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 November 25th, 2010, 12:11 AM   #3981
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,204
Likes (Received): 1766

Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post
...

You used the Greater London area which cuts out the commuter belt. Check the stats for places like the London commuter belt. Let's see, coming close to 14 million? That's not even counting the other metropolitan cities of the UK. Bottom line is, you used the wrong set of statistics. Thus you were 'fast and loose'.

I could have used similar statistical cherry picking to point out California as decentralized. After all, only Los Angeles and San Diego have populations over one million, and there are many smaller cities. Yet for the sake of its inhabitants, there are only four large metropolitan areas in the state.

40% of 43 million people sure is a lot of people, but that still entails 60% outside of the main urban areas. Unless China stops development or does a Khmer Rouge ands sends people back to the countryside, you're still going to have more migrants to the cities. Then you're also ignoring many other millions in the hinterland, who may be lured by the appeal of the metropolis. Countless rural residents of the South and Midwest moved to New York and Los Angeles. Why would Shanghai not hold a similar appeal to people far away in Gansu or Hubei?

I don't see why you're consciously applying a double standard. We all know the UK and other post industrial nations have highly concentrated populations and high rates of urbanization. Why would you get your undies in a bunch over this?
You missed my point completely, and as usuall, utterly fail to draw the distinction between the physical landscape and the way people move and interact. The point is a large proportion of urban population can live outside the biggest urban areas. Economically, these little clusters can be closely linked.

Increasing the sphere of influence doesn't equate physically growing outwards. Rural Shanghai with its own satellite towns like Jiading and Qingpu are very much within the commuter belt but are not physically joined to Shanghai proper (though they are dangerously close). Shanghai's commuter belt is fast extending to Taicang, Kunshan, Huaqiao and Jiashan, and will probably soon include Suzhou, Wujiang and Jiaxing.

Don't you see the point - that growth does not need to take the form of increasing the physical core footprint. Just like in your London and California examples, you can consolidate small towns county-level cities and link them to the core city with mass transit. There's no doubt that Shanghai will continue being the dominant Metropolitan area of the Yangtze River delta, but the core conurbation population need only be half of the metropolitan area population.

Where do the other 60-odd percent go? Regenerated and connected Taicang, Wujiang, Changshu, Zhangjiagang, Danyang, Ma'anshan, just like Brentford, Guildford, Peterborough, Derby, Coventry which are outside of the 34% for the UK.

Physical centralisation can be far lower than economic centralisation.

Last edited by NCT; November 25th, 2010 at 12:52 AM.
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 25th, 2010, 12:22 AM   #3982
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,204
Likes (Received): 1766

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbz View Post
hey, when you are saying this, don't forget both pudong,shenzhen used to be such "political hype" that were circles on map drawn by political leaders
Shenzhen is ONE city in the entire China with next to no comparable examples. It also developed at a time when all other nearby established cities were in their infancy - early-stage urbanisation, so relatively Shenzhen didn't have too much disadvantage. It also had regulations and financial resources massively biased towards it. These days conditions are totally different, Hongqiao will be competing against an already highly-developed core still with massive momentum, and the days of massive financial resources and preferential regulations are long gone.

It took Lujiazui 20 years to reach the current semi-completed stage, and it's only across the river from the Bund! If it were not for the proximity to Puxi Lujiazui wouldn't even get where it is now. Just look across to the other end of Century Avenue, Huamu, the Science Museum area - yes a couple of highrises and some specialist functions, yet rather insignificant in terms of shifting the centre of gravity east. Big Hongqiao will be lucky to be on par with Huamu, and it makes absolutely no sense to have the majority of high-speed trains terminating there instead of further into town.
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 12:27 AM   #3983
cbz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 86
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
Shenzhen is ONE city in the entire China with next to no comparable examples. It also developed at a time when all other nearby established cities were in their infancy - early-stage urbanisation, so relatively Shenzhen didn't have too much disadvantage. .
you kidding, right? one of nearby cities is hong kong
cbz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 12:48 AM   #3984
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,204
Likes (Received): 1766

