As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Mandates mentioning both the views (opinion in the start, or at the end)
Some people think the government should pay for this
Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs.
As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems.
Who should pay for sustenance and expansion of road networks: the state or the motorists.
Motorists? Why
It is them who need this service. They are in the minority and a majority suffers because of them. The traffic snarls and increased carbon footprint are a result of increased number of cars
This will have a direct impact on number of cars, such a levy will dissuade people from buying cars
The state? Why
People are paying taxes, especially care owners are being levied sales tax, road tax, pollution tax and so on
Better roads will encourage people to travel more (and buy more cars) creating economic activity
It is true that the rising traffic density is the outcome of an increased number of cars. This makes it imperative to improve the road networks, but when it comes to funding this initiative, there ensues a debate as to who should don the mantle of this. While some suggest it should be the state, others feel it should be the motorists.
Intro 1
The rising traffic density due to cars mandates improvements in road infrastructure, but who should bear the expenditure of this initiative is a matter that invites mixed reactions. Some say that the state should bear it, while others believe that car owners should take this onus.
Intro 2
Some people say that governments should pay for improving road infrastructure to accommodate rising numbers of cars. However, the other section believes that this initiative should be handled by car owners.
Many argue that policy makers should don the mantle of improving and sustaining road infrastructure, feel that since they collect taxes in various forms from citizens such as sales tax,road tax,toll tax and pollution tax, to name a few, they should reciprocate by providing an upgraded roadways system. To corroborate, a survey carried out by the University of Toronto reveals that this demand is deemed justified by a majority of car owners as they bear various levies for maintaining cars; thus, it is their right to anticipate pliable roads, taken care of by the regime.
However, a school of thought is in favor of making car users responsible for this expenditure. This view is based on the fact that traffic snarls and jams are the outcomes of thickening traffic, majorly due to personal four-wheelers, and these minority road users are the lone cause of inconvenience caused to the majority who either use public commute or other alternatives. Therefore, any investment made to improve the roads should be done by the former.
Similarly, this move is likely to bring an indirect benefit:people will be discouraged from buying cars because no one will be keen to pay extra money. For example, a pivot study carried out in Tokyo produced favorable outcomes as almost 40% of buyers canceled their orders and opted for other more environmentally friendly options.
Overall, even though both the view points are carrying substance, I feel that it should be the authorities funding expansion an improvement of road framework as four-wheelers owners are already burdened by a plethora of charges.
