No wonder the CAQs and municipalities do not agree on the means to finance public transportation. They do not share the same objectives. However, it would be simpler if they admitted it clearly.
How much money is missing? The answer: it depends on the services desired.
The Caquistes first see it as a problem of spending. They urge transport companies to control their budgets. For the rest, they are banking on a return of ridership to pre-pandemic levels. With less waste and more users, according to them, demand will be met. This is a short-term vision, if we can speak of “vision”.
Municipalities want to increase supply. In principle, the Caquists are in favor of it. They are willing to fund the addition of these services. But they don’t want to pay more to operate and maintain them.
Last year, special government aid (70% of the deficit bailed out) made it possible to avoid the worst. Public transport companies have thus balanced their budgets. But to do this, they postponed expenses for additions and maintenance. Services have stagnated.
This status quo is not a balance. It is equivalent to accepting solo driving, congestion, urban sprawl and its financial and ecological costs.
Depending on the cities, supply should not adapt to demand. They suggest the opposite. The more the service improves, they say, the more users will swap their cars for the bus, train and metro.
The past shows that it is possible. From 2006 to 2011, public transit services increased by 19%, and ridership jumped by 11%.
Unfortunately, this progress has slowed. From 2013 to 2018, in Greater Montreal, bus, metro and train ridership increased by only 4%.1.
Worse: throughout Quebec, the use of cars has increased.
However, Quebec’s sustainable mobility policy aims to reduce solo driving. And also to improve the public transport offer, by 5% per year.
In 2019, former Minister of Transport François Bonnardel launched a consultation on the financing of public transport. The observation: the model no longer works. Transportation companies are struggling to maintain their assets. However, their expenses will increase with the addition of the REM, buses, metros and trains. And gas tax revenue will decline because of electrification.
Since then, numerous expert reports have proposed solutions:
- Kilometer tax (complicated to implement technologically)
- Toll or, for Montreal, toll cordon (which will harm the island’s merchants)
- Increase in the gas tax (which has not been indexed)
- Increase in tax and registration fees (which have not been indexed)
- Royalty and land capture (which will displease real estate developers)
- Levy from the Green Fund (which will increase the deficit)
- Increase in property taxes (already high)
- Increase in user fees (even though we want to attract them)
No solution is an easy sell. This is precisely why elected officials must think about it together.
Upon her arrival in office, Minister Geneviève Guilbault has launched a new round of consultation. The problem was reported.
Still, there was hope. We noted his decision to add “Sustainable Mobility” to the name of his ministry. Its road safety policy has been well received. It was also she who defended the abandonment of the third link. But since the defeat of the CAQ in Jean-Talon’s by-election, behind-the-scenes communications are rarer and tense between Ms.me Guilbault and the municipalities.
If the minister is known for her harsh tone, some municipalities are not helping themselves. The mayor of Montreal, Valérie Plante, has made public transportation free for seniors even though she says she lacks money. The mayor of Laval, Stéphane Boyer, makes scathing solitary media outings. Last fall, he took the liberty of attacking the CAQ government during an announcement where his police department was receiving $20 million in aid.
Then, on Thursday, the mayor of Quebec, Bruno Marchand, said he no longer had “confidence” in Mr.me Guilbault. It’s as if he’s banking on a cabinet reshuffle in the coming months. But the worst way to get a minister’s exoneration is to ask for it.
During the pandemic, the CAQ government absorbed the deficits of public transport companies. Mme Guilbault deplores that these companies have not reduced their expenses enough during this crisis.
In fact, municipalities could tighten their spending. For example, their employees are paid more than those at the provincial level. Quebec has also ordered audits – even if they are already undergoing them from independent auditors.
But that doesn’t change the root of the problem: to develop, public transport will need new sources of revenue. The “optimization gains” claimed by Mme Guilbault (354 million over five years) is only a fraction of the shortfall. That won’t be enough. The solution will also have to involve a form of eco-taxation and an additional contribution from motorists.
The Caquistes refuse to do so. With roads, their speech is different. They never talk about a “loss-making” road. For asphalt, the State picks up the bill without complaint.
Of course, motorists pay several taxes. But this is not enough to pay for the services they receive, as Pierre-Olivier Pineau, from the Chair of Energy Sector Management at HEC Montréal, has already demonstrated.
Caquistes postpone difficult decisions2. Unless they have already decided and abandoned the sustainable mobility policy.
1. Read the highlights of the Origin-Destination survey for the Montreal region
2. Read the column “The dried up “fern” of public transport”
reference: www.lapresse.ca