I'm not for entitlements, but when the government pays for a good or service and it benefits the economy as a whole it's not an entitlement. If everyone can get from point A to point B when ever they have to for free this creates the potential for great upward mobility. This would reduce unemployment as job opportunities could be searched for in a wider area for people without cars. We should include not just intracity but intercity and even magnet trains to allow for even interstate commutation between states further away from each other.
If we have to go to work we should be allowed to get everywhere without having to pay for it. Also, as a young student I do not have very much money and it is extremely expensive to get around London! If you make public transport cheaper less people will also use cars and less pollution
Of course public transportation has to be paid for, but it should not be paid for through the purchase of tickets by individual riders-it should be paid for by society as a whole through the one mechanism we have available for this, taxation.
Those who oppose providing free or subsidized public transport conveniently ignore the fact that personal auto vehicles receive visible as well invisible subsidies from the Government. Personal transport user rarely pays for the road and highway construction, gets roadside parking free (in many countries), and by externalizes environmental and pollution costs, he escapes paying for the damage his personal auto vehicle causes to the city's environment that starts losing open spaces, heritage buildings, natural environment such as water bodies, urban forests, hills, and flora and fauna because personal autos need more and more space for roads, parking, highways and their appetite for fuel is never satiated. If all the costs are taken into account, very inexpensive or even free public transport will cost the Govt much less than the amount it presently spends on maintaining the unsustainable personal auto vehicle based city model. The neglect of the inner city also encourages people to live father and farther away thus creating not only auto vehicle based unhealthy and obese lifestyle and urban sprawl but also makes it more difficult to popularize walking and cycling which have a much smaller carbon footprint. The Government needs to support public transport, walking and cycling on a massive scale and simultaneously introduce disincentives in the path of the personal auto vehicle. The fiscal savings from such a policy will not only enable offering "free public transport" but also leave enough balance in the kitty for other public needs.
If all public transportation were free, low-income individuals would be able to take jobs in places they could not otherwise take. Truly poor and desperate people usually can't afford to go to interviews, which of course keeps them poor. This isn't some kind of luxury, because nobody wants to ride the bus, if they don't have to.
I am writing this to tell you how much I strongly agree that public transportation should be free. People with a disability mostly because they may not be able to drive a car and the freedom they may get from being in that passenger seat is truly amazing. They probably feel bad about their disability already, and forcing them to pay just for a ride is cruelty and shouldn't be accepted.
Public transport should be paid for by donation, and by taxation if the level of donation is not sufficient. This would be much more efficient. If we got rid of the stupid, complex, expensive ticket systems, we could save a lot of money and therefore the actual price of travel would be cheaper also. A tax like the medicare levy could be paid by all people who do use public transport significantly. We could re-introduce conductors to keep the peace, exclude trouble makers, and help people with directions. This would prevent job loss, the ticket police and machine service people could become conductors. Random occasional spot-checks on public transport could be used to check if people are being honest with their tax, if that is considered to be necessary.
Public transportation produces 95 percent less carbon monoxide, 1/2 as much CO2 per passenger mile, as private transportation. Public transportation services in more congested cities saved travelers 1.1 billion hours of added travel times. It is an alternative to rising gas prices. If public transportation was free, it would greatly influence the population of cities to not buy private vehicles. Also, people have shown that they support public transportation but easily clearing legislation for increased services.
When more people use public transportation, there are fewer cars on the road. This decreases air and noise pollution and reduces traffic delays for people who need to use cars. Public transportation (like buses and trains) is also safer than automobiles. The positive aspects of public transport benefit the community as a whole, and should be encouraged via government subsidies.
This means there will be fewer cars on the road, which means less traffic and so a decrease in traffic collisions. It is also good for the environment because it means a decrease in air pollution. It is also convenient for people who do not drive. It makes it easier for them to get to work and can help students to get to school or college as well as people who will not necessarily want to spend money on transport.
It would save the planet from global warming and in turn would save money because more people would be using the same car saving millions. It costs almost $10 for a one way trip across town and for many people this could pay for dinner. On top of this it would reduce congestion on the road.
Transportation play a vital role to the country growth and every country wants to reduce their import oil bill. this invoice is beneficial for those country which do not have oil resources in their country, there are several advantage if government provide free transport to the people E.g if government provide bus for the sixty people so they can save oil consumption of sixty vehicle, they can reduce the pollution, the can also reduced the accident casualties.
Not only is public transportation vital to the indigent and working poor, it is also better for the environment. Owning a vehicle is a luxury many simply cannot afford. The government has a responsibility to ensure that those who cannot get around on their own have a viable way to get to work, do their shopping and go to appointments. Public transportation should be easy to use and free to the public.
