Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0230.093- Apri 1 S, 1993 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Recommendation Regarding Whether the Santa Clara County congestion Kanagement Agency Shculd Seek To Obtain From The Bay Area Air Quality Management (BAAQMD) Responsibility For Administration of 8AAQMD Employer Transportation Demand Management Regulatjons. Members of the Council: Report in Brief 22 The Santa Clara county congestion Han3gement Agency (CMA) ~il1 neea to decide in the near f-..lture 'Whether or not to SlE!eK, fr--om the BAAQMD, delegation for administration of the District's employer transpol.'tation demand management regulations. This report identifies reasons for and against seeking this responsibility and concludes that the City should recommend that the C¥Jl not take on this additional responsibility. The Issue Under the provisions of the ca.lifornia Clean .... i:r-Act~ the Bay Area Air Quality MQnage~ent Di$trict (BAAQMD) ~as promulga~ed r'"'.J.les and pro-o::edul~l'!s for employ-er transportation den:and management (TDM) obligations. The District's action is commonly referre.d to as Regulation 1], Rule 1. The Rule applies to 2111 employers (p\,.\blic and private, profit and fI.onpl"otit) having 100 or more employees at 4 single ~ork site during the ~orninq commute pe~iod. In Santa Clara County. the Rule is effective on July 1. 1994~ In brief, the Rule &stablishes goals for the ratio of commuters {6:00 a.m. -10;00 a.m.) and the number of cars they use to get to work. For Santa Clara County~ q0315 increase from a 1993 average vehicle ridership (AVR) of 1.10 persons per car to AVRS of 1.20 in 1995~ 1.25 in 1996, 1.30 in 1997 and 1.35 in 199a and beyond. By way of ilJustration~ an employer with 1,000 employees and an AVR of 1.10 in 19;'3 ... ·ould have 910 cars used for commuting. By 1998, the number of cars would have to decrease to 740 in order to achieve the 1.35 AVR (see Atta:chment A tor a detailed summary of the Rule) ~ CMR:230:93 - EmploYE:t"s are r.equired to satisfy a variet}' of staffing and tIIurvey requirements. Employers that fail to meet the AVR t!:llrgets are required to pre-par-Ii! and implement an Emploz'ee T .... ip Reduction Plan that will need to be reviewed and ~pprcved by BAAQMD~ While there is no requirem-a-nt that E'mployer-s meet the annual average vehicle ridership t.ar-gets t failure to meet the Rule's require:ments (or staffing. surveys and j if necessary, a Plan acceptahle to th~ eAAOMD can result in fines up to $l,OOC per ~ay~ The operatinq assu~ption held by many of the elected officials associated with the Santa Clara county Conqestion Management Agency (CKA), as well as the CKA staff and staff from local cities and the cou~ty that vork vith the CMA, has been that Santa clara county, through th~ CHA, ~ould work to obtain local responsibility for ~d.inistration of Rule 1. The C~~'s Comm~ter Net_'ork was origin.elly established to assist in i!r'.plet:lF!ntatior. of a Santa Clara Coun~y trip reduction ordina~c~ adopted by the five Golden Triangle Task Force citi&s and Santa Clara .o:ounty, and since adopted by all 15 cities. af,1j the county. The expectation has been that the CMA ~o~ld seek delegation of BAAQMD~5 role regarding Rule 1, ancJ i:mple~tE!ntation of Rule 1 'Would be handled by the Commuter Network. The primary reason for seekinq this responsibility 'W.as to provide a higher level of service to county employers. than could be expected froir. the BAAQMD (see Attachment B, Draft Proposed Commuter Network Services~ and Attachrnant C~ Comparison of BAAQMD and Commuter Network Services). with adoption of Rule 1 in late 1992, a decision on whether or not the CMA should seek delegation ot BAAQMD's role ~il1 soon need to be made. This item is scheduled for discussion by the CMA on May 6, 1993, and a formal decision ~ill probably n~ed to be made by June 1993. Reasof1;s for ~he CMA to Seek Respo.r. __ ~t..bj,J. __ lli' for Rule 1 1. The Commute.r h'et,!ork can do the ";ob b~tter ___ than 3MOMD Rule 1 ~ill apply to over sao Santa Clara county employers. BAAQKD has a history of being difficult to ~ork with and quite burea~cratic. The Commuter Network can be org~nized to provide faster and bect~r communication ~ith County employers. The COllllOuter Net·..,ork ~ill be. both physically and psychologically closer to local e~ployers~ 2. Local administ.ration il1g::e3s,.~s the possibi 1 i tY-2iJ.oca.l e.mploy~r$ comply1rtg 'With the details and t~.IL-i.,.nteDt of Rule 1 --The Commuter Network, through a hig~e.r level of cODlDlunl.cation loo'ith e",ployers and provision of training and administrative services, reduces the possibility of local employees violating the Rule through inattention and increases the possibility that emplo~er-based programs can meet the AVR targets set out in Rule l~ CMR:230:9J ,:~,- 4/8/93 Page 2 ~--11 - J. .L2£al enforCel!le~.Rule-1 ...... ill be benefici~L1;_QJ~ emp19y~~ --The enforcement process for re9ul~ticns such as R~le 1 can rasult in financial and public relations cost~ to some et>lployers ~ Local e:nforcement., rather t.han ~ region" 1 entorce~ent process based in San Francis~o. means that punishments are more likely to reasonably relate to infractions. 