Task 2 Essay Sample: Traffic and Vehicles

Encouraging people to use public transport is the best way to solve traffic problems in the cities. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Traffic congestion is one of the most serious issues which almost every city has to confront. Among a number of solutions having been proposed before, it seems to me that encouraging the use of public transport is the most effective way to overcome this problem in the urban area.

Along with the increase in habitants in cities, using public transport is a sustainable solution for both authorities and citizens to encounter traffic problems. Using public vehicles such as buses or metros means that people who have several destinations on one same route can share one same vehicle instead of using their own car or motorbike. Hence, the more people in the city use public transport, the less private vehicles move on the roads and, therefore, fewer congestion happens. Besides, using public transport seems to be safer for citizens as it may reduce the number of traffic accidents caused by private vehicles along with the reduction of private transport. Moreover, when people pay for public transport, the government will have more budget to invest in infrastructure and facilities of the city and improve the public transport system. In other words, by encouraging habitants to use public vehicles as their major means of transport, authorities could utilize community resources to solve traffic problems and build their cities in such a sustainable way.

On the other hand, there are other ways to overcome traffic problems in urban areas but it seems to be not as effective as using public transport. Some people argue that an increase in the price of petrol may lead to a reduction in private vehicles as well as a traffic jam. However, I think this method would not solve the root of the problem, because those people who cannot find an alternative public vehicle to travel to their destinations, such as workplaces or schools, will not only still have to use their own cars or motorbikes but also pay an exorbitant price for petrol. Thus, it would not completely solve the traffic jam in cities but would cause inconveniences and reduce living standard of people instead. Another way to reduce congestion in rush hours is managing traffic time of groups of people. For example, the authority makes children go to school earlier than the time for officers to go to work to reduce the number of vehicles in the morning. Nonetheless, this method may make no change in the number of vehicles on the roads as well as the number of traffic accidents caused by private vehicles.

 In conclusion, with the reason mentioned above, I think that foster the habit of using public transport in citizens is the best way to overcome traffic problems in urban areas.

In order to solve traffic problems, governments should tax private car owners heavily and use the money to improve public transportation. What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a solution?

Many nations impose a high tax rate on private cars to improve traffic congestion and to promote public transportation. Even though the higher tax on cars will help discourage car ownership and contribute to the national budget for public transportation, it definitely creates a burden for buyers which may lead to public tension.

Indeed, the tax will raise the retail price of cars, thus slowing down the demand for them. When the number of cars on road is reduced, traffic congestion is lessened. For instance, Malaysia is a typical example as this country imposes a very high tax rate on private cars. The price of a car in Malaysia is escalated by more than 100% after a sales tax and a duty tax. According to a report published by the Road Transportation Department in 2005, introducing taxes on private cars had helped the government to improve the traffic congestion in Kuala Lumpur by reducing the average traffic-jam hours from 2.5 hours to 1.2 hours in the city. Furthermore, the government can use the tax revenue to develop and to promote public transportation system. Also in the case of Malaysia, this country has built, with the funding from tax revenue on private cars, the main rapid sky-train and underground metro systems, helping thousands of people commute to work on a daily basis.

Nevertheless, vehicles tax is blamed for creating an unfair treatment in the society as it impacts the poor more than it does to the rich. In other words, when public transportation is not an ideal or optimal solution, people still need to buy a car. High taxation will create a burden for consumers, especially those with a limited budget. For example, the high tax rate in Malaysia causes a car to cost almost two times the original price. According to a survey conducted by the Malaysia Automobile Institute, the first car buyers who are mostly fresh graduated students, have to make a loan when buying cars and it often takes them more than five years on average to pay it off. Therefore people are holding protests to call for a drop in car tax rate in Malaysia.

To conclude, tax on private cars brings both merits and drawbacks. It helps to cut down the demand for cars, which in turn, helps to cease traffic congestion.

The best way for governments to solve the problem of traffic congestion is providing free public transport for 24 hours per day, and seven days a week. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is argued that the most appropriate approach which governments should consider to minimize traffic jam is giving zero-fee transportation to residents. I absolutely disagree with this solution as I think such measure could not solve the aforementioned problem.

Firstly, there are many reasons causing the obstacles of congested roads. One of which is that the development of infrastructure may not meet the pace of traffic flow. To cope with this issue, funding should be spent/allocated on expanding roads and building more overpasses. Offering/Providing free transport tickets to people without improving the roadways will not help to ease traffic jam. In addition, in order to avoid blocked lanes during rush hours, the awareness of drivers should be raised and enhanced/improved. If everyone keeps calm and queues when the roads are crowded, traffic flow will be eased and journey times will undoubtedly speed up.

