Some people think that offering free public transport all the time is the best way for governments to reduce traffic jams. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Stance: I partially disagree: free public transport can encourage some commuters to switch from motorbikes and cars, but it is not the single best solution without deeper investment in infrastructure and urban planning.
This 6.5 answer keeps the same partial-disagree stance but develops each side with only one reason and one example, relies on basic linkers such as 'however' and 'for example', and uses simpler, more repetitive sentence patterns than the 7.5 version.
Traffic jams are a daily problem in big cities like Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi, especially because of the huge number of motorbikes on the road. Some people believe that making public transport free all the time is the best way for the government to solve this problem. I partly disagree, because free transport can help, but it is not enough without better infrastructure and planning.
It is true that free buses and trains could persuade many people to stop using their own motorbikes or cars. This is because money is a big factor for most commuters, and if they do not have to pay for tickets, they will save a lot every month. For example, workers who travel to their office every day could use the free bus instead of buying petrol and paying for parking. This would reduce the number of vehicles on busy roads and make journeys faster for everyone, including students and old people who cannot afford a private vehicle.
However, free public transport alone cannot solve traffic jams if the transport system itself is not good enough. In many parts of Vietnamese cities, buses are still slow, come too rarely, or do not go to the places where people need to travel. Making these buses free will not change people's habits if the service is still unreliable. For example, since the new Metro Line 1 opened in Ho Chi Minh City, more people near the stations have started using it because it is fast and convenient, not simply because it is cheap. This shows that good infrastructure is more important than price alone.
In conclusion, although free public transport can encourage some people to stop driving, it is not the single best solution to traffic jams. Governments also need to invest in better infrastructure and city planning so that public transport becomes a real alternative to motorbikes.
Collocations
Examiner Notes
- TR“I partly disagree, because free transport can help, but it is not enough without better infrastructure and planning.” — States the partial-disagree position clearly and simply, but without the layered qualification found in the 7.5 thesis.
- LR“reduce the number of vehicles on busy roads” — A correct, functional collocation for describing traffic reduction, though plainer than the more vivid 'clogging major arteries' used at higher bands.
- CC“However, free public transport alone cannot solve traffic jams if the transport system itself is not good enough.” — The linker 'However' correctly signals the shift to the counter-argument, though it is the essay's main cohesive device throughout.
- GRA“if they do not have to pay for tickets, they will save a lot every month” — A correct first conditional, but sentence patterns stay simple and repetitive rather than showing the varied subordination of higher bands.
- TR“although free public transport can encourage some people to stop driving, it is not the single best solution to traffic jams.” — The conclusion restates the position accurately but adds no new nuance beyond the introduction.
This 7.0 answer adds a specific example and some subordinate clauses, and uses stronger collocations than 6.5, but it still supports each side with a single line of reasoning rather than the layered reasoning-plus-personal-anecdote-plus-rebuttal seen in the 7.5 answer.
In cities such as Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi, rush-hour traffic is dominated by motorbikes, which has led some people to argue that making public transport permanently free is the best way for governments to tackle congestion. While I accept that this measure has real benefits, I partly disagree that it is the single best solution, since its success depends heavily on other factors such as infrastructure and urban planning.
There is little doubt that removing fares would push a considerable number of commuters to give up their motorbikes and cars. The financial saving is a strong incentive, particularly for people who already struggle with rising fuel prices and the hassle of finding parking in crowded districts. Over time, this could mean fewer vehicles clogging major roads during peak hours, which would shorten commute times and reduce pollution. It would also make travel more accessible to students, elderly residents and low-income workers who cannot afford to own a vehicle.
Nevertheless, how effective free public transport actually is depends largely on the quality of the network that already exists. Simply removing fares achieves little if bus routes remain infrequent, overcrowded, or do not reach the areas where people actually live and work, which is still common in the outer districts of many Vietnamese cities. Since Metro Line 1 opened between Ben Thanh and Suoi Tien, for example, I have noticed colleagues who live near the new stations switching from daily motorbike commutes to the metro, mainly because it is fast and reliable rather than because it is subsidised. This suggests that investing in better infrastructure matters more than pricing alone in changing people's commuting habits.
In conclusion, while free public transport could encourage some people to abandon private vehicles, it remains only a partial solution to traffic congestion. A more effective approach would combine this policy with stronger infrastructure investment and thoughtful urban planning, giving commuters a genuine alternative to the motorbike.
Collocations
Examiner Notes
- TR“I partly disagree that it is the single best solution, since its success depends heavily on other factors such as infrastructure and urban planning.” — A clear, nuanced thesis with more developed reasoning than the 6.5 version, though not yet as fully qualified as the 7.5 introduction.
- LR“clogging major roads during peak hours” — A topic-specific collocation showing improved range over the plainer 'busy roads' used at 6.5.
- CC“Nevertheless, how effective free public transport actually is depends largely on the quality of the network that already exists.” — Uses a more formal concessive linker than 6.5's 'However', and embeds a noun clause as the subject rather than a plain statement.
- GRA“Simply removing fares achieves little if bus routes remain infrequent, overcrowded, or do not reach the areas where people actually live and work, which is still common in the outer districts of many Vietnamese cities.” — Combines a conditional clause with a non-defining relative clause, approaching 7.5-level complexity but supported by a single example rather than a layered personal anecdote.
- LR“a genuine alternative to the motorbike” — A precise closing collocation, though the essay overall uses fewer varied cohesive devices than the 7.5 version.
This 7.5 answer earns its band through a first-person, highly specific anecdote (the coffee-chain operations supervisor watching staff behaviour change after Metro Line 1 opened) that turns the counter-argument into concrete evidence, layered with wide collocational range ('heavily contingent on', 'reshapes commuting habits') and controlled complex grammar.
Anyone who has sat in the gridlock of central Ho Chi Minh City or Hanoi at rush hour, surrounded by a sea of motorbikes, understands the appeal of making public transport free as a way to ease congestion. While I acknowledge the merits of this idea, I partially disagree that it is the single best solution; its effectiveness ultimately depends on other systemic measures, particularly infrastructure and urban planning.
Undoubtedly, abolishing fares would incentivise a substantial portion of commuters to leave their motorbikes and cars at home. The immediate financial saving acts as a powerful deterrent against driving, particularly for daily commuters who already face rising fuel costs and the constant frustration of finding parking in overcrowded districts. This would, in theory, translate into fewer vehicles clogging major arteries like Cach Mang Thang Tam or Nguyen Trai during peak hours, easing pressure on the road network and shortening commute times for everyone. It could also foster a more equitable city by making mobility accessible to students, elderly residents, and low-income workers regardless of their ability to own a vehicle.
However, the efficacy of free public transport is heavily contingent on the quality and reach of the existing network. Making buses free is of little use if routes remain infrequent, overcrowded, or simply absent from where people actually need to go, which is still the case in many outer districts of Vietnamese cities. In my experience as an operations supervisor for a coffee chain in Ho Chi Minh City, I have seen how strategic infrastructure, rather than pricing alone, reshapes commuting habits. Since Metro Line 1 opened between Ben Thanh and Suoi Tien, I have watched staff at our stores near the new stations switch from daily motorbike commutes to a combination of the metro and the pedestrian-friendly path along the renovated Nhieu Loc canal, cutting their exposure to traffic almost entirely. This suggests that investing in high-quality, well-integrated infrastructure, rather than merely subsidising an already inadequate system, is what ultimately determines whether people abandon their vehicles.
In conclusion, while making public transport free certainly holds promise for easing traffic jams by encouraging a shift away from private vehicles, it remains an incomplete remedy on its own. A genuinely effective governmental approach requires a holistic strategy combining robust infrastructure investment, denser route networks, and thoughtful urban design to give commuters a real alternative to the motorbike.
Collocations
Examiner Notes
- TR“While I acknowledge the merits of this idea, I partially disagree that it is the single best solution; its effectiveness ultimately depends on other systemic measures, particularly infrastructure and urban planning.” — States a clear, nuanced position in the introduction that the essay goes on to develop.
- LR“clogging major arteries” — Vivid, topic-specific collocation for describing traffic congestion on main roads.
- CC“However, the efficacy of free public transport is heavily contingent on the quality and reach of the existing network.” — The discourse marker "However" clearly signals the pivot from the pro-argument to the counterpoint.
- GRA“Making buses free is of little use if routes remain infrequent, overcrowded, or simply absent from where people actually need to go, which is still the case in many outer districts of Vietnamese cities.” — A complex sentence combining a conditional clause with a non-defining relative clause, showing controlled grammatical range.
- TR“A genuinely effective governmental approach requires a holistic strategy combining robust infrastructure investment, denser route networks, and thoughtful urban design to give commuters a real alternative to the motorbike.” — The conclusion restates and sharpens the writer's position, tying it back to the specific local context.