Some believe that traffic problems in cities can best be resolved by investing in urban infrastructure while others feel there are superior solutions. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.

When a city's population exceeds the existing infrastructure's capacity, it is usually followed by unavoidable traffic issues.

While

some argue that it can be mitigated by building bridges and underground tunnels, others believe there are still better alternatives.

This

essay will examine both sides and elaborate on why I think building or renewing infrastructure is unnecessary. Building bridges, tunnels, and other accessibility infrastructures can improve a city's traffic circulation;

however

, it is a costly and lengthy process. If new physical links between two places are designed well, it can boost travel efficiency.

Moreover

, by redirecting some vehicles to the additional accessways, traffic congestion in crowded areas can be reduced significantly.

However

,

this

solution ultimately depends on the financial capacity of a city, and these new infrastructures require a long time to be built. Some other alternatives,

on the other hand

, can be instated almost immediately.

For example

, encouraging the community to use public transport and promoting a healthier lifestyle by walking short distances. These solutions do not require many resources and can be done,

for instance

, through government campaigns or speeches. Not only that these methods are cheaper, but they

also

have a chance to be more efficient and even provide an additional benefit. If the majority of the community decides to participate, the usage of vehicles will be massively reduced, and air pollution will

also

be decreased.

To conclude

, in my opinion, we can still implement other alternatives before resorting to huge investments in newly-built urban infrastructure. Not only do the other options offer a more cost-effective solution, but they

also

reduce the amount of CO2 produced by vehicles.