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbz View Post
you kidding, right? one of nearby cities is hong kong
HK was totally irrelevant when the borders were closed off! It didn't matter whether HK was on the doorstep or somewhere in Mars.
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 12:55 AM   #3985
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
Where do the other 60-odd percent go? Regenerated and connected Taicang, Wujiang, Changshu, Zhangjiagang, Danyang, Ma'anshan, just like Brentford, Guildford, Peterborough, Derby, Coventry which are outside of the 34% for the UK.
See, you mess up because you're comparing every other damned thing in the world with present-day Britain. The other 60% of the population around Shanghai lives primarily in small towns and rural areas. The proportion of rural residents in present-day China, including the comparatively wealthy areas around Shanghai is still much higher than it is in post-industrial Britain and other wealthy areas of the world. There are still farmers moving to Shanghai and other Chinese cities. There is no comparable rural exodus in present-day Britain.

Thus when others state that Shanghai will continue to add residents and can afford to develop newer commercial areas, they have a point.

But then you never actually READ what others have to say. Otherwise you would not have persisted in the same counterintuitive arguments.
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 01:08 AM   #3986
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,204
Likes (Received): 1766

Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post
See, you mess up because you're comparing every other damned thing in the world with present-day Britain. The other 60% of the population around Shanghai lives primarily in small towns and rural areas. The proportion of rural residents in present-day China, including the comparatively wealthy areas around Shanghai is still much higher than it is in post-industrial Britain and other wealthy areas of the world. There are still farmers moving to Shanghai and other Chinese cities. There is no comparable rural exodus in present-day Britain.

Thus when others state that Shanghai will continue to add residents and can afford to develop newer commercial areas, they have a point.
Still don't get it do you. It is perfectly sensible for the geographic notion of Shanghai Metropolitan Area to add residents, but in forms other than growing the core conurbation. The next wave of urbanisation should focus on the currently under-developed towns and county-level cities. Net population movement will be from villages to county-level cities like Taicang, and Zhangjiagang which are much better candidates for expansion, provided they are well linked to prefecture-level core cities. As Shanghai becomes increasingly tertiary-sector focused manufacturing is indeed moving to and growing in those small towns. It is not some grand ideology of mine - it's what's already started to happen now. Just like in the 50s London and Birmingham's growth slowed while satellite towns grew.

EDIT:

Also, as Shanghai is becoming dirtier, noisier and more expensive (just like London in the 50s), a lot of people are beginning to find alternatives to clogging up the matropolis. While in the last 30 years or so it is all about the big cities, my Chinese friends are telling me now that the big cities are becoming saturated and that real money lies in the untapped hinterlands. As standards of living in the surrounding places are improving considerably an increasing number of Shanghai retirees are in fact moving out. While it is still to early to talk about de-urbanisation, this is a sure signal for what future trends are to be. For all the talk about future-proof such little signals are being completely ignored.

Last edited by NCT; November 25th, 2010 at 01:20 AM.
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 01:34 AM   #3987
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

...

Right now your thinking is cribbed from British planning circa 1963. Back then the plan was to develop areas far outside of the existing urban areas as independent, self-contained urban areas. Thus arose places like Cumbernauld. Not saying Cumbernauld should or should not be repeated, but there were definite 'issues' with its implementation. Namely, the planners did not configure for the residents of these supposedly independent new towns often making long, autocentric commutes to the older established centers for work, recreation, etc.

The same thinking pervaded Hong Kong planners in the 70s when areas of the New Territories were planned as independent new towns. Places like Tuen Mun were designed to be independent of the existing urban areas. Unfortunately the same problems arose, as new towns are effectively subservient to established areas. Thus transport corridors were built later on to relieve congestion.

Personally I don't care if the new residents are housed at the near outskirts of Shanghai or in some town 15 kilometers away. However, being physically closer to the core has its advantages, namely convenience and commute times. As long as they have access to efficient public transit to an from the other population and commercial nodes, they should be fine. They're living in a largely, densely populated, overcrowded city with a growing population. These agglomerations do need to expand their footprint. Yet you inevitably went off on a tangent and compared things to your idyllic provincial town.

Now, let's get back to your *ahem* arguments.

-You see why Shanghai's population will inevitably expand? You see why it never makes sense to compare an urbanizing area in the developing world to a mostly stagnant one in the developed world?

