# data[].attributes.body
source 1: concerns and answers

source 2: comparing 2 different EV

source 3: benefits of EV

source 4: disadvantages of EV

source 5: EV launch

source 6: similarities and differences in my research (eding)

# data[].attributes.body
EV = Electric Vehicle

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.thepersonal.com/blog/-/is-an-electric-car-right-for-you-#:~:text=Electric%20cars%20cost%20more%20to,costs%20about%20%24700%20per%20year.

https://bestinformationguru.com/air-pollution-essay-for-students-and-children-2/

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/13/chart-electric-cars-cutting-gasoline-use-by-hundreds-of-millions-of-gallons-a-year/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQLbakWESkw&ab_channel=truTV

https://bestinformationguru.com/air-pollution-essay-for-students-and-children-2/

https://www.flipkart.com/save-our-planet-eye-sticker-poster-save-earth-save-nature-globar-warming-multicolor-paper-print/p/itm11daa85b8f15f

# data[].attributes.headline
WHAT IS YOUR RESEARCH QUESTION & HOW WILL IT GUIDE YOU?

# data[].attributes.subject
WHAT IS YOUR RESEARCH QUESTION & HOW WILL IT GUIDE YOU?

# data[].attributes.body
WARREN'S FOCUS QUESTION:
how does it work?

JUSTIFICATION:
i think i need to know how it works because to understand what it is

# data[].attributes.headline
WHAT IS YOUR RESEARCH QUESTION & HOW WILL IT GUIDE YOU?

# data[].attributes.subject
WHAT IS YOUR RESEARCH QUESTION & HOW WILL IT GUIDE YOU?

# data[].attributes.body
Can We turn Our Everlasting Over Consuming Carbon Dioxide into Fuel or Oxygen. (To reuse)?

KARABO'S FOCUS QUESTION:
Can we Create a machine to Turn Co2 into O2 or Fuel?

JUSTIFICATION:
This Is very much useful because of all our factories producing resources all of them our taking in O2 and other gases to fuel their machine and all of them are also mass producing Co2 which is bad for our seas, trees, and us. so By reusing it and turning it into fuel those factories can us it and leave mass amount of O2 for living forms that need it

# data[].attributes.headline
WHAT IS YOUR RESEARCH QUESTION & HOW WILL IT GUIDE YOU?

# data[].attributes.subject
WHAT IS YOUR RESEARCH QUESTION & HOW WILL IT GUIDE YOU?

# data[].attributes.body
can we reduce the price of electric cars so they are affordable and available to others?
ALIA'S FOCUS QUESTION:
can we reduce the price of electric cars so they are affordable and available to others?
JUSTIFICATION:
this is important because if others aren't able to afford electric cars they will buy gas cars, gas cars release CO2 this causes climate change because it traps it in our atmosphere and causes the greenhouse effect.

# data[].attributes.headline
WHAT IS YOUR RESEARCH QUESTION & HOW WILL IT GUIDE YOU?

# data[].attributes.subject
WHAT IS YOUR RESEARCH QUESTION & HOW WILL IT GUIDE YOU?

# data[].attributes.body
MATTHEW'S FOCUS QUESTION:
governments provide free transportation, so that more people don't have to use their cars.

JUSTIFICATION:
This will be good because there will be less people to use their gas cars, that way they can use a electric train so that they can get to their destination, that way there will be less co2 because there are less people using vehicles that run on gas engines. This will be more useful in urban areas.

# data[].attributes.body
Each student creates a screencast using the padlet reflecting on following questions:

1. What did your team’s collaboration look like? Feel like? Why?

2. In thinking about the collaboration, what might you have done differently? Why?

3. Did you experiment with various methodologies for collecting and presenting your research? How? Explain fully.

hyperlinking/ embedding/ uploading

Photos of hand-written notes?

Digital notes (Google docs/ slide; Google drawings)?

Audio notes/ video notes (vlogs)?

screencasts

Sketchnotes (digital/ hand-drawn)?

Mind-maps?

Images, photos, maps, illustrations, videos?

Visual Cornell notes?

DIIGO?

4. What methodologies empowered you as a learner to gain a deeper understanding of the issue and solution? Why? How?

# data[].attributes.body
Experiment with methodologies for collecting & analyzing evidence...

experiment with the padlet features to expand your thinking & learning (click on those 3 little dots on the padlet post-it)

locate reliable sources to provide relevant information to answer the questions

be sure to DOCUMENT YOUR NAME on EACH of your PADLET POST-ITS for individual accountability

hyperlink/ embed/ upload

Photos of hand-written notes?

