Some 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.

Sample 1:

In this modernization era, transportation modes have turned the whole world into small villages. Presently, some masses assert that spending a significant amount on the fastest transportation modes is necessary. In contrast, others say that the government must use the money on other factors such as cost reduction and environmental conservation. Here. I would like to accord both viewpoints with my perception.

To begin with, it could be argued that providing citizens with faster forms of public transportation has brought about specific benefits. Firstly, more rapid forms of transport help people, particularly commuters, downsize travelling time to and from work. Therefore, people will have more leisure time, which will increase their work productivity. Secondly, people are less likely to be packed in cramped and hot buses by adopting the various modes of conveyance. As a result, one would not be in need to rush to get to work on time or get up so early to get a seat on a bus, and consequently, they will have more time to prepare before going to work or school or to enjoy their breakfast with their family.

Innumerable points can be mentioned to support the opposing view mentioned earlier. Initially, the government should spend money on the eco-friendly transport system. Specifically, excessive personal vehicle use reduces natural resources such as oil, fuel, and others, so it is imperative to make eco-friendly modes for people. Thus, more eco-friendly sources mean less traffic and less air contamination, which is fruitful for the environment. Moreover, in this inflation era, the government must reduce the transportation cost so that anyone can take public transport service and the prices of food and other necessities dependent on transport do not increase. Other than that, other crucial fields the government should focus on are healthcare, drinking water and education.

To reiterate, I believe that there are many long-term benefits of improved methods of transportation. Still, we cannot be oblivious to its impacts on cost and the environment.

Sample 2:

Several individuals say that governments should spend money to improve faster means of public transportation; however, others think that there are more issues that need to be prioritized than public vehicles. Personally, I agree with both views because of some major reasons which I shall explain in more detail in this essay.

To begin with, it is clear that the government should prioritize investing in faster means of public transport in big cities because the problems of traffic congestion and pollution from the emission of vehicles are increasingly serious in these. This causes negative effects on people's physical and mental health. For example, in big cities in my country, Vietnam, people face traffic jams for hours every day after work in peak time. They have to absorb an amount of emission from different vehicles during that time unexpectedly. This makes citizens feel very tired and just want to stay at home and go to sleep after work. Consequently, individuals living in modern cities in my country is easy to have sick and limited socialization as well as enhancing pressure of travelling.

On the other hand, if the government allocates finance to provide public transport in the countryside where the population is less than in the modern city is not justified because there are many more urgent problems such as a lack of education of youngsters from poor families. For instance, in my hometown where the residents are small, only a few vehicles are on the streets but there are a major number of children coming from problem families needing help to access education. Therefore, in this case, spending to help children improve their living standards and go to school is more necessary than public transport.

In conclusion, in this essay, I support the idea that governments should spend money to improve faster means of public transportation in modern cities where there are big troubles with traffic and pollution. Additionally, emphasize investing in other issues such as disadvantageous finance, education, and so on. in rural areas where the population is too little to use public transportation.

Sample 3:

These days it is believed that increasing the speed of public transit should receive the majority of funding from the state while others claim that other aspects such as cost, and the environment should be prioritized. Both viewpoints are reasonable but personally, I would lean towards the latter.

On the one hand, it is understandable why some people advocate investing money in making public transit faster. Firstly, this practice would help reduce citizens' daily commuting time. Therefore, they would have more spare time for their interests, study or work, which can eventually increase their overall productivity. Secondly, faster means of mass transit can also help reduce the incidence of passengers being packed in cramped and hot public vehicles. For example, those people would not need to rush to get to work on time or get up so early in order to get a seat on a bus, and therefore they will have more time to prepare before going to work or school, or to enjoy their breakfast with their family.

On the other hand, I am convinced that the authorities should consider allocating budgets for other important alternatives such as costs or the environment. The first reason is that a reduction in the price of public transit would benefit many people, especially low-income commuters. This could help them travel to their desired destinations faster and more conveniently on a daily basis. In addition, a more environmentally friendly public transit system could greatly contribute to saving the environment. This is because the levels of air pollution would be significantly reduced due to the lower consumption of fossil fuels.

In conclusion, why there may be some reasons to support mainly pouring money into making mass transit travel more quickly, I strongly believe that they are stronger reasons for the government to provide financial support for other priorities like cars and the environment.

Sample 4:

Nowadays there is an idea of whether the authority should spend money on making means of transport with higher speed or using it for other aims. While some people think that quicker shipping is more necessary, I would argue that there are more priorities which need more concentration.

There is a common belief that transit with high speed should be taken into consideration by politicians. A reason for this thought is that faster shipping will help people travel through streets much quicker, which reduces traffic jams during rush hour. Consequently, this solution will save much time for commuters in the centre of the city, who have usually been affected by traffic problems. Furthermore, having more kinds of transport with high speed helps companies reduce the time for shipping goods. This advantage brings about more consensus with their partner, which gives businesses countless opportunities to gain profit. For example, DHL, a logistic company, has made a huge profit these years by creating modern transportation with higher speed.

