USA Bus Lines

Could anyone help me with my writing assignment's spelling and grammar mistake?

"Trapped in the traffic jam? You gotta pay for it!" This is no joking. Guangzhou municipal government is promoting a new proposal to relive the traffic jam in the metropolitan area during the rush hours. According to a recent report, traffic congestion fee will be charged according to the type, size and usage of the automobile. The officials said the plan is still in the evaluation, not even in the consideration of final approval. However, the topic triggered a hot controversy among citizens. Figures released by the Guangzhou Metropolitan Daily suggest almost 90% of citizens hold a negative opinion. [1] Despite great resistance by the automobile owners, policy makers are not likely to compromise. Reasons given seem to be very convincing. First of all, charging congestion fee is universally applied; Singapore, Rome and major U.S cities have adopted it and witnessed some success. More important, congestion fee is charged against the “occupation of public resources”, to be specific, roads. As vehicles volume in Guangzhou is reaching its extreme capacity, major roads during the rush hour are heavy crowded, so congestion fee is a perfect valve adjusting the traffic influx in the downtown area. Meanwhile, comparing with current vehicle tax, it's a relative small amount. Thus burden increase is limited. While I would believe these fees for traffic jam may be oriented from good purposes. But if not dealt well, the charges may finally put the government into the dilemma, fearing a public backlash. Here are a few reasons to believe so. Congestion fee is not an ideal way to solve the worsen traffic conditions in large cities. On the contrary, government does. Government should act as a service provider, and its priority is to improve its management on traffic, provide fiscal support to roads construction and meanwhile control the over blossom of automobile production. Besides broadening the road capacity, greater efforts should be made to enhance the poorly functioned public transit system. It’s not yet a proper time to consider such a fee before all the public transit systems reach their ultimate potentiality, and if congest fee is charged these problems would still exist. To make it more critical, congestion fee will raise great public concern. One of them is the legislative foundation on the charge. In 2002, the State Council issued a regulation clearly announced that no more local administrative fees introduced for registered automobiles. It also stressed raising fees without permission is strictly prohibited, so does expand the scope of charges. [2] This means, if the congestion fee introduced, it would face series failures in lawsuits against it. The government will have no choice but face the public suspicion towards its policy, which may eventually harm its credibility. Last but not least, it would aggravate the already heavy fiscal budget. Automobiles for administrative affairs take up a large share on the roads and most of their expenses are covered in the budget. If the charge implemented, the annual automobile expenses of local government would level up tremendously. "Improving urban road traffic is the responsibility of government departments, rather than vehicle owners." A professor from Zhejiang University believes that the government should be blamed for the downtown traffic jam. But now they intend to "transfer" the responsibility to the vehicle owners by let them paying the congestion charge. "Does it make sense?" As far as I'm concerned, instead of charging car owners, the government should come up with more effective ways to reduce traffic jams. They should further develop public transportation and improve roads and their management. Charging fees will not help alleviate traffic on the whole at all. We welcome more bus and metro services, more roads and better management, not bills. References: 1.Jun Shi. Congestion fee won’t reduce traffic jams. Guangzhou Daily Electronic Edition. March 10, 2010, 23:40 UTC. Available at: http://gzdaily.dayoo.com/html/2010-03/10/content_891390.htm Accessed April 16, 2010. 2.The State Council General Office, rectification on the problems of unauthorized vehicle charges. Official website of Bureau of Highway, Ministry of Communications of People’s Republic of China, April 15, 2002. Available at: http://www.moc.gov.cn/zizhan/siju/gonglusi/gongluyanghu_GL/luzhengguanli/guanliwenjian/200709/t20070918_393610.html Accessed April 16, 2010.