Digital notes (Google docs/ slide; Google drawings)

Audio notes/ video notes (vlogs)

screencasts

Sketchnotes (digital/ hand-drawn)

Mind-maps

Images, photos, maps, illustrations, videos

Visual Cornell notes

DIIGO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 U2 Poverty & Overconsumption Summative RUBRIC, Crit. B & C 

# data[].attributes.body
CONCLUSIONS (4-5)
Strengths:
The strengths are that when using electric vehicles it does not pollute our earth with carbon emissions and not only this but electric vehicles benefits society with it's speed, maintainment, abilities ect.. on the other hand side although these are great improvements they might not be as clean as you think for example some limitations are when it comes to changing from a gas pump in to a power plant and how these power plant would release more CO2 into the air then a hybrid also if 1/3 of the worlds population would change to electric vehicles  it would still only make a miner improvement not to mention  building the car it's self and putting the pieces together can not only make a lot of green house gases but it can take intensive mining to find Lithium-ion  to make Batteries.
before we jump to conclusions we should first use our current cars as long as possible and look at the consequences it could have if we all switch to ELECTRIC VEHICLES !!!

# data[].attributes.body
CONCLUSIONS (4-5)

Strengths: With enough sustainable energy and profits they could publicties this plant. Causing the World global emission of Co2 to drop by 2% giving us a far future and chance. This Plant could also give a lead to industrialization of mass production all over the world, though of a different type plant. they could even Help repopulate many areas with the decrease of Co2 and the increase of O2.

Limitations: This project is unfinished and has no profitable rate to it. It intakes to much and energy and expenses compared to the Co2 it's supposed manufacture into fossil- fuels. This plant cant be mass produced at the moment due to the multiple sources of equipment and the engineer structure (bone) behind it. Scientists have not given this machine a full period of time test (2-4 y) although manufactured in 2017. The Plant could even have some structural loses while intaking Carbon and could cause huge issues further into the future

# data[].attributes.body
CONCLUSIONS (4-5)

Strengths:

Limitations:

# data[].attributes.body
CONCLUSIONS (4-5)

Strengths: it is strong because it has the power of 275 trees at once

Strengths: it absorb everything moisture and filters it

Strengths: if you place lots of does in a highly polluted city then it will not be polluted anymore.

Limitations: we need money

Limitations: we need the government to agree with the green city situation.

Limitations:

# data[].attributes.body
SOLUTION?
from my solutions i will be using electric cars and how they can help to solve or improve air pollution ans help society.

# data[].attributes.body
SOLUTION?
My solution is for governments to provide free transportation for their countries.

# data[].attributes.body
NOTE-TAKING TECHNIQUES:

keywords

compelling quotes

summarizing

paraphrasing

adding informative/ descriptive headings

annotating (deconstructing keywords; making connections; documenting questions; adding comments)

employing sketchnoting techniques (negative space, hierarchy, typography, images)

# data[].attributes.body
SOLUTION
moss wall filter

CITYTREE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
 Green City Solutions As well as cleaning the air, CityTree can provide power for WiFi hotspots, e-bike charging stations and transport information.

It's a recyclable, living, breathing air filter that can be set up in cities, measuring pollution types and levels, while actively clearning the air through a careful mix of plants that work as well as a small forest. The structure is designed for the space it will occupy, with different woods and plants for every urban environment, and measures four metres tall by three metres wide, with a 60cm base required for the freestanding unit.

The biotech start-up behind the technology, Green City Solutions, makes use of a variety of plants that offer superior air filtering, including speciality mosses and lichens. The key, according to the four co-founders of the company, is to find planets that have a comparitively large leaf surface, which enables the plants to absorb a higher rater of pollutants.

The installation is self-actuating via sophistiated controls and monitoring. The water supply is monitored and plants are watered via captured rainfall from a tank also containing nutrients, with the water pumped is around the growing areas using power generated by solar panels. Indoor setups can have their tanks refilled for watering, still requiring far less maintenance than a tree. Each unit is able to capture around 240 tons of carbon dioxide annually, according to the company.

In addition, the CityTree can provide power for WiFi hotspots, e-bike charging stations, or transport or tourist information.

