IELTS Writing Task 2 prompt
Some people think that governments should spend money on developing public transport, while others believe it is better to build more and wider roads. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Source practice test: IELTS Writing Test 15
Band 9 model answer
Expert-level response
Debate persists over whether governments should channel transport budgets into public transit networks or into expanding road infrastructure. While wider roads may offer short-term relief from congestion, I would argue that investment in public transport delivers far greater long-term benefits for cities and the environment.
Advocates of road expansion typically point to immediate convenience. Wider motorways and additional lanes can ease bottlenecks, shorten journey times for commuters and freight, and support economic activity in regions where car ownership is deeply entrenched. In areas with dispersed populations or limited existing infrastructure, new roads can also open up access to employment and services that would otherwise remain out of reach. However, this approach tends to be self-defeating: research consistently shows that expanded road capacity is quickly filled by additional traffic, a phenomenon known as induced demand, meaning congestion often returns within a few years while pollution and land consumption increase.
By contrast, prioritising buses, trams and railways addresses the root causes of urban transport problems rather than merely their symptoms. A well-funded, reliable network reduces the number of private vehicles on the road, which in turn lowers carbon emissions, improves air quality and cuts the accident rate. It also promotes social equity, since not everyone can afford a car, and efficient public transport gives lower-income citizens, students and the elderly genuine mobility. Cities such as Tokyo and Zurich demonstrate that sustained investment in rail and bus systems can support dense populations without the gridlock seen in more car-dependent metropolises, while simultaneously freeing up urban space for housing, parks and pedestrian areas rather than car parks.
In conclusion, although expanding roads can provide a temporary fix for traffic congestion, it rarely solves the underlying problem and carries significant environmental costs. Governments would be better advised to prioritise public transport, since it offers a more sustainable, equitable and ultimately more effective solution to the challenges of modern urban mobility.
Why this meets Band 9
- Task Response: presents a clear position in the introduction, develops both views with specific reasoning and examples, and maintains the stance consistently through to a well-justified conclusion.
- Coherence and Cohesion: ideas progress logically within each body paragraph, with sophisticated linking (however, by contrast, in turn, while simultaneously) that connects sentences without relying on mechanical connectors.
- Lexical Resource: precise, topic-specific vocabulary such as induced demand, bottlenecks, urban mobility, and social equity is used accurately and naturally, showing range beyond common transport terms.
- Grammatical Range and Accuracy: a mix of complex structures, including relative clauses, passive voice, and conditional-style reasoning, is used with full control and no errors that affect meaning.
Band 6 sample answer
Competent but limited response
Nowadays, many countries have problems with traffic and transport. Some people think government should spend money on public transport like buses and trains, but other people think it is better to build more and wider roads. In this essay, I will discuss both sides and give my opinion at the end.
Firstly, people who support building more roads say that it can help to reduce traffic jams quickly. If there are more lanes, cars can move faster and drivers do not need to waste time in traffic every day. This is especially useful for people who live in small towns where there is no good public transport, so they must use their own car to go to work or school. Building roads can also help business because goods can move around the country more easily.
On the other hand, other people believe that public transport is a better choice for the government to invest in. If cities have more buses, trains and subways, less people will need to drive their own car, and this can reduce pollution and traffic jam in the city. Also, public transport is cheaper for poor people who cannot afford a car, so it can help everyone to travel, not only rich people. In addition, more roads can encourage more people to buy cars, so after some years the traffic problem will come back again and the government will need to build even more roads, which cost a lot of money.
In conclusion, both sides have some good points, but in my opinion, public transport is a better solution for governments to spend money on. It is more environmentally friendly, it helps poor people, and it can solve the traffic problem for a long time, not only for a short time like new roads.
Why this sits around Band 6
- Task Response: both views are covered and a clear opinion is given, but the development is thinner than Band 9, with generic reasons instead of specific examples or deeper explanation of consequences.
- Coherence and Cohesion: paragraphing is clear, but linking relies on basic, mechanical connectors such as Firstly, On the other hand, and In conclusion rather than varied cohesive devices.
- Lexical Resource: vocabulary is accurate but repetitive, with words like traffic jam, good, and people repeated several times instead of using synonyms or more precise terms such as congestion or commuters.
- Grammatical Range and Accuracy: sentences are mostly simple or compound with basic conditionals (If there are more lanes), and there are minor errors like less people instead of fewer people, though meaning stays clear throughout.
Should I give equal length to both views, or can I favour the side I agree with?
You should discuss both views with genuine substance, since the task explicitly asks you to, but your own opinion can still shape the essay's overall weight. A strong approach is to give each side one well-developed body paragraph, then let your conclusion, and subtle emphasis within the paragraphs, make clear which position you ultimately favour.