4. Delegatio~uld facilitate policy an~ proc~dur§l linkage of the cgngestion Manage~ent legislatioD alnd the Cal ifor7tioi! Clean Air !;ct --The CMP legislation and the California Clean Air Act ~equire an employer-based trip reductio,"'. ordinance; howe ..... er, there is no require!tent that these o~dinances be consistent.. Since 1990, the CMA has stated its intent to ~erge ~J nnd Clean Air Act req~ire~ents. ~ccordinqly, the COMmuter Network t.rip redaction program has beer. designed ",itt. the dual qoals of reaucing motor vehicle emissions (thus satisfying air quality requiremer.ts} and rE!ducing traffic congestion (thus satisfying congestion management requi.rements). The info.rrr.ation that the. Commuter Network collects through the annual employee surver --such as employee co~~ute patterns --is critical to the Congestion Management Program as ~ell as the C~A'S trip redUction e.fforts. Conversely, the BAAQMD is concerned only with average vehicle ride~ship rates. If the CMA loses the data collect.ed for congestion management. purposes. it could eigniticantly hamper the CHAts travel information database and therefore the effectiveness of the CMA1s programs. Reasons for the eM to Not Seek ResDonsibi lity formnRule 1 1. ~.is problematic that !2_l,lJ-fin<;:nLent revenues ~e aV_~n.:i.l~ble to adequately _~dminister the program --Administration of ~ule 1 relates to future use of Vehicle registration fee revenue raised by AB 4J4~ AS 434 allows the BAAQMD to impose a surcharge of up to $4.00 per vehicle registered in the nine-County Bay Area. Forty percent of this revl!nue is to be passed through BAAQMD to local cour.ty-wide transportation agencies. Sixty percent of the money is retained by BAAQMD to fund their vehicle-related air quality improvement programs and to provide grants to local efforts that meet the in~ent of the legislation. Several months ago, BAAQMD staff indicated that they would use a portion of the 60 percent money to fund their implementation of Rule 1 for areas that do not seek delegation of BA}.QMD administration responsi bi 1 itJes. Based on a recent conversation bet~een CMA and BAAQMD senior staff. it now appears that the BAAQHD will attempt to fully CMR:2JO:93 , 1c.I1.&ir<mo.,CQ'" 'L 4/8/93 Page 3 .. 3. fund their expenses in administering: the Rule through employer fees beginning in 1994-95, r~ther than continue to use AB 4:;4 60 percent funds for this purpose~ This policy decision r.cmoves one of the disincentives for local jurisdictions to ~eek delegation~ That is, currently, jurisdictions that do not seak delegation lI',ay use their 40 percent funds for other projects, s'.lch as signal timing programs, ~hile juris~ictions who do seek delegation must rely en their 40 percent portion to implement the Rule, Beginning in FY 1994-95, the BAAQMD ~ill r~ly entirely on employer fees to fund their program. ~his means that, beqinning in FY 94-95, the CMA Board mu=t also decide whether to fund the Commuter Network entirely from e~ployer fees, thus freeing up the County's 40 percent funds for other programs and projects, or through a combination of employer fees and AB 434 funds. In any event, full CMA reliance on AB 434 funds ~ould not be sufficient to conduct the level of Commcter Network activities envisioned, and some use o~ employer fees ~ill be necessary~ The funding issue is complicated by items 2 and 3, belo;,,', The future administra\ive burden could be sgbstantially greater than during the first se ..... eral years af activity Most of the available evidence regarding employer trip reduction programs indicates that employers will have Eubstantial problems m~eting the higher AVR targets effective l:ly 1996. Studies have indicated that mast successful employer programs will have to rely on substantial financial incentives to induce employees to leave their cars at home, Thus, it is quite likely that a high percentage of the over 800 Santa Clara county employers subject to Rule 1 will find themselves, by mid-de~ade, having to prepare an Employee Trip Reduction Plan, Each Plan will ha~ ... e to be reviewed and acted upon by the CMA staff. The process of ~orking ~ith employers on their plan developmgnt, along with review, approval and follov-up processes, are likely to require significant staff resources. Vehicle registration revenues viII ir.crease only to the extent that there are more vehicles in the Bay Area and Santa Clara County~ The possibility exists for a substantial increase in fees charged by the C:p.I'.A to santa clara county employers, in order to continue to fund the high quality type of program envisioned by the CMA. ACCE!p_tan~ _____ 9f responsibility of Rule 1.JJ.as irnplicatians for Ru~ --The B~~QMD intends to expand th~ proviSions of Rule 1 to multi-tenant employment centers of 25G employees! 