Some people believe that public transport should be funded by the government so that it is free for users. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples from your knowledge or experience.
Why
It will allow the impoverished / destitute / economically weaker (poor) to travel to their desired destination….
Enable them get employment away from their homes
Obtain education anywhere
Reduce economic disparities blur the class difference to some extent
It will also attract car owners, who will be inclined to abandon their vehicles and switch to public modes…
Lesser pollution
New roads and bridges will not need to be constructed.. Lesser ecological damage due lesser clearing of trees
*** Lesser fuel import bills
Why not
It will impose a financial burden on the government.
If no levies are charged from commuters - maintenance and expansion of public transport framework would become difficult
To arrange money, governments would have to divert funds from other more important initiatives and programs.
Impose higher taxes on people
There is a good chance that this facility might me misused
Should mass transit be afforded without charging access fee universally, is a million dollar question, for it does seem to offer some benefits, but the concerns raised are far more serious, and cannot be disregarded.
To commence with, the enthusiastic support for this suggestion stems from the assumption that this could empower the marginalised by allowing them to fulfill their travelling needs: seeking employment ,or education, in distant locations without needing to pay through their nose, something beyond their means currently. Moreover, many might be tempted to abandon their personal vehicles, and switch to public commutes, thereby mitigating traffic jams, and eventually, air pollution.
Nevertheless, such a move is bound to prove counterproductive and recipe for disaster: the state will have to bear an additional burden of not only sustaining the public transit network, in its current manifestation, but also impede the modernisation process,by virtue of the state bearing operational expenses such as fuel and spares, as well as the staff. Down the line, the system would become unsustainable and unprofitable.
Similarly, this policy is likely to precipitate misuse, with the majority using buses or trains, and so forth, without any concrete purpose, causing unwarranted wear and tear to the fleet and rolling stock.To corroborate, such an arrangement has been tried and later abandoned across umpteen cities like Sydney, Moscow, and New Delhi,to name a few, wherein it was observed that nearly 75 percent of users, even during peak hours, were casual travellers undertaking journeys just for leisure, forcing authorities to roll back the plan.
In hindsight, this facility should be offered discreetly to those really needing free of charge travel in mass medium of transportation, to ensure appropriate utilization of public assets and resources, and prevent abuse.
