Governments Should Spend Money On Railways Rather Than Roads | Band 9 IELTS Essay Sample

Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Here is a band 9 IELTS essay on this topic. Need help with IELTS writing? Get your IELTS essays, letters and reports corrected by me.Do you have difficulty writing a to what extent do you agree or disagree essay? Watch our Youtube video to learn about the correct structure of this type of IELTS essays.

Band 9 IELTS essay sample

According to some people, the authorities should invest in trains instead of roadways. I do not quite agree with this view. In my opinion, roads are as important as railways and hence the government should allocate appropriate funding for both.

There are certainly ample reasons to spend taxpayer’s money on railways. Trains can carry more people. Also, they are eco-friendly. Unlike cars or buses they do not emit poisonous gases which pollute the air. Another advantage of using trains is that they do not get stuck in traffic. People can reach their destinations on time. Trains also tend to be faster and safer. Better still, in most countries around the world, train fares are considerably lower than bus fares or taxi fares.

On the flip side, roads are equally important. The construction of railways is not possible in certain geographical areas and in such places roads are the only mode of transport for people. Also, rail networks cannot reach every nook and corner of a country. Actually, most people use both roads and railways to commute to college or work. For example, they may take the bus or car to reach the railway station and from there they may take the train to reach their office.  If there are no roads or if the existing roads are in a pathetic condition, people will have trouble reaching their destinations.

In conclusion, roadways and railways are both essential for making travelling hassle free for people. Hence, I do not agree with the argument that the government should invest more on railways. Rather, it should give equal importance to both modes of transport.

Do you have an essay on this topic? Submit it below in the comments for a free band score estimate.

Manjusha Nambiar

Hi, I'm Manjusha. This is my blog where I give IELTS preparation tips.

20 Responses

  1. Saurabh Maheshwari says:

    Due to the advent of globalization, various societies around the world are beginning to have more number of similarities. However, some people are afraid that this will eventually result into a complete loss of cultural identity. I completely disagree with the statement as cultures are known to have flourished on account of exposure and it can also lead to better understanding of people in general if we are aware of their backgrounds, beliefs and various rituals.

    In this age of globalization, cultures are rapidly growing across borders. This is quite an encouraging sign as it provides an opportunity of evolution. In other words, people now have an opportunity to spread their learning and beliefs beyond a limited group of people which can lead to very healthy exchange of ideas and thoughts. This way, varied cultures have an opportunity to grow and attain longevity. This is greatly aided by internet which has virtually erased the boundaries.

    Furthermore, as people get to know different cultures and backgrounds, it helps immensely in understanding different people and their mental make-up. This can help create awareness about the under-privileged and the weaker sections of society. More importantly, it will lead to a more balanced, inclusive and secular society where we treat everyone as equal regardless of their religion, social strata, race, nationality or even colour.

    To conclude, I strongly believe that when varied cultures combine, they only give rise to synergy and provide sustainability and therefore, one should not raise concerns about losing their own culture.

  2. Syed Ahsan says:

    Question: – Smoking not only harms the smoker, but also those who are nearby. Therefore, smoking
    should be banned in public places. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

    Smoking in civic places has become a trend nowadays in national places. Emitting fumes not only effects
    the one who is emitting smoke, but also the people who are near them. Hence, it should be prohibited
    in open places. This essay will argue why this act should be forbidden in the crowded places.
    To begin with, smoking of cigar is not only toxic to smokers but also to the nonsmokers. The smoke is
    harmful to nonsmoker’s lung, as it enters into the nostrils and have an adverse effect on their
    respiratory system. Furthermore, there are some people, who have allergic reactions to the fragrance of
    this smell and they may have problems such as itching and sneezing rapidly. For example, in UK a survey
    report of annual percentage of nonsmoker’s suffering from this smoke was recorded which saw nearly
    20% increment from the last year.
    In addition, we should conduct a health campaign and promote the ill effects of these type of
    intoxication in the society for awareness. Moreover, the government officials should impose a huge tax
    on shops selling these products in open areas and also fix gigantic fines on an individual who is found
    guilty of this offence. For instance, a report submitted by narcotics department in Indonesia stated that
    after implementing colossal tariff on producing these harmful substances there was nearly 95%
    reduction in smoking at metropolitan places.
    In conclusion, smoking in accessible places has become a continuous practice nowadays which harms
    the ordinary people in huge way, as well as to people who smoke on a regular basis. This essay argued
    why these health threatening materials should be made illegal in public places. In my opinion, I believe
    as for the health precaution these destructive stuffs should be outlawed by the higher officials.

  3. Tarun says:

    Some people believe that team sports are very important for children to succeed in their career,others disagree ?Discuss both views and give your opinion.