Green City Solutions receive all captured data for monitoring environmental data, and real-time performance of the CityTree, making it a true combination of the Internet of Things and green living.

The company was a finalist in the 2017 Chivas Venture prize, won the Green Alley Award in 2016, was included in the European Forbes list for sustainable world improvers under 30 in the Social Entrepreneurs category, and has received funding from the German government. Originally based in Dresden, the company has moved to the Euref Campus in Berlin's Schöneberg district.

CityTrees have been installed across cities in Europe, from the company's home city of Dresden to Oslo, Paris, Hong Kong, Budapest, Glasgow, and more, with each as effective as 275 trees, using 99 per cent less space, and at just five per cent of the cost.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CityTree: a Moss Wall with the Pollution Fighting Power of 275 Trees | Urbanity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
 Green City Solutions As well as cleaning the air, CityTree can provide power for WiFi hotspots, e-bike charging stations and transport information. It's a recyclable, living, breathing air filter that can be set up in cities, measuring pollution types and levels, while actively clearning the air through a careful mix of plants that work as well as a small forest.

# data[].attributes.body
SOLUTION?

1, Work on Finding a way to Bio Generate Oxygen and Reuse the carbon for more (oxygen) and other fuels.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/switzerland-giant-new-machine-sucking-carbon-directly-air

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/06/13/carbon-capture-plant

https://energsustainsoc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13705-018-0146-3#:~:text=the%20last%20section.-,Carbon%20capture%20and%20sequestration%20(CCS),in%20fossil%2Dfuel%20power%20plants.&text=This%20hydrogen%20can%20be%20sent,fuel%20cells%20of%20transportation%20vehicles.

# data[].attributes.body
:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKttFDnKSp8&ab_channel=BBC
below I have made a video explaining what I learned from the video above.

# data[].attributes.body
Source 1:  Click Here for Link

Source 1 Research: This is the World first Commercial Plant (Engineered in Switzerland) for capturing carbon dioxide, At key importance to removing Greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Developers Estimate that the Plant will capture at least 900 tons of Co2 ( 200 cars worth of gas) and release it to use on agriculture. This may not be a big step but its a step to decreases the worlds big Co2 emissions. Though to capture even 1% the company would need atmost 250,000 more plants.

Making  Process: The plants machine is placed on top of a huge heat recovery facility that powers the process. the fans generate and gently  push air though and then from there the machine collects huge amounts of Co2 by separating the parts (air compartments) with temperatures of 100 degrees celsius. The gas is then sent to a greenhouse to generate fuel to help grow veggies like cucumber and tomatoes. "

Viewpoints: There are many critics of air capture technology who say it would be much cheaper to perfect carbon capture directly at fossil fuel plants and keep CO2 out of the air in the first place" as said by the company. additional Herzog (unidentified roule) of the fuel plants did mentions that is was simply to expensive to mass produce these plants and there where other cheaper ways.

Source 2:  Click Here for link

Source 2 Research:
Again talking about the first commercial Facility to create Bio plants for Co2, that produce fuel.
They're reason behind this tech is to help or environment, by removing at least 200 gigatons of Co2 need to be removed form the atmosphere each year, in order to be at our 2 degree goal.  Most of the scientist view this as changing point to reduce our climate change but Critics of high standard want to disregard this project because the tech uses to much energy and is unprofitable (at the moment) to their intended desire.

# data[].attributes.body
This site talks about free transportation in a whole and shows you how and how not it's possible

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Under pressure from the European Union to tackle its air deadly air pollution, the German government is considering making public transport free in its most polluted cities. Few cities have attempted such a scheme - with the notable exception of Tallinn. We asked transport expert Oded Cats, who authored an in-depth study on Tallinn's fare-free scheme, whether Germany can reduce pollution by emulating the Estonian capital.
DW: Why did Tallinn introduce fare-free transport - and was it effective?

Cats says there's no evidence free transport cuts car use

Oded Cats: The aims were to promote public transport, to reduce car traffic, and especially to improve mobility for low income and unemployed groups. The latter, I think, we can consider has been achieved. So we do see that a lot of people from low income groups, the unemployed, do travel more frequently.

When it comes to shifting into public transport, we saw an immediate effect, which was fairly small. But about a year or two years after it was introduced, we saw a more long-standing effect: a roughly 14 percent increase in public transport [users] - a large share of which is coming from people who used to walk. So it's questionable whether this is desirable.

