USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Performance measures report for South Florida Commuter Services

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Performance measures report for South Florida Commuter Services 2000
Physical Description:
1 online resource (ii, 54 p.) : charts. ;
Language:
English
Creator:
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation
South Florida Commuter Services
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Urban transportation -- Evaluation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Local transit -- Evaluation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Commuting -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
technical report   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

General Note:
Performed for Florida Dept. of Transportation, South Florida Commuter Services.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 029078595
oclc - 750259173
usfldc doi - C01-00147
usfldc handle - c1.147
System ID:
SFS0032255:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

P e rforman ce Mea sures R eport for South F l o rid a C ommuter Servi ces 2000 Prepared for: Florida Department of Transportati on South F l orida Commuter Services Prepared by: Cen ter for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida Tampa, Florida

PAGE 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .............................. ..................... ................ .. ......................... ..... .................... 1 INl'RODUCTION .................................. ... .......... ........................ .... ....... . ... .... ... ... .......................... 2 NOTE ON CHANGES IN BASELINE RESULTS ....................................... ................................ 2 SECTION A REQUIRED PERFORMANCE MEASURES ........................................................ ) Defmitions of Required Perform ance Measures ................................................................ IO SECTION B D ISTRICT OPTIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES ............ ........................ 13 Definiti ons ofDistrict Optional Performance Measures ....... ............. ................................ 15 SECTION C OTHER PERFORMANCE MEASURES ........................ .. ................................... 17 Goall -Increase publ.ic awareness .. HOO ................. HOOOOOOOO+ O ooooooooooooooooooooooo.ooooo.ooool8 DefinHions of Performance Measures for Goal One ............................ .................. 20 Goal2 Increase productivity of roadway sys tem ............................................................ 21 Definitions of Performance Measure s for Goal Two ............................................ 22 Goal 3 -Decrease Traffic Congestion .......... .......................... .......................... .................. 23 Definition s of Performance Measures for Goa l Thre e ...................................... ..... 25 Goal4-Improve air quality . .............. .................................................... .............. ............ 28 Defin itions of Performance Measur es for Goal Four ........ .. ................................... 2 9 Goal 5 .. Conserve energyresources ............ .............. ................ ..... ........... ...................... .... .30 Definitions of Performance Measure for Goal F ive ............................................... 31 Goal 6 Improve mobility Carpools ................................................................................ 32 D efinitions of P erformance Measures for Goal Six Carpools ............................. 33 G oal 6 -Improve mobiHtyVanpools ........... ..................... ........................................ ....... 3 4 Definitions of Performance Measures for Goal SixVanpools ............................ 35 Goal 6 aImprove mobility .. Non-motorized .... .............. ... ..................... .......................... 36 Definitions of Performance Measures for Goal SixNon -motorized ................... 37 Goal6 Improve mobility Transit.. .. .................. ........ ..................................................... 3 8 Definitions of Performance Measures for Goal SixTransit .................. .... .......... 39 Goal 7 Reduce Costs of Auto Ownership ........................................................................ 40 Definitions of Performance Measures for Goal Seven ......................................... .41 Goal 8 -Impro ve Economic V i ability .............. ....... ...... ..... ... ...... ... .... ......... ................... ... 42 Definition s of Performance Measures for Goal Eight ..... ...................................... 43 Goal 9 -Increase C\lstomer Inquiry ... .......... ....... ................................. .............................. 44 Definitions of Performance Measures of Goal Nine ...... .......... .............................. 45 i

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONfENTS (Continued} SECTION C co n tinued Goal l 0 Promote Tria l Use ............................... ......... . ... . . ..... .... .... ... .... . .... ........ .. . .46 Definition s of Pe rformance Measures for Goal Ten .................................... . .. .... .47 Goal l l -Facilitate Arrangement of Poo ls ...... ..... ......... ... ........... ... .... ........................... 48 Defin i tions of Performance Measures for Goal Eleven .................. ... ... ...... ....... ..49 Goall2-Reinforce Use of Commute Alternatives : .......... ...... ... .. .... . ........ ... .... .... ... .50 Definitions of Performance Measures for Goa l Twelve .............................. ... ...... .5! Goal13 Deve l op CS Constituency .. . ....... ..... .............................................. ........ ..... . . 52 Definitions of Performanc e Measures for Goa l Thirteen .. ... ..... ... ............... ....... .. .53 II

PAGE 4

2000 SOUTH FLORIDA COMMUTER SERVICES EVALUATION PERFORMANCE MEASURES REPORT Executive Summary The survey results presented in this report give South Florida Commuter Services (abbreviated as CS in the tables) a number of areas on which future evaluations should be based, including commuter traveling behavior and advertising awareness, Commuter Services Database member evaluations, and business awareness, provision of programs, and evaluation of Commuter Services activities. This evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in the CAP Evaluation Manual published by CUTR under the sponsorship of the Florida Department of Transportation. Information was collected on the commuting habits ofboth the generafpublic and members of the Commuter Services database, as well as awareness of advertising among members of the general public. Businesses were asked about their awareness of Commuter Services and the provision of incentives for use of commute alternatives by employees. The purpose of collecting this information was to provide a review of Commuter Services' performance for 2000, and to assist in the appropriate setting of goals for future evaluation periods. With the informatio n provided in this report South Florida Commuter Services should be able to set meaningful, measurable goals for performance for 2000 and future years. The goal setting process should take the following form: Review program direction and determine which of the goals listed in this report are most relevant to Commuter Services' current direction. Select the performance measures within those goals that are most appropriate Select target levels for those performance measures that reflect a reasonable level of performance improvement. For those performance measures where the data is derived from survey results, target levels should be set in one of two ways: statistically significant increases from baseline levels, or minimum performance levels that will have a 95% probability of having been met-i.e., there will be a 95% probability that the true l)leasure is at or above the target level. CUTR will be available to assist in the goal selection and target level setting processes. I

PAGE 5

INTRODUCTION This report focuses on the performance measures available to Florida Commuter Assistance Program (CAP) offices to determine program progress and/or effectiveness. The performance measures are divided into three sections: required performance measures; optional performance measures; and other performance measures. As the name suggests, required performance measures are those that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has mandated that all CAP offices in Florida must track and report on at least an annual basis. These performance measures are specified on pages 8-9 of the Commuter Assistance Program procedures, dated May 5, 1997. District optional performance measures are those that FDOT have determined are appropriate for some of the CAP programs and, at CAP and FDOT District option, can be reported to show progress and/or performance Other performance measures are those that can help a CAP illustrate the effectiveness of their programs in meeting program or regional objectives. Statistically significant differe nces from the baseline year are presented in bold NOTE ON DATABASE SIZE ESTIMATES I 0,160 members were in the database at the time ofthe survey. The total number of members added in 2000 was 4,083, and members added before2000 was 5,780. For 1999 year-end, a figureof6,931 was reported. The Rideshare Database survey was performed using sample provided by Commuter Services. The interviewing finn attempted contact with 5,131 households. Of those interviewed, however, 216 indicated that they had never heard of Commuter Services nor had they ever signed up with a commuter assistance program. A further ninety (90) indicat ed they did not commute to work or school. Each of the respondents was verified as being the person named as the database member in the Commuter Services database list. Another 717 telephone numbers had no person with the name indicated in the database listing living there. Either of these conditions was sufficient to terminate the interviews, as further questions regarding int eraction with Commuter Services would have been pointless. These changes result in an effective database size increase for 2000 of 3,407 members (down from the 4,083 listed above). Total size is adjusted from 10,160 to 8,243. For comparison purposes the 1999 database size was adjusted from 9,118 names originally provided to CUTR to 6,931 used in the final estimates of performance. 2

