how can we reduce traffic congestion essay

Traffic: Why It’s Getting Worse, What Government Can Do

Subscribe to the brookings metro update, anthony downs anthony downs former brookings expert.

January 1, 2004

• 17 min read
• Introduction

The Real Problem

Coping with the mobility problem, the principle of triple convergence, triple convergence and other proposals, how population growth can swamp transportation capacity, low-density settlements, possible improvements.

Rising traffic congestion is an inescapable condition in large and growing metropolitan areas across the world, from Los Angeles to Tokyo, from Cairo to Sao Paolo. Peak-hour traffic congestion is an inherent result of the way modern societies operate. It stems from the widespread desires of people to pursue certain goals that inevitably overload existing roads and transit systems every day. But everyone hates traffic congestion, and it keeps getting worse, in spite of attempted remedies.

Commuters are often frustrated by policymakers’ inability to do anything about the problem, which poses a significant public policy challenge. Although governments may never be able to eliminate road congestion, there are several ways cities and states can move to curb it.

POLICY BRIEF #128

Traffic congestion is not primarily a problem, but rather the solution to our basic mobility problem, which is that too many people want to move at the same times each day. Why? Because efficient operation of both the economy and school systems requires that people work, go to school, and even run errands during about the same hours so they can interact with each other. That basic requirement cannot be altered without crippling our economy and society. The same problem exists in every major metropolitan area in the world.

In the United States, the vast majority of people seeking to move during rush hours use private automotive vehicles, for two reasons. One is that most Americans reside in low-density areas that public transit cannot efficiently serve. The second is that privately owned vehicles are more comfortable, faster, more private, more convenient in trip timing, and more flexible for doing multiple tasks on one trip than almost any form of public transit. As household incomes rise around the world, more and more people shift from slower, less expensive modes of movement to privately owned cars and trucks.

With 87.9 percent of America’s daily commuters using private vehicles, and millions wanting to move at the same times of day, America’s basic problem is that its road system does not have the capacity to handle peak-hour loads without forcing many people to wait in line for that limited road space. Waiting in line is the definition of congestion, and the same condition is found in all growing major metropolitan regions. In fact, traffic congestion is worse in most other countries because American roads are so much better.

Back to top

There are four ways any region can try to cope with the mobility challenge. But three of them are politically impractical or physically and financially impossible in the United States.

Charging peak-hour tolls. Governments can charge people money to enter all the lanes on major commuting roads during peak hours. If tolls were set high enough and collected electronically with “smart cards,” the number of vehicles on each major road during peak hours could be reduced enough so that vehicles could move at high speeds. That would allow more people to travel per lane per hour than under current, heavily congested conditions.

Transportation economists have long been proponents of this tactic, but most Americans reject this solution politically for two reasons. Tolls would favor wealthier or subsidized drivers and harm poor ones, so most Americans would resent them, partly because they believe they would be at a disadvantage.

The second drawback is that people think these tolls would be just another tax, forcing them to pay for something they have already paid for through gasoline taxes. For both these reasons, few politicians in our democracy—and so far, anywhere else in the world—advocate this tactic. Limited road-pricing schemes that have been adopted in Singapore, Norway, and London only affect congestion in crowded downtowns, which is not the kind of congestion on major arteries that most Americans experience.

Greatly expanding road capacity. The second approach would be to build enough road capacity to handle all drivers who want to travel in peak hours at the same time without delays. But this “cure” is totally impractical and prohibitively expensive. Governments would have to widen all major commuting roads by demolishing millions of buildings, cutting down trees, and turning most of every metropolitan region into a giant concrete slab. Those roads would then be grossly underutilized during non-peak hours. There are many occasions when adding more road capacity is a good idea, but no large region can afford to build enough to completely eliminate peak-hour congestion.

Greatly expanding public transit capacity. The third approach would be to expand public transit capacity enough to shift so many people from cars to transit that there would be no more excess demand for roads during peak hours. But in the United States in 2000, only 4.7 percent of all commuters traveled by public transit. (Outside of New York City, only 3.5 percent use transit and 89.3 percent use private vehicles.) A major reason is that most transit commuting is concentrated in a few large, densely settled regions with extensive fixed-rail transit systems. The nine U.S. metropolitan areas with the most daily transit commuters, when taken together, account for 61 percent of all U.S. transit commuting, though they contain only 17 percent of the total population. Within those regions, transit commuters are 17 percent of all commuters, but elsewhere, transit carries only 2.4 percent of all commuters, and less than one percent in many low-density regions.

Even if America’s existing transit capacity were tripled and fully utilized, morning peak-hour transit travel would rise to 11.0 percent of all morning trips. But that would reduce all morning private vehicle trips by only 8.0 percent—certainly progress, but hardly enough to end congestion—and tripling public transit capacity would be extremely costly. There are many good reasons to expand the nation’s public transit systems to aid mobility, but doing so will not notably reduce either existing or future peak-hour traffic congestion.

Living with congestion. This is the sole viable option. The only feasible way to accommodate excess demand for roads during peak periods is to have people wait in line. That means traffic congestion, which is an absolutely essential mechanism for American regions—and most other metropolitan regions throughout the world—to cope with excess demands for road space during peak hours each day.

Although congestion can seem intolerable, the alternatives would be even worse. Peak-hour congestion is the balancing mechanism that makes it possible for Americans to pursue other goals they value, including working or sending their children to school at the same time as their peers, living in low-density settlements, and having a wide choice of places to live and work.

The least understood aspect of peak-hour traffic congestion is the principle of triple convergence, which I discussed in the original version of Stuck in Traffic (Brookings/Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1992). This phenomenon occurs because traffic flows in any region’s overall transportation networks form almost automatically self-adjusting relationships among different routes, times, and modes. For example, a major commuting expressway might be so heavily congested each morning that traffic crawls for at least thirty minutes. If that expressway’s capacity were doubled overnight, the next day’s traffic would flow rapidly because the same number of drivers would have twice as much road space. But soon word would spread that this particular highway was no longer congested. Drivers who had once used that road before and after the peak hour to avoid congestion would shift back into the peak period. Other drivers who had been using alternative routes would shift onto this more convenient expressway. Even some commuters who had been using the subway or trains would start driving on this road during peak periods. Within a short time, this triple convergence onto the expanded road during peak hours would make the road as congested as it was before its expansion.

Experience shows that if a road is part of a larger transportation network within a region, peak-hour congestion cannot be eliminated for long on a congested road by expanding that road’s capacity.

The triple convergence principle does not mean that expanding a congested road’s capacity has no benefits. After expansion, the road can carry more vehicles per hour than before, no matter how congested it is, so more people can travel on it during those more desirable periods. Also, the periods of maximum congestion may be shorter, and congestion on alternative routes may be lower. Those are all benefits, but that road will still experience some period of maximum congestion daily.

Triple convergence affects the practicality of other suggested remedies to traffic congestion. An example is staggered work hours. In theory, if a certain number of workers are able to commute during less crowded parts of the day, that will free up space on formerly congested roads. But once traffic moves faster on those roads during peak hours, that will attract other drivers from other routes, other times, and other modes where conditions have not changed to shift onto the improved roads. Soon the removal of the staggered-working-hour drivers will be fully offset by convergence.

The same thing will happen if more workers become telecommuters and work at home, or if public transit capacity is expanded on off-road routes that parallel a congested expressway. This is why building light rail systems or even new subways rarely reduces peak-hour traffic congestion. In Portland, where the light rail system doubled in size in the 1990s, and in Dallas, where a new light rail system opened, congestion did not decline for long after these systems were up and running. Only road pricing or higher gasoline taxes are exempt from the principle of triple convergence.

A ground transportation system’s equilibria can also be affected by big changes in the region’s population or economic activity. If a region’s population is growing rapidly, as in Southern California or Florida, any expansions of major expressway capacity may soon be swamped by more vehicles generated by the added population. This result is strengthened because America’s vehicle population has been increasing even faster than its human population. From 1980 to 2000, 1.2 more automotive vehicles were added to the vehicle population of the United States for every 1.0 person added to the human population (though this ratio declined to 1 to 1 in the 1990s). The nation’s human population is expected to grow by around 60 million by 2020—possibly adding another 60 million vehicles to our national stock. That is why prospects for reducing peak-hour traffic congestion in the future are dim indeed.

Shifts in economic activity also affect regional congestion. During the internet and telecommunications boom of the late 1990s, congestion in the San Francisco Bay Area intensified immensely. After the economic “bubble” burst in 2000, congestion fell markedly without any major change in population. Thus, severe congestion can be a sign of strong regional prosperity, just as reduced congestion can signal an economic downturn.

The most obvious reason traffic congestion has increased everywhere is population growth. In a wealthy nation, more people means more vehicles. But total vehicle mileage traveled has grown much faster than population. From 1980 to 2000, the total population of the United States rose 24 percent, but total vehicle miles traveled grew 80 percent because of more intensive use of each vehicle. The number of vehicles per 1,000 persons rose 14 percent and the number of miles driven per vehicle rose 24 percent. Even without any population gain in those two decades, miles driven would have risen 47 percent.

One reason people drove their vehicles farther is that a combination of declining real gas prices (corrected for inflation) and more miles per gallon caused the real cost of each mile driven to fall 54 percent from 1980 to 2000. That helped raise the fraction of U.S. households owning cars from 86 percent in 1983 to 92 percent in 1995.

Furthermore, American road building lagged far behind increases in vehicle travel. Urban lane-miles rose by 37 percent versus an 80 percent increase in miles traveled. As a result, the amount of daily traffic that was congested in the 75 areas analyzed in studies by the Texas Transportation Institute went from 16 percent in 1982 to 34 percent in 2001.

Another factor in road congestion is accidents and incidents, which some experts believe cause half of all traffic congestion. From 1980 to 2000, the absolute number of accidents each year has remained amazingly constant, and the annual number of traffic deaths in the United States fell 18 percent, in spite of the great rise in vehicle miles traveled. So accidents could only have caused more congestion because roads were more crowded, and each accident may now cause longer back-ups than before.

Incidents are non-accident causes of delay, such as stalled cars, road repairs, overturned vehicles, and bad weather. No one knows how many incidents occur, but it is a much greater number than accidents. And the number of incidents probably rises along with total driving. So that could have added to greater congestion, and will in the future.

Another crucial factor contributing to traffic congestion is the desire of most Americans to live in low-density settlements. In 1999, the National Association of Homebuilders asked 2,000 randomly-selected households whether they would rather buy a $150,000 townhouse in an urban setting that was close to public transportation, work, and shopping or a larger, detached single-family home in an outlying suburban area, where distances to work, public transportation, and shopping were longer. Eighty-three percent of respondents chose the larger, farther-out suburban home. At the same time, new workplaces have been spreading out in low-density areas in most metropolitan regions.

Past studies, including one published in 1977 by Boris S. Pushkarev and Jeffery M. Zupan, have shown that public transit works best where gross residential densities are above 4,200 persons per square mile; relatively dense housing is clustered close to transit stations or stops; and large numbers of jobs are concentrated in relatively compact business districts.

But in 2000, at least two thirds of all residents of U.S. urbanized areas lived in settlements with densities of under 4,000 persons per square mile. Those densities are too low for public transit to be effective. Hence their residents are compelled to rely on private vehicles for almost all of their travel, including trips during peak hours.

Recognizing this situation, many opponents of “sprawl” call for strong urban growth boundaries to constrain future growth into more compact, higher-density patterns, including greater reinvestment and increased densities in existing neighborhoods. But most residents of those neighborhoods vehemently oppose raising densities, and most American regions already have densities far too low to support much public transit. So this strategy would not reduce future traffic congestion much.

While it’s practically impossible to eliminate congestion, there are several ways to slow its future rate of increase:

Create High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes. Peak-hour road pricing would not be politically feasible if policymakers put tolls on all major commuter lanes, but HOT lanes can increase traveler choices by adding new toll lanes to existing expressways, or converting underused high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to HOT lanes, and leaving present conventional lanes without tolls. True, HOT lanes do not eliminate congestion. But they allow anyone who needs to move fast on any given day to do so, without forcing all low-income drivers off those same roads during peak periods. In some regions, whole networks of HOT lanes could both add to overall capacity and make high-speed choices always available to thousands of people in a hurry.

Respond more rapidly to traffic-blocking accidents and incidents. Removing accidents and incidents from major roads faster by using roving service vehicles run by government-run Traffic Management Centers equipped with television and electronic surveillance of road conditions is an excellent tactic for reducing congestion delays.

Build more roads in growing areas. Opponents of building more roads claim that we cannot build our way out of congestion because more highway capacity will simply attract more travelers. Due to triple convergence, that criticism is true for established roads that are already overcrowded. But the large projected growth of the U.S. population surely means that we will need a lot more road and lane mileage in peripheral areas.

Install ramp-metering. This means letting vehicles enter expressways only gradually. It has improved freeway speed during peak hours in both Seattle and the Twin Cities, and could be much more widely used.

Use Intelligent Transportation System devices to speed traffic flows. These devices include electronic coordination of signal lights on local streets, large variable signs informing drivers of traffic conditions ahead, one-way street patterns, Global Positioning System equipment in cars and trucks, and radio broadcasts of current road conditions. These technologies exist now and can be effective on local streets and arteries and informative on expressways.

Create more HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes. HOV lanes have proven successful in many areas such as Houston. More regions could use HOV lanes effectively if there were more lanes built for that purpose, rather than trying to convert existing ones. Merely converting existing lanes would reduce overall road capacity.

Adopt “parking cash-out” programs. Demonstration programs have shown that if firms offer to pay persons now receiving free employee parking a stipend for shifting to carpooling or transit, significant percentages will do so. That could reduce the number of cars on the road. However, this tactic does not prevent the offsetting consequences of triple convergence.

Restrict very low-density peripheral development. Urban growth boundaries that severely constrain all far-out suburban development will not reduce future congestion much, especially in fast-growing regions. And such boundaries may drive up peripheral housing prices. But requiring at least moderate residential densities—say, 3,500 persons per square mile (4.38 units per net acre)—in new growth areas could greatly reduce peripheral driving, compared to permitting very low densities there, which tend to push growth out ever farther. In 2000, thirty-six urbanized areas had fringe area densities of 3,500 or more. Those thirty-six urbanized areas contained 18.2 percent of all persons living in all 476 U.S. urbanized areas.

Cluster high-density housing around transit stops. Such Transit Oriented Developments (TODs) would permit more residents to commute by walking to transit, thereby decreasing the number of private vehicles on the roads. However, the potential of this tactic is limited. In order to shift a significant percentage of auto commuters to transit, the number of such “transit circles” within each region would have to be very large, the density within each circle would have to be much greater than the average central city density in America’s fifty largest urbanized areas, and the percentage of workers living in the TODs who commuted by transit would have to greatly exceed the 10.5 percent average for central cities in 2000. Even so, developing many of these high-density clusters might make public transit service more feasible to many more parts of large regions.

Give regional transportation authorities more power and resources. Congress has created Metropolitan Planning Organizations to coordinate ground transportation planning over all modes in each region. If these were given more technical assistance and power, more rational systems could be created. Without much more regionally focused planning over land uses as well as transportation, few anti-congestion tactics will work effectively.

Raise gasoline taxes. Raising gas taxes would notably slow the rate of increase of all automotive travel, not just peak-hour commuting. But Congress has refused to consider it because it is politically unpopular and fought by industry lobbyists. Despite Americans’ vocal complaints about congestion, they do not want to pay much to combat it.

Peak-hour traffic congestion in almost all large and growing metropolitan regions around the world is here to stay. In fact, it is almost certain to get worse during at least the next few decades, mainly because of rising populations and wealth. This will be true no matter what public and private policies are adopted to combat congestion.

