In recent years due to lack of availability of fuel in the nation, the government are implimenting various rules to conserve oil. Many people believe that the authorities should provide public transportation without charging; moreover, authorize law limiting private vehicle ownership to reduce traffic. In my opinion, advantages outweigh demerits because promoting government facilities and limiting private vehicle ownership not only reduce traffic, but also saves fuel.
To commence with, the government should allow free or inexpensive transportation, this provide employment to drivers and the people who are responsible for this job. For instance,In many nations they provie free public transportation which help in three different ways , Firstly it saves fuel, Secondly it provide employment and lastly it reduces unnecessary traffic. Thus, I believe that providing free transportation is more advantageous.
Admittedly, some individuals think that pausing the use of private vehicle can have a positive impact as it can moderately decrease traffic; however, accroding to me it is partially correct as it create crowd because there will be no option left for individuals to use local facilities. In contrast, it does not totally mean that stopping private vehicle can reduce traffic; however, to some extend passing law against private vehicle significantly affect traffic. Therefore, implimenting law against private owners is not the ultimate way to reduce traffic.
In conclusion, Although promoting free public transportation facilities may create problems , its benifits are far more significant. It facilitates, employment, saves fuel and avoid pollution. Hence, i firmly believe that authorities should provide free transportation to individuals. On the other hand, I partially agree to pass law limiting private vehicle ownership to reduce traffic.