If you can take public transport for free you may substitute the short trip you used to walk for public transport. Most of the increase in public transport ridership stems from either people who walked previously, or previous transport users who travel more frequently or perform longer trips. Only a small part of those additional trips come from people who also used the car. So we cannot say that there was a net gain in terms of reducing car traffic, or the congestion and emissions associated with it.
Why didn't the scheme attract more drivers?
We know from many other places where people have experimented with short-term campaigns of free public transport that price is seldom the reason that you choose car over public transport. We see that choices of which mode to use are much more to do with service qualities. So for example, if this investment is made in increasing frequency rather than reducing the prices you're much more likely to gain new customers.
So what should Germany be doing to get drivers to make the switch?

Blue skies over Tallinn? Residents of Estonia's capital enjoy free rides, but perhaps not cleaner air

Not only from Tallinn, but also from a lot of other places we have a large amount of evidence that what is most effective is to increase the price of using your car - and specifically things that relate to using it per trip, like fuel and congestion taxing - as well as parking. Things that are really attached to you using your car, not owning one. Making sure that drivers pay for what we call the externalities - undesired effects - that car traffic causes, namely air pollution and congestion. And this you do via parking charges, via congestion charging, fuel taxes. And only when drivers encounter the real cost of the choice they make, they can make a more informed decision. And you do this while having a very competitive alternative in the form of public transport.
What can we learn from other free public transport schemes around the world?
Most of these schemes are taking place in Europe, and also mostly in small towns, which are quite particular user groups. Some of these towns report tremendous increases in the number of riders. When you look closely into the data, you see that these numbers are very small and there was also a simultaneous increase in the supply offered. So instead of having two buses a day you have ten buses, and then your report a 100-percent increase. So we don't see evidence of a large effect from this.

Air pollution exceeds legal limits in many European cities and is a major public health concern

There are several cities, the most well-known of which is Hasselt in Belgium, which had it for many years and had to change back to charging users because it was not financially sustainable. They found it quite a painful choice to make to reintroduce charges to make the system viable again.

How did Tallinn - a city of half a million people - cope with the cost?

In Estonia local taxes are attached to the place of residence. And then there was a sizable group of people living in Tallinn that was still registered as residing in other towns in Estonia, and this was a lost tax income for the city. This was a way also to appeal to these people to register in Tallinn because you're eligible for people transport entirely but only if you're registered as a resident. So effectively, by attracting this additional tax income they could cover the costs of the lost income from public transport tickets.
Oded Cats is assistant professor of transport and planning at Delft University of Technology in The Netherlands, and part-time researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden. His research focuses on the intersection of transport networks, operations, policy and travel behavior. He is also associate editor of the European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research (EJTIR), and a member of the editorial board of Journal of Public Transportation and Journal of Urban Rail Transit. This interview has been edited for clarity.

Europe's battle against deadly air pollution

Cutting back on diesel

Germany has launched a scheme to retrofit its diesel public buses with exhaust-scrubbing systems, and introduce charging points to encourage drivers to switch to e-cars. Still, environmentalists say that's not enough. They want all diesel vehicles - including private cars - retrofitted, or taken off the road.

Europe's battle against deadly air pollution

Taking cars off streets

Milan, one of Italy's most polluted cities, has banned cars from its downtown area during certain hours. Other cities in Italy and abroad have experimented with similar schemes, for example permitting only cars with odd or even license plates on the road at given times in order to limit the amount of traffic.

Europe's battle against deadly air pollution

Free public transport

The Macedonian capital of Skopje is battling with pollution levels up to 15 higher than permitted by the EU - though it's not yet a member state, so isn't facing fines. Macedonia's smog problem is largely down to burning coal and emissions from aging, inefficient industry and vehicles. To get people to leave their dirty old cars at home, the government has introduced free public transport.

Europe's battle against deadly air pollution

Sounding the alarm

One street in London exceeded the EU's annual nitrogen dioxide limit on January 30 - less than a month into 2018. Actually, this is an improvement - it's the first time in a decade the British capital has kept within the annual limit for more than six days. Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has announced he wants to alert the city's schools on days when pollution is particularly bad.

Author: Sarah Steffen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can free public transport really reduce pollution? | DW | 14.02.2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Under pressure from the European Union to tackle its air deadly air pollution, the German government is considering making public transport free in its most polluted cities. Few cities have attempted such a scheme - with the notable exception of Tallinn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
 Green City Solutions As well as cleaning the air, CityTree can provide power for WiFi hotspots, e-bike charging stations and transport information.

