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

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments

General Urban Developments Discussions of projects shorter than 100m/300ft. Also, please post all other threads not specified in other Development News subforums here.



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 May 8th, 2009, 07:42 PM   #61
vvill
Registered User
 
vvill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 653
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricIsHim View Post
^ not necessarily agree with both of you.
ok, the passengers need to be shuttled from the main terminal to the north concourse. that's a two minutes ride for your hours of journey. big deal. it isn't like we don't do that today with 70 or so boarding gates. some airlines still choose to park their planes out in the airfield for lower parking cost, and shuttle passengers to/from the main terminal to the parking spot like the "OLD" days. it's just a wrong impression by people everyone boards through a bridge. but now we have a terminal for those airlines and passengers. which way is better? shuttle to the plane and walk up the stairs over a truck? or shuttle to the terminal, take the escalator, then broad through a bridge?

building a new satellite terminal like changqi is a whole new ball game.
it isn't just the boarding gates, but now you are asking for new check-in spaces, new baggage handling facilities, and new external transportation services for that terminal of TEN spaces. worthy? and where would you put it? chek lap kok is an island reclaimed from sea and two small islands. the airport island was reclaimed just barely fit all facilities on it. eastern part of the island is mainly for passenger service; and southern part are cargo services and logistic. the runway and airfield are bounded by passenger service to the east, cargo service to the south, and water to the west and north. unless we reclaim more from the water, which is big money, there is no room to construct another facility on the perimeter. and you aren't going to want this facility away form the airfield perimeter.

by having those low-cost carrier passengers remain to check-in at the built terminals, it doesn't require new check-in spaces, new baggage facilities and new supportive transportation system. now everything will still be the same roof and processed through the main terminal, and the state-of-the-art baggage handling system we have at HKIA. there is no different between transporting the baggage from the existing baggage center to the existing parking spots at terminal 1, than transporting the baggage to the new spot at the north concourse. to the transporter, it's just shipping to another spot in the airfield.

Terminal 2 is designed to relieve the overcrowded check-in counters in Terminal 1. it has never had a intention for boarding. yes, it's rather empty today; but it's designed to suit for FUTURE capacity that are expected in the coming years. airlines are slowly moving into Terminal 2 in the past two years, and more will be there.

there is very limited spaces in terminal 1. where can AA expand the check-in concourse. to the north is the carpark and regal hotel, immediate to the east is the highway and railway, to the west is the main building. only expanding to the south is a possible solution. but how much you can expand from there? extra 5 rows?

again, expanding the check-in concourse doesn't solve the overcrowded situation, but only further stretch the limit with more check-in counters and passengers at terminal 1. building a new satellite terminal for check-in and a cross-boarder bus terminal immediate north of terminal 1 is the most convenient solution. this solves the terminal 1 check-in concourse problem, and still utilizes everything that are built for terminal 1. from the airport express, bus terminal, baggage handling facilities, boarding gates etc.
it also expands the opportunities for an easily accessed cross-boarder bus terminal to expand the service area to include the whole pearl river delta.
I understand what you're saying regarding the n. satellite terminal. However, I still struggle to understand why a world-acclaimed airport can have a terminal which is only connected to the main terminal via bus. To me, bus just seems to be a temporary measure and it is making the boarding procedure more and more confusing to passengers, which is essentially what HKIA strives to avoid.

I'll give you one simple scenario, a low-cost carrier will probably have their check-in counters in T2. So you check-in at T2, then get on the ATM to get to T1 but you're not there yet, you needa get to the transfer gate to get onto the bus and then get to the low-cost terminal (which they may call it T1b?). Isn't that just sound extremely confusing already? What was great about HKIA is that everything is under one roof and they should work towards it.

