Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory Tenenbaum
heh heh - oh no it's not! lol
actually - you have a good point in your references to Hong Kong; surely congestion charges are a defacto admission of failure to provide a coherent mass transit system by those that impose the charge?
Hi MarkSix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marksix
Yes, I know it's not. But you should always start with the hardest language. Then everything else is easier. See, I was trying to help Nick.
Yes, Hong Kong rocks. 'Nuff said.
G.K.T.
It's no wonder that when you go from the UK to Hong Kong, you think: why are people so fat back home?
The Hong Kong ese and the New Yorkers love to walk. Londoners less so.
Think about it. You don't need a car to live in Hong Kong. And even if you do, you can catch a taxi - it's dirt cheap.
The problem that London has (Congestion Charge) is because it is a wasteful society full of people who dont want cars, but rather "Couches-On-Wheels" People there want "my car" with "my air freshener" and "my fish and chips".
Nothing has changed in 200 years. They love to live large in the UK on their fantasy climb to the "Life of Luxury".
G.K.T.
GT, siting the reason for the congestion does not do much for the cure when it is a societal trait rather than some alterable infrastructure manifestation or impediment.
"Gee everyone is fat, that is why the subway is crowded" does NOTHING to solving the crowding problem. You can't force everyone to go on a diet.
What you CAN do is start charging people who take up more than one seat, such as on an airplane, more money to ride.
The same thing goes with congestion. In NYC, where there is mass transit and cabs up the wazoo, there is NO reason for you to be commuting regularly to work in your car. Well, except for a few isolated exceptions.....
That being said, if you want to bring your car into busy-city, you will have to pay more.
As for Hong Kong, wasn't a lot of it redeveloped rather recently? You think a city like London or NYC would be able to put in all this additional infrastructure on an already established city grid? Also, who would pay for it? Taxpayers? Maybe buisnesses, we all know how devoted buisnesses are to their "home" location. Raising their already high expense of oeration and maintainence in NYC will not scare any of them away.....
Bottom line, sometimes the simplest solution is one that is disliked by the ones that it will effect. There may be other solutions, but none work as quickly, effectively, and as cheaply.
I was talking about the cars taking up space on the road, not people taking up space in public spaces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
But there is a rough correlation - in London, notwithstanding their not bad public transport, there are a lot more people who love to drive their Couches-On-Wheels (cars) around the city, and are generally not as slim as the walk-everywhere New Yorkers and Hong Kong-ese.
Is Hong Kong public transport new? Look at the link in relation to the trams on my previous post on page 4 (A MUST read for any person interested in intra-city transport) - they date back to 1905. The metro is a not that new either, I remember travelling on the metro as a boy in the 1980's when I visited Hong Kong with my parents. I travelled the same stations too.
Tsim Sha Tsui on the tip of Kowloon was my base station - aahh the memories!
Great city - especially the elevated walkway - it's just amazing.
And don't forget the Amazing-City-Of-Escalators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central...vels_escalator
No, really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory Tenenbaum
I thought analogies were allowed here.
I was not getting into that in particular. I was adderssing the solution to an existing problem based on modifiable parameters. You can't ask fat people to lose weight, so you just charge the noes that are causing the problem more.Quote:
But there is a rough correlation - in London, notwithstanding their not bad public transport, there are a lot more people who love to drive their Couches-On-Wheels (cars) around the city, and are generally not as slim as the walk-everywhere New Yorkers and Hong Kong-ese.
This analogy can be abused by further extrapolation, but try to keep focused on what I am saying. You can make teh roads wider, improve public transportation, and do all the things Hong Kong has, at a much higher expense, but that does not guarantee that there will be less drivers on the road. Sometimes that just makes the problem worse because it makes it easier to drive in!
How old are the buildings with the elevated walkways? When did the bulk of the transportation get implimented? How does this compare to NYC and London?Quote:
Is Hong Kong public transport new? Look at the link in relation to the trams on my previous post on page 4 (A MUST read for any person interested in intra-city transport) - they date back to 1905. The metro is a not that new either, I remember travelling on the metro as a boy in the 1980's when I visited Hong Kong with my parents. I travelled the same stations too.
My point is that although it is valid to site different countries and their solutions to problems, to just apply the solution in a blanket-fasion to other municipalities is not a valid application.
Yes HK may have some things that work, but saying that doing the same in London would a) have the same effect and b) be a cost-effective solution is not.
Hell, it oes not even address the viability of the situation.
Consider NYC for instance:
1. Where would these walkways be
2. How would you get down to "street level"
3. Who would pay for them to be built?
4. How would you link the current infrastructure to them?
5. How would they be maintained?
6. How would you relocate all the buisnesses that would now be located "underground" (or permanently below scaffolding).
7. How would you support all this construction on top of an infrastructure that already exists below the sidewalks (putting extra load on a sidewalk that is not resting on grade).
So things like the elevated walkways might be a nice dream, but they are a VERY expensive reality in NYC.
Ninjahedge I would be interested in your views but my view is that NYC probably doesn't need them. There is enough incentive for people here to use the metro, buses and the sidewalks are not too narrow. You can walk everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
London on the other hand has to impose a tax to stop drivers from entering the city centre.
If London had light rail, with its buses and metro, and perhaps some wider sidewalks, then maybe people there would walk more, and they wouldn't need the tax.
But no. Wait, it wouldn't work. It takes a change of attitude, and even in London, like LA, people are addicted to their cars, their "Couches-on-Wheels".
Hong Kong has not been designed around mass transit, it remains a city where only a few transit into the city centre every day, but for some reason it gets it right. Parking spaces and car permits are expensive there too.
I'm just impressed with the public transport, I mean who would have thought of elevated walkways and escalators up the hill and double decker trams that are even faster than going underground? For some reason it doesn't make sense in London.:rolleyes:
I've decided not to reply to your other rants that have little meaning, but I shall add that you have made multiple errors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory Tenenbaum
The first is that London has had an airport express service since the 1970's. Infact, the Gatwick Express is the world's first and oldest airport express service. London currently has three airport express routes to London Heathrow, London Gatwick and London Stansted. London Luton has a Thameslink express link to Central London, while London City Airport has a DLR connection to the Square Mile.
Heathrow Express
http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/184/l7wp.th.jpg
Gatwick Express
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7468/i0yn.th.jpg
Stansted Express
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/558/h9zv.th.jpg
New York in contrast has no direct rail connection from airport terminal to Manhattan whatsoever, unlike London with its rail connections to all five of Londons' international airports (four of which are located within the terminal), and three of which are dedicated airport express services. And no, taking AirTrain and then transferring to the Subway or Amtrak/NJ Transit is not a direct service. London has bucket loads of those services, including London Underground services to Heathrow and various other slower commuter services between the airports.
Another interesting aspect is that its possible to board a Thameslink train at London Luton Airport and arrive at London Gatwick Airport after only nine stops. The only other city on the planet that offers such a service is that between Narita and Haneda Airports in Tokyo.
The second is that London DOES have light rail. This comes in two forms: Tramlink in South London, or the impressive fully-automated Docklands Light Railway:
Tramlink
http://img275.imageshack.us/img275/9881/a0id.th.jpg http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/2958/d8zr.th.jpg http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1822/e0wu.th.jpg
Docklands Light Railway
http://img302.imageshack.us/img302/8098/b1se.th.jpg http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/2498/c1qo.th.jpg http://img314.imageshack.us/img314/6039/f2mn.th.jpg
Above credit for the above pictures goes to the excellent UK tram website http://www.thetrams.co.uk
For your information, London is expected to create a vast network that would complement the already vast heavy rail network. The future tram/light rail network would become one of the largest in the world. The DLR alone is essentially becoming its own network; currently there are four DLR lines: Bank-King George V; Bank-Lewisham; Tower Gateway-Beckton; Stratford-Lewisham, by 2012 they'll be another two at the minimum: Stratford International-Woolwich Arsenal, Tower Gateway-Dagenham Dock.
Tramlink
Stations: 38
Length: 28km
DLR
Stations: 38
Length: 31km
New York can only consider the AirTrain JFK as a light-rail system and even then thats literally a people mover between JFK and the Subway/LIRR. So don't lecture London about transport, when its clear New York is not only far worse off, the gap between the two systems in increasing. I do believe however that there is a proposal for a tramline around 42nd Street, contrast that to the future North, South, West and East London tram network has either been built, is u/c, approved or in various stages of being formally proposed.
