These days, people have taken keen interest in what area authorities channel huge funds to. Although certain individuals opine that it should be used to construct new railway transport system for trains, which moves with great speed in between cities, others belong to the school of thought that it ought to be expended on overhauling existing public means of transportation. This essay will discuss both viewpoints in order to arrive at a conclusion.
On the one hand, it is reasoned that more revenue should be directed to building modern railway tracks because it is time saving. In other words, trains move with high level of speed, which shortens the time passengers spend on the road. Also, there are no stopovers in between its destinations but only at major stations. A case in point is a 2015 survey conducted by the ministry of of transport in China, which discovered that trains can travel over a long distance at very short time as compared to buses. Thus, supporters of this view have reason to claim that it should be given priority in terms of budget allocation by the government
On the other hand, others are of the opinion that old public transport be refurbished because it will decongest traffic. This is due to the fact that, buses will be considered safe resulting in more private cars being taken off the road, for people would take preference to commuting in them. In addition, traffic bottleneck will decrease as roads are would be more accessible. America for instance, have been reported to experience an increased number of its citizens travelling by public transport as a result of its regular maintenance by the authorities. Hence, it is for this reason proponents of this view base their argument.
To sum up, while some argue that huge amount of money be spent erecting railway lines because it saves time, others claim it should be used to refurbish public transport system that are in existence as it will take personal vehicles off the highway. I am of the opinion that none ought to be given preference over the other because they are both essential.
These days,
people
have taken keen interest in what area authorities channel huge funds to. Although certain individuals opine that it should be
used
to construct new railway
transport
system for trains, which
moves
with great speed in between cities, others belong to the school of
thought
that it ought to
be expended
on overhauling existing
public
means of transportation. This essay will discuss both viewpoints in order to arrive at a conclusion.
On the one hand, it
is reasoned
that more revenue should
be directed
to building modern railway
tracks
because
it is
time
saving. In
other
words, trains
move
with high level of speed, which shortens the
time
passengers spend on the road.
Also
, there are no stopovers in between its destinations
but
only
at major stations. A case in point is a 2015 survey conducted by the ministry
of of
transport
in China, which discovered that trains can travel over a long distance at
very
short
time
as compared to buses.
Thus
, supporters of this view have reason to claim that it should be
given
priority in terms of budget allocation by the
government
On the
other
hand, others are of the opinion that
old
public
transport
be refurbished
because
it will decongest traffic.
This is due to the fact that
, buses will
be considered
safe resulting in more private cars
being taken
off the road, for
people
would take preference to commuting in them.
In addition
, traffic bottleneck will decrease as roads are would be more accessible. America
for instance
, have
been reported
to experience an increased number of its citizens travelling by
public
transport
as a result
of its regular maintenance by the authorities.
Hence
, it is
for this reason
proponents of this view base their argument.
To sum up, while
some
argue that huge amount of money
be spent
erecting railway lines
because
it saves
time
, others claim it should be
used
to refurbish
public
transport
system that are in existence as it will take personal vehicles off the highway. I am of the opinion that none ought to be
given
preference over the
other
because
they are both essential.