Public Comments

1. Hi there Fang, Just wanted to mention, this is written pretty well already, and I hope that you get this done the way you want it. I find that English writing is very much a matter of style more than anything particularly when it is written with a level of understanding that you obviously have already. Please do not take any of these corrections as necessary but simply as suggestions. My apologies if I cannot finish this for you. I will go as far as I can. "Trapped in a traffic jam? You've gotta pay for it!" This is no joke. Guangzhou municipal government is promoting a new proposal to relieve traffic jams in the metropolitan area during rush hour. According to a recent report, traffic congestion fees will be charged according to automobile types, sizes, and usage. The officials say the plan is still under evaluation, and not ready for final approval. However, the topic triggered a lot of controversy among citizens. Figures released by the Guangzhou Metropolitan Daily suggest that almost 90% of citizens are opposed to this plan. [1]
2. Here's a slight rewrite: (the changes I made are CAPITALIZED) (the first quote is ungrammatical but I felt you were going for a colloquial feel. If not, then change to ... you have to pay for it) "Trapped in A traffic jam? You gotta pay for it!" This is no JOKE. Guangzhou Municipal Government is promoting a proposal to RELIEVE TRAFFIC JAMS in the metropolitan area during (DELETE the) rush hours. According to a recent report, traffic congestion FEES will be charged according to the type, size and usage of the automobile. OFFICIALS said the plan is still in the evaluation STAGE, AND not CLOSE TO final approval. However, the topic triggered a MAJOR controversy among citizens. Figures released by the Guangzhou Metropolitan Daily suggest almost 90% of citizens hold a negative opinion. [1] Despite great resistance by (DELETE the) automobile owners, policy makers are not likely to compromise. THE reasons given seem to be very convincing. First of all, a congestion fee is CHARGED IN MANY OTHER PLACES; Singapore, Rome and major U.S cities have adopted it and witnessed some success. More IMPORTANTLY, congestion FEES ARE charged against the “occupation of public resources”, OR, to be specific, roads. As THE AMOUNT OF VEHICLES in Guangzhou REACHES ITS capacity, major roads during the rush hour are EXTREMELY crowded, so A congestion fee is a perfect valve TO ADJUST the traffic influx in the downtown area. Meanwhile, comparED TO THE current vehicle tax, THE FEE IS a relativeLY small amount. Thus, burden increase is limited. While I (DELETE would) believe these fees TO REDUCE traffic jamS may be SUGGESTED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS, if not HANDLED well, the charges may FIND the government IN A dilemma, fearing a public backlash. Here are a few reasons to believe so. Congestion feeS ARE not an ideal way to solve the worsenING traffic conditions in large cities. On the contrary, government ACTION IS THE WAY TO GO. Government should act as a service provider, and its priority BE to improve its management OF traffic, provide fiscal support OF road construction and (DELETE meanwhile) control OVERPRODUCTION of automobileS. Besides broadening (DELETE the) road capacity, greater efforts should be made to enhance the poorly functionING public transit system. It’s not yet THE proper time to consider such a fee before all the public transit systems reach their ultimate POTENTIAL, and EVEN if congestION feeS WERE TO BE charged, these problems would still exist. To make it more critical, congestion feeS will raise great public concern. (THIS SENTENCE DOES NOT MAKE SENSE AND IS PROBABLY UNNECESSARYOne of them is the legislative foundation on the charge.) In 2002, the State Council issued a regulation clearly announcING that no more local administrative fees WOULD BE introduced for registered automobiles. It also stressed raising fees without permission WOULD BE strictly prohibited, AS WOULD EXPANDING the scope of charges. [2] This means, if the congestion fee WERE TO BE introduced, it would face THE SERIOUS POTENTIAL OF LAWSUITS. The government will have no choice but TO face the public suspicion towards its policy, which may eventually harm its credibility. Last but not least, it would aggravate the already heavy fiscal budget. Automobiles for administrative affairs CONSTITUTE a large share OF THE TRAFFIC on the roads and most of their expenses are covered in the budget. If the charge WERE TO BE implemented, the annual automobile expenses of local government would INCREASE tremendously. "Improving urban road traffic is the responsibility of government departments, rather than vehicle owners." A professor from Zhejiang University believes that the government should be blamed for the downtown traffic jams. But now they intend to "transfer" the responsibility to the vehicle owners by MAKINGt themPAY the congestion charge. "Does it make sense?" As far as I'm concerned, instead of charging car owners, the government should come up with more effective ways to reduce traffic jams. They should further develop public transportation and improve roads and their management. Charging fees will not help alleviate traffic on the whole (DELETEat all). We welcome more bus and metro services, more roads and better management, not bills. References: 1.Jun Shi. Congestion fee won’t reduce traffic jams. Guangzhou Daily Electronic Edition. March 10, 2010, 23:40 UTC. Available at: http://gzdaily.dayoo.com/html/2010-03/10… Accessed April 16, 2010. 2.The State Council General Office, rectification on the problems of unauthorized vehicle charges. Official website of Bureau of Highway, Ministry of Communications of People’s Republic of China, April 15, 2002. Available at: http://www.moc.gov.cn/zizhan/siju/gonglu… Accessed April 16, 2010.