PAGE 6

SECfiON AREQUIRED PERFORMAN C E MEASURES The FOOT required performance measures are: I. Number of commuters requesting assistance 2. Number of commuters switching modes 3. Number of vans in service (where applicable ) 4. Number of vehicle trips eliminated 5. Vehicle miles eliminated 6. Employer contacts 7 Parking spots saved/p arking needs reduced 8 Commuter costs saved 9 Major accomplishm ents The following tables have been developed in the CAP evaluation manual to assist the Commut er Assistance Agencies in Flo rida track the ir performance relative to FOOT requirements. The t ables are constructed with five supporting columns to help the CAP collec t analyze, and disseminate the r esults of the performance measures The first column inc ludes the performance measures that are required by FOOT. The second column is used if b enchmar ks or actual results are available for each performance measure. These benchmark s/results could be t aken from survey responses from past commuter assistance program eval uation repons, or from data available from other similar CAP program s The third column lists the source for evaluating achievement of the performance measure (i.e database survey). The fourth column can be u se d by th e comm uter assistance program t o se l ect targets to achieve for each of the performance measures The fifth column can be used by CAP staff to explain contributin g factors in setting and/or meeting the selected targets. A separate table describes actions that the CAP agencies take t o achieve program goals, or potential activities that could be incorporated to achieve the goal. Following each of the tables, a brief descrip tion of each performance measure is in cluded along with the method to be used to collect the necessary information. Where appropriate, the formula for calculating the performance measure is included. Note: The "effective database size" is calculated by taking the entire number of non FOOT/Comm ut er Services database members l ess the number of disconnected and no-such number call t erminations during the database survey projected for the entire database. 3

PAGE 7

Required Perfo rmance Meas ures Performance Benchmark Eva luation Source Targets Measures (1999) (2000) Factors RPI Number of 14,341 Collected commuters requesting byCS assistance RP2 N umber of 10.2% or401 20. 4 % or69S Database commuters switching (db members (db members Survey mode s added: 4,123) added: 3,407) RP3 Numberofvans 4 Collected . byCS m serv1ce RP4 Numbe r of 445,859 1,022 132 Database vehicle trips Survey eliminated RPS Vehicle miles 10,127,684 19 ,667,798 Database eliminated Survey Potential Actions RA 1.1 Provide info to commuters about commute alternatives RA1.2 Develop matching system RA1.3 Contract for and/or provide vans for commuting purposes RA1.4 Deve l op mar k eting program to: a) Promote carpooling b) Promote vanpooling c) Promote transit use d) Promote walk/bike RAI.5 Develop emp l oyer outreach program . . Where performance measures mvolve surveys or other inferential statiStics, targets should be set in the form of"statistically significant increase from prior year" or"95% probability that performance measure is at or above" target l evel. 4

PAGE 8

Required Performance Measures (continued) Performance B enchmark Evaluation Source Targets* ConL Measures (1999) (2000) Factors RP6 Employer 39,055 Collected by contacts cs RP7 Parking spots 910 2,086 Database saved/parking Survey needs reduced (based on veh. Trips reduced) RP8 Commuter $0.29/mile $0.29/mile Database Costs saved $2 937,0280 $5,703,661 Survey (based on veh. miles eliminated) . . Where perfo rmance measures mvolve surveys or other mferenttal statist tcs targets should be set in the form of"statistically s i gnificant increase from prior year" or "95% probabil i ty that performance measure is at or above" target level Performance measures in bold indicate statistically significant differences from baseline 5

PAGE 9

Required P erformance Measures (cont inue d) Performance Benchmark Evaluation Source Targets* Cont. Measures (1999) (2000) Factors RP9Major Tri-C ounty Collected by Accomplislunents ERH cs Program DMTMl Established 95 Commuter Service Days P&R promotional activities initia ted 6

PAGE 10

Required performance measures for South Florida Commuter Services RPl: Number of commuters switching modes Required performance measures for South Florida Commuter Services RP4: Number of vehicle trips eliminated 7

PAGE 11

Required performance measures for South Florida Commuter Services RPS: Vehicle miles eliminated Required performance measures for South Florida Commuter Services RP7: Parking spots saved 8

PAGE 12

Requ ire d pe r formance measures for Soutb Florida Commuter Services RPS: Commuter costs saved 9

PAGE 13

Definitions of Required Performance Measures RPl Number of commuters requesting assistance This is the number of people that request assistance of some sort including: Carpool matchlist Vanpool matchlist or formation assistance Transit route and/or schedule information Telecommuting information Bicycle route and/or locker/rack information The CAP offices would track the number of requests received and may want to track requests by type. The information would be reported as part of quarterly and annual progress reports. RP2 Number of commuters switching modes This is the number of people that actually use the information you provide to change from their SOV mode to carpooling, vanpooling, transit use, telecommuting, walking and/or bicycling. This information can be gathered by doing sample survey of commuters assisted on a monthly basis by either phone or mail. Every month contact a random sample of the commuters assisted the previous month to see how many actually used the information provided. Extrapolate survey results to estimate total. It is recommended that actual data (rather than data modeled based on the number of commuters in the database and applying a fixed percentage) be used where available. RP3 Number ofvans in service (where applicable) This measure represents the actual number of commuter vans on the road and/or the number of vanpoolers. These numbers would be collected and reported by the CAP office RP4 Number of vehlde trips eliminated This performance measure is calculated by using follow-up survey data or actual data. For the database survey, this is done without respect to prior mode but includes only those for whom Commuter Services influenced the mode choice decision 10

PAGE 14

RPS Vehicle miles eliminated Thi s perfonnance m easure i s calculated by using follow-up survey data. For the database survey, this is done without respect to prior mode but includes only those for whom Commuter Services influenced the mode choice decision RP6 Employer contacts Report n umber of employer contacts by the following categories: Number contacted by letter/fax Number contacted by pho n e Number contacted in person Number of follow-up calls or visits When reporting inc l ude the number of employees at each site. These figures will be tracked and collected by the CAP staff. RP7 Parking spots saved/parking needs reduced This is a perfonnance measure that is calculated by detennining the number of people using alternative modes at each employment site It can also be calculated by taking the number of vehicle trips reduced from a database survey and dividing by 2 trips per day/245 working days per year. RPS Commuter costs saved This pcrfonnance measure i s calculated by multiplying vehicle miles eliminated by the average cost per mile (AAA uses $.448 per mile, the federal government and State of Florida use $.29 per mile). RP9 Major accomplishments This perfonnance measure is a listing of all major CAP programs and/or initiatives and the accomplishments of these projects/initiati v es These may include: New Transit Services Initiated/Improved Educational Program Initiated Transportation Planning Initiatives Emergency ride Home Projects Initiated Other Implementation Activities This infonnation would be tracked and collected by CAP staff. 11

