The federal government is by far the largest employer in the Washington, D.C. area. With almost half a million employees commuting to work each day, federal authorities have an explicit role in influencing the carbon footprint of a large portion of the local workforce.
While the government has historically implemented a variety of benefits to support the use of public transport, the rise of Uber, Lyft, and other services in the sharing economy has revealed these benefits as rigid and out of touch. As the economy changes, so too should the rules on how commuter benefits can be spent.
The federal government and its agencies currently offer Washingtonians a variety of benefits, such as the Mass Transit Benefits Program, a parking subsidy, and various cycling subsidies. The rationale is simple, at least in theory: to help federal workers commute to work, and to incentivize them to use public transport or bicycles.
The parking subsidy, for example, helps workers to pay for parking in the district which, in turn, allows them to live further from their office and drive to work. This is crucial as the average cost of a single family home in the D.C. metropolitan area is among the highest in the country.
Real estate is so expensive that even the Department of Agriculture is planning to relocate some of its offices to Kansas City to save on rent. Commuter benefits help to ensure that middle- and working-class Americans aren’t priced out of pursuing a career in government. Similarly, the Mass Transit Benefits Program subsidizes federal workers to the tune of $265 a month if they use public transportation. Not only does this help to reduce traffic on the roads, but it also offers a handy subsidy for those who cannot afford their own car.
However, just like the economy more broadly, the way in which employees get to work is changing. Although these programs are backed by good intentions, they are woefully out of date for commuting in the age of the sharing economy and are restricting commuters’ choice. At present, the system is convenient for those who live near metro stations — where real estate is at a premium — but is less useful for those who live in less-connected areas.
The Mass Transit Benefit, for example, should be broadened to include more providers. In addition to the current vanpool services that are covered by the Mass Transit Benefit, ride-sharing services that offer carpooling services, such as Lyft Shared, Uber Pool, or Zimride, should be included.
What if an employee has a short-term medical issue and would struggle to use the metro? Or, what if they were pregnant and would prefer not to ride the metro at rush hour in the summer heat? If commuters are truly entitled to certain benefits, they should have the freedom to choose how they spend it.
Similarly, the Department of the Interior’s ABC Subsidy, and the Department of Health and Human Services’ Bike2Work Program, should be updated to reflect the reality of cycling in the capital. At present the programs offer commuters $20 a month in vouchers that they can spend to buy bike accessories. But these benefits cannot be used for bike sharing, like the omnipresent Capital Bikeshare, despite the fact that the benefit would easily cover a yearly subscription to the service.
The solution is obvious: federal workers should be allowed to spend their benefits in the manner that best suits them. With federal commuter benefits attracting and retaining a broader pool of employee talent, it is time that the system reflects the diversity of the workforce’s preferences and today’s commuting options.
Oliver McPherson-Smith works on economic policy and research for the American Consumer Institute.