It's a recyclable, living, breathing air filter that can be set up in cities, measuring pollution types and levels, while actively clearning the air through a careful mix of plants that work as well as a small forest. The structure is designed for the space it will occupy, with different woods and plants for every urban environment, and measures four metres tall by three metres wide, with a 60cm base required for the freestanding unit.

The biotech start-up behind the technology, Green City Solutions, makes use of a variety of plants that offer superior air filtering, including speciality mosses and lichens. The key, according to the four co-founders of the company, is to find planets that have a comparitively large leaf surface, which enables the plants to absorb a higher rater of pollutants.

The installation is self-actuating via sophistiated controls and monitoring. The water supply is monitored and plants are watered via captured rainfall from a tank also containing nutrients, with the water pumped is around the growing areas using power generated by solar panels. Indoor setups can have their tanks refilled for watering, still requiring far less maintenance than a tree. Each unit is able to capture around 240 tons of carbon dioxide annually, according to the company.

In addition, the CityTree can provide power for WiFi hotspots, e-bike charging stations, or transport or tourist information.

Green City Solutions receive all captured data for monitoring environmental data, and real-time performance of the CityTree, making it a true combination of the Internet of Things and green living.

The company was a finalist in the 2017 Chivas Venture prize, won the Green Alley Award in 2016, was included in the European Forbes list for sustainable world improvers under 30 in the Social Entrepreneurs category, and has received funding from the German government. Originally based in Dresden, the company has moved to the Euref Campus in Berlin's Schöneberg district.

CityTrees have been installed across cities in Europe, from the company's home city of Dresden to Oslo, Paris, Hong Kong, Budapest, Glasgow, and more, with each as effective as 275 trees, using 99 per cent less space, and at just five per cent of the cost.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CityTree: a Moss Wall with the Pollution Fighting Power of 275 Trees | Urbanity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
 Green City Solutions As well as cleaning the air, CityTree can provide power for WiFi hotspots, e-bike charging stations and transport information. It's a recyclable, living, breathing air filter that can be set up in cities, measuring pollution types and levels, while actively clearning the air through a careful mix of plants that work as well as a small forest.

# data[].attributes.body
Click Here For Link

# data[].attributes.body
here are some nots that i have taken throughout the video!

# data[].attributes.body
In this graph it shows how much has been saved through electric vehicles and plug in hybrid electric  vehicles from 2010 - 2018. As you can see electric vehicles save more gasoline then plug in hybrid electric  vehicles. this is why i wanted to find out how clean they are compared to each other and how much they cost. when reading some articles on pros and cons for electric cars I found out that plug in hybrid electric vehicles can cost up to 700$ per year and 300$ - 400$ for electric vehicles per year. not only this but plug in hybrid electric  vehicles uses  does not only use electricity to power it but gasoline as well!  this is why i think that the better option is electric vehicles instead of plug in hybrid electric  vehicles to help our world and society.

# data[].attributes.body
Here i want to go over how electric cars would help improve air pollution and how it might benefit people around the world. below i have added a link to the website and an audio recording of what i learned.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here Are the 11 Reasons People Don't Buy Electric Cars - and Why They're Wrong

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Electric vehicles have come a long way over the past few decades, but a many consumers are still hesitant about buying one. Here are a few common reasons why shoppers avoid electric cars - and why they shouldn't.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose to put this powerful image here because it is a reminder to all of us that  what we are doing is only hurting us not helping us!

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQLbakWESkw&ab_channel=truTV

Now let's look at why we shouldn't buy electric cars and why .the link above is a video to adam ruins everything below i have made a video explaining what i learned.

# data[].attributes.body
a reminder to us that we should think about what we are doing to our earth!

# data[].attributes.body
this is a google slide on why we shouldn't buy electric cars

# data[].attributes.body
I have found out that free transportation does not only help the environment, it also helps people who do not have any money, and need to get to places, so not only will this help improve oxygen levels, it will also improve society. Even if the transportation os not electric, it would still help, lets say you have 2400 people, is it better for those 2400 people to all have their own separate cars that emit about roughly 411 grams of Co2 into the air, or is it better if those 2400 people to go in 240 separate buses which emit about 10% of that.