That's essentially why I said they should have a separate building with immigration and all that lot for the low-cost carriers. The cost is not exactly as expensive as you think it might be because it is literally a shed and no one's gonna downgrade HKIA's rating because it is for the budget carriers (but they may because now you have to do the bus transfer to another terminal). Look at changi, their budget terminal only cost them around HKD100m which comes in a lot cheaper than the north satellite terminal (part of the HKD4.5 billion upgrade programme)

Regarding T2, I can see the reason for it but I see it as good intentions but poorly executed. What I find it disappointing is essentially the quality of design and construction which make the terminal resembles more of a shopping mall than a top-notch airport. The layout and the design of the shop fronts are horrendous (even compared to skymart in T1). Also architecturally, it just looks like a massive steel shed from outside. It lacks the airiness and the sculptural quality of the roof of T1.

Part of the reasons is because the designer is simply not good enough. I mean look at what Aedas' done before - they're reasonably good architects but they simply aren't good enough to design airports (like Fosters or Rogers). And we're talking about the best airport in the world here and we certainly deserve something better than just a mediocre terminal designed by Aedas. (btw, they're actually designing the north satellite terminal as well) AA should really do something about this - either by hosting international competitions to raise the standard.

Honestly, I think rocco design would probably do a better job in this because at least they have more of a rigour to be inventive and push new boundaries. (look at Aedas' design for the Tamar government HQ project - it's appalling!)
vvill no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 8th, 2009, 07:53 PM   #62
vvill
Registered User
 
vvill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 653
Likes (Received): 4

also here's the picture showing the 'lump' suspended in the middle of the hall stretching the full length of it (which again looks rather temporary to me: (but it's been there for about 1-2 years now?)

sorry i dont really wanna come across as attacking the airport in a bullish way. i guess im just frustrated because i was and i hope i still am proud of it.


vvill no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2009, 09:09 PM   #63
EricIsHim
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,397
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by vvill View Post
I understand what you're saying regarding the n. satellite terminal. However, I still struggle to understand why a world-acclaimed airport can have a terminal which is only connected to the main terminal via bus. To me, bus just seems to be a temporary measure and it is making the boarding procedure more and more confusing to passengers, which is essentially what HKIA strives to avoid.

I'll give you one simple scenario, a low-cost carrier will probably have their check-in counters in T2. So you check-in at T2, then get on the ATM to get to T1 but you're not there yet, you needa get to the transfer gate to get onto the bus and then get to the low-cost terminal (which they may call it T1b?). Isn't that just sound extremely confusing already? What was great about HKIA is that everything is under one roof and they should work towards it.

That's essentially why I said they should have a separate building with immigration and all that lot for the low-cost carriers. The cost is not exactly as expensive as you think it might be because it is literally a shed and no one's gonna downgrade HKIA's rating because it is for the budget carriers (but they may because now you have to do the bus transfer to another terminal). Look at changi, their budget terminal only cost them around HKD100m which comes in a lot cheaper than the north satellite terminal (part of the HKD4.5 billion upgrade programme)
i am not an architect, it's just not my expertise. so i won't argue in how good or bad they look in T2.
but changqi has the land to build a third terminal on the airport perimeter in proximity to the other passenger terminals, hkia doesn't. i am sure if we have that option, we may have gone for it; but since we don't, we have to make an adjustment for alternative solution.
if this building ever existed, it wouldn't be served by the airport express directly and it requires airport buses for diversions increasing the journey time as well. it is far less convenient to get to/from the airport than just having the main terminal(s).

buses may not look as fancy as having a APM between terminals, but they are just as efficient. no way anyone is putting an underground APM on reclaimed land for a budget airline terminal with 10 gates. when we ever build the X-shape center terminal in the middle of the island, than i would say an APM is the choice since it's a much bigger terminal. An APM for ten gates just doesn't sound financially and economically reasonable.

i agree that may be troublesome for the travellers to go down and up and down and up, but with proper signage, this can eliminate the confusion. HKIA has done very well and known for designing its directory signage. those gates in the north satellite can be easily assigned as the continuation of the last number of existing boarding gate. the signage would just say "gate xx-xx", there is not much different than follow "gate 33-70" to the APM system. it just point you to the shuttle bus station, and towards the new terminal instead.

