D.C. officials and transit advocates are pursuing a shift in the way employers offer commuting benefits to encourage more biking, walking and transit over solo driving.

A D.C. Council proposal would require employers who provide their employees with free or subsidized parking to give them the choice to cash out. With that option, workers would be more likely to ditch the car for a more sustainable mode of travel to work, officials say.

“I can much more easily rationalize hopping in my car and driving downtown when I got a free parking spot,” said Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), a lead sponsor of the bill. “But if my employer says, we are going to give you a parking spot or we can give you transit benefits or cash if you bike to work, then I have the flexibility to make the choice that is best for me.”

The change, he said, would address a fairness issue for the workers who sometimes turn down a valuable perk because they don’t drive or who are forced to take it because otherwise they can’t get the benefit any other way.

The Transportation Benefits Equity Amendment Act of 2017 is one response to growing criticism that historically commuter benefits for drivers are better than those available to people who take other modes of transportation. For instance, a few years ago, transit agencies including Metro fought for parity in transit and parking in the federal commuter benefits program, which three years ago gave commuters the option to spend up to $130 on public transit pre-tax vs. $250 for parking. That started to change in 2015, and this year the cap for the transit benefit and the parking benefit is $255 per month.

Advocates for flexible benefits cite research suggesting that traffic congestion is associated with perks, such as free parking, and that financial incentives for non-solo drivers could help cities move toward more diverse commuting.

In the District, experts say a parking cash-out program could be part of the equation to achieve 75 percent of all trips on sustainable transportation, and it would benefit city residents the most because they are more likely to have easy access to other travel options, such as bikeshare, bus and Metro.

About 40 percent of D.C. residents drive to work, according to data from the District Department of Transportation, while 39 percent take transit, 15 percent walk and 6 percent bike.

“It reduces traffic and pollution, incentivizes a healthier commute, gives workers flexibility in their commutes, and is paid for with a parking space that’s not needed,” Cheryl Cort, policy director at the Coalition for Smarter Growth said of the legislation.

In 2014, the District joined New York and San Francisco in passing a law requiring employers with 20 or more employees to offer commuter benefits, giving thousands of workers access to the federal tax break to pay for transit and parking. Supporters say the new proposal would take the city a step further by requiring companies who subsidize parking spaces to offer an equivalent benefit to non-drivers.

[More Washington workers will get commuter benefits]

It is unclear how many companies offer free or subsidized parking, but a city survey of 191 employers in 2016 found that 34 percent offer free parking and an additional 18 percent offer a parking subsidy, according to DDOT. Free parking is the most common fringe benefit to employees across the country and in many cases employers offer free parking or nothing.

“People who walk or ride the bus get nothing. It is unfair,” said Donald Shoup, a professor at the University of California in Los Angeles, and author of “The High Cost of Free Parking”.

Research suggests that having access to subsidized parking ranks high in someone’s decision to drive to work, he said.  A survey of 5,000 commuters and their employers in downtown Los Angeles showed that free parking at work increased the number of cars driven to work by 34 percent, he said

“Employer-paid parking is an invitation to drive to work alone,” he said “The cash option rewards commuters who don’t drive to work alone. Parking cash-out therefore increases the share of commuters who carpool, ride public transit, walk, or bike to work.”

In California, legislation enacted in 1992 requires that employers with 50 or more employees who offer free parking must also give workers the option to take an equivalent cash allowance instead. But the law did not set any penalties for non-compliance.

As companies become more aware of the rule, Shoup said, they are realizing the benefits. Studies of firms in Southern California that offer parking cash-outs found the share of commuters who drove to work alone fell from 76 percent before the cash option to 63 percent afterward, he said. For every 100 commuters offered the cash option, 13 solo drivers shifted to another travel mode, he said.

That’s the kind of response the District is hoping for with its proposal. But it is unclear how the business community would respond. Supporters say they don’t anticipate any change for businesses  beyond administrative.

