33 Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2357, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 33–40.
DOI: 10.3141/2357-04
T. L. Ramani and J. Zietsman, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System, 3135 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-3135. K. Ibarra, City of El Paso–Sun Metro, 700-A San Francisco Street, El Paso, TX 79901. M. Howell, City Manager’s Office, City of El Paso, 2 Civic Center Plaza, El Paso, TX 79901.
Corresponding author: T. L. Ramani, t-ramani@ttimail.tamu.edu.
El Paso and to identify performance measures that may be used to evaluate the sustainability impacts of transit that the city of El Paso can implement. The performance measures are envisioned to be applied to (a) communicate the value of bus rapid transit projects to the public and decision makers, (b) measure and track sustain- ability indicators before and after implementation of the projects, and (c) provide support for decision making on specific corridors or project configurations.
The original concept for this project came about as a result of a workshop series on sustainability and performance measurement conducted by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute for the Texas Department of Transportation aimed at the dissemination of findings from a research project (3). The workshop focused on the develop- ment and use of sustainability performance measures for highway corridors and the incorporation of sustainability considerations into transportation decision making. Among the workshop participants were staff from the City of El Paso who expressed interest in applying a similar approach to the evaluation of the RTS corridors in El Paso.
The work on development of a guidebook on sustainability per- formance measurement for NCHRP that the authors performed also formed the basis for many of the sustainability and performance measurement concepts applied in this paper (4).
This paper summarizes the process used to develop a framework and identify performance measures for transit corridors in El Paso and describes the final performance measures developed. The performance measures were developed with the City of El Paso through an inter- active workshop that included brainstorming sessions with key city staff. These performance measures can be used to support specific corridor-level applications or to support the city at a strategic level to identify, track, and implement performance measures for sustainabil- ity and measure and communicate the value of investment in transit systems.
Background and Literature review
A literature review of the basic concepts of sustainability and its application to transportation and transit systems through performance measures was conducted. Previous work by some of the authors of this report covered the topics of performance measures for transporta- tion in the published literature and provided the foundation for the approach used in the study described in this paper (4, 5). Additionally, other recently published guidance on sustainability and performance measurement for transportation also informed the work described in this paper (6, 7).
Addressing Sustainability and
Strategic Planning Goals Through Performance Measures
Study of Bus rapid transit Systems in el Paso, texas
Tara Lakshmi Ramani, Josias Zietsman, Kyle Ibarra, and Marty Howell
Increasing emphasis is being placed on sustainability in the transportation sector. The City of El Paso, Texas, has been proactive in its approach and commitment to sustainability. The city’s 2011 strategic plan lists various transportation- and community-oriented goals that provide direction for sustainable transportation initiatives. The new bus rapid transit system projects in the city are an important part of these and are the focus of the project described in this paper. This paper summarizes a recent exercise conducted to conceptualize the relevance of sustainability to transit cor- ridors in El Paso and to identify performance measures that El Paso can implement. A set of 25 potential sustainability performance measures for rapid transit system corridors was identified. Selected performance measures from this set can be used to support specific corridor-level applications and to develop initiatives that can support the city at a stra- tegic level to identify, track, and implement performance measures for sustainability and measure and communicate the value of investment in transit systems. The findings from this research will allow the city to communicate the value and benefit of bus rapid transit systems and pro- vide tracking and decision-making tools that may be used to evaluate sustainability by the use of appropriate performance measures. The per- formance measures developed as part of this work will also have broader applicability to other cities, planning organizations, and transit agencies and can function as a performance measurement toolkit for practitioners looking to study sustainability in the context of transit systems.
The City of El Paso, Texas, has been proactive in its approach and commitment to sustainability, has an established sustainability program, and has published a sustainability plan covering various aspects of sustainability relevant to the city (1). The city’s 2011 stra- tegic plan lists various transportation and community-oriented goals that provide direction for transportation initiatives (2). The new bus rapid transit system (RTS) projects (locally termed the RTS) being planned and implemented in the city are an important part of the city’s sustainability initiatives.
