published_or_final_version / abstract / Transport Policy and Planning / Master / Master of Arts in Transport Policy and Planning

During the past decade, the high-speed rail (HSR) has got momentum in China, and a number of lines have been put into operation. However, it is noted that the HSR development in China is quite different from that in other regions. The discrepancies are mainly embodied in the duality of HSR types, the diversity of station locations, and the mixed-speed and cross-rail-type train running scheme. These characteristics have considerable impacts on the HSR stations in terms of the external accessibility in the HSR network as well as the internal accessibility in the cities. Based on the comparative study on the accessibility of main HSR stations in Yangtze River Delta, it is discovered that compared with the conventional rail (CR), the HSR has significantly improved the external accessibility of various cities. It is also found that the HSR has further enhanced the hub status of big cities in the rail network, while the differences among the other cities have been reduced, since the small cities have benefited much more from the HSR than the medium cities. Besides, introducing a new HSR line would improve the external accessibility of cities not only in the HSR network but also in the CR network, due to substantial increases in the efficiency of the whole rail system. In terms of the internal accessibility, it is found that the location choice of stations has significant impacts on the accessibility of HSR stations in cities, and the newly built stations have much lower accessibility due to their remote locations and the under-developed transport facilities and services connecting to them. Overall, for a complete journey by the HSR, the improvement in the external accessibility has made the internal accessibility of HSR stations more critical and sensitive. In this sense, more efforts should be paid to improve the urban transport system so as to fully utilize the positive effects brought about by the HSR. / published_or_final_version / Transport Policy and Planning / Master / Master of Arts in Transport Policy and Planning

Community engagement (CE) is an emerging concept with various definitions and acclaimed benefits. It became vital in the transport planning process because conventional approaches to transport planning no longer satisfy a diverse public and is required to improve the “quality of planning outcomes” (Booth and Richardson 2001, p. 148). Since Hong Kong will continue making railway the backbone for passenger transport, and very little (if any) community engagement has been explored for the city’s railway projects, this research aimed to appraise the role, adequacy, and effectiveness of CE in planning Hong Kong’s section of the high-speed Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link from years 2000 to 2010. Four objectives are pursued, which are to: (1) identify what community engagement (CE) means to the XRL project stakeholders, including their perceptions of CE strengths, weaknesses, and challenges during the XRL‘s planning process of Hong Kong‘s section; (2) identify major factors that shape the XRL project stakeholder understanding and perception of CE; (3) identify and evaluate the implications and the cause and effect that result from stakeholders’ understanding and perception of CE in planning Hong Kong‘s XRL section; and (4) identify scopes to improve the CE process for the city’s future transport infrastructure projects. The study first conducted a literature review. It then traced the development of CE in Hong Kong, particularly in the transport planning realm. News articles, MTR website on the XRL, and policy papers from the Legislative Council Policy Database were examined. A survey was distributed afterwards. 130 usable surveys were returned giving a 40.6% response rate. Results were then quantitatively analyzed with Spearman’s correlation and a two-tailed test. A member from each stakeholder group was lastly interviewed. Overall, CE improved since British rule, but its extent in planning the XRL fell short or according to Sheedy (2008), non-existent, thus making it ineffective in achieving CE benefits. By statute and the railway development process that professionals adhere to, genuine CE (or higher levels of it) are not encouraged nor guaranteed. Consequences include public resistance and protests after gazettal; respondents believing the government and MTR engagement efforts raised communities ‘buy-in’ of ‘pre-approved plans;’ “sometimes” disrespected and/or mistrusted their communities; “slightly” shared final decision-making with their communities; “sometimes” if not “always” used too much professional jargon; and only “slightly” to “sometimes” followed-up with communities after engaging them in the planning process. The CE concept in Hong Kong is not eminent either. Engaging people in the XRL planning process additionally showed no direct and comprehensive citizen involvement. This is probably due to the general public and government attitudes, which makes it challenging for genuine CE to occur on top of limited resources. On the bright side, many CE benefits were found true from descriptive analysis, and electronic media was deemed the most effective tool to engage citizens. From quantitative analysis, a stakeholder’s power and/or knowledge lacked a statistical significant relationship with how satisfied he or she was on how CE was conducted in XRL planning and his or her perceptions of it. A stakeholder’s exposure to CE, however, mostly had a negative statistically significant relationship with a few perceptions of community engagement. In the end, three major recommendations are offered to improve CE in Hong Kong’s transport planning framework. In no order of importance, the general community and XRL Sponsor (government and MTR) must change their attitude towards engagement. The XRL Sponsor must aggressively educate the general Hong Kong community about community engagement. Lastly, it should revise the Railways Ordinance to incorporate more CE characteristics. / published_or_final_version / Transport Policy and Planning / Master / Master of Arts in Transport Policy and Planning

published_or_final_version / Politics and Public Administration / Master / Master of Public Administration

published_or_final_version / Transport Policy and Planning / Master / Master of Arts in Transport Policy and Planning

published_or_final_version / Transport Policy and Planning / Master / Master of Arts in Transport Policy and Planning