“When a commuter takes the cash allowance instead of free parking, the employer saves the cash paid for a parking space,” explained Shoup, who was instrumental in the creation of California’s parking cash-out law. “The employer’s avoided parking subsidy directly funds the commuter’s cash allowance, so there is no net cost to the employer when a commuter forgoes the free parking and takes the cash.”

The D.C. “cash-out law” would not prohibit or discourage employer-paid parking. It would simply require that an employer who offers to pay for parking for employees who drive to work also offer to pay the same amount to those who don’t. The District would be the first major city to have an enforceable program if the bill passes.

Read the original story here.

Despite already plummeting ridership, Metro’s board on Thursday gave preliminary approval to a package of fare hikes and rail and bus service cuts. Final approval of the austerity budget, little more than a formality, is expected on March 23. The changes will take effect July 1.

Base rail fares will go up 10 cents for rush hour and 25 cents for off-peak travel times. The maximum rail fare will reach $6. Bus fares are increasing by 25 cents to $2, but the weekly bus-only pass will remain at $17.50, a break for low income commuters.

The wait for rush-hour trains will grow to eight minutes at outlying stations across all six Metro lines; more trains in the system’s core will drop the wait times to three to four minutes closer to the system’s core. At off-peak hours, trains will continue to run at 12-minute intervals.

Supporters of general manager Paul Wiedefeld’s “reality check” budget voted yes reluctantly because riders have been fleeing the system in droves and the remaining loyal customers will now be asked to pay more for fewer trains and buses. Only one board member, Malcolm Augustine of Prince George’s County, voted no, venting his disgust in the process.

“This is basic economics. You’re raising the price. You’ll lose riders,” Augustine said. “It’s just a bad business decision.”

But asking commuters to share the pain is a gamble the transit authority must take, said Christian Dorsey, who represents Arlington.

“This board had to take the responsible step and do what good governance institutions do, which is to make these difficult choices,” Dorsey said. “The process of arriving where we are today has been to try to mitigate the pain in ways that are sensible. No one likes raising fares, but I think overall the fare increases are necessary.”

Through a series of amendments, the board voted to restore bus routes that were on the chopping block in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, but not all will be spared. Metro received thousands of public comments through surveys and other means, many of which pleaded for the restoration of bus service in areas with few, if any, transportation alternatives.

Metro’s average weekday rail ridership is at its lowest level since 2003, in part because the SafeTrack reconstruction effort has severely disrupted the timely arrival of trains. Bus ridership is also dropping, although customer surveys show bus riders are generally more satisfied with service levels than people who take the train.

Even as they approved the $1.8 billion operating budget, board members expressed a sense that Metro is in a danger zone from which it may not emerge.

In remarks to reporters, Wiedefeld said the system is not heading toward the so-called transit death spiral, a term used to describe an irreparable loss of riders fueled by higher prices and less robust service.

“The way that we bring back ridership is through basically more reliable service,” said Wiedefeld, who has launched multiple initiatives to repair aging track infrastructure and railcars.

By running fewer trains, Metro believes it can deliver on timely service that is “right sized” for dwindling riders. But some analysts say this approach is akin to managing the system’s demise, not turning it around.

“I think there is something wrong with the idea that riders have to share in the sacrifice to close the budget gap,” said Steven Higashide, a senior analyst at Transit Center, a New York-based research foundation. In his view, Metro is in a death spiral.“Riders have already been sacrificing for years, and it is now at a point where many are no longer willing to sacrifice and they are fleeing the system,” he said.

The new rush hour headway of eight minutes at outlying rail stations makes Metro an outlier, Higashide said, compared to most major mass transit systems across the nation.

“In cities like Boston, Chicago, and New York it’s not unheard of to wait eight or even ten minutes during the early rush at 5 or 6 in the morning, but most transit customers in those cities aren’t going to be waiting more than five or six minutes for a train at the height of the rush,” he said.

The Coalition for Smarter Growth, a pro-transit group, said Metro’s contributing jurisdictions should have ponied more money — beyond the $130 million they agreed to add to Metro’s budget — to avoid fare hikes and service cuts. The regional governments’ latest additions to Metro bring subsidy to close to $1 billion in a $1.8 billion operating budget.

