I guess it depends on how congested the roads are. If they are very congested, free public transport might be worth it even for those who do not use it, if congestion is reduced considerably (which one might expect).
On a side note, as a student I do get free public transportation, and without it I would have to move closer to my university or pay a large amount in train tickets. So in that sense I suppose it also reduces pressure on the housing market.
I for one fully agree with them that public transport should be free. I think even those who choose not to use it would benefit in a number of ways:
1. Reduced congestion on the roads.
2. Reduced pollution.
3. Reduced fuel usage benefiting the economy as a whole.
and others.
I think free public transport in most towns and cities is a goal for the future and should be implemented asap in major cities. As already stated there are cost savings to be had to the community.
The whingers who are vehemently against free public transport should consider the local taxes (paid by non car owners) which maintain roads and street lighting, the environmental damage caused (being paid for by the poorest societies in the world) and local health problems (paid by all of us in cities).
When private transport pays the true cost of fuel and stops being subsidised then perhaps you can moan about free public transport.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra One should also remember that road traffic is heavily subsidized too; after all highways and public roads are generally taxpayer-funded.
Yes. We currently have a system of "free use" for almost every road, bridge, and tunnel. Clearly this is an unfair redistrbution of wealth from people who drive rarely to people who drive often. This socialism must be stopped!! Time to put an end to our Marxist highway system and start charging tolls on every road (and using the revenues to give everyone a tax cut).
Originally posted by wolfgang59 I think free public transport in most towns and cities is a goal for the future and should be implemented asap in major cities. As already stated there are [b]cost savings to be had to the community.
The whingers who are vehemently against free public transport should consider the local taxes (paid by non car owners) which maintain roads and street ...[text shortened]... e cost of fuel and stops being subsidised then perhaps you can moan about free public transport.[/b]
Its anecdotal but the word in Sydney is that if you go free transport, the money you save not having barriers (better throughput) and ticketing sales and inspectors for the best makes it cheaper to run, and for the very worst makes little or no difference other than making the experience of travelling by rail a much more pleasant one.
Originally posted by twhitehead I for one fully agree with them that public transport should be free. I think even those who choose not to use it would benefit in a number of ways:
1. Reduced congestion on the roads.
2. Reduced pollution.
3. Reduced fuel usage benefiting the economy as a whole.
and others.
I think the question of public transport exposes the limitation of conservative / libertarian philosophies which focus on the lack of external restraints. In this view, it of preeminent importance that citizens are free to buy and drive a car. Needless to say, if City A has expensive and infrequently public transport and leaves the rest up to private drivers, then everyone owns and uses a car. This means massive congestion and it takes an hour to commute from the suburb to the city. City B, on the other hand, prohibits private vehicles from the city centre, and arranges for subsidised buses to travel to each suburb at five-minute interval. Congestion is eliminated, and it thus takes only half an hour to get into the city centre. So by restraining the freedom to drive a car, one is promoting the ability to get into town as quickly as possible.
The question of whether it's legitimate to infringe people's freedoms in this way to achieve a preferable outcome in terms of ability is, of course, one that can be debated endless on a philosophical level.
Congestion is eliminated, and it thus takes only half an hour to get into the city centre. So by restraining the freedom to drive a car, one is promoting the ability to get into town as quickly as possible.
You are forced to sit next to a complete stranger. If you have your own vehicle, you are surrounded by your own bubble. You can listen to your own music without having to have something stuck in your ears. You do not get the feeling that you are nothing but cattle or sardines.
In your own car you determine the surrounding temperature. You like it cold, turn on the air conditioner. You like to feel of the wind, roll down your window. You like it warmer, turn on the heater. No such freedom with public transportation. With public transportation you have no choice. You give up freedom. You are forced to conform.
Originally posted by Eladar [b]Congestion is eliminated, and it thus takes only half an hour to get into the city centre. So by restraining the freedom to drive a car, one is promoting the ability to get into town as quickly as possible.
You are forced to sit next to a complete stranger. If you have your own vehicle, you are surrounded by your own bubble. You can listen to y ...[text shortened]... With public transportation you have no choice. You give up freedom. You are forced to conform.[/b]
Originally posted by Eladar You are forced to sit next to a complete stranger. If you have your own vehicle, you are surrounded by your own bubble. You can listen to your own music without having to have something stuck in your ears. You do not get the feeling that you are nothing but cattle or sardines.
....ah yes the freedom of the peak hour gridlock.....where you are forced to suck in someone else's exhaust pipe, and you can exercise your freedom to be in your own space by deciding whether or not you are going to accelerate and brake, or whether you are going to nurture a bit of room in front of you so that you never stop moving, albeit very slowly...which works very well until someone cuts into your empty space and its back to jerk and stop. Do that for a week inside of all that carbon monoxide and you'll look forward to a nice train seat where you can read, do your email, olay some chess, and arrive without all that suppressed highly expressed emotion that's just waiting to do in your aorta.
Originally posted by Eladar You are forced to sit next to a complete stranger. If you have your own vehicle, you are surrounded by your own bubble. You can listen to your own music without having to have something stuck in your ears. You do not get the feeling that you are nothing but cattle or sardines.
In your own car you determine the surrounding temperature. You like it cold, ...[text shortened]... With public transportation you have no choice. You give up freedom. You are forced to conform.
All you say is true, but this doesn't undermine the point I originally made, which was that freedom is only one of a variety of possible goods. The question is whether the individual's desire to listen to music without headphones or to adjust the temperature trumps everyone's ability to reach the city centre in half an hour rather than an hour.
Originally posted by Teinosuke All you say is true, but this doesn't undermine the point I originally made, which was that freedom is only one of a variety of possible goods. The question is whether the individual's desire to listen to music without headphones or to adjust the temperature trumps everyone's ability to reach the city centre in half an hour rather than an hour.
And besides, even if you detest public transport, having others use it leaves more room for you to drive freely on roads.
If public transportation was free, you'd certainly have to increase the number of carrier vehicles to compensate for the excess riders. That's a cost that would have to be considered as well as a factor in determining how much traffic you would reduce.
Should All Public Transit Be Free?
02 Oct '10 06:48
Back to Top