However, the benefits of spending funds on other priorities are far more significant. One reason for this is that if the authorities use the money on our infrastructures, the life of residents will be improved dramatically. Community buildings such as parks, cinemas and shopping centres. For instance, Hanoi has recently established a new supermarket in the centre of the city, which makes it more convenient for people to buy groceries without having to travel too far. Moreover, governments should take the environment into account. Using cash to reduce the effect of global warming and pollution will save nature. As a result, our offspring can have good conditions to live in and continue to develop their lives.

In conclusion, it seems to me that although quicker means of transport are essential, the benefits of spending funds on other aims are more important. It is recommended that the authority should concentrate on many other significant priorities.

Sample 5:

In this concurrent world, a number of people believe the authorities may increase their funding in fast public transportation. Otherwise, others believe the environmental cost from transportation should be considered in order to preserve mother nature. In this essay, I will give my own perspectives and provide an explanation as well.

On the one hand, time is important nowadays, bustling people should manage their time. The faster public transportation could provide many advantages for communities to reduce their journey times. For Example, In the Capital City of Indonesia, from Lebak Bulus station to Bundaran Hotel Indonesia (HI) station require more than an hour by private car. However, with Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) the journey is more efficient with only 30 minutes. As a result, more people tend to use MRT for work or any other activity due to efficiency.

On the other hand, environmental and social parameters are the same important to sustaining the city as well as empowering the communities. Recently, environmental issues such as household waste and pollution are the government's main concern. According to Sustainable Development Goals from United Nations, these two issues should be mitigated by all nations worldwide because the long-term effects could lead to an undesirable impact on the environment. For Instance, pollution might be a main cause of global warming, hence, household waste could lead to environmental damage such as water pollution.

In conclusion, I believe faster public transportation is beneficial for society to establish a better lifestyle as long as the government has a high willingness to an environmental parameter to reduce and mitigate an undesirable effect in the future.

Sample 6:

Owing to the various requirement that humans are struggling with, some individuals believe to allocate financial resources to enhance the speed of commuting infrastructures, while the opponents have mentioned the other priorities, such as environmental issues, as more essential realms to concentrate on. However, in my point of view, without the capacity of living on the earth, societies' achievement about pace would not be usable, therefore, saving the nature is more vital. Different sides are explained here.

One of the most highlighted benefits of exploiting high-speed public vehicles has to do with the needed development in the contemporary era, not only to increase the knowledge in various realms but also to rescue from the probable threats. To enlighten, if people have the capability to decrease the hours on way, then it is feasible to concentrate on their project more fruitfully. As a vivid case, neither lack of time nor tiredness of long access routes are irritating, while the saved time could be allocated to new inventions for the future, especially in the sector of the military part to defend against both other nations r the aliens. Furthermore, by qualifying such services, divergent obstacles would be addressed, namely, either air pollution or even the annoying traffic of the metropolises. Actually, multitudes of city-dwellers that used to be reluctant toward sharing machines, like buses or trains, would be attracted to them if were witnesses of the fortified qualification.

On the other hand, nowadays, humans are encountered with the results of ignoring the ecosystem, whereas they would be surrounded by more of them in the future if they do not revise their treatment. As a vivid case, the alternations of the weather condition that has taken place is considered as an offspring of the emitted green-house gasses from the cars' exhausts, based on the scientists' claims. Moreover, it is possible for the human race to vanish from the globe due to the lack of food or loss of the residential circumstance potentials of the earth. Based on the released news, the number of some creatures have skyrocketed in absence of their predators that have been eradicated as an offspring of human's functions. For instance, the rate of the rats, as a form of spreading divergent diseases like leishmaniasis, have swelled, when the snakes have been hunted for their skins or their poisons in some vicinities around the world.

To recapitulate, while some alleged the existing wealth should be dedicated to ascending the speed of transportation, which not only is required but also is necessary to use the time more efficiently in the technology era, others notice the importance of the role of the environment in people lives, which need to absorb the investments. Ultimately, to me, to utilize rapid vehicles, firstly, the menacing factors should be tackled.

Sample 7:

What the government should give the highest priority when creating public transport. Some people think that the union should spend more money on providing faster means of public transport. On the other hand, others believe that the authority should focus more on other important aspects such as cost or environment. This essay, as my opinion leads to, will try to elaborate on both points of view and my own idea with some considerations.

To commence with, it is true that time is money and there are some people who think that they do not want to spend time going to work as little time as possible. In other words, faster transportation is very effective for people and the government should spend more money. For example, there are both normal trains and bullet trains in Japan. The fees of the latter trains are not cheap, but these vehicles are three times faster than normal trains which you usually use. In Japanese society, a lot of workers use bullet trains to go to work every morning and they consider bullets trains very convenient.

