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.Other believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport.
Many nations have different opinions on whether investing the big amounts of money should be in building railway lines or in making existing public transport better. There are different ways to look into this -the railway lines can be a much faster means of transportation while travelling by buses or ferries can be more convenient for others. Using a train as a mean of public transportation can be one of the fastest solutions possible, especially for long distances. Since commuting between cities has gained in popularity in the last decades, getting quickly from one big metropolis to another became essential. Moreover, riding a train provided a quick solution. A very good example of this is a railroad system in Britain, which connects London with the northern parts of the country. However, the transit in compact towns may be much more convenient by bus or ferry rather than by train. There are just a handful of towns which are well organized within a city centre so there is no longer travelling necessary to get where you should. In this case, spending large sums of fund on railway lines sounds like throwing money away. This is the case with Sydney, for example, where commuting is much more accessible by ferry. In my opinion, the question where the money for transportation should be invested depends very much on the environment in which the transporting system is. Furthermore, there is no ‘one fit all’ solution and many things have to be considered, such as how far are people travelling for work and which way of public transport can be the fastest on the terrain.
Submitted by Kristina Bosilj on