In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
As many cities undergo unprecedented traffic problems, the debate about whether money should be spent on building new fast railways between cities or improving existing public transport has turned hot, in a bid to seek a recipe. I will discuss both views in the following paragraphs.
To begin with, interconnecting cities with new fast railways is oriented to divert traffic out of the city. Well known for its efficiency, safety and comfort, fast train makes it possible for commuting between neighboring cities. It looks intuitively appealing for those who seek a career in a big city but expect to get around the soaring housing prices and over-crowding traffic problems. In this way, people would live in an adjacent city, take a fast and comfortable short trip on a daily basis in and out of the city. Seemingly, this will result in fewer traffic in the inner-city area and mitigate the traffic pressure.
However, this approach is questioned by many opponents for its extremely high cost and uncertain effectiveness, and they suggest investing in the existing public transport system. In fact, the huge amount of money required by building fast train system is more than sufficient to help to overhaul existing road networks and upgrade public transport vehicles, all of which are with no doubt the most frequently used infrastructures in the urban area where majority of the population live in any case.
One additional but more overwhelmingly argument is that, it is highly suspected that the fast train solution, rather than offload the urban traffic pressure to suburbs, on the contrary, may worsen the situation. If given a “convenient bridge”, those who are working in adjacent smaller cities around may turn into job hunters in the big city, and a surge of extra commuters would be likely inevitable. Thus, improving local public transport, which helps in either case, should take precedence over the other.
Based on the analysis above, it makes more sense to develop the existing public transportation first. The fast train interconnection is however the trend and meets the increasing demands of fast transferring between cities. Ideally, having both in a rational proportion would be the best.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-02-20 | MinyiChu | 67 | view |
| 2024-02-03 | Wardiati Yusuf | 61 | view |
| 2024-02-03 | Wardiati Yusuf | 61 | view |
| 2024-02-03 | Wardiati Yusuf | 67 | view |
| 2023-12-30 | Tường Vân | 73 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 555, Rule ID: FEWER_UNCOUNTABLE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'less traffic'?
Suggestion: less traffic
...he city. Seemingly, this will result in fewer traffic in the inner-city area and mitigate the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 222, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ary, may worsen the situation. If given a 'convenient bridge', those wh...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, look, may, so, thus, well, in fact, no doubt, in any case, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 41.998997996 119% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1877.0 1615.20841683 116% => OK
No of words: 359.0 315.596192385 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22841225627 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35284910392 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91599685973 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 176.041082164 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.57938718663 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 573.3 506.74238477 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.6785211291 49.4020404114 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.133333333 106.682146367 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9333333333 20.7667163134 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.6 7.06120827912 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => 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: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.265511331995 0.244688304435 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0846167153605 0.084324248473 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0624344138074 0.0667982634062 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155672173999 0.151304729494 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0653865586521 0.056905535591 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 13.0946893788 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 50.2224549098 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.4159519038 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.22 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 78.4519038076 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.