Here is a website that elaborates on the positive side of free transportation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Canadian publication The Tyee has put forward a case for why giving public transport away free would work. You may be thinking, that's ludicrous, we'd end up paying for it in our taxes, and what's the difference. Think about this, if there were no charge for public transport, there would also be significant savings. No fare evaders to chase, no tickets to print, fewer staff required.

The environmental benefits of free public transport are numerous:

reducing greenhouse gas emissions

reducing other air pollutants

reducing noise pollution (especially with trams)

reducing run-off of toxic chemicals into fresh water supplies and ocean environments

reducing overall consumption of oil and petrol/diesel

reducing litter (train/bus tickets)

saving trees by eliminating the need to print tickets

Read these and the other 17 reasons (or more) to stop charging people to use the bus, or the tube, or trams. (via The Good Human)
Other people who think that free public transport is a good idea:
The Scottish Socialist Party
Members of the Safe Speed forum
Free Public Transit
A free public transport success story
It is 10 years since Belgium got worldwide media attention for a very ambitious project: free public transport in Hasselt. From the start until today, it remains a success story.

The new city council of 1995 realised that public transport was a major problem. There were only eight city buses and two lines in Hasselt before 1 July 1997, which covered about 500,000 km a year and only transported 360,000 passengers in 1996. After the renovation of the ring road around the city, turning it into a pedestrian-friendly and tree-clad 'Groene Boulevard', the city council presented an ambitious project to transport company De Lijn. With the words 'Hasselt zal nooit meer hetzelfde zijn' ('Hasselt will never be the same'), the former mayor and later minister Steve Stevaert launched free buses on 1 July 1997.

The project was an instant success. Until 30 June 1997, there were an average of 1,000 bus passengers a day in Hasselt. Today, the average is 12,600 passengers a day. There are now 46 city buses on nine lines, including a boulevard shuttle and a city centre shuttle. Two nightlines run at night. Altogether, these city buses cover 2,258,638 km in a year. All this benefits mobility in Hasselt.

Will we ever have free public transport in the UK?

What do you think? Not anytime soon. It would take considerable campaigning (or a new government) for this to happen. There are definite environmental benefits to offering free public transport, but until governments realise that global warming is something we need to do something about as a matter of urgency, their egos and concerns over re-election will remain a barrier to positive change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Canadian publication The Tyee has put forward a case for why giving public transport away free would work. You may be thinking, that's ludicrous, we'd end up paying for it in our taxes, and what's the difference. Think about this, if there were no charge for public transport, there would also be significant savings.

# data[].attributes.body
However amazing this idea is, everything always has a bad thing to talk about,  the problem with Free transportation is that it is public, that is the problem, the only debate (in my opinion) is that it is better for you to stay in your own car, where you are alone (or with friends or family) it is still better than being in a truck with people who you don't know. Even If this can be solved with trains, where you can have private places for the passengers, that still comes with a problem. Building the actual train tracks, this would be easy for cities that already have huge railway systems, like New York, China, Tokyo, Shanghai, etc;  but for countries that don't have that  it is going to be harder. Even if they do decide to install the railway tracks, they would have to make space, and it would put lots of building that are still being made on hold.

Here is a website that talks about the economical reason why free transportation is a bad idea.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The short answer would be: because it is not free. But let's elaborate on that.

The mayor of Paris, Ms. Anne Hidalgo, recently announced plans for a study of free city-wide transport. The goal is to develop clean mobility and boost air quality by reducing the number of cars on the roads, which would require making public transport more attractive.

That reasoning is appealing but happens to hold some misconceptions.

First, the city of Paris isn'tin charge of the transport system. It is actually the Île-de-France region through the regional transport authority, Île-de-France Mobilités (the local equivalent of London's TFL, which I happen to work for). Ms. Hidalgo knows it and it is obviously more of a political move, but it shouldn't overcloud the question: would free public transport help reduce the number of cars on the roads?

The major problem with free public transport is that it creates the perception of a no-cost service. Just as car drivers commonly assume that there is no cost involved in driving their car somewhere. The catch of the car-based system is that the car trip is not in fact free - one should at least include gas, parking space, insurance and depreciation costs, even if environmental cost could also be part of the equation.

