Performance Measures for Public Transit Mobility Managers Presented by: Lalita Sen, Ph.D. Texas Southern University

Transcription

1 Performance Measures for Public Transit Mobility Managers Presented by: Lalita Sen, Ph.D. Texas Southern University Barbara Jordan Mickey Leland School Of Public Affairs April 12, 2012

2 Project Number Funded by TXDOT Researchers: Lalita Sen - Research Supervisor- Texas Southern University Sarmistha Rina Majumdar Sam Houston State University. Currently A Visiting Assistant Professor at TSU Meredith Highsmith Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) Linda Cherrington TTI Cinde Weatherby TTI

3 Researchers Definition of MM Based on its practice nationwide and review of definitions used by various transit experts and non profit agencies. Mobility management is an innovative approach for managing and delivering coordinated transportation that embraces the full family of transportation services. Mobility management emphasizes the movement of individuals through a wide range of transportation options and service providers, in order to achieve a more cost-effective and efficient transportation system.

4 Research Based on National Case Studies Metropolitan Rural-encompassing all areas not in UAs, or UCs Urban Clusters ( 50,000-2,500) Urban Areas (Population 50,000) 1 Broward County, Florida/ South florida** 2 RTD, Denver, CO 3 Sacramento, CA* 4 Pace, Chicago, Illinois 5 Smart, Michigan 6 Tri-Met, Oregon 7 RPTA, Maricopa County, Arizona 8 Marta, Atlanta, GA City 9 Capital Transit, Albany, NY County 10 PATS, Paducah, McCraken County, Kentucky 11 Cape Cod RTA, MA* 12 King County, Washington*** 13 Access, Allegheny County, PA 14 City & county of Honolulu, Hawaii 15 UTA Sal lake City & County Rural multicounty State Multi state 16 Menominee regional public transport, WI**** 17 Wisconsin DOT MM Program 18 COAST-Council on Aging & Human Services, Washington/ Idaho States. 19 ADTRC, Aiken, South Carolina 20 Honolulu/ Hawaii 21 Camden County, NJ (design set up. service to start summer 2011).

5 Public Transit Mobility Management Purpose of Performance Measurements Types of Performance Measures Case Studies

6 Definition Parts and Expanded Innovative approach for managing and delivering coordinated transportation Embraces the full family of transportation services Includes transportation information, referral, assistance and scheduling Emphasizes the movement of customers through a wide range of transportation options and service providers Works to achieve a more cost-effective and efficient transportation system

7 Mobility Management: What does it look like in practice? Marketing campaigns for transportation services Volunteer driver programs. Interagency coordination to close transportation gaps. Regional call centers, such as 511. Personalized travel assistance and/or travel training. Paratransit and ADA transportation services. Employers encourage employees to take transit to work. Carsharing in neighborhoods. Vanpool matching services are available. Agencies work together on programs Development permits require accessibility to a nearby transit line, safe walking and bicycling routes.

8 Using Performance Measures Define what is important to the program Provide baseline information on current conditions and performance Evaluate the success of the program Provide a metric for communications (communication of success) Serve as criteria for investment decisions (i.e., save on parking, reduction in new lanes)

9 Type of Measure Input Process Outputs Outcome Impact Characteristics Example Measures Goals Used to identify human/capital resources to generate outputs and outcomes Measure products/service provided by agencies/organizations Actual product or service provided; total number of trips over a given time period. Assessment of actual versus preferred results of the agencies activities. Compare the direct and indirect of having MM versus not having MM #of essential staff. # of volunteer driver needed. # of vehicles for fixed/flexible route services. # of training workshops held for frontline employees and community members # of outreach community events for MM. Types of media used to promote MM. Percent of population served. Use of single source call centers. # of passengers served and decrease in the number of trip denials. Awareness of service gaps and those decreased over time. Reduction in VMT at local/regional levels. Increased accessibility and livability Less traffic and congestion Reduction in dead heard miles. Increased transit oriented development. FI FI EA FI FI AL FI AL FS

10 Case Study: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, CA

11 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, CA continued Program Impacts The SFMTA Transit Effectiveness Project is currently underway in coordination with a regional effort by the MTC to more precisely define customer travel needs SFMTA was extensively transformed to place the emphasis not on any one mode, but on sustainable streets for the City of San Francisco. Additional Considerations Measures Needed Merging different corporate cultures among the formerly independent agencies that were consolidated to form SFMTA. Broadening staff expertise on multi-modal planning. Additional focus on the actual impacts of the MM program from the customer perspective.

12 Case Study: PACE, Chicago, IL Program Size/Type Partners Services Offered Performance Measures Primarily Urban. 6 counties. Serves Chicago & surrounding suburban areas. workforce boards, employers, economic development groups, real estate firms, local businesses, taxi companies, and medical facilities Fixed route, vanpool, carpool, complementary ADA paratransit, Dial-A-Ride, mobility direct (taxi), Taxi Access Program, employer shuttles on time performance ridership trends trips per hour trip length dwell time ride time passenger complaints per 1,000 miles

13 PACE, Chicago, IL continued Program Impacts Established as leader in providing efficient, quality service to people with disabilities Illinois legislature designated that Pace would assume responsibility for ADA paratransit in Chicago Established one of the largest vanpool programs in the nation Became the regional ridesharing administrator for Northeastern Illinois, bringing coordination of carpools into the program Offers commuters ability to create a profile and gather information in order to form carpools or vanpools Additional Considerations Measures Needed Pace has recently suffered financial setbacks, forcing some of the less productive services to be cut. Financial sustainability; more focus on the qualitative impacts of the overall program.

14 Case Study: Broward County, FL Program Size/Type Partners Services Offered Performance Measures Urban-Suburban. 3 counties. Serves Miami & surrounding suburban areas regional transportation agencies, social and human service agencies, bus contractors, MPOs Fixed route buses, community buses (wheelchair accessible, bike racks), emergency ride home, complementary paratransit service # of commuters requesting assistance # of vans in service Vehicle trips/miles eliminated # of employer contacts made reduction in parking needs new transit service initiated educational program initiative

15 Broward County, FL Continued Program Impacts Received the CTAA s Urban Community Transportation of the Year Award in 2008 Named the best urban service in the State of Florida by the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged Provides quality transportation services to disabled individuals in an efficient and cost effective manner Additional Considerations Measures Needed Challenges include limited funds, and assessment of demand in the area for future service planning. Financial sustainability; more focus on the qualitative impacts of the overall program.

16 Case Study: Community Transportation Association of Idaho Program Size/Type Partners Services Offered Performance Measures Primarily rural; though CTAI serves the entire state of Idaho Idaho Transportation Department, MPOs, cities, Department of Health and Welfare, Area Agencies on Aging, economic development agencies, bike/ped agencies, chambers of commerce. CTAI only coordinates. % satisfied with access to goods, services and activities Total ridership Health costs due to air quality problems Walkability /Bike-ability index Quality of Life index if no/limited access to vehicle

17 Findings Agencies that have implemented mobility management activities use different measures for evaluating the programs. These range from the more traditional transit evaluations such as regular performance reviews and trip tracking, to the more qualitative methodologies such as surveys and client feedback. The majority of the evaluation measures are the same as those used to evaluate public transit services. Agencies need a better method to track the success of mobility management since it is a broader concept than operating traditional transit services.

18 Cont d A menu of performance measures has been presented in the research report to provide transit providers with a sense of direction when navigating the variety of activities that may be reflected in a mobility management program.

19 For More Details on Performance Measures in MM Check out the final report at