There is a common view that the authorities should provide charge-free and endless access to public transportation so as to steer clear of traffic jams. While acknowledging potential advantageous sides of this new development, I firmly believe that it can either exacerbate the problem further or be of little benefit.
Most people, including governments and instrumentalities thereof, reached a consensus on one, significant point: public transportation can not only prevent nightmarish gridlocks but also curtail often-cited greenhouse emissions released by fuel-based vehicles. That public means of transportation such as bus or subway are generally available to each resident tends to be one of the reasons for shared commuting and the reduction in private cars. The majority of individuals, be it parents who drop off their children or employees who commute to offices, can create long-lasting traffic congestions – while public transport is what reduces the number of half-empty cars. For context, swarms of local residents in Jakarta squander half of their waking hours on day-to-dat traffic jams, which is why buses or electric trains should be utilised. However, this is only half of the equation, so far as prices for petrol are concerned. Because most urban environments are ensnarled in urban sprawl, drivers are expected to travel long distances from places to places, spending a vast amount of their disposable income on petrol and diesel. A car owner and a bus commuter can sit opposite at the sustainable and efficient end of the spectrum, since the former can a vicious circle – hours spent on traffic, accumulated income dedicated to fuel, and thus leaving no room for advantages.
However glamorous and ineffable these arguments can sound, another school of thought, to which I also subscribe, believes that unabated availability of transportation can therefore be counterproductive. Much as public transportation can take an axe to empty private vehicles, it by no means invalidate the idea that transit systems such as buses can contribute to even more ominous traffic. Given that cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists along with car owners shift to public transport, the lanes full of buses can noticeably increase. Because the number of public transportation can be limited, in a bit to reduce traffic congestion, the government are supposed to establish new, avant-grade transit systems as well; otherwise, the lack thereof would engender social inequality and stratification. This is often the case, as many people who are used to utilise cars or motorbikes can come from privileged backgrounds, they can demonstrate a rebellion against new establishments as well as, or even worse than, leave less space for marginalised communities within the public vehicle they use. In light of these circumstances, it comes as little surprise that in long march towards the reduction of gridlocks, the government should not resort to available public means of transportation. It is so because it can inadvertently foster more choked roads and, more ominously, social divisions.
In conclusion, I concede that cost-effective public transit systems can thus reap long-term rewards in terms of money economy, environmental sustainability, and shared mobility – aspects that may reduce traffic flow. Nevertheless, I still believe that such regulations can eventually aggravate these urban and road issues, not the least of which is excessive government expenditure and social incoherence.