Owning a vehicle is a luxury many simply cannot afford. The government has a responsibility to ensure that those who cannot get around on their own have a viable way to get to work, do their shopping and go to appointments. Public transportation should be easy to use and free to the public.
Provided the government runs a reliable and efficient service where they can meet demand for the free public transport I think that it would be a good idea.
If people switched from cars to bus or train it would reduce congestion on roads, lots of new road projects wouldn't have to go ahead (which can take up land) and pollution levels, such as noise and atmospheric pollution would be reduced.
As for jobs, jobs will be created to run the increased services and jobs will be destroyed as less people buy cars and some road construction jobs may be lost.
The government should also build more cycle routes so that people can cycle to work instead of being forced to drive or go by bus/train.
The government needs to step up and pay for all public transportation in an effort to encourage people to utilize public transportation rather than driving cars. Buses, trains, and subways are much better for the environment than cars because they transport many people at once, ultimately reducing carbon emissions when compared to individuals driving individual vehicles. The environment needs to be a priority in this day and age.
Yes, it would cost some tax money, but it would also help further the survival of our resources. It would also save Americans gas money - money which could then be spent on other things to help rebuild the economy.
Yes absolutely. It will give everybody the chance of fair free movement. The public transport has to become a right not only a public service. Anyway tax payers are paying even now for the public transport. Free PT has many benefits considering social, ecological and even financial issues. I believe if we exclude the economical interests there is a great possibilities for many cities in the world to develop a free PT.
Most people use public transport because they either have no car or no one to drive them places. If public transport was free, then the money that you would pay to use to wherever you are going would go to maybe buying a car. And besides, no one wants to pay anyways, because if it was free, more people would use them
We would need more public transport workers. With increased and better public transport, we would need more bus and train drivers, creating jobs. This is great with the global financial crisis. And it work make it easier for people to get to their job - they could just get on a bus.
Free public transport would reduce the number of cars on the road. Global warming is a serious issue and, if public transport was free, more people would use it, taking cars off the road. 1 train could take 2000 cars off the road. A public transport system with 20 trains could take 40,000 cars off the road. Some people would simply choose to not own cars, further reducing the number of cars on the road. Across dozens of cities in a nation and thousands world-wide, the result of free public transport would be dramatic in cutting vehicle emissions and combating global warming.
Granting that the public transport is scientifically designed and engineered for the common good, then, it is decongestant to traffic jam, it saves a considerable travel time, it poses a much safer travel condition, you spare your self from the thoughts and actions of driving - without the steering wheel and the gear stick, you spare yourself from the private transport liabilities, comparatively much viable economically, ensure a much less carbon footprint, and the procurement and the operating cost are equitably shared among the sovereign. NOEL G. BUTAD
I think they should be free because we pay the state a lot of taxes and they should provide us with free transportation to jobs we don't have access to. That would be appropriate considering all the things we have to pay for. That would allow people to get more jobs easily
If public transport wasn't free think about how much a car costs, the fuel just to run the car... It is TERRIBLE!!! Furthermore, you can do more things like calling someone, texting someone and even relaxing if it is a long ride. You don't have to worry about bumping into other cars and damaging you car.
If the government makes public transport free, then many more people will start to use it. This means that because these people are starting to use public transport, less cars are on the road so less gases are produced - this means that global warming will not be as bad as right now, because many people will be using public transport instead of cars.
Public transport is better for society as a whole. It creates less pollution, needs less energy (hence less carbon emissions) and uses less road space. Also instead of building expensive road infrastructure (including for parking), the same public money can be spent on improving the reach, convenience and quality of public transport. The question is - given these huge advantages, should public transport users bear the cost, or should it be passed on to everyone. The short answer is - if the quality of public transport is assured - then making it cheap, even free - is actually better for society as a whole.
* This may not apply to societies, where the majority does not even use public transport, but walks or cycles.
Should not have to pay for public. Transit, its not an issue on affordable, I can afford to pay yo own a car but ill never be able to drive. Currently the fare in my city is 2 bucks for about 8 miles of.travel, which is way above the cost of gas. It also costs me 20 bucks everytime i wanna get groceries. No. IKEA for me everything is shipping.
If more people were using public transport intead of cars, air pollution would be significantly reduced to a certain percentage - which in conclusion, would help our environment. If more people were using public transport I stead of cars, air pollution would be significantly reduced to a certain percentage - which in conclusion, would help our environment.