60,000 square feet (e'9~, shopping centers, office bui!dingsj through adoption of Rule 2 ~ The timing of Rule 2 is uncertain, 8AAQ~m ir.dicated an intention to start .... ork on drafting Rule 2 in the near future. At their March 6 meeting, the CMA requested that the BAAQMD delay the rule- CMR:230:93 4/8/93 Page 4 , ~,...' .. - 4. 5. making process for RulE 2 until March 1994. In conveLs~tions with CHA staff, the BAAQMD staff have looked favorably on this request. Once adopted, Rule :2 is very likely t~ be administratively more complex than Rule 1 and lil.ore disru.ptive and burdensome to o .... 'ners of multi-tenant facilities and employees located iM these centers. AccorQing to BAAQMD, there is no expectation on the B.'-AQMD t S part that a jurisdiction that accepts de)~gaticn of Rule 1 will necessarily accept del€qation of Rule 2. However, failure to accept responsib11ity for Rule 2 after aqreeing to administer Rule 1 would ~ean that the C¥oA was providing services and assi$tance to one group of e~ployer$ while leaving other, and often smaller property owners and employers; to contend ~ith a regional agency~ AdministrAtion will detract from the ce~J work of the CMA --Over the neJ(t years, responsibility for preparation of L~e County Congestion Management Program, administration of tr3nsportation funding responsibilities. and other work expecteQ from the CMA ~ill be a full ti~e and comple~ undertalting~ The additional responsibilit.y for Rule 1. and possibly ~ule 2, will almost undoubtedly require a SUbstantial energy and tim~ commitment from the Director and other key s~nior administrators of the CHA. Responsibility for Rule 1 pyts the C¥J\ in ~ n~9ative role vithodt the authority to mak A desir~d changes in the fundamental reguiremonts --For many employers, Rule 1 ~ill be reqarded as an onerous and potentially expensive intrusion by government.. Adrl'"!inistration, including enforcement of Rule 1, would put the CMA in a negative and potentially conflictive position ~ith em?loyers. The problems associated with this positi~n a~e compounded by the CMA's lack of final authority for the Ru.le. In recent conversations between ~~ and BAAQMD staff~ it ~~pears that the C!1A 'Will hays ;tore discretion in deterIt!ining the content of the local program than previously though~. The approach the BAAQMD i~ r.oW' taking is that loca 1 jurisdictions must adopt critical portions of the Rule. for example, certain definitions (e.q., ~crk site, employeE), AVR standards, and enforcement requirements; but beyond that, the local agency can tailor the progra~ to its local conditions and employers' needs. Examples of ~here the CMA could have different requirements from the regional Rule include: adopting a different survey format, providing a more extensive training program I and/or using the Co~~uter Network Council as the Appeals council. However, final authority for the basic regulation ~ill remain ~ith the BAAQMD, and there is the potential for having to repeatedly ne.gotiate with BAAQMD staff changes from their understandings and expectations. CMR:230: 93 4/8/93 Page 5 II - 6. InS! pule i.§L.ll.Il.likely to have significant pcsit.ive air guality benefits --The air quality benefits frOlO: the transporta,tion control measures {TCMS) contSiined in the: Regional Air Quality Plan are ~ssum",d to be much higher th3.n data published by the BAAQ~ indicates. 'I·he logical relationship ot the costs a~d benefits of Rul~ 1 and other TCM efforts could lead t after e.nough negative publicity, to classification of Rule 1 anc related SAAQMD regulatory efforts as undesirable 19SDs-style regulations unsuited to the mor~ competitive environment of the 19905. Close CMA association with Rule 11 and potentially Rule 2, will have long-term adv~rse impacts on the public ~erception of the CMA. The 1991 Bay Area Clean ~ir Plan {CAP) calculated the henefits of transportation con~rol measures. The benefits ~or ~11 non-marKet-based TCMs {market-based TCMs are items s·.lch as parking charges and road pricing), assuming full implemertaticn, are quite low. For the period from 1987 to 1991, non-market-based TCMs account, as a percentage of 1987 emission levels/ in the following reductions: 1 percent of reactive hydrocarbon {RHC) emissions, 3.1 percent of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions and 4.0 percent of carbon mcnoxide (CO) emissions. As a percentage of total 1987-1997 emission reductions, non-marKet-based TCMs account for J.6 percent ot RHe emissions, 8.9 percent of NOx reductions and 8.4 percent of CO reductions. The percentages for RHC and NOx are ove.rstated, because they do not include the positive impacts of 1991 requirements of the State Air Resources Board mandating cleaner fuels. In addition, the benefits of TCMs declines (in terms of tons of emission per day) bet~een 1997 and 2000, because of the positive impact of retirement of older, higher-polluting vehicles. This decline is 1 ikely to continue beyond the year 2000, but that data was not included in the technical reports pro~ided with the Clean Air Plar .. Of note is analysis contained in the Winter 1993 issue of the Journal of ...... Mli!rican Planning Association (·Air Quality and Travel Behavior -Untying the KnotJ~ Chang-Hee chriEltine. Sal, pages 65-74). The paper examines the irr.pact of the South Coast Air Quality Management Districtls (AQMD) Regulation XV for the Los Angeles Basin. T~e analysis is based on data published by AQMD. Regulation XV requires employers to submit ridesharing pla~s and establishes increasingly higher average vehicle ridership (AVR) targets in order to reduce vehicle. 