-You see why your use of Greater London, Greater Manchester, Greater Liverpool etc. is not an accurate representation of the UK's urban concentration?
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 04:02 AM   #3988
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 381

NCT, in almost all the cities in China, growth rate has been comparable to Shenzhen. Shenzen was special because it started from "0" and reached "100", others were started from may be like "5" Okay, Shanghai might have started from "25"

Even if you just look at old Shanghai pictures you will be shocked by the development. I am really having a hard time how a person can fail to see this. Please, compare following two pictures of Shanghai:





Now let's compare Shanghai station to Hongqiao;





One can appreciate the size difference. Now tell me how Shanghai station could have done this? How much investment would have been required for a huge underground station in the city center?



By the way capacity is required because of this:



Since you emphasized word "evidence" a lot, here is another hard fact underlying potential future development, again: Not even 50% of Chinese population is urban. Chinese cities ought to become larger.


Last but not least; one has to think 4+4 main high speed trunk as a new mode of transportation, "a new way of air travel" if you will. It is under construction for future.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 09:56 AM   #3989
subspace
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2
Likes (Received): 0

It's about time you all actually READ what NCT is saying, as much of it makes very much sense. Using Hongqiao from the city center is a pain in the neck, there is no doubt about that. It may be new, huge and shiny, but so what, I' not impressed if I have to endure 15 or what it is stops on a slow subway from People's square until I can reach it. Then you have a hard time finding the right escalators to the waiting hall because even the station employees have no idea and guide you around in circles...
The point is right now pretty much everything about HSR in China is extremely unfriendly to passengers, with the exception of the journey itself. That includes ticketing, getting to the stations, boarding the train, transferring from train to subway, etc...
Hongqiao specifically is a good traffic hub, but it needs to be much better integrated into a proper urban transportation system, i.e. continue express services to other stations, build an urban express rail (20-stops-until-downtown subways that are shared with ordinary commuters don't do it for me).
subspace no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 09:57 AM   #3990
hmmwv
Registered User
 
hmmwv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,391
Likes (Received): 420

I think we are a little bit off topic when we started to talk about other aspects of urban development.
hmmwv no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 10:08 AM   #3991
subspace
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post

By the way capacity is required because of this:

It is fascinating how inefficient Chinese Railway stations are when size is compared to passenger throughput. Zurich Main station handles I think about 500'000 passengers every day. Check how small it is.

Chinese stations are huge because of the ridiculous ticketing system, schedules, security controls and because big is cool in China. I know, it may not be possible right now to change to a more user-friendly ticketing system, but the scary part is the Chinese seem more than happy to crank out huger and huger train stations almost week by week, while nobody ever seems to point out that the system itself is inherently inefficient.
subspace no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 10:20 AM   #3992
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,974
Likes (Received): 388

Going back on topic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LHCHL View Post
so unless you are ready to commit to conducting extensive and rigorous engineering studies, let's just keep comments to the speculation level and focus on more pictures.
Not my interest. I would rather like to know schedules, station locations, and the plans for closer future.

Yichang-Wanzhou railway. Has it opened or been delayed?

Changchun-Jilin high speed railway. Which year shall it open?

Guangzhou-Shenzhen high speed railway. The Pearl River tunnel has been delayed. Which month shall it open?

Beijing-Shanghai high speed railway. Which month shall it open?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 01:23 PM   #3993
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,204
Likes (Received): 1766

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
NCT, in almost all the cities in China, growth rate has been comparable to Shenzhen. Shenzen was special because it started from "0" and reached "100", others were started from may be like "5" Okay, Shanghai might have started from "25"

Even if you just look at old Shanghai pictures you will be shocked by the development. I am really having a hard time how a person can fail to see this. Please, compare following two pictures of Shanghai:
I'm not shocked at all. And it reinforces my point of growing not shifting. It is you who is thinking that all this central Shanghai developement can be crammed into Line 2 and does not need a central Shanghai transport hub.

Quote:
Now let's compare Shanghai station to Hongqiao;

One can appreciate the size difference. Now tell me how Shanghai station could have done this? How much investment would have been required for a huge underground station in the city center?
You are comparing one station to two stations. The Shanghai - Nanjing / Beijing part of the station is only 200 metres, the other 200 are for Shanghai - Hangzhou / Kunming. So there really isn't all that much of a difference.