Individual transportation is a major hindrance to the American economy - it is far more expensive for everyone to own and run their own vehicles (for the individual and government) than it would be if the strong majority rode public trans (including buses and logically placed networks of trains). It would not subtract cost away from other departments - taxes would merely increase (and, when looked into more, they wouldn't as rode construction would dramatically decrease). Buses and trains would be far more appealing (aesthetically and in terms of consumption) if, instead of only the poor using them, the general population does. Look at trains in Europe - they are far more enjoyable to ride in than cars.
The city spends our tax money to maintain the roads. If public transit was free, more people would use it instead of driving. The roads would have fewer cars and more buses, and overall there would be less traffic. The city wouldn't need to spend anywhere near as much on road construction and maintenance.
If a person has a job or money to shop with, but no way of getting there, they lose and so does the economy. We spend billions subsidizing city transportation systems and hardly anyone in the south uses them because they still have to pay more to get from point A to B. Routes need to be improved going to where people want to go without having to walk three miles after getting off a bus. Getting to work free will increase riders on public transport. Those people will have more cash to spend in the economy.
I do not think that the government should pay for public transportation. There are a lot of people who use public transportation to travel to and from work because they do not own a vehicle, or choose not to use it to go to work. I think that they have the income to pay for a ride to and from work. I think that if the government started to foot the bill for public transportation, then everyone would park their vehicles and take the bus to work, especially with the cost of gas now. This will only put a bigger burden on the taxpayers who are more than likely working class Americans who do drive to work, in their own vehicles, and have to purchase their own gas. This would not be at all fair to them.
In my opinion, there are more important things that the government should support and fully cover, like hospitals, fire and police departments, and maybe even schools. They could even support child care or children hospitals more, because they can't be fully free. Transport is cheap enough as it is. The government can't pay for everything.
If we eliminate cost to public transportation it will not be free. Free means without cost. Now when you get a free sample from a shop is it without cost? No, the shopkeeper still has to pay for the free samples. But if cost for public transportation is abolished then who will pay the bus drivers? Who will pay for the gas? Who will pay for the subway engineers? The taxpayers money will pay the bus drivers.The taxpayers money will pay for the gas. The taxpayers money will pay the engineers But you see why would someone want to pay for something they don’t use. Take San Francisco for example. 31% of people take some sort of public transit to work but why should the other 69% have to pay for it as well. It isn’t really fair. It is like subscribing to a magazine that someone else reads. But how would the taxpayers cope with that? They would start reading the magazine. They would start taking public transportation instead of their own private vehicle. But if everybody stopped driving their own private vehicles then there would be no automotive demand. Now if there is no automotive demand how are the auto companies going to cope with the loss of funds? They are going to lay off workers. Now if the 16 highest producing manufacturers (GM, Volkswagen, Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Peugeot, Honda, BMW, Suzuki, Renault, Fiat, Daimler AG, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Dongfeng, Tata) laid off their workers that would be 2,713,632 people out of work. So 2,713,632 people out of work what happens next? Worst case scenario public transportation becomes free, car manufacturers go bankrupt before they have time to begin to make buses, trains and trolleys, millions laid off, economy plummets, the world goes into a tailspin, and we all die. But how can we prevent this? How can we prevent imminent death at the hands of our own ignorance? We can continue to charge for public transportation.
I don't think the government should pay for public transport. There are more important things like fire departments, hospitals and, police departments that the government should fully cover but doesn't in some places. I think people should pay for their own transport because not everything should be up to the government. Public transport is cheap enough for people to pay for it without the help of the government.
While public transportation should be expanded and improved, there is no reason to make it free. When people stop to consider the tremendous expense of owning and operating even one private automobile, it becomes readily apparent that a great deal of public transportation costs could be covered by that amount and still leave money in people's pockets. The hidden costs of automobiles is huge; public transportation, when safe, clean, reliable and wide-spread would be a bargain.
Making all public transportation free is not a good idea because of the burden that it would put on already over-taxed taxpayers. Usually, the fees for public transportation are very reasonable, and it only makes sense that those who use the service should help to support the system. Using public transportation is much more economical than driving your own vehicle, so I feel that it is a good deal for the users.
When it is free, it does't mean it is really free. What I mean is like when you are taking water from a water cooler mean to you is free, but someone must still pay for it. Anyway, our parents or you are paying tax, the tax go to the government and they use it to pay our transport payments. So I think public transport should not be free as we are paying it with our tax.
Present culture of paying for their travel is the best way of transport. If public travelling is made free it may be misused by some people. It may also affect the financial status of government. Even they may suffer from loss of income from transport department. Some may have unnecessary travel affecting others. It may lead to congestion and crowd in public transport.
