(Translation)

Minutes of the 6th Meeting of Traffic and Transport Committee the 6th Term Kwun Tong District Council

Date: 25 March 2021 (Thursday) Time: 9:40 a.m. - 12:42 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Kwun Tong District Office, Unit 05-07, 20/F Millennium City 6, 392 Kwun Tong Road, Kwun Tong, Kowloon

Present Arrival Time Leaving Time Mr BUX Sheik Anthony (Chairman) 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr WANG Wai-lun (Vice-chairman) 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr CHAN Chris Ka-yin 9:45 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr CHAN Man-kin 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr CHAN Yik-shun Eason 10:03 a.m. 12:28 p.m. Mr CHAN Yiu-hung, Jimmy 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr CHENG Keng-ieong 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr CHEUNG Man-fung 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr CHEUNG Pui-kong 9:42 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Ms FU Pik-chun 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr FUNG Ka-lung 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr HSU Yau-wai 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr HUNG Chun-hin 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr IP Tsz-kit 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr KAN Ming-tung, MH 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr KUNG Chun-ki 10:02 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Ms LAI Po-kwai 9:56 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr LAM Wai 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr LEE Kwan-chak 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Ms LEUNG Jannelle Rosalynne 10:45 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr LEUNG Tang-fung 9:49 a.m. 11:45 a.m. Mr LI Wai-lam William 9:46 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Ms LI Wing-shan 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr LUI Tung-hai, MH 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr MOK Kin-shing 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m.

1

Mr NGAN Man-yu 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr OR Chong-shing Wilson, MH 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr PANG Chi-sang 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr SO Koon-chung Kevin 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr TAM Siu-cheuk 9:44 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr TANG Wai-man Raymond 9:49 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Ms TSE Suk-chun 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr WAN Ka-him 10:05 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr WONG Chi-ken 9:55 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Ms WONG Ka-ying 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m. Mr WONG Kai-ming 9:40 a.m. 12:42 p.m.

Representatives of Government Departments Miss CHOI Gi-lam, Britney Assistant District Officer (Kwun Tong)1 Ms CHEUNG Suk-ling, Cindy Senior Transport Officer/Kwun Tong 1, Transport Department Miss SZE Suk-wai, Muriel Senior Transport Officer/Kwun Tong 2, Transport Department Mr HO Ming-him, Donald Engineer/Kwun Tong 1, Transport Department Mr CHAN Chin-yeung, Edwin Engineer/Kwun Tong 3, Transport Department Mr YIP Yuk-tsang District Engineer/Hung Hom, Highways Department Mrs CHEUNG Pui-kay, Carrie Chief Inspector, Hong Kong Police Force Mr CHU Chi-wai, Boris Officer-in-charge, District Traffic Team (Kwun Tong), Hong Kong Police Force Mr CHAN Chi-him District Operations Officer (Sau Mau Ping), Hong Kong Police Force Mr KO Choar-que, Keith Acting Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Kwun Tong District Office Miss FOK Woon-on, Winnie (Secretary) Executive Officer (District Council)(4), Kwun Tong District Office

2

Absent

Mr CHOY Chak-hung Mr LI Ka-tat Ms LEUNG Yik-ting Edith

Representatives Present to Assist with Discussion of Agenda Items

Agenda Item II Bus Route Planning Programme 2021-2022 of Kwun Tong District

Mr MAN Yui-chit, Michael Senior Transport Officer/Bus/Kowloon, Bus Development Division, Bus and Railway Branch, Transport Department Mr HO Chun-kit, Ethan Transport Officer/Bus/Kowloon, Bus Development Division, Bus and Railway Branch, Transport Department Mr Terry LO Manager, Operations, Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited Mr Rayson Law Senior Officer, Planning and Development, Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited Mr Jeff TAM Manager, Public Affairs, Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited Mr Calvin WONG Chief Planning Officer, Citybus Limited/New World First Bus Services Limited Miss Penny CHUNG Chief Public Affairs Officer, Citybus Limited/New World First Bus Services Limited

3

Agenda Item III “Special Scheme” under the “Universal Accessibility” Programme – Priority Implementation

Mr NG Piu, Lawrence Senior Engineer 4/Universal Accessibility, Major Works Project Management Office, Highways Department Mr LIU Kin-kwan Engineer 8/Universal Accessibility, Major Works Project Management Office, Highways Department Mr Will KWAN Senior Associate, WSP (Asia) Limited

Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed all the attendees to the meeting.

I. Confirmation of Minutes

2. The minutes of the 5th meeting were confirmed without amendment.

II. Bus Route Planning Programme 2021-2022 of Kwun Tong District (KTDC TTC Paper No. 1/2021)

3. The Chairman welcomed the representatives of the Transport Department (“TD”), Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited (“KMB”) and Citybus Limited/New World First Bus Services Limited (“Citybus/NWFB”) to the meeting.

4

4. The representative of TD presented the paper.

5. In regard to the agenda item concerned, Members raised views and enquiries as follows:

5.1. Mr CHEUNG Pui-kong supported the provision of bus route no. 613A, but he opined that the service of that special bus route was inadequate as it would only offer two departures. He suggested enhancing the frequency of that route and advancing the departure time of its first departure to tie in with the starting time of school hours of students going to Hong Kong Island East for school;

5.2. Mr LAM Wai welcomed the provision of bus route no. 613A. He suggested advancing the departure time of its first departure and enhancing its frequency in the morning. He hoped TD could implement relevant arrangements as soon as possible;

5.3. Mr LUI Tung-hai i) welcomed the decision of TD to enhance the service frequencies of bus route nos. 14B, 33 and 603; ii) remarked that he had been suggesting all along that bus route no. 62X should provide whole-day service; iii) had no comment on the adjustments made to bus route no. 88X; and iv) suggested enhancing the frequency of bus route no. 14X;

5.4. Ms FU Pik-chun expressed discontent over the bus route planning programme and remarked that i) the special departure of bus route no. 23 on Saturday would be cancelled as the patronage volume of that departure was low. She enquired whether the bus company would deploy the resources of that special departure to Sze Shun after the cancellation of that departure, such as allocating those resources to weekday service of bus route no. 23M; ii) according to the discussion paper, when the patronage volumes of a bus route in the busiest half-hour and busiest hour reached 90% and 75% respectively, TD would consider enhancing its frequency. The patronage volumes of bus route nos. 26, 27 and 619X had far exceeded the aforesaid standards and might even have exceeded 100%. Residents of Sze Shun could only rely on the services of those bus routes, but the services provided by those bus routes could not fully cater for the demand of residents, showing that there was a gap between the actual situations and the standards mentioned in the paper; and iii) she had been reflecting over the years the situation that many residents of On Tat Estate had to take lifts to Sze Shun in order to get access to public transportation due to the lack of bus services in the area where they lived.

5

However, the paper did not mention any plan for enhancing the frequencies of relevant bus routes. She hoped TD or the bus companies could give an account on that;

5.5. Mr KAN Ming-tung i) remarked that extending the routeing of bus route no. 88X could enable more passengers to take that route. However, as the departureschedules of that route would not be advanced, residents of Lam Tin could not take that bus route to go to work in the morning. Therefore, he suggested advancing the departure times of the morning departures of bus route no. 88X; and ii) pointed out that after extending the routeing of bus route no. 88X, TD and the bus company should avoid the trips of that route from being lost again, which had happened when the bus route was still a circular route;

5.6. Mr LEE Kwan-chak i) said that the planning programme suggested lengthening the headway of bus route no. 62X during non-peak hours from 15 to 20 minutes to 30 minutes while procuring four more buses. He enquired whether the need of procuring additional buses arose from the extension of the routeing of the bus route; and ii) pointed out that bus route no. 259D would not pass Goodview Garden, Yau Oi Estate and Tuen Mun Town Centre during non-peak hours and the frequency would be reduced at the same time. Nevertheless, the number of buses would remain unchanged. Therefore, he hoped KMB could give an explanation for that;

