As nations build rapid rail networks connecting their cities, some people argue the money should rather be spent on improving existing public transportation systems. While there are merits in both the arguments, tight budget allocation for infrastructure projects compels many nations to choose either of them.
One prime reason behind constructing fast train networks is to avoid overcrowding of cities. Consequently, this enables people to live comfortably in their hometown, in their own house, along with their family; and take the train to cities for their work every day, spending the least amount of time travelling. Furthermore, this arrangement boosts the rural economy and enhances the mental wellbeing of citizens by keeping families together. Thanks to its mass transportation network, Singapore is a phenomenal example where the masses do not need to live in rented houses closer to cities, but rather in their own homes far away.
On the contrary, being mammoth and long-running, fast train network projects deny time and funding to maintain existing public transportation systems. As the majority of a nation’s citizens rely on existing public transport systems for their travelling needs, it is of paramount importance to maintain and constantly upgrade them. Sri Lanka is a prime example of how futuristic, ambitious bullet train projects have ended up crippling the maintenance of the present transportation systems, as the island nation’s government grapples for funding, having spent all the fortune on its ambitious projects.
I strongly believe, while acknowledging the merits of both the arguments, the foremost importance should be given to keep the existing roads and rail networks in working conditions, as they keep the wheels of the economy moving; nevertheless, additional funding should be sought to launch futuristic transportation projects. Securing whatever it already has, a nation can then confidently take bolder steps into the future.
As
nations
build rapid rail
networks
connecting their
cities
,
some
people
argue the money should
rather
be spent
on improving
existing
public
transportation
systems
. While there are merits in both the arguments, tight budget allocation for infrastructure
projects
compels
many
nations
to choose either of them.
One prime reason behind constructing
fast
train
networks
is to avoid overcrowding of
cities
.
Consequently
, this enables
people
to
live
comfortably
in their hometown, in their
own
house
, along with their family; and take the
train
to
cities
for their work every day, spending the least amount of time travelling.
Furthermore
, this arrangement boosts the rural economy and enhances the mental
wellbeing
of citizens by keeping families together. Thanks to its mass
transportation
network
, Singapore is a phenomenal example where the masses do not need to
live
in rented
houses
closer to
cities
,
but
rather
in their
own
homes far away.
On the contrary
, being mammoth and long-running,
fast
train
network
projects
deny time and funding to maintain
existing
public
transportation
systems
. As the majority of a
nation’s
citizens rely on
existing
public transport
systems
for their travelling needs, it is of paramount importance to maintain and
constantly
upgrade them. Sri Lanka is a prime example of how futuristic, ambitious bullet
train
projects
have ended up crippling the maintenance of the present
transportation
systems
, as the island
nation’s
government
grapples for funding, having spent all the fortune on its ambitious projects.
I
strongly
believe, while acknowledging the merits of both the arguments, the foremost importance should be
given
to
keep
the
existing
roads and rail
networks
in working conditions, as they
keep
the wheels of the economy moving;
nevertheless
, additional funding should
be sought
to launch futuristic
transportation
projects
. Securing whatever it already has, a
nation
can then
confidently
take bolder steps into the future.