As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

A few individuals argue that regimes should bear the cost of maintaining and expanding road networks, while others feel that this expenditure needs to be borne by motorists. This essay will elucidate both the viewpoints and draw a well-reasoned conclusion.

To begin with, people who feel that motorists are the one who should be bearing all the expenses for road maintenance, profess that those using their own vehicles are the primary users of roads and are in minority, so why should others pay for facilitating them. Across the world, only twenty five percent of the population travels by their own means, and cause traffic snarls, precipitating inconvenience to others. Thus, these  individuals should  don the mantle of bearing this expenditure.   

Similarly, when they bear this cost, they will act more responsibly towards public networks and embrace rules and regulations more diligently.  Moreover, this system will reduce the number of vehicles used in the cities since many will be dissuaded from bearing extra cost of operating their own conveyance. Consequently, this will lead to reduction in pollution and traffic congestion on roads.

Nonetheless,  the other school of thought feels that it is fair to say that authorities should be bearing this cost since drivers are already paying extremely large amounts of taxes like carbon tax, road tax, toll tax and fuel tax. to name a few, and bearing this additional levy will over burden them. This lobby suggests that money raised through various charges  should be used to sustain and expand motorways.  

To conclude, even though both have equal responsibilities towards this endeavor, I personally believe that, regime needs to bear this cost since car owners always pay several taxes and charging them more will be unfair. 

As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs.

 As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs.

Incrementing vehicles mandates maintenance and expansion of road networks that has precipitated a thought provoking discourse over who should be bearing the onus of this: some argue that it should be policy makers, while others put the burden on motorists. I will examine both perspectives and draw a plausible conclusion.

Those vouching for the role of lawmakers in this endeavor argue that roads are meant for public good that benefit everyone, not just those plying personal vehicles. These facilitate the movement of goods and services, contributing to the overall economy by allowing businesses to function, enabling public transportation, and ensuring access to essential services like healthcare and education. Since everyone in society benefits indirectly from a well-maintained road system, regimes should fund it using public funds. For instance, rural areas with fewer drivers might not generate enough revenue from driver fees to maintain their roadways, necessitating government intervention to ensure fair distribution of resources. 

Nevertheless, those advocating for drivers covering the cost propose that it is only fair for them to pay for what they use. Increased usage leads to greater wear and tear on roads, meaning motorists directly contribute to the need of maintenance. Implementing road tolls is a potent way of ensuring a sustainable way to fund road repairs and expansion. Additionally, charging them for road use may encourage people to use public transportation, mitigating congestion and environmental damage. For example, in cities like London, congestion charges have been implemented to alleviate traffic snarls while generating revenues for road improvements. 

In my opinion, even though both the opinions are well-reasoned and are convincing, I feel this should be a joint responsibility as everyone benefits from the well-maintained infrastructure, wherein the state would reap economic benefits, and motorists  can obtain safer rides. 

Cycling has many benefits, yet in some countries there is a decrease in the number of people using bicycles as their main form of transportation. Why is it happening? Give suggestions on how to encourage people to use bicycles again.

Cycling has many benefits, yet in some countries there is a decrease in the number of people using bicycles as their main form of transportation. Why is it happening? Give suggestions on how to encourage people to use bicycles again.

Pedaling is losing its charm worldwide, despite it being a rewarding endeavor, including better health and a diminutive environmental effect. Numerous causes contribute to this trend, and there are several strategies to alleviate it.

The absence of appropriate infrastructure for bikers is propelling the decline. Riding this humble mode is deemed dangerous and inconvenient in metropolitan locations because roadways are built primarily for automobiles, forcing bicyclists to frequently share roads with fast moving traffic owing to the absence of designated bike lanes, raising the possibility of accidents. Furthermore, the popularity of private vehicles and reasonably priced public transportation has diminished the appeal of cycling because these mediums of commuting provide unprecedented comfort and speed. To exacerbate the situation, weather conditions, long commuting distances, and lack of secure parking facilities further contribute to making this 19th century unpopular. Cultural perceptions also play a role. In some countries, riding this two-wheeler is associated with lower socioeconomic status, discouraging people from using IT. 

