https://finance.sina.cn/china/gncj/2018 ... 112.d.html
Back in May, in the People's Political Conference of the city of Shanghai, a member of the conference which is also a chairman of CAAC's Eastern China regional branch stated that, according to the city's planning, airports in Shanghai will handle 180 Million passengers and 6.5 Million tons freights (compares to 110 Million passengers and 4.23 Million tons last year), however the Hongqiao airport is a dead end road for interchanging passengers, while Pudong airport is an isolated island when it come to intermodal connection with other land-based transportations.
He went on saying that these problems have to be solved to maintain Shanghai's advantageous position as an international hub at the west coast of the Pacific, and that currently Seoul and Tokyo are taking away passengers and freight flow from Shanghai. Coordination among cities in the area of Yangtze River Delta would be needed to form a giant aviation hub, and military cooperation will also be needed to optimize the air space and to speed up the relocation of Shanghai Dachang Airbase.
From the expected demand, it's calculated that Shanghai would need additional capacity equal to another 1.5 Hongqiao airport, and also a large GA airport. He suggested that Shanghai should increase cooperation with airports at places like Nantong and Jiaxing, in order to accept overthrow of up to 20 Million passengers and freight from the two main Shanghai airport, especially in aspects like LCC passenger traffic and domestic freight transportation. And also to reasonably adjust future development plan of Pudong airport, and focus on expanding and optimizing terminals, runways, bridges and apron area, in addition to improving efficiency of both SHA and PVG airport.
He also mentioned a plan for a third airport for Shanghai. It was stated that, after professional research, it have been suggested to construct a new airport within the area of the city of Kunshan, about 30km to the west of Hongqiao airport. It's suggested to first construct a 2800m+ runway to accept tens of thousands bizjet that would come into Shanghai and Southern Jiangsu area, and in the mid-to-long term it would be possible to add another runway with large separation to handle 40M passengers + cargo to be an actual third airport for Shanghai.
However, noted that previously there were also different kinds of rumor for where a third airport of Shanghai will be located at, for instance the Nantong airport and Jiaxing airport mentioned in the article were both candidates for such a name with Shanghai Airport Authority favoring Nantong airport after researches, therefore things aren't set in stone yet.
See the attached map for location of different mentioned cities, Kunshan is located between Shanghai and Suzhou.

For cargo, the airport planners should be more worried about CGO, and CZ's growth there, than NRT and ICN.

Not sure how building an airport even further than Pudong (or using Jiaxing or Nantong) can help. I have family in Jiaxing. The drive from there to Shanghai in the evening is an excruciating experience. Nantong is on the other side of the river. Even Ryanair would hesitate to call it "Shanghai Airport".

The "problem" of Shanghai is of the same kind that Milan or Dallas have: Hongqiao is just too good. It's so convenient to take the subway, ride a few stops and get out of the train in the middle of the terminal. Or (if it's not in peak hours) take a taxi at the terminal and be home in 15 minutes. But of course it can't be expanded.

What I would rather like them to do is to try to make Pudong more attractive for it to compete better with Hongqiao in the eyes of the public (expanding the Maglev line to the west bank? building freight lines that go directly to the logistics zone through the port?).

workhorse wrote:

What I would rather like them to do is to try to make Pudong more attractive for it to compete better with Hongqiao in the eyes of the public (expanding the Maglev line to the west bank? building freight lines that go directly to the logistics zone through the port?).

My thoughts exactly, the maglev was supposed to be expanded to Hongqiao in the first place but they decided otherwise. And now it doesnt even operate at 400km/h all day anymore.
I don't get the need to look for other airports, PVG is still pretty good and it looks like it has enough room for extra runways and terminals.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

My thoughts exactly, the maglev was supposed to be expanded to Hongqiao in the first place but they decided otherwise.

That would be ideal. A maglev line doing something like Pudong-Renmin Square-Hongqiao would be just perfect. That would require a couple of dozens of kilometers of tunnel though. And I am not sure maglev train can run at full speed in a tunnel. But anyway people don't care that much about +/-100 km/h of speed, what they want the most is to avoid the hassle of changing at Longyang Road (or riding line 2 all the way to the airport which feels like an eternity).

If not to Hongqiao, at least make it terminate at Lujiazui! Who wants to go to Longyang Road (no disrespect meant to people who live there...)?

