investment on public transportSome people think governments should spend money on faster means of public transport. However, others think money should be spent on other priorities (e.g cost, environment...) Discuss both views and give your opinion.
It is thought that governmental budget should be allocated on faster means of public transport, while others advocate to different priorities such as its price and environmental effects deserve to be financed rather than its speed. From my perspective, there are other elements should be concerned rather than the fastening the speed of public vehicles.
On the one hand, quicken the speed of public transport supports the general population to save their commuting time. In fact, most people now tend to opt for subway train and bus services to go to work. They will be in an adequate health status to start working if it were not for struggling on road with congestion. However, the high speed is not in accordance with some people whose physical health can not adapt to it. For example, the local community sometimes may find taking metro dizzy or sick due to its speed at great height.
On the other hand, a great number of opponents of fastening the transportation argue that other urgent problems, namely, cost and environment, should be financially invested. If public transports achieve widespread acceptance, the price is believed to decrease to facilitate all people to utilize. In addition, the cut down on petrol and parking expenses will save not only a large amount of money for users but also preserve environment. Thanks to the usage of communal vehicles, there will be a significantly drop in the emission of carbon footprint.
In conclusion, people are overall beneficial from the governmental investment on public transport. Nevertheless, I believe that money spent on other priorities such as cost and environment is better than fastening its speed.