To make this method of traversing a common sight again,  governments and local authorities should invest in cycling-friendly infrastructure. Dedicated bike lanes, secure parking areas, and bike-sharing schemes can make cycling safer and more convenient:  cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen have successfully implemented such measures, encouraging more and more to pedal regularly.

Similarly, engendering public awareness by promoting benefits of cycling: reduced traffic congestion, cost savings, and improved health, can help convince many. Additionally, subsidies or incentives:  tax benefits for purchasing bicycles or discounts for bike-sharing services, could further promote the use of cycles.

In conclusion, cycling losing favors from users can be addressed by augmenting infrastructure, changing perceptions, and offering incentives. By  taking these steps, countries can promote this way of commuting as a viable and attractive means of transportation. 

Cycling is becoming less popular as a primary form of transportation in many nations, despite the fact that it has several advantages, including better health and a smaller environmental effect. Numerous causes contribute to this trend, and there are several strategies to buck it.

Some people believe that bicycles are the good mode of transport while others says it has so many disadvantages . Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people believe that bicycles are the good mode of transport while others says it has so many disadvantages. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Pedaling has been gaining popularity of late as some harbor a belief this is the good mode of commuting, while others differ and list out the detriments of this medium. The following paragraphs shall delve into the matter deeply. 

Due to global warming, many are opting for cycling to fulfill their traveling needs, by virtue of this means being cost-effective, for they do not have to pay out of their nose for the ever becoming costlier fuel, and regular maintenance, unlike when they use automobiles such as cars, scooters, and motorcycles.  Moreover, the medium offers great respite from the inconvenience of meandering/ maneuvering through dense traffic on congested roads as cycles do not require much space to drive.  

Similarly, in the era when environment consciousness has become a growing fad among the populace, many are keen to contribute to this noble endeavor and ride their cycles since these do not emit any harmful chemicals and fumes, helping mitigate air pollution and improve the quality of air. For instance, a study conducted by University of Michigan, found that pedaling aids in alleviating emissions by nearly eighty percent, whereas other modes of transportation spew toxic fumes causing deterioration of the quality of the air. 

In contrast, bicycles tend to pose challenges for riders: they are prone to accidents. In most countries, there are no designated spaces for cyclists which forces them to commute with other vehicles and become vulnerable to mishaps.  For instance, in Europe, due to lack of separate bike lanes about thousands are injured daily. 

To conclude, even though cycling has both merits and demerits, and it is an individual prerogative to pedal, or not, I feel one should ride this nineteenth century innovation for short journeys to enjoy benefits.

Do the advantages of private means of transportation such as cars and motorbikes outweigh the disadvantages of public transport (trains, buses and taxis)? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples from your own experience.

Do the advantages of private means of transportation such as cars and motorbikes outweigh the disadvantages of public transport (trains, buses and taxis)? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples from your own experience.

There is a profound debate raging whether dividends accrued by self-owned vehicles outshine the pitfalls of communal transit. This matter needs a deeper analysis and before arriving a plausible conclusion if this perception is true. 

Personal conveyance affords umpteen benefits: it offers convenience to the populace; one can travel anywhere at any time, they do not have to abide by any schedule, a common feature of mass transit. Similarly, they can start their journey right from the doorstep instead of going to a bus stand or train station. 

Also, this medium is accessible under any weather conditions: rain, snow, scorching heat of the sun, it provides unprecedented comfort. Moreover, they can travel freely without any stress as they and their luggage is secured and safe, and this aids them to complete their journey hassle-free, whereas such ease cannot be extended by the communal commutes, for one has to keep themselves updated about weather since bad weather can also lead to cancellation of services, and the security of baggage is many times a matter of concern.  

