Three essays. Same prompt. Three different bands.

Nowadays, transportation is a very important issue in our modern society. Some people believe that governments should spend money on public transport, while others think they should build more roads. In my opinion, both sides have some good points.

On the one hand, public transport has many advantages. It is cheap and it can carry many people. Also, it is good for the environment because it reduces pollution. Many cities have buses and trains which are used by a lot of people every day.

On the other hand, roads are also very important. People who have cars need roads to drive on. New roads can help reduce traffic jams. If there are no roads, the country cannot develop and the economy will suffer.

In conclusion, I think governments should invest in both public transport and roads. Both are important for the country. This is the best solution for everyone.

Faced with growing congestion and air pollution, many governments must decide whether to expand their road networks or invest more heavily in public transport. I strongly agree that the latter should be the priority, because it addresses both problems simultaneously and offers a more sustainable long-term solution.

The most compelling argument for prioritising public transport is its efficiency. A single metro line can carry the equivalent of dozens of lanes of car traffic, while occupying a fraction of the urban space. Cities such as Tokyo and Singapore demonstrate that high-quality rail and bus networks can move millions of people daily without the gridlock that defines car-dependent cities. Building more roads, by contrast, tends to induce additional demand: wider highways quickly fill up, leaving the original problem unsolved.

Furthermore, the environmental case is clear. Private vehicles are among the largest contributors to urban emissions, and shifting commuters to electric trains and buses dramatically reduces a city's carbon footprint. Although building public transport infrastructure is expensive, the long-term savings — in healthcare costs, climate adaptation, and lost productivity from traffic — significantly outweigh the investment.

In conclusion, while road maintenance remains necessary, new investment should overwhelmingly go to public transport. It is more efficient, more environmentally sustainable, and a better use of public funds.

As cities expand and car ownership rises, governments are increasingly forced to choose where their limited transport budgets are best spent. Although there remains a narrow case for selective road improvements, I strongly agree that the bulk of public investment should be directed towards mass transit, on the grounds of both efficiency and long-term environmental responsibility.

The most persuasive argument is one of urban geometry. A modern metro line can transport upwards of forty thousand passengers per hour in a single direction; a freeway lane, at peak capacity, carries fewer than two thousand. This basic asymmetry means that road expansion in dense cities offers diminishing returns, while well-planned rail networks continue to absorb growth for decades. The experience of Copenhagen and Seoul — both of which deliberately scaled back urban motorways in favour of cycling and rail infrastructure — suggests that the trade-off pays off not only in mobility but in liveability.

The environmental argument reinforces this conclusion. Transport emissions in most cities are dominated by private vehicles, and incremental road-building locks in further car dependence for the decades it takes for an expressway to be amortised. Investing the same capital in electrified public transport delivers an immediate cut in emissions per passenger-kilometre, while also reducing exposure to particulate pollution in low-income neighbourhoods that disproportionately line existing motorways.

That said, a complete rejection of road investment would be misguided — maintaining existing infrastructure, improving rural access, and adapting roads for electric and freight use all remain legitimate priorities. The argument is not against roads, but against the assumption that more asphalt is the default response to congestion. On balance, the case for shifting the centre of gravity towards public transport is overwhelming.