1995 - 1996 LEGISLATURE
April 3, 1995 - Introduced by Representatives Lazich, Hoven, Duff, Brandemuehl,
Ziegelbauer, Seratti, Olsen, Turner, Grothman, Porter, Plache, Otte,
Ladwig, Owens, Urban, Schneiders, Lehman, Wirch, Gunderson, Dobyns
and
Nass, cosponsored by Senators Petak, Farrow, Panzer, Schultz, Andrea,
Darling
and Zien. Referred to Committee on Environment and Utilities.
AJR30,1,2 1Relating to: requesting Congress to eliminate the requirement for an employe
2commute option and trip reduction program.
AJR30,1,43 Whereas, through the federal Clean Air Act and its amendments, the federal
4government has undertaken the necessary task of cleaning up our nation's air; and
AJR30,1,75 Whereas, a balance must be struck between the steps to be taken to reduce air
6pollution and the adverse impact that those steps may have upon the economy, the
7business climate and the cost of government; and
AJR30,1,108 Whereas, under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, the states with areas
9classified as extreme or severe nonattainment areas are forced to adopt employe
10commute options and trip reduction laws; and
AJR30,1,1311 Whereas, efforts to clean the nation's air are being conducted through the
12imposition of onerous and burdensome travel restrictions on the employes of
13companies having 100 or more employes; and
AJR30,1,1614 Whereas, the federal government has launched this ill-conceived initiative
15through the Clean Air Act and its amendments, modeled after California legislation;
16and
AJR30,2,2
1Whereas, the effectiveness and cost of California's program are not coming to
2the surface; and
AJR30,2,43 Whereas, trip reduction efforts have cost California between $136 million and
4$197 million per year; and
AJR30,2,65 Whereas, the costs experienced by California amount to approximately $3,000
6per car taken off the road and $232 per employe; and
AJR30,2,107 Whereas, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that
8conducting employe commute options and trip reduction programs will cost the
9economies of just the 10 nonattainment areas a staggering $1.5 billion per year or
10$337 per employe; and
AJR30,2,1311 Whereas, the General Accounting Office estimates that trip reduction
12programs will only yield a 1% to 3% reduction in vehicle traffic, which will be quickly
13reversed by expected urban growth; and
AJR30,2,1614 Whereas, trip reductions and any resulting benefits will be short-lived at best
15and will never meet the goals of the Clean Air Act as the California experience, the
16General Accounting Office studies and urban growth have demonstrated; and
AJR30,2,1917 Whereas, the General Accounting Office believes that virtually none of the trip
18reduction measures called for in the Clean Air Act will significantly reduce
19emissions; and
AJR30,2,2220 Whereas, the General Accounting Office believes that market-based trip
21reduction measures will be required if traffic and emissions are to be successfully
22reduced; and
AJR30,2,2523 Whereas, recent studies cited by Transportation Quarterly indicate that not
24more than 9% of all cars are responsible for as much as 50% of automotive emissions;
25and
AJR30,3,3
1Whereas, the General Accounting Office has concluded that the existing models
2used to predict emission reductions for trip reduction measures cannot be used with
3confidence to estimate reductions; and
AJR30,3,64 Whereas, there is no data or analysis to demonstrate that the Clean Air Act
5mandates will accomplish the trip and emissions reductions mandated in the Clean
6Air Act; and
AJR30,3,117 Whereas, it is obvious to every employer, employe, governmental entity and the
8General Accounting Office that the costs and results of the mandated trip reduction
9measures do not justify the economic and social hardships which will occur in
10nonattainment areas if employe trip reduction mandates continue as part of the
11Clean Air Act; and
AJR30,3,1612 Whereas, despite the fact that other avenues may be available which would
13result in, among other things, the elimination of the federal mandate for a vehicle
14reduction program, it is imperative that the path chosen not result in the disruption
15of many critical and environmentally desirable programs along with the desired
16elimination of such program; and
AJR30,3,2017 Whereas, it is in the best interests of the employes and the employers of this
18state, as well as other states, to choose the course of action that is directed towards
19accomplishing one thing — the elimination of the federally mandated employe
20commute option and trip reduction program; now, therefore, be it
AJR30,4,3 21Resolved by the assembly, the Senate concurring, That the members of the
22Wisconsin legislature strongly urge Governor Thompson and the members of this
23state's congressional delegation to work with other states and their congressional
24delegations to seek amendment to the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 so as to
25eliminate the provision that an employe commute option trip and reduction program

1be required in extreme and severe nonattainment areas and, in lieu thereof, leave
2such program as an option to be implemented by the states based on relative costs
3and benefits of such program; and, be it further
AJR30,4,6 4Resolved, That the assembly chief clerk shall provide a copy of this joint
5resolution to Governor Thompson and each member of this state's congressional
6delegation.
AJR30,4,77 (End)
Loading...
Loading...