Charging Drivers to Enter City Centres

The question

How to approach this discuss both views question

A discuss-both-views essay asks you to explain two opinions fairly and then give your own.

1. Introduce both views and say you will discuss them.
2. Paragraph 1: the first view with reasons and an example.
3. Paragraph 2: the second view with reasons and an example.
4. State your own opinion clearly (in the introduction or conclusion) and keep it consistent.

How to plan this answer

Structure

1. Introduction: paraphrase the policy of charging drivers to enter city centres, and state whether you believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
2. Body 1: the advantages, such as lower traffic, cleaner air and more investment in public transport from the revenue.
3. Body 2: the disadvantages, such as costs for businesses, the burden on people who must drive, and the risk that traffic moves to nearby streets.
4. Body 3 (optional): how the policy could be designed to reduce its drawbacks, such as exemptions for disabled drivers or discounts for residents.
5. Conclusion: give a clear answer to the question, weighing one side against the other.

Idea bank

• London's congestion charge, introduced in 2003, is often cited as an example of a scheme that reduced traffic in the central zone.
• Revenue from road pricing can be used to fund buses, cycle lanes and tram networks, which give drivers a real alternative to the car.
• Shops and restaurants in the centre may lose trade if customers choose to shop in out-of-town retail parks where parking is free.
• Lower-income workers who have no choice but to drive into the centre may face a heavy cost that is hard to avoid.
• Traffic may simply move to residential streets just outside the charging zone, which creates new problems for the people who live there.
• A scheme that exempts disabled drivers and offers a discount for residents can reduce the unfairness of the charge without undermining its aim.

Useful vocabulary

• congestion charge: The congestion charge reduced the number of vehicles entering the central zone.
• reduce traffic volumes: The scheme aims to reduce traffic volumes during peak hours.
• air quality: Better air quality is one of the main benefits of restricting car use.
• displace: The charge may displace traffic onto neighbouring streets.
• a disproportionate burden: The fee can place a disproportionate burden on low-income commuters.
• viable alternative: Good buses are a viable alternative for commuters who would otherwise drive.
• outweigh the disadvantages: The advantages outweigh the disadvantages if the revenue is spent on transport.
• on the other hand: On the other hand, businesses may lose customers to out-of-town shopping centres.
• it is worth noting that: It is worth noting that the scheme's effects depend on the quality of public transport.
• in the short term: In the short term, some businesses may see a fall in trade.

Common mistakes

• Describing the policy as a simple tax on drivers without explaining its purpose, such as reducing congestion or improving air quality.
• Giving a conclusion that does not weigh the two sides, which leaves the question of which outweighs the other unanswered.
• Using London as a generic example without mentioning the specific features that made the scheme work, such as the bus improvements that accompanied it.
• Ignoring the impact on people who have no realistic alternative to driving, such as those carrying equipment or living far from stations.
• Describing traffic displacement as certain to happen everywhere, instead of presenting it as a risk that depends on how the scheme is designed.

Examiner tip: Name a real scheme and a specific design feature, such as exemptions or revenue spending, then weigh the advantages against the drawbacks in your conclusion.