Government should spend more money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement

It is commonly suggested that

rail

tracks should receive more of the government's finances rather than roads. I agree with

this

view, as railways do not cause much damage to our environments and

last

for longer periods of time. On the one hand, railways are environmental friendly. The tracks are narrow, which reduce the number of trees destroyed to clear ways for its construction and less natural habitats are damaged.

For instance

, a standard highway in Nigeria can accommodate ten

rail

tracks.

Thus

, if the authorities have spent more on train tracks, our ecosystem will not have been adversely affected, but

this

can corrected with

rail

tracks.

Furthermore

, railways are durable. Train tracks are not easily damaged by the forces of nature

such

as rain and wind, and require only periodic maintenance.

For example

, the majority of railways in Nigeria were built during the colonial era and are still working effectively.

Therefore

, unlike roads, they can be used for a longer time.

However

, some people think that more money should be devoted to roads since a greater number of people utilize road transportation.

This

may be due to the high number of car owners and traffic congestion in major cities like Beijing and Lagos. They feel that expansions of existing roads and constructions of new ones are needed to address transportation challenges, which require a lot of finances.

However

, more intra and inter city

rail

networks will solve

this

problem. In conclusion, the government should devote more financial resources to railways rather than roads because it does not significantly damage our surroundings and it is more durable. Policy makers should be educated on

this

view.