cristyarline Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 (edited) Prompt: In 2003, the city of London instituted a Congestion Zone Charge, a substantial fee levied on vehicles traveling into central London on Mondays through Fridays between 7 A.M. and 6 P.M. (Taxis, ambulances, buses, bicycles and alternative fuel vehicles, among others, are exempt from the charge.) This successful and ongoing program, which is already in effect in other large cities of the world and has been considered for both San Francisco and New York, should be instituted immediately in the ten most significantly congested and polluted cities in the United States. Results will include cleaner air, safer streets, happier citizens and a dramatic increase in revenue. Directions: Write an essay that frames the questions that require answers before both this argument and the prediction that accompanies it can be reasonably evaluated. Discuss how the answers to the questions are fundamental to a thoughtful evaluation of the argument and the prediction. Answer: The author of this essay explains that vehicles must pay a substantial fee in order to travel in central London on Mondays through Fridays between 7 A.M and 6 P.M. This fee is assumed to result in cleaner air, safer streets, happier citizens and a dramatic increase in revenue. If these are the goals of this fee, however, there are many questions that should be raised and evaluated in order to asses these assumptions.To begin, it's vital to ask how much pollutants and toxic emissions have been released into the atmosphere VIA standard vehicles. Assuming that taxis and ambulances, and other alternative fuel vehicles are exempt, to what extent are these vehicles releasing toxins into the atmosphere. Hence, will making owners, who drive standard vehicles, really reduce emissions and increase cleaner air? Or are emissions more likely to be emitted from the vehicles that are exempt from the fee? Also, if those who drive standard vehicles at the aforementioned times, wouldn't these people then flood the vehicles that are exempt from these fees? Therefore, these individuals will have to utilize alternative vehicles, ultimately making the desire for clean air futile? This essay also assumes that there will be a dramatic increase in revenue. However, the essay fails to account for those who are driving these standard vehicles. Who is truly benefiting from these fees? Finally, this essay assumes that this fee will result in safer streets. However, many people, without the use of standard vehicles, may have to walk longer distances in order to get to their destination. Specifically, young people who need to go to school while their parents are taking other alternative methods of transportation to make it to work. Is it still safer for these young people to walk to school alone rather than driving in congested areas? How many people have been car accidents before this fee? How can we truly assess whether or not the streets will be safer with this fee, if there is no comparative basis of analysis? Finally, the essay assumes that this fee will also make citizens happier. However, how will these people be happier if they have to reschedule their lives around these alternative modes of transportation? Also, why isn't there any specific evidence that this will increase happiness based off of the other cities who have already adopted this program? It is also important to understand that every city is different in terms of infrastructure. How do we know that this fee will work in central London? Where have fees, such as the one described above,been implemented? Edited October 22, 2016 by cristyarline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now