PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 1, 2013
Commute Less Act of 2013 - Requires metropolitan planning organization (MPO) transportation plans to include, among other things, employer and transportation management organization outreach activities and strategies to help create and expand employer-based commuter programs.
Defines "employer-based commuter program" to mean a program implemented by employers to provide their employees with alternatives to driving to and from work in a vehicle occupied by a single individual.
Requires each MPO to establish an employer advisory council consisting of representatives of employers in the transportation management area. Requires each council to develop and maintain a commuter trip reduction plan that identifies area goals for the reduction of vehicle miles traveled during peak commuting hours.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires MPO transportation improvement programs (TIPs) to include, among other things, a list of projects identified in a commuter trip reduction plan that help achieve such reduction goals.
Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) to make a grant to a national nonprofit organization or other entity engaged in efforts relating to employer-based commuter programs to establish and operate an information clearinghouse for employer investment in transportation and employer-based commuter programs.
Requires recipients of federal assistance for the construction of federal-aid highway projects costing $75 million or more, or that will reduce traffic flow for more than 120 days, to prepare congestion mitigation plans that include funding for projects to reduce vehicle miles traveled during peak commuting hours along impacted corridors.
Requires the Secretary to: (1) develop and implement a plan to expand and promote employer-based commuter programs; and (2) report to Congress recommendations on how to better integrate such programs into disaster emergency planning, preparedness, and response activities.
People & committees
Rep. Sires, Albio [D-NJ-8] · 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 12, 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.2968 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.2968 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.2968 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.2968 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.