ThatsWhy :

MM@! :

ThatsWhy :其實點解唔直接起重鐵. 由麗港城 > 觀塘工業區 > 牛頭角工業區 > 九龍灣工業區> 新碼頭 > 新蒲崗工業區(唔知岩唔岩路??) > 九龍城 > 土瓜灣 > 何文田 或 黃埔 <> 咁去轉乘觀塘綫延綫落油尖旺呢?

依傢PEAK HOUR, 觀塘, 九龍灣站都爆到七彩, 又可以分流唔係轉東鐵綫既乘客去搭工業區既新重鐵去油尖旺.

ThatsWhy..

乜個城市仲有空間可以承受咁多人口同基建咩
The city is dying, you know?

你呢句說話真係型!! 但同樣地呢個的確係香港既可悲. 香港政府所有野都係發生左先諗, 跟住要諗幾年, 跟住再做又要做幾年. =.="

講番個主題先, 其實我既想法係, 荃灣綫有東涌綫幫佢做分流過海, 但係油尖旺同轉去九龍東都可以頂爆晒荃灣綫. 依傢九龍東除左過海, 仲有埋將軍澳, 同埋轉型中既觀塘/牛頭角/九龍灣工業區. 依傢D大型寫字樓下下都六七十層, 人數不比之前工廈時少. 仲有既就係, 觀塘綫天生有個九龍塘轉車站. 所以觀塘綫跟本就需要一條分流既支綫協助.

既然政府起呢個時候仲話要大力九龍東, 咁九龍東點解仲會起埋晒D華而不實既單軌呢? 抄下馬鐵咁用4卡車行都好丫. (我QUOTE番我諗出黎果個行車路綫)
由 藍田 <> 麗港城 > 觀塘工業區 > 牛頭角工業區 > 九龍灣工業區> 新碼頭 > 新蒲崗工業區(唔知岩唔岩路??) > 九龍城 > 土瓜灣 > 何文田 / 黃埔 <> 新觀塘延綫.

大家試想想, 依傢由將軍澳出旺角, 搭巴士仲快過搭地鐵. 調番轉, 油尖旺去觀塘, 行機隧既巴士又係快過地鐵. 都未計九龍東既乘客要搭全程觀塘綫同半條荃灣綫先轉到西鐵同東涌綫. 邊有咁笨既設計架, 合併左咁耐唔通都仲唔諗下??

諗諗下, 上面個想法可能可以同沙中綫接軌添喎. 如果唔係既話, 觀塘綫要負責九龍塘同鑽石山兩個轉車站就真係玩完. The city is dying. =.="

ThatsWhy..

港鐵設計路線個d人不嬲都係坐住個腦黎諗野
觀塘線頂唔順咁多客既問題已經持續咗好耐
一個九龍塘轉車站已經夠玩...
佢不如解決下呢個問題好過啦
哂咁多錢起條垃圾線出黎
宜家望就望沙中線快d落成啦

ky26042008 :

ThatsWhy :

MM@! :

ThatsWhy :其實點解唔直接起重鐵. 由麗港城 > 觀塘工業區 > 牛頭角工業區 > 九龍灣工業區> 新碼頭 > 新蒲崗工業區(唔知岩唔岩路??) > 九龍城 > 土瓜灣 > 何文田 或 黃埔 <> 咁去轉乘觀塘綫延綫落油尖旺呢?

依傢PEAK HOUR, 觀塘, 九龍灣站都爆到七彩, 又可以分流唔係轉東鐵綫既乘客去搭工業區既新重鐵去油尖旺.

ThatsWhy..

乜個城市仲有空間可以承受咁多人口同基建咩
The city is dying, you know?

你呢句說話真係型!! 但同樣地呢個的確係香港既可悲. 香港政府所有野都係發生左先諗, 跟住要諗幾年, 跟住再做又要做幾年. =.="

講番個主題先, 其實我既想法係, 荃灣綫有東涌綫幫佢做分流過海, 但係油尖旺同轉去九龍東都可以頂爆晒荃灣綫. 依傢九龍東除左過海, 仲有埋將軍澳, 同埋轉型中既觀塘/牛頭角/九龍灣工業區. 依傢D大型寫字樓下下都六七十層, 人數不比之前工廈時少. 仲有既就係, 觀塘綫天生有個九龍塘轉車站. 所以觀塘綫跟本就需要一條分流既支綫協助.

