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 > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



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 February 16th, 2009, 02:42 PM   #41
rheintram
yeah, whatever
 
rheintram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,598
Likes (Received): 924

Die Diskussion mit Hoch- und Niederflur ist idiotisch imho. Ich habe nie verstanden warum man in Deutschland auf Teufel komm raus Stadtbahnen mit Hochbahnsteigen errichtet hat - mitsamt allen bekannten Problemen. Stadtbahnen und Metros funktionieren durchaus sehr gut mit Nieder- und Mittelflurbahnen. Tatsächlich erlaubt der technische Fortschritt heute solche Fahrzeuge. Ein Beispiel für eine U-Bahn mit Mittelflur ist etwa die Wiener U6, die ja sehr vergleichbar ist mit einigen deutschen Stadtbahnen (abgesehen davon, dass es sich um eine Vollubahnstrecke handelt).
rheintram no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 16th, 2009, 04:15 PM   #42
Patrick
✪ DWF ✪ Alaaf! ✪
 
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Grafschaft Wied
Posts: 2,626
Likes (Received): 888

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk780 View Post
Frankfurt rapid transit network (S-Bahn & U-Bahn)

to get back to topic (and remeber the forum language):

these are the underground stations (S- and U-Bahn) in Frankfurt.



Patrick no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2009, 05:01 PM   #43
JoKo65
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,111
Likes (Received): 86

Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroSilesia View Post
Millionenliga Dazu sollte Köln doch zumindest 1 Million haben, und das war nur mal kurz der Fall. Du willst es einfach net verstehen.... Es stinkt dir einfach das du im Unrecht bist und ich von Fakten spreche.
Es gibt zwei Zählmethoden, nach der einen fehlen Köln noch etwa 15 000 Einwohner, nach der anderen ist es schon längst über der Grenze.
So viel zu Deinen „Fakten“.
__________________
L'Amerique? C'est l'évolution de la barbarie à la décadence, sans toucher la culture.
JoKo65 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2009, 05:09 PM   #44
JoKo65
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,111
Likes (Received): 86

Quote:
Originally Posted by rheintram View Post
Die Diskussion mit Hoch- und Niederflur ist idiotisch imho. Ich habe nie verstanden warum man in Deutschland auf Teufel komm raus Stadtbahnen mit Hochbahnsteigen errichtet hat - mitsamt allen bekannten Problemen. Stadtbahnen und Metros funktionieren durchaus sehr gut mit Nieder- und Mittelflurbahnen. Tatsächlich erlaubt der technische Fortschritt heute solche Fahrzeuge. Ein Beispiel für eine U-Bahn mit Mittelflur ist etwa die Wiener U6, die ja sehr vergleichbar ist mit einigen deutschen Stadtbahnen (abgesehen davon, dass es sich um eine Vollubahnstrecke handelt).
I can't understand that too. Today low floor trains can do the same job like high floor trains. That's the reason why the new Wehrhahnlinie in Düsseldorf will be completely low floor.
__________________
L'Amerique? C'est l'évolution de la barbarie à la décadence, sans toucher la culture.
JoKo65 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2009, 05:20 PM   #45
tk780
Registered User
 
tk780's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 367
Likes (Received): 53

This thread is about Frankfurt's Metro network, not whether Cologne is larger than Stuttgart. Please get back on topic or take your petty fight to those cities' respective threads.
tk780 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2009, 01:12 AM   #46
MetroSilesia
****** Silesian Stallion!
 
MetroSilesia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 5,101
Likes (Received): 11428

my vid about the metro of Frankfurt with a few car-types and stations


my vid about the S-Bahn in Frankfurt witha all undergroundstations in the city


my vid about Trams of Frankfurt



visit my account, there are many more vids about metros and trams in Frankfurt in HQ
__________________
Der Welt aufs Maul von Freunden! "Verein für Legastheniker: Ihr bleibt ewig hinter euch!!!"

Paralleluniversum
MetroSilesia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2009, 10:17 AM   #47
Justme
Gotta lite?
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester (Forecast: Rain)
Posts: 4,948
Likes (Received): 771

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
Indeed we could learn a lot from the Germans and Japanese when it comes to PT systems - take a look at the thread on the Stuttgart Stadtbahn that was started recently in this section of the forum. It's enviable for most cities let alone cities of this sort of size.
Well, the size of the metro and S-bahn is functional not just because of the size of the city proper area (about 670,000) but the size of both the urban area and metro area which are actually quite large.

