Walking and cycling - you have to live close enough to work to be able to do it, which feeds into the height restrictions discussion and the lack of affordable housing in DC discussion.

These issues are INTERRELATED. You would have fewer riders congesting Metro IF you had more housing in the CBD, which would undermine Metro's budget, but you'd get more walking and cycling.

I get the subsidy. I live walking distance to Silver Spring station, but given metro's lack of reliability...I honestly don't know where I'll be living this time next year...DC isn't affordable...Metro isn't reliable...

by Redline SOS on May 18, 2010 3:09 pm  

I would encourage you to speak very clearly about what benefits you mean - "federal transportation benefit" could cover everything from the transit subsidy that federal employees get to the pre-tax transit contributions that any employer can set up for their employees.

by Alex B. on May 18, 2010 3:15 pm  

This may be the first time that GGW has published something that the likes of Randal O'Toole might actually agree with. :-P

I agree that the flat transit benefit creates perverse incentives and essentially lets WMATA off the hook in tight fiscal situations by making it easy to raise peak fares.

by Erik W on May 18, 2010 3:16 pm  

Wow. What alternative universe is this? Perkins not for gouging WMATA riders?

The point about the transit benefit helping sprawl through MARC and VRE is going to be controversial. I tend to agree, to a point. But it is not just the benefit, it is the lack of affordable family housing, bad schools in the district, and ability of federal workers to, hmm, manage the clock, that makes those commutes tolerable.

I've asked this before: does the federal transit benefit cover parking at metro stations? Does it over the Loudon connector and other type of busing?

How does your proposed changes get people to walk or ride a bike?

by charlie on May 18, 2010 3:22 pm  

OK, this is absolutely wrong. The federal employees living in the interior, on top of or near Metro stations, are the types of transit-oriented people this entire blog is about! Furthermore, federal employees living farther out commonly "exceed" their parking benefits because they have to also pay for parking at Metro stations and drive to those stations, and then take the train/bus in to work. Finally, the pricing of Metro is far too low anyways, and removing the subsidy would simply broaden and deepen opposition to increased prices that are necessary to fix the system.

by Michael on May 18, 2010 3:23 pm  

@Charlie Federal employees are not permitted to use the transit subsidy for parking. That is out of pocket.

by Michael on May 18, 2010 3:24 pm  

Transit benefit does not cover parking. Covers any kind of buses, even stuff like vanpools.

Proposed changes get people to walk or ride a bike because now you get money, which you then have to spend on driving or taking transit or a vanpool.

If you walk or bike, you still get to keep the money. If you have a choice every day of $5 for transit, or it's a nice day you can keep the $5, you might walk some of the days.

Right now if it's a nice day and you ride your bike or walk, you're supposed to give the transit benefits back.

by Michael Perkins on May 18, 2010 3:25 pm  

@Michael Perkins; ok, understand the mechanism now.

Pushbacks: Now you see why Fairfax hates parking increases at WMATA stations. I wonder what percentage of riders in Fairfax are federal workers vs. median in system. Probably very high.

Also, realistically, federal workers DON'T give up those benefits. Yes, I know, you are defrauding the government. But it is a minor matter. If anything, it encourages them to live within distance of a metro station, since most of them have a lot of money of their smartrips. Maybe the new smartrip software will do that, but I think the IRS backed down, no?

by charlie on May 18, 2010 3:32 pm  

Nah. Way too much of the federal workforce who have transportation options are exactly the sort of aging baby boomers who are wedded to car-oriented suburbia and would be doing whatever they could to move their jobs out to the suburbs if they weren't getting the benefit. If the federal workforce were entirely made up of youthful hipsters and urban-planning bloggers then maybe things would work like your blog post assumes.

by neff on May 18, 2010 3:34 pm  

I live in the district, but it's often difficult to get from my house in NE to work in NW. It sure would be great if there was some kind of in-place, non-X2esque streetcar available. Until then... I drive to work.

by Hmmm on May 18, 2010 3:37 pm  

If I'm understanding correctly, you're proposal would essentially cut all subsidies, price parking at market rate, and increase employee salaries. That lets employees still pay to park, pay for transit, or those walking/cycling can keep the $$$ in pocket. Sounds reasonable initially...

But to look out into the long-term, what's to stop the next generation of decision-makers, policy-setters, managers, and employees from someday asking "Why don't we get transit benefits?" and then implementing such a plan, even though in the history-then-forgotten their pay was specifically increased for exactly such purpose. So now they'd have higher pay and transit benefits again. Good for the federal worker, but at additional cost to the taxpayers beyond no-change conditions.

I'm not really arguing one way or another; just throwing that out there.

Though while we're looking at the transit subsidy: I do think giving up parking entirely to receive the subsidy could potentially be detrimental to encouraging transit use. Sometimes a reason may arise whereby driving really is needed... perhaps something at work specifically requires it; or perhaps the employee will drive in on Friday to continue elsewhere for the weekend; or maybe they have some other need that day they don't typically have.

In the absence of spaces available for those without parking permits, giving up that permitted parking space could be a tough choice... something that as transit-loving as I like to think of myself as, I'd certainly reconsider taking the subsidy and, hence, transit.

So the gist here is for places without unpermitted spaces: consider providing exactly that -- ideally market priced.

by Bossi on May 18, 2010 3:52 pm  

@Michael: I'm not sure about how the taxes work with a commuting benefit, but I think that if you just gave employees an amount of money and told them to use it however they wish (it'd be next to impossible to prove that they were using all of it for commuting), you'd have to tax it as income. Transit, vanpools and I think parking are specifically exempt from this up to a certain dollar amount ($230 per month, I think). Bicycling costs are exempt from this up to $20 per month.

For the most part, though, if this changed the conversation about "hey, let's raise fares because X% of the people paying it don't even pay for transit!", I'm all for it. I pay all my commuting costs (pre-tax where it's allowed), and I really resent when people forget about that possibility.

Raising fares with the intention of getting more money from federal employees is just like asking for a federal subsidy. If you want money from the federal government, just go straight to the federal government and ask for it!

by Tim on May 18, 2010 3:53 pm  

Perhaps in the type of world that economists live in (disclosure: I make my living as an economist), this post makes sense.

In our real world, where car-dependent suburbia existed before the Metro, the benefit does more good than harm. While the older folks that neff mentions are wedded to car-dependent suburbia, a far larger proportion (Anecdotally, I want to say a majority but I don't have the numbers to back it up.) younger federal workers live in transit-oriented places. The transit benefit encourages living near the Metro since that means no commuting costs. That's the case with myself, my officemate, the guys I eat lunch with, and the other people under 40 on my floor (both married and unmarried) all have a living arrangement similar to me.

The transit benefit helps hook the younger workers on urban living. Keep it.

by Cavan on May 18, 2010 3:58 pm  

A more attractive option is something like a parking cash-out law. Give people a choice. You can have one of the following: A parking space, a transit pass, or the cash equivalent added on to your paycheck.

In the case of many Federal employees you're targeting here (those seen by Metro as free money), I'll bet lots of them would use less than $230/mo on Metro, thus would take the cash and just pay for their transit out of pocket - they'll be coming out ahead then.

by Alex B. on May 18, 2010 4:06 pm  

It's about freedom to choose. Right now as was mentioned in the post, people receive free parking or mostly free transit (limited by a cap). If people have no choice on a daily basis (without not using their parking benefit), they will use what they have included even thou sometimes one may work better than the other on a given day. Also if you do drive there's less incentive to carpool. Imagine $15/day to park, so that's $300/month. Now if employees were given the $300 and said use it how you wish, people would find cheaper ways to get to work which would probably include carpooling or public transportation if it costs them less than $15/day so that they can spend less of their normal salary on commuting. Additionally, people still forget the wear and tear on their car plus fuel costs. If there is transparency in costs, we can shift toward greener more efficient options.

