Cambridge 11 Writing Task 2 Test 1 - Sample Answers (Band 9 to 4-5)

Framing transport spending as a binary choice between railways and roads oversimplifies a genuinely complex policy question, but if forced to prioritise, I would lean toward railways, largely on environmental and long-term efficiency grounds, while stopping short of neglecting roads entirely.

The strongest argument for prioritising railways is environmental. A single freight train can replace dozens of lorries, and a full commuter train removes hundreds of cars from the road, meaning that per passenger or per tonne of freight moved, rail travel produces a fraction of the carbon emissions of road transport. Countries such as Switzerland, which have invested heavily in rail infrastructure, consistently report lower per-capita transport emissions than car-dependent nations, illustrating this effect concretely. Railways are also more space-efficient, moving far more people through a given corridor than an equivalent width of motorway ever could.

That said, roads cannot simply be abandoned. Rural communities, small businesses relying on last-mile delivery, and emergency services all depend on a functioning road network that no amount of rail investment can replace, since trains only connect fixed stations rather than every doorstep. A sensible policy therefore directs new, large-scale investment primarily toward rail, particularly for intercity and freight corridors, while maintaining, rather than expanding, the existing road network.

In conclusion, while I would not eliminate road spending altogether, the environmental and capacity advantages of rail make it the more deserving priority for new government investment, particularly as countries work to reduce transport emissions, and as new technologies make electric and higher-speed rail even more efficient, this advantage is likely to grow rather than shrink in the coming decades.

I partly agree that governments should prioritise railways over roads, mainly because of the environmental benefits, although I do not think road spending should be abandoned completely.

The main reason I support spending more on railways is that trains are much more environmentally friendly than cars and lorries when it comes to moving large numbers of people or goods. A single train can carry as many passengers as hundreds of cars, which means railways can reduce traffic congestion and lower carbon emissions at the same time. Countries that have invested heavily in modern rail networks, such as Japan, tend to have very efficient and widely used public transport systems, which shows how effective this kind of investment can be. Cities with strong metro and rail systems also tend to suffer far less from the traffic congestion that affects many car-dependent urban areas.

However, roads are still essential for many parts of everyday life. People living in rural areas, delivery companies, and emergency vehicles all depend on roads to reach places that trains simply cannot access. Because of this, I believe governments should focus new investment mainly on railways, while still maintaining the road network that already exists rather than expanding it significantly.

In conclusion, I agree that railways deserve more government investment than roads because of their environmental and efficiency advantages, but a balanced approach that keeps roads functional is still necessary. Countries that neglect their road network entirely often find that rural areas and smaller towns become increasingly disconnected from the rest of the country, which can create new economic and social problems of its own.

I agree to some extent that governments should spend more money on railways than on roads, mainly because trains are better for the environment, but I do not think road spending should stop completely.

One reason to support railways is that trains can carry a lot of people or goods at once, which is more efficient than lots of cars or trucks doing the same journey separately. This means that railways can help reduce traffic jams in cities and also reduce the amount of pollution that comes from transport. Many countries that have good train systems, such as Japan or parts of Europe, also seem to have less traffic congestion in their major cities, which supports this idea. This shows that better rail infrastructure can genuinely reduce how much people rely on cars for daily journeys.

However, roads are still very important for daily life. Many people who live in small towns or villages do not have a train station nearby, so they need roads and cars to travel to work, school, or shops. Emergency services like ambulances and fire trucks also need roads to reach people quickly in an emergency, and trains obviously cannot help with this. Because of this, completely replacing roads with railways would not be realistic in most countries.

In conclusion, I think governments should spend more on railways because of the environmental benefits, but roads are still necessary for many people, so I do not fully agree that all spending should shift away from roads.

I agree to some extent that government should spend more money on railway than on road, mainly because train is better for environment, but I don't think road spending should stop completely.

One reason to support railway is that train can carry a lot of people or good at once, which is more efficient than lots of car or truck doing same journey separately. This mean railway can help reduce traffic jam in city and also reduce amount of pollution that come from transport. Many country that have good train system, such as Japan or some part of Europe, also seem to have less traffic in their big city, which support this idea. This show that better rail infrastructure can really reduce how much people depend on car for daily journey.

However, road is still very important for daily life. Many people who live in small town or village do not have train station near them, so they need road and car to travel to work, school, or shop. Emergency service like ambulance and fire truck also need road to reach people fast in emergency, and train obviously cannot help with this. Because of this, completely replace road with railway would not be realistic in most country.

In conclusion, I think government should spend more on railway because of environmental benefit, but road is still necessary for many people, so I don't fully agree that all spending should move away from road. Balance between the two seem like most realistic solution for most country.