Nevertheless, despite having certain drawbacks, using mass transportation can be rewarding: it is a cheap mode and anyone can afford to travel by this means. Additionally, there is little hassle while traveling; one does not have to worry about parking, traffic jams and snarls. Further, it renders ample opportunities to socialize with new people, by exposing oneself to strangers. Above all, mass transit offers effective safeguard against the rampant deterioration of the planet as this method contributes towards alleviating the pollution and preventing deforestation. 

To conclude, undeniably, benefits yielded by shared transport effortlessly eclipse the disadvantages by being environmentally-friendly, and offering within budget and stress free travel. Thus, this notion is misplaced: I feel it is the other way round.  

Many cities are replacing cars with bicycles. What are the reasons for this? Which do you think is better?

Many cities are replacing cars with bicycles. What are the reasons for this? Which do you think is better?

Nowadays, several urban locales have started opting for cycles and proscribing use of cars. This can be attributed to several causes, but when it comes deciding which of the two modes is superior is a fiercely debated issue.  

The  reasons behind this paradigm includes cars becoming a major source of traffic jams and snarls, and accidents.  Similarly,  they are a prominent source of air pollution, leading to more environmental issues. Additionally, these are encroaching pedestrian space in shopping districts, roads and residential areas, causing chaos,  making neighborhoods don an ugly look, and fueling safety concerns among pedestrians. To corroborate this, a survey revealed that 40% of pedestrian space in Toronto is occupied by the four wheelers, resulting in four to five accidents every fortnight. 

Although  cars are known to offer comfortable rides and protection from extreme weather, apart from allowing families to travel together, pedaling is incomparable when it comes to reducing the cost of creating and maintaining infrastructure; these humble two-wheelers do not stipulate an elaborate road infrastructure: less space is needed for riding and parking.  

Moreover, it is the cleanest mode of commuting as it does not produce any emissions, helping alleviate  greenhouse gas discharge, and thus, air pollution. Likewise,  it also promotes physical activity, leading to better health outcomes, and ultimately, resulting in healthcare cost reduction.  To exemplify, the city of Guelph encouraged the use of cycles by providing it for free for forty hours per week to the residents, and this initiative recorded a 40% downfall in issues related to cardio and joints. 

 In hindsight, it can be concluded that cities are more cautious about environment and health. Hence, preferring and promoting the use of bicycles is justified since this 19th century invention can ensure a clean environment, and well being. 

It has become easier and more affordable for people to travel to other countries. Is this positive or negative development? Give your opinion and relevant examples from your experience

It has become easier and more affordable for people to travel to other countries. Is this positive or negative development? Give your opinion and relevant examples from your experience. 

Revolution in air travel has made it possible for everyone to undertake journeys anywhere in the world. Even though some raise concerns about the detrimental impact of this phenomena, I feel this evolution is largely beneficial, and shall elucidate my stand in the following paragraphs.

This trend has empowered common people by allowing them to travel farther than distances than they could in the past, letting them at more destinations to their vacation list, and allowing them to turn their holidays into more exciting. Besides this, they can even go to meet their near and dear ones living in other parts of the world and reunite with them.  For instance, as per popular magazine, ”Travelogue”, over the last three decades, there has been a 40% jump in the numbers choosing to go abroad in order to visit their relatives, sometimes that was out of bounce for them for most part of the previous century.

Similarly, this has also brought educational and economic advantages; one can freely go to any country, and seek better education or well compensated employment to improve their profession profile, and their living standards respectively since within budget fare and lack of restrictions as fuel a sense of security among those seeking greener pastures. 

Nevertheless, the only pitfall that one can enumerate is the indirect effect on the environment. Many fear that in the long run that this might lead to an increase in air pollution because as more and more travel overseas, the number of aircrafts will also increase and cause a spike in air pollution.

To conclude, disputes aside, this evolution is by all means favorable, by virtue of offering opportunities to the global populace to fulfill their requirements in terms of leisure, education, employment and meeting loved ones.

 

In some countries the use of bicycles is decreasing as people prefer other means of transport. Why is this happening? What can be done to encourage the public to use bicycles more?