This paper describes a research project undertaken to understand what sustainability means in the context of transit corridors in
In general, good performance measures should be context specific and measurable, have specific target values or directions, and have an appropriate level of detail. They must be understandable and easy to interpret by a general audience. Sustainability performance measures should reflect principles of sustainability in the transporta- tion sector. However, practical considerations in the implementation of performance measures by public agencies can go beyond the selection of appropriate measures into the type of application of the perfor- mance measures, issues such as data availability, and other practical considerations.
The general transportation sustainability performance measurement literature discusses transportation and transit-related indicators for sustainability, including cost-effectiveness and efficiency, the number of transit passenger miles traveled, public transit share, user welfare changes, the total amount of time spent in traffic, point-to-point travel costs, and travel noise levels (8, 9). In studies specific to public transit systems, the performance measures applied included the number of transit passenger miles traveled, changes in socioeconomic indica- tors, travel costs and travel time, and emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases. For example, Richardson proposed a framework for analysis based on safety, fuel, access, congestion, and emissions (10).
Black et al. focused on transit-oriented urban planning development to form the basis of sustainable performance indicators that focused on broader categories of economic efficiency, livability, environmental protection, safety, equity, and economic development (11). Currie evaluated bus rapid transit in Australia for its impacts on travel and the market, urban development, and operations (12). Vincent and Jerram also mentioned the potential for bus rapid transit to reduce transportation-related carbon dioxide emissions (13). They compared no-build scenarios with scenarios that included the provision of light rail and bus rapid transit to demonstrate the potential environmental and sustainability benefits of transit systems.
The findings on general transportation measures and those specific to transit from the literature review provided a starting point for the identification and application of sustainability performance measures for RTS in the city of El Paso. As discussed in the following sections, the identification of specific measures also took into account local con- siderations and priorities in the identification of potential performance measures.
aPProach to identifying SuStainaBiLity Performance meaSureS
framework and Principles
A framework of goals, objectives, and performance measures was used as the starting point for the development of performance mea- sures in this project and has been explained in detail by Ramani
et al. (14). As discussed in the literature review, sustainability should be viewed holistically, and the sustainability of a particular trans- portation mode or facility should not be considered in isolation. The basic principles of sustainability, as defined in this framework, are as follows: a sustainable system meets human needs for the present and future while it
• Preserves and restores environmental and ecological systems,
• Fosters community health and vitality,
• Promotes economic development and prosperity, and
• Ensures equity between and among population groups and over generations.
The principles listed above are slightly different from the traditional triple-bottom-line approach, with equity being separated out from the social aspects (community health and vitality) of sustainability. The treatment of equity—within and across generations—is an important aspect of sustainability that is often neglected in discussions of sustainability because it is the most difficult to quantify and address.
It is imperative that equity be treated as an integrated part of the principles of sustainability to address in a better way the distribution of economic and environmental benefits and community health and vitality improvements, which are represented in the other principles of sustainability.
city of el Paso Strategic Plan
The strategic plan of the City of El Paso was used to direct the development of the goals and performance measures through an interactive, workshop-based process with key members of City of El Paso staff. Figure 1 shows the general process used to develop the performance measures. The city’s strategic plan was used as a starting point.
The policy statements in the strategic plan that provided general direction for the development of RTS corridor goals, objectives, and performance measures are listed below:
• Transportation policy statements:
– Become the least-car-dependent city in the Southwest, – Mitigate traffic congestion,
– Enhance the street network, – Improve international mobility, and
– Establish El Paso as an international transportation system hub;• Citizen involvement policy statement: facilitate opportunities for citizens to be involved in local government;
City of El Paso Strategic Plan
Sustainability Goals for RTS
Objectives and Performance Measures for
RTS
FIGURE 1 Process of performance measure development.
