strength • Occupational Safety • Operational Resiliency • Planning • Sustainable Procurement • Energy • Water • Waste Relevant goals, targets, and measures from this presentation have been included in the Social and Economic Performance Measures Database that accompanies this TCRP report. The second workshop focused on what stories DART employees are proud of and want to share. Based on feedback, DART intends to focus stories on a particular metric, highlight major milestones, or share information about a program, policy, or activity. DART is preparing an internal Sustainability Plan to communicate the new vision, framework, and measurable goals to staff, as well as to demonstrate leadership commitment. DART is also preparing an externally facing sustainability progress report that will document progress.

86 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document Key Points DART provides a great example of using a methodical, collaborative process to identify goals, objectives and performance measures. Because DART has just implemented this new sustainability approach, it is not yet possible to evaluate how successful the performance measurement program has been for the agency.

Literature Review Summary 87 17. Smart Links, Liveable Cities: 2017 Sustainability Report Author(s): MTR (Mass Transit Railway)) Publisher: MTR Corporation, Ltd. Year: 2018 Source Information: The 2017 MTR Sustainability Report provides information on MTR’s environmental, social, and economic performance during the 2017 calendar year. The report was prepared in accordance to the GRI Standards Core option. Web Link: http://www.mtr.com.hk/sustainability/2017rpt/en/corporate/sustainability/2017rpt/pdf /MTR_Full2017_Eng.pdf Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X X X Abstract The MTR 2017 Sustainability Report discloses details on issues identified as material to MTR during the 2017 calendar year. The majority of their activities take place in Hong Kong. However, the report also covers MTR operations in China, Australia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In accordance with the GRI Standards, MTR provides detail on their stakeholder engagement process and their process for assessing materiality. MTR also identifies how they contribute to advancing the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The report has an entire section on performance measures. Some additional performance measures were identified throughout the body of the report. MTR has a very robust performance measurement program. Data collection from most categories began in 2013. In addition to tracking progress year over year, MTR benchmarks itself against other large Metro agencies through the Community of Metros (CoMET) program. CoMET collects data from 17 large Metro systems around the world in order to compare performance and improve standards across the industry. Relevant measures are included in the Social and Economic Performance Measures Database that accompanies this TCRP report. Key Points This report provides an example of a transit agency outside of North America that is also reporting in accordance with the new GRI Standards. The report includes an entire section devoted to performance measures. In addition to benchmarking against MTR’s own performance from previous years, the agency benchmarks against other large Metro agencies. MTR also mapped the agency’s performance measures against the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

88 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 18. SEP-TAINABLE Author(s): Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Publisher: SEPTA Year: 2018 Source Information: SEPTA’s annual sustainability report provides an update on the agency’s impact on the natural environment, healthy communities and workforce and economic vitality. Web Link: http://septa.org/sustain/pdf/2018-02-septainable-report.pdf Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X Abstract In 2017, to deepen its commitment to sustainability, SEPTA adopted SEP-TAINBLE 2020, a second-generation Sustainability Program Plan with 13 goals. Goals related to social and economic sustainability include: Healthy Communities • Integrate with livable communities; • Improve access to local food via transit; • Develop a highly skilled, healthy and versatile workforce; and • Support regional business equity. Economic Vitality • Increase ridership; • Improve operating expense performance; • Institutionalize environmental practices; and • Financial value of sustainability. Each goal has a corresponding target. Additional information is also provided in the interview with SEPTA (Appendix B). Relevant performance measures are included in the Social and Economic Performance Measures Database that accompanies this TCRP report. Key Points SEP-TAINABLE provides a good example of identifying social and economic sustainability goals with corresponding targets. Based on a review of this report and the interview with SEPTA, the research team found that this report improves upon SEPTA’s previous performance measures, as they were careful to select performance measures that they can feasibly measure. Certain targets are more action-item oriented than performance measure oriented (e.g., host five farmers’ markets on SEPTA property by 2020). The report’s presentation also includes strong visual elements, which may help the public in understanding the technical content.

