TTC 8th Meeting Minutes [PDF]

Minutes of the 8th Meeting of Traffic and Transport Committee (T&TC) Southern District Council (SDC) (2016-2019)

Date Time Venue

: : :

20 March 2017 2:30 p.m. SDC Conference Room

Present: Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH Mr AU Lap-sing, MH Mr AU Nok-hin Mr CHAI Man-hon Ms CHAN Judy Kapui Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying Mr CHU Lap-wai Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH Mr LO Kin-hei Dr MAK TSE How-ling, Ada, MH Mr TSUI Yuen-wa Ms YAM Pauline Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN Mr CHAN Man-chun Mr CHONG King-wai Mr KWONG Tse-hin, Glenn Julian Mr WONG Chun-pong

Secretary: Miss LIN Man-wai, Michelle

In Attendance: Mr CHOW Chor-tim, JP Miss TSE Nga-lap, Lilian Mr LAU Kin-kwok Mr LI Hui-fung, Kevin Ms MAK Cheung-yan, Yammie Ms LAU Wai-yee, Carrie Mr LING Chi-wai, Jimmy

(Chairman of SDC) (Vice-Chairman of SDC and Chairman of T&TC) (Vice-Chairlady of T&TC)

Executive Officer (District Council) 3, Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department

District Officer (Southern), Home Affairs Department Assistant District Officer (Southern), Home Affairs Department Senior Transport Officer / Southern, Transport Department Transport Officer / Southern 1, Transport Department Engineer/Southern & Peak 1, Transport Department Engineer/Southern & Peak 2, Transport Department Engineer 10 (HK Island Div 2), Civil Engineering and

Ms CHAN Yun-yee Ms NG May-mey Mr KWONG Sze-yeung

Development Department District Engineer/South West, Highways Department District Operations Officer (Western), Hong Kong Police Force Officer-in-charge, District Traffic Team (Western), Hong Kong Police Force

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 2): Mr NG Hon-lai, Patrick Chief Transport Officer/ Bus and Railway 5, Mr LI Chiu-kit, Joe Ms CHUNG Man, Emily Mr Simon WONG Mr Calvin WONG Mr Kevin LI Mr Philip WONG Ms Peggy WONG Mr LEUNG Wang-cheong

Transport Department Senior Transport Officer/ Railway 6, Transport Department Transport Officer/ Railway 6, Transport Department Planning & Scheduling Manager, Citybus / New World First Bus Services Limited Senior Planning Officer, Citybus / New World First Bus Services Limited Public Affairs Manager, Citybus / New World First Bus Services Limited Operations Manager (Dept. One), Citybus Limited Assistant Manager (P & D), Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited Assistant Manager (Lai Chi Kok Depot), Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 3): Mr FU Ting-hong, Derek Senior Transport Officer/Bus/HK 1, Transport Department Miss SIN Kai-wai, Marie Senior Transport Officer/Bus & Railway/Special Duties, Transport Department Mr Simon WONG Planning & Scheduling Manager, Citybus / New World First Bus Services Limited Mr Calvin WONG Senior Planning Officer, Citybus / New World First Bus Services Limited Mr Kevin LI Public Affairs Manager, Citybus / New World First Bus Services Limited Mr Philip WONG Operations Manager (Dept. One), Citybus Limited Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 4): Mr KONG Tai-wing Dep Project Mgr/Major Works(1), Highways Department Ms O Fong-wa, Julie Senior Engineer 1/Universal Accessibility, Highways Department Ms CHEUNG Wing-yan Engineer 2/Universal Accessibility, Highways Department Mr Johnny CHUNG Associate, Parsons Brinckerhoff (Asia) Ltd

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 5): Mr FU Ting-hong, Derek Senior Transport Officer/Bus/HK 1, Transport Department Mr Kevin LI Public Affairs Manager, Citybus / New World First Bus Services Limited

Opening Remarks: The Chairman welcomed Members and the following regular government representatives to the meeting: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

Mr LAU Kin-kwok, Senior Transport Officer of Transport Department (TD); Mr LI Hui-fung, Transport Officer of TD; Ms LAU Wai-yee and Ms MAK Cheung-yan, Engineers of TD; Mr LING Chi-wai, Engineer of Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD); Ms CHAN Yun-yee, District Engineer of Highways Department (HyD); Ms NG May-mey, District Operations Officer (Western) of Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF); and Mr KWONG Sze-yeung, Officer-in-charge, District Traffic Team (Western) of HKPF.

2. The Chairman suggested that each Member should be allotted a maximum of two three-minute slots to speak in respect of each agenda item. Members agreed to this arrangement.

Agenda Item 1:

Confirmation of the Minutes of the 7th Meeting held on 9 January 2017

3. The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, the above draft minutes of meeting in Chinese and English had been circulated to Members for comments. The Secretariat had not received any amendment proposals from Members so far. 4. The minutes of the 7th T&TC meeting in Chinese and English were confirmed by the Committee.

Agenda Item 2:

Public Transport Re-organisation Plan to tie in with the Commissioning of the South Island Line (East) (Item raised by the Transport Department) (TTC Paper No. 7/2017)

(Mr CHONG King-wai joined the meeting at 4:02 p.m.) 5.

The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of the Transport

Department (TD) and bus companies to the meeting; (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i)

Mr NG Hon-lai, Chief Transport Officer/ Bus and Railway 5, TD; Mr LI Chiu-kit, Senior Transport Officer/ Railway 6, TD; Ms CHUNG Man, Transport Officer/ Railway 6, TD; Mr Simon WONG, Planning & Scheduling Manager, Citybus (CTB) / New World First Bus Services Limited (NWFB); Mr Calvin WONG, Senior Planning Officer, CTB / NWFB; Mr Kevin LI, Public Affairs Manager, CTB / NWFB; Mr Philip WONG, Operations Manager (Dept. One), CTB; Ms Peggy WONG, Assistant Manager (P & D), Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited (KMB); and Mr LEUNG Wang-cheong, Assistant Manager (Lai Chi Kok Depot), KMB.

6 The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, Mr CHAI Man-hon and Mr AU Nok-hin notified the Secretariat that they wished to make oral statements on the public transport re-organisation plan (PT Plan) to tie in with the commissioning of the South Island Line (East) (SIL(E)). In accordance with Section 29 of the Standing Orders, each oral statement shall not take more than three minutes. 7. The Chairman invited Mr CHAI Man-hon and Mr AU Nok-hin to make oral statements. 8 Mr CHAI Man-hon stated that recently there was a lot of negative public opinion about TD because TD had constantly tried to shirk its responsibilities. Neither had it responded to suggestions relating to public transport route design, nor had it allowed public participation in the solution of public transport problems. All proposals of the PT Plan for the Southern District were unacceptable and complained by the public. He said that the entire PT Plan started five years ago and involved the engagement of a consultant to conduct a study, which cost HK$4.17 million and included the necessary PT Plan after the commissioning of the West Island Line (WIL) and SIL(E). When the study was under way, the Committee had put forth a number of suggestions, such as improvement of traffic signals in areas not served by the railway, the design of bus stops and introduction of the rapid bus transport system, etc. However, the consultant had achieved nothing while Members’ suggestions were to no avail. The existing facilities in Wong Chuk Hang Station Public Transport Interchange were no different from an ordinary bus terminus. Not only did its name fall short of the reality, but it was totally a waste of resources. He further stated that TD’s rigid mindset of public administration was disappointing. Without public participation in preparing the report of the consultancy study, which had indeed achieved nothing, it was hardly believable that TD had upheld the principle of fairness and had not been partial towards the bus companies’ interests, thus giving the impression of collusion between Government and the business sector. In addition, he cited two news reports. The first was that a spokesperson of the NWS Holdings Limited (NWS) said on 23 September 2015 that NWS was considering cutting down the number of buses by 64 due to the commissioning of the new railway line. The same spokesperson reported on 22 February 2017 again that NWS intended to cut down the number of buses by about 60 in view of the impacts brought about by the commissioning of SIL(E). He also pointed out that a number of proposals in the

study report were not accepted, including strengthening the feeder bus services serving railway stations and the PT Plan of individual routes such as CTB Route No. 71, etc. In view of the above, he reprimanded TD and NWS. 9. Mr AU Nok-hin stated that he was discontented with TD’s PT Plan after the commissioning of SIL(E). He said he heard before the meeting that the main purpose of the PT Plan was to substantially reduce the number of buses so as to redeploy resources to other districts. He commented that it was not blameable to readjust bus services after the railway system started operation. But the bus companies, out of a desire of cutting down the number of buses serving the Southern District and being condoned by TD, had finally proposed a PT Plan which was based on wrong criteria and wrong judgment of demands. He further pointed out three main problems of the PT Plan. First, the frequency adjustment of certain bus routes was not supported by data. Using Cross Harbour Tunnel (XH) Route Nos. 171A and 171P as examples, he said that the data in Annex 1 showed that the average occupancy rates during peak hours after the commissioning of SIL(E) had dropped by 27% and 40%, respectively. However, the relative numbers of buses to be cut from these two routes in the PT Plan were exactly opposite. This had caused an impression that the Plan was partial towards passengers of XH Route No. 171P, thus creating a dissension between different communities. Moreover, the PT Plan had betrayed passengers in the Southern District. Using NWFB Route Nos. 94 and 94X as examples, he said that according to the survey, the numbers of passengers during peak hours in the morning were 494 and 326, respectively, totalling 820. If the two routes were amalgamated, with NWFB Route No. 94X being cancelled as proposed, then more than 130 passengers would be unable to board the reserved NWFB Route No. 94 bus at each morning departure. Finally, TD had ignored the repercussions of frequency reduction because reduced frequencies would mean longer waiting time. However, the bus companies had delayed the provision of real-time arrival information system for bus routes serving the Southern District to facilitate passengers who wished to know the required waiting times at various bus stops. 10.

The Chairman invited Mr NG Hon-lai to brief Members on the paper.

11. Mr NG Hon-lai said that the agenda item aimed to report the change in the travelling pattern of Southern District residents after the commissioning of SIL(E) and the latest revised proposals regarding the PT Plan. Moreover, having noted Members’ comments on the presentation of bus route patronage change given at Annex 1, TD had provided information of patronage change for each affected bus routes in the form of Supplementary Information for Members’ reference via the Secretariat before the meeting. He further said that to tie in with the commissioning of SIL(E) on 28 December 2016, TD had provided eight rail feeder franchised bus and green minibus (GMB) routes on the same day, in order to serve the residents in the Southern District that were distant from the SIL(E) stations. As expected, the passenger demand and travelling pattern of residents in Southern district had changed significantly after the commissioning of SIL(E). Some of the passengers who previously used franchised bus, GMB or other road-based public transport had switched to walking or using rail feeder services to the new stations for railway service. According to the information provided by the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRC), there were currently 110 000 passengers using SIL(E) daily. Meanwhile, some of the bus routes with the routeing overlapping with the new railway also

suffered from a significant drop in patronage. TD conducted surveys on the affected bus routes during different time periods before and after the commissioning of SIL(E) (i.e. the normal working and school days in February 2017 after the Lunar New Year holidays), and gathered data for analysing the changes in passenger demand pattern. After collecting the data, TD and the bus companies had made reference to the passenger demand pattern after the commissioning of SIL(E), TD’s Guidelines on Service Improvement and Reduction in Bus Route Planning Programme (the Guidelines), and the views on the PT Plan raised by Members, in order to review and revise the proposals of the PT Plan (see Annexes 2 to 9 for details). Some proposals in the original PT Plan were withdrawn for failing to comply with the criteria of the Guidelines, such as the original proposal of cancelling CTB Route No. 71. 12. Mr LI Chiu-kit, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation, briefed Members on the feeder arrangements of different public transport combinations after the commissioning of SIL(E) (see TTC Paper No. 7/2017 for details). 13. Mr NG Hon-lai added that TD understood the inconvenience caused to the affected passengers arising from the re-organisation of bus services and the change to the travelling pattern of passengers. However, under the principle of optimal utilisation of resources, TD had already considered the views of all parties and balanced their needs, and would propose corresponding measures to minimise the impacts on the passengers. TD planned to implement the revised proposals without much controversy in phases starting from April 2017. Prior to the implementation of the proposals, the franchised bus companies would put up notices at termini and en-route stops informing affected passengers of the details of the new services. He understood that Members would still disagree to the revised PT Plan. But he stressed that TD would listen carefully to Members’ comments and then reviewed the PT Plan with the bus companies. Finally, he hoped that the good relationship built up during the consultation process in the past few years could be maintained, and both parties could adopt an attitude of seeking common ground while keeping the differences and discuss the PT Plan in a rational and pragmatic manner with a view to achieving a win-win situation and creating a diversified and viable transport network for the Southern District. 14.

The Chairman invited Members to raise enquiries and comments.

15. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN requested TD to reconsider the arrangement of reducing the frequency of CTB Route No. 43M. He pointed out that as Pok Fu Lam was currently not served by the railway system, the residents could only rely on efficient bus services. He commented that it was necessary to maintain the frequency of at least one departure every 15 minutes, or else the passengers might choose to take taxis or drive themselves due to prolonged waiting time and thus aggravated the problem of traffic congestion. He also opined that if the bus companies incurred higher costs for maintaining the frequency of at least one departure every 15 minutes, then the Government had the responsibility of compensating the bus companies. Finally, he requested TD to be concerned about the franchised bus and GMB services that routed via Pok Fu Lam and hoped that the frequencies of at least one departure every 15 minutes could be maintained for all routes.