Likewise, this perception of freedom is important for public transport, which is far more environmentally and resource efficient than own-car travel. It means in this case that full access to the system doesn't need to be literally free for its users but that, from a financial perspective, it becomes front-loaded and affordable. Still, any public service needs money. In most European cities that offer public transport, users can get a monthly or annual transit pass that opens up the public system to unlimited use. Now, how they pay and how much will be part of the overall political/economic package of their community is decided by the local transport authority. In cities that offer such passes - as is the case in most cities in France- the remainder of the funds needed to pay for these services comes from other sources : employers and local governments.

In Paris, the Navigo annual travel pass gives you unlimited use of the public transport networks every day for 75,20€ a month. Moreover, at least 50% of the cost of your travel pass can be reimbursed by your employer. This makes the Navigo pass one of the cheapest in Europe, even though it also offers one of the most extensive networks.

How much does a monthly transit pass cost in major European cities? - numbers in 2016 (source)

The fares paid by passengers don't cover the costs of operating transport services: they indeed represent less than 30%. The rest is funded by employers (mostly transport tax) and local governments.

Ile-de-France Mobilités sources of income in 2016 (source).

In London, where the equivalent annual transit pass is a lot more expensive (£295 or around 410€ a month), it is however the largest source of income, representing almost half of the sources of cash.

In short, transportation in Paris is already cheap and passengers only pay a small part of the costs, so fares are not what prevents car drivers from taking public transport instead. This was clearly demonstrated in december 2016, when Paris was suffering its worst and most prolonged winter pollution wave in at least 10 years. To battle this air pollution peak, due to the combination of emissions from vehicles and domestic wood fires as well as near windless conditions, Parisians could use public transport for free and car traffic was restricted. After 4 days of free public transport, the number of passengers increased only by 5%. In fact, the Paris public transport system currently stands on the verge of saturation.

To tackle overcrowding and offer a more reliable and comfortable service, massive investments have been voted: upgrade of suburban railways, expansion of metro lines (1, 4, 11, 12 and 14), building of new tramway lines and purchase of new rolling stock. Moreover, Grand Paris Express is bringing 4 additional automatic metro lines, which makes it the largest transport project in Europe. So now is not the time to reduce funding, as you can see in this forecast of funding needs until 2030.

Ile-de-France Mobilités funding needs between 2018 and 2030 in M€ (source)

Funding needs are expected to be multiplied by 18 between now and 2030, because extending the network means operating a larger transit system. It is actually a challenge to figure out how to pay for it and balance public accounts - this could actually be the subject of another story! So lowering fares is highly unlikely in the recent future to say the least. A committee of experts has been designated to write a report, due in september, on free public transport, fundings and pricing policie s, and we'll see if they draw the same conclusion.

When all is said and done, even if free public transport is not the way, this doesn't mean there is nothing to be done. Indeed, we should support any initiative aiming at reducing air pollution and the scope is wide: improve public transport experience, promote car-sharing, encourage biking, develop Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEV) - meaning electric cars obviously, but also electric motorcycles and scooters. The point is to widen eco-friendly and ressource efficient options, so that anyone can choose the most appropriate means of transportation for their journey. This is where it needs to get innovative and, in my opinion, exciting!

Bibliography:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why making public transport free is a bad idea

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The short answer would be: because it is not free. But let's elaborate on that. The mayor of Paris, Ms. Anne Hidalgo, recently announced plans for a study of free city-wide transport. The goal is to develop clean mobility and boost air quality by reducing the number of cars on the roads, which would require making public transport more attractive.

# data[].attributes.body
I also found a really fun website that lets you debate about some ideas, this one will bring you to a debate about Free Transportation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cities need good public transit or they grind to a halt. Growing cities in the developing world often have traffic jams that choke up whole expressways for days. The reliance on the car also leads to large amounts of pollution, both smog and CO2 emissions. The solutions for these problems is more and better public transit. In cities the public transport network can be dense enough that users do not need to walk far to reach their nearest stop. Should public transit not be seen as a public service and be free in order to encourage people out of their cars?

All the Yes points:

1. How to get to work

2. Money Saved

3. Will encourage people not to drive

4. Will open opportunities for new businesses

5. Some people are very poor

All the No points:

1. private companies

2. Not enough capacity

3. Bus driver's salary, and crowded transport.

4. It already is almost free.

5. More pollution ?

6. We need to combat heart disease

7. We need to improve the transport system, this costs

8. People are misguided as to cost allocation

9. People can walk for free!

How to get to work

no importance of making it free for people who don't have money and can't get to work because of it. why?

