People have different views on how to reduce traffic congestion. Some think that governments should build more train and subway lines, while others think that building more roads and widening existing roads will reduce traffic congestion. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
When the issue of solutions to traffic jams comes into view, there exists conflicting opinions. Some people hold the notion that authorities should invest more money in public transportations; meanwhile, others claim that existing roads should be widened and more roads should be constructed. This essay will discuss both solutions before giving my own opinion.
On the one hand, the public transport systems have a wide range of pros and cons. In terms of its benefits, public transports are obviously convenient to mankinds. In other words, when traveling by bus or train, people do not have to worry about parking lots while car parking in big cities is extremely restricted. Moreover, public transports are also proven to solve traffic congestion effectively, especially during rush hours. Take Hanoi as an illustration, before the construction of the metro, the city was always stuck with traffic; however, thanks to the building of this new means of public transport, the proportion of traffic congestion in this town has witnessed a sharp decline. What can be inferred from this example is that public transports are essential to solving traffic issues. However, the biggest drawback of this measurement is its cleanliness. Many people do not want to travel by bus because metro systems and trains are often dirty and crowded. As a result, governments and authorities should spend more money upgrading this system.
On the other hand, reconstructing roads has many advantages and disadvantages. The strength point of widening more roads is to lower the rate of traffic congestion due to more lanes for cars. Despite this advantage, its drawbacks should not be ignored. Increasing roadways encourages more people to drive, thus failing to improve congestion. To be more specific, when new roads are opened, it temporarily increases the supply of road space and decreases the traffic. Nevertheless, in the long-term period people get back in their cars, which leads to congestion returning to the same level as before and sometimes worse. China serves as a perfect example of this problem. Due to an increase in the number of vehicles on roads, the Chinese government has allowed to build more roads, and at the same time, enhance the existing ones. However, this problem has not been solved but the number of traffic jams are recorded to rise.
In conclusion, the investment in public transports and the construction of new roads have its own benefits and drawbacks. From my point of view, the governments and authorities should join hands to solve this issue by spending more money on public transport systems due to its great benefits to humans.
- The graph below shows predictions about the number of people who will study three major world languages between 2020 and 2030 78
- The bar chart below shows the employment of all male and female workers by occupation in the UK in the year 2005 11
- The table below shows the results of a survey to find out what memebers of a city sports club think about the club s activities facilities and opening hours 61
- The tables below give information about the world population and distribution in 1950 and 2000 with an estimate of the situation in 2050 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 56
- The best way to solve the world s environmental problem is to increase the price of fuel To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 762, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[2]
Message: Did you mean 'building'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'allow' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: building
...ads, the Chinese government has allowed to build more roads, and at the same time, enhan...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, so, thus, while, in conclusion, as a result, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 13.1623246493 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 41.998997996 152% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2226.0 1615.20841683 138% => OK
No of words: 431.0 315.596192385 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16473317865 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55637350225 4.20363070211 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79176665527 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 176.041082164 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.524361948956 0.561755894193 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 665.1 506.74238477 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 8.0 2.52805611222 316% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.76152304609 210% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 16.0721442886 143% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.6694417039 49.4020404114 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.7826086957 106.682146367 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7391304348 20.7667163134 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.47826086957 7.06120827912 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.67935871743 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.315719819819 0.244688304435 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0837982222494 0.084324248473 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0662216975658 0.0667982634062 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.203598663894 0.151304729494 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0753583943034 0.056905535591 132% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.0946893788 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 50.2224549098 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.3001002004 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.4159519038 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.58950901804 99% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 78.4519038076 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.