The U-bahn itself extends outside of Frankfurt city proper into the urban area which has approx 2.4million people (definitions vary depending on source) and the S-bahn extends into the inner metro area which has around 4.2million. The regional bahn extends throughout the full metro area which exceeds 5million.

That's more people than the entire country where you live which explains why the transport system can be as large as it is.

That said, it is actually more extensive than many other cities with a 5million metro area so it does have that in it's favour.

As already mentioned, a good deal of the u-bahn is really nothing more than a tram network which extends underground in the central city. Above ground it acts more like a tram than a metro, but underground it operates like a metro. There are a couple of full metro lines however. Also, the frequencies off peak can be quite average when in the suburbs. It isn't uncommon late at night to have to wait 20minutes for an u-bahn. And many S-bahns only have a half hour service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by city_thing View Post
Exactly

Cities like Canberra, Cairns, Hobart and maybe Christchurch, Dunedin (you know more than me about those two cities) would really benefit from some German PT know-how. Even the bigger cities should be paying attention now that Sydney and Melbourne have become dense enough to sustain high frequency metros. I'd kill for a Melbourne U-Bahn
Those cities mentioned above are far smaller and less dense than any of these German cities. Even the smaller German cities have quite high densities and it's density more than anything which makes public transport more viable.
__________________
I'm doing my bit to save bandwidth by deleting my signature
Justme está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2009, 11:38 AM   #48
Svartmetall
Ordo Ab Chao
 
Svartmetall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Past: Northampton, UK (19 years), Auckland NZ (7 years), Now: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 14,072
Likes (Received): 8785

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme View Post
Well, the size of the metro and S-bahn is functional not just because of the size of the city proper area (about 670,000) but the size of both the urban area and metro area which are actually quite large.

The U-bahn itself extends outside of Frankfurt city proper into the urban area which has approx 2.4million people (definitions vary depending on source) and the S-bahn extends into the inner metro area which has around 4.2million. The regional bahn extends throughout the full metro area which exceeds 5million.

That's more people than the entire country where you live which explains why the transport system can be as large as it is.

That said, it is actually more extensive than many other cities with a 5million metro area so it does have that in it's favour.

As already mentioned, a good deal of the u-bahn is really nothing more than a tram network which extends underground in the central city. Above ground it acts more like a tram than a metro, but underground it operates like a metro. There are a couple of full metro lines however. Also, the frequencies off peak can be quite average when in the suburbs. It isn't uncommon late at night to have to wait 20minutes for an u-bahn. And many S-bahns only have a half hour service.
Aha, we're back to the old "European metropolitan area" argument again.

The reason I always try to ignore this largely is that the urban area definitions get a little silly sometimes. I still maintain that Wiesbaden, Mainz and Darmstadt are very separate entities despite being connected by the PT network to Frankfurt. Aschaffenburg despite its size has a huge employment base of its own for the region, yet doesn't have its own metropolitan area to reflect its importance to nearby settlements.



When we look at this map as to what constitutes the "Rhein-Main-Gebiet", I feel that it's almost impossible to compare it to international metropolitan areas. If we were to look at an Australian city such as Melbourne, why is it that Bacchus Marsh or Woodend or all of the other small towns connected to Melbourne by rail are not included in the Melbourne Metropolitan area despite the obvious influence that Melbourne has on the job situation in these small communities.



Things become even sillier when you look at this map and realise that other than the Ruhrgebiet, Munich and Berlin these metropolitan areas in some cases seem to encompass a huge swathe of the country - all of which is being attributed to one central key city despite the obvious autonomy of other settlements in the surrounding area. The presence of these cities, though as inextricably tied to the key city of the area as a city like Tamworth is to Sydney, doesn't necessarily mean that they serve to function as little more than dormitory towns as you see in many US/Australian/NZ cities that are attributed to a key city as part of a metropolitan area (case in point, Auckland and North Shore City).

The only difference is geographical distance in a lot of cases. In a small, dense country it is obvious that there will be a greater propensity for commuting between settlements as people have more flexibility to live in one area and then work in another. But does this mean that these obviously separate entities should be lumped together as one huge city area? In my opinion no. If this were the case, most of Southern England would be one city and I find that concept absurd, although it would make that vacuous question of "do you come from London" that idiots ask me far easier to answer (yes).

Then of course I tend to like to consider the historical source of these towns/cities. Many of these places, unlike those in New World Countries, developed in a mostly autonomous manner and have mutated to become a viable commuter base (at least due to geographical proximity). This tends to be a little different to the situation seen in the New World from my experience and so I don't tend to agree that New World values fit with the urban form of older countries.