16. Mr CHAI Man-hon raised an enquiry on the rules of order and suggested that the Committee discuss the seven packages of the PT Plan one by one. 17. In view of the integrity of the discussion paper, the Chairman considered it more appropriate to discuss the PT Plan as a whole and so did not accept Mr CHAI Man-hon’s suggestion. 18. Mr CHAI Man-hon raised an enquiry on the rules of order again and suggested that the discussion be conducted in the format of “one question followed by one reply”. 19. The Chairman responded that the discussion procedure adopted by the Committee was relatively time-saving and so did not accept Mr CHAI Man-hon’s suggestion. 20. A number of Members raised further comments and enquiries on the PT Plan to tie in with the commissioning of SIL(E), which were summarised as follows: (a)

Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying said that it was unacceptable that the frequencies of XH Route No. 973 and CTB Route No. 66 during peak and off-peak hours were both between 20 and 30 minutes. If a lost trip situation occurred, the waiting passengers would be greatly affected. She remarked that the residents of Stanley had been seriously affected upon commissioning of SIL(E). Owing to the increasing number of passengers travelling to Ocean Park Station for taking MTR, the public transport resources directly serving between Stanley and Aberdeen had been diluted. Neither had TD adjusted the bus and GMB services according to the actual needs. She continued that without school bus service and in consideration of their financial statuses, most parents who had to accompany their children to school preferred buses to MTR. She lamented that TD’s PT Plan was not comprehensive and only tried to amalgamate bus routes and reduce frequencies. She thus objected to all route proposals for areas including Stanley, Ma Hang Estate and San Wai;

(b)

Mr AU Nok-hin opined that it was too lenient to TD to discuss the PT Plan as a whole. Regarding the PT Plan, he opined that the proposal of truncating the routeing of CTB Route No. 97 and relocating its terminating point to Admiralty (East) Bus Terminus was not only unjustified, but also neglected Members’ opposing views against the arrangement raised in the past two years. The proposal for XH Route No. 671 also revealed that TD had no intention to accept Members’ suggestions. He criticised that TD’s comment of balancing all parties’ views was its own wishful thinking and remarked that TD amounted to betraying the Southern District residents by submitting such a regressive plan after two years’ consultation. Finally, he requested TD to explain the reasons for re-organising CTB Route No. 97 and XH Route No. 671;

(c)

Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH requested TD to provide the reason for cancelling CTB Route No. 90C. She pointed out that according to the information, the occupancy rates of CTB Route No. 90C and NWFB

Route No. 590A in the peakiest hour were 38.8% and 31.1%, respectively. But TD chose to retain the service of the latter route, which was unreasonable. She emphasised that CTB Route No. 90C routed via Queen’s Road East. Its service catchment could not be replaced by CTB Route No. 90 and NWFB Route No. 590A, which routed via Hennessy Road and Gloucester Road, respectively. She remarked that TD did not cater for the needs of commuters and school children and so strongly objected to the cancellation of CTB Route No. 90C. However, if TD wished to adjust the frequency of CTB Route No. 90C and provide departures during the morning peak period, then there was still room for discussion. As for NWFB Route No. 91, since its occupancy rate exceeded 92%, relocating its terminating point to Central (Macau Ferry Piers) Bus Terminus would cause inconvenience to residents who worked on the Outlying Islands. Finally, she enquired whether TD had consulted the relevant District Councils on bus routes that spanned across districts; (d)

Mr CHU Lap-wai expressed disappointment about TD’s work. He remarked that since the commissioning of WIL, TD had never responded squarely to Members’ aspirations of principle, including how to re-allocate the buses left unused after reducing the bus frequencies. He considered it very important to the residents’ well-being to allocate the bus resources effectively. But TD had not squarely responded to this question. He further pointed out that since areas such as Aberdeen, Shek Pai Wan, Wah Fu and Wah Kwai Estates were not served by the railway system, the operators should fulfil their social responsibilities by devoting more bus resources to provide more choices and services for the aforesaid areas. Besides, he queried why the PT Plan was always focused on individual routes. He contended that TD should consider the needs of local passengers from a macroscopic perspective when rearranging the routes and frequencies. Otherwise, unfairness was inevitable. For example, while the occupancy rate of NWFB Route No. 95 had increased, its frequency was reduced because of patronage decrease. Objectively speaking, TD should not reduce the frequency just because there was a slight adjustment of 7% in the patronage. He further remarked that being a local route, theoretically speaking NWFB Route No. 95 should not be affected by the commissioning of SIL(E). He thus strongly objected to the proposal of reducing the frequency of NWFB Route No. 95;

(e)

Concurring with Mr CHU Lap-wai’s comment, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH objected to reducing the frequency of NWFB Route No. 95. She also requested that the existing service of CTB Route No. 90 be maintained. She commented that the bus companies should understand that the patronage of different routes would change differently at different time slots. They should not just focus on the patronage and forget their social responsibilities. She pointed out that the arrangements of route amalgamation and frequency reduction could not solve the problem of patronage decrease. Recently members of the public had expressed to her their dissatisfaction about TD’s arrangement of CTB Route No. 90. She also enquired whether the frequency of 20 minutes during peak periods of CTB Route No. 90 was a typographical error. Moreover, she

said that although NWFB and CTB belonged to the same corporate group, the former did not provide fare concessions for elderly aged between 60 and 65. In this regard, if the routeing of CTB Route No. 90 was truncated and terminated at Admiralty (East) Bus Terminus, then elderly passengers aged between 60 and 65 would have to change to other bus routes operated by NWFB to travel to and from Central. The difference in bus fares could be as much as $9. She criticised that TD and the bus companies for not caring about the elderly just because the number of elderly only constituted 11% of the population of the Southern District. On the contrary, they should care more about the elderly in view of the trend of population ageing. Finally, she considered that reducing the frequency of XH Route No. 671 during peak periods to one departure every 15 to 60 minutes was hardly acceptable; (f)

Ms CHAN Judy Kapui opposed the re-organisation arrangement of XH Route No. 671. She explained that there was only a slight drop in the patronage of XH Route No. 671 during peak periods and there was great demand for that bus route. If the passengers were required to use MTR, they would have to interchange lines for several times, resulting in a roundabout journey. As for NWFB Route No. 590A, although its average occupancy rate in the peakiest hour had dropped to 31.1%, it remained a popular bus route because its routeing, especially the section between Causeway Bay and Wan Chai, was more convenient than MTR. In this connection, she opined that if the final PT Plan decided to cancel this route, then consideration should be given to using other bus routes to replace the service provided by NWFB Route No. 590A for the section between Causeway Bay and Wan Chai. She opined that the service provided by CTB Route No. 592 was in no way related to the railway. She explained that the bus route provided passengers with direct transport service between South Horizons and Causeway Bay. If passengers were to use the railway system, they had to go to Admiralty using SIL(E) and then change to the Island Line. The congestion at Admiralty Station might even cause delay to their journey. For this reason, she opposed the proposal of reducing the frequency of CTB Route No. 592;

(g)

Mr WONG Chun-pong raised the following enquiries to TD and the bus companies: (i)

(ii) (iii)

(iv)

(v)

whether the bus companies had any indicator of the number of buses to be cut, given that the NWS spokesperson said via the press that about 60 buses would be cut; the actual number of non-scheduled buses (nicknamed “chariots”) to be cut; whether the bus companies were pressed for time to redeploy the reduced bus resources serving the Southern District to new routes, such as KMB Route No. 613 and CTB Route No. 930X; the travelling time saved for the various bus routes due to alleviation of congestion of Aberdeen Tunnel after the commissioning of SIL(E); whether TD had any indicator of the number of buses to be cut;

(vi)

why TD did not submit the paper to the Committee until 15 March 2017 as it said that the patronage survey was completed in late February; (vii) according to TD’s Guidelines in 2010, an occupancy rate of 85% meant that there were 10 to 15 standing passengers. But the occupancy rates of buses varied according to the bus models. He enquired whether TD had adjusted the survey data according to different bus models; (viii) whether TD had any data showing that the patronage from South Horizons to Aberdeen had decreased, given that the passenger source of NWFB Route No. 595 overlapped those of CTB Route Nos. 90B and 95C; (ix) regarding the routes proposed to be terminated at Admiralty, he wished to know at what locations the surveyors engaged by TD counted the number of passengers travelling from Admiralty to Central; and (x) further to the above question, the exact number of passengers affected by re-organisation of the aforesaid routes; (h)

Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP said that after the commissioning of SIL(E), it was understandable that the Government and bus companies wished to reduce the number of buses with a view to improving the traffic conditions and environment. However, TD should not use the PT Plan as a means to actually force the residents to take MTR. The PT Plan should be forward looking and take into consideration the future local development. For example, it was expected that upon completion of the new residential property projects in Wong Chuk Hang, the residents would take MTR or buses to Aberdeen or other areas for consumption activities. TD should thus have a foresight in traffic planning. Otherwise, the drastic increase in patronage could not be supported by the public transport system. Regarding the frequency reduction of some routes proposed in Annex 9, since Chi Fu was not served by the railway, the bus routes concerned should be unrelated to the commissioning of SIL(E). He did not understand why the average occupancy rate in the peakiest half-hour of CTB Route No. 37X had increased while the patronage had dropped. Moreover, there was no feeder transport from Chi Fu to Wong Chuk Hang Station and the residents had to take CTB Route No. 37A. But since there was a distance between the bus stop and the MTR station, he hoped that the bus stop could be relocated to Yip Hing Street. He stressed that there was a certain demand for the service of CTB Route No. 37A and the average occupancy rate in the peakiest half-hour of NWFB Route No. 38 was also very high. He thus objected to frequency reduction of the aforesaid routes;

(i)

Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that while the PT Plan had addressed to the main aspirations of the residents in Wong Chuk Hang, i.e. retaining the services of CTB Route Nos. 71 and 75, TD was crafty with the details by lowering their frequencies, which was unacceptable to the residents. He continued that TD had adopted an inappropriate re-organisation tactic of first reducing the frequencies of bus routes serving Lei Tung and Ap Lei Chau,

which had resulted in patronage drop due to passengers’ unwillingness to wait for a long time, and then cancelling the routes. Besides, re-organisation of bus routes was closely related to the GMBs. Since the routeing of NWFB Route No. 95B and CTB Route No. 97A proposed to be cancelled overlapped the routeing of GMB Route No. 29, TD could consider coordinating with the operator of that GMB route to minimise the impacts on the passengers; (j)

Mr LO Kin-hei opined that the discussion and consultation on the PT Plan as well as the consultancy study conducted in the past two years were fruitless. The Committee had already stated that the PT Plan was unacceptable. TD had nonetheless clung to its own course, and even neglected the consensus on some of the routes reached by the Committee, such as the proposal of allowing two to three morning departures of XH Route No. 671 to run the express routeing, the objection to relocating the terminating point of CTB Route Nos. 90 and 97 from Central to Admiralty while leaving open the possibility of further discussion of frequency or routeing adjustment, and the objection to the re-routeing of CTB Route No. 90 via Lei Tung, etc. He also queried why CTB did not plan to install the real-time arrival information system until its franchise was about to expire. Besides, he was discontented that the frequency of CTB Route No. 97A during the morning peak period had been lowered to one departure every 35 minutes, which had greatly affected commuters and the underprivileged who had to take that route;

(k)

Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH said that by providing the Southern District residents with an additional option of public transport and also helping divert the vehicle flow of Aberdeen Tunnel, SIL(E) was a leap forward. But the PT Plan was quite on the contrary. TD must understand that not all residents, especially the elderly, would opt for MTR, because it was inconvenient to change trains. When mapping out the PT Plan, TD should assume the social responsibility and accurately understand the local traffic needs. He opined that the re-organisation of some bus routes that had no overlapping with the railway was unreasonable. He continued that as the patronage of NWFB Route No. 590A had dropped significantly, the re-organisation arrangement was relatively acceptable to the residents. But he suggested providing an alternative by re-routeing NWFB Route No. 590 via Tonnochy Road. Moreover, he objected to relocating the terminating point of CTB Route No. 90 from Central to Admiralty and contended that the frequency of CTB Route No. 592 should not be reduced as this route was unrelated to the commissioning of SIL(E); and

(l)

Mr CHAI Man-hon commented that the discussion of this agenda item was not conducted in a satisfactory way and hoped that the issue could be put under review again. He also said that there was room of deliberation between the Committee and TD on the PT Plan. The Committee did not intentionally try to hinder the bus route re-organisation. But TD and the bus companies had caused a stalemate in the PT Plan by neglecting Members’ views. He was also worried that it would be difficult to secure

the bus resources that had been cut down. He hoped that the Committee could focus on discussion of the following issues with a view to reaching a consensus. The first issue was the choice between routes with higher and lower fares. He contended that the bus companies intended to retain routes with higher fares such as NWFB Route No. 590, and cut bus services with lower fares such as CTB routes serving Ap Lei Chau with a fare of HK$4.7. The Committee should thus seek to retain the latter type of routes while the former type could be reduced if there were alternatives. The second issue was whether the terminating points of some bus routes should be located in Central or Admiralty. If the Committee had a definitive desire of retaining the Central Terminus, it should then make it clear. The third issue was whether the bus routes serving Ap Lei Chau needed to route via both the eastern and western sides. The fourth issue was that the frequency reduction of certain bus routes unrelated to SIL(E) was an unreasonable arrangement. The fifth issue was that TD did not mention the addition of public transport feeder services serving MTR stations, such as CTB Route No. 48 and NWFB Route No. 78 serving Wong Chuk Hang Station, CTB Route No. 43M and GMB Route No. 23 serving HKU Station and Kennedy Town Station. Finally, he enquired how TD was to expedite the vehicle flow by increasing the number of buses using Wong Chuk Hang Flyover. 21. Mr NG Hon-lai gave a consolidated response to Members’ enquiries and comments as follows: (a)

in response to a Member’s enquiry concerning the method and time of the patronage surveys, he clarified that after noting Members’ comments, TD had conducted a survey at the peakiest loading point of each bus route concerned during the peak and off-peak periods on the normal working and school days before and after the commissioning of SIL(E), in order to have an accurate picture of the occupancy rate at the peakiest loading point and the maximum patronage of each bus route. Apart from arranging for surveyors to record the number of boarding and alighting passengers at roadside bus stops, TD also arranged for surveyors to count the number of passengers in bus compartments. Therefore the data in Annex 1 were highly accurate. TD calculated the occupancy rates and the passengers’ demands based on these data and reviewed the arrangements in the original proposals by making reference to the TD’s established Guidelines. If a route did not meet the concerned criteria for re-organisation, TD had already withdrawn the proposal concerned. If a route met the criteria for route cancellation, amalgamation, truncation and frequency reduction, TD would handle it according to the Guidelines. TD understood that Members still disagreed with individual proposals, and so would deliberate with the bus companies to review whether the proposals required further fine-tuning or rationalisation and to optimise the arrangements of alternative services, before discussing with Members again. Regarding the criticism that Annex 9 proposed reducing the frequency of some bus routes that did not overlap the routeing of the railway, he explained that although the origins of those routes were not served by the railway, they would route via MTR stations and were also

affected by the commissioning of SIL(E). For example, buses departing from the western part of the Southern District would route via areas such as Wong Chuk Hang. Some passengers would change to MTR at en-route stops and so the overall patronage and occupancy rate would change. TD had proposed frequency adjustment in light of these changes in accordance with the Guidelines. Nevertheless, these arrangements were only proposals. TD had noted Members’ comments and understood that some bus routes had greater demand at specific time slots and would thus handle the issues with the bus companies carefully. The adjustment would be implemented in phases to minimise the impacts on the passengers; (b)

regarding the frequency of CTB Route No. 43M, since residents in the vicinity of Cyberport and Victoria Road could take GMB Route No. 69A to Wong Chuk Hang Station via Aberdeen after the commissioning of SIL(E), the demand for CTB Route No. 43M had changed. TD understood that the residents had a certain demand for the bus service serving MTR stations of Island Line provided by CTB Route No. 43M and would thus handle the issue prudently. Regarding the existing services provided by franchised buses and GMBs serving Pok Fu Lam, TD would monitor the situation meticulously with the public transport operators concerned and consider how to satisfy the residents’ needs;

(c)

since the departure times of the first three departures of XH Route No. 973 would be advanced by about 10 minutes and this route would re-route via Sham Wan, TD considered that this would not affect the passengers of the existing XH Route No. 973P much. TD noted Members’ comments on frequency reduction of this route during off-peak periods and would review with the bus company again. Moreover, although the patronage of NWFB Route No. 66 had dropped by 12.6%, its average occupancy rate in the peakiest half-hour remained to be 93.3% and so no adjustment would be made to the frequencies during the peakiest period. But since the occupancy rates at other time slots only ranged from 10% to 67%, it was proposed that the frequencies during other time slots be reduced. Furthermore, TD would pay attention to the demand for bus services of residents in Stanley and Ma Hang, especially the alternative services of CTB Route Nos. 6 and 6X;

