daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old September 14th, 2015, 06:56 PM   #9981
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 381

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Building a dedicated subway that overlaps an existing rail line is not a good use of valuable resources either.
Look at your own East Rail. Built back in 1910. NOT a "dedicated rail line" - it carries a lot of trains between Hung Hom and Lo Wu, but the tracks are shared with long distance trains to Guangzhou and Beijing.
???

Subways carries many more passengers hence they are different. If you have the passenger number then yes, you should build parallel ones.

China entered a new league when it comes to rail transport last decade. Traditional commuter rails operating in Europe are subways in China, they have the same reach. Larger commuter rails like, for example New York one, they are build as high speed rail in China as in High-speed intercity railways. So, comparing should be done accordingly. The below map shows these planned lines. I think it is a little bit out of date.


foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 14th, 2015, 06:56 PM   #9982
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by 孟天宝 View Post
I would dearly love an interconnected commuter/metro system. But the reality is that I'm not sure how many would actually use it. Most of my friends use the metro infrequently yet they live right beside it. Everyone wants to get their drivers licenses and test their mettle on the roads. Perhaps the mentality of utilizing public transport hasn't seeped in yet.
I suspect that the neglect of commuter rail is something that takes time to fix. Chengdu Metro was opened only in 2010. How many suburbs of Chengdu have been built in places which were not built up when metro opened?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 孟天宝 View Post
The vast majority see train travel as something that's done during Golden Week and at no other times. If you want to travel somewhere, the first thing that comes to mind is a bus or driving yourself.
Chengdu is at the crossing of 3 old railways:
Chengdu-Chongqing. Opened 1952. I see the list of stations beginning:
  1. Chengdu
  2. Bali
  3. Longtansi
  4. Shibantan
  5. Honganxiang
  6. Chenjiawan
  7. Honghuatang
  8. Wufengxi
  9. Lingxianmao
  10. Yangmahe
  11. Shiqiaozhen
  12. Jianyang
  13. ...
Chengdu-Baoji. Opened 1961. Station list beginning:
  1. Chengdu
  2. Tianhuizhen
  3. Xindu
  4. Qingbaijiang
  5. Guanghan - 38 km
  6. Xinxinchang
  7. Deyang - 61 km
  8. Huangxuzhen
  9. Baimaguan
  10. Luojiang - 85 km
  11. ...
Chengdu-Kunming. Completed 1970, but sections opened before. Station list begins:
  1. Chengdu
  2. Bali
  3. Chengdu East
  4. Chengdu South
  5. Shuangliu
  6. Gongxing
  7. Hualongmen
  8. Xinjin
  9. Huilongan
  10. Qinglongchang
  11. Pengshan
  12. Taihe
  13. Meishan
  14. Xiantan
  15. Simeng
  16. Wuchang
  17. ...
that far seems to have been opened by 1965.
So, how much are these three lines used? Are Bali Station or Tianhuizhen Station important destinations in Chengdu?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2015, 08:24 PM   #9983
Sunfuns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Basel
Posts: 2,426
Likes (Received): 361

What about the upper 25% in the coastal cities? Would they not travel a lot more even when they don't absolutely have to? 25% of Shanghai or Beijing is still a lot of people... Every year I see more and more Chinese tourists in Europe so there are plenty of people even for expensive hobbies like that.
Sunfuns no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 05:27 AM   #9984
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,926
Likes (Received): 18188

Rents in general are quite low in China, so the advantage of living far to save is less. They won't get a big house anyway, but live in a larger apartment perhaps. The housing market in driven by speculators, so rents are not in-sync with actual mortgage rates as owners chase capital returns. They will even leave units empty so not to bother with the rental paperwork.

Those that live in the outskirts are oftentimes the poor that once were allocated homes in the city centre, but have since been forced out for redevelopment. A subway line often comes with these new developments in the outskirts, so why would there be a need for a separate commuter line? In Europe, commuter lines don't necessarily overlap with subways. The two serve different purposes. I don't see how China has to follow that model. The population densities are high enough to build subways.

For the rich that are able to afford expensive hobbies and fly around the world, they can easily afford drivers and avoid the crushing crowds altogether, and live in the city centre and not have to worry about a long commute. These are the people buying up the redevelopments anyway.