PAGE 15

(This page intentionally left blank) 12

PAGE 16

SECI'ION BDISTRICI' OPTIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES The FOOT defined District optional perfonnance measures are: I. Gasoline saved 2. Emissions reduced 3. Infonnation materials distributed 4. Special events 5. Media/community relations The following tables have been developed to assist the Commuter Assistance Agencies in Florida track their perfonnance relative to FDOT District optional performance measures. The tables are constructed with five supporting columns to help the CAP collect, analyze, and disseminate the results of the perfonnance measures. The first column includes the performance measures that are required by FDOT The second column is used if benchmarks or actual results are available for each performance measure. These benchmarks/results could be taken from survey responses, from past commuter assistance program evaluation reports, or from data available from other similar CAP programs. The third column lists the source for evaluating achievement of the performance measure (i.e. database survey). The fourth column can be used by the commuter assistance program to select targets to achieve for each of the performance measures. The fifth column can be used by CAP staff to explain contributing factors in setting and/or meeting the selected targets. A separate table describes actions that the CAP agencies take to achieve program goals, or potential activities that could be incorporated to achieve the goal. Following each of the tables, a brief description of each performance measure is included along with the method to be used to collect the necessary information. Where appropriate, the fonnula for calculating the performance measure is included. 13

PAGE 17

Dis t r ict O pti ona l Perfor m a nce M easures Performanc e Benchmar k Eval uat i on So u r c e T a rge ts Cont Measu res ( 1 999) ( 2000) Factor s OPl Gasoline Saved 425,000 7 86,7 1 2 Database survey data calculati o n OP2 Emi ssion s HC: 6 4 ,614 125, 480 Database Reduction CO: 512,461 9 95 ,191 survey data N O : 35,649 69,231 calculation OP3 S pecia l Events 95 Collected by C S OP4 18 Collec ted 12 Media/Community ($626,551) byCS ($5 0 0,000) R elatio ns P ot ent ial Ac ti ons OA 1.1 Promote/d evelop alternative transportation programs. OA 1 2 D e velop and conduct a community o u treach/promotional cam p aign. . Where performance measures mvolve surv e ys o r other mferenual stausucs, targets should be s et in the form of"stati s tica\ly s i gnificant i ncrease from prior year" or "95% probability that performance measure i s at or above" level. Performance measures in bold indica te statistically s ignificant differences from baseline. 'Includes Commute r Service Days 14

PAGE 18

Definitions of District Optional Performance Measures OPt Gasoline saved This performance measure is calculated by multiplying vehicle miles e liminated by the average miles per gallon figure from EPA. For April, 1997. average fuel consumption is 0.04 gallons/mile (i.e., 25 MPG). OP2 Emissions reduction This performance measure is calculated by multiplying vehicle miles eliminated by the emission factors for the CAP service area. Emission factors are available from Department ofEnvirorunental Regulation and ar e available for Hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen oxide (NO). In April 1997 the average passenger car emissions were estimated at: 2.9 grams/mile ofHC 23 grams/ mile of CO 1.6 grams/mile of NO Grams are converted to pounds by multiplying the results of this calculation by .0022. OP3 Specia l events This performance measure reports the number and type of special events conducted by the CAP staff to promote and/or encourage commute alternative use. Special events may include but are not limited to : Commuter Service Days Commuter Fairs Special Promotions This information would be collected and tracked by CAP staff. OP4 Media/community relations This performance measure tracks CAP staff efforts in informing the media and general public about CAP activities and programs Catego ries may include but are not limited to: Number ofPSAs aired Number of newSPaper articles Number of news stories Number of magazine articles This information would be collected and tracked by CAP staff. 1 5

PAGE 19

(This page intentionally left blank) 16

PAGE 20

SECTION C OTHER PERFORMANCE MEASURES The performance measures in this section have been developed to allow a CAP the flexibility to tailor an evaluation program that closely matches program goals and objectives. They have also been developed to measure CAP effects on markets and groups, like employers and the general public, that directly or indirectly are influenced by CAP efforts The performance measures can be used to develop a more complete profile of direct and indirect effects of CAP program activities on commuter mode choice. For example, the performance measures in this section can be used to determine if advertising campaigns influenced members of the general public to try carpooling without ever contacting the CAP office for assistance. To assist the CAP in selecting appropriate measures from this section, some of the FDOT required and optional performance measures have been repeated under appropriate goals. This provides the CAP with a mechanism to find some performance measures that can help develop a complete picture of CAP efforts. The following tables have been developed to assist the Commuter Assistance Agencies in Florida track their performance relative to the their own stated goals or to regional transportation goals. The tables are constructed by using a potential generic CAP or regional transportation goal as the major section heading with five supporting columns to help achieve the goal. The first column includes the perfonnance measures. The second column is used ifbenchmarks or actual results are available for each performance measure. These benchmarks/results could be taken from survey responses, from past commuter assistance program evaluation reports, or from data available from other similar CAP programs. The third column lists the source for evaluating achievement of the performance measure (i.e. database survey) The fourth column can be used by the commuter assistance program to select targets to achieve for each ofthe perfonnance measures. The fifth column can be used by CAP staff to explain contributing factors in setting and/or meeting the selected targets. A separate table describes actions that the CAP agencies take to achieve program goals, or potential activities that could be incorporated to achieve the goal. Following each of the tables, a brief description of each perfonnance measure is included along with the method to be used to collect the necessary information. Where appropriate, the formula for calculating the performance measure is included. 17

PAGE 21

Goall -Increase publlc awareness Performance Benchmark Evaluation Source Targets Cont. Measures (1999) (2000) Factors Pl.l %awareness of 52% at all 51% at all Business 22% CS among employers 24% familiar w/ 30% familiar w/ survey 12% Pl.211 employer 96 Collected 40 meetings byCS Pl.3% of employers 38% NIA Business 35% with TOM programs survey Pl.4% aided 34% 36% General 35% awareness of CS orCS public number among survey commuters PJ.S II of customer 14,341 Collected 7,905 inqwries byCS P 1.6 % awareness of 33% 46% General 26% CS prom otional public materials survey .. . . Where performance measures mvolve surveys or other inferential statJsttes, !argeiS should be set in the form of"statistically s ignificant i ncrease from prior year" or "95% probability that performance measure is at or above" target le vel. Performance measures in bold i ndicate statistically s ignificant differences from baselin e. 18