personally, i prefer to go for less numbers of check-in terminals than multiple locations. i always find it's much more confusing to find the correct terminal for the appropriate airline for check-in than find the correct terminal for boarding. it is much harder to find the terminal number on a list of airlines than find the gate with an boarding terminal alphabet and/or gate number.
__________________
EricIsHim
My PhotoBucket

Last edited by EricIsHim; May 8th, 2009 at 09:21 PM.
EricIsHim no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2009, 09:20 PM   #64
EricIsHim
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,397
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by vvill View Post
also here's the picture showing the 'lump' suspended in the middle of the hall stretching the full length of it (which again looks rather temporary to me: (but it's been there for about 1-2 years now?)

sorry i dont really wanna come across as attacking the airport in a bullish way. i guess im just frustrated because i was and i hope i still am proud of it.
that's probably for building electrical and mechanical.
can't tell if it's temp. or permenant, but it does look awful when you stare at it....
well..... hardly ever anyone looks up when s/he just walks out from immigration and find the right belt; or stare at that thing when waiting for the baggage and not let the bags pass you.

but i feel your pain, i complain a lot in my expertise, too.
you do that only if you love the place, otherwise it would just be whatever.
__________________
EricIsHim
My PhotoBucket
EricIsHim no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2009, 12:58 AM   #65
vvill
Registered User
 
vvill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 653
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricIsHim View Post
i am not an architect, it's just not my expertise. so i won't argue in how good or bad they look in T2.
but changqi has the land to build a third terminal on the airport perimeter in proximity to the other passenger terminals, hkia doesn't. i am sure if we have that option, we may have gone for it; but since we don't, we have to make an adjustment for alternative solution.
if this building ever existed, it wouldn't be served by the airport express directly and it requires airport buses for diversions increasing the journey time as well. it is far less convenient to get to/from the airport than just having the main terminal(s).

buses may not look as fancy as having a APM between terminals, but they are just as efficient. no way anyone is putting an underground APM on reclaimed land for a budget airline terminal with 10 gates. when we ever build the X-shape center terminal in the middle of the island, than i would say an APM is the choice since it's a much bigger terminal. An APM for ten gates just doesn't sound financially and economically reasonable.

i agree that may be troublesome for the travellers to go down and up and down and up, but with proper signage, this can eliminate the confusion. HKIA has done very well and known for designing its directory signage. those gates in the north satellite can be easily assigned as the continuation of the last number of existing boarding gate. the signage would just say "gate xx-xx", there is not much different than follow "gate 33-70" to the APM system. it just point you to the shuttle bus station, and towards the new terminal instead.

personally, i prefer to go for less numbers of check-in terminals than multiple locations. i always find it's much more confusing to find the correct terminal for the appropriate airline for check-in than find the correct terminal for boarding. it is much harder to find the terminal number on a list of airlines than find the gate with an boarding terminal alphabet and/or gate number.
i see your point regarding land shortage of HKIA.

i guess it's all about long-term planning and i do hope they're not trying to avoid sorting out the long-term shortage of space and limitation for expansion by making small moves of building small and not very well-designed terminals to tackle short-term problems while missing the vision for the future 20, 30 years down the line, ie we do need the x satellite terminal (a section of the 'x' can easily be allocated for low-cost and narrow-body carriers) and we do need a third runway.

nevertheless, it's rather pointless to say that now cos the north terminal is obviously getting built and is nearing completion. Fingers-crossed they'll get the design right and the signage right i just really don't wanna see the airport deteriorating!
vvill no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2009, 01:15 AM   #66
Rachmaninov
Registered User
 
Rachmaninov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Posts: 3,188
Likes (Received): 24

Architect vs engineer eh?

I guess budget airline passengers wouldn't complain if they have to get a bus to a terminal before boarding a plane on a proper bridge? They normally board via bus anyway... I have to agree that the north concourse looks... ordinary, to put it in a positive wording...

But it certainly surprises me that the HKIA it's only been opened for around 12 years and then there's already the problem of land shortage and runway capacity... Being a selfish HKer of course I'd like to see a third runway coming soon, but is it really a sustainable solution given that there are quite a few airports around the region? Planes awaiting clearance to land burn a lot of fuel and it probably is more sustainable just to let them land at SZ for example and then take the rail to HK if they must. In fact, I believe this is inevitable...
__________________
Rachmaninov no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2009, 01:18 AM   #67
vvill
Registered User
 
vvill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 653
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricIsHim View Post
that's probably for building electrical and mechanical.
can't tell if it's temp. or permenant, but it does look awful when you stare at it....
well..... hardly ever anyone looks up when s/he just walks out from immigration and find the right belt; or stare at that thing when waiting for the baggage and not let the bags pass you.

but i feel your pain, i complain a lot in my expertise, too.
you do that only if you love the place, otherwise it would just be whatever.
it does look rather temporary to me but it's been there for 2 years now so i guess its permanent!

i know - but some people do look up - and perfection is what makes HKIA stand out from its competitors. obviosuly, it must be because of certain technical reasons they have to put that thing up there (and im not gonna debate that) - but surely they can do a better job 'designing' it and make it more of a feature than simply a grey box like that.

also sometimes, yes probably not everyone's gonna 'stare' at it but everything contributes towards the experience of a particular space. (ie. the main departure hall won't necessary feel airy if it's got windows on both sides, it needs the white vaulted roof, the height and all that) same applies to the baggage claims hall, it is probably the least successful space in HKIA but it's vast because it is a big room with very little interruptions and it simply expresses efficiency. Now that lump dilutes the idea and im sure if they have consulted the original architect, it would not have been done in the same way.
vvill no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2009, 01:21 AM   #68
Rachmaninov
Registered User
 
Rachmaninov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Posts: 3,188
Likes (Received): 24

Quote:
Originally Posted by vvill View Post
it does look rather temporary to me but it's been there for 2 years now so i guess its permanent!

i know - but some people do look up - and perfection is what makes HKIA stand out from its competitors. obviosuly, it must be because of certain technical reasons they have to put that thing up there (and im not gonna debate that) - but surely they can do a better job 'designing' it and make it more of a feature than simply a grey box like that.

also sometimes, yes probably not everyone's gonna 'stare' at it but everything contributes towards the experience of a particular space. (ie. the main departure hall won't necessary feel airy if it's got windows on both sides, it needs the white vaulted roof, the height and all that) same applies to the baggage claims hall, it is probably the least successful space in HKIA but it's vast because it is a big room with very little interruptions and it simply expresses efficiency. Now that lump dilutes the idea and im sure if they have consulted the original architect, it would not have been done in the same way.
I noticed that too - it's simply visually obstrusive. I guess they're cables and ventilation. You know... civil engineers design "crap" stuff but mechanical / electrical engineers don't design at all!

Maybe the best thing to do is not to look up or you'll be sad. It's just like me not listening to pop songs or I'll be sad.
__________________
Rachmaninov no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2009, 01:24 AM   #69
vvill
Registered User
 
vvill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 653
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachmaninov View Post
Architect vs engineer eh?

I guess budget airline passengers wouldn't complain if they have to get a bus to a terminal before boarding a plane on a proper bridge? They normally board via bus anyway... I have to agree that the north concourse looks... ordinary, to put it in a positive wording...

But it certainly surprises me that the HKIA it's only been opened for around 12 years and then there's already the problem of land shortage and runway capacity... Being a selfish HKer of course I'd like to see a third runway coming soon, but is it really a sustainable solution given that there are quite a few airports around the region? Planes awaiting clearance to land burn a lot of fuel and it probably is more sustainable just to let them land at SZ for example and then take the rail to HK if they must. In fact, I believe this is inevitable...

haha keith, i hope i don't sound like an architect whinging about very little things on here. lol.

re third runway - i think id rather be selfish and have that built rather than letting SZ take the share. it is a competitive world out there - sooner or later GZ will have enough international flights and they already have good domestic connections - people will just fly via GZ to connect to other mainland cities. why would they choose HKIA and pay an extra HKD120 (think that's what i read - correct me if wrong) and extra 30 minutes to get on the train to change for a different flight in SZ. we're talking about transit passengers here and i just don't see it.