In some countries the use of bicycles is decreasing as people prefer other means of transport. Why is this happening? What can be done to encourage the public to use bicycles more?

Nowadays, disenchantment  from cycling is becoming a ubiquitous phenomenon, owing to the growing popularity of modern means of commuting. This trend seems to stem from umpteen factors, and there are some plausible steps which could make this medium more common. 

To start with, one of the primary reasons is lack of infrastructure. This is to say, there is a dearth of  designated roads, or guided tracks for pedaling, which not only incites fear of accidents, but also dissuades many from opting for this medium. Moreover, cycles are exorbitantly expensive, making these unaffordable for a majority, especially for those hailing from middle and lower income  groups; consequently, a growing number are abandoning this humble mode. To corroborate, a recent survey revealed that many are disappointed by the rapidly incrementing prices, and hence, causing a disenchantment from these vehicles among them.  

Having said that, a lobby strongly suggests that governments should don the mantle by creating separate lanes for cyclists. This will alleviate the chances of road mishaps, and motivate many to travel using this medium. Additionally, manufacturers should reduce the prices, or offer special discounts, thereby making these affordable for everyone. For example, in Japan, The Hero Automotive has introduced offers for professionals, coaxing  many to buy cycles at lower price, and encouraging them to pedal to fulfill their travelling needs. Moreover, employers could also contribute to creating an interest among their personnel to cycle to work by affording monetary inducements, in the form of bonuses, and other benefits.  

In conclusion, inadequate safety on roads for cyclists and high prices are the chief drivers of this disinterest among commuters,  and the viable ways to promote this mode of transit is reducing the cost of bicycles, and constructing proper roads for their movement.

In the future all cars , buses, and trucks will be driverless. The only people travelling inside these vehicles will be passengers. Do you think the advantages of driverless vehicles outweigh the disadvantages?

In the future all cars , buses, and trucks will be driverless. The only people travelling inside these vehicles will be passengers. Do you think the advantages of driverless vehicles outweigh the disadvantages?

With advancements in technology, it is anticipated that all modes of transportation will be self-driven in future, and humans using all the modes will be merely commuters. However, this development is vulnerable to both pros and cons, stipulating a profound analysis to ascertain whether the former exceeds the latter, or not.  

Those  supporting this upcoming evolution assert that autonomous vehicles will afford myriad benefits - the most imperative being eliminating human error, helping get rid of mishaps; undeniably,  most road accidents stem from mistakes by drivers. Moreover, for those traveling over long distances, it will be a comfortable ride that sans any hazards, they could just have to sit back and enjoy outside views and relax without facing the menace of falling asleep over the driving wheel.

Nevertheless, apprehensions are abounding;  although automatic vehicles extend certain dividends, these also come with certain pitfalls - all modes of commuting becoming free of drivers will engender high probability of unemployment incrementing. Similarly, the conservatives dread surrendering to these advancements. This view can be corroborated by quoting a study which reveals that one cannot rely on machines prone to malfunctioning unannounced. 

Furthermore, resentment is often expressed by scholars from Harvard, Department of Automation, autonomous vehicles are not always the cup of tea for those deriving a sense of enjoyment and adventure while driving their own vehicles, and robot-driven vehicles will take away that pleasure. Leisure drives are still the favorite hobby of a majority condemned to lead hectic lifestyles swamped by robotics, but being taken away from the driving wheel would rob them of their free time.   

Overall, despite controversies and counter arguments, although there are some pitfalls of automated vehicles, there are benefits galore, and easily overwhelm the former since safety enjoys precedence over personal whims and fears.  

Do the advantages of private means of transportation such as cars and motorbikes outweigh the disadvantages of public transport (trains, buses and taxis)? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples from your own experience.

 Do the advantages of private means of transportation such as cars and motorbikes outweigh the disadvantages of public transport (trains, buses and taxis)? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples from your own experience.