Another probably easier option would be to expand the HSR line to Pudong (for example, from the South railway station) and make all trains teminate at Pudong instead of Hongqiao or Shanghai South (with the possibility to easily buy a ticket to the city center at PVG, of course).

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

And now it doesnt even operate at 400km/h all day anymore.

Yes, I noticed that too, don't know why they run at reduced the speed during part of the day now. Are there any any worries about wearing off the infrastructure too fast?

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

workhorse wrote:

What I would rather like them to do is to try to make Pudong more attractive for it to compete better with Hongqiao in the eyes of the public (expanding the Maglev line to the west bank? building freight lines that go directly to the logistics zone through the port?).

My thoughts exactly, the maglev was supposed to be expanded to Hongqiao in the first place but they decided otherwise. And now it doesnt even operate at 400km/h all day anymore.
I don't get the need to look for other airports, PVG is still pretty good and it looks like it has enough room for extra runways and terminals.

Instead they announced a new subway line from Hongqiao to Pudong http://www.caacnews.com.cn/1/5/201807/t ... 8_wap.html

workhorse wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

And now it doesnt even operate at 400km/h all day anymore.

Yes, I noticed that too, don't know why they run at reduced the speed during part of the day now. Are there any any worries about wearing off the infrastructure too fast?

Official reason is to reduce energy consumption and also CO2 emission, as well as reduce its impact on surrounding environment.
But according to report it seems like even back in 2007 there were already some time slots that they aren't operating at max speed?
http://2008.people.com.cn/GB/62310/62391/6366154.html
And reduce energy consumption make it sound like it's a way to cut cost.

Hey guys,
I have extensively used SHA and PVG airports and see the benefits of both. I absolutely loved the maglev to and from PVG but it was inconvenient at the city end from where I normally stay in the French Concession area of Shanghai. SHA always seems to be overcrowded and chaotic to me, while PVG is more civilised and relaxed, and I love the architecture and features of the terminals.
I am not surprised that the authorities are looking at building an additional airport for Shanghai, or at least expanding a current one. i would love the maglev to be extended into the city centre, if possible, or another high-speed, efficient mode of transport built to link PVG, SHA, the city centre and any potential third major airport.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

And should be noted you've also got airports in Hangzhou HGH (10th biggest in China 35m pax) and Wuxi WUX (4m pax) in the broader area.

Both can be reached quickly from Shanghai by HSR, and I suspect in a few years the Shanghai metro will link to those cities metros.

c933103 wrote:

Official reason is to reduce energy consumption and also CO2 emission, as well as reduce its impact on surrounding environment.
But according to report it seems like even back in 2007 there were already some time slots that they aren't operating at max speed?
http://2008.people.com.cn/GB/62310/62391/6366154.html
And reduce energy consumption make it sound like it's a way to cut cost.

A few years ago it was just the first few trips in the morning that were slower which led me to believe it was a track issue. My Mandarin isn't sufficient to read the linked article, but perhaps it was a noise issue? Hard to believe there would be that much of an energy savings.

glbltrvlr wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Official reason is to reduce energy consumption and also CO2 emission, as well as reduce its impact on surrounding environment.
But according to report it seems like even back in 2007 there were already some time slots that they aren't operating at max speed?
http://2008.people.com.cn/GB/62310/62391/6366154.html
And reduce energy consumption make it sound like it's a way to cut cost.

A few years ago it was just the first few trips in the morning that were slower which led me to believe it was a track issue. My Mandarin isn't sufficient to read the linked article, but perhaps it was a noise issue? Hard to believe there would be that much of an energy savings.

I am jus speculating too, but what I heard from people more familiar with rail in Shanghai a while ago was that the line's financial performance and load factor are bad and there were even plan to remove the line completely, although apparently the plan for removing it have not been canceled and that it seems to be carrying more people now, and that's what lead me to believe it might be a issue with the operation cost

glbltrvlr wrote:

A few years ago it was just the first few trips in the morning that were slower which led me to believe it was a track issue. My Mandarin isn't sufficient to read the linked article, but perhaps it was a noise issue? Hard to believe there would be that much of an energy savings.

Don't know for the maglev but for regular HSR going at 360 km/h (fastest passenger trains existing today) vs 300 km/h (more typical speed) increases electricity consumption by 50%.

Cities like London, New York and Moscow have more than two large airports, so it's certainly understandable that Shanghai would benefit from another one as well. PVG still has room to grow... aren't there plans to reclaim more land for a sixth runway?