• Community development policy statement: become the most livable city in the United States and be recognized as an international city;
• Economic development policy statement: help businesses create quality jobs in El Paso and revitalize targeted areas of town, thereby adding to the tax base and fostering a healthy economy;
• Customer service policy statement: ensure the long-term financial stability and sustainability of the city government; and
• Fiscal policy statement: be a high-performance, customer- focused organization.
workshop-Based Process for measure identification
A premeeting with key staff, followed by a larger workshop with city staff, was organized to identify initial goals, objectives, and performance measures. A follow-up meeting was then conducted to discuss the city’s comments on the performance measures developed and make final changes and updates. Participants at the workshop were first provided with a brief overview of the project and its pur- pose, as well as an introduction to the broad concepts of sustainability and performance measurement relevant to the context of RTS.
The aim of the workshop and follow-up meeting and discussion was to develop a final framework set of hierarchical goals, objectives, and performance measures for assessing sustainability for RTS cor- ridors (as shown in Figure 2, each goal was associated with multiple objectives, with each having one or more performance measures associated with them). Participants were also given guidance on the definition of an RTS corridor for the development of the goals and performance measures, as well as additional guidance on performance measurement and sustainability concepts.
For the purposes of this paper, a single RTS facility and ele- ments adjacent to it are collectively termed a “corridor.” A corridor is considered to comprise nodes representing the stops and inter- secting roadway; links that include the RTS facility and the roadway and general-purpose lanes, sidewalks, bike lanes, and other physical infrastructure; and the influence area, or buffer zone, around the RTS and roadway facility, which can be defined to cover the pedestrian shed or transit shed (a 5-min walk or quarter-mile distance from the facility or, potentially, a 10-min walk or half-mile distance from the facility) of the particular facility.
development of goals, objectives, and Performance measures
Goals can be viewed as broad statements of intent that are relevant to sustainability at the level of RTS corridors. Objectives are linked to goals and are more specific. Performance measures can be viewed as a measurable application of the objective. An example of this pro- gression that was provided to the workshop participants is presented below:
• Goal: reduce congestion,
• Objective: improve corridor-level mobility, and
• Performance measure: travel time index values for a specific corridor.
The first step in the goal development process was to link the policy statements from the strategic plan (listed earlier) to RTS-specific goals.
For this, workshop participants were to review the policy statements and, on the basis of their understanding of the RTS projects, identify a set of five to 10 goals that collectively addressed all elements of the sustainability principles (also mentioned earlier). Workshop par- ticipants were asked to review and modify the final goal set before considering objectives and performance measures. The criteria to be taken into consideration in the development of the goals follow.
(a) Does it reflect one or more of the policy statements in the strategic plan of the City of El Paso? (b) Is it linked to sustainability? (c) Is it applicable or relevant to RTS? It was also recommended that addi- tional goals not directly linked to the strategic plan be identified to cover all elements of sustainability.
After the development of goals, participants were asked to discuss potential objectives and performance measures. Objectives were defined to be specific enough to allow a performance measure to be derived directly from it. Participants were also briefed on the desirable characteristics of a good performance measure. Because of time constraints, the initial workshop process was not sufficient to develop a final set of goals, objectives, and performance measures.
The research team used the opportunity of the workshop to narrow the goals and obtain a general idea of the objectives and performance measures that were of interest to the city and its stakeholders. The research team then used the material generated at the initial workshop to develop a proposed set of goals, objectives, and performance measures that was discussed in a follow-up meeting with city representatives and further refined.
FIGURE 2 Goal–objective–performance measure (PM) hierarchy.
SuStainaBiLity goaLS, oBjectiveS, and Performance meaSureS
The following eight sustainability goals for RTS corridors in the city of El Paso were developed:
• Reduce car dependence,
• Mitigate traffic congestion,
• Improve international mobility,
• Increase livability,
• Promote economic development,
• Ensure system effectiveness and efficiency,
• Promote equity, and
• Improve the environment.
This goal set reflects the policy statements and other elements of the city’s strategic plan. Although it is debatable whether all of the goals are equally aligned toward sustainability, the goal set, when taken as a whole, covers the principles of sustainability.
The project report contains the results of a mapping exercise per- formed to match the final goal set to the principles of sustainability (15). It was seen that all elements of the principles were covered by the goal set, although the economic development principle appeared to have more goals associated with it. In the application
of performance measures for these goals, weighted priorities and factors may be applied to account for differences in the perceived importance of the goals or to represent different elements of the principles more equally.
