ome people believe governments should spend money on fast means of public transport. Others believe money should be spent on other important priorities for public transport (e.g. cost, environment, etc.) Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It is widely recognized that the onus is on governments to allocate funding for improving the public transportation system. Given

this

Linking Words

, much has been debated over what parts should be focused on. One school of thought holds that the state subsidies should be directed towards the betterment of

mass

Use synonyms

transits’ pace; meanwhile, others argue that it is imperative to spend more on other fields of priorities

such

Linking Words

as price and eco-friendly

energy

Use synonyms

.

This

Linking Words

essay will

first

Linking Words

scrutinize both views before presenting my final thought. On the one hand, many people are pro that state funding should be invested in increasing the speed of public transports, and justifiably so. The key rationale of

this

Linking Words

is that it could aid in conserving

time

Use synonyms

and

energy

Use synonyms

for commuting since travelling by these transports takes an excessive

time

Use synonyms

that renders the passengers extremely fatigued.

Therefore

Linking Words

, they could utilize the saved

time

Use synonyms

to accomplish more fruitful tasks.

However

Linking Words

, given the incurred costs paid for infrastructure, employees’

salary

Fix the agreement mistake

salaries

show examples

, among others, the colossal expenses associated with running the faster mode of

mass

Use synonyms

transit would take a heavy toll on national coffers, which are often too meagre. As

such

Linking Words

, the feasibility of the aforementioned proposal is questionable at best.

On the other hand

Linking Words

, I am convinced that it is better to spend more public money on other crucial priorities for

mass

Use synonyms

transportation

such

Linking Words

as costs and the environment. In terms of the former, as the fares of the public transport are too exorbitant for some people, subsiding to bring down the cost could help inhabitants, especially those from middle- and low-income groups, facilitate taking a ride to travel to their desired destinations. Regarding the environment, expanding the budget for investment in environmentally friendly

energy

Use synonyms

could help to reduce the toxic fumes exchanged from public transport, which is one of the chief culprits behind air pollution.

As a result

Linking Words

, it may alleviate the environmental degradation and decrease the potential health risks

such

Linking Words

as asthma, bronchitis and respiratory diseases,

thus

Linking Words

improving public health. To summarize, proponents of increasing funding allotted to develop fast means for public transport often emphasize how it can help citizens in reducing the waste of

time

Use synonyms

and effort.

Nonetheless

Linking Words

, they fail to factor in the fact that the enormous outlay to execute

such

Linking Words

a proposal may have a considerable bearing on the government budget.

Instead

Linking Words

, the focus should be diverted to other precedences

such

Linking Words

as fare and green

energy

Use synonyms

, considering the fact that

this

Linking Words

not only helps the underprivileged to commute by

mass

Use synonyms

transits but

also

Linking Words

mitigates the environmental deterioration.