I do agree that getting the Maglev a bit further into the city would make Pudong much more convenient. I know there were plans to do so at one point (and if anyone can get it done, the Chinese can) but that might help ease some of the burden on Hongqiao... it's still a miracle they were able to demolish so many properties and double Hongqiao in size.

Hangzhou, Wuxi and Nantong are nearby but those are huge cities in their own right with plenty of O&D passengers. Hangzhou has room for two more runways and is about to start on a huge third terminal, but I don't believe Wuxi's airport can grow much beyond its current boundaries. Is there an airport planned for Changzhou?

moa999 wrote:

And should be noted you've also got airports in Hangzhou HGH (10th biggest in China 35m pax) and Wuxi WUX (4m pax) in the broader area.

Both can be reached quickly from Shanghai by HSR, and I suspect in a few years the Shanghai metro will link to those cities metros.

When I lived in Hangzhou I found that Pudong was always cheaper than Hangzhou even after the cost of the coach or bus (+ metro) + HSR + metro. It also has far more options for international travel which is great.

Hangzhou is perfectly fine for domestic travel but myself and my international student friends ended up preferring Pudong for travelling around Asia and getting home. I hope more routes to Europe come in the future but I can understand if that's not a priority for them.

They still don't want to talk about the real problem, which is airspace management. PVG (and PEK) perform about have as many take-offs and landings (movements) compared to ATL/ORD, and are lower than even CLT. The relatively high pax counts are due to widebody usage but the real problem plaguing Chinese airports is horrible delays, cancellations, and that won't be changed by building a new facility.

Sean-SAN- wrote:

They still don't want to talk about the real problem, which is airspace management. PVG (and PEK) perform about have as many take-offs and landings (movements) compared to ATL/ORD, and are lower than even CLT. The relatively high pax counts are due to widebody usage but the real problem plaguing Chinese airports is horrible delays, cancellations, and that won't be changed by building a new facility.

SPOT ON. This is the real problem, and even with 10 airports won't help. Remember PVG and SHA are still largely sharing the same (few) STAR and SID points, without these being changed more airports will only lead to more congestion and more delay.

Michael

jsnww81 wrote:

Cities like London, New York and Moscow have more than two large airports, so it's certainly understandable that Shanghai would benefit from another one as well. PVG still has room to grow... aren't there plans to reclaim more land for a sixth runway?

I do agree that getting the Maglev a bit further into the city would make Pudong much more convenient. I know there were plans to do so at one point (and if anyone can get it done, the Chinese can) but that might help ease some of the burden on Hongqiao... it's still a miracle they were able to demolish so many properties and double Hongqiao in size.

Hangzhou, Wuxi and Nantong are nearby but those are huge cities in their own right with plenty of O&D passengers. Hangzhou has room for two more runways and is about to start on a huge third terminal, but I don't believe Wuxi's airport can grow much beyond its current boundaries. Is there an airport planned for Changzhou?

Changzhou already have an airport (CZX). The only larger city that doesn't have a civilian airport right now is Jiaxing, which has an airfield being convert to dual-use AFAIK.

Changzhou is pretty far from Shanghai either way.

Like many said, the only real way to make Pudong better is to either extend the maglev (doubtful with all the oppositions and also high cost), or extend the CRH network that way. It would still not be as good as Hongqiao, though, which is the best intermodal airport in mainland IMO.

c933103 wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

workhorse wrote:

What I would rather like them to do is to try to make Pudong more attractive for it to compete better with Hongqiao in the eyes of the public (expanding the Maglev line to the west bank? building freight lines that go directly to the logistics zone through the port?).

My thoughts exactly, the maglev was supposed to be expanded to Hongqiao in the first place but they decided otherwise. And now it doesnt even operate at 400km/h all day anymore.
I don't get the need to look for other airports, PVG is still pretty good and it looks like it has enough room for extra runways and terminals.

Instead they announced a new subway line from Hongqiao to Pudong http://www.caacnews.com.cn/1/5/201807/t ... 8_wap.html

Not quite a subway. Seems like this will be a 160 km/h "Airport Express" line, with 9 total stops and only 5 stops between the stations for the passenger terminals at SHA and PVG. An article estimated 30 minutes from airport to airport. I wouldn't be surprised if they tear down the stub-end maglev line after this is complete.

workhorse wrote:

Another probably easier option would be to expand the HSR line to Pudong (for example, from the South railway station) and make all trains teminate at Pudong instead of Hongqiao or Shanghai South (with the possibility to easily buy a ticket to the city center at PVG, of course).

zakuivcustom wrote:

Like many said, the only real way to make Pudong better is [. . .] or extend the CRH network that way. It would still not be as good as Hongqiao, though, which is the best intermodal airport in mainland IMO.

