End of Flat Fare in Montreal?
The three-station extension of the Montreal metro into the northern suburb of Laval continues to be a controversial newsmaker. Not so much for the Lavallois, who are set to begin riding the off-island rail extension in 2007, but for the city government of Montreal.
Throughout 2006, the city, the primary funder of the metro's parent agency, Societe de Transport de Montreal (STM), has moaned in the press over the cost of the extension and accused Laval of not paying its fair share. In early December, municipal pressure led the STM to announce--in a surprisingly unilingual press release--that the Laval extension would not be opened for revenue service without a funding guarantee from the northern suburb. For its part, Laval claims that it promised to pay its fair share for the service when the project was first approved in the early 2000s. You can read both sides of the snipefest in detail, in this report from the English-language Montreal Gazette, or in the French-language daily, La Presse.
The upshot of which is that Montreal may now, unexpectedly, lose its flat metro fare. Currently, a single fare will take riders anywhere in the Montreal metro system, including to the southern suburb of Longueil, the metro's original off-island extension. However, according to new reports in the Gazette and Presse, in an apparent effort to hedge its financial bets, the STM is now exploring fare options (taking advantage of newly installed automated-fare equipment) that may include distance-based fares, zone-based fares, and differential peak-hour fares--all of which would likely result in higher fares for both Montreal and Laval residents. However, more immediately galling for Laval riders is a planned monthly pass priced 58% above the cost of a pass for Montreal riders--or for suburban riders from Longueil.
While regional transit service deserves a regional funding commitment, it's never a good sign when an agency plays out its regional funding negotiations in the press or uses its riders as political pawns. For the past decade, such has been the case in Chicago, where the CTA is again entering 2007 with an unfunded budget deficit, tense suburban funding partners, and a funding wish-list to be submitted to Illinois state lawmakers.
Still, the Province of Quebec takes a more generous eye to transit funding than does the State of Illinois, so chances do exist for a provincial intervention in the Laval dispute. But if all else fails, if firebrand CTA president Frank Kruesi speaks any French at all, at least Chicagoans now know where to send him.
Post Author:
mtd | 7:30 PM |
Link
|
TrackBacks
What's wrong with distance/peak/zone based fares. They are implemented because they tend to be more economically efficient. Washington Metro which has long had fares that differ by distance and time of day is looking to use differential procing in its next fare increase. The alternative is an across the board fare increase which results in more lost ridership. Isn't the objective of mass transit to carry the most riders even if it doesn't seem "fair" to some?
True. However, Metro in Washington has always had a distance-based rail fare. Not so in Montreal. Thus, if distance-based fares were implemented in that city, the fare structure would instantly become less equitable for many riders, especially lower-income riders who can only afford to live at the city's fringes but would end up paying the highest fares.
The converse of your argument is believing that transit is a public benefit that should be far better funded than it is now, especially in regions with high distance-based fares, like D.C. and the Bay Area (BART). If transit were funded as well as highways, there would be far less reason to debate the potential equity of a proposed fare structure.
First Washington is distance based during the peak (but capped) but really a zone system off peak since there are only 3 off peak fares. I understand what you are saying, but you should not attack the concept of distance based fares (including zone fares which are a variant) which are economically efficient.
In the end if you have, say, a zone based fare with peak and off peak overlaid you have a crude system of demand based pricing. Public transport systems are waking up and realizing that if airlines, phone companies, and now even electric utilities are pricing based on demand why not public transport?
For example, in the next fare increase Metro will further increase the differential between peak and off peak and also charge a "congestion" fee for exiting or entering stations during the peak. The upshot is anyone traveling during the peak (5:00 AM to 9:30AM and 3PM to 7PM) to or from a core station will see their fare rise signficantly. However, since this is when many people are going to work and the alternatives are also bad (traffic is bad and parking is both expensive and limited in the core) people will for the most pay the increase. Of those that leave rail many will switch to alternatives other than driving because for the most part parking lots are at capacity during the middle of the week.
Yes it will hurt those less well off, but look at the alternative which is an across the board increase. Since those traveling in the peak will pay so much more off peak fares will stay the same and that means no riders will be lost outside of the peak. Metro's staff looks at it this way, they get around $500 million annually in subsidies to run the system and they are facing a an over $100 million deficit. Obviously the subsidy will not be increased by over $100 million so riders will pay. They can do differential pricing and lose 3% of riders or do an across the board increase and lose 5% of riders.
I think Montreal is in a similar bind, by imposing zone pricing my guess is they'll lose LESS ridership than they would with an across the board increase. A flat fare is an economically inefficient way of pricing the system as it encourages folks not to live furthe away which requires a bigger subsidy. Look at Tokyo, London, or Washington. The distance or zone based pricing systems they all employ enable them to recover close to or more than their operating costs which makes them financially sustainable. If New York moved to a zone system, they could realistically achieve an operating profit but they choose not to on policial grounds.
Metro's ideal goal after upgrading their fare system is to switch to a peak of the peak fare system which would even further refine their ability to price their services differentially which is important in a system struggling to meet demand. If airlines, telephone companies, and now even utilities pricing based on demand why not public transport?