Do the benefits of private means exceed the pitfalls of public transport? . 

A benefit of something is a drawback of the other. 

Comparing advantages of both the modes

Own conveyance  - benefits 

• Convenience: 

• one does not need to go anywhere to avail a mode of commuting

• one can start their journey at their own will and as per their convenience, they do not need to rely on a pre-scheduled time table  

• One has all the privacy: they do not need to share space with strangers 

• One does not have to worry about their belongings and luggage 

• One can travel as per their whims and fancies: halt journeys as per their desire 

• Quick mode of transportation 

• One can travel at their pace and not bear the time lost in pre-scheduled stops 

•  Safety 

• Safe for women / elderly and children at any time of the day 

• In current circumstances of pandemic, private mode is the best bet 

• Connectivity and timings 

• An exclusive facility in wee hours 

• No other option when traveling to remote locations where there is no mass commute connectivity 

Public means - advantages 

• Cheap mode: costs a fraction of what one would spend on using their means

• One can travel in a relaxed manner - no need to focus on the roads or brave the traffic jams 

• No hassle about finding parking spots  

• Lesser traffic jams and snarls 

• Less pollution In contemporary times, when people are becoming environmentally conscious: they feel that by using mass commutes they help keep pollution down.  

• A good way to socialize and expose oneself to others 

• The best way to travel over long distances.

Some favor private modes of transportation, for these offer more favors than mass commutes that have numerous drawbacks. This essay shall analyze this matter profoundly, and emanate a plausible conclusion.

Some experts suggest using personal means allows one to start their journey at their own given time, and they do not have to follow fixed schedules, making this way the quickest means of traversing.  Moreover, unprecedented privacy and safety are key takeaways offered by private vehicles: there is no need to worry about sharing space. To corroborate, during covid, personal conveyance became the safest option for most that helped commuters avoid contact with others circumventing the possibility of being inflicted by diseases. Likewise, some studies also show that this mode is the safest for women, children and the elderly. Similarly, carrying the amount of luggage and its safety are no constraints as there is absolute freedom from both the worries.  

However, some uphold the notion that communal transit affords greater rewards as compared to its private counterparts: these are relatively cheaper, one does not have to spend huge amounts in maintenance of the vehicles; and those commuting are much more relaxed as they do not need to focus on roads, or traffic jams. Additionally, one does not need to worry too much about the parking facilities. Moreover, this medium is the need of the hour; it is eco friendly. Traveling by shared cabs, trains, buses can help mitigate traffic snarls, emissions, and eventually, pollution. 

To conclude, although private means of transportations can benefit individuals in umpteen ways, mass means of transit is affordable, and can contribute towards alleviation of environmental problems caused by owned means; thus, I believe it is the other way round.  

Long distance flight consumes the amount of fuel that a car uses for many years and pollutes the air. Some people think that we should discourage non-essential flights, such as tourists travel, rather than limit the use of cars. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 Long distance flight consumes the amount of fuel that a car uses for many years and pollutes the air. Some people think that we should discourage non-essential flights, such as tourists travel, rather than limit the use of cars. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The ubiquity of air travel, especially one covering vast distances, has found itself in the eye of storm, and allegedly cog in the wheel of the environment imbroglio, besides causing wastage of fuel, thereby persuading  environmentalists to curb unnecessary use of this facility, instead of proscribing cars. However, this suggestion lacks foresight, and cannot be considered plausible. 

Advocates of such policy assume that an airborne aircraft tends to burn surfeit propellant, and releases emissions profusely, causing deterioration in the quality of air, so curtailing use of this medium of travelling to distance locales would mitigate pollution by alleviating discharge of effluents and greenhouse gases,  easing the situation greatly. 

Nevertheless, this postulation sounds preposterous; it  lacks  any concrete evidence to substantiate the fears about aircraft operating between distant locations being the primary culprit for the deterioration in the quality of air squandering of invaluable non-renewable resource since most of these jets fly at extremely high altitudes, between 28,000 and 40,000 feet, where they use the propellent frugally, something comparable to a personal four wheeler, so the tall claims and accusations about environmental decay being caused by these  flying machines fall flat. 

