Countries around the world are considering how to decrease the level of high vehicle numbers in many major towns and cities at their busiest time of day using a levy to do so. I believe overall this is a good way of achieving such an aim.
For some years pedestrianised zones in city centres have become a more prominent feature of their central areas as an example, the city of London introduced a car-free zone during the stewardship of Ken Livingstone in the early 2000s, achieving mixed success. Though, some would argue that this is a necessary means to fight pollution and traffic congestion there are others who argue that it is a costly and burdensome penalty on commuters. However, the arguments in favour of traffic-free areas or congestion charges are multitudinous. With the environmental challenges currently facing every nation. Measures to tackle carbon emissions at every (‘all’ as an alternative word) level of society must surely be welcomed
Nonetheless, detractors say that such prohibitive schemes have an unwelcome impact on freedom of movement and the economy. As many people own cars and such moves would make it costly for them to travel to and from work, with many living in suburban areas particularly affected due to the poor quality of public transport networks outside the cities. It may be of benefit to the environment but the economic costs must be considered before reaching a
In conclusion, I would say that measures to reduce traffic congestion in cities are broadly a positive development, yet one must not fail to consider the economic costs for individuals before taking such steps.
Countries around the world are considering how to decrease the level of high vehicle numbers in
many
major towns and
cities
at their busiest time of day using a levy to do
so
. I believe
overall
this is a
good
way of achieving such an aim.
For
some
years
pedestrianised
zones in city
centres
have become a more prominent feature of their central areas as an example, the
city of London
introduced a car-free zone during the stewardship of Ken Livingstone in the early 2000s, achieving mixed success. Though,
some
would argue that this is a necessary means to fight pollution and traffic congestion there are others who argue that it is a costly and burdensome penalty on commuters.
However
, the arguments in
favour
of traffic-free areas or congestion charges are multitudinous. With the environmental challenges
currently
facing every nation. Measures to tackle carbon emissions at every (‘all’ as an alternative word) level of society
must
surely
be
welcomed
Nonetheless, detractors say that such prohibitive schemes have an unwelcome impact on freedom of movement and the economy. As
many
people
own
cars and such
moves
would
make
it costly for them to travel to and from work, with
many
living in suburban areas
particularly
affected
due to the poor quality of public transport networks outside the
cities
. It may be of benefit to the environment
but
the economic costs
must
be considered
before
reaching
a
In conclusion
, I would say that measures to
reduce
traffic congestion in
cities
are
broadly
a
positive
development,
yet
one
must
not fail to consider the economic costs for individuals
before
taking such steps.