This is why the high-speed network is primarily designed for intercity travel, targeted at the middle class who can afford an occasional trip.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 06:25 AM   #9985
oliver999
starwar
 
oliver999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,148
Likes (Received): 1142

my god,shanghai-chengdu 350KM/H highspeed rail approved.
__________________
项羽问:怎么样?
骑兵们敬佩地回答:和大王说的一样!
oliver999 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 06:30 AM   #9986
oliver999
starwar
 
oliver999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,148
Likes (Received): 1142

my small county will have 3 highspeed rail (200KM/H) by 2020.to shanghai,nanjing,jiaxing,nantong
__________________
项羽问:怎么样?
骑兵们敬佩地回答:和大王说的一样!
oliver999 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 07:11 AM   #9987
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
???

Subways carries many more passengers hence they are different. If you have the passenger number then yes, you should build parallel ones.
Um. More than what?
Have a look at Yamanote line.
First section opened in 1885.
First section double-tracked, and electrified, in 1909.
Completed in 1925, as double track.
At present, the eastern side of Yamanote line is 8 tracks. 6 tracks of narrow gauge plus 2 tracks of broad gauge Shinkansen.
Yamanote line has 11 car trains. Runs 21 hours per day. 15 trains per hour off-peak, as much as 24 trains per hour peak times. And that does not count the frequencies of the other 4 narrow and 2 broad gauge tracks.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 07:16 AM   #9988
孟天宝
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Chengdu
Posts: 82
Likes (Received): 76

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
I suspect that the neglect of commuter rail is something that takes time to fix. Chengdu Metro was opened only in 2010. How many suburbs of Chengdu have been built in places which were not built up when metro opened?
Line 1, none.
Line 2, difficult to say.

Parts of Xipu are being "redeveloped;" i.e. the old tenements are being bulldozed to make way for new concrete jungles. However the rents on the new places are far from "cheap." They would only be accessible to the burgeoning middle/upper-middle class. By definition they don't use metro for commuting as they have cars they want to show off. Those that might possibly use it are being pushed towards housing that is the most distant from the metro. Same goes with the other end of Line 2 in Longquanyi. There are about four stations in the middle of nowhere. I'm sure in a decade it will fill up with new skyscrapers but whether or not the homeowners will use Line 2 or the Chengmianle to commute is to be seen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Chengdu is at the crossing of 3 old railways:

*list of train stations that no one visits*

So, how much are these three lines used? Are Bali Station or Tianhuizhen Station important destinations in Chengdu?
Short answer; No

Long answer:

Bali is a marshalling yard for Chengdu "North/Main" station if I remember correctly, whilst Tianhuizhen is virtually non existant. There is a possibility they are used for freight these days but I am unsure. I remember going over a bridge in Tianhui that went over a train track but it was largely overgrown so not sure how much it was used.

In your list for the 1952 Cheng-Yu line none of the stations except for Jianyang (简阳) are accessible via 12306.cn. If you want to go there, it'll cost ¥14.5 for a seat for the 80 to 90 minutes trip in one of four trains. The 1961 Cheng-Bao line has no stations show up, I suspect Deyang (德阳) or Miangyang (绵阳) are the first stops now. Heading south on the Cheng-Kun railway will see to either Pengshan (彭山) on the K9483 1h 16m away for ¥12.5 or Meishan (眉山) on four trains at ¥15.5 for either a 77m or 90m ride.

Many of the other cities *do* have stations (Xindu, Qingbaijiang, etc. on the Cheng-Bao Line or Xinjing, Shaungliu, etc. on the Cheng-Kun line) but they are at new stations recently built for the Cheng-Mian-Le "commuter rail." The vast majority of those are outside of town and tend to be poorly connected.

The closest thing to a commuter rail system is Wuhan's regional rail system that has 2 of 3 lines finished and Zhengzhou's "Central Plains" system that has only 1 line finished and a bunch more under construction. Ideally it would be nice if they functioned as a commuter line, but the reality will likely be far from it. Even Chengdu's ICR is not used often due to few trains and the need to buy tickets. My friend in Deyang doesn't use it because it's easier to catch the bus; when I asked her if she would commute she just laughed.
孟天宝 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 07:44 AM   #9989
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
You might missed my point. Beijing and Shanghai metros are two of the largest metro systems and their reach is about the same as the commuter rail map you showed for Munich, both around 60km diameter. So, these metro systems can indeed hinder need for a commuter rail system especially when you consider regional high speed rail systems start running in these cities. I mean, one can easily think Beijing-Tianjin HSR is commuter rail.

