The debate over whether the government should allocate its budget to developing railways or roads is complex. While constructing roads seems beneficial, in my perspective, railways are more effective at addressing modern problems.
Undeniably, it appears that railways could be more efficient to commute people and goods. Fundamentally, trains are typically much larger than other kinds of vehicles, allowing them to carry more passengers and goods in a single trip. Additionally, constructing railways also acquires narrower land compared to constructing roads, and for long-term benefits, it could save the land of cities to be built for other amenities. Furthermore, it could benefit to reduce transportation issues such as congestion, particularly in major towns struggling with bottlenecks. Tokyo, one of the busiest cities in the world, exemplifies this condition. By implementing a good railway system, they have been successful in mitigating congestion.
I do appreciate the opposing view that constructing railways could be more expensive than roads and it is hard to spend the government budget to build railways in all cities of a country. Generally, railways are incredible at addressing congestion problems, particularly in big cities. However, government finance is finite, so it is essential to allocate it wisely. A balanced approach might lie in spending money to build railways in major cities with severe bottlenecks only and construct roads to connect the countryside, small cities, and countryside, facing less congestion, because the expenses to build roads are cheaper than railways so it could reach wider areas.
In summary, even though constructing roads is cheaper than railways, it is essential to consider the impact on major cities. A balanced approach might lie in allocating government money wisely to construct railways in major cities and roads in small cities to create a better transportation system for all citizens both living in urban and countryside.