During the 1980s and 1990s, California witnessed the widespread adoption and rejection of a policy known as mandatory employer-based trip reduction (EBTR). Mandatory EBTR was implemented largely through city and county ordinances and air district rules. EBTR rules and ordinances required employers to implement programs to reduce the number of employees driving vehicles to their worksite. The programs were adopted to reduce traffic congestion, pollutant emissions, or both. However, opposition to mandatory programs from the business community led to their prohibition in California in 1995. The purpose of this paper is to examine the history of mandatory EBTR and to help answer the broad question, What happened? The research found that key factors in the demise of mandatory EBTR included issues of problem definition, goal setting, adoption and implementation process, regulatory approaches, costs, analysis of results, and context.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DeakinE.Land Use and Transportation Planning in Response to Congestion Problems: A Review and Critique. Presented at 29th Annual Conference, ACSP, Los Angeles, Calif., 1987.
2.
FergusonE.Transportation Demand Management. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 56, No. 4, Autumn1990.
3.
Los Angeles Times, Breaking Old Habits (editorial), Metro Section, Dec.17, 1987, p. 10.
4.
California Clean Air Act Transportation Requirements Guidance. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, Feb.1990.
5.
Employer-Based Trip Reduction—A Reasonably Available Transportation Control Measure. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, May1991.
6.
HemingerS.Letter to California Air Resources Board, May 7, 1991. CARB Board Agenda Item 91-4-4, May9, 1991.
7.
GerwigK.Transportation Management as a Business Necessity. In Employer Based Trip Reduction Strategies, Proc. of a Symposium, Oct. 27, 1995, Oakland, Calif. (MelendyL., ed.), Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, Dec.1995.
8.
Directory of California Trip Reduction Ordinances, 2nd ed.California Department of Transportation, 1990.
9.
CurryD., and Fraser-MiddletonK.. Pleasanton TSM Ordinance: A New Approach to Traffic Mitigation. In Transportation Research Record 1018, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985, pp. 41–46.
BibasH. T., and PlatkinR. H.. Formulating Ridesharing Goals for Transportation and Air Quality Plans: Southern California as a Case Study. In Transportation Research Record 1130, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1987, pp. 20–27.
12.
MillerE., and BurchD. B.. Employer Trip Reduction—Building Consensus Out of Adversity. Paper 94-RA112.06.Presented at the 87th Annual Meeting of the Air & Waste Management Association, June 1994.
13.
EwingR.TDM, Growth Management and the Other Four Out of Five Trips. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 3, July1993.
14.
WachsM., and GiulianoG.. What Can We Expect from Ridesharing?Presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1991.
15.
HigginsT. J.Guidelines for Developing Local Demand Management or Trip Reduction Policies. In Transportation Research Record 1280, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 11–21.
16.
JewellM. J., EllisR. H., and OramR. L.. Status of Traffic Mitigation Ordinances. In Transportation Research Record 1280, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 1–10.
17.
Final Report: Air Quality Regulations and the Economy. Special Commission on Air Quality and the Economy, July10, 1992.
GiulianoG., HwangK., and WachsM.. Employee Trip Reduction in Southern California: First Year Results. Transportation Research A, Vol. 27A, No. 2, 1993.
20.
Ridesharing as an Air Pollution Control Measure. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, March1981.
21.
WachsM.Regulation XV in Southern California: Success or Failure?TDM Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, Jan.1996.
22.
YoungR., and LuoR.. Five-Year Results of Employee Commute Options in Southern California. In Transportation Research Record 1496, TRB, NRC, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 191–198.
23.
WasikowskiC.What’s Happening with Employee Commute Options in Southern California. Presented at the 76th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1997.
24.
LaGangaM. L.After Five Years, Ride-Sharing is Working, AQMD Says. Los Angeles Times, Metro Section, Feb.10, 1993, p. B–1.
25.
StevensJ.Bill Analysis, SB 437 (Lewis)—As Amended: July 19, 1995, Hearings, Assembly Committee on Transportation, Aug. 29, 1995.
26.
Employer Trip Reduction Programs(Report to accompany H.R. 325). Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 1st Session, Dec. 6, 1995.
27.
GeraghtyA.CARB Agenda Item 91-4-4, May9, 1991.
28.
StewartJ.Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Employer-Based Trip Reduction Programs: Reviewed and Reexamined. In Transportation Research Record 1433, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 164–169.
29.
Lopez-AqueresW.Employer Trip Reduction Programs: How Costly? Who Pays?South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, Calif., 1994.
30.
OrskiC. K.Evaluation of Employee Trip Reduction Programs Based on California’s Experience with Regulation XV. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., Jan.1994.
31.
GilpinG.Pleasanton Plans Ahead to Control Traffic. Western City, Vol. 62, No. 4, April1986.
32.
DeakinE. A.The Pleasanton, California, Trip Reduction Ordinance: Where Can It Work?ITS Working Paper UCB-ITS-WP-86-3.University of California, Berkeley, June1986.
33.
GreenK. P.Cost of Compliance with Environmental Regulations: A Case-Study of Rule 1501 Compliance Efforts at Five Hughes Aircraft Company Business Units. Ph.D. dissertation.University of California, Los Angeles, 1994.
34.
PasternakJ.Smog-Fighters Concede Ride-Sharing is Unfair to Some. Los Angeles Times, March2, 1991, p. A–31.
Information Report: Results of the 1995 Transportation Survey and 1994 Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Program. City of Pleasanton, Aug.15, 1995.
37.
City of Menlo Park Employer and Employee Transportation Survey Summary of 1993 Results. Crain & Associates, Nov.29, 1993.
38.
LagerberB.Washington State’s Commute Trip Reduction Program. Presented at Transportation Research Board 76th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 1997.
39.
1994 Annual Report. Multi-City Transportation Systems Management Agency (MTSMA), San Francisco, 1995.
40.
Commute Trends At Selected Sites 1994–1995. RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc., San Francisco, 1996.
41.
Modal Splits at Selected Employment Locations FY 1988–1989. RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc., San Francisco, 1989.
42.
Commute Profiles from Selected Bay Area Employment Sites 1989–1990. RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc., 1990.
43.
RawlingF. G., and JenningsM. E.(Chicago Area Transportation Study). Northeast Illinois’ ECO Demonstration Project: Cost Analysis Report. Presented at 74th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1995.
COMSIS Corporation. Task 2 Working Paper: An Examination of Cost /Benefit and Other Decision Factors Used in Design of Employer-Based TDM Programs. TCRP Project B-4, Cost Effectiveness of TDM Programs. TRB, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Washington, D.C., 1994.
46.
AlcottR.Making Trip Reduction Work in Arizona. Presented at 76th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1997.
