GT-T2-204 General Training · Task 2 · beginner · 40 min · 250+ words Discuss Both Views Transport

Cycle Lanes or More Road Space for Cars

The question

Some people think town councils should spend their transport budgets on building more cycle lanes, while others believe the money should be used to widen roads for cars. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

Instructions

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. • Cover both views equally and give each one its own paragraph. • State your own opinion clearly in the introduction and/or conclusion. • Support both views and your opinion with reasons and examples. • Organise your ideas into clear paragraphs and use cohesive devices.

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.

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

How to plan this answer

Structure

Introduction: paraphrase the conflict between cycle lanes and road widening and state your opinion that cycle lanes are the better long-term investment.
Body 1: the case for cycle lanes, covering health benefits, safety for cyclists and the capacity of cycle routes to move people efficiently.
Body 2: the case for widening roads, covering drivers, delivery vehicles and businesses that depend on fast car journeys.
Body 3: evaluate the second view, noting that new road capacity often attracts more traffic, and explain why this affects your judgement.
Conclusion: restate your opinion and suggest a practical balance, such as cycle lanes for short urban trips with buses and freight kept in mind.

Idea bank

Short urban trips, such as school runs or journeys to the shops, are often easier to make by bike than by car.
Induced demand: widened roads often fill again within a few years as more drivers choose to travel, which weakens the long-term case.
Tradespeople and delivery drivers who carry heavy equipment and need reliable road access may depend on wider roads.
A bike lane protected from traffic encourages less confident riders, including older people and parents with children.
Counter-argument: rural residents and people with disabilities may have no practical alternative to the car.

Useful vocabulary

to ease congestion: Widening a road may ease congestion for a short time but rarely solves it permanently.
induced demand: Induced demand means that new road space quickly attracts more traffic.
to tilt the balance: Traffic data showing short car journeys could tilt the balance towards cycle lanes.
to divert traffic: Road works often divert traffic onto quieter residential streets.
the case for: The case for cycle lanes rests mainly on health and safety.
to weigh up: Councils must weigh up the cost of each scheme against its likely benefits.
a safer environment for: Segregated lanes create a safer environment for cyclists.
on balance: On balance, I believe cycle lanes offer better value for money.
to be more cost-efficient: Cycle infrastructure is often more cost-efficient per person moved than road building.
a double-edged sword: Road widening can be a double-edged sword, relieving one problem while creating another.

Common mistakes

Giving one view far more space than the other, which breaks the instruction to cover both views equally.
Stating an opinion only in the conclusion and not making clear in the introduction which side you favour.
Describing cyclists or drivers in general without explaining the specific reasons each group would give.
Assuming that every car journey can be replaced by cycling, rather than distinguishing short from long trips.

Examiner tip: Give each view its own paragraph with a reason and an example, then evaluate, rather than simply listing the advantages and disadvantages of each side.

Model answers by band score

Written for this question to show what changes from one band to the next. Try the task yourself first, then compare.

Band 6 answer

Some people think that town councils should build more cycle lanes, but other people believe that the money is better used to make the roads wider for cars. In this essay I will discuss both views and then I will give my opinion. On the one hand, people who support wider roads say that cars are the most important transport in a town. Many people use cars to go to work, to take their children to school and to do shopping, and the roads are often full in the morning and in the evening. If the roads are wider, the traffic will be faster and the drivers will not waste so much time. For example, in my city there is a big traffic jam every day near the centre, and many people arrive late at work. On the other hand, there are good reasons to build cycle lanes. Cycling is cheap and it is good for the health, because people do exercise when they go to work by bike. Also, bicycles do not make pollution, so the air in the town will be cleaner. If there is a safe lane, more people will decide to cycle and there will be less cars on the road. In addition, building a cycle lane cost less than widening a road. In my opinion, the councils should spend more money on the cycle lanes. Wider roads only give people more space for cars, and after some years the traffic jam will come back again. Cycle lanes help the health and the environment, so I think they are a better investment. In conclusion, both ideas have advantages, but I believe that cycle lanes are better for the town in the long term.

Why this is band 6

Both views are presented in separate paragraphs and the writer's opinion is stated clearly in the introduction and conclusion.
Ideas are relevant but general and under-developed (for example, 'good for the health' with no explanation).
Limited range and some errors ('there will be less cars', 'a cycle lane cost less', 'do exercise') show the grammar and word-choice problems expected at this level.
To reach Band 7, it would extend the ideas with more specific support and use more varied vocabulary and linking, with fewer errors.

Band 7 answer

Town councils have limited transport budgets, and there is a debate about whether the money should go on cycle lanes or on wider roads for cars. I will discuss both views before explaining why I favour the first. Supporters of road widening point out that cars remain the main form of transport for most residents. Commuters, parents taking children to school and delivery drivers all depend on vehicles, and congestion at peak hours wastes time and fuel. Adding lanes at the busiest junctions could therefore reduce delays and make journeys more predictable. In my own city, a widened main road did ease the morning queues for a while, which shows why many drivers support this idea. However, advocates of cycle lanes make an equally persuasive case. Cycling is cheap, healthy and produces no emissions, so a well-designed network can improve both public health and air quality. Many people are discouraged from cycling because they feel unsafe among heavy traffic, but separate lanes can change this. Cycle lanes are also far cheaper to build than new road space, so the same budget can benefit more people. On balance, I believe that councils should prioritise cycle lanes. Evidence from many cities suggests that wider roads attract more cars, so the congestion returns within a few years, whereas each commuter who switches to a bicycle permanently frees up road space. That said, drivers should not be ignored, and some key junctions may still need improvement. In conclusion, although wider roads offer short-term relief for drivers, investment in cycle lanes brings longer-lasting benefits for health, the environment and traffic flow.

Why this is band 7

Both views get a full paragraph each, and a clear opinion is given in the introduction and developed in the conclusion.
Ideas are relevant and supported (peak-hour congestion, safety concerns discouraging cycling, lower cost), though one point is a general claim ('evidence from many cities').
Good range of vocabulary ('emissions', 'prioritise') and structures with only occasional errors.
To reach Band 8, it would develop each view with more specific, precise examples and use more flexible, natural phrasing.

Band 8 answer

Transport budgets are rarely generous, so town councils face a genuine choice between building cycle lanes and widening roads for cars. Although both approaches have merits, I believe that cycle lanes offer far better value. Those who favour widening roads argue that cars remain the backbone of urban transport. Commuters, parents on the school run and delivery drivers all rely on vehicles, and congestion at peak hours wastes time and fuel. Extra capacity at the busiest junctions might therefore make journeys faster and more predictable. In my own city, a widened ring road did ease the morning queues, at least temporarily. Advocates of cycle lanes, however, make an equally compelling case. Cycling is cheap, healthy and emission-free, so a connected network can improve public health and air quality at the same time. Many would-be cyclists are put off by the danger of sharing space with heavy traffic, and protected lanes directly address this. Moreover, cycle infrastructure costs a fraction of new road space, so a limited budget reaches many more residents. My own view is that the case for cycle lanes is stronger over the long term. Experience in many cities shows that extra road capacity tends to attract extra traffic, so the congestion simply returns, whereas every commuter who switches to a bicycle permanently frees up space for those who must drive. This does not mean that drivers should be ignored; targeted improvements at notorious bottlenecks may still be justified. In conclusion, wider roads offer drivers short-lived relief, while cycle lanes deliver lasting benefits for health, the environment and traffic flow.

Why this is band 8

Both views are given equal, well-developed treatment and the position is clear throughout.
Support is well selected and specific (protected lanes, would-be cyclists, new capacity attracting extra traffic), with a sensible concession to drivers.
Precise, flexible vocabulary ('backbone of urban transport', 'bottlenecks') with rare errors, and natural cohesion.
To reach Band 9, it would deepen the argument, with sharper insight and more economical, less formulaic structure.

Band 9 answer

With transport budgets rarely generous, town councils must choose between building cycle lanes and widening roads for cars. Both options have their merits, but I am convinced that cycle lanes offer far greater value. Supporters of wider roads begin from a reasonable premise: for most residents, the car remains the backbone of everyday travel. Commuters, parents on the school run and delivery drivers all depend on vehicles, and congestion at peak hours wastes both time and fuel. Additional capacity at the busiest junctions could, in principle, make journeys faster and more predictable, and in my own city a widened ring road did ease the morning queues, if only for a year or two. Advocates of cycling make a case that is at least as strong. Cycling is cheap, healthy and emission-free, so a connected network improves public health and air quality at one stroke. Many would-be cyclists are deterred less by distance than by the prospect of sharing the carriageway with heavy lorries, and physically protected lanes address that fear directly. Moreover, cycle infrastructure costs a fraction of new road space, so a limited budget reaches many more residents. Ultimately, the long-term argument favours cycling. Experience in numerous cities suggests that extra road capacity soon fills with extra traffic, leaving congestion where it began, whereas each commuter who changes to a bicycle frees up space permanently for those who must drive. None of this means that motorists should be neglected; targeted work on notorious bottlenecks may still be justified. In sum, wider roads offer drivers a fleeting respite, whereas cycle lanes yield lasting dividends for health, the environment and the flow of traffic alike.

Why this is band 9

Both views are presented fairly and fully, with the opinion integrated clearly from the introduction to the conclusion.
Arguments are fully developed with insight (protected lanes address the fear of heavy lorries; new capacity fills with new traffic) and a realistic concession.
Fully natural, sophisticated and precise language ('at one stroke', 'a fleeting respite', 'lasting dividends') with essentially no errors.
Paragraph structure and cohesion are seamless, with no mechanical linkers.

Band levels are our estimate against the public IELTS criteria; they are not official scores.

Write your answer

Sign in with Google to write online and get 8 free answers marked each month against the IELTS band criteria. No card, no password.

Practise all four IELTS skills

Listening, Reading, Writing and Speaking with band 8 samples at ieltsa.org.

Try IELTS A