It's quite an odd situation as you are an Australian now living Europe, whereas I'm a Brit now living in NZ and so we've both taken our different views of the world to our respective adopted countries so we're bound to have very different opinions on this. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

As for the frequency of the U-bahn (within the urban area of Frankfurt), it appears that most drops in frequency appear to occur after 21:00-22:00 - and during the week these drops are to 15 minutes (until around midnight when there are further frequency drops). Most other cities drop services off far faster than that - many Auckland services drop to hourly after 19:00! I'd certainly not call those average.
Svartmetall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2009, 02:23 PM   #49
Justme
Gotta lite?
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester (Forecast: Rain)
Posts: 4,948
Likes (Received): 771

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
Aha, we're back to the old "European metropolitan area" argument again.
Yes, because in terms of urban demographics, commutability and transportation, urban and metropolitan area's are far more relevant than city proper area's. Afterall, if city proper is all that counts, then Perth, a city of what, 11,000 people has the best public transport infrastructure on the planet for it's size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
The reason I always try to ignore this largely is that the urban area definitions get a little silly sometimes. I still maintain that Wiesbaden, Mainz and Darmstadt are very separate entities despite being connected by the PT network to Frankfurt. Aschaffenburg despite its size has a huge employment base of its own for the region, yet doesn't have its own metropolitan area to reflect its importance to nearby settlements.
They are not silly in the slightest. Yes, Those cities you mentioned do have historical identities that are seperate to Frankfurt. They are also important cities in their own right and are thought of as seperate cities as well. But their proximity to Frankfurt does make them not only part of the metropolitan area but also in many cases the urban area. It is virtually entirely urban except for some tiny fields in between Mainz, Wiesbaden and Frankfurt and takes between 20-30minutes to commute. How is that different to Auckland travelling through Manukau or Waitakere City? How is downtown Mainz different to downtown Parramatta (Sydney)? Both are fully seperate cities with seperate histories, their own CDB's and are hubs for commuting in their own rights. (Well, Mainz is older of course, and is nicer ;O)

The simple fact is that all these places are part of Frankfurt's commuter belt. That can simply not be denied. It is a fact. A perfect example is my own company. Out of the 30 people in my department, I am the ONLY one who actually lives in Frankfurt. ALL of the rest commute from the neighbouring area's which include places like Mainz, Wiesbaden and Darmstadt and many from further afield.

Metropolitan area's are not created for no reason. They exist because people today do not live and work in the same village. They commute and this commuting area is something that has to be quantified so that infrastucture like public transport can be designed.

A classic example of this is the very public transport company that exists here. RMV. The RM stands for Rhein Main which is the metroplitan area. The S-bahn is the equivilent here of Suburban trains, and the S-bahn comes under the RMV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
When we look at this map as to what constitutes the "Rhein-Main-Gebiet", I feel that it's almost impossible to compare it to international metropolitan areas. If we were to look at an Australian city such as Melbourne, why is it that Bacchus Marsh or Woodend or all of the other small towns connected to Melbourne by rail are not included in the Melbourne Metropolitan area despite the obvious influence that Melbourne has on the job situation in these small communities.
I can't tell you about Melbourne as I am not so familiar with that city. But let's take an Australian city which has a larger population and thus more comparable to Frankfurt's Rhein Main metro area - Sydney. The Sydney metro area has 4.3million people and covers a larger area than the Rhein Main's 5.2million! Area's like Lithgow on the other side of the Blue Mountains and the Central Coast, both quite seperated from the main urban area are part of Sydney's Statistical division which gives the 4.3 million people. Both of these places are much further out than the furthest town within Frankfurt's Rhein Main. If you deny the Rhein Main as a valid metropolitan area, then you must also deny Sydney's Statistical Area.