In my opinion, it should be illegal in urban areas to offer free parking to employees because it stifles any choice without being penalized. My friend works less than a mile from her condo in NW but her office (non-government) provides her free parking. If she takes transit, it adds to her costs and if she walks she is not using the already paid for parking benefit. If transit and/or parking benefits were not bundled into an employees benefits, they might use those funds toward housing where they could walk to work or otherwise commute less expensively. This benefit removes the financial incentive (other than value of your commuting time) to try to live closer to work which includes perhaps paying for more expensive housing.

by options on May 18, 2010 4:08 pm  

How about a middle-ground? Stop offering the benefit to new hires, and set a "sunset date" for the subsidy 10 years from now for existing federal workers.

Michael (Perkins) is right -- the subsidy encourages the exact sort of behavior that we should be trying to avoid. It's baffling that DC has huge tracts of undeveloped land, while some federal workers commute over 2 hours each way from Virginia and Maryland.

I'd also propose eliminating all downtown parking for federal workers. No private sector employer would ever provide downtown parking in a transit-accessible city. I'm fine with offering each employee 10 days of free "emergency parking" or somesuch, but it's absolutely insane that the areas around the capitol are blanketed with parking for federal workers.

And just think.... We could build housing on all those parking lots.

by andrew on May 18, 2010 4:14 pm  

If the federal transit subsidy was eliminated tomorrow (everything else staying the same), what percentage of those receiving it would cease riding public transit? For those working downtown, parking is still more expensive than taking transit. Walking is only an option for a tiny percentage. Biking would only be taken up by a small percentage. So the net effect on WMATA is pretty small, isn't it? Yes, since all those people are now paying out of their own pockets (before tax or not), I guess there would be more resistance to raising fares.
In the meantime, the federal government saves a ton of money. (Not relatively, of course, but still - every little bit helps.)
However, their jobs are now slightly less attractive. The transit subsidy is a neat little perk. As a former fed, I was sorely disappointed to learn that the DC government does not offer a transit subsidy. You almost have to raise salaries, even a tiny bit, to compensate and maintain your position competitively.

Whether or not to eliminate the subsidy? I don't know. I do know it is too high. I never used anywhere close to the entire amount. (Orange line EFC-Fed Tri and back.) There has to be a fairly easy way to tailor the benefit more closely to what an individual employee actually needs.

by Josh S on May 18, 2010 4:15 pm  

Why not just take that benefit and give it directly to the federal employees as cash? That way everyone's encouraged to find the most hassle free and/or inexpensive way to get to work, encouraging shorter commutes. No subsidizing the metro or parking will let the commuters face a more accurate cost for these options and bring pressure on Metro to deliver better service for less cost.

by Brando on May 18, 2010 4:19 pm  

Why not offer a subsidy equal to (or up to, if your cost is less) the cost of transit within a certain distance of the employee's office? Or from within the District, or within the Beltway or something? Something like $100 per month, then cover anything above that yourself.

Another idea: cover a certain percentage. That way, it's encouraging transit use, but it definitely makes the employee feel it if fares go up or if s/he moves to an exurb.

by Tim on May 18, 2010 4:26 pm  

Yes! As someone who pays 100% out of pocket I agree 100%. I would rather have service cuts than a huge fare hike that is coming -- partly because a huge block of riders have nothing to lose with a fare hike but lots to lose with service cuts!

by Ballston123 on May 18, 2010 4:28 pm  

@options, @Alex B., @Brando and others: I'm almost sure that if you just give employees money, it has to be taxed as income. Transit is specifically exempt up to a certain amount under IRS law, as are parking and cycling costs. But the employer has to actually pay those costs, not just give the employee the money and expect them to use it in an tax-exemptable way (plus, some of the things you're proposing aren't tax-exemptable).

by Tim on May 18, 2010 4:30 pm  

Tim,

That's exactly what a cash-out program does. If you take the cash, you pay tax. If you take the subsidized transportation, you don't.