Table 1 presents a summary of the final goals, objectives, and performance measures developed. The project report provides a detailed description of each of the performance measures developed, covering a general description of the measure, the quantification approach, data sources, and potential target and benchmark values (15). Some of the performance measures identified (such as those relating to international mobility) are unique to the El Paso context, in which travelers cross the U.S.–Mexico border into El Paso from Ciudad Juarez in Mexico for employment, shopping, recreation, and other purposes.
Other performance measures that occur in other literature or examples are more commonly applied to sustainable transportation.
However, in the context of this study, each of the performance measures has been described in a similar and consistent manner to provide a stand-alone performance measurement resource. The intent is for these performance measures and the reference information to be used to identify and implement subsets of performance measures for various types of applications for RTS corridors in El Paso. Because of this, the performance measures identified include a mix of out- put and outcome measures and measures that have redundancies with each other. Some measures may be more relevant before the
TABLE 1 Final Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures
Goal Objective Performance Measure
1. Reduce car dependence 1.1 Increase the number of persons with access to
RTS service 1.1.1 Number of residents within corridor influence area
2. Mitigate traffic 2.1 Improve mobility on RTS corridor 2.1.1 Travel time index on the RTS corridor
congestion 2.2 Shift single-occupant car trips to other modes 2.2.1 Ratio of daily PMT to VMT on the RTS corridor 3. Improve international
mobility 3.1 Provide mobility for travelers who cross the
border 3.1.1 Percentage of RTS users who are cross-border travelers
4. Increase livability 4.1 Support pedestrian and bike modes 4.1.1 Length of sidewalks per corridor mile 4.1.2 Length of bike lanes per corridor mile 4.1.3 Quality of sidewalks along the corridor 4.2 Promote mixed land uses 4.2.1 Land use entropy index in influence area 4.3 Promote safety and security 4.3.1 Annual severe injuries and fatalities on corridor
4.3.2 Presence of pedestrian-scale lighting in station areas 5. Promote economic 5.1 Revitalize RTS corridors 5.1.1 Number of jobs in corridor influence area
development 5.1.2 Average value of commercial property in influence area
5.1.3 Tax revenue generated from commercial establishments in influence area
6. Ensure system 6.1 Ensure effective fare recovery 6.1.1 Fare recovery ratio on the RTS corridor effectiveness and 6.2 Ensure that the RTS system operates efficiently 6.2.1 Number of passenger trips per revenue hour efficiency 6.3 Complete RTS and feeder system on schedule 6.3.1 Percentage of project milestones met to date
7. Promote equity 7.1 Provide RTS access to low-income demographics 7.1.1 Low-income census tracts with access to RTS or feeder service 7.1.2 Affordable housing presence in the corridor influence area 7.2 Provide access to critical destinations 7.2.1 Number of accessible critical and quality-of-life destinations 7.3 Provide affordable RTS service 7.3.1 Ratio of average cost of a round-trip by RTS to average daily
personal income in influence area
7.3.2 Ratio of combined housing and transportation costs to household income in influence area
8. Improve the 8.1 Reduce criterion pollutant emissions 8.1.1 Daily emissions of PM per PMT on RTS corridor
environment 8.1.2 Daily emissions of CO per PMT on RTS corridor
8.1.3 Daily emissions of ozone precursors (NOx and VOCs) per PMT on RTS corridor
8.2 Reduce GHG emissions 8.2.1 Daily emissions of CO2 per PMT on RTS corridor Note: PMT = person miles of travel; VMT = vehicle miles traveled; PM = particulate matter; CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; VOC = volatile organic compound; GHG = greenhouse gas; CO2 = carbon dioxide.
implementation of the RTS system, and others may be more useful once the RTS is operational. As discussed further in the concluding section, these factors need to be taken into consideration during implementation.
