Should public transport be compulsory in certain areas?
In 21st century metropolitan areas, increasingly occupied high-rise buildings and increasingly filled roads seem to have fitted into our definition of normalcy. These instances of urbanisation and high-population density have enabled economic benefits and can be thought of as representatives of our core economic and political ideas of free-market activity, industrialisation and market competition, leading to our development and prosperity. Yet, they do take a toll on our environment's wellbeing. I beleive and argue that public transport should never be made compulsory in any area, be it the most densely (human or vehicle) populated. My argument rests on two legs; this proposition would be an economically inefficient allocation of resources and that it would be infringing our personal liberties.
First, mandatory free transport would be an economically inefficient allocation of resources. Even though most people share similar working hours in the day, they are usually free to make (and do make) minor adjustments to these timings. A significant fraction of employees anywhere may be interested in arriving early or leaving late on a pattern or random sets of days, enabling them to work conveniently and increasing economic productivity. This privilege rests on their private means on transport. Mandating public transport undeniably leads to fixed timings for movement which is inefficient. Consequently, operators would have to run a lot more units of public transport which may not reach sustainable occupancy (thereby not reducing emissions significantly), leading to losses. Further, mass public transport is traditionally operated by the government, without much market competition. Presenting the service-provider with a monopoly or abundant market power usually decreases efficiency, consumer welfare and surplus. In essence, this proposition invites harsh economic inefficiency with only a minor reduction in environmental degradation. It is not viable.
Second, mandatory public transport infringes our rights to property, free movement and privacy as protected under the European Convention of Human Rights, and more broadly by some sections of the United Nations Deceleration of Human Rights. The liberty embedded deeply in citizens of almost all countries extends a right to move freely within the country, at any time of personal choice. Mandatory public transport infringes this as it can (obviously) not be continuous. Further, our liberty extends to us a right to justly earned luxury, here, luxurious transport, that the government does not provide publicly. Said proposition infringes this liberty. Even if the government provided luxurious transport publicly, it would loose its value based on scarcity and would also render abnormally (and inefficiently) huge costs on the government, which will then be past on to citizens. In addition, our right to privacy and property can be argued to together extend to a right to private space at one's property. Those living in mobile housing units (such as motored caravans) in these areas would be adversely affected as their mobile homes would be restricted from being mobile.
Though mandatory public transport could reduce traffic and pollution levels, these reductions are not significant enough to demand an surrender of certain liberties. This proposition would not reduce traffic or pollution significantly as the government would have to run continuous units of public transport, or enforce strict working hours, which in itself is authoritarian and terrorising. The opposition is left arguing that the marginal reduction in traffic and pollution cause a virtuous cycle associated with lower stress levels and increased productivity. However, the surrender of our liberty demands a lot more benefits.
I reaffirm the invalidity of this proposition. Its economic inefficiency and infringement of liberty deem its benefits to be unworthy of their costs. The very principles of our modern society rest upon these liberties which we shall protect dearly. A potential solution the opposition could consider would be to increase the efficiency of private transport by incentivising people to travel in fewer vehicles and incentivising people to use public transport.
Comments