IELTS Traffic Congestion Essay: A Band 7.5 Answer and the Four Sentences That Capped It

Traffic congestion is one of the most frequently seen subjects in IELTS Writing Task 2, and it arrives in two different question shapes. One asks whether a particular measure is the answer. The other asks for causes and solutions. They need different essays, and writing the wrong one is the most expensive mistake available on this topic.

Most pages on this subject give you a model answer with a band written beside it and nothing else. This one gives you a complete answer, the band the Bandly engine estimated for each of the four criteria separately, and the four sentences inside it that stopped it going higher, each rewritten.

The two question shapes

Read the last line of the prompt. It tells you which essay to write.

Here are the phrasings you will meet most often on this topic. These are typical forms used in preparation material, not official exam papers.

1. In many cities, traffic congestion is getting worse every year. Some people believe the only solution is to increase the cost of driving in city centres. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
2. Traffic congestion is a serious problem in most large cities. What do you think the causes are, and what measures could reduce it?
3. Some people say private cars should be banned from city centres. Others say this would damage business. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

The most common failure here is not vocabulary. It is answering the wrong question: the prompt asks whether road pricing is the only solution, and the candidate writes a general essay about traffic. If you want the mechanism behind that, Task Response is the criterion that reads for it, and reading the phrase "to what extent" correctly is most of the work. For the second shape, the problem and solution structure is a separate pattern.

Ideas you can use, with the reasoning attached

Examiners are not marking your opinions, so you do not need original ideas. You need ideas you can explain in three sentences each. Here are the ones that are easiest to develop.

Causes.

1. Rising car ownership with no matching road capacity. Incomes rise faster than cities can build, so more vehicles use the same streets.
2. Poor public transport. When buses are slow, unreliable or infrequent, driving is the rational choice even for people who would rather not drive.
3. Centralised employment. Offices, hospitals and universities concentrated in one district means everyone travels in the same direction at the same hour.
4. Urban sprawl. Housing built far from workplaces makes long commutes unavoidable.

Solutions, and the honest objection to each.

Naming the objection is what separates a developed idea from a stated one. The band descriptors for Task Response ask for main ideas that are extended and supported. An objection is the cheapest way to extend one.

A full answer, with the criterion by criterion estimate

This is a published answer from Bandly's sample library. The prompt is the opinion shape.

In many cities, traffic congestion is getting worse every year. Some people believe the only solution is to increase the cost of driving in city centres. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The complete answer, with its band estimates and the evidence behind them, is on its sample page. The opening and the position statement read:

In many major urban areas around the world, traffic congestion has become a pressing issue that worsens annually. To combat this, some experts argue that raising the cost of driving in city centres is the only viable solution. While I agree that increasing driving expenses is a highly effective measure, I disagree that it is the sole solution, as other strategies must also be implemented to achieve long-term results.

That third sentence is doing the whole job of the introduction. It takes a position, and the position is about the only solution, which is the thing the prompt actually asked. A thesis that said "traffic congestion is a serious problem that needs attention" would have answered nothing.

Bandly's engine estimated the four criteria separately:

Those are estimates from Bandly's own scoring engine. They have not been checked against a qualified human examiner, so treat the numbers as a reading of the text rather than a mark. What is solid, and what the rest of this page is about, is the sentences the engine pointed at.

The four sentences that capped it, rewritten

This is the part a model answer never shows you. Four sentences in that essay carry the errors behind the three sevens. Each one is rewritten below, with the criterion the change is working on.

One. A modal verb followed by a third person verb.

Before. This policy would encourages people to carpool or use alternative transport methods to avoid financial penalties.

After. This policy encourages people to carpool, or to use public transport instead, in order to avoid the charge.

Would encourages is two tense markers in one verb. After would, the verb takes its bare form: would encourage. Here the sentence is better still without the modal, because it is stating how the policy works rather than predicting. Criterion: Grammatical Range and Accuracy. This is the error type that drags the proportion of error free sentences down, and it is invisible to the writer because the sentence sounds fluent.