1!1iles traveled (VM'I') and vehicle hours of travel CVHT). The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) assumes effective implementation .af a variety of proqrams that will substantially change commuting patterns in the Los Angeles Basin. The author notes that "A b~lief prevails worldwide that the use of ~aS5 transit and more ridesharing will have dramatic effects in reducing air CMR:230:93 4/8/93 Page €. -' ..... pollution." Arlal)lsis of data published by the .~Q~D l-eads the author to conclude that: "The empirical results are astonishing. Despite the v~st array of transportation and land use planning measures and the media saturation about the need to use transit cr ridesharir:.g to clean up Los Angeles's air j the data show that, even if the VM'l'-reduction qoals could be achieved, the measures would contribut.e only l'f,odestly to the total emission reductions planned in the AQMP~ Moreover, the contribution of the most controversial of the measures--altern~tive work schedules and mode shift strateqies--is very small. More transit use, ridesharing, and telecommut.i.ng are !.lot .needed to achieve clean air objectives." (p. 66) "Of the three critical pollutants (ROG: NOx, and CO) and the t~o strategies requiring the most adjustment in travel behavior~ alternativ0 ~ork schedules account for only 2.2 1 3.7, and 9.~ percent of AQMP emission reductions, while mode shit·;: strategies account for only 0.9, 2~O and 4~3 percent. These two strategies~ which have received so much attention in the media and among planners and have gene.rated the 1IO.CISt hostility, turn out to be marginal to the attempts to make Los ~~qeles comply with federal clean air standards4 The feasibility of AQMP does not depend on controversial tra~spo4taticn measures ~hat require travelers to make irrational mode choices, or on regulators mandating compulsory ridesharing( or on ~i5hful thinking about transi~ ridership gro~th rates." {po 70) "If the VMT/\~T-reduction ~easllres do little to help the region to comply with federal air quality standards, it makes little sense to devote scarce planning, managerial, and public relations resources to promcting them for these ends.~ (p. 72) The conclusio~s regarding the effectiveness of transportation contrel measures in terrus of air quality improvement are net surprising, because all commuting makes up about 25 percent of total vehicle miles traveled and, according ~o state statistics, the dirtiest 7 percent of cars emit 50 percent of automobile emissions, the dirtiest 12 percent of cars emit 75 percent of CMR:230:93 p:'-.'......,...= 4/8/91 Page 7 :. lautomobile cmis~ions~ and the cleanest 50 percent emit J percent of ~~tomobile emissions. nO'W"ever# the Commuter Netw;:.rk TDM Program .and Ordinance are also designed to achieve congestion management objectives. Indeed, the Commuter Networ~ TDM Ordinance .as initially developed to reduce traffic congestion :rather than improve air quality~ If the CKA does not seek delegation of th-e Rul£, it \Ifill have two funda~ental choices in regards to the eM? aspects of the TDM pr~am: either the CMA must impose separate requirements on employers for congestion management purposes (so~ething the CMA has already stated it opposes) or the BAAQKD iII'ill administer the Rule and the congestion manaqe.-uent elements of the program could be downplayed, if not l~st. conclusion and Recommendation Staff's conclusion is that the C~~ should not seek delegation of responsibility for administratlon of Rule 1. The fin"lncial, administrativ-e and public perception problems are not worth the advantages that th~ county would gain. The CMA should focus on the central work expected of the agency and let BAAQMD administ~r Rule 1. Staff recomner.ds that the city Council adopt a motion. directing the city Man~ger to send a letter to the Santa Clara County congestion Management Agency transmittinq the City Councilts recommenation that the CMA not seek delegation of responsibility for administration of Rule 1. Respectfully submitted, -j;'#~ ~ /d~ . KENNETH R. SCHREIBER ~ Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachments ~~ City Manager cc: santa Clara County CMA (Mike Ev~nhoe) Santa Clara ccuntj Manufacturing Group (Carl Guardino) Chamber of Commerce {Susan Frank} P2ninsula Rail 2000 (Allan HirSCh) CMR:230:93 4/8/93 Page a ! Attachment A Bay Area Air Quality Managemen[ Djjtric:t 939 Ems Stred San Fr.mdsco. CA 94109 SVMMARY TRIP REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGE EMPLOYERS Regulation 13, Rule 1 January 1993 l • , ' , I I - ~URPOSE The purpose of the Regulation 13, .Rule 1 ITrip Reduction Requirements for large EmpJoye(s) is to decrease-air pollutant emissions from motor vehicles by ~educing their usa in tra\leiir.g to,and from work Sites. APPLICABILITY The rule will apply to ali PUb;iC and pdvate emplcyers with work sites of 10.' Of more employees. If an ernpicyer has multiple work. sites, c:11y tnose sites ....... ith ~OO Oi more employ-ees are st.:bjec( to the ru:e. Employers which have 100 or more ei:1p1oyees in total, but r..:a single work site witi"'! 