partner.galileo.org/tips/davinci/idealcity.html

Maybe we need Leonardo DaVinci's "ideal city" based on 2 levels, the top level for walking .... and the bottom level for cars/subways/buses...

Sorry cannot reference the article, but London is proposing just such a plan, the exception being they are proposing to build elevated bike trails in the rail right of ways to make commuting by bicycle safer.

You can't access my link? I'm able to without any proxy.

I didn't know about London. Sounds good.

Here's another mad genius who had a "theory of compact city design" as an alternative to urban sprawl. And he built a prototype city in the Arizona desert. I think I'll put that on my bucket list to visit this place before I die. I guess you don't need subways in compact cities.
arcosanti.org/

I thought Beijing subway prices were 2 kuai no matter the distance or number of transfers, right? Oh right, I see what you mean Yuantongsi, if we are going to be paying 16 kuai... horrendous! Surely it can't be that expensive, nobody would use them, the target market of motorbikes wouldn't use it as it would be cheaper in electricity/petrol to do the trip on motorbike. Hell, at that price, it would probably be cheaper to drive as well!

I think that they are changing the prices in Beijing to make tickets more expensive during rush hour. It was in the news last month.

16rmb would be quite excessive for a second tier city. That would probably even be among the most expensive subway journeys in china (excluding airport lines)

The problem with making a business case for public infrastructure is that it cannot be done on a P&L or balance sheet basis. Perhaps the only real exception to this is the toll roads.
If you ramp up fares and fees to recoup costs you will drive away customers. The real cost benefit analysis has to consider the cost of not building the infrastructure. Many of these costs are not directly measurable, others are.
Unmeasurable costs include quality of life for commuters, and health benefits for those who live along congested transport routes who will indirectly breath lower levels of pollution as the traffic levels will be lower. The metro commuter will also benefit from better journey time reliability, and will be able to plan their work journeys more effectively.
Other benefits, some of which are measurable, include: the cost of congestion to businesses is high. Journeys take longer and work time journeys tie up staff for longer, fewer deliveries can be made in a day by each driver or delivery person, fuel costs are higher, you may need to buy more vehicles to service the same number of customers. Fewer sick days. The lower the cost of doing business the more the local economy thrives and that generates more than just money for the owners and more than just money for the city.
For the government, the city is more attractive to investors and FDI. The need to build new roads is also offset, by up to 3 years, and that has a direct fiscal benefit to the city.

However, if you ramp up fares and put off customers, then you lose all of these benefits, it may actually take longer to recoup the initial investment, as turnover of fares could be less, and the metro has not cost any less than it did before.
One lesson from Shanghai, if you wait for the customers to come, to give you the money to expand the network, it could be a long wait. But complete the network and passenger numbers will increase manyfold.

If you build line one it only serves the people who live AND work on or near line 1. If you build a second line (2). The line 1 can additionally serve all those who live on line 1 and work on line to (and V. versa). I.E. More than just those who live and work on line one PLUS those who live and work on line 2. The more lines you complete, the faster is the return on investment, and the greater all of the other benefits mentioned above.

If they only want middle class commuters, then charge 16rmb. But many middle class consumers will want to be able to enjoy the comfort of their own car and the ability to smoke cigarettes on their journey.

Build for the masses, and charge fares that the masses can afford. That way you serve the masses.

@yankee, you are correct. Beijing is increasing fare during peak travel time. They do this around the world to encourage people to alter their journey times if they can. This relieves some of the passenger pressure at peak travel times. It actually does work.
If the profit levels of the operator are controlled, then additional revenue can delay future fare increases, and is cost neutral to commuters in the longer term. If profit levels are controlled.

Has a decision been made on the Beijing subway price? I thought they were still looking at different options?

Anything to discourage people from driving all these dam# automobiles and/or taking taxis alla time.

@Yuantongsi, I think there's no concrete decision yet.

@Alien, do you use solar power or wind turbine for the electricity that powers your computer and router?