To be included in a metropolitan area, usually the town has to have enough people commuting to the core areas, maybe those Melbourne towns you mentioned simply do not have this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
Things become even sillier when you look at this map and realise that other than the Ruhrgebiet, Munich and Berlin these metropolitan areas in some cases seem to encompass a huge swathe of the country - all of which is being attributed to one central key city despite the obvious autonomy of other settlements in the surrounding area. The presence of these cities, though as inextricably tied to the key city of the area as a city like Tamworth is to Sydney, doesn't necessarily mean that they serve to function as little more than dormitory towns as you see in many US/Australian/NZ cities that are attributed to a key city as part of a metropolitan area (case in point, Auckland and North Shore City).
Sorry, Tamworth is 453km! Why on earth bring this up? The Ruhrhebiet (which has been taken over by the new Rhein Ruhr metropolitan area) is also smaller in size than Sydney's Statistical division, yet with approx 12million people. The distances there are very short between major centers. Cologne and Dusseldorf for instance is only 20minutes apart! (and they are some of the furthest) Many people commute between these various cities. I doubt very few people commute between Tamworth and Sydney.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
The only difference is geographical distance in a lot of cases. In a small, dense country it is obvious that there will be a greater propensity for commuting between settlements as people have more flexibility to live in one area and then work in another. But does this mean that these obviously separate entities should be lumped together as one huge city area?
They are lumped together in a metropolitan area, which is vital for planning infrastructure and other things like labour force. If for instance a large company is planning a regional HQ in a new country. It is important for them to know the size of the potential labour force. A city proper figure would give them nothing. However, what they want to know is how many people there are in commutable range to their new potential site. It is the same for large shops as well. A new mall opened a couple of weeks ago in downtown Frankfurt. Usually shopping in most of the surrounding centers of the Rhein Main metro area is pretty good. But this new mall will attract people from all over the Rhein Main to shop in Frankfurt. It is the metropolitan area here that was important in the design of the mall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
In my opinion no. If this were the case, most of Southern England would be one city and I find that concept absurd, although it would make that vacuous question of "do you come from London" that idiots ask me far easier to answer (yes).
No, the south of England would not be one city. But a good portion of the area that is called the South East is in fact part of London's metropolitan area. But don't even start on perceptions. A person living in Penrith, which is about 1.5hours from downtown Sydney would still call themselve's a Sydney Sider despite living in a completely different city. They would be counted as part of "Sydney" when in fact they are only counted as part of the metro (but the name of the core city and the metro is the same). This is no different than someone who lives in Slough is NOT called a Londoner, yet they are only 25minutes from downtown London. It's about perception.

Now, ask any person from Penrith (which calls themselves a Sydney Sider) and ask them how many times in the last year they actually went to "Sydney" as in the real city proper? Whether that was for shopping, work, entertainment whatever? I would be absolutely sure you would find more people travelling more to London from Slough for Shopping, Work and Entertainment than you would from Penrith to Sydney.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
Then of course I tend to like to consider the historical source of these towns/cities. Many of these places, unlike those in New World Countries, developed in a mostly autonomous manner and have mutated to become a viable commuter base (at least due to geographical proximity). This tends to be a little different to the situation seen in the New World from my experience and so I don't tend to agree that New World values fit with the urban form of older countries.
We live in a global society which competes against each other for business. Using your prefered choice, if a business desides to open up their first international regional HQ and then compares markets and labour force, they would discount Frankfurt as being a tiny town, but see Auckland as a much larger city? That is simply rubbish. How many people can commute to Auckland in 40minutes compared to how many can commute to Frankfurt?

Also using your method, we would simply NOT have the public transport infrastructure that we do in Germany, because every city would just be treated as a seperate historical entity. The size of the public transport is based on the people that need to commute and this is basically the metropolitan area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
It's quite an odd situation as you are an Australian now living Europe, whereas I'm a Brit now living in NZ and so we've both taken our different views of the world to our respective adopted countries so we're bound to have very different opinions on this. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
It's not odd for me at all. We live in a global economy these days and we need direct comparable statistics for all country's. I don't live in the past. I didn't move from a modern country like Australia to a little village where people get by on horse back. Commuting patterns in Frankfurt is not much different to Sydney.

In conclusion, the size of public transport in German cities are based on their metropolitan area populations. NOT city populations. That is why mentioning the metropolitan population of Frankfurt was valid in this thread.

To say Frankfurt has a brilliant public transport system for a city of 670,000 people is just as silly as saying Perth has a brilliant transport system for 11,000 people.
__________________
I'm doing my bit to save bandwidth by deleting my signature
Justme está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2009, 11:51 PM   #50
Svartmetall
Ordo Ab Chao
 
Svartmetall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Past: Northampton, UK (19 years), Auckland NZ (7 years), Now: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 14,072
Likes (Received): 8785

But what you've just written negates one of your original points - about density being vital for good PT infrastructure. The density of the Rhein-Main Gebiet is incredibly low even compared to a city like Auckland which manages to post a density of 1,100people per sq km.