(d)

regarding the re-organisation of bus routes serving Ap Lei Chau, the average occupancy rate in Central district at the peakiest hour of NWFB Route No. 91 was 17%, satisfying the criteria for route truncation set out in the Guidelines. The proposal of relocating the terminating point to Macau Ferry Piers was to stay away from the busiest roads in Central district. Since the journey distance had been shortened, the bus fare would be reduced from HK$5.8 to HK$5.6. In response to a Member’s query why the Ap Lei Chau-bound routeing did not route via Queen’s Road Central, he replied that there was alternative service such as CTB Route No. 90B. The survey data also showed that CTB Route Nos. 90 and 97 satisfied the criteria for route truncation. TD agreed that the railway system could provide the Southern District residents with an

additional option and would liaise with the bus companies again on the passengers’ demands. Regarding the differences in providing fare concessions for the elderly by different bus companies, TD would consider this factor when reviewing the proposals; (e)

regarding the frequency arrangement for XH Route No. 671, the survey data showed that upon commissioning of SIL(E), the patronage dropped by 24% and the average occupancy rate in the peakiest half-hour was 82.5%, which satisfied the criteria for frequency reduction. But TD opined that this could be implemented in two phases. In the first phase the frequencies on the whole day would be adjusted according to the changes in the passengers’ demand. A patronage survey would be conducted after the adjustment to observe the patronage during the off-peak periods and consider whether to implement the second phase of service time reduction. TD understood Member’s concern over the impacts of frequency reduction on the passengers and so would step up communication with the bus companies with a view to maintaining the operational efficiency of the bus network as well as satisfying passengers’ needs;

(f)

regarding a Member’s enquiry about the different re-organisation arrangements for CTB Route No. 90C and NWFB Route No. 590A, the reason was that the frequency of the latter route during peak periods was less than one departure every 15 minutes. Thus according to the Guidelines, frequency reduction was required. As for CTB Route No. 90C, since there were only 11 departures one day and the frequency was one departure every 15 minutes, the criteria for route cancellation was satisfied. TD understood that some school students needed to go to school in Wan Chai by taking CTB Route No. 90C and would thus deliberate with the bus company again. But he stressed that since the commissioning of SIL(E), the occupancy rate of CTB Route No. 90C was low and the arrangement was in compliance with the Guidelines;

(g)

in response to a Member’s enquiry about how the resources saved under the PT Plan were to be used, he said that upon commissioning of SIL(E), many residents had opted for the MTR service during the peak periods, thus resulting in loss of a large number of passengers sustained by the bus companies. He hoped Members would understand that TD had the responsibility of ensuring optimal use of transport resources so as to maintain an efficient and effective public transport network. Some of the resources saved under the PT Plan would be transferred to routes with increasing demands from passengers, including routes serving the Southern District. TD would urge the bus companies to devote part of the resources back to the Southern District and enhance the bus services for areas that were distant from the railway;

(h)

in respect of the rise of occupancy rate coupled with drop of patronage of NWFB Route No. 95, he said that although the routeing of this route did not totally fall within the area served by the railway, the passengers’ demand for this route at some en-route stops might be affected by the

commissioning of SIL(E). Moreover, since the survey was conducted in a random manner to calculate the occupancy rate in the peakiest half-hour / hour and the traffic conditions might vary from day to day, TD had chosen the data on ordinary weekdays between 6 February and 22 February 2017 to be compared with the occupancy rate in November 2016 before the commissioning of SIL(E); (i)

since South Horizons was close to the MTR station, a lot of residents would prefer MTR to bus services. There was thus a remarkable drop in the occupancy rates of the relevant bus routes after the commissioning of SIL(E). The occupancy rates of NWFB Route Nos. 590A and 590 had dropped by about 60% and 67%, respectively. Regarding the alternative for the bus service for Tin Lok Lane and Hennessy Road in Wan Chai after the cancellation of NWFB Route No. 590A, the bus company would give a response in due course;

(j)

he said that the PT Plan did not presume a target number of buses to be cut, and would handle the cases in accordance with the Guidelines having regard to the occupancy rates obtained in the survey;

(k)

regarding the submission arrangement of the paper, the 9 packages of the PT Plan involved 40-odd bus routes. Moreover, at the request of the Committee, TD’s survey was conducted after the Lunar New Year holidays until 22 February 2017. After the consultant submitted the data, TD also had to review the data and confirm with the bus companies and then determine whether the proposals required revision according to the criteria prescribed in the Guidelines. He hoped that Members would understand that the whole process was time-consuming;

(l)

while the bus companies had different models of buses, the average carrying capacity of a double decker was about 125, about 70% and 30% of which were numbers of seats and places for standees, respectively. If the occupancy rate exceeded 85%, that meant about 20 passengers were standing. Since the bus compartment was not too congested, frequency reduction could be considered;

(m)

TD understood that Chi Fu Fa Yuen was far away from the stations of SIL(E). But since CTB Route Nos. 37A and 37X routed via Wong Chuk Hang, there was a slight drop in the patronage if compared with the patronage before the commissioning of SIL(E);

(n)

the re-organisation of CTB Route No. 75 would be implemented in two phases. First, the frequency would be reduced. TD would carefully assess the magnitude of adjustment in conjunction with the bus company to minimise the impacts on the passengers. TD had urged the bus companies to prepare sufficient backup resources so that appropriate contingency measures could be taken to cope with any unexpected situation, such as traffic jam in Aberdeen Tunnel, when implementing the PT Plan;

(o)

TD had liaised with the operator of GMB Route No. 29 on the cancellation arrangements of NWFB Route No. 95B and CTB Route No. 97A to meet the needs of the affected passengers as far as possible. TD would also consider the demand for CTB Route No. 97A during peak periods and the passengers’ need to travel to Sham Wan Shipyard, and would thus implement the proposal in two phases;

(p)

after implementing the PT Plan in phases, TD would continue to monitor the operation of bus routes serving the Southern District. Depending on the passengers’ needs and community development, such as the population growth arising from the development of Wong Chuk Hang, TD would deliberate with the bus companies on the transport services in a timely manner. In view of the new railway service, the bus companies would also make appropriate planning and preparation taking into consideration all kinds of factors;

(q)

depending on the changes in passengers’ needs, TD would review whether there were any saved resources to be redeployed for feeder bus routes serving MTR stations;

(r)

the PT Plan included proposed routeings of some bus routes that used Wong Chuk Hang Flyover. TD would discuss with the SDC Member of the constituency concerned on the suitable bus routes that routed via Wong Chuk Hang Flyover; and

(s)

regarding Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP’s enquiry, the supplementary information in Annex 1 showed that after the commissioning of SIL(E), the average occupancy rate in the peakiest half-hour of CTB Route No. 37X had risen from 75.8% to 87.9% while the patronage dropped by 9.5%. This was mainly due to the fact that the survey was done in a random manner. Moreover, since the bus trip was affected by the daily road conditions, there might be discrepancy in the survey results.

22.

The Chairman invited Mr Simon WONG to respond.

23.

Mr Simon WONG gave a supplementary reply as follows: (a)

according to the findings of survey, the utilisation rate of CTB Route Nos. 90 and 97 was relatively low after the peak hours of the morning session. If the two routes running similar alignment continued to serve, the operational efficiency would be unsatisfactory. Therefore, it was hoped that this re-organisation arrangement could help relieve the operational loss of the bus company. The routeing was truncated to Admiralty because most of the passengers came from Wan Chai, whereas the passengers from Central accounted for a smaller proportion of the patronage. Route truncation was able to avoid passing through those congested sections such as Connaught Road Central and Queen’s Road Central while allowing passengers to enjoy a more steady service. It was also beneficial to the bus company in terms of the cost-effectiveness of

resources; (b)

after cancellation of CTB Route No. 90C, passengers from Ap Lei Chau Main Street might walk through the passenger adit via MTR Lei Tung Station to take CTB Route No. 90 at the Lee Chi Road bus stop. Besides, in Wan Chai, it took about six minutes to walk from Southorn Playground to Hopewell Centre at a distance of about 350 m; if passengers used MTR, they could leave the Station at Johnston Road Exit and also reach Hopewell Centre in a five-minute walk, which was about 300 m away;

(c)

regarding whether alternatives in lieu of NWFB Route No. 590A could be provided to serve the section from Causeway Bay to Wan Chai, the bus company would review the case with TD again. Consideration would be given to adding a bus stop on Hennessy Road near Marsh Road along the alignment of CTB Route No. 592, so as to save the walking time of the affected passengers. The proposed bus stop would also be very close to the existing en route bus stop of NWFB Route No. 590A on Hennessy Road near CNT Tower;

(d)

it was stressed that the frequency of XH Route No. 671 would remain unchanged during the morning peak periods. Furthermore, according to the findings of the survey, passengers for the section of Causeway Bay to North Point had greater bearing on the patronage of this route. Upon commissioning of the SIL, the route had been losing patronage. The passenger volume in Wong Chuk Hang and Ap Lei Chau alone would not be able to sustain the operation of the route; during the peak hours in the morning, the traffic on the section from Canal Road Flyover to the western section of Island Eastern Corridor was busier than Yee Wo Street and King's Road, thus the bus company considered it more practicable to maintain the existing routeing via the northern coast of Hong Kong Island. As the patronage was mainly concentrated in the peak periods, the proposed frequency adjustment for off-peak periods would have less impact on the passengers in general;

(e)

the re-organisation of NWFB Route No. 91 met the criteria of route truncation set out in the TD’s Guidelines. Passengers who headed for Central Pier could travel by the existing CTB Route No. 90B and interchange CTB Route No. 7 or 71, and enjoy interchange concession;

(f)

for the frequency reduction of XH Route No. 973, notices would be put up at the main bus stops for passengers’ information. The bus company had taken into account Members’ views on NWFB Route No. 66 and narrowed down the degree of reduction in frequency. The existing service would be maintained for the sessions with more passengers;

(g)

on the frequency adjustment of other bus routes, although Tin Wan and Aberdeen were not covered by the railway service, there were passengers taking other mode of transport to the nearby MTR stations. This was also objectively reflected by the drop in patronage of the various bus routes. The bus company recognised that there was slight decrease in the

patronage of NWFB Route No. 95; however, the patronage of this route had been very low before the commissioning of SIL. There was a further reduction of 7% after commissioning, and hence a greater loss incurred. In this connection, the bus company needed to make a proposal for improving the operational efficiency while retaining the service of this route; and (h)

the bus company had no target of reduction in the number of buses, all the adjustments were made on the basis of the patronage change after the commissioning of SIL and in accordance with TD’s Guidelines.

24. Mr CHAI Man-hon raised an enquiry on the rules of order. He said that the bus company should play the role as a facilitator. However, according to what the company’s representative had said, it seemed that the bus company was the leader of the PT Plan instead. He queried whether this was in contravention of the principle of strengthening TD’s regulation over the bus company, which underlay the grant of Citybus Limited’s new franchise in 2016. 25. Mr Patrick NG clarified that the PT Plan was led by TD. Although the bus companies were involved in the discussion, TD had taken into consideration the views of the Committee and made professional judgement in assessing the proposals of the PT Plan based on a set of objective guidelines. 26. Mr AU Nok-hin raised an enquiry on the rules of order. According to the bus company, it had followed TD’s Guidelines when planning the frequency reduction; however, the proposal for XH Route Nos. 171A and 171P was apparently not in compliance with the Guidelines. He thus demanded an explanation from the bus company concerned. 27. Mr Patrick NG responded that TD had taken into account the highest average occupancy rate of XH Route Nos. 171A and 171P in the peak hour at the peakiest loading point and used it for computing the change of occupancy rate after the reduction in service frequency. Therefore, TD had exercised prudence in working with the bus companies to proceed with the arrangement of frequency reduction on the basis of the projected occupancy rate, in order to minimise its impact on the passengers, especially those from the en route bus stops. 28. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP opined that TD had not clearly explained the occupancy rate and patronage of CTB Route No. 37X. Given that this route only provide services during the peak period, as the occupancy rate had risen nearly 10% in the peak period, he did not understand why there was a 9.5% drop in patronage. He requested TD to provide the calculations for the occupancy rate and patronage of this route after the meeting. 29. Mr Simon WONG added that the bus company did not differentiate its buses between “chariot” and “non-chariot”. There was only actual figure on the number of vehicles cut. 30. Mr Kevin LI explained the arrangement for the real-time arrival information system. Tender was conducted for the real-time arrival information

system in the fourth quarter of 2015. Afterwards, a pilot scheme was rolled out for part of the bus routes in Hong Kong Island as from the mid-year of 2016. The scheme was still in progress. Since the procurement, study and trial run of the system as well as installation of the relevant facilities for over 1,600 buses would require two years, it was estimated that the installation of the system could cover all buses in 2018. 31. A number of Members raised comments and enquiries again on the PT Plan. Details were summarised as follows: (a)

Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN reiterated that the frequency of CTB Route No. 43M should be maintained at a reasonable level. He opined that the criteria set by TD for frequency reduction was not reasonable because the waiting time was too long, and thus the passengers had no alternative but to use other means of transport. He also pointed out that a lot of passengers would walk across the section of Wong Chuk Hang Road outside Ocean Park Station in order to take the bus. But the paper of this meeting did not mention a word about the progress. He asked TD how it would follow up the matter. He also enquired of the bus company about the timetable for the addition of seats at bus stops;

(b)

Mr CHAI Man-hon opined that TD had not fully responded to his questions either. For instance, whether the routes with a cheaper fare were cut in order to retain the more expensive routes? Why it was persistently proposed to truncate and terminate the routes at Admiralty? In view of the fact that the subject would require discussion over a long period of time, he hoped that this meeting could reach some sort of consensus so as to enable detailed discussion in future. On the other hand, he criticised TD for stretching a point for the bus companies and providing inadequate regulation over these operators. He further said that it was necessary for the Committee to continue the discussion on those routes which had nothing to do with the commissioning of SIL but were tabled for frequency reduction. He requested TD not to push for a forceful implementation of the proposed arrangements. According to the paper of agenda item 3, it was mentioned in paragraph 14 there would be alternatives for the bus routes subject to route truncation. He would like to know whether the alternatives were applicable for all bus services with truncated routes;

(c)

Mr AU Nok-hin held that the re-organisation of for NWFB Route No. 91 and CTB Route No. 97 would simply create a vicious cycle, leading to cancellation of the routes. Despite that according to TD and the bus company, the said arrangement could help avoid passing through the congested sections in Central, he queried why re-routeing via Connaught Road Central and Arsenal Street was not considered. He also opined that the alternatives suggested by TD could not serve the purpose. He continued to point out that TD should not just reduce the number of buses based on the Guidelines. It should, however, make the adjustments in proportion to the survey data. Furthermore, he was discontented that TD

did not have sufficient consultation, and seemed to be compelling the Committee to accept its proposals. (d)

Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH said that CTB Route No. 90C was initially intended for students. However, it was now proposed to be replaced by CTB Route No. 90. She found it totally unacceptable. She urged TD to respond whether it was determined to cancel the route officially in April 2017 or still negotiable to keep the bus trips in the morning sessions;

(e)

Ms YAM Pauline said that CTB Route No. 70 was re-routed to terminate at Wah Kwai owing to the PT Plan of the West Island Line (WIL) and no longer operate the route via Aberdeen on its return journey. On top of the aforesaid, the frequency was not adequate and thus causing great inconvenience to the residents. In this regard, she enquired whether the resources saved from the PT Plan could be re-deployed to those areas where MTR service was not yet available such as Aberdeen, and whether more interchange concession could be offered. Besides, quite a lot of residents reflected that there were inadequate bus services during the periods when people got off work. Given that TD had set up the mechanism for reducing the number of buses, she asked whether there would be another mechanism for adding the service frequency. She further said that GMB Route No. 5M only provided service from Mondays to Fridays without any consideration for those who needed to visit Grantham Hospital during Saturdays and Sundays. She enquired of TD whether separate consultation would be conducted for the GMB services;

(f)

Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH said that there had been a consensus among Members on certain bus routes, so TD was expected to give a response. He asked about NWFB Route No. 590A on what alternatives would be made available upon its frequency reduction and the implementation timetable of the reduced frequency. He also opined that it was not reasonable for TD and the bus company to claim that CTB Route No. 592 and NWFB Route No. 595 were affected by the commissioning of SIL. Meanwhile, he also objected to terminating CTB Route No. 90 at Admiralty instead of Central. As for XH Route No. 671, the frequency during the peak period was reduced to as low as 60 minutes per departure. This was exactly cancelling the route. He considered such arrangement extremely unreasonable. He opined that TD should strictly observe its regulatory obligation and strike a balance between the social and corporate benefits of the bus company; otherwise, it was a breach of duty;

(g)

Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying said that after re-organisation of the XH Route No. 973, the first three departures in the morning being re-routed via Shum Wan would have prolonged journey time. Moreover, with the reduction in frequency, there would be great impact on the passengers in times of traffic congestion, especially for students. She said that TD and the bus company ought to consider the needs of grass-roots. Route amalgamation plus frequency reduction would hardly be acceptable to residents;

(h)

Mr LO Kin-hei said that under the influence of the PT Plan in the Southern District, some of the residents might end up with longer waiting time. As such, he asked if priority could be given to installing the real-time arrival information system at the bus stops of Southern District, so as to enhance the acceptability of the PT Plan among the local residents. For those re-organisation proposals met with vast opposition from the majority of the Members, he enquired of TD whether it would consider putting the proposals on the shelf. Moreover, the existing concessionary offer for interchange was only applicable to individual bus routes and there was not much concession. He hoped that TD could enhance the interchange concession scheme, rather than compel the residents to choose a means of transport that charged a higher fare. Last but not least, upon amalgamation of NWFB Route Nos. 94 and 94X, he would like to know how TD and the bus company would address the problem if the carrying capacity of the bus failed to meet its passenger demand. Furthermore, he stressed that he did not accept changing the location of the terminal for NWFB Route No. 91;

(i)

Mr CHU Lap-wai commented that NWFB Route No. 95 had nothing to do with the commissioning of SIL, while the re-organisation was aimed to cancel this route for the purpose of the bus company only. He said that in light of the ageing population of the society and a population of 20 000 in the neighbourhood of Yue Kwong Road, the bus service was in short supply. The frequency of CTB Route No. 7, XH Route No. 971 and NWFB Route No. 76 was all 15 to 30 minutes per departure. If NWFB Route No. 95 further reduced its frequency, the situation would be worse. He said that NWFB Route No. 95 had a drop in patronage because of its insufficient frequency, not a lack of passenger demand. Therefore, he strongly urged that the service of this route should remain unchanged;

(j)

Mr AU Lap-sing, MH said that XH Route No. 170 was not supposed to be affected by the commissioning of SIL. However, as the patronage had indicated a 3.5% decline after the commissioning, the bus frequency was further reduced to 15 to 25 minutes in the peak hours. He said that when a major event was held in Hong Kong Coliseum, the passengers could hardly get on board the bus and the waiting time was extremely long, causing great difficulty for the passengers. Besides, since the PT Plan had proposed to adjust the frequency of certain bus routes to more than 30 minutes, he enquired of TD whether it would consider offering additional interchange concession in compensation;

(k)

Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH said that Annex 9 had shown the frequency arrangement for bus routes in the peak periods. She enquired of TD about the proposed level of frequency adjustment for the bus routes concerned during the off-peak hours. Furthermore, she was not satisfied with the explanation of the bus company on NWFB Route No. 91 and commented that it had ignored the public need. She noted that the first departure of NWFB Route No. 91 started between 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., whereas the first departure of CTB Route No. 90B from Admiralty was

scheduled at 9:00 a.m. In other word, passengers of NWFB Route No. 91 travelling from Central and Sheung Wan to Southern District before 9:00 a.m. in the morning were given no alternatives at all. She also said that the bus company was only concerned about cancellation of routes but not considering any concession or service enhancement to attract passengers. She appreciated that there was a need to make appropriate adjustment to certain bus routes upon commissioning of the railway line. As such, although she had raised an objection against cancellation of CTB Route No. 90C, she also suggested revising its service hours; (l)

Mr TSUI Yuen-wa agreed to the proposal of Mr LO Kin-hei. In the Southern District, the number of bus trips had been reduced to very low frequency because of the PT Plan, so priority should be given to installing the real-time arrival information system in the district. He continued to point out that TD had not adjusted the frequency in relation to the decline in the patronage. Taking Wong Chuk Hang for example, the patronage of CTB Route No. 71 had dropped by 15.2%, thus the frequency should be adjusted to 17 to 21 minutes per departure. However, the PT Plan proposed 23 to 30 minutes per departure instead; the patronage of CTB Route No. 75 had decreased by 36.1%, TD proposed a reduction of 15 to 30 minutes in frequency instead of 16 to 20 minutes. It was unfair that the department could have prior discussion with the bus companies about the PT Plan, while not allowing reasonable time for the Committee to study their papers and conduct consultation with the residents. In addition, TD had not considered the routes on a case by case basis. For instance, there was less patronage at the bus terminal of CTB Route No. 71 in the morning but the route had still maintained a certain level of patronage along its en route bus stops or during the time when people were going home from work; meanwhile, as some of the housing estates situated some distance away from the MTR station, more residents were expected to take CTB Route No. 75 during rainy seasons or hot days. Besides, CTB Route No. 48, as a feeder route serving the MTR station, did not have a lot of commuters for interchange between the bus and MTR. Therefore, he requested that TD should carry out a review on the alignment of this route;

(m)

Mr WONG Chun-pong said that the bus company had not responded with the figures on the reduction in “chariots”, as well as the effect on the journey time of the buses since the congestion of Aberdeen Tunnel had been relieved. He elaborated on the Aberdeen Tunnel. When the vehicular flow of the tunnel had been smoothed over, the bus company would reduce the number of buses scheduled for the Southern District. Therefore, it was necessary to let the public know the number of buses serving Southern District had actually reduced; otherwise, it would give people a wrong impression that SDC had interfered with the PT Plan. Referring to the TD’s Guidelines, he opined that the occupancy rate varied with the models of vehicles. After frequency reduction of certain routes, if the bus company deployed models of buses with lower carrying capacity to provide services which might end up passengers could not get on board the deployed buses. In this regard, he requested that TD should

review the occupancy rate with flexibility. In addition, concerning route truncation to Admiralty, TD ought to consider the east side of Wan Chai also had passengers demand for that route. He asked for the figures on the number of affected passengers from the bus stops on Anton Street and at Pacific Place; and (n)

Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH said that some members of the public, especially the elderly, did not feel comfortable with the MTR service. Hence, there was still demand for the bus service. The bus company, as a service provider of the public transport, ought to take up its social responsibility. After commissioning of the SIL, although the decline in patronage was not considered serious, the PT Plan had cut the bus frequency of many routes significantly. On top of the fact that the SIL(West) had made no progress, she hoped that TD and the bus companies did not just focus on the benefits. Endeavour should be made to maintain the bus services for those areas not yet covered by the railway network, such as Aberdeen, Tin Wan, Wah Fu and Wah Kwai.

32. Mr Patrick NG gave a consolidated response to Members’ second-round enquiries and comments as follows: (a)

with the operation of new railway service in the Southern District, TD would need to consider service adjustment from the viewpoint of the entire transport network. TD understood Members’ concerns over the demand for individual bus route services. For those proposals encountering heightened controversy, TD as a regulator of public transport services would listen to Members’ views carefully and analyse the facts objectively to find out whether there was adequate justification, the operational situation of the various bus routes and the impact of SIL on the routes. Prudence would be exercised and no haste to implement any of the proposals. In the meanwhile, TD hoped that Members could understand certain bus routes were indeed affected by the commissioning of SIL, and hence a slump in patronage. If no appropriate adjustment was put in place, it would lead to a resources mismatch in the whole bus network which was also not favourable for the long term development of the bus companies. On the other hand, some bus routes with increasing demand could not be deployed with additional resources; as a result, these bus routes would be put under the pressure of price rise. Both CTB and NWFB had not raised the price in bus fare over the years. They also had difficulty in running the bus service;

(b)

since the WIL and SIL came into operation, there had been significant changes in the travelling pattern of the residents in the vicinity of Pok Fu Lam and Victoria Road. Residents would use feeder service to go to MTR stations and reduce the use of long distance transport service for travel to the northern coast of Hong Kong Isalnd, and thus increasing the pressure on the operation of the bus company. TD had been working closely with the public transport operators for enhancement of their services. He undertook to strengthen communication in future;

(c)

on the pedestrian crossing facility for passengers intending to interchange bus outside the Ocean Park MTR Station, he would approach the relevant section in TD and follow up the matter accordingly;

(d)

it had been stipulated in the franchise of bus service that the bus company was required to add bus stop facilities, such as the real-time arrival information system and seats, within a short period of time. TD would take into consideration the impact of PT Plan on the Southern District and urge the bus company to step up the pace of providing these facilities for residents’ use in the Southern District as early as possible;

(e)

he did not agree with a Member’s comment that TD had inadequate regulation over the bus companies. TD would have regular meetings and discussions with the bus companies about the PT Plan and bus services would be reviewed based on the findings of the survey. If the bus services provided were found inadequate, the bus company involved would be required to make service improvement and adjustment;

(f)

he said that TD had set out different criteria for the addition and reduction of bus frequency. In case the occupancy rate of individual routes had reached 100% and 85% during the peakiest half hour and the peakiest hour of the peak periods respectively, TD would consider improving frequency;

(g)

on the alternative services, apart from bus routes serving similar area, TD also requested the bus company to provide interchange concession. There used to be a Member’s proposal of adding interchange concession locations, for example, Aberdeen Tunnel Toll Plaza and Pok Fu Lam Road near Queen Mary Hospital. TD would ask the bus company to consider that proactively;

(h)

concerning a Member’s question on XH Route No. 170 whether more interchange concession could be provided upon its frequency reduction; generally speaking, whenever there was re-organisation of bus service like cancellation, route truncation and thus making changes to the bus network in certain area, TD would request the bus company to provide interchange concession; however, as frequency reduction in a bus route had not affected its service hours but only adjustment for a less frequency was made, the bus company might not offer the relevant arrangement. That said, TD welcomed the Member’s suggestion and would advise the bus company to study the matter again;

(i)

TD noted Members’ suggestions on the changes in routeing for CTB Route Nos. 90 and 97 and would discuss the feasibility with the bus company again. He also reiterated that TD did not haste to push for a forceful implementation of the PT Plan;

(j)

despite that the bus company had put forward alternatives in lieu of CTB Route No. 90C, and passengers might need to walk for a distance for the

destination, TD would take into consideration various factors and review the proposal; (k)

concerning the passenger demand for the service of CTB Route No. 70 heading to Wah Kwai, TD would relay the opinion to the regional office concerned and examine the service arrangement in accordance with the Guidelines. It was hoped that Aberdeen’s residents could be provided with the suitable services. As for the interchange arrangement, TD would discuss with MTRC to explore if there was room to arrange for more concessionary offer;

(l)

this PT Plan had not mentioned about GMB services. TD would discuss the relevant arrangement with Members again with a view to enhancing the services;

(m)

for bus routes relating to South Horizons, since there was an MTR station some residents who used to take the bus to the northern coast of Hong Kong Island might have changed their travelling pattern and took the MTR train instead. Yet, TD would exercise prudence in dealing with the frequency reduction arrangement for the relevant bus routes;

(n)

TD understood that residents in Stanley had demand for bus services and that the area was far from any MTR station. Therefore, the changes in frequency would be considered carefully in order not to cause too much inconvenience to the passengers of the existing bus services. Regarding the first three departures of the XH Route No. 973 in the morning being re-routed via Shum Wan, TD would request the bus company to reserve enough standby buses. He believed that the passengers would need some time to familiarise themselves with the changes. Afterwards, there would not be significant impact when the operation went on smoothly. As for NWFB Route No. 66, TD understood the need of the existing passengers in the off-peak periods and would review the frequency arrangement carefully with the bus company again;

(o)

regarding the passenger demand for CTB Route No. 97A and the terminal arrangement for NWFB Route No. 91, TD would take into consideration Members’ comments and work out a solution;

(p)

the patronage of NWFB Route No. 95 had been unsatisfactory before the commissioningand the influence after the commissioning was even more prominent. But there could be further discussion on the frequency arrangement;

(q)

concerning frequency adjustment for the bus routes given in Annex 9 during the off-peak periods, TD trusted that the passengers did not have much demand during such periods. The services provided by the bus company should be able to satisfy the passengers’ needs. That said, he would provide information to the relevant Member before implementation of the adjustment;

(r)

according to TD, the patronage survey was conducted in a stringent and detailed manner. In case of doubt, TD would request the consultant to provide more information. The survey was not just conducted in the peak hours either. It was carried out throughout the day covering other time sessions. Each session of survey was conducted for not less than two hours in order to gather comprehensive data. Next, in calculating the occupancy rate, TD would ascertain if there was a need to make any amendment to the original proposal in accordance the Guidelines. TD considered that the survey data could precisely reflect the actual occupancy of the various bus routes, and accepted that the data could serve as a key reference for considering the PT Plan; and

(s)

TD understood that areas distance away from MTR stations required feeder transport service. The main feeder bus routes, CTB Route No. 48 and NWFB Route No. 78 were not subject to any frequency reduction. Moreover, there was a slight rise in the patronage. TD would continue to look at their operation and changes in patronage. Enhancement measures would be considered if necessary in order to better utilise the feeder function of these two routes. TD would also urge the bus company to make use of the resources saved from the PT Plan on improving the said routes.