5.7. Mr MOK Kin-shing i) opposed the cancellation of the special departure of bus route no. 23 on Saturday mornings. Although the patronage volume of the special departure concerned was relatively low, residents of Sze Shun could only rely on that special departure if they had to travel to the Kwun Tong Industrial Area or Kwun Tong Ferry Pier before 6:00 a.m. If that special departure was cancelled, residents would be unable to arrive at the Kwun Tong Industrial Area during early morning hours. He hoped the bus company could give a detailed account on that; ii) enquired how the bus company would make use of the resources of the special departure of bus route no. 23 after its cancellation and whether the bus company would deploy those resources to Sze Shun; and iii) requested TD to give an account on the progress of implementing the measures which it had promised in the bus route planning programme of the previous year. The measures had included increasing the numbers of morning and afternoon departures of bus route no. 619X to 12 and 10 respectively. At the moment, the bus route concerned only provided seven morning departures and five afternoon departures. He also requested TD

6

to give an account on the progress of increasing the number of departures of bus route no. 26X to three afternoon departures. He said that the bus route concerned only offered two afternoon departures at the moment;

5.8. Mr IP Tsz-kit i) supported the provision of return journeys of bus route no. 603A during afternoon peak hours. However, he was concerned about the departure times of the two departures (5:10 p.m. and 5:40 p.m. respectively) suggested in the paper as residents of Lam Tin working in Fortress Hill and North Point might not be able to catch those two departures. He hoped the bus company could pay attention to whether there was a need to provide additional departures after the implementation of the above new measure so that residents of Lam Tin could easily return home after work; and ii) hoped KMB could consider enhancing the frequency of bus route no. 88X so as to reduce the additional journey time to be brought to residents of Ping Tin by the extension of the routeing of the bus route;

5.9. Ms TSE Suk-chun i) suggested changing the departure time of the first departure of bus route no. 33 to 6:00 a.m. As the current departure time of the first departure was 6:55 a.m., it was nearly 8:00 a.m. when the bus arrived at Tsuen Wan, causing inconvenience to members of the public rushing to work; ii) suggested combining bus route nos. 33B and 33. Currently, bus route no. 33 provided service from Mondays to Fridays and bus route no. 33B provided service on Saturdays and Sundays, which meant that bus route no. 33 was changed to bus route no. 33B only at weekends. That easily caused confusion to residents as they might mix up the two bus routes; iii) said that the first departure of bus route no. X42C departed from Yau Tong at 10:15 a.m. at the moment. She hoped that the departure time of the first departure could be advanced; and iv) suggested changing bus route no. E22P to provide whole-day service;

5.10. Mr HSU Yau-wai i) supported the provision of bus route no. 613A. He said that according to the paper, bus route no. 613A would share nine double-deck buses with bus route no. 613. However, residents had reflected to him that the frequency of bus route no. 613 was inadequate to satisfy the demand at the moment. Therefore, he suggested increasing the number of buses. He hoped that the new route could be implemented as soon as possible and the frequency of that route could be enhanced afterwards; ii) hoped TD could discuss with the bus companies the provision of a new route connecting On Tat Estate and Central/Sheung Wan; and iii) hoped that bus route nos. 213A and 213B could provide whole-day services as soon as possible;

7

5.11. Mr CHENG Keng-ieong i) strongly requested frequency enhancement for bus route no. 11X. He pointed out that after the extension of the routeing of the bus route to On Tai Estate, residents of Wo Lok Estate had reflected that they often could not get on buses of that route after 8:15 a.m. as those buses were already full. Moreover, he pointed out that the fare increase application of KMB had been approved recently, so KMB should provide better services; and ii) remarked that many Members had expressed their discontent over the routeing of bus route no. 14H the previous year and requested the bus company and TD to conduct studies on how to improve its routeing or split the bus route. He enquired if TD and the bus company had made any progress in improving the route;

5.12. Mr Kevin SO i) welcomed the provision of morning special departures of bus route no. 14B, pointing out that those departures could provide convenience to residents of Lok Wah Estate commuting to work or school; ii) pointed out that when residents of Kwun Tong asked the bus companies to provide certain bus routes, the bus companies often responded that they could not provide those bus routes as the patronage volumes of those bus routes would be low. However, when residents of other districts asked the bus companies to provide bus routes travelling to their working places, they were often provided with a number of routes travelling to Kwun Tong Town Centre. He pointed out that if residents of uphill areas of Kwun Tong wanted to travel to other districts, they could only rely on buses of other districts which passed Kwun Tong. However, if that situation continued, members of the public of other districts would feel discontent with such routeings since they would think that their journey time was lengthened as buses were required to take circuitous routes under such routeings. Therefore, he enquired whether KMB could consider the needs of residents of Kwun Tong District when rationalising the bus routes in Kwun Tong District; iii) enquired when the provision of whole-day airport bus route service promised the previous year would be provided; and iv) took Lok Wah Estate as an example. He said that there were insufficient bus routes for residents of that estate to travel to the New Territories. If residents of that estate were arranged to take buses of other districts to travel to the New Territories, those buses would be required to pass Kwun Tong District and take circuitous routes. Residents of other districts might be opposed to such routeings. Therefore, the best solution was suggesting residents of that estate take bus route no. 2A to Kai Yip Estate, where they could interchange with buses travelling to various areas in the New Territories. However, the bus company only provided bus route no. 28B at the moment. As a result, passengers had to

8

cross Kwun Tong Road in order to interchange with buses. He therefore suggested the bus company improve its interchange schemes and conduct studies on how to provide convenience to those residents under limited resources;

5.13. Mr PANG Chi-sang remarked that during morning peak hours, buses of bus route no. 88X departing from Lam Tin were often fully occupied when arriving at Yau Tong, and residents were therefore unable to get on the buses and had to wait for more than one bus in order to get on board. He suggested if bus route no. 88X was going to adopt the suggested routeing, the bus company should enhance its frequency or consider arranging some of its departures to depart from Yau Tong so as to provide convenience to residents commuting to work and school;

5.14. Mr Eason CHAN said that he had consulted residents on the re-routeing of bus route no. 88X. He pointed out that the bus company had failed the previous year to provide information on the number of buses of the bus route concerned. Residents had therefore been worried that they might not be able to get on board if the terminus was set at Yau Tong. He had recently consulted residents again on whether they supported setting the terminus of bus route no. 88X at Ping Tin, and neither the number of supporting votes nor that of opposing votes had been overwhelming. Those in opposition were worried that buses of bus route no. 88X might encounter traffic congestion when travelling from Ping Tin to Yau Tong, losing its function as an express bus route. On the contrary, quite many residents supported the departing of buses from Ping Tin. If the terminus was set at Yau Tong, residents worried that it might be more difficult for them to get on board. Mr Eason CHAN expressed doubts over the solution of relocating the bus terminus of bus route no. 88X to Yau Tong while procuring only one additional bus, as suggested by the bus company. He opined that the solution of only procuring one additional bus was contradictory to the alleged high demand at Yau Tong. If resources permitted, he suggested the bus company enhance the frequency to a 15- minute headway and double the number of buses after relocating the bus terminus to Yau Tong, thereby easing the worries of residents. He requested the bus company to give a reply to whether the number of buses could be increased and whether the service frequency could be enhanced. If yes, residents would not oppose the relocation of the bus terminus of bus route no. 88X to Yau Tong as existing passengers would be able to get on board. He pointed out that if KMB was unable to answer whether the number of buses could be increased and whether the service frequency could be enhanced, he would opt for adopting the solution suggested at the moment, i.e. arranging buses to depart from Ping Tin. If the

9

number of buses could be increased or the service frequency could be enhanced, he would support relocating the bus terminus to Yau Tong;

5.15. Mr KUNG Chun-ki said that residents welcomed the provision of bus route no. 33B and hoped that it could be implemented as soon as possible. However, the bus stops at Laguna City, the Kwun Tong Industrial Area and Kowloon Bay Industrial Area would be excluded from the routeing of the route as a special route at weekends. He pointed out that MegaBox located in the Kowloon Bay Industrial Area was a hot spot for shopping at weekends. Members of the public had been hoping that buses of bus routes travelling to Tsuen Wan West and Yau Tong could pass bus stops near MegaBox at weekends. Therefore, he suggested providing a bus stop at Sheung Yuet Road;

