The prevalence of the ownership of motor-vehicles has increased, especially among the rising middle classes in major urban areas worldwide and it is the major reason of traffic congestions and impure air in metropolitan cities. Although, is it argued by some that availing free public transport to the population is the most considerable solution, this essay, however disagree with the statement due to the financial constrains and mobility consideration.
To commence with, the most significant reason behind not providing the complimentary transportation is that government has to increase the taxes in order to making it available, which would effect individuals than industries and urban organizations who are causing more pollution. Furthermore, some people who are working in big cities commuting on personal vehicles due to the distance, such as they might live far from train or bus stations and could be carrying bulky items and with them they could not travel in public transport.
Considering the cost perspective, even though it would be saving costs of fuels for the commuters while tracking down it would be loss at some point, it would be expensive for municipal governments because they have to raise the taxes of construction, manufacturing and maintaining public transport. Rather than providing free transportation government should concentrate on improving the existing transport system by making it greener, it could be by using electric vehicles, such as electric cars, buses and taxis and it is cost-effective. For instance, some cities of China have better air quality after moving to the electric vehicles.
To conclude, providing public transport for no cost is not a viable solution to reduce the traffic and improve air quality, as there are better cost-efficient ways to tackle the issue and the mobility problems it can cause. in addition to this, cities all over the world should use greener vehicles to get the better air quality and to reduce the traffic.