“The data has shown over and over again that the way to get people riding transit is frequent, reliable service. Fare hikes and service cuts are neither frequent nor reliable service,” said Aimee Custis, the group’s deputy director.

“The money should be coming the local jurisdictions that are part of the WMATA compact,” Custis added.

But Wiedefeld said the jurisdictions could only be asked to cover part of the shortfall.

“The jurisdictions have lots of other financial issues they are dealing with, and I had to take that under consideration,” Wiedefeld said.

Today’s vote comes close to capping one of the most difficult budget seasons in memory, as Metro was forced to close a projected $290 million shortfall. The general manager is in the process of cutting the workforce by 1,000 positions and cracking down on absenteeism, but in the end it proved impossible to completely avoid raising fares for the first time in three years.

Moreover, Metro’s financial problems will not be erased through a single austerity budget. At this time next year, the general manager and board expect to grapple with another massive shortfall because ridership is not expected to rapidly recover.

When asked where he will find the money, Wiedefeld declined to offer a specific solution.

“We are going to work through it with the region to deal with those issues. We have to,” he said.

Establishing dedicated funding through a new, regional sales tax is one of the most commonly discussed solutions to Metro’s structural operating deficit and long-term capital needs – at least when it comes to revenue.
When it comes to Metro’s growing labor expenses, some controversial ideas are gaining traction amid suburban jurisdictions wary of escalating subsides and among lawmakers in Annapolis and Richmond, namely privatizing aspects of WMATA’s maintenance and operations.

But Wiedefeld is not ready to endorse privatization yet.

“I am not there yet, but I think we have to, as we start to look to future of funding this, take a broad look at all aspects of the business,” he said.

Any proposal to privatize Metro would run into ferocious opposition from Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689, which represents 8,500 front line employees. The union is currently negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with management, and has condemned Wiedefeld’s budget proposal.

 

Click here to read the original article

The Metro board finance committee voted Thursday to raise fares for bus and rail riders, reduce train frequencies and slash some bus routes, advancing the agency’s austerity budget to a final vote — but not before slipping in three last-minute amendments to preserve a slew of bus lines that were slated for cancellation or reduction.

Board members approved the $1.8 billion operating budget in the face of numerous concerns, chiefly: whether fare hikes and fewer trains would accelerate a ridership decline that has driven the nation’s second-busiest subway into financial distress.

Metro is facing a $290 million budget shortfall for the coming fiscal year, and ridership and parking revenue losses — exacerbated by the year-long SafeTrack maintenance program — make up about a third of the shortfall. As board members cautiously advanced the spending plan, Metro General Manager Paul J. Wiedefeld defended the cuts, which have drawn the ire of riders and transit advocates.

“The way that we bring back ridership is through basically more reliable service,” Wiedefeld said at a news conference after the board meeting. “We have not been able to deliver what we said we were going to deliver. So I think it’s more important to the customer [to] ‘just tell me what I’ve got and then deliver it.’ ”

[Metro moving forward with fare increases for coming year]

Rail ridership was down 12 percent compared with a year earlier, the latest figures showed, and has fallen by about 100,000 trips from its 2009 peaks. Metro estimates that the fare increases will result in a total loss of 10 million trips during the 2018 fiscal year. But even with the ridership loss, Metro estimates the fare increase will boost revenue by $21 million.

Rush-hour rail fares would increase by a dime, with $2.25 as the new minimum and $6 as the maximum one-way fare. The plan increases off-peak rail and bus fares 25 cents. The frequency of trains, most of which are scheduled to arrive at least every six minutes, would be reduced to every eight minutes, with more service in the system’s core.

The full board is expected to approve the budget March 23, and the fare increases and service changes would go into effect July 1.

There was little debate over the need for drastic cuts. Wiedefeld, who has eliminated 500 jobs and is in the process of cutting 500 more, has said there are few other sources of savings left for the beleaguered transit agency.

But board member Malcolm Augustine said the fare increases and service cuts are the wrong approach. The lone dissenting vote, he worried the changes would only hasten the ridership decline.