5.16. Mr WAN Ka-him i) remarked that he had reflected that many bus routes, such as bus route nos. 80 and E22, only provided bus stops along Kwun Tong Road (Westbound) near Kai Yip Estate while providing no bus stop along Kwun Tong Road (Eastbound). Therefore, he requested the bus companies to provide additional bus stops at Kai Yip Estate for both the forward and return journeys of new bus routes, such as bus route nos. 40P, 797 and 33B, which would pass Kwun Tong Road. TD had once responded that there had been a need to divert the eastbound traffic of Kwun Tong Road due to traffic congestion and road works underway on that road. However, he pointed out that even though there were many bus routes passing Kwun Tong, only few of those routes could really benefit residents of Kwun Tong District. Most of those routes only provided convenience to residents of other districts commuting to work in Kwun Tong District. He understood that it was natural to have such a demand during peak hours, but he opined that it was not fair to ask residents of Kwun Tong District to completely yield to residents of other districts; and ii) expressed regrets over the exclusion of Sam Choi in the suggestions made in the paper. He pointed out that there was actually a serious lack of bus services in Sam Choi;

5.17. Ms LI Wing-shan i) supported and welcomed the provision of bus route no. 14B; ii) pointed out that the arrival times of buses of bus route no. 14B shown on the display panels at bus stops had often been inaccurate in the past. Improvement had been made recently and she hoped that the situation could continue to be stable; and iii) remarked that some residents had reflected that the frequency of bus route no. 1A had been reduced recently. Residents were therefore unable to get on board as buses of the route concerned were too crowded;

10

5.18. Mr Raymond TANG i) pointed out that although the transport policy of Hong Kong revolved around a railway-based network complemented by bus services, Sau Mau Ping was not under the coverage of the railway network. Therefore, TD should strive to improve the bus network and provide more support to Sau Mau Ping instead of reducing the existing resources of individual communities just because there was no plan for rationalising all bus routes in Hong Kong at the moment. Although Sau Mau Ping had a population of nearly 100 000, the resources of bus routes serving that area, such as bus route no. 11X, had been reduced. According to the findings of a survey, residents had reflected that only about 35% of buses of bus route no. 11X arrived on time. Also, more than half of those interviewees had reflected that there were only places for standees or 10% to 30% of seats still vacant when they got on board. According to TD’s standards for frequency enhancement, more regular special departures should be provided to cater for the needs of residents of Sau Mau Ping and Wo Lok Estate; ii) requested the bus company to make adjustments having regard to the actual situation after the extension of the routeing of bus route no. 11X; iii) supported the provision of bus route no. 613A; iv) requested the provision of a bus stop for bus route no. 613 at Sau Ming Road on its return journey; v) requested reconsidering the provision of whole-day service of bus route no. 14D. He said that minibus services could not fully cater for the passenger demand; and vi) remarked that many residents had reflected that there were always errors in the mobile application of KMB. He also requested frequency enhancement for various bus routes;

5.19. Mr WONG Chi-ken i) welcomed the provision of special departures of bus route no. 14B passing Lok Wah and hoped those departures could run on a regular basis so that residents could directly commute to Lam Tin; ii) pointed out that many residents of Lok Wah relied on bus route no. 2A to commute to work or school. However, buses of that route had to pass many bus stops during peak hours. Therefore, he suggested the bus company provide special departures passing fewer bus stops during peak hours as a way to shorten the journey time; iii) requested bus services allowing residents to travel to the New Territories directly. The bus companies had responded that residents could do so by making interchanges. However, if residents need to interchange with different buses, they had to first travel to Ngau Tau Kok or Kwun Tong. However, the traffic congestion problem at those areas would turn many residents away. Therefore, it was not a desirable solution; and iv) hoped the services provided by the two bus companies could be improved after the implementation of fare increases; and

11

5.20. Mr WANG Wai-lun i) welcomed the arrangement of extending the routeing of bus route no. 88X to Yau Tong. Nevertheless, he pointed out that there should be frequency enhancement after the extension of the routeing of the bus route concerned. If only one bus was added, it might not be enough; ii) pointed out that the frequency of bus route no. 14X was low and the problem of losing trips was very serious. He requested two additional departures of bus route no. 215P during morning peak hours for diversion of passengers. He also requested interchange concessions for bus route no. 14; iii) remarked that he had in the past submitted a proposal to TD in regard to suggestions on the routeing of bus route no. 14H. He requested TD to give a response to whether it would implement those suggestions. If yes, he would like to know the timetable; and iv) pointed out that there had originally been three departures of airport bus route no. N29 at 3:50 a.m., 4:20 a.m. and 4:50 a.m. respectively. However, since the cancellation of the departure at 4:20 a.m., many members of the public had been affected. For example, some members of the public who worked in the airport had to bring their own sleeping bags to work in order to take rests in common rooms of their offices. He requested TD to consider the needs of residents when cancelling departures and arrange alternative transport modes for members of the public to opt for.

6. The highlights of the response given by the representative of TD were as follows:

6.1. Regarding the cancellation of the special departure of bus route no. 23 on Saturdays, TD remarked that it would explore with the bus company if there were any other ways to cater for the needs of residents of Sze Shun travelling to the Kwun Tong Business Area and Kwun Tong Ferry Pier. At the same time, according to the findings of a survey on the special departure of bus route no. 23 conducted by TD on a Saturday in late February, there had only been four passengers on that departure, representing a utilisation rate of less than 10%. Nevertheless, TD noted Members’ views and would strike a balance between catering for the passenger demand and making good use of bus resources;

6.2. In regard to views related to the frequency enhancement for bus route no. 619X, TD and the bus company would keep a close eye on the changes in the passenger demand and accordingly adjust the frequency of the bus route after the epidemic situation had eased;

12

6.3. As for the arrangement for the number of buses of bus route no. 88X, the bus company would provide one additional bus as the journey time would be increased by 15 minutes after the bus route concerned was adjusted to pass Yau Tong. TD understood Members’ concerns over bus route no. 88X. TD would keep a close eye on its passenger demand and its operation after the implementation of the plan. TD would also discuss with the bus company the feasibility of allocating resources in a timely manner;

6.4. TD noted Members’ views on bus route no. 33B and would consider them with views from other district councils altogether;

6.5. Regarding the situation that some bus routes were unable to provide bus stops on Kwun Tong Road (Eastbound) at Kai Yip Estate, TD remarked that buses of bus routes nos. 33B and 40P were unable to head to Kai Yip Estate to observe stops due to the road design (there was a centre island between the location concerned and the bus stops of other bus routes in Kai Yip Estate). Besides, bus route no. 797 had to travel to Wai Yip Street and the Kowloon Bay Business Area through a flyover. Therefore it was impossible to provide a bus stop on Kwun Tong Road (Eastbound) at Kai Yip Estate for the route.

6.6. TD noted Members’ views on the provision of express bus route no. 2A for catering for the needs of residents of Lok Wah. TD remarked that residents of Lok Wah could currently enjoy express services by taking bus route nos. 2A or 28 and interchanging with KMB bus route no. 2X at Amoy Gardens in order to travel to Prince Edward, Sham Shui Po or Mei Foo. The total interchange concessionary fare of the above scheme was the same as the full fare of bus route no. 2X;

6.7. TD held an open attitude towards the service hours of bus route nos. 603A and 613A. TD would communicate with Members on the actual service hours before implementing the plans. For the suggested service hours of bus route no. 603A, the time required for travelling to Tin Hau and Fortress Hill had been taken into consideration so as to tie in with the time when passengers got on board at bus stops at those areas after work;

6.8. TD had surveyed bus route no. 14H and reviewed its patronage volume. The findings showed that the patronage volume of the bus route concerned during peak hours was lower than 30%. TD had to discuss with the bus company the

13

patronage volume and the use of resources of bus route no. 14H and explore the feasibility of improving the bus route. Nevertheless, TD understood residents had the need to travel to the United Christian Hospital (“UCH”). TD would continue to communicate with the green minibus service operators of minibus routes travelling to UCH and pay close attention to their service levels; and

6.9. TD noted Members’ views on bus route no. 14D. TD understood that the bus route concerned mainly served students travelling between Yau Tong and Choi Hung, and there was a relatively keen passenger demand for bus route no. 14D at areas around Sau Mau Ping. TD and the bus company would keep a close eye on the service level of bus route no. 14D and consider adjusting the service. TD would also pay close attention to green minibus services of Sau Mau Ping and Sze Shun.

