A student at Cégep Lionel-Groulx, my daughter was one of the 18,500 strikers on March 29, demonstrating for free public transit. Free admission which should apply, according to the group of student organizers, to all CEGEP students, which would make it possible to fight against climate change.
Far be it from me to be against public transit, but you will have understood that free transit is not the solution. On the contrary, the increase in its costs in the perspective of a better service would be appropriate, and would still remain much more economical than individual transport by car and would ultimately contribute to the improvement of climate change.
- Listen to the interview with Antoine Joubert, columnist for the Guide de l’auto, who can’t believe the new tax on Benoit Dutrizac’s show via QUB-radio :
Alas, it seems that in Quebec, the quality of service no longer counts. As long as it’s free, we’re happy. Needless to say, the same is true in several spheres of activity, be it health, education or other. However, you have to use public transit in the suburbs, such as Laval and Longueuil, to see its obsolescence. Because the service is uneven, because it very often happens that the bus does not pass or is seriously late, and because network breakdowns are on the increase.
It is therefore not with free access that we will improve its lot, but with an increase in costs which will allow better maintenance, better coordination and more staff. We should also stop shouting about free access in Quebec, knowing that it really costs more in the end than if we made the user pay, as is the case for the motorist.
He pays for his driver’s licence, automobile, gasoline or electricity, insurance, registration, road tolls, parking, tires and maintenance and, if applicable, his luxury tax. or high displacement. Then, to all that, we add taxes. For their part, what does the user of public transport pay? Its monthly subscription – cheaper than a cellular plan – or its passage, equivalent to the price of a coffee. And you are telling me that it is the motorist who will still have to pay to finance the movement of people who pay next to nothing to do so?
However, this is exactly what will happen as of January 2024, when the inhabitants of 450 will be obliged to pay another tax of $59, used to finance public transport, of which more than 90% of the use is made in Montreal. A registration tax that will raise the price from $232.74 to $291.74. A tax which, of course, will certainly encourage a citizen of Rougemont or Saint-Lin-Laurentides to opt for the bus rather than the car!
In truth, this tax will change absolutely nothing, since in general, the “450” will not change their habits. They will continue to use the automobile because it fits into their routine. Because almost all the money will go to Montreal to the detriment of the suburbs and because more and more people are fleeing the city.
Another question: will the $59 snatched from each of these motorists really be used to fund public transit? Or will they be used in part to absorb the losses of the SAAQ, which paid half a billion for a new computer platform? Because for the moment, the latter makes him lose hundreds of thousands of dollars daily… Because tell yourself that each transaction that is not carried out by a merchant or a motorist results in a financial loss.
Note, it is only a matter of time before we pass on this impossible to quantify bill to motorists, solicited from all sides. So please let us go with the excuse of the environment! Let’s be honest and admit that the inefficiency of public transit stems from poor management, but above all, far too low fares.
I will end by mentioning that many people do not share my opinion and that the increase in public transit fares can indeed have an impact on the budget of many people. Alas, if we are digging even deeper into the pockets of the motorist – who pays more taxes, in addition to having to deal with the rising costs of all the aforementioned elements – why should the transport user in common comes out unscathed? So no, I am not in favor of free public transit, quite the contrary.