Commuters complain that increased rush hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time The favored proposal of the motorists lobby is to widen the highway adding an additional lane of traffic Opponents

Essay topics:

Commuters complain that increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. The favored proposal of the motorists' lobby is to widen the highway, adding an additional lane of traffic. Opponents note that last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. Their suggested alternative proposal is adding a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, it is argued, thereby reducing rush-hour traffic." Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

The author brings into perspective the recommendations of two sections, one which advocates adding an additional lane on the Highway and the other section which believes that addition if a bicycle lane would solve the problem of traffic jam on the Blue Highway. Both the arguments lack thorough reasoning and stand parochial and superfluous without any grounding.

Without adressing the real cause treating the symptioms will not be a sustainable solution. Firstly, there is a need to knwo what are the factors adding to the rush-hour traffic. Smaller traffic lanes may not be the only issue responsible. Also, is it periodic? That is does the Highway coke only during peak hours? If so, then how cost efficient will it be to construct additional lanes to the Highway when it will be used only for few hours in a day?.

Second, the option of adding a bicycle lane seems good at first but is based only on the assumption that many residents are keen bicyclist. What is the sample size of this survey? Are those surveyed commute by highway using personal vehicles? Even if the residents are keen how willing would they be to commute daily using their bicycles? Are the Highways safe enough to add a bicycle lane?

Lastly, the authors puts forth the point of opponent section in which they compare Blue highway with the Green Highway thereby engendering the view that adding an extra lane adds to the problem in long run and cannot be a solution, thus one must support building a bicycle lane. This argument is based on assumption that both the Highways have exactly the same demographics, socio-political and economic factors impacting them. Do both the Highways have same kind of commuters? What are the two Highways connecting similar locations?

These questions need to be considered before arriving at a particular decision. The answers to these would help in establishing a clear picture on the Highway, cause of the rush-hour and preferred solution.

Votes
Average: 6 (4 votes)
Essay Categories

Comments

Sentence: Without adressing the real cause treating the symptioms will not be a sustainable solution.
Error: adressing Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: symptioms Suggestion: symptoms

Sentence: Firstly, there is a need to knwo what are the factors adding to the rush-hour traffic.
Error: knwo Suggestion: know

argument 1 -- This is out of topic: ' If so, then how cost efficient will it be to construct additional lanes to the Highway when it will be used only for few hours in a day?'

argument 2 -- OK

argument 3 -- OK

Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 328 350
No. of Characters: 1593 1500
No. of Different Words: 183 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.256 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.857 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.613 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 109 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 94 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 58 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.263 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.62 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.474 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.279 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.512 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.071 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5