Please assess my writing task 2 and give some feedback. I will be profoundly grateful for you support.

[altinbek11]

Some people think that in order to deal with the problem of congestion in cities, privately owned vehicles should be banned in city centres while others consider this to be an unrealistic solution. Discuss both sides and give your opinion.
The traffic congestion in urban areas continues to be a controversial debate. While some people feel that restriction on private cars in inner city areas has to be obligatory for residents, others believe that this suggestion is an impractical idea. This essay will discuss the debate and give a concluding view.
On the one hand, those who support the legal ban on private cars point out that private cars compromise of the highest percentage of vehicles in cities, and only one or two people commute by that of a car. If these people commuted by public transportation, they would save their money and time that might lead to more job productivity and lessen the environmental problems. Examples can be seen in some communist countries such as North Korea, where the residents only travel by public transportation so that there is no congestion and problems related to exhaust fumes.
However, opponents of the ban on private cars claim that it is impractical to implement this method as a solution to the problem because the majority of governments are not capable of providing enough and convenient public transportation service for people. For example, the Mongolian government has confronted the problem of heavy congestion in the capital city in recent years, and authority has enforced the restriction on private cars but after that, a dearth of public transport emerged the conflict between citizens and the government.
In conclusion, I would tend to opponents of the ban on private cars. It seems to be unreasonable to enforce the law on private car owners in the inner city which is essential for them, without a real infrastructure for travelling by public transport. It would be more logical to improve infrastructure and public transport system first, which will allow people to choose public transport.

[David.IELTS.Examiner]

Hello!

I don't understand the first sentence of the first main paragraph.

Why aren't governments (with the exception of North Korea - bizarrely!) able to provide sufficient public transport?

Overall, not a bad essay, though there are points that are unclear or undeveloped. Vocabulary and grammar are generally reasonable.

The general idea of improving public transport first is not really clear. People could simply say that it requires even more improvement, and then even more, and even more. Essentially, many people won't use public transport unless it takes them directly from their home to where they want to go at any time of day or night - like private transport!

All the best,
David