• On Monday January 23, Ile-de-France Mobilités (IDFM) will hold its meeting on the financing of transport in the Ile-de-France region (2024-2030) and has asked political and institutional players for their proposals in this regard.

  • David Belliard, environmental vice-president of IDFM and representative of the city of Paris, participated in the development of these notebooks.

    He wishes to “diversify the methods of financing, in particular around ecological and redistributive taxation”.

  • He thus proposes to tax SUVs, to make air transport contribute as well as the flow of goods with a red line: to refuse any new increase in the price of the Navigo pass.

To avoid the tragicomedy of the end of last year which resulted in the increase of almost 10 euros in the price of the Navigo pass, Ile-de-France Mobilités (IDFM) is launching its meeting on Monday for the financing of transport in the Ile-de-France region (2024-2030). ).

For the occasion, IDFM has asked political groups, economic and institutional actors and user associations to write “actors' notebooks” to suggest ways of financing.

David Belliard, environmental vice-president of IDFM and representative of the city of Paris, participated in the development of these notebooks.

“We asked for these states general of financing from the 2020 budget, he recalls.

We have known for several years that there is a public transport financing issue.

This is therefore an opportunity for him to develop his proposals to ensure "accessible and quality public transport".

Why do you consider it urgent to think about the financing of public transport in the Ile-de-France region?

You should know that today, funding comes largely from three contributors: companies via the mobility payment, communities, such as the Paris City Hall to the tune of 430 million euros, and users.

However, several factors require reshuffling the cards of financing methods.

First, the acceleration of climate change and the fight against air pollution means that public transport should be at the top of the agenda.

We must develop and consolidate accessible and quality public transport.

In addition, the commissioning of the Grand Paris Express will generate additional operating costs.

The financing requirement is therefore estimated at 1.5 billion euros per year.

Gold,

there is a form of inertia from successive governments and from Valérie Pécresse who have allowed this situation to continue, without anticipating funding needs.

And these needs have been accentuated by the health crisis and the explosion in the price of energy.

What are your proposals?

It is necessary to diversify the modes of financing, in particular around an ecological and redistributive taxation.

Today, it is not normal that people and companies that use polluting mobility do not contribute or contribute too little to the financing of public transport.

There is a double objective which is to guarantee the most accessible price possible with a quality and reliable offer.

I say no to the increase in the Navigo Pass because today users make the effort or have no other choice than to use virtuous public transport on a mediocre quality service.

It is not up to them to ensure the new financing needs.

Our file on the navigo pass

And concretely, how does this translate?

Many tools can be put in place, such as taxing SUVs of course, particularly in towns where they have no use and are very polluting.

It would be rather fair for SUV buyers in dense urban areas to participate by contributing to the financing of public transport.

The kerosene tax is also a track.

We also have with Le Bourget, the first airport for private jets in France.

Again, it would be justice for these

happy few

to be solicited.

There is also a broader subject around the flow of goods and logistics.

Do you want to charge delivery platforms (Amazon, DLH...)?

They generate billions of euros on an activity that uses a common resource which is the public space.

However, the value that we derive from it must be able to be redistributed, at least in part.

In Paris, you have 500,000 parcels delivered per day.

An eco-contribution of 50 cents per parcel, that's 180 million euros collected for the financing of our transport.

It is also the implementation of the heavy goods vehicle eco-tax, which is a very polluting mode of transporting goods.

Finally, the mobility payment must be redesigned with an increase in the contribution of the most profitable companies.

But also have terms that allow a bonus to be given to companies that make efforts to reduce their carbon footprint and, on the other hand, a penalty for those that do not.

All of these avenues require legislative translation to be implemented.

How to deal with a government that refuses to increase taxation, as we can see on the pension reform?

We play the game of debate and make proposals.

We cannot say that we are only in dispute.

We cannot establish the sustainability of our public transport with, at the end of each year, IDFM which will somehow give alms to the government, as happened last fall.

What I say to the government is that we are facing a situation of social bomb.

If we do nothing, the Navigo pass will not be at 84.10 euros, it will be at 100, 110, 120 euros.

That's the reality.

Afterwards, there is the debate, and perhaps we can obtain a modulation of the mobility payment or advance on the eco-contribution on parcels.

And the right could be tempted to engage this movement with us.

Are you ready to make common cause with Valérie Pécresse against the government?

You have to be pragmatic.

If we have convergences with the right on aspects of financing, then we will lead the fight together.

For example, the increase in the ceiling of the mobility payment claimed by Valérie Pécresse, it was Eva Sas, an ecologist deputy who tabled the amendment in the Assembly, then refused by the government and the elected representatives of the right.

Afterwards, we have major differences, on the opening up to competition, on the way of managing transport, on who pays what, in particular in relation to users, which Valérie Pécresse wants to put more heavily into contribution.

Many ecological organizations, including France Nature Environnement, are calling for the cancellation of future lines 17 and 18 of the Grand Paris Express, which they consider costly and disproportionate.

What is your position ?

I have always been at the side of my environmentalist comrades on the subject.

I share some of their positions.

We spend a lot of money on useless and environmentally destructive projects.

On the question of the Gonesse plateau [on line 17], keeping this stop does not make sense.

In Saclay, the establishment of a high-level service bus line could very well have replaced the proposed project [line 18].

On all subjects, I follow a line of sobriety and efficiency.

Investments are made when they are as modest as possible and when they really meet people's needs.

In the same way, on the Charles-de-Gaulle Express, I am fundamentally opposed, because it will have consequences on the RER B. We need more public transport, it's true,

Paris

Paris: What will change in public transport in 2023?

Paris

Ile-de-France: Ways to avoid an increase in the Navigo pass

  • Paris

  • Ile-de-France

  • Ile-de-France Mobilities (IDFM)

  • Navigo pass

  • David Belliard

  • Valerie Pécresse

  • Public transport