六幹只可以俾將南用，唔可以俾將北用？反而覺得坑寶尚六幹，調景嶺海皮康城六幹兩條線實到死啦，不過我都支持有六幹版將荃後用290A 食左290，之後將佢分屍，頂盡加特車
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
坑寶尚對坑口來講都未必快得過條290...
不過十年後既事
而家就要改定都咪話唔傻仔
|
|
|
某巴士公司疑似謊稱區議會重組方案經區議會通過
|
|
|
|
|
|
本帖最後由 castanopsis 於 2016-4-7 12:59 編輯
唔駛上山落山,
只係你既雙重標準,
將隧本身已經係山既位置啦
你唔計都無話可說
798平過MTR
但290平過798喎
the entrance of TKO tunnel has an altitude of about 100m
while the highest point of Po Lam Rd. is about 180m
though the travelling time of the two routes don't differ that much during the morning peak hours
it is true that many residents don't like routes using Po Lam Rd. and intuitively assume that its the slower route
I agree that nothing could be done to route 290 at this stage
but one should recognize that such a belief is quite widespread among residents of TKO
regarding how 290/A should be altered in the long run
there was quite a heated debate when I personally suggested that 290 should use route 6 and terminate at Po Lam
After a round of discussion serveral of us (including some who showed opposition to my original proposal) agreed on further splitting 290 into 2
such that --
290A remains unchanged
290B runs between Hong Sing Gardens and Tseun Wan via TKO station, Sheung Tak, and TKL station
290C runs between Po Lam and Tseun Wan via Hang Hau and LOHAS Park
one should also note that district 137 may be developed by then and will house 100000 people
they could use either 290B/290C using BBI with whatever route 6 route that connets the district
this strengthens the customer base of the two new 290 routes
Lastly
how is the fare of 290 lower than 798?
(sorry for using English, this computer doesn't have Chinese input)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
而家不論上下繁山下都唔係冇位坐 拆線最終目的都係想提速姐
將南兜埋坑口再落康城走同而家行山 只係經寶林同經康城既分別
倒返轉康城出經坑口仲要再兜將南調景嶺出 諗到d燈咁嘔心都已經唔想坐
唔好唔記得未來既將南一定唔止係行寶邑路咁簡單 隨時要兜埋入去海皮新樓 個邊又多幾多支地獄燈
更加唔好講寶林 隨時仲慢過而家坐290A
要坑寶用六幹又要快 響每個小區兜個圈再直插去調景嶺走 好似尚德三寶咁出城咁先叫合理
要怪就怪坑口夾響中間 要落六幹根本點行都係死 一定要放坑口尾站既話反而行將隧會仲快過六幹
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
route 6 is directly connected to route 3 at Yau Ma Tei
making an rough estimate from the information given on the route 6 webpage
it only takes about 20 min to get from Kwai Fong to LOHAS park/TKL
that potentially saves a lot of time for the southern part of TKO, LOHAS park, and Hang Hau
though I agree that Po Lam will not benefit much from using the newly built highway network
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What do you think of my plan stated above?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
山上向左走點都快過向下走兜個靚圈掛...
同埋我唔覺得老九甚至觀塘區議會放棄寶達一站
P.S.你寫英文某兄可能睇唔明咖XD
|
|
|
某巴士公司疑似謊稱區議會重組方案經區議會通過
|
|
|
|
|
|
本帖最後由 castanopsis 於 2016-4-7 13:15 編輯
well, true
but at least they have 290A, which will likely have its frequency increased by then
from the perspective of kmb, the passengers have nowhere to go
with 290A still being the fastest choice, it doesn't matter much actually
though I agree that the district council might be pissed by that
with development progressing along Anderson Road
it might be possible to split routes further within the Kwun Tong hill area
such that a faster route could be offered as a choice to Hong Sing Gardens and Tsui Lam
but that requires further discussion and planning
(there is nothing I could do when there's no chinese input
ng tong gam yueng da zhong mun mei) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
|