The point made above is a good one - if you just give people the value of the benefit in extra cash, sooner or later someone down the line will ask why we don't have a transportation benefit, and you'll end up right back at the beginning.

by Alex B. on May 18, 2010 4:39 pm  

You could give transit riders the option to put some of their salary in a pre-tax account for transit, just like many other people can. That gets rid of the tax implications, while still allowing people to take cash if that's what they prefer.

by Michael Perkins on May 18, 2010 4:53 pm  

I am not sure how you can say that walking/biking should be encouraged. If those who lived close enough could do that, I am sure they would

There isn't anyone I know who is close enough to walk nor do they want to spend money on a bike nor have to take a shower AT work when they get there due to a bike

This money for my job is needed and mandatory per month as I live on quite a small government budget anyway

by Gious on May 18, 2010 5:05 pm  

@Michael:

You could give transit riders the option to put some of their salary in a pre-tax account for transit, just like many other people can. That gets rid of the tax implications, while still allowing people to take cash if that's what they prefer.

That's no different than the current pre-tax system that any employer can set up for their employees.

And that's a good system, don't get me wrong.

I just don't understand why you'd want to discourage employers (regardless of whether they're the Feds or not) from offering a direct subsidy for public transportation. It's one of the most effective means of getting people to change their commuting habits (that, and parking pricing).

by Alex B. on May 18, 2010 5:10 pm  

@Gious: I know two people who live in the city and choose to drive because they have free parking at their NW offices. One person is less than a mile from their condo to office and could walk or bus halfway. The other person lives over on H St NE and could take the X2 to fairly close to their office. However, BOTH of them drive individual cars since parking is free at their office. There are definitely people who live close enough to walk/bike and do not because of free parking.

by Options on May 18, 2010 5:11 pm  

@Alex B: The reasons for discouraging the subsidy is because subsidies often create perverse impacts. As has been mentioned, Metro has less concern in raising fares since the federal government will just pick up a large portion of this amount for a good portion of riders. However, this negatively impacts those who do not receive that federal subsidy. That being said, I am in favor of a subsidy directly to Metro that is shared by all. Additionally, it discourages a choice of living closer and paying less in transit (but more in housing) vs living farther away and paying less in housing and not paying more in transit since you receive the subsidy.

by Options on May 18, 2010 5:15 pm  

Andrew "I'd also propose eliminating all downtown parking for federal workers. No private sector employer would ever provide downtown parking in a transit-accessible city. I'm fine with offering each employee 10 days of free "emergency parking" or somesuch, but it's absolutely insane that the areas around the capitol are blanketed with parking for federal workers."

Andrew I am not sure what you are talking about. Yes there are large lots around the capital for Hill workers, but I know of no other large lots for federal workers. Hill owkrers are an entirely differnt story than executive branch employees. At my agency there is less then 500 spaces and most of those are filled with carpoolers who must win a space via lottery. Also my wife, who works in the private sector downtown, does in fact receive a free space.

by nathaniel on May 18, 2010 5:41 pm  

I've got to second Nathaniel... most urban places I know of which offer free parking to their employees tend to be private.

And to think of visitors parking: of the businesses I deal with through work... every single private company I can think of also has free visitors parking, and all the public agencies I work with have paid parking.

Private industry does it to keep their customers' lives easy & as an effort to attract a greater range of employees. Public agencies only fit the latter -- their motivation for happy customers certainly isn't the same as that of private industry.

by Bossi on May 18, 2010 5:50 pm  

A transit benefit is an imperfect policy for an imperfect world. Obviously it wouldn't be needed if parking were priced at its true cost. But as you know, the concepts of "discount" and "benefit" sound a lot better than the concept of "pricing." The reason you have the transit benefit program is just that.

I'm a big advocate for these programs. The unfairness to active mode users is evident, but in a region whose average trip distances are as long as yours, I think this is one of the smaller unfairnesses in the world. If I were fortunate enough to live close to work in DC, I would see the transit benefit as good for the transit system, thus good for inner city redevelopment, and thus good for me.

by Jarrett Walker on May 18, 2010 7:14 pm  

I'm a Fed and I do walk from work pretty regularly when it's nice out. However, I live three miles from my office. I'm not sure how many people would voluntarily and regularly walk that distance to and from work. I'm young and pretty spry so it works for me, but I realize that for most others in my office there's no way they'd put up with it on regular (or semi-regular) basis.