in the long run, hong kong will certainly integrate a lot more with the mainland counterparts and the domestic sector will grow (consequently, third runway is needed) and it is really undermining our potentials by giving away such potential and letting SZ help us out which ultimately, i don't think this 'co-operation' can compete with GZ.

and i do think this applies to a lot of hk-mainland issues, our government's just being too kind and too modest.
vvill no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2009, 01:30 AM   #70
Rachmaninov
Registered User
 
Rachmaninov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Posts: 3,188
Likes (Received): 24

Quote:
Originally Posted by vvill View Post
haha keith, i hope i don't sound like an architect whinging about very little things on here. lol.

re third runway - i think id rather be selfish and have that built rather than letting SZ take the share. it is a competitive world out there - sooner or later GZ will have enough international flights and they already have good domestic connections - people will just fly via GZ to connect to other mainland cities. why would they choose HKIA and pay an extra HKD120 (think that's what i read - correct me if wrong) and extra 30 minutes to get on the train to change for a different flight in SZ. we're talking about transit passengers here and i just don't see it.

in the long run, hong kong will certainly integrate a lot more with the mainland counterparts and the domestic sector will grow (consequently, third runway is needed) and it is really undermining our potentials by giving away such potential and letting SZ help us out which ultimately, i don't think this 'co-operation' can compete with GZ.

and i do think this applies to a lot of hk-mainland issues, our government's just being too kind and too modest.
ok! let's be selfish then
I just wanted to have some convincing argument to overwhelm my guilt lol
__________________
Rachmaninov no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2009, 01:33 AM   #71
vvill
Registered User
 
vvill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 653
Likes (Received): 4

better pictures showing the before and after of the lump:

before
image hosted on flickr


after
image hosted on flickr


... wanna scream looking at this!
vvill no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2009, 03:12 AM   #72
urbanfan89
Registered User
 
urbanfan89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,505
Likes (Received): 67

Will there be direct trains between, say, the West Kowloon Terminal and the Shenzhen Airport? How about between HKIA and Guangzhou? It will be a waste not to have one.
urbanfan89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2009, 03:32 AM   #73
EricIsHim
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,397
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachmaninov View Post
Architect vs engineer eh?

isn't it the reality??
my colleagues and me always complains about the architects we deal with who "design" the impossible and we have to fix their mess; and even worse, they don't listen and repeatedly using the same crap over and over again....

no offense here, vvill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachmaninov View Post
But it certainly surprises me that the HKIA it's only been opened for around 12 years and then there's already the problem of land shortage and runway capacity... Being a selfish HKer of course I'd like to see a third runway coming soon, but is it really a sustainable solution given that there are quite a few airports around the region? Planes awaiting clearance to land burn a lot of fuel and it probably is more sustainable just to let them land at SZ for example and then take the rail to HK if they must. In fact, I believe this is inevitable...
don't forget, this whole airport was planned, designed and built in like 10-15 years...... this kind of efficiency was completely done under political pressure. back then, engineers and planners probably just designed with what they think it needs to be at the minimal, two runways with big cargo and passenger terminals. so we built two runways with the biggest cargo and passenger terminals in the world. and nobody expected PRD would develop in such an extreme rate in the past 15 years. it was really quite a surprise for manys.

as a hker, i would rather be selfish, and build that 3rd runway, than we still have the chance to compete. but without it, we will be going nowhere for sure and be taken over very soon. unless there is a political press, i can't see GZ not catching up and surpass hk in the future. the 3rd runway will make us sustainable. GZ can expand the airport whatever way the want. i remember when it opened, its cargos terminal facility was like 10 or 20% of its designed size, but it's already something like 50% or some high percentage of HKIA's. we will not win in hardware, it's always in the software side.

