The City of Phoenix needs to attract the best and brightest talent and therefore continually measures its pay and benefits against nationwide benchmarks. For the most part, that's a good idea, but sometimes it results in the City's doing something it shouldn't be doing just because everyone else is doing it. The worst example of that practice is car allowances for high-ranking city staff.

Fiscal conservatives may object to the cost of the car allowances. I'm sympathetic to that issue, but there's an even more important reason to re-examine the practice of car allowances: They set a bad example in a city that urgently needs to become less car-dependent and more accommodating of a balanced mix of modes of transportation.

Does a city executive have an incentive to use public transit or a bicycle to commute to work when he or she is provided with several hundred dollars a month to cover a car payment? Since the cost of car ownership (or leasing) is far higher than the cost of car operation, anything that subsidizes a car purchase or lease is essentially an inducement to drive.

Of course, part of the rationalization for car allowances is that top city staff need to travel frequently from site to site as part of their job duties. That's true, but some of that travel could be accomplished by bus or rail. Having city leaders make more trips via those modes might make them more sensitive to the need for improvements in public transit.

For trips to areas of the city not served by bus or rail, as well as trips scheduled so tightly that a car is the only viable option, the appropriate solution is a fleet of fuel-efficient vehicles that can be signed out as needed for city business.

While there may be some objections that eliminating car allowances will make the City a less competitive employer, this could also be an opportunity to ensure the priorities of the City's senior staff align with the multi-modal mix of transport choices Phoenix needs to embrace.