Also, again you may missed my point with Indian rail passenger numbers. I am not saying it is false. I am saying it includes ridership for people who are commuting daily, around 20km or so to the city centers because of a lack of proper metro system. Shanghai and Beijing metro is doing the same thing so should we include their passenger numbers to China National Rail?
Ideally every large urban agglomeration would have readily accessible, grade separated rapid transit. The nomenclature does not really matter. It could be subway, commuter rail, some made-up term.

If people are going to argue about numbers, they should add the numbers for subway rides in addition to commuter rail rides. Or they could add up the total distance traveled by customers.

Munich is a very good example of commuter rail done right. Electrified trains, ROWs, etc. If I remember correctly, they're also tunneling under the city to add speed/capacity. Unfortunately there's a LOT of bad commuter rail, especially in places large and wealthy enough to warrant better options. Diesel trains, shared tracks with cargo trains, often a subservient relationship to the cargo trains, at-grade crossings.
__________________

chornedsnorkack, Pansori liked this post
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 07:50 AM   #9990
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pansori View Post
Metro systems in China are very much like metro systems everywhere else. They are extensive, convenient, typically travel at up to 80km/h (with exceptions) and generally do not carry attributes of commuter rail. No major city in China has a proper commuter rail system and no metro system substitutes it. There simply isn't any commuter rail system.

Commuter rail may duplicate metro lines in some cases but generally have less frequent stops, faster maximum and average speeds and reach out much further outside city core.

Some perfect examples of metro and commuter rail can be found in Germany.
Even the impressively large subway systems in China today are woefully inadequate in terms of coverage. There are still many large swaths of high density urban areas that are still NOT served by mass transit. These areas should get their own lines before express/reliever lines are built. The long term plans (assuming the cities do not undergo major population/footprint growth) have the mass transit systems maybe 3-4X their current size?

So we'll have to wait a decade or two. Hopefully the politicos won't implement infrastructure austerity policies.
__________________

Pansori, chornedsnorkack liked this post
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 07:59 AM   #9991
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
A subway line often comes with these new developments in the outskirts, so why would there be a need for a separate commuter line? In Europe, commuter lines don't necessarily overlap with subways. The two serve different purposes. I don't see how China has to follow that model. The population densities are high enough to build subways.
In Hong Kong, commuter lines don´t overlap with subways either, because the two serve the same purpose. Subways only go parallel to East Rail Line as far as Kowloon Tong Station, and parallel to West Rail Line as far Tsuen Wan West. The railway was already there, so were some of the stations (Sha Tin, University, Fanling, Sheung Shui, Lo Wu) - so rather than build a new dedicated subway parallel to East Rail and desert the stations of East Rail, (big waste of infrastructure and effort) you added second track and electrification to previously single track line, and extra stations (Kowloon Tong, Tai Wai, Fo Tan, Racecourse, Tai Po Market, Tai Wo) between the old ones.

Like most reasonable countries do. Like mainlanders should have done, and should still do.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 08:22 AM   #9992
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
Because people don't live in Dongguan and work in Shenzhen, or live in Zhongshan and work in Guangzhou. Intercity commutes are rare in China. The difference in housing costs are more than offset by the train tickets.

Shenzhen to Guangzhou on the CRH costs about 80 RMB. When an average urban worker makes only 4000 RMB a month, clearly such long-distance commutes are unaffordable even if the cost halves with a slower train.
Short response: You just ignored the basics of transit planning.

Detailed response: In order to rebut your assertions, I'll point to the relatively recent history of urban planning. In postwar Europe, the UK diverged from Continental Europe when it came to building much-needed new urban centers. Like China today, additional urban areas were developed to accommodate the then-burgeoning populations and to ameliorate the severe overcrowding.

The UK purposely chose to locate its New Towns far away from existing population centers, and it chose to not extend railway connections from the New Towns to each other and to the older, larger cities. New Towns were supposed to be self-contained and self-sufficient. Postwar Europe had very low car ownership rates (similar to China today), and people would live and work in their self-contained cities.