There was an article in Sing Tao on Thursday on this topic.
Quote:
深港「同機場化」與「同城化」
(星島)2009年5月7日 星期四 06:30

(綜合報道)

深港機場鐵路的初步研究結果下月將提交兩地政府。兩地機場互換股權一體化的談判,近日傳出胎死腹中,深港機鐵計畫標誌兩地機場仍然有相當大的合作互利空間。兩地鐵 路網絡的進一步貫通,也有助整合兩地經濟實力,建立港深超級大都會,甚至輻射 到整個珠三角 ,關鍵是類似「研究」,會不會又一拖經年,令香港再錯過時機。

  中央為免珠三角五個機場惡性競爭,促使五個機場的首腦於兩個月前聚集廣州,為五個機場的發展定位。當中可以擔當樞紐角色的,只有廣州白雲機場和香港赤鱲角機場,當中指明要維護香港機場的國際航運中心地位,鞏固其國際樞紐機場地位。

  深圳 議價能力不低

  深圳機場一向以廣州和香港機場為主要競爭對手。從深圳貨櫃港發展的歷史,可以看到機場他日趕過香港的可能。今天深圳機場內地航綫之多,航班之密,香港機場已是望塵莫及。深圳機場又發展了東南亞等地區的熱點航綫,兩年前夥拍了新加坡 拓展內地中小型機場網絡,國內國外都有大展拳腳的鴻圖。

  本來,深港機場一體化管理,最能發揮協同效應,提高營運效益。可惜,管理雙方機場的企業,在合併條件方面談不攏。現在中央分配了角色,但深圳機場是否放棄衝出亞洲的美夢,仍然未能確定,相對而言,廣州機場有更大的發展國內外航綫潛力。深圳機場要保持競爭力,就要借助香港機場的國際航綫網絡優勢,而香港機場又可利用深圳機場的國內航班優勢,互補長短,共同面對廣州機場的挑戰。

  除了轉機客之外,深圳機場國內航綫多、班次密、票價廉,早已吸引愈來愈多港人使用,乘搭直通巴士來往,佔當地內陸航班客量的百分之一。將來深港機鐵在深圳和香港各設一個中途站,香港這邊透過洪水橋站接通全港鐵路網絡,將吸引更多港客乘搭火車過境去深圳搭飛機,估計兩地機場的國際和國內航綫分工會更趨明顯。

  香港不能一廂情願

  作為連接兩地的第三條鐵路通道,深港機鐵大大方便兩地西部居民來往,配合中央不斷放寬深圳居民來往香港的政策,預計兩地的生活條件和文化差距會日漸縮小,朝「同城化」的方向發展,香港和珠三角關係日趨密切,減低邊緣化的威脅。

  現時內地不少大城市都在擴張版圖,吞併附近縣市,加強經濟實力,廣州和佛山同城化是一例。港深同城化應該是大勢所趨,但兩地有如深港機場在「誰吞併誰」的問題上難有共識,無法如廣州和佛山般合併一體,現在兩地機場有合作方案,但如果股權合作落空,香港再不能一廂情願,當局能否爭取主動地位,暫時仍然只能走着瞧。
Quoted from: http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/090506/3/c1wt.html
__________________
EricIsHim
My PhotoBucket
EricIsHim no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2009, 03:34 AM   #74
EricIsHim
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,397
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by vvill View Post
haha keith, i hope i don't sound like an architect whinging about very little things on here. lol.
haha wait until there is a technical issue. keith and me will tear the problem apart, too.
__________________
EricIsHim
My PhotoBucket
EricIsHim no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2009, 03:37 AM   #75
EricIsHim
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,397
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanfan89 View Post
Will there be direct trains between, say, the West Kowloon Terminal and the Shenzhen Airport? How about between HKIA and Guangzhou? It will be a waste not to have one.
there will be a high speed rail between wast kowloon and guangzhou, and another HSR between HKIA and SZ airport. The HKIA<>SZA line will also stop at the SZ HSR station where can transfer train to the GZ line.
__________________
EricIsHim
My PhotoBucket
EricIsHim no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2009, 02:08 PM   #76
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,499
Likes (Received): 17810

第三跑道的經濟評估
14 May 2009
信報

特區政府正推動不少基建工程,其中一些項目有望提升本地航空業競爭力。首先,籌備已久的港珠澳大橋可將本地航空業腹地擴展至珠三角西部。通過大橋,往來香港至珠三角西部城市(中山、珠海、江門)和澳門的距離大大縮短,可為香港航空業帶來不少貨流和客流。另一方面,探討中的港深機場鐵路不但可加強兩地機場整合,可能引發兩地機場分工;同時可提升香港機場來往深圳的連繫,可望提高珠三角東部至香港國際機場的客流。雖然經濟短期受壓,但亞洲和中國的長遠增長動力,仍為航空業界注視。根據不同業界(空中巴士、波音、ACI等)發表的市場預測,亞太航空市場在未來二十年的平均增長率將可達6%以上,增長速度將遠高於全球增長率。中國是亞太地區增長表現最佳國家:根據IMF的經濟預測顯示,中國實質生產總值在2000年至 07年間以接近10%年增長率上升,其實質生產總值已上升超過一倍。雖然全球經濟已步入衰退,但IMF在經濟預測中,仍認為中國於2009年可維持高增長。因應中國經濟強勁增長動力,波音公司和空中巴士公司認為中國民航市場未來二十年間將可以年率超過8%增長。事實上,中國主要國際樞紐機場的客運量和貨運量正高速增長,香港面對龐大競爭壓力。作為中國主要門戶和樞紐機場,香港有可能把握中國急速增長的機會,令香港航空業享受難得的發展機遇。然而,香港航空業能否應付未來增長急速的需求?

經濟效益高中大航空政策研究中心於2007年發表一份有關香港國際機場投資第三跑道的研究,其中認為若根據官方宣布的機場容量計算,如機場航機次數以每年3%增長,機場將於2013年達至飽和。若民航處能提升航空管理和控制效率,可以平均每小時處理八十架機次,如機場航機次數以每年3%增長,機場將會於2020年飽和;若機場航機次數以5%增長,機場將會於2015年飽和。我們參考了外國一些經驗,機場擴展需要頗長時間完成,其中包括財務、經濟和環境評估,加上公眾諮詢和政治協商過程,由規劃至落成可能需要長達十二年時間。若根據保守每年航機次數增長率(即3%),加上民航處能處理每小時機次達八十架次計算,假設現在正式開始規劃,第三跑道將不能於飽和期出現前落成;若以每年5%增長率計算,機場則可能於六至七年內飽和。由於規劃需時,就算現時正式開始籌建第三跑道,香港仍可能要面對五至七年運量飽和期。中大航空政策研究中心曾就航空業對香港經濟貢獻作出估計。以05年數據為例,航空業為香港帶來直接得益達400億元,佔生產總值超過3%。另一方面,航空業為香港帶來間接得益達700億元以上,佔生產總值超過5%。若以05年航機次數為基數,每架航機為香港帶來直接得益達17萬元,而間接得益約28萬元,總得益接近45萬元。在有關第三跑道的經濟評估中,假設每架航機可為香港帶來上述總得益,基於不同需求增長和容量增加假定,以推算第三跑道可為香港帶來的經濟效益。經濟評估假設第三跑道於2019年落成,對容量增加則決定於第三跑道的設計方案。如第三跑道可將機場容量上升20%,即每年約可處理航機次數達五十萬架次。附表列出在上述容量假設下,對應着不同需求增長預測所帶來的經濟效益。如需求年增長率只有3%,2020年可令香港多處理航機架次多達八千七百之數,可為香港帶來約15億元直接得益、24億元間接得益,總得益將接近39億元。基於上述假設,於2025年可為香港多處理航機架次多達七萬六千之數,能為香港帶來約130億元直接得益、210億元間接得益,總得益將接近340億元。若需求年增長率達7%,2020年可為香港多處理航機架次多達六萬之數,可為香港帶來約100億元直接得益、170億元間接得益,總得益將接近270億元。以上述假設推算於2025年,將可為香港多處理航機架次多達八萬三千之數,能為香港帶來約140億元直接得益、230億元間接得益,總得益將接近370億元。當然,上述推算基於2005年數據,每架航機為香港帶來約44萬元的效益,若2020年或2025年經濟結構有顯著差別,上述效益或須作出修正。若未來香港和廣州競爭劇烈,航空業效益可能需要向下調整。保守而言,若真正效益能達上述推算的一半,第三跑道所帶來的經濟效益仍然不能忽視。

