In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Others believe that money should be spent on improving existing public transport. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

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.