Question

Detailed Essay Type

We understand that transport is derived demand, based on this, justify (with real world examples) why transport economists need to be aware of what is happening in other academic disciplines.

Currently in Zambia, private operators are allowed to provide certain modes of transport. However, some may argue that government should be the only provider of certain modes of transport. Based on this, highlighting both the benefits and the disadvantages of having government being the sole provider of the various mode of transport. Use Zambian examples to justify your answers.

Answer 1

Benefits of having government being the sole provider of the various mode of transport are

If transport expenses are lowered, it's great for everyone – employees can get to more employment, businesses can choose from more employees and more vendors, individuals can take more spur-of - the-moment road trips to outlet shops, etc.

This would be a excellent service for everyone to use. Taxes already pay for health care, schools and highways, etc., so why not let taxpayers see for themselves the advantages in a helpful service that everyone can use.

It would significantly benefit the environment. The government should look for the environment as well as offering services. To protect the environment, no amount of money is too much.
We'd need more employees in public transportation. We would need more bus and train drivers, generating employment, with enhanced and improved public transport. With the worldwide economic crisis, this is fantastic. And it works to create getting to their job simpler for individuals–they could just get on a bus.

The government would be compelled to enhance public transportation. With more customers, the government would enhance poor public transportation networks to make use of them worthwhile. Bad networks would be significantly enhanced, and everyone can take advantage of the advantages. It's certainly a valuable incentive.

Many businesses in the public transport sector are reliable and require more clients. Most public transport organizations deliver friendly and reliable service and may have more "clients." They'd be pleased to take them away and it'd get off the street vehicles.

Disadvantages of having government being the sole provider of the various mode of transport are

More public transport would be needed. Busses, aircraft, trains etc. are all harmful to the environment, just like vehicles. If everyone used government transportation, towns would be polluted by more buses. It should also be noted that it is very energy-intensive to manufacture and create a public transport system, drawing mainly on coal and fossil fuels for energy. This releases substantial atmospheric carbon emissions.

We can not afford to spend more cash on something like this with the financial crisis. It would cost the government too much to pay for operating public transportation facilities. It has to spend the cash on other more significant items with the economic crisis.

Sales of cars would fall substantially. If everyone were free to get to work, families wouldn't need two or three vehicles; just one or none, depending of course on their accessibility for public transport. Most families have several vehicles, and one is used to get to job every day just for someone. It wouldn't take that. It would most probably harm the car industry and vehicle manufacturers would lose their employment, and vehicle businesses could crash, which is very poor news.

If it were free, it would not be anticipated that businesses would provide top service, as they do not pay clients. Generally, you pay for a nice service when you pay a little more. But if you don't pay anything and the service is being used by heaps of people, you can't expect top-notch customer service. People usually look after paying more for clients. If it was free, under the excuse that their customers don't pay anything, companies could lower their service, so they should just "get what they've given."