The issue of
and transportation challenges has sparked a widespread debate in recent times, with some suggesting that promoting people to move from
outskirtsCorrect article usage
show examples
of town to
cityCorrect article usage
show examples
centerUse the right word
show examples
can be a sustainable solution. I partly agree with
opinionCorrect article usage
show examples
, as living in a
reduceCorrect subject-verb agreement
show examples
the need for long-distance
dailyCheck wording
show examples
trips.
, I am more inclined to believe that other long-term measures,
as the development of transport
in the suburbs, would be more practical and convenient.
One compelling reason why citizens should relocate to urban
centersUse the right word
show examples
is that it could significantly reduce commuting time and
congestion. When people live closer to their workplaces or
educationalCheck wording
show examples
institutionsChange preposition
show examples
, the necessity for long-distance travel by private car decreases, thereby easing pressure on road networks and lowering time consumption.
is exemplified by major
like Seoul, where a high percentage of residents in
metropolitanCorrect article usage
show examples
area live near public transport stations and efficiently commute, resulting in less reliance on personal vehicles and
smotherUse the right word
show examples
flow.
,
strategy can be a useful step forward in tackling transport-related problems, especially in megacities.
Despite its potential, relocating all residents to the
centerUse the right word
show examples
cannot be
completelyCorrect article usage
show examples
profitable and long-term solution
inChange preposition
show examples
eliminating
issues. Since mass migration causes overpopulation, housing shortage, and environmental pollution, urban
may fail to accommodate the rising
needs.
, in turn, can lead to increased living costs and a decline in the
quality of urban life. Shanghai can stand out as a notable example, where concentrating the
in the
centerUse the right word
show examples
has overwhelmed
, driven up real estate prices, and contributed to severe air pollution.
,
the policy sounds promising, it may not effectively reach or benefit the entire
.
I firmly believe that expanding
in rural
would be practically useful in
case. With governments investing in better roads, public transport, and essential services in countryside regions, citizens are less likely to move to overcrowded
and can find
perspectiveUse the right word
show examples
jobs outside the
centerUse the right word
show examples
.
The direct results of
are not confined to
reduceWrong verb form
show examples
pressure on urban
but
extend to improved quality of life in remote
, ultimately resulting in balanced
distribution and fewer
-Punctuation problem
show examples
related issues. Megapolises can exemplify
approach well, as
governmentFix the agreement mistake
show examples
developed regional
with convenience comparable to those in
centersUse the right word
show examples
, which
reduceCorrect subject-verb agreement
show examples
the need
forChange preposition
show examples
relocate.
approach appears to be more realistic, addressing the practical needs of a broader group of commuters.
In conclusion,
migration to urban
may contribute to reducing
and commuting time, its practicality remains limited
overcrowding, increased housing costs and environmental damage.
In my opinion, a more effective way would be for governments to improve
in the suburbs.