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.

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.

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 
• people from buying cars 

The state? Why 

• People are paying taxes, especially care owners are being levied sales tax, road tax, pollution tax, toll tax and so on
• Better roads will encourage people to travel more (and buy more cars) creating economic activity.

   It is often debated that regimes should take the onus of maintaining, and expanding, road infrastructure, while others dissent and profess that it should be borne by motorists. I will analyze both sides of this argument profoundly, and share a plausible conclusion.

Lawmakers should take charge for providing the best to citizens because owners of vehicles are already contributing in the form of various taxes from the moment they buy their own conveyance: levies to run their car on the road:  pollution tax, toll tax, road tax, among others. Thus, it becomes the duty of policy makers to make all the arrangements for better motorways, so that road users should not face any kind of hassle while traveling.  

Moreover, these roads are not just being used by motorists  but also others plying on them for seeking education, health services, and many more. To exemplify, a study by an eminent economist of Harvard University, states that those paying taxes for buying, running and maintaining vehicles deserve to be compensated with better services, by deploying the funds raised through diverse charges.  

However, the other lobby is quite skeptical, and believes that car owners should don the mantle for improving roads: they are the ones, despite being in minority, are the primary cause of traffic snarls and jams, and above all air pollution,that precipitates troubles for majority road users traversing using communal means; hence,  they should be made to shoulder this expense. Also, such levies could discourage irresponsible car usage, and surmount problems caused by them. 

In hindsight, I vehemently opine that even though both the views hold substance, it is prudent that politicians to  undertake the task of maintaining and expanding the road network. 

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.

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.

A few individuals argue that regimes should bear the cost of maintaining and expanding road networks, while others feel that this expenditure needs to be borne by motorists. This essay will elucidate both the viewpoints and draw a well-reasoned conclusion.

To begin with, people who feel that motorists are the one who should be bearing all the expenses for road maintenance, profess that those using their own vehicles are the primary users of roads and are in minority, so why should others pay for facilitating them. Across the world, only twenty five percent of the population travels by their own means, and cause traffic snarls, precipitating inconvenience to others. Thus, these  individuals should  don the mantle of bearing this expenditure.   

Similarly, when they bear this cost, they will act more responsibly towards public networks and embrace rules and regulations more diligently.  Moreover, this system will reduce the number of vehicles used in the cities since many will be dissuaded from bearing extra cost of operating their own conveyance. Consequently, this will lead to reduction in pollution and traffic congestion on roads.

Nonetheless,  the other school of thought feels that it is fair to say that authorities should be bearing this cost since drivers are already paying extremely large amounts of taxes like carbon tax, road tax, toll tax and fuel tax. to name a few, and bearing this additional levy will over burden them. This lobby suggests that money raised through various charges  should be used to sustain and expand motorways.  

To conclude, even though both have equal responsibilities towards this endeavor, I personally believe that, regime needs to bear this cost since car owners always pay several taxes and charging them more will be unfair. 

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.

 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.

Incrementing vehicles mandates maintenance and expansion of road networks that has precipitated a thought provoking discourse over who should be bearing the onus of this: some argue that it should be policy makers, while others put the burden on motorists. I will examine both perspectives and draw a plausible conclusion.

Those vouching for the role of lawmakers in this endeavor argue that roads are meant for public good that benefit everyone, not just those plying personal vehicles. These facilitate the movement of goods and services, contributing to the overall economy by allowing businesses to function, enabling public transportation, and ensuring access to essential services like healthcare and education. Since everyone in society benefits indirectly from a well-maintained road system, regimes should fund it using public funds. For instance, rural areas with fewer drivers might not generate enough revenue from driver fees to maintain their roadways, necessitating government intervention to ensure fair distribution of resources. 

Nevertheless, those advocating for drivers covering the cost propose that it is only fair for them to pay for what they use. Increased usage leads to greater wear and tear on roads, meaning motorists directly contribute to the need of maintenance. Implementing road tolls is a potent way of ensuring a sustainable way to fund road repairs and expansion. Additionally, charging them for road use may encourage people to use public transportation, mitigating congestion and environmental damage. For example, in cities like London, congestion charges have been implemented to alleviate traffic snarls while generating revenues for road improvements. 

In my opinion, even though both the opinions are well-reasoned and are convincing, I feel this should be a joint responsibility as everyone benefits from the well-maintained infrastructure, wherein the state would reap economic benefits, and motorists  can obtain safer rides. 

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.

 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.

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

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.     

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.            

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.

 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.

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 

• people from buying cars 

• 
  

The state? Why 

• People are paying taxes, especially care owners are being levied sales tax, road tax, pollution tax, toll tax and so on

• Better roads will encourage people to travel more (and buy more cars) creating economic activity   

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.

Incrementing vehicles mandates maintenance and expansion of road networks that has precipitated a thought provoking discourse over who should be bearing the onus of this: some argue that it should be policy makers, while others put the burden on motorists. I will examine both perspectives and draw a plausible conclusion.

Those vouching for the role of lawmakers in this endeavor argue that roads are meant for public good that benefit everyone, not just those plying personal vehicles. These facilitate the movement of goods and services, contributing to the overall economy by allowing businesses to function, enabling public transportation, and ensuring access to essential services like healthcare and education. Since everyone in society benefits indirectly from a well-maintained road system, regimes should fund it using public funds. For instance, rural areas with fewer drivers might not generate enough revenue from driver fees to maintain their roadways, necessitating government intervention to ensure fair distribution of resources. 

Nevertheless, those advocating for drivers covering the cost propose that it is only fair for them to pay for what they use. Increased usage leads to greater wear and tear on roads, meaning motorists directly contribute to the need of maintenance. Implementing road tolls is a potent way of ensuring a sustainable way to fund road repairs and expansion. Additionally, charging them for road use may encourage people to use public transportation, mitigating congestion and environmental damage. For example, in cities like London, congestion charges have been implemented to alleviate traffic snarls while generating revenues for road improvements. 

In my opinion, even though both the opinions are well-reasoned and are convincing, I feel this should be a joint responsibility as everyone benefits from the well-maintained infrastructure, wherein the state would reap economic benefits, and motorists  can obtain safer rides.