Continental Europe had its New Towns connected to its legacy cities via commuter rail. Guess which policy better suited its population? By the late 50s/early 60s, the results were clear. People WANT to move about, and even if they don't drive, they'll endure long, tedious, and congested public transit to reach their destination.

So you could argue that China =/= Postwar Europe. Well, let's take another example. You should be familiar with Hong Kong. Its nine New Towns were originally intended to be self-sufficient, and mass transit connections were intentionally omitted, as these urban areas were large enough, and each provided enough factory workers from their own batches of high density towers. Safe to say, each one of these New Towns inevitably had students, white collar workers, shoppers, and even factory workers enduring long, impossibly tedious commutes on cars, public transit, etc. to neighboring cities. And just like Postwar UK and 1970s Hong Kong, the factory workers in China don't have cars and don't have an absolute need to seek employment or even visit neighboring locales.

If you were to take public transit in any of the factory towns throughout Northern Shenzhen and Dongguan, you'd realize that the buses are overcrowded and the roads are overburdened. Doesn't this dismiss your notions of intercity transit being an unnecessary luxury? Even in Dongguan, there are more than just factory workers, and the factory workers themselves are not incarcerated. Even they want to visit the surrounding places in their spare time.

If you take the Shenzhen Red Line through the gritty industrial areas, you'll realize the subway cars are still impossibly packed, even though the vast majority of the population is composed of out-of-province factory workers. If you go to the pathetically empty New South China Mall in Dongguan, you'll notice that it's actually not very far away from Guangzhou itself. It will soon be connected to Guangzhou and Shenzhen via rail. Maybe that's why its owners keep up with mall maintenance.
__________________

Pansori liked this post
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 08:39 AM   #9993
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
In Hong Kong, commuter lines don´t overlap with subways either, because the two serve the same purpose. Subways only go parallel to East Rail Line as far as Kowloon Tong Station, and parallel to West Rail Line as far Tsuen Wan West. The railway was already there, so were some of the stations (Sha Tin, University, Fanling, Sheung Shui, Lo Wu) - so rather than build a new dedicated subway parallel to East Rail and desert the stations of East Rail, (big waste of infrastructure and effort) you added second track and electrification to previously single track line, and extra stations (Kowloon Tong, Tai Wai, Fo Tan, Racecourse, Tai Po Market, Tai Wo) between the old ones.

Like most reasonable countries do. Like mainlanders should have done, and should still do.
Actually, they do. There are four lines linking the scattered New Towns to Kowloon and Hong Kong; Tung Chung, West Rail, East Rail, and Ma On Shan Line. Tung Chung and West Rail are completed. They stop in Western Kowloon before reaching city center. East Rail and Ma On Shan aren't completed, but they too will have intermediate stops before reaching city center.

If you absolutely have to make a comparison, these lines are akin to the Paris RER. They serve as commuter rail to far off suburbs, and they serve as express lines in the inner city.
__________________

Pansori liked this post
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 09:37 AM   #9994
Pansori
planquadrat
 
Pansori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London - Vilnius
Posts: 9,973
Likes (Received): 6911

Good point about RER. I was going to give this example. A city the size of Shanghai or Beijing absolutely needs this kind of transportation. How long does it take to cross the city on a normal metro line? How crowded does it get?
Pansori no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 09:47 AM   #9995
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post
Ideally every large urban agglomeration would have readily accessible, grade separated rapid transit. The nomenclature does not really matter. It could be subway, commuter rail, some made-up term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post
Munich is a very good example of commuter rail done right. Electrified trains, ROWs, etc. If I remember correctly, they're also tunneling under the city to add speed/capacity. Unfortunately there's a LOT of bad commuter rail, especially in places large and wealthy enough to warrant better options. Diesel trains, shared tracks with cargo trains, often a subservient relationship to the cargo trains, at-grade crossings.
Fortunately there is a lot of bad commuter rail.

My city is probably not a "large" urban agglomeration. And the railway is grade separated only for 4 km or so.
3 railways branching out of the terminal station.
1 branch, double tracked and electrified for 57 km (and double track continues beyond). After the first 4 km shared section (3 grade separated crossings), it has in the first 10 km or so, 5 grade separated road crossings and 1 at grade crossing.
Second branch, double tracked and electrified for 11 km, and continues there as a single track electrified line. After the first 2 km with 3 grade separated crossings, the next 9 km have 1 grade separated road crossing and 3 at grade crossings.
Third branch, single track unelectrified. After first 4 km shared section (4 grade separated crossings), only at grade crossings (I think 3 of them in next 6 km).
The first branch is shared with diesel trains. And the first two are shared with cargo. (The third, practically not at present).

