Affecting commute mode choice in Southern California: Which employer-based strategies work?




travel demand management, neighborhood, land use, mode shift


Interest in mandatory employer-based trip reduction (EBTR) programs has been renewed due to increased emphasis on reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. This paper analyzes survey data from 2004 to 2016 from an EBTR program in Southern California, known as Rule 2202, which allows employers with more than 250 workers to choose among implementing commute reduction strategies to meet performance standards, show evidence of obtaining omissions credits, or pay a fee-in-lieu. We report program statistics and conduct bivariate and regression analyses to determine which land-use and location characteristics, employer characteristics, and mitigation strategies explain cross-sectional differences in average vehicle ridership (AVR) and AVR improvement to understand where future AVR increases might be realized. Decreasing program participation suggests that alternatives to commute-reduction strategies make financial sense to regulated employers, but Rule 2202 employers report higher alternative transportation shares than the region as a whole. AVR is found to be highest at smaller worksites, in transit-supported and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, and where employers support vanpool programs. Multivariate analyses indicate that AVR gains were also highest in commercially dense neighborhoods, for retail businesses, and where guaranteed ride home programs were offered, showing promise for future AVR gains.


Barro, R. J., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (1992). Convergence. Journal of Political Economy, 100(2), 223–251.

Clark, W. A. V., Anderson, E., Östh, J., & Malmberg, B. (2015). A Multiscalar analysis of neighborhood composition in Los Angeles, 2000–2010: A location-based approach to segregation and diversity.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(6), 1260–1284. doi:10.1080/00045608.2015.1072790

Dielman, T. E. (1983). Pooled cross-sectional and time series data: A survey of current statistical methodology. The American Statistician, 37(2), 111–122.

Dill, J. (1998). Mandatory employer-based trip reduction: What happened? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1618, 103–110. doi:10.3141/1618-12

Dill, J., & Wardell, E. (2018). Factors affecting worksite mode choice. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1994(1), 51–57. doi:10.3141/1994-07

Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 265–294. doi:10.1080/01944361003766766

Herzog, E., Bricka, S., Audette, L., & Rockwell, J. (2006). Do employee commuter benefits reduce vehicle emissions and fuel consumption? Results of fall 2004 survey of best workplaces for commuters.

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1956, 34–41. doi:10.3141/1956-05

Hipp, J. R., & Boessen, A. (2013). Egohoodsas waves washing across the city: A new measure of “neighborhoods.” Criminology, 51(2), 287–327. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12006

Kneisel, R. (2001). Voluntary ridesharing after deregulation: Findings from work sites exempted from California Rule 2202 on-road motor vehicle mitigation options. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1765, 20–26. doi: 10.3141/1765-04

Ramsay, K., & Bell, A. (2014). Smart location database. Retrieved from

Salon, D., Boarnet, M. G., Handy, S., Spears, S., & Tal, G. (2012). How do local actions affect VMT? A critical review of the empirical evidence. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17(7), 495–508. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2012.05.006

SCAG. (2016). The 2016-2040 regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy. Los Angeles: Southern California Association of Governments.

Skelton, G. (2008). A smart plan for smart growth, Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from

United States Department of Transportation (2019). Transportation Demand Management. Last modified November 1, 2019. Retrieved from

Zolnik, E. J. (2016). Inducing demand by expanding road capacity: Controlling for the rebound effect. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106(4), 837–852. doi:10.1080/24694452.2016.1167584

Zuehlke, K., & Guensler, R. (2007). Employer perceptions and implementation of commute alternatives strategies. Journal of Public Transportation, 10(4), 171–194.




How to Cite

Kane, K., Hsu, J., Cryer, J., & Anderson, M. (2020). Affecting commute mode choice in Southern California: Which employer-based strategies work?. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 13(1), 255-272.