Cambridge IELTS 12 Test 3 Writing Task 2: Sample Answer

Governments facing rising demand for travel often choose between two very different investments: prestigious high-speed rail links between major cities, or modest improvements to the buses, trams and local trains that people already use. Both approaches have merit, though I favour the second.

Advocates of fast railways argue that they transform economic geography. A line that connects two cities in under two hours allows businesses to operate across both, widens the pool of jobs available to commuters and reduces domestic flights, which are far more polluting per passenger. Japan's Shinkansen, for example, has carried billions of passengers safely and has become a symbol of national efficiency. Such projects can also stimulate construction and manufacturing during the building phase, and faster journeys can bring distant regional economies closer together.

On the other hand, critics point out that these lines cost enormous sums and mostly benefit a minority of travellers, often those who are already wealthy or who travel for business. Most people spend their daily lives on local buses, suburban trains and metros, and when these are overcrowded, unreliable or expensive, the quality of ordinary life suffers directly. Investing in more frequent services, cleaner vehicles and integrated ticketing would help many more people for the same money. Cost overruns on projects such as Britain's HS2 show how easily budgets spiral.

I believe that improving existing networks should take priority, because the benefits are widely shared and visible within a few years rather than decades. Nonetheless, in large, densely populated countries where intercity routes are congested, a carefully chosen high-speed line may still be justified once local services are in good condition. Fairness to everyday passengers should guide the final decision.