That being said, I'd like to live closer, but with my student loan debt, I'm currently about as close-in as I can get on a GS salary and still be comfortable with my savings rate, debt service, and discretionary income levels. I also share a group house.

Like someone said earlier, if there was more housing closer in it'd really help people like me out, but I'm not holding my breath. I do think the limited amount of Fed salary-affordable housing stock near lots of central DC Fed jobs is a limiting factor to this proposal.

by JS on May 18, 2010 7:17 pm  

The current transit benefit level definitely reduces WMATA's disincentive to raise fares. But does it really provide a meaningful perverse incentive for somebody to live a long way from work? If not having to pay for the transit part of your trip outweighs a three or four hour daily commute, my guess is that you'd never be able to afford to live anywhere near work anyway, even if you wanted to.

Also, it's my understanding that the $230 transit subsidy is ARRA money, with a sunset date of January 1, 2011. Before March 1, 2009, the benefit was $120 (which did not cover the cost of my commute from the transit-oriented exurb we live in for a lot of reasons which do not include a fondness for car-dependent sprawl). Unless somebody does something, the transit subsidy will presumably go back down to $120 (or so) once the ARRA money runs out, and then people with longer commutes will again be paying for at least part of any fare increases out of their own pockets.

by Miriam on May 18, 2010 7:47 pm  

As some others who mentioned many who don't work in government or white collar jobs don't get any type of transit subsidies.

Raising fares because you can because the majority of people are paying via government or employer is wrong plain and simple its hurts those who don't receive benefits.

How many people posting on this site work in retail, restaurants, service, cleaning or small businesses that don't give you any type of subsidies ?

I bet the amount is not even 20 % which would make almost any polls, stats or amounting's from here bias.

by kk on May 18, 2010 11:42 pm  

I ride metrobus, metro and bike to work depending on how I feel. As a Fed worker I use the transit benefit (less than the max since I bike some days). I think eliminating it may make non Feds who use transit feel better.

However, if a significant number of the hundreds of thousands of Feds stopped using transit picture the effect on the WMATA budget. Get real, WMATA is almost bankrupt now. Talk about a death spiral. As less Feds use transit, the Congress will likely feel less beholden to contribute to the capital budget.

If you give cash that is great and I could use it to pay for bike repairs. But I am not the norm where I work. Most would use it to gas up their cars. Really, the money is not that significant in terms of the typical Fed salary in DC. It acts as it should to give a gentle push towards transit.

by LeeinDC on May 19, 2010 12:26 am  

why not take baby steps and get rid of the parking benefit first/only?

also, does this mean we need to get rid of the bike benefit?

by Peter Smith on May 19, 2010 3:29 am  

Too many ideas here, and too little time to comment, but here's two observations.

First, I'm all for charging people for what they use, but there's almost no direct charging of people for their use of roads. Until that's part of the plan (along with market-priced parking), drivers will always have a major incentive to drive instead of walk, bike, or use public transit.

Second, I'm all for encouraging poorer folks (like myself) -- and anyone else -- to ride buses instead of or in addition to rail. Why? Because the more people who ride buses, the better the argument for far more thorough coverage than rail can ever have. As someone who almost never drives anywhere, the biggest impediment I see to public transit is how spotty it is. Build coverage (and predictability), and they will come.

