Employee Commute Option of Clean Air Act
This is an excerpt from the paper...
In 1990, the Clean Air Act was passed, with its amendments that mandated the creation of the Employee Commute Option. Its goal was relatively simple. All companies with 100 or more employees were required to reduce by 25 percent the number of vehicle miles that their workers traveled during their morning rush hour. This was to be accomplished through vanpools, working from home via computer, transit subsidies, or other means (Stranahan 130). A successful employer trip-reduction program might include incentives to rideshare or take transit, and disincentives to commuters who drive alone. Employers can provide preferential parking for vanpool and carpool vehicles, or direct financial incentives. For example, carpoolers could go through an express line in the company cafeteria ("At Issue" 401). A successful program will be difficult as long as there are so many strong incentives to drive alone. This is because at least 90 percent of U.S. commuters who drive alone pay nothing for parking. Employer-paid parking actually encourages solo driving to work. Studies have shown that on average, employee-paid parking shifts 27 percent of all commuters into solo driving from other modes. However, employee-paid parking obviously represents a cost to the employer. Analysts in Sacramento, California, estimated that an average company there spends $10,000 to $15,000 for the construction and maintenance of a parking space for over 20 years, which is more than the cost of supplying e
. . .
he use of domestically produced fuels. The law required federal fleets to begin purchasing alternative-fuel vehicles in 1993. State fleets and utilities must begin in the 1996 model year. The act provides tax incentives and covers vehicles of up to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight, which includes passenger cars, pickups, and vans. Beginning 1995, the Clean Air Act amendments require that reformulated gasoline containing at least two percent oxygen by weight replace conventional gasoline to reduce ozone forming compounds in the nine smoggiest cities: Los Angeles, Baltimore, Chicago, Hartford, Houston, Milwaukee, New York, Philadelphia, and San Diego (Candler 49).
In another development related to the Act, auto manufacturers in California are required to have zero-emissions vehicles account for two percent of major automakers? sales in the state by 1998. Only battery-powered electric vehicles appear to be capable of meeting that standard. The auto-makers affected will be those with the highest sales volumes in California: General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, and Mazda. The electric car, however, is currently too expensive for most consumers. A Chysler minivan will sell for at least $40,000 when it is i
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Air Act, Los Angeles, Commute Option, America NAA, Agency EPA, Prices PAC, Sacramento California, Policy Act, Co Milwaukee, Chicago Developing, clean air, air act, clean air act, natural gas, compressed natural, compressed natural gas, alternative fuels, pollution abatement, candler 49, solo driving, real spending, act amendments, air act amendments, percent 13 percent, percent increase 1990,
Approximate Word count = 2485
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Employee Commute Option of Clean Air Act
|