“This is basic economics. You’re raising the price. You’ll lose riders,” he said. “That is a bad business move.”

Wiedefeld, however, called the changes a “strategy” to improve performance.

“If we provide consistent reliable service then that market will come back,” he said.

[Metro riders, officials fear communities of color may be targeted in service cuts]

Aimee Custis, deputy director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, an advocacy group that promotes pro-transit policy, said it’s illogical to think riders will return with Metro offering less service.

“The thing that will eventually bring people back is frequent, reliable service, and we are headed away from that,” Custis said.

But other board members agreed with Wiedefeld, saying the measures are necessary to balance the agency’s budget.

Board member Jim Corcoran said the fare hikes will help stabilize ridership because a stable budget helps pay for safety and reliability improvements that will win back riders in the long run.

“I think this is a very good business decision to improve the product because an improved product will bring back riders,” he said.

Echoing Wiedefeld, board member Christian Dorsey said Metro could stem the ridership losses by adhering to its promised wait times.

“If we can deliver on what we say we’re putting out there, that would be an improvement,” he said.

Meanwhile, board members from the District, Maryland and Virginia scrambled to insert last-minute changes into the budget to help their constituents. The 11th-hour effort to save bus routes around the region was an about-face for the members, who arrived at the meeting with printed amendments detailing the list of bus routes that they planned to rescue from the chopping block — causing some to question whether the move was an act of long-planned political showmanship.

[‘Where is the light?’ frustrated Metro board member asks of system’s grim outlook]

The District rallied to save routes B8 and B9 — the Fort Lincoln Shuttle Line — and to modify the H6, which runs between Brookland and Fort Lincoln.

Virginia board members offered several changes that they estimated would cost about $500,000 in subsidies for the year. Their list included the full restoration of the 3T in Pimmit Hills, the 1C in Fair Oaks, and the 16G/H/K/X routes that run along Columbia Pike, from Columbia Heights West to Pentagon City.

They also approved some changes to local routes meant to help serve riders affected by the cancellation of the 28X, 7X, 17A and 17F lines.

Members representing Maryland pushed an amendment restoring the following routes: T14 (between Rhode Island Avenue and New Carrollton stations), F1 and F2 (running along Chillum Road), C8 (between College Park and White Flint stations), and the J1, J2 and J3 routes (operating between Bethesda and Silver Spring stations).

Maryland representatives also persuaded the board to allow Metro to continue to operate the J7 and J9 buses through at least October. Those are express buses that run along Interstate 270.

After the meeting, finance committee chairman Michael Goldman said he believes Maryland will be able to pay the approximately $2 million necessary to retain some of those local routes, because there appears to be extra money in the subsidy appropriated by the state legislature to Metro for next year’s bus budget.

Goldman said Metro staff has been asked to come up how much it will cost to save those routes, and the state will pay for them if the cost falls within what it can afford.

[Proposed bus cuts ‘might actually harm Metro in the long-term’]

“If it fits within the wiggle room, all those services could be restored,” Goldman said.

Dorsey praised the amendments for ensuring the cuts don’t adversely impact riders of Metrobus, “relatively the shining star of Metro at this point,” he said.

Augustine was afraid increasing the bus fare a quarter, to $2, would have a dramatic impact on Metrobus ridership and target low-income and minority riders.

In the original version of the fare increases proposed by Wiedefeld last fall, Metro came close to failing a Title VI analysis — a federally mandated statistical test to ensure that low-income and minority riders are not disproportionately harmed by changes to transit fares or service. Metro said Thursday that the agency’s decision to preserve the $17.50 price of a weekly bus pass was aimed at helping it steer clear of civil rights violations.

Augustine, however, pointed out that only a small percentage of Metrobus riders use the weekly bus-only pass. Following his lone ‘no’ vote, it was announced that the budget had been approved.

But a brief moment of confusion ensued when board members realized they hadn’t heard from member Corbett A. Price, who was looped in via conference call. Perhaps a sign of the general discontent with the situation, Price chimed in: “You may record my vote in favor of it, reluctantly.”

 

Click here to read the original story