Literature Review Summary 89 19. TransLink 2017 Accountability Report: Creating a More Livable Region Author(s): TransLink Publisher: TransLink Year: 2018 Source Information: The Accountability Report highlights TransLink’s first summary report on key issues important to internal and external stakeholders, including ridership, financial sustainability, safety and security, customer experience, workforce, and the environment. Web Link: https://view.publitas.com/translink/translink_2017_accountability_report/ Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X X X Abstract The TransLink 2017 Accountability Report is TransLink’s first-ever accountability report. This report highlights the transit agency’s performance related to ridership, financial sustainability, safety and security, the customer experience, people, and the environment. Previously, this information was presented in two agency reports: the annual report and the “people report.” The 2017 Accountability Report was prepared in accordance with the GRI G.4 Framework. It begins with a materiality assessment according to the GRI’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, and defines materiality as the topics or issues that are most significant to the agency’s key internal and external stakeholders. The report is supported by an independent assurance statement based on an assessment performed by KPMG. The report begins with 2017 highlights, key corporate priorities (ensuring state of good repair, mobilizing the Mayors’ 10-Year Vision, and improving customer experience and public support), provides information about TransLink, the agency’s governance structure, and stakeholder engagement activities, and proceeds into detailed reports on key issues. These include ridership, financial sustainability, safety and security, the customer experience, workforce, and the environment. The report concludes with more information on TransLink’s reports and supporting documents. For more information on the measures included in this report, please see the Social and Economic Performance Measures Database. Key Points This report provides insight into the way TransLink, an international leader in performance accountability, continues to evolve its reporting on key sustainability priorities. The report is relevant to a variety of audiences, and it presents information in an easy-to-read format with high- level information presented in an accessible fashion. The agency’s use of the GRI G.4 Framework is particularly noteworthy. The materiality assessment that was used to highlight important issues to both internal and external stakeholders is a replicable process that could be used by other agencies seeking to improve stakeholder engagement. The more detailed reporting also provides an excellent starting point for transit agencies seeking to highlight topic areas that may be relevant in their jurisdictions.

90 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 20. BART Sustainability Action Plan: Final Report and Transit-Oriented Development Policy Performance Measures and Targets Author(s): Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Publisher: BART Year: Final Report (2017); Policy Document (2017) Source Information: BART’s first Sustainability Action Plan was initiated in 2015 and finalized in 2017. BART adopted a transit-oriented development (TOD) policy with corresponding performance measures in 2016. Web Link: https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART_SustainabilityActionPlan_Final_3. pdf and http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/B- %20TOD%20Performance%20Targets%202040%20Adopted%2012-1-16_0.pdf Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X Abstract The BART Sustainability Action Plan (the plan) identifies, evaluates, and prioritizes the most important actions BART can take to advance sustainability through 2025 and implement the revised 2017 Sustainability Policy. Data from 2015 was used to establish a baseline, and goals were set for 2025. BART hired dedicated sustainability staff in 2015 and made substantial advances in their sustainability program in 2017 with the publication of BART’s first Sustainability Action Plan, commitment to annual reporting, updated sustainability policy, and strategic plan update, which includes sustainability goals. BART’s sustainability policy includes the following goals (p. 7): 1. Advance smart land use, livable neighborhoods, and sustainable access to transit; 2. Choose sustainable materials, construction methods, and operations; 3. Use energy, water, and other resources efficiently; 4. Reduce harmful emissions and waste generated; 5. Respond to risks from extreme weather, earthquakes, and other potential disruptions; 6. Improve patron and employee health and experience; and 7. Serve as a leader in sustainability for transit agencies and the communities that BART serves. The general manager and board of directors hold departments accountable for meeting Sustainability Action Plan targets. BART’s strategic plan framework clearly incorporates sustainability throughout the vision, mission and goals. The plan includes a list of targets, actions, and status updates for each goal. Each goal has an overall target, which could be translated into a performance metric. For example: By 2025, 100% of BART project delivery staff will be trained in BART facilities standards (BFS). Sustainability controls could be reworded as “Percentage of BART project delivery staff trained in BFS sustainability controls.” The plan provides information on achievements and current initiatives related to each goal and includes a list of recommended actions to achieve the goal. However, no

