Deciding how to allocate a transport budget is a difficult task for any government, and some argue that priority should be given to railways over roads. While I agree that railways deserve greater investment, I do not accept that roads should be neglected.
There is a strong case for favouring rail. Trains move large volumes of passengers and freight efficiently, easing the congestion that would otherwise clog the road network. They are also considerably cleaner than private cars, so expanding rail travel helps to reduce the air pollution and carbon emissions that threaten the environment. In densely populated cities in particular, a reliable rail system spares commuters the frustration and lost time of daily traffic jams. Investment in railways therefore brings clear economic and environmental rewards.
Nevertheless, roads remain indispensable. A great many people live in rural areas that no railway line reaches, and for them roads are the only means of travelling and receiving essential supplies. Emergency vehicles, buses and delivery lorries all depend on a well-maintained road network, and allowing it to decay in favour of rail would endanger safety and isolate whole communities.
In conclusion, I agree that railways merit substantial investment, especially in and between major cities, because of their efficiency and environmental benefits. However, this should not come at the expense of roads, which continue to serve needs that rail cannot meet. In my view, a sensible government would fund both, dividing resources according to where each mode is most useful rather than favouring one absolutely.