Skip to main content

Cubic voices opposition to proposed cuts in pre-tax benefits for mass transit

Cubic Transportation Systems has voiced its opposition to the proposed cuts in pre-tax benefits for the Transit Benefit Program available to citizens who use public transportation. Within the Senate Finance Committee, Senators are considering reducing the pre-tax benefit to individuals using public transportation from its current US$245 per month to US$125 per month, close to a 50 per cent cut. Cubic believes it is in the Committee’s best interest to maintain the current transit benefit since promoting pub
August 8, 2013 Read time: 2 mins
378 Cubic Transportation Systems has voiced its opposition to the proposed cuts in pre-tax benefits for the Transit Benefit Program available to citizens who use public transportation.  Within the Senate Finance Committee, Senators are considering reducing the pre-tax benefit to individuals using public transportation from its current US$245 per month to US$125 per month, close to a 50 per cent cut.

Cubic believes it is in the Committee’s best interest to maintain the current transit benefit since promoting public transportation helps the consumer, the economy and the environment, stating that the 50 percent cut under US Senate works against the economy, energy independence and wage earners.

“Developing a legislative plan to review and streamline our current tax code is laudable and to be encouraged.  But to reduce the Transit Benefit program will discourage the millions of citizens and employees who use public transportation as a means of commuting to and from their place of business,” said Steve Shewmaker, president of Cubic Transportation Systems. “This works against our national interest to be energy independent, promote economic growth, reward wage earners and be pro-environment. Moreover, at a time when gasoline prices are at a record high and the U.S. trade balance so negatively impacted by oil imports, the last thing policy makers should be considering is legislation that discourages the use of public transit.  The government should be encouraging our citizens to take advantage of public transportation when and where it is accessible.”

“By financially penalising those who utilise – and often rely on – public transportation, it discourages ridership, prompting more individuals to drive personal vehicles, consume fossil fuels and significantly contribute to growing congestion and pollution of urban areas,” said Shewmaker.  He went on to say that not only would the benefit cuts impact riders but they would negatively affect the transit market as well. Public transit’s growth, accessibility and increased efficiencies for the consumer and transportation authorities are at the heart of the transit business.

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • California e-dreaming with ABB
    March 27, 2020
    Data can unlock the costs and benefits of converting commercial fleets to electric vehicles.
  • Fetch.ai launches blockchain AI parking
    November 20, 2020
    Scheme with Datarella will reward Munich's drivers for parking in less popular destinations
  • How MaaS and AVs can cut Oslo traffic
    June 17, 2019
    A new study shows that on-demand AVs and MaaS together could make a significant difference to traffic in Oslo, Norway – but only if ride-share is involved too If you replace today’s traditional private car ownership with a mixture of Mobility as a Service (MaaS) and on-demand autonomous vehicles (AVs) running door-to-door, you could make dramatic cuts in city traffic. That, at least, is the view of researchers from COWI and PTV, who have modelled a variety of future scenarios based on the morning rush h
  • Road pricing is inevitable – because the ‘user pays’ principle is fair
    June 14, 2018
    We pay for roads through our taxes: the poor pay proportionately more, and effectively subsidise the rich. It would be fairer to accept the ‘user pays’ principle, says Dr John Walker. Road pricing is already used worldwide to combat congestion and pollution, to compensate for falling revenues from fuel duty (‘gas tax’), to provide an alternative (and fairer) means of charging motorists than the 80-year old fuel tax and to improve the efficiency of and expand transport infrastructure. However, it could and s