    Many individuals believe that for children to perform well in their career, participation in team sports is a pre-requisite while others are of the view that mere involvement in team sports does not guarantee a successful career. I however strongly agree with the former viewpoint as skills developed by playing team sports are an added advantage, thereby making children stand apart from the crowd in their field of work.

    Team sports are of utmost importance in shaping career of children as they inculcate in them certain qualities right from their early age. Firstly, team sports helps children to develop ability of working in a team with diverse set of people which is very vital for maintaining workspace environment .Secondly, team sports help children recognize their hidden leadership skills. These leadership skills become engine of career growth as employers round the globe are in search for people who can manage teams effectively. To illustrate this, a line manager handling a team of software engineers earns way more than the individual software engineers as he /she is effectively getting the work done from team.

    On the contrary, certain sections of society have a view point that if a child is not having strong academic credentials then skills learnt by way of team sports will be of no use. Moreover, children aligning themselves more towards sports than studies end up nowhere in their career.

    In conclusion, children involved in team sports perform exceedingly well in their career as compared to children who have either little or no interest in team sports.

  4. Manju says:

    I strongly believe that governments should spend on enhancing railways and making it more reliable for its citizens. I am on this opinion as trains can carry a larger number of people than vehicles such as buses, vans on road thereby reducing the traffic overhead that one usually faces when travelling by road. This would allow people to reach their destination on time without causing any delay in resuming their daily work.

    The number of accidents caused by trains are far less compared to the accident that occurs on roads. This ensures safetly of people travelling by trains to a large extent.
    Also I believe that travelling by train is economic and budget-friendly as compared to travelling by roads wherein a huge amount of money is spent on petrol or diesel based on the mileage of the vehicle on roads.

    With the emerging metro railways which aids common people in travelling to their daily work without any delay, I feel that governments should spend more on enabling more metro railways in every city of the country and also on enabling trains between all major cities of the country.

  5. Mazed Ahmed says:

    Nowadays traffic system is better then any other transportation system. Railways are more safer then road vhicles,however in my point of view road vhicle or railway sustem doing equal impact on our daily life, so it is not necessary to spend more on railways rather then roads, government should spend money equal on both side.

    world is developing rapidly, people using more and more advanced vhicles and rails. First of all, railways are faster and safer then roads. Everyday lots of peoples are dying in road accident because of unsafe traffis system.In railways people can travel safe and they can go to the destination in exact time.For example roads have traffic signals or traffic jam. Beacuse of this, people do not reach on time to the destination. Secondly,railways can carry more the hundred people in one time. the cost of railways are more cheaper then road vhicles.

    However, roads are very essensial for short journey. First of all, emergency needs, like, some time people physically injured by somehow, then we need a car or ambulance and proper road without any roads potholes. This emergency situation we can’t use train. Secondly if we choose to go with railways then first we need car or another vhicles to reach the train station, whereas, roads should be well decorated and easy to reach the destination. roads are also emportant as well as railways, rails are better then vhicles, people use railways on long travelling and carrying huge. Vhicles are useful to reach station , emergency , short journey (under city).

    To conclude, world most advanced countries using railways for transporting and travelling and also making very good rosds because peoples need vhicles also to make life more easy . All of this being said, i believe that, government should spend equal money on railways and roads.


    Some people believe that non-academic subjects should be removed from the syllabus so that children can concentrate only on academics.
    To what extent do you agree or disagree?
    These days to study non-academic subjects is a shear waste of time. some people believe non-academic subjects distract students from their academics so they should be eliminated from the curriculum by this, students will focus more on their academics. This essay will argue that to eradicate non-academic subjects from curriculum is completely preposterous.
    To start with, some people feel that non-academic subjects should get eliminate from curriculum. As they believe study of non-academic subjects fluster their ward from studying academical subjects. For instance, child would love to play sports or would like to paint a picture rather to study physics, chemistry, mathematics or history. Therefore, by eliminating non-academic subjects from curriculum will tend students to focus on their academical subjects.
    On the other hand, by removing non-academic subjects from syllabus will bore the students. Because non-academic subjects such as painting, music or dancing help students to relax and to concentrate more on their academics. To exemplify, continuous studies of physics, chemistry and mathematics will bore the students, so to relax it is advisable that students should spend some time on such activities. Therefore, non-academic subjects should be a part of curriculum one should not ignore the importance of these subjects.
    In conclusion, this essay argued that eliminating non-academic subjects from curriculum is pointless. In fact, I strongly believe that with non-academic subjects, some co-curricular activities relate to any subject can be design and must be include as a part of curriculum to make learning interesting.


