Introduction
Every year, governments must decide whether to widen the roads that drivers want or to invest in the buses and trains that most of them do not use.
While
I accept that new highways help in rural areas, I largely agree that public transport deserves the greater share of spending, because it carries more people at lower cost and causes far less harm to cities.Linking Words
Body paragraph 1
Admittedly, the case for building highways is not without merit. In the countryside, a bus service cannot reach every village, so a good road is often the only link to a hospital or a school. In the Atlas region of Morocco,
for instance
, routes paved over the past decade have cut the journey to the nearest clinic from hours to minutes. Closely linked to Linking Words
this
is the freedom that private cars offer, since a family with young children or a worker carrying tools cannot easily manage on a crowded train.Linking Words
Body paragraph 2
Nevertheless
, in the cities where most people live, wider motorways have repeatedly failed to reduce congestion. The main reason is that extra lanes simply attract extra cars, and, Linking Words
consequently
, the traffic returns within a few years Linking Words
while
the noise and pollution remain. Linking Words
Moreover
, a single tram line carries as many passengers as several lanes of highway at a fraction of the cost. Casablanca, Linking Words
for example
, cut travel times across the city after opening its tramway, Linking Words
whereas
the ring roads built in the same period are already blocked at rush hour. Money spent on rail and bus networks, Linking Words
therefore
, brings lasting benefits that asphalt cannot match.Linking Words
Conclusion
In conclusion, new roads remain necessary where no alternative exists, yet in urban areas, they only create more traffic. On balance, governments should give priority to public transport, which serves more citizens, costs less over time and leaves cities cleaner and quieter.