Governments should spend money on the railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree? v.1

Constructing better infrastructure for transportation is one of the major responsibilities of every government. Some people argue that a large portion of the budget should be allocated to the expansion of railways instead of roads. I agree with this notion to a larger extent, and the following paragraphs stand for my justification. On the one hand, it is wisely believed that trains are beneficial in terms of environmental, economic, and safety issues. Nowadays, thanks to the rapid growth of science and technology, trains that used to burn fossil fuels, such as coil, have become obsolete, and are replaced by electrical ones. These new trains are capable of transferring passengers and commodities without exerting any detrimental effect on the environment. Also, thanks to these environmentally-friendly transport systems, the journeys have become faster, if not more convenient. Because of using electricity, there is no need for the combustion of the fuel; therefore, the train moves more smoothly. On top of these factors, the railway system is more reliable in comparison with roads, because of regular maintenance of them, as well as the controlled speed of the trains. On the other hand, there are a few constraints in implementing railway, particularly in remote areas. Despite a large number of the benefits of trains, they are not applicable in all areas. In some regions, it is considerably expensive, if not impossible, to build a railway to connect remote places, such as regions located near the mountains. Consequently, the necessity for road construction is unlikely to be eliminated. To wrap up, the railway system is more advantageous considering its mitigated implications to nature, as well as its reliability. However, we will not reach remote areas unless we benefit from high-quality roads, as well.