Some believe that in many nations, it is necessary to spend a lot of money to build new railway infrastructure for fast trains between cities. Others feel that the government should spend money to improve existing public transportation. Discuss both of these perspectives and give your opinion.

The transportation system is the key element to demonstrate the level and progress of a country. A segment of society opines that the regime should spend hefty money to modernise the railway infrastructure; diametrically opposed to

this

, others believe that it is equally important to facilitate existing public transit with new technology. Both sides may advance equally compelling arguments, but I am personally inclined to the

second

notion. The

first

and foremost point in favour of the

second

idea is that buses are more convenient to access small parts of the city; it is quite arduous to use railway lines in each hook and corner of the metropolis as it demands a lot of space.

For instance

, in metro cities like Vancouver and Toronto, it is not feasible for trains to run in the middle parts of the city while buses provide easy access to the local markets.

Thus

, other modes of shipment, demand the same proportion of the budget allocations.

On the other hand

, trains are more convenient to inter-connect big cities as they run at a high speed.

In addition

to it, some people

also

use ferries to access the different ports of the city. Modernisation of

this

mode of transport is

also

worthy of some funds. To conclude

then

, there exist contrasting stances on the matter, it is taxing work to decide, which statement has a more positive response. Howbeit, I am personally inclined to the

last

notion that it is parallel important to upgrade other modes of shipment like buses and ferries as folks used the most suitable means to reach out the destination.