by jeffq on May 19, 2010 7:56 am  

Are you off your freakin' rocker?! You must have bumped your head this morning during your commute! While I agree that WMATA most certainly is taking advantage of the transit subsidy provided to *many-but not all* commuters, I totally and completely disagree with your solution. I think some of your observations are out of sync with reality too. I don't know anyone who lives within 5 minutes of their workplace, and I have no doubt that any of the people I do know would not bother taking transit for such a short walk. But walking and biking to your destination is hardly a cost that could be reimbursed by employers. Furthermore, not all commuters get the transit benefit, including 98% of my friends who work in the private sector. So WMATA will have to face the wrath of those riders, whom I have no doubt make up a large share of the commuting pool. I don't like the fact that fares are going up either, and I don't like that WMATA wants to sock commuters with the bigger bill--BUT--if local residents had to pay the same Metro fare at 8:30pm as the commuters do, it would practically shut down Metro outside of commuting hours. Nobody would be able to afford to pay commuting-hour fares just to run to Target and back. However, commuters will pay, and WMATA knows that. I would love for them to make the structure simpler, and not institute this "peak of peak" BS they keep talking about--but fares must go up--there is no other way at the moment. Even with the increase proposed in June, the rates are still not as high as MARC/VRE routes of equivalent distance. The maximum fare would be $5.00. $5 was what I paid to go from New Carrolton to Halethorpe on the Marc line, which is less then half of the whole route if you traveled from Union Station to Baltimore Penn Station (fares went up to $8-10 depending on distance)--that was 2 years ago, I'm sure the fares have climbed since then even. VRE is comparable in price to MARC and both are higher then Metro.

Come up with a better idea!

by Matt on May 19, 2010 8:00 am  

most....moronic...idea....ever. This will simply lead to tens of thousands of gov employees driving to work. I know in my case without the transit benefits, I would DEFINITLY drive to work, as it will be MUCH cheaper than using transit. Sorry but this idea just stinks, and will make congestion far worse.

by sa on May 19, 2010 8:08 am  

If you take away transit benefits AND parking, then employees would be paying $15-$20/day in parking alone. That is more expensive than transit (generally, thou some far out areas, express buses, etc can add up). If more people drove, the price could go up more to $25+. Second, if more people drove than commuting time would greatly increase. With the current state of things, someone I work with mentioned how it took them an hour to go along K St NW from 12th to 22nd during rush hour took them an hour the other night. Add in gas costs, and you really are spending a lot more to commute by car.

by Options on May 19, 2010 8:42 am  

As someone who doesn't own a car and lives in an expensive apartment to be close to a Metro station, anything that motivates high-income bridge-and-tunnel fedemps to move closer in would just force me out of downtown and into the suburbs. No net benefit. Also, federal employees subsidize everyone else by taking rail. If they used other modes, the revenue loss would require even higher fair increases. Metro Rail is reaching the limits of capacity because of poor planning -- no third track and "choke point" transfer stations. Someone's going to have to switch to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or regular bus service or more people will be stuck on the rail platforms as full trains zoom by. The income level disparity between bus/rail will be increasingly irrelevant.

by James on May 19, 2010 8:52 am  

In grad school I think we discussed subsidized housing as a case study, evaluating the differences between giving low-income residents housing vouchers versus giving them cash to spend on rent or whatever else they felt so fit. I can't find any references now, but I believe the most economically efficient method was the vouchers. Given cash, the residents spent it on things they perceived as higher priorities, even though HUD thought housing should be their highest priority.

If you want to modify people's behavior, it's pretty clear that you need to reduce the barriers to doing the right thing, not just give them the means to make their own choices. I can see a lot of federal workers spending their extra income on car payments and gas, and then sitting in traffic all day on their way to work.

by michael on May 19, 2010 9:57 am  

Options - You are clearly assuming that everyone would drive and park downtown. Why would any rational person who is already commuting via transit for free suddenly choose the most expensive alternative when the subsidy is removed? Wouldn't they just start paying the Metro / bus fare themselves? Or walk? Or ride a bike? Or hitch a ride with someone else? I repeat my assertion from earlier - removing the subsidy wouldn't make a huge difference in modal share regionwide. At least when it comes to commutes to and from downtown DC, where parking is expensive.

Also, the pre-tax transit spending account is already here. I can't see why the feds couldn't switch to that. It's yet another pot of money that individual employees have to keep track of which is perhaps a hassle for some, but it would save them money. (At the cost of lower tax receipts to the federal government which may or may not be a good thing. Would those lower receipts offset the costs the government now suffers as a result of the subsidy? Good question.)

by Josh S on May 19, 2010 10:08 am  

It seems that the goal of your proposal is to eliminate the *incentive* for folks to use regional transit. A couple of things.