Two. A misspelled word in an otherwise strong sentence.

Before. Furthermore, high parking fees in downtown areas make driving less attractive, which is highly benefitial for the environment due to reduced emissions.

After. High parking fees also make driving less attractive, which benefits the environment by reducing emissions.

Benefitial should be beneficial. Criterion: Lexical Resource, which covers word formation as well as word choice. The rewrite also replaces is highly beneficial for with the verb benefits, which is shorter and reads as more controlled, and it drops Furthermore for the reason in the next point.

Three. Subject and verb disagreement inside a conditional.

Before. If there is no alternative ways to travel, people will simply pay the higher costs and continue driving, which does not solve the underlying problem.

After. If there are no alternative ways to travel, people will simply pay the higher charge and keep driving, which leaves the underlying problem untouched.

There is with the plural ways is the disagreement. Criterion: Grammatical Range and Accuracy. The conditional pattern itself is correct, which is worth noticing: if plus present simple, then will plus the bare verb. The structure was right and one word inside it was wrong, which is a much better position to be in than the reverse.

Four. The connectors doing the organising.

Before. On the one hand ... Furthermore ... However ... On the other hand ... Additionally ...

After. Charging drivers has an immediate effect ... The objection to it is fairness, because ... A charge alone cannot work, however, unless ...

This is the one the engine called "slightly mechanical". Criterion: Coherence and Cohesion. The band descriptors at the top of this criterion describe cohesion that is managed so that it attracts no attention. A paragraph that opens with On the one hand and then adds Furthermore and Additionally is signposting with labels rather than linking ideas. The fix is not to delete every connector. It is to let some sentences connect through their content, so the connectors that remain are carrying real turns in the argument.

One more thing the engine flagged under Task Response, which is a content point rather than a language one. Two ideas near the end, moving business districts out of the centre and encouraging cycling, were introduced and then left without development. Both are good ideas. Each got one sentence. Two ideas with one sentence each are worth less than one idea with three sentences, and that is the trade that kept Task Response at 8.

Vocabulary for this topic, in sentences

Word lists do not transfer into essays. These are the phrases worth having, shown in use.

1. Congestion charge. London introduced a congestion charge in 2003, and traffic entering the zone fell.
2. Car dependency. Suburbs built around car dependency are difficult to serve with buses.
3. Peak hours. Most of the delay occurs in the two peak hours of each weekday.
4. Public transport network. A dense public transport network makes driving the slower option.
5. Commuter. A commuter travelling 30 kilometres has no realistic alternative to driving.
6. Disincentive. A charge is a financial disincentive, not a solution on its own.
7. Decentralise. Some cities decentralise employment by developing secondary business districts.

Avoid the two phrases that appear in almost every weak answer on this topic: nowadays traffic is a big problem and the government should take action. Neither says anything, and both use words you need for an actual idea.

The traps on this topic specifically

1. Answering "is pricing the only solution" with a list of solutions and no position. Four solutions with no statement about the prompt's claim is a Task Response problem, not a content problem.
2. Writing about the environment instead of congestion. Emissions are a legitimate supporting point. They are not the question.
3. Inventing statistics. Studies show that 70 per cent of commuters with no study behind it adds nothing and can only hurt you. A named real example such as London or Singapore is worth more than a number you made up.
4. Describing your own city for two paragraphs. One personal example, developed, is strong. A whole essay about your city is a story, not an argument.

What to do with this today

Write the opinion version once, under 40 minutes, from this prompt: In many cities, traffic congestion is getting worse every year. Some people believe the only solution is to increase the cost of driving in city centres. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Before you check anything else, do three things to your own draft. Find every modal verb and check the verb after it is in its bare form. Find every there is and there are and check the noun that follows. Count the sentences supporting each of your main ideas, and if any idea has only one, either develop it or delete it.

Then paste the essay into Bandly. The band you get back is an estimate rather than a verified score, so use the criterion comments: they name the sentences, which is what you cannot see in your own writing. Reading the other Task 2 samples alongside your own answer shows you the same gap from the other direction.