Some people think the best way to solve traffic congestion in cities is to provide free public transports 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Is it good or bad, to what extent do you agree or disagree?
In recent years, it has become apparent that traffic congestion is a major topic of concern in several metropolises because of the population explosion as well as the dramatic rise in private vehicles used by many citizens. Some people argue that the best way to tackle this phenomenon is to afford free public transport every day. From my perspective, I agree that complimentary social transportation is an effective method for reducing traffic jams. However, I also believe it may contribute to some detriments that affect both individuals and society.
On the one hand, there are a variety of reasons why people consider that free public vehicles have their own sets of benefits. First, daily public transportation can reduce road congestion. It is true that almost all people hate being stuck in traffic because this situation causes participants to take a plethora of time to wait for the previous vehicle queues, making them feel depressed. If community vehicle services were free of charge, city dwellers might prefer this mode of transportation to use their private ones. Therefore, there are fewer vehicles such as cars or motorbikes on the road to cause traffic jams, and the proportion of various tremendous accidents may decline significantly. Furthermore, cities that integrate public transportation may have better air quality. To illustrate, according to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Vietnam, approximately 80% of the greenhouse gas emissions that come from private automobiles are due to day-to-day commutes. By leaving their car or motorcycle at home, a person can save up to 15 kilograms of carbon dioxide per month. As a result, some adverse effects on the environment, such as global warming or rises in sea levels, might be mitigated. Additionally, daily public automobile services are also instrumental in easing cross-region travel, which potency diminishes the time and allows for a narrower gap between urban and rural areas. Consequently, the majority of workers are permitted to utilize these methods for time-efficient going to the office.
On the other hand, I expect that the free community automobile has some significant drawbacks. Firstly, when governments provide these services with free ticket costs, there will be too many customers, whereas public transportation has a limited amount of space, which leads to having overcrowded conditions, making the journey uncomfortable. Another adverse consequence of providing free-of-charge community vehicles is that governments may have a huge capital loss in public investment. In fact, the authorities are devoting a lot of money to constructing a modern social transport system. Thus, they need a considerable income from users to recover the building costs as well as upgrade the infrastructure for a better service. Suppose the government provided these methods free of charge, they would be saddled with such a large burden that unable to shoulder the responsibility for an extended period, and in the worst-case scenario, they would go bankrupt.
In summary, complimentary public vehicles might seem to be a possible measure to ease traffic congestion. Nevertheless, I conclude that it is not a practical solution to solve this issue. Instead of providing free services, the government might impose a reasonable cost for these means of transportation associated with enhancing their quality
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 300, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to free'
Suggestion: to free
... to tackle this phenomenon is to afford free public transport every day. From my per...
^^^^
Line 7, column 275, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this means' or 'these means'?
Suggestion: this means; these means
...ment might impose a reasonable cost for these means of transportation associated with enhan...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, therefore, thus, well, whereas, in fact, in summary, such as, as a result, as well as, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 7.85571142285 178% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 7.30460921844 205% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 37.0 24.0651302605 154% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 66.0 41.998997996 157% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 8.3376753507 228% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2881.0 1615.20841683 178% => OK
No of words: 529.0 315.596192385 168% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.44612476371 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79583152331 4.20363070211 114% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14163134702 2.80592935109 112% => OK
Unique words: 301.0 176.041082164 171% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.568998109641 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 916.2 506.74238477 181% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 10.0 4.76152304609 210% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 16.0721442886 149% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.6243655653 49.4020404114 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.041666667 106.682146367 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0416666667 20.7667163134 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.58333333333 7.06120827912 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.67935871743 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216727021235 0.244688304435 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0601708102377 0.084324248473 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0584223655438 0.0667982634062 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139733587594 0.151304729494 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0479715222446 0.056905535591 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.0946893788 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.33 12.4159519038 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.41 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 157.0 78.4519038076 200% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => 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.