7. The highlights of the response given by the representative of KMB were as follows:

7.1. Regarding the service hours of bus route no. 613A, KMB could further discuss with Members in order to cope with the passenger demand. As for the frequency, KMB would first provide two departures based on the routeing plan and further consider the need to provide more departures having regard to the demand;

7.2. As regards various bus routes serving Sze Shun, KMB responded that i) the patronage volume of bus route no. 23 was relatively low on Saturday mornings. In order to make good use of resources, if the demand for other routes was greater, KMB might deploy resources to those routes; ii) bus route no. 26M currently departed from Choi Hung at 5:35 a.m. and arrived at Sze Shun around 5:50 a.m. After cancelling the special departure of bus route no. 23, residents could still take bus route no. 26M to Kwun Tong; iii) according to KMB’s observations, the demand for travelling to the industrial area before 6:00 a.m. of residents of Sze Shun was not high. There was even no one getting off in the industrial area on some of the journeys. Therefore, KMB suggested cancelling those special departures; and iv) for bus routes nos. 26, 27, 26X and 619X, KMB would pay close attention to the passenger demand. If the passenger demand of a bus route reached the standards for service improvement, KMB would review the service level of that route with TD;

7.3. In regard to the provision of special bus route no. 33B at weekends, as the demand

14

for travelling to the Kowloon Bay Industrial Area and Kwun Tong Business Area at weekends was lower than that on weekdays, KMB suggested arranging bus route no. 33B to pass Kwun Tong Road instead of the Kowloon Bay Industrial Area and Kwun Tong Business Area at weekends;

7.4. KMB thanked Members for their positive responses to the provision of special departures of bus route no. 14B serving Lok Wah. KMB would continue to follow up on the implementation situation of the new bus route with TD;

7.5. As regards bus route no. 603A, as mentioned by TD, the departure times of its departures had been suggested having regard to the time required for a bus to travel from the terminus to locations such as Fortress Hill and North Point. When those departures arrived at Fortress Hill and North Point, KMB believed those departures could tie in with the time when passengers went off work;

7.6. In regard to views on advancing the departure times of the first departures of bus route nos. 33 and X42C from Yau Tong, as the patronage volumes of buses travelling from the New Territories to locations such as Yau Tong and Kwun Tong were relatively large during morning peak hours, KMB had to concentrate its resources on departures from the New Territories during that period. Nevertheless, KMB would review the situation and consider advancing the departure times of those first departures as and when necessary;

7.7. Regarding bus route no. 88X, KMB had amended the proposed routeing according to the proposed amendments received the previous year. The amended routeing was first departing from Ping Tin, then passing Pik Wan Road and Yau Tong and eventually arriving at Sha Tin. KMB had also planned to provide one additional bus to maintain the service frequency during peak hours. As for whether the frequency could be enhanced in light of the extension of the routeing of the bus route, KMB could review the situation only after the implementation of the plan. If the demand continued to rise, KMB would make further consideration;

7.8. Bus routes nos. 62X and 259D mainly served residents of Tuen Mun. The details were as follows: i) the number of bus stops under the new routeing of bus route no. 259D would decrease while the service frequency during peak hours would remain unchanged. Therefore, passengers getting on board at Lung Mun Oasis or Tuen Mun Ferry Pier could travel to Kwun Tong and Yau Tong more quickly. At the same time, passengers getting on board at Kwun Tong and Yau Tong could also

15

travel to Lung Mun Oasis or Tuen Mun Ferry Pier in a shorter time; and ii) KMB would expand the service coverage of bus route no. 62X in Tuen Mun by extending the routeing of the route to areas around Prime View Garden and Siu Hong South. KMB believed that the connection between Tuen Mun and Yau Tong could be strengthened by that proposal;

7.9. In regard to the suggestion on letting residents of Lok Wah interchange with various bus routes at Kai Yip Estate, KMB remarked that the demand for bus route no. 2A was relatively high. Therefore, KMB had to carefully evaluate the impact that might be posed by the arrangement on existing passengers of bus route no. 2A. Passengers could take bus route no. 23M or 28B to Kwun Tong and Ngau Tau Kok and interchange with other bus routes at the moment. As for whether the provision of express departures of bus route no. 2A in Lok Wah was feasible, KMB would conduct further studies to see if it could provide residents of Lok Wah with more efficient services so as to facilitate their commuting to areas around Mong Kok and Sham Shui Po;

7.10. Regarding the situation after the extension of the routeing of bus route no. 11X, KMB had reviewed the situation a few weeks after the arrangement had been put into place. The service was able to cater for the passenger demand at the moment, especially during morning peak hours. Nevertheless, KMB would continue to monitor the situation; and

7.11. As for whether On Tat and On Tai would have space to accommodate new bus routes travelling to Central/Sheung Wan and views on the service levels of bus route nos. 213A and 213B, KMB noted Members’ views and would further review with TD the commuting needs of residents of On Tai and On Tat.

8. The highlights of the response given by the representative of Citybus/NWFB were as follows:

8.1. Regarding the frequency enhancement for bus route no. 619X, Citybus/NWFB had all along been reviewing the highest patronage volumes of the bus route concerned, including those of the departures during morning and afternoon peak hours, and those before and after the epidemic. According to Citybus/NWFB’s observations, the existing service frequency was able to meet the passenger demand. Nevertheless, Citybus/NWFB would continue to keep a close eye on the passenger demand and apply to TD for frequency enhancement as and when necessary;

16

8.2. In regard to the proposed solutions for airport bus route nos. A26 and A29P, TD had submitted the amended proposals to relevant district councils in December 2020. Citybus/NWFB would implement the plans stated in those proposals, and hoped that it could implement those suggestions after the passenger demand of the airport resumed normal; and

8.3. As regards the temporary frequency adjustment for bus route no. N29 during the epidemic, Citybus/NWFB remarked that the demand for routes plying between the airport and urban areas had dropped significantly during the epidemic. Therefore, Citybus/NWFB had adjusted the frequencies of the relevant routes temporarily. Citybus/NWFB understood that the adjustments might cause inconvenience to some passengers. It noted Members’ views and would conduct reviews with TD in due course.

9. In regard to the agenda item in question, Members raised follow-up views and enquiries as follows:

9.1. Mr CHEUNG Pui-kong i) supported providing bus route no. 613A as soon as possible. He suggested advancing the departure time of the first departure and also requested the provision of return journeys in the afternoon so as to provide convenience to members of the public going off work; ii) supported providing bus route no. N290 as soon as possible with a view to providing convenience to members of the public going to work in early morning; and iii) pointed out that regarding the reply given by TD in respect of bus route no. 619X, he had requested the provision of a bus stop at Sau Ching House during periods when residents commuting to and from work. He understood that the department had to consider many factors. For example, passengers could not get on board if a bus was already fully occupied when arriving at Sze Shun. However, the department had explained that they had not intended to provide a bus stop at Sau Ching House as residents of On Tai Estate might find it inconvenient if they had to travel to Sze Shun in order to get on board. Mr CHEUNG Pui-kong remarked that providing a bus stop at Sau Ching House could attract quite many passengers. Therefore, he hoped TD could increase the number of buses of bus route no. 619X and provide a bus stop at Sau Ching House; 9.2. Mr KAN Ming-tung asked TD to give a response to the suggestion of advancing the departure time of the first departure of bus route no. 88X in the morning. He understood that many buses departed from Sha Tin and pointed out that the bus

17

companies should not only focus on the needs of the New Territories and ignore the needs of Kwun Tong. Extending the routeing of bus route no. 88X would increase its journey time. Therefore, he opined that providing one additional departure might not be enough. Moreover, although the arrangement could provide convenience to residents of Yau Tong commuting to work or school, residents of Lam Tin might be late for work or school because of that. The patronage volume of Yau Tong would increase and the patronage volume of Lam Tin would contrarily decrease as a result. Therefore, he suggested arranging a departure at 6:45 a.m. from Ping Tin to serve residents of Lam Tin and Yau Tong;

9.3. Mr WAN Ka-him felt disappointed towards TD’s reply. He suggested removing the railings of the footpath between the bus stop at Kai Yip Estate and the bus stop at Kowloon Bay so as to spare space for the provision of another bus stop. By doing so, buses could return to Kai Yip Estate. He enquired about TD’s and KMB’s views on that;

9.4. Mr MOK Kin-shing i) enquired about the details of KMB’s survey on the patronage volume of bus route no. 23, including the date of the survey. If the survey had been conducted in the midst of the epidemic, he worried that the figures collected might not be able to reflect the actual situation. Also, he stressed that the departure surveyed had been the first departure. KMB and TD should carefully consider the figures collected from the survey; ii) pointed out that the bus route planning programmes of the recent two years had both suggested increasing the number of buses of bus route no. 619X. However, Citybus/NWFB had responded that whether such a suggestion would be implemented was subject to the passenger demand. He could not understand the reasons and stressed that the reason for increasing the number of vehicles had in fact been the keen passenger demand. However, there were still only five departures in the morning and afternoon respectively. He opined that the frequency should be enhanced as soon as possible; and iii) remarked that the patronage volume of bus route no. 14H was relatively low. KMB should review the design of the routeing of the bus route concerned as its current routeing was very circuitous. It took an hour for people to take bus route no. 14H to travel to Yau Tong from Sze Shun when people started to go off work. The journey time deviated from its original design. Therefore, improvements should be made;