PAGE 22

Goall -Increase public awareness Potential Actions A 1 1 Develop coordinated, consistent marketing program. A 1.2 Develop employer outreach materials on TDM strategies. A 1.3 Plan and conduct kick-off events with employers. Al.4 Provide technical assistance in establishing employer programs. Al.5 Establish employer outreach campaign to appoint Employee Transportation Coordinated (ETCs) to involve employers in mobility programs. A 1.6 Host ETC training program. 19

PAGE 23

Definitions of Performance Mea suns for Goal One Pl.l % awareness among employers A measure taken from a business swvey. The swvey asks if businesses are aware of the commuter assistance program. P1.2 Number of employer meetings Tills is a measure that examines how many presen tations were made about rideshare services to area employers. Tills measure represents initial presentations to employers who have shown an interest in commuter assistance program services. This data would be collected through quarterly reports and year-end evaluation reports. Pl.3 % employers with TDM programs This performance measure represents those employers who have designated an employee transportation coordinator or offer one of the following: compressed work weeks, work at home options, preferential parking, parkin g shuttles, emergency ride home programs, or bus or pool subsidies. Data for this measure would come from a business swvey. Pl-4 %aided awareness of Commuter Assistance or Commuter Assistance Number among commuters This measure examines commuter awareness of the CAP agency and/or the recognition of the telephone number commuters can call to receive assistance. Tills measure would be collected from the results of the general public swvey. Pl.S Number of customer inquiries The number of customers who contacted the commuter assistance program during the review period : This measure would be tracked internally by the CAP. P1.6 % awareness of CAP promotional materials This measure examines the general public's awareness of CAP promotional materials including highway signs, TV and radio ads, etc. Tills measure is collected through the general public survey. 20

PAGE 24

Goal 2 Increase productivity of roadway system Performance Benchmark Evaluation Source Targets* Cont. Measures (1999) (2000) Factors P2.1 % increase in Swveys: average vehicle DB: 1.36 1.67 Database occupancy GP: 1.07 1.06 GenPub P2.2 %reduction in vehicle miles o f travel from I 00% SOY for: Swveys: I. Database members 33.9% 44.7% Database 2. Gen era l public 4.4% 4.2% GenPub P2.3% reduction in vehicle trips from 100% SOY among: Swveys: I. Data base member s 26.6% 40.1% Database 2 General public 6.2% 5 .8% GenPub Potential Actions A 2 1 Attend and participate in MPO meetings to provide input and guide CS Services. A2.2 Develop long range vision, goals and objectives for CS that are consistent with area-wide transportation network goals and programs. A2.3 Target MPO selected corridors and roa dways for intensive rideshare marketing programs. 0 0 0 0 0 Where performance measures mvolve surveys or other inferenttal stattsllcs, targets should be set in the form of"statistica lly significant increase from prior year" or "95% probability that performance measure is at or above" target level. Performance measu res in bold indicate statistically significant differences from baseline. 21

PAGE 25

Definitions of Performance Measures for Goal Two P2.1 % increase in average vehicle occupancy This measure examines the increase in vehicle occupancy from one evaluation period to the next In the table, the baseline figure will be used to help the commuter assistance program calculate the percent change. The measure would be taken from a general public survey and database survey. P2.2 % reduction in vehicle miles of travel This measures the percent difference between actual VMT and VMT that would occur if all commuters used an SOV for work trips. The calcula tion would be done once for database members and once for the general public To calculate: (total trips in alternative mode per week) x (duration of alternative mode use) x (passengers-1/passengers) x ( 49 weeks per year) x (miles per trip) (total trips per week) x (49 weeks per year) x (miles per trip) P2.3 % reduction in vehicle trips This performance measure would be eatculated by taking the total number of trips taken versus the total number of trips that would have been taken assuming all alternative mode users formerly dtove alone. The percent reduction figure is derived from a database member survey and the general public survey. To calculate: (total trips in alternative mode per week) x (duration of alternative mode use) x (passengers-llpassengers) x (49 weeks per year) (total trips per week) x ( 49 weeks per year) 22

PAGE 26

Goal 3 -Decrease Traffic Congestion Performance Benchmark Evaluation Source Targets Cont. Measures (1999) (2000) Factors P3.1 % of work trips using alternative mo d e among: Surveys : 1. Database members 35% 44% Database 2. General public 12% II% GenPub P3.2 # of peak period Surveys: vehicles per 100 DB: 73 DB: 60 Database employees GP: 94 GP: 94 GenPub P3.3 VMT reduced: Surveys: Gen e ral public 719m 589m Database Database member s 20,587,000 31,481,000 GenPub P3.4 Vehicle trips reduced: Surveys: General public 6Sm 58m Database Database members 912 ,673 1,607 385 GenPub P3.5 % employers with compressed work week programs among: I. All employers 16 % 11% Business 2. Targeted employers 39% 10% Surveys . . Where p erformance measures mvolve surveys or other mferenttal stahsttcs, targets should be set in the form of"statistically significant increase from prior year" or "95% probabil ity that performance measure is at or above" target level. Performance measures in bold i ndicate s t atistica lly significant d ifferences from baseline 23

PAGE 27

Goal3 Decrease Traffic Congestion Performance Benchmark Evaluation Source Targets* Cont. Measures (1999) (2000) Factors P3. 6 % employees working a compressed work week among: I. All employers 4% 4% Business 2. Targeted employers 5% 2% Surveys P3.7% employers with flextime programs among: 1. All employers 16% 18% Business 2. T argeted employers 1 8% 21% Surveys P3.8 % employees working a flexible work schedule among: I. All employers 6% 6% Business 2. Targeted employers 17% 5% Surveys Potential Acti ons A3.1 Decrease the number of at activity centers/along colridors A3.2 Increase the use of alternati ves among commuters at activity centers/along target corridors A3. 3 Develop information on compressed work weeks and flexible work hour programs. A3.4 Conduct workshop on alternative work hour programs for human resource managers . . Where performance measures mvolve surveys or other inferential stabstics, targets should be set in the form of"statistically significant increase from prior year" or "95% probability that performance measure is at or above" target level. Performance measures in bold indicate statistically significant differences from baseline. 24

