Do I benefit from public transport? I pay.

There are solutions to the public transit funding crisis which is in full swing this week. One of them: consider the financing of public transport from the perspective of the beneficiary-payer. It’s time to discuss it.

Minister Geneviève Guilbault is right: it is not her responsibility to “manage” public transport. Besides, no one expects it to interfere in the management of transport companies.

Its responsibility is to put in place the winning conditions so that the financing of public transport is recurrent, and that its planning and development are ensured.

Which she doesn’t do.

And adding the words “sustainable mobility” to his title as Minister of Transport will not convince us otherwise.

It is not enough to make up the deficits of transport companies to promote the development of public transport.

The responsibility of a government is to see far ahead, to make courageous decisions about land use planning, densification, and better access to public transport. And the responsibility of a Minister of Transport is, among other things, to take an interest in the movement of people, regardless of their means of transport.

M^me Guilbault says she is waiting for financial audits of the transportation companies. Either. It is true that the latter must be held accountable for their management. But nothing is stopping the minister from showing leadership and mobilizing all transport stakeholders to discuss planning and financing. By trying to save time, the minister is wasting time.

These reflections should have started the day after the pandemic. The longer we wait, the more the situation deteriorates.

A benefit that pays for itself

In my opinion, the question we must ask ourselves today is: who benefits from public transport?

The answer: not just those who use it.

Motorists also benefit since the metro helps reduce the number of cars on the roads. Normal that they contribute to financing the metro and the bus.

In May, the City of Montreal will conduct a survey of its population, to whom several options will be presented:

Should we raise user fees? Impose new taxes on motorists? Inflate owners’ tax bills? Or lower the level of service?

Let’s say it straight away, reducing the service is a very bad idea which would lead to a reduction in attendance, which must be avoided.

I would add that one answer choice is missing from the survey’s list of solutions: should businesses and institutions that benefit from public transportation contribute more?

Whether we think of the CHUM, the Bell Center, the Palais des congrès or Place des Arts, they all benefit from proximity to the metro. This is a positive factor for recruiting employees and, in many cases, for attracting customers. The same goes for all companies located above the underground city, or whose offices are in the center of the metropolis, very well served by public transport.

This transport infrastructure which benefits them is very expensive. How is it that they enjoy it without spending a penny? Without financing its maintenance?

People will tell me that all these beautiful people pay property taxes, but that is not enough. They should all pay a special contribution, including the universities which greatly benefit from it.

Consider UQAM and the University of Montreal, directly connected to a metro station, or Concordia and McGill, located a few meters from a metro entrance.

Why do you think the University of Sherbrooke built its pavilion above the Longueuil metro station? Or that the University of Montreal now rents premises at the Quartier du REM station in Brossard?

This accessibility is a major asset for these institutions whose name is attached to that of a metro station, advertising which should not be free.

Everyone is looking

It’s not just in Quebec that people are scratching their heads to find sources of recurring funding for public transportation.

People are thinking about it all over the world.

The International Transport Forum (an intergovernmental organization under the leadership of the OECD) published a very well-documented research report on the issue in February in which it lists several sources of financing that I named above^⁠1.

I especially remember one sentence from this report: “To meet the challenge of sustainable transportation, we need a highly strategic response from the entire government. »

This is a bit of the opposite of what the CAQ has been offering us since 2018.

On Monday, the mayor of Laval, Stéphane Boyer, defended the idea of ​​increasing the registration tax to $228, an increase of 280%. Raising this tax is an excellent idea and it seems that around thirty cities have informed the SAAQ that they plan to do so. But a 280% increase all at once would only fuel the anger and frustration of motorists. We need to go gradually and better explain how this tax is justified.

This work of explaining and raising awareness of the benefits of public transport could be undertaken by Minister Guilbault. Sustainable mobility would still have to really interest him.

1. Read the OECD report (in English)

What do you think ? Participate in the dialogue