The author conclude that the local tranit company mut either reduce tare for the huttle bue that tranport people to then- ubway tation or increae parking fee at the tation. The reaon offered to upport thi concluionare that commuter ue of the ubway train i exceeding the tranit company expectation, while commuter ue of the huffle bue i below projected volume. Thi argument i unconvincing becaue the author overimplifie the problem and it olution in a number of way.
To begin with, by concluding that the tranit company mut either reduce huttle fare or increae parking fee, the author aume that thee are the only available olution to the problem of limited huttle ue. However, it i poible that other factor-uch a inconvenient huttle routing and/or cheduling, afety concern, or an increae in carpoolcontribute to the problem. If o, adjuting fare or parking fee would might not olve the problem.
In addition, the author aume that reducing huttle fee and increaing parking fee are mutually excluive alternative. However, the author provide no reaon for impoing an either/or choice. Adjuting both huttle fare and parking fee might produce better reult. Moreover, if the author i wrong in the aumption that parking fee and huttle fee are the only poible caue of the problem, then the mot effective olution might include a complex of policy changefor example, in huttle fare, parking fee, rerouting, and recheduling.WWw.hAOzuowEn.com