Bike Commuter Subsidy
Our Community › Forums › Commuters › Bike Commuter Subsidy
- This topic has 20 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
DismalScientist.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 2, 2013 at 7:05 pm #982710
Tim Kelley
ParticipantDana, will you be taking this to the Arlington BAC? It might be worth giving Alexandria and Fairfax a heads up too!
October 2, 2013 at 7:06 pm #982711dbb
ParticipantSure. I’ll cross post to the ABAC list serve
October 2, 2013 at 7:15 pm #982716mstone
ParticipantI think it should just be $220 to get to work each month, regardless of mode. Or kill the subsidy for all modes because it’s stupid. (Why not just raise the standard deduction by $220 and save an enormous amount of overhead?)
October 2, 2013 at 7:28 pm #982721Dickie
ParticipantThanks Dana for putting your own time and energy into this, although it doesn’t apply to me I am sure many will appreciate your efforts!
October 2, 2013 at 7:32 pm #982723TwoWheelsDC
Participant@mstone 65694 wrote:
I think it should just be $220 to get to work each month, regardless of mode. Or kill the subsidy for all modes because it’s stupid. (Why not just raise the standard deduction by $220 and save an enormous amount of overhead?)
Yeah, a general subsidy for non-car commuters. Also, I’d recommend that agencies that have parking lots charge for parking. Even charging car commuters $30 a month for parking would probably cover each agency’s entire transit/bike subsidy, although I admit that could be difficult, logistically.
October 2, 2013 at 9:08 pm #982734Terpfan
ParticipantThanks and good catch. I sent a note to him asking for what i would consider a technical amendment change there.
October 2, 2013 at 9:28 pm #982736dbb
ParticipantI think the likely strategy will be to slip this into a larger bill as an amendment. Given the success of the Congress at getting legislation passed, hanging it on as an amendment might be the easiest.
October 3, 2013 at 11:19 am #982779hoffsquared
ParticipantIf people were eligible for both subsidies at the same time, bike commuting on ‘paper’ would skyrocket. But I feel that many would never get on a bike — just take the subsidy. IMHO.
I like the idea of just one subsidy…or get rid of them altogether.
October 3, 2013 at 11:49 am #982780mstone
Participant@TwoWheelsDC 65702 wrote:
Yeah, a general subsidy for non-car commuters. Also, I’d recommend that agencies that have parking lots charge for parking. Even charging car commuters $30 a month for parking would probably cover each agency’s entire transit/bike subsidy, although I admit that could be difficult, logistically.
You misunderstand, this isn’t about non-car commuters: the same subsidy applies to parking. That’s why I suggested simply raising the standard deduction–the only people who can’t claim anything are those who don’t work or who walk to work. It’s just a giveaway, not a way to incentivize certain behavior (except that cycling or walking, and especially telework, are disincentivized). So, make it a general “getting to work” subsidy (which will still disproportionately benefit SOVs,) or give everybody free money without making them find some way to justify it as related to getting to work, or just scrap the idea because it’s just a stupid regressive giveaway with a lot of overhead (a tax benefit is most useful to those in the upper income brackets).
October 3, 2013 at 12:00 pm #982781dbb
ParticipantAt my agency, the transit subsidy is added to my smart card at the beginning of the month and that which isn’t used is taken back at the end of the month. It is also based on the metro fare from my home to the office and the number of days I commute (thanks to the furlough, now less than ever). In my case that is about $65 per month. Using those values, I would be eligible for a total of $65 in benefits ($30 on my smart card and $35 for my bike). If I elected to take the metro more than the $30 would cover, I would be obligated to pick up the difference. That $30 would cover about 7 round trips to the office. If I commuted by bike all month, they would take the $30 back.
While just giving me $220 would be sweet, it would be (for those living close to our jobs) an weird variant of a place based mortgage.
We’ve not gotten to discuss implementation because the dual approach isn’t an option. This would most benefit folks who live some distance out and commute with a multi-modal approach (bus than bike). They save their employers money by not taking the metro all the way in but are not eligible to share in the savings.
I agree that there is some potential for cheating but think that could be addressed in implementation.
October 3, 2013 at 12:42 pm #982782mstone
Participant@dbb 65762 wrote:
At my agency, the transit subsidy is added to my smart card at the beginning of the month and that which isn’t used is taken back at the end of the month. It is also based on the metro fare from my home to the office and the number of days I commute (thanks to the furlough, now less than ever). In my case that is about $65 per month. Using those values, I would be eligible for a total of $65 in benefits ($30 on my smart card and $35 for my bike). If I elected to take the metro more than the $30 would cover, I would be obligated to pick up the difference. That $30 would cover about 7 round trips to the office. If I commuted by bike all month, they would take the $30 back.
And if you drove, you’d buy a monthly parking pass and the subsidy would cover it outright (which is the most common option, and the reason this is basically a giveaway with overhead). Adding transit and cycling is a fig leaf to cover the fact that they’re giving away free money to SOVs. Since employers decide what to implement, it’s relatively common to find them only providing parking benefits and not transit or cycling. (I’ve never worked anywhere that didn’t provide some sort of parking subsidy, or that did provide transit & biking subsidies. Part of the reason for this is exactly because of the overhead of managing such programs.) So you can tinker with the margins, and it’s certainly better to screw cyclists less in this deal, but it’s fundamentally bad policy.
October 3, 2013 at 1:00 pm #982786consularrider
Participant@hoffsquared 65759 wrote:
If people were eligible for both subsidies at the same time, bike commuting on ‘paper’ would skyrocket. But I feel that many would never get on a bike — just take the subsidy. IMHO.
I like the idea of just one subsidy…or get rid of them altogether.
You do have to provide receipts for the bike reimbursement program. Of course, there’s nothing to stop someone who rides for recreation on weekends from submitting receipts.
October 3, 2013 at 1:04 pm #982788consularrider
Participant@dbb 65762 wrote:
… We’ve not gotten to discuss implementation because the dual approach isn’t an option. This would most benefit folks who live some distance out and commute with a multi-modal approach (bus than bike). They save their employers money by not taking the metro all the way in but are not eligible to share in the savings …
One of the issues with the multi-modal for those living further out is that they may already be hitting the maximum Metro benefit.
October 3, 2013 at 1:08 pm #982789TwoWheelsDC
Participant@mstone 65760 wrote:
You misunderstand, this isn’t about non-car commuters: the same subsidy applies to parking. That’s why I suggested simply raising the standard deduction–the only people who can’t claim anything are those who don’t work or who walk to work. It’s just a giveaway, not a way to incentivize certain behavior (except that cycling or walking, and especially telework, are disincentivized). So, make it a general “getting to work” subsidy (which will still disproportionately benefit SOVs,) or give everybody free money without making them find some way to justify it as related to getting to work, or just scrap the idea because it’s just a stupid regressive giveaway with a lot of overhead (a tax benefit is most useful to those in the upper income brackets).
Holy crap…I didn’t realize it counted for parking. No wonder so many people at State drive….
October 3, 2013 at 1:10 pm #982790TwoWheelsDC
Participant@consularrider 65767 wrote:
You do have to provide receipts for the bike reimbursement program. Of course, there’s nothing to stop someone who rides for recreation on weekends from submitting receipts.
At my home office, we also have to submit a spreadsheet noting the days we ride, which has to be at least 51% (or whatever) of the total work days for the month. It’s actually a lot of work for $20 a month, to the point where I don’t even bother.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.