Home > Travel > Transportation > Public Transportation
Results so far:
| Agree | 56% | 1792 votes | Total: 3211 votes | |
| Disagree | 44% | 1419 votes |
Agree
Created on: April 01, 2008 Last Updated: January 29, 2011
I am a 49-year old man who rejected the norm of possessing and utilizing a privately owned, fossil-fueled motor vehicle in 1987. As such, I have a clear and obvious vested interest in promoting the idea of "free" public transportation. However, I do believe that there would be significant benefits to all, whether they personally use such a service or not. By "free" here, we are referring to no direct charge to the passenger, the service itself will obviously still cost money to provide. Money that will need to come from taxes paid to the national or local government, or occasionally from a local business association.
Many central business districts provide a localized free bus service paid for by the area's local governing body or its retail business association, offered as an incentive to attract customers to their area. Some cities, particularly in Europe, offer public transportation on a "no charge to users" basis to facilitate ease of movement in narrow city streets that were first created before the motor vehicle was even dreamed of. Others do so to promote a green, environmentally friendly attitude or a people friendly perspective to encourage tourism. Many do so for all three reasons.
The primary objection to "free" public transportation in today's societies is the capitalist ideological concept of "user pays". This presupposes that the only people benefiting from public transportation systems are those who use them. As long as the financial benefits are comparative to the loss of convenience and comfort "costs", public transport usage will be primarily limited to those who have little or no choice. Under these circumstances, those not using public transport do indeed receive little benefit from it. It is only when the financial benefit significantly outweighs the comfort and convenience costs, thus increasing public transport usage, that non-users will see significant personal benefits.
The fallacy that single-occupant privately owned motor vehicles are an effective form of urban transportation is demonstrated daily on the roads of most of the cities of the world. Many of which no longer have "rush hours" simply because many of their major streets have traffic that moves at no more than a snail's pace all day long now.
Public transportation without user charges would be a very strong incentive to people struggling to get by economically to restrict their car usage to occasional trips rather than the daily commute. While they benefit financially, those road users who would never dream of using public transport will also benefit, from the reduction in vehicles crowding the roads, giving them a speedier and more pleasant drive. And not only from the reduction in road traffic, but because the buses would flow more rapidly since the drivers would not need to collect passengers' fares at every stop.
Road building and road widening costs within an urban area are astronomical; alleviating the necessity by reducing road usage would save far more money from local taxes than providing the "free" public transport is likely to cost over the long-term. Properly evaluated accounting would show this, so local taxes should not need to be increased to pay for the service.
The reduction in car usage would reduce the associated pollution, offering health advantages to the city's population. Respiratory illnesses such as asthma have been on the increase in our young for decades and car exhaust fumes are considered a major contributing factor.
It would also be nice to see the sunrise or sunset without a haze of smog distorting it. In a world where our recognition of the impacts of our technology on the environment we depend on for our existence is steadily growing, it is time to utilize the benefits of public transportation to their maximum potential. The quickest and most effective way of doing this is to eliminate direct charges, thus encouraging people to use these services.
Learn more about this author, Perry McCarney.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Disagree
Created on: January 14, 2008
When I was a child living in a large city, buses ran up and down the major streets of the city at very regular intervals. I remember my older sister taking me on a bus to a downtown movie theater to watch Walt Disney's "Song of the South." The year was 1947, I was six, and the bus ride cost my sister a dime each way.
Whoever provides the services of public transportation has expenses that must be met. Equipment. Personnel. Maintenance. Fuel. None of these items are inexpensive.
The real question is not whether public transportation should be free, but rather how should the general public pay for it. There are three options.
Public transportation could be paid for by charging appropriate fares to users of the service. The more people who use the service, the cheaper, to a point, the fares could be.
Public transportation could be paid for by charging appropriate fares to users and by subsidizing the service through taxes. Again, the greater the usage by the general public, the less dependence there would need to be on tax subsidization.
Public transportation could be paid for entirely by taxes. This would make the service appear to be free to users. But, of course, it can never be free. They would simply pay for it in increased taxes.
No matter which system is used to finance public transportation, we, the consumers, the taxpayers, supply the revenue that supports the system.
Traditionally , a combination of fares and subsidies from general tax revenues have been used to finance the system. This is arguably the best way to pay for public transportation.
If I were six today and my older sister wanted to take me downtown, she would not take me on a bus. She would drive me there in her car, using expensive gas, polluting the atmosphere and paying a premium for parking space. This is the real problem. Most of us are not interested in using public transportation. We would rather use our gas guzzling cars to get us from here to there.
Which presents another challenge. Why should taxpayers pay for a system they do not want to use? Make public transportation convenient, comfortable and inexpensive (not free), and its existence could be justified. Then maybe someone's older sister would be willing to take her little brother downtown on a bus.
Learn more about this author, Tom Parsons.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.