Secondly, public transport companies require money to develop to face increasing traffic problems. If no fee is charged for passengers, transportation owners will be in shortage of capital for expanding the business. Therefore, they may offer a low quality of commuting service. Free tickets but poor service cannot encourage more people to use public transport than by upgrading the vehicles. Paying money when using a service is fair and reasonable. The problem is how to enhance the quality of public transport to benefit more passengers. For example, to persuade more people to use buses, the Hanoi transportation company should invest money in buying new buses and operating many different routes to meet the need of more residents.

In conclusion, I believe that the headache of traffic congestion should be addressed in many aspects. Subsidizing the cost of fares is not a good solution to reduce vehicles on the roads.

Model 2

It is argued that the most effective policy from the authority to tackle snarled-up traffic is to provide the public transport with no fees to all residents all the time. Personally, I completely disagree with that flawed solution for some reasons.

On the one hand, perhaps the main reason is that government should take the feasibility of this suggestion into consideration. Firstly, the administration of running the public means of transport 24/7 will have to bear a huge burden of costs. Meanwhile, other momentous factors, such as education and healthcare, also need to be invested in. Secondly, the demand of passengers is very small at some certain time of the day, especially the period from midnight to early morning. Finally, driving at night may be too dangerous for both drivers and commuters. For instance, a drowsy driver is not in full possession of his faculties, therefore, accidents will have more chances to happen.

Instead of drawing up a new timetable for the public transport system, the government should expand the working area as well as create employment opportunities for the locals by investing in rural zones, which gradually prevents people from migrating into dense cities. Furthermore, infrastructures should be upgraded in order to travel with fewer obstacles.

On the other hand, I definitely recognize the advantage of supplying/ providing free public transport all the time. This opinion/ solution will encourage people to commute by public transport on contrary to using private vehicles which can significantly reduce the traffic volume, and traffic jam will no longer occur. However, the cost of this solution is too expensive to make it impossible to be accepted.

In summary, while providing free public transport at first seems to be a good suggestion to solve the traffic problem, I totally insist on its unpractical effect because of financial problems and the possibility of other feasible options.

Some people believe the government should spend money on building train and subway lines to reduce traffic congestion. Others think that building more and wider roads is the better way to reduce traffic congestion. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

To ease traffic congestion, whether the expenditure should be spent on constructing railway and subway networks to enhance the efficiency of road systems remains a source of controversy. However, I would personally stand with this solution instead of expanding the existing roads.

On the one hand, the authority should improve road systems by building more and broader roads in order to deal with traffic congestion. Firstly, since cars are likely to be the most viable mean of daily transport, roads should be able to bear the increasing number of cars. The more cars are used, the worse congestion problems are. Because of this, there is no doubt that improving the road system is an obvious way to solve the issue. In addition, it would be more convenient for commuters to travel by roads because they are directly connected to destinations without stopping at any station.

On the other hand, I would argue that building train and subway systems are the better methods to cope with traffic congestion. Firstly, the fact that commuters using personal cars often travel alone leads to inefficient use of car and road space, whereas just one train is able to carry hundreds of passengers simultaneously. Apparently, train and subway networks would contribute to saving more traffic space thus reducing traffic congestion. Moreover, there is no doubt that travelling by public transport system such as train and subway lines would help protect the environment since those means of transport emit much less carbon dioxide than cars.

In conclusion, I would restate that if government prioritizes building train and subway lines instead of constructing more and wider roads, traffic congestion would be reduced more efficiently.

Model 2

While some people think that government should invest more capital in improving metros and underground infrastructures to minimize traffic jam, others would believe that expanding roadways is the best way to tackle the aforementioned issue. Overall, it is my personal view that both measures play vital roles in easing traffic flows.

On the one hand, enhancing public transportation is critical for the government to cope with the ubiquitous problem of increasing commuters. Therefore, building train and subway lines is an indisputable resolution which should be taken into account. By making commuting service more state-of-the-art, people will find public vehicles as an indispensable means of transport and will be encouraged to use them more frequently. As a result, the amount of private transport will be reduced, which will definitely decrease the pressure on the roads. For example, traffic jam is not a big problem for countries which have developed underground systems such as France or Singapore.

On the other hand, it is undeniable that enlarging roads will help to stem the root causes of traffic congestion. Private vehicles contribute to a major part of daily transportation because they are important to residents in case of emergency and essence. Thus, the government should not focus only on improving public transportation but ignore the measure to upgrade narrow lanes and obsolete highways. Indeed, Building more and wider roads will undoubtedly solve the issue of blocked streets during rush hours. Every government recognizes the importance of expanding roadways so that vast amounts of dollars from national budgets are allocated to road widening projects each year.