On the other hand, I personally believe that it should be noted that the government must focus more on the environment. That is to say, more eco-friendly trains will be required in the near future. It is mainly because human activities are the main cause of global warming. To give an illustration of this, a lot of means of transport generate carbon dioxide, leading to an increase in the levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. Therefore, there is no doubt that the environmental issue is one of the serious problems all over the globe and the union should deal with this problem.

To sum up, it is true that both points are crucial when it comes to developing means of public transport; however, I personally think that measures against environmental problems are given the highest priority in today's world.

Sample 8:

There are conflicting views regarding whether the government should spend money on public transport or other emergent issues like social welfare costs and environmental protection. This essay will discuss both sides of the argument, followed by my perspective on this matter.

People who consider the government should invest in public transport may put forth the following argument. It is undeniable that the time we spend commuting is becoming longer and longer because of traffic congestion, which wastes lots of our time. For instance, we will have less time to dedicate ourselves to working if we spend one or two hours on the bus or underground, impairing productivity. In the long run, economic development will be impeded by the deterioration of the traffic situation. Moreover, it is detrimental to people’s health. For example, lots of people are reluctant to go outside to socialize with their friends because they cannot accept that they have to spend a long time on travel, which will make them lack the opportunity of communicating with others and taking outdoor activities, such as climbing, posing a threat to both their mental and physical health.

Nevertheless, those who think governments should invest in other social and environmental problems can also justify their opinions. For one thing, it is common to see that the budget of governments is tight because of the burden caused by the increasing population. For instance, If the government do not invest more money in social aspects, such as healthcare, the public will complain to the government about they cannot receive enough healthy services, which will lead to their resentment, affecting the social stability. For another, some issues like climate change are threatening people’s lives, and solving such environmental problems will cost lots of money, which could only be solved by the government.

In conclusion, both traffic and other emergent issues like social cost and environmental problems need to be invested equally because solving these problems could bring complimentary benefits.

Sample 9:

Some people support the idea that the government should increase amounts of money on providing faster means of public transport, but other people are against this idea because of the significant primaries. This discussion has some misunderstood aspects such as faster means of public transport cause various issues for societies and natural life. To make it clear, costs and environmental effects are some of the most crucial subjects of this discussion.

Costs are one of the main problems in this situation because faster cars, trains and other transport create more production money, energy cost, and employment. To make it clear, companies or governments that manage public transport spend more money on not only providing vehicles but also workers and energy. As an illustration, if one firm chooses to provide faster vehicles, they must hire more personnel such as managing new systems, and users of vehicles and it will create a massive budget for them.

On the other hand, the health of nature is a critical worry for almost every person and faster public transport is influencing global warming and other dangerous activities. Additionally, faster transport is causing more energy consumption than the others. Consequently, these facets show us new vehicles create more pollution of air, water, and forest. For instance, experts published new research about that, and it demonstrates that faster transportation ways damage the human habitat and natural life.

In conclusion, providing faster means of public transport has fewer positive parts and more efficient and impactful drawback features in there. In my opinion, this type of idea will harm numerous areas of our globe and humanity.

Sample 10:

In politics, exerting the national cost is a hotly-debated issue. Several societies believe that the government should exert money for public installation like shipment, meanwhile, others have a notion that another priority such as the environment is preferable. In the forthcoming paragraphs, I shall elucidate both perspectives and detail why the first preference is more urgent than the last choice.

To begin with, shipping access for the population is indispensable to developing the economy. It happens because the fast connectivity as an output of concerning to the transport facilities allows people to go instantly. Consequently, it might ameliorate the GNP, and by reason, trading will be easy. Furthermore, if the government exerts the national allocation for this issue, there will be equal economic status in multitudinous areas. To exemplify, Indonesia constructs a plethora of roads in many provinces such as Papua to distribute the equality of the economy. As a result, the price of some products such as fuel in Papua similar when it is compared with the capital.

In contrariety to the earlier paradigm, the public might suggest the policy makers spend the state budget on other priorities like environmental issues. When the state pays attention to the previous problems, it can make sure that the development activity never forgets about the ecosystem. From that case, there will be a green economy and it will help the country to apply the Sustainability Development Goals from the United Nations. Moreover, the state might avoid the natural disasters because many ecosystem components, namely forests, rivers, etc. have been conserved previously, so people will feel safe to stay in their homeland.

In conclusion, there are several paths to spending the national account. Although, exerting it in the environmental agenda makes some benefits, nevertheless, I believe that government should use wisely it for public connectivity such as shipment because it has the potency to escalate the GNP and obliterate the gap among the provinces.