PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 11, 2011
Commute LESS Act of 2011 or Commute-Leveraging Employer Support and Successes Act of 2011 - Amends the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) to revise the composition of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to include at least one representative designated by an employer advisory council established by this Act.
Revises contents of MPO transportation plans prepared for metropolitan planning areas to include proposed activities and strategies to provide outreach to employers in the region to create and expand alternative commuting and commuter benefit programs (i.e. carpools, transit benefit, and telework programs).
Requires each MPO to establish an employer advisory council consisting of representatives of employers within the MPO's boundaries.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires an MPO transportation improvement program (TIP) to be developed in coordination with the advisory council and to include projects identified by it.
Requires the advisory council to: (1) review how long-range transportation plans and TIPs will affect commuting habits; and (2) develop a commuter trip reduction plan.
Directs the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) to create and expand employer investment in transportation and commuter benefit programs. Requires a state receiving funding, in coordination with MPOs, to establish statewide goals for achieving reductions in vehicle miles traveled.
Requires a recipient receiving federal-aid highway funding for a project with a value of $100 million or more or that will reduce traffic flow for more than 120 days to prepare, in coordination with the advisory council, a congestion mitigation plan for the project that includes funding for projects that reduce peak hour vehicle miles traveled along an impacted corridor.
Requires the Secretary, when approving a major capital investment grant of $75 million or more for a major new fixed guideway capital project, to consider, among other things, the ability of the grant recipient to work with employers to get commuters to utilize the project. Directs the Secretary to require the grant applicant to include in its request a plan on how it intends to work with local employers and transportation management organizations to create and expand a commuter benefit program for the project.
People & committees
Rep. Sires, Albio [D-NJ-13] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.260 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.260 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.260 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.260 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.