Would Require Some Employers to Offer Incentives : Business Groups Cool to Air District’s Tough Car-Pool Plan

A plan to cut air pollution and traffic congestion by requiring large employers to offer workers ride-sharing incentives got a polite but cool response Wednesday in Van Nuys at a meeting of two San Fernando Valley business groups.

The proposed regulation, under consideration by the governing board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, would apply to employers with more than 700 workers in the four-county air basin. Included would be Anheuser-Busch, Litton Industries and other Valley firms that were represented at the joint luncheon meeting of the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn. and the Valleywide Transportation Committee.

The rule would cover more than 500 private companies and government agencies with a total of about 1.3 million workers.

Raising Vehicle Occupancy

Those employers would be required to submit plans showing how they would raise average vehicle occupancy by at least 20% over a two-year period by persuading workers who now drive to work alone into car or van pools or public transit.

Cars now carry an estimated 1.15 riders on average, and companies covered by the rule would have to provide incentives likely to raise that average to from 1.3 to 1.6 passengers, depending on their location.

The target would be 1.5 riders per vehicle for San Fernando Valley employers, 1.3 riders for Santa Clarita Valley firms, and 1.6 riders for large employers in downtown Los Angeles, where bus service is better and parking is expensive and scarce.

Most in the audience of 35 raised their hands when John D. Dunlap III, transportation management coordinator for the air district and speaker at the luncheon, asked how many had heard about the proposal, known as Regulation VI.

But, when he asked, “How many have heard good things,” there was no response.

Still, some at the meeting later termed the proposal an improvement over previous drafts of the rule, which the air district staff has been working on for nearly two years.

Providing Incentives

For example, under an earlier draft, large employers would have been in violation if they failed to achieve the ridership target. Under the current proposal, they only have to provide an array of incentives the air district believes are likely to achieve the goal.

The employers won’t be blamed, Dunlap said, if they offer incentives and the employees do not take them up on it.

An existing air district rule requires employers with more than 100 workers to have contingency plans to reduce vehicle use by workers during severe, or “stage 2,” air pollution episodes, which are quite rare.

Regulation VI represents an effort to “change the emphasis from episode reaction to episode prevention,” Dunlap told the gathering.

Laurie Golden, a representative of the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., said that the group has not taken a formal stand but that member companies are “very concerned . . . about any mandatory ride-sharing program.”

Ron Palmer, chairman of the Valleywide Transportation Committee and a community relations specialist for Litton in Woodland Hills, expressed concern about the “direct financial obligation” employers might incur in working to meet the target.

Endorsements for Proposal

The proposal does not say which incentives should be offered or at what cost, but it requires employers to consider an array of possibilities, including direct financial payments or parking subsidies for employees using van or car pools.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors several months ago came out against the proposal. More recently, however, the rule has been endorsed by the Los Angeles City Council and by councils in several smaller cities, by the Southern California Assn. of Governments, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and by several environmental groups.

Despite such powerful support, however, Regulation VI is not even assured the public hearing it must have before it can be adopted. At its last monthly meeting July 12, the air district’s 14-member governing board defeated three motions that would have set a hearing this month or next on Regulation VI or on a somewhat weaker alternative offered by board Vice Chairman Thomas Heinsheimer.

Back on Agenda

The issue is back on the agenda for the August meeting, which is scheduled for Friday morning. Sabrina Schiller, a member of the air district board and project coordinator for the Coalition for Clean Air, predicted that the board will order a hearing.

“It’s hard for me to believe that an issue that has been worked on by the district for two years would not at least be heard,” she said. The public, Schiller said, should not be “cheated of the opportunity” to respond to the proposal.

Air district staff members have estimated that Regulation VI would take 150,000 to 200,000 cars off the road each day, cutting gasoline consumption by up to 373,000 gallons per day and reducing daily emissions of carbon monoxide and other automotive pollutants by 80 to 200 tons.

According to a study by the Southern California Assn. of Governments, total vehicle miles traveled between home and work will grow by 29% in the air basin by the year 2000 if current trends continue. The result, according to the study, will be a slowing of rush-hour freeway speeds from the current average of 37 m.p.h. to 17 m.p.h.