But this outcome should not be regarded as a mark of social failure or misguided policies. In fact, traffic congestion often results from economic prosperity and other types of success.

Although traffic congestion is inevitable, there are ways to slow the rate at which it intensifies. Several tactics could do that effectively, especially if used in concert, but nothing can eliminate peak-hour traffic congestion from large metropolitan regions here and around the world. Only serious economic recessions—which are hardly desirable—can even forestall an increase.

For the time being, the only relief for traffic-plagued commuters is a comfortable, air-conditioned vehicle with a well-equipped stereo system, a hands-free telephone, and a daily commute with someone they like.

Congestion has become part of commuters’ daily leisure time, and it promises to stay that way.

Related Content

January 19, 2018

Adie Tomer, Joseph W. Kane

January 4, 2018

Adie Tomer, Ranjitha Shivaram

July 20, 2017

Transportation

Brookings Metro

NACo-NLC Conference Center, Washington DC

9:00 am - 10:30 am EDT

The Brookings Institution, Washington DC

2:30 pm - 4:00 pm EDT

The Brookings Institution, Washington D.C.

4:00 pm - 5:00 pm EST

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 03 September 2019

The benefits of public transport

• Mark Buchanan 1  

Nature Physics volume  15 ,  page 876 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

25k Accesses

13 Citations

36 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Complex networks
• Scientific community and society
• Statistical physics, thermodynamics and nonlinear dynamics

Some 55% of the world’s population currently lives in urban areas, and this number is expected to reach 70% by mid-century. This condensation of humanity into compact zones reflects fundamental causal factors. People can achieve more when working together, coordinating their diverse skills and knowledge. Of course, cities also bring efficiencies of energy use, water and food distribution and provision of the myriad other goods people need. They are probably unavoidable in any energy- and information-intensive civilization.

Our future cities, some believe, could be key sources of the ideas and behavioural change required to meet the environmental challenges of the future, especially avoiding catastrophic global warming. They present opportunities to reduce per capita energy consumption. Yet cities also present problems, such as traffic congestion, which wastes time and energy and creates additional CO 2 emissions. Currently, some 20% of all CO 2 emissions come from road traffic, and that may increase, as armies of delivery vehicles and self-driving cars take to the roads in the future.

Over the past two decades, statistical physicists have discovered a variety of structural and dynamic regularities of cities. As organic structures both shaped by and shaping human activities, these sprawling, irregularly shaped zones follow mathematical scaling laws. For cities spanning some five orders of magnitude in size, some quantities, such as the extent of physical infrastructure, scale sub-linearly with size, meaning the relative costs decrease with city size. In contrast, many quantities reflecting human interactions, such as economic activity, scale super-linearly — cities become even more productive with size.

But statistical physics can go further as well, in giving insight into how our cities might be improved, especially by helping to limit traffic congestion and associated fuel use and emissions. Oddly, prevailing ideas in transportation research suggest there’s little to be done. Thinking of three decades holds that the character of traffic flows is largely determined only by the population density. Some economic analyses have even suggested that building more roads doesn’t help, nor does more mass transit. New traffic always emerges to take the place of any free road space.

New research tells a very different story — that public transport is among the most direct ways to reduce congestion, if done in the right way. The key is making sure that the layout of a public transport system makes access to mass transit easy for a high fraction of people in any city.

To get a better picture of what influences traffic, physicists Vincent Verbavatz and Marc Barthelemy set out to build a simple schematic model capturing the simplest elements in the interplay between driving and public transport, while neglecting secondary details ( PLoS ONE 14 , e0219559; 2019 ). Their aim was to derive the basic relationship between two key variables — first, the fraction of people in a city who choose to drive, rather than taking public transport, and second, the fraction of a city’s population living quite close to public transport, and so having easy access to it.

The model requires quite a few assumptions, and setting parameters including the average driving velocity and speed of public transport, as well as the psychological value people put on avoiding one extra hour of sitting in traffic. Yet most of these details turn out not to affect one qualitative result that emerges from the model. If p is the fraction of people living ‘close’ to public transport, P is the population and T is the fraction of people who drive rather than take public transport, the model gives a strikingly simple prediction: T / P = 1 – p . The fraction of people driving should decrease in direct proportion to the fraction of people with easy access to transport.

Verbavatz and Barthelemy were then able to test this prediction using data for 25 large metropolitan areas from Europe, America, Asia and Australia. The figures fall almost exactly on the straight-line prediction, apart from a small scatter. Across these cities, the fraction of people driving to work decreases in direct proportion to the availability of mass transit, as estimated in this case by the fraction of the population living within one kilometre of a transit station.

One might wonder: why did no one discover this before? Probably, Barthelemy told me, because the required data didn’t exist. Making quantitative estimates to test the model required modern data sources including TomTom navigation data and average driving speeds estimated from Google maps. But also, scientists don’t make observations at random. What researchers measure often reflects possibilities raised by theoretical ideas. The new model is the first to suggest this simple pattern as a possibility.

“Before,” he said, “no one had a predictive model. Economists often look for correlations and perform econometric analysis but do not have a model that makes an analytical prediction.”

The result fits perfectly with the intuition that making public transport easier should tend to reduce automobile traffic by drawing people toward public transit alternatives. An older idea that traffic loads in a city are primarily determined by population density, and nothing else, implied that city authorities could only try to bring in more people, and fit them into smaller zones. In contrast, this new work suggests that city authorities have many more options. The parameter p , reflecting ease of access, obviously wraps up a host of real-world factors that influence how hard it is for people to choose public transport. These include not only geographical proximity to transport stations, but also things such as the frequency of service, availability of up-to-date information, and access to local buses and other services able to take people over short distances to public transport stations. All are targets for making p larger.

This is a good example of how surprising insight can come out of combining complex sources of data. It’s Big Data doing good. It’s not going to solve our traffic problems, but at least it points the way to the most intelligent way to reduce traffic congestion: make public transport more effective.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Nature Physics https://www.nature.com/naturephysics

Mark Buchanan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Buchanan .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Buchanan, M. The benefits of public transport. Nat. Phys. 15 , 876 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0656-8

Download citation

Published : 03 September 2019

Issue Date : September 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0656-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Essay Samples
• College Essay
• Writing Tools
• Writing guide

↑ Return to College Essay

Essay on How to Solve Traffic Congestion

In the 21st century, car use and the inevitable congestion continues to grow, with a cost to the environment, business and health. Viewed in simple terms, this can be seen as a result of overpopulation. There are simply too many people in the world, all needing or wanting to get from A to B. But since that issue cannot be easily and quickly solved, we have to look at ways of managing and reducing traffic in the meantime.

A hugely effective way of solving the congestion issue would be to severely limit the use of personal vehicles, either through legislation or persuasion. But this would require government/council with the willingness to take unpopular decisions such as banning car use in cities. Persuasion is generally more effective, though unfortunately only on a limited scale; most motorists are unwilling to reduce their own dependency on the car, and expect someone else to take on the responsibility instead.

Given that most people are motivated primarily by self-interest, rather than the greater good, incentives that will save them money are often more successful. For example, Barcelona now offers motorists free transport for three years if they give up an older, more polluting car and don’t buy another one – a gesture that could save them thousands of pounds in motoring costs. Subsidising public transport also offers an incentive to leave the car at home (or not buy one).

A congestion charge, however, such as in London, only penalises poorer motorists. Wealthy drivers can afford to pay it, and it is hard to shake off the suspicion that the charge was intended as a revenue raiser, rather than an incentive for traffic reduction. If the capital was serious about reducing traffic they would take steps to cut down the number of vehicles. Has the congestion charge reduced traffic?

Promoting working from home would also make a massive difference to traffic. Many jobs could easily be performed remotely as they do not require a physical presence in the office. This would leave roads freer for people who do need to travel to work. Ferrying children to school also adds significantly to weekday traffic, so councils and schools should promote walking to school, and provide bus transport for pupils who live further away.

There are many alternatives to using one’s own car; it is simply that we have long since been accustomed to the freedom of our own vehicle. Car sharing is a very practical way to cut down on commuter traffic. Those who are fortunate enough to live where there is good public transport should use it as much as possible. If you only need a car on occasions, it makes more sense to join a car rental club or hire one. Delivery services locally could be made using pedal power or electric vehicles, and encouraging people to shop locally can reduce a lot of personal journeys.

Good traffic management also plays an essential role in avoiding congestion. Councils and utility companies should work together to try to minimise disruption when carrying out works. Perhaps there is also a role for technology in predicting traffic patterns and changing lights, for example, to facilitate the flow of traffic.

Motorists should be made to understand that we all bear responsibility for reducing traffic and pollution. We should look at our own journeys and decide if they are really necessary. Planning our trips can help us reduce our contribution to traffic. There is really no sense in complaining about sitting in traffic when you are part of it!

Follow Us on Social Media

Get more free essays

Send via email

Most useful resources for students:.

• Free Essays Download
• Writing Tools List
• Proofreading Services
• Universities Rating

Contributors Bio

Find more useful services for students

Free plagiarism check, professional editing, online tutoring, free grammar check.

Traffic Congestion Is a Growing Problem in Many of the World's Major Cities - IELTS Essay

Get your personalised   IELTS Essay Feedback   from a former examiner

Download IELTS eBooks ,   get everything you need to achieve a high band score

Model Essay 1

Traffic congestion is a perennial challenge plaguing metropolises worldwide, primarily driven by urbanization and inadequate infrastructure. This essay posits that the root causes include an over-reliance on personal vehicles and deficient public transportation systems, suggesting enhanced public transit and urban planning as viable remedies.

Urban sprawl and the escalating dependence on cars are primary culprits behind the relentless traffic congestion besieging major cities. As urban areas stretch farther from city centers without corresponding upgrades in road and public transport infrastructure, the result is invariably longer commutes that place an unsustainable burden on roads designed for a bygone era. The allure of personal vehicles, driven by their convenience for door-to-door travel and their status as symbols of personal achievement, further compounds the issue. In cities like Los Angeles and Bangkok, where the public transport system is either underdeveloped or perceived as inconvenient, the roads become chronically clogged, spotlighting the urgent need for a comprehensive reevaluation of urban mobility strategies.

To mitigate this growing concern, a dual strategy is paramount. First, significant investment in public transportation infrastructure is crucial. This encompasses not just the expansion of subway lines and enhancement of bus services, but also the integration of bike-sharing programs to cover the 'last mile' of urban travel. Such measures can provide appealing, efficient alternatives to personal vehicle use. For instance, Singapore's Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system stands as a testament to how well-implemented public transport can effectively ease road congestion by offering a viable and efficient alternative to car usage, encouraging a shift in the public's commuting habits. Secondly, there is a pressing need for urban planning to adapt and embrace 'smart city' principles. This means promoting the development of walkable neighborhoods and mixed-use areas where residents can live, work, and access essential services without the need for lengthy commutes. Implementing such planning strategies can significantly diminish the urban populace's reliance on personal vehicles, steering cities towards a more sustainable, congestion-free future.

In conclusion, the escalation of traffic congestion is a multifaceted issue stemming from over-dependence on personal vehicles and insufficient public transportation. Mitigating this problem requires a comprehensive approach that includes bolstering public transit systems and adopting forward-thinking urban planning.

Model Essay 2

Traffic congestion plagues numerous global metropolises, stemming from a combination of urban migration and inadequate public transportation. This essay posits that the crux of the issue lies in the surge of urban populations and the inefficacy of city infrastructure to accommodate this influx. It further proposes enhanced public transportation and urban planning as viable solutions.

The relentless urban migration, a phenomenon observed globally, intensifies as cities, with their allure of superior job opportunities and living standards, draw individuals from less urbanized areas. This influx results in congested urban landscapes, with cities such as Jakarta and Mexico City serving as quintessential examples where daily traffic standstills are a common spectacle. The root of this congestion often lies in the lagging development of both road networks and public transportation facilities, which fail to scale in accordance with rapid population growth. Consequently, this disparity fosters a dependency on personal vehicles among the populace, significantly worsening traffic conditions. Furthermore, the introduction of ride-sharing apps, while providing temporary relief for commuters, inadvertently contributes to the traffic conundrum by increasing the number of cars on the road.

In addition, the infrastructure of many cities shows a marked inability to support the burgeoning demand placed upon it by increasing numbers of vehicles. This shortfall is primarily due to the lack of comprehensive and efficient public transportation options, compelling residents to rely heavily on personal vehicles for their daily commutes. However, a viable strategy to combat this challenge involves significant investments in expanding public transportation networks. Cities like Singapore and Copenhagen have led by example, demonstrating how the integration of efficient bus services, expansive metro systems, and accessible bike-sharing programs can dramatically reduce congestion. These initiatives not only offer a more sustainable mode of transport but also encourage a shift away from car dependency, thereby easing the strain on urban roadways. Enhanced urban planning, including the development of pedestrian-friendly zones and the promotion of telecommuting, could further alleviate congestion, contributing to a more balanced and less car-dependent urban ecosystem.

In conclusion, urban migration and inadequate infrastructure emerge as principal contributors to the traffic congestion dilemma. Addressing this requires a two-pronged strategy: managing urban populations through strategic planning and bolstering public transportation.

• Task 2 Essays

Related Posts

Environmental Issues Are Important, And Affect People in Many Parts of the World - IELTS Band 9 Essay

Should Government Fund Art And Culture Or Only Science ? IELTS Essay

Many People Are Buying Fewer New Things And More Second-Hand Goods - IELTS Band 9 Essay

IELTS Mentor "IELTS Preparation & Sample Answer"

• Skip to content
• Jump to main navigation and login

Nav view search

• IELTS Sample

IELTS Writing Task 2/ Essay Topics with sample answer.

Ielts essay # 1461 - traffic congestion is a growing problem in many cities, ielts writing task 2/ ielts essay:, traffic congestion is a growing problem in many of the world's major cities., explain some possible reasons for this problem, and suggest some solutions..

• IELTS Essay
• IELTS Writing Task 2
• Problem and Solution Essay

IELTS Materials

• IELTS Bar Graph
• IELTS Line Graph
• IELTS Table Chart
• IELTS Flow Chart
• IELTS Pie Chart
• IELTS Letter Writing
• Academic Reading

Useful Links

• IELTS Secrets
• Band Score Calculator
• Exam Specific Tips
• Useful Websites
• IELTS Preparation Tips
• Academic Reading Tips
• Academic Writing Tips
• GT Writing Tips
• Listening Tips
• Speaking Tips
• IELTS Grammar Review
• IELTS Vocabulary
• IELTS Cue Cards
• IELTS Life Skills
• Letter Types

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Copyright Notice
• HTML Sitemap

• Autonomous Vehicle
• Connected Car
• Marketplace Intelligence
• Smart Mobility

Five ways to reduce traffic congestion

Sitting in traffic congestion is costly, both in time and lost fuel. In our Global Traffic Scorecard, we estimate that congestion results in $81 billion, £9.5 billion, and €3.9 billion spent in lost time and fuel annually across the US, UK and Germany, respectfully, and many billions more when other countries are analyzed. While shocking, that doesn’t even include lost productivity, excess carbon emissions and the physical and life-stress that sitting in traffic jams can generate. While alleviating some of that pain through relieving traffic congestion is beneficial, a myriad of costs need to be taken into account prior to moving forward, along with policy, political and planning considerations.

It’s important to know the sources of congestion as well. The University of Maryland’s CATT Lab breaks down the causes of congestion in 2019 in terms of vehicular hours of delay. The chart above reveals that about one-third of traffic congestion is from “recurring congestion,” a supply-demand imbalance on the roadway that results in almost daily traffic. Think congestion from commuting. Delay at traffic signals represent about one-fifth of congestion, while others, including incidents, weather, and multiple causes are responsible for the remainder.