What's all that stuff north and south of Shanghai Station? Oh yeah space. You could EASILY add platforms both sides of the station. There has been numerous facelifts to Shanghai Station both sides and redesigning of squares, yet not once did somebody actually think 'oh let's increase the actual station capacity while we can'. One could probably still encroach into the new coach station to the north by reallocating coach parking, and the buildings south of the station are not really of any architecural merit and can easily go.

The Old North Station site can easily accommodate a station with 10 platforms, and North Bund could have had a 6-platform commuter terminus. That's an extra 16 platforms sorted. Similarly Shanghai South has a lot of space to the north, and the Expo site (Xizang Nanlu) is a great place for a commuter terminus.

Costs might be slightly higher, but nowhere near astronomically higher than the ostentatiously engineered Hongqiao Station. There are no extra demolition and relocation costs as they were needed for wider development anyway. Higher initial costs pay dividends, as they serve travelling needs much more efficiently in the long term. Otherwise why did Berlin rebuild their main station to become double deck? Why did London rebuild St. Pancras, why is it rebuilding Cannon Street, Blackfriars, and why is it going to rebuild London Bridge and Euston? And why is Tokyo's busiest station multi-level and smack bang in the centre? There are a lot of huge stations in this list, and one common thing is that their ground footprint are actually quite small. Something to think for the future eh?

With a bit of coordinated planning Shanghai could be having something like this in North Bund and the Expo site:



Yet we are only capable of expanding ground footprint.

Quote:
By the way capacity is required because of this:

And you think this is a good thing?

Have you heard of Internet ticketing, turn up and go, and straight onto the platform? As line capacity is drastically increased, the problem of ticket touts will become insignificant, and there's no technological barrier to Internet ticketing AT ALL. For all the talk about the future you are in fact living in the past.

Quote:
Since you emphasized word "evidence" a lot, here is another hard fact underlying potential future development, again: Not even 50% of Chinese population is urban. Chinese cities ought to become larger.
Yet in all highly urbanised countries, the share of population in big cities is consistently low. The big cities are big enough, what's now needed is to grow the smaller ones.

Quote:
Last but not least; one has to think 4+4 main high speed trunk as a new mode of transportation, "a new way of air travel" if you will. It is under construction for future.
Seems you know nothing about the future beyond how to spell the 6-lettered word.

Last edited by NCT; November 25th, 2010 at 01:30 PM.
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 07:04 PM   #3994
particlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
And why is Tokyo's busiest station multi-level and smack bang in the centre? There are a lot of huge stations in this list, and one common thing is that their ground footprint are actually quite small. Something to think for the future eh?
The central area of Tokyo way back when, was in Chuo (中央区). Shinjuku was on the periphery. You do realize much of Shinjuku's development occurred AFTER the station? Blah blah blah. Most of London's stations (St. Pancras was an exception) were built this way too. Others have addressed this in the past, yet you don't read.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
Yet in all highly urbanised countries, the share of population in big cities is consistently low. The big cities are big enough, what's now needed is to grow the smaller ones.



Seems you know nothing about the future beyond how to spell the 6-lettered word.
WTF? How many times do you have to read this? The share of population in big cities in urbanized countries is not low, and will not get low. London is a prime example of it. It may only appear low because you're using disingenuous stats and not including the multitude of commuters from outside the historical boundaries. If you used the proportion of British residents in the AGGLOMERATIONS OF London, Manchester, West Midlands, Glasgow, etc., you'd realize the urban areas are not tiny, and take up a large percentage of total inhabitants. Who knows? Maybe you think rural living in Cornwall is the future? Ironic you used TOKYO at the same time. You aren't even cognizant of your own backyard, but make sweeping generalizations of places elsewhere.

That, and you don't address others' points, but you continue writing.
particlez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 07:33 PM   #3995
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 381

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
I'm not shocked at all. And it reinforces my point of growing not shifting. It is you who is thinking that all this central Shanghai developement can be crammed into Line 2 and does not need a central Shanghai transport hub.