9.5. Mr WONG Chi-ken i) remarked that residents knew that they could take bus route no. 2A to Ngau Tau Kok and interchange with bus route no. 2X at a concessionary

18

fare. However, after taking into consideration the journey time and patronage volume of bus route no. 2A, residents were strongly discouraged from taking the bus route concerned; ii) enquired whether KMB could provide special departures of bus route no. 2X departing from Lok Wah after the epidemic so as to free residents from the trouble of interchanging with other buses and reduce the patronage volume of bus route no. 2A at the same time; and iii) remarked that some residents had reflected to him that the waiting time of bus route no. 2A was too long and the problem of losing trips occurred occasionally. He requested the bus company to review the current routeing of bus route no. 2A;

9.6. Mr FUNG Ka-lung i) welcomed the frequency enhancement for bus route no. 613A. He pointed out that many buses departing from On Tat became fully occupied very soon during morning peak hours. Therefore, residents getting on board at Po Lam Road and Po Tat had to wait for more than one bus. He hoped that KMB could provide special departures of bus route no. 613A after its implementation having regard to the situation so as to provide convenience to passengers getting on board at Po Lam Road; and ii) pointed out that traffic congestion often occurred at Sau Mau Ping Road, especially during morning peak hours. He expressed concern on how the situation of traffic congestion would change after the provision of two additional departures of bus route no. 613A;

9.7. Mr LAM Wai i) reminded the department to pay attention to the housing plan at Anderson Road above On Tai as existing traffic problems would have far-reaching impacts. He pointed out that he had repeatedly requested frequency enhancement for existing bus routes, such as bus route nos. 213A and 213B. He said that there were only five departures in the morning at the moment, failing to cater for the passenger demand; ii) pointed out that if KMB could enhance the frequency of bus routes such as bus route no. 213D, it could free residents of On Tai Estate from the trouble of going to Sze Shun to take buses; and iii) requested TD to provide findings of past surveys conducted on relevant bus routes;

9.8. Mr PANG Chi-sang expressed discontent over the bus company’s response to bus route no. 88X. He pointed out that the earlier proposal for bus route no. 88X had suggested buses of that bus route depart from Yau Tong and pass Lam Tin. However, the current proposed routeing had been amended to depart from Ping Tin. He pointed out that many buses travelling from Lam Tin to Yau Tong were often fully occupied and residents were therefore unable to get on board. If the route was to be operated at a headway of 20 to 25 minutes as suggested in the

19

proposal, the situation would be undesirable. He enquired what standards the bus company would adopt in assessing whether there was a need to increase the number of vehicles or enhance the frequency after the implementation of bus route no. 88X;

9.9. Mr CHENG Keng-ieong i) remarked that the main reason for the recent bus fare increase was that some bus routes were loss-making. For example, it had been mentioned the previous year that the patronage volume of bus route no. 14H had been lower than 30%. However, no improvement had been made by KMB over the past year. KMB should be responsible for the deficit; and ii) requested TD and the bus company to conduct regular surveys on the patronage volume of bus route no. 11X. According to his observations, the patronage volume of bus route no. 11X had far exceeded its capacity. After the full resumption of school and work, he believed that the patronage volume could definitely meet the requirement for frequency enhancement;

9.10. Mr CHEUNG Man-fung pointed out that if a bus route could not facilitate the commuting of residents, residents would not take that bus route. Therefore, he hoped the bus companies could consider whether the designs of routeings would affect their profits and losses when planning routeings and make improvements accordingly;

9.11. Mr Eason CHAN i) pointed out that most of the responses given by TD and the bus companies towards Members’ views had been that they “had to reconsider whether the arrangements of bus routes needed any amendments having regard to the situations”. He could not understand TD’s logic on public transport policies as most policies were first implemented and later amended having regard to the actual situations instead of being formulated based on relevant data; ii) pointed out that as there was a demand for bus route no. 88X at Yau Tong, the routeing of bus route no. 88X would pass Yau Tong. However, only one additional bus would be added to that bus route. He enquired whether that implied that the actual demand was not that high; and iii) pointed out that the department could draw reference from data of the Mass Transit Railway Corporation Limited in order to conduct analyses and rearrange the routeings of various bus routes. He opined that setting out figures should be the most basic requirement. However, the department had failed to provide neither any figures nor the profit of each bus route, making what it did meaningless; and

20

9.12. Mr WANG Wai-lun i) welcomed the decision of the bus company to reconsider whether the frequency of bus route no. N29 should be reduced as there was no other alternative bus route travelling to the airport during that period; and ii) pointed out that no one was taking bus route no. 14H as its routeing was not attractive. Therefore, he opined that TD should adjust the routeing of that bus route.

10. The highlights of the follow-up response given by the representative of TD were as follows:

10.1. TD said that it would implement bus route nos. 613A and N290 with the bus company once the epidemic had eased;

10.2. TD remarked that it could discuss with Members the service hours of bus route no. 613A in the future. Also, TD would review the patronage volume of bus route no. 613A after its introduction. TD would conduct studies with the bus company on the suggestion of providing return journeys in the afternoon;

10.3. TD remarked that it could discuss with Members and the bus company the request of advancing the service hours of bus route no. 88X before its implementation;

10.4. TD would reflect to its traffic engineers regarding views on the road improvement works between Kai Yip Estate and the bus stop at Kowloon Bay and follow up on the situation;

10.5. TD remarked that the passenger survey regarding the special departure of bus route no. 23 was conducted on 20 February (Saturday) of the present year. On the day of the survey, the special departure of bus route no. 23 had departed from the terminus at Shun Tin at 6:02 a.m. and picked up one passenger. After arriving at the bus stops at Lee Yip House and UCH, the bus had picked up two passengers and one passenger respectively. The aforesaid four passengers had got off the bus at bus stops at Wo Lok Estate, Hoi Yuen Road and Kwun Tong Ferry Pier respectively;

10.6. TD noted Members’ views on the suggested changes on the routeing of bus route no. 14H. TD would continue to monitor its patronage volume. When making planning, TD would take into consideration other public transport services passing UCH in a holistic manner;

21

10.7. TD would continue to review with the bus company the implementation of frequency enhancement for bus route no. 619X having regard to its patronage volume;

10.8. TD and the bus companies would pay close attention to the timetable of the Anderson Road Public Housing Development and conduct studies on re-routeing having regard to the resident intake timetable and passenger demand in the future;

10.9. TD noted Members’ views on the provision of special departures or express bus routes for Lok Wah; and

10.10. TD remarked that as Members had requested TD and the bus company concerned to pay close attention to the situation of bus route no. 11X, TD would discuss with the bus company the arrangement of adjusting the service of the bus route having regard to the its patronage volume as and when necessary.