That seems to be what they're doing with this airport express line. It uses the CRH network at SHA, and there's also a planned connector from Shanghai South station to the line.

c933103 wrote:

Instead they announced a new subway line from Hongqiao to Pudong http://www.caacnews.com.cn/1/5/201807/t ... 8_wap.html

sincx wrote:

Not quite a subway. Seems like this will be a 160 km/h "Airport Express" line, with 9 total stops and only 5 stops between the stations for the passenger terminals at SHA and PVG. An article estimated 30 minutes from airport to airport. I wouldn't be surprised if they tear down the stub-end maglev line after this is complete.

sincx wrote:

It uses the CRH network at SHA, and there's also a planned connector from Shanghai South station to the line.

That's very good news, didn't know about this one. It will definitely help.

Although I still think it will be needed to extend the CRH line to PVG to make life easier for people who go to Shaoxing, Jiaxing, Ningbo, Hangzhou, Suzhou etc (yes, I know about the existence of HGH, NGB and WUX but while they are all very nice airports they do not come close to PVG in terms of destinations and flight options, especially on the international side).

workhorse wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Instead they announced a new subway line from Hongqiao to Pudong http://www.caacnews.com.cn/1/5/201807/t ... 8_wap.html

sincx wrote:

Not quite a subway. Seems like this will be a 160 km/h "Airport Express" line, with 9 total stops and only 5 stops between the stations for the passenger terminals at SHA and PVG. An article estimated 30 minutes from airport to airport. I wouldn't be surprised if they tear down the stub-end maglev line after this is complete.

sincx wrote:

It uses the CRH network at SHA, and there's also a planned connector from Shanghai South station to the line.

That's very good news, didn't know about this one. It will definitely help.

Although I still think it will be needed to extend the CRH line to PVG to make life easier for people who go to Shaoxing, Jiaxing, Ningbo, Hangzhou, Suzhou etc (yes, I know about the existence of HGH, NGB and WUX but while they are all very nice airports they do not come close to PVG in terms of destinations and flight options, especially on the international side).

Hongqiao Station, where the proposed line will terminate at, is probably one of the largest HSR stations in the world and has trains that goes to basically every major cities in China.

And Shanghai East station, the other terminus, is also supposed to have direct trains to nearby cities as the station is planned to have 16 platforms (IIRC) plus a CRH maintenance facility.

Michael

workhorse wrote:

Don't know for the maglev but for regular HSR going at 360 km/h (fastest passenger trains existing today) vs 300 km/h (more typical speed) increases electricity consumption by 50%.

Wow. Had no idea it was that much. That said, Maglevs were never going to beat rail for efficiency, which is why they haven't caught on. If you think about it, not only do you need the energy to propel the vehicle and overcome air resistance, you also have to spend energy that supports the very heavy cars. The gain from reduced rolling friction isn't enough to overcome that.

glbltrvlr wrote:

Wow. Had no idea it was that much. That said, Maglevs were never going to beat rail for efficiency, which is why they haven't caught on. If you think about it, not only do you need the energy to propel the vehicle and overcome air resistance, you also have to spend energy that supports the very heavy cars. The gain from reduced rolling friction isn't enough to overcome that.

This too, but what really kills the maglev is the (lack of) interoperability with conventional rail. A high speed train can go on almost every rail track as long as it has electricity. See how in France the TGVs snake into small tortuous single track lines in the Northern Alps after leaving the high speed LGV lines. Of course, they go very slowly but still, this offers a non-stop link from Paris and London to remote Alpine resorts during the ski season. Same for China: the CRH can go everywhere if it's electrified.

If we see another maglev line it will be a point-to-point link between big cities in countries that do not already have an extended railway infrastructure.

Ironically, the best chance for maglev is the USA: almost non-existant passenger rail transport and big cities far from each other separated by scarcely populated areas.

In China, with its extensive rail network, maglev is dead (which is a pity: I like it).

eamondzhang wrote:

Hongqiao Station, where the proposed line will terminate at, is probably one of the largest HSR stations in the world and has trains that goes to basically every major cities in China.

