Some people think that governments should spend money for faster public transportation, others think that there are other important priorities (e.g. cost, environment). Discuss both views and give your opinion.

The question of whether the government should construct the most advanced public transportation has sparked heated debate. Some claim that the standpoint provides significant convenience,

nevertheless

others argue that other urban plans could be more essential and beneficial. In the essay, I will elucidate both viewpoints in more detail and offer my personal opinions.

To begin

with, the advocators always emphasize that a better transport network can considerably improve accessibility from one location to another.

For instance

, the high-speed railway is frequently mentioned in multiple countries and can obviously reduce travelling time between different places.

As a result

, dwellers always hope to have

such

facilities which could

also

contribute to local businesses and tourists.

However

, local official needs to evaluate the feasibility and its financial condition.

On the other hand

, it is evident that the resource of a city is limited and the priority differs, depending on its needs.

For example

, building wind stations that generate electricity and supply the

overall

demand of a city could fundamentally occupy part of the budget, making other projects hard to implement in a short time.

Therefore

, most importantly, the taxpayers and the federal body should reach a mutual understanding, and

then

decide which infrastructure is more important. In conclusion, both perspectives have valid grounds,

hence

applying the middle approach is a potential solution.

This

means that citizens and local authorities should first discuss and gather advice from each other.

Thereafter

, it is recommended to have a public vote to determine which proposal can resolve the most pressing problems and is worth spending wealth on .