▶ Your Answer :
The
lecturer argues that congestion pricing, a system forcing people to pay fees on their vehicles droven in a city in rush hours, is not an advantageous system. This
directly contradicts the reading passage’s claim that it has clear benefits.
First,
the lecturer contends that congestion pricing makes driving more dangerous. If
the number of traffic drops, the drivers on the road can drive in much higher
speed, which result in more frequent car accidents. This is supported by the
research suggesting that the risk of accident rises when a car runs in a 30
percent higher velocity. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s claim that
congestion pricing will prevent people from getting injured. The author
demonstrates his argument through a trial program that proved the effectiveness
of congestion pricing in reducing accidents.
Second,
the lecturer maintains that in long-term, public transportation would become
less convenient. If people do not drive their own car to avoid the fees, the
buses will be overcrowded. Furthermore, citizens will have a hard time catching
a bus that have enough space for them. This is exact opposite of the reading
passage’s claim that congestion pricing system makes a public bus more
convenient. To be specific, the author believes that if traffic jam is solved,
buses will move in accordance with their original schedule, and citizens do not
have to wait for them for a long time as well.
Finally,
the lecture asserts that the system’s supposed advantage on businesses within a
city does not match with the reality. In fact, the retail businesses will have
less revenue, because people that live in suburb will not drive into a city
when they are forced to pay congestion fees. This refutes the reading passage’s
claim that congestion pricing benefits local businesses. The author points out
that the companies would not have to pay the extra costs to offset the delays
in the delivery of products or excessive fuel consumption, which are the result
of traffic jam.
|