CELPIP Reading Part 4 Practice Test: Pets On Public Transit Debate

When the Harbourton Transit Commission announced it would revisit its decades-old ban on animals other than service animals, staff anticipated a trickle of letters. Instead, more than 3,000 residents completed the online survey in its first week.

The draft policy would admit small pets in closed carriers at any hour and leashed dogs of any size outside rush hour, at a reduced fare. Commission chair Paula Ferreira presents the change as an obligation, not a perk. A third of households own no car, and many keep pets; getting a sick cat to the veterinarian currently means a taxi fare or imposing on a neighbour. “A public service shouldn’t abandon its most loyal riders in that predicament,” she maintains.

Dr. Kevin Osei, a downtown allergist, is less enthusiastic. “Dander embeds itself in upholstered seats and can afflict sensitive riders long after an animal has disembarked,” he explains. Yet he pointedly avoids defending the status quo. “A cat zipped into a carrier hardly troubles me. A large dog meandering through a packed car does.” Should the commission venture beyond carriers, he recommends designating one car per train for animals. Buses, however, which carry most passengers, cannot be partitioned that way.

Marie-Claude Thibodeau, representing Harbourton’s bus operators, stresses that her members bear animals no ill will. Enforcement is what troubles them. “A driver responsible for forty passengers in heavy traffic can’t simultaneously assess whether a dog is calm or its leash adequately short,” says Thibodeau. A carrier demands no such judgment; anything more ambitious belongs on a handful of routes first, and only after drivers have been trained.

For Ben Ashworth, executive director of the Harbourton Humane Society, the debate concerns animal welfare. His shelter annually receives pets surrendered partly because owners had no practical way to reach a veterinarian. He would prefer dogs welcome at all hours, but has no appetite for a battle over rush hour. “A narrower rule is acceptable as a start. A pilot project that becomes a pretext for stalling isn’t.”

The commission will issue its recommendation in the spring, after analyzing the survey and meeting the operators’ union.

As a cat owner who rides the bus to work, I expected to cheer this plan, but the article has tempered my enthusiasm about its pace. Ms. Ferreira is right that the ban penalizes 6. Choose…allergy suffererscommuters at peak hourspeople who rely on service animalstransit’s most captive riders, and Mr. Ashworth’s experience suggests the ban 7. Choose…has victims with four legsbarely affects surrender ratesis widely ignored by ownersprotects riders with allergies.

Still, the operators deserve a better hearing. Expecting someone who is 8. Choose…hostile toward animals generallyworried about danderalready stretched thinnew to driving the route to make judgment calls about dogs as well is simply unreasonable. Dr. Osei’s compromise sounds sensible on paper, yet it would do little for 9. Choose…allergy sufferers on trainsthe bus-riding majorityowners of cats in carriersoff-peak travellers, and that describes most of us.

My advice to the commission: allow carriers now, 10. Choose…set aside a car for animalslet drivers decide which dogs boardkeep large dogs off for goodtrial dogs on a few routes, and decide about larger dogs once the results are in.