Should Cities Become Car-Free? B2 Reading Practice Tests Rules & Examples

Should Cities Become Car-Free?

Imagine stepping out of your front door into a street where children play freely, cyclists weave between flower stalls, and the air smells of coffee rather than exhaust fumes. For some city residents, this is already a reality. For others, it remains a distant dream — or an unwelcome idea. Before you read, consider these two questions: What would you miss most if cars were banned from your city? And which groups of people do you think would benefit most from car-free streets?

Reading Passage: Streets Without Cars — Progress or Privilege?

In 2015, Oslo announced plans to eliminate all private cars from its city centre by 2019. Similar ambitions have since been declared in Paris, Brussels, and Barcelona, where pedestrian zones have gradually expanded and parking spaces have been converted into parks and cycle lanes. The movement is gaining momentum, and supporters argue that the benefits are undeniable. Yet not everyone is convinced that removing cars from urban centres is as straightforward as it sounds.

The environmental case for car-free cities is compelling. Transport accounts for roughly a quarter of global carbon emissions, with private vehicles being the single largest contributor. In cities where traffic has been significantly reduced — such as Pontevedra in northwest Spain, which effectively banned cars from its centre in 1999 — air quality has improved dramatically, noise levels have dropped, and road accident rates have fallen. Residents who once suffered from respiratory problems have reported noticeable health improvements, and local businesses, having initially feared a loss of customers, often found their revenues increased once pedestrian footfall rose.

However, critics point out that car-free policies can inadvertently favour the wealthy. Residents living in central, well-connected neighbourhoods may find it easy to walk, cycle, or use public transport. Those living on the outskirts, where bus services are infrequent and cycling infrastructure is poor, might feel that their freedom of movement is being restricted without adequate alternatives being provided first. If reliable, affordable public transport were introduced simultaneously with car restrictions, many of these concerns would be addressed. As it stands, however, the transition has been uneven.

There are also practical complications that planners have struggled to resolve. Deliveries, emergency vehicles, and people with disabilities all require some form of motorised access. Cities that have introduced car-free zones have generally dealt with this by creating time-restricted delivery windows and maintaining access for registered vehicles — solutions that work, though they demand careful coordination.

What makes the debate particularly difficult is that attitudes towards cars are deeply cultural. In many societies, owning a car represents independence, status, and personal freedom — values that are not easily legislated away. Younger generations, particularly those living in cities with good public transport, appear increasingly willing to give up car ownership. Older residents and those in rural-adjacent suburbs tend to be far more resistant.

Perhaps the question is not whether cities should become car-free, but how quickly and fairly they can make that transition. The evidence from cities that have already taken bold steps suggests that, done well, the rewards are significant. Done poorly, the policy risks deepening existing inequalities rather than solving them.

Key Vocabulary in Context

Reading Strategies & Comprehension Tips

Skimming for the Main Argument

Read the first and last sentences of each paragraph quickly to get the overall structure of the argument. Notice that the article does not simply argue for or against car-free cities — it presents both advantages and disadvantages before suggesting a more nuanced conclusion. Identifying this balanced structure early will help you answer questions about the writer's attitude.

Scanning for Specific Details

The passage contains specific facts, including city names, dates, and statistics. When a question asks for a detail — such as which city banned cars and when — scan for proper nouns or numbers rather than re-reading the whole text. Cities mentioned include Oslo, Paris, Brussels, Barcelona, and Pontevedra.

Understanding Implied Meaning

Some ideas in this passage are suggested rather than stated directly. For example, when the writer says car-free policies "can inadvertently favour the wealthy," this implies a criticism of social inequality, even though the word "unfair" is never used. Look for hedging language such as can, might, tend to, and appears to — these signal that the writer is making careful, qualified claims rather than absolute statements.

Cause and Effect Relationships

Pay close attention to linking words that signal cause and effect: as a result, consequently, once, having initially feared. For instance, the phrase "having initially feared a loss of customers" tells you that the fear came before the positive result, which is important for understanding the sequence of events in Pontevedra.

Common Reading Pitfalls & Traps

Trap 1: Assuming the Writer Has a Clear "Pro" or "Anti" Stance

A common mistake is to read this article as either strongly supporting or opposing car-free cities. In fact, the writer presents a balanced argument and avoids a simple conclusion. Questions about the writer's opinion should focus on the nuance expressed in the final paragraph — that the outcome depends on how and how fairly the policy is implemented.

Trap 2: Confusing "Car-Free Zones" with a Complete City Ban

The article discusses car-free city centres or zones, not entire cities being completely closed to all vehicles. Watch for distinctions between what is banned, where, and for whom — emergency vehicles and registered vehicles are mentioned as exceptions.

Trap 3: Misreading the Pontevedra Example

The passage states that local businesses had initially feared losing customers but later saw revenues increase. A question might try to mislead you into thinking businesses benefited from cars being removed immediately. The past perfect "having initially feared" clearly indicates that the positive outcome came after the initial worry.

Trap 4: Overgeneralising About Who Opposes Car-Free Policies

The text says older residents and those in "rural-adjacent suburbs" tend to resist car-free measures. This does not mean all older people are opposed, or that younger people universally support these policies. Be careful with absolute statements in answer options — words like all, never, always, and everyone are usually incorrect in B2 reading questions.

Quick Summary

Now read the passage carefully and complete Exercise 1 (Multiple Choice) and Exercise 2 (Fill-in-the-gap dropdown) below.