Literature Review Summary 91 performance measures are identified in the report for each action item. The plan references that the BART operations department reports quarterly on a variety of safety and performance indicators. Only some of the operations indicators are included in the plan. The quarterly reports can be accessed online: https://www.bart.gov/about/reports. BART also has a Transit-Oriented Development Policy and a Station Access Policy. The TOD Policy includes the following goals: • Complete communities, • Sustainable communities strategy, • Ridership, • Value creation/value capture, • Transportation choice, and • Affordability and equity. The board adopted 17 performance measures associated with TOD. BART identified separate performance measures for BART property versus BART stations. Relevant performance measures from the Sustainability Plan, TOD Policy and quarterly performance reports have been included in the Social and Economic Performance Measures Database. Key Points BART is an example of an agency that tracks a significant number of social and economic performance measures, including a few input/lagging indicators. The BART TOD Policy and associated performance measures provide a good example of developing measures specific to TOD. Some of the TOD performance measures specifically track equity considerations.

92 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 21. CSR Report 2017 Author(s): East Japan Railway Company (JR East) Publisher: JR East Group, Tokyo, Japan Year: 2017 Source Information: Annual Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Report for JR East. The report provides information on the agency’s social, economic, and environmental performance from 4/1/16 through 3/31/17. The report was prepared in accordance with the GRI G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Web Link: http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/environment/ Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X X Abstract JR East Group’s annual CSR report summarizes their social, economic and environmental performance during the previous fiscal year. The report was prepared in compliance with the GRI G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. The materiality index included in the document maps JR East’s goals to GRI material aspects and identifies key performance indicators (KPIs) for each aspect. The report also features many qualitative descriptions of actions taken by JR East with regard to social and economic sustainability. JR East has taken extensive action to continuously improve health and safety. The JR East Group tracks a few interesting measures related to the employee workforce, such as the number of employees working shorter working hours or fewer working days to accommodate child rearing or nursing. The report provides only limited information on economic sustainability. Relevant measures have been included in the Social and Economic Performance Measures Database. Key Points This report provides an example of an approach to social and economic sustainability by a transit agency located outside of North America. The report follows the GRI G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, which have now been replaced by the GRI Standards. JR East clearly mapped agency goals with their material aspects and identified corresponding KPIs to measure performance.

Literature Review Summary 93 22. Transit Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS) 16-02 Final Report: Safety Data and Performance Measures in Transit Author(s): Transit Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS) Publisher: U.S. DOT, Washington, D.C. Year: 2017 Source Information: The TRACS provided recommendations for the FTA on the functional requirements and data elements of a comprehensive safety data collection and analysis framework to support improvements in the transit industry’s safety performance. Web Link: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/regulations-and- guidance/safety/64016/safety-data-and-performance-measures-transit-tracs-16-02- final-report.pdf Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X X Abstract Representatives from state and local transit agencies, labor unions, state safety oversight agencies, research organizations, and national transportation associations collaborated to develop recommendations for the FTA to inform safety performance data collection and analysis improvements. Members of the working group included representatives from APTA, the metropolitan transit authority (MTA) of Harris County, LA Metro, Eastern Costa Transit, BART, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), TriMet, NJ Transit, and King County Metro. The recommendations cover “improvements in safety performance measures, granularity in data collection efforts, and a reporting and analysis framework. FTA will use the committee recommendations to guide improvements in safety performance data collection and analysis” (p. 4). The purpose of safety performance measures is to: • Provide information on incidents and safety events, • Answer questions about the effectiveness of safety mitigation strategies, • Guide decision-making on resources and measures to mitigate safety concerns, and • Address information needs on potential trends and new hazards. To be effective, the performance measures should provide information on the progress and status of the policies, procedures, processes and operational activities used to control safety risks. They should also determine if safety performance is improving over time. According to the committee, good safety performance measures are (p. 9): • Quantifiable (ease of analysis and examining trends), • Representative of what is being measured, • Consistent when measuring the same conditions, • Detectable even when there are changes in the environmental or behavioral conditions , • Efficient (the efficiency of obtaining and using measures is consistent with the benefits),

