Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Nowadays, when governments take decisions about the infrastructure which is going to be built, they will definitely have to bear in mind the consequences that their activities will have on the environment. Whether the facilities such as railways or roads will be environmentally-friendly or whether they will add more burden to an already polluted area? On the one hand, trains, especially high-speed trains are faster and more reliable as they do not depend on weather conditions which might cause serious problems on roads. Furthermore, they can carry a lot more passengers. Therefore, traffic on the roads will not be so heavy and congestions will be fewer. As a result, air pollution, which in its greater part is caused by exhaust pipes, will decrease as less carbon dioxide will be released in the air. On the other hand, road transport is still preferred by many commuters as it allows them to take their cars right in front of their doors and leave them where their company is. They do not depend on timetables and travel in the comfort of their own vehicle which is convenient. However, it is more expensive and people cannot use this time for work on their projects or preparation for their studies. In conclusion, despite the fact that both types of transport have their pros and cons, it is evident that railway transport outweighs road transport in terms of environment protection. Regardless of the facilities built, people need, above all, clean air. I do believe that high-speed comfortable trains, which are way cheaper to use than cars can convert quite a number of people thus decreasing traffic and diminishing exhaust fumes. In this light, investing in highways seems money-wise and a clever way of using tax-payer’s money.