We hear a lot these days about the “deficit” of public transport companies, which would have to be eliminated by various means. This is, in my opinion, an inappropriate semantic choice and one that only serves people who would like to see this public service marginalized.
We are not talking about a “deficit” in the school system, a “deficit” in the health system, a “deficit” in the road network.
What gives room to the idea of a “deficit” in public transportation is, on the one hand, that this service is delegated to the municipal level and, on the other hand, that users and users pay for their use, which induces an analysis framework modeled on the private sector. But this is a double standard compared to other public services. No one expects a hospital or school to be directly profitable, and there is no reason to think otherwise for public transportation.
The right way to approach the question is not to ask “How can we eliminate the deficit?” » but rather “What level of public service do we want? “.
A disorder
Rather than calculating the “deficit” of public transport companies, let us first take stock of the consequences of the State’s historic disengagement in public transport.
Everyone who works in the field is well aware of the imbalance that prevails when it comes to financing transportation networks. Since the Ryan reform of 1991, state support for public transport has been limited almost exclusively to capital assets, with operations essentially being the responsibility of municipalities. The operating budget of transport companies is therefore mainly based on the municipal contribution and rights of way and, to a lesser extent, on registration fees for road vehicles and a little government support for the development of the offer.
However, like any public service, public transport is not in itself a profitable activity. A transport company that increases its service offering will, of course, increase its ridership revenues a little, but it will also increase its expenses.
By choosing public transportation, a city prepares itself to have to assume a higher operating budget. (Conversely, a city which does not develop this service, relying on the upper road network to accommodate new trips, does so at zero cost. In fact, it is then the government which assumes everything: construction, widening, maintenance , road repairs.)
However, public transportation is far from serving only local interests and needs. Everything should encourage the State to assume leadership in the development of public transportation, which has major impacts on the Quebec economy, constitutes an essential social safety net and has proven to be an essential tool from an environmental and health perspective.
Reducing car use and increasing the share of public transport is a stated priority of many government policies, from the Sustainable Mobility Policy to the Plan for a Green Economy, including the Government health prevention policy, the National Architecture and Land Use Planning Policy and the Energy Transition, Innovation and Efficiency Master Plan. That makes at least five ministers counting on the development of public transportation to achieve their targets. The State cannot withdraw from the case.
A model to review
However, public transport is also a local choice, and cities will have to contribute more to its development, in particular by taking advantage of their new taxation powers. This will give them more financial autonomy and more latitude to realize their visions for the territory. We will of course expect the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport and Sustainable Mobility to contribute to this new financial framework and to resolutely support local elected officials who will act to better finance public transport.
But it is not a question of eliminating a “deficit”. It’s about giving ourselves the means to have the level of public transportation service we need. The real deficit currently is the lack of services throughout the territory. New neighborhoods are developing in the suburbs, in urban centers and in villages in Quebec. Meanwhile, supply stagnates, so it deteriorates. Are we really going to tell citizens: “Pay more, receive less”?
It is high time to review the public transportation financing model. The current crisis requires establishing a growth target for services and providing the means to achieve it. Otherwise, we have not finished widening the social and environmental deficit of the lack of public transport. Everyone will have to take leadership. And the first thing to do is to stop entertaining the scarecrow of “deficits”.