In conclusion, I once again reaffirm that building more routes of train and subway as well as improving the infrastructure of current roads are essential solutions to face the growth of traffic flows.

 

The only way to improve the safety on your own road is to have stricter punishment for driving offenders. To what extent do you agree or disagree? It is argued that stricter punishment for losing control on road is the only method to keep safe. While I accept that this may suit some situations, I believe that education has long-term effect/ effects on a long period.

On the one hand, it is true that having a stricter punishment and increasing the penalties for irresponsible drivers would reduce traffic accidents and improve road safety. One reason is that a rule plays an important part in guaranteeing to deter drivers from unlawful behaviour. Being offered a sentence allows them to focus on owned line, reduce dangerous situations and avoid causing a traffic jam. Furthermore, being deprived driver’s license is one of the worst things for inhabitants, because private vehicles are top-priority to keep their works on time. If this thing happens, it will cut down the level of job performance.

On the other hand, education has more particular benefits to build a safe environment on road. Firstly, through teaching, valuable lessons contribute to a better social awareness when people move on the street. It shows that terrible consequences have negative effects on the life. For example, getting a drunk before driving cars, fast speed will lead to injuries for pedestrians. Secondly, wrong attitude and routine driving on road are hard to change although the government proposes some stricter punishments, so schools ought to provide education about traffic for all people. Furthermore, rich nations should also create a real accident models to attract people’s attention.

In conclusion, it is true that law can be important to reduce careless drivers; I believe that education is the main key to solve this problem.

More and more people are relying on the private car as their major means of transportation. Describe some of the problems over-reliance on cars can cause, and suggest at least one possible solution.

The rapid increase in the number of private cars travelling on street is a major topic of concern in modern society. This alarming trend poses many threats and must be addressed by a number of definite actions.

As private cars are becoming increasingly prevalent, several related problems can be anticipated. Firstly, the overuse of cars might lead to the emission of tons of harmful gases, especially greenhouse gases which acts as one of the main culprits of the ozone layer depletion. Moreover, ozone layer depletion as a consequence of pollution can cause skin problems. For example, in Australia, an increase in car users has attributed to accelerated depletion of ozone layer protecting people’s skin from ultraviolet rays. Consequently, this causes a great number of respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis or skin cancer. Secondly, the trend toward abusing private cars could be ascribed to traffic congestion. When a huge number of cars travel on street during rush hours, they would take up a vast space for other vehicles, which causes traffic to become overload. If individuals use some types of light vehicles such as bicycles or motorbikes, they would not have to grapple with the nightmare of the traffic jam. However, measures must be taken by governments and environmental activists to alleviate/cope with the negative impacts of over-reliance on cars.

On the one hand, the authorities should impose a higher tax on car importers in order that the price of cars would be increased significantly, which dissuades individuals from owning cars. Additionally, it is necessary for the government to invest money in upgrading the public transportation system as well as step up campaigns to encourage citizens to travel on these public vehicles. On the other hand, the amount of air pollution caused/released by cars can be reduced by installing air filter system in high-density urban areas. For instance, Dutch designers have given a birth to a device named “smog free tower” that can remove almost all the carbon particles from the air.

In conclusion, the increase in car owners may result in both environmental problems and traffic congestion. Thus it is vital for policy makers to adopt effective measures to tackle the problem.

If countries are serious about solving traffic problems, they should tax private cars very heavily and use the money to provide free or very cheap rail travel. To what extent do you agree with the above?

It is true that the government should impose heavy taxes on private cars in and spend on rail travel in order to solve the traffic issues. While I accept this may suit many people, I believe that the government should instead invest their money in road extension.

On the one hand, there are a variety of reasons why the government should tax private cars harshly and use the budget to provide cheap rail travel for the citizens. One reason is that the more people use railway transportation the less intense the traffic systems will be. Especially in the large cities, the number of operated railway systems in each day are less than the number of private transportations that are used by each household, which usually results in a traffic jam in rush hours. Another reason is that the number of car accidents will be reduced dramatically when many citizens use railway systems instead of private cars. Obviously, thanks to taxes, people will prevent from using cars and therefore travel by trains, which might save them from careless or drunk drivers on the roads and any unforeseen casualty.