I am aware of that. And that is what makes PVG look so pale compared to SHA. If foreign airlines were offered the choice, they would all move to SHA overnight. But of course, SHA is maxed out.

An example from real life. I will soon need to go to Shaoxing from CDG. Naturally I would choose PVG as my point of entry. But if I do that, I will have to get onto crowded line 2 (after 11-12 hours flight!) with all my luggage, and go to Hongqiao to catch up my train. So instead of that, I will fly to HGH and take a bus to Shaoxing (which takes about the same time as the train from Shanghai). But to get to HGH I can only go with Air China through PEK. Nothing against Air China, but at PVG I have literally dozens of options (different airlines, alliances, schedules, prices) to choose from. So Shanghai will have lost a passenger and I will have lost the choice.

eamondzhang wrote:

And Shanghai East station, the other terminus, is also supposed to have direct trains to nearby cities as the station is planned to have 16 platforms (IIRC) plus a CRH maintenance facility.

Hope they will make it as well serviced as Hongqiao. Why not make trains that terminate at Hongqiao continue to Pudong? It will require to turn them around at Hongqiao but that's why they have cab cars on both sides, right?

workhorse wrote:

glbltrvlr wrote:

Wow. Had no idea it was that much. That said, Maglevs were never going to beat rail for efficiency, which is why they haven't caught on. If you think about it, not only do you need the energy to propel the vehicle and overcome air resistance, you also have to spend energy that supports the very heavy cars. The gain from reduced rolling friction isn't enough to overcome that.

This too, but what really kills the maglev is the (lack of) interoperability with conventional rail. A high speed train can go on almost every rail track as long as it has electricity. See how in France the TGVs snake into small tortuous single track lines in the Northern Alps after leaving the high speed LGV lines. Of course, they go very slowly but still, this offers a non-stop link from Paris and London to remote Alpine resorts during the ski season. Same for China: the CRH can go everywhere if it's electrified.

If we see another maglev line it will be a point-to-point link between two big cities that do not have already existing railway infrastructure.

Ironically, the best chance for maglev is the USA: almost non-existant passenger rail transport and big cities far from each other separated by scarcely populated areas.

In China, with its extensive rail network, maglev is dead (which is a pity: I like it).

Well, for Maglev there's the (under construction) Chuo Shinkansen in Japan, reducing the time between Tokyo and Nagoya to 40 mins or so when it opened in 2027, and eventually reducing the time to Osaka to 67 mins (In another word, same as current HND-ITM flights) when that section is finished in 2037. It's VERY expensive, though.

As for US - they can't even get half a mile of regular HSR built correctly (Yes, there's the Acela, but it could have been MUCH better if they build more dedicated track for it), building Maglev that would be twice the cost of a HSR? Good luck.

P.S. The "Airport Express" Line definitely helps PVG quite a bit. Subway Line 2 simply takes way too long between the airports right now, as bad as trying to get between HND and NRT.

I completely agree with the post about airspace management (or lack thereof).

I have never seen such inefficient operations at any airport like PVG. The spacing between takeoffs and landings are just ridiciulously inefficient. It’s not unusual with minutes between departing aircrafts. In The western world it can be 20-30 secs.

Fix that first before spending billions on terminals.

EBGflyer wrote:

I completely agree with the post about airspace management (or lack thereof).

I have never seen such inefficient operations at any airport like PVG. The spacing between takeoffs and landings are just ridiciulously inefficient. It’s not unusual with minutes between departing aircrafts. In The western world it can be 20-30 secs.

Fix that first before spending billions on terminals.

It might be inefficient, but it's good enough. I believe there's a Chinese word or expression for that... 差不多

workhorse wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

Hongqiao Station, where the proposed line will terminate at, is probably one of the largest HSR stations in the world and has trains that goes to basically every major cities in China.

I am aware of that. And that is what makes PVG look so pale compared to SHA. If foreign airlines were offered the choice, they would all move to SHA overnight. But of course, SHA is maxed out.

