Passage Summary: The planners have to choose between a fancy station or a plain one with a useful tunnel; since they can't afford both, the author argues they should prioritize the tunnel's utility.

Conclusion: The transit authority should build a more modest station to ensure they can afford to include a tunnel to the Waterfront line.

Reasoning: A tunnel would significantly benefit commuters, but the current grand design plus a tunnel would exceed the fixed budget.

Analysis: The argument makes a value judgment that functional utility (the tunnel's convenience) is more important than aesthetic majesty. To justify this reasoning, we need a principle that explicitly favors practical improvements over architectural grandeur when budget constraints force a choice between the two. Look for a rule that prioritizes the needs of the commuters over the 'majesty' of the project.