Number 1, these subsidies are recognized by the Federal government as an essential transit use incentive in order to improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion, and conserve energy by reducing the number of single occupancy vehicles on the road. Are you proposing to pour more cars back on to the roads - because the concept of people walking, en masse, to their jobs and back in this region is sheer fantasy (maybe you've examined the real estate listings and judged them against young employee salaries, and then possibly factored that some will have young families?) - thereby creating even worse highway congestion (when we're already regularly in the country's top 5 worst areas for that) and gridlocked intersection conditions, thus creating more demand for auto fuel consumption (as it is wasted in the aforementioned traffic conditions), thus further driving up demand - and price - while at the same time exacerbating poor air quality conditions?

Number 2, the federal employee transit subsidy program was created by Executive Order 13150.

"Federal agencies in the National Capital Region shall implement a "transit pass" transportation fringe benefit program for their qualified Federal employees . . . Under this program, agencies shall provide their qualified Federal employees, in addition to current compensation, transit passes . . . in amounts approximately equal to employee commuting costs . . . The National Capital Region is defined as the District of Columbia; Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick Counties in Maryland; Arlington, Fairfax, Loudon, and Prince William Counties in Virginia; and all cities now or hereafter existing in Maryland or Virginia within the geographic area bounded by the outer boundaries of the combined area of said counties."

Under the Executive Order and as implemented across the government, where the employee *lives* doesn't matter nearly as much as where the employee *works.* And, as others noted, if employees don't/can't use transit and instead drive to work and have the "benefit" of parking on site, they are ineligible for the transit benefit. It's worth noting that many of those on-site parking facilities are restricted to carpools and essential (loosely used) employees.

Number 3, there is never justification for a public transportation system that receives federal money to raise fares simply because of the existence of or increase in a federal employee transit subsidy. And I doubt strongly that any transit agency cites an increase in the subsidy when planning their budgets and forecasting expenses. So let's get our facts right, at least, in the case of WMATA: fare hikes are under *perennial* consideration because of some budget crisis or other.
* 1991 - 18 percent proposed fare increase
* 1992 - 6 percent proposed increase
* 1994 - 20 cent bus fare hikes proposed
* 1995 - 10 cent rail increase
* 2003 - first fare increases in 8 years approved
* 2004 - second fare increase in 2 years ($0.15 rail)
* 2007 - 30 cent "peak" fares approved to piggy back on base fares; Metro parking jumps to $4.
* 2010 - 10 cent rail hikes, "peak of the peak" surcharges under consideration.

The connection to fare hikes and subsidy increases is specious. WMATA, despite its ongoing management and fiscal challenges, is an aging system that is facing incredible infrastructure costs - both in maintaining the safety of the existing system (right, Red Line riders?) and in expanding to meet the desires and demand of riders (right, Tysons Corner-IAD? right Green Liners UDC-Fort Totten?). That means replacement costs, inflation adjustments etc., and new materials costs. And for new service, one might think staffing costs for operators, track workers, station managers.... Golly, to have seen people react to the suggestion that the "Silver Line" be scrapped, or to suggest that the Green Line should never have been completed in DC, or that the Blue Line be extended out to Largo Town Center... who argues with that? and on the same token, who actually acknowledges the mounting costs? When you dangle enough money to encourage them, people will use transit modes. Whether because they can afford it or because it's more cost-effective now is irrelevant. When you add more riders, you add new system stresses and the systems ultimately need to address capacity and infrastructure issues (sound familiar?)

Number 4, for as much as peak weekday fares and parking fees will increase, those peak charges subsidize the cost of late night and weekend service which carry no overt premium costs associated with them. Why should we end the transit subsidy but also not extend "peak" charges to weekend service (albeit with different peak times established)? Why should late-night riders pay less when the service is less cost-effective, systemwise, than that operated during the peak? If there's no willingness to extend the costs of the service to those who utilize it, then perhaps a service rollback should be considered.

by Pete on May 19, 2010 10:54 am  

The DC public schools are a cesspool. Sending your child there is akin to child abuse. That is a fact.

Until that changes, the vast majority of well-educated and well-paid federal employees will choose to live in areas with better schools. That means Virginia and Maryland. End of story.

