It’s not news that voting begins next week for increasing transit funding in the Metro Vancouver area in the form of a new consumer tax. The question on these mail-in ballots ask votes: “Do you support a new 0.5% Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax, to be dedicated to the Mayors’ Council transportation and transit plan?”
It’s a controversial topic, with heavy cases supporting both the “yes” side and the “no” side. Apparently, as a student, I should be voting yes, but to be honest, I don’t have much of an opinion on this matter from that standpoint, because I don’t have the confidence in Translink as a company to make good use of that funding. However, I do support transit in general as a mode of transportation.
Public transit, as we all know, benefits the environment. It improves our surrounding air quality by lowering air pollution and reducing road congestion. Quality, accessible transit attracts users, meaning fewer cars on the road, leading to cleaner air. Here’s some statistics quoted from the Divison of Waste and Hazardous Substances of the State of Delaware:
- Buses emit only 20% as much carbon monoxide per passenger mile as a single-occupant auto.
- Buses emit only 10% as many hydrocarbons per passenger mile as a single-occupant auto (hydrocarbons are VOCs – an ozone precursor).
- Buses emit only 75% as many nitrogen oxides (another ozone precursor) per passenger mile as a single-occupant auto.
- Trains emit only 25% as many nitrogen oxides per passenger mile as a single-occupant auto, and nearly 100% less hydrocarbons and carbon monoxides.
VOCs stands for volatile organic compounds, which, of course, are harmful to our environment. Another blog article I found had even more optimistic projections for the emissions reductions transit alleviates in comparison to cars.
As you can see, transit is far superior for the environment than a car. Transit reduces overall energy usage and conserves energy, that is, if sufficient ridership exists for transit to truly be fuel-efficient. (A bus transporting 1 rider doesn’t make any sense.) The number of passengers on a bus impacts the effectiveness of transit. So the more users of transit, the more positive the effect, and the better proof of why public transit is necessary in any community.
Public transit also reduces the need for roads and freeways, allowing for more green space (or reducing the need to destroy existing green space to accommodate for city development). And of course, transit is less costly! For the general public, that means they have more dollars in their wallets. These funds could go towards opting to purchase more environmentally friendly products, which, at the moment, tend to cost more than traditional products. That money can also go towards supporting green initiatives or charities.
The case for improving transit has been made over and over (not just in Vancouver) and I honestly hope that although Canada isn’t a population dense country, we can see the need towards better transit in order to protect our environment for a better future. We should always take transit whenever possible! (Now we just need a more reliable transit system to convince Vancouverites of that.)
Source(s):
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/dwhs/info/Pages/OzonePublicTrans.aspx
http://acogblog.org/2013/11/14/why-transit-matters-environment/
http://www.apta.com/gap/policyresearch/Documents/facts_environment_09.pdf
Hi Vivian! Thanks for the post about such an important issue.
I have never been so torn between two sides of an issue. Like you, I feel like I should vote ‘yes’ because as a student, I see how cramped the skytrains can become just rush hour. I would love to give money if it means a few extras cars on the trains. But then I think, why would I vote ‘yes’ to give money to an organization that didn’t have the foresight to see that we would need extra cars?! It’s almost a paradox.
The premise of the vote exists in the fact that Vancouver’s population is growing – and to support this growth, we need a better transit system. One question I always had was this: Hong Kong’s transit system is arguably one of the best in the world… but why is there still so much air pollution? The reason lies in that there are SO MANY transit vehicles in HK. It doesn’t matter that the transit system is efficient – the air pollution is still substantial. If Vancouver wants to support the population with transit in a sustainable fashion, I think Translink should not only buy more cars, but BETTER cars.
That being said, I’m still so torn. I should probably vote soon…