2/10明報：居民闖輕鐵軌遊行 九鐵指或追究

原帖由 ahbong 於 2006-10-11 00:49 發表


缺乏公共設施是否可與輕鐵扯上關係？
沒有輕鐵的東涌
不是一樣缺乏公共設施嗎？
相反同樣有輕鐵的屯門
為甚麼又不缺乏公共設施呢？

Tuen Mun is not lacking of 公共設施?
The whole NT West had problems

東涌 is lacking because the people is not enough to support.
NT West is not enough land, in fact, money had been prepared for years to build up library, sports complex, etc.

原帖由 sg 於 2006-10-11 00:33 發表


Could you point out where it is ? or do you have any pictures of that exit(s) ?
Many thanks for your help.

sth like the original planning, may not be good, but should cross the Central park and use the middle of Tin Shui Estate and Locwood Court. Please be reminded that the original LRT station of Tin Wing is called Tin Shui Wai becoz the park is really prompted for the Tin Shui Wai KCR station.

KCR finally said the route is too arc and changed to the existing design and it can save money with less interruption, finally the middle area became a park.

Blue one is the other layout, so these areas in pink were kept empty for years

[ 本帖最後由 qualcomm 於 2006-10-11 14:44 編輯 ]

原帖由 qualcomm 於 2006-10-11 14:21 發表


Tuen Mun is not lacking of 公共設施?
The whole NT West had problems

Really... Are you sure?

Let me list for you:
(1) Tuen Mun Town Hall
(2) Tuen Mun Public Library
(3) Tuen Mun Public Riding School (屯 門 公 眾 騎 術 學 校)
(4) Tuen Mun Public Golf Course (屯 門 公 眾 高 爾 夫 球 場)
(5) Tuen Mun Archery Range cum Gateball Court ( 屯 門 射 箭 暨 門 球 場)
(6) 4 Sports Centers
(7) Public Swimming Pool (There is even a Swimming Pool LRT stop)

While Tin Shui Wai only has:
(1) One Sports Center
(2) One swimming pool (leisure pool  戲 水 池)
(3) A public library that is located inside a shopping mall.


I don't see how the statement "The whole NT West had problems" is justified. It is obvious that only Tin Shui Wai has problem.

And I don't see how the reserved space for LRT is to be blamed for the lack of recreational facilities in Tin Shui Wai. Why the reserved space for LRT in Tuen Mun didn't affect public facilities there? What is your reasoning?

[ 本帖最後由 ahbong 於 2006-10-11 23:50 編輯 ]

原帖由 ahbong 於 2006-10-11 23:26 發表


Really... Are you sure?

Let me list for you:
(1) Tuen Mun Town Hall
(2) Tuen Mun Public Library
(3) Tuen Mun Public Riding School (屯 門 公 眾 騎 術 學 校)
(4) Tuen Mun Public Golf Course (屯 門 公 眾 高 爾 夫 球 場)
(5) Tuen Mun Archery Range cum Gateball Court ( 屯 門 射 箭 暨 門 球 場)
(6) 4 Sports Centers
(7) Public Swimming Pool (There is even a Swimming Pool LRT stop)

for 1, 2, 6, 7, already designed and built before LRT from 70s to 1987, 3,4,5 how, where and when are they located? all those were mountains before. I would say that the LRT had restricted the design and location of public facilities a lot.

References: some of 屯門發展藍圖
http://www.pland.gov.hk/info_serv/tp_plan/adopted/tm_c.html

[ 本帖最後由 qualcomm 於 2006-10-12 10:23 編輯 ]

原帖由 ChickenTong 於 2006-10-11 23:14 發表

舊天水圍總站同西鐵天水圍站有何關系?
果個只係輕鐵年代,天水圍區唯一總站而已..所以叫天水圍總站..

In 1991, that area is called Tin Shui Wai Town Centre, had reserved place to connect for future railway system, bus terminus, etc.
You can see the design of that station, more than 4 lanes, with bridges to connect the bus-stop and reserved areas.

講真 我一直都要搭輕鐵去元朗番學 朝朝上車都係要逼上車
但呢4日朝朝上車都好少人 唔知係d人搭哂K73/K73P定咩 唔見佢拆左有咩唔好

當時的天水圍總站的確是一預留設施予當時正在計劃之天水圍西部鐵路總站.

