原帖由 guia 於 2006-9-1 23:49 發表
中環灣仔繞道開通先有機會有堅尼地城、西環到筲箕灣、柴灣的特快線
未必，反而巴士quota將會係最大既難題 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
原帖由 hk_ayu 於 2006-9-2 13:03 發表
KCR has profits mainly from passenger carriage.
The reason behind is that KCR charge premium fare for Lo Wu boundary-crossing service
So, without subsidization from government,
MTR may ...
除非想見到好似 London Tube 咁, $30 - 40 一個區 (單程票)
$15 - 23 (蠔卡)
否則政府資助是需要的~ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
原帖由 hksubways 於 2006-9-2 00:53 發表
If the MTR is so intent on building the line, then it should use its own funds since its fairer to the bus operators and land developers. The goverment should not budge nor yield to MTR since its already too greedy as evidenced by its request for funds for SCL when KCR offered to internally finance the whole project. At entrance gates you can see the sign "MTR is a passenger railway", now isn't this an outright contradiction? Why shouldn't it read "MTR is a property developer who also provides railway services to residents in HK"? This is what privatization of a major public interest like MTR produces, a money obsessed monster that puts money first and passengers' welfare second.
After this lesson, MTR would be more careful in considering public sentiment when constructing the WIL and SIL and avoid tacky stuff like the destined for failure Kennedy Town station development
I won't consider that as greedy, but normal instead.
Most of the people here should know the rise and the failure of the West Rail, and the different condition offered by KCRC and MTRC, which one of the major difference is, the right of developing station properties. The government chose KCRC because it didn't request that, but after losing billions when operation started, the government gave the property development right back to KCRC...
Road transport and rail transport development is totally different. One of the major point, as most would suggest, is that road transport companies, no matter bus operators, taxi companies, minibus companies, etc, don't need to pay for the construction of the roads and relating infrastructure, or at least not directly. This is not the case for rail operators, as they need to put a large sum of money in construction of the basic infrastructure, like track lines, electricity supply, signal system, stations, etc. Even you got several companies sharing the same station, or even the same track lines, it's still a large development. The privilege of being the sole user of the land would be weaken by the debts created by the construction of the infrastructure.
In Hong Kong, there are no free lunch. If you got no money, you can do nothing. MTRC's case won't be exceptional, it needs money to build new lines, maintain current lines, modify and renew stations, etc. All these need money, and not only these jobs need money, there are a lot of other things that need money to support.
While MTRC is a large property developer, it's free will on developing property was being restricted by the government, one of it's major shareholder. When other property developers can buy land with beautiful scenic, the MTRC can only develop it's property in less than ideal area, with less revenue. Income was, of course one of the major reason for developing the properties, but it would also like to use those properties to attract people to use the rail service more, just like those huge JR Mall in Japan, and MTRC is doing that quite successful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
原帖由 hksubways 於 2006-9-2 12:52 發表
How then were our bureaucrats to save face on their public projections that it was worth HK$100 billion? Simple. Stuff it full of the best land in our public land bank, pretend that the transfer was made at market value and then relax almost all the normal height and plot ratio restrictions on that land. Hey, presto, the grim concrete nightmare you now see on the Yau Ma Tei reclamation.
A good deal more than that site alone has gone into the MTR of course, mostly on the reasoning that buses do not pay for the roadways they use and therefore railways should also have their construction costs subsidised.
It is a fair argument, except that the MTR property subsidies went past that justification
Think in the other way, are those land used by the MTRC "the best land in our public land bank"?
The answer is simple, "NO", or, most aren't the best.
Apart from the TCL's case, most other station's land can't be considered as the best at all. Land used by the MTRC needs to fit not only the residental estate, but also the station and it's related equipments, and sometimes community facilities and malls. If you need to calculate those so called plot ratio, I guess what else you could build after building the station.
Btw, buses do got subsidies from the government, in term of non-taxed diesel. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
原帖由 hk_ayu 於 2006-9-2 13:03 發表
KCR has profits mainly from passenger carriage.
The reason behind is that KCR charge premium fare for Lo Wu boundary-crossing service
So, without subsidization from government,
MTR may ...
話就話政府補貼係有需要o者.尢其係上蓋發展補貼..才令票價訂在合理水平呀..
但係點解佢地遲d o既可加可減..計票價o既方程式..又話唔應該將物業收益計算呢..
咁未好矛盾lor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
原帖由 ronaldlau 於 2006-9-3 00:50 發表
除非想見到好似 London Tube 咁, $30 - 40 一個區 (單程票)
$15 - 23 (蠔卡)
否則政府資助是需要的~
在 London 買權汽水都要 $1.5 磅 (HK$22) 啦
London 的指數根本比香港高得多
不能單以兩地票價作比較 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
|