On the other hand, I suppose that the government should contribute parts of their revenue to the expansion of infrastructures in order to minimize the traffic issues in large cities. Firstly, if the city has more road systems, the possibilities that traffic jam occurs are quite small. Since there are various routes to reach certain destinations when more roads are built, passengers will have more options to decide the planning journey based on the current conditions of each highway. As a result, there will be less roadblock in rush hours as well as unfortunate accidents. Secondly, each individual is able to manage their own desired schemes for the travel when they have a private car. Since the public transportation schedules are established based on numerous factors such as economic benefits and the number of people in each area, many people find it hard to both visit many places and reach the public stations in time. Meanwhile, private cars help visitors think of more flexible plans for their journey to a wide range of destinations without any rail travel time interference.

In conclusion, it is undeniable that heavy taxes on private transportation will 199 resolve the traffic problems and provide free or very cheap rail travel. However, it is also beneficial to suggest other resolutions that are not related to taxes such as infrastructures construction.

Some people think that there should be some strict controls about noise. Others think that they could just make as much noise as they want. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

While many people argue that noise should be limited to an appropriate level, others believe that it is their freedom to produce as much noise as they want. I personally argue it would be better to reduce noise.

On the one hand, noise plays various roles in daily life as people make use of it for plenty of purposes. Moreover, in some cases, it would be more effective if louder noises are taken advantage of. In the field of entertainment, if the noise was strictly controlled, some audiences might find it difficult to listen clearly to music and singer’s voice because those shows are usually held in a wide-open space such as stadiums. In the field of marketing, loud noises could contribute to drawing the attention of consumers by placing speakers in front of stores to play ear-catching music. To sum up, it is evident that people have the right to exploit noise for their own aims.

On the other hand, I believe the government should impose tough laws to keep noise under control. This is mainly because noises, particularly those are of exceeded volume, have detrimental impacts on humans. Firstly, they could trigger several physical disorders such as hearing loss, which would eventually result in being permanently deaf. Secondly, modernization process creates so many intrusive sounds that could lead to many serious mental health problems for urban citizens. For instance, residents living near areas of constructing are likely to suffer from insomnia caused by those irritating noises.

In conclusion, it is undeniable that although people could generate noise in their own way, they should consider for others by controlling the amount of noise they produce.

Traffic congestion is becoming a huge problem for many major cities. What are the causes? Suggest some measures to reduce traffic in big cities.

In recent years, traffic congestion has become an enormous obstacle for modern citizens. From my perspective, there could be several reasons why this is a case and a wide range of remedies could be used to tackle the problem.

There are two major causes that lead the congestion to be on the increase in metropolitan areas. An upsurge in population could be seen as the first precursor. As a matter of fact, a large number of people have recently migrated to reside in urban areas, Beijing, New York or Ho Chi Minh City, for instance, hence an excessive number of commuters who travel in cities every day. As a consequence, streets are often overcrowded; this, coupled with the insufficient infrastructure of transportation, could result in heavy traffic jams, especially in peak hours. The second explanation could be that individuals prefer using private vehicles rather than public transport as it stands out for the convenience of time-saving and flexibility. Therefore, there are numerous means of transportation travelling on streets, which greatly contribute to traffic congestion.

However, this issue could be mitigated by a variety of measures. To begin with, governments should spend their budget on improving public transport as well as the infrastructure. With more national financial resources allocated to the upgradation of the transport system, it would encourage residents to travel by bus, tram or subway instead of private means. Since the number of vehicles on roads reduces, it eventually alleviates the situation of traffic congestion. Additionally, restricting the excessive usage of individual transport by imposing higher taxes or charging congestion fee could partly solve the issue. Taking London as a good example, there is a congestion charge of $11.5 per day for every car going to the city in business hours. This helps to discourage people from driving private transport into the centre and raise more money for public transport.

In conclusion, there are two main contributors to traffic congestion and the aforementioned solutions should be taken to address this modern-day problem.

Should government spend more money on improving roads and highways, or should the government spend more money on improving public transportation?

There is an argument about whether the government should improve transportation by spending more money constructing the road and highway system or money should be used to enhance the quality of public transportation. From my perspective, although both (of these) methods have many positive impacts on traffic, the government should prioritize the maintenance of road network.

On the one hand, it is undeniable that the investment in public transportation has many economic, environmental and social advantages. First of all, travelling by means of public transportation such as bus or subway is a way to save money and energy because of the economical ticket price and less fuel energy used. Moreover, the widespread use of public transit service helps alleviate (the) traffic jam and air pollution due to the decrease in private vehicles and gas emission. Finally, a high standard of public transportation will encourage people to use such kind of transport more often. This will lead to some social benefits such as the reduction of traffic crashes or the connection of community.

