In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constricting new 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 opinion.

Some people argue to spend fundings to make swift railways to link the cities, while others, are in favour of improving current public commuter services. In my opinion, other transportation mediums facilitate majorities of the population in any country as compared to trains so should be preferred to support financially. On one hand, railways seem to be a major medium of transport, either for people or goods and link the major cities,

therefore

faster trains will definitely provide quicker access to various destinations.

Moreover

, railways offer services to the majority of people in the big cities,

hence

reduces the burden on other travel channels,

therefore

contribute towards the reduction of pollution and crowded roads. Swift trains will reduce the travel time between various cities,

hence

will encourage more travellers to use

this

service which will raise the government funds by producing more money from train fares.

On the other hand

, other local transmission channels like buses and roads are being used by many people in both urban and rural areas so should be taken care for improvements. In many countries,

for example

, in India the majority of the population lives in rural areas so improving other transportation facilities except trains will benefit most of the people there.

Additionally

, railway tracks can not cover many parts of the country which are accessible by these mediums so strengthening them will improve the overall communication and will help the citizens. In conclusion,

although

faster railways can provide various benefits to the society, public transport ways other than railways facilitate more proportion of the population,

hence

should be supported financially for improvement.