I know that I am “preaching to the converted” when I argue that urban density and high quality public transit are good for us, but here are some articles supporting this argument.
This is an article about Vancouver, but the lessons apply to Ottawa as well. Sprawl is expensive, we would do well to advocate for greater density and mixed neighbourhoods with services and employment and housing.
For example, Paris is far more dense than Vancouver (20,000 residents per square-kilometre, compared to Vancouver’s 5,790), thanks to multi-unit housing mixed with businesses.
Here’s another article arguing for upper levels of government to support public transit.
This article notes that good public transit reduces smog and air pollution. People who live in communities with good transit drive about half as much as people in car-centric places.
Households save money with transit (cars are expensive to buy and maintain).
Transit reduces car accidents.
Transit provides good jobs; it also allows essential workers to get to and from work.
The case for investing in public transit is strong – the challenge is getting upper levels of government to pay for it. Politicians like ribbon-cutting – governments are often happy to invest in capital costs of building new trains, but what municipalities really need is support for the operational costs of running a transit system.
Your councillors will soon be presenting the draft budget for 2024. Take the time to communicate with them and let them know that you value public transit and want councillors to vote for a realistic budget.