On the other hand, it is perhaps more important to upgrade the existing road conditions. One of the main reasons is that traffic congestion could be solved if a nation possessed high-quality roads and highways because this makes the movement of vehicles more fluently. Another reason is that keeping road system to a good standard also means improving road safety by bringing the number of traffic accidents down. Last but not least, a developed transport infrastructure will facilitate the growth of other economic sectors. To be specific, the transport of commodities between rural and urban areas can become more efficient and optimal owing to the improved road network.

In conclusion, I can understand why people encourage their government to invest heavily in public transit system, but it seems to me that building national road network to a high standard should be invested heavily because this is a key infrastructure influencing the sustainable development of a nation.

Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? What other measures do you think might be effective?

It is controversial whether a rise in petrol price can efficiently mitigate traffic congestion and pollution. However/Personally, I totally disagree with this opinion.

On the one hand, there are many possible solutions that the authorities can take to reduce the traffic jam and pollution. First, there are more and more sustainable energy sources such as solar power, wind power, and hydropower that can be utilized to run vehicles and factory, and as a result, the emission of greenhouse gases or other harmful gases like carbon monoxide and CFC will be reduced. For example, there are many countries using solar panels to run public vehicles or to produce electricity for household usages. This not only saves money on the electricity bill, but also encourages people to travel around with eco-friendly and cheap vehicles such as train or bus.

On the other hand, in the short term, rising petrol price can bring some immediate benefits. Because of the increase in the cost, consumers will have to curb the amount of gasoline that they use, resulting in a decline in private vehicle usages. But in the long run, this policy may be impractical. In this era, petrol is still the most valuable fuel that is used in a lot of aspects. Therefore, despite the rise in the cost, petrol remains indispensable, which makes people maintain their dependence on this fuel. In Vietnam, although the authorities have applied this policy for many times, there was no fall in the number of people who used petrol.

Due to the fact that I have mentioned above, I completely disagree with the opinion that increasing the price of the petrol is the best way of all.

Some people believe the government should spend money on building train and subway lines to reduce traffic congestion. Others think that building more and wider roads is the better way to reduce traffic congestion. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

There are some arguments about how to reduce traffic jam. Some people propose that new and wider roads should be built, others believe that developing systems of public transportation such as train or subway lines is a more effective solution. Personally, I am inclined to the latter view.

Admittedly, building wider roads, to some extent, is a good way to tackle road congestion. However, it seems to simply be a stop-gap method. The effect of this solution is only temporary because along with the growth of population and economy, the number of private vehicles will continuously increase which will quickly fill up the roads again. As a consequence, traffic jam will eventually recur. Moreover, enlarging or constructing new roads requires new land, which is inherently a limited resource in crowded cities.

On the other hand, developing public transport systems as train or subway lines ensures long-term benefits. It has been proven that using public transport brings about many advantages for the communities. For instance, public transport provides an affordable and time-saving alternative to driving and helps to reduce gasoline consumption as well as carbon emission. For such outstanding benefits, people will certainly be willing to adapt to this kind of transportation provided that governments can offer a reliable and efficient service to meet their demand. Additionally, owing to the huge capacity of public transportation, which can carry up to hundreds or even thousands of passengers, a train or a subway in operation would mean hundreds or thousands of cars being taken off roads.

As a result, traffic congestion would be significantly reduced. In conclusion, I strongly believe that investing in public transport is the best method to mitigate traffic jams.

Do you agree that the advantages cars bring outweigh the disadvantages?

Using cars has been becoming increasingly common in recent years. Although I think that it maintains some obvious harmful consequences, I strongly believe that the advantages of the car can outweigh its advantages.

On the one hand, owning cars has a significant influence on the environment. The first reason is that the growth in travelling by car can lead to a rise in pollution, traffic jams, and accidents. More cars are likely to result in rocketing rate of pollution. Secondly, our dependence on cars can lead to decrease in practices, such as walking and cycling. People may have a higher chance of carrying more potential health risks like obesity and heart attack.

On the other hand, there are many reasons why people prefer to own cars. Firstly, it provides people with the freedom of movement. The ease of transportation which a car brings is significant/prominent than any other form of vehicles. For example, you can go from a destination to another destination and no time is wasted waiting for the bus or train. Therefore, time and distance are not barriers anymore. Secondly, personal cars can give comfort while travelling compared to the public transports which are so crowded and disgusting. For instance, you can read books, listen to your favourite songs or even play with kids while you are in your own car but all seems to be impossible on a public transport. Finally, families can go together. This becomes especially helpful when there are elderly, the disabled or even sick members in the families.

In conclusion, having a car can lead to a few obvious problems, but I believe that owning a car is the best choice and the benefits that it brings about can outshine its drawbacks.