Reducing traffic in centres

Uprzejmie proszę o sprawdzenie:
Topic: methods goverment should use to discourage the use of private cars in the centre of the city.
Notes: investment, education, taxes
Opinions: Make businesses pay parking levies for their employees and they'll move out of the city centre
Improve the public tranposrt system, then people won't need their cars.
If people understood how much btetter pedestrianised city centres are, they wouldn't want to bring their cars in.

The problem of traffic jams and congested streets in centres of our cities is nothing new. It has been a while since it was acknowledged it, yet not much has changed since then. The matter requires proper discussion and implementation of solutions as soon as possible. Otherwise, it might well result in decreasing living standards, jammed urban centre and extending commute time.
First of possible answers might involve creation of car-free zones and restricted areas for cars so that only limited number of cars would be eligible to enter those zones and park there. It generates, however, one main obstacle for business and it may consequently lead to business and capital outflow from the urban centre as well as migration of the residents. Nevertheless, these issues might be resolved by tax reductions and considerable improvement of public transportation.
Secondly, it is clear that no action will achieve its goals without commitment of the people. Therefore, the local governors could consider launching an educational campaign to set out the advantages and disadvantages of the changes. It also should make people more aware of their city's problems. Even so, the effects of the campaign might not be seen quickly as it takes time to change people's behaviour and put the keys aside.
In conclusion, there is certainly not an easy solution to the discussed matter. Education is always a good option, but, in my opinion, the imposition of law on drivers would encourage the unconvinced to change their habits and abandon cars. In consequence, we all could enjoy more pedestrianized centre.

Improve the public 'tranposrt' (popraw) system, then people won't need their cars.
If people understood how much 'btetter' (popraw) pedestrianised city centres are, they wouldn't want to bring their cars in.

The problem of traffic jams and congested streets in (tu brakuje przedimka) centres of our cities is nothing new. It has been a while (to znaczy miesiac, rok, 2 lata, napisz to precyzyjniej) since it was acknowledged 'it' (nie rozumiem po co to drugie 'it' tutaj jest), yet not much has changed since then (to znaczy kiedy?). The matter requires 'proper' (to jest kolokw - lepiej 'a thorough') discussion and (wg mnie tutaj powinien byc przedimek) implementation of solutions as soon as possible. Otherwise, 'it' (nie wiem dokladnie do czego to 'it' sie odnosi -) might well result in decreasing living standards, jammed urban centre and 'extending' (daj 'extended) commute time.
(brak przedimka) first of (tu brak slowa) possible answers might involve (przedimek) creation of car-free zones and restricted areas for cars (tutaj daj przecinek) so that only (przedimek) limited number of cars would be eligible to enter those zones and park there. 'It' (nie, daj tutaj slowo This') generates, however, one main obstacle for business and it may consequently lead to business and capital outflow from the urban centre 'as well as' (nie, mozna to inaczej...which in turn might lead to) migration of the residents.
Secondly, it is clear that (tutaj brakuje slowa 'taking') no action will (tutaj brakuje ci najwazniejszego slowa w zdaniu NOT) achieve its goals without (przedimek) commitment of the people.
It 'also should' (zla kolejnosc slow...should also) make people more aware of their city's problems. Even so, the effects of the campaign might not be seen quickly as it takes time to change people's behaviour and (tutaj brakuje cos...np. resulting in them) put theIR keys aside.
Education is always a good option, but, in my opinion, the imposition of law on drivers would encourage the unconvinced to change their habits and abandon (tu brakuje slowa -ich) cars. In consequence, we all could enjoy more pedestrianized 'centre' (albo daj l. mnoga, albo przedimek przed pedestranized).

Make businesses pay parking levies for their employees and they'll move out of the city centre. Zmusić firmy żeby płaciły (mandaty) za parking za swoich pracowników i się wyprowadzą z centrum.
Nie ogarniam logiki tego zdania;)

>>Nie ogarniam logiki tego zdania
Gdy pracodawcy beda musieli placic za to, ze ich pracownicy moga tam parkowac (bo przeciez nie oczekujemy zeby pracownik sam na to wydawal pieniedzy), to wtedy moze skusic pracodawcow zeby wyniesli sie z centrum.
Z zycia wiem, ze pracodawcy maja mozliwosci 'dojazdu' pracownikow do pracy w d......... i ich calkowicie nie obchodzi gdzie pracownicy zaparkuja swoje autka, czy tez rowery.

Wiem o co chodzi w tym zdaniu, tylko jaki ono ma sens?

Dzięki terri!

Jedno pytanie:
Secondly, it is clear that (tutaj brakuje slowa 'taking') no action will (tutaj brakuje ci najwazniejszego slowa w zdaniu NOT) achieve its goals without (przedimek) commitment of the people.

Czy użycie not nie byłoby podwójnym zaprzeczeniem? Mamy już 'no action'

>>>Secondly, it is clear that 'taking' no action will NOT achieve its goals without the commitment of the people
..Czy użycie not nie byłoby podwójnym zaprzeczeniem? Mamy już 'no action'

Nie. To nie jst podwojne zaprzeczenie.. (cos jak np. ...I know nothing')
Popatrz na zdania:
It is clear that taking no action will not achieve.....(to, ze nic nie zrobimy bedzie powodem tego, ze...)
It is clear that taking no action will achieve....(to, ze nic nie zrobimy, znaczy ze bedziemy mogli cos zrobic)
mysle, ze co ty chcesz powiedziec to jest..
.jest jasne, ze jak nic nie zrobimy, to nie bedziemy mogli dazyc do celu...