As cities expanding, some people claim governments should look forward creating better networks of public transportation available for everyone rather than building more roads for vehicle owning population. What’s your opinion? Give some examples or experience to support.
The drastic rise in population have put tremendous pressure on cities to expand. As a result, more infrastructure such as roads are required to be built but there is division among people as some claim that roads should be improved to create an improved network roads for public transport rather than for personal cars.This essay will discuss how this notion in true.
To begin with, increase in use of public transport will result in less traffic on roads. As one big bus can accommodate several persons it will lead to less number of vehicles on road and avoiding congestion in the city. For example, a metro bus can accommodate 66 people which means that around 30 to 40 vehicles are reduced on roads. Thus public transport having access to several parts of the city will result in decrease in personal cars.
Secondly, improving public transportation will affect a large population. As many people are not able to afford their personal car or its fuel on daily basis, better public transport will be helpful for such people. For instance, according to a survey in Pakistan, people who use public transport are able to save more as compared to people using their cars. Therefore, governments should focus to improve public transportation system in their countries.
In conclusion, use of public transport will reduce traffic on road and people will be able to save money. In my opinion, with the mentioned advantages of a better public transport system, it is pertinent for governments to concentrate in regular improvement of it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 320, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: This
...transport rather than for personal cars.This essay will discuss how this notion in t...
^^^^
Line 3, column 337, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...30 to 40 vehicles are reduced on roads. Thus public transport having access to sever...
^^^^
Line 5, column 320, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[1]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
... public transport are able to save more as compared to people using their cars. Th...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, as a result, in my opinion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 6.10837438424 196% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 8.36945812808 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 5.94088669951 67% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 20.9802955665 57% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 31.9359605911 132% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.75862068966 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1286.0 1207.87684729 106% => OK
No of words: 257.0 242.827586207 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00389105058 5.00649968141 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00390054096 3.92707691288 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74360181261 2.71678728327 101% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 139.433497537 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548638132296 0.580463131201 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 396.9 379.143842365 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.57093596059 95% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.6157635468 43% => OK
Article: 2.0 1.56157635468 128% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.71428571429 175% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.931034482759 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.65517241379 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.5024630542 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.3452824284 50.4703680194 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.166666667 104.977214359 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4166666667 20.9669160288 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.3333333333 7.25397266985 156% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.33497536946 56% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 6.9802955665 129% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 2.75862068966 36% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 2.91625615764 69% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.293644319752 0.242375264174 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11026057545 0.0925447433944 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0673243837003 0.071462118173 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1936925698 0.151781067708 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0601137751608 0.0609392437508 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 12.6369458128 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.1260098522 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.54236453202 47% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.9458128079 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 11.5310837438 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.32886699507 102% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 55.0591133005 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.94827586207 136% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.3980295567 100% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.5123152709 95% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 77.7777777778 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 70.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.