2. 职称英语
  3. Fair Fares Railways: Cheaper Tickets Will Not Solve Rail’s Problems

Fair Fares Railways: Cheaper Tickets Will Not Solve Rail’s Problems

游客2023-12-09  7
问题           Fair Fares Railways: Cheaper Tickets Will Not Solve Rail’s Problems
    Most of the time, parliamentary committee reports embody every foreign stereotype of the British—dry, reserved and slightly dull, with only the occasional flash of sarcasm to lighten the mood. Not so those of the transport committee. Its latest report, on rail fares, accuses the rail industry of " holding passengers to ransom " with "extravagant" fares and an "impenetrable jungle" of ticket types.
    Some of these criticisms are fair. Ticketing arrangements, especially for long distance journeys, are Byzantine: the National Fares Manual describes over 70 ticket types within its 102 pages. Stung by public criticism, several big train companies, including Virgin, GNER and First Great Western, promise to simplify things.
    The MPS are on shakier ground with their complaints They point to the amount of state money given out to the railways— ￡4.4 billion this year, with ￡5. 3 billion planned for next year—and argue that train firms should be forced to cut prices. Costly tickets, they claim, are " pricing many passengers out of the market".
    That is a tough argument to sustain at a time when more people than ever are using the railways. On some parts of the network, overcrowding, not under-use, is the biggest problem, with commuter routes into big cities such as London, Leeds and Manchester especially jammed. Fares on these routes are already capped. That’s unwise, says Stephen Glaister of Imperial College. " If there is traffic jams in the system, then the economically correct solution is higher prices," he says. "Otherwise you just end up with shortages and queues." Giving railway firms greater freedom to set their own prices would let them spread demand around peak times, cutting traffic jams.
    The only way to reduce traffic jams and prices together is to do things like lengthening platforms and upgrading signals,. which would mean more people could be carried in the busiest areas. That would require tough decisions. A big improvement to the railway network would be expensive, and the government has shown little enthusiasm for increasing subsidies still further. Extra cash could be found by closing little-used (and heavily subsidised) rural lines, but that would be unpopular with fans of rail transport, who argue that branch lines provide a vital service to the poor and the earless.
    The report occasionally hints at such dilemmas, only to shy away from discussing them in a satisfactory way. The transport committee plans a broader look at rail policy next year. Perhaps then it will do a more thorough job. [br] The author believes that raising railway ticket prices is______.
选项 A、the result of government underfunding
B、not complying with the market rules
C、an effective way to relieve crowding
D、vital to maintain the railway system
答案 C
解析 本题考查作者观点。第三段首句作者明确指出，国会议员们关于票价的指控站不住脚。从下文可知，这里的“指控”是指火车票价过于昂贵。第四段首句作者再次提出，由于乘坐火车的人太多．因此“火车票价过高"的论点难以成立。可见，作者认为火车票价并不昂贵。接着第四段作者借专家史蒂芬·格雷斯特的言论指出，解决铁路系统拥堵的正确方法是提高票价，因此[C]是作者的观点。[B]显然与作者观点相悖，应排除。它是第三段末句提到的国会议员们的观点(pricing many passengers out of the market)。第三段中，国会议员们谈到政府对铁路部门的资助，认为它已经很丰厚，因此火车公司应该降价。但作者没有对政府资助发表任何看法，排除[A]。[D]中“维护铁路系统’’的内容在文中没有涉及，应排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3258021.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)