Also, transport infrastructure within the area is largely centred on each of the individual cities (IE Wiesbaden has their own bus system centred on the city, same with Mainz, Darmstadt etc). Though there are commuter rail lines to each of those places which link them to Frankfurt, they are self-contained units far moreso than the examples that you offer. Frankfurt itself is very much a self-contained unit too. It has its own transit infrastructure satisfies its urban area (except for a few U-bahn lines that stretch outside it). In reality, only regional buses and the S-bahn/RegionalBahn/Express satisfy the metropolitan area. This in my experience is very unlike the Auckland situation whereby all transit is centred on Auckland CBD - nearly all the buses in Manukau or Waitakere city run to Auckland CBD thus highlighting the interdependence of the individual "cities". The whole of the Auckland region is dependent upon the centre of Auckland and transport provision here to any area of the Auckland metropolitan area is centred on the CBD of Auckland. Even Sydney has this very CBD-centric system too, though this is slightly less obvious due to the better rail provision of Sydney in comparison to Auckland.
Svartmetall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2009, 12:37 AM   #51
Rohne
Schwarzkutte
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Franconofurd
Posts: 830
Likes (Received): 361

You should be aware of the difference between metro area and urban area. Population figures are only comparable if you take the metro area OR the urban area OR the city proper for both. But you now compare Auckland's city proper or urban area with Frankfurt's metro area. This leads to nothing. The "Rhein-Main-Gebiet" is the metro area with more than 5 million inhabitants and a density of 400-500/km² (which is twice as high as Germany's overall density and Germany is one very dense settled country; besides that it's much higher than the density of most US metro areas like 18million-on-90,000km² Los Angeles, etc). Despite Frankfurt being the center in any view (except in terms of politics), you could call this metro area polycentric (not as extreme as Rhein-Ruhr, but by far not as centralized as say Paris), which makes it a bit more difficult to be compared with more centralized metro areas. You could easily find your way from Frankfurt to Wiesbaden, Aschaffenburg or Darmstadt without leaving built-up areas for more than 500m, but besides Frankfurt (~2million), Mainz/Wiesbaden, Darmstadt and Aschaffenburg all have their own urban areas, each with their own transportation systems (trams+busses). Frankfurt U-Bahn belongs to the VGF which only serves Frankfurt's city proper, the U-Bahn itself also running into other towns of Frankfurt's urban area. But all those systems are bundled under the RMV which is responsable for the whole metro area. The S-Bahn system and regional trains are also run under the RMV but have nothing to do with the local transportation authorites.

Talking about cities in geographical sense, you should take the figures for the urban area. In terms of economy/commuters you should take the metro area. When it comes to transport, it depends on which systems you want to compare. In this case, it might be best to take urban areas for trams and U-Bahn, and metro area for S and regional trains.

@MetroSilesia: I think you've forgotten Lokalbahnhof in your S-Bahn video. And despite Oxxenbach being a city of its own, in fact it's already a part of Frankfurt, so you could also add the S-Bahn stations there. And videos of the newer U-Bahn types U4 und U5 (in six years, the two only types that will be used on the U-Bahn network) would be nice [offtopic]And to your Stuttgart/Köln discussion: Stuttgart's urban area only counts 1.8 million people, the 2.6 million figure is the "innere Metropolregion" (citypopulation is nice for many european cities, but at least for Stuttgart and the US cities the wrong figures are listed there) which is far larger than the real urban area and only has ~800 people per sq km.[/offtopic]

Last edited by Rohne; March 12th, 2009 at 01:47 AM.
Rohne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2009, 03:27 AM   #52
davsot
Perro que ladra no muerde
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,243
Likes (Received): 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by micro View Post
Fancy entrance structures in Frankfurt at Festhalle/Messe and Bockenheimer Warte stations:

awesome station entrance!
davsot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2009, 11:14 AM   #53
Justme
Gotta lite?
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester (Forecast: Rain)
Posts: 4,948
Likes (Received): 771

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
But what you've just written negates one of your original points - about density being vital for good PT infrastructure. The density of the Rhein-Main Gebiet is incredibly low even compared to a city like Auckland which manages to post a density of 1,100people per sq km.
Absoulte not. The density of the whole Rhein Main metro may be low. But this is because the built up area's are urban pockets seperated by fields etc. Those urban pockets though are very dense, much more so than Auckland. Even far out in the metro, the town centers are usually quite dense. This density means more people are within walking distance to the local station than would be in any Auckland suburb. So, even though when looking at the wider metro area we see a low density figure, if you look at the rail map of the Rhein Main, and pick a station, it can be quite dense around those stations. All of the more important cities in the Rhein Main have very dense centers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
Also, transport infrastructure within the area is largely centred on each of the individual cities (IE Wiesbaden has their own bus system centred on the city, same with Mainz, Darmstadt etc). Though there are commuter rail lines to each of those places which link them to Frankfurt, they are self-contained units far moreso than the examples that you offer. Frankfurt itself is very much a self-contained unit too. It has its own transit infrastructure satisfies its urban area (except for a few U-bahn lines that stretch outside it). In reality, only regional buses and the S-bahn/RegionalBahn/Express satisfy the metropolitan area. This in my experience is very unlike the Auckland situation whereby all transit is centred on Auckland CBD - nearly all the buses in Manukau or Waitakere city run to Auckland CBD thus highlighting the interdependence of the individual "cities". The whole of the Auckland region is dependent upon the centre of Auckland and transport provision here to any area of the Auckland metropolitan area is centred on the CBD of Auckland. Even Sydney has this very CBD-centric system too, though this is slightly less obvious due to the better rail provision of Sydney in comparison to Auckland.
No, Sydney is more like the Rhein Main. When I lived in Ryde and worked in Hornsby, the bus systems around there concentrated on the suburbs in those area's. Only the government bus department went to the city center. The private bus companies went only around the area's of the suburbs.

