This morning I took the mid-level escalators down to Hong Kong station so that I could catch the express train to the airport. At over 800m, it is supposedly the longest outdoor covered escalator system in the world.
If you’ve ever walked the streets of Hong Kong you’ll know that the ground plane can be inhospitable at times. There’s limited space, but no shortage of steep pitches. I can’t imagine having a physical disability and trying to navigate this city.
So this system must have been a real innovation when it was constructed in the early 90′s. In total it moves up and down about 135m in elevation. That’s about the equivalent of a 45 storey tower. And I got down from the mid-levels and was on a train to the airport within 15 minutes.
But because the streets here are so narrow it’s a unidirectional system with one line of escalators. They bring people down to the CBD during the morning rush, but then the direction flips and they bring people up the hill for the remainder of the day — until midnight I believe. Living near these escalators is considered a win.
Hong Kong Island surely isn’t the easiest of environments in which to build and operate one of the world’s most important global cities. There’s relatively little developable flatland. But they more than made it work by being creative and by building up. Hong Kong is not just a tall city, but a truly vertical city.
This morning I took the mid-level escalators down to Hong Kong station so that I could catch the express train to the airport. At over 800m, it is supposedly the longest outdoor covered escalator system in the world.
If you’ve ever walked the streets of Hong Kong you’ll know that the ground plane can be inhospitable at times. There’s limited space, but no shortage of steep pitches. I can’t imagine having a physical disability and trying to navigate this city.
So this system must have been a real innovation when it was constructed in the early 90′s. In total it moves up and down about 135m in elevation. That’s about the equivalent of a 45 storey tower. And I got down from the mid-levels and was on a train to the airport within 15 minutes.
But because the streets here are so narrow it’s a unidirectional system with one line of escalators. They bring people down to the CBD during the morning rush, but then the direction flips and they bring people up the hill for the remainder of the day — until midnight I believe. Living near these escalators is considered a win.
Hong Kong Island surely isn’t the easiest of environments in which to build and operate one of the world’s most important global cities. There’s relatively little developable flatland. But they more than made it work by being creative and by building up. Hong Kong is not just a tall city, but a truly vertical city.
Too bad my efficient morning commute was followed by a cancelled United flight. Tomorrow is not going to be a fun day travel.
Dylan Reid of Spacing was recently at the International Transport Forum in Leipzig, Germany and has been publishing some interesting posts related to transit. Here is one about what makes transit systems succeed and fail.
I really like the point that we too often think about transit projects as culminating with a big opening, while overlooking the importance of operations. It’s a bit like focusing on the wedding ceremony and forgetting that the ceremony is only really there to (hopefully) mark the beginning of a lifelong union.
The Penn Institute for Urban Research recently asked a dozen experts to weigh in on the topic of urban infrastructure in the United States. More specifically: What should the US do? It is a direct response to President Trump’s inauguration speech, where he described America’s infrastructure in terms of “disrepair and decay.”
The urban experts include Eugénie L. Birch, Saskia Sassen, Susan Wachter, Richard P. Voith, and many others. Richard Voith’s piece is called,
Too bad my efficient morning commute was followed by a cancelled United flight. Tomorrow is not going to be a fun day travel.
Dylan Reid of Spacing was recently at the International Transport Forum in Leipzig, Germany and has been publishing some interesting posts related to transit. Here is one about what makes transit systems succeed and fail.
I really like the point that we too often think about transit projects as culminating with a big opening, while overlooking the importance of operations. It’s a bit like focusing on the wedding ceremony and forgetting that the ceremony is only really there to (hopefully) mark the beginning of a lifelong union.
The Penn Institute for Urban Research recently asked a dozen experts to weigh in on the topic of urban infrastructure in the United States. More specifically: What should the US do? It is a direct response to President Trump’s inauguration speech, where he described America’s infrastructure in terms of “disrepair and decay.”
The urban experts include Eugénie L. Birch, Saskia Sassen, Susan Wachter, Richard P. Voith, and many others. Richard Voith’s piece is called,
One of the reasons why this is important is because, as Reid points out, “fares need to provide a strong and consistent proportion of the agency’s funding.” So you need bums in seats, which means you need to build the right transit in the right locations. In other words, a new subway line through a low density suburb will probably result in an abysmal farebox recovery ratio.
At the same time:
“…fares will rarely cover all of an agency’s costs. Hong Kong’s Kam noted that, to be truly autonomous, an operator needs an additional dedicated, independent source of revenue. This cannot be based on additional transit-related non-fare revenue (e.g. advertising) – such revenue is helpful but never significant. It needs to be an external source. In Hong Kong, it is based on the agency’s extensive property ownership, but in other cities it could be a congestion charge, a dedicated sales or income tax, or other mechanism. Only with such a source can the agency have the independence to make its own choices for reinvestment and improvements.”
Another point that Reid makes is that transit agencies should always have a consistent pipeline of new projects, rather than erratic periods of expansion. This makes a lot of sense given what it takes to ramp up for a large infrastructure project. But it’s obviously contingent on having sustainable funding sources.
Click here if you’d like to read the rest of Dylan Reid’s post.
. (I was his teaching assistant while I was at Penn and I still follow his work.)
I found it interesting how infrastructure funding has shifted from the federal level to the local municipal level – especially in the realm of public transit. Given the rise of urban centers, this makes intuitive sense. But Voith also argues that “relying only on local funding of transportation will almost certainly result in an under supply of infrastructure.”
For the full Expert Voices series, click here. I think many of you will like it.
One of the reasons why this is important is because, as Reid points out, “fares need to provide a strong and consistent proportion of the agency’s funding.” So you need bums in seats, which means you need to build the right transit in the right locations. In other words, a new subway line through a low density suburb will probably result in an abysmal farebox recovery ratio.
At the same time:
“…fares will rarely cover all of an agency’s costs. Hong Kong’s Kam noted that, to be truly autonomous, an operator needs an additional dedicated, independent source of revenue. This cannot be based on additional transit-related non-fare revenue (e.g. advertising) – such revenue is helpful but never significant. It needs to be an external source. In Hong Kong, it is based on the agency’s extensive property ownership, but in other cities it could be a congestion charge, a dedicated sales or income tax, or other mechanism. Only with such a source can the agency have the independence to make its own choices for reinvestment and improvements.”
Another point that Reid makes is that transit agencies should always have a consistent pipeline of new projects, rather than erratic periods of expansion. This makes a lot of sense given what it takes to ramp up for a large infrastructure project. But it’s obviously contingent on having sustainable funding sources.
Click here if you’d like to read the rest of Dylan Reid’s post.
. (I was his teaching assistant while I was at Penn and I still follow his work.)
I found it interesting how infrastructure funding has shifted from the federal level to the local municipal level – especially in the realm of public transit. Given the rise of urban centers, this makes intuitive sense. But Voith also argues that “relying only on local funding of transportation will almost certainly result in an under supply of infrastructure.”
For the full Expert Voices series, click here. I think many of you will like it.
