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.
People have different views about the budget of country’s infrastructure developments to solve traffic congestion. Though it is argued that expending on the roads construction can reduce traffic jam, I believe that governments should use money on advancing railway service to tackle this issue.
On the one hand, the expanded and extensive number of roads can allow passing through many vehicles at a time, and offering an enjoyable trip for commuters. This could encourage people to use public bus services rather than travel with own car. Hence, the vehicles redundancy will decline on the roads which ensure less jamming at rush hours. A recent survey shows that in Singapore has the best road system in the world, whereas 40% of people use public bus to travel their working place because it’s cheaper and reach on time. In addition, ample space and variety of access on the roads can prevent the road clogging associate with vehicle-collision.
However, I would argue that dealing with traffic congestion problem is best solved by spending governments’ funds for railways development. The metro train and the subway services are useful because they can cover long-distance trip and carry immense amount of passengers at a time. The development of those services could prevent the migration of people to a city, and enjoy professional life from their home. This could reduce the city population as well as road users. Another plus point is that these services have fewer rates of congestion and collision issues. A recent survey shows that in Bangladesh the rates of train collision are only 5% in last 2 years.
In conclusion, although it might seem sensible for the government to focus on building roads to decrease traffic obstruction, I personally prefer the advancement of railways is the most effective solution to get rid of it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 163, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'roads'' or 'road's'?
Suggestion: roads'; road's
...ough it is argued that expending on the roads construction can reduce traffic jam, I ...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 256, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'vehicles'' or 'vehicle's'?
Suggestion: vehicles'; vehicle's
...er than travel with own car. Hence, the vehicles redundancy will decline on the roads wh...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
hence, however, if, so, well, whereas, in addition, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1559.0 1615.20841683 97% => OK
No of words: 301.0 315.596192385 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17940199336 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87443196738 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 176.041082164 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.601328903654 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 472.5 506.74238477 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.9242332013 49.4020404114 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.357142857 106.682146367 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 7.06120827912 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.195896795228 0.244688304435 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0626993162228 0.084324248473 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0563979959581 0.0667982634062 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133215461576 0.151304729494 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0771886100073 0.056905535591 136% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.0946893788 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 50.2224549098 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.4159519038 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.58950901804 104% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 78.4519038076 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.