Similarly, when it comes to comparing the capacity used by both, while cars can only carry about eight people per trip, modern airliners, like Boeing 777, carry over three hundred passengers, and  that over extremely vast distances, a feat beyond the former. Additionally, none travels unnecessarily, and  tourist activity is a critical economic activity: a behemoth industry generating employment for millions and business  worth billions.       

Therefore, any suggestions made about halting dispensable flying for the good of the planet  should be completely overlooked, and long flight  should continue. The  panacea lies in discovering better and  greener technologies and  not impeding economic activities.    

In the future all cars, buses and trucks will be driverless. The only people travelling inside these vehicles will be passengers. Do you think the advantages of driverless vehicles outweigh the disadvantages?

 In the future all cars, buses and trucks will be driverless. The only people travelling inside these vehicles will be passengers. Do you think the advantages of driverless vehicles outweigh the disadvantages?

Advantages 

• Fewer mishaps due to lack of human errors 

• Violence on roads will decrease

• One can enjoy rides instead of struggling with negotiating traffic snarls 

• Since automated vehicles will drive at constant and  predictable speed, fuel consumption will fall, causing lesser emissions, and thus, pollution. 

• New roads and bridges will not need to be built since machines will not be driving recklessly and causing jams 

Disadvantages   

• Loss of jobs of those who rely on this occupation

• Loss of skills, exposing people to catastrophe if these vehicles fail operate because Of any reason 

• Technical malfunction or hacking could compromise safety 

• The charm of driving, a leisure time for many, will vanish.

With technology slowly infiltrating every work of life and more recently expanding its footprints in the domain of commuting, it is being predicted that it will supersede the role of drivers, but does this possibility carry more promises, or challenges is a matter that needs a profound analysis. 

Intro 2

The proliferation of robotics into transportation has made many to extrapolate that very soon the road of drivers may be superseded by technology, but will this change bring more promises, or challenges , is a matter that needs a profound analysis.

To commence with, automated modes of commuting are likely to afford a major benefit to those currently forced to undertake strenuous task of sitting behind the wheels, and predisposing themselves and others to mishaps, sometimes fatal, resulting  out of an error, or poor judgement; these mediums will be equipped with the state-of-the-art devices and facilities to respond instantly to the dynamic environment on the road, and save precious lives. Concurrently, over 1.2 million road users, and about 2 billion animals and birds, succumb to severe injuries caused by being run over by human driven vehicles every year globally. 

Similarly, this introduction is likely to prove extremely favorable for the environment since self-driven automobiles will not resort to reckless driving, and mindless overtaking and braking, thereby mitigating fuel consumption, and eventually, emissions  and pollution. As per US Transport board, these imprudent driving habits tend to increase the fuel consumption by at least 28%, resulting in heightened air pollution. 

Nevertheless, the only predictable detriment of this change is the loss of jobs  for those who survive by earning by driving, but this proposed predicament will not endure for long as people will switch to alternative occupations. Historically, every innovation has met with the same resentment; nonetheless, displeasure has turned into delight  and new ways have been embraced happily. 

Thus, it can be asserted that autonomous and intelligent vehicles will fetch more rewards and easily outclass any pitfalls: this technology will redefine travelling and ensure safety of mankind and other creatures, besides helping the planet.

Some people believe that public transport should be funded by the government so that it is free for users. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples from your knowledge or experience.

 

Some people believe that public transport should be funded by the government so that it is free for users. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples from your knowledge or experience. 

