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