100 or more empioyees, are not subject to the ru!e. The r.Jle provides exemptions for 1) wo(k sites of 100 or more emplovees wheie less than fifty employees start work during the peak period [ 6 a.m. through 10 a.m.), 2) construction sites, 3) work sites where the 1999 riders~ip objectives .are achieved, and 4, work sites l-cealed in a city or country where implementation of 'the rule has been delegated to a local implementing Bgency. Requirements for emp1oYrr1cr:t centers (mu1ti-te:1ant complexes) are .G.Ql included ;(1 this rule. They v\'111 be addressed in a separ.ate rule ~Regulatior1 13. Rule 2) to be developed in 1993. EFFECTIVE DATES The rule becomes effective July ,~ '993 in any c'rty or county which does n2! have an adopted trip reduction ordinance in effect on January 1, 1993. in cities and counties with adopted ordlnences, the Bay Area Air QualitY Manogement Distrtct [BAAQMO) will impl~ment the rufe eff-ective Ju!y 1, i 994 if the city or count)r does not recefve delegation prior to that date. In c2ties and counties w~ere delegation oC_..lrs, the regional rule will be implemented via the local ordinance. ZONES AND PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES The rule divides the region into four geograuhic zones and es!abHs'nes annual ridership perfoimanc.:e objectives tha1 apply in each zone. The performance objectives set goals for the employer tiip reduc'[ion program and, within the context of the .ule, determine whether an employer must submit a trip reduction plan to the 8AAOMO (or locat jurisdictionl for review and approval. Work sites that demonstrate achievement of the performance objectives via an employee trans;Jonation survey are DQ1 required to submit a plan for review and approvat. The bO\.mdaries of 1he 'four geographic "zones are' defined in Section 13-1-233 of the ruJe. Zone 1 encompasses the northeastern area of San Francisco. Zone 2 includes the remaining portions of the Ctty and County of San Francisco and the downtown areas of the cities of Et>rkeiey and Oakland. Zone 3 includes the southern counties; San Mateo, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, and the portion of Alameda County not contained in Zone 2:. Zone 4 inciudes the northern counties: Madn and Napa Counties, and those portions of Sonoma and Solano CO'..Jnties within the district. ::'4:: • • J: -... rf "'rip Reductiof"! ReQu':reme:)[s for Larf,'e Err:{)/~'1fHS December 1992 2 The performance cbjec'\.\ves are e)'.press~d in ter'1'1.5 ot C! .... €:rzg~ vehicie rlde~shlp \AVR\ .and vehicle ern.pioyee rati~ iVERI. E"mp!oyers r"1ave the oPtion of expressing their survey resu!t~ ;n e1wer AVR or VER. Both AVR and \lEA are .based on 'the iatio between the number of employ~es , ..... ho s!an: work during the peak period \6 am through 10 am: and the numbe~ of vehic;es which rt"1ose employees LIse to commute tD the work srte. In its simprest form. AVR eQuaJs the number of employees divided by the number of vehicles. VER equa!s the number of vehic!es divFded by the nwmber of employees. 8ecalise AVR and VER are reciprocals. it is easy to convert from one to the other. The annual performance otJjectives trtat apply in each zone are shawn be!aw. -~ AVR Ferformance Objectives and Year Zone 1199311994 19951199611997 1998 1999 Zone 1 i 1.50 1 1 .65 i 1.8012.00 2.20 2.50 2.50 Zone 2\1.20 1.26 1.32 1.38 1.44 1.50 1.50 Zone 3 1.10 11.15 1.20 I 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.35 Zone 4 ,1.05 1.10 1.15 i 1.20 1.251-2:30 1.30 = VER Performance Objectives and Year Zene i 1993 199411995 1996 1997 1998 I 1.999 , Zone 1 0.65 0.61 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.40 Zone 2 0.83 0.79 0.75 I 0.72 0.69 0.66 0.66 I Zone 3 I 0.91 087 0.83 i 0.80 0.77 0.74 0.74- Zone 4 1 O.9~. 0.90 0.S7 0.83..1 0.80 0.77 I 0.77 I -. REQUIREMENTS The rufe establishes the foiiowlng administrative requirements: employer registration; de.signatlon of an Emp!.Qye~ Transportation Ccordinator {ETC) and an Employer Program Manager; employee notification; ~nnual employee transpon:ation survey; .and devefopment and irr.pJementatian of a trip reduction program. In addition, employers with work sit€s that do not acr.ieve the epplicaole ridership performance objectlve are required to subm!! an employee· trip reduc[io1"1 pian 'for review and approvaJ for (hose work sites. Employers are also required (0 maintain records .and documents needed to verify comptiance with sit re.quirements of the rule. Empfover Reoistration (Section' ,3·1 ~4051 The ruie~ requires all affected em;Jloyers to register wrth the BAAQMD within 90 days of the effect~\le date of the rule, Trds requjrement applies oniy when the 8AAQMD is ,. ...... : ;.. ... ~WK~1f~f" --.