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

, 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

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

such

as price and eco-friendly

energy

.

This

essay will

first

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

is that it could aid in conserving

time

and

energy

for commuting since travelling by these transports takes an excessive

time

that renders the passengers extremely fatigued.

Therefore

, they could utilize the saved

time

to accomplish more fruitful tasks.

However

, 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

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

such

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

On the other hand

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

mass

transportation

such

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

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

As a result

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

such

as asthma, bronchitis and respiratory diseases,

thus

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

and effort.

Nonetheless

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

such

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

Instead

, the focus should be diverted to other precedences

such

as fare and green

energy

, considering the fact that

this

not only helps the underprivileged to commute by

mass

transits but

also

mitigates the environmental deterioration.