Cernos wrote:And price those on a low income out of car ownership? How is that fair either. Personal transport shouldn't just be a luxury of the rich.
Everyone who uses the roads should have to pay in proportion to the costs of maintance that they cause.
I think people should be allowed to choose whatever they want. Mototist and bus users should be charged exactly the cost of using the respective modes of transport.
I know that suggesting the government should do it for alot of things sounds like a good idea as it prevents poor people from not being able to afford "necessary" things, but that is rarely the case. Buisnesses will always set their price so that most people can afford the good ... I mean that is how they can max their profits.
The solution is a balanced approach to transport policy that accepts that people have a right to personal transport if they choose but should be encouraged on to cheap and reliable public transport wherever possible.
Public transport is rarely cheap and certainly not efficient.
Another point is reliability. Your car will never go on strike and demand higher wages.
In fact, IMO, that is one of the main problems with it. The other problem is door to door service, you rarely get that with public transport.
And when you pay a premium price for the privilege of waiting for delayed buses and trains, then being herded onto public transport like cattle and crushed with the ever present threat of being mugged, knifed, sexually assaulted or robbed .... is it any wonder people want to use their cars??
Budget airlines are run by buisnessmen and the rail network isn't (as much). In any case, a company like Ryanair has also no union penetration.
There was a survey in the US and the main issues people had with public transport is door to door service and also the fact that you had to share with potential "undesirables".
Edit: Also wanted to point out that it is not always clear cut. Public transport is better for high density urban areas, while cars are much better for low density.