Making roadway improvements to meet these specific causes is key to maximizing cost-benefit analyses and keeping people and goods moving.

Dealing with traffic congestion usually takes one of three different strategies:

• Congestion relief; • Congestion mitigation; • And congestion avoidance.

Congestion relief strategies aim to reduce the delay drivers and freight movers experience when traveling, reducing travel times. Congestion mitigation programs tend to focus on limiting the growth of traffic congestion, while avoidance strategies attempt to shift drivers to alternative modes of transport. While a specific transportation project may incorporate elements of each strategy, this blog will focus on congestion relief as the main goal.

Strategies:

1. Smart traffic signal timing. Active signal management is a supply- and demand-based strategy that allows DOTs to boost traffic throughput, the number of vehicles passing by a particular point, by making sure the signals better accommodate traffic demand. This increases throughput (and therefore, reduces congestion) by reducing split failures, improving arrival on green, and better managing turn movements. The advantage of smarter signal timing is the large cost-benefit ratio.

2. Smart parking/Curb management. According to our 2017 Parking Pain Report, the average driver in the U.S. spends about 17 hours per year searching for parking, resulting in $72 billion in lost time, excess fuel and carbon emitted. While the direct nexus between parking and congestion is still debated, drivers circling the block add vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to already-congested city streets. Making parking more available and accessible can reduce traffic congestion, but is impracticable and expensive in many instances. In general, there is vast support for the demand-side strategy of making parking “smarter” to increase turnover, however, there is continual debate on the supply-side, namely around whether to add on- and off-street capacity to meet demand. Opponents of adding parking capacity generally argue that it simply brings more cars into a dense, urban environment that is better accessible via other modes of transport.

5. Improve safety and incident response times. Reducing the number of collisions and improving incident clearing times can lessen traffic congestion and is a supply-side approach to cutting congestion – targeting “incident” related congestion noted by CATT Lab. If a collision occurs on a road, oftentimes resulting in the closing of shoulders and/or lanes, it reduces the available supply of road to meet demand. Safety approaches can include road modernization, adjusting speed limits, utilizing incident response teams, and a host of other projects to keep people and goods safely and effectively traversing the road network.

3. Road pricing. HOT lanes, express toll lanes, day of week/time of day pricing, and cordon tolling are all examples of road pricing – a demand-side approach to reducing “recurring” congestion. Simply put, this strategy prices lower value trips off the roadway, promising to reduce travel demand and increasing roadway efficiency. Supporters of congestion pricing generally approve of a “market approach” to this specific public good, while others want to reduce car use specifically. Opponents of pricing strategies often oppose the price itself or oppose pricing roads that were “already paid for.” Additionally, if imposed by a public agency, where spending is allocated may also gain or lose support.

1. Road expansion. Road expansion is a supply-side strategy to reduce traffic congestion by adding lanes to a roadway, modernizing freeway to freeway interchanges, and more. The additional road capacity is meant to accommodate traffic demand and typically targets “recurring” congestion. Road expansion may require additional right of way and are likely costly in dense, urban areas. Much of these costs can be avoided by strategically targeting bottlenecks that have large downstream effects on traffic. Other, cost-benefit friendly and “smarter” projects like hard shoulder running can also be explored. These changes are often welcomed by drivers, but opposed by groups that want to limit sprawl or car use for various reasons (housing density, environment, eminent domain).

While there are positives and negatives to nearly every transportation strategy to improve travel times for drivers, freight movers and emergency response vehicles, these changes must be taken in context to a local area or state’s specific goals, sources of congestion, and budget.

Though the COVID-19 pandemic significantly reduced congestion on U.S. roads for a few years, in many places traffic congestion already meets or exceeds pre-COVID levels while other modes of transport struggle to keep up. Strategically targeting specific areas of congestion can reap short-term and long-term benefits to a region’s population.

• INRIX U.S. National Traffic Volume Synopsis: Issue #1 (March 14-20, 2020) READ MORE
• INRIX U.S. National Traffic Volume Synopsis: Issue #6 (April 18 – 24, 2020) READ MORE
• Banning Cars on 14th Street, No Problem READ MORE
• INRIX U.S. National Traffic Volume Synopsis: Issue #3 (March 28-April 3, 2020) READ MORE

• Writing Correction
• Online Prep Platform
• Online Course
• Speaking Assessment
• Ace The IELTS
• Target Band 7
• Practice Tests Downloads
• IELTS Success Formula
• Essays Band 9 IELTS Writing Task 2 samples – IELTS Band 9 essays
• Essays Band 8 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS essays of Band 8
• Essays Band 7 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS essays of Band 7
• Essays Band 6 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS essays of Band 6
• Essays Band 5 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS essays of Band 5
• Reports Band 9 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS reports of Band 9 (Academic Writing Task 1)
• Reports Band 8 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS reports of Band 8
• Reports Band 7 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS reports of Band 7
• Letters Band 9 IELTS Writing Task 1 – samples of IELTS letters of Band 9
• Letters Band 8 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS letters of Band 8
• Letters Band 7 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS letters of Band 7
• Speaking Samples
• Tests Samples
• 2023, 2024 IELTS questions
• 2022 IELTS questions
• 2021 IELTS questions
• 2020 IELTS questions
• High Scorer’s Advice IELTS high achievers share their secrets
• IELTS Results Competition
• IELTS-Blog App

IELTS Essay Plan – Traffic congestion and possible solutions

• IELTS Essays - plans

A student asked me about the following topic, whether I think it is a situation essay or an argument one.

“The first car appeared on Britain’s road in 1888. By the year 2000 there may be as many as 29 million vehicles on British roads. Alternative forms of transport should be encouraged and international laws introduced to control car ownership and use. What are your views?”

I think this is a situation essay because it is talking about a problem and is looking at a possible solution.

Introduction paragraph

Here you should explain what is the problem, what is it’s reason and it’s consequences. The problem is traffic congestion and a higher number of traffic accidents, the roads are jammed and the environment suffers from increasing amounts of pollution.

First body paragraph – an explanation of the reasons for this situation

The reason is people are accustomed to using their own cars and that population growth combined with higher living standards means that more and more people own cars.

Second body paragraph – a possible solution (alternative transport)

Explain what forms of public transport should be developed more and why the state they are now is not sufficient to convince people use the public transport. How exactly can government develop the public transport and how can it encourage people use it.

Third body paragraph – another possible solution (laws to control cars ownership)

Write about what kind of laws can be introduced world wide to limit the number of cars per family / per company. Write whether or not you think it will work and why.

Conclusion paragraph

Summarize what was said before, do not add new information.

Related posts:

• IELTS essay, topic: Traffic on roads has become a problem in nearly every country in the world (solutions) This is a model response to a Writing Task 2...
• IELTS essay, topic: In many countries a lot of food is wasted (reasons and solutions) This essay topic was seen in a recent IELTS test...
• IELTS essay, topic: Many people do not exercise enough and eat an unhealthy diet (reasons and solutions) This essay topic was seen in a recent IELTS tests...
• IELTS essay, topic: More and more people participate in extreme sports (reasons and solutions) This essay topic was seen in recent IELTS tests in...
• IELTS essay, topic: The majority of former prisoners commit further crime after their release (reasons and solutions) This is a model response to a Writing Task 2...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

How Does Public Transportation Contribute To Reducing Traffic Congestion?

Traffic congestion is a serious problem in cities worldwide, causing delays, wasting time, and harming the environment. While there are various approaches to reduce traffic congestion, one of the most effective and sustainable methods is developing public transportation systems. In this article, we will discuss how public transportation contributes to reducing traffic congestion.

What Is Traffic Congestion?

Reducing car use, more efficient transportation, environmentally friendly, decreasing road congestion, providing alternative transport, reducing peak hour rush, encouraging urbanization.

Before diving into the ways public transportation can help, it’s necessary to understand what traffic congestion is. Traffic congestion happens when the number of vehicles on the road is too high, leading to slow speeds, long travel times, and even traffic jams. It’s a common problem in most big cities worldwide and has become a serious issue over the years.

Benefits Of Public Transportation

One of the most significant advantages of public transportation is that it reduces the number of cars on the road. When more people opt for public transportation like buses and trains, there’s less need for cars. This reduces the demand for parking spaces, reduces the number of cars on the road, and ultimately reduces traffic congestion.

Public transportation runs on a more efficient system, meaning it’s optimized to transport as many people as possible at once. Rather than just one person driving a car, a public transportation vehicle can carry dozens or even hundreds of people at once. This saves time and reduces the number of cars on the road.

Public transportation is more environmentally friendly than personal vehicles. Cars and trucks emit pollutants affecting the quality of air and increasing greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to climate change. Public transportation releases fewer pollutants, making it a cleaner option in terms of environmental impact.

How Public Transportation Can Reduce Traffic Congestion

As previously mentioned, public transportation reduces the number of cars on the road. Fewer cars mean reduced traffic congestion. A single bus can carry up to 50 people, replacing 50 cars on the road. Similarly, a train or tram can transport even more people at once, further reducing traffic congestion.

By providing a reliable, efficient, and comfortable alternative to driving, public transportation systems can offer people an alternative to driving to their destination. By choosing public transport, people can avoid sitting in traffic, finding parking, and dealing with the associated stress, delays, and high fuel costs.

Public transportation can also reduce peak hour rush and congestion. Commuters who opt to take public transportation tend to travel at non-peak hours, avoiding rush hour jams. They enjoy a more comfortable and less crowded commute, while those still stuck in cars face even more traffic congestion issues.

Public transportation can encourage urbanization as it’s easier for people to live closer to cities due to the public transportation systems available. Living closer to cities means shorter commute times, less reliance on cars and the associated problems of finding parking and battling peak hour traffic.

In summary, public transportation is an excellent solution to reducing traffic congestion. With the many benefits and advantages it provides, public transportation systems worldwide create a more effective, efficient and environmentally friendly mode of transport for individuals and communities. Furthermore, by using public transportation, individuals can lessen their impact on traffic congestion, reducing travel times, stress, and the adverse effects on the environment.

Related Articles

Promoting public transportation through marketing and advertising.

The importance of public transportation cannot be overemphasized. In urban areas, it serves as a lifeline for locals who rely on it to navigate the city without the need for…

The Challenges Of Funding Public Transportation Systems

As more people move to cities and urban areas, the need for efficient and reliable public transportation systems becomes increasingly important. Unfortunately, funding for public transit often falls short, leading…

How Do Public Transportation Services Vary In Different Parts Of A City Or Region?

Public transportation is crucial in any city or region. It's a vital service that helps people get from one place to another quickly, cheaply, and efficiently. However, not all public…

How Can Public Transportation Systems Be Made More Resilient To Natural Disasters?

Natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and wildfires can disrupt public transportation systems. These disruptions can leave many people stranded, unable to reach their destinations or access vital supplies.…

The Benefits Of Bus Rapid Transit For Public Transportation Systems

Public transportation systems are a vital part of the urban and suburban landscapes. They offer mobility options to millions of people, reduce road congestion, and help to minimize pollution levels.…

Public Transportation Solutions for Sustainable Development

The global population is increasing at an unprecedented rate, and with this increase comes an alarming rise in urbanization. As more people move towards urban areas, the demand for public…

How Urban Density Affects Public Transportation Usage

Urban areas are becoming more crowded, with people flocking in search of better economic opportunities and increased access to public amenities. This trend poses a number of challenges, including increased…

What Impacts Does Public Transportation Have On Reducing Air Pollution?

Public transportation is an essential part of modern society. It helps people to move conveniently and saves time and effort. But public transportation is not only a convenience for people;…

The Benefits Of Public Transportation For Small Businesses

As a small business owner, it is imperative to consider different factors that can help you save costs, increase your bottom line, and improve the overall operations of your business.…

How Does Public Transportation Provide An Affordable Means Of Transportation For Students?

As a student, having a reliable means of transportation can make a huge difference in our daily lives. From getting to school on time to running errands, transportation is essential.…

What Are The Most Effective Ways To Reduce Overcrowding On Public Transportation Services?

Public transportation services play a vital role in connecting people to their destinations, especially in urban areas. However, overcrowding on public transportation is a common problem that can make commuting…

Just another WordPress site

Home / Publications & Media / How can traffic congestion be reduced in urban areas?

How can traffic congestion be reduced in urban areas?

Smart transport solutions are key to tackling urban traffic congestion.

Congestion is the breakdown in traffic flow, reduction in speed and increase in crowding that occurs when a road’s capacity is exceeded. The challenge of congestion is a perennial issue for cities in New Zealand and around the world, and one that is rapidly worsening.

Economic expansion, increased urbanisation, the rise of ride-hailing services and e-commerce, underinvestment in infrastructure and mixed results from various policies and programs are seen as the primary trends that have exacerbated urban congestion in recent years.

A 2018 report by the AA revealed that the average Auckland commuter lost 85 hours to congestion the previous year and that was just on the motorways, “ It’s only an average figure, so for a lot of people it’s going to be a lot worse – and it doesn’t take into account all the congestion on local roads or the time required to get onto the motorway down the onramps, ” says AA spokesperson Barney Irvine.

Perhaps more telling is the increased urban sprawl. The report found that the distance Aucklanders are travelling is increasing and was up by more than 300 kilometres annually.

“ We’re seeing so much growth on the outskirts of the city away from public transport connections and away from places of work and study. That can only add up to more driving and more congestion, ” Irvine told Newshub .

Auckland’s population is expected to reach two million over the next decade, with around one-and-a-half-million vehicles on the road. The total time spent driving by Aucklanders is predicted to increase by up to 20 per cent.

As for solutions, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says the Government is working on it. “ We do need to provide more options for commuters, they need to be able to have a reliable option to take, for instance, public transport – and there’s been underinvestment in that area, ” says Ardern.

Causes of traffic congestion

The causes of traffic congestion can vary from city to city and country to country. However, there are some common factors that contribute to traffic congestion around the world. These include:

Economic expansion

In an article by Bloomberg , Matthias Sweet, researcher at the McMaster Institute of Transportation and Logistics at McMaster University noted that, despite the obvious inconvenience caused by traffic congestion, there are some positives to be taken in terms of economic expansion.

It is noted that many American cities with the worst congestion also have the largest economies. Congestion is a sign that a lot of people have jobs to go to which can only be a good thing.

Using data from 88 of the most congested metro areas in the US between 1993 and 2008, Sweet found that higher levels of congestion are initially associated with faster economic growth. But, above a certain threshold, congestion starts to become a drag on growth.

Specifically, congestion seems to slow job growth when it gets to be worse than about 35 to 37 hours of delay per commuter per year (or about four-and-a-half minutes extra per one-way trip, relative to free-flowing traffic). A similar threshold exists when the entire road network gets saturated throughout the course of the day.

“ The thresholds make things very complicated, ” Sweet says. “ It means that congestion, in some cities, is more good than bad. And in other cities, it’s more bad than good. “

Demographic changes and urbanisation

We have already talked about the population shift in Auckland with the average Auckland commute increasing by over 300 kilometres a year from 2017 to 2018 but this is not an issue specific to New Zealand.

In the US, the population continues to grow and shift from rural to urban areas. From 2010 to 2030, the US population is expected to increase 15 per cent, from 309 million to 355 million, and the percentage living in urban areas is expected to rise from 81 per cent in 2010 to 89 per cent by 2050.

This could exacerbate an existing trend—a 160 per cent gain in the US urban population since 1980—that has significantly increased vehicle miles travelled (VMT) in cities. Meanwhile, motor vehicles remain the dominant transportation mode.

While these figures may not be representative of cities in New Zealand, the problems are the same throughout the world. In Auckland , around 62 per cent of development over the next 30 years is anticipated to be in existing urban areas. A further 32 per cent is anticipated to occur in future urban areas with only 6 per cent forecasted in rural areas.

