2. 外语
  3. Regarding the serious congestion in mega cities, authorities proposed that government should levy congestion fees on cars enteri

Regarding the serious congestion in mega cities, authorities proposed that government should levy congestion fees on cars enteri

admin2021-02-24  59
问题     Regarding the serious congestion in mega cities, authorities proposed that government should levy congestion fees on cars entering certain sections of their city areas. Naturally, this suggestion is quick to draw fire. The following are opinions on the effectiveness of charging congestion fees. Read them carefully and write your response in NO LESS THAN 300 words, in which you should:
    1. summarize briefly the opinions from both sides;
    2. give your comment on this practice.
    Car owners
    Mark Hough: The reason for good traffic volume in cities like Tokyo and Paris is not that they collect congestion fees, but rather improved planning. The government is obligated to provide the public with solutions. Car owners are already subject to a multitude of taxes like the fuel tax. The levying of congestion fees is therefore unjustifiable. Moreover, the experience of certain developed countries suggests that traffic congestion fees may cause roads to become even more crowded than before. Most of the collected fees are not spent on improving the traffic situation and road planning, but are rather embezzled as administrative expenses on other items. When it comes to the management of congestion, the market rule is by no means the only principle to follow.
    Gila Albert: Several major reasons exist for traffic congestion: underdeveloped public traffic systems, too many automobiles on the roads, and the concentration of central business districts. Therefore, to cope with congestion, rather than exclusively relying on charging congestion fees, other supplementary policies should be put in place. Cities are expanding while more and more families are coming to possess one or more cars. If the fees are collected, they will be the major contributors. Generally, when the price for a public product is to be raised, a hearing on the issue is held, so why has this not been the case in this instance? This new fee will affect most families in cities, hence it must be planned carefully. With important issues, decision makers must lend an ear to the public before a decision is made.
Traffic Experts
    Shi Hongju: Big cities tend to act as a magnet for job hunters owing to job opportunities as well as the various forms of welfare benefits and modern conveniences they offer. Whether or not traffic congestion fees will really enable traffic to run more smoothly, however, is a disputable point. Examples of failed schemes involving price hikes can be seen everywhere: from relieving pressure on railway transportation networks by raising ticket prices to reducing the number of visitors to scenic areas by jacking up the price of admission. Rather than being functional, these measures could easily be interpreted as similarly exploitative.
    Jake McGoldrick: London has applied congestion fees in central areas since 2003, but this is no excuse for all other cities to follow suit. Traffic congestion is a multifaceted problem, and though the results of levying congestion fees in London have proven effective, blindly copying its model would be irresponsible. Be it congestion fees or license plate restrictions, car owners’ legitimate rights and interests are being harmed. If measures to address traffic problems come at the expense of the public interest and fail to solve the underlying causes of the problem, they will be inevitably subject to doubt and criticism.
选项
答案 Congestion Fees: Not a Reasonable Solution In metropolises around the world, the serious traffic congestion has always been a thorny problem. It not only brings about the low efficiency in transportation and work, but also leads to many psychological problems. As a result, authorities proposed that government should levy congestion fees on cars entering certain city areas, and London has applied congestion fees in central areas since 2003. However, whether traffic congestion fees will really enable traffic to run more smoothly is a disputable issue. Some car owners believe the policy is unjustifiable because they have already be taxed heavily and the public opinions are often not given enough consideration before the regulation is implemented. And some experts point out that it is not responsible to blindly copy London’s mode, as traffic congestion is a multifaceted problem. I believe congestion fees would cause more harm than benefits in the long run. Firstly, the policy is a hotbed of corruption for administrative departments. Instead of being applied to traffic improvement or road planning, the money they collected is often embezzled for their own interest Secondly, it is a real burden for the car owners to pay fees on congestion, as they are already subject to fuel tax and other transportation fees. The policy of levying congestion fees would certainly cause dissatisfaction among the pubic. Thirdly, as more and more car will be on the roads of big cities, it is unrealistic to regard congestion fees as a fundamental solution for they can only relieve the traffic pressure in limited areas at certain time. In conclusion, to cope with congestion, it is not reasonable to exclusively relying on charging congestion fees. Other supplementary policies should be put in place such as improving the city planning and traffic management. As heeding only one side makes one benighted, it is also significant to carry out polls to hear the voice of the public.
解析     题目围绕“是否应该征收拥堵费”的话题展开讨论。材料中分别给出了晋通私家车主和交通管理理专家的看法。总体而言，双方均不认可征收拥堵费这一做法。
    在车主看来，他们已经承担了多数的税收，加收拥堵费是不公平的(unjustifiable)；实现交通畅通在于完善规划(improved planning)或采取其他辅助政策(other supplementary policies)；征收的费用还可能被挪作他用(embezzled…on other items)，而且决策者必须事先听取公众的意见(lend an ear to the public)。在交通管理专家看来。不能盲目复制他人的经验，交通拥堵是个综合性的问题(a multifaceted problem)。许多错误的方案会导致价格飞涨(price hikes)；加收拥堵费有损车主的合法权益，倘若收费后还不能解决问题，必然会招致质疑和批判(doubt and criticism)。
    开篇：指出交通拥堵的现状，引出征收拥堵费的这一做法。
    主体：概括材料，总结车主和交通管理专家对收取拥堵费的看法。然后提出自己的观点：用征收费用的方法来解决交通问题从长远来看是不可行的。并利用材料给出的观点举例说明。
    结尾：总结全文，重申自己的观点，反对征收拥堵费，提出应该从城市规划和城市管理的角度来解决交通问题。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/EBIK777K
0

专业英语八级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)