vvEPA United States; Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation EPA420-S-98-013 July 1998 Office of Mobile Sources TRAQ Technical Overview Transportation Air Quality Center Transportation Control Measures: Trip Fleducation Ordinances ERA's main strategy for addressing the contributions of motor vehicles to our air quality problems has been to cut the tailpipe emissions for every mile a vehicle travels. Air quality can also be improved by changing the way motor vehicles are used—reducing totaj vehicle miles traveled at the critical times and places, and reducing the use of highly polluting operating modes. These alternative approaches, usually termed Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), have an important role as both mandatory arid optional elements of state plans for attaining the air quality goals specified in the Clean Air Act. TCMs encompass a wide variety of goals and methods, from incentives for increasing vehicle occupancy to shifts in the timing of commuting trips. This document is one of a series that provides overviews of individual TCM types, discussing their advantages, disadvantages, and the issues involved in their implementation. '.jLret > Printed on Recycled Paper ------- Trip Reduction Ordinances Contents O Background © Costs and Benefits ® Implementation O Equity Issues © Recent Examples ® On-line Resource Trip Reduction Ordinances (TROs) differ from many other Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in that they do not directly control transportation in a specific way. Rather, TROs are regulatory mechanisms that require or provide incentives or disincentives to promote the use of various TCMs. A TRO is defined as a municipal, county, regional, or state regulation that usually involves the participation of developers and/or employers in trip demand management. These regulations attempt to mitigate social and environmental impacts of personal travel decisions through incentive and disincentive r grams. Various groups may be affected by a TRO, including employers, employees, and developers. that require the participation of developers and/oremployers to change transportation choices. TROs were first implemented in the 1970s. 1. Background TROs have existed for well over a decade, with most early examples appearing in California. Their use began accelerating even before the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA), a prominent example being southern California's 1987 Regulation XV. In 1987, the California's Air Resources Board identified TROs as a reasonably available approach for meeting California state air quality standards. When Proposition 111 was passed by California voters in June 1990, congestion management plans were required in many urban counties; the state then mandated the use of TROs in these plans, and set aside a portion of fuel tax revenues for jurisdictions that complied with locally adopted congestion management plans. The CAAA included a requirement that severe and extreme nonattainment areas establish employer-based trip reduction programs. In 1995, the CAAA was amended to make the trip reduction requirement a voluntary option for states to adopt, if they so chose. Prior to the amendment, 11 states had passed laws to meet the Employee Commute Options (ECO) requirement. These programs provided significant impetus to several large nonattainment areas to develop employer- based programs and, especially in California, many of these were TROs. Because of its history of congestion and air quality problems, its own legislative actions, and the interaction of CAAA requirements with the nonattainment status of its major urban areas, California continues to have the most significant experience with TROs. ------- Trip Reduction Ordinances Page 2 2. Costs and Benefits TROs require people and organizations to develop specific plans, programs, and infrastructure. Companies must often appoint someone to oversee their compliance with TRO requirements. Employers are sometimes required to have an employee transportation coordinator (ETC) as part of the ordinance requirement. Even if a full-time employee is not needed, companies may be required to hire an ETC to ensure compliance with the regulation. Physical improvements to company facilities, such as carpool and vanpool parking, may also be required. Typically a TRO requires that employees must be provided with information (pamphlets, booklets, seminars) to encourage the use of travel options such as ridesharing, transit, walking and bicycling, and telecommuting where appropriate. Employees are most likely to participate if they can see how such travel options can benefit them at the individual level. Ordinances may require companies to commit resources to establish and maintain transportation amenities that may become perceived as an important employee benefit over time. Developers of residential and commercial properties are regulated by many TRO measures. It is possible that some developers may choose not to build in an area subject to a restrictive TRO. If a developer does decide to build, infrastructure improvements such as park- and-ride lots may be required. The developer may also have to submit a plan detailing how it will comply with TRO measures. Benefits of TROs include reduced traffic congestion, reduced energy use, and improved; quality, any one of which may be: the stated goal for a specific ordinance. These benefits can be ,^. interdependent (i.e., reduced traffic congestion will^' generally yield improved air quality). TROs may encourage people to use a non-polluting method of commuting, which may benefit employee health. For example, some TROs require employers to set up secured bike parking for employee use. Employees may find that biking to work provides them with exercise that improves their health. 