Transport is an essential part of urban life, and lengthy journeys are frustrating and expensive for those concerned. There appear to be two main causes of this, and several possible solutions, as we will explain here.
Perhaps the main cause is the lack of investment or funding for infrastructure in the form of high-capacity public transport and increased road space for private vehicles. This means that too many vehicles use the existing network, and congestion is inevitable. We see this in many cities globally, such as London or Tokyo. Many conurbations also lack finance for transport hubs, such as integrated road or rail facilities which could connect public and private transport, thus reducing bottlenecks. A further cause seems to be the problem of overcrowding in cities, whereby people migrate from the hinterland and settle in urban areas, putting strain on amenities, housing and above all on transport capacity. This means that an already stretched system was often pushed to a critical point, causing cancellations and breakdowns in technology used, especially in situations of urban sprawl such as in Latin America.
Regarding potential solutions, probably the main remedy would be to encourage investment in better infrastructure, for example through subsidies or public-private partnerships as was tried successfully in Vietnam during the 1990’s. This enhances the network and fosters a sense of civic pride to everyone’s benefit. Another solution may be to use tax incentives to allow more home working, so that there is less need to commute from the suburbs to the inner city for work. A final response might be the development of a more flexible pattern of transport, such as communal car-pooling, which would reduce reliance on existing systems and vehicles.
In conclusion, it seems that outdated infrastructure and overcrowding are the key factors behind transport frustrations. Possible solutions would involve better funding, and also innovation in ways of working and travelling to reduce the burden on the system.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, may, regarding, so, thus, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 10.4138276553 173% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 24.0651302605 54% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1734.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 320.0 315.596192385 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41875 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22948505376 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05614135799 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 176.041082164 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59375 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 531.0 506.74238477 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.2713047536 49.4020404114 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.857142857 106.682146367 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8571428571 20.7667163134 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.07142857143 7.06120827912 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
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: 0.203051022204 0.244688304435 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0672805009451 0.084324248473 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.035508389982 0.0667982634062 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10973651578 0.151304729494 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0660077832336 0.056905535591 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 13.0946893788 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.4159519038 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.01 8.58950901804 117% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 78.4519038076 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.