The remainder of this section provides a brief description of the intent and applicability of each of the 25 performance measures.
goal 1. reduce car dependence
Objective 1.1. Increase the Number of Persons with Access to RTS Service
Performance measure 1.1.1 Number of residents within corridor influence area. Performance Measure 1.1.1 focuses on accessibility to the RTS according to the number of people who reside within proximity of the RTS facility. According to the definition of a corridor influence area used in this paper, the influence area can be consid- ered to represent the pedestrian shed of approximately a half-mile width along the corridor. Given the nature of land use and residential patterns (which generally take time to make notable shifts and are often unchanged over time in built-up urban areas), this performance measure may be more useful as a means to compare corridor locations or to locate stations before design and construction, to maximize the number of people with access to RTS.
goal 2. mitigate traffic congestion
Objective 2.1. Improve Mobility on the RTS Corridor Performance measure 2.1.1 Travel time index on the RTS corridor. Performance Measure 2.1.1 reflects the extent of delays in travel because of traffic congestion and is generally quantified as a ratio between peak-period travel times (for a representative vehicle) and off-peak-period (or free-flow) travel times on a given roadway or corridor. When this measure is quantified for an RTS corridor, it can be used to help evaluate the impact of RTS on the easing of congestion before and after implementation of the RTS. How- ever, this measure may be affected by traffic generated by reduced congestion, and it also neglects the impact of nonmotorized trans- portation modes. Thus, it is recommended that this measure be used as a part of a broader set of measures for evaluation of RTS sustainability.
Objective 2.2. Shift Single-Occupant Car Trips to Other Modes
Performance measure 2.2.1 Ratio of daily person miles of travel to vehicle miles traveled on the RTS corridor. The rationale for the selection of Performance Measure 2.2.1 is that it provides a means of quantifying the sustainability benefits achieved through not only transit use but also biking, walking, and carpooling. This measure examines the ratio of person miles of travel to vehicle miles traveled and provides an aggregate occupancy rate that can be used to evaluate the impact of RTS or other sustainability initiatives. When this mea- sure is quantified at the corridor level, it may not be able to account for trips that shift away from the corridor. Network- or region-level quantifications of this measure may also be considered an alternative application.
goal 3. improve international mobility Objective 3.1. Provide Mobility for Travelers Who Cross the Border
Performance measure 3.1.1 Percentage of RTS users who are cross-border travelers. Performance Measure 3.1.1 assesses the use of RTS systems by cross-border travelers as an indicator of connectivity across the border. The rationale for this measure is that RTS services may allow travelers the option of crossing the border without cars.
Given that an increase in this measure would result in a lower per- centage of travelers from within the city, it is recommended that this measure be used more for informational or evaluation purposes than for the setting of targets.
goal 4. increase Livability
Objective 4.1. Support Pedestrian and Bike Modes Performance measure 4.1.1 Length of sidewalks per corridor mile.
Performance measure 4.1.2 Length of bike lanes per corridor mile. Performance Measures 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 assess the coverage of sidewalk facilities and bike lanes along the RTS corridor. Although these measures are good indicators of the presence of these facilities, they do not completely cover aspects such as quality or connectivity.
Performance measure 4.1.3 Quality of sidewalks along the corridor. Performance Measure 4.1.3 assesses the quality of the side- walks along the RTS corridor and can capture some of the elements not covered by Performance Measure 4.1.1. This measure can be constructed in a context-specific manner to reflect aspects such as width, connectivity, access to RTS stops, surface quality and flatness, and levels of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Objective 4.2. Promote Mixed Land Uses
Performance measure 4.2.1 Land use entropy index in influence area. Performance Measure 4.2.1 assesses the mix of land uses in the corridor influence area because land use mix was identified to be important to the city of El Paso when the downtown revitalization efforts and broader sustainability efforts that were being supported by the RTS were kept in mind. This measure was developed in land use planning theory and is formulated to have the highest value when all categories of land use are equally distributed and the low- est value when all land uses are concentrated in any one category.
This measure can be used to evaluate progress toward mixed-use and transit-oriented development with the support of the RTS over time. However, land use may be determined by other factors, such as zoning, and in the case of highly urbanized or built-up areas will not change significantly over time. These factors could potentially reduce the sensitivity of the measure or its direct relevance to RTS.
