 |
 |
Techniques For Mitigating Urban Sprawl |

|
|
| |
| Coordinating and Integrating Processes, Plans, and Functional Assignments |
| Trip Reduction Ordinances and Programs |
|
Trip reduction ordinances (TROs) require developers, employers, or building managers to provide incentives for occupants or employees to use alternative modes. Ordinances can be implemented state/region wide or by local jurisdictions and take many different forms. Ordinances can require a certain reduction in trips with penalties and rewards set for achievement or nonattainment of goals. Other trip reduction programs function on a voluntary or community-based basis. Large companies and commute trips in congested areas are usually the targets of TROs. Washington’s Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law is similar to TROs. Oregon’s ECO (Employee Commute Options) program requires employers with over 50 employees to reduce drive-alone rates. Case/Example: Commute Trip Reduction Law (WA); Employee Commute Options Program (OR). Source/Reference: WSDOT, 2000, pp. 57-58.
|
|
Clean Air Act 182 (d) (1) (b) requires states that contain severe or extreme ozone non attainment areas to submit SIP revisions requiring large employers in those areas to implement employer trip reduction (ETR) programs. The Voluntary Mobile Emissions Reduction Program (VMEP) is a voluntary control strategy under Texas’ State Implementation Plan (SIP). Currently the H-GAC alternative work schedules program operates under the umbrella of the Commute Solutions program and helps employers implement several measures including telecommuting, carpooling, van pooling, alternative parking and compressed work weeks. Texas employers are encouraged to design compliance plans that will succeed in meeting trip reduction goals. Texas regulations require the imposition of a penalty on those employers who fail to meet the target average passenger occupancy (APO). Employers much reach their APOs to avoid penalties of up to $35000 per day, depending on the extent to which an employer demonstrates having made a good faith effort.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=74R&Bill=HB2715
COA O3 Reduction Strategies in Austin – “Since 1999, the Austin-San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) has been in violation of the proposed Federal health-based standard for ground-level ozone. Although EPA?s implementation of the proposed standard has been delayed, our need for air quality improvements cannot be postponed. Reducing regional ozone depends on lowering emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx), one of the two primary precursors of ozone. The burning of fuels, primarily in internal combustion engines, is the most significant regional source of NOx. A recent emissions inventory shows that over 180 tons of NOx are emitted daily in our MSA.”
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/vmep.html#Intro
|
|
|
|
Air Quality: Impacts of Trip Reduction Programs – “The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 recognized that emissions from automobiles are significant contributors to air quality problems in urban areas. In addition to emitting carbon monoxide, autos emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO(x)) which react in sunlight to form ground-level ozone or smog. States with urban areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone must revise their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to demonstrate that all nonattainment areas (except those classified as marginal) will achieve a 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions by the end of 1996. The amendments specifically call for certain transportation control measures to be adopted in nonattainment areas.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Envision Central Texas  6800 Burleson Road, Building 310, Suite 165  Austin, TX 78744
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 17848  Austin, TX 78760-7848
|
|