AJR30: Joint Resolution Text

1995 - 1996 LEGISLATURE

1995 Assembly JOINT RESOLUTION 30

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 Relating to: requesting Congress to eliminate the requirement for an employe commute option and trip reduction program.

AJR30,1,4 Whereas, through the federal Clean Air Act and its amendments, the federal government has undertaken the necessary task of cleaning up our nation's air; and

AJR30,1,7 Whereas, a balance must be struck between the steps to be taken to reduce air pollution and the adverse impact that those steps may have upon the economy, the business climate and the cost of government; and

AJR30,1,10 Whereas, under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, the states with areas classified as extreme or severe nonattainment areas are forced to adopt employe commute options and trip reduction laws; and

AJR30,1,13 Whereas, efforts to clean the nation's air are being conducted through the imposition of onerous and burdensome travel restrictions on the employes of companies having 100 or more employes; and

AJR30,1,16 Whereas, the federal government has launched this ill-conceived initiative through the Clean Air Act and its amendments, modeled after California legislation; and

AJR30,2,2 Whereas, the effectiveness and cost of California's program are not coming to the surface; and

AJR30,2,4 Whereas, trip reduction efforts have cost California between $136 million and $197 million per year; and

AJR30,2,6 Whereas, the costs experienced by California amount to approximately $3,000 per car taken off the road and $232 per employe; and

AJR30,2,10 Whereas, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that conducting employe commute options and trip reduction programs will cost the economies of just the 10 nonattainment areas a staggering $1.5 billion per year or $337 per employe; and

AJR30,2,13 Whereas, the General Accounting Office estimates that trip reduction programs will only yield a 1% to 3% reduction in vehicle traffic, which will be quickly reversed by expected urban growth; and

AJR30,2,16 Whereas, trip reductions and any resulting benefits will be short-lived at best and will never meet the goals of the Clean Air Act as the California experience, the General Accounting Office studies and urban growth have demonstrated; and

AJR30,2,19 Whereas, the General Accounting Office believes that virtually none of the trip reduction measures called for in the Clean Air Act will significantly reduce emissions; and

AJR30,2,22 Whereas, the General Accounting Office believes that market-based trip reduction measures will be required if traffic and emissions are to be successfully reduced; and

AJR30,2,25 Whereas, recent studies cited by Transportation Quarterly indicate that not more than 9% of all cars are responsible for as much as 50% of automotive emissions; and

AJR30,3,3 Whereas, the General Accounting Office has concluded that the existing models used to predict emission reductions for trip reduction measures cannot be used with confidence to estimate reductions; and

AJR30,3,6 Whereas, there is no data or analysis to demonstrate that the Clean Air Act mandates will accomplish the trip and emissions reductions mandated in the Clean Air Act; and

AJR30,3,11 Whereas, it is obvious to every employer, employe, governmental entity and the General Accounting Office that the costs and results of the mandated trip reduction measures do not justify the economic and social hardships which will occur in nonattainment areas if employe trip reduction mandates continue as part of the Clean Air Act; and

AJR30,3,16 Whereas, despite the fact that other avenues may be available which would result in, among other things, the elimination of the federal mandate for a vehicle reduction program, it is imperative that the path chosen not result in the disruption of many critical and environmentally desirable programs along with the desired elimination of such program; and

AJR30,3,20 Whereas, it is in the best interests of the employes and the employers of this state, as well as other states, to choose the course of action that is directed towards accomplishing one thing — the elimination of the federally mandated employe commute option and trip reduction program; now, therefore, be it

AJR30,4,3 Resolved by the assembly, the Senate concurring, That the members of the Wisconsin legislature strongly urge Governor Thompson and the members of this state's congressional delegation to work with other states and their congressional delegations to seek amendment to the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 so as to eliminate the provision that an employe commute option trip and reduction program be required in extreme and severe nonattainment areas and, in lieu thereof, leave such program as an option to be implemented by the states based on relative costs and benefits of such program; and, be it further

AJR30,4,6 Resolved, That the assembly chief clerk shall provide a copy of this joint resolution to Governor Thompson and each member of this state's congressional delegation.

AJR30,4,7 (End)