Why 

1.  It will allow the impoverished / destitute / economically weaker (poor) to travel to their desired destination…. 

1. Enable them get employment  away from their homes

2. Obtain education anywhere 

3. Reduce economic disparities blur the class difference to some extent 

2. It will also attract car owners, who will be inclined to abandon their vehicles and switch to public modes… 

1. Lesser pollution 

2. New roads and bridges will not need to be constructed.. Lesser ecological damage due lesser clearing of trees 

3. *** Lesser fuel import bills 

Why not 

1. It will impose a financial burden on the government. 

1. If no levies are charged from commuters - maintenance  and expansion of  public transport framework would become difficult

2. To arrange money, governments would have to divert funds from other more important initiatives and programs. 

3. Impose higher taxes on people 

2. There is a good chance that this facility might me misused

Should mass transit be afforded without charging access fee universally, is a million dollar question, for it does seem to offer some benefits, but the concerns raised are far more serious, and cannot be disregarded.

To commence with, the enthusiastic support for this suggestion stems from the assumption that this could empower the marginalised by allowing them to fulfill their travelling needs: seeking employment ,or education, in distant locations without needing to pay through their nose, something beyond their means currently. Moreover, many might be tempted to abandon their personal vehicles, and switch to public commutes, thereby mitigating traffic jams, and eventually, air pollution.

Nevertheless, such a move is bound to prove counterproductive and recipe for disaster: the state will have to bear an additional burden of not only sustaining the public transit network, in its current manifestation, but also impede the modernisation process,by virtue of the state bearing operational expenses such as fuel and spares, as well as the staff. Down the line, the system would become unsustainable and  unprofitable.

Similarly, this policy is likely to precipitate misuse, with the majority using buses or trains, and so forth, without any concrete purpose, causing unwarranted wear and tear to the fleet and rolling stock.To corroborate, such an arrangement has been tried and later abandoned across umpteen cities like Sydney, Moscow, and New Delhi,to name a few, wherein it was observed that nearly 75 percent of users, even during peak hours, were casual travellers undertaking journeys just for leisure, forcing authorities to roll back the plan.

In hindsight, this facility should be offered discreetly to those really needing free of charge travel  in mass medium of transportation, to ensure appropriate utilization of public assets and resources, and prevent abuse.

As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs.

 As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Motorists? Why      

• It is them who need this service. They are in the minority and a majority suffers because of them. The traffic snarls and increased carbon footprint are a result of increased number of cars 

• This will have a direct impact on number of cars, such a levy will dissuade people from buying cars 

The state? Why 

• People are paying taxes, especially care owners are being levied sales tax, road tax, pollution tax and so on

• Better roads will encourage people to travel more (and buy more cars) creating economic activity

Some people say that governments should pay for improving road infrastructure to accommodate rising numbers of cars. However, the other section believes that this initiative should be handled by car owners.

Many argue that policy makers should don the mantle of improving and sustaining road infrastructure, feel that since they collect taxes in various forms from citizens such as sales tax,road tax,toll tax and pollution tax, to name a few, they should reciprocate by providing an upgraded roadways system. To corroborate, a survey carried out by the University of Toronto reveals that this demand is deemed justified by a majority of car owners as they bear various levies for maintaining cars; thus, it is their right to anticipate pliable roads, taken care of by the regime. 

However, a school of thought is in favor of making car users responsible for this expenditure. This view is based on the fact that traffic snarls and jams are the outcomes of thickening traffic, majorly due to personal four-wheelers, and these minority road users are the lone cause of inconvenience caused to the majority who either use public commute or other alternatives. Therefore, any investment made to improve the roads should be done by the former.

Similarly, this move is likely to bring an indirect benefit:people will be discouraged from buying cars because no one will be keen to pay extra money. For example, a pivot study carried out in Tokyo produced  favorable outcomes as almost 40% of buyers canceled their orders and opted for other more environmentally friendly options.

Overall, even though both the view points are carrying substance, I feel that it should be the authorities funding expansion an improvement of road framework as four-wheelers owners are already burdened by a plethora of charges.     

Intro 1

The rising traffic density due to cars mandates improvements in road infrastructure, but who should bear the expenditure of this initiative is a matter that invites mixed reactions. Some say that the state should bear it, while others believe that car owners should take this onus.