You are comparing one station to two stations. The Shanghai - Nanjing / Beijing part of the station is only 200 metres, the other 200 are for Shanghai - Hangzhou / Kunming. So there really isn't all that much of a difference.
Pardon? How come the final destinations are important? At the end a huge capacity increase was required for Shanghai.

Quote:

What's all that stuff north and south of Shanghai Station? Oh yeah space. You could EASILY add platforms both sides of the station.
Can you please point the space you are talking about. All I see is high rises here..



Yellow current high rises, red is under construction. There is no space around this station.




Quote:
There has been numerous facelifts to Shanghai Station both sides and redesigning of squares, yet not once did somebody actually think 'oh let's increase the actual station capacity while we can'. One could probably still encroach into the new coach station to the north by reallocating coach parking, and the buildings south of the station are not really of any architecural merit and can easily go.

The Old North Station site can easily accommodate a station with 10 platforms, and North Bund could have had a 6-platform commuter terminus. That's an extra 16 platforms sorted. Similarly Shanghai South has a lot of space to the north, and the Expo site (Xizang Nanlu) is a great place for a commuter terminus.

Costs might be slightly higher, but nowhere near astronomically higher than the ostentatiously engineered Hongqiao Station. There are no extra demolition and relocation costs as they were needed for wider development anyway. Higher initial costs pay dividends, as they serve travelling needs much more efficiently in the long term. Otherwise why did Berlin rebuild their main station to become double deck? Why did London rebuild St. Pancras, why is it rebuilding Cannon Street, Blackfriars, and why is it going to rebuild London Bridge and Euston? And why is Tokyo's busiest station multi-level and smack bang in the centre? There are a lot of huge stations in this list, and one common thing is that their ground footprint are actually quite small. Something to think for the future eh?

With a bit of coordinated planning Shanghai could be having something like this in North Bund and the Expo site:


Yet we are only capable of expanding ground footprint.



And you think this is a good thing?
?? That shows the demand. Even if you ban ticket sales in stations, same crowd will be there.

Quote:
Have you heard of Internet ticketing, turn up and go, and straight onto the platform? As line capacity is drastically increased, the problem of ticket touts will become insignificant, and there's no technological barrier to Internet ticketing AT ALL. For all the talk about the future you are in fact living in the past.



Yet in all highly urbanised countries, the share of population in big cities is consistently low. The big cities are big enough, what's now needed is to grow the smaller ones.



Seems you know nothing about the future beyond how to spell the 6-lettered word.
China passenger numbers is 3 times more than Japan and ten times more than Germany yet you keep comparing China with those countries to show China is building excessively. This is just ignoring the facts.



Anyway, happy thanksgiving folks I am going to attack my turkey now
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 09:05 PM   #3996
quashlo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14,835
Likes (Received): 3215

Just correcting misconceptions and twisting of fact... There also seems to be some numbers thrown around that aren't anywhere near correct, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post
The central area of Tokyo way back when, was in Chuo (中央区). Shinjuku was on the periphery. You do realize much of Shinjuku's development occurred AFTER the station?
  • You cannot compare Tōkyō back then to Shanghai now. Different level of development.
  • NCT is still correct in that the actual footprint of Shinjuku Station is quite small for the ridership it handles. Much of the station is underneath streets and buildings and in a stacked configuration both aboveground and underground.
  • Shinjuku Station is located in a dense mixed-use area and is completely built out with skyscrapers on the west and midrises everywhere else... It is also extremely walkable, no ridiculous setbacks, and the surrounding neighborhoods are well-connected to the station complex. Hongqiao is an airport, with wide roads and limited building heights. You cannot expect they will turn out the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
China passenger numbers is 3 times more than Japan and ten times more than Germany yet you keep comparing China with those countries to show China is building excessively. This is just ignoring the facts.
This is just factually wrong...

China: 1.524 billion annual passengers (2009) (source)
Japan: 22.72 billion annual passengers (FY2009) (source)

Perhaps you were talking about passenger-kms, but that's not 3x either...

