Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/2002, C2 - THE CITY'S TRIP REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM (TRIP) i council MR°°e°�z-s )2 j agcnba RepoRt CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P 0 FROM: Ann Slate,Director of Human Resources" Prepared By: Jill Sylvain,Human Resources AnalyAc SUBJECT: THE CITY'S TRIP REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM (TRIP) CAO RECOMMENDATION Receive and review a status report for the TRIP and approve TRIP as an on going program. DISCUSSION In February of 1998, the City Council approved the Trip Reduction Incentive Program (TRIP) for an eighteen-month trail period. In the Fall of 1999 Council received a status report for the TRIP and approved its continuation while asking for a review in two years. Over the past two years, staff has monitored the program, conducted another survey of our employee's average vehicle readership (AVR) and has prepared the following report that discusses the impact of the TRIP. Underscoring all trip reduction activities was the goal of maintaining and improving public service and workforce productivity at the same time that the City's trip reduction goals were being pursued. Background The City's Circulation Element, adopted in November of 1994, calls for the implementation of voluntary trip reduction programs for employers throughout San Luis Obispo. The City Council, at that time,wanted the City, as an employer, to be a model for other employers and to encourage voluntary trip reduction efforts throughout the community. Toward that end, the Council established a target Average Vehicle Ridership (AYR) of 1.70. This was higher than the 1.50 AVR the Air Pollution Control District(APCD) had attempted to implement locally beginning in the early 1990's. AVR is a measure of how a workforce is participating in transportation modes other than single- occupant motor vehicles. For example, if a business has 100 employees andeach employee drives a motor vehicle to work, that business's AVR is 1.0 (100 people_ 100 cars = 1.0). If the same workforce changes its transportation habits, carpools to work, rides buses, walks or bicycles, or makes fewer work.trips because of compressed work schedules and only 50 employees drive alone to work, then the AVR would be 2.0 (100 employees_50 cars=2.0). In May 1995, the San Luis Obispo APCD adopted Rule 901. This rule was adopted in compliance with State law and required agencies to establish employer-based trip reduction programs. As required by Rule 901, the City adopted its own trip reduction regulations, which mandated a 1.50 AVR, as opposed to the earlier voluntary target of 1.70 (the AVR mandate covered all employers within the county with 100 or more employees). In October of 1995 the rule was repealed, which served to prohibit cities and other public agencies from establishing Cg�- I i I Council Agenda Report—Trip Reduction Incentive Program TRIP Page 2 mandatory employer based trip reduction programs. The APCD continues to pursue voluntary trip reduction programs with the larger employers throughout the county, e.g. Cal Poly, SLO County, and PG&E/Diablo Canyon. In October 1996, the City formed a "Trip Reduction Committee." Its role was to design a voluntary program that would elicit the most participation from our employees; to this end a survey was conducted. From this survey response the primary programs were developed (see attachment 1). Based on survey data and the AVR information, the Trip Reduction Committee developed a conceptual program that was presented to and approved by the City Council in May 1997. An initial AVR survey was conducted in 1997 with 85% of all regular City employees responding to the questionnaire that asked them to describe how they travel to work during a specific week. The results demonstrated that the City's workforce had an AVR of 1.45. This result also showed that a significant number of City employees were already involved in the trip reduction activities that were currently available, namely alternative work schedules and free transit passes in exchange for the City employee parking permits. However, participation levels were still short of the City's goal of achieving an AVR of 1.70. As a condition of Council's approval of the TRIP, performance-monitoring efforts were to include an AVR update. Another AVR survey was distributed to all City employees in October 1999 to determine if the TRIP had made an impact on the AVR. Again, the 1999 survey form asked for the same information about how employees got to and from work during a specific week. In addition questions were asked in both surveys that focused on employees' attitudes about using alternative transportation to assist staff in understanding what does and does not motivate employees to make changes in their commuting habits. This time 96%of all regular employees responded. This is an exceptionally high rate of response. The survey results were very positive; the City's AVR had risen from 1.45 to 1.62. Staff at the APCD stated the City's AVR was the highest of any major employer in the county. Clearly, TRIP had made a difference. The Current Status In October 2001 another AVR survey was conducted with the assistance of the APCD in tabulating the results. This time only 80% of the City's regular employees responded. CON Council Agenda Report—Trip Reduction Incentive Program TRIP Page 3 The following tables summarize the TRIP's performance to date: CHANGES IN CITY WORKFORCE AVR Survey Year Total Employees #Respondents % Response Average Vehicle Ridership 1997(base year) NA NA 85% 1.45 1999 346 336 96% 1.62 2001 354 283 80% 1.50 TRIP PROGAM COSTS 1998—20001 Fiscal Year Cash Pa eats Paid Vacation #Employees $Amount #Employees Hours 1998-99 12 $2,350 33 476 1999-00 11 $1,850 32 452 2000-01 13 $2,350 40 613 TOTALS $6,550.00 1541 It is not possible to determine exactly why the survey response rate dropped in 2001, but there are several possibilities: staff used a more complicated survey form; or TRIP and its AVR surveys are becoming a routine administrative element and additional coaching and encouragement is needed to solicit a more complete response. Staff analyzed the response to the 2001 AVR Survey. Of the 83 employees who did not respond, 73 work some form of compressed schedule: 43 are on flexible work schedules, 20 are police officers or communication technicians who work three twelve-hour shifts, and 10 are firefighters who work ten days per month. Therefore,just accounting for the trip reduction impacts of those non-respondents that work a compressed schedule, the actual AVR of the City's work force is likely higher than the 1.50 performance level. Promotion of this program occurs when a new employee receives an orientation by the Human Resources Department. However, based on the lower participation rate for the most recent survey, periodic low-cost promotional events are needed to remind employees of the TRIP. An opportune time for such events is during Rideshare Week each Spring when alternative commuting methods are emphasized throughout the county. In addition, occasional articles will be placed in SLOWHAT, the employee newsletter, reminding employees of the benefits of the program. Staff will continue to conduct AVR surveys every two years to judge the effectiveness of the TRIP. Methods for ensuring a more complete employee response will be pursued. In summary, staff believes that the TRIP program has provided environmental and transportation benefits at a low cost. Given the per space cost of structured parking in the downtown (pushing $30,000) and land costs everywhere in San Luis Obispo, the City's TRIP program has proved to be a very cost effective method for pursuing General Plan goals and providing alterative access options to its workforce. ca3 Council Agenda Report—Trip Reduction Incentive Program TRIP Page 4 FISCAL IMPACTS Since 1999 the Department of Human Resources has budgeted $3,100 annually to cover the cash incentive reward portion of the program; these costs are outlined in the TRIP costs graph above. That amount has proven to be sufficient and there is no reason that the department cannot continue to fund at this level as long as Council supports the TRIP. ALTERNATIVES 1. Discontinue the TRIP. This is not advised because the program is doing what it was supposed to do — reduce the number of trips City employees make to and from work in their own vehicles. In light of this, the hard cost of the program (approximately $2,400 annually) is reasonable. 2. Eliminate one or more of the six elements of the program. This is not recommended, again, because the program is working and the results of the employee survey indicate that each of the elements is being used by employees to varying degrees. ATTACHMENT Attachment A: TRIP Activities ca-q rT*,',��HMENT 1 TRIP REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM (TRIP) ACTIVITIES SELECTIVE WORK AT-HOME PROGRAM(Telecommuting) On a selective basis,with department management and CAO approval, City employees may volunteer to routinely work at home for up to 1 day per week. COMPRESSED WORK SCHEDULES(Flex Time) On a selective basis and with department management approval, City employees may volunteer to work a compressed work schedule that reduces their number of work days per week. In general, 9/80 schedules are the City's benchmark standard for employees under this program. However, limited application of 4/10 scheduling may be considered for field workers. ADJUSTED WORK SCHEDULES Employees may request that they be allowed to make minor adjustments to their work schedules so that they can effectively utilize alternative transportation to get to and from work. Minor adjustments are those not exceeding 30 minutes in duration and may include changes to the work start and departure times and to the scheduling and duration of the lunch break. Lunch breaks must be at least 30 minutes long. Time allocated for break periods may not be combined with minor schedule adjustments to extend the period of absence. This activity does not change the number of hours an employee works per day. GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM City employees who use alternative transportation to travel to and from work will be allowed to use City-owned passenger vehicles to get home in cases of personal emergencies or unplanned (but approved)changes in work schedules. This program is also available to members of car or vanpools when designated drivers must unexpectedly leave work and other pool members may find themselves without a ride. CASH INCENTIVES AND INCREASED TIME OFF PROGRAM City employees who use alternative transportation to travel to and from work are eligible for the following benefits: Employees that use alternative transportation at least 1 day per work week throughout a year (average weekly use) may choose to receive $50 cash or 4 hours of additional vacation. Employees may choose $100 or 8 hours of vacation for using alternative transportation at least 2 days per week; $150 or 12 hours of vacation for using alternative transportation at least 3 days per week and $200 or 16 hours of vacation for using alternative transportation at least 4 days per week. �a- s