How best to divide a finite transport budget is a perennial dilemma, and some maintain that governments ought to prioritise railways over roads. Although I share the conviction that rail deserves greater investment, I cannot agree that roads should be allowed to fall by the wayside.
The argument for rail is genuinely persuasive. Trains transport large numbers of passengers and substantial quantities of freight with an efficiency that private vehicles cannot match, thereby relieving the congestion that paralyses many road networks. They are, moreover, markedly greener, and expanding rail capacity is one of the more realistic ways of curbing the emissions that drive climate change. In crowded metropolitan areas especially, a dependable rail system rescues commuters from hours squandered in traffic, with tangible benefits for both productivity and quality of life.
Yet to conclude from this that roads may be neglected would be shortsighted. Vast rural populations lie beyond the reach of any railway and rely entirely on roads for mobility and supply. Ambulances, buses and delivery vehicles traverse the road network daily, and permitting it to deteriorate would compromise safety and sever the very communities that public infrastructure exists to serve.
In conclusion, I agree that railways warrant considerable and perhaps increased investment, particularly within and between major cities, where their efficiency and environmental advantages are greatest. To pursue this at the cost of the road network, however, would be a false economy. The wiser course is not to favour one mode absolutely but to fund both intelligently, directing resources to wherever each can deliver the greatest public benefit.