The third point is that London as a city is completely different to New York or Hong Kong. The main points here would be:
- Geography
- Population density
Hong Kong is a completely different scenario where due to geographical constraints, development is of a ribbon nature along the coastline where the little low-lying flat land has forced buildings upwards.
London actually used to go one better than Hong Kong - it had not only double decker trams, but double decker trams that ran underground. unfortunately the rise of the bus ensured trams were phased out in London and it has only been recent that trams are seeing a revival.
There is no need for walkways and elevated escalators in London for the simple reason: London is not a hilly city, hence there is no need for them.
Afterall London is a city of villages and communities, not an urban sprawl.
The fourth is that there is incentive to use public transport in London. 6mn people use London Buses each day, while 6mn people use London Heavy Rail (3mn of which is London Underground, the other 3mn use London Rail), the number of light rail trips and other rail services increases this to somewhere between 12-13mn passengers. In comparison the entire MTA handles 7.7mm (including NJ Transit commuter services this increases to around 7.8mn), interestingly as many people take the DLR everyday as all of the NJ Transit Rail division.
London could also have the world's largest heavy rail network, with over 600+ heavy rail stations and 1,196km of route km, in perspective New York has somewhere below 500 heavy rail stations and heavy rail route length of around 430km and what with all the extensions and new lines in London (East London Line Extensions, Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Heathrow Terminal 5, etc...) this is increasing. Currently there is around 50km+ of new heavy rail route km being constructed including the 34km of Phase II of CTRL of this route, it is via two 19km tunnels under London and will mean Central Brussels and Central Paris are just over 2hrs away from Central London.
London City Rail Map (not metro rail map)
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/1...60kx9gu.th.jpg
Lastly, the Congestion Charge is not a tax. Its a fee for using Central London roads which are generally built around Roman and medieval networks and were not built around the automobile.
I think the only reason you don't like the Congestion Charge is not because it has cut traffic, reduced accidents, decreased travel times, reduced pollution or made Central London more pedestrian friendly but that because its in London.
In the end, other cities including New York are seriously looking at the Congestion Charge and are thinking - we could be bringing this to our city and change our city for the better. If you don't like it then thats up to you, I won't hold that against you, but your charade is tired, uneducated and pathetic.
London will be expanding the CC in Feb 2007, a double CC for those with 4x4 SUV's is being studied (there is even a push to have a quadruple charge for these vehicles), an expansion around London Heathrow Airport will follow suit probably by 2012. The ultimate goal is to create a vast London CC zone and I can't wait for it.
Nick that's interesting. Underground double decker trams replaced by buses. Overland trams. It sounds great.
Why the congestion charge then?
Why aren't people happy to use them, and want to drive their cars instead?
Easy. A car is not a car in London. It's a Couch-On-Wheels that will take you from home to work, and from work to the fish and chips shop, and from the fish and chips shop to home again so that you can eat your fish and chips while watching Dancing with the Stars.
I've travelled on the London light rail system. It's not as comprehensive as you would get in some other cities and seems to be restricted to a few areas.
In New York we don't have an airport express.
That's because we mostly use front door to airport service in a shuttle bus of about 8 passengers. You don't need to walk to the train station. You just place a call 24 hours before your flight and the shuttle bus will arrive. I've never missed a flight. Same deal in Miami and LA.
The shuttle bus that I use costs me about 8 quid.
That wont even buy you lunch in *with heavy Michael Caine accent* "LON-DON TOWN"
And Nick, travel to Hong Kong and try out their excellent public transit system - it's well worth it. You will likely go back home shaking your head like a madman saying "why oh why" and "drat those damn colonials".
G.K.T.
Gregory Tenenbaum - Transport patterns change, hence why we have double decker buses. I think you'll find that the same happened in New York with certain lines becoming dated and others appearing elsewhere to meet new transport demands.
