AgdaPkt 2010-04-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

direct comparison of programs with different goals and objectives. For example, the SEPTA employer based shuttle program had a benefit cost ratio of 7.3 to I compared to the OATS ser- vice in Missouri that focuses on senior and disabled community transportation with a benefit/cost ratio of 2.3 to 1.8 3. Annual Mobility Benefits: Community shuttles and other community-based programs are meant to fill community mobility gaps for transit dependent popula- tions and cannot be compared to with cost-effective- ness measures for employer-based programs such as cost per ton of emissions reduced. For transportation disadvantaged populations, annual mobility benefits such as job and medical benefits and annual efficiency benefits such user benefits, social program savings and employer or provider savings need to be considered. These benefits can be easily captured in annual surveys of shuttle participants. 4. Sustalnablllty: Finally. a very important consider- ation for establishing priorities is the sustainability of funding resources. At present, the four existing primary funding resources appear to be reasonably secure. Efforts to expand beyond the Alliance's core mission of employer outreach to secure commute alternative program adoption. is much less secure. Grant-based programs such as Regional TFCA funding or Lifeline Grant, for communities of concern, as discussed in Appendix B are generally for 2-3 years and may not be sustainable beyond the grant term. 7B Page 36 Recommended Alliance Priorities and Action Items Priority Recommendation # I : Fu/~ll the obligations of its current funding agreements with C/CAG and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority. The Alliance prepares an annual budget and work plan that reflects what the funding agencies would like to see implemented for the financial resources they are provid- ing. The preparation of the 20 I 0/ I I budget and work plans provides the opportunity for rethinking the cat- 34