33. Mr Simon WONG responded that at the initial stage of the commissioning of SIL, the road transport was indeed getting smoother. However, after the Lunar New Year holidays, the Aberdeen Tunnel had traffic congestion again when TD conducted a survey. He was not sure whether the definition of “chariots” of the bus company was different from that of Members’. However, the papers had truly indicated the number of buses running various bus routes. 34. Mr Kevin LI added that the last adjustment in the bus fare of NWFB and CTB was made in 2008. Some of the non-XH bus routes of CTB had not adjusted the bus fare since December 1997. Regarding the real-time arrival information system, the bus company had been proactive in its implementation. But the installation of the system for all routes required a lot of software, hardware and facilities. Trial run is also needed upon installation. Thus it would entail a long process. Earlier on, TD had promulgated a paper on “Subsidising the installation of seats and real-time arrival information display panels by franchised bus companies”. It was anticipated that the installation of seats could be completed at the relevant bus stops in 2017. 35.

Mr Patrick NG gave a supplementary reply as follows: (a)

TD attached great importance to the views of SDC. Hence, the PT Plan was first tabled for consultation with SDC. Since some of the routes also involved Central & Western, Wan Chai, Kowloon and Islands, subsequent consultation would also be conducted with the relevant District Councils. He stressed that TD would continue to uphold impartiality and examine the proposals again after collecting all the views;

(b)

TD welcomed all Members’ opinions. Before the the Committee meeting of May 2017, TD also had a plan to discuss some of the route changes with the relevant SDC Members and let Members know TD’s arrangement;

(c)

referring to the proposed change of terminating point for NWFB Route No. 91, TD understood that passengers taking the bus in Central and Sheung Wan would be affected. But they could choose to take CTB Route No. 90B although it might not be able to replace all services provided by NWFB Route No. 91 and some passengers might find it inconvenient. As such, TD would consider the proposed arrangement of this route in detail;

(d)

concerning the frequency arrangement for XH Route No. 671 in the peak and off-peak periods, TD had taken into account the findings of the survey. The survey had covered the peak periods in the morning and afternoon as well as the off-peak periods. It could be observed that there was no significant change in the patronage during the morning peak hours after the commissioning of SIL. Therefore, there would not be big change in the frequency. However, the patronage during the off-peak periods was not satisfactory. TD had noted Members’ concern that the reduced frequency was not acceptable. Thus, TD would discuss with the bus company again; and

(e)

a Member pointed out that upon cancellation of NWFB Route No. 94X, NWFB Route No. 94 could not meet the increased passenger demand. Yet, according to the findings of the survey, NWFB Route No. 94 had the capacity to meet the demand. However, he reiterated that when the PT Plan was implemented, the bus company would be required to reserve sufficient standby buses in order to cater for the unexpected passenger demand and avoid causing much inconvenience to the passengers.

36. In closing, the Chairman concluded that the the Committee had no objection in principle to the route combinations without much controversy proposed in the PT Plan. As regards the controversial proposals, this Committee requested that TD should re-consider the views of Members and residents proactively, and amend the proposals again. Further consultation with the Committee was still required. TD was also requested to exercise prudence in examining the re-organisation proposals involving frequency reduction and route truncation. In the meantime, this Committee understood some of the bus routes in the district needed redeployment of resources after the commissioning of SIL(E). Accordingly, TD and the bus company should also consider re-deploying the resources saved from the service cut under the PT Plan into other routes requiring bus services in the Southern District when they made the amendment to the related proposals so as to provide convenient services to the residents. 37. Mr AU Nok-hin asked about the meaning of routes without much controversy. 38.

Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP said that he was not sure if CTB Route No. 37A

and NWFB Route No. 38 should be considered a proposal with controversy. Nevertheless, he objected to frequency reduction in these routes. 39. Mr Patrick NG responded that he had noted all Members’ views in this meeting and would consult Members again after further study with the bus company. He reiterated that TD would not push for a forceful implementation of the PT Plan. In fact, since the SIL had come into operation for nearly three months, with a daily patronage of around 110 000, it would have impact on the services of road transport. Hence, for the sake of effective deployment of resources, it was necessary for TD to make the service adjustment correspondingly. 40. Mr CHAI Man-hon said that he did not wish to mislead TD that the PT Plan was totally unacceptable to the Committee, so he would like to clarify what were controversial route proposals. Some proposals of frequency reduction, if in compliance with the TD’s Guidelines, would probably be accepted without much opposing views. 41. The Chairman said that TD and the bus company should examine carefully the proposals that received objecting views from Members. He suggested that TD organise a briefing session after the meeting for discussion on the proposals with the Members concerned. 42. Mr Patrick NG responded that TD and the bus company would discuss the arrangements of PT Plan with Members before the next committee meeting. TD would continue to adopt a sincere attitude and maintain communication with the Committee. He also hoped Members could understand that the bus companies also had their difficulties. He looked forward to creating a win-win situation that was beneficial to all parties.

Agenda Item 3:

Bus Route Planning Programme for Southern District 2017-2018 (Item raised by Transport Department) (TTC Paper No. 8/2017)

43. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from government departments and bus companies to the meeting: (a) Mr FU Ting-hong, Senior Transport Officer/Bus/HK1, TD; (b) Miss SIN Kai-wai, Senior Transport Officer/Bus & Railway/Special Duties, TD; (c) Mr Simon WONG, Planning & Scheduling Manager, CTB/NWFB; (d) Mr Calvin WONG, Senior Planning Officer, CTB/NWFB; (e) Mr Kevin LI, Public Affairs Manager, CTB/NWFB; and (f) Mr Philip WONG, Operations Manager (Dept One), CTB/NWFB. 44.

The Chairman asked Mr FU Ting-hong to brief Members on the paper.

45. Mr FU Ting-hong, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation (please refer to TTC Paper No. 8/2017 for details), briefed Members on the Bus Route Planning

Programme (BRPP) for the Southern District 2017-2018, which involved NWFB Route No. 3A, CTB Route Nos. 40, 40M, 41A, 77, 77A and NWFB Route No. 38. The proposals included frequency reduction, provision of additional special departures during peak hours, route rationalisation and introduction of interchange concessions. 46. The Chairman and a number of Members raised comments and enquiries on BRPP for the Southern District 2017-2018. Details were summarised as follows: (a)

The Chairman supported the proposal concerning CTB Route No. 77A, but he demanded that resources should not be deployed from the existing services of CTB Route No. 77 for the provision of the enhanced services concerned;

(b)

Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN objected to the proposed cancellation of the departure of NWFB Route No. 3A departing from Mount Davis at 7:45 a.m. He explained that currently residents of Mount Davis could only travel on NWFB Route No. 3A and Green Minibus (GMB) Route No. 54, and the minibuses were often fully occupied during the period. He said that the residents were already dissatisfied with the cancellation of the stop of GMB Route No. 54M at Mount Davis Road. Therefore, he requested TD to reconsider the proposed arrangement. Regarding the cancellation of the afternoon departure, he had learned upon contact with the principal of St Clare’s Girls’ School that their students would finish school at 3:40 p.m. Since many students would stay at school for extra-curricular activities, if the departure at 3:15 p.m. was cancelled, a new departure at 5:30 p.m. should be provided;

(c)

Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP did not agree to the proposed service enhancement of NWFB Route No. 38, and opined that the demerits of the proposal outweighed the merits. He explained that currently residents heading for Chi Fu Fa Yuen could take either NWFB Route No. 38 or CTB Route No. 37B in Wong Chuk Hang. However, since CTB Route No. 37B ran a circular route over an extensive area, lost trips were frequent. As a result, passengers had to wait for a long time and buses were often fully occupied. Therefore, if NWFB Route No. 38 was re-routed via Wong Chuk Hang Road Flyover as proposed, Chi Fu Fa Yuen-bounded passengers would have one less transportation option. He emphasised that as Wong Chuk Hang would gradually be developed into a commercial cum residential centre, the demand for transportation plying between Wong Chuk Hang and Aberdeen would definitely increase. Therefore, in order to meet the daily needs of commuters and residents, the bus services concerned should not be reduced. Moreover, the last departure time for CTB Route No. 37B and NWFB Route No. 38 was 11:12 p.m. and 12:35 a.m. respectively, hence the services of NWFB Route No. 38 would be essential for MTR passengers intending to switch to buses at Wong Chuk Hang MTR Station;

(d)

Mr CHU Lap-wai welcomed the trial scheme for new section fare of cross harbour (XH) routes after crossing the harbour. He said that the scheme

had been proposed to TD as early as a decade ago, thus he was glad to see its launch though there was still room for improvement. Citing XH Route No. 971 as an example, he said that the proposed starting point of new section fare would be Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine at a fare of HK$4.5. The route after Wah Fu Road was the same as CTB Route No. 7 but the fare for CTB Route No. 7 was lower and extra section fare would be offered after Tin Wan. Therefore, he was of the view that TD should consider aligning the fares for all XH routes after crossing the harbour with those of non-XH routes as soon as possible upon completion of the trial scheme; (e)

Mr CHAI Man-hon concurred with Mr CHU Lap-wai that the fares of XH routes after crossing the harbour should be the same as non-XH routes. In addition, he suggested that terms of a distance-based fare structure be introduced by TD when approving bus franchises. A similar mechanism had been effectively implemented in Singapore and Taiwan. Regarding rationalisation of bus routes, he suggested joint negotiation by the bus companies, TD and local stakeholders to meet various local needs, alleviate traffic congestion and amalgamate duplicated bus routes, etc. Lastly, he objected to TD’s repeated routeing proposal of CTB Route No. 40M despite residents’ opposition;

(f)

Mr WONG Chun-pong understood the concerns of Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP. Nevertheless, he relayed the views of some passengers that the re-routeing of NWFB Route No. 38 via Wong Chuk Hang Road Flyover could reduce journey time. In this connection, he contended that TD could consider the following suggestions: (i) (ii) (iii)

(iv) (v)

(vi)

increasing the frequency of CTB Route No. 37B during peak hours; allowing NWFB Route No. 38 to bypass Wong Chuk Hang Road Flyover after 11 p.m.; cancelling the two bus stops of NWFB Route No. 38 at Aberdeen Tunnel Toll Plaza and Aberdeen Promenade altogether to reduce congestion resulting from several buses concurrently calling at a stop; reducing bus trips of NWFB No. 38 only after it was re-routed via Wong Chuk Hang Road Flyover; re-routeing other bus routes via Wong Chuk Hang Road Flyover, including CTB Route Nos. 72 and 97 and NWFB Route Nos. 42, 42C, 590, 590A, etc.; and coordinating the schedules of NWFB Route Nos. 38 and 42 and CTB Route Nos. 72 and 77 to improve the passenger flow, patronage and arrival time at the bus stops under the flyover at Canal Road East.

Furthermore, he raised additional suggestions as follows: (i)

CTB Route No. 77A from Tin Wan to Shau Kei Wan could skip North Point like CTB Route No. 77X;

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

cancelling the re-routed departure from Shau Kei Wan via Tsing Fung Street Flyover as the route was often congested and thus resulting in longer journey time; provision of additional morning bus trips for CTB Route No. 77X to suit the needs of commuters who went to work at later hours; optimising the location of the bus stop for CTB Route Nos. 40 and 40M at the University of Hong Kong and re-routeing them via Hill Road to provide connection with HKU MTR Station; and shortening the northbound route of CTB Route No. 40M by skipping the Wan Chai North Temporary Public Transport Interchange and Central Government Offices in Admiralty.

(g)

Mr KWONG Tse-hin said that it was often mentioned in the documents provided by TD that the frequency reduction of bus trips was closely related to environmental quality and traffic conditions. He contended that concrete data, such as the reduction in carbon emission, benefits of clean air and ways of alleviating traffic congestion, etc., should be provided for reference to facilitate Members’ discussion. On improvement of service quality, he remarked that the first priority should be a review of the inadequacies of the existing services especially in terms of enhancing comfortability and road safety of buses. For example, there were numerous rugged hill roads in the Southern District which were accident-prone. TD should conduct detailed studies to improve the situation;

(h)

Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH said that TD should conduct a survey on passenger demand and analyse the survey findings in detail before proposing changes to bus routes. She used the example of NWFB Route No. 38 to make the point that TD should ensure the availability of bus service after 11 p.m. to carry residents from Wong Chuk Hang to Chi Fu Fa Yuen. She stressed that while the bus companies could submit service improvement proposals, the proposals should not have a significant impact on passengers, let alone ignore the needs of en-route passengers. Moreover, she was dissatisfied with the sub-standard bus services, including the bad attitude of bus drivers and the unhygienic conditions of bus compartments. Lastly, she suggested optimising the locations of bus stop to relieve the congestion resulting from the concurrent use of the same bus stop by multiple bus routes; and

(i)

Mr AU Lap-sing, MH objected to the proposed re-routeing of NWFB Route No. 38 via Wong Chuk Hang Road Flyover, stating that many passengers heading for Aberdeen took the route at Nam Long Shan Road during the evening peak hours. He pointed out that although passengers could also take NWFB Route No. 42 and CTB Route No. 48, the service of NWFB Route No. 38 could not be completely replaced. In addition, the re-routeing via Wong Chuk Hang Road Flyover would cause inconvenience to commuters from the north shore of Hong Kong Island heading for Wong Chuk Hang, who had to alight at the Aberdeen Sports

Ground bus stop. 47. Mr FU Ting-hong gave a consolidated response to Members’ enquiries and comments as follows: (a)

TD noted Members’ comments on BRPP for future reference. To cater for the needs of passengers travelling to and from Wong Chuk Hang, TD and the bus company would re-examine the arrangement of re-routeing NWFB Route No. 38 via Wong Chuk Hang Road Flyover having regard to the number of passengers boarding and alighting at the en-route stops;

(b)

TD indicated that the walking distance from Wong Chuk Hang Station to the bus stop at Nam Long Shan Road was similar to that from Ocean Park Station to the bus stop at Aberdeen Tunnel Toll Plaza;

(c)

TD would request the bus company to consider enhancing the service of CTB Route No. 77A with additional resources, and to study the feasibility of providing an additional morning trip of CTB Route No. 77X;

(d)

regarding the proposed cancellation of two departures of NWFB Route No. 3A, TD had found from a survey conducted on Mount Davis Road during the relevant time periods that GMB Route No. 54 still had sufficient capacity to accommodate the original passengers of NWFB Route No. 3A on Mount Davis Road. While the re-scheduling of the departure at 3:15 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. would be explored, given the constant patronage of less than 50% on the departure at 4:15 p.m. based on preliminary information, TD did not rule out the possibility of postponing this departure to 5:30 p.m., subject to factors such as the bus company’s resource allocation, alternative services available and passenger demand;

(e)

TD would explore Member’s suggestion of allowing some bus routes to use express routes with the bus companies; and

(f)

the proposed changes to CTB Route Nos. 40 and 40M were basically similar to those in the previous year. On the other hand, the last departure of service hours of CTB Route No. 40 to 9 p.m. was proposed in response to the local community’s view that the last departure time proposed previously at 7 p.m. was too early.