My point: there are a lot of midsized (or, in China, big but poor) cities that cannot now afford good commuter rail.
Bad commuter rail is much better than no commuter rail. Bad commuter rail can be improved piecemeal. It is hard to attract people and buildings to a line built where there was previously no commuter rail.
And large cities should have good commuter rail PLUS a lot of bad commuter rail to places which do not warrant good commuter rail.
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 10:04 AM   #9996
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

^Name a good mass transit system. Odds are much/most of it was built when the city was relatively poor. A good, efficient mass transit system improves overall efficiency and productivity, and adds to the overall wealth of the city. Go back to the largest expansion of transit in Moscow, Tokyo, Seoul, London, Paris, New York, etc. It's called the multiplier effect. If you want to go into boring details, Historical school economists like Friedrich List and Henry Carey explain the impact of infrastructure.

Sure a lousy commuter rail system is better than nothing at all. But if a city is building a transit system from scratch, it makes sense to build something that won't need to be upgraded right away. Running diesel trains and building at-grade, and then upgrading to electric trains and grade separation basically means starting from scratch.

Conversely, you REALLY, REALLY need to visit some places that are wealthy, and have been wealthy for a long time, yet still operate outdated commuter rail systems. Then you'll modify your editorial stance.
__________________

Pansori liked this post
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 10:32 AM   #9997
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post
Sure a lousy commuter rail system is better than nothing at all. But if a city is building a transit system from scratch, it makes sense to build something that won't need to be upgraded right away. Running diesel trains and building at-grade, and then upgrading to electric trains and grade separation basically means starting from scratch.
Not scratch. The route of railway, the stations and the habit of people to use the railway remains in place unless the service is shut down.

Around me, the electrification was built piecemeal. First 11 km back in 1924, then next 16 km in 1947, then next 20 or so km in 1960, then additional branches...
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 12:45 PM   #9998
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,926
Likes (Received): 18188

Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post
Short response: You just ignored the basics of transit planning.

Detailed response: In order to rebut your assertions, I'll point to the relatively recent history of urban planning. In postwar Europe, the UK diverged from Continental Europe when it came to building much-needed new urban centers. Like China today, additional urban areas were developed to accommodate the then-burgeoning populations and to ameliorate the severe overcrowding.

The UK purposely chose to locate its New Towns far away from existing population centers, and it chose to not extend railway connections from the New Towns to each other and to the older, larger cities. New Towns were supposed to be self-contained and self-sufficient. Postwar Europe had very low car ownership rates (similar to China today), and people would live and work in their self-contained cities.

Continental Europe had its New Towns connected to its legacy cities via commuter rail. Guess which policy better suited its population? By the late 50s/early 60s, the results were clear. People WANT to move about, and even if they don't drive, they'll endure long, tedious, and congested public transit to reach their destination.

So you could argue that China =/= Postwar Europe. Well, let's take another example. You should be familiar with Hong Kong. Its nine New Towns were originally intended to be self-sufficient, and mass transit connections were intentionally omitted, as these urban areas were large enough, and each provided enough factory workers from their own batches of high density towers. Safe to say, each one of these New Towns inevitably had students, white collar workers, shoppers, and even factory workers enduring long, impossibly tedious commutes on cars, public transit, etc. to neighboring cities. And just like Postwar UK and 1970s Hong Kong, the factory workers in China don't have cars and don't have an absolute need to seek employment or even visit neighboring locales.

If you were to take public transit in any of the factory towns throughout Northern Shenzhen and Dongguan, you'd realize that the buses are overcrowded and the roads are overburdened. Doesn't this dismiss your notions of intercity transit being an unnecessary luxury? Even in Dongguan, there are more than just factory workers, and the factory workers themselves are not incarcerated. Even they want to visit the surrounding places in their spare time.

If you take the Shenzhen Red Line through the gritty industrial areas, you'll realize the subway cars are still impossibly packed, even though the vast majority of the population is composed of out-of-province factory workers. If you go to the pathetically empty New South China Mall in Dongguan, you'll notice that it's actually not very far away from Guangzhou itself. It will soon be connected to Guangzhou and Shenzhen via rail. Maybe that's why its owners keep up with mall maintenance.
You are ignoring how China's economy works and how its workers live and travel.