Ride hailing

One of the biggest disruptors to transportation worldwide has been the exponential rise in ride-hailing services. Here in New Zealand, while we are starting to see an increase in ride-hailing apps when it comes to choice, we still lag behind many western countries.

Apps like Uber, Ola and Zoomy are three options here in New Zealand, but globally there are several other options to choose from. Lyft is one of the most popular in the US along with Curb. Ola is India’s version of Uber and Didi is China’s. Grab Taxi, Hailo, Line Taxi, Blue Bird and Kakao Taxi are just a few of the other ride-hailing apps that can be found throughout the world.

This increase in ride-hailing apps means that more cars than ever are on the streets, with people often substituting public transport for ride-hailing options. This contributes to the overall congestion on the roads, putting strain on already overloaded infrastructure.

Rise in e-commerce

Internet-based purchasing is on a rapid growth trajectory. Stuff recently reported that Spending online was up more than $1.2 billion last year to a total of $5.8b compared to 2019, according to New Zealand Post’s e-commerce report.

In December, online spending increased $538 million, up 17 per cent on a year before. Even before the Covid-19 pandemic hit, online shopping was up 10 per cent in the first two months of last year, the report says. In the lead up to Christmas 2020, NZ Post delivered more than 200 parcels a minute, or 2.1 million parcels per year.

While it once seemed likely that on-demand delivery would prompt consumers to reduce trips to malls and retail stores, the expected drop in VMT never materialised due to the resulting increase in single-package deliveries (and smaller vehicle loads), failed deliveries which drive repeat visits, and the high return rate of e-commerce orders.

Underinvestment in infrastructure

A well-run transportation network is critical to limiting congestion, but urbanisation has overwhelmed the infrastructure of many cities around the world.

This has been particularly problematic in the United States, where roads, bridges and tunnels already suffer from a lack of upgrades and maintenance. The American Society of Civil Engineers 2017 infrastructure report card graded U.S. systems a D+ overall. A primary reason for this is the backlog of unmet capital investment needed for highways and bridges: about $836 billion, according to a 2015 US Department of Transportation (DOT) report.

Here in New Zealand, we have the same problems. A report by Infometrics of international data shows that New Zealand has been investing in infrastructure at a lower rate than other comparable countries for the last 30 years.

The chart above from Infometrics shows that New Zealand consistently ranks below Australia, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom when it comes to investment in infrastructure.

New Zealand has a way to go before we lift ourselves up in the international rankings. The chart below shows the latest non-dwelling investment figures for a range of countries for 2018. New Zealand lies in the bottom half of the pack, which is a reflection of our longer-term performance. Several countries with a lower GDP per capita regularly spend more on non-dwelling construction, including Chile and Estonia – countries that are hardly recognised as economic powerhouses.

How technology and smart transportation solutions help to solve congestion issues

Tackling congestion issues around the world is not straightforward and there are many factors to consider. It’s important for transport authorities and governments to take both short and long term approaches. Solutions must address both supply and demand and understand the trade-off when implementing short term solutions that are often faster and cheaper versus longer-term solutions relating to public transport systems that require significant investment over long periods of time.

It’s also important to look at multi-modal transport options rather than looking at each transport method in isolation. It’s important to consider how different modes of travel can work together to meet the needs of a city or urban area including public transport, private vehicles and parking requirements.

Technology is set to play an important role in helping to reduce congestion around the world. Innovation in the transportation space is happening at a rapid pace. However, the effects of new technologies are sometimes unproven and often unknown.

Pilot projects allow cities to learn from trial experiments without having to jump straight in with a full capital commitment. Once the value of an approach has been established, it can then be scaled across the broader municipality.

In a recent post in our Market Leadership section, we took a closer look at five smart transport solutions that are helping to create smarter cities throughout the world. Within those five solutions, three have a significant impact on congestion, helping people to better plan their journeys and reducing the number of vehicles in urban areas. Here’s a quick recap:

1.      Adaptive traffic signals

Traditional traffic signals use timers and inductive loops to determine when the light should `change. While this is effective, it doesn’t allow cities to adjust the signal cycle when there are changes in traffic flows, leading to congestion. Instead of relying on this outdated technology, smart cities will use adaptive signals to adjust in real-time the management of traffic systems.

According to a report by the US Department of Transportation, adaptive traffic signals are deployed in less than 1% of existing traffic signals in the US. Comparatively, in South Korea, BlueSignal rolled out their AI-driven traffic prediction solution which incorporates adaptive traffic signals with a host of other data including driving speeds, risks and congestion to help predict traffic conditions for drivers, allowing them to make informed decisions and to adapt quickly.

BlueSignal CEO Jason (Seng Tae) Baik said, “ In the movie Minority Report, the main character arrives at his destination quickly and safely in his desired timeframe by observing traffic conditions via HUD (Head Up Display). I hope that BlueSignal’s prediction and analysis solution can help reduce the social costs of traffic congestion and create a safer and more comfortable driving environment. ”

2.      Parking solutions

Cities around the world are investing in smart parking solutions in a bid to ease the issues associated with finding a parking space and potentially to raise revenue for other, related projects. Singapore, which is aiming to be the world’s first ‘smart nation’, has deployed the use of sensors around the city to accumulate and monitor large amounts of data, which they are using to improve parking, traffic and cleanliness.

In San Francisco, the use of smart ticketing to streamline public transport processes and smart parking, which allows authorities to adjust parking prices in areas based on the number of available spaces, is helping people move more freely throughout the city.

In most cities, the use of sensors to identify empty parking spaces in large, multi-storey car parks is helping to reduce the amount of time people spend looking for an empty space and alerts people to free spaces with the use of warning lights and display boards.

3.      Smart corridors

Sections of roads feature technologies that alert drivers of the upcoming traffic conditions, including any accidents that lie ahead, how long it will take them to reach a particular destination, impending weather events and other obstacles that impact driving. Smart corridors keep motorists “in the know” so that they may plan ahead, which helps to ease traffic.

According to a report by State Tech, states like Wyoming in the US are using V2I (Vehicle to Infrastructure) technologies to help cars and trucks pass congested and hazardous areas safely. They are using V2I technology to send safety-related weather and road alerts to drivers who enrol for the innovative program. With 75 short-range communication devices situated in points of interest, drivers receive traffic information, and officials expect to see a significant lift on the local economy and overall safety among travellers in the area.

The trends that exacerbate congestion show no signs of weakening, and most cities have not yet fully articulated the steps needed to improve. Nonetheless, plenty of tools are available to help reduce congestion, and numerous forward-thinking cities are implementing them in New Zealand and around the world including Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.

A proactive approach to congestion can be taken by shifting the trajectory of mobility and making cities far more liveable, with convenient, clean and cost-effective mobility solutions.

Here at NEC New Zealand, we recently  signed a long-term agreement with Environment Canterbury and the Christchurch City Council  to evolve the current bus network into a smart transportation network. It is initiatives like this that put transportation at the heart of smart growth for a modern city and that help to reduce congestion.

Many of these smart transport solutions are powered by the Internet of Things (IoT) which enables the collection and analysis of huge amounts of data which can then be utilised to improve transportation networks and to implement smart solutions for travellers and pedestrians alike.

Related articles

• 5 examples of smart city transportation solutions
• What are the benefits of intelligent transport systems?
• Why is transportation a key to smart growth?
• How big data can create a smarter transport industry

Let’s Connect

Complete our quick and easy contact form and one of the team will be in touch.

• Sustainability
• Transport Management Solution
• Transportation

Related Case Studies

• How does biometric authentication work?
• Are your fingerprints in the system from birth?

NEED ASSISTANCE?

Contact our experts today.

• Name * First Last
• Phone Number *
• Email address * Enter Email Confirm Email
• Inquiry to * General Inquiries Biometrics Communication and Security Microwave Transport Field Services High Performance Computing
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

 Your information on this contact form is protected by SSL cipher.

Fields marked with ( * ) are required.

• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

• LYT.emergency
• LYT.transit
• LYT in Action
• Our Partners
• Become a Reseller
• Customer Success Stories
• Press Release
• Customer Portal Login
• New Analytics Portal (Invite Only)

7 Tips to Help Cities Reduce Traffic Congestion

• 7 Tips to Help Cities…

Are you a city manager, board member, or just a citizen wondering how your city can reduce traffic congestion? This article will help you consider some ways to reduce traffic congestion in your community.

7 tips on how to reduce traffic congestion in cities

1. revolutionize traffic light management.

Traffic congestion is a severe problem in many cities around the world. It can cause delays and frustration for drivers, and it can also lead to air pollution and increased emissions of greenhouse gases.

One way to help reduce traffic congestion is to revolutionize the way that traffic lights are managed. By using data from sensors and GPS devices, traffic-light management systems can optimize traffic flow, reduce delays and help improve traffic flow.

In addition, by reducing the need for cars to idle at red lights, these systems can also help to save fuel and reduce emissions. Traffic signals managed by computers and AI can also be adjusted in real-time to respond to changes in traffic conditions.

Many cities are using the help of artificial intelligence like the solutions LYT provides when it comes to tactics like transit signal priority and emergency vehicle preemption.

LYT helps with connected networks of traffic signals in a city so they can communicate bi-directionally in real-time. As more cities adopt these technologies, traffic congestion will likely become less of a problem.

2. Restrict parking near busy intersections

Restricting parking near busy intersections is one way to help reduce traffic congestion. By reducing the number of cars on the road, you can also help to reduce pollution and save fuel.

This can be done by charging a higher fee for parking at these locations, or by making it only available for residents. If you live in an area with high traffic congestion, this is one way you can help make a difference.

Parking spaces should be placed strategically to allow for the free flow of traffic. They should also be located near public transportation so that people have the option to take the bus or train instead of driving. This can reduce congestion by taking cars off the road.

 3. Encourage the use of alternative routes

Traffic congestion is a familiar sight in many cities and towns. Cars inch along bumper-to-bumper, often at a snail’s pace.

The resulting delays can be frustrating for motorists and costly for businesses. However, there are steps that cities can take to reduce traffic congestion. One effective measure is to encourage the use of alternate routes.

By providing motorists with information about less crowded roads, cities can encourage drivers to spread out and ease the pressure on congested thoroughfares. In addition, cities can also work to improve public transportation options, making it easier for people to get around without having to rely on their cars.

4. Improve bus service

One way to reduce traffic congestion is to improve bus service and provide more coverage.

This would allow more people to take the bus instead of driving (a.k.a. mode shift), which would reduce the number of cars on the road. It would make public transportation more accessible for those who live in areas that are not currently served by buses.

Another way to reduce traffic congestion is to create a dedicated bus lane for buses. This would give buses priority over other vehicles, which would help to make their trips faster and more efficient.

Reducing congestion on the roads can have a number of positive impacts, including reducing pollution, saving fuel, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Mass transportation is a key part of reducing traffic congestion, and by improving bus service, we can help to make a difference.

Transit priority , bus lanes, and efficient routing are ways to help make traffic and congestion smoother.

5. Construct more park-and-rides

As anyone who has ever been stuck in traffic can attest, congestion is a major problem in many cities.

It wastes time, increases pollution, and can even lead to accidents. There are a number of ways to reduce traffic congestion, and one of them is to construct more park-and-rides.

These special parking areas are located near public transportation, such as bus or train stations. By encouraging people to leave their cars at home and take public transit instead, park-and-rides can help to reduce traffic on the roads.

They can also help to ease parking shortages in busy areas. As more and more people turn to public transportation, park-and-rides will become an increasingly important part of our urban infrastructure.

6. Build a robust light rail network

A light rail network is another mass transit option that can help to reduce traffic congestion. Light rail is a type of train that runs on a dedicated track, often with its own right-of-way separate from other vehicles.

This can make light rail a faster and more efficient option than buses, which can get caught in traffic just like cars.

Light rail vehicles are typically larger than buses, so they can carry more passengers at a time. One of the best congestion mitigation strategies is building a light rail system integrated with the existing mass transit network. This will provide people with more travel options and help to reduce traffic on the roads.

Building a robust light rail network can effectively reduce traffic congestion and promote sustainable transportation options.

7. Promote carpooling and ride-sharing

Smart cities are promoting ride-sharing to help reduce traffic.

Carpooling and ride-sharing are two more sustainable transportation options that can help to reduce traffic congestion. Carpooling is when two or more people share a ride in a single vehicle. This can be done by friends, family, or co-workers who are going to the same general area.

Ride-sharing is similar to carpooling, except that it generally involves strangers using a phone app to request a ride from someone who is headed in the same direction.

Both carpooling and ride-sharing help to reduce the number of vehicles on the road, making it easier for everyone to get where they need to go.

Congestion occurs when there are too many private vehicles trying to use the same roads on peak periods. By promoting carpooling and ride-sharing, we can help to reduce traffic and make our roads more efficient.

Help your city reduce congestion

In conclusion, reducing traffic congestion in our cities is not just a dream; it’s an achievable goal through a combination of innovative strategies and sustainable transportation options. The seven tips outlined in this article provide valuable insights into how cities can take proactive steps to alleviate congestion, improve air quality, and enhance overall quality of life for their residents.

At LYT, we are at the forefront of this transformation. Our cutting-edge solutions, such as transit signal priority and emergency vehicle preemption , are already helping numerous cities create connected networks of traffic signals that communicate in real-time, significantly reducing congestion. By embracing these AI-powered technologies, cities can revolutionize their traffic management systems and pave the way for a smoother, more sustainable future.

So, whether you’re a city manager, a board member, or a concerned citizen, remember that the power to reduce traffic congestion lies within our grasp. By implementing these strategies and adopting advanced technologies like those offered by LYT, we can build cities where traffic flows freely, pollution diminishes, and the quality of life soars. Together, we can drive change and make our cities more vibrant and sustainable places to live. Join us on this journey towards congestion-free, greener, and smarter cities – the future is brighter than ever before! Get a personalized demo today!

Related Posts

• Pingback: Where Can You Find A Crawler Lane On A Motorway in the UK
• Pingback: Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) for Police & Law Enforcement - LYT
• Pingback: Inefficiencies in the Traffic System – The Green Analysis
• Pingback: Unlocking a Stress-Free Departure: How to Beat LAX Traffic – AdamsAirMed
• Pingback: Efficient Road Repair: Your Solution to a Smoother Ride!
• Pingback: Why self-driving cars taking longer to be mainstream than predicted - StePro Tech
• Pingback: What Is Good About Melbourne's Infrastructure? - Glitter and Gold Blog

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

How ride-sharing can improve traffic, save money, and help the environment

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

Traffic is not just a nuisance for drivers: It’s also a public health hazard and bad news for the economy.

Transportation studies put the  annual cost of congestion at $160 billion , which includes 7 billion hours of time lost to sitting in traffic and an extra 3 billion gallons of fuel burned.

One way to improve traffic is through ride-sharing — and a new MIT study suggests that using carpooling options from companies like Uber and Lyft could reduce the number of vehicles on the road by a factor of three without significantly impacting travel time.

Led by Professor Daniela Rus, director of MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), researchers developed an algorithm that found 3,000 four-passenger cars could serve 98 percent of taxi demand in New York City, with an average wait-time of only 2.7 minutes.

“Instead of transporting people one at a time, drivers could transport two to four people at once, resulting in fewer trips, in less time, to make the same amount of money,” says Rus. “A system like this could allow drivers to work shorter shifts, while also creating less traffic, cleaner air, and shorter, less stressful commutes.”

The team also found that 95 percent of demand would be covered by just 2,000 10-person vehicles, compared to the nearly 14,000 taxis that currently operate in New York City.

