Benefits and Compensation, HR Management & Compliance

Bill Making Transit Parity Permanent to Be Introduced

A bill to restore parity between mass transit and qualified parking benefits will be introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., she announced Feb. 10. The limits, dictated by tax Code Section 132, have been unequal since that part of the tax Code was written, although Congress several times has equalized them for temporary periods. The last temporary equalization expired Dec. 31, 2014.

Holmes is the Ranking Member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, but the District of Columbia, which she represents, does not have any votes in Congress.

A Feb. 10 press release said that Norton’s announcement follows the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s announcement that it is considering fare increases and service reductions. WMATA operates buses and trains in the national capital area.

Today, the monthly limit for transit expenses under a qualified transportation fringe benefit (see ¶610) is $130, while the limit for parking is $250. “The decrease in transit benefits has led to a striking reduction in transit system ridership across the country, including a 25-percent decrease in Metrorail commuters in the national capital region,” the press release said, “with riders switching to alternative means of commuting once they reach the $130 limit.” The press release does not address other possible reasons for reduced Metrorail ridership, including service disruptions and a fatal accident in January.

“Predictably, the unfair disparity between tax benefits for parking and transit has resulted in a big hole in ridership that can be retrieved only by getting riders back on mass transit throughout the nation,” Norton said. “Our bill is urgently needed to reestablish parity, so as to reduce the needs for fare increases or service cuts.” The release said that a bill that Norton introduced in the last Congress, was ultimately limited to one year — 2014 — “because of the perceived costs associated with a permanent extension.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *