Governments should spend money on building train and subway lines to reduce traffic congestion. Others support building more and wider roads. Discuss both of these viewpoints and give your opinion.
Some individuals are the opinion of that the government should invest money in constructing train and subway lines to mitigate the traffic density, while others think that road expansion is more effective. I believe although the latter solution can address the traffic problem in the short term, the former method is much more better.
On the one hand, when the government invests national budgets in expanding roads that could be a temporary solution and occurs some drawbacks. Most roads are overwhelmed by private cars or motorbikes, so the increase of size roads including adding extra lanes or building overpasses would immediately alleviate this traffic problem. However, the road transport system is widened it means that the commuters are encouraged to use their private vehicles more regularly. Additionally, if this method is implemented on a large scale, which will change people’s behavior about traffic problem. Particularly, drivers who had previously avoided the route due to traffic jam now consider it as an attractive option. Therefore, this road project is a stopgap measure, which cannot tackle the congestion issue.
On the other hand, spending the domestic funds on rail and subway systems properly relieves the congestion. Firstly, in comparison with the private vehicles which can contain between four and seven passengers, the public transport system can hold hundreds of people simultaneously. Coupled with their speed and frequency service, trains and subway systems can ease the traffic flow. Another benefit of using this kind of transportation is that it shortens travel time of passengers. People do not have to stuck in the traffic jams for hours because the subway is underground and this public transit does not go through traffic lights or encounter any interruption, hence, this solution is viable in the reduction of road congestion.
In conclusion, I believe improving existing road infrastructures from government budget should not be an unsustainable method to mitigate gridlock, while public railway systems would be much more feasible solution and deserve more funding from government.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 336, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the former method is much more better. On the one hand, when the government inv...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, hence, however, if, so, therefore, while, in conclusion, kind of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 41.998997996 74% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1814.0 1615.20841683 112% => OK
No of words: 329.0 315.596192385 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.51367781155 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25891501996 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86995124256 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 176.041082164 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595744680851 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 544.5 506.74238477 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.6544860193 49.4020404114 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.571428571 106.682146367 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 20.7667163134 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.07142857143 7.06120827912 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => 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: 0.230332747912 0.244688304435 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0756971017554 0.084324248473 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0735526851337 0.0667982634062 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.145100830069 0.151304729494 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0673914398722 0.056905535591 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 13.0946893788 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 50.2224549098 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.3001002004 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 12.4159519038 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.67 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 78.4519038076 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.