Using data from 3 million taxi rides, the new algorithm works in real-time to reroute cars based on incoming requests, and can also proactively send idle cars to areas with high demand — a step that speeds up service 20 percent, according to Rus.

“To our knowledge, this is the first time that scientists have been able to experimentally quantify the trade-off between fleet size, capacity, waiting time, travel delay, and operational costs for a range of vehicles, from taxis to vans and shuttles,” says Rus. “What’s more, the system is particularly suited to autonomous cars, since it can continuously reroute vehicles based on real-time requests.”

Rus wrote an article about the work with former CSAIL postdoc Javier Alonso-Mora, Cornell University Assistant Professor Samitha Samaranayake, PhD student Alex Wallar, and MIT Professor Emilio Frazzoli. The article was published in this week’s issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences.

While the concept of carpooling has been around for decades, it’s only in the last two years that services such as Uber and Lyft have leveraged smartphone data in a way that has made ride-sharing a cheap, convenient option. (In 2015, Lyft reported that half of its San Francisco trips are carpools .)

However, existing approaches are still limited in their complexity. For example, some ride-sharing systems require that user B be on the way for user A, and need to have all the requests submitted before they can create a route.

In contrast, the new system allows requests to be rematched to different vehicles. It can also analyze a range of different types of vehicles to determine, say, where or when a 10-person van would be of the greatest benefit.

The system works by first creating a graph of all of the requests and all of the vehicles. It then creates a second graph of all possible trip combinations, and uses a method called “integer linear programming” to compute the best assignment of vehicles to trips.

After cars are assigned, the algorithm can then rebalance the remaining idle vehicles by sending them to higher-demand areas.

“A key challenge was to develop a real-time solution that considers the thousands of vehicles and requests at once,” says Rus. “We can do this in our method because that first step enables us to understand and abstract the road network at a fine level of detail.”     

The final product is what Rus calls an “anytime optimal algorithm,” which means that it gets better the more times you run it — and she says she’s eager to see how much it can improve with further refinement.

“Ride-sharing services have enormous potential for positive societal impact with respect to congestion, pollution, and energy consumption,” Rus says. “It’s important that we as researchers do everything we can to explore ways to make these transportation systems as efficient and reliable as possible.”

Share this news article on:

Press mentions, mercury news.

CSAIL researchers have found that ride-sharing services could reduce the number of cars on the road by 75 percent, reports Marisa Kendall for The Mercury News . The researchers developed an algorithm that can increase service speeds by 20 percent by rerouting cars to “their most efficient routes, including automatically sending idle cars to areas of high demand.”

Boston Globe

A new study by MIT researchers provides evidence that if more people in New York City were willing to carpool, the city would only need 3,000 taxis, reports Hiawatha Bray for The Boston Globe . With carpooling, “we have fewer vehicles, we have less pollution and we have a better travel situation for everyone,” explains Prof. Daniela Rus. 

A new study conducted by MIT researchers shows that ride-sharing services could reduce the number of cars on the road in New York City by 75 percent, according to the BBC News. The researchers found that “a fleet of 3,000 four-passenger taxis could do the same job as the current fleet of 13,000 yellow cabs in New York City.”

Financial Times

CSAIL researchers have found that ride-sharing taxis controlled by a citywide computer system could decrease the number of cars on the road in New York City, reports Clive Cookson for the Financial Times . The researchers found that “3,000 four-passenger cars could satisfy 98 per cent of the city’s demand.”

CNN reporter Matt McFarland writes about a new MIT study that finds ridesharing would allow the number of taxi cabs in Manhattan to be reduced by 78 percent, cutting congestion and pollution in the city. The study showed that “only 3,000 four-person sedans are needed to serve 98% of ride demands in Manhattan.”

The Washington Post

Washington Post reporter Faiz Siddiqui writes that MIT researchers have found that 3,000 four-person cars could serve 98 percent of New York City’s taxi demand. “Fewer cars on roads means improved quality of life for everyone, it means better traffic, it means lower pollution, it’s a better transportation experience,” explains Prof. Daniela Rus. 

Previous item Next item

Related Links

• Paper: "On-demand high-capacity ride-sharing via dynamic trip-vehicle assignment"
• Daniela Rus
• Javier Alonso-Mora
• Emilio Frazzoli
• Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
• Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science

Related Topics

• Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL)
• Transportation
• Artificial intelligence
• Autonomous vehicles
• Urban studies and planning
• Electrical Engineering & Computer Science (eecs)
• Sustainability

Related Articles

A future of shared mobility

Inferring urban travel patterns from cellphone data

Making cities smarter

Startup bringing driverless taxi service to Singapore

More mit news.

Ultrasound offers a new way to perform deep brain stimulation

Read full story →

Helping robots grasp the unpredictable

“Rosetta Stone” of cell signaling could expedite precision cancer medicine

A technique for more effective multipurpose robots

MIT Corporation elects 10 term members, two life members

Diane Hoskins ’79: How going off-track can lead new SA+P graduates to become integrators of ideas

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

This website uses cookies.

You need to be logged in to view this member page.

Please log in  or sign up .

share this!

April 25, 2022

The most effective ways to reduce car traffic

by Lund University

Researchers at Lund University in Sweden have identified the top 12 ways European cities have been able to curb car use and published their results in Case Studies on Transport Policy . The most effective measure was applying a congestion charge, with the notable case of London, where city traffic dropped by 33% following the change. Most success stories involved both "carrots" to encourage sustainable mobility and "sticks" to restrict cars, according to the study.

"Transport is a major source of climate pollution in Europe, and these emissions aren't really declining. Current policies heavily subsidize private car use and parking, hiding the true costs of driving for society. The newly launched EU Mission aims to have 100 climate-neutral cities in Europe by 2030. This will be nearly impossible to achieve without reducing car traffic. To make progress, we need to know the most effective ways to free cities from excessive dominance by cars," says Kimberly Nicholas, researcher at Lund University.

The study quantifies how well 12 measures reduce car use, drawing from real-world experience in cities across Europe. Nicholas and Paula Kuss screened nearly 800 peer-reviewed studies and case studies to uncover those dozen measures.

"We didn't find one silver bullet—the cities that were successful combined a few different policy instruments, especially charging for or restricting driving and parking, combined with investing in public and active transport infrastructure like bike lanes," says Kimberly Nicholas.

Especially effective measures included a congestion charge , which cities including London, Milan, Stockholm, and Gothenburg have used to reduce traffic across the whole city center by 12–33%. Oslo's replacement of parking spaces with strollable car-free streets and bike lanes , and Rome's restriction on cars entering the city center, with violation fines used to finance public transport, both reduced car traffic around 10–20%. The measures are described in more detail in a feature article in The Conversation .

About 75% of initiatives were led by local city governments, often in collaboration with local companies or local public transport providers and civil society.

Collaborations between cities, employers and universities could also play an important role in reducing traffic. Utrecht reduced the share of commuters traveling by car by 37% by providing mobility services including free public transit pass for employees and workplace shuttle buses. Bristol in the UK and Catania in Italy both reduced car commutes to the university by 24–27% with travel planning for staff to use car-sharing, walking, biking, or public transport, or mobility services to provide free public transport for students respectively.

"Our results show that there are already European cities succeeding at reducing car use and improving quality of life and sustainable mobility for residents. With this analysis, we hope other cities can learn from and implement these successes," concludes Kimberly Nicholas.

Provided by Lund University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Craft unfurls China's flag on the far side of the moon and lifts off with lunar rocks to bring home

4 hours ago

Informal water contracts could provide quicker, cheaper ways to reduce impact of droughts

5 hours ago

Three boys found a T. rex fossil in North Dakota. Now a Denver museum works to fully reveal it

New 3D-printed microscale photonic lantern opens opportunities for spatial mode multiplexing

10 hours ago

New catalyst brings commercial high-efficiency zinc-air batteries closer to reality

16 hours ago

Scientists call for conservation of Amazon's unseen water cycle

Study shows electric vehicles can have positive impact on air quality and public health in some cities, but not all

Study reveals reversible assembly of platinum catalyst

Study finds industrial air pollution contributes to New Mexico's low birthweight

17 hours ago

Shape and depth of ocean floor profoundly influence how carbon is stored there, study shows

Relevant physicsforums posts, jacchia atmospheric model.

12 hours ago

Is it possible to transform an electric thunderstorm into an EMP storm?

14 hours ago

Iceland warming up again - quakes swarming

Mount ibu, indonesia erupts.

May 29, 2024

Adirondack Mountains and earthquakes

May 23, 2024

The Secrets of Prof. Verschure's Rosetta Stones

More from Earth Sciences

Related Stories

If we all choose the fastest mode of travel in a city, the whole city gets slower, and more congested

Nov 29, 2021

What's the best way to parallel park your car? Engineers have the answer

Mar 25, 2022

Cities 'must become car-free to survive'

Jun 23, 2021

Cycle lanes blamed for urban congestion: Here's the reality

Dec 9, 2021

Would you ditch your car if public transport were free? Here's what researchers have found

Mar 6, 2020

How micromobility affects the climate

Jan 3, 2022

Recommended for you

Arctic melting heavily influenced by 'atmospheric blocking,' find scientists

23 hours ago

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Congestion Pricing Ignites an Old Rift: Drivers vs. Transit Riders

As New York City prepares to roll out its tolling program on June 30, the divide between those who love their cars and those who embrace their subway lines has only grown.

By Bernard Mokam

In 2010, Filolaos Kefalas, an electrical engineer, drove a black Corvette into Manhattan for his first date with Lisa Daglian, a transit advocate. She was not impressed.

“You know you can take the train,” Ms. Daglian, 61, recalled saying.

To this day, the couple continues to quibble over Mr. Kefalas’s car use. But Mr. Kefalas has his reasons for driving, he said. He works in Bayside, Queens, which has limited transit options, and he enjoys driving.

“Time is money,” Mr. Kefalas, also 61, said. “I try to go the quickest way possible.”

The rift between Ms. Daglian, who now leads the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and Mr. Kefalas did not derail their romance — they are married. But it is an example of the perennial debate between two entrenched groups of New Yorkers: car users, many from outside Manhattan and some with deeply personal ties to driving, and transit loyalists, who believe mass transit is not only the cheapest and fastest travel option but also a moral choice.

The divide has grown recently as the city prepares for the introduction of a congestion pricing program that is the first of its kind in the United States. The program, which is scheduled to start on June 30, seeks to ease traffic and raise money for the authority — the state agency that operates the city’s transit system — by charging most motorists $15 to enter Manhattan below 60th Street.

Transit leaders have said they hope congestion pricing, which has been successfully introduced in major European and Asian cities, convinces some commuters who drive to switch to public transportation. The tolling program is expected to reduce traffic in Manhattan’s core by about 17 percent, or about 120,000 vehicles a day.

Some 1.87 million New York City residents commute to work by public transit, and roughly 1.06 million drive alone or in a car pool, the latest census data shows. More than 700,000 vehicles from across the region enter the planned congestion pricing zone on an average weekday, the authority has estimated.

From its limited parking and numerous tolls to the gridlocked traffic that lasts most of the day, the city is a notoriously hard place for motorists.

But some people who live outside Manhattan do not consider mass transit a viable option because they live at the system’s fringes. Many of them defiantly say they will continue to drive into the city’s core despite the new toll.

Helen Keier, an administrator for online learning at John Jay College, said she believed she had no choice but to drive to work. She lives in the Locust Point neighborhood of the Bronx and commutes to her office on 59th Street in Manhattan several times a week.

“For me to even get to the subway, it’s a 20-30-minute bus ride to the 6,” Ms. Keier, 57, said.

Ms. Keier, hobbled by severe osteoarthritis, struggles to navigate subway stations. The M.T.A. is working to make the subway fully accessible, but only about 32 percent of the system currently is, the authority said.

Exemptions for drivers with disabilities will be available under the congestion pricing program. Ms. Keier said she planned to apply for one and keep driving.

Although he drives regularly into what will soon be the congestion pricing zone, Julius Johnson, a home care nurse practitioner from Brooklyn, is also not interested in tossing his car keys.

“Driving in New York is a status symbol for someone who grows up in low-income neighborhoods because you don’t have to rely on the train,” said Mr. Johnson, 40, who also teaches in New York University’s nursing program, which is in the toll zone.

Citywide, households with a car have an average income of $110,000 compared to $87,000 for transit users, said Replica, a transportation data and analytics firm.

Mr. Johnson bought his first car in 2005, a cream-colored Ford Explorer. He had recently graduated from nursing school but only felt that he had made it when he got behind the wheel of his new car.

He said that as a health care worker, he could appreciate the possible improvement in air quality that congestion pricing could yield. But he does not want to pay the added cost to drive.

Driving has “been amended into the American dream,” said Sarah Kaufman, the director of the Rudin Center for Transportation at New York University. “Car ownership, homeownership and driving around so that you can have control of your domain, regardless of the negative externalities you may be causing,” are all part of achieving status, she said.

There are eight lawsuits pending in New Jersey and New York filed against congestion pricing. The program has angered critics, including the governor of New Jersey , a trucking association and some residents of Battery Park City in Lower Manhattan.

Proponents say congestion pricing will alleviate some of the worst traffic in the country, improve air quality and provide a lifeline to the city’s public transportation network. The M.T.A. is expected to collect about $1 billion a year in tolls, which will be used to secure $15 billion in bond financing to help pay for much-needed improvements to the city’s subway, bus and commuter rail systems.

The nearly 120-year-old subway system is among the city’s defining features. The vast, 472-station network was a moonshot of civic engineering that wove five boroughs together into the modern city.

“The bottom line is: no subway, no New York,” said Rachel Weinberger, the director of research strategy at the Regional Plan Association, a nonprofit advocacy organization.

Ms. Weinberger said that congestion pricing would help pay for crucial repairs to mass transit. But, she added, it could also make driving more pleasant.

Motorists like to complain, but congestion pricing will open up the roads, Ms. Weinberger said. “Transit is absolutely a huge benefit to car drivers,” she said.

From December to March, the transportation authority held an open comment period to gather the public’s opinions about congestion pricing. Most of the more than 25,000 comments were in support, according to the M.T.A.

“The great news for transit users is that funding from congestion pricing directly benefits them,” John J. McCarthy, the authority’s chief of policy and external relations, said. “There will be new subway cars, electric buses, more accessible stations, more reliability from modern signaling on lines like the C train in Brooklyn.”

For many New Yorkers, using transit is often a matter of choosing the least expensive, most available option for getting around.

For those who cannot afford to drive, turning to the subway is often a case of economic necessity, said Nicholas J. Klein, an assistant professor in Cornell University’s city and regional planning department.

But there are New Yorkers, he added, who identify with the transit system, and take pride in their specific train, bus or ferry. For others, transit represents an environmentally conscious choice.

Sproule Love, an executive for a company that operates independent and assisted-living communities, is among those with a soft spot for the subway even though he owns a car.

Leaving a friend’s apartment in Lower Manhattan late one night in 2000, Mr. Love, 52, could not find a cab home and decided to take the subway. Waiting on the platform, he said he realized that it was the only time he had “experienced a New York where no one has their guard up.”

“Everyone is so tired and resigned to waiting 40 minutes for an F train,” he added.

Mr. Love, who lives in Harlem, is a vocal supporter of congestion pricing. Though learning to drive a car is a life skill, he said, using one to commute into one of the biggest cities in North America is absurd.

Many critics of mass transit highlight what they perceive as the risk of crime in the subway, while many transit supporters say that driving presents the greater risk.

“I feel much safer in mass transit,” said Emily Rose Prats, a 36-year-old from Crown Heights in Brooklyn. A 2022 New York Times analysis of M.T.A. and police statistics showed that the possibility of being the victim of violent crime in the subway was relatively remote .

