In a number countries, some people think that it is necessary to spend large sum of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Other belives that the money should be spent on improving existing public transport. Discuss both views and give your own opinion?
Here’s a Band 9 response for
this
prompt, showcasing a balanced argument, nuanced language, and a sophisticated structure.
In many countries, there is ongoing debate about whether it is better to invest heavily in high-speed rail
infrastructure connecting major cities
or to allocate funds toward improving existing public transport
systems
. Both
viewpoints present compelling arguments, as each has unique
potential to enhance urban mobility and economic development. Add an article
the unique
a unique
This
essay will discuss both
perspectives and present my opinion that a balanced approach, prioritizing high-speed rail
in select regions while
upgrading current transport
, is the most beneficial.
Proponents of constructing new high-speed railway lines argue that these projects can significantly boost intercity connectivity, reducing travel time and promoting economic integration. High-speed trains can transform how people commute, enabling greater workforce mobility and reducing regional disparities. For example
, countries like Japan and France have demonstrated that efficient high-speed rail
systems
, such
as the Shinkansen and TGV, facilitate business interactions between cities
, stimulate tourism, and ease congestion on roads. Such
infrastructure investments can also
contribute to environmental goals by shifting travelers
from cars and planes to a more sustainable, lower-emission mode of Change the spelling
travellers
transport
. Therefore
, supporters believe that high-speed rail
represents a long-term solution to both
environmental and economic challenges.
On the other hand
, some believe that funds should be directed toward upgrading existing public transport
systems
rather than investing in high-speed rail
, which might not serve the needs of the general population. Improving current buses, trams, and metro systems
within cities
can have a more immediate and widespread impact, particularly for daily commuters. In many cities
, public transport
infrastructure is outdated, unreliable, and overburdened, leading to increased road congestion and pollution. By enhancing these systems
, governments can directly improve the quality of life for millions, providing faster, cleaner, and more accessible transport
options. Additionally
, improving local transport
is often more cost-effective than building new high-speed rail
lines, which may only serve a small portion of the population who travel between cities
.
In my view, a balanced investment approach that incorporates both
perspectives would be most effective. High-speed rail
should be developed in areas where it can maximize economic and social benefits, such
as densely populated regions with substantial intercity travel demand. For example
, connecting megacities or economic hubs with fast trains could help alleviate air traffic, reduce carbon emissions, and enhance regional connectivity. Simultaneously, investments in upgrading existing urban transport
systems
should not be neglected, as these are essential for reducing traffic congestion, improving air quality, and supporting daily commuters. By combining these strategies, governments can address both
local and intercity transport
needs, leading to a more integrated and sustainable transportation network.
In conclusion, while
high-speed rail
offers significant benefits in terms of regional connectivity and environmental impact, improving local public transport
remains crucial for meeting the daily needs of urban populations. A balanced approach, with targeted investments in both
areas, would provide the most comprehensive solution to current and future transportation challenges.Submitted by alyalihan28 on
Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
enhancement
Consider exploring the perspectives with an even wider variety of examples across different regions to further demonstrate the global applicability of your points.
enhancement
For even greater depth, you could delve into any potential drawbacks of a balanced approach, giving the essay critical depth.
structure
The essay presents a well-structured and logical argument, beginning with a clear introduction and ending with a decisive conclusion.
examples
Each of the main points is elaborated on and supported with specific examples, such as the Shinkansen and TGV, demonstrating an understanding of the topic.
discussion
Well-balanced discussion of both perspectives before presenting your opinion, showing a nuanced understanding of the complexities involved.
Support ideas with relevant, specific examples
Examples make your writing easier to understand by illustrating points more effectively.
Examples, if used properly, not only help you get higher marks for ‘Task Response’ but also for ‘Coherence’.
When giving examples it is best to put them after your main idea or topic sentence. They can be used in the middle of supporting sentences or they can be used to start a new sentence. There is no rule for where exactly to give examples in essays, logically they would come after your main idea/topic sentence or just after a supporting sentence.
Linking words for giving examples:
- for example
- for instance
- to illustrate this
- to give a clear example
- such as
- namely
- to illustrate
- take, for example