Some people think it is more important to spend money on roads and motorways than on public transport systems.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is argued that more funds should be allocated to roads and motorways rather than to public transport systems. Personally, I find myself in a complete disagreement with this opinion.
On the one hand, I can understand why spending money on road networks gains the support of many people. Their view is that better road quality would increase the levels of safety and ease traffic congestion. Firstly, the better quality of motorways means a considerable decline in road mortality and injury rates. This is justifiable since the roads in some countries are fraught with holes and obstacles, plaguing people with danger and insecurity. In this sense, the amelioration of poor road infrastructures would ensure the safety of travellers. Secondly, expanding roads and building more motorways are believed to curb traffic jams. Traffic congestion is major concern in big cities where massive numbers of vehicles travel on the road during hours of peak demand. This vexed problem could be tackled as wider roads provide maximum travel time in free-flowing traffic.
However, I would argue that spending on public transport is a better investment for a number of reasons. Compared to vehicles, high-capacity public transit modes can accommodate a larger number of passengers at a time. This could be exemplified by integrated and expansive public transport networks in Australia. Recent estimates indicate that each train on Sydney’s railways removes approximately 1000 cars from its roads. Therefore, a modal shift from private to public transport would tremendously alleviate urban congestion which has been considered as one of the productivity bottlenecks in developed economies. Moreover, efficient public transport systems are a contributor to a cleaner environment. By removing cars from streets, public transit plays a pivotal role in the abatement of carbon emissions. Not only does this reduce air pollution, but it also mitigates the effects of climate change as a whole.
Based on the above-mentioned arguments, I acquiesce in the view that money should be invested in public transport systems rather than road networks.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-05-09 | A VATSAL KUMAR | 81 | view |
- Some people think that a person improves their intellectual skills more when doing group activities. To what extent do you agree? 67
- Some people believe that air travel should be restricted because it causes serious pollution and uses up the world's fuel resources.To what extent do you agree or disagree? 89
- Some people say that advertising encourages us to buy things that we really do not need. Others say that advertisements tell us about new products that may improve our lives.Which viewpoint do you agree with? 73
- Some people say that E- books and modern technology will totally replace traditional newspaper and magazines to what extent do you agree or disagree. 78
- Hobbies need to be difficult to make them interesting.To what extent do you agree or disagree. 56
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 562, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... congestion which has been considered as one of the productivity bottlenecks in d...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 41.998997996 112% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1811.0 1615.20841683 112% => OK
No of words: 331.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47129909366 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26537283232 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00319742715 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 176.041082164 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.589123867069 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 556.2 506.74238477 110% => 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: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 25.7421692905 49.4020404114 52% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 95.3157894737 106.682146367 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4210526316 20.7667163134 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.26315789474 7.06120827912 60% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => 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: 0.238806794458 0.244688304435 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0713849937758 0.084324248473 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.065972688333 0.0667982634062 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.157023626607 0.151304729494 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0344969070497 0.056905535591 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 50.2224549098 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.15 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.73 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 78.4519038076 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.