An example from real life. I will soon need to go to Shaoxing from CDG. Naturally I would choose PVG as my point of entry. But if I do that, I will have to get onto crowded line 2 (after 11-12 hours flight!) with all my luggage, and go to Hongqiao to catch up my train. So instead of that, I will fly to HGH and take a bus to Shaoxing (which takes about the same time as the train from Shanghai). But to get to HGH I can only go with Air China through PEK. Nothing against Air China, but at PVG I have literally dozens of options (different airlines, alliances, schedules, prices) to choose from. So Shanghai will have lost a passenger and I will have lost the choice.

eamondzhang wrote:

And Shanghai East station, the other terminus, is also supposed to have direct trains to nearby cities as the station is planned to have 16 platforms (IIRC) plus a CRH maintenance facility.

Hope they will make it as well serviced as Hongqiao. Why not make trains that terminate at Hongqiao continue to Pudong? It will require to turn them around at Hongqiao but that's why they have cab cars on both sides, right?

Because many trains don't terminate at Hongqiao; or they terminate at Hongqiao to turnaround in a short timeframe (especially those going to Beijing/Hangzhou/Nanjing).

Going to Shaoxing you can always fly into PVG and take the long-distance bus (which I believe there should be direct services; haven't checked though). And since you're connecting anyway, you also have KLM, QR , CX/KA, QR, NH, CZ or even MU via KMG to name a few.

Michael

EBGflyer wrote:

I completely agree with the post about airspace management (or lack thereof).

I have never seen such inefficient operations at any airport like PVG. The spacing between takeoffs and landings are just ridiciulously inefficient. It’s not unusual with minutes between departing aircrafts. In The western world it can be 20-30 secs.

Fix that first before spending billions on terminals.

That's more of the issue with leaders in Chinese ATC system though, as they thought that any closer separations are risking too much that will harm their leadership. So rather than having an incident or even just one go around (which can be hell in China), they decided to increase the separation for the sake of safety.

And since 17LR/35LR (as well as 16LR/34LR) aren't far enough for independent operations (together with the fact that there's no such thing as visual separation in China), that creates the inefficiency.

Ps. If you don't spend billions on terminals, where can you get all the bribes? The majority of Chinese officials will never think otherwise.

Michael

Can any Mandarin speakers translate the other stops on that Airport Express line. I assume it will mostly be interchange stops with other metro lines.

moa999 wrote:

Can any Mandarin speakers translate the other stops on that Airport Express line. I assume it will mostly be interchange stops with other metro lines.

From west to east
Qibaozhen, Huajing, Sanlinnan, Zhangjiang
Qibaozhen station will be able to interchange with Qibai station for metro line 9, as for other stations, it seems like the plan have not been fixed yet and all the lines that they are planning to connect with are still in proposal stages too, like line 15/19/23/21/27 so there are no accurate/definite answer to that.

workhorse wrote:

glbltrvlr wrote:

Wow. Had no idea it was that much. That said, Maglevs were never going to beat rail for efficiency, which is why they haven't caught on. If you think about it, not only do you need the energy to propel the vehicle and overcome air resistance, you also have to spend energy that supports the very heavy cars. The gain from reduced rolling friction isn't enough to overcome that.

This too, but what really kills the maglev is the (lack of) interoperability with conventional rail. A high speed train can go on almost every rail track as long as it has electricity. See how in France the TGVs snake into small tortuous single track lines in the Northern Alps after leaving the high speed LGV lines. Of course, they go very slowly but still, this offers a non-stop link from Paris and London to remote Alpine resorts during the ski season. Same for China: the CRH can go everywhere if it's electrified.

If we see another maglev line it will be a point-to-point link between big cities in countries that do not already have an extended railway infrastructure.

Ironically, the best chance for maglev is the USA: almost non-existant passenger rail transport and big cities far from each other separated by scarcely populated areas.

In China, with its extensive rail network, maglev is dead (which is a pity: I like it).

Actually most passengers carried by high speed rail system are between important city pairs which usually have all, or mostly, dedicated tracks between them. Like high speed train services to London, most of the passengers are going to Paris or Brussels, and only very few of them visit Alpine resort with the train (frequencies that they run are just a few trains every weeks seasonally last time I checked)
You see situation like Japan where high speed rail services are almost totally separated from legacy rail network. And then in China you can also see most of those "G" services are running in totally new built high speed lines.

c933103 wrote:

Actually most passengers carried by high speed rail system are between important city pairs which usually have all, or mostly, dedicated tracks between them. Like high speed train services to London, most of the passengers are going to Paris or Brussels, and only very few of them visit Alpine resort with the train (frequencies that they run are just a few trains every weeks seasonally last time I checked)

Here's just a few French destinations that do not have dedicated HSR lines and yet get MULTIPLE DAILY TGVs: Grenoble, Chambery, Annecy, Bourg-Saint-Maurice, Bourg-en-Bresse, Geneva, Evian, Brest, Saint-Malo, La Rochelle...

