Whether public money should go to railways or to new roads is a recurring debate in transport policy. I completely agree that railways deserve priority, because they move people and goods far more efficiently and impose a much smaller environmental burden.
The strongest argument is sheer capacity. A single railway line can carry as many passengers as a ten-lane motorway, so investment in trains relieves congestion in a way roads never can. Decades of evidence show that building extra lanes simply attracts extra cars — the phenomenon of induced demand — leaving cities with the same jams on wider roads. Rail also transforms freight: one cargo train replaces dozens of lorries, cutting both traffic and road maintenance costs. Japan and Switzerland, which invested consistently in rail, enjoy punctual, high-capacity networks precisely because they resisted the temptation to pour concrete instead.
Railways are also dramatically safer and cleaner. Train travel produces a fraction of the carbon emissions per passenger of private cars, so shifting journeys to rail is one of the most practical steps a government can take against climate change and urban air pollution. The safety gap is equally stark: road accidents kill over a million people worldwide each year, while rail fatalities are rare. Every commuter persuaded onto a train therefore represents lower emissions, cleaner city air and fewer lives lost — public benefits that new roads not only fail to deliver but actively undermine.
In conclusion, I fully agree that railway investment should come before road building. Trains offer the capacity that congested cities need, and the environmental and safety record that modern societies demand, whereas new roads ultimately generate the very traffic they promise to relieve. Governments serious about mobility should lay tracks, not tarmac.