How can you have travelled on light rail in London, when you said in your previous post that London had no light rail: "If London had light rail". Either you have amnesia or wikipedia didn't help you out with that one! :D
Also while it isn't the largest network on the planet, it is gradually becoming one. The DLR alone is the second largest automated network in the world (the first would be the Vancouver SkyTrain) and will be doubling in size over the next few years. Yet how can you be critical of London when the only light rail in New York is for moving people between JFK and the LIRR/Subway because New York doesn't have heavy rail express services connecting to Manhattan!
Most other world cities around the world have heavy rail connections to airport terminals - its because its a far more efficient mode of delivering people from the airport to the core of the city where the greatest number of connections can be made. Of the 10 alpha world cities set out by the GaWC; London, Tokyo, Paris, Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Milan and Singapore have heavy rail links from airport terminals to the city centre. Only New York and Los Angeles are the two cities without such a service and if such a service isn't necessary, then why have you got the half-arsed attempts of JFK & Newark AirTrain's. Fact is, New York is severely handicapped in these regards compared to other cities.
You've obviously not eaten in London then have you!
I've been to Hong Kong many times, infact I was brought up in Singapore and the public transportation system there is far superior to Hong Kong's. Unfortunately while the Hong Kong transport network is okay for Hong Kong, it would not be suitable for London due to a variety of reasons including population density and geography. The current heavy rail network of Hong Kong (MTR & KCR) is 162km, contrast that to the 1,192km for London - the systems are worlds apart serving different population centres in different geographical areas. Yet why should I feel ashamed? Network coverage in London is far greater, while I can actually use 300kph or tilting Pendolino's to move beyond the confines of London. There are no grand or spectacular termini in Hong Kong and even the JLLE stations outshine the best stations in Hong Kong. I should add that you should have read into more detail the history of Hong Kong's transport and us 'colonials'.
If anything, it is your own city: New York that you should be more concerned with and denying your own cities problems won't solve them. You can also ignore my points, but London isn't sitting idle like New York is and its pushing forward change and thats probably why London is now the world's largest aviation hub, why London is the most visited city, why London became once again the worlds premier financial centre and why London got the 2012 Olympics.
Nick, Yes London is much much better.
I have been on the light rail in London, correct me if I'm wrong but it doesn't seem to be a dedicated network accross the whole city. It's just a small isolated local network. If London had light rail like Hong Kong accross the whole city, then maybe it would be better.
London is an aviation hub, but I like many passengers are looking elsewhere. I usually fly through Copenhagen these days as they dont have a flea-bitten labrinthine airport like Heathrow and its high taxes. I can fly direct to Bangkok, Hong Kong practically anywhere and Scandinavian Airlines rocks compared to Brit. Airways.
London is the King, the Queen and the Jewel in the Crown of public transport, no question about it - you have convinced us.
Enjoy paying your congestion tax.
And please I would like your input into the new post about "Happy Slapping". Has it happened to you or someone that you know? It sounds dreadful, and it seems to happen a lot at bus stops.
Yet more bile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory Tenenbaum
The first point is that you haven't explained how you stated that London didn't have light rail only to change your mind after I had shown evidence that showed otherwise!
The second is that although light rail in London doesn't provide as extensive coverage like heavy rail does this is changing. Yet light rail in London is far more than being just a "small isolated local network". In other words there isn't one network, but two: the DLR and Tramlink. These networks also offer pretty good coverage across South London and East London; they are also expanding.
The third is that you apparently don't know much about light rail in Hong Kong. There are two light rail networks in Hong Kong.
- The first is located on Hong Kong Island and is 13km with 12 stops.
- The second is the KCR Light Rail network with 36.1km and 68 stops.
- There is a third but this is more akin to a funicular and is only 1.3km long and 7 stops
This provides Hong Kong with a light rail network of 49.1km and 80 stops (including the funicular its 50.4km and 87 stops). In contrast, London has a light rail network of 59km and 76 stops. So quite clearly both networks are roughly the same, the only difference is that London has u/c, approved & proposed 13 new stops on around 15km+ of new track; and this is on the DLR alone.
Fourthly, Heathrow isn't exactly a brilliant airport, but the same can't be said of New York's three airports. The bonus for London is that Heathrow offers more connections and the entire airport is being redeveloped. Currently the 30mppa+ capacity (ie one terminal handling as many people as all those through Newark International) London Heathrow Terminal 5 is due to be complete by 2008. The terminal, satellites and 6 platform Canary Wharf-like terminal 5 station were designed by Baron Rogers of Riverside.
Heathrow Terminal 5: 2008
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1258/d3ug.th.jpg http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/1895/b7jo.th.jpg http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/525/a5td.th.jpg http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/2906/c6yy.th.jpg
As soon as T5 opens, work will begin on the Heathrow East project which is essentially a re-build of Terminal 2 and will have a capacity of 30mmpa. This is due to be complete in 2012, just before the London 2012 Olympics and once finished would allow for the re-building of Terminal 1, then Terminal 3 and then Terminal 4 to create a 120mppa+ capacity airport. Designs for Heathrow East are at an early stage (ie just masking models to indicate the general outlook of the terminal and satellites), but the architect behind them is going to be Lord Foster of Thames Bank, who also designed London Stansted Airport, the wonderful Chep Lap Kok Airport in Hong Kong and opening in 2007 the crazy looking Beijing Capital Airport Terminal 3. In the below plan view, T5 is to the left, Heathrow East to the right.
Heathrow East: 2012
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/619/e5yx.th.jpg http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/2743/f7dc.th.jpg
Also while you might not go to London, millions more are and continue to be doing so: by 2030, London's five international airports are expected to handle some 300-400mn people. London's air hub of 135mppa is larger than that of the 90mppa of New York and will continue to be so. I'm not even starting about the expansion of London Stansted Airport which is going to be larger than anything at Heathrow. Gatwick Airport recently just opened its new air-bridge which is the largest of the world and allows for 747's to pass underneath:
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9593/g4wx.th.jpg
The fifth point would be that I've never claimed that it was somehow the best public transport network on the planet - only that you don't give it enough credit for what is a pretty remarkable network and perhaps the largest on the planet.
Sixthly - I don't drive, I use public transport to get about and you'd have to be stupid to drive into Central London especially with the vast array of public transport options available.
I don't like the happy slapping phenomena, but then the US tends to have a small problem of shooting people instead.
Nick thats Very Impressive, Particularly The New Heathrow Airport.
I only saw 1 tramline in London it didnt seem to have a light rail network (more of a local line). I could be wrong about this. I thought that it wasn't as comprehensive as Hong Kong's network.
Glad you've corrected me.
Ever thought of ringing Tony and asking for a job promoting Cool Brittania?
G.K.T.
Gregory Tenenbaum:
A few of your statements:
Quote:
The Hong Kong ese and the New Yorkers love to walk. Londoners less so.
Quote:
But there is a rough correlation - in London, notwithstanding their not bad public transport, there are a lot more people who love to drive their Couches-On-Wheels (cars) around the city, and are generally not as slim as the walk-everywhere New Yorkers and Hong Kong-ese.
In the NYC Congestion Charge thread, which you have not visited, given your obsession with London bashing rather than any interest in the topic, I posted a lengthy report:Quote:
Ninjahedge I would be interested in your views but my view is that NYC probably doesn't need them. There is enough incentive for people here to use the metro, buses and the sidewalks are not too narrow. You can walk everywhere.
Necessity or Choice, Why People Drive in Manhattan. Note the findings on page 3.
As for your posting in general, I understand that you are just trying to get a rise out of nick-taylor, No one can accuse me of not having a sense of humor, but this is a serious topic, and you are making it unreadable for someone who has interest in the subject. Your incessant railing about London is becoming spam-ish.
Although I have received complaints about your posting, I have refrained from interfering - until now. In this, or any thread concerning London, I will delete any post that I deem is just an opportunity to bait an argument.
If you think that my actions are heavy-handed, you can lodge a complaint with the administrator, or open a thread in Forum Issues, where the entire community can weigh in.
Interesting link Zippy thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
But what Hong Kong has done is also very good.
I think that Nick is trying to defend London too much. That's not healthy. I am suggesting that there be a broader approach to this problem, a la look at other cities; wasn't aware of the New York charge though.
Appreciate the suggestions.
What will it take for people to be able to travel easily cheaply and quickly in London? Taxes may be the only answer. Im just glad I'm not running the city - big responsibility.
Those cameras in London look pretty Orwellian.
G.K.T.