11. The highlights of the follow-up response given by the representative of KMB were as follows:

11.1. KMB noted the suggestion of providing return journeys of bus route no. 613A. KMB would consider that suggestion and the suggestion of arranging the return journeys of bus route no. 613 to pass Sau Ming Road altogether. KMB would also further examine the feasibility of the suggestions having regard to the actual situations and assess the journeys from Hong Kong Island East to On Tai and On Tat;

11.2. As the journey time would be increased, one more bus would be added to bus route no. 88X in order to maintain the original service frequency during peak hours. According to existing data, the patronage volume during the busiest period was around 65%. Even when the coverage of the routeing of the bus route was extended to cover areas around Yau Tong and Pik Wan Road, buses should still have the capacity to carry additional passengers. Nevertheless, KMB would continue to monitor the patronage volume. If the patronage volume could reach the standards for frequency enhancement, KMB would consider the feasibility of increasing the number of vehicles. Moreover, KMB pointed out that the main purpose of the newly proposed routeing for bus route no. 88X was to extend the routeing. Nevertheless, KMB would like to maintain the current journey time and frequency of the bus route. KMB would review public responses to the

22

extension of the routeing of the bus route in order to achieve an effective use of new resources. Also, KMB noted Members’ views and promised that it would evaluate the feasibility of advancing the departure time of the first departure of bus route no. 88X from Ping Tin;

11.3. Regarding the suggestion of providing express bus route no. 2A, KMB understood that passengers getting on board in areas around Lok Wah had a relatively keen demand for the express bus route concerned. KMB would review relevant arrangements in order to shorten the journey time;

11.4. In regard to the feasibility of the provision of bus stops of some bus routes at Kai Yip Estate, KMB would carefully conduct studies on whether there would be enough space for drivers to pull over if buses had to switch from the rightmost lane to the leftmost lane after leaving the flyover at Lung Cheung Road. KMB would continue to follow up and conduct studies with TD; and

11.5. KMB understood Members’ concern over the patronage volume of bus route no. 11X after the extension of its routeing. KMB had conducted on-site visits with Members and found that the service of the bus route concerned was enough to cope with the passenger demand. According to the service schedule approved by TD, buses of bus route no. 11X heading to Hung Hom from 5:50 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. should be operated at a headway of 10 to 15 minutes. Nevertheless, after resources had been deployed by KMB having regard to the actual patronage volume, the service frequency of bus route no. 11X from 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. was far higher than a headway of 10 minutes. Therefore, there was no one who could not get on board. KMB would continue to flexibly arrange its services having regard to the actual demand. Although the service of bus route no. 11X could cater for the passenger demand at the moment, KMB would continue to keep an eye on the situation after the epidemic was over and deploy its resources accordingly.

12. Mr WANG Wai-lun pointed out that TD submitted every year a bus route planning programme for the coming year. However, there were always a number of requests left unaddressed. He hoped TD could listen to Members’ views and take corresponding actions when assessing bus routes or making frequency enhancement, especially after the shelving of the East Kowloon Line.

13. The Chairman summarised Members’ views and remarked that i) Members’ discussion had mainly focused on bus route no. 88X. The Chairman opined that as buses ran across various areas,

23 matters related to buses involved various stakeholders and residents. Therefore, it was common for people to have different views. He hoped the department and KMB could listen to the views of Members and residents of Kwun Tong and contact Members of the constituencies concerned to inform them about the latest information; and ii) thanked Mr Kevin SO for his remarks and pointed out that the number of bus routes kept increasing every year, causing traffic congestion. If the situation continued, the traffic of Kwun Tong would be overloaded. The Chairman hoped that all the parties could consider various arrangements, such as the provision of bus-bus interchange schemes and reduction in the number of buses passing Kwun Tong Road. Moreover, the Chairman said that the traffic had been smooth when he had passed the roundabout at Hoi Yuen Road on the day of the present meeting. He said that the improvement should be attributed to the enforcement actions taken by the Hong Kong Police Force (“HKPF”) recently. He hoped HKPF could keep up their enforcement actions.

14. Members noted the paper.

III. “Special Scheme” under the “Universal Accessibility” Programme - Priority Implementation (KTDC TTC Paper No. 2/2021)

15. The Chairman welcomed the representatives of the Highways Department (“HyD”) and WSP (Asia) Limited (“the Consultancy”) to the meeting.

16. The representative of HyD presented the paper and invited the Traffic and Transport Committee (“TTC”) to endorse the three projects for priority implementation under the “Special Scheme” selected by the Universal Accessibility Working Group, namely item nos. KWT03, SL04 and TPN03.

17. Mr CHENG Keng-ieong, the chairman of the Universal Accessibility Working Group, said that after taking into consideration the usage of the footbridges and lifts in the future and evaluating the potential and needs of the district, members had unanimously recommended items KWT03, SL04 and TPN03 at the meeting of the working group.

18. In regard to the agenda item concerned, Members raised views and enquiries as follows:

18.1. Mr KAN Ming-tung enquired whether items that were not recommended under the scheme concerned would be reconsidered in the future;

24

18.2. Ms FU Pik-chun supported the provision of lifts. She pointed out that there were ten facilities for elderly and disabled people near item no. SL04, representing that the footbridge concerned was used by many disabled people. However, there were stairs at the two ends of the footbridge, making it difficult for disabled people to use the footbridge. Therefore, the Housing Department (“HD”) had provided a ramp near Lee Yip House for disabled people to use. Nevertheless, there was still a staircase of five steps near Shun Chi Court. She had reflected the problem concerned at various occasions. She hoped that HyD, when providing other facilities, could also consider the provision of barrier-free facilities as well;

18.3. Mr CHEUNG Pui-kong did not have particular comments regarding the locations of the recommended items, but he pointed out that the scheme had failed to fully serve its functions. He took the footbridge linking Sau Mau Ping Shopping Centre and the area outside Sau Wai House, Sau Mau Ping Estate as an example. He pointed out that HyD had inspected that site before. HyD had pointed out that the location concerned was not included in the scope of the scheme and suggested he contact TD. However, the reply given by TD had said that the location concerned was under the purview of HD while HD had said that the location concerned was under the purview of the Link Real Estate Investment Trust (“Link REIT”). Under that case, he opined that it was impossible to achieve “universal accessibility”. He hoped HyD could reflect to policy bureaux his request for removing the restrictions on the scheme so as to take more footbridges into consideration; and

18.4. Mr LAM Wai i) enquired which department was responsible for writing the computer programme of the two lifts at the footbridge linking On Tai Estate to Sze Shun. He hoped HyD could give a response to that after the meeting; ii) requested the provision of a pedestrian linkage system linking On Tai to Sze Shun under the scheme again as the lifts at the footbridge at On Tai Estate had gone out of order for more than 80 times over the previous year. He pointed out that the lifts concerned had again gone out of order and ceased operation for nearly a week the previous month. He opined that the situation was very unsatisfactory. He had reflected the problem to relevant departments. However, the relevant departments had responded that the lifts could cater for the needs of more than 20 000 residents; and iii) enquired how government departments had formulated the conditions that items under the scheme were subject to. He opined that those conditions had a great impact on residents’ commuting. At the moment, residents of On Tai had to use the transportation of Sze Shun. However, there was a lack

25

of facilities for residents to travel to Sze Shun. Therefore, he hoped relevant departments could give a response to that; and

18.5. Mr Kevin SO i) agreed with the working group’s choice; and ii) pointed out that the Universal Accessibility Programme (“UAP”) had gone through several stages. The programme had only covered designated footbridges or subways under the purview of HyD in the beginning. The scope of the programme had later been expanded to cover footbridges that were not under the purview of HyD. He hoped that the next scheme could also cover locations under the purview of HD in order to take care of locations with high pedestrian flows but excluded from the present scheme.

19. The Chairman pointed out that the main point of the agenda item was to endorse the three priority items recommended by the working group. For matters raised by individual Members in respect of the accessibility of the district, the department could provide written replies to Members later. In addition, the department would also attend meetings related to items under other stages of UAP in the future. Members could conduct further discussions by that time.

20. The highlights of the response given by the representative of HyD were as follows:

20.1. As for whether the remaining item would become the alternative plan automatically, HyD remarked that the working group had discussed that at meetings. As regards the three items selected, HyD had to first discuss land matters with HD and Link REIT. If stakeholders opposed the implementation of the scheme by HyD on relevant land, HyD could not commence works. Under that situation, according to the result of discussions conducted at meetings of the working group, the 4th item would not become the alternative plan automatically and Members would first be consulted again. If all the three items were endorsed, depending on the government policy at that time, the remaining item would be listed as “item to be implemented” for consideration. If any of the three items could not be further implemented, HyD could consider Members’ other suggestions which fell within the scope of the “Special Scheme” if they had any;

20.2. In regard to the staircase of the footbridge at Shun Chi Court, HyD had conducted a number of on-site inspections with Members. HyD had asked HD about the ownership of the staircase concerned. If that location was a public area under the purview of HD, HyD could assist in making improvements. However, that location was indeed a private area of Shun Chi Court and the “Special Scheme”

26

could not resume private land. Therefore, no alteration could be conducted under the scheme at the moment. HyD had explained to Members that the only thing that HyD could do was making requests to the owners’ corporation of Shun Chi Court, hoping that it could take actions. If Members had any problem, they could conduct further discussions after the meeting;

20.3. Regarding the problems raised by Members on individual housing estates, HyD had made explanations before. As those matters did not fall within the scope of the agenda item concerned, HyD would not provide detailed responses. For the malfunctioning of the lifts mentioned by a Member, HyD believed that the problem was related to the controlling of software at the designing stage. HyD suggested Members discuss with relevant departments. As regards the request for the provision of other pedestrian linkage systems, HyD suggested Members discuss with relevant departments; and

20.4. In regard to views of expanding the scope of the scheme to cover other locations, HyD said that would involve considerations at the policy level and it had to reflect the suggestion to the Transport and Housing Bureau (“THB”).

21. Members endorsed the paper and the three priority items under the “Special Scheme” selected by the Universal Accessibility Working Group, namely item nos. KWT03, SL04 and TPN03.

IV. Progress Report on Road Projects in Kwun Tong (KTDC TTC Paper No. 3/2021)

22. In regard to the agenda item concerned, Mr HSU Yau-wai enquired about the works progress of a traffic light at On Chui Street, On Tat Estate.

23. The representative of TD responded that the works included in the paper were relatively large-scale ones. The works mentioned by the Member might be included in the paper of the next agenda item.

24. Members noted the paper.

27

V. List and Timetable of Major Traffic Improvement Works Completed, Being Implemented or Planned by the TD/ HyD in the Last Two Months (KTDC TTC Paper No. 4/2021)

25. In regard to the agenda item concerned, Members raised views and enquiries as follows:

25.1. Mr WAN Ka-him pointed out that he had communicated with the former engineer in regard to the provision of energy absorbing bollards at the bus stop at Kowloon Bay and learnt that the works had been delayed due to problems about the material. Therefore, he enquired about the current progress of the works;

25.2. Mr TAM Siu-cheuk remarked that he had discussed with the former engineer the progress of the works related to the provision of crossing facilities between Choi Tak Estate and Choi Hing Court. He wished to know the current progress of the works;

25.3. Mr LEE Kwan-chak enquired about the progress of the works related to the provision of energy absorbing bollards at the bus stop at Kowloon Bay. He pointed out that the item, which had originally been included in previous papers, was not shown in the paper of the present agenda item;

25.4. Mr WANG Wai-lun enquired about the works of project no. WR/20/02892. He had conducted an inspection with an engineer of the department and discovered that the pedestrian refuge in the middle of Cha Kwo Ling Road was only 600 millimetres wide, which was not enough for accommodating pedestrians pushing handcarts or carrying luggage. He opined that crossing the road at that location was very dangerous. Therefore, he enquired again whether the pedestrian refuge could be expanded through the present works;

25.5. Mr LAM Wai enquired about projects related to the provision of crossing facilities at the location of the temporary car park at On Sau Road, bollards on the footpath at On Yan Street and crossing facilities at several junctions. As departments had conducted studies on those projects for almost one year, he wished to know the progress of relevant works and studies; and

25.6. Mr CHEUNG Man-fung enquired about the progress of works related to the provision of double yellow lines at Hiu Kwong Street.

28

26. The highlights of the response given by the representative of TD were as follows:

26.1. Regarding the works related to the provision of bollards at On Yan Street near the footpaths next to the means of access of the fire escapes of Ming Tai House and Chi Tai House, TD expected that relevant works would be completed within the current week;

26.2. In regard to the works related to the provision of bollards at Shing Tai House and Yung Tai House, TD said that it would follow up on and give a reply to that matter later;

26.3. TD would give a reply to the Member on the enquiry related to On Chui Street later;

26.4. For the works of project no. WR/20/02892, TD remarked that as the alteration of the width of the pedestrian refuge would involve more processes, TD might not be able to carry out that project together with the works for the provision of double yellow lines. TD would give a reply to Members concerning the related situation after the meeting; and

26.5. Regarding the improvement suggestion on the crossing at On Sau Road, TD remarked that it had conducted surveys on pedestrian flows at that location after the resumption of classes to review the provision of pedestrian crossing facilities at On Sau Road. TD was exploring ways to improve the environment on the premise of maintaining road safety. TD would give a reply to the Member’s suggestion as soon as possible.

27. In regard to the agenda item concerned, Mr TAM Siu-cheuk i) reiterated that his enquiry was about the crossing facilities between Choi Hing Court and Choi Tak Estate; and ii) pointed out that the Kwun Tong District Council (“KTDC”) had followed up on many pieces of works in the past. However, those pieces of works were not included in the paper of the present meeting. He hoped TD could give an account on that.

28. The representative of HyD responded that HyD would provide Members with information on the works related to the provision of energy absorbing bollards at the bus stop at Kowloon Bay after the meeting in reply to Members’ enquiries.

29

29. The representative of TD responded that works currently shown in the paper were works to be commenced within one or two months. He understood that Members had many suggestions, and remarked that after receiving suggestions from Members, TD would take follow-up actions and conduct studies. After conducting consultations and deciding to conduct works, TD had to issue works orders and arrange HyD to commence the works. Works would only be listed in the paper when they were about to commence. He hoped Members could understand that.

30. In regard to the agenda item concerned, the Chairman and Members raised follow-up views and enquiries as follows:

30.1. The Chairman pointed out that the bi-monthly meetings were opportunities for Members and government departments to exchange views. He wished to discuss local matters with government departments at the meetings. He pointed out that some of the Members had noticed that various department representatives attending recent meetings had been ill-prepared. He said that in the past, officers attending meetings could answer questions that had not been included in the paper. However, officers attending the present meeting had kept saying that they would give replies to individual Members later, making the meeting meaningless. The Chairman was disappointed about that;

30.2. Mr WAN Ka-him was surprised about TD’s response. Although TD had said that works shown in the paper were those that were about to be completed or those under planning, he had mentioned just then that certain works that had been shown in previous papers were not shown in the paper of the present meeting. He asked TD to give an account on whether those pieces of works would proceed;

30.3. Mr LEE Kwan-chak pointed out that the works he enquired about was project no. WR/19/01192, which had been included in the paper of the 2nd meeting. However, the project could not be seen in the present paper. If TD had excluded the works from the table because it was unsure whether the works would commence, he hoped TD could provide Members with an explanation. Otherwise, it would be difficult for Members to give an account to local residents;

30.4. Mr LAM Wai remarked that he had been following up on relevant traffic issues with officers of government departments in the district. He understood that there had been a change of personnel in the department in charge of the works. He understood the difficulties faced by officers of the department. Nevertheless, he hoped that related officers could ensure a smooth handover of work. He pointed

30

out that the items followed up by Members had been lasting for some time and TD should have been well-informed about the items. He hoped that relevant officers could provide written replies on enquiries that they were unable to answer at the meeting as soon as possible; and

30.5. The Chairman opined that discussing the agenda item concerned had not been too effective as TD was not able to provide immediate responses. Instead, it could only conduct reviews and provide replies later. He pointed out that the discussion atmosphere had been very different in the past. He hoped the departments could answer Members’ enquiries seriously.

31. The representative of TD apologised and pointed out that he did not have the information on works WR/19/01192 at the moment. TD would give replies to Members’ enquiries as soon as possible after the meeting. The representative of TD understood Members’ concerns over the progress of works stated in the paper. He reiterated that new proposals that were yet to be confirmed would not be included in the paper.

32. The representative of HyD remarked that if Members had relevant enquiries, they could ask HyD to provide supplementary information after the meeting.

33. The Chairman asked Assistant District Officer (Kwun Tong)1 (“ADO(KT)1”) to assist in reflecting to various departments that Members hoped that departments could provide responses to and conduct discussions with Members more effectively. He said that it was important to have two- way discussions.

34. ADO(KT)1 remarked that she would reflect the situation to various departments.

35. Members noted the paper.

VI. TTC Financial Statement for 2020/21 (KTDC TTC Paper No. 5/2021)

36. The Secretary presented the paper.

37. Members endorsed the paper.

31

VII. Any Other Business

Facilities of Tseung Kwan O Tunnel Bus-Bus Interchange (Kowloon-bound)

38. TTC had received from Mr IP Tsz-kit a paper about the facilities of Tseung Kwan O Tunnel Bus-Bus Interchange (“the BBI”) (Kowloon-bound).

