Question

Many cities suffer from serious air and noise pollution—as well as endless traffic jams—because of too many cars. Some people feel that cities with extensive public transportation systems should ban passenger cars and force people to walk, bike, or use public transportation. Do you think this is a good idea? Why or why not?

Answer 1

@brittanyrolfe

Answer 2

Yeah this is a very good idea. People should prefer public transport instead of their private transport because public transport are more convenient, quicker(somehow), and cheaper and the main plus point here is that they offers green benefits too. If you want to do your bit for the environment, getting public transport and leaving the car at home is one of the most straightforward things to do.

Answer 3

I will give two sides on this.
Point one: This is a good idea. By forcing people to use public transportation or to walk or bike, carbon emissions will be immensely reduced.
Point two: However, the economy would go down (think of it! not buying cars and gas) and... well, the streets would have to be specially all re-designed to accommodate lots and lots of walkers and bikers.

Answer 4

One of the main global challenges societies face today is the question of how to solve traffic congestion in cities and eradicate its negative effects. Among the solutions presented to solve this issue is the banning of private transportation in urban areas and replacing them with other eco-friendly alternatives. Although contested by many, I agree with this theory and believe in many ways that it could act as a precursor for a positive overall city life.

To begin, not using private vehicles to commute in and out of cities can better the environment and put commuters at ease. Replacing plain-looking car parks spread all over the urban areas with trees or playgrounds, for instance, would not only improve the air quality in cities but also their aesthetics. To add, rather than worrying about finding and paying for a parking spot, commuters who take the bus or tram can now benefit from the time saved to do something productive and not worry about being stuck in traffic. This makes it clear that just by using these means of transport, a radical positive change occurs. Thus, the absence of personal vehicles in urban areas fortifies the argument of it being an advantage.

In Addition to this, forcing people to walk or bike inside the city can increase the quality of their health. Workers who have sedentary jobs, in particular, can naturally benefit from regular daily walks which reduces their work-related stress, helps them lose weight and become more physically fit. It can be agreed that these kinds of changes have an obvious impact on the well-being of a person. Hence, the benefits of abandoning the usage of personal vehicles to commute around the city can be seen.

Finally, the abundance of cars in cities is harming its buildings and foundations. The main reason for this is the presence of traffic fumes which are eating through the limestone of cathedrals and the vibrations from the passing traffic which is damaging its structure. It is obvious from this that, by not preserving these elegant and cultural buildings, cities would end up losing their artistic and historical values. As this shows, banning passenger cars from entering cities is an actionable plan.

All in all, the nuisance of the existence of cars in big cities is an ongoing issue that is going to take time and effort to solve. However, governments should work constructively without delay to tackle the problem at hand before it breeds more issues that could force city dwellers to migrate.

Answer 5

I kinda plagiarized but here is the site I got it off of. http://lang-8.com/760376/journals/211204151232633495523558135706116119180

Answer 6

"Entirely" instead? of "kinda?"

Answer 7

Nah I would just take "kinda" out of the whole sentence.