Please rate my essay: first attempt

This is my first attempt to write a full essay in 30 minutes.. Kudos to anyone who can review it!

PROMT:
The following appeared as part of a mayor's proposal to the city council:
Traffic in the central city is the number one complaint of our residents, so I urge you to consider this solution. We should invest in doubling our bus service and adding a light rail system, giving more options to those who don't want to drive through the city. Furthermore, we should make public transportation more accessible by reducing the fees to ride. With less traffic people will be more productive, and with higher productivity comes higher revenue and more taxes, so the system will likely pay for itself.

ESSAY:
In the proposal, the mayor offers two solutions to the current traffic issue in the central city. The first is to invest in doubling the city's bus service and add a light rail system, so that people who don't want to drive through the city have more options; the second is to reduce public transportation fees in order to make public transportation more accessible. The mayor argues that the cost of implementing this new system will be covered by tax revenue from increased productivity due to less traffic. I find this proposal flawed in several ways.
Firstly, the mayor argues that giving more options to those who don't want to drive through the city will solve the traffic issue. This argument is based on the assumption that the majority of people who drive through the city are people who don't want to drive, but have no available public transportation, but the mayor does not give evidence to support this claim. There could be other reasons why people don't use public transportation other than lack of options. For example, people may find the buses too dirty and prefer driving their own cars, or it could be that public transportation is just too slow compared to cars. If so, doubling bus services and adding a light rail system would not solve the situation, but rather increase the traffic.
The mayor's second solution has a similar problem with its reasoning. There is no evidence to support the assumption that people avoid public transportation because of the fare. If people wouldn't use public transportation no matter its cost, reducing fares would not solve the traffic issue, but only harm the city's financial situation.
Lastly, even if the new system can actually solve the traffic in the central city, the mayor's claim that the new system will pay for itself is unwarranted. There is no direct proof that less traffic leads to increased productivity, and even if it is true, there are many factors that decide a city's productivity, and the mayor provides no evidence to claim that the increased productivity due to reduced traffic will be sufficient to cover the cost of the new system.
In conclusion, the mayor's suggestion is drawn from over-simplified and unwarranted assumptions. In order to strengthen his proposal, the mayor will have to provide evidence that the reason people avoids public transportation is mainly because of limited options and high fares. The mayor will also have to give proof to the connection between less traffic and increased productivity, and furthermore, provide evidence that the increased productivity from the proposed system will result in increased tax revenues sufficient to cover the cost of implementing the system.