Is a Publicly Funded Transit System Reasonable - Essay Example

IS A PUBLICLY FUNDED TRANSIT SYSTEM REASONABLE? Introduction Toronto Transit Commission is a transport agency, which operates streetcars, rapid transit, and transit bus services in Canada, Ontario, and Toronto. It is the quickest and most convenient way to get into Toronto. It is the only operator with specific defined exceptions of domestic public passenger transport system within its city. (Lawrence 2007, 45). Currently, the public sector runs this commission. As much as many people may prefer running institutions privately, public good funded systems are better managed. Public or common good as defined by John Rawls as a general condition that is equally advantageous to everyone. By using public good, affordable and accessible services are available to both workers and consumers of the service. It also promotes a political and just legal system in the country. Public good in a transport system actively creates a better environment that may be defined, creats justice, and a liberal, fair social infrastructure that permits the pursuit of virtue. Publicly funded transit system provides competitive advantages. An argument for public good in transport system is based on the philosophy of John Rawls of Justice is fairness. (Hugo 1971, 98). According to him, any person participating in a practice or is affected by it, poses an equal right to a more general liberty compatible to liberty for all. Inequality is arbitrary unless it is illogical to expect that it will work out as an advantage to everyone, and provided the offices and positions to which it attaches, or from which it may be gained, is open to all. The principle expresses justice as a complexity of various ideas such as reward, equality, and liberty for services that contribute to common good. A just transport system is a system that distributes transport services between individual citizens and groups equally according to need and ability. Citizens should bear equal costs, and be treated in the same way while boarding vehicles. A just transport system does not create policies that favor certain people over others and citizens get access to what they pay for. According to (Toronto Transit Commission 1987, 78), the federal government of Canada contributes much finance to the commission, and currently, the minister for Natural Resource of Canada says that the government is greatly improving public transport system in the Toronto area. It is always a right of any person in Toronto to get access to inalienable good public transportation. However, privatizing the Toronto Transit Commission may also give some advantages to the Canadians. Currently, the commission is run by the public, which means there is a bureaucratic tendency in the institution. (Ifes 2011, 89). A political regime may only be motivated in improving a purpose when its deprived performance comes to be politically sensitive. A different government can easily reverse such an improvement. Increased efficiency can be achieved in privatization of Toronto commission. There is a greater insensitive to provide better services in order to reach citizens and thus increase profits. Being a public organization, Toronto may not be as productive because of lack of funding allocated by the regime’s budget that may prioritize other sectors of the economy. Corruption is likely to be rampant in this commission. Decisions made concerning the management of Toronto may be based on political reasons, beneficial to the decision-maker, rather than on economic reasons. Principle-agent issues or corrupt missions in a publicly funded system affects a company’s performance and ongoing asset stream whereas corruption in privately funded institutions is a onetime issue and does not affect the performance or ongoing cash flow of the company. Despite the pros for a privately funded institution, the positive impacts outdo the benefits. Public services should be managed by the public sector. Putting a public service in private hands brings up many issues. A democratically elected regime, in this context the republic of the people of Toronto, is accountable to its citizens through a congress, a parliament, or a legislature, and is motivated to safeguard the nation assets. The profit motive like of a private management may be a subordinate to social objectives. Public funded services provide civil liberty unlike the private ones. Canada is accountable to the Torontians through its parliament and can thus intervene incase civil liberty is threatened. According to the political philosophy of John Mill and John Locke, civil liberty seeks to justify and define the legitimate powers of the government concerning God-given and natural individual rights. The rights provide equal rights to the Canadians and permits moral autonomy. There are possibilities of loosing focus in the Toronto commission privatizes its operations. This is because private institutions do not have any aim apart from making profits. It will therefore serve the needs of Canadians who are amore able to pay for the transport system contrary to the needs of the majority of the Torontians and thus promotes anti-democracy. The more necessary a service is, the lesser the price of demand, as citizens will attempt to buy the transport services no matter the price. (Wee 2011, 109). The question to be asked in this discussion is whether the people of Toronto do benefit from the transport system or not, and what is the best criteria to use in terms of financing and other management concerns. When a transport system is funded by the public sector, two ways can be used in financing it. This may be through compulsory national transport insurance, or via taxation. In compulsory insurance method, transports system is financed from employer’s contribution, Toronto employees’ salary deductions, and additional funds from the state of Canada. When taxation is used as the basic means of financing the transport system, all legible citizens receive a similar level of cover despite their financial conditions or risk factors. Calls to privatize Toronto transport system will put the commission at risk. If it is put in private, management, especially at a dramatically lower price, new private owners benefit a windfall from the previous top officials’ actions to reduce the selling price. This means that billions of dollars will be transferred to the private sector. The cash could have been an asset to improve other economical, social, and political factors of the country. (Powell and Steinberg 2006, 176). The existence of a publicly funded system binds Torontians together as citizens of one country. Unity is vital for a working democracy as many people consider it unethical to eliminate any citizen from essential transport or any public services. It also promotes social stability, civil pride, and patriotism. In addition, it is aimed at identifying the changes in real social costs and quality services. Citizens get transport systems in reduced prices. Public funding for Toronto transit frees up input factors like capital and labor. The release of such resources present welfare benefits for Canadians since they have an alternative value in the economy of the country. Conclusion Toronto Transit System is a public funded system, which is making noticeable progress in providing transport systems in Canada. Even though majority of people prefer privatizing institutions, public funding is more reasonable especially for a democratic country that puts first the interests and welfare of its citizens. Public funding of the transport system in Canada is the only option to diversify resources in this sector. Carefully and well designed funding existing in institutions contributes to crucial ways of strengthening democracy. (Rekart 1994, 25). As much as public funding in transport systems is considered an effective and useful instrument in political reforms, it should be a clean and transparent process in order to serve the citizens equally and to the best of their expectations. Rights of citizens should be considered before the needs of the state in giving this service. Bibliography Hugo, Adam. 1971. Justice and equality: Central issues in philosophy series. New York: Prentice-Hall. Ifes. 1996. Public Funding Solutions for Political Parties in Muslim-Majority Societies. United States: IFES. Lawrence, Solomon. 2007. Toronto sprawls: a history U of T Centre for Public Management Series on Public Policy and Administration Series University of Toronto Centre for Public Management Monograph Series. Hamilton : University of Toronto Press. Powell, Walter and Steinberg V. William. 2006. The Nonprofit Sector: a Research Handbook. New York: Yale University Press. Rekart, Josphine. 1994. Public Funds, Private Provision: the Role of the Voluntary Sector. New York: UBC Press. Toronto Transit Commission. 1987. Transit in Toronto: the Story of the Development of Public Transportation in Metropolitan Toronto. Hamilton: The Commission. Wee, V. Bert. 2011. Transport and Ethics: Ethics and the Evaluation of Transport Policies and Projects Transport Economics, Management and Policy. London: Edward Elgar Publishing. Read More