--~--~'".-~ 1,!0 .Reduct/on RerJf)iremenl'!i (or L3!ge £mpfovf:rs D~cemb(!' t 992 3 impleme-ming the nile. 1,"'1 registe:mg, the employe; ,'Tli)sr ide-rwty affec:ed ''York slte~, designate an Employee Tra;):sporratiori CoorCinator and a Program Manager, and specify the total number of emplDyees at each affected work site and tr,e !'lumber of empIQ·~e~~ who start work d'Jrir.g the peak period, . Emplqyee Transportation CuQrdinator (Sectton 13-1-4G3i The employer ml'st d'9signa"!e an Employee Transportaticn Coordinator (ETC) prior to or at the time of registration. The ETC is. def'ned as • A,l employee, o'tt!er i!1di'.:idual, or emity appointed by an emproyer ,c develop, mar~er, acmlnis-rer, snd mon-itor the employer tr:p reductioil program or pian on a fu:l-t~me or ::nHt-t,me basis." An employer may 2ppoin( er:e ETC to handle multipie work si:es. The ErC is required to complete an SAAQMD-csrtif:ed rre!nlng curricu,'um within nine months of tt1e effective date af the rule. An employer may apply for i3 waiver from !N; ETC trai;)Jng reQtJireme!"!t when an ETC has one year or more of experience in trip reductlon or equivalent skills. Employer Program Mtmager (Sa-ction 13·1-4C41 In addition to the ETC, the emplo,)-'er muSt designate an EMp~oyer Program Manager prior to or at the time of rr::gisnatior.. The Program Manager rn:.;st have polic',.. and budget.ary authority for the Emp~oyer Trip Reduction Program. The purpose of requiring a Program Menager is to eiisur€ that the trtD reduction program receives sufficient support from management. As in the case Df the ETC, one Program Manager may be assigned to cove! r.i1,.J1ripie work sites, Ail. emDloycr may desigr'late one individual as both ETC and Program Manager, provided that the designee meers the requirements of both positions. ~.g,,~ Notification (Section 13-1-402i The purpose of the employee not1fication requirement is to promote employee participation in the development and implementat[on Qf the emp10yer tri,:> reduction prograrn and/or plan. The rule specifies three occasijons wh-en empioyee notification is required: prio; to or at the time of regtstratio~; during celle[opment of the empioyer trip jaduction program: 2nd 30 days pr;or to the subminal o~ the .. rip red~Ction plan twhen 13 pior) is reQwired). The notification requi'ement is a key element of the rulE: 'Decause employee participation is critical to the swccess of tMe trip reducHon program. The notiflcaticn provision Should also help to avoid allY potentia1 conflicts betw~en the emp~oyer and employees regarding: the types of meaSl!res to be applied at the work site. Employee Tfan.:iQQrtar)on Survey iSection 13-1-406) The rule requires at]"empJoyers-ro perfcrm an annuaJ employee transportation survey, There are two exceptions to the requirement that the survey be performed on. an an.nuaf baSis. 1) Work sites '.'\J·r.lch demonstrate aChrevement of a performance objective that applies to a future y'-eer are permitted to survey once every tVJO years as long as future year performance objectives continue to be achieved, 2, Viork sites which ;:lemonstrate achievem-en"! cf the 1999 performance objeCtive are e:igible for an exemption from the rule: however, they mvst demonstrate cor1tinu~d achievement of the 139'9 performance ob;ective by conducting an er.lplayee transportation survey every th~rd year, --.--,~-.. -, "L - [ I f r ·~t1~~t~ .... ,..IliIi .... _ .... l.. __ .-...~.::.-.._~,,' __ ~~-_~_,..., --~_. • - T'r':p Ae;jl.)ction PeQuir!:m'f!rrts for Uyge Employers December 1992 4 Employers are required to survey all empioy~es who s'Cart work dur~ng th~ 6 2.m. "through 10 a.m. peak period. The survey must cever a five day Monday 1hrcugh Friday work week. Tt1e c.alcv!at'lon methodology' defined :(1 '!he rule !Sect'lo;1 13-'·601) provides credits for Hip elimination measures \telecommuting and compressed work week scneou'es) 8:"ld for alternative fuel vehic:es, Sta~ has dev.e{o~ed a draft set of "care questions" needed to caicufate AVR and VER. end tc determine the total I"'umber of vehicle uips BSsocI31ed with the employees at each work site. All emptoyers wi.i be required to use the core questjort5 for purposes of gathering data to calculate AVR 0; VEA, Employers have the cptior'l of submittrng completed survey forms to "(he BAAQMD for processing and analysis. Aiternsttvefy. employers may choose to perform tneir own survey processing and analysis (Of contract with a thiid part"r' to perform this function) and submit the results 10 the BAAQMD. provided that 'the survey methodorogy is consistent with BAAQMD requirements and that the data is availabre for audit. The rvie provides the Q.Q..tiQn to use a random sample survey meth-vdology ~Section 13~1-602) at wod( sites where 400 or more employees start wort.