PAGE 28

Definitions of Performance Measures for Goal Three P3.1 % of work trips using alternative mode This perfonnance measure would be calculated by taking the total number of trips made by alternative modes (carpool, vanpool, transit, walk, and bike) and dividing by the total number of trips. This is equivalent to dividing trips provided without respect to prior mode by total trips. The figure would be calculated for both database members and from surveys of the general public. P3.2 Number of peak period vehicles per 100 employees This measure can be calculated by CAP agencies by multiplying the inverse of the average vehicle occupancy at a worksite by I 00. This measure should be used wherever the commuter assistance program is conducting an employer-based campaign. Alternatively, this measure can be calculated by multiplying the inverse of the average vehicle occupancy taken from the general public survey and/or the database survey by I 00. P3.3 VMT reduced This is a perfonnance measure taken from both a general public survey and database member survey It is calculated by taking the VMT reduced per commuter and multiplying by the number of commuters. For the database survey, this is done without respect to prior mode and without respect to whether or not commuter services influenced the decision. The formula for calculating this measure is given under the Definitions ofRequired Performance Measures section beginning on Page Seven. P3.4 Vehicle trips reduced This is a performance measure taken from both a rideshare database member survey and a general public survey. It is calculated by taking the vehicle trips reduced per commuter (respondent) and multiplying by the number of commuters. For the database survey, this is done without respect to prior mode and without respect to whether or not commuter services influenced the decision The fonnula for calculating this measure is given under the Definitions of Required Performance Measures section beginning on Page Seven. P3.5 % employers with compressed work week programs The percentage of businesses offering a compressed work week schedule as determined by a business survey. Includes only business with at least one employee participating in compressed work week. Included would be figures for all surveyed employers and those targeted by the CAP lmportance would be determined by CAP focus. In other words, does the CAP provide technical assistance to specific employers, or simply market the concept. 25

PAGE 29

P3.6 % of employees working a compressed work week schedule A perfonnancc measure taken from a business survey, the figure reported represents the % of employees actually participating in a compressed work week program, as reported by the employer Included would be figures for all employees and for those specifically targeted by the CAP. P3. 7 % employers with flextime programs The percentage of businesses offering a flextime schedule as reported in a business survey. Included would be figures for all employers and those targeted by the CAP. P3.8 % of employees working a flextime schedule A perfonnance measure from a business survey, the figure reported by employers would represents the% of employees actually participating in a flextime program. Included would be figures for all employees and for those who work at targeted employers. 26

PAGE 30

(This page i11tentional/y left blank) 27

PAGE 31

Goal 4-Improve air quality Performance Benchmark Evaluation Source Targets* Cont. Measures ( 1 999) (2000) Factors P4. 1 Pounds o f carbon I ,042,584 l bs. 1,544,698 Database monoxide reduced s urv e y P4. 2 Pounds of 131,600 lbs. 194,766 Database hydrocarbons reduced survey P4.3 Pounds of 72,558lbs. 107 ,457 Database nitrogen oxide reduced survey P4.4 Pollution Carpool: Database reductions by mode 434,2 68 lbs. 460,904 survey Vanpool: Database 125,311 146,295 survey Transit: Database 677 498 1,160 ,375 survey Non-Motorized: Database 10,231 79,239 survey Potential Actions A4.1 Form carpools. A4.2 Form v anpools. A4.3 Encourage transit use A4 4 Encourage non-motorized mode usage. . Where performance measures mvolve surveys or other mferenhal statistics, targets s h ould be set in the form of"statistically significant increase from prior year" or "95% probability that performance measure is at or above" target level. Performance measures in bold indicate statistically significant differences from baseline 28

PAGE 32

Definitions of Performance Measures for Goal Four P4.1 Pounds of carbon monoxide reduced Using the results of the VMT calculation CO reduced is derived by: (23 grams per mile) x (miles reduced per commuter) x (#of commuters/454 grams per pound). P4.2 Pounds of hydrocarbons reduced Using the results of the VMT calculation, hydrocarbon reductions are derived by: (2.9 grams per mile) x (miles reduced per commuter) x (#of commuters/454 grams per pound) P4 .3 Pounds of nitrogen oxide reduced Using the results of the VMT calculation, nitrogen oxide reductions are derived by: ( 1.6 grams per mile) x (miles reduced per commuter) x (# of comrnuters/454 grams per pound) .. P4.4 Pollution reductions by mode Using the above calculations excep t that reductions are based on VMT reduced by mode. 29

PAGE 33

Goal 5-C onserve energy resources Performance Benchmark Evaluation Source Targets* Coot. Measures (1999) (2000) Factors PS.l% emp l oyers with 4% 7% Business telecommuting program survey P5.2 %targeted employers 3% 7% Business with telecommuting survey program P5.3% employees in a 1% 1% Business telecomm uting arrangement survey P5.4% employees at 0.05% 1% Business targeted companies in a survey telecommuting arrangement PS.S% reduction in vehicle miles of travel among: Surveys: I Database members 33.9% 44.7% Database 2. General public 4.4% 4.2% GenPub P5.6 Gallons of gasoline saved by alternate mode users among: Surveys: I. Database members 823,536 1,219,640 Database 2 Genera l public 29m 24m GenPub Potential Actions AS. I Develop materials on telecommuting. A5 .2 Hold a workshop with companies on telecommuting. A5.3 Promote alternative mode use . . Where performance measures mvolve surveys or othermferenttal statlsttcs, targets should be set in the form of"statistically significant increase from prior year" or "95% probability that performance measure is at or above" target level. Performan ce measures in bold indicate statistically significant differences from baseline. 30

PAGE 34

Definitions of Performance Measure for Goal Five PS.l % employers with a telecommuting program Taken from a business survey, the percentage of employers who offer a telecommuting option to its employees. PS.2 % of targeted employers wltb a telecommutlng program Taken from a business survey, the percentage of businesses that work directly with the CAP or are located within a CAP-targeted activity center who offer a telecommuting option to some of its employees. PS.3 % of employees in a telecommuting arrangement Taken from a business survey, the% of employees who have taken a telecommuting option, as reported by employers. PS.4 % of employees at targeted companies in a telecommuting arrangement Taken from a business survey, the% of employees who work at targeted companies who have taken a telecommuting option, as reported by employers. PS.S % reduction in vehicle miles of travel This measures the percent difference between actual VMT and VMT that would occur if all commuters used an SOV for work trips. The calculation is done once for database members and once for the general public. PS.6 Gallons of gasollne saved by alternate mode users Derived by taking the VMT reduction calculation and multiplying by the average miles per gallon figure for passenger vehicles as reported by the Environmental Protection Agency (currently 25 mpg) The figure is derived for database members and for the general public from statistics taken from the database member and general public survey respectively. Gallons of gasoline saved by database members is an Optional Performance Measure as defined by the Florida Department of Transportation in the Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation Manual published by the Center for Urban Transportation Research. 31

PAGE 35

Goal 6-I mprove m o bility-Carpools Performance Be n c hm ark Eva lu a tio n So u rce Tar gets Co n t. Measures (1999) (2000) F a c t ors P6 1 # persons registered 8 319 Collected byCS P6.2 # persons placed in Direct: 256 198 Databas e carpoo l s Total : 313 266 survey (method revised from Database prior year) survey P6.3 Duration of ex i sting 2 67 years 2 .71 years Database carpools survey P6.4% of trips done by 17.4% 19.4% carpool and vanpoo l P oten ti al Actions A 6.1 Seek to improve carpool matching program o p erated by CS A6.2 Customize brochure on options with survey form. A6.3 Develop "Guide on How to Form a CarpooL" . . Where performance measures mvolve surveys or other inferenl!al stattsttcs, targets should be set in the form of"statistically significant increase from prior year'' or "95% probability that performance measure is at or above" target l eveL Performance measures in bold indicate statistically significant differences from baseline. 32

