In Quebec, the management of public transport projects sounds like this famous Plastic Bertrand hit in the 1980s. We are moving forward, too quickly. We go backwards. We spend millions on studies – almost 100 million for the REM de l’Est and 527 million for the Quebec tramway – and we still ask ourselves after decades: “Stop or again? »
The revelations of The Pressthis week, are eloquent.
Consultations on the “pink line” between downtown and Lachine have just been disconnected by François Legault1 which had also withdrawn from the City of Quebec its tram project whose costs had more than doubled, to 8.4 billion. The extension of the blue metro line is short of bidders2. And during this time, the REM de l’Est remains on the siding.
This is not to be cynical, but with all this procrastination, we can write the recipe for derailing a structuring transportation project in three simple steps.
Step One: Skip the Steps
With a good dose of politicization, determine the solution before having analyzed the needs.
Roll out the REM in the “West Island” to please liberal constituencies. Make deployment to the CAQ constituencies of Lanaudière a “non-negotiable condition” for the new version of the REM de l’Est.
No joke, structuring transportation must be deployed based on potential ridership – and not votes – if we want the bill to present an advantageous cost-benefit ratio.
To do this, you need a leader above the fray, which is not easy.
In the national capital, it is CDPQ Infra that Quebec has entrusted with the mandate to review the tramway and third link project, resurrected from the dead even if ridership does not justify it.
Curious decision.
It is true that the Ministry of Transport does not have the expertise to study these megaprojects which are much more complex than the construction of roads or bridges, due to their size and their multidisciplinary aspect.
And it is also true that the Caisse de dépôt has developed invaluable expertise in this area. But with the REM, we saw that it was making decisions to maximize its ridership by cannibalizing existing services, rather than to optimize the network for the benefit of the entire community.
For the sake of independence, it would be better to create an agency dedicated to public transportation, as the CAQ is considering doing. But it is not enough to add a structure to resolve the problems, as we saw with the creation of the Montreal Regional Transport Authority (ARTM) which has authority in name only.
There needs to be a real change in mentality. Why not take inspiration from Ontario or Vancouver, where the Metrolinx and TransLink agencies have taken over by modifying their governance to install experts in place of elected officials to depoliticize the debate?
Second stage : scare away bidders!
From the Quebec tramway to the metro blue line, consortia are turning their noses up at our major projects in urban areas which contain many unknowns. To cover all financial risks, they bid at a high price. Or they skip their turn and we end up with only one submission. A black eye for the competition.
Abroad, it’s different.
In Europe, for example, there are more suppliers, because there are numerous construction sites and governments have a clear vision over decades (think of the Grand Paris Express mega-construction site), which encourages companies to set up.
In Quebec, greater predictability would make it possible to develop expertise instead of discouraging suppliers.
Our tender process also deserves serious consideration.
Elsewhere, different formulas make it possible to work more in collaboration with the industry to improve the concept. With the “progressive design-build” formula, partners are selected based on their qualifications (financial solidity, past experience) and their ability to collaborate.
This allows the project design to be advanced for a year or two, reducing unknowns. The customer can make technical choices to balance costs and optimize the final product. And the consortium has more time to establish its price which is based on a less risky project.
If the price is not suitable, there is always an exit route which allows the principal to take back the keys to the project and make a call for tenders based on the work accomplished.
This is just one formula among others. But one thing is certain: we must aim for better value for money, rather than sticking to the rule of the lowest bidder as in Quebec.
Step Three: Hide Operating Costs
The construction costs of structuring transport are difficult for taxpayers to swallow. It is therefore tempting to hide the operating costs which will later inflate the deficits of transport companies.
Here’s why.
New infrastructure is so expensive that users cannot be asked to cover a third of the bill, as in the past, because prices would become prohibitive.
For the REM de l’Ouest, for example, the rates resulting from excess ridership will only cover approximately 10% of the operating costs related to the REM. So who will pay the bill? Towns ? Quebec? This crucial debate must be done before launching projects.
Public transport is essential in the fight against climate change. The decisions are not easy to make, because they are very big bites. To get there, you need a clear vision based on real needs. Not plans written on a napkin that end up in the trash.
The position of La Presse
To unblock our structuring transport projects, we need a clear long-term vision based on real needs and not on votes. Creating an agency would be a good starting point.