94 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document • Easily understood by those who collect and analyze them, • Capable of data quality control and verification, and • Manageable in terms of the total set of measures, metrics and indicators. The committee recommends using a combination of leading (also referred to as input) and lagging (also referred to as output) indicators to effectively measure performance. Most agencies focus on lagging indicators. The committee also emphasizes the need to use leading indicators, which can detect problems before safety incidents occur and can serve as a catalyst for change. Together, leading and lagging indicators should (pp. 9–10): • Allow accurate and detailed comparisons; • Lead to correct or help avoid erroneous conclusions; • Be well understood by everyone, especially those responsible for implementing change; • Have a quantitative basis (even when measuring a qualitative dimension); • Measure what they are supposed to, consistently, accurately, and reliably; • Collect information that is relevant to required decisions and actions; and • Lead to a consistent focus on implementing change. The document provides examples of the differences between leading and lagging indicators. All transit agencies receiving federal funding are required to report certain lagging safety performance measures to the National Transit Database (NTD) (fatalities and injuries by agency, mode, and person-type [e.g., customer, employee, patron or member of the public]). As is, the report observes that the NTD is not user friendly and does not enable transit agencies to query for detailed safety information. The NTD does not collect causal or contributing factors, which limits the ability to perform risk-based analysis. In addition, there is no standard for how to normalize the data (e.g., per 100,000 revenue-miles versus per 1,000,000 revenue-miles). The NTSB has indicated that the NTD should enhance the analysis, trending, and dissemination of safety information to improve the usefulness of the product. The committee argues that more data granularity is needed for events that result in a fatality, serious injury, or significant damage, including: person-type, mode, location, roadway function class and track type, casualty demographic information, operator level of experience, and accident cause. Key committee recommendations include: • Reporting fatalities and injuries both by revenue-miles traveled by mode, as well as per total UPT [unlinked passenger trips] by mode, to ease comparison by mode; • Including sensible cut-off dates for injury and fatality documentation; • Developing and implementing non-punitive, confidential, close-call safety reporting systems for transit agencies and modes; • Supporting and documenting functional analyses of safety-critical systems to determine which component and sub-component failure could result in catastrophic events; • Providing guidance on the data requirements, policies, and practices that would constitute an effective Safety Management System (SMS) for transit agencies; • Developing streamlined processes and tools for the collection of detailed safety data; • Updating the NTD, or developing a new reporting system to include: ease of use, system queries, more consistent data validation and quality check efforts, and analytical tools and reporting functions;

Literature Review Summary 95 • Providing guidance and clarity to transit agencies on requirements for collection of safety performance measures while considering differences in size and mode of agencies; • Continuing to collect security-related event data; • Increased granularity of reportable data; • Developing new reporting systems; and • Providing guidance and clarity on requirements for collection of safety performance measures. Key Points All agencies collect minimum safety data to meet current FTA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements; however, the type of data collected generally is not detailed enough to identify trends and causes. The document stresses the importance of using a combination of leading (predictive) and lagging (outcome) indicators to improve safety performance. For example, by effectively tracking close calls, transit agencies can take corrective action to prevent an actual safety incident in the future. The effectiveness of new safety measures will also depend on the quality of the systems and processes in place to collect and report data.

96 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 23. How Is Metro Measuring Up? LA Metro Quality of Life Report, 2008–2015 Author(s): Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) Publisher: LA Metro Year: 2016 Source Information: The Quality of Life Report compares LA Metro’s performance in key customer- focused areas from 2008, when LA County voters approved Measure R (a sales tax measure to fund transit), to 2015. It includes data through 2015 for some measures and through 2014 for other measures, depending on the most recent data available at the time of the report. The report describes transit’s impact in enhancing the quality of life within LA County. Web Link: https://media.metro.net/docs/report_qualityoflife.pdf Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X Abstract This report provides information about LA Metro’s performance between 2008 and 2015 within the context of wider trends in LA County. The results are highlighted in three main sections: (1) Service and Finance; (2) Mobility and Access; and (3) Sustainability and Economy. Each section contains several performance measures. The report sought to answer several quality of life questions such as: • How safe/secure is Going Metro? • How reliable is Going Metro? • How does Going Metro compare to driving? • How is Metro providing access to jobs? • Are residential rents changing near stations and around LA County? Relevant performance measures have been included in the Social and Economic Performance Measures Database. Key Points This report provides concrete examples of how a large, multimodal metropolitan transit agency impacts quality of life. This report includes several measures related to transit access.