破壞環境當然經濟評估不能只計算利益而不顧成本。興建第三跑道會破壞環境,不幸地同一水域將興建港珠澳大橋和港深機場鐵路。興建第三跑道對水域的環境破壞,可能不是單一性,而是多項大型基建工程的累積性影響,環境評估將是一主要挑戰。另一方面,研究報告利用歐盟數據,對空氣污染成本作出推算。若第三跑道可增加機場20%容量,在需求以年增長率3%推算,額外空氣污染成本於2020年約 73萬歐羅至350萬歐羅之數;於2025年約為2000萬歐羅至1億歐羅。若需求以7%增長推算,額外空氣污染成本於2020年,約為740萬歐羅至 3600萬歐羅;於2025年,則為4000萬歐羅至2億歐羅。雖然額外空氣污染成本不算是小數目,但和收益數字比較,第三跑道的經濟效益仍然十分顯著。 NATS發表一份有關香港機場容量的研究報告,雖然他們認為機場容量可通過一些方法得以提升,但仍判斷香港機場已接近飽和水平。同時,不同基建項目將提升香港國際機場往來珠三角的連繫性,若中國經濟增長勢頭不變,相信香港國際機場有一定迫切性進行第三跑道投資。當然,環境破壞將為未來公眾諮詢的主要考慮因素。希望各持份者理解第三跑道對香港航空業競爭力的重要性,從而令該項基建盡快開展。 中大航空政策研究中心 中大利豐供應鏈管理研究中心
__________________
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 May 17th, 2009, 02:23 PM   #77
Rachmaninov
Registered User
 
Rachmaninov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Posts: 3,188
Likes (Received): 24

Thanks for posting
I think you merged some headings to the paragraphs into the text!!!
__________________
Rachmaninov no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2009, 04:14 PM   #78
EricIsHim
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,397
Likes (Received): 28

All it's talking about... "build that damn 3rd runway!!!!" haha
__________________
EricIsHim
My PhotoBucket
EricIsHim no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd, 2009, 05:57 PM   #79
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,499
Likes (Received): 17810

Construction Updates - 2/22/09





__________________
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 June 5th, 2009, 02:29 PM   #80
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,499
Likes (Received): 17810

Chek Lap Kok may lose last natural coast for bridge project
4 June 2009
South China Morning Post

Chek Lap Kok airport island will lose its last piece of natural coast if the latest plan for a road to the bridge linking Hong Kong with Macau and Zhuhai goes ahead.

The Town Planning Board has been asked by the government to set aside the coastal protection area zoning for the 3 hectare strip of land on the island to enable the area to be reclaimed. This is among several rezoning requests for Chek Lap Kok that will be considered tomorrow.

According to a paper submitted to the board, about 1 hectare of the protection area would be replaced by a road connecting the bridge and a checkpoint. About 7,000 square metres would be used for a backup area for maintaining the linking road while 1.4 hectares would become landscaped buffers between the road and Dragonair Tower and CNAC Tower at the airport.

The coastal protection area was originally zoned to preserve a piece of the natural landscape of Chek Lap Kok island, which was flattened and massively extended to build the airport in the 1990s.

A source at the Planning Department said the original alignment of the linking road - a bridge connecting Tung Chung to the airport island - did not affect the coastline. But the alignment was changed after strong opposition from residents of Tung Chung, who said the bridge would be an eyesore.

Alan Leung Sze-lun, senior conservation officer of WWF, urged the government to explore alternative options to save the island's last piece of natural coast.
__________________
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

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 12:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

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

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu