We should pay more for public transit: Profs
An academic group making a presentation to last week’s discussions on funding public transit made the case for a considerable increase in fares to support better transit, although the chairman admitted it’s a touchy subject.
A summary of the options lists the ideas that were considered for funding transit.
David Tighe 09:33 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
Higher fares must be justified by a quality of service approaching that which a car provides. The system in Montréal with its heavy reliance on buses, cannot compete. Door-to-door times involving a change of mode are just too long. We need a metro with greater coverage, together with an integrated tram network. Then fares could be increased, especially at peak periods. This would need to be associated with increased charges for car use, mainly through tolls and increased parking costs, both modulated according to demand.
Mathieu 10:02 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
I don’t think the service would necessarily need to be perfect at the moment when they increase the fare. If the increase is matched with a solid plan, for exemple a tram network or even segregated busways, and work begins fast, it might be easy to swallow the pill.
joe 10:02 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
Higher fares?? It should be free!! Protest time! the STM-blue square will be the symbol of our discontent!!
Kate 10:16 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
Well, it’s just one suggestion.
I’m wondering how I’d feel about spending $5 to take the bus instead of $3. Wouldn’t it deter a lot of people from casual excursions around town, and thus have a depressing effect on the local economy?
Ian 10:25 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
…not to mention that a lot of people who simply can’t afford cars and taxis actually take the bus and metro to work. With all the talk of urban ecology and increasing ridership, a lot of people seem to be forgetting that the primary user base of public transit is still people that can’t afford private transit.
David Tighe 10:25 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
mathieu: It depends on what you mean by a solid plan. Here what they call a plan is usually a simple wishlist, invariably delayed indefinitely, and intended only to make political mileage.
Joe: the question of user fees for using social infrastructure is an interesting subject. Public infrastructure for cars is essentially free yet we take for granted that public transport must be paid for. We pay nowadays in Québec quite a lot to get into a provincial park but not elsewhere in Canada and certainly not in most of the rest of the world. We pay a significant share for prescription drugs and nothing for other health measures. In theory, user fees should be based on ensuring a socially acceptable match of supply and demand. Here they seem to be based on a despairing effort to recuperate a few dollars. Why not a consistent strategy?
David Tighe 10:31 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
Kate: for occasional users 5$ at peak periods is not excessive if motorists are also paying more at the same time. For the rest of the day just pay a dollar or two: the buses have plenty of empty space and it costs them nothing to carry you.
Mathieu 10:31 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
By solid plan, I mean shovels working at the moment of the announcement. When the work has started, we’re pretty sure it’s going to get doen.
I wouldn’t raise the single fare though. $3 is already high enough. However, a $85-$100 monthly pass could easily be paid by most.
Ian 12:19 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
“Findings from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey show clear correlations
between income and transit use. Roughly 57% of all transit trips and 78% of bus and light rail trips are made by households with income less than $40,000, while only 13% of commuter rail trips are in this income category (Pucher and Renne 2003). However, while transit users are predominantly poor, it does not follow that transit provision always benefits poorer residents. In many regions, in fact, it is just as likely that suburban residents enjoy new, efficient, and comfortable transit, while inner-city residents ride uncomfortable, unreliable, and often overcrowded bus lines. ” http://tram.mcgill.ca/Research/Publications/Transit_plan_equity.pdf
Jack 12:22 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
Wow what a disappointing report, the key criticism.Not factoring the social cost of continuing to rely on the car as a mode of transport. Cars should be treated in the same fashion as a 4,000 lbs cigarette, all the marketing and advertising that has gone into making cars cool reminds me of ” Winston tastes good like a cigarette should”.
ant6n 12:23 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
Implement congestion pricing a-la Stockholm in Montreal (if you drive into the downtown area, or across a bridge, you pay 3$ during rush hours, weekends and off-peak times are free. Fees are accumulated over a month and sent as a bill to the license plate owners).
Use 80% of revenue for road construction/maintenance, but divert all municipal/provincial road spending to public transit.
I think Ian raises a good point – the transit wishlists we have tend to not improve transit for the poorer neighborhoods. So increasing the fares to fund capital construction may be double-bad for them.
jeather 14:17 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
No, we don’t increase price at rush hour. We want more people to use public transit *especially* when the streets are congested. As a semi-occasional user, I’m not going to spend 10$/trip (5$ each way) for a very crowded bus or metro at rush hour if I have any choice.
qatzelok 15:04 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
The study seems to indicate that we are a society that can’t see beyond dollar bills. Perhaps some of the 7 billion dollars for the Turcot might be used to build a tramway infrastructure that will bring transit use up to 50% user funding? Or are we not allowed to look at anything but price tags and bank accounts?
Tux 15:43 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
The way I see it, we should discourage car use and encourage public transit use. The more people you get out of their cars, the more fares you get, the better the system can be made. Offer 2 years free public transit to anyone who agrees to have a special condition put on their license… that condition is they’re not allowed to drive on the island. At the end of those two years, significantly increase the price on a monthly pass, up to maybe 90-100 bucks… I dunno just throwing things at the wall. All I know is if we want to keep our buses useful we need to get rid of a LOT of cars.
Mathieu 16:48 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
Transit already costs peanuts. People are often willing to pay more to use their car and that’s not because they like cars, that’s because transit is not the right choice for them. As long as there won’t be any conveniant transit option for them, they won’t use transit, even if it were free. If high costs help finance new solutions, then it’s going to be more effective than low fares.
Kate 17:21 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
So… transit is like university, even if the government made it free, not everyone would take advantage?
Jack 22:05 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
Mathieu you know what costs peanuts, individual car travel.The state subsidies this mode of transit to the max.It even encourages people to live hours from their place of work.Seventy percent of the people in my neighborhood do not own vehicles, yet our taxes go to subsidies urban sprawl and all the road networks it requires.For a family of four to spend a weekend in say Ottawa it is way cheaper to rent a car for two days ,pay gas and parking then to take the train or bus.What does that say?