Over the last five decades, cars have come to dominate the urban landscape. Many major metropolitan areas such as Seoul, New Delhi and Tokyo have been built around automobiles, with huge amounts of space set aside for roads and parking. This dramatic rise has led to the suggestion that private vehicles should be prohibited from entering large urban areas. Although this car-free idea sounds desirable, it is in fact an ineffective strategy that takes a heavy toll on society and economy.
Admittedly, an initiative to create a car-free city would bring considerable benefits. The immediate one is the reduction of air pollution and the enhancement of public health, and Oslo is a good example. Data from the local government reveals a marked drop in the amount of carbon dioxide emissions after diesel and gas-powered vehicles are denied access to city centers. As air quality improves, the number of people who have respiratory diseases is also decreasing. In addition, improving the safety among residents and visitors is another advantage of implementing the pedestrian-friendly policy. There has been some evidence that the reduction of road casualties in Oslo is the result of banning private cars from central streets. Even better, people are able to meander around without dodging in and out of traffic while tourists can stand in the middle of the street nonchalantly taking selfies or photos. Nevertheless, the above examples do not necessarily imply that the move towards a vehicle-free city is utterly feasible.
In fact, inhibiting cars from the central business districts increases the burden on public infrastructure though it counteracts the detrimental effects of pollutants. This is due to a sudden increase in new commuters who once depended on using their own cars. Existing public transport and facilities will be overwhelmed if the government cannot provide tens of thousands of commuters with an alternative method of transport to enter the city. For example, simply adding extra train services will not work if the train stations cannot cope with these new commuters, especially when most of them need to enter and exit the city during peak hour. Therefore, simply banning cars without additional investment in other services is a recipe for disaster.
Although the campaign for a car-free city gives the street back to people, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that there will be devastating economic consequences as many businesses in city centers rely on private vehicles to deliver supplies on a daily basis. For instance, restaurants require daily food deliveries in the same way as florists need their flowers in early each morning. Without access to the central areas, these businesses will soon close, which in turn leads to the rise of unemployment. While a ban on private cars is conducive to the improvement of traffic flow, it will also cause a cratering economy and social problems.
In conclusion, increasing ownership of private cars has resulted in a number of significant urban issues. It has been suggested that these vehicles should be removed from city zones. However, banning private vehicles is not a viable option as public transport services would not be able to cope with the higher demand and many companies might face unprecedented challenges of running their businesses.
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, nevertheless, so, therefore, while, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, such as, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 15.1003584229 146% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 9.8082437276 163% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 13.8261648746 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 43.0788530466 49% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 52.1666666667 144% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.0752688172 161% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2795.0 1977.66487455 141% => OK
No of words: 534.0 407.700716846 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.234082397 4.8611393121 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80712388197 4.48103885553 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86962823955 2.67179642975 107% => OK
Unique words: 295.0 212.727598566 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552434456929 0.524837075471 105% => OK
syllable_count: 890.1 618.680645161 144% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6003584229 117% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.2850347797 48.9658058833 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.458333333 100.406767564 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.25 20.6045352989 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.95833333333 5.45110844103 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.85842293907 207% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.245139687347 0.236089414692 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0626512780932 0.076458572812 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0650410576245 0.0737576698707 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132656354132 0.150856017488 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0301834432876 0.0645574589148 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 11.7677419355 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 58.1214874552 70% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.1575268817 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 10.9000537634 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.61 8.01818996416 120% => OK
difficult_words: 165.0 86.8835125448 190% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.002688172 90% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, nevertheless, so, therefore, while, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, such as, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 15.1003584229 146% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 9.8082437276 163% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 13.8261648746 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 43.0788530466 49% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 52.1666666667 144% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.0752688172 161% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2795.0 1977.66487455 141% => OK
No of words: 534.0 407.700716846 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.234082397 4.8611393121 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80712388197 4.48103885553 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86962823955 2.67179642975 107% => OK
Unique words: 295.0 212.727598566 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552434456929 0.524837075471 105% => OK
syllable_count: 890.1 618.680645161 144% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6003584229 117% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.2850347797 48.9658058833 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.458333333 100.406767564 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.25 20.6045352989 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.95833333333 5.45110844103 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.85842293907 207% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.245139687347 0.236089414692 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0626512780932 0.076458572812 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0650410576245 0.0737576698707 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132656354132 0.150856017488 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0301834432876 0.0645574589148 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 11.7677419355 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 58.1214874552 70% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.1575268817 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 10.9000537634 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.61 8.01818996416 120% => OK
difficult_words: 165.0 86.8835125448 190% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.002688172 90% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.