( during the $ a,m. throllgh 10 a.m. period. The random sample ~ethod should help to reduce the survey COSts at the larger work sites where this option is available, Employers witrl multiple wo'rk sites within the same zone may calcuiate a ...... eighted AVR average for those work Site-s for purposes of determining ff the performance objective has been achieved, This will be zllowed when the BAAOi"l,,'D is implementing the :'lile. Emoloyer 1:r:1p __ Reductigo ProOfam [Sp.crlon' 3-i -407) Employers are required to develop and implement an employer trip reduction program within six months of the first emplo~'ee transportation survey. The trip reduct10n program should indude services, incentives and measures to achjeve and maintain the ridership performance objectives, Section 13-1-216 of the rule fists forty examples of such measures rhat the employer may choose to if1c!ude in its program. The rule pro'Jides the i:mpioy~r with f!exibilit'( ":0 'design a program that IS appfO~ria'!e to the work sitp., given the demographfcs of me work force, the nature .;)f the ;Nork activity and the types of tr2lnsportatior'! optio:ls that serve the site. Employers are StfOngiy encouraged to Involve employees in the devg!opment of tMe trip reduction program. Employers are £lQ! required to submit the prC'lgram to ttle BAAQMD for approval (except as described below), Employer Trip Reduction Pian rS.e-ction 13-i~408) The employer 15 reQuired to submit ~m Employer TTip R.eduction Plan for 'CiYy' work sitE: that does not achieve the applicable performance cbiective based upon the resulrs of the emplo'fee transportat]on Sl:rvey. -The empioyer must submrt a plan for :'"eview and approval by the Air Porlution Control Officer (APCO) within 120 days of a determinat]on by the APeD tnat t~e performance objective was r,ot achieved. The Employer Tr]p Reduction Piar'. must include air reason2!bie, feasible and COS[­ effective trip reducrion measures that con be expected 10 bring about significant progress toward ach1evernent of the perforrnance objecttves giver. the constraints of the worlt site, lt1e nature of the work activitY .. and the geographical d~stribution of the employees relatrve to the work stre, In Cjddition, the plan must lnciude an - Trip Reductio.l Requ/rements for Large fmpioyers. Decf!mber 1992 implementation schedule for the trip _red:.Jcti:Hi me.asures. a program .budget, and information regarding employee attitudes toward varJous incent:'Jes and oisincemives. The employer mu,'St notify emp!oyees about the content of the trip .reduction plan, ana ;dentify the ETC or Program Manager to wnom em~rO~'8'es can address suggestions or comments at least 30 days prior to subminal 'Of the p[an to the APeD. The employer must submit an updated pian for review and app~olJal every two years for each wor\( site that does not achiel/e the appricable performaJice objective l"intil such time as the work site doe.~ achieve the obiective. The rule provid!! employers with the Option to develop an elternative emission reduction program as part of its trip reduction plan, provided tr.:!t t~e alternative measures are not required by any other regulation or control' measure, For example, an employer might develop a plan based on me.asures such as a vehlele buy-back lscrap) program to remove highremittlng vehicles or ft.mding tuneaups for employee vehicles. The employer must demonstrate that these a~ternativc measur9s will result in em iss-ion reductions that are real and Quar.tifiable and that the reductions are equal to 01 greater than the ernissFcns reductions that would be reattzed if the appiicable pe~form8nce objectives were aChieved. if 811 Employer Trip Reduct10n Plan resubmit the plen within 90 days. within 30 days of plan disapproval. is oisappfoved. the empioyer must revise and Aller~ativery. the emproyer may fiie an appea~ ,MDnitoring and RecQr~ {Section 13-1-501) Employers are requ:red to maintain. records compliance with a~t requirements of the rute, retained for three years. and documents needed to verify Records and documents must be • i " .~ : i ~~-~~---~------- NOTE', The Commuter Network Council wi!.l fC'view lh.e Commuter Network's proposed services and make a recommendation to the Congestion Management Agency Go'leming Board. The Council and Goveming Board wm establish which :Services arr indudtd in the Basic Progr<l.tn, ;and which services are included in Enhanced Progr>m. 1. Inform Employe" of Ordinance Require=ms A Notify empk;yers about the ordinance through letters to individual employers ,and through public noti-:-es i."1 l1ewspapers of ger.e!;}l circulation B. Di.stribute 3 v..'IiHen C'verview of lhe ordir'..al"..ce, its reqLlireme!1ts, and 'lmeline C. Explain/discuss the ordmance with bcUvidua! employers through meetings with Employee Transp:mation CGGrdinators CITCs) :and n'.af!.3gemem presentations D. Hold meet.!.!':gs with employer groups (b;;sed on size, location,. knowledge of rute, etc-l to f'Xplain/discuss the ordinance E. Educate employers about Corn.-nutet ~'etwork services and assistance in meeting ordinance requ[rementsj also provlde information about services of other agenc[es such as RIDE..