3. Implementation TROs are applicable in large metropolitan areas and surrounding suburbs. Most measures are geared toward companies or developments of a minimum size. This size restriction reduces hardships on small companies and limits enforcement costs for the jurisdiction. The criterion often used for companies is the number of employees at a location. A TRO usually specifies that if a company has greater than the threshold number of employees (e.g., more than 50), they must begin complying with measures of the local TRO. In some jurisdictions, multiple thresholds exist. For example, a company with 50 employees might only have to provide preferred parking ------- Trip Reduction Ordinances Page 3 for carpools, while a company with 500 employees would be expected to provide a shuttle to the local subway station. Developers of residential, commercial, or mixed-use properties may be forced to adopt a series of measures, depending on the size of the facility. For example, a developer may need to provide vanpool parking if the office complex being built exceeds a certain size (e.g., 25,000 square feet), or if it will house greater than a given number of workers. Some TROs are purely voluntary, relying on business leaders* good will in achieving trip-reduction goals. In areas were compulsory l^Qs have been. enacted, compliance Is unavoidable for employers and developers.,, By affecting employers and developers of residential and commercial properties, many TROs attempt to create an infrastructure that achieves their stated goal. Consider, for example, an engineer who commutes in a vanpool from a townhouse complex in the suburbs. Under the local TRO, the developer was required to provide a vanpool park-and-ride facility because more than 100 people live in the complex. The employee rides in the vanpool because he found out about its benefits at work, through an information seminar mandated by the same TRO. The van drops the employee at the company's designated vanpool parking area, which was required because the employer has greater than 500 employees on-site. The eight people riding in the van used to drive to work individually, so the vanpool reduces by a large fraction the congestion, energy use, and emissions that had been generated by the eight commuters. Enforcement is another aspect of TRO's that needs to be taken into consideration. Some TROs are purely voluntary, relying on business leaders' good will in achieving trip-reduction goals. In areas where compulsory TROs have been enacted, compliance is unavoidable for employers and developers. Some TROs specify no penalties for noncompliance, but the majority of programs specify fines for a given period of noncompliance. Fines in one TRO study varied from S500 per month to $25,000 per day. In Sacramento County California, noncompliance may be treated as a criminal misdemeanor. However, failing to fully implement TRO measures is rarely treated as a violation. This is especially true for first-time offenders, or if the TRO has been recently implemented. Enforcement and punishment are usually reserved for organizations that display willful disregard toward the measure. The 'spirit' of most TROs encourages participation, rather than punishing laggards. Maryland's Montgomery County has demonstrated a unique implementation method for its TRO regulations. Although the regulations are spelled out much like other TROs, the county has negotiated several 'customized' agreements with developers and employers. These agreements are designed to mitigate traffic congestion, while providing relief to developers. This yields a more flexible and individualized TRO implementation. Although an initial effort must be made to reach an agreement, enforcement will likely be much easier in such an environment. ------- Trip Reduction Ordinances_ Page 4 4. Equity Issues Size is almost always used as the criterion for determining the applicability of a TRO to an organization. Larger numbers of employees, or large surface area of usable space trigger TRO applicability. This means that smaller businesses often feel no effects from such regulations, while larger organizations sometimes hire professionals to ensure effective compliance. Some TRO measures affect only new developments/businesses. This leads to older businesses feeling no effects from a regulation, while similar organizations that are new to a community are faced with regulatory compliance efforts. Most TRO regulations, by their nature, affect businesses equally in the community. In most cases, good-faith compliance efforts by most organizations provide the important groundwork to achieve the desired environmental and social benefits, without placing undue burden on any one segment of the economy. 5. Recent Examples A 1990 study found that 67 percent of TROs were concentrated in California. The majority of TROs in the study (65 percent) cited traffic congestion mitigation as the primary goal. Other TROs (13 percent) targeted future traffic congestion mitigation. Some programs (15 percent) have more comprehensive goals such as improving air quality and reducing energy consumption. Goals of existing TROs 70% 14% 16% |H Traffic Congestion i \ \ • \ |H Future Congestion! ! j Mitigation • j f I D Improve Overall Airi i Quality I | 6. On-line Resource The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Mobile Sources has established the TCM Program Information Directory to provide commuters, the transportation industry, state and local governments, and the public with information about TCM programs that are now operating across the country. This document and additional information on other TCMs and TCM programs implemented nationwide can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/omswww/transp/traqtcms.htm ------- ------- |