We don't care how the UK evolved post-war. What we see in China today are large migrant populations that don't travel around the city for fun because their basic necessities are all taken care of by their employer and they save as much as they can for their impoverished families far away. This type of demographic dictates how the transport infrastructure is planned and built. Don't think any European city can be a proper model for China at all.

Even comparisons with Hong Kong are grossly inaccurate and inappropriate based on demographics and work patterns alone. Period.

You have to understand who is riding the buses between cities - middle class folks who find CRH too expensive, or actual migrants moving around because they changed jobs, needed to make a home visit, etc. Keep in mind buses have a big discount compared to the CRH trains so even the wealthier folks will be attracted to them. Shenzhen North to Guangzhou South costs about 80 RMB, which is a substantial chunk of money for the upper middle class that makes more than the 4000 RMB urban worker average. Even for me, taking the bus from Hong Kong to Guangzhou costs less, guarantees me a seat, and is less of a hassle than taking the CRH out of Shenzhen.

Are you saying packed trains = the migrants are commuting, and hence commuter rail is required? The fact that trains are packed may also mean people do short trips and trains fill up once they empty out, so an express line ferrying passengers from far suburbs to the city centre may not even make sense. Keep in mind not everyone works in Futian and Lowu. For a city of 10+ million, even with the average 40% migrant population, the rest of the population is sizeable and I won't expect to see empty trains.

With empirical data, we see a study clocked Beijing's average commute distance was 19km, which means people don't live far from work (halve the amount for the actual distance from work) : http://www.scmp.com/news/china/artic...-daily-commute

Beijing already topped the list for longest commutes.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!

Last edited by hkskyline; September 15th, 2015 at 12:51 PM.
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 01:19 PM   #9999
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,975
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
You have to understand who is riding the buses between cities - middle class folks who find CRH too expensive, or actual migrants moving around because they changed jobs, needed to make a home visit, etc. Keep in mind buses have a big discount compared to the CRH trains so even the wealthier folks will be attracted to them. Shenzhen North to Guangzhou South costs about 80 RMB, which is a substantial chunk of money for the upper middle class that makes more than the 4000 RMB urban worker average. Even for me, taking the bus from Hong Kong to Guangzhou costs less, guarantees me a seat, and is less of a hassle than taking the CRH out of Shenzhen.
Does taking a bus from Hong Kong to Lo Wu also cost less than taking MTR for the same distance?

For example, prices out of Wuhan:
Wuhan-Xianning North, 85 km, by G train - 24 minutes, nonstop, second class 39 yuan 5 jiao
Wuhan-Xianning North, by D train - 26 minutes, nonstop, second class 24 yuan 5 jiao
Wuchang-Xianning, by T369 - 44 minutes, nonstop, hard seat 13 yuan

How does bus trip price compare?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 01:30 PM   #10000
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,926
Likes (Received): 18188

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Does taking a bus from Hong Kong to Lo Wu also cost less than taking MTR for the same distance?

For example, prices out of Wuhan:
Wuhan-Xianning North, 85 km, by G train - 24 minutes, nonstop, second class 39 yuan 5 jiao
Wuhan-Xianning North, by D train - 26 minutes, nonstop, second class 24 yuan 5 jiao
Wuchang-Xianning, by T369 - 44 minutes, nonstop, hard seat 13 yuan

How does bus trip price compare?
You will need to understand whether people actually will make that trip in the first place.

13 RMB a trip on a hard seat equates to 520 RMB a month, which is a substantial amount of money considering an average urban salary of 4000 RMB. Keep in mind a subway ride in a large city would not typically cost more than half of that. Why would people move so far away?

From the data I presented, the Beijing commute is the longest at 19km, so I really wonder whether a 85km commute makes sense in the Chinese context. I don't understand why you are randomly throwing city pairs and train ticket prices without assessing whether that pair makes sense from a commuting perspective in the first place.

There is no bus service to Lo Wu, which is home to few villagers, but a major transit point for cross-border traffic. Buses do compete against the MTR for the Lok Ma Chau crossing and buses are considerably cheaper.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
china, high speed rail

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium