REDUCING TRAFFIC JAMS.
Some people believe the government should spend money building train and subway lines to reduce traffic congestion. Others, however, think that building more and wider roads is a better way to reduce traffic congestion. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
It is still controversial that which possible solution to tackle congested roads should be applied by the government over past decades. Although it is true that developing road systems is likely to be a good method, I believe that investing in trains and subway lines is a more feasible measure.
On the one hand, there are several reasons why constructing and widening more roads contribute to the reduction of traffic jams. First, Since recent road infrastructure in metropolises is inadequate, expanding road systems accommodates both private cars and buses. For instance, Saigon city has been improving most of the prior road networks to provide more space for means of transport, thus mitigating traffic jams significantly. Moreover, as there is a dramatic increase in the number of commuters travelling to work by individual vehicles, developing new roads connecting to large cities is entirely essential. If the government did not spend on constructing these networks of roads, travelling overloads would be almost inevitable.
On the other hand, I would argue that allocating the government’s funding for public transportation is a more practical option to tackle congested roads. Firstly, since railway and subway lines are constructed underground, car numbers on roads would significantly decrease if citizens switched to use these public transit systems. In fact, developed nations, including Britain and France, has built modern subway networks in order to reduce a large number of individual vehicles, alleviating the traffic density on road networks. Secondly, Public transit is more productive than private cars as this type of transport is cost-effective and time-saving; therefore, commuters living on the outskirts of cities tend to leave their cars at home and commute to city centres by railway lines. This eases traffic congestion successfully.
In conclusion, while the development of road infrastructure might leads to the reduction of traffic congestion, I argue that the construction of train and subway systems is more effective.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-08-17 | duongnguyen | 73 | view |
| 2020-05-14 | IVANTRUONG | 78 | view |
| 2020-05-12 | IVANTRUONG | 78 | view |
| 2020-05-12 | IVANTRUONG | 78 | view |
| 2020-05-12 | IVANTRUONG | 78 | view |
- Percentage of students proficient in a foreign language in different countries in 2000. 73
- The chart below shows the percentage of people using various forms of transport in France. 78
- Often, the most successful people--in business, athletics, entertainment, or any field--are those who have focused all of their attention on achieving a specific goal. Those who spread their energy in many directions may not be as successful. In your opin 56
- New technologies have changed the way children spend their time. Do the advantages of this outweigh disadvantages? 67
- The charts compare changes in terms of the percentage of 4 different kinds of goods of the online shopping turnover in New Zealand during a 10-year period. 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 442, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...dern subway networks in order to reduce a large number of individual vehicles, alleviating the tr...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, thus, while, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, it is true, 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: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 41.998997996 102% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1754.0 1615.20841683 109% => OK
No of words: 315.0 315.596192385 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.56825396825 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14545347303 2.80592935109 112% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 176.041082164 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.568253968254 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 533.7 506.74238477 105% => 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: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.10420841683 285% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.7323653114 49.4020404114 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.923076923 106.682146367 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2307692308 20.7667163134 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.9230769231 7.06120827912 169% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.25223399517 0.244688304435 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0935994101624 0.084324248473 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0523595805391 0.0667982634062 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153506622113 0.151304729494 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0137432606128 0.056905535591 24% => 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: 16.9 13.0946893788 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 50.2224549098 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.32 12.4159519038 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.54 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 78.4519038076 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.