APPENDIX A System Expansion and Service Enhancement Project Performance Measures EXPLANATION OF MEASURES System Expansion and Service Enhancement project ideas were eval- uated based on 32 individual performance measures divided into 7 categories. Each of these categories and their component measures are listed and described below. In some cases, certain performance measures were listed as not applicable. This was especially common with service enhancement projects with no quantifiable ridership impact. Project ideas were also divided into a number of different categories based on the nature of the project. First, system expansion projects were separated from service enhancement projects. In general, system expansion projects would result in the coverage area or span of serv- ice for a given mode expanding beyond what is currently provided. Service enhancement projects, however, would improve the quality of service provided on an existing transit line or at an existing sta- tion. Project ideas were then further divided by mode. Commuter rail, rapid transit, bus/trackless trolley, and boat ideas were evaluated sepa- rately. This resulted in seven overall groupings of projects – system expansion and service enhancement projects for all modes except for boat. Only system expansion projects were submitted for considera- tion under the boat mode. For each performance measure that was applicable to a given project, a high, medium, or low rating was assigned. In the case of quantita- tive measures, the thresholds for high, medium, and low ratings were defined by first listing the corresponding impacts of each project in order of magnitude. Natural breaks (large gaps between the impacts of successive projects in the list) were then identified and the first grouping was given a high rating, the second group a medium ratings, and so on. This resulted in a set of ratings for individual projects that were relative in nature. Appendix A A-1 In the case of qualitative measures, the thresh- Reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled olds for high, medium, and low ratings were •Projected percentage reduction in weekday defined before their application to specific proj- automobile vehicle miles traveled, region- ect ideas. Additional details on these defini- wide tions for each measure are included below. In some cases, the vast majority of project ideas Mobility received the same rating on a given qualitative performance measure, unlike the approach for Expansion of Transit Access to Geographical quantitative measures. For example, almost all Areas Underserved by Transit project ideas that would have an impact on environmental justice target communities were Projects receiving a high rating would: determined to result in a greater benefit than • Initiate a new transit line or extend an burden to those communities. Consequently, existing line along a corridor connecting almost all projects received high ratings on the multiple urban neighborhoods or suburban measure called Burdens and Benefits to Minority, municipalities not served by the MBTA or Low Income, and Transit Dependent other Boston commuter services, or Neighborhoods. • Fill gaps in the rapid transit/commuter rail Descriptions of performance measures, by cate- network in urban core communities. gory, are as follows. Projects receiving a medium rating would: Utilization • Extend the rapid transit network beyond its current service area in multiple urban Total Ridership neighborhoods or suburban municipalities •Projected increase in the number of week- already served by transit, or day riders using the mode(s) corresponding •Add additional rapid transit/commuter rail to the transit line or station to be improved access points in an urban neighborhood or suburban municipality not currently served New Transit Riders by that mode, or •Projected increase in the number of week- day riders on the transit system as a whole • Initiate transit service along a corridor con- necting multiple urban neighborhoods or Travel Time Benefit suburban municipalities where existing commuter bus service serves the same mar- •Projected cumulative reduction in travel ket. time experienced by all travelers in the region Expansion of Transit Access During Time Impact on Mode Share to Key Destinations Periods Poorly Served by Transit Including Downtown Boston Projects receiving a high rating would: •Projected percentage increase in weekday •Provide transit service to an urban neigh- transit mode share, systemwide borhood or suburban municipality during a Reduction in Crowding time period not served by an existing well- utilized MBTA or Boston commuter transit •Projected reduction in weekday load factor line in that community. on the transit line impacted by the project A-2 Program for Mass Transportation Projects receiving a medium rating would: Operating Cost Per Unit Travel Time Savings •Provide transit service to an urban neigh- • Ratio between the typical weekday operat- borhood or suburban municipality during a ing cost of the project and the projected time period not served by an existing light- cumulative reduction in travel time experi- ly-utilized MBTA or Boston commuter enced by all travelers in the region. transit line in that community. Air Quality Expansion of Transit Access to a Major Employment Center Underserved by Transit Percent Reduction in Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions Projects receiving a high rating would: •Projected percentage reduction in VOC • Initiate a new transit line or extend an emissions on weekdays, regionwide existing line to a large urban community outside Boston, or Percent Reduction in Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) •Initiate rapid transit/commuter rail service Emissions to a major employment center along a cor- •Projected percentage reduction in NOx ridor not currently served by that mode. emissions on weekdays, regionwide Projects receiving a medium rating would: Percent Reduction in Carbon Monoxide (CO) • Initiate a new transit line or extend an Emissions existing line to a small urban community •Projected percentage reduction in CO outside Boston. emissions on weekdays, regionwide Cost Effectiveness Percent Reduction in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions Capital Cost Per New Transit Rider •Projected percentage reduction in CO • Ratio between the capital cost of the proj- 2 emissions on weekdays, regionwide ect and the projected increase in the num- ber of weekday riders on the transit system Capital Cost Per Unit Reduction in VOC as a whole Emissions Operating Cost Per New Transit Rider • Ratio between the capital cost of the proj- ect and the projected reduction in VOC • Ratio between typical weekday operating emissions on weekdays, regionwide cost of the project and the projected increase in the number of weekday riders Capital Cost Per Unit Reduction in NOx on the transit system as a whole Emissions Capital Cost Per Unit Travel Time Savings • Ratio between the capital cost of the proj- ect and the projected reduction in NOx • Ratio between the capital cost of the proj- emissions on weekdays, regionwide ect and the projected cumulative reduction in travel time experienced by all travelers in the region. Appendix A A-3 Capital Cost Per Unit Reduction in CO •Provide operating personnel with improved Emissions means of correcting schedule adherence • Ratio between the capital cost of the proj- problems in real time ect and the projected reduction in CO • Improve the schedule adherence of an emissions on weekdays, regionwide existing rapid transit or commuter rail line by expanding the capacity of constricted Capital Cost Per Unit Reduction in CO2 sections. Emissions Projects receiving a medium rating would: • Ratio between the capital cost of the proj- ect and the projected reduction in CO2 • Improve the schedule adherence of an emissions on weekdays, regionwide existing bus line by removing vehicles from mixed traffic and placing them in a priori- Service Quality tized right-of-way, or •Provide operating personnel with improved Enhancements to Customers’ Personal Safety means of identifying schedule adherence Projects receiving a high rating would: problems on transit lines. • Enhance the personal safety and security of passengers and provide MBTA operating Improvements to Interconnectivity Between personnel with improved means of respond- Modes (Including Non-Motorized Modes) ing to on-board emergencies. Projects receiving a high rating would: Projects receiving a medium rating would: • Initiate new connectivity to an additional mode for an existing transit line, or • Enhance the personal safety and security of passengers. • Initiate new connectivity to an additional rapid transit line for an existing rapid tran- Improvements to Station Access and/or sit line, or Comfort of Vehicles and Stations • Substantially expand the number of desti- Projects receiving a high rating would: nations accessible by a single bus-rapid • Improve the access to stations or comfort of transit transfer for an existing rapid transit vehicles or stations for a large portion of line. passengers on a transit line. Projects receiving a medium rating would: Projects receiving a medium rating would: •Provide an additional transfer point • Improve the access to stations or comfort of between two lines already connected else- vehicles or stations for a small portion of where, or passengers on a transit line. • Expand the number of destinations accessi- ble by a single bus-rapid transit transfer for Improvements to Reliability of Service an existing rapid transit line. Projects receiving a high rating