Although she is a proponent of congestion pricing, Ms. Daglian, the transit advocate, recognizes why people like her husband, who work or live in areas with limited access to public transportation, use their cars.

“I understand why people drive,” she said. But it does not mean she likes it, even close to home.

“The conflict hasn’t ended,” she said. “We still have pointed conversations.”

Essay on Traffic Jam for Students and Children

500+ words essay on traffic jam.

Traffic jam is the situation when vehicles are stopped completely for some time period on the roads. Also, vehicles have to wait for a long time to move out of the jam. Sometimes it becomes like congestion in traffic. This happens in transport network due to the increasing vehicles and overuse of roads. Often it is due to slow speed, longer trip time and increased queues of vehicles. Therefore, traffic jam is becoming a major issue mostly in all cities.

Problems arising due to Traffic Jam

Traffic Jam has a tremendous impact on the life of people. It is one of the most serious problems in big cities that people have to deal in daily life. Since most of the people have to deal with it on a daily basis they may get psychologically affected. It also negatively affects work, education and personal life of people and finally to the progress of the country.

Let us discuss some major problems that arise due to high traffic:

• Traffic is one of the major problems in cities and has made the lives of people really difficult. Obviously, it results in non-productive activity.
• People experience delays for their important work. This may even result in personal as well as professional losses.
• It is also the main cause of wastage of fuels and air pollution.
• It increases stress and frustration among motorists and passengers.
• Unsafe driving is the main impact of traffic jam which may lead to road mishaps and hence injuries.
• Traffic jams can also have a negative impact on the mind of a person. The traffic congestion and constant blowing of horns create excessive noise pollution.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Disadvantages of Traffic Jam:

Let us have a look at some chief disadvantages of traffic jams in detail below:

• Unproductive time is the major disadvantage of traffic jam.
• The other negative effect of much traffic is the emission of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leading to the issue of global warming .
• Businesses nowadays provide home delivery services. Such time bond businesses are strongly affected by the traffic jam.
• The frequent breaking and accelerating the vehicles in traffic jams burns more fuel. Hence it is the additional loss.
• Road rage is the absurd reaction of commuters that is very common during traffic jams. People often use bad language and drive aggressively that can lead to accidents.
• Emergency vehicles like fire brigade and ambulance get stuck up in traffic jams that cause a delay in reaching the location.

Suggestions:

Some suggestions to solve the traffic jam problem are as follows:

• People should use public transport as much as possible.
• The government must increase the facilities of public transport as per the need of the population.
• Everyone should avoid the unnecessary collection of vehicles.
• People should use carpool and vehicle sharing to decrease the vehicles on the road.
• Conditions of the road in India is not good. Authorities must improve this situation.
• Vehicle registration and motor driving license policy must be strictly implemented.
• People must be aware of traffic rules and also be motivated to follow strictly.
• Mixed traffic on the roads is also a big reason for it. So, it must be banned.

Conclusion:

Thus, traffic jam is a serious issue in every big city that causes several problems for common people. It consumes so much of time and energy unnecessarily and hence the loss of the nation. Therefore, serious measures have to be taken by the authorities to control traffic and promote the use of public transport. Development of public transport network at economical rates is essential. Implementation of traffic safety rules by traffic police is a must. People should drive more sensibly and responsibly. Hence we all can work in this way to solve the big threat of the current time.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

IELTS Preparation with Liz: Free IELTS Tips and Lessons, 2024

• Test Information FAQ
• Band Scores
• IELTS Candidate Success Tips
• Computer IELTS: Pros & Cons
• How to Prepare
• Useful Links & Resources
• Recommended Books
• Writing Task 1
• Writing Task 2
• Speaking Part 1 Topics
• Speaking Part 2 Topics
• Speaking Part 3 Topics
• 100 Essay Questions
• On The Day Tips
• Top Results
• Advanced IELTS

Solving Traffic and Pollution Problems: Essay Ideas

Below are some ideas for the following IELTS writing task 2 essay question.

Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? What other measures do you think might be effective?

There are two questions to answer:

• Do you think increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems?
• What other measures do you think might be effective to solve traffic and pollution problems?

Increasing the price of petrol:

• if the price is increased, less people will be able to afford it
• if less people can afford petrol, less people will drive cars
• if less people drive cars, there will be less congestion on the roads
• if less people drive, there will be less air pollution

Other ways to solve traffic and pollution problems:

• traffic problems can be solved by improving public transport to encourage more people to use it rather than to use their own cars
• public transport can be improved by having more public transport available, making it more punctual and reducing the price of tickets to make it more affordable to the average person
• another measure is to have no traffic zones in city centers which will  reduce both congestion and pollution in urban centers.

Get my free lessons by email

Subscribe for free to get my new IELTS lessons sent to your email inbox.

Email Address

Hi Liz. I have a question, please , if possible, instruct me the best way to do it. So, in some essay has two questions. To be specific, in the agree and disagree essay I don’t know how I should approach. Like this: To what extent do you agree or disagree, and next question in the same essay : ‘What other measures do you think might be effective’. Please, enlight me if I construct the essey: introduction, the first paragraph- the first side(which I don’t agree, the second- which I agree, third paragraph-solution? Or the first-my side, senond-solutions?

You are over thinking. Try to take a very simple, logical approach. IELTS is testing you on logical organisation. One body paragraphs contains your opinion (whatever it is) and the other body paragraph contains the solutions. Simple, clear, logical = high band score for Coherence & Cohesion.

Is it okay to use “this essay will discuss/ this essay discussed?? I’ve seen many teachers teach this . Thank you!

If the instructions ask for your opinion, the words “this essay will” does not express your opinion.

Dear ma’am , How can i improve my sentense formation ………. My teacher said that ” mostly, i make incorrect sentense ” please give the instruction to make correct sentense ………. Thankyou…

You need an English language teacher and an English language website. This website is for IELTS skills. Start developing your English first.

Hi Liz, this topic popped up on 25 Mar IELTS in Australia.

Yes, sometimes the topics and questions can re-appear in the test 🙂

hai liz please suggest what type of essay is the below mentioned one.

Some companies have uniform for their staffs which must be worn at all times

What are the advantages for a company of having a uniform?

Are there any benefits of having a uniform for the staff ? tnq kalaivanan

This is Direct Question Essay. You have two questions to answer.

hi Liz, i’m not clear about what type of question is this?is it opinion essay,cause/solution or direct question essay????

It is a mixed type. It contains an opinion with solutions.

Please have a look at this one. Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree. What other measures do you think might be effective.

Growing traffic is considered to be a major issue to the world. More cars are hitting the road day by day, which lead to serious pollution problems. In order to tackle this ongoing issue, countries decide to increase the price of petrol, as they think it is the most convenient approach and use some alternatives to petrol like wind and solar power that might be effective. I personally feel that increasing petrol price is not necessary to cut down pollution problems.

To begin with, we can classify people into three categories based on their income such as low income, middle income and rich. When the country increases the petrol price, the first two of these categories will be affected. With regards to low paid people, they suffer from paying petrol’s normal price, but when it is increased, they will not be able to afford it. It is likely to be the same with middle-income people, the money they get is only sufficient for their hand and mouth, so they spend their money consciously. Most of their money goes for household appliances, children education, electricity, and petrol. When petrol price increases, they will suffer a lot and think twice before paying for petrol. On the other hand, this will not majorly affect rich people, as they can afford petrol because of their extra allowances.

However, the country should encourage people to reduce the usage of cars by advertising the consequences of the traffic congestion on the society. Having said that, carpooling is another environmentally friendly solution, as it reduces the carbon footprint of each individual by going to work in groups. In addition to that, we as individuals play a major role in this process. We should be aware of keeping our body fit by cycling or walking instead of using cars for short distances. This will help us to be physically active and healthy, as well as reduce the consumption of petrol. Furthermore, Government could also reserve separate lanes for carpoolers, bicyclers and pedestrians so that they can reach their destination faster which will encourage other people to follow them.

To conclude, traffic is one of the main causes of pollution as it produces harmful gasses and we should be aware of this catastrophic problem. The Government should raise awareness among people on limiting the usage of petrol and use public transportation to keep our atmosphere safe and clean. In this regard, I feel that the government should focus on educating the people instead of increasing the price of petrol. Government and people are the two sides of a coin, so not only the Government always plays a role in saving our earth, but also we should work along with the Government in order to restrict the pollution problem due to the large consumption of petrol.

I don’t usually comment. However, I will say that your conclusion should be either one or two sentences long – no more.

It is believed that the most effective solution to rapidly increasing traffic and pollution problems is to make petrol expensive. In my opinion, I agree that, by doing so, it will help to bring down the traffic congestion but there are also other ways to curb the exploding traffic and pollution menace.

Hi Liz How can I write a thesis statement for a cause and effect essay?

The percentage of overweight children in western society has increased by almost 20% in the last ten years.

What are the causes and effects ?

https://ieltsliz.com/liz-notice-2015-2016/

Hi Liz…i am confused with the use of the verb ‘increase’…I thought that it is a passive verb which means that we do not use it in Passive voice as it has a passive meaning..However you used the phrase ‘if the price is increased’or …’need to be increased’…please could you explain me this grammatic phenomenon?…thanks a lot

This verb can be used in all forms. Please check your dictionary. All the best Liz

I noticed that the question states “pollution problem”. Would I be deviating from the topic if I state that increasing fuel cost will not be the optimal solution for mitigating pollution issues since other factors unrelated to car use may pollute the air, such as improper waste disposal?

I am looking forward to your response. thank you very much.

For this essay question, the subject is both traffic and pollution together which means you can separate them. The pollution in the essay question relates to traffic pollution only so it wouldn’t be advisable to start writing about other sources of pollution. Liz

Hi Liz sorry for disturbing.Could you assess my essay and give some advices.

Nowadays,increasing number of cars on roads,one of the big issues for the environment and growthing amount of people.Owing to,vehicles emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,which able to create greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.Simultaneously,greenhouse gases cause to raise average ambient temperature. In my opinion,increasing the price of petrol isn’t the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems.Due to,the people who has afford to drive a car,although increasing price of petrol,ongoing driving,by connecting it with their needing.Meanwhille,increasing price of petrol can influence to the price of other manufactures trade,makes it raise.That is why,I can’t go along this opinion.In addition,the increasing price of petrol also can lead to protest and demonstrations,which aren’t good for goverment policy. I suggest that the solution start mass to make vehicles which use alternative types of fuel instead of petrol and that is can mitigate the pollution of environment.Furthermore,for reducing traffic congestion I reckon that,some rich people need change their opinion about cars psychologically.They should look to cars as transport method don’t as luxurious.Because,many rich families have more cars than they need.To conclude,I’d like to mention about that,todays many entrepreneurs at the world are interesting about mass producing cars which use alternative types of fuel (hybrid,hydrogen e.t.c.)

Please read my notice about posting writing: https://ieltsliz.com/posting-writing/ Thanks Liz

Speak Your Mind Cancel reply

Notify me of new posts by email.

Advanced IELTS Lessons & E-books

Click Below to Learn:

• IELTS Test Information

Copyright Notice

Copyright © Elizabeth Ferguson, 2014 – 2024

All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy & Disclaimer

• Click here:  Privacy Policy 
• Click here: Disclaimer

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2024 · Prose on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

12 best ways to get cars out of cities – ranked by new research

Associate Professor of Sustainability Science, Lund University

Disclosure statement

Kimberly Nicholas was funded for this work by the Swedish Research Council Formas, grant 2019-02051

Lund University provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

You can listen to more narrated articles here .

Question: what do the following statistics have in common?

• The second-largest (and growing) source of climate pollution in Europe .
• The leading killer of children in both the US and Europe .
• A principal cause of stress-inducing noise pollution and life-shortening air pollution in European cities.
• A leading driver of the widening gap between rich and poor urban residents.

Answer: the vehicles on our streets, primarily the not-so-humble passenger car.

Despite the (slow) migration to electric-powered cars, consumer trends are making driving even more wasteful and unequal. A recent analysis found the emissions saved from electric cars have been more than cancelled out by the increase in gas-guzzling Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs). Around the world, SUVs alone emit more carbon pollution than Canada or Germany , and are causing a bigger increase in climate pollution than heavy industry .

This story is part of Conversation Insights The Insights team generates long-form journalism and is working with academics from different backgrounds who have been engaged in projects to tackle societal and scientific challenges.

While cars are sometimes necessary for people’s mobility and social inclusion needs – not least those with disabilities – car-centric cities particularly disadvantage the already-marginalised. In the UK, women, young and older people, those from minority communities and disabled people are concentrated in the lowest-income households, of which 40% do not have a car . In contrast, nearly 90% of the highest-income households own at least one car.

So the driving habits of a minority impose high costs on society , and this is especially true in cities. Copenhagen, for example, has calculated that whereas each kilometre cycled benefits society to the tune of €0.64 (53 pence), each kilometre driven incurs a net loss of -€0.71 (-59p), when impacts on individual wellbeing (physical and mental health, accidents, traffic) and the environment (climate, air and noise pollution) are accounted for. So each kilometre travelled where a car is replaced by a bicycle generates €1.35 (£1.12) of social benefits – of which only a few cents would be saved by switching from a fossil-fuelled to an electric-powered car, according to this analysis.

Reducing car use in cities

Half a century ago, the Danish capital was dominated by cars. But following grassroots campaigns to change policies and streets, including replacing car parking with safe, separated bike lanes, Copenhagen has increased its biking share of all trips from 10% in 1970 to 35% today. In 2016, for the first time, more bicycles than cars made journeys around the city over the course of that year.

But while many other car-limiting initiatives have been attempted around the world, city officials, planners and citizens still do not have a clear, evidence-based way to reduce car use in cities. Our latest research, carried out with Paula Kuss at the Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies and published in Case Studies on Transport Policy , seeks to address this by quantifying the effectiveness of different initiatives to reduce urban car use.

Our study ranks the 12 most effective measures that European cities have introduced in recent decades, based on real-world data on innovations ranging from the “carrot” of bike and walk-to-work schemes to the “stick” of removing free parking. The ranking reflects cities’ successes not only in terms of measurable reductions in car use, but in achieving improved quality of life and sustainable mobility for their residents.

In all, we have screened nearly 800 peer-reviewed reports and case studies from throughout Europe, published since 2010, seeking those that quantified where and how cities had successfully reduced car use. The most effective measures, according to our review, are introducing a congestion charge, which reduces urban car levels by anywhere from 12% to 33%, and creating car-free streets and separated bike lanes, which has been found to lower car use in city centres by up to 20%. Our full ranking of the top 12 car-reducing measures is summarised in this table:

The inequality of car use

Cars are inherently inefficient and inequitable in their use of land and resources. On average, they spend 96% of their time parked, taking up valuable urban space that could be put to more beneficial uses such as housing and public parks. In Berlin, car users on average take up 3.5 times more public space than non-car users, primarily through on-street parking.

And it is overwhelmingly richer people who drive the most: in Europe, the top 1% by income drive nearly four times more than the median driver, accounting for some 21% of their personal climate footprint. For these highest emitters, climate pollution from driving is second only to flying (which, on average, generates twice as many emissions).

Prioritising cars as a means of transport also favours suburban sprawl. City suburbs typically possess larger homes that generate higher levels of consumption and energy use. North American suburban households consistently have higher carbon footprints than urban ones: one study in Toronto found suburban footprints were twice as high .

It’s also clear that road traffic levels swell to fill the size of the roads built – yet traffic planning routinely ignores the fact that this “induced demand” exaggerates the benefits and underestimates the costs of building more roads.

