Should all public transport be free?
This question was asked a year ago but I think it should be aired again.
Answer:
It's never "free." If the users don't pay, the cost is subsidized and all taxpayers fund their use. The benefit here would be less traffic on the roads and people able to make their commutes in less time. Not to mention if it was "free" more people would use public transportation.
But that would be a hard sell, and a lot of people who feel they're taxed to the max wouldn't go for it. The only way to sidestep that is for major employers to fund routes most heavily travelled by commuters. Another hard sell, but it could happen!
One good reason is that we would still have to pay for it somehow. through council tax, income tax, or whatever. Very few councils can afford to run services for free.
umm... . who will pay for gas ?
I think they should.How much council tax are we paying !
No. I use public transport for work and it is jam-packed as it is. I don't want more people on it just because it's free.
If it's tax supported, hell yes, it should be free. We've already paid for it!
Well, it wouldn't be free. It would have to be paid for somehow and that means hitting the tax base. No free ride...
look, if it was free how would it get paid for? i could understand if you were payin for it in taxes or what not but then your taxes would be alot higher. plus not everybody uses public transport so why should they have to pay for it if they are not gettin the service. thats like payin a phone bill for your neighbor and you never use their phone. so no it should not be free.
Our taxes are high enough...maybe the riders wouldn't pay for 'free' public transportation, but someone would. And guess who that would be??? You & me!
Here is a good reason. How is public transport going to be paid for if it is free? It would have to be paid for with tax dollars. Public transport only exists is larger cities. Why should people that don't have access to public transport have to support it for the benefit of the people in the cities? They will still have to pay for a car and gas and still pay for public transportation so others can get around for free.
it should be a lot more frequent and a damn sight cheaper!! Not exactly free though, because I don't begrudge paying for it to an extent, just annoys me when I have to pay over a quid for a 10min max journey!!
we should pay coz its ruining the atmosphere with the carbon dioxide tht comes out of the engine, and we need to pay for the council tax's and the petrol etc..
so i fink its fair, we also should pay because we need to keep the tranport clean and tidy, keep it maintained :D
I don't think it should be free but it should certainly be much cheaper. If the government were serious about environmental issues they would at least subsidise it in someway, especially for those people who used it as their sole mode of transport.
The reason why people stick to their cars is because public transport is expensive, infrequent and often dirty. If public transport was more convenient more people would use it.
I don't drive and use both the train and buses to get to work. If it was safer to ride a bike on the roads I would probably substitute that for the bus.
no, someone has to pay for it, I don't live where it is available, and don't feel like unemployed or lazy people should get a free ride, and I pay enough taxes already!
Public transport is already heavily subsidized.
Where I live, in Santa Clara County, according to County figures, the cost of a bus ride is over $5.00, yet the ticket price for full fare is only $1.75. Then there are lots of discounted fares for people who are disabled, on welfare and etc.
The taxpayers make up the difference.
Yes, from tricycles to trains, anything painted say purple, should be free. The cost should come from increasing fuel tax.
oh yeah for sure and food and healthcare and season tickets to your favorite team. you sound like a good communist but it seems free enterprise works better than communism so i'd rather pay for the things i need with my own money rather than using the peoples money.
No, it shouldn't. Because it CAN'Tbe.
A public (mass) transit system requires the committment of a lot of resources. Granted, it is far more efficient, done properly, than having umteen zillion cars trying to cram into a constricted urban area.
But--someone has to pay for it. Which means either the taxpayers, the customers, or a combination of the two. In addition, there's another issue--"public" can either mean a state-owned system or a privatized "common carrier" system. By and large, the private carrier systems tend to be more efficient.
Either way--why should taxpayers have to bear the entire burden and the users none at all? Keep in mind--no matter WHAT you do--its not free. Someone has to pay the bills.
Here's what I think makes more sense: a public/private partnership that provides elements of privatization and thus an incentive to operate the system efficiently, combined with a program that will allow low-income users access at reduced (or even zero) cost--but one in which the majority of riders do pay some of the cost.
Nothing in this world is free.
Absolutely not. That means I will be paying for you to ride. Nothing is free. Hard working taxpayers would be paying for deadbeats to ride.
Yes, then it will allow more room on the roads for my 4x4.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, or free public transportation either. You really answered your own question when you admitted that this "free" public transportation would be paid for by taxes. And who pays taxes? You and I of course, so it would not really be free. Besides this obvious problem, consider the fact that government subsidized programs are always wasteful and you soon realize that the cost of this "free" service would be greater that a privately run system.
Sure, I really want the government to run all public transportation. Ever seen how efficient the government is? Despite what you socialists think, nothing is free. Private companies make small profits which are reinvested in improvements due to competition. and pay the owners for risking their money. The government operates in a perpetual Situation Normal All F----d Up [SNAFU] so why operate the transport services that way.
if it is free then everyone will be paying for it, regardless of if they use it or not via taxes.
Plus as is is pubic transport is run down and overcorwded, can you imagine if it were free.
My answer concerns my country.
Public transport is free here( Mauritius) for students , people 60 years old over and disabled persons.
I find ok enough that if someone who does not fit in the exceptions above do pay for this service.
There are a few private companies which run fleets of vehicles for public transport.
Being private companies , it's their right to make profit and at the same time give the same facilities to the exceptions i mentioned above.
PS.
Mauritius area is smaller than London UK.
Don't know about you but I'm already fed up with paying for all the illegals here and the British who can't be bothered to get off their lazy behinds and get a job, don't see why i should have to pay for their transport too! I'm a single mum of two i go to work and pay for myself and kids.oh and the above!
Maybe not Taxi Cabs but Buses should be!
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: