Traffic jam is a pressing concern that most societies have to confront nowadays. While a school of thought agrees with the idea of allocating more governmental funding to constructing train and subways facilities, some other people argue that enlarging roads will be the potential strategy to solve this problem. This essay will shed light on both views before presenting my personal perspective.
It is understandable why so many people are in favor of building more and wider lanes to eliminate traffic congestion. This is mainly because the more space the vehicles have, the less crowded the streets are. If national authorities distribute a budget on road infrastructure by enlarging main roads and constructing more lines in densely-populated cities and metropolitans, traffic participants can have more choices to travel without concentrating on the sole routes. Take Singapore as a typical example, thanks to investing in building roads, the volume of traffic at rush hours significantly decreased, from 87% in 2012 to 42% in 5 years later. Besides, finance is a considerate-worth aspect. Instead of an enormous amount of money on train and underground transport patterns, widening roads only accounts for a small proportion of the national budget. Therefore, governments can focus on more urgent issues such as health care and education.
Despite some arguments mentioned above, I strongly believe that constructing railways as well as subway lines is the more efficient solution for the problem of traffic congestion. Firstly, due to the fact that the space on the ground, especial in large cities, is increasingly shrinker and smaller, allocating money on road system can be unfeasible. On the other hand, the demand for utilizing vehicles of citizens for commuting rises rapidly. As a result, making use of the space underground can relieve the gravity burden on the available road system. Secondly, investing in train and subway lines may accelerate and encourage using public transport for the sake of the environment. This kind of method can redistribute the flow of traffic transport, directly contributing to reducing congestion situation.
In conclusion, building more and wider roads can be a proposal for tackling the traffic problem, but the effect of investing governmental funding in underground systems is completely more striking.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, while, in conclusion, kind of, such as, as a result, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 24.0651302605 46% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1992.0 1615.20841683 123% => OK
No of words: 366.0 315.596192385 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44262295082 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37391431897 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13690712802 2.80592935109 112% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 176.041082164 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581967213115 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 613.8 506.74238477 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.682750957 49.4020404114 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.176470588 106.682146367 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5294117647 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.41176470588 7.06120827912 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 3.4128256513 205% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.295686735114 0.244688304435 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0806935530033 0.084324248473 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0553710202707 0.0667982634062 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16981617905 0.151304729494 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0203560234569 0.056905535591 36% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.4159519038 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.94 8.58950901804 116% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 78.4519038076 156% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.