Some say that due to heavy traffic governments need to build more roads in metropolitan cities, while others argue this isn’t the right solution and may fail to help. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your reasons and examples.

 Some say that due to heavy traffic governments need to build more roads in metropolitan cities, while others argue this isn’t the right solution and may fail to help. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your reasons and examples.

urban 

Why should new roads and bridges be constructed? 

• This will help create a bi-furcation between those traveling within a limited area and those traversing across the city

• This will create more lanes for a variety of vehicles, rendering smooth flow at speed

Why should this proposal not be implemented? 

• The problem stems from every rising populace and poor public transport network and any expansion made in the city pathways will soon be overcrowded by cars and other means   

Might cause more problems. 

• Can prove to be a recipe for disaster since it will cause ecological destruction

• Such addition is likely to create more development around the new roads and cause not only more traffic but also pollution in formerly untouched areas 

Solutions 

• Improving mass transit systems

• Imposing systems like odd-even 

• Not allowing entry of heavy vehicles for some hours into certain busy roads

The debate surrounding ways to find easing congestion on urban roads is the most heated. While some suggest that the state should build more roads, claiming it would be a suitable solution, others believe it would exacerbate the problems. The forthcoming paragraphs shall look into the matter thoroughly and share a plausible conclusion.   

To begin with, a lobby professes that construction of new roads and bridges would help in creating a bi-furcation between those traveling within a limited area and those traversing across cities, ultimately decreasing the density of congestion of automobiles on the current roads. This will create a time saving ecosystem as a massive amount of time is wasted in intensive road jams, different routes for different suitable vehicles will make commuting much faster and also keeps a less chaotic environment. 

Similarly,  this move will help create more lanes for a variety of vehicles, rendering smooth flow at speed, resulting in a healthy driving environment. For instance, the advanced lane system in the city of Mumbai has resulted in fast traveling; motorists have reported saving at least 2 hours everyday that they used to exhaust while reaching their offices in mornings and back home in evenings.  

However, some feel this proposal will only waste money as they believe less roads are not the main reason for traffic jams; the rising population is one of greatest factors affecting road traveling. To add to woes, poor public transport networks force urbanites to opt for their conveyance. Thus, any expansion of pathways will be soon clogged with more vehicles.    

Overall, I believe that building new pathways is a great idea and will go a long way in mitigating the problem of traffic, providing ease of traveling to road users. Therefore, I completely agree with the idea.

.

What other ways can be used to ease the traffic 

Cosmopolitan - urban sprawl tends to include villages also 

Metropolitan - no villages only

Some say that due to heavy traffic governments need to build more roads in metropolitan cities, while others argue this isn’t the right solution and may cause more problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your reasons and examples.

 Some say that due to heavy traffic governments need to build more roads in metropolitan cities, while others argue this isn’t the right solution and may cause more problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your reasons and examples.

What other ways can be used to ease the traffic 

Cosmopolitan - urban sprawl tends to include villages also 

Metropolitan - no villages only urban 

Why should new roads and bridges be constructed? 

• This will help create a bi-furcation between those traveling within a limited area and those traversing across the city

• This will create more lanes for a variety of vehicles, rendering smooth flow at speed

Why should this proposal not be implemented? 

• The problem stems from every rising populace and poor public transport network and any expansion made in the city pathways will soon be overcrowded by cars and other means   

Might cause more problems. 

• Can prove to be a recipe for disaster since it will cause ecological destruction

• Such addition is likely to create more development around the new roads and cause not only more traffic but also pollution in formerly untouched areas 

Solutions 

• Improving mass transit systems

• Imposing systems like odd-even 

• Not allowing entry of heavy vehicles for some hours into certain busy roads

Nowadays, urban traffic congestion is the main area to work upon. To mitigate this challenge, some urban planners profess constructing new roads and flyovers. Nevertheless, the other lobbies are against this notion. The following paragraphs shall delve deeper into this matter.  

To begin with, almost every urban area is suffering due to road congestion induced by heavy jams and poor road planning which consumes a humongous amount of time  while commuting, and in case of emergencies, it is difficult to reach from one to another location quickly. However, constructing new roads and making a better road plan can aid in the situation, resulting in time saving and better travel experiences: this approach will enable creating different lanes according to the class of vehicles shortening the traveling time. 