Literature Review Summary 97 24. Caltrans Strategic Management Plan, 2015–2020 Author(s): California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Publisher: Caltrans Year: 2015 Source Information: Strategic management plan for Caltrans, which describes how the agency intends to meet its vision of being “a performance-driven, transparent, and accountable organization that values its people, resources, and partners and meets new challenges through leadership, innovation, and teamwork.” Web Link: http://www.dot.ca.gov/perf/library/pdf/Caltrans_Strategic_Mgmt_Plan_033015.pdf Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X Abstract Caltrans directly manages more than 50,000 lane-miles of state and federal highways, as well as over 12,000 highway bridges; permits more than 400 public-use airports; and operates three of the top five Amtrak intercity rail services. The agency established five goals with corresponding performance measures (pp. 3–5): • Goal 1: Health and Safety: Provide a safe transportation system for workers and users, and promote health through active transportation and reduced pollution in communities. • Goal 2: Stewardship and Efficiency: Money counts. Responsibly manage California’s transportation-related assets. • Goal 3: Sustainability, Livability, and Economy: Make long-lasting, smart mobility decisions that improve the environment, support a vibrant economy, and build communities, not sprawl. • Goal 4: System Performance: Utilize leadership, collaboration, and strategic partnerships to develop an integrated transportation system that provides reliable and accessible mobility for travelers. • Goal 5: Organizational Excellence: Be a national leader in developing quality service through excellent employee performance, public communication, and accountability. Each goal has corresponding strategic objectives and performance measures. The objectives are intended to guide activities in each district, program, and division to accomplish the goals. The performance measures are used to monitor progress. The report indicates that Caltrans intended to develop an “Accessibility Score,” “Livability Score,” “Prosperity Score,” and “Resiliency Score” in 2016/2017. As discussed in Well Measured (Litman 2016), Caltrans retained the University of California–Berkeley Transportation Sustainability Research Center to conduct research to support development of these scores; however, based on email correspondence dated August 7, 2018, with Caltrans’ Chief of Innovation, Risk, and Strategic Management, these scores have not yet been developed. Caltrans intends to update and publish their performance measures in January 2019. Relevant performance measures from the existing Strategic Management Plan have been included in the Social and Economic Performance Measures Database.

98 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document Key Points The Caltrans Strategic Plan provides a good example of a well-developed set of agency goals with corresponding performance measures. However, the fact that Caltrans has yet to develop the accessibility, livability, prosperity, and resiliency performance metrics underscores the difficulty in establishing a methodology to assign scores to these livability factors. It will be interesting to see what changes are made to social and economic performance measures when the document is updated later this year.

Literature Review Summary 99 25. King County Metro 2014 Sustainability Plan Progress Report Author(s): King County Metro Publisher: King County Metro Year: 2015 Source Information: Report on King County Metro’s progress toward social, economic and environmental sustainability. Web Link: https://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/reports/2015/metro-sustainability-plan-progress- report-sept2015.pdf Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X Abstract King County Metro developed their first Sustainability Plan in 2014, which established clear goals and priority actions to reduce energy use, GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions, and water use, and to increase transit ridership. The 2014 Sustainability Plan Progress Report, published in September 2015, is King County Metro’s first public update on progress toward their sustainability goals, along with equity and social justice accomplishments. No additional progress report has been published to date. Although Sustainability Plan goals focus on environmental sustainability, King County Metro is tracking the following measures related to equity, though they are not framed as performance metrics in this report: • Number of participants in the low-income fare program, • Number of interview panelists who received anti-bias training, • Number of human resource practitioners who received cultural competency training, • Number of new recruitment strategies used to diversity the applicant pool, • Number of applications received from minority/women applicants, • Number of employees receiving equity and social justice training, and • Percentage of bus stops that are wheelchair accessible. These performance measures are included in the Social and Economic Performance Measures Database. King County Metro also recently published an equity analysis approach to capital projects, which scores projects based on meeting equity targets. Key Points This report is an example of reporting social sustainability progress primarily in a qualitative or storytelling format, which is common.

