Some countries encourage the public transport as their main transport system and discourage people using private vehicles. Part 2: Discuss the benefits or drawbacks of this statement.
Some countries encourage the public transport as their main transport system and discourage people using private vehicles. Part 2: Discuss the benefits or drawbacks of this statement.
Government policies that attempt to force the movement of people from private cars to public transportation and make car ownership tremendously hard is one of the most vital and fought aspect of urban planning as well as environmental policy in the modern age. These strategies offer real and considerable social, environmental, and urban efficiency advantages but also entail serious social disadvantages that merit candid exploration.
The case for prioritising public transport over car use is based on far greater evidence from cities which have successfully done this than it ever is in favour of sustainable displacement of people. The environmental advantages are probably the most immediate. Private cars are one of the largest sources of urban carbon emissions, particulate pollution and climate-proportional output in the world. Advancing toward appropriate transit systems — particularly those that have renewable energy sources simpler (such as wind or solar) — can play major parts in reducing per-capita emissions, improving urban air quality and contributing considerably to domestic and international climate goals. International examples such as Singapore, Amsterdam and Zurich show that an aggressive public transport investment, coupled with intentional discouragement of driving can achieve environmental and liveability benefits for everyone in the city.
Likewise, a modal shift to public transport is certainly the remedy for that bane of car-dominated cities: Traffic congestion — one of the most economically and psychologically costly features of our economy. Evidence is consistent that removing a moderate fraction of cars from urban road networks reaps disproportionately large prize in delay reductions; traffic flow as as process is non-linear. The greater portion of economic benefits which results is related to reduced commuting times, savings on road infrastructure upkeep and the release of urban land used today for parking or road space towards more socially productive uses.
The promotion of public transport is also a significant equity issue. There is an extremely strong correlation between private car ownership and income, with lower income households much less likely to own cars, making them more reliant on public transport systems. Funding high quality, accessible and affordable public transport makes a direct impact on improving mobility and economic opportunity for urban populations in the bottom half (and often the bottom quarter) of income distributions, thereby reducing (compared to car-centric urban planning which systematically fails to do so) the transportationrelated dimensions of socioeconomic inequality.
But the downsides of state-induced deterrents to private vehicle ownership are also real and deserve –now– scrutiny. Personal freedom and autonomy are the most basic concern. Owning a private vehicle allows an individual more flexibility-mobility in the sense that they can travel when they wish, with whom they wish, to their destination of choice and along any given route hauling anything to any other place — advantages public transport systems, no matter how thoughtfully designed, simply cannot match. In wide-spread suburban or rural areas in which public transport coverage is limited due to low population density, limits on the use of private vehicles can actually represent a significant hardship and not simply an inconvenience as they would for many living within larger urban centers.
Next, mention should be made of the economic upheaval accompanying such edicts. The automobile industry, including manufacture, retail of fuel and maintenance services, insurance and hundreds of other support industries account for great shares of the national workforce and value-added output in many countries. However, it is important to note that significantly reducing private vehicle ownership comes with actual transition costs for workers and communities reliant on those industries and thus necessitates well-managed economic diversification programmes to avoid creating new forms of regional inequality.
In addition, the promotion of public transport policies can only be successful if there are good alternatives in the form of efficient and comprehensive public transport service. In situations, like those described by Hughes (2011), where governments are trying to dissuade the use of private vehicles without visible investments in viable, comfortable, safe and geographically expansive public transport systems, the brunt of the policy more broadly falls on those who have least alternative options — which most often are also individuals from lower socio-economic groups who such policies purport to assist (i.e. So the timing of and adequacy of investment is decisive in whether such policies are genuinely progressive or regressive in their distributional impact.
To sum up, encouraging public transport use rather than private car ownership has tremendous benefits for the environment, society and economy that make it an effective policy direction in highly populated cities. But in the end, it requires greater investment in transport alternatives that respond to genuine mobility needs across populations as well as managing the economic adjustments that this process will inevitably require. When used wisely, it is one of the most powerful tools available to governments trying to create more sustainable, inclusive and liveable cities.