Washington State’s Commute Trip Reduction Policy
For this week’s blog I’m to discuss a traffic minimization policy of my choosing. I think I’ll take an opportunity discuss the legislation in my home state of Washington. The I-5 corridor, in particular the bustling metropolis of Seattle, is well known to have some of the worst traffic in the United States with an annual loss of 48hrs and 22 gallons (83.3L) of gas. The Weather Channel estimates the per driver cost of congestion to be $1,050. The state legislature has taken modest measures in an attempt to decrease congestion. One policy in particular, the 1991 Commute Trip Reduction Law (CRT), will be the focus of this blog.
RCW 70.94.521 defined and publicly acknowledged the social, economic, and environmental cost of freeway congestion for Washington State and outlined the general protocol for local implementation of congestion reduction policies. Essentially the report dictated the primary focus of any future policy would be to reduce single occupancy vehicles, and to mandate that all areas of high congestion implement traffic reduction policies. The report dictates that the local jurisdictions should be able to choose and implement the mechanisms they deem most useful, but that they must do something. In 2006 the policy was refined in the CRT Efficiency Act explicitly designed to reduce single occupant commuting. As of 2009, the State DOT claims that “week day morning trips were reduced by 30,000, delays were decreased by 8% and the average rush hour commuter saved $59 per year.” With a net result of 154 million miles reduced and over 69,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions prevented.
The policy primarily targets large business in highly congested areas. The DOT claims “More than 1,050 worksites and 530,000 commuters statewide participate in the CTR program.” Practices differ between regions and individual companies, but the primary strategies seem to be corporate carpooling and company support transit passes. An example would be my brother who works for a major financial institution in the heart of downtown Seattle. In conjunction with this policy his employer is required to encourage all employees to take advantage of Seattle metro, as such all employees receive transit passes. But this begs the question, where does the funding come from? The answer, it comes in part from my brothers pay check, and in part is subsidized by the corporation. The result being that the price paid directly by my brother for his transit pass is heavily subsidized by his employer, but it could be observed that the rest of the cost is implicitly paid through a reduction of his pay. See, by requiring that these corporations provide transportation options for their employees, the policy implements an implicit tax on the labor market. Depending on the elasticity of demand and supply for a given position, an employee would bear a variable percentage of the total cost. In layman’s terms, positions with many qualified candidates would likely bear a greater burden implicitly within their wage than positions with few qualified candidates. Essentially the tax burden is determined by the bargaining leverage of the employee/employer relationship.
This policy only applies to commuters who work with in congested areas, and only those commuters who work for large businesses. The tax dollars generated are levied on the employers and go toward the funding of traffic reduction research, investment in infrastructure, and other DOT general costs. In addition the CTR highly encourage the use of mass transit. This would likely result in an increase in ridership and as result revenue, however, I was unable to find any concrete assessment of the impact on ridership or transit revenue.
This policy has without a doubt made an impact on congestion within major urban areas. It does so in a moderate way by encouraging the use of existing infrastructure and allowing flexibility on a jurisdictional basis. Of course this flexibility comes at a cost. The more flexible the policy the more loop holes, but 530,000 commuters is a solid start. I find this policy to be economically positive as it does not hinder the states shipping infrastructure nor does it hurt daily retail traffic in the targeted urban areas. If anything, by reducing daily traffic loads, it expedites shipping and encourages retail activity. All in all the CTR is an interesting and innovative mechanism for congestion reduction in the Pacific North West.
To find out more see,
1991 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.50.010
2006 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=468-63&full=true