PAGE 36

Definitions of Performance Measures for Goal Six -Carpools P6.1 Number of persons registered The total number of persons who are registered in the commuter assistance program database. This number will be developed by the commuter assistance agencies as part of their performance measures. P6.2 Number of persons placed in carpools The total number of persons placed into carpools. This would be collected and disseminated as part of the quarterly performance report An alternative (and less satisfactory) approach is to calculate the figure from the database survey for both direct and total influence by taking the number of peop l e who switched to carpooling (total) and those who switched where CS information had some influence (direct). P6.3 Duration of existing carpools The average length oftime that current poolers have been in their pooling arrangement. This figure is taken from a database members survey. P6. 4 % of trips done by carpool/vanpool The percentage of a ll work trips done by carpool and vanpool. This figure is taken from a database member survey and/or a general public survey. 33

PAGE 37

Goal6 -Im p r ove mobility-Va n pools P erformance Bencbma r k Eva luati on Source T argets* Cont. Measures (1999) (2000) Fact o rs P6.5 # vanpools formed 7 Collected byCS P6.6 # vanpool riders 41 Collected byCS P6.7 # vanpool meetings 24 Collected byC S P6.8 #of vans in service 4 Collected byCS Potential Actions A6.4 Meet witb representative of transit agencies to strengthen vanpool programs. A6.5 Make arrangements to obtain vans through purchase or lease (e.g VPSI). A6.6 Develop fare structure, arrange for maintenance prepare marketing materials, and introduce program A6. 7 Develop "New Start" assistance program to subsidize the cost of 4 empty seats for four Months. A6.8 Hold presentations w ith groups of employees who live over 20 miles away from work. . . Where performance measures mvolve surveys or other inferentlal stal!st1cs, targets should be set in the form of"statistically significant increase from prior year" or "95% probability that performance measure is at or above" target level. Performance measures in bold indicate statistically significant differences from baseline. 34

PAGE 38

Definitions of Performance Measures for Goal SixVan pools P6.S Number of vaopools formed For this performance measure, the CAP agencies would report the total number ofvanpools formed during the review period. P6.6 Number of van pool riders For this performance measure, the CAP agencies would report the total number ofvanpoolers as part oftheir quarterly performance reports. P6. 7 Number ofvaopool meetings For this performance measure, the CAP agencies would report the total number ofvanpool meetings held as part of their quarterly performance reports. P6.8 Number of vans in service This is an FOOT required performance measure. The CAP agencies would report the number of commuter vans on the road as part of their quarterly performance reports. 35

PAGE 39

Goal 6-Improve mobility-Bicycle/Pedestrian Performance Bencbmark Evaluation Source Targets* Coot Measures (1999) (2000) Factors P6.8 %employers with bike 31% NA Business racks/lockers survey P6.9 % employers 19% NA Business w/shower/storage survey P6.1 0 % commuters using 0.9% 1.1% General walk or bike to work public survey Potential Actions A6.9 Deve lop a program to encourage employers to offer incentives and support for bicycle and pedestrian programs. A6. I 0 Meet with area bike coordinators and obtain marketing mat e rials for distribution through employers A6.11 Meet with employers to discuss plans . Where performance measures mvolve surveys or other inferential statlsttcs, targets should be set in the form of"statistically significant increase from prior year'' or "95% probability that performance measure is at or above" target level. Performance measures in bold indicate statistically significant differences from baseline. 36

PAGE 40

Defioitioos of Performance Measures for Goal Six Non-motorized P6.8 % employers witb bike racksllockers This measure would be taken from a business survey. I t represents the percentage ofbusinesses that stale that they have bike racks and/or lockers at the worksite P6.9 % employers with showers/storage facilities This measure represents the percentage of employers who offer show e rs and storage facilities to their employees at t h e worksite. The figur e s woul d be taken from a business survey. P6.1 0 % commuters who walk or bicycle to get to work This measure would be taken from a general public survey and/or database survey. It is the percentage of commuters who use bicycles or walk to work. 37

PAGE 41

Goal 6 -Improv e mobility-Transit P e rformance B enchmark Evaluation S o urce Targe ts Cont. Measures (199 9 ) (2000) Factors P6.11 % empl o yers w ith NA NA Business transit subsidy programs survey P6.12 park n ride lot 7%ofGP 8% FDOTICS utilization rates (uses I/ year collected or more) or e stimated viaGen Pub survey Potential A ctions A6.1 2 Increase the number of employer s offering trans i t subsidies to employ e e s A6.13 I ncrea s e the number o f emp l oyers selling transit p asses to employees. A6.!4 Encourage/promote the use of Park n Ride lots as a pickup/drop-offpoint for pools and/or access ing trans i t. . . Where performance measures mvolve surveys o r other inferennal statlsttcs, t argets shoul d be set in the form of"statisti c ally significant increase from prior year' or "95% probability that performance measure is a t or above" t arge t level. Performance m e asures in bold indicat e statistic a ll y significant differences from baselin e 38

PAGE 42

Definitions of Performance Measures for Goal Six -Transit P6.11 % of employers with transit subsidy programs This is a perfonnance measure taken from a survey of businesses. It would represent the percentage of local employers who indicated that they prov ided financial subsidies to employees traveling on transit v ehicles P6.11 Park n ride lot utilization rates This infonnation is currently not tracked by CAP agencies. A survey could be conducted to get the infonnation from the general public and/or database members. The result represents either the percentage of parking spaces being used at local park n ride facilities or the percentage of members using the facilit ies. 39

PAGE 43

Goal7 -Red uce Costs of A uto Own ershi p Performance B e n c hmark E va lu atio n Source Target s* Cont. M eas ures (1999) (2000) Factors P7. I Gasoline costs savings Surveys: Database $1, 044 809 $1,95 1 ,424 Database General Public $39m $37.7 m Gen Pub P7 .2 Auto maintenance savings ($0 13/mile) Surveys: Database $2,677,000 $3,963 830 Database General Pub l ic $94m $77 m Gen. Pub P7.3 Comm u ter costs saved Surveys : Database $5,970,000 $8,842 000 Database General Public $210m $171m Gen. Pub Potentia l Actio n s A 7 .I Develop CS m arketing campaign based on reduced costs A7.2lmplement marketing campaign . . Where performance measures mvolve surveys or other mferentJal statistics, targets should be set in the form of"statistically significant increase from prior year" or "95% probability that performance measure is at or above target level. Performance measures in bold indicate statistically significant differences from baseline 40

