In many nations, some people feel that it is imperative to fund the construction of high-speed railway lines connecting cities whereas the rest of the population believe that the money will be better spent on developing the existing public transport infrastructure. Both set of ideas have their advantages and disadvantages.
The rationale for investing in newer and faster railway lines is that they will make it easier for people to travel between cities. Most individuals would reach their destination comfortably, thus they can be more productive and work longer hours. Besides, more jobs would be generated for the masses with such new technology and hence uplift the economy. This can be seen in Japan, in which the place is famous for its bullet trains that allow residents to traverse the country in a matter of hours. Moreover, tourists can also use these trains for convenient transnational travel, thereby making the country more tourist-friendly and helping to expand the industry.
Although trains can improve the city transport facilities, some individuals still think that the national budget should be utilized on improving public transport. Making them superior will be beneficial to the masses, since it already served majority of people and not everyone can afford the quicker but expensive railways. For instance, laborers with low salary could not manage to commute by trains every day since the ticket is quite costly while they have to spend money on a range of costs in their lives. Another point is that the government needs large sums of money to construct the train network and these kinds of projects have a history of costing far more than their original budgets. In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
In
many
nations,
some
people
feel that it is imperative to fund the construction of high-speed
railway
lines connecting
cities
whereas the rest of the population believe that the
money
will be better spent on developing the existing public transport infrastructure. Both set of
ideas
have their advantages and disadvantages.
The rationale for investing in newer and faster
railway
lines is that they will
make
it easier for
people
to travel between
cities
. Most individuals would reach their destination
comfortably
,
thus
they can be more productive and work longer hours.
Besides
, more jobs would
be generated
for the masses with such new technology and
hence
uplift the economy. This can be
seen
in Japan, in which the place is
famous
for its bullet
trains
that
allow
residents to traverse the country in a matter of hours.
Moreover
, tourists can
also
use
these
trains
for convenient transnational travel, thereby making the country more tourist-friendly and helping to expand the industry.
Although
trains
can
improve
the city transport facilities,
some
individuals
still
think
that the national budget should
be utilized
on improving public transport. Making them superior will be beneficial to the masses, since it already served
majority of
people
and not everyone can afford the quicker
but
expensive
railways
.
For instance
, laborers with low salary could not manage to commute by
trains
every day since the ticket is quite costly while they
have to
spend
money
on a range of costs in their
lives
. Another point is that the
government
needs large sums of
money
to construct the
train
network and these kinds of projects have a history of costing far more than their original budgets. In a number of countries,
some
people
think
it is necessary to spend large sums of
money
on constructing
railway
lines for
very
fast
trains
between
cities
. Others believe the
money
should
be spent
on improving existing public transport.
Discuss both these views and give your
own
opinion.