Objective 4.3. Promote Safety and Security
Performance measure 4.3.1 Annual severe injuries and fatali- ties on the corridor. Performance Measure 4.3.1 assesses traffic safety along the RTS corridor. Although this measure primarily focuses on
traffic, it can be used to assess changes in the number of incidents resulting in a fatality or injury before and after implementation of the RTS. Reduced automobile travel and improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities linked to the implementation of the RTS can positively influence this measure.
Performance measure 4.3.2 Presence of pedestrian-scale lighting in station areas. Performance Measure 4.3.2 addresses the presence of adequate lighting facilities near RTS stations as an indicator of safety and security for the public and RTS users.
goal 5. Promote economic development Objective 5.1. Revitalize RTS Corridors
Performance measure 5.1.1 Number of jobs in corridor influence area.
Performance measure 5.1.2 Average value of commercial property in influence area.
Performance measure 5.1.3 Tax revenue generated from com- mercial establishments in influence area. Performance Measures 5.1.1 to 5.1.3 assess the economic revitalization of RTS corridors according to parameters of job creation, commercial property values, and tax revenue generation. These measures are suitable for the study of the long-term impacts of the RTS because they may be tracked over time. Although these are relevant sustainability measures, measures of economic development are affected to a much greater extent by externalities and are not necessarily attributed to implementation of the RTS.
goal 6. ensure System effectiveness and efficiency
Objective 6.1. Ensure Effective Fare Recovery
Performance measure 6.1.1 Fare recovery ratio on the RTS corridor.
Objective 6.2. Ensure That the RTS System Operates Efficiently
Performance measure 6.2.1 Number of passenger trips per revenue hour. Transit agencies commonly use performance measures such as those in Performance Measures 6.1.1 and 6.2.1 as indicators of economic efficiency (i.e., fare recovery ratio) and operational efficiency (number of passenger trips per revenue hour). Although these are not sustainability performance measures as such, participants in the practitioner workshops identified them to be important facets of the economic viability of the system.
Objective 6.3. Complete the RTS and Feeder System on Schedule
Performance measure 6.3.1 Percentage of project milestones met to date. Performance Measure 6.3.1 assesses the progress toward implementation of the RTS projects in accordance with the City of
El Paso’s 5-year service plan. This measure is relevant only before construction or implementation of RTS facilities and serves a monitoring purpose.
goal 7. Promote equity
Objective 7.1. Provide RTS Access to Low-Income Demographics
Performance measure 7.1.1 Low-income census tracts with access to RTS or feeder service.
Performance measure 7.1.2 Affordable housing presence in the corridor influence area. Both Performance Measure 7.1.1 and Performance Measure 7.1.2 target the physical accessibility of low- income individuals to the RTS according to its proximity to their residences. Although these measures address one aspect of equity (i.e., access), they are limited in that they do not address the acces- sibility of the final destination or origin–destination pairs that may affect the use of RTS by low-income individuals.
Objective 7.2. Provide Access to Critical Destinations
Performance measure 7.2.1 Number of accessible critical and quality-of-life destinations. Performance Measure 7.2.1 assesses the accessibility of critical destinations and quality-of-life destinations to the RTS corridor. The types of destinations considered include schools, health care facilities, libraries, museums, parks, retail destina- tions, and others. This measure can be used to define or select routes for RTS to maximize the locations served.
Objective 7.3. Provide Affordable RTS Service
Performance measure 7.3.1 Ratio of average cost of a round-trip by RTS to average daily personal income in influence area.
Performance measure 7.3.2 Ratio of combined housing and transportation costs to household income in influence area. Perfor- mance Measures 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 address another aspect of equity not covered by Objective 7.1, that is, the affordability of RTS for the general public. This is an important facet, in addition to physi- cal accessibility, that determines whether RTS is serving those who are in need of transportation options. Although Performance Mea- sure 7.3.1 deals with the affordability of RTS fares, Performance Measure 7.3.2 introduces the concept of combined transportation and housing costs, which provides a broader picture of household expenditures as affected by their physical location.
goal 8. improve the environment
Objective 8.1. Reduce Criterion Pollutant Emissions Performance measure 8.1.1 Daily emissions of particulate matter per person mile of travel on the RTS corridor.
