Countries should spend money on trains rather than new roads. Do you agree or disagree?
Governments are advised to expend more on train routes than on building new motorways which are often full of traffic, especially during rush hours. In my opinion, I strongly approve this point of view because of great advantages trains bring about.
First, railways are safer than other means of transportation such as cars, motorbikes, busses and bikes which use roads. This is partly because trains run on lines that are fixed so people can proactively avoid crashing. On the contrary, on roads people have no ideas of what direction an accident might be expected to come from so they cannot prevent themselves from it. Recent studies showed that the rate of road accidents were growing rapidly in contrast with that by trains.
Second, trains are more environmentally friendly and energy-saving. Nowadays trains are designed consuming electricity instead of coal or oil so the amount of exhausted fumes they release into the air is mostly zero. In addition, if everybody drives a car or motorbike, the total consumption of fuel their vehicles burn will by far outweigh that by railways. By 2050, the whole world is expected to reach a net zero carbon pledge, therefore trains which eliminate far less carbon emission and consume less energy will be one of the means of transportation that helps achieve the goal.
To summarise, I assert that nations worldwide should invest more money in railways than roads to ensure travellers' safety as well as reduce traffic pollurants. If governments join hands, sooner or later the number of vehicle crashes will fall and the world will be greener.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.