Increasing Bus Shuttle Volume

The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:

"Commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections. However, commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The editorial suggests two alternatives to help the transit company to increase the number of people who ride shuttle buses to the subway station instead of driving there. The reasoning is flawed on many counts.

One of the assumptions is that people do not use the shuttle buses because they find the bus fares exorbitant. This may or may not be true. It is possible that the bus services run infrequently, are not punctual and are not well maintained. In that case lowering fares would not help. The basis of this assumption is not clear. If the editorial clarifies that, the argument will be strengthened.

The editorial also attributes low usage of shuttle buses to people finding it more convenient and cheap to drive to the station and park their vehicle. This reasoning assumes that there are no alternative parking space near the subway. Even if the transit company increases parking prices, it will have no effect if cheaper, alternative parking was available nearby. The reasoning also implies that all people come from far enough distance. There can be a huge volume of people who live nearby and hence either cycle or walk to the station. In that case, no solution would help. In fact, it would put in question the very need of shuttle buses!

Concluding, the presented argument is plausible but not entirely convincing. It fails to establish the basis of its two key assumptions and does not explore alternative solutions. Moreover, since the reasons behind the problem have not been explored fully, the suggested solutions are also limited in scope. For example, solutions could have included a marketing campaign to make people aware about the benefits of using public transport or the improvement of services, depending on what the real problem is. Hence, the reasoning is weak and merits further investigation.