You should spend about 40 minutes on this task
Government should spend money on railways rather than roads.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.
Infrastructure development is one of the basic responsibilities of any government. Some has an opinion that more money should be spent on railways rather than roads. I do think there are two major factors which decide this.
The first major factor which is crucial in deciding the expenditure on railways is the necessity of the commuters. In a city, there may be people who want to travel longer distances for work. For example, there are people who have to cover almost 200 km on an average day. In such cases, frequent and fast rail services are primary requirements, which should be given more priority than road system development.
The second factor which is more likely to determine this type of spending is the geographical conditions of the place. To be clear, there are places which are environmentally fragile, and a rail network in such places is not at all recommended. For example, a railway line through a dense forest can either harm or alter the life of many birds and animals. There are frequent incidents of wild elephant deaths in many parts of Asia as trains hit accidently on crossing herds. Similarly, it is nearly impossible to construct a rail network crossing places such as mountains and valleys.
Spending on roadways, on the other hand, has many benefits, because roads are considered as the arteries of a country. A well- developed roadway system is essential for the smooth movement of both people and goods.
To conclude, I think spending on railways is really good if it facilitates a large number of passengers. One challenge here is adverse geographical conditions. At the same time, roads should be given enough importance, as it is vital for a country’s development.
Word count: 286