Should all public transport be free and paid for by the government?

  • Good For the Common People in the Economy

    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.

  • Good for the ecosystem.

    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.

  • More public transport would reduce global warming by taking cars off our roads.

    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.

  • Making public transport free will Increase the employment rate.

    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.

  • Reduce congestion on roads

    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.

  • It would actually save the city money.

    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.

  • Should all public transport be free and paid for by the government?

    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.

  • collecting fees is extremely inefficient, wasteful

    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.

  • Too Much Money & You Can Do More Things

    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.

  • Disability

    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.

  • All public transport should not be free and paid for by the government because there are more impotent things to pay for.

    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.

  • It is still cost to the public

    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 think that public transportation should be paid for by the people using it, because a lot of people who do not own a vehicle use it to go to and from work.

    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.

    Posted by: UnsuitableRigoberto99
  • Free public transport may be misused by people and may affect the financial status of government.

    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.

    Posted by: C0bbGrand
  • Public transport should not be paid for by the governments because it cannot be afforded.

    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.

    Posted by: ThegaXen
  • I don't believe public transport should not be free, as there isn't enough money in the budget to handle the expenses.

    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.

    Posted by: Z Frye
  • Making public transport free and paying for it from the government is impossible as tax dollars would be used to make it "free."

    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.

    Posted by: vempyrik 66
  • All public transport should not be free and paid for by the government.

    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.

    Posted by: w00tboycomic
  • Payment for services implies control of those services. Government controlled population movement is a bad idea.

    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.

    Posted by: groovybox
  • I think public transportation should be free or reduced for some people but not for everyone.

    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.

    Posted by: PinkMych

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-03-26T04:19:34.563
first comment