Read more: We transformed a London borough into a game to get fewer people travelling by car -- here's what happened

Electric vehicles are necessary, but they’re not a panacea. Since cars tend to be on the road for a long time, the migration to electric vehicles is very slow. Some studies anticipate relatively small emissions reductions over the coming decade as a result of electric vehicle uptake. And even if there’s nothing damaging released from an electric car’s exhaust pipe, the wear of car brakes and tyres still creates toxic dust and microplastic pollution. However a car is powered, can it ever be an efficient use of resources and space to spend up to 95% of that energy moving the weight of the vehicle itself, rather than its passengers and goods?

COVID-19: a missed opportunity?

Our study assesses urban mobility innovations and experiments introduced before the pandemic was declared. In response to COVID-19, travel habits (to begin with, at least) changed dramatically. But following large reductions in driving during the spring of 2020, road use and the associated levels of climate pollution have since rebounded to near pre-pandemic levels. Indeed, in Sweden, while public transport use declined by around 42% during the first year of the pandemic, car travel declined by only 7% in the same period, leading to an overall increase in the proportion of car use.

While entrenched habits such as car commuting are hard to shift, times of disruption can offer an effective moment to change mobility behaviour – in part because people forced to try a new habit may discover it has unexpected advantages. For such behaviour to stick, however, also requires changes in the physical infrastructure of cities. Unfortunately, while European cities that added pop-up bike lanes during the pandemic increased cycling rates by a stunning 11-48% , we are now seeing a return to car-centric cities , with extra car lanes and parking spaces once again displacing cycle lanes and space for pedestrians.

Overall, the opportunities to align pandemic recovery measures with climate targets have largely been squandered. Less than 20% of government spending on pandemic measures globally were likely to also reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The extent to which workers resume driving to their offices is another key issue determining future car use in cities. Thoughtful travel policies to reduce unnecessary travel, and opportunities for faraway participants to fully participate in meetings and conferences digitally, could slash emissions by up to 94% – and save time to boot. Those who work remotely three or more days per week travel less overall than their peers. But long car commutes can quickly wipe out such emissions savings, so living close to work is still the best option.

No silver bullet solution

The research is clear: to improve health outcomes, meet climate targets and create more liveable cities , reducing car use should be an urgent priority. Yet many governments in the US and Europe continue to heavily subsidise driving through a combination of incentives such as subsidies for fossil fuel production , tax allowances for commuting by car, and incentives for company cars that promote driving over other means of transport. Essentially, such measures pay polluters while imposing the social costs on wider society.

City leaders have a wider range of policy instruments at their disposal than some might realise – from economic instruments such as charges and subsidies, to behavioural ones like providing feedback comparing individuals’ travel decisions with their peers’. Our study found that more than 75% of the urban innovations that have successfully reduced car use were led by a local city government – and in particular, those that have proved most effective, such as congestion charges, parking and traffic controls, and limited traffic zones.

But an important insight from our study is that narrow policies don’t seem to be as effective – there is no “silver bullet” solution. The most successful cities typically combine a few different policy instruments, including both carrots that encourage more sustainable travel choices, and sticks that charge for, or restrict, driving and parking.

So here are the 12 best ways to reduce city car use:

1. Congestion charges

The most effective measure identified by our research entails drivers paying to enter the city centre, with the revenues generated going towards alternative means of sustainable transport. London, an early pioneer of this strategy, has reduced city centre traffic by a whopping 33% since the charge’s introduction by the city’s first elected mayor, Ken Livingstone, in February 2003. The fixed-charge fee (with exemptions for certain groups and vehicles) has been raised over time, from an initial £5 per day up to £15 since June 2020. Importantly, 80% of the revenues raised are used for public transport investments.

Other European cities have followed suit, adopting similar schemes after referenda in Milan , Stockholm and Gothenburg – with the Swedish cities varying their pricing by day and time. But despite congestion charges clearly leading to a significant and sustained reduction of car use and traffic volume, they cannot by themselves entirely eliminate the problem of congestion , which persists while the incentives and infrastructure favouring car use remain.

2. Parking and traffic controls

In a number of European cities, regulations to remove parking spaces and alter traffic routes – in many cases, replacing the space formerly dedicated to cars with car-free streets, bike lanes and walkways – has proved highly successful. For example, Oslo’s replacement of parking spaces with walkable car-free streets and bike lanes was found to have reduced car usage in the centre of the Norwegian capital by up to 19% .

3. Limited traffic zones

Rome, traditionally one of Europe’s most congested cities, has shifted the balance towards greater use of public transport by restricting car entry to its centre at certain times of day to residents only, plus those who pay an annual fee. This policy has reduced car traffic in the Italian capital by 20% during the restricted hours, and 10% even during unrestricted hours when all cars can visit the centre. The violation fines are used to finance Rome’s public transport system.

4. Mobility services for commuters

The most effective carrot-only measure identified by our review is a campaign to provide mobility services for commuters in the Dutch city of Utrecht. Local government and private companies collaborated to provide free public transport passes to employees, combined with a private shuttle bus to connect transit stops with workplaces. This programme, promoted through a marketing and communication plan, was found to have achieved a 37% reduction in the share of commuters travelling into the city centre by car.

5. Workplace parking charges

Another effective means of reducing the number of car commuters is to introduce workplace parking charges. For example, a large medical centre in the Dutch port city of Rotterdam achieved a 20-25% reduction in employee car commutes through a scheme that charged employees to park outside their offices, while also offering them the chance to “cash out” their parking spaces and use public transport instead. This scheme was found to be around three times more effective than a more extensive programme in the UK city of Nottingham , which applied a workplace parking charge to all major city employers possessing more than ten parking spaces. The revenue raised went towards supporting the Midlands city’s public transport network, including expansion of a tram line.

6. Workplace travel planning

Programmes providing company-wide travel strategies and advice to encourage employees to end their car commutes have been widely used in cities across Europe. A major study, published in 2010, assessing 20 cities across the UK found an average of 18% of commuters switched from car to another mode after a full range of measures were combined – including company shuttle buses, discounts for public transport and improved bike infrastructure – as well as reduced parking provision. In a different programme, Norwich achieved near-identical rates by adopting a comprehensive plan but without the discounts for public transport. These carrot-and-stick efforts appear to have been more effective than Brighton & Hove’s carrot-only approach of providing plans and infrastructure such as workplace bicycle storage, which saw a 3% shift away from car use.

7. University travel planning

Similarly, university travel programmes often combine the carrot of promotion of public transport and active travel with the stick of parking management on campus. The most successful example highlighted in our review was achieved by the University of Bristol, which reduced car use among its staff by 27% while providing them with improved bike infrastructure and public transport discounts. A more ambitious programme in the Spanish city of San Sebastián targeted both staff and students at Universidad del País Vasco. Although it achieved a more modest reduction rate of 7.2% , the absolute reduction in car use was still substantial from the entire population of university commuters.

8. Mobility services for universities

The Sicilian city of Catania used a carrot-only approach for its students. By offering them a free public transport pass and providing shuttle connections to campus, the city was found to have achieved a 24% decrease in the share of students commuting by car.

9. Car sharing

Perhaps surprisingly, car sharing turns out to be a somewhat divisive measure for reducing car use in cities, according to our analysis. Such schemes, where members can easily rent a nearby vehicle for a few hours, have showed promising results in Bremen, Germany and Genoa, Italy , with each shared car replacing between 12 and 15 private vehicles, on average. Their approach included increasing the number of shared cars and stations, and integrating them with residential areas, public transport and bike infrastructure.

Both schemes also provided car sharing for employees and ran awareness-raising campaigns. But other studies point to a risk that car sharing may, in fact, induce previously car-free residents to increase their car use. We therefore recommend more research into how to design car sharing programmes that truly reduce overall car use.

10. School travel planning

Two English cities, Brighton & Hove and Norwich, have used (and assessed) the carrot-only measure of school travel planning: providing trip advice, planning and even events for students and parents to encourage them to walk, bike or carpool to school, along with providing improved bike infrastructure in their cities. Norwich found it was able to reduce the share of car use for school trips by 10.9%, using this approach, while Brighton’s analysis found the impact was about half that much.

11. Personalised travel plans

Many cities have experimented with personal travel analysis and plans for individual residents, including Marseille in France , Munich in Germany , Maastricht in the Netherlands and San Sebastián in Spain . These programmes – providing journey advice and planning for city residents to walk, bike or use (sometimes discounted) public transport – are found to have achieved modest-sounding reductions of 6-12%. However, since they encompass all residents of a city, as opposed to smaller populations of, say, commuters to school or the workplace, these approaches can still play a valuable role in reducing car use overall. (San Sebastián introduced both university and personalised travel planning in parallel, which is likely to have reduced car use further than either in isolation.)

12. Apps for sustainable mobility

Mobile phone technology has a growing role in strategies to reduce car use. The Italian city of Bologna, for example, developed an app for people and teams of employees from participating companies to track their mobility. Participants competed to gain points for walking, biking and using public transport, with local businesses offering these app users rewards for achieving points goals.

There is great interest in such gamification of sustainable mobility – and at first glance, the data from the Bologna app looks striking. An impressive 73% of users reported using their car “less”. But unlike other studies which measure the number or distance of car trips, it is not possible to calculate the reduction of distance travelled or emissions from this data, so the overall effectiveness is unclear. For example, skipping one short car trip and skipping a year of long driving commutes both count as driving “less”.

While mobility data from apps can offer valuable tools for improved transport planning and services, good design is needed to ensure that “smart” solutions actually decrease emissions and promote sustainable transport, because the current evidence is mixed . For instance, a 2021 study found that after a ride-hailing service such as Uber or Lyft enters an urban market, vehicle ownership increases – particularly in already car-dependent cities – and public transport use declines in high-income areas.

Cities need to re-imagine themselves

Reducing car dependency is not just a nice idea. It is essential for the survival of people and places around the world, which the recent IPCC report on climate impacts makes clear hinges on how close to 1.5°C the world can limit global warming. Avoiding irreversible harm and meeting their Paris Agreement obligations requires industrialised nations such as the UK and Sweden to reduce their emissions by 10-12% per year – about 1% every month .

Yet until the pandemic struck, transport emissions in Europe were steadily increasing. Indeed, current policies are predicted to deliver transport emissions in 2040 that are almost unchanged from 50 years earlier .

To meet the planet’s health and climate goals, city governments need to make the necessary transitions for sustainable mobility by, first, avoiding the need for mobility (see Paris’s 15-minute city ); second, shifting remaining mobility needs from cars to active and public transport wherever possible; and finally, improving the cars that remain to be zero-emission.

This transition must be fast and fair: city leaders and civil society need to engage citizens to build political legitimacy and momentum for these changes. Without widespread public buy-in to reduce cars, the EU’s commitment to deliver 100 climate-neutral cities in Europe by 2030 looks a remote prospect.

Radically reducing cars will make cities better places to live – and it can be done. A 2020 study demonstrated that we can provide decent living standards for the planet’s projected 10 billion people using 60% less energy than today . But to do so, wealthy countries need to build three times as much public transport infrastructure as they currently possess, and each person should limit their annual travel to between 5,000 kilometres (in dense cities) and 15,000 kilometres (in more remote areas).

The positive impact from reducing cars in cities will be felt by all who live and work in them, in the form of more convivial spaces. As a journalist visiting the newly car-free Belgian city of Ghent put it in 2020 :

The air tastes better … People turn their streets into sitting rooms and extra gardens.

Cities need to re-imagine themselves by remaking what is possible to match what is necessary. At the heart of this, guided by better evidence of what works, they must do more to break free from cars.

For you: more from our Insights series :

Microalgae is nature’s ‘green gold’: our pioneering project to feed the world more sustainably

Embracing uncertainty: what Kenyan herders can teach us about living in a volatile world

Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter .

• Public transport
• car sharing
• Bicycling to work
• Bicycle infrastructure
• Insights series
• T&F research
• Bicycle-sharing systems

Head of School, School of Arts & Social Sciences, Monash University Malaysia

Chief Operating Officer (COO)

Clinical Teaching Fellow

Data Manager

Director, Social Policy

People have different views on how to reduce traffic congestion by governments. Some think it can be solved by building more train and subway lines, while others believe building more roads and widening existing roads will reduce traffic congestion. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Fully explain your ideas

To get an excellent score in the IELTS Task 2 writing section, one of the easiest and most effective tips is structuring your writing in the most solid format. A great argument essay structure may be divided to four paragraphs, in which comprises of four sentences (excluding the conclusion paragraph, which comprises of three sentences).

For we to consider an essay structure a great one, it should be looking like this:

• Paragraph 1 - Introduction
• Sentence 1 - Background statement
• Sentence 2 - Detailed background statement
• Sentence 3 - Thesis
• Sentence 4 - Outline sentence
• Paragraph 2 - First supporting paragraph
• Sentence 1 - Topic sentence
• Sentence 2 - Example
• Sentence 3 - Discussion
• Sentence 4 - Conclusion
• Paragraph 3 - Second supporting paragraph
• Paragraph 4 - Conclusion
• Sentence 1 - Summary
• Sentence 2 - Restatement of thesis
• Sentence 3 - Prediction or recommendation

Our recommended essay structure above comprises of fifteen (15) sentences, which will make your essay approximately 250 to 275 words.

Discover more tips in The Ultimate Guide to Get a Target Band Score of 7+ » — a book that's free for 🚀 Premium users.

• Check your IELTS essay »
• Find essays with the same topic
• View collections of IELTS Writing Samples
• Show IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics

In some areas of the US, a "curfew" is imposed, in which teenagers are not allowed to be out of doors after a partcular time at night unless they are accompained by an adult. What is your opinion about this?

Countries are becoming more and more similar because people are able to buy the same products anywhere in the world. do you think this is a positive or negative development give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. write at least 250 words., last month you had an overseas holiday with some friends were you stayed at their house. they have just send you some holiday photos. write a letter to your friends, in your letter: thank them for the holday and the photos explain why didn't write earlier invite them to come and stay with you, in some areas of the us, a curfew is imposed, in which teenagers are not allowanced to be out of doors after a particular time at night unless they are accompanied by an adult. what is your opinion about this, when a new town is planned, it is more important to develop public parks and sports facilities than shopping centers for people to spend their free time in. to what extent do you agree or disagree.

• The Writing Process
• Addressing the Prompt
• Writing Skill: Development
• Originality
• Timed Writing (Expectations)
• Integrated Writing (Writing Process)
• Introduction to Academic Essays
• Organization
• Introduction Paragraphs
• Body Paragraphs
• Conclusion Paragraphs
• Example Essay 1
• Example Essay 2
• Timed Writing (The Prompt)
• Integrated Writing (TOEFL Task 1)
• Process Essays
• Process Essay Example 1
• Process Essay Example 2
• Writing Skill: Unity
• Revise A Process Essay
• Timed Writing (Choose a Position)
• Integrated Writing (TOEFL Task 2)
• Comparison Essays
• Comparison Essay Example 1
• Comparison Essay Example 2
• Writing Skill: Cohesion
• Revise A Comparison Essay
• Timed Writing (Plans & Problems)
• Integrated Writing (Word Choice)
• Problem/Solution Essays

Problem/Solution Essay Example 1

• Problem/Solution Example Essay 2
• Writing Skill: Summary
• Revise A Problem/Solution Essay
• Timed Writing (Revising)
• Integrated Writing (Summary)
• More Writing Skills
• Punctuation
• Simple Sentences
• Compound Sentences
• Complex Sentences Part 1
• Complex Sentences Part 2
• Using Academic Vocabulary
• Translations

Choose a Sign-in Option

Tools and Settings

Questions and Tasks

Citation and Embed Code

No More Traffic Jams

       There is nothing worse than being trapped in your car, waiting in the middle of a traffic jam. It is frustrating, knowing that there is nothing you can do and that you are going to be late to work. Traffic jams often occur during rush hour or right after a large event because there are more cars on the road than normal. Traffic jams can also be caused by car accidents or road construction. They usually occur on major roads that many people use to travel to work or school. Traffic jams are a problem because they make people late for work or school, they can cause car accidents, and they are frustrating. How can we reduce the number of traffic jams? Possible solutions include carpooling or using public transportation. The best way to solve traffic jams is by using public transportation because it will be efficient, economical, and reliable.