The ability of high speed train to go "off track" is a MAJOR advantage for passengers and for governments (as a means to develop territories).

eamondzhang wrote:

Because many trains don't terminate at Hongqiao; or they terminate at Hongqiao to turnaround in a short timeframe (especially those going to Beijing/Hangzhou/Nanjing).

Well, there's a quite a bit of them that do. Short turnaround: that's true, but let's get to the original post. The official quoted there complained that PVG is a "dead end" and he's right. Creating a fast and convenient link to the west bank and a direct access to the HSR network is how you fix it. It would still be cheaper than building a third airport and would make much more sense than using Nantong.

eamondzhang wrote:

Going to Shaoxing you can always fly into PVG and take the long-distance bus

Well, I can take a bus from Urumqi too while we're at it. The key word was convenience.

workhorse wrote:

Here's just a few French destinations that do not have dedicated HSR lines and yet get MULTIPLE DAILY TGVs: Grenoble, Chambery, Annecy, Bourg-Saint-Maurice, Bourg-en-Bresse, Geneva, Evian, Brest, Saint-Malo, La Rochelle...

The ability of high speed train to go "off track" is a MAJOR advantage for passengers and for governments (as a means to develop territories).

P.S. See this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carte_TGV.svg Only blue lines are high-speed tracks.

workhorse wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Actually most passengers carried by high speed rail system are between important city pairs which usually have all, or mostly, dedicated tracks between them. Like high speed train services to London, most of the passengers are going to Paris or Brussels, and only very few of them visit Alpine resort with the train (frequencies that they run are just a few trains every weeks seasonally last time I checked)

Here's just a few French destinations that do not have dedicated HSR lines and yet get MULTIPLE DAILY TGVs: Grenoble, Chambery, Annecy, Bourg-Saint-Maurice, Bourg-en-Bresse, Geneva, Evian, Brest, Saint-Malo, La Rochelle...

The ability of high speed train to go "off track" is a MAJOR advantage for passengers and for governments (as a means to develop territories).

Just a reminder, Geneva is not a French but a Swiss destination, although admittedly it is supposed to be French speaking ( hard to find anyone speaking it except myself ) and has a TGV connection.

workhorse wrote:

workhorse wrote:

Here's just a few French destinations that do not have dedicated HSR lines and yet get MULTIPLE DAILY TGVs: Grenoble, Chambery, Annecy, Bourg-Saint-Maurice, Bourg-en-Bresse, Geneva, Evian, Brest, Saint-Malo, La Rochelle...

The ability of high speed train to go "off track" is a MAJOR advantage for passengers and for governments (as a means to develop territories).

P.S. See this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carte_TGV.svg Only blue lines are high-speed tracks.

Then the problem seems to be the speed of constructing the high speed network, first high speed line in China was only opened about 10 years ago and now the network have already been extended into most county.
Furthermore, given the existing high speed rail network in country like China, it's also possible to delegate the existing high speed rail lines for through service to other part of the network while letting maglev carry the point to point traffic.

c933103 wrote:

Then the problem seems to be the speed of constructing the high speed network, first high speed line in China was only opened about 10 years ago and now the network have already been extended into most county.

Things get done in China at incredible speed. The world has a lot to learn from it.

c933103 wrote:

Furthermore, given the existing high speed rail network in country like China, it's also possible to delegate the existing high speed rail lines for through service to other part of the network while letting maglev carry the point to point traffic.

Well I would like that to happen. I like maglev. It's futuristic, it's bold, it's (arguably) safer, faster. In France, we used to be bold like this, longtime ago. In the 60's, a guy called Bertin managed to talk authorities and private investors into funding a hovertrain line from Paris to Orleans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9rotrain . It was going to run at 350-400 km/h (in the 60s!). They built 18 kilometers, did essays (that worked out quite well) and then Bertin died, oil crisis came and now you can't even dream about trying something like that. Shareholders bla bla bla, ROI bla bla bla, budget deficit bla bla bla, austerity bla bla bla...

We'll see how it goes in China.

But we've gone terribly offtopic. To get back on it: before building a third Shanghai airport, let's give PVG a chance!