People should have to pay for public transport. The government has enough expenses without having to pay for public transport. The government does not buy people's cars, so why should they pay to transport people who choose to use public transport. It would be nice though maybe if the government could do something to lower the cost of this type of transportation, then maybe more people would use it.
While there is a handful of people who would benefit greatly with free transportation costs, I believe too many would abuse the system and the expenses would be astronomical to maintain it. It should be offered at the lowest price possible, but until the country's priorities are straight, there are too many other needs that are more important.
The current budget shows a huge deficit. There is no way that the government can afford to offer all public transportation for free at this time. There are so many other more pressing problems right now that this should not even be considered. The government needs to reign in spending and not add to their spending by proposing something that would cost billions and billions of dollars. Whether this might be a good idea down the line is something that should be addressed at another time. Right now the focus needs to be on paying for the programs we currently have that we cannot afford.
It is already hard enough finding jobs, it will be even worse if there is free public transport. The jobs of car sellers, car manufactures, ticket inspectors, ticket sellers, parking police (basically everyone in need of a job) will be destroyed. And we only recently got myki. It took so much money putting them into buses, trains and trams. It would be such a waste if we said we don't need them anymore.
I believe that World War Two is the perfect example of why we should not have free public transportation. If you start making things free for everyone, then what is the point of paying for anything? Such is the case with free health care. It makes a person not want to work hard for anything.
Public transport needs money to keep it running. And employees need to be paid. Therefore, passengers should pay. The government should just pay for essential services with our tax dollars. Perhaps some people would be eligible for some sort of ticket reduction if they are poor. There is no free ride, even on public transport.
Even if it is free, it isn't really free. Another tax will just be added to make us pay for it. Even in countries where public transportation is successful, there is still a fee. I don't think it should be free. I'd rather pay with my own money, then pay with tax paying money.
I've been around long enough to see what happens when government controls and pays for education. The centralization of free public education has been particularly bad. The nation's decline in standardized test scores could be replicated by control of the infrastructure. I've seen what has been the result of subsidized trains and bus service and can see nothing good coming out of free public transportation.
Public transport should not be free and paid for by the government because government cannot afford to pay for it unless other vital services to the general public are cut drastically. The possibility of free public transportation falls far below the necessities of other services and should be prioritized according to importance of maintaining a viable society.
Due to the sudden decrease of income, the public transport company might close down as the company is not able to sustain with such low amount of salary. This may also lead to a lack of drivers as they might think that passengers do not appreciate their hard work by driving the bus full day yet they do not pay for it. This will also affect the school bus operation as more students will rather take the free public transport rather than paying money for school bus. Last but not least, Students will tend to go out more as public transport is free. Consequently, they will neglect their studies and ruin their own future.
More people would use public transportation if the cost was lower. Because public transportation is good for the environment and helps people get to their jobs, I think the government should pay for a lot of the cost of it. It should cost something for the people who use it, but not so much that it would be cheaper to drive their own cars.
Public transportation is already offered at a greatly reduced price than most private forms of transportation and needs to be paid for by those who use it the most. We shouldn't all have to pay for something that few of us use. Bus passes are relatively inexpensive but those revenues help keep public transportation moving.
I think most people find public transportation to be quite affordable compared to other methods of transportation. On the other hand, for some people it could be a burden. Maybe there could be a system where certain people could get a reduced fare or ride for free, depending on their economic situation, like the lunch programs they have in schools. Have it based on your income.
I do grant you the fact that public transportation is for anybody. I am sure there are many people who would love to not buy a pass for the subway however, there are many people who do not use public transport at all. In the bigger cities like New York and LA public transport is a part of everyday life. If they had a city tax to pay for it that would be understandable. Most cities though are not that dependent on public transport. There is a bus line in the city of which my city is a suburb but not many people use it. The buses run from early morning to late night and I have to say I have never rode one. The majority of use they get are city school children and those who do not or cannot drive. I would not be happy if my tax dollars (federally) were to pay for something that most people never use.
If public transport was free, then where exactly would the government get the money to fund the public transport system? Yes, we pay taxes for these things, but in actual fact this money that we pay goes to more important things like funds for education and health. Do we really want the government to pay for something not EVERYONE uses, when they can spend it on something more essential? I mean come on people, there is a fine line between saving money and being stingy. If we can't pay $2.00 to some one who practically drives us home, then we are just being stingy and quite selfish. When considering this topic, you can't just think about yourselves, you have to think about the people who work in the public transport system and how they will be affected. Think about it, people will be getting paid less when they are actually working more. I believe that public transport should not be free.