既然政府起呢個時候仲話要大力九龍東, 咁九龍東點解仲會起埋晒D華而不實既單軌呢? 抄下馬鐵咁用4卡車行都好丫. (我QUOTE番我諗出黎果個行車路綫)
由 藍田 <> 麗港城 > 觀塘工業區 > 牛頭角工業區 > 九龍灣工業區> 新碼頭 > 新蒲崗工業區(唔知岩唔岩路??) > 九龍城 > 土瓜灣 > 何文田 / 黃埔 <> 新觀塘延綫.

大家試想想, 依傢由將軍澳出旺角, 搭巴士仲快過搭地鐵. 調番轉, 油尖旺去觀塘, 行機隧既巴士又係快過地鐵. 都未計九龍東既乘客要搭全程觀塘綫同半條荃灣綫先轉到西鐵同東涌綫. 邊有咁笨既設計架, 合併左咁耐唔通都仲唔諗下??

諗諗下, 上面個想法可能可以同沙中綫接軌添喎. 如果唔係既話, 觀塘綫要負責九龍塘同鑽石山兩個轉車站就真係玩完. The city is dying. =.="

ThatsWhy..

其實如果講到沙中線落成，果時就應該冇問題
因為有東鐵過海段做分流

東鐵過海係無分流，因為大部份EAL 人會繼續坐EAL 過海；KTL 會用EAL，SCL 都用EAL ，結論係TWL 少左人，不過EAL 會打爆

仲要計起埋西/南港島綫多左嘅過海人流
比我都寧願貴D都搭巴士啦

---

起條單軌鐵路都計下幾多人搭啦
旅遊淡季得香港人搭
一至五 上下午:學生成人:翻工/學　無人搭
　　　　　　　老人:情願行,慳幾文 無人搭
　　　晚間: 做功課,食dinner,沖涼 無人搭
六　　上午:成人有D翻工,有D訓　　無人搭
　　　下午:　　　　　　　　　　 有D人搭
日　　上午:成人訓,學生/小朋友唔比　無人搭
　　　下午:　　　　　　　　　　　有人搭
The monorail is dying, you know?

tridentenviro :咁真係不如入電容巴士/混合動力巴士好過...
走線又唔長, 回報率又咁低, 倒不如俾巴士公司開條鐵路接駁線好過....
圍住啟德行一圈又或者開兩條一條serve一半咁...(但睇客量應該都會係一線走天涯好過...)

鐵路比巴士有優勢嘅地方係，作為區內運輸，鐵路始終可以一次過移動大量嘅乘客
而且上落時間短，因為睇番啟德嘅例子，佢正係果啲上一上，架車帶你行幾步路就落果啲

巴士一次過只可以運大約130人，兩卡標準Crystal Mover 可以載246人（可以超載），至於一抽Bombardier Flexity Berlin 可以載240人

雖然依家三者都可以板上輪椅，但APM／路面電車上落乘客只需要<20s就可以完成，巴士往往要交換晒成車客嘅話，跟本係唔可能，坐下啲新市鎮區內綫大家就知道，有幾多時間係晒左落上落客到

咁Monorail適用響咩地方呢? Retro-fit落無道路空間嘅地方
例如係沙田、屯元天（不過佢有LRL啦依家）

所以你見到世界上嘅大機場，都係用APM去連結唔同嘅terminal
因為巴士響好多特殊運作條件下都唔適合

MM@! :

tridentenviro :咁真係不如入電容巴士/混合動力巴士好過...
走線又唔長, 回報率又咁低, 倒不如俾巴士公司開條鐵路接駁線好過....
圍住啟德行一圈又或者開兩條一條serve一半咁...(但睇客量應該都會係一線走天涯好過...)