~ 11. As.o;15t Empiorers in ComplY'.fl8 wli.h the Ordinance A. Meeting Administrative Requirements 1. Provide forms for the required reglsrrauon and employee nOllficaHon, and assist in completing [hem S, D:oveloping a Program t Csing t.'1E' employee survey results, assist in targetit18 appropriate program elements and in de\"eloping prellinina.y budget estimares 2. Provide malerials descnbing specific progt:lffi elements C. Implementing a Pregram 1. Assist in developing a plan CO market program elements to employees D. Monitoring 3 Program t Provide information on how La track program success 2. Contact ETCs quarterly (at a .r:nlrJrnum) to deterrr.ine program's status 3. Assist in modifying program element'S as needed 4.. A.oe;s~:i; employers In developing a Trip Reduction Plan if Average Vehicle Ridership (A',,'R) objectives <ire not met • 1II. Improve the ComIJ'lCting Environment to Assist irl Meeting: AVR Objectives A Develop employer coal..illons to address common is.sues, e.g. shuttles. L~proved transit service, program elements (may L'1Clude deveioping Transporution Management Associalions !TMA'sD 8 Pursue gr.mLs to fund commute alternath·es C. .. "'ct as liaison between ua~ponation pmv[ders and the employers 1, Com.I!lunic3te emp!orers' neecio;/con~""ems to transportation providers and promote nec¢ssary cl'.anges 2 Distnbute materials on trdruit servke changes to Corrurr...Jter Network employers 3. Anend meeungs and monitor actions of transiT boards and report action to employers D. Coordin;lte t.he J:'la~.Jtin8 .and activil,jes for regional promolions in Santa Oar> County (includes &-0' the Back-Up Dar, Ollifom!, Rldeshare Week and we Spare the Air Olmpaign) rv. Serve as an Wcrmaticn and R~ferral Resource for TransporT.arIon-related Legislation, Programs, Pubticatlons, etc A. Ho!d q'Jarterly empioyer meetings to discuss timely issues and policies B. Prep2Te and disUibute :3 bi~monthJy newslener, Each issu-e will include rolunms on the foilowing agencies and topics -8AAQMO, eM"-, RIDES, Tr:tffic Aut..'J,ority. Transportation Agency, Jegisl.1tion. and employer proCHe C, Develop materiats on common topics to a:;,sist employers in de,\lelopL'lg successful program>; v. Educa tion A Hold Ii. w.:>rkshop on how to administer .i survey and obt2in !.he best resul!s B. Develop and implement .an ETC lCainlng program to meet ordinance requirements C Devetop al1Q irnplement ETC advanced training sessions 0/2 day) on speclfic issues, e.g. individual program ekments. liability L"'SlJes, tax benefits, budgeting, professional de\'elopment. O. CompUe ~nd develop materials/brochures on program elements and on exisling employer programs. E, Develop an outline for management presentatioa5 F. Develop materials/brochures for F.TCs almed at emp[oy~es to increase <!'V."3reness/need for commute alternatives • Vl Assist Employers in MeetL'1g Defidency PLan Requiremems A, Hold meetings for ETCs at companies located 'T,oiithin me Deficiency Plan area to exploi:ln the requirements t.lut mu.~ be met B. Elicit the ETC.!' optnlons on needed infrastr'J.crute improvements and transit services/facilities to be funded C. Work with affected ETCs to enhance Transponation Demand M2nagerrent (11)."1) programs as required D. Morutor employe!"s ccmpllance wit.~ Defidency Plan requirements I [ ~ '. ~ i I. \ BAAQMD .. Ill Provltk sut'ver • A VR SUtvey. Processing and Reports T •• lnlng • Create &!:<j:k: curriculum .. Cenify 1'lain~(s (Individuals and organh:;1tion.')) SERVICES 1 Commu!<:r Network will P"""h1e Survey • AVR 51..1IVey and pl'QCcsstng 4 RepoflS • AVR Eoll.m,ed su""'y and processing 11 Reports 1 Mop • Mode/Region ~ Spedflc Maps • Rldematch\f\g -Tfih'\$lt Route Planrung CaPflbiUtie-s Tr~lnln8 • Survey Workshop • One--day Commute Managcl1lf:nt Seminar • Two-Day Commute Maoagc01f'lU Semina.r 4; AdV'.lnced Traitung Seminl1fS • Bi-monthly NewsJeHer .. "How~T()" Packets and llrf)Chures • SeJf·p<tct:d educ:Hio(j progf3"mS , 1 i , , , I , ;> , - 1 -~ " g' .. I g -(") <'~ • ~ .. / r-"""l'~!!!'1ft:~"" -""'''''''''''''''-~'''''''~'''~",:,-r ' •. ------., 1'; .9; Hi,. . ¥ -;"'I'.; i Outreach Scrvlce:s Guidance Ool'UmefIts Regi.<;trntioll (out now) Survry (Draft in 2 weeks) Delegatioo (Sooo) Employer Program Development (November) Employer Plan D~c(opment (0«:-Jan) SERVICES Outreach Sefvice:s • Inform employers of Qrdlnapce Requirements • Employer Ordinance compliance as.<iislance Meeting administrf\tive requirements Developing a program Implementing a progr<11'll Monitoring a progfam • Improve the commute em'ironment Liaison ~rween Employers and Service Providers Establish TMA's legiSlation tracking anu analysis • Defidency Plan assistance L NOTE; The Commuter Network Council will review the Commlltrr NNwnrk's proposed services and Il1:1ke a recommendation to the Congestion M;magernent Agency Governing Board, the Council flnd Governmg B(Jard will est;lblish which :services are included in tlie Dasic Program, ~nd which services are included in Enhanced ProgrJm 5o!1\'!n"lI 2 " I , i I, I , • . "i~j\~'~~ ,!~J.f' I , "c:,! , .""