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  13
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] Which of the following is true of the text?
选项 A、Spending more to avoid high traffic appeals to commuters.
B、The government is aware of the high cost of railway operation.
C、The train companies plan to spend their money more rationally.
D、The transport committee supports the improvement of railway system.
答案 B
解析 本题考查推理引申。本题要求考生对全文细节综合理解。第四段作者只是客观评价提高票价是减少拥堵的有效措施，但这种方式是否受到通勤者的欢迎不得而知，排除[A]。第三段第二句提到，国会议员们谈到政府发放给铁路的资金数量不断上升，因此认为火车公司应该降低票价。第五段第三句又提到，政府不太愿意进一步提高对铁路系统的补贴。由此可推知，政府已意识到铁路运营的成本很高，不想再增加资助，[B]是正确项。第五段提到改进铁路系统费用昂贵，这额外的支出可以通过关闭使用很少的乡村路线来得到。但这只是作者的看法，火车公司是否采纳还不得而知，排除[C]。交通委员会在文中只出现了两次：第一段末句提到它的报告指控铁路行业昂贵的票价和繁杂的车票种类；最后一段第二句提到它对明年的铁路政策计划了一个更广阔的前景。因此[D]中“支持改进铁路系统”从文中无从得知。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3258023.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)