The Federal Government is Making Your Commute Worse


There are a lot of reasons to be frustrated with the gridlocked federal government, but when it comes to transportation, this headline probably hits home the hardest.

And it is the primary claim of a report released today, Subsidizing Congestion, by TransitCenter and The Frontier Group that describes the numerous ways in which a relatively obscure U.S. tax policy impacts commuters.

Subsiding CongestionThe commuter tax benefit is a subsidy that allows employees to withhold money from their paychecks, tax-free, to spend on transit usage, parking fees, and other commute-related expenses.

From 2009 through 2013, the benefit was equal for all employees regardless of whether they drove or took transit. About a year ago, however, Congress decreased the cap on transit benefits from $245 to $130 per month. At the same time, the cap was increased for drivers, capped at $250 per month.

This disparity has resulted in a policy that incentivizes driving, and is, according to the TransitCenter report, “counter to the nation’s overall transportation goals.” Specifically, this policy results in the following negative effects:

  • subsidizes traffic congestion.

By incentivizing driving over transit usage, the policy adds some 820,000 more cars on America’s most congested roads in its most congested cities.

  • provides the greatest tax benefit to those with the least need.

The subsidy provides the greatest benefit to the wealthy and to people who work in dense employment centers – that is, in places already prone to congestion.

  • costs $7.3 billion in reduced tax revenues.

The parking subsidy costs more than $7 billion in tax revenues. Tony Dutzik, senior policy analyst at The Frontier Group, said that while only one-third of Americans benefit from the parking subsidy, “everyone pays in the form of more congestion and an increased tax burden.”

While transit advocates including the Association for Commuter Transportation have called for transit benefit parity, TransitCenter’s research indicates that the American public would benefit most from a commuter tax benefit that favors transit over driving.

To that end, the authors of the report suggest that the federal government eliminate the parking benefit. At the very least, the report recommends that Congress restore parity – an equal monthly benefit amount – between the parking and transit benefits.

The report also recommends that the government explore improvements to the current transit benefits, such as refundable tax credits.

David Bragdon, executive director of TransitCenter, said, “The government should update its tax incentives to influence travel demand so that they fit the needs of today’s commuters.”

Finally, the report acknowledges that the tax code is not the only, or best, way to influence commuting behaviors. The report’s writers recommend that the federal government look at workplace transportation demand management programs (such as those provided by Arlington Transportation Partners in Arlington, Virginia; the METRO Commute Partnership Program in King County, Washington; and Oregon’s ECO Program, to name a few) to come up with better policy tools to reduce traffic congestion, conserve energy, and protect the environment.

Kansas City Traffic photo by Thomanication.

Share this item

10 Comments or Mentions

6 Comment(s)

Malcolm R

Federal government is not making your commute worse. I do not like the decrease in public transit benefits and it does effect the cost of your commute. The government does not force you into a car. They do not pick the location of your job. They don’t drive your car and cause the traffic jams. They don’t control the price of gas. The government doesn’t do a cost benefit analysis of your driving costs. Drivers or commuters are responsible for their choice. Take public transit or get stuck in traffic are two options. There are more options.

I want to improve traffic flow. If you want the same, contact me at Don’t blame others. Come up with a solution.



Autocentrism – for which the United States is the world’s poster child – skews everything. The feds, by supporting this approach to passenger transportation at the practical exclusion of all else, IS effectively forcing me into a car!

I don’t want to improve traffic flow. I want an alternative!

Garl B. Latham

Paul Goddin

I’ll have to respectfully disagree, Malcolm. Perhaps it wasn’t clear in the story, but several studies have shown a connection between transit benefits and transit use. These subsidies are incentives. So, all things being equal, providing a higher subsidy for parking incentivizes driving over the alternatives.

People are in control of their choices, as you say, but basic economics indicates people will respond to financial incentives. So, yes, the federal government is, by failing to restore transit parity, contributing to congestion.

Thanks for your input though. Debate is good!!

G Becker

Here are my recommendations for reducing traffuc congestion and accidents:

1. Provide the same financial incentive for walkers, bikers, and public transit users.
2. Provide no financial incertive for those who commute by car.
3. Eliminate free parking at all government office buildings.

This will reduce traffuc congestion for all.

Mark Sofman

IMO, the Federal tax code ought not be used for “social engineering” mostly on account of the proliferation of unintended effects. If the parking subsidy is to be wiped out, then the transit benefit ought to be as well. Getting rid of the parking subsidy would likely call for a sea change of attitudes by the planners and zoners and overhaul of zoning ordinances and codes. I don’t see minimum parking requirements for disappearing overnight, but if they did and if the value of parking was treated as compensation, I believe it’s safe to say there would be a big shift to other modes.


Parking does not need to be incentivized IMHO. Encourage public and urban transport!



This article has been mentioned in 4 other place(s).