Posted on February 13
If we’re serious, why not make public transport free for everyone. How much would this free cost?
Sylvain Millette
That’s an excellent question. First, let’s remember one thing: there is nothing free in life. But that does not prevent us from reviewing the financing of public transport in order to offer it free of charge to the population. This is what several European cities are already doing, such as Dunkirk, in France, or Tallinn, in Estonia.
In Quebec, cities like Candiac, La Prairie, Sainte-Julie and Chambly offer free local transportation to their citizens. In the United States, Kansas City has undertaken to eliminate public transport fares and the city of Boston is also considering it.
Often, projects begin by first offering free admission to people with lower incomes, such as students, the elderly or veterans. It is also one of the promises of the mayoress of Montreal, Valérie Plante, to offer free admission to the elderly by 2023. Public transport is already free for children aged 11 and under. In all the cities where free access has been introduced, there has been an increase in ridership which varies according to the city and the rate of prior use. However, all the experts agree that free alone does not work miracles. You also need an interesting offer.
But, as we said above, there is nothing free in this world. It is therefore necessary to replace user fees with other sources of revenue. In the greater Montreal area, the share of users in the budget of the Regional Metropolitan Transport Authority (ARTM) accounts for 29%, or around $968 million in the 2020 budget.
How would we make up for this shortfall if we introduced free admission? Several formulas are available to governments. There are the classics: tax on parking, on gasoline, on registration. And there are more daring measures: contribution of companies to the financing of public transport (in France, for example, any company with 11 employees or more contributes). Logical since they benefit from the proximity and efficiency of public transport to attract labour.
In some cities, businesses that are located along a metro or tram line are taxed more. We could also consider an additional tax on SUVs whose sales are exploding year after year. Among other sources of revenue identified by the ARTM, there is also the kilometer toll on the higher networks for cars. With the evolution of data processing and artificial intelligence, it would be absolutely possible to modulate these taxes according to the income or place of residence of motorists.
In short, there is no shortage of ideas for making public transport free. It is the political will.
In closing, remember that driving a car is not a strictly individual choice. It is a mode of travel that has consequences for the whole community. For example, it will cost five times more for all Quebecers if a citizen of Quebec or Lévis decides to travel by car rather than by public transport, according to researcher Jean Dubé of the Center de recherche in Planning and Development from Laval University. In his work, he took into consideration all the indirect costs linked to the car: road wear, consequences of pollution, road accidents, etc. However, we rarely take into consideration all the impacts of the car when the time comes to estimate investments in public transport.
One day, Canada chose to have a free health care system out of concern for social equity. Why not think collectively about free public transport for the same reasons (people with lower incomes devote a large part of their budget to using public transport), and to succeed in an increasingly urgent ecological transition.