Should we be investing in public transport?

You are deluded if you think that this recession will lift of its own accord. Britain is now 890,000,000 G.B.P in debt [[April 2010; http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/%5D%5D.

Temporary is not necessarily a short time. Cuts need to made to squeeze this recession into a short-lived one. We’re not suggesting, doing away with public transport; just cutting down on unnecessary costs. To achieve a bit of economic efficiency if you will.

Cuts need to be made. Plans need to be delayed. To coin the headline of this point in our terms; the transport is already there, the money is not.

People are willing to travel these hours, therefore businesses do not lose out on employees. People get the best pay in the city and the cheaper housing in more sparsely populated areas. This is what people want and they are willing to travel for it.

In 2009 it was estimated that in Britain, people spend 21.8 million hours a day(which incidentally, only has 24 hours; this figure is the approximate number of workers multiplied by the hours they spend in going to and coming from work) traveling to and from work, [[http://www.tuc.org.uk/work_life/tuc-17223-f0.cfm]]. They are willing to do this on the infrastructure that exists; what benefit is there in expanding it?

“Prospective employees are daunted by the prospect of long hours of commuting in poor spaces. Therefore, they will apply to jobs closer to their homes. Therefore employers to catch the best employees would have to buy more expensive plots of land which have the best transport links. Like that of central London.” – this makes very little sense because the best employers are already in central London; it’s ’employees’ that need to buy expensive homes/apartments to move closer to work not vice versa.

Homes in commercial areas everywhere in the world tend to be more expensive than homes in the countryside/suburbs; precisely because there are businesses,offices,markets,shops, and schools in the vicinity.

Whether we develop the transport system further or not; cheaper homes entail longer commuting hours(as they are further off from commercial areas). Some people appreciate the journey.

If people move/live closer to businesses they are likely to walk/cycle more.

Adding a tax on road traffic pollution can mean less traffic on the road and the government cashing in on it(win-win).

On the other hand road traffic isn’t the biggest polluting-transport culprit ; it’s air traffic.
Humans exhale carbon dioxide; car exhaust fumes contain carbon monoxide.

Actually; the more we promote civilian marathons; walking/running/cycling longer distances becomes more and more feasible as does a marked amelioration in general public health.

if the reason for opting out of public transport is expenses then buying a car running on petrol makes no sense. Reiterating; cutting down on development costs does not mean no more public transport system. People who live afar and use the tube ;will be able to continue doing so, after development costs are cut. However; other more ecologically friendly means of travel are further encouraged.

Why do we want people to stop driving? We are fighting tooth and nail to keep our motoring industry open. Why would we want to entice Britain’s drivers away? There is no consistency in the ideology of these concepts. We want people to drive, your argument fails to establish why we want ‘lazy drivers’ to stop driving.

Counter: Public transport also runs on petrol(petroleum/gas); the only ecological advantage it brings to the table is that many more people can fit into a bus/train/metro than a car(so every commuter’s carbon footprint potentially becomes a smaller fraction of what it would be if they were traveling in a smaller vehicle: the erroneous assumption behind this notion is that both travel options are completely packed whenever used) .

Practically: people can buy vans and car-pool to achieve the same results in terms of carbon emissions per person(each individual’s carbon footprint). Buses/metros are rarely filled to the rim yet they run everyday at every half hour or hour thus realistically cause more pollution than cars.

Once you have seen one train you have seen them all. The London Underground is a national asset. Tourists come to view that national asset.

It started construction in 1870. The history of the tube is what attracts people, not the fact that is a mode of transport! Tourists will visit Britain for the London Underground, not some newfangled system we make.

Counter:
Tourists who want guided tours pay extra for them.(guided tours are not included in public transport),Tourism companies are private enterprises(or can be).While Margaret Thatcher’s investment in the tertiary sector paid off; more investment in it will not change things much; since Britain boasts of proliferating throngs of tourists anyhow. Tourists care more for their security than inexpensive quality transport. Going to the island by ferry or air isn’t the cheapest enterprise by any count. Once there cutting down on transport costs is silly to say the least( save a penny lose a dime?)

The ones that bother to understand the tube system(and it is complicated for non-London-ers; even if they are British) are coming to have a taste of the real London and are willing to sweat and toil for it.

Businesses can use Fed-ex (private not public) and maybe start their own transport systems raking in cash for new/old businesses, employees etc.
[[http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=london+private+transport&fb=1&gl=pk&hq=private+transport&hnear=London,+UK&view=text&ei=AikSTP_2Acm8rAfhxLTYBg&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQtQMwAA]]

Corporate Vehicles/Vans/buses/taxicabs can pick up employees/goods/utilities working/used in their regional offices from different parts of each respective region; this costs money,yes but not to the government. It creates jobs(pay van driver), adds profit to the motoring industry(buy van) and thus improves the economy.

Mineral water companies drop off bottles and filters at different offices; they have their own transport they don’t use public transportation.

Development in other areas holds precedence.And privatization does not cork development in other areas.

Wants are limitless we need to prioritize/prioritise our needs to efficiently allocate limited economic public resources.
[[http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE64C1JR20100513]]

Both attempts were averted.

More than anything else, in these failed attempts (in London and N.Y.C respectively); civilian policing(a form of legal cooperative vigilante justice) has saved the day.

Terrorists (by using smart bombs/weapons) can outsmart security checks even if expensive/better ones were to be put in place, but they can not outsmart old men who decide to chase them because they look fishy or pedestrians who report smoke coming out of a car on the street.

The British government does not pay for the Olympics(funding is mostly derived from sponsors,advertising and tickets). The Olympics are run by an entirely privatised/privatized Olympic committee and funded by sponsors/advertising.

If the O.D.A (the only government-related London 2012 Olympic organization) has concerns about security or transport it’s their responsibility to pulverize these(as they’ll be losing profit if people don’t attend because of security or transport concerns) and they have provided thousands of temporary jobs involving construction and transport [[http://www.london2012.com/get-involved/jobs/jobs-at-the-oda/index.php]]; match that with 70,000 unpaid volunteers and there’s nothing to worry about. [[http://www.london2012.com/get-involved/jobs/index.php]]