A few days ago, the director general of the Société de transport de Montréal (STM), Luc Tremblay, cried out, suggesting that we review the sources of funding for public transit and metropolitan governance. I worked alongside Mr. Tremblay for eight years and I totally share his concerns about governance and the need to review public transit funding.
Posted at 1:00 p.m.
I was very surprised to read the comments of the spokesperson for the Autorité régionale de transport métropolitain (ARTM) in certain media following the announcement of Luc Tremblay’s departure. Instead of acknowledging the discomfort, he defends the institution and points the finger at the partners: “It requires adaptation on the part of everyone, he says. It means working together and making compromises where transport companies were once self-sufficient. »
It is very useful to mention the resistance to change on the part of transport companies, it avoids having to think about shared responsibilities and, by dint of repeating it, we end up believing it.
The ARTM is an easy target, I agree, so I’m going to defend it, which will surprise some.
The Regional Authority, on which we placed great hopes, finds itself in an untenable situation because it is not given the means to fulfill its mandate.
It must plan the development of networks and prioritize projects according to needs, but to obtain the support of its municipal partners, it has instead drawn up a long list that totals investments of $57 billion in its Strategic Development Plan. There is something for all sectors, we leave it up to others to decide where to start, but local elected officials are happy!
That being said, we must let the ARTM do its job and assume this planning role. I defended the idea, in 2013, that the process should be depoliticized and left to the experts to determine the relevance of development projects.
Would experts have recommended spending 700 million for the Mascouche train, which moved 3,500 people a day before the pandemic? I doubt. I also wonder if the idea of developing a parallel network and in competition with the green line in the east of the island, the REM, would resist the objective analysis of the experts.
The ARTM also finds itself at the heart of funding issues, a situation that existed long before the pandemic. Revenues no longer cover expenses and the arrival of the REM will add more mouths to feed on a pie that does not get bigger. It should also be remembered that the REM’s financing is based on a higher cost per kilometer per passenger than that of existing transport companies, a cost that takes into account an expected return of 8%.
The municipalities in the region are rightly concerned about the increase in tax bills, the members of the ARTM board of directors are concerned about the impact of the rate increases and the Quebec government is watching on its deficit accentuated by the pandemic.
During my tenure, I have seen that the partners are very aware of the need to develop our networks. This enthusiasm is often dampened by the impact of operating costs on municipal budgets.
I believe in having the audacity to think out of the boxas we say in Beaconsfield.
Could we consider entrusting the ARTM with direct taxation power, as is entrusted to the school tax management council? The ARTM could initially use this power to finance growth. Eventually, we could integrate the costs of regional heavy modes: metro, commuter trains and REM. Cities would assume the costs of local bus systems.
Such a measure would free up tax room in municipalities. It would obviously be necessary to create a mechanism to regulate the amounts collected by the ARTM on the principle of the Régie de l’énergie.
The financing of public transport has always been problematic because it is subject to trade-offs that do not take into account intrinsic realities. We cannot manage mobility like we manage ice rinks and libraries. I know the attachment of elected municipal officials to sustainable mobility, but this attachment has a cost.
It is time to consider the collective aspect of financing and to emphasize the words “metropolitan transport” rather than the word “authority” in regional governance.