Auckland on the other hand is a very low density city. So public transport in itself can only be limited. There simply isn't the population and densities to have much in the way of decentralized bus networks.

In any larger city with higher density you can have this. It is the same in London. If you go to London's suburbs, you will find many buses that do not actually go through central london. In fact, only really in the first couple of zones do buses pass through central London. At least from what I have noticed. From zone 3 to zone 6 generally buses server the local area's. The rail transport services longer journeys. And you wouldn't say London isn't a single city.

So, it's the same in Frankfurt and the Rhein Main. For longer journey's, the rail infrastucture looks after the radial journey's. If you look at a rail map of the Rhein Main, it is VERY Frankfurt dominant! This is exactly what you describe for Auckland's buses, in that most buses go to downtown Auckland. Look at the Rhein Main map and see how many lines go through downtown Frankfurt. Compare that with how many circulate from Mainz or Wiesbaden or any other center in the Rhein Main.

because it is a larger area, buses would simply be not as efficient as rail. In Frankfurt, buses are often used as feeders to the train stations, where as in Auckland, buses are pretty much the only form of viable public transport and used to get people to downtown from many outlying suburbs.

To back up my point. Frankfurt is the city it is because of it's metro area. Frankfurt for instance is a major financial center of Germany and Europe. It simply wouldn't be if the metro area didn't exist. Frankfurt doesn't have the population to provide all the employee's for Frankfurt's banking and financial sector. If you took away the metro area, probably 80% of Frankfurt's financial labour force would dissapear as most of them live outside the city proper itself.

If you took away the metro area, I would be the ONLY person left in my company. I would simply be alone, as I am the only person who lives in Frankfurt itself. All these businesses rely on the wider metro area for it's labour force, Frankfurt simply doesn't have the population itself.

And finally, if you took away the metro area, Frankfurt would NOT have as big a rail infrasture as it does.
__________________
I'm doing my bit to save bandwidth by deleting my signature
Justme está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2009, 02:05 PM   #54
Svartmetall
Ordo Ab Chao
 
Svartmetall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Past: Northampton, UK (19 years), Auckland NZ (7 years), Now: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 14,072
Likes (Received): 8785

The "Frankfurt metropolitan area" would not have as large Regionalbahn/RegionalExpress or S-bahn without the metropolitan area, no. However, it would still have the U-bahn and the trams as Rohne says as those are primarily the urban transport for Frankfurt city proper. The comment that sparked this debate was just a blase comment about good PT provision in Frankfurt. I felt it was unfair to be talking about the metropolitan population when the bits of Frankfurt that I consider "well served" by PT are within the Frankfurt area itself. If Frankfurt was just the city proper excluding the S-bahn or Regionalbahn services, Frankfurt itself would have good PT coverage from just the U-bahn and trams and I very much doubt those services would not be in place if the metropolitan area disappeared. I never really associate the S-bahn or Regionalbahn services with the city of Frankfurt at all.

But this discussion could go on and on. Debating about the population of an area may be interesting for a statistician but certainly isn't within the scope of this conversation. We all tend to view "our city" and what constitutes as one city in different ways, and really, metropolitan area designations by a bunch of urban planners are just as meaningless as random lines drawn on a map as political boundaries really. They're just arbitrary measures.
Svartmetall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2009, 05:25 PM   #55
Justme
Gotta lite?
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester (Forecast: Rain)
Posts: 4,948
Likes (Received): 771

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
The "Frankfurt metropolitan area" would not have as large Regionalbahn/RegionalExpress or S-bahn without the metropolitan area, no. However, it would still have the U-bahn and the trams as Rohne says as those are primarily the urban transport for Frankfurt city proper.
Well, no. I say it still wouldn't have the same u-bahn if it didn't have the large metro area. Afterall, take a look at Nürnberg. This is a city very similar in size to Frankfurt but with a much smaller metro area than Frankfurt's Rhein Main. Yet it's u-bahn is far smaller than Frankfurt's. This is because all the industry in Frankfurt, which a great deal exists because of the labour force of the metro area, especially the financial sector. These industries which wouldn't be here in anywhere as large size, bring in enormous amounts of tax money which can pay for things such as the large u-bahn network.

