Although, there is no doubt that public transport is essential for both government and citizens, it is important to consider the cost spending requirements. Some people believe that money should be spent on enhancement of the current transportation system, I support the view that time effective rail conveyance is mandatory.
On one hand, those who advocate to maintain old railways might argue that the fortune should be allocated to more sensitive necessities. This is because the primary facilities in rural areas are not adequate to comprehend basic needs of villagers. For example, if government prioritize countryside infrastructure development, such basic necessaries like educational institutes, hospitals and housing, which are more vital concerns, the quality of life would be improved. In contrast, new establishments of railway line would be costlier and the older equipment would become junk and as a result, officials might face to take few huge money losses into accounts.
On the other hand, I would argue that the faster inter-connectivity is vital. The reason is more productivity, which is paramount for evolution, and saved time could be tuned into work efficiency and higher output. For instance, the newer high-speed rails can reach up-to 150km speed and helps to save almost 50% of the previous commute time. If, instead, expenses turned towards improvement of existing railways, the maintenance cost of old technology would be much higher and as an outcome, it will be unjust as excessive expenditure of taxpayers.
In conclusion, though diverting funds into improving existing transits might be requisite and fair to some, in my view, rapid transitions for rails are predominant to reach new avenues.
Although, there is no doubt that public transport is essential for both
government
and citizens, it is
important
to consider the cost spending requirements.
Some
people
believe that money should
be spent
on enhancement of the
current
transportation system, I support the view that time effective rail conveyance is mandatory.
On one hand, those who advocate to maintain
old
railways might argue that the fortune should
be allocated
to more sensitive necessities. This is
because
the primary facilities in rural areas are not adequate to comprehend basic needs of villagers.
For example
, if
government
prioritize countryside infrastructure development, such basic necessaries like educational institutes, hospitals and housing, which are more vital concerns, the quality of life would be
improved
.
In contrast
, new establishments of railway line would be costlier and the older equipment would become junk and
as a result
, officials might face to take few huge money losses into accounts.
On the other hand
, I would argue that the faster inter-connectivity is vital. The reason is more productivity, which is paramount for evolution, and saved time could
be tuned
into work efficiency and higher output.
For instance
, the newer high-speed rails can reach up-to
150km
speed and
helps
to save almost 50% of the previous commute time. If,
instead
, expenses turned towards improvement of existing railways, the maintenance cost of
old
technology would be much higher and as an outcome, it will be unjust as excessive expenditure of taxpayers.
In conclusion
, though diverting funds into improving existing transits might be requisite and
fair
to
some
, in my view, rapid transitions for rails are predominant to reach new avenues.