PAGE 44

Definitions of Performance Measures for Goal Seven P7.1 Gasoline costs savings This perfonnance measure estimates cost savings accrued from not having to purchase gasoline. It is calculated by taking the VMT reduction figure and multiply ing by gallons used per mile by the average automobile and the cost per gallon of gasoline. (VMT x gallons/mile x cost/gallon). Average MPG for 1997 was 25.0, and cost per gallon figures are available from local AA.Aoflices. $1.60/gallon assumed for this report. It should be noted that these figures were not adjusted for any inflation between 1997 and 1998. Everything is reported in 1997 dollars for the sake of continuity. P7.2 Auto maintenance savings F or this perfonnance measure, the savings are calculated by taking the VMT reduction figure and multiplying by the maintenance costs of an automobile/mile. (VMT x maintenance cost/mile). Maintenance costs are included in the AAA cost per mile figure and generally are about I 0-15 cents per mile. P7.3 Commuter costs saved This perfonnance measure is calculated by multiplying vehicle miles eliminated by the average cost per mile to operate an automobile (AAA uses $.448 per mile, the federal government and State of Florida use $ 29 per mile). 41

PAGE 45

Goal 8 -Improve Economic Viability Performance Benchmark Evaluation Source Targets* Cont. Measures (1999) (2000) Factors P8.1 Number of parking 1,862 3,280 Database spaces saved per day survey P8.2 Cost per trip provided Trips direct influence and total provided: influence Direct: Database 575,566 1,166,333 survey Total: 1,121,000 1,868,437 Potential Actions AS Prov i de travel choices A 8.2 Provide cost-effective services . . Where performance measures mvolve surveys or other inferential stat1st1cs, targets should be set in the form of"statisticalty significant increase from prior year" or "95% probability that performance measure is at or above" target leve l. Performance measures in bold indicate statistically significant differences from baseline. 42

PAGE 46

Definitions of Performance Measures for Goal Eight PS.l Number of parking spaces saved This is an adjusted FOOT required performance measure. It is calculated by taking the vehicle trips reduced figure from the database survey divided by 2 trips per day/245 working days, but does not take into account influence of the CAP in getting commuters to switch modes. P8.2 Cost per trip provided (direct and total) This is a performance measure that is calculated by using the results of the database member survey The information needed to calculate the cost per trip provided (direct) is: I. Total carpool and vanpool trips provided per commutersame measurer as trips reduced EXCEPT that the size of the pool is not taken into account. 2. Database size. 3. Influence rate per trip for carpool and vanpoolthe number of poolers that say their mode choice was influenced by commuter assistance, weighted by the number of trips taken. 4. Annual b udget the budget of the commuter assistance program. To calculate: annual budget (total carpool and vanpool trips provided per commuter) x (database size) x (influence rate) Calculating the cost per trip provided (total) assumes that all database members that are in a pooling arrangement were, in some way, influenced by the commuter assistance program. The information needed to calculate the cost per trip provided (total) is: I. Total carpool and vanpool trips provided per commutersame measurer as trips reduced EXCEPT that the size of the pool is not taken into account. 2. Database size. 3. Annual budgetthe budget of the Commuter Assistance Program. To calculate: annual budget (total carpool and vanpool trips provided per commuter) x (database size) 43

PAGE 47

Goal9-Increase Customer Inquiry Performance Benc hmark Evaluation Source Targets* Con t. Measures (1998) (1999) Factors P9.1 number of calls 8,485 Collected 7,905 received byCS P9.2 number of applications 5 856 Collected 5 ,974 processed byCS P9.3% of employers 5% will 5% Business 3% wanting assistance from CS contact survey 28%may 33% 26% contact 13% want N/A 7% help to set up Potential Actions A9.1 Deve l op mar k eting campaign aimed at reducing costs/congestion . . Where performance measures mvolve surveys or other mferent1al statistics, targets should be set in the form of"statistically significant increase from prior year" or "95% probability that performance measure is at or above" target level. Performance measures in bold indicate statistically significant differences from baseline. 44

PAGE 48

Definitions of Performance Measures of Goal Nine P9.1 Number of calls received The number of customers who contacted the commuter assistance program during the review period. This measure will be tracked internally by the CAP agencies. P9.2 N umber of applications proces sed This is a performance measure, that represents the total number of applications received and processed by the CAP agencies during the review period P9.3 % of employers wanting assistance from Commuter Assistance This is a performance measure taken from a business survey. It represents the percent of businesses responding that stated they would like to be contacted by a CAP agency about establishing an employer TDM program. 45

PAGE 49

Goal l O -Promot e T r i al U s e Performa nce B enc hmark Eval uation Source Targets Cont. Measures ( 1 9 99) (2 000 ) Factors PI 0 1 % ever tried alternate Database: Surveys: mod e (includes 53.8% 70% Database 65% te l ecommuting for general Gen. Pub. public) 31.0% 33% GenPub 28.8% PI 0.2 % of general public 2 .7% 2 .3% General 1.4% trying alterna t e mode based public on advertising s urvey PI0.3% of database trying 23 .4% 36.8% Database 30% alternative mode based on survey CS info General 0.4% Pl0.4% of general public 0.1% 0.4% public attempting to contact CS survey P otential Acti ons A 10.1 Develop marketing campaign to encourage use of alternative modes Al0. 2 Provide rideshare information on request to local residents . . Where performance measures mvol v e surveys or other mferenttal stattsttcs, targets should be set in the form of"statistically significant increase from prior year" or "95% probability that performance measure is at or above" target level. Performance measures in bold indicate statistically significant differ e nces from baseline. 4 6

PAGE 50

Definitions of Performance Measures for Goal Ten PI 0.1 % ever tried alternate mode This performance measure would be taken from both a general public survey and a database member survey. It represents the percentage of respondents that said they tried using a commute alternative at some point in time to commute to and from work. P10.2 %of general public trying alternate mode based on advertising This performance measure is taken from the general public survey. It represents the percent of respondents who said that they tried a commute alternative after hearing/seeing commuter assistance program advertisements. Pl0.3 % of database trying alternative mode based on Commuter Assistance Info This performance measure is taken from a database member survey. It represents the percentage of respondents who stated that they tried a commute alternative after obtaining information from the Commuter Assistance Program. PI 0.4 % of general public attempting to contact Commuter Assistance This performance measure would be taken from a general public survey. It represents the percent of respondents who stated that they had tried to contact the CAP agencies for information. 47

PAGE 51

Goalll -Facilitate Arrangement of Pools Performance Benchmark Evaluation Source Targets* Cont. Measures (1999) (2000) Factors P ll.l % database 37% NA Database 60% receiving pooling tips survey PI I .2% database 76% 80% Database receiving ERH info survey Pl1.3% database 46% 52% Database 65% receiving matching info survey P 11.4 % database using 16% 19% Database IS% of matchlist to try and form (of those who survey all a pool received list) 7% (of all) 11% Pll.5 Satisfaction with 7.1 6 9 Database CS among database survey members PII.6% database who 50% 47% Database would r ecommend CS survey Potential Actions A I 1.1 Hold zip code meetings at employment sites. AI 1.2 Make i ntroductory calls to potentia l matched poolers. . . Where performance measures mvolve surveys or other inferenttal stattsttcs, targets should be set in the form of"statistieally significant increase from prior year" or "95% probabi lity that performance measure is at or above" target level. Performance measures in bold indicate statistically significant differences from baselioe. 48

PAGE 52

Definitions of Performance Measures for Goal Eleven Pll.l % database members receiving pooling tips This measure would be taken from a database member survey. It represents the percent of respo ndents who stated they had received pooling tips from the commuter assistance program. P11.2 % database members receiving ERH info This measure would be taken from a database member survey. It represents the percent of respondents who stated they received emergency ride home program information from the CAP. Pl1.3 % database members receiving matching info Th is measure would be taken from a database member survey. It represents the percent of respond ents who stated they had received match ing informati on from the CAP. P11.4 % of database using the matcblist to try and form a pool This measure would be taken from a database member survey. It represents the percent of respondents who reported trying to make contacts with others on their matchlist to try and form a pool. Pll.S Satisfacllon with Commuter Assistance among database members This is a performance measure representing the satisfaction database members have with services provided by the CAP agencies. Respondents rate agencies on a I t o I 0 scale. Pl1.6 %of database members who would recommend Commuter Assistance to others This is a performance measure that would be taken from the database member survey. It represents the percentage o f database members who would definitely recommend commuter assistance to others. 49

PAGE 53

Goal 12-Reinforce Use of Commute Alternatives Performance Benchmark Evaluation Source Targets* Cont. Measures (1999) (2000) Factors Pl2.1 # ofERH rides 295 Collected 100 provided byCS Pl2.2 #of registered 2,527 Collected 856 users in ERH byCS P12.3% of database 76% 800/o Database 75% provided with ERH info survey Pl2.4% of database 60% 62% Database 65% members receiving survey follow-up contacts P12.5% of employers 4% NA Business 1% providing incentives survey PI 2.6 % employers 6% NA Business providing ERH survey Pl2.7% of employers 5% NA Business 3% w/ETCs survey P12.8% 12 mo.+ 44% 38% Database database members using (35%of 12 (51% of 12 survey commute alternative mo./less) mo./less) Potential Actions A 12.1 Provide ERH program A12.2 Develop follow-up system. . . Where performance measures mvolve surveys or other inferential statistics targets should be set in the form of"statistically significant increase from prior year" or"95% probability that performance measure i s at or above" target level. Performance measures in bold indicate statistically significant differences from baseline 50

PAGE 54

Definitions of Performance Measures for Goal Twelve P12.1 Number of ERH rides provided This is a performance measure that wou l d be tracked by the CAP agencies. It represents the total number of emergency ride home rides provided during the review period Pl2.2 Number registered for ERH This is a performance measure that would be collected and tracked by the CAP agencies It represents the total number o f persons that have registered for the emergency ride home program Pl2.3 % of database provided wilb ERH Info This measure would be taken from a database survey. It represents the percen t of respondents from the e n t ire database that stated they had received emergency ride home program information. P12.4 % of database members receiving follow-up contacts This measure would be taken from a database member survey It represents the percent of respondents who reported that they had bee n contacted by the commuter assistance program as a follow-up to materials that bad been sent by commuter assistance P12 .S % of employers providing incentives This performance measure would be taken from a business survey. It represents the percent of employers responding that t he y offered financial subsidies to employees w h o regularly used the transit system to commute to work. P12.6 % of employers providing ERH This is a performance measure taken from a business survey. It represents the percent of employers who reported offering their own e m erge ncy ride home program to their employees. P12.7 %of employers w/ETCs This is a performance measure taken from a business survey. It represents the percent of employers w ho reported designating their own employee transportation coordinator to assist their empl oy ees in finding commute alternatives. P12.8 % 12 mo.+ database members using commute alternative This is a performance measure taken from a database member survey. The measw-e represents the percent of database members whose entry date in the database is greater than 12 months and who report that they are still using a commute alternative. 51

PAGE 55

G o a ll3-D eve l o p CS C oastitueacy Perform a n ce B e a c h mar k Evalua tion Source Targets* Coa t. Measur es (1999) (2000) Factors P13.1 #of complaints 15 Collected N/A byCS P!3. 2 Complaints I 000/o Collected 100% resolved byCS Pl3. 3 # ofte. stimonials 9 Collected 20 received byCS Pl3.4 Employer 4.5 4 7 Business NIA effectiveness rating survey ofCS P13 5 CS database 7. 1 6.9 Database 7.5 satisfaction rating survey P13 .6% of database SO% 47% Database 50% members who would survey recommend CS to others Potentia l Actio n s A13.1 Develop system to track and resolve complaints. A13.2 Develop system to obtain CS service users terminals. . . Where performance measur e s mvotve surveys or other inferential statistics, targets should be set in the form o f "st a t i stically significant inc rease from prior year" or "95% probability that performance measure is at or above" target level. Performance measures in b o l d indicate statistically significant differences from baseline 52

PAGE 56

Definitions or Performance Measure for Goal Thirteen P13.1 Number of comp laints This is a potential performance measure for the CAP agencies The CAP agencies would collect the number of complaints they received in regards to their services. P13.2 Complaints resolved This is a potentia l performance measure that would be collected and tracked by the CAP agencies. The measure would count the number of complaints resolved by the commuter assistance program to the customer's satisfa ction P13.3 Number of testimonials received T his is a potential performance measure The measure would be collected by the CAP agencies and would represent the number of testimonials and written recommendations made on behalf of the commuter assistance program. P13.4 Employer effectiveness rating of commuter assistance This is a performance measure taken from a business survey. It represents the rating given by employers on the effectiveness of services provided by the CAP agencies. The rating scale is from I to 10. P13.S Satisfaction with the commuter assistance program among database members This is a performance measure taken from a database member survey. It represents the satisfaction rating given by respondents on the services provided by the CAP agencies. Respondents would be asked to rate the agencies on a scale of 1 to 10. P13.6 % of database members wbo would recommend commuter assistance to albers This is a performance measure taken from a database member survey. I t represents the percentage of database members who would definitely recommend the commuter assistance program services to others. 53

PAGE 57

5 4


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200361Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029078595
005 20110907145334.0
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110907s2001 flud ot 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00147
035
(OCoLC)750259173
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE309.F6 (ONLINE)
0 245
Performance measures report for South Florida Commuter Services
h [electronic resource] :
b 2000.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
[2001?]
300
1 online resource (ii, 54 p.) :
charts.
500
Performed for Florida Dept. of Transportation, South Florida Commuter Services.
5 FTS
588
Description based on print version.
650
Urban transportation
z Florida
x Evaluation.
Local transit
Florida
Evaluation.
Commuting
Florida.
2 610
South Florida Commuter Services
Evaluation.
1 710
Florida.
Dept. of Transportation.
South Florida Commuter Services.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
776
i Print version:
t Performance measures report for South Florida Commuter Services.
d Tampa, Fla. : University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research, [2001?]
w (OCoLC)46370993
773
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.147
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001960141;
FTS