48. Miss SIN Kai-wai responded in relation to the trial scheme for new section fare of XH routes after crossing the harbour (‘the trial scheme’) that the bus companies were preparing actively for the implementation of Phase I of the trial scheme as soon as possible. The fare differentials between XH and non-XH routes help differentiate the passengers of XH and non-XH routes from a functional viewpoint. As regards the enhancement of the trial scheme, TD would review if there was room for improvement taking into account passenger feedback, impact on the operational efficiency of bus service and traffic, etc. On the suggestion of

implementing comprehensive distance-based fare structure, because different bus routes vary in nature and target to serve different type of passengers, passengers would have to tap their Octopus cards when boarding and alighting if the suggestion was implemented, which would affect bus journey time; in addition, comprehensive distance-based fare system will also change the ridership pattern. In conclusion, TD was of the view that prudent consideration should be given to the suggestion of charging bus fares based on the distance travelled only. 49. Mr Simon WONG responded that in fact, the proposed changes to NWFB Route No. 38 and CTB Route No. 77A had been devised to raise competitiveness as previously suggested by the Committee. As for NWFB Route No. 3A, the bus company had found from a survey on the departure at 7:45 a.m. that only very few passengers had boarded on Mount Davis Road, while GMB Route No. 54 operating via the same location had merely registered an average patronage of not more than three passengers. Thus, GMB Route No. 54 would still have sufficient capacity to accommodate the passengers of NWFB Route No. 3A even after the departure was cancelled. On the other hand, only about two passengers had boarded the departure at 3:15 p.m. on Mount Davis Road, while about four seats had been found vacant on GMB Route No. 54 operating during the same period. As such, the bus company considered that the cancellation of the proposed departures would not have any impact on residents. In addition, the bus company had reservations about the suggestion of providing an additional departure at 5:30 p.m. in that there was a certain level of demand for the route only around school finishing time. The bus company considered that the proposed changes to CTB Route Nos. 40 and 40M were more moderate as compared with the previous year, with the last departure time being extended from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. in response to public views to minimise the number of passengers affected. 50. A number of Members continued to raise comments and enquiries. Details were summarised as follows: (a)

Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP disagreed with Mr WONG Chun-pong’s views on NWFB Route No. 38. In his opinion, increasing the frequency of CTB Route No. 37B could not help solve the problems associated with the proposed arrangement. He explained that since CTB Route No. 37B ran a circular route, congestion somewhere along the route might result in lost trips regardless of the service frequency. On the contrary, NWFB Route No. 38, which was non-circular, could operate at a more stable service frequency. He continued that the patronage of NWFB Route No. 38 might decline if it was re-routed via Wong Chuk Hang Road Flyover, thereby posing a significant risk of frequency reduction. All in all, he strongly opposed the proposed service enhancement of NWFB Route No. 38;

(b)

Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that the representatives of TD had not responded actively to Members’ requests, questioning whether their attendance at this meeting was to listen to Members’ comments. He had already detailed the problems with the proposed arrangement for NWFB Route No. 3A and raised his suggestion, which had however been rejected by TD in a perfunctory manner. He expressed his

dissatisfaction with the situation; (c)

Mr WONG Chun-pong reckoned that many members of the public were willing to pay higher fares for faster services. The proposed service enhancement of NWFB Route No. 38 might actually attract a large number of passengers due to shorter journey time. He added that the re-routeing of some bus routes via Wong Chuk Hang Road Flyover would help divert passengers and ease overcrowding at individual bus stops. Moreover, he considered that it was not necessary for additional trips to depart from the terminus, and special departures of CTB Route No. 37B from Central or Admiralty could help alleviate traffic congestion often associated with circular routes. As regards the section fares of XH routes after crossing the harbour, he suggested that section fares be offered to passengers boarding before entering the Aberdeen Tunnel. For example, section fares for XH Routes No. 107, 170 and 671 should be provided at Causeway Bay for passengers’ convenience. Lastly, he suggested TD consider re-routeing other bus routes, such as diverting some south-bound trips of XH Route No. 107 from Gloucester Road to avoid traffic congestion;

(d)

Mr CHAI Man-hon thanked the Public Transport Research Team and the South Island Line (SIL) Concern Alliance for their sustained efforts in collecting data and giving valuable views on improving the traffic problems in the Southern District. Moreover, he suggested Hong Kong draw reference from overseas bus systems. For example, Seoul buses were colour-coded to signify the journey length and corresponding fares. Given that distance-based fares had already been implemented on individual bus routes with the Octopus system, full implementation would depend on the bus companies’ active initiative and TD’s effective use of its power in granting franchises instead of bus journey time. Regarding the proposals on CTB Route Nos. 40 and 40M, he said that TD’s statistics showed that their respective occupancy rates in the busiest hour were 60% and 52%, both of which were higher than the threshold of 50% set by TD for route cancellation or amalgamation. Not only did TD contradict itself by putting forward such proposals, but it also hoped that the Committee would endorse them hastily. He therefore objected to the proposals. Lastly, he considered that re-routeing some bus routes via Wong Chuk Hang Road Flyover could reduce journey time and thus enhance their competitiveness. It was nevertheless necessary to provide adequate alternative services before implementing the re-routeing proposals;

(e)

Mr AU Lap-sing, MH agreed that members of the public could choose different bus services according to their needs. However, having regard to Wong Chuk Hang’s circumstances, it was necessary to study the alternative services following the re-routeing of bus routes via Wong Chuk Hang Road Flyover. He reckoned that it was paramount for bus services to provide convenience to the public. While reducing the journey time of NWFB Route No. 38 would benefit some

passengers, maintaining its routeing would in general facilitate more passengers (including SIL passengers interchanging for bus service) who travelled from Wong Chuk Hang to Aberdeen; and (f)

Mr KWONG Tse-hin said that the travelling pattern of residents had changed after the commissioning of the SIL(East). For instance, many passengers interchanged at Ocean Park MTR Station during peak hours for Stanley by bus service, such as CTB Route No. 73 and XH Route No. 973. The departments concerned had the responsibility to provide safe pedestrian crossing facilities. He hoped that TD would review the frequency and interchange concessions etc. of the bus routes operating via the above locations in the BRPP for the coming two years.

51. Mr FU Ting-hong gave a further response to Members’ enquiries and comments as follows: (a)

TD would review the service enhancement plan of NWFB Route No. 38 with the bus company again;

(b)

TD and the bus companies were willing to listen to Members’ views and would not push ahead with the implementation of BRPP. Members were welcome to give further comments on BRPP after the meeting;

(c)

As for NWFB Route No. 3A, the bus company had found from a survey before the meeting that there were only eight and two passengers on the morning and afternoon departures proposed to be cancelled respectively, which met the criteria for cancellation in the guidelines. In this connection, TD would request the bus company to study the feasibility of providing an additional departure at 5:30 p.m., and continue to keep in view the passenger capacity of GMB Route No. 54;

(d)

TD noted Members’ suggestions of re-routeing via Wong Chuk Hang Road Flyover and fast lanes, and would make reference to those comments in future studies and reviews of BRPP. TD would also review bus frequencies regularly to accommodate the public’s travelling pattern; and

(e)

TD noted Members’ views on CTB Route Nos. 40 and 40M, and would review the proposals again.

52. Miss SIN Kai-wai responded again in relation to the trial scheme that the starting points of new section fare under the trial scheme would avoid busy road sections with frequent traffic congestion. Therefore, advancing the starting points of new section fare in Causeway Bay at the present stage would have an impact on the operation of the bus routes. The implementation of comprehensive distance-based fares across the whole bus network would necessitate a complete change in the fare structure, and it would bring significant changes in passengers’ travelling pattern.

Under such circumstances, various aspects such as patronage of bus routes, operating efficiency, financial operation and traffic conditions would be affected. As such, TD opined that a fare structure based only on distance travelled by the commuters would not be the most suitable arrangement. 53. Mr Simon WONG supplemented that the bus company noted Members’ views on NWFB Route No. 3A and would contact the Members concerned for discussion about the related arrangements. 54. The Chairman concluded that the Committee requested TD and the bus companies to take note of Members’ views. The Committee requested TD to prudently consider Members’ views on the proposals regarding NWFB Route Nos. 3A and 38 as well as CTB Route Nos. 40 and 40M, and to strengthen communication with the Members concerned and revise the proposals afresh. (Mr CHAN Man-chun left the meeting at 6 p.m.)

Agenda Item 4:

Next Phase of the “Universal Accessibility” Programme (Item raised by the Highways Department) (TTC Paper No. 9/2017)

55. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of the Highways Department (HyD) and engineering company to the meeting; (a) (b) (c) (d)

Mr KONG Tai-wing, Deputy Project Manager/Major Works(1), HyD; Ms O Fong-wa, Julie, Senior Engineer, HyD; Ms CHEUNG Wing-yan, Engineer, HyD; and Mr Johnny CHUNG, Associate, Parsons Brinckerhoff (Asia) Ltd.

56. The Chairman invited Mr KONG Tai-wing to brief Members on the agenda item. 57. Mr KONG Tai-wing said that HyD aimed to report the progress of works under the “Universal Accessibility” (UA) Programme and consult the Committee’s views on the nomination of items for implementation under the next phase of the Programme at this meeting. In the past few years, the construction works for 11 items under the UA Programme in the Southern District had commenced, amongst which five had been completed. In the 2016 Policy Address, the Chief Executive announced the launching of the next phase of UA Programme, under which HyD would invite District Councils (DCs) to nominate not more than three existing walkways in each district for lift retrofitting. The walkways to be implemented under the next phase would no longer be confined to public walkways maintained by HyD. Other walkways could also be considered provided that certain criteria were met. He pointed out that as revealed by the preliminary study conducted in the past 6 months, not many walkways in the Southern District proposed by the public were eligible for consideration by the Committee. It was therefore understandable that the Committee would need some time to consider and HyD would endeavour to co-operate.

58. Ms O Fong-wa, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation, briefed Members on the next phase of the UA Programme (for details please refer to TTC Paper No. 9/2017). Preliminary assessment showed that the lift retrofitting works for the two walkways for consideration by the Committee under the next phase of the UA Programme (HF175 and HKS01) would be technically very difficult. The relevant information was also given at Annex 3. 59. The Chairman said that according to HyD’s introduction, HyD would allow time for the Committee to propose suitable walkways. He thus urged Members to focus on discussion about the four criteria mentioned by HyD. Members could recommend new suggestions for location of lift retrofitting to HyD via the Secretariat according to local needs after the meeting. 60. Mr AU Nok-hin said that Lei Tung Estate Owners’ Corporation and Yue On Court Owners’ Corporation were each responsible for half of the walkway no. HKS01, which spanned across a public road section maintained by HyD. He enquired whether the existing division of management met the revised criteria of the UA Programme set by the Government in 2016. 61. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH commented that the UA Programme was beneficial to the public. But HyD also had the responsibility of making a district accessible to everyone. She had proposed the construction of a walkway and retrofitting of a lift at Wind Tower Park in conjunction with Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung. At that time, HyD only said that they would relay the proposal to the department concerned. Although the abovementioned proposal did not fall within the scope of the next phase of the Programme, she had to point out that at present South Horizons, Ap Lei Chau Estate and Ap Lei Chau Main Street were not linked up by footbridges. She urged HyD to relay her opinion to the department concerned. 62. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH added that the Leisure and Cultural Services Department had in fact reserved space for lift shaft at Wind Tower Park. Members had also made proposals to different departments and were endorsed by SDC. According to the feasibility study of the Architectural Services Department, two lifts could be retrofitted at Wind Tower Park. If a footbridge could be constructed, it could be connected to South Horizons and Ap Lei Chau Estate as well as provide convenience to residents and visitors. She thus sincerely hoped that HyD could proactively consider retrofitting a lift at Wind Tower Park. Moreover, the outcome of HyD’s preliminary assessment on degree of difficulty for the two walkways (HF175 and HKS01) was that both were very difficult. She enquired whether the technical difficulties could be overcome. 63. Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH said that as far as the determination of private land lots was concerned, housing estates under the Tenants Purchase Scheme (TPS) were previously under the ownership of the Housing Department (HD). Even though some flats had now been sold under TPS, HD was still holding a share in the ownership. She thus enquired whether barrier-free access facilities could be provided at these places. In respect of the fourth criterion listed in the paper prepared by HyD, she enquired whether HD, which held a proportion of ownership, should also take up some responsibilities of the barrier-free access. She said that although there were now lifts linking Wah Fu Estate and Wah Kwai Estate, they were

under frequent use. In case a lift was out of service due to failure, elderly people or people with impaired mobility travelling from Wah Kwai Estate to Wah Fu Estate would encounter difficulty. She thus hoped that HyD could retrofit additional lifts there. 64. The Chairman reiterated that Members raise new suggestions via the Secretariat after the meeting. This meeting would focus on discussion of the four criteria set by HyD. 65. Ms CHAN Judy Kapui said she understood that the walkways selected should not be privately owned. She enquired whether HyD would completely refrain from consideration or would take into consideration the number of beneficiaries if the walkway connected Government land and private land. 66. Ms YAM Pauline said that the retrofitting of barrier-free access facilities for a footbridge in Aberdeen was behind schedule and requested HyD to commence works as soon as possible. Moreover, since there were street sleepers on that footbridge, she suggested that HyD could liaise with the SDC Member of the constituency concerned and conduct a consultation. She suggested that Members should also take into account the problem of street sleepers when selecting the walkways. 67. Mr Paul ZIMMERAN said that Members should also notice whether there was sufficient space for the retrofitting works when making recommendations so as to minimise the impacts on the neighbouring areas. 68. Mr KONG Tai-wing responded that HyD had to consider Members’ new suggestions meticulously on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the new suggestions met the criteria for the next phase of the UA Programme. Although some walkways situated outside the boundaries of housing estates were managed and maintained by the concerned private land lot owners (including owners’ corporations of TPS housing estates or the Link, etc.) according to the land lease, these walkways might not be “privately owned”. For each individual case, the Government had to determine whether the walkway was “privately owned” according to the provisions under the land lease. He stressed that walkways included in the list of candidate walkways for the next phase of UA Programme for Members’ consideration must span across public roads maintained by HyD and be open for public access round the clock. HyD would prudently consider new suggestions made by Members. After a preliminary study, HyD would provide the Committee with the relevant information of these walkways to enable the Committee to comprehensively consider the priority of the walkways. As HyD planned to complete its consultation with all the 18 DCs in the first half of 2017, HyD wished to know when SDC would submit their new suggestions. 69. The Chairman concluded that the Committee supported the Programme in principle. Since Members had different views on the walkways for lift retrofitting works, he suggested allowing two weeks’ time for Members to consolidate the detailed information of walkways and submit to the Secretariat their new suggestions which would then be forwarded to HyD for preliminary study. Upon completion of the preliminary study, HyD would submit relevant information to the Committee for

deliberation and discussion. The Committee would then select three walkways for HyD to conduct detailed feasibility study.