They also bring in a lot of commuters that get off the S-bhans, Regional bahns and buses to use the u-bahn for their final leg of the journey to work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
The comment that sparked this debate was just a blase comment about good PT provision in Frankfurt. I felt it was unfair to be talking about the metropolitan population when the bits of Frankfurt that I consider "well served" by PT are within the Frankfurt area itself. If Frankfurt was just the city proper excluding the S-bahn or Regionalbahn services, Frankfurt itself would have good PT coverage from just the U-bahn and trams and I very much doubt those services would not be in place if the metropolitan area disappeared.
See my comments above. The public transport even in the city of Frankfurt would be much smaller without the metro area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
I never really associate the S-bahn or Regionalbahn services with the city of Frankfurt at all.
Well, that is an odd thing since the S-bahn is really the suburban railways. They are the German equivilent of the RER in Paris, or the suburban railways of Sydney, or even the suburban railways of Auckland. I use the S-bahn for getting around Frankfurt proper (as in the city itself) just as much as the u-bahn as they operate similar to u-bahn's in the central area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
But this discussion could go on and on. Debating about the population of an area may be interesting for a statistician but certainly isn't within the scope of this conversation. We all tend to view "our city" and what constitutes as one city in different ways, and really, metropolitan area designations by a bunch of urban planners are just as meaningless as random lines drawn on a map as political boundaries really. They're just arbitrary measures.
Yes, we all do have our own definitions of what is called a city. However, when comparing at an international level, we must use the same definition for each and every city. Therefore, if you say Frankfurt has a big PT system for a city of it's size (650,000 in city proper) then you must compare that with the city proper of Auckland, not the urban area or metro area.

What you call Auckland can differ to what I call Auckland. No worries there. But if you tell me that the metro or urban area's around Frankfurt works differently than in any other modern city of the world, including Auckland or Sydney I will surely dispute that. I live here and have lived in Auckland and Sydney and I can assure you there is no real difference as far as urban travelling and commuting goes. The difference is in densities, and the fact that Frankfurt has a green belt, which means there are small gaps of fields between tightly packed urban area's. But these gaps of fields work no difference if it were a river or harbour or park or industrial area where people don't actually live. People cross them all the time to work, shop, eat and visit friends, just as they cross harbours, rivers and endless ultra low density suburbs in Sydney and Auckland.

And the point where places like Wiesbaden are fully seperate cities are no different in today's world than say Parramatta in Sydney, which also has it's own downtown, CDB, townhall, council and is the centre of that part of the metro area. You don't have this so much in Auckland because it is such a small city in comparison.

Anyway, even if I don't agree with you here, I hope this debate doesn't put you off. I always enjoy your posts and my disagreement here is not meant to put you down in any way. I do get rather "going" though when discussing metro area's as I simply can't understand why some Europeans have trouble grasping it.
__________________
I'm doing my bit to save bandwidth by deleting my signature
Justme está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2009, 04:29 PM   #56
kato2k8
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 525
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
That map is actually the maximum definition of the Rhein-Main region - which isn't defined officially at all.

A tighter definition will leave out of the Rhein-Main region at least the four districts in the North (Vogelsberg, Gießen, Lahn-Dill, Limburg-Weilburg), the three Bavarian districts (Miltenberg, SK/LK Aschaffenburg) and the two districts that officially belong to the Rhein-Neckar Metropolitan Region (Worms, Bergstraße). Alzey-Worms and Odenwald are "remote sections" at best (and only partially connected to Rhein-Main), and Mainz-Bingen and Rheingau-Taunus are similar "outer sections" of the Rhein-Main region, same as the Eastern halfs of Wetterau and Main-Kinzig.
The result roughly corresponds to the coverage of the Rhein-Main S-Bahn network.

