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.

In many countries, the government finance lot of money to construct a high-speed railway in cities. Some argue that that fund should use to maintain the existing transport system.I firmly believe that both of these views have their own benefits. In

this

essay, I will present some analyses that support my opinion.

Firstly

, while flights consume a number of fossil fuels, taking fast

trains

for long-distance journeys would be more likely to save much energy. The result will protect the environment from the greenhouse effect.

In addition

, the passengers who use

trains

for travelling do not need to spend much time waiting and checking in as in airports. Building high-speed

trains

could not only connect the areas but

also

save time in transportation which foster economic growth.

For instance

, in Japan, with a high-speed train system called Shinkansen, office workers can visit customers in other cities within one day period.

Moreover

, nations should invest money to improve the existing transportation because the fund for modern

trains

is an extremely big amount that sometimes needs to be borrowed from other countries

such

as the ODA fund or a loan from the World Bank Group. That will make one nation increase its debt on other foreign countries. In a recent announcement, in order to build infrastructure and the Metro system, Vietnam's foreign debt is nearly 40% GDP , meaning that it is a 40 million Vietnam dong debt for each citizen. In conclusion, constructing fast train systems is essential for the country's economic demand.

However

, it should be considered based on the nation financial status.