       First, using public transportation is efficient. A bus is a very efficient way to move lots of people from one place to another using only one vehicle. Instead of having one vehicle for each person on the road, busses take many cars off the road as people ride together. Trains are even more efficient at reducing the number of cars on the road. Because trains have their own dedicated rail system to get people around, all of the cars are eliminated without adding any more traffic to the roads. Not only are busses and trains more efficient at carrying passengers, but time spent on a bus or a train is more efficient for the passenger. This encourages more people to use public transportation. It is easy to see how efficient public transportation is and the impact that it has on reducing traffic.

       Another reason that public transportation is the best solution to traffic jams is because it is so economical. People want to use public transportation instead of driving their own car because they can save money. Public transportation usually does not cost very much, especially for people who use it often. There are discounts for seniors and students, which makes it an even more economical way for these groups to travel around town. Using public transportation also eliminates the need to pay for parking, car insurance, and car maintenance, not to mention gasoline. All of the expenses related to owning a car are replaced with one simple fare. Because it is so economical, public transportation is a good solution to traffic jams by encouraging more people to travel together and reduce the number of cars on the road.

       Finally, public transportation is the best solution because it is reliable. Many people set up carpools to reduce traffic, but this is only a temporary solution. Every time someone has a change in their schedule, the carpool needs to be adjusted. For example, if someone has to go to the doctor or sleeps in, the carpool will not work that day. If someone changes jobs or transfers to a new school, the carpool will need to be adjusted again. Public transportation, on the other hand, is more reliable. The bus and train schedules don’t change every time that one rider needs to go to the doctor. The schedules are set and people can plan on them. People who use public transportation will find that it is reliable and can help limit the number of cars on the road.

       Because it is efficient, economical, and reliable, public transportation is the best way to reduce the number of traffic jams. There are other possible ways to address this problem, but using public transportation is clearly the best. Traffic jams during very busy hours on the road can be reduced and more people can get to work on time and avoid the frustration caused by sitting in the middle of a long line of cars. Cities and governments should consider ways to improve their public transportation system and encourage more people to use it. If they do, they will surely see fewer traffic jams on their roads and much happier drivers.

Exercise 1: Analyze an essay

Read one of the two Process Example Essays on the following pages to complete this exercise.

• Label the introduction paragraph, the body paragraphs, and the conclusion paragraph.
• Circle the hook.
• What is the general topic of the essay?
• Underline the thesis.
• Underline each of the topic sentences.
• Do each of the topic sentences support the thesis?
• Does the conclusion paragraph start by restating the thesis?

This content is provided to you freely by EdTech Books.

Access it online or download it at https://edtechbooks.org/academic_a_writing/problemsolution_essac .

Advertisement

10 Possible Solutions to Air Pollution

• Share Content on Facebook
• Share Content on LinkedIn
• Share Content on Flipboard
• Share Content on Reddit
• Share Content via Email

Cars are a real dichotomy. On one side, they provide opportunities for recreation, access to better stores and markets and the freedom to move where we want, when we want.

On the other hand, some claim they rob us of our health and produce a lot of pollution . It's this last part that worries many people. Cars produce a large portion of the world's pollution, in excess of several billion tons per year in the United States alone, and boats, trucks, trains and buses also contribute to the pollution whole. But as car users, we have a few easy-to-implement solutions to air pollution .

To really bring about change, humans have to change their attitude toward cars and take action, and that may be a harder change than any other.

Most importantly, there is no one magic solution. Each small step is a part of another, and no one single step can move ahead significantly without help from the others.

Effects of Air Pollution

• Change Petroleum Fuel Vehicles to Fuel Cell Technology
• Put More Electric Cars on the Road
• Don't Idle
• Reduce Distance Driven and Time on the Road
• Change Travel and Commuting Patterns
• Keep Your Car in Top Condition
• Drive a More Fuel-efficient Car
• Build Up Public Transportation
• Walk or Bike
• Change the Way We Live and Think

Finding ways to reduce air pollution can have positive impacts on the world as a whole and on our own health. If we can improve air quality, we can lower respiratory and cardiovascular diseases because even short-term exposure to air pollutants can cause health problems .

There is also a link between high air pollution levels and climate change. As the World Health Organization notes , "Reducing ambient and household air pollution can also reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and short-lived climate pollutants, such as black carbon particles and methane, therefore contributing to the near- and long-term mitigation of climate change."

10. Change Petroleum Fuel Vehicles to Fuel Cell Technology

Effective hydrogen fuel cells are the Holy Grail of alternative fuel technologies. The best-known fuel cell is hydrogen-based. This technology uses hydrogen gas to create electricity. The electricity is then converted to mechanical energy in an electric motor to get the car, truck, bus, boat or any other form of transport run by an engine moving.

The only emission from the cell is water , pure H 2 O, clean enough to drink and a far cry from the hydrocarbons, CO 2 and oxides of nitrogen produce by the cleanest car today.

Technology is currently struggling with finding an absolutely pure form of fuel cell, one that emits no harmful pollutants, as well as using renewable energy to produce or supply the raw materials for the fuel cells.

Indeed, the easiest way to produce the needed supply of hydrogen gas at this point is using fossil fuels, though this may change in the future.

9. Put More Electric Cars on the Road

Electric cars are not as new as most drivers realize. They were among the first prototype cars created in the late 1890s, and producers manufactured more electric cars than petroleum-powered cars at the turn of the last century.

Today, the electric car is going mainstream. The Nissan LEAF is one electric vehicle that opened a new market for consumers, allowing urban driving without the guilt of tailpipe emissions. Electric vehicles receive their fuel from a linked collection of batteries. The batteries are lead, nickel-metal hydrides and lithium concoctions storing energy provided from home electrical outlets or electric recharging station.

Like fuel cells , electric cars lack a reliable infrastructure, as well as a way of reliably using renewable sources — such as solar, wind or geothermal — to generate their fuel. Instead, they rely on fossil fuel-burning electric plants to supply their needs.

The are nearly 2 million electric vehicles traveling the country's roads as of 2023.

8. Don't Idle

Alternative fuels provide one road to reducing pollution, but they're far from perfect at this point. However, there are a few steps that can be taken now to help reduce tailpipe emissions. One of the most effective is to reduce idle time for vehicles.

According to the California Energy Commission, your car idles anywhere from five to 10 minutes a day on average, depending on driving conditions. Idling your car for two minutes uses about the same amount of gas as going one mile. If you're sitting longer than 10 seconds, it's wise to turn off your car as those 10 seconds will use the same amount of fuel as it would take to restart the engine after being shut down.

Many hybrid cars and electric cars now have an automatic start and stop system that shuts down the engine when the speed is zero. Stepping on the gas, rather than turning the key, gets the car rolling again.

How much this feature will reduce pollution is the subject of debate. Some emissions systems work well at idle; others don't. Larger vehicles, including trucks and buses, as well as diesel engines, can produce more emissions at idle than when running. However, using less fuel means producing fewer emissions and less pollution.

7. Reduce Distance Driven and Time on the Road

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), vehicles account for almost one-third of smog-forming emissions, and every year, more people take to the road and drive farther distances, an increase of more than 120 percent since 1970. Driving fewer miles would, therefore, decrease the amount of pollution produced by cars.

Doing this is easy. You can:

• Combine errands into one trip
• Take public transportation
• Shop by phone, mail or internet
• Telecommute, if possible

However, this is just the tip of the transportation iceberg. Transportation engineers and urban planners are looking at how to reduce traffic congestion so vehicles spend less time on the road.

Think of the infamous Los Angeles traffic where the average commute time can exceed more than an hour. As people sit in traffic, inching forward, their cars are releasing a steady stream of pollution that, when combined with the geography of the LA basin, creates some of the worst smog in the country.

Better roads, better traffic light timing and access to better public transportation would go a long way to reducing air pollution.

6. Change Travel and Commuting Patterns

As engineers and planners struggle with how to reduce driving time and idle time, they're indirectly shaping how the country is settling and evolving.

The press of fuel prices has yet to result in a direct change in how Americans settle, but more Americans are settling closer to where they work and play in an effort to reduce their fuel consumption — or turning to technology to increase telecommuting and work-from-home opportunities.

By reducing commutes — the United States Census Bureau tallied the average commute time at about 30 minutes — cars would produce fewer pollutants.

The new trend in urban planning has become "walkable communities." The idea is to mix residential, business and industrial concerns together so people who live in the area can walk to their work, a store or even to their doctor's office without ever needing a car. The incentive here is not only to reduce pollution and use less fuel but to increase the quality of life for the residents and promote local businesses.

But people will still need to travel. Many of the community plans integrated public transportation, ride-sharing programs or hourly car rental programs such as Zipcar into the overall planning.

Seen from the outside, these communities almost seem unworkable, but whether they come to pass successfully or not, they do spur ideas for immediate ways — like better public transportation — to reduce pollution.

5. Keep Your Car in Top Condition

Car manufacturers designed your car to run at optimal efficiency; however, time, distance, weather and a host of other factors all contribute to decreasing that efficiency. Routine maintenance and care can reduce the amount of fuel a car consumes — and reduce the amount of pollution it puts out, too.

These are just a few of the components and systems to check if you want to keep your car running its best:

• Keep your engine properly tuned. This means changing the oil , air filter and checking the fluids on a routine basis. It also means changing the spark plug, spark plug wires and cleaning the fuel system at the manufacturer's scheduled interval. Doing this can improve mileage by more than 4 percent. If your check engine light is on (depending on the root cause), fixing that problem right away can sometimes improve mileage by more than 30 percent.
• Keep your tires properly inflated. Under- and over-inflated tires have an effect on the rolling resistance of the car. Properly inflated tires can improve gas mileage by more than 3 percent.
• Reduce the weight in your car. Every 100 pounds (45.4 kilograms) reduces fuel efficiency by 1 to 2 percent.
• Remove the roof rack. Doing this can add about 5 percent to your miles-per-gallon rating
• Drive steady. Fast acceleration and inconsistent speed can reduce your car's overall efficiency by more than 4 percent.

4. Drive a More Fuel-efficient Car

This makes good common sense, right? No matter how well-kept a car is, it becomes less efficient and therefore more polluting with time. If possible, trade an older car in for a newer, more fuel-efficient model.

Today's emissions controls are almost three times better than cars made a decade ago and pollute that much less, too. There's also a much greater variety of efficient cars on the market today than there was just 10 years ago.

The EPA offers a Green Vehicle Guide, which rates newer cars by how much they pollute and contribute to the overall smog problem. The same ratings are on all new car window tags.

While the issue of whether producing a new, less-polluting car creates more pollutants during the manufacturing process than during the new car's lifetime is still unsettled, it remains true that a newer car will pollute less and use less fuel.

3. Build Up Public Transportation

The United States, as a whole, does not have a well-developed public transportation system. If the car is a symbol of freedom, a public bus is just about the opposite. Bus or train schedules rarely seem to follow work or errand needs. The systems are often slow and inefficient.

But from the standpoint of reducing transportation-related pollution, using public transportation is one of the most effective and immediate changes the country can make.

According to PublicTransportation.org, public transportation — mainly buses and subways — saves about 37 million metric tons (40,785,500 tons) of carbon dioxide annually. Additionally, if an individual switches a 20-mile (32.2-kilometer) daily roundtrip commute to public transportation, their annual CO2 emissions will decrease by about 4,800 pounds (2,177 kilograms) per year.

Combining an increase in public transportation with better road engineering, land use and other factors could help reduce transportation-related pollution by more than 20 percent.

Private concerns can also help with public transportation. Companies sometimes provide a shuttle bus for their employees or post rideshare boards. Car cooperatives are making inroads in the United States. These services allow a member to rent a car from a central location and pay a small fee for use.

The system is ideal for inner-city dwellers who only occasionally need a car, allowing them access to a vehicle without needing to buy one. By using public transportation for their primary needs and a regular car for the odd trip where it was necessary, one Swiss study indicated that car cooperative owners drove at least 60 percent less than they would have if they owned a car.

2. Walk or Bike

These obvious choices are (by far) the best way to reduce pollution as they produce no emissions. Many cities are experimenting with bike share programs similar to car cooperatives. While something of a challenge for a regular driver, most experts suggest not replacing a car with a bike in most cases, but rather parking the car and using a bike or walking to do errands.

Most errands within about a mile (1.6 kilometers) are comfortable by foot, and anything up to 5 miles (8.1 kilometers) is doable by bike for most people. And, in addition to polluting less, the person gets the benefit of exercise.

Making the switch isn't easy. Many streets and cities are not particularly bike- or pedestrian-friendly. Experts suggest starting small and easing into an alternate car routine. In essence, they suggest you have some experience before biking or walking in traffic.

There are several websites with tips, tricks and links to maps and mapping software for pedestrians and bicyclists to avoid the worst of the pitfalls.

If a person can't bike because of bad knees or other health issues, companies also produce electric motor kits that significantly reduce the physical power needed to ride a bike.

1. Change the Way We Live and Think

All solutions to transportation pollution ultimately rely on humans. Ask a European about Americans, and they will likely portray us as a little spoiled and a little too freewheeling with our transportation freedoms. Many of the solutions listed in this article will only work if there's a fundamental shift in thinking.

We'll have to adjust to smaller, more efficient cars. We'll also have to adjust to using more public transportation. And to use either of those, we'll have to change the way we live, move closer to our place of business, cram into a car with more people, take vacations closer to home, camp instead of RV— overall, do more with less.

At the turn of the century, people criticized automobiles as unreliable — a fad and something that would never catch on. People got by with trains and horses, and no one really needed to live more than 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) from where they worked. Why would you want a car? People now have the same attitude toward electric cars, fuel cells, public transportation and walking to work.

And will it work? Well, only you can say.

Lots More Information

Related articles.

• 5 Myths About Renewable Energy
• 5 Amazing Green Cities
• Top 5 Green Myths
• 5 Wacky Forms of Alternative Energy
• American Public Transportation Association. (May 7, 2011) http://www.publictransportation.org/benefits/environment.asp
• Bike Commuters. (May 12, 2011) http://www.bikecommuters.com/
• Bridging the Gap. "Alternate Transportation Guide for the Greater Kansas City Area." (May 9, 2011) http://www.bridgingthegap.org/media_vault/documents/1243351866.pdf
• California Energy Center. "Should I Shut Off My Motor When I'm Idling My Car?" (May 10, 2011) http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/idling.html
• Car Talk. "Car Talk's Guide To Better Fuel Economy." (May 9, 2011) http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/fueleconomy/
• Environmental Protection Agency. "Green Vehicle Guide." (May 11, 2011) http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Index.do
• Environmental Protection Agency. "SmartWay Program." (May 1, 2011) http://www.epa.gov/smartway/index.htm
• Environmental Protection Agency. "Transportation and Climate." (May 8, 2011) http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/publications.htm#basic
• Murphy, Samantha. "Toyota, Shell Open First U.S. Hydrogen Fueling Station from Pipeline." TechNewsDaily. (May 10, 2011) http://www.livescience.com/14099-toyota-shell-open-hydrogen-fueling-station-pipeline.html
• U.S. Department of Energy. "Keeping Your Car In Shape." (May 8, 2011) http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.shtml

Please copy/paste the following text to properly cite this HowStuffWorks.com article: