Many people think that the government should spend more money on providing faster and cheaper means of public transport. Some others think that there are other important factors to take into consideration like (petrol, cost and environment). Discuss both views and give your opinion?

In recent decades, the government has reserved the expenditure on transportation on purpose to create a better road system. Some suggest that the budget must be spent on improving the means of public transport

while

others would rather spend it to resolve considerable issues regarding fuel. I am certainly concerned that providing faster and cheaper general travelling ways must be given preference. Proceeding with more practical perspectives, there is no doubt that anyone would die just to get more time on their hands to seize. Since travelling takes a long time and deters workers’ will, the workers’ performance reflects ineffectiveness. Any regime would want to comprehensively avoid those commotions,

therefore

, an automatic-rapid public transport system which allows everybody to multitask and concentrate on their own interests during their commuting; the government might not hesitate to invest in it. Taking the Mass Rapid Transportation in Singapore (as known as MRT) as an example, the train departs every five minutes, and it provides a comfortable ambience. With

this

attempt alone, workers' commuting time will be saved and spent on completing their errands.

On the contrary

, it is undeniable that fuel is the most challenging issue worldwide: any factor including its cost, bad influence on nature and the splendid consumption of petrol should not be ignored. The dramatic growth of vehicle amounts takes full accountability for how

non- renewable

Correct your spelling

non-renewable

show examples

resources are running out, meanwhile, many countries are on the verge of financial disaster

due to

the fluctuation of petrol costs. In case the government budget was spent on resolving the cost, it would imply that the raise in the rate of private vehicles was imminent; which in turn was resulting in environmental pollution, and traffic.

For instance

, in some metropolis in Vietnam, anyone can own a scooter and make it his/her main way of travelling,

this

created more peak-hour and perceived a bad impression amongst the populace. Any regime might take providing a convenient public transport system as a preference,

conversely

. In conclusion, both sides of the states have their own merits,

however

, I strongly support the point that the regime must structure a better infrastructure scheme for fast and affordable public transportation rather than focusing on deducting issues regarding fuel.