你可以參考一下九十年代初發表之港口發展策略, 西部鐵路當時只到天水圍,
而總站正好設於現時之天水圍公園內. 到後來一九九六年發表之全港發展策略,
雖然西鐵已被延長至屯門,但當時規劃署仍然將天水圍站設於天水圍市中心位
置. 到一九九八年西鐵動工後,天水圍站才放在天水圍南區.  留意舊天水圍總站
早於九十年代中建成, 當時為西鐵作出預留是頗為合理的.

其實若細心留意一下,當時天榮站之交通設施比實際需要的多出很多.

首先,當時天水圍總站已有四個月台, 啟用時只有720以及721兩線使用, 餘下
兩個月台基本上無用, 另外附近有大量空位供擴建之用. 由此可見, 天榮站並
不是當年唯一的總站那麼簡單. 若果是建臨時總站, 那麼有關方面只需要在天
榮站沿用當年天瑞站掉頭的方式即可,毋須花這麼多錢建一個沒有太多人用的
總站. 小弟推斷當年兩條吉坑中, 其中一條應是留予天水圍巡環線的, 因為當
年預計銀座至天耀一段將在短期內落成.

其次,天榮站旁的天水圍巴士總站(很久沒有到天水圍,不清楚是否被拆掉), 這
麼多條坑,還要有天橋直接駁到巴士坑內, 這種設計必然是預計有大量乘客使
用.若果天水圍站設在天水圍公園內, 人流便能直接通過天橋到達各巴士坑中,
非常方便. 很可惜啟用後, 雖然有276P等線王進駐, 但在四週客量太低的情況
下,該巴士總站使用率很低.

政府當年取消在天水圍市中心設站的計劃, 因而令到大量預留設施被廢棄,
亦令到天水圍北居民乘車時間大幅增加. 類似情況亦出現於三聖總站, 若果
當年並無取消踏石角與及小欖支線, 相信三聖咁大個站唔會得505一條線. 輕
鐵不再發展已成定局, 之不過小弟覺得政府當年洗濕左個頭, 就不彷洗埋佢,
搞到而家唔上唔落咁, 唔夠車又唔買, 無輕鐵既地方整條巴士線駁住佢就算,
但係又唔開放俾其他業界人士開其他線.

[ 本帖最後由 Kingfishsjc 於 2006-10-12 21:15 編輯 ]

再講多一次, 不在公園建天水圍站原因

1. 天水圍公園在九五年測試時發現溶洞 (但天盛村重大, 又可以起?)
2. KCR想在上蓋起樓(96年時 $5000/呎), 不過因反對, 所以現在的都冇樓 起
3. 馮家村有三個墳 (但錦田的又搬得?)
4. 慳50億, 將整段蝦尾村至洪水橋由地底搬到架空, 既不怕溶洞, 噪音都係得D慈心、耀逸D公屋,唔like就調屋lor.
5. 95年天北只想到天富及天恩, 天北只係劃到天秀路, 當年個濕地重靚過依家.
6. 建在中心會令輕鐵當年連唯一賺錢的天水圍支線都冇埋

當年的高層的一己私慾, 死要同地鐵鬥, 保往輕鐵又點?

若地鐵起,情況就係禁:

起點兆康->洪水橋 (即流浮山貨櫃場)->天水圍公園->元朗->加州花園->錦田轉車處(往落馬州客貨共用)---大欖隧道--->麗城->青衣轉東涌線可共用路軌至香港(貨運另往貨櫃碼頭)

不過地鐵要上蓋全部建樓及另要出資而拉倒, 亦因共用路軌, 兆康至香港只能四分鐘一班. 這亦令到東涌線要在南昌接西鐵及青衣橋在葵涌及青衣站建得禁多預留位置, 加上令市政局要建完個美孚公園一年都唔開得.

[ 本帖最後由 qualcomm 於 2006-10-12 22:16 編輯 ]

原帖由 qualcomm 於 2006-10-12 22:12 發表


若地鐵起,情況就係禁:

起點兆康->洪水橋 (即流浮山貨櫃場)->天水圍公園->元朗->加州花園->錦田轉車處(往落馬州客貨共用)---大欖隧道--->麗城->青衣轉東涌線可共用路軌至香港(貨運另往貨櫃碼頭)

點樣可以一條路線
可經元朗,加州花園同錦田?

[ 本帖最後由 hksf 於 2006-10-12 23:22 編輯 ]