ECPE Writing - Sample Article (Banning Cars from the City)

This is the fourth sample article that conforms to the writing section requirements of the ECPE (Examination for the Certificate of Proficiency in English) of the University of Michigan.

My first post to deal with articles, explains what needs to be present in the piece of writing candidates compose. Examiners are looking for articles that elaborate on ideas and have solid arguments; are well organized; make use of a wide lexical and grammatical range; have an original ring to them (in other words,

readers are able to distinguish the author's unique "voice").

Before proceeding, read the following post if you haven't already done so. It will help you focus on the vital aspects you need to be aware of when reading the article.

The question appeared in Practice Tests for the ECPE Book 1 (revised 2021 version) and is accompanied by the following three writing prompts:

a statement according to a government report: "Traffic congestion is increasing in most major cities

a bar graph on time spent in traffic per year

1985 = 25 hrs
2000 = 52 hrs
2015 = 66 hrs

a quote: "If I can't deliver packages, I can't do my job" - Ron Jones, Deliveryman

Here's the question:

In order to improve air quality and promote walking and public transportation, your city recently passed a law banning private vehicles in large parts of the city. Write an article for a local news website explaining how this will affect residents and your opinion of the new law. Include at least one piece of information given above to support your response.

The sample article is slightly over 650 words:

Why we need to rethink the new punitive vehicle law

According to a recent government report, traffic congestion is increasing in most major cities. This fact may well be the reason why our city council has taken measures to limit the number of vehicles in large parts of the city in an effort to have more citizens walk, use public transport and enjoy cleaner air. Yet aside from these obvious benefits, many, myself included, question the viability of this new decree.

For one, what happens to those who reside in the areas affected by the ban? Doubtless, they will blissfully welcome the quieter streets and improved air quality, but will they be allowed to drive home? If the ban on private vehicles is indeed all-encompassing, citizens who live where vehicle restriction will be enforced must let their cars languish in their garages or outside their homes since they won’t be allowed to drive them. You might counter that special passes will be given to residents by the municipality so the former can travel uninhibited, but who will monitor cars traveling within city boundaries? Will there be check points or street cameras scanning license plate numbers and cross-referencing data? Both will be grounds for delay and added expenses that will, once again, come out of our pockets, as if utility bills, job insecurity, inflation and the energy crisis these days aren’t enough.

Then there’s also the entrepreneurial side of things to consider. Businesses open in these urban areas might see a decline in customers. Even though the ban is expected to encourage people to use public transport and the city will be a cleaner, quieter one which consumers are likely to visit more often under such circumstances, it could easily be argued that this will not be the case. Those who live in remote areas or who travel from nearby towns once every so often, faced with the option of sitting amongst strangers on a bus or train, having to make allowances for time based on itinerary schedules and forced to leave the comfort and freedom their private cars afford them, are bound to stay home or visit another city that will embrace their custom with no strings attached. Who can guarantee that public transport can solve inner-city transportation in the post-covid era we live in? With people shunning public means of conveyance for fear of contamination, consumer flow into stores should decrease in the near future with this ban in place.

Finally, employees are the hardest hit on the receiving end of this law. Those who had their early morning routine all worked out, dropping young Sam off at primary school and Juliet – their toddler – at daycare before making use of their monthly pre-booked spot in the downtown parking lot next to the office building they work in now need to rethink their schedule, hoping bus routes will cover their needs. Even more worrisome is the plight of those who work as removal men and women, delivery people and other distributors in general. “If I can’t deliver packages, I can’t do my job,” states Ron Jones, a deliveryman.

In sum, no one can question the advantages a carless city has to offer. Who, in their right mind can say no to cleaner air, less noise and less traffic congestion? Nonetheless, we must not turn a blind eye to shopkeepers and local businesses that have already been hard-hit these past few years, and listen to those who legitimately need to make use of a private car to go about business as usual. Our right to own and drive a car is sacrosanct and seeing as we pay our dues in the form of road tax, state and local authorities are wrong to give freely with one hand and take with the other, in my view. On second thought, let me rephrase that – they are wrong to collect taxes with one hand and forbid you free rein of the very thing whose use you have already paid them for.