    Government should spend money on rails rather than roads?
    To what extent do you agree or disagree.
    Most People in metro cities prefer to travel by local trains rather to use their personal vehicles. Government should spare money on rails instead on roads. This essay will argue why government should expend money on roads.
    To initiate with, while making annual financial budget, finance minister should allot more budget for constructing new railway tracks and on its maintenance. As journey by train is more safe, efficient and it is a clean mode of transportation. To illustrate, now-a-days electricity is used as a fuel in most of the trains and even for long journey with great comforts chunks of people can travel all together. Therefore, it is more worthy to spend money on rails rather than on roads.
    On the flip side, roads are more important. Because trains provide transportation for long distance, to travel by car or scooter within a city it is important to have roads in good condition. To exemplify, in case of medical emergency a person will be in immense need to reach to the nearest hospital to get immediate treatment in that situation availability of roads with better condition is utmost necessary. Therefore, it is worthwhile to spend money on roads rather than on rails.
    In conclusion, this essay argued that government should spend money on road rather than on rails. In fact, I believe that government should alleviate their budget for rails rather they should elevate their budget for roads construction and on its maintenance.


    Human beings are being judged according to their social status and material possession. Old fashioned values such as kindness and trust seems no longer important.
    To what extent do you agree or disagree?
    These days it is quite common that people make perception for others based on their attire and standard of living. Almost from last one decade it was observed that person is judged based on social status and materialistic wealth rather than on moral values. This essay will argue that still human beings are being judged according to their moral values rather than their social status and material possession.
    To start with, some people think that by materialistic wealth and social status, a person can be judged well. Because they believe one who acquire materialistic wealth and social status is definitely a good human being. To exemplify, one of my friend judge people on their outfits and their luxurious life. As he believe that person who is wealthy is a good person. Therefore, to judge someone people may think about one’s materialistic wealth and social status.
    On the flip side, to judge someone people still give importance to person’s moral values. As they believe a person cannot be judged by materialistic wealth and social status instead moral values are more important. To illustrate, one my cousin sister got two proposals for marriage she met both of them and selected one based on his moral values. Therefore, importance of moral values are still there also it exist in most humans, while judging, people prioritize moral values rather than social status and materialistic wealth.
    In conclusion, this essay argued that human being are still judged on their moral values rather on their social status and materialistic wealth.

  9. Lee says:

    With the ever increasing demands for a well-established transport system, expenditure distribution on transport has been discussed. Some people argue that more money should be spent on railways than roads, while I disagree with this idea and I believe that both constructions should be emphasized.

    There are a variety of reasons for supports to emphasize the importance of railway transporation. Firstly, with high speeds, railway could reduce the time spent on commuting and improve the efficiency of transporation. Secondly, the railway system is so specificly designed that no traffic jams could occur. Finally, compared with road transport system, railway is more safety, dramatically reducing traffic accidents.

    Nevertheless, road provides with a more convenient transport for people in compareson with other types of transportations. When people go to somewhere that is not far away from their home, they could ride a bike or walk, which is feasible and environmentally-friendly. Furthermore, road transportation make it possible for them to access small brounches of roads that lead them to their destinations directly. For example, residents could arrive at the gate of supermarkets by their vechiles and it is accessible for commuters take a cab at their company’s entrance without walking a few minutes to stations nearby.

    In conclusion, both railways and roads transportation should be emphasized.

  10. Lee says:

    It is important for children to learn the difference between right and wrong at an early age. Punishment is necessary to help them learn this distinction.
    To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
    What sort of punishment should parents and teachers be allowed to use to teach good behaviour to children?

    My answer:
    It is true that teaching young children to tell right from wrong makes a great difference in their growth. I agree that punishing children when they do wrong allows them to distinguish right and wrong efficiently but it is subject to proper punishment methods.

    For a variety of reasons, a proper punishment can help children learn and improve from what they have done. To start with, compared with rewards, punishment provides an undesirable experience for young people, thus making it possible for them to be aware that they have done something wrong. In addition, paying for one’s debts is reasonable. When children have to pay a cost for their behaviour, they would like to think twice before performing it directly, which helps them make fewer mistakes. What’s more, if there is no punishment, children could not realize dangers of wrong things and the joys from the right things would be at a discount.

    Therefore, many proper punishment methods should be taken by parents and teachers to help children learn the distinction between right and wrong. Punishment performs as a method of education, which cannot threaten young people’s mental and physical health. For example, punishing badly behaved children by not allowing them to watch TV or play their favourite toys can help children realize their mistakes and do nothing bad to their health at the same time. Besides, teachers and parents could allow some study or housework tasks to be children’s educational punishment. These can help those who behave badly pay for their behaviour and improve their other skills.

    In conclusion, I agree with the idea that proper punishment is sometimes necessary to teach children to behave well and tell right and wrong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *