The introduction is weak and sounds pompous.
"There is a school of thought that believes that the construction of boarder roads would reduce traffic jam."
We use the noun phrase "school of thought" to refer to a small group of people that has the same opinions about an abstract matter. The idea that "the construction of broad roads would reduce traffic jams" seems to be something that many people can conceive of. By the way, "boarder ways" did not make any sense.
"While, reasons can be given to justify this, I would argue that railways and subway lines are more efficient than the mentioned method." ( The word "while" works as a conjunction and thus can never stand alone or before "a comma" )
As to the rest of the essay, there are many errors in articles. Let's take some examples.
In the introduction, the noun phrase "traffic jam" is countable and thus must have a determiner (a/an, the, those, their,..) or must be in plural forms. Consider a change to "traffic jams".
Make sure that this applies to ALL nouns, such as "bottleneck", "area", "railway", and "train".
Some other examples would be:
"Secondly, the -> an increase in the number of wider roads would help to reduce traffic flows at several streets in rush hours". ( You were making generalizations and you had not mentioned "how the number of wider roads increased" )
AND
Railways, which are well-known for an efficient public means of transport, would result in less private vehicles on the streets. ( the reader has no idea about which streets you were talking about )
ALSO
Therefore, it would tremendously solve the perennial problems of traffic jams. ( the part "of traffic jams" specified which problems )
Moreover, there are also many wordy sentences that make the essay heavy, some of which are:
"On the other hand, I side with those who contend that railways and subway lines would be more beneficial to the cities' infrastructures in terms of traffic."
You can simply say "On the other hand, I contend that railways and subway lines would be more beneficial to cities' infrastructures in terms of traffic." It is clear that you were talking about a topic of traffic congestion, and the part "in terms of traffic" was redundant.
AND
"In conclusion, although it is true that the -> an increase in the number of wider roads would alleviate the problem of congestion, I firmly believe that the construction of trains and subway lines is a durable solution for solving that problem."
The conclusion is the biggest problem. Such a sentence was written in 40 words and thus so heavy. Can you think of another way to convey the same meaning with fewer words? For example, you can merely say :
"In conclusion, although an increase in the number of wider roads would alleviate the problem of congestion, the construction of trains and subway lines is a more durable solution"