China: 787.889 billion passenger-kms (2009)
Japan: 393.903 billion passenger-kms (FY2009)
(same sources)
quashlo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 09:20 PM   #3997
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,974
Likes (Received): 388

How does the vicinity of Haneda compare against Hongqiao?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 10:06 PM   #3998
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,204
Likes (Received): 1766

Quote:
Originally Posted by particlez View Post
The central area of Tokyo way back when, was in Chuo (中央区). Shinjuku was on the periphery. You do realize much of Shinjuku's development occurred AFTER the station? Blah blah blah. Most of London's stations (St. Pancras was an exception) were built this way too. Others have addressed this in the past, yet you don't read.
All stations are outside pre-industrial cities. Post-industrialisation, after modern urban structure is established, Tokyo Station was expanded many fold as new services were added, with the latest partial rebuilt being as late as 1991. They did not go 'hey Tokyo Station is so last century let's build an ostentatious monster in somewhere like Saitama and remove services from Tokyo' did they?

EDIT

Actually scrap even that you are trying to confuse me between Tokyo Station and Shinjuku Station. The Shinkansen actually use the former, which is right on the border of Chuo district. Shinjuku is more of a commuter train hub and doesn't even have Shinkansens.

/EDIT

Quote:
WTF? How many times do you have to read this? The share of population in big cities in urbanized countries is not low, and will not get low. London is a prime example of it. It may only appear low because you're using disingenuous stats and not including the multitude of commuters from outside the historical boundaries. If you used the proportion of British residents in the AGGLOMERATIONS OF London, Manchester, West Midlands, Glasgow, etc., you'd realize the urban areas are not tiny, and take up a large percentage of total inhabitants. Who knows? Maybe you think rural living in Cornwall is the future? Ironic you used TOKYO at the same time. You aren't even cognizant of your own backyard, but make sweeping generalizations of places elsewhere.

That, and you don't address others' points, but you continue writing.
How many times do I have to explain grow the agglomeration, not the core?! The whole point is that much of the agglomeration population need not be in the core! No need to question my numbers - your agglomerations of Birmingham and Manchester include places like Lichfield and Chorley, which are not included in my 'third', just like Taicang and Kunshan were not included in that 40%.

Actually, the entire population of the Shanghai - Nanjing - Hangzhou is 70 million, and that within the Shanghai administrative boundary is just under 20 million. What's the proportion? quite a bit over 1/4.

It's unhealthy to confine too many people to too little space. The good people of Shanghai are absolutely fed up with this overcrowding and a solution other than keep piling up must be found. You need breathing space between places, and break up the hustle and pollution. Satellites will be subservient to Shanghai economically, but they will still be independent to an extent, with local specialities, manufacturing for example. The degree of subservience will be in the order of 4 tph into Shanghai rather than 20.

Last edited by NCT; November 26th, 2010 at 12:00 AM.
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 10:57 PM   #3999
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,204
Likes (Received): 1766

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
Pardon? How come the final destinations are important? At the end a huge capacity increase was required for Shanghai.
I can't believe I'm reading this. Go back and study my post again.

Quote:
Can you please point the space you are talking about. All I see is high rises here..



Yellow current high rises, red is under construction. There is no space around this station.
Apart from the coach station the North Station Square is completely clear. The 'construction site' with your red arrow was just groundwork for the new square. One of the buildings has already been demolished. And your yellow arrows are at least 6 platforms long and are sitting on empty space.

Let this picture do the explaining:



With platforms being slightly 'banana shaped' there is easily room for 20 platforms, that is 6 extra compared to present. You can shove the Metro lines 3/4 station underground witht new commuter platforms. You can build the new station on the old North Station site first, and move trains there while work is carried out at Shanghai Station. [/QUOTE]

Quote:
?? That shows the demand. Even if you ban ticket sales in stations, same crowd will be there.
The crowd shows inefficiency. With better flexibility passengers arriving would be absorbed onto trains straightaway. Given short ticket supply and one train per day to far destinations many people spend hours at stations before travelling. As an illustration, if 3 hours (not an unreasonable assumption) were reduced to 30 minutes, given the same numbers of entry the crowd would be reduced to 1/6 the original level.

Last edited by NCT; November 25th, 2010 at 11:50 PM.
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2010, 11:03 PM   #4000
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,204
Likes (Received): 1766

Quote:
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
How does the vicinity of Haneda compare against Hongqiao?
They are almost exactly the same, just over 15 km from the centre.
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
china, high speed train, rail, tgv

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 08:14 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