Performance measure 8.1.2 Daily emissions of carbon monoxide per person mile of travel on the RTS corridor.
Performance measure 8.1.3 Daily emissions of ozone precursors (oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds) per person mile of travel on the RTS corridor.
Objective 8.2. Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Performance measure 8.2.1 Daily emissions of carbon dioxide per person mile of travel on the RTS corridor. Performance Mea- sures 8.1.1 to 8.1.4 address mobile-source emissions from vehicles (automobiles and transit vehicles) operating on the RTS corridor.
Performance Measures 8.1.1 to 8.1.3 deal with criterion pollutant emissions, that is, those regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency. Performance Measure 8.2.1 deals with greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide). These measures can be used to evalu- ate corridor emissions before and after implementation of the RTS.
These measures are expressed as emissions per person mile of travel to adjust for the effects of induced traffic demand and increased RTS ridership.
remarks on final Set of Performance measures The final set of RTS goals, objectives, and performance measures discussed in this paper and further detailed in the project report (15) forms a compendium of performance measures that can be used as a reference source for the City of El Paso, and subsets of these performance measures can be used for various evaluation and decision-making applications. During the course of the project, City of El Paso staff provided various insightful comments about specific performance measures, use of the performance measures, and data sources, both in the meeting and at the workshop, as well as through subsequent e-mail exchanges. Additionally, potential indicators and performance measures were considered candidates for inclusion but were not included because of considerations such as quantification and data availability.
Some of these measures and ideas included
• Quantification of the number of high-income residents in the proximity of RTS stations or high-income users of RTS to measure discretionary RTS users;
• Measurement of the number of cross-border transfer points on RTS as an indicator of international mobility;
• Consideration of aspects such as crime rates or emergency phone presence as a measure of safety and security; the quality of the transit facilities at a level that transcends safety and relates to user comfort was also discussed as a potential option; and
• Consideration of measures such as transit or bicycle level of service.
Summary and concLuSionS
This paper describes the development of performance measures to support the City of El Paso’s sustainability goals and the goals in its strategic plan in the context of the city’s planned transit corridors.
This work was an extension of work performed by the authors in research projects for the Texas Department of Transportation and NCHRP.
An extensive set of sustainability goals, objectives, and perfor- mance measures was developed through an interactive process with
the City of El Paso. The final set of 25 performance measures that was developed is described in detail. It is anticipated that these performance measures can be quantified and applied for analysis of the city’s RTS corridors that are currently planned (Mesa, Alameda, Montana, and Dyer). Although the focus of the performance mea- sures is on the RTS corridors, they recognize the broader nature of sustainability and make use of transportation and traffic data, demographics, land use, and other considerations.
For RTS corridors and sustainability goals for RTSs specifically, performance measures can be used to compare existing corridors or planned corridors to conduct before-and-after analyses (including surveys before and after the provision of bus rapid transit) and to support planning and decision making. Other aspects to consider when a subset of performance measures is selected and the measures are applied include the availability of data and the time frame and context for application of the performance measures. For example, some performance measures lend themselves to applications that allow them to be tracked over time, some are more relevant for application before implementation of the RTS, and others are suited to application for before-and-after analyses. Appropriate perfor- mance measures can then be applied on the basis of the resources available for their quantification. In general, the performance mea- sures should be selected with the potential time frames for analysis kept in mind.
Although the set of measures presented in this paper represents those identified as being useful, feasible, and of practical applicability, it is expected that other limitations may arise as the measures are implemented in practice. Operationalization of the metrics would provide further insight into the use of performance measures in specific applications, and the authors hope to pursue a follow-up study to look into these aspects.
The performance measures developed as part of this work also have broader applicability to other cities, planning organizations, and transit agencies and can function as a performance measure- ment toolkit for practitioners. The approach and method followed in this study can also be replicated for the identification of relevant performance measures on the basis of local priorities and goals.
