There are varying opinion regarding the government should invest funds in constructing railway station and subway lines to reduce traffic jams, other believe that traffic congestion can be declined if there are emergence of wider roads. In this essay, I will explore both perspective and explain why I believe that spending money in building train projects is more effective in along-term.
On the one side of the argument are those who think that enhancing roadway capacity should be allocated funds in order to decrease the traffic gridlock. The expansion of public streets can create more spaces for conventional transport users, which facilitates easier movement and improve the flow of traffic immediately. Although this solution hold its merit, it just has value in contemporary period. Because of expanding of road infrastructure, it can encourage more car and vehicle usages, leading to the same or greater levels of gridlock. Additionally, it necessitates adequate space for widening, which is not suitable for developing countries, such as Viet Nam.
On the other hand, earmarking capital for rail transit systems provides a more efficient and enduring solution. Since these systems transport a large number of people quickly and reliably, it motivate people to use more public transports, contributing to reduce conventional private cars and vehicles. Besides, it is not only reduce traffic congestions but also improve air quality and mitigate pollution issues, so that the environment can be conserved. A good case in point is Japan , which is one of the most green country around the world, successfully alleviating street-level crowding by offering a convenient metro systems.
In conclusion, while there are valid arguments on expanding roads, I firmly believe that the developing rail and subway lines is a more effective long -term solution to urban traffic challenges. By reducing reliance on private transports as well as creating a more fresher atmosphere.