Band 8 model answer

Urban planners and policymakers increasingly debate whether city infrastructure should prioritise the needs of pedestrians over those of private motor vehicles. I strongly agree that pedestrian-centred design should be the governing principle of modern city planning, for reasons relating to health, the environment and social equity.

The case for walkable cities is compelling on multiple fronts. Cities dominated by cars impose enormous public health costs through air pollution, road accidents and the sedentary lifestyles that car dependency encourages. By contrast, cities with dense networks of pavements, cycle lanes and public transport naturally promote physical activity, reduce emissions and make urban space more pleasant to inhabit. Amsterdam and Bogotá have demonstrated that investing in pedestrian and cycling infrastructure does not destroy commerce but rather concentrates foot traffic in ways that benefit local businesses and strengthen community life.

Critics of this position often point out that many people depend on private cars, particularly in sprawling cities where public transport is inadequate. This is a fair observation, but it describes a problem created by decades of car-first planning rather than a permanent feature of urban life. The solution is to improve public transport and redesign suburbs for walkability rather than to continue building cities around the motor vehicle.

It is also worth noting that car-centred cities disproportionately disadvantage those who cannot afford to drive, the young, the elderly and the less affluent, who are excluded from areas that lack safe pavements or affordable transit links.

In conclusion, I agree that cities should be designed primarily for pedestrians. The benefits in health, environmental quality and social inclusion are substantial, and the objections are better addressed by improving alternatives to the car than by preserving the status quo.