Agenda Item 5:

Mid-term Review on the Franchise of New World First Bus Services Limited (Item raised by Mr CHAI Man-hon) (TTC Paper No. 11/2017)

70. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of TD and bus companies to the meeting; (a) (b) 71. item.

Mr FU Ting-hong, Senior Transport Officer/Bus/HK 1, TD; and Mr Kevin LI, Public Affairs Manager, CTB/NWFB. The Chairman invited Mr CHAI Man-hon to brief Members on the agenda

72. Mr CHAI Man-hon contended that TD’s role in improving bus services was not confined to monitoring. It could also actively control the bus companies by using the franchises as a tool, including giving comments and conducting reviews on whether to extend the franchises. But regrettably TD had been trying to shirk its responsibility. The written reply had not responded to the questions he raised. He continued that the service of the New World First Bus Services Limited (NWFB) had been deteriorating persistently in the past five years. First, it was very conservative in applying new technology. For example, so far it had not made full use of the real-time arrival information system. Second, it had not proactively improved its bus route design and addressed to requests for interchange concessions. Third, NWFB could not even provide basic services properly. For instance, it had a serious problem of bus driver shortage, which did not only occur on long public holidays but also on ordinary weekdays and was one of the main causes of the lost trip problem. He also criticised TD for favouring NWFB and Citybus Limited (CTB) under NWS Holdings. It had not reprimanded the bus companies publicly for substandard services ever since granting the franchises. He contended that it could not help improve NWFB’s overall service quality by discussing individual bus routes or enhancement plan. He thus hoped that this discussion could urge TD to conduct the mid-term review in mid-2017 in accordance with the clauses in the franchise and assess the overall bus system as well as whether the existing services of NWFB satisfied the public’s needs. Finally, he stressed that TD was duty bound to monitor and enhance the service quality of the bus companies. Using the real-time arrival information system as an example, he said that TD could have used its right associated with the franchise to request the bus company to expedite the implementation of the system. Now that the implementation had to be delayed until 2018, it obviously amounted to a dereliction of duty. 73.

Mr FU Ting-hong gave the following supplementary response: (a)

TD had been conducting surveys on different bus routes regularly and monitoring the bus services according to the Schedules of Service. Regarding the lost trip problem caused by shortfall in the number of

drivers, TD would request the bus company to provide the committed services as shown in the Schedules of Service and comply with TD’s guidelines on the work time and rest time of drivers; (b)

in response to the request of providing more direct and rapid bus services, TD would conduct reviews with the bus company annually, taking into account of the public’s views from different districts;

(c)

TD had been encouraging the bus company to provide interchange concessions. The bus company would make decisions having regard to various factors such as its operational conditions and passengers’ needs; and

(d) regarding the installation of real-time arrival information display panels, NWFB had promised to install LCD display panels at bus terminuses to show bus route information within the period of the current franchise which was granted in 2013. As at May 2016, NWFB had completed installation work at five bus terminuses, including Grand Promenade, Cyberport, the Peak Galleria, Yiu Tung Estate and North Point Ferry Pier. Although NWFB had not made any promise regarding the provision of real-time arrival information system in 2013 when its franchise was granted, in light of the advances in information technology, it had taken the initiative to provide real-time arrival information system for its bus routes. It was expected that the system could be put into full operation in 2018. 74.

Mr Kevin LI supplemented as follows: (a)

regarding the shortfall in the number of drivers, NWFB had launched a recruitment exercise by putting up advertisements through different channels, such as the company’s website, the automatic bus stop announcement system on buses, advertisements on buses, newspapers, mobile phone apps and other types of advertisement. NWFB would also review and improve the remuneration, fringe benefits and work environment of the drivers periodically to attract and retain staff members;

(b)

NWFB contended that the lost trip problem was mainly caused by traffic jams and absence from duty of some drivers. In view of this, NWFB had made flexible redeployment and reviewed the frequencies of the bus routes on a regular basis with a view to maintaining a reliable service frequency; and

(c)

NWFB was proactively preparing the installation of real-time arrival information system and electronic display panels, which were expected to start operation in 2018. As of now, NWFB had installed electronic display panels at some bus terminuses to display the departure times of the various bus routes, including some bus terminuses in the Southern District, such as South Horizons, Stanley, Wah Fu (South) and Cyberport. In addition, NWFB also planned to install real-time

arrival information display panels at some 200 bus stops with electricity supply and shelters throughout the territory from 2018 onwards, and would assess whether the installation was suitable at the bus stops having regard to various factors such as the geographical environment, passenger flow, route and space. 75. A number of Members raised enquires and comments which were summarised as follows: (a)

Mr WONG Chun-pong said that according to the clauses in the franchise, the bus company would provide electronic display panels at bus stops of bus routes with low frequencies to display the arrival time. He enquired about the number of bus routes covered and whether all routes could be covered by this arrangement by 2018. He also suggested that the mid-term review should make reference to that of Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited (KMB), such as requesting NWFB to provide information on seat vacancy of the upper decks, fare concessions for full-time students and buses with dual wheelchair spaces for routes serving hospitals to facilitate wheelchair users travelling to hospitals;

(b)

Mr CHAI Man-hon said that while a bus company did not have the responsibility of providing additional services other than those prescribed in the franchise clauses, in accordance with Item 2, Section 19 of the Transport Department Notice, the Commissioner for Transport had the right to request a bus company to add services which were deemed necessary by the Department at all times. According to the past examples, in the wake of a number of major bus accidents, TD had requested the bus companies to install electronic data recording devices (EDRDs). Moreover, he challenged TD’s claim that electronic display panels had been installed at quite a number of bus terminuses in the Southern District by pointing out that although electronic display panels had been installed at Wah Fu (South) bus terminus, they had not started operation since its installation at least two months ago. Even if some had started operation, they did not display real-time information. In addition, the lost trip problems often occurred in NWFB routes no. 42, 590 and 970, etc. Despite persistent discussion of the problem by the Committee, no solution had been proposed. Objectively speaking, the service quality of NWFB had been deteriorating. It was thus necessary for TD to review the franchise of NWFB. He hoped that the discussion could be targeted at the general direction of service enhancement instead of individual routes, or else it would amount to empty talk;

(c)

based on his past experiences of participating in public consultations on the franchises of KMB and CTB, Mr KWONG Tse-hin criticised TD for failing to seriously consolidate the public’s views on the franchise clauses. Moreover, he enquired whether NWFB had installed EDRDs to monitor the drivers’ driving behaviour and enhance their awareness of driving safety. Finally, he said that the routeings of NWFB routes

no. 9 and 14 were of high risk and had proposed to various departments the installation of crash barriers along the routes. But no progress was seen. NWFB thus had to do something on the buses and driver training to avoid the occurrence of accidents; (d)

Mr AU Nok-hin said that as the Southern District was affected by the public transport re-organisation plan to tie in with the commissioning of the South Island Line (East), priority should be accorded to installing real-time arrival information system in the Southern District by 2018. Apart from improving the lost trip problem, he also suggested that the bus company consider advancing the service time of all airbuses; and

(e)

Mr LO Kin-hei said that if priority could be accorded to installing real-time arrival information system in the Southern District, it could help reduce the resistance against TD’s bus route reorganisation plan. He stressed that the Southern District was now facing the problem of bus route reorganisation. The bus company should thus take the initiative to redeploy resources with a view to improving the bus services in the Southern District.

76. follows:

Mr FU Ting-hong gave a consolidated response to Members’ enquiries as

(a)

TD could request the bus companies to add new facilities. The bus company had also promised to install the real-time arrival information system. But the installation timetable was subject to the operational arrangement and testing results of the bus company. Based on the current progress, the bus company promised that the installation could be completed in 2018;

(b)

TD would follow up the issue of electronic display panels at Wah Fu (South) bus terminus with NWFB after the meeting;

(c)

in response to Mr WONG Chun-pong’s enquiry, TD said that NWFB was now providing the arrival time of bus routes with fixed frequencies at the main bus stops and their website. The bus routes included no. 9, 14, 30X, 63, 65, 694, 796S, 797M, 971, H1, N8 and N796 and the information included the estimated arrival time at the bus stops. TD would refer the other suggestions, including the suggestions relating to bus routes serving hospitals and services provided by KMB under the new franchise, to NWFB for consideration. As the franchise of NWFB was granted in 2013 and the technology was constantly developing, the requirements in the franchise at that time might be different from the requirements in recent years;

(d)

TD had requested the bus companies to install EDRDs which were commonly called the “black box system” on all new buses procured since 2012 to monitor the driving conditions of the buses; and

(e)

77. follows:

TD noted Members’ comments on according priority to installing real-time arrival information system in the Southern District. The bus company would make appropriate decisions after considering various factors. Mr Kevin LI gave a consolidated response to Members’ enquiries as

(a)

the bus company would follow up and understand the problem of some electronic display panels failing to function properly at Wah Fu (South) bus terminus;

(b)

the discrepancy between the actual departure times of buses and the information on the electronic display panels was due to the fact that the existing display panels could only show the scheduled departure times. If a bus arrived late due to a traffic jam, the information of the display panel could not be updated until the bus regulator adjusted the system upon arrival of the bus. The bus company agreed that there was still room for improvement in the system. After the real-time arrival information system was fully installed, the passenger would then know the departure times of buses in the coming 60 minutes. It would also facilitate the deployment of buses by the bus company;

(c)

the bus company would consider the impacts of the fare concessions for full-time students on the finance and income of the company and study the arrangement meticulously;

(d)

the bus company was planning to provide a new bus route serving hospitals in the Eastern District which was tentatively named route no. 8H and was planning to convert some of the buses to provide dual wheelchair spaces;

(e)

for the time being the bus company had no plan to provide information on seat vacancy of the upper deck;

(f)

currently EDRDs had been installed on all buses and were supported by electronic maps to facilitate monitoring of the service quality of the frontline staff and assist with investigations of traffic accidents. The bus company had been enhancing the facilities on buses. For instance, each new bus would be equipped with eight to ten CCTV cameras with two and six of them installed outside and inside the bus compartment, respectively;

(g)

the bus company had enhanced the safety measures inside buses. At present, an automatic fire-fighting system was installed near the engine room of each bus of the Euro IV standard or above. In case the temperature of the engine exceeded the prescribed level, the automatic fire-fighting system would be activated immediately and the air conditioning system would be switched off. The bus compartment was also made of fire retarding materials. Moreover, to cater for bus

routes going through rugged road sections, such as NWFB route no. 14, the bus company had ordered specially designed vehicles and proactively studied the layout and design of the bus compartments with the manufacturer. It had also arranged to replace the existing bus model no. 330 which had a height of 10.6 m; and (h)

the bus company noted Members’ comments on the airbus services. In view of the increasing number of passengers going to the airport for flights at small hours or for work, the bus company had provided bus services that departed at small hours, advanced the first departure times during the summer vacation and added special routes serving the airport maintenance area. The bus company would continue to pay attention to the development of the airport and explore possible directions of service improvement.

78. Mr CHAI Man-hon said that to avoid leaving the matter unsettled, he urged TD to provide more detailed information, such as whether the manpower ratio of the bus company was sufficient, whether TD was satisfied with NWFB’s performance in terms of the attendance records of the drivers, bus frequencies and technological application. He also suggested that TD allow Members to participate in regular assessment of NWFB’s performance so as to exert pressure on NWFB for service improvement. He also requested the bus company to ensure permanent operation of the electronic display panels at bus stops to facilitate the passengers. Finally, he hoped that NWFB’s performance could be put under review continually after the meeting. 79. Mr KWONG Tse-hin appreciated that the bus company had procured new bus models to be used on bus routes going through mountainous areas and adopted new safety measures such as the fire-fighting systems and EDRDs. However, he had reservation about whether the EDRDs could effectively improve the driving behaviour of drivers and monitor their driving attitude. He further encouraged the bus company to obtain the ISO39001 certification for road traffic safety management systems launched in 2012 to enhance the quality of its safety management. 80. In response to the enquiry of whether TD was satisfied with the bus company’s services, Mr FU Ting-hong said that the written reply had mentioned TD’s monitoring methods, including conducting satisfaction surveys, monitoring the bus company’s compliance of TD’s guidelines and inviting independent organisations to measure passengers’ satisfaction and collate their comments. TD agreed that the bus company needed to confirm whether all systems were functioning properly. Regarding the monitoring of the drivers’ driving attitude, the bus company had different methods such as induction training to improve the drivers’ driving attitude and skills and would review whether individual drivers had violated traffic regulations. 81. The Chairman concluded that the Committee requested TD to note Members’ comments and conduct the mid-term review on the franchise of NWFB. In addition, the Committee also requested TD to step up monitoring of NWFB’s management. NWFB also had to propose practicable solution to the lost trip problem.

(Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH left the meeting at 6:56 p.m.)

Agenda Item 6:

Progress Report on Previously Discussed Items (as at 28.2.2017) (TTC Paper No. 11/2017)

82. The Chairman asked Members to give their views on the items in order of their appearance in the report. (B)

Bus Services in the District

83. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH wished to know the reasons for the situation of lost trips for the whole day for NWFB Route No. 590A in December 2016 and January 2017, as well as NWFB Route No. 590 in January 2017. 84. Mr CHAI Man-hon said that he had repeatedly enquired TD about the re-organisation proposal for NWFB Route No. 970 in the past meetings. He hoped that TD could give a formal response. 85. Mr LAU Kin-kwok responded that as could be seen from the table, the number of routes with lost trip situation had decreased significantly in January 2017 as compared with December 2016, which was mainly due to the improvement of traffic congestion at the Aberdeen Tunnel after the commissioning of the SIL(E). Regarding the lost trip situation of NWFB Route No. 590A in December 2016 and January 2017, it was mainly caused by traffic congestion and shortage of bus captain. In view of this, TD had written to the management of the bus company, requesting for stringent follow-up actions. If the situation remained unimproved in February 2017, TD would consider issuing a warning letter. Regarding NWFB Route No. 590, although it was less affected by traffic condition, shortage of bus captains was also the main reason for its lost trip situation. TD would closely monitor its situation in February and follow up further. For the issue on the re-organisation of NWFB Route No. 970 as raised by Mr CHAI Man-hon, TD had taken account of the actual operation of the route and adjusted its journey time on 22 February 2017. On the review of its routeing, the bus company considered that there were many passengers along Jordan to Nathan Road of this route, and therefore TD and the bus company had to explore further on the ways to enhance its routeing. 86. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN enquired whether the bus routes under review would be included in the progress report for discussion at the next meeting. 87. Mr CHAI Man-hon pointed out that according to TD’s response, TD could issue warning letters to the bus company. He queried why the TD representatives failed to provide the number of warning letters issued under the agenda item of “Mid-term Review on the Franchise of New World First Bus Services Limited”. He opined that this was an act in favour of the NWS Holdings Limited and could not be accepted. He added that despite the commissioning of SIL(E), Members had been discussing the lost trip situation of various routes at the meetings. Nevertheless, there was still no improvement in the services of many bus routes, such

as NWFB Route Nos. 970 and 42, which was disappointing. He hoped that TD could submit concrete improvement proposals at the next meeting. 88. Mr LAU Kin-kwok responded that TD would approach the relevant Members after the meeting and submit the information requested by Members at the next meeting. (C) Highways Department (Southern District) – Progress Report on Major Road Resurfacing Works to be completed within 2 months or to start within 6 months 89. Ms YAM Pauline said that regarding item no. 8 “Aberdeen Main Road Flyover H160 (Reapplying anti-skid surface dressing)”, HyD’s dissemination of information and quality of works were good and hence commendable. Yet, she said that some waste was left at the site after completion of the works. She had contacted the relevant HyD staff members and the site was now properly cleaned up. But she hoped that HyD could take the initiative to clean up sites after the completion of works in future. 90.

Ms CHAN Yun-yee said that the Member’s views were noted.

91. Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH said that the estimated completion date of item no. 9 “Tin Wan Praya Road near Wah Kwai Estate Bus Terminus” was 31 March 2017. She enquired about the progress of application for the construction noise permit. 92. Ms CHAN Yun-yee said that the relevant information was not available at the moment and she would reply to the Member direct after the meeting. [Post-meeting note: HyD was seeking the views of the government departments concerned and operators of public transport (including buses, minibuses and taxis, etc.). If there was no objection, HyD would arrange the contractor to carry out the road resurfacing works in early May this year.] (E) Hong Kong Police Force and Transport Department – Southern District Traffic Report of 2017 (January 2017) 93. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that there was recently a video of a traffic accident circulating on the Internet, in which a father and son were knocked over by a car when crossing a road north of Tai Tam Tuk Reservoir. He pointed out that it was an extremely dangerous location. Due to the lack of proper crossing facilities, pedestrians had to cross the road to get to the opposite bus stop. Accidents might happen when drivers overtook the large vehicles ahead which were waiting for the carriageway at the Tai Tam Tuk Reservoir dam to be clear. He was not aware of any follow-up action by TD, HyD or the Police after the incident. With the number of hikers and visitors going to Tai Tam on the rise in recent years, there would also be a greater chance of traffic accidents. This problem should not be overlooked. 94. Mr FUNG Se-goun said that as the East Area was large with longer roads, the number of accidents was higher than those of other areas. In the single week of

13 March 2017, there were already four relatively serious traffic accidents. Traffic congestions of more than two hours were often resulted in the Bays Area. As widely known, there were many old and narrow mountain roads in the Bays Area. Coupled with the ever increasing number of private vehicles, goods vehicles and coaches, as well as slippery road surface on rainy days, traffic accidents were frequent. It was thus necessary to formulate a long-term improvement proposal. He understood that it was impossible to avoid each and every accident. But TD could work on various aspects such as road safety, speed limit and road widening. He hoped that TD could have long-term planning. He also shared Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN’s views that many roads in the Southern District did not have pedestrian crossing facilities, such as Wong Chuk Hang Road opposite to Ocean Park MTR Station. 95. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that after the commissioning of the new railway, at least five traffic accidents had happened at the junction of Heung Yip Road and Nam Long Shan Road near Wong Chuk Hang MTR Station. He hoped that TD could review the ancillary transport facilities there to identify the causes of accidents. 96. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying stressed the prime importance of road safety. She said that there were many bends in the roads in the Southern District. If drivers were distracted by the use of mobile phones or other devices, it would easily lead to accidents. She suggested providing traffic signs ahead of bends and hoped that the departments concerned could improve the problem through publicity, education and traffic measures. 97. Ms MAK Cheuk-yan gave a consolidated response to Members’ comments as follows: (a)

Regarding the traffic problems at Tai Tam Road, TD had looked into the situation. A footpath of approximately 2-metre wide was provided there. TD would continue to follow it up with Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN after the meeting;

(b)

The road problem of and long-term improvement proposal for the Bays Area mentioned by Mr FUNG Se-goun concerned long-term road planning;

(c)

The lot on which the junction of Heung Yip Road and Nam Long Shan Road situated was still under the management of the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRC) and had not been surrendered to the Government. TD had always examined the traffic arrangements at that road section and would request MTRC to rectify any instructions that were confusing to road users; and

(d)

On the provision of additional pedestrian crossing facilities along Wong Chuk Hang Road to Shouson Hill Road, TD was exploring feasible improvement measures after a site visit with Mr FUNG Se-goun.

98. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that he was not referring to the Hong Kong Trail but the north of Tai Tam Tuk Reservoir, where the Tai Tam Tuk dam connected

with the road. In the video, a taxi was waiting to move onto the carriageway at the dam. But the private car behind overtook it and knocked over the father and son crossing the road. He requested TD to contact him within the week to follow up on the matter. 99. The Chairman requested TD to contact Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN to confirm the exact location of the accident. [Post-meeting note: TD had contacted the Member concerned.] 100. Mr KWONG Tse-hin said that between 2011 and 2013, there was an annual average of 650 injuries caused by traffic accidents in the Southern District, among which 80 were serious injuries or fatalities. According to analysis, there were many causes leading to accidents, including the increase in vehicle numbers which resulted in a higher traffic flow. Some of the accidents happened at traffic black spots but if the accidents happened on an entire road section, the causes were random. He opined that an overall review should be conducted for the entire Southern District, a group of streets or individual areas, so as to identify the causes of accidents in an effective manner. If it was found that there was serious problem at a particular spot, it should be addressed expeditiously. 101.

The Chairman asked the Police whether they had anything to add.

102. Mr KWONG Sze-yeung said that in mid-March 2017, the Police formally launched the “Selected Traffic Enforcement Priorities 2017”. As with last year, it focused on a “3 ‘E’” approach, namely “Enforcement”, “Public Engagement” and “Road Engineering”, with a view to reducing traffic accidents. Regarding the causes of traffic accidents mentioned by a Member, the human factors involved drivers, pedestrians and passengers. In the past year, the Police noticed that as many drivers had used mobile phones during driving, they were distracted and had caused accidents. As such, prosecutions would be taken against such drivers. Prosecutions would also be enhanced against passengers not wearing safety belts. He continued that as the age range of the pedestrians involved in traffic accidents was quite big, publicity would be targeted at the elderly and children, educating them to follow the signals of crossing facilities in crossing the roads. Lastly, he emphasised that the Police would continue to carry out publicity and stringent enforcement actions. 103. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN appreciated the Police’s efforts on road safety in the territory. Yet, he opined that the Members’ discussion just now only involved the road problem of the Southern District. He had since 2010 mentioned the lack of footpaths along the roads in the district, and even refuges for pedestrians to stay away in times of accidents. He said that the mountain roads in the Southern District were old and narrow with many bends and slopes, as well as private lands involved. He suggested conducting a comprehensive review and inviting higher level representatives from TD to the meeting to give responses. He hoped that if an agenda item could be incorporated for this matter, TD would send a higher level representative to give responses. 104. The Chairman opined that the comprehensive review of the mountain roads in the Southern District fell within the ambit of district development and might

be discussed in the meeting of SDC, so that higher level departmental representatives could be invited to give responses. He also advised TD to actively follow up on the road problems mentioned by Members after the meeting, whereas the long-term road planning be discussed in future. 105. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP said that if Members wished to discuss the relevant matter, they might submit the agenda item to the Secretariat for its decision. Reference Information 1 – List of Missing and Sub-standard Pedestrian Links with High Pedestrian Demand in the Southern District 106. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that regarding item no. 3 “Pedestrian crossing at Ap Lei Chau Bridge Slip Road entrance outside Jing Hui Garden Block 2”, he had pointed out in the past meetings that it was a potential traffic black spot because the view of drivers would be easily obstructed by the bridge columns. Therefore, the provision of signs would not be of much use. He suggested closure of that crossing to avoid accidents. 107. Ms CHAN Yun-yee said that close liaison would be maintained with TD to study the feasibility of closure of that crossing. 108. The Chairman said that regarding the “In progress / completed” of the list, as the relevant government departments had taken follow-up actions for the road sections set out therein, he suggested this part be deleted.

Agenda Item 7:

Any Other Business

Request for Provision of Pedestrian Crossing Facilities at Wong Chuk Hang Road (Near Ocean Park Station) 109. Mr FUNG Se-goun said that he had mentioned at the SDC meeting on 19 January 2017 that many passengers chose to cross Wong Chuk Hang Road off Ocean Park Station for interchanging with other modes of public transport. In the absence of appropriate pedestrian crossing facilities at the location where the vehicular speed was relatively high, accidents were prone to happen. Given the increasing number of pedestrians who crossed Wong Chuk Hang Road directly, he considered that this problem simply could not be ignored. He quoted TD’s response that there was a signalised pedestrian crossing in the vicinity. Yet, as the crossing was quite far away and not readily accessible, most residents were reluctant to detour to use it. Therefore, he hoped for the provision of pedestrian crossing facilities near Ocean Park Station, a suggestion which was also supported by residents of Shouson Hill and Repulse Bay. He urged TD to address residents’ demands by erecting a “Reduce Speed Now” sign on the road and taking traffic calming measures as soon as possible, in order to improve the current situation. 110. The Chairman found discussion at this meeting unnecessary, having learnt that TD had already conducted a site visit with the relevant Members in this regard. Moreover, he indicated that the Secretariat had received letters from Mr FUNG Se-goun, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and Mr KWONG Tse-hin as well as a verbal

request from Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying before the meeting calling for the provision of pedestrian crossing facilities at Wong Chuk Hang Road (near Ocean Park Station), and the same had been forwarded to TD. The Committee requested TD to actively follow up on the matter and take feasible measures, so as to ensure the safety of pedestrians when crossing the road. (Post-meeting note: The letters from Mr FUNG Se-goun, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and Mr KWONG Tse-hin are given at Annex 1 (Chinese only) and Annex 2 respectively, while the reply from TD to the above Members is given at Annex 3 (Chinese only for P.1) for reference.) 111. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN pointed out that according to the reply dated 17 March 2017, TD would study the feasibility of installing pedestrian railings and conduct a local consultation thereon, ignoring Members’ request for the provision of pedestrian crossing facilities. He saw such a proposal as unacceptable, remarking that TD should actively resolve the problem of dangerous jaywalking at the location instead of pushing pedestrians away to detour with the proposed railings. 112. The Chairman said that the installation of pedestrian railings should only be a short-term measure and asked the representatives of TD to make a response. 113. Ms MAK Cheuk-yan responded that as many pedestrians chose to cross the road at that location, TD, having accorded priority to pedestrian safety, considered the installation of pedestrian railings to be a feasible and quick way to direct pedestrians to use the existing crossing facilities to cross the road safely in the short term. The department did not oppose the provision of any pedestrian crossing facilities and would study other feasible solution. 114. Mr FUNG Se-goun added that residents objected to the proposed installation of pedestrian railings. 115. The Chairman instructed TD to contact the relevant Members after the meeting to gauge the views of both Members and residents. Application for Extension of License for “Aberdeen-Pak Kok Tsuen-Yung Shue Wan” Licensed Ferry Service 116. The Chairman stated that TD was conducting a consultation on the application for extension of license for the “Aberdeen-Pak Kok Tsuen-Yung Shue Wan” licensed ferry service. The Secretariat had also distributed the relevant document to Members by email earlier. He reminded Members to submit their comments, if any, before the deadline for TD’s consideration. 117. Mr CHAI Man-hon said that the “Aberdeen-Pak Kok Tsuen-Yung Shue Wan” ferry service was different from kaito in that it was licensed and subsidised by the Government to offer a concessionary public transport fare. Furthermore, TD had neither responded to nor adopted any views collected during the consultations conducted in the past. Hence, he hoped that TD could improve the consultation arrangements and respond proactively.

118. Mr LAU Kin-kwok indicated that he would convey Members’ views to the Ferry Team for follow-up. (Mr AU Lap-sing, MH, Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH and Mr AU Nok-hin left the meeting at 8:04 p.m., 8:10 p.m. and 8:10 p.m. respectively.)

Date of Next Meeting 119. The Chairman advised the meeting that the 9th meeting of T&TC under SDC would be held at 2:30 p.m. on 22 May 2017 (Monday) at the SDC Conference Room. 120.

There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m.

Secretariat, Southern District Council May 2017

Annex 1

Annex 2 Transport Department Urban Regional Office Traffic Engineering (HK) Division Southern District & Peak Section 37/F, Immigration Tower 7 Gloucester Road, Wan Chai Hong Kong Attention: Mr Tam Chung On, Alan/Ms Mak Cheuk Yan, Yammie Dear Sirs/Madams, Concerns on Lack of Pedestrian Crossing Facilities near MTR Ocean Park Station After the opening of MTR Ocean Park Station, there is an increased demand for MTR passengers crossing Wong Chuk Hang Road to access the bus stop outside San Wai Village for transit to Repulse Bay and Stanley. Pedestrians are crossing the five-lane main road at various locations amidst speeding traffic and poor visibility. In this respect, I would like to urge Transport Department and Highways Department to: 1.

implement urgent measures to assist and safeguard pedestrians

2.

consider interim and long-term solutions which may include: - a signalized pedestrian crossing - improvements associated with a roundabout at the Shouson Hill Road junction - a footbridge across Wong Chuk Hang Road

Yours faithfully,

Julian THG Kwong Co-opted Member, Traffic and Transport Committee, Southern District Council

Paul Zimmerman District Councillor, Southern District Council 16 March 2017 cc

Highways Department

Annex 3

﹝H4HS問 、．，

By Fax 37533819

＠

電 話 Tel. 圖文傳真 Fai< 電 郵 Emllil

: 2829 .5802 : 2824 0399

17 March 2017

Southern District Council (Attn: Mr. Paul Zimmerman晶之Mr. Julian THG Kwong) Dear Sirs, Re: Concerns on Lack of Pedestrian Cro恆in宮 Facilities n個 rMTR Ocean Park Station I refer to your above-referenced letter dated 16 March 2017, ple值 e find our detailed reply as follows: At present, pedestrians from the MTR Ocean Park Station Exit C can go along the Wong Chuk Hang Road westbound (uphill direction) and cross Wong Chuk Hang Road at the signalized crossing towards the bus stop at San Wai Village. Alternatively, pedestrians from MTR Ocean Park Station Exit C C血 also go along Wong Chuk Hang Road eastbound (downhill dire的ion）的 the bus stop to reach郎footbridge over Wong Chuk Hang Road towards the bus stop at San Wai Village. As a related issue, please be informed血at HyD is arranging the installation of a lift for the above‘mentioned footbridge to enhance barrier-free accessibility. In addition，出is Department is studying the installation of railings in ordeτto guide pedestrians to safe crossing facilities, and will conduct local consultation accordingly. Furthennore, this Department will continue to study the feasibility of other appropriate measures.

Yours faithfully, heu.k·y組） ioner for Transport c.c. HAD -Southern District Council (Attn: Ms. Michelle UN) 市區（香港）分區辦事處

Urban Region 剖 0{(ioe (Hong Kong﹜

香港﹜嘲乎也﹒士打過它號人壞事搞大續三＋七縷 的th floor Immigmtion Tower 7 Glouce.�1er Road Wan Chai Hong Kong 鋼址Web Site: htφ：／/www此gov.hk

