3
Text 1
How can the train operators possibly justify yet another increase to rail passenger fares? It
has become a grimly reliable annual ritual: every January the cost of travelling by train rises,
imposing a significant extra burden on those who have no option but to use the rail network to get
to work or otherwise. This year’s rise, an average of 2.7percent, may be a fraction lower than last
year’s, but it is still well above the official Consumer Price Index (CPI) measure of inflation.
Successive governments have permitted such increases on the grounds that the cost of
investing in and running the rail network should be borne by those who use it, rather than the
general taxpayer. Why, the argument goes, should a car-driving pensioner from Lincolnshire have
to subsidise the daily commute of a stockbroker from Surrey? Equally, there is a sense that the
travails of commuters in the South East, many of whom will face among the biggest rises, have
received too much attention compared to those who must endure the relatively poor infrastructure
of the Midlands and the North.
However, over the past 12months, those commuters have also experienced some of the
worst rail strikes in years. It is all very well train operators trumpeting the improvements they are
making to the network, but passengers should be able to expect a basic level of service for the
substantial sums they are now paying to travel. The responsibility for the latest wave of strikes
rests on the unions. However, there is a strong case that those who have been worst affected by
industrial action should receive compensation for the disruption they have suffered.
The Government has pledged to change the law to introduce a minimum service requirement
so that, even when strikes occur, services can continue to operate. This should form part of a
wider package of measures to address the long-running problems on Britain’s railways. Yes, more
investment is needed, but passengers will not be willing to pay more indefinitely if they must also
endure cramped, unreliable services, punctuated by regular chaos when timetables are changed, or
planned maintenance is managed incompetently. The threat of nationalisation may have been seen
off for now, but it will return with a vengeance if the justified anger of passengers is not addressed
in short order.
21. The author holds that this year’s increase in rail passengers fares ________.
[A] will ease train operation’s burdenburningvocabulary.com - 3-
[B] has kept pace with inflation
[C] is a big surprise to commuters
[D] remains an unreasonable measure
- The stockbroker in paragraph 2is used to stand for .
[A] car drivers
[B] rail travellers
[C] local investors
[D] ordinary tax payers
- It is indicated in paragraph 3that train operators .
[A] are offering compensations to commuters
[B] are trying to repair relations with the unions
[C] have failed to provide an adequate source
[D] have suffered huge losses owing to the strikes
- If unable to calm down passengers, the railways may have to face .
[A] the loss of investment
[B] the collapse of operations
[C] a reduction of revenue
[D] a change of ownership
- Which of the following would be the best title for the text?
[A] Who Are to Blame for the Strikes?
[B] Constant Complaining Doesn’t Work
[C] Can Nationalization Bring Hope?
[D] Ever-rising Fares Aren’t Sustainable