100 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 26. Social Sustainability Guidelines and Metrics for Transportation in Louisville: A Proposal for TARC’s APTA Sustainability Commitment Author(s): Weaver, A., P. Williams, N. Wright, A. Woolsey, and E. Yenney Publisher: University of Louisville Year: 2015 Source Information: The “Planning Sustainable Social-Economic Systems” class at the University of Louisville prepared an overall vision and framework of social sustainability for transportation in Louisville, along with proposed indicators and metrics. Web Link: http://louisville.edu/psychology/d-decaro/files/social-sustainability-guidelines-and- metrics-for-transportation-in-louisville-a-proposal-for-tarcs-apta-sustainability- commitment Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X Abstract The vision of the Transit Authority of River City (TARC) is to become a “Connected, Equitable, and Popular Transportation City” (p. 7). The vision primarily involves leveraging TOD to improve social and economic sustainability. If implemented, TOD, including transportation hubs, are expected to provide several benefits including economic development, pedestrian safety, increased access for all populations, and will enhance Louisville’s cultural heritage. Major dimensions of the vision include: (1) social acceptance, (2) public participation, (3) social equity and public health, (4) identity, (5) safety and security, (6) economic viability, and (7) usability and efficiency. Each dimension is accompanied by metrics and a general assessment of where TARC perceives Louisville currently ranks on the dimension (“Poor,” “Fair,” “Good,” or “Excellent”). The metrics focus on TOD, but could potentially be applied in other scenarios. Relevant performance measures from this resource have been included in the Social and Economic Performance Measures Database. Key Points This paper highlights the challenges of achieving social and economic sustainability in a mid-size city and greater metropolitan area that has been designed for cars. Pedestrian deaths in Louisville are much higher than the national average. This paper discusses transit improvements, primarily focused around TOD, as a key strategy to address public safety, among other benefits.

Literature Review Summary 101 27. Sustainability Report 2013 Author(s): Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) Publisher: TTC Year: 2013 Source Information: This is TTC’s first sustainability report, which provides information on the agency’s social, economic and environmental performance. Web Link: https://www.ttc.ca/PDF/About_the_TTC/Sustainability_Reports/2013_Sustainability_ Report.PDF Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X X Abstract This report is the Toronto Transit Commission’s (TTC’s) first comprehensive sustainability report, representing performance, initiatives and goals for the year 2013. The report includes select measures showing performance from past years to compare progress. TTC’s sustainability report reflects the core objectives of their 5-year corporate plan, demonstrating alignment between business and sustainability goals. Although the report was not prepared in accordance with the GRI Standards or G4, TTC did conduct a materiality assessment. TTC’s focus areas include: safety, customer, people, assets, growth, financial stability and reputation. The report discusses TTC’s community relations program, which established a “Good Neighbor Policy for Construction Projects” and tracks performance based on response time to comments. TTC acknowledges the challenge in assessing program success. Although TTC can confirm they are being responsive to resolving issues, it is challenging to measure the value that the community relations team provides to the planning, design and construction of projects as well as to local communities. The report indicates that TTC has experienced challenges with high absence rates. Although it tracks the absence rate (a lagging indicator), the report does not identify any leading indicators that could serve to predict future outcomes. However, the report does qualitatively discuss some general actions they have taken which TTC hopes will improve the absentee rate. TTC is a signatory of the UITP’s Charter on Sustainable Development (CSD). The CSD is a management tool designed to complement other management sustainability processes and assist organizations in demonstrating the sustainable performance of public transit. Relevant measures have been included in the Social and Economic Performance Measures Database. Key Points TTC’s experience with their community relations program emphasizes the need to determine the quality and value of what the performance measures are measuring. The amount of feedback received is not indicative of the quality of feedback received. TTC’s discussion about absentee rates highlights the benefit of incorporating leading indicators, which can be used to measure actions taken to avoid/improve negative outcomes.