Rhein-Main is about the only metropolitan region in Germany that doesn't have an exact definition of its overall components, or some sort of official layering between "urban" and "rural" zones.
kato2k8 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2009, 09:15 PM   #57
Rohne
Schwarzkutte
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Franconofurd
Posts: 830
Likes (Received): 361

Wrong! You shouldn't mix up metro area with the german term "Ballungsraum". The counties in Bavaria and Rhineland-Palatine are of course part of the metro area. The only counties that could be left out are the four in the north, and maybe also the Odenwaldkreis. It wouldn't make sense to leave out more than these. Ok, Worms and Bergstrasse are part of two different metro areas, but that's no problem. In this area it's simply not possible to tear a line and say this part belongs to Rhein-Main and the other to Rhein-Neckar.
And compared to other German metro areas (or most CSAs in the US), even the shown map is following a relatively strict definition. When I think about Hamburg, Hannover, Nürnberg or the new definitions for München's (half of the state of Bavaria) and Berlin's (all parts of Brandenburg, even Cottbus, integrated) metro areas.
Rohne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2009, 11:00 PM   #58
kato2k8
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 525
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohne View Post
And compared to other German metro areas (or most CSAs in the US), even the shown map is following a relatively strict definition.
That's just the point. There is no definition for the Rhein-Main Area. Every single agency uses its own definition, bowing to various lobbying when it comes to its exact size. Every other metropolitan region in Germany has an officially defined area, like the CSAs in the USA.
In fact, making the Rhein-Main region out to be the above size is mostly the "party line" in Hessen - which defines the entire state of Hessen as belonging to either Rhein-Main, or to some (fictional) region around Kassel in the North of the state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohne View Post
Wrong! You shouldn't mix up metro area with the german term "Ballungsraum".
No. I live and work in the area. The metro area is best defined as a region with strong commuter ties between its components, as well as cultural and historic ties between its members. This is about the only common definition group between all metro areas in Germany, so it works best.
The "Ballungsraum Frankfurt" area is less than half the area i defined.

The region around Aschaffenburg in that context is at best connected to the Rhein-Main area in a fashion similar to the Gießen area, probably even less. The district of Bergstraße and the city district of Worms, with the exception of the cities of Bensheim and Zwingenberg, completely focussed towards Rhein-Neckar, not at all towards even southern parts of Rhein-Main. The regions left of the Rhine - Worms-Alzey and Mainz-Bingen, i.e. Rheinhessen - in particular aren't tied into Rhein-Main, but form their own small region, with certain commuter ties into both Rhein-Main (primarily Mainz and Wiesbaden) and Rhein-Neckar, but with a strong independent industrial base.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohne View Post
In this area it's simply not possible to tear a line and say this part belongs to Rhein-Main and the other to Rhein-Neckar.
Typical Rhein-Main weaseling out of clear definitions. There is a very defined border in self-relationship definition running through Heppenheim, with everything West, South and East belonging to Rhein-Neckar; only the region immediately north of Heppenheim, containing about 25% of the population of the district, has some tangible connection to the Darmstadt/Frankfurt southern Rhein-Main area.
kato2k8 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2009, 07:46 PM   #59
Rohne
Schwarzkutte
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Franconofurd
Posts: 830
Likes (Received): 361

"Ballungsraum Frankfurt"? Never heard this, cause this term doesn't officially exist. I only mentioned "Ballungsraum" because it's a colloquial term without any clear definition but meaning anything between urban and metro areas.
How is your "connection" defined? Mainz-Bingen and Aschaffenburg are connected to Frankfurt by commuting and buildings. There's a very densely built up area along the rivers Rhine and Main from Bingen to Goldbach. So even if you don't consider commuting, these towns can't be left out from the metro area. Same goes for Bergstrasse. There's a built up belt from Darmstadt which clearly belongs to Rhein-Main down to Heppenheim. I don't have the exact figures any more, but also in terms of commuting there's a strong connection to Frankfurt.
Rohne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2009, 09:07 PM   #60
JoKo65
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,111
Likes (Received): 86

I think "Großraum" is the correct term.

Example: In NRW exists the Großraum Rhein-Ruhr (Ruhr area + Düsseldorf, Wuppertal, Krefeld, Mönchengladbach etc.) – approx. 7,5 Million inhabitants. On the other hand it exists the Großraum Köln/Bonn (Cologne, Bonn etc.) – approx. 3,5 Million inhabitants.
Both together (Rhein-Ruhr and Köln/Bonn) are the metropol area Rhein-Ruhr with approx. 11 Million inhabitants.

So there is a difference between "Großraum" and "metropol area".
__________________
L'Amerique? C'est l'évolution de la barbarie à la décadence, sans toucher la culture.
JoKo65 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
metro

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 09:38 AM.


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