首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Beijing is contemplating charging congestion fees for cars that enter the city center during peak hours in a bid to ease the tra
Beijing is contemplating charging congestion fees for cars that enter the city center during peak hours in a bid to ease the tra
admin
2020-09-01
32
问题
Beijing is contemplating charging congestion fees for cars that enter the city center during peak hours in a bid to ease the traffic condition and improve the air quality in the capital. Heated discussions on the effectiveness of congestion fees are aroused among people. The following are opinions from different sides. Read the excerpt carefully and write your response in NO LESS THAN 300 WORDS, in which you should:
1. summarize briefly the different opinions;
2. give your comment.
Marks will be awarded for content relevance, content sufficiency, organization and language quality. Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks.
Write your article on ANSWER SHEET FOUR.
Excerpt
BadBreath (the US): Drastic measures must be taken or imposed in order to deal with the horrendous pollution problems throughout China. They can place enormous tariffs on cars to minimize traffic volume and pollution. Then, continue expanding the subway to the best of their ability.
Brendan (the UK): The congestion charge was introduced in London in 2003 in a bid to reduce inner-city traffic volume and prevent pollution. The congestion charge of about £11.5 is required to enter the zone. In the 12 years since the congestion fees have been levied, traffic volume and pollution have fallen sharply. The policy can be named as one of the most successful policies.
Matt (China) : I support the move! I have to endure road congestion every day to and from work; I don’t know whether this congestion charge will be an effective solution to this problem or not, but I sure hope so! The ways of managing cars that are currently in force are unreasonable since they cost a lot in fees even for people who don’t drive cars. It would be better to change to a situation where those who drive cars bear high costs, while those who do not drive cars pay no money at all.
Britomart (China): There’s another very significant factor, which our city’s officials seem to be ignoring. Congestion fees are no barrier to the very wealthy, to whom fees and regulations are negligible. If anything, higher rates simply serve to show off that they are the elite, to whom money is irrelevant.
Strangerl23 (the US): Such fees are just more income for the government. People who need to drive will pay the fee. No such fee can ever stop or deter anyone from driving. You know why? Driving is not a luxury as you imagine. To many people, driving is a necessity. Why don’t you ban cars? This would work greatly.
Aran (Singapore): The congestion charge is almost proven not to work all by itself. It has to come backed up with extensive public transport systems. Singapore has a decent public transport system and that is why the congestion charge works. Singapore has a metro stop almost every two blocks (in the central districts) and buses every 5 minutes to feed them. The inherent solution itself comes with the way the city is designed so that people travel less. China could solve part of the problems with ramping up the density of residential areas around their work places.
PatrickInBeijing (Germany): Congestion fees might make more sense if they are coupled with other programs. Several people have noted to improve mass transit. How about lower fees for cars with multiple passengers and higher fees for cars with only one person? Multiple passenger cars could also be given priority at toll booths. Electric cars could get reduced fees, while large cars that produce more pollution would pay more. There are a number of ideas which could help. Keep in mind that it is not just about congestion, but about pollution and that not all cars pollute equally.
选项
答案
Should Congestion Fees for Cars Be Charged? In the wake of a spell of hazardous smog, Beijing’s traffic authority has announced that the city is likely to charge congestion fees for car owners. Should congestion fees be the problem-solver? People’s opinions vary a lot. Although they all unanimously agree that drastic measures should be taken, to solve the horrendous traffic and pollution problems is much more difficult than to propose a policy. Some support the government in view of London’s successful experience in 2003, and they claim the fees collected could be used to improve public transportation. But others point out that congestion fees will not deter people from driving, as driving is not a luxury but a necessity. On the contrary, it makes those who drive feel the sense of superiority. Besides, congestion fees make no sense without the support of some other programs, such as the extension of public transport system, the balance on different types of car driving, and so on. Sorting out all the fluffy clues, my main contention is that the congestion charge does not guarantee a solution to traffic and pollution problems without the support of other programs. First, public transport system should be well-extended and well-developed. The key to solving the congestion problem in metropolises in China is to balance the fast growing demand on transportation and the insufficient supply of transportation resources. Second, there should be different considerations about the charge. For example, cars with multiple passengers or energy-saving cars should get reduced fees, and electric cars should be charged free. Third, vehicle emission may not be the main source of the notorious smog problem in China. London smog is not controlled by only one policy of collecting congestion fees. The government must make sure that the fees are spent on the improvement of the dwelling environments of its people. Otherwise, it will surely arouse complaints and discontent from its citizens. In a word, we should not confuse air pollution with congestion problems in big cities. Comprehensive considerations and joint efforts by the government, researchers from institutions and the public are all needed.
