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. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport Disucss both the

In the salad days of the millennium, people are travelling more than ever before. In fact, different ways of commuting have been introduced to entertain

this

increasing trend. Whereas society is polarized into two groups almost equally regarding the notion, of whether the government should spend funds on building upgraded railway tracks for quick inter-city movements or on the existing state-owned transportation system.

However

, in the following paragraphs, I would shed light to discuss both views and

then

present my stance. To commence with the

first

argument, there are myriad things to be shared in its favour.

First

and foremost, the railway network plays a crucial role in generating larger revenues because thousands of folks are moving on a daily basis within the country.

For example

, one person is charged a handsome amount for the ticket and trains carry more people at a time than any other source of transport.

Therefore

, if these tracks are constructed a greater number of humans can travel and

hence

, helps the nation to produce earnings.

Moreover

, advanced trains are quicker and take lesser time as compared to ordinary ones. As a consequence, they will save time which can be utilized in other important activities.

Finally

, improved railway paths are the main attraction of visitors all over the globe. Resultantly in, these lines cast an appealing image of the state in front of foreigners and

thus

, help in elevating tourism. Shifting towards the

second

school of thought, public transport is

also

essential for any country.

Firstly

,

this

arrangement offers dwellers commuting economically since it costs them cheaper to use civil vehicles than bring their own conveyance.

For instance

, humans usually go to the office alone and they have to fill the gasoline in their cars on a regular basis which is more expensive than using public conveyance as the fuel cost is shared among everyone.

Furthermore

, it is easier for the authorities to renovate the federal transportation set-up due to its smaller size.

In addition

to

this

, public conveyance contributes a lot to reducing pollution because they aid in cutting down the number of motor vehicles on roads and

therefore

less smoke is released into the environment. In conclusion, after discussing the arguments and the counter-arguments, I would like to infer my personal opinion that the government should invest assets in both mediums of commuting because both of them have their own significance according to various perspectives.