IELTS Agree or Disagree Essay: Transportation Topics with Sample Answers

Model Answer

People hold differing views on whether governments should allocate a greater portion of their infrastructure budgets to railways instead of highways. I strongly support prioritizing railway development, as it brings significant benefits to citizens, the environment, and the economy.

The construction of additional high-speed railways has several positive effects on individuals and the environment. Firstly, passengers benefit from safer journeys when traveling by train, as railways typically experience fewer traffic accidents compared to roads. Furthermore, trains are regarded as more environmentally friendly, primarily because they are often powered by electricity. This can greatly reduce car emissions and support sustainability. Finally, expanding railway networks helps ease road congestion. Many commuters choose trains over cars to avoid the stress of driving. For instance, in cities like Tokyo and Berlin, residents often rely on efficient railway systems during rush hour to bypass heavy traffic and enjoy a more relaxed, predictable journey.

Enhancing urban railway systems also plays a crucial role in bolstering the economy. These initiatives, which often span several years, increase demand for materials and labour, helping boost the local economy. Additionally, completed railways can considerably reduce commuting times between different districts, encouraging business growth near the new stations. For example, Yuen Long, once considered a rural area in Hong Kong, has transformed into a modern suburb following the establishment of railway connections. This demonstrates how rail infrastructure can serve as a catalyst for long-term regional development.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that railways are a better investment than roads, as they offer broader benefits for individuals, the environment, and the economy. By prioritizing railway infrastructure, governments can promote sustainable development while improving the quality of life for future generations.

Model AnswerIn the mid-twentieth century and continuing to the present day, the issue of traffic congestion has sparked considerable debate, emerging as one of the most urgent challenges faced by urban areas. From my perspective, reducing the need for individuals to travel for work, education, or shopping is not a viable solution; I firmly believe that the drawbacks of this approach far outweigh its potential benefits.

To begin with, commuting to places such as workplaces, educational institutions, and shopping centers, remains an important part of daily life for people around the world. These activities are not simply routine tasks; they also provide essential opportunities for relaxation and social interaction, helping individuals cope with the mental and emotional pressures of city life. For example, many people find that commuting offers a chance to unwind, listen to music, or connect with friends and colleagues, which contributes to their overall well-being. Therefore, I argue that this aspect of modern life should be encouraged to promote public health, rather than discouraged.

Furthermore, today’s society already offers a wide range of alternative strategies to ease traffic congestion, which has become a major concern. For instance, the development of modern public transportation systems, coupled with the rising costs of fossil fuels, has prompted the exploration of alternative energy sources such as solar and electric power. These innovations can effectively manage the pressures of urban travel. As such, I support investing in these modern solutions rather than limiting people’s freedom of movement.

In conclusion, as outlined above, it is neither appropriate nor effective to reduce travel in order to tackle traffic issues. Instead, it is essential to implement alternative, sustainable measures that can achieve the same goal without compromising individual needs.