解析
本题讨论征收交通拥堵费是否可以解决城市交通拥堵和空气污染问题,命题是社会各界关注的焦点。本题要求简要概括所给材料中的各种观点,并发表自己的看法。在具体的写作过程中,考生可以开篇点明该社会问题,并提出论点:征收交通拥堵费是否可以解决问题;第二段简要梳理各方观点;第三段重点阐述自己对这一问题的看法,并说明理由;最后一段总结全文,重申观点。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/1ekMFFFM
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
SomeTheoriesofHistoryI.TheproblemsofunderstandinghistoryHistorywithwrittenrecords:therecordsmaybe【T1】______
TheAmericanTwo-partySystemI.IntroductionA.theoldestpolitical【T1】______aroundtheworld【T1】______B.theclassicalexam
Itisaknownfactthatphysicalactivityimprovesoverallhealth.Notonlydoesitimprovecirculation,increasebloodflowto
Inrecentyears,railroadshavebeencombiningwitheachother,mergingintosupersystems,causingheightenedconcernsaboutmo
AreyouconsideringtravelingtoanativeEnglishspeakingcountrytoimproveyourEnglishlanguagesskillsatalanguagescho
人的一生好比马拉松赛跑。人人都有最后一圈,这一圈通常属于人生道路漫长的老人。七老八十的人,穿过艰难的世途,穿过芸芸众生,穿过重重障碍,于是到了人生的最后一圈。这一圈路程有长有短,跑得有快有慢。有的人稳健有力,从容不迫;有的人歪歪扭扭,步子不正;有的人拖拖沓
保护绿水青山,留住蓝天白云,是全体人民福祉所系,也是对子孙后代义不容辞的责任。必须始终把建设生态文明、保护生态环境放在突出位置,强化科学治理,推广使用技术,实行最严格的源头保护制度,严守生态保护红线,以重点区域和关键领域为抓手,实施重大战略性生态工程,充分
(匆忙与休闲是截然不同的两种生活方式。但在现实生活中,人们却在这两种生活方式间频繁穿梭,有时也说不清自己到底是“休闲着”还是“匆忙着”。)譬如说,当我们正在旅游胜地享受假期,却忽然接到老板的电话,告诉我们客户或工作方面出了麻烦……
A、9months.B、19months.C、2to3years.D、3years.B细节题。考查数字记忆能力,对话明确提出,ittookmenineteenmonths。故本题正确答案是B。
车从这里的地铁爬上天桥,颤颤巍巍地从又乱又脏的街区开过去,往下一望,有时会突然看到一栋破极了的大楼的窗子里,有一些脸色神秘的东方人,穿着日式的大黑衣服,在练拳。再往下一望,看到一个穿脏花裙子的黑老女人,摇摆着生了痛风病的胖腿,拿着一个大塑料袋,气息奄奄地走
随机试题
患者男,60岁。突起胸骨后剧痛4小时,血压80/60mmHg。心电图检查STⅡ、Ⅲ、aVF、V3R、V4R弓背向上抬高。诊断最可能的是
治疗感冒风寒束表证,宜选()(2008年第171题)
血小板减少性紫癜的病因是
下列属于疏水性环糊精的是()。
依据《建设工程安全生产管理条例》的规定。有关总承包单位与分包单位的安全管理的表述,错误的是()。
根据《建筑基坑支护技术规程》JGJ120--2012,支护结构水平位移为应测项目的基坑侧壁安全等级为()。
案例:下面是在完成“探究摩擦力的大小与什么因素有关”的实验后.教师对实验进行改进的教学片段:教师:对摩擦力现象,同学们已经有了丰富的感性认识。经过此节实验课,同学们也知道了摩擦力与什么因素有关。这次实验中还存在哪些不足呢?学
下列选项属于条件反射的是()。
设函数z=f(u),方程u=ψ(u)+∫yxP(t)dt确定u是x,y的函数,其中f(u),ψ(u)可微,P(t),ψ’(u)连续,且ψ’(u)≠1.求
Advertisementcanbethoughtofas"themeansofmakingknowninordertobuyorsellgoodsorservices".Advertisementaimsto
最新回复
(
0
)