When considering ways to reduce traffic congestion and promote sustainable urban mobility,

two prominent methods emerge: restricting car use in city centers and implementing cheaper
public transport options. While both approaches aim to address similar issues, they differ
significantly in their effectiveness.

Restricting car use in city centers offers immediate relief by reducing traffic volume and
congestion. It encourages alternative modes of transportation such as walking, cycling, or
the use of public transport. By implementing car-free zones, cities can prioritize pedestrian
safety, improve air quality, and enhance the overall quality of urban life. However, this
method may face resistance from car owners used to the comfort of driving who may find
paying a car before knowing these changes and restrictions unfair.

On the other hand, offering cheaper public transport presents a more inclusive solution that
benefits a wider range of people. By introducing subsidies, local governments can promote
the use of buses, trams, and trains, while reducing reliance on private vehicles. Cheaper
public transport not only reduces traffic congestion but also promotes social equity by
making transportation more accessible to low-income individuals. Also reduces the total CO2
emissions.

In conclusion, I believe that prioritizing cheaper public transport is the more effective and
sustainable approach for local governments to support. In both methods there is an
underlying need of having a good public transport infrastructure and accessible methods of
transportation. By investing in public transport and making it more affordable, cities can
encourage a culture of sustainable mobility while promoting social inclusion and economic
prosperity. This method focuses purely on making public transport the best alternative for
everyone without having to limit drivers from using their vehicles.