To corroborate, a pilot project was implemented in London, wherein additional lanes were constructed on the main pathways connecting central city and suburbs. This proved to be a resounding success: this helped speed up the movement of buses and cars, especially during rush and school hours. The users reported saving at least thirty minutes on one-way journeys, thereby alleviating their  stress levels too. 

Nonetheless, some quash the hopes being reflected in the former opinion, and fear that this is likely to precipitate failure and waste of resources  and money. They feel, any new additions in pathways and flyovers would soon be occupied by more automobiles: the problem lies in rising population and poor mass transit systems, abandoning urbanites to be at their own device to travel and they must opt for their own means.      

To conclude, disputes and criticism aside, I completely concur with this proposal, and feel making new roads will prove to be a helpful initiative in resolving the urban traffic imbroglio.  

Some say that due to heavy traffic governments need to build more roads in metropolitan cities, while others argue this isn’t the right solution and may fail to help. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your reasons and examples.

Some say that due to heavy traffic governments need to build more roads in metropolitan cities, while others argue this isn’t the right solution and may fail to help. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your reasons and examples.

The debate surrounding ways to find easing congestion on urban roads is the most heated. While some suggest that the state should build more roads, claiming it would be a suitable solution, others believe it would exacerbate the problems. The forthcoming paragraphs shall look into the matter thoroughly and share a plausible conclusion.   

To begin with, a lobby professes that construction of new roads and bridges would help in creating a bi-furcation between those traveling within a limited area and those traversing across cities, ultimately decreasing the density of congestion of automobiles on the current roads. This will create a time saving ecosystem as a massive amount of time is wasted in intensive road jams, different routes for different suitable vehicles will make commuting much faster and also keeps a less chaotic environment. 

Similarly,  this move will help create more lanes for a variety of vehicles, rendering smooth flow at speed, resulting in a healthy driving environment. For instance, the advanced lane system in the city of Mumbai has resulted in fast traveling; motorists have reported saving at least 2 hours everyday that they used to exhaust while reaching their offices in mornings and back home in evenings.  

However, some feel this proposal will only waste money as they believe less roads are not the main reason for traffic jams; the rising population is one of greatest factors affecting road traveling. To add to woes, poor public transport networks force urbanites to opt for their conveyance. Thus, any expansion of pathways will be soon clogged with more vehicles.    

Overall, I believe that building new pathways is a great idea and will go a long way in mitigating the problem of traffic, providing ease of traveling to road users. Therefore, I completely agree with the idea.

Some say that due to heavy traffic governments need to build more roads in metropolitan cities, while others argue this isn’t the right solution, and might cause more problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your reasons and examples.

Some say that due to heavy traffic governments need to build more roads in metropolitan cities, while others argue this isn’t the right solution, and might cause more problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your reasons and examples.

The significantly rising urban populace across has precipitated a phenomenal increment in congestion on urban roads. To surmount this challenge, some experts suggest establishing more road networks; however, the skepticals feel this cannot resolve the problem, but add to woes.

Expanding the road network in the urbanized areas os being proposed as a viable solution: it would help in alleviating the density of vehicles on individual roadways: the traffic would be diverted to the new roadways. Similarly, the expansion of roads would create more space for cars and other means of transportation. This would enable the authorities to ensure an easy flow of various vehicles.

Having said that, those cynical of this proposal feel that constructing new roadways would prove to be impractical in long run because the way the number of cars, trucks and buses, etc. is rising, the newly constructed passages would soon become clogged and the situation would worsen. Furthermore, the construction of new roadways would attract builders and developers who would either develop new residential, business and industrial complexes in adjoining areas. This would render the exercise of enhancing the roadway networks useless. 

Moreover, constructing new road networks would not only rob cities of valuable land which could instead be used for developing other more vital facilities for the inhabitants of urban locales but also cause an ecological disaster – by large scale felling of trees. Expansion of roadways would also mean allocating more critical financial resources to this exercise, resulting in wasteful public expenditure.

To recap, I feel that expanding road networks is not a panacea: this would instead cause a huge ecological disaster, and an unnecessary wastage of public money.  The need of the hour is to discover sustainable remedies rather than looking for expensive solutions that are provisional in nature.