Government should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this element. v.5
Government should spend money on railways rather than roads. with this element. v. 5
Some people believe government´s money should be spent on railways, others on roads. In this essay I will explain the reasons why I agree with this statement.
Investing in railways is essential as trains more convenient than other means of transport. Take, for example, one only train is needed to carry thousands of passengers to work, meanwhile, private cars are used by one or two people at a time, increasing the traffic noticeably. Another advantage of trains is the short time it takes to arrive downtown. For instance, in Buenos Aires it would take maybe one hour driving in heavy traffic to get from the city to neighbouring areas such as Vicente Lopez, whereas by train it would only be needed approximately 15 to 20 minutes.
On the other hand, those who think money should be spent on roads claim that cars can reach places that trains do not. The province of Misiones, in Argentina, is one clear example of this, there, trains have not arrived ever. In spite of this, supporters of trains argue that these are more environmentally friendly than cars owing to the small amount fumes they emit. To illustrate, the contamination emitted by one car in a 30 kilometres trip equals to 400 kilometres of train ride.
In conclusion, whereas roads should be built and looked after by the government to reach far away cities, in my opinion, more money should be spent on building railways and trains as these are faster, more convenient and less polluting than cars. Moreover, politicians should always bear in mind ecological and practical aspects of transport to decide where to spend its funds.
Some
people
believe
government´s
money should
be spent
on railways, others on roads. In this essay I will
explain
the reasons why I
agree
with this statement.
Investing in railways is essential as
trains
more convenient than other means of transport. Take,
for example
, one
only
train
is needed
to carry thousands of passengers to work, meanwhile, private
cars
are
used
by one or two
people
at a time, increasing the traffic
noticeably
. Another advantage of
trains
is the short time it takes to arrive downtown.
For instance
, in Buenos Aires it would take maybe one hour driving in heavy traffic to
get
from the city to
neighbouring
areas such as Vicente Lopez, whereas by
train
it would
only
be needed
approximately 15 to 20 minutes.
On the other hand
, those who
think
money should
be spent
on roads claim that
cars
can reach places that
trains
do not. The province of
Misiones
, in Argentina, is one
clear
example of this, there,
trains
have not arrived ever.
In spite of
this, supporters of
trains
argue that these are more
environmentally
friendly than
cars
owing to the
small
amount fumes they emit. To illustrate, the contamination emitted by one
car
in a 30
kilometres
trip equals to 400
kilometres
of
train
ride.
In conclusion
, whereas roads should
be built
and looked after by the
government
to reach far away cities, in my opinion, more money should
be spent
on building railways and
trains
as these are faster, more convenient and less polluting than
cars
.
Moreover
, politicians should always bear in mind ecological and practical aspects of transport to decide where to spend its funds.
5Linking words, meeting the goal of 7 or more
14Repeated words, meeting the goal of 3 or fewer
5Mistakes