筆者早前發表的《九龍塘站重新規劃犧牲非乘客的利益》，已經批評了港鐵公司在取消九龍塘站的非付費通道卻未有任何補償方案乃犧牲非乘客的利益。幾天以來，傳媒也廣泛報道了這些不滿聲音。因此，筆者打算在此列出幾個補償方案，分析各方案的利弊。
1. 10分鐘內同站出閘免費
- 好處：毋須額外成本，而且非乘客仍可穿越車站大堂
- 壞處：只有持八達通人士才可受惠，而且有時間限制
2. 取消東鐵線南大堂轉線通道，改回非付費區，使觀塘線大堂南部可騰出空位設立連接大堂東西的非付費通道
- 好處：毋須額外成本，最接近昔日非乘客的習慣：任何人士均可毋須入出閘且無時限的情況下穿越車站大堂
- 壞處：東鐵線南大堂與觀塘線不能轉乘，需要繞經東鐵線北大堂，使人流集中在東鐵線月台北面部份
3. 在根德道、多福道及沙福道設交通燈及行人過路處
- 好處：方便非乘客在較安全的情況下使用地面道路
- 壞處：非乘客仍需要日曬雨淋，而且駛經該處的車輛將會受到影響
4. 興建一條接駁又一城至窩打老道的行人天橋系統 （如圖）
- 好處：非乘客可以在有遮擋且安全的通道直接來往又一城至窩打老道
- 壞處：成本高昂
以上四個方案各有利弊。最簡單及可行的方案就是同站出閘免費的方案，可是筆者認為港鐵公司未必答應，因為先例一開，其他被付費區分隔大堂的車站（如銅鑼灣站）的非乘客可能也會提出相同要求，相信這是港鐵公司未必願意見到的。而取消東鐵線南大堂轉線通道的方案明顯影響乘客利益，港鐵公司更不會答應。而在路面設交通燈，可能會使該處的路面擠塞，運輸署未必答應，而且非乘客也未必為一條仍須日曬雨淋的路線滿足。剩下興建行人天橋系統，看起來雖然美妙，不過最大的問題是誰願意付鈔？但若然出資的問題被解決，興建行人天橋系統不失為一個乘客與非乘客雙贏的方案。
會否考慮把有蓋通道建於教育服務中心？
回覆刪除先由沙福道A2站口連接扶手電梯或梯級往教育服務中心平台東面，
平台提供有蓋通道至另一端(平台東面往西面)，
再由西面平台連建新有蓋天橋誇過九鐵軌道往又一城，以減輕成本。
並可考慮多建有蓋天橋誇過九鐵軌道往生產力促進局或創新中心，
把九龍塘的多座地標建築一連貫。
回 dan：
回覆刪除閣下的提議也是可行的。相比於筆者的原方案，由於善用教育服務中心的平台，行人天橋的造價將可降低。但主要問題是那個平台屬於教育局的私人地方，需要他們同意將平台24小時開放。
In reality, I think that the problem of the current layout of Kowloon Tong Station can be easily changed.
回覆刪除Right now, the un-paid passage-way is from Exit C (Festival Walk) to East Rail Line Concourse. However, Exit C already can go to East Rail Line without going through Kwun Tong Line Concourse, because people at Exit C from Festival Walk can go through Exit H to go to East Rail Line instead.
Thus, if there was to be no unpaid passage way from Exit C to East Rail Line (they can go through Exit H instead), then the unpaid passage way can be from Exit A/E to East Rail Line Concourse.
(In clarify, Exit C1 and Exit H are actually one exit, thus if people from Festival Walk at Exit C2 were told to go to Exit C1 and then Exit H to East Rail Line, then they would not need to go through Kwun Tong Line)
回覆刪除Re wsyc:
回覆刪除Thanks for your comments, but so sorry that I do not quite understand how your suggestion can solve the problem.
The original unpaid passage way from Exit A/E to Exit C is currently blocked by the new paid area linking the 2 East Rail Line concourses. Therefore, the problem seems not to be related to the unpaid passage way for Exit C.
If you want to solve this problem by changing the layout of the station, the only possible solution is cutting the current paid area to 2 halfs: one is linking Northern ERL concourse and the northern part of KTL concourse, the other one is linking Southern ERL concourse and the southern part of KTL concourse. As a result, the middle part of KTL concourse can be served as the unpaid area. However, the major drawback is that such changes may confuse the passengers.
也許筆者用中文講多一次上面的回覆。現時問題的癥結在於本來的非付費通道，被一個連接東鐵北大堂、觀塘線大堂及東鐵南大堂的付費區所割裂。因此，這似乎與C出口的非付費通道無關。要從更改車站佈局方面去想，唯一的可行方法是將收費區一分為二：一個是連接東鐵北大堂及觀塘線大堂的北面一半，另一個則是連接東鐵南大堂及觀塘線大堂的南面一半。這樣便可預留觀塘線大堂的中間部份作為非付費通道了。而主要缺點就是可能會使乘客（尤其是轉車客）感到混亂。
回覆刪除Hmmm... I'll try to explain my suggest better (I'll try to draw a map if I have time later). But you know the Northern passage way between KTL and ERL? There is now also a unpaid passageway on the left-hand side linking Exit C and ERL. However, if the left-hand side passage is paid (So people at Exit C must go through the gates). Then the passageway on the right-hand-side (currently paid) can be turn into unpaid. Then the entire paid area would still be linked. But then there would be an unpaid area from Exit A/H to ERL. (I'll email you a map when I have time).
回覆刪除Re wsyc:
回覆刪除Thanks for your e-mail and map. I got your meaning now. You want to have a unpaid passage way from Exit A/E tp Northern ERL concourse, but not Festival Walk.
However, I do doubt whether it is useful for most people. In your proposal, non-passengers can only travel between Exit A/E and Exit G (near platform no.4, Kent Road & To Fuk Road), but they still cannot go to Festival Walk directly. I do not think your proposal is really what the non-passengers demend.
其實不一定要「取消東鐵線南大堂轉線通道，改回非付費區」，才能夠「騰出空位設立連接大堂東西的非付費通道」的。
回覆刪除可以將觀塘線大堂樓層分為兩個收費區，北面的收費區與東鐵北大堂相連，南面的收費區則與東鐵南大堂相連。兩個收費區之間便可設一條非付費通道，使A/D/E出口與B/C出口重新互通。付費區內的乘客則可經觀塘線月台樓層來往兩個收費區。
回 清風：
回覆刪除閣下的建議雖然不見於本文正文，但筆者也在本文回覆（第5、6個回應）中提及到（因為我在編寫本文之時還未構想到）。筆者認為這個方案也有一定的可行性，可是主要缺點就是可能會使乘客（尤其是轉車客）感到混亂。