$100 a month free for transit? Our contributors discuss.

DC councilmember Charles Allen (Ward 6) unveiled a plan Monday which would give every DC resident (almost) $100 on a SmarTrip card to pay for trips on rail, bus, and paratransit. Our contributors, and people on Twitter and elsewhere, have been discussing the plan. What do you think?

What Allen is proposing

The program, which Allen is calling “Metro For DC,” would load up residents’ SmarTrip cards at the beginning of each month with $100 of transit fare. Holders could use it for any WMATA transit service (but not parking) or any other system that takes SmarTrip.

It would work similarly to employer-provided transit benefits, like what the federal government offers (but only $100). If someone spends $30 of their $100, then they get topped up to $100 again, costing DC $30 (not $100) for the next month. Therefore, people wouldn’t be able to hoard fares, and people who don’t ride transit wouldn’t cost DC anything.

Rather than raising any taxes or fees now, Allen’s bill would dedicate a portion (the precise amount is not yet clear) of future revenue increases to fund this program. For instance, the CFO’s December 2019 forecast estimated an extra $122-134 million in each of the next five years, beyond what the budget had previously accounted for. (Though, the CFO also noted at the time, changes like a recession could reverse that, and now is warning about possible revenue drops due to the coronavirus affecting tourism, especially the National Cherry Blossom Festival).

Allen estimates the bill will cost up to $155 million, but possibly quite a bit less, partly since the government will be able to negotiate bulk rates with WMATA.

Allen hopes to make this a universal benefit, applying to almost all residents. However, if there’s not enough money for it to apply to everyone, the bill sets out four “tiers”:

1. People making up to 300% of the federal poverty level (the Medicaid eligibility standard)
2. People making up to 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI)
3. People making up to 155% of AMI
4. People regardless of income

One group who wouldn’t get the free transit is people who work for federal, state, or local governments and already get free transit. The idea presumably is that since these governments already pay for transit for employees, DC isn’t looking to simply take over that cost. Also, it wouldn’t apply to students who already benefit from Kids Ride Free or other existing transit subsidies for foster children, youth in the Summer Youth Employment Program, or adult learners.

Allen recognizes that current transit services don’t serve many areas well today, which is why the bill also funds a $10 million per year fund to add more bus service in areas of high need, build bus lanes, or do studies about where people need more service. That fund also can give grants to nonprofits who work with low-income residents to help them with the program.

The bill tries to make it easy to establish residency. Anyone who files a DC tax return, has taxes withheld from their paycheck, or receives a social service benefit would be eligible. There are also ways for direct service nonprofits to certify people to ensure all of their clients are covered.

Our community sees a lot of benefit

We asked our volunteers and members of the GGWash Neighborhood about this idea. Neighborhood member Andrew Grinberg wrote: “I think this bill is a great idea. The scale of the challenge in solving the climate crisis and our deadly and inequitable transportation system will require using all of the tools possible” to boost things like public transit.

David Edmondson said, “I kinda love it. It’s a good way to get people to use transit and is a back door to free transfers.”

Mike Dranove added, “Seems like it’s the least the city can do to help ease the burden of low-income residents pushed to the exurbs after what amounts to being criminally negligent on addressing the region’s housing shortage.”

Is a targeted benefit better than a universal one?

Much of the discussion among volunteers and Neighbors and on Twitter revolved around Allen’s decision to make this a universal benefit rather than a means-tested one, which would only go to people of lower incomes. There have been huge national and global debates about the question of which is better.

In the United States, we means test programs like SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) or Medicaid. On the other hand, Social Security is universal. So is public education.

The argument for means testing is pretty straightforward. We have limited resources, so why not focus them on the people with the most need? Alice G wrote, “Nothing is free. The question is where do we want our tax dollars to go? If he wants to subsidize low-income citizens that is one thing; giving ‘free rides’ to people who can afford to pay is ridiculous.”

Neighbor Alan Cashell said, “I’d support some way to help low-income residents but I don’t need a subsidy for Metro fares and I doubt that most of the people I see on the train do either.”

A D Simon added, “My issue with Allen’s proposal is that I am not of the opinion that people making 100% AMI or higher should have access to these funds. These resources need to be focused on the employment demographics that are in actual NEED of a subsidy, and could potentially have a greater impact on those in need of financial subsidy, versus those who are of the means to support themselves.”

Simon cited the widely-distributed “equality versus equity” cartoon, arguing that a universal benefit would be like the “equality” diagram while a means-tested one is equity.

And Veronica Davis suggested an alternate way to spend the money, saying, “If we have money to throw around, I’d rather it go to meeting a standard that all buses operating in the District maintain at least a 15-minute headway during the off-peak and consideration of making some routes (70/79, X2, 90/92) operate 24/7.”

The case against means testing

While some equity-focused policy analysts push for targeted programs, many others have argued the benefits of universal programs for a few reasons. Here’s a good article on the issue.

One, which Allen cites, is stigma. He said, “we don’t want to other our public transit.” In many cities, transit (especially buses) is seen as the fall-back for losers rather than everyone, as in this controversial 2003 Chevy ad (later pulled down). In this region, people of all incomes and colors and backgrounds ride transit.

Does that matter? Having stigmatized public transit can make low-income people who use it feel like less than other people, or lead them to face discrimination in the workplace based on commuting choices. It can deter people of low incomes from actually using it. And, it can become a self-reinforcing cycle by deterring people against riding the bus if they can afford to drive.

A related argument is that universal programs are more immune to cuts. Social Security has long been called the “third rail” of politics. Public education remains popular, as do libraries and parks. (Here’s something of a counterargument, making a case that benefit-cutting conservatives have cut universal and means-tested programs).

Another argument against means testing is administrative cost. Verifying someone’s income takes some effort. Some government officials have to verify the income level. That costs money, money which could go toward the actual benefits instead.

It also can be a burden for recipients. Many means-tested programs force recipients to fill out considerable paperwork, sometimes because of rules implemented by well-meaning program supporters who want to target the benefits, and sometimes instituted by opponents who just want to make it harder to participate. Either way, this can force people already working multiple jobs to toil through substantial extra work just to get a small amount of money. Sometimes, the verification makes a mistake and people incorrectly are ruled ineligible.

In this case of Allen’s bill, he’s splitting the difference, in a way. It’s a universal program, but until there’s enough money, it’s means-tested. No matter what, there will be some overhead in verifying residency (and re-verifying, in case people move), as well as to exclude people getting federal or local government transit benefits already.

Erin Palmer wrote on Twitter, “Often lost in the discussion re means-tested vs universal programs is the bureaucracy around means-tested programs that disincentivizes participation. Vulnerable status, stigma, etc. contribute. Universal programs keep those folks from falling through the cracks.”

Lisa Cutler replied, “It also protects programs from budget cuts and resentments. The reality is many wealthier people in the city get transit benefits and won’t actually use these. But telling them off the bat that it isn’t for them makes it ‘welfare.’”

And our Transportation Equity Organizer Ron Thompson’s opinion: “Means-testing is never done to give people more benefits. It’s almost always done to deny people any level of benefits.”

Grinberg said:

Free transit is a tool that might be able to deliver big ridership increases immediately, while improving transit access for those that need it. If we truly think getting people to use transit is good for all of us, it shouldn’t be means tested. Same argument applies for why we have free public schools for all.

Obviously, if there are budgetary constraints, I agree that starting with lower income residents should be the priority. However, as a starting negotiation, this bill is an excellent opening position.

Regarding the equity/equality image, organizations have been starting to use this one in its place, which represents the logic behind the Allen proposal:

There is no definitive answer on means testing versus universal benefits, and it will continue to be the subject of hot debate on the national scale and around this policy when it comes to a hearing in the DC Council.

Besides Allen, co-introducers include Mary Cheh (Ward 3), chair of the transportation committee; Robert White (at-large), whose committee oversees Metro; and council chairman Phil Mendelson. Brianne Nadeau (Ward 1), Kenyan McDuffie (Ward 5), Trayon White (Ward 8), Anita Bonds (at-large), and David Grosso (at-large) also co-introduced the bill.

What do you think of the plan?