This year, a blogger on Tencent Microblog, a Twitter-like service in China, wrote a post saying "Standing train tickets should be sold at half price."

 

　　He said, "Standing tickets are mostly bought by migrant workers, who cannot get a seat due to their unfamiliarity with computers. But with a standing ticket, they can't actually enjoy the standard service on train. It is therefore unreasonable to sell them at full price."

 

　　You know, the Spring Festival travel rush is considered as the largest annual migration in China. As the current travel capacity can't meet the demand of the passengers, the railway authorities have to issue standing tickets to ensure more people can get home. But the standing tickets are the same prices as seat tickets.

 

　　In the blogoshpere, I found that the majority of the public support the "half-price standing ticket" proposal. Let's take a listen.

 

　　"Currently railway tickets for different seats are priced differently. Why are only standing tickets sold for the same amount as seat tickets? What's more, the low-income group is the biggest victim of this unfair policy."

 

　　"Consumers have long been complaining about the standing ticket price. The explanation given by the Ministry of Railways is if it cuts the price, there will be more people swarming to the railways, thus posing dangers of overloading the trains. But that excuse isn't convincing. The ministry has full control over how many tickets to issue, and cutting the standing ticket price doesn't mean they have to provide unlimited tickets."

 

　　"Have you seen people paying half price for standing on buses or in subway? Have you seen people getting compensation for waiting in line for too long in banks or hospitals? These are all public service sectors like railways, so why should the railway ticket be singled out?"