1. People who apply for job should know where their job place is, and how they can get there. if they know that they don't have money, they should've find another nearer place that they can get only by walking, etc. it is ridiculous that you apply for job without knowing where your job place is, and even if you know you're still being stubborn and take the position.

2. even if those people are being stubborn, and they still take the position, there's nothing government can do with that. look, when these people want this position, they should know the consequences of having a very far job place or things. and when the consequence is they have to pay some amountt of money because of applying for a far job place. since these people will get money by the job, so that's why this consequence belong to them.

Money Saved

Although the idea of riding the bus every day to work is not very appealing, saving money every week on gas is. At an average of 3.10 a gallon, filling an average sized SUV can cost anywhere from 50-65 dollars. The cost of gas has become so high that some workers are unable to pay for their commute without significantly reducing their take home pay. Free public transportation is the answer for hard working people to have more money in their pockets, clean air in their lungs and a better future for their children.

Some governments have considered paying for public transport out of taxpayers' money, making it free. This would take cars, along with congestion, off our roads, and help the environment, so many people think it's a great idea and everyone would be able to see its advantage. However, like nearly all policies, it does have its cons. In Belgium the government made public transport free, and it was a huge success. Lots of money was saved by all parties; the transport companies, the government and particularly the customers. They saved on everything, even printing tickets. It is still free.

Will encourage people not to drive

Will open opportunities for new businesses

Once something is completely free people tend not to value it all that much. However it should be priced much cheaper than it is, so that for most urban journeys it becomes the obvious choice. One problem at the moment is that regular users can usually buy a pass which is reasonable value, but the casual bus user tends to get ripped off. This means that once somebody has a car, they are likely to use it, even if a bus exists. Another problem is that many bus routes do not connect well, especially in off peak periods.

One idea that would be worth trying would be to allow people to buy a year long, all routes bus pass in exchange for a single fee, payable at the same time that they pay their Local Government taxes.

If urban public transport is going to succeed, it is also necessary to provide better public transport between urban centres, and from the countryside to urban centres. Many people who visit the urban centres do not live within that conurbation. Public transport to and from the countryside or even the near-town suburbs is verging on non-existant, at least in Britain. I fully identify with the point that journeys such as getting from home to a small industrial estate across town are often difficullt or even impossible.

The fact that some people are very poor is largely an argument for greater fairness and equality in income distribution, rather than a public transport argument.

Some people are very poor

private companies

Not enough capacity

Bus driver's salary, and crowded transport.

The actual cost is not really an issue. Presumably the tab would simply be picked up by government. The transport being free would not make bus drivers into volunteers. However the technology is increasingly moving towards being able to have driver-less cars, so why not driver-less buses? Driver-less trains are already possible.

The environmental argument you put forward is however wrong. yes a more crowded bus will use more fuel than one that is not crowded. However it uses much less per person. This actually means that overall there is a fuel saving to having buses (and other public transport as full as possible). This is exactly the same as the idea behind car sharing.

Similarly the cost (environmental and monetary) of building new buses is much less than building the cars to transport an equivalent number of people - even if we make the assumption that some of them will be changing from walking.

Being on a crowded bus is still far less stressful than driving. You can use your phone or fall asleep without being in danger of your life, you aren't susceptible to road rage, you don't have to worry about running out of petrol or damaging your car or getting lost. The overall cost is so much less than running a car, monetary stress will be less.

It already is almost free.

More pollution ?

We need to combat heart disease

We need to improve the transport system, this costs

People are misguided as to cost allocation

People can walk for free!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Public Transport Should Be Free - DebateWise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cities need good public transit or they grind to a halt. Growing cities in the developing world often have traffic jams that choke up whole expressways for days. The reliance on the car also leads to large amounts of pollution, both smog and CO2 emissions.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a recording of me talking about what i know so far throughout my investigation.

# data[].attributes.body
Here are some more videos that talk about why free transportation is a good idea

# data[].attributes.body
below i have put a video of how the first EV was sold in india and a voice recording explaining what i learned and think the sellers intention.

# data[].attributes.body
Bengaluru-based Pravaig launches Made in India luxury EV with 500-km range | #Made​ in India

# data[].attributes.body
to wrap it all up below I am explaining all of the connections (similarities & differences) that I have found out through my research.

# data[].attributes.body
based on what i have told you what do you think how would you go about approaching this problem?