Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads infrastructure rather than car infrastructure.

Some people think that governments should prefer to invest more oioritize investment in roads rather than railways.

In my own opinion, I don't think it isthis is not a good idea.

"I don't think" 太多余了

Firstly, I think roads are more flexible than railways.

Usually if you can remove the '-ly' without changing the meaning, it's better to omit it. Only other word (other than ordinals) I can think of right now where this applies is thus/thusly.

They can easily go through not onlyNot only can they travel through cities, but also small towns, while railways can't.

Furthermore, roads are more suitable for people's daileveryday life.

For example, on a road, people can drive a car in the road, or they can take a bus, even they ca, take a bus, or even ride a bike.

OIn the contrary, people can't do such things on railwaysst, rail only supports one method of transportation.

Also, constructingFurthermore, railways need more room than roads, which is ralready a scarce in thecommodity in big cities.

Besides versatility and cost, I think it is also much harder forto building railways than roads.

Secondly, I think the cost of roads construction is cheaper than that of railways.

I get that all the above points are under the umbrella of "flexibility," but using all those other transitions in between makes the reader forget about the underlying thread a little bit. When I saw second, I thought to myself, "but you've already made three or four different arguments."

For instance, when we have built a railway, we need trains, which will cost morea railway is built, the trains are still needed, which will incur additional costs.

Try to avoid using personal pronouns like "we," "you," and "I" in formal writing.

Besides, if fewer people take the train rather than the bus, the income won't match the require of the railwaygenerated won't suffice to cover the rail system's maintenance costs.

Furthermore, whileas long as the public transport is not full usedation system is not operating at maximum capacity, there will be energy waste, which is bad for the environment.

To be fair, I'm sure the amount of people required for a train to be more environmentally friendly than a car is very small. Plenty of people drive to work every day in cars that can fit 5+ people, by themselves.

What's worse, if there is an accident on railwaysthe railroad, it will be fairincredibly einconvienient for peopleassengers, especially during the workdays week.

"People" is a fairly generic word, try to omit it or use more specific words

In conculusion, I disagree that the money from the governments should pube spent on railways rather than on roads.

I think roads will be used more than railways, because it thr roads are more convienient.

I also think that the roads cuonstruction will cost less than the railways do construction will.