In conclusion, the performance measures for sustainability described in this paper have a range of potential applications for the City of El Paso and potentially for other public agencies and stakeholders. Potential benefits and applications include commu- nication of the value of bus rapid transit projects to the public and decision makers, measurement and tracking of sustainability indicators before and after implementation of the projects, and support for decision making about specific corridors or project configurations.
acknowLedgmentS
This research was performed by the Center for International Intelli- gent Transportation Research, a part of the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, in cooperation with the City of El Paso. The authors thank the following City of El Paso and Texas Department of Transportation staff: Jay Banasiak, Angelica Bryant, Kevin Bunce, Ray Dovalina, Raul Escobedo, Everett Esparza, Phillip Etiwe, Gilbert Guerrero, Michael Herrera, Harold Kutz, Alfredo Lopez, Johanes Makahaube, Ted Marquez, Mathew McElroy, Margaret Schroeder, Ismael Segovia, Jane Shang, and Joyce Wilson. The authors also thank Rafael Aldrete, Arturo Bujanda, Chaoyi Gu, and Jon Williams of the Texas A&M Transportation Institute.
referenceS
1. City of El Paso Sustainability Plan. http://www.elpasotexas.gov/
sustainability. Accessed July 2012.
2. City of El Paso Strategic Plan. http://www.elpasotexas.gov/muni_clerk/
meetings/sccm0127110900/01271101%20Strategic%20Plan%20 Report.pdf. Accessed July 2012.
3. Ramani, T. L., J. Zietsman, and W. L. Eisele. Incorporating Sustainabil- ity into TxDOT’s Transportation Decision Making—Summary of Work Performed, Methods Used and Results Achieved. Report 5-5541-01-1.
Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, Feb. 2011.
4. Zietsman, J., T. L. Ramani, J. Potter, V. Reeder, and J. DeFlorio. NCHRP Report 708: A Guidebook for Sustainability Performance Measurement for Transportation Agencies. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011.
5. Ramani, T. L., J. Zietsman, W. L. Eisele, D. Rosa, D. L. Spillane, and B. S. Bochner. Developing Sustainable Performance Measures for TxDOT’s Strategic Plan. Technical report 0-5541-1. Texas A&M Trans- portation Institute, College Station, April 2009.
6. Amekudzi, A., M. Meyer, and C. Ross. Transportation Planning for Sustainability Guidebook. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2011. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/climate/sustainability/sustain.pdf.
7. Guide to Sustainable Transportation Performance Measures. U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency, Aug. 2011. http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/
Sustainable_Transpo_Performance.pdf.
8. Litman, T. Transportation Cost Analysis for Sustainability. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, Nov. 1999.
9. Jeon, C., and A. Amekudzi. Addressing Sustainability in Transportation Systems: Definitions, Indications and Metrics. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 11, March 2005, pp. 31–50.
10. Richardson, B. C. Sustainable Transport: Analysis Framework. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 13, March 2005, pp. 29–39.
11. Black, J. A., A. Paez, and P. A. Suthanaya. Sustainable Urban Trans- portation: Performance Indicators and Some Analytical Approaches.
Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 128, Dec. 2002, pp. 184–209.
12. Currie, G. Bus Rapid Transit in Australasia: Performance, Lessons Learned and Futures. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2006, pp. 1–22.
13. Vincent, W., and L. C. Jerram. The Potential for Bus Rapid Transit to Reduce Transportation-Related CO2 Emissions. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2006, pp. 219–237.
14. Ramani, T. L., J. Zietsman, H. Gudmundsson, R. P. Hall, and G. Marsden.
Framework for Sustainability Assessment by Transportation Agen- cies. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2242, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 9–18.
15. Application of Sustainability Performance Measures for the City of El Paso’s Rapid Transit Systems. Final report for Project 186051-0000.
Center for International Intelligent Transportation Research, El Paso, Tex., 2012.
The Performance Measurement Committee peer-reviewed this paper.
