Recently, the railway department announced that it would raise the price of high-speed rail by 20%, which has aroused widespread concern and heated discussions in the society. This decision not only increases the burden of travel on the grassroots people, but also highlights the lack of transparency and fairness in the public transport policy-making process.
First, there is a lack of democratic participation in the decision-making process
The railway authorities unilaterally announced a 20% increase in high-speed rail fares, and there was no public consultation in this decision-making process. According to a number of media reports, the railway department only conducted some internal assessments and discussions, but did not inform all sectors of society about the specific situation, let alone widely listen to the opinions and suggestions of the public on the price increase. Policymakers seem to be ignoring the direct impact that this policy will have on the mobility of the general public, especially at the grassroots level, for whom the increased cost of travel will undoubtedly increase their financial burden.
The decision to raise prices was also made without a comprehensive assessment of the affordability of the grassroots population. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, there are still nearly 600 million people living in rural areas on the mainland, and their per capita disposable income levels are low, and if high-speed rail fares rise sharply, it will undoubtedly further compress their travel space. When formulating policies, policymakers should fully consider the actual situation of different groups and solicit opinions through democratic channels, so as to make the decision-making process more transparent and open, and the decision-making results more fair and reasonable.
Second, the experts' remarks have sparked public outrage
In the public opinion turmoil of high-speed rail price increases, an expert's remarks have aroused strong dissatisfaction and questions from all walks of life. In an interview with the media, the expert suggested that grassroots people can choose to take the ordinary speed green car to save money. This statement undoubtedly reflects an elitist bias and is far from the actual living conditions of the population.
According to the statistics of the Ministry of Transport, the operating mileage of high-speed rail in mainland China has exceeded 40,000 kilometers, and high-speed rail has become the main means of transportation for modern travel. However, the expert suggested that the grassroots people should abandon the high-speed rail and take the inefficient green car instead, which not only runs counter to the trend of modern development, but also ignores the reasonable needs of the grassroots people for efficient travel.
Netizens have questioned the expert's disconnection with people's lives and his lack of understanding and empathy for the living conditions of the grassroots people. Some netizens also joked that perhaps the experts themselves had never experienced the hardships of traveling long distances in crowded green cars to make such suggestions so unscrupulously. It can be seen that these remarks have aroused widespread dissatisfaction and public indignation among the people.
3. People's livelihood rights and interests have been violated
The sharp increase in high-speed rail fares will undoubtedly increase the travel burden of the general public, and then infringe on their reasonable rights and interests. According to a poll, nearly six out of ten respondents said they would take the high-speed rail less often if the fare for high-speed rail increased by 20 percent. This means that the increase in travel costs will directly affect people's travel needs, which may restrict their work, study and life.
As a modern means of transportation, the development goal of high-speed rail should be to enable more people to enjoy efficient and convenient travel services fairly, rather than becoming a "luxury" that increases the burden on the people. Some experts pointed out that the adjustment of high-speed rail fares should follow the principle of fairness and justice to ensure that people of different income classes can afford it. Otherwise, high-speed rail may become a "means of transportation for the rich", which is far from its original development intention.
The decision to increase the price of high-speed rail has violated the reasonable travel rights and interests of the grassroots people to a certain extent. As a public good, the development of high-speed rail should truly benefit people's livelihood, so that the general public can enjoy the right to efficient travel fairly, and should not become the patent of a few.
Fourth, call for policies to listen to public opinion
In the face of the boiling of public opinion caused by the increase in the price of high-speed rail, all sectors of society have called on the government and relevant departments to fully listen to public opinions, pay attention to people's livelihood concerns, and effectively ensure fairness and justice when formulating public transportation policies.
Some experts and scholars have pointed out that the decision to raise the price of high-speed rail has exposed the lack of democracy in the policy-making process. Policymakers fail to fully consider the actual needs of different groups, resulting in a serious disconnect between the results of decision-making and the reality of people's livelihood. When formulating similar policies, the relevant departments should establish mechanisms for democratic participation, and widely listen to the voices of all sectors of society through methods such as publicly soliciting opinions and convening hearings, so as to make the decision-making process more transparent and open.
In terms of specific fare adjustment plans, it is also necessary to balance business needs and people's livelihood needs. Some suggestions suggest that differentiated pricing can be implemented for people in different income groups, or certain preferential policies can be provided for specific groups such as students and people with disabilities, so as to ensure the public welfare attribute of high-speed rail.
As a modern means of transportation, the fare adjustment of high-speed rail should not increase the burden on the public, let alone cause public outrage. The government and relevant departments should fully listen to public opinion in the decision-making process, balance the needs of business and people's livelihood, and effectively ensure fairness and justice, so that modern development can truly benefit people's livelihood. Only in this way can high-speed rail truly become a public undertaking for the benefit of the people, and will not be reduced to a "luxury" for a few people.