鐵路比巴士有優勢嘅地方係，作為區內運輸，鐵路始終可以一次過移動大量嘅乘客
而且上落時間短，因為睇番啟德嘅例子，佢正係果啲上一上，架車帶你行幾步路就落果啲

巴士一次過只可以運大約130人，兩卡標準Crystal Mover 可以載246人（可以超載），至於一抽Bombardier Flexity Berlin 可以載240人

雖然依家三者都可以板上輪椅，但APM／路面電車上落乘客只需要<20s就可以完成，巴士往往要交換晒成車客嘅話，跟本係唔可能，坐下啲新市鎮區內綫大家就知道，有幾多時間係晒左落上落客到

咁Monorail適用響咩地方呢? Retro-fit落無道路空間嘅地方
例如係沙田、屯元天（不過佢有LRL啦依家）

所以你見到世界上嘅大機場，都係用APM去連結唔同嘅terminal
因為巴士響好多特殊運作條件下都唔適合

Some countries have deployed a concept of BRT in their cities in an attempt to take the advantages of bus and light rail together in fusion. It has the bus pro of low-cost and flexibility, but also enjoy the advantage of fast loading and unloading. Bus routes may run from Kai Tak to other areas in Hong Kong without being limited by the stretch of the rails.

But in the Kai Tak situation, it is rather complicated in using BRTs. Firstly it is rare for BRT systems to deploy double deckers. The use of single deckers (perhaps articulated) does not give a lot of improve on capacity over traditional buses, but has much less flexibility than normal buses in HK now (it is unlikely that they could run outside Kai Tak, creating a more direct linkage to other areas). Also, the fare system control in the BRT system would be greatly limited if buses will run from outside into Kai Tak, making on-bus fare collection necessary and slowing down the process.

中環(香港鐵路站)總站. :

MM@! :

tridentenviro :咁真係不如入電容巴士/混合動力巴士好過...
走線又唔長, 回報率又咁低, 倒不如俾巴士公司開條鐵路接駁線好過....
圍住啟德行一圈又或者開兩條一條serve一半咁...(但睇客量應該都會係一線走天涯好過...)

鐵路比巴士有優勢嘅地方係，作為區內運輸，鐵路始終可以一次過移動大量嘅乘客
而且上落時間短，因為睇番啟德嘅例子，佢正係果啲上一上，架車帶你行幾步路就落果啲

巴士一次過只可以運大約130人，兩卡標準Crystal Mover 可以載246人（可以超載），至於一抽Bombardier Flexity Berlin 可以載240人

雖然依家三者都可以板上輪椅，但APM／路面電車上落乘客只需要<20s就可以完成，巴士往往要交換晒成車客嘅話，跟本係唔可能，坐下啲新市鎮區內綫大家就知道，有幾多時間係晒左落上落客到

咁Monorail適用響咩地方呢? Retro-fit落無道路空間嘅地方
例如係沙田、屯元天（不過佢有LRL啦依家）

所以你見到世界上嘅大機場，都係用APM去連結唔同嘅terminal
因為巴士響好多特殊運作條件下都唔適合

Some countries have deployed a concept of BRT in their cities in an attempt to take the advantages of bus and light rail together in fusion. It has the bus pro of low-cost and flexibility, but also enjoy the advantage of fast loading and unloading. Bus routes may run from Kai Tak to other areas in Hong Kong without being limited by the stretch of the rails.

But in the Kai Tak situation, it is rather complicated in using BRTs. Firstly it is rare for BRT systems to deploy double deckers. The use of single deckers (perhaps articulated) does not give a lot of improve on capacity over traditional buses, but has much less flexibility than normal buses in HK now (it is unlikely that they could run outside Kai Tak, creating a more direct linkage to other areas). Also, the fare system control in the BRT system would be greatly limited if buses will run from outside into Kai Tak, making on-bus fare collection necessary and slowing down the process.

BRT itself have lots of advantages that proved from it's operating history since 1970s in Brazil, the country who "invented" the BRT as I know. For spacing of typical Hong Kong urban road and streets including Kai Tak, a dedicated BRT lane would cause severe flow restriction during holidays and public events.

Furthermore, we can see Automatic Platform Gates are introduced in the recent development of BRT. This would require a signaling system or some interlocking works to govern all of them including the bus itself as an intergraded engineering to achieve safe operations. Would this already enough to compensate the cost advantages of a BRT system?

Don't forget what you "get" from BRT is just the cost of rolling stock. You still have to pay for the PIDS, a closed platform/ station, all the facility from a tramway / tramtrain system.