102 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 28. Sustainability Reporting Handbook Author(s): TransLink Publisher: TransLink Year: 2011 Source Information: This handbook explains the process used by TransLink to prepare its first sustainability report in 2010. Web Link: n/a (provided to the research team by email) Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X X X X Abstract The Sustainability Reporting Handbook represents the second annual report that TransLink has presented to the public to report on the transit agency’s sustainability activities, the first having been done in 2010. The report includes background of the handbook, the purpose of the handbook, an overview of sustainability reporting, what is typically included in sustainability reporting, an overview of the most recent report done in 2010, and a table of TransLink’s 2010 sustainability indicators (see the Social and Economic Performance Measures Database). The handbook identifies common elements typically found in sustainability reports, including: • Organization overview: o Corporate history, vision, missions and values; o Services and scale of operations; and o Priority sustainability issues. • Sustainability performance: o Performance measures on each priority issue; o Achievements, and next steps; and o Overview of reporting process and stakeholder engagement. The report speaks directly to the GRI Standards, and highlights the GRI approach to offering a standardized approach to reporting. The handbook especially notes the GRI-recommended structure: • Strategy and analysis; • Organizational profile; • Reporting parameters; • Governance, commitments, and engagements; and • Management approach and performance indicators. The handbook includes a detailed description of the process used to create the report, including reporting objectives, the reporting process and timeline, roles and responsibilities, reporting frequency, defining material issues and indicators, data compilation, and reporting contents outline.

Literature Review Summary 103 The handbook includes several appendices, including an indicator metadata sheet. The following table presents an example from the handbook that demonstrates the standard format and layout of the metadata sheets: Source: TransLink (2011), used with permission, names redacted Key Points This handbook is an excellent resource for transit agencies looking to develop a sustainability report. It is concisely written and includes a number of examples that help provide detailed, practice-based information for transit agencies. The elements typically included in sustainability reporting, as well as the metadata needed to track performance measures focused on sustainability are also excellent resources. TransLink has since moved slightly away from this approach, and now integrates principles of sustainability into all of the agency’s performance measurement reporting. However, transit agencies may still seek to call out sustainability efforts in this way (based on stakeholder input or in order to highlight sustainability efforts).

104 Social and Economic Sustainability Performance Measures for Public Transportation: Final Guidance Document 29. Ten Years of Transparency: The Role of Performance Reporting at WSDOT—Overview and Lessons Learned, 2001-2011 Author(s): Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Publisher: WSDOT Year: 2011 Source: WSDOT Performance Measurement Library Web Link: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability/Publications/Library.htm Topic(s) Covered: Social Performance Measures Economic Performance Measures Criteria/Process for Selecting Measures Stakeholder Engagement What Other Transportation Agencies Are Doing X X Abstract This report provides an overview and lessons learned from a decade of performance measurement- based management at the WSDOT. WSDOT’s Gray Notebook is published quarterly for public and legislative review. The report indicates that WSDOT's performance management program increased government and public confidence in WSDOT projects and programs. It further notes that the system links the department’s strategic plan to both legislative and executive (branch) policy, fulfills federal requirements, and informs multiple internal and external accountability requirements. In 2010, the governor and legislature added economic vitality to the original five policy and strategic goals and measures: safety, preservation, mobility (congestion relief), environment, and stewardship. Most management measures and reporting throughout the other reports repeatedly point back to those strategic goals. Notable lessons learned include the following: • Measures will invariably change; • Don’t reinvent the wheel; • Don’t measure for measurement’s sake—it is a means to an end; • Start small, but start now; • Create a sense of urgency; • Lead, don’t follow—communicate your story instead of responding; • Be passionate and enthusiastic; • Maintain quality control at all levels; • Continuously update the governor, legislature, media, and public on performance; • Strive for performance-based resource allocation; • Ask the “why” questions; • Executive management support and ongoing involvement are critical; • Recruit for performance reporting: expect hiring competition for department employees; and • Don’t tolerate silos—everyone owns performance. The report closes with a summary of “performance journalism,” a style of writing that encourages succinct communication of the salient points in an accessible manner. This is important in order

Literature Review Summary 105 for non-experts—whether elected, citizen-stakeholders, or others—to easily grasp the findings and trends. Key Points The lessons learned from WSDOT, long a leader in performance management among state DOTs, include the importance of clear communication to support and expand a performance management program. The report’s observation of “performance journalism,” a style of writing that focuses on key points in performance management that is widely accessible, is particularly relevant to other transportation agencies and organizations currently revising their performance management approach.