39. Mr IP Tsz-kit presented the paper.

40. In regard to the agenda item concerned, Members raised views and enquiries as follows:

40.1. Mr KAN Ming-tung pointed out that TD had said that the tunnel would be commissioned in late December the previous year. However, the commissioning date had been postponed repeatedly to March or April. He enquired about the reasons for the delay; and

40.2. Mr FUNG Ka-lung i) enquired whether the BBI (Kowloon-bound) could commence operation as scheduled. He pointed out that TD had said the previous year that the BBI (Kowloon-bound) would be commissioned at the beginning of the present year, but its commissioning had been delayed at the moment. He wished to know the reasons for the delay; ii) hoped that TD could arrange visits for district councilors to inspect the BBI (Kowloon-bound) as soon as possible; and iii) hoped TD could provide a written reply to Members regarding the works progress and arrangements of the BBI (Kowloon-bound).

41. The highlights of the response given by the representative of TD were as follows:

41.1. The BBI (Tseung Kwan O-bound) had commenced operation on 2 October the previous year. TD and the Civil Engineering and Development Department (“CEDD”) had been following up on the remaining works of the BBI (Kowloon- bound). TD and CEDD were making preparation for the bus interchange facilities, crossing facilities and bus-bus interchange fare concessions. TD expected that the BBI (Kowloon-bound) could be commissioned by the end of the coming month at the soonest. TD would arrange on-site inspections and invite Members to put forth their views on the BBI (Kowloon-bound) as soon as possible; and

41.2. TD was actively working on the works related to the lifts in the BBI (Kowloon-

32

bound) at the moment. CEDD had completed most of the other facilities, and relevant departments were conducting acceptance tests at the moment. TD and bus companies had recently discussed the locations of facilities and conducting on-site tests. The locations of facilities had generally been confirmed. TD would race against time to install relevant facilities. Regarding the commissioning of the BBI (Kowloon-bound), bus companies had been expediting their preparatory work, which included testing their fare collection systems, preparing for implementation of additional section fares, updating website information and training bus drivers. If Members had any views, they could contact TD.

42. In regard to the agenda item concerned, Members raised follow-up views and enquiries as follows:

42.1. Mr CHAN Man-kin said that the responses given by government departments were perfunctory. Many Members were unable to give accounts to residents of their concerned constituencies because of the perfunctory responses given by departments. Suffering residents would become angry at the Government eventually. He hoped the Kwun Tong District Office could reflect the problem to relevant departments; and

42.2. Mr IP Tsz-kit i) wished to continue to communicate with TD in the future so that Members could disseminate latest information to residents; and ii) enquired about the ancillary facilities for passengers travelling from Lin Tak Road to the BBI. He pointed out that the crossing at Lin Tak Road was not a zebra crossing and there was no other way for members of the public to cross the road safely. He enquired how TD could provide a suitable environment for residents of Lam Tin to safely travel to the BBI. In view of that, he suggested providing a zebra crossing or traffic lights there.

43. TD provided supplementary information on the enquiry on how TD could assist passengers in travelling to the BBI from Lin Tak Road, and said that TD understood Members’ concerns. TD had discussed the problem with CEDD and learnt that CEDD would convert the location concerned into a signal-controlled crossing so that pedestrians could cross Lin Tak Road. TD had earlier reflected Members’ concerns with a view to implementing the improvement works as soon as possible. TD noted Members’ views, and would reflect those views to CEDD after the meeting, hoping to complete the works as soon as possible.

33

44. Members noted the paper.

Follow-up on Works Progress of Proposed Footbridge near Exit A of Kowloon Bay MTR Station

45. TTC had received from Ms LI Wing-shan a paper following up on the works progress of the proposed footbridge near Exit A of Kowloon Bay MTR Station.

46. Ms LI Wing-shan presented the paper.

47. HyD remarked that it had contacted relevant officers for follow-up actions after receiving the paper. They would directly provide a reply to the Member concerned later.

48. In regard to the agenda item concerned, Members raised follow-up views and enquiries as follows:

48.1. Ms LI Wing-shan said that HyD should provide a reply to all the Members. She requested HyD to promise that it would assign representatives to attend a meeting again to report on the progress;

48.2. Mr WAN Ka-him hoped that HyD could assign representatives to attend a meeting to report on the relevant matters;

48.3. Mr CHEUNG Man-fung requested HyD to record Members’ enquiries during meetings. For enquiries that HyD could immediately answer, HyD should first answer them. As for enquiries that HyD could not immediately answer, HyD should answer them at the next meeting. He pointed out that the departments seemed to have been accustomed to answering enquiries of individual Members after meetings, making meetings unable to serve their purposes;

48.4. Mr LEE Kwan-chak pointed out that as shown in the paper, the project had been published in the Gazette on 29 January and views should be submitted to the Secretary for Transport and Housing (“STH”) within the next week. As the present meeting was the only meeting of TTC before the aforesaid submission deadline, he was worried that views could not be relayed to STH in time. He opined that Members were public opinion representatives and views raised by Members were therefore very important. He pointed out that HyD’s officers in

34

charge of the project had been notified a day before the present meeting that the agenda item would be discussed at the meeting. However, the officers concerned were absent from the meeting. He opined that the situation was unacceptable; and

48.5. Mr Kevin SO pointed out that in recent years, after consulting district councils on policies, instead of first amending those policies according to views raised by district councilors, the Government had immediately been submitting those policies to the Town Planning Board (“TPB”) without making any amendment. Therefore, he doubted whether those views raised at the previous meeting would be reflected to TPB. He suggested giving the meeting minutes of the previous meeting to TPB to relay Members’ views and concerns.

49. The Chairman said that TPB was accustomed to citing conclusions of meeting minutes. In the current case, the conclusion referred to paragraph 11 of the confirmed minutes of the 4th TTC meeting. The content was “The Chairman pointed out that TTC merely had some views on the design of the project instead of opposing the project. The Chairman suggested the departments should further communicate with Members of the constituencies concerned with a view to examining whether there was room for improvement”. The Chairman asked Members to first consider Mr Kevin SO’s suggestion before conducting further discussion.

50. HyD said that it would ask relevant officers to give a reply to KTDC as soon as possible. HyD would assign relevant officers to attend a meeting to explain the details as and when necessary.

51. Ms LI Wing-shan pointed out that “not opposing the project” was not equivalent to “supporting the project”. As the project still involved various problems, there was still room for amendments and improvements. She opined that views put forth by Members at the present meeting were not contrary to their original remarks. She enquired whether the views put forth by TTC could involve more than one sentence as there had been many remarks on that day and many suggestions for improvement raised by Members had not been addressed by HyD yet. Also, she pointed out that the department had agreed at that time to assign representatives to attend a meeting again to discuss the project.

52. The Chairman agreed with Ms LI Wing-shan and said that there was a need to gain an understanding of relevant details from the department. The Chairman asked ADO(KT)1 how they should handle the project in question.

35

53. ADO(KT)1 said that she would see whether the department was willing to visit KTDC again to explain the project concerned and listen to views.

54. The Chairman cited paragraph 6.7 of the minutes of the 4th TTC meeting. The content was “As the project was currently under preliminary study, the detailed design would commence only after gazetting the project. For the time being, it was difficult to provide the date on which funding of the project would be sought from LegCo (“the Legislative Council”) or the works commencement date. It was anticipated that funding approval would not be sought earlier than the year 2022.” He pointed out that as the department had only applied for publication of the project in the Gazette at the moment, Members still had time to discuss with the department the detailed design. If Members agreed, they could first let the department publish the project in the Gazette and express their concerns afterwards.

55. ADO(KT)1 said that road design works had to be published in the Gazette before the detailed design of the project was confirmed. Therefore, if Members had any views on the design of the footbridge, the Secretariat could write to the department to relay Members’ views on the design and invite it to a meeting again.

56. Ms LI Wing-shan agreed with ADO(KT)1. She said that although the design could still be amended after being published in the Gazette, she would still like to give the minutes of the previous meeting to the relevant department for its reference.

57. The Chairman opined that TTC could write to TPB and quote the minutes of the previous meeting in the letter to reflect Members’ views. Also, the Chairman suggested reviewing which item would require departments to assign representatives to meetings for discussion again when formulating agendas in the future for timely follow-up actions on issues. He also suggested Members submit papers as soon as possible to avoid the situation that departments were unable to give any response due to inadequate preparation time.

[Post-meeting note: the Secretariat wrote to THB on 29 March 2021 for the matter concerned.]

58. Members noted the paper.

VIII. Date of Next Meeting

59. The next meeting was scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m. on 27 May 2021 (Thursday).

36

60. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:42 p.m.

The minutes of the meeting were confirmed on 27 May 2021.

Kwun Tong District Council Secretariat May 2021

37