So unless you subsidize their transit, they will drive.

by urbaner on May 19, 2010 11:22 am  

Worst idea ever. Doing this means a ton of more cars on the road, and i guarantee your metro fares and service go up because of the lost riders.

by RD on May 19, 2010 1:16 pm  

Interesting story: My wife, long ago, worked for one of the less glamourous federal departments downtown. She had a coworker who would park on the street at the meter and move the car every two hours. I can't remember if this was the same guy who she said was running a bookie operation from his cubicle.

And get this: It's the SENIOR level (SES and above, mostly) people at most, if not all of the downtown federal agencies who get free parking. In other words, the more you can afford to pay for it, the less likely you'll have to.

I agree with the other posters that the transit benefit is so ensconced in the federal benefits package and in the WMATA budget that getting rid of it likely would cause a huge exodus to the highways. Plenty of people--even those who get free transit--have switched back to driving just because of the overcrowding, unreliability, etc. This would push even more people back into their cars.

by JB on May 19, 2010 4:55 pm  

JB - Good comments. I think it can come back to two points that most of us can agree upon. We need to improve and expand the existing transit system to more friendly, efficient, and reliable so it is attractive and provide sufficient funding to keep it up. This can be inexpensive things like creating bus lanes to make transit travel faster than driving to expensive ones such as expanding Metrorail. Additionally, parking should not be free for employees as driving (at least those not carpooling) is not a behavior we wish to encourage unlike encouraging transit use with transit benefits. Whether to remove or not remove the transit benefit is a more contentions topic that does not have as clear an answer.

by Options on May 19, 2010 5:09 pm  

@options

I work in SE DC, near the navy yard. Tons of lots offer 6$ a day for parking and I drive a car that gets 30-40mpg and my commute is 16 miles round trip. At 3$ gas it cost me 7-8$ a day and I can get into a carpool which bring my cost down to 4$ a day. And I get almost an extra hour a day at home more than taking transit. Take away my transit benefits and its a no brainer for me.

by sa on May 20, 2010 8:14 am  

What is the goal of the transit subsidy? In my mind, the goal is to reduce auto traffic by encouraging use of the Metro. In my mind, the goal is not to improve real estate density in the CBD or district at large. Nor was that the goal of Metro itself. The relative disadvantages to a transit subsidy are far, far outweighed by their benefits of reducing traffic (reducing the need to build new roads or widen existing ones), is better for the environment, and is a large source of funding for the Metro system. In a time when Metro fares are inevitably going to go up, regardless of transit subsidy, risking losing a huge chunk of revenue by eliminating a tranit subsidy is not a great idea.

by Scoot on May 20, 2010 7:04 pm  

One of my coworkers observed a change when we moved about ten years ago from Crystal City to the Navy Yard. Before, we had paid parking at around $90 per month. Back then, there were a lot more carpools to split the cost. Now, we have free garage parking with some spaces reserved for carpools. There aren't nearly the number of carpools we used to have.

by Michael Perkins on May 21, 2010 8:31 am  

Interesting comments. Before the stimulus money for subsidy kicked in I was paying $140 per month out of pocket to use a combination of VRE/Metro. I was thankful to have that (and still am). I believe if you register for Smart Benefits, which is required by some agencies, you get compensated for only what you spend in the period, so no such thing as $$$. Smart Benefits only applies to systems that interoperate- VRE is not one of them. I believe if the $$ aren't approved at the end of the ARRA benefit there will be a fall off of mass transit users, because simply put, it will be less expensive for many. Also, considering the lack or reliable rail transit (both Metro and VRE), it will save time for many. I'm actually looking forward to it because the ridership on my VRE line has increased by 60% over the last year. It's much less comfortable and civilized. :) As far as the parking subsidies executive types (I know lots of 15s that get it) get- at the very least it should be taxed as a fringe benefit. Most higher level people I know (although maybe they could afford DC) live further out than many juniors). One last thing. Not everyone WANTS to live in DC, the city of entitlement.

by Sissy on Aug 19, 2010 3:47 pm