Minutes of the 7th Meeting of the Traffic and Transport Committee of the City District Council

Date: 19 December 2016 (Thursday) Time: 10:00 a.m. Venue: Conference Room, District Office

Present: Chairman: Mr LUK King-kwong Vice-chairman: Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming Members: Dr KWONG Po-yin (Arrived at 10:06 a.m.) Miss LEUNG Yuen-ting Mr HO Hin-ming, MH (Arrived at 10:21 a.m.) Mr CHO Wui-hung (Arrived at 10:35 a.m.) Mr NG Fan-kam, Tony Mr LO Chiu-kit (Arrived at 12:22 p.m.) (Left at 1:40 p.m.) Mr TING Kin-wa (Arrived at 10:35 a.m.) (Left at 2:45 p.m.) Mr LAM Tak-shing Mr LAM Pok, Jimmy Mr YUE Chee-wing, Admond Mr YEUNG Chun-yu, Ronald Mr HE Huahan Mr YANG Wing-kit Mr KWAN Ho-yeung, Roger (Arrived at 10:10 a.m.) Ir CHEUNG Yan-hong, MH Mr LAI Kwong-wai (Arrived at 10:09 a.m.) (Left at 1:06 p.m.) The Hon LEE Wai-king, Starry, SBS, JP (Arrived at 10:36 a.m.) (Left at 12:25 p.m.) Mr SIU Leong-sing (Left at 1:40 p.m.) Mr NG Po-keung (Left at 10:25 a.m.) Mr PUN Kwok-wah

Absent: Dr the Hon LEUNG Mei-fun, Priscilla, SBS, JP Mr SIU Tin-hung, Terence

Secretary: Miss YUEN Man-ki, Vicki Executive Officer (District Council) 1, Office

In Attendance: Miss Lam Yuk-ying, Alletta Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Kowloon City District Office Mr SZETO Chi-wah, Deacons Senior Transport Officer/Kowloon City, Transport Department Mr CHEUNG Chi-wa Engineer/Kowloon City, Transport Department Ms LEE Wing-chee, Joyce Engineer/, Transport Department Mr SUEN Wa-hing District Operations Officer (Kowloon City District), Police Force Mr PO Yiu-wa Office-in-charge, Traffic Team (Kowloon City District), Hong Kong Police Force Mr HO Chi-kin Office-in-charge, Traffic Team (Sau Mau Ping District), Hong Kong Police Force Mr TAM Ho-chuen District Engineer/Hung Hom, Highways Department Mr CHUNG Siu-man District Engineer/ Kowloon City & , Highways Department

Attendance by Invitation: Item 4 - 7 Mr TONG Chai-ming, Ronnie Operations Manager – Kwun Tong & , MTR Corporation Limited Ms Lilian YEUNG Public Relations Manager – External Affairs, MTR Corporation Limited Mr TSUI Hon-keung Senior Liaison Engineer , MTR Corporation Limited

Item 8-13 Miss AYALA Yi Sum, Sammi Senior Transport Officer/Railway 5, Transport Department Mr KWOK Yue-fung, Samuel Transport Officer/Railway 5, Transport Department Ms WONG Sau-kuen Officer (Planning and Development), The Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited Mr LEUNG Wang-cheong Principal Operations Officer, The Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited Mr LAM Chi-ho Manager (Planning and Development), The Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited Mr SIN Chi-yin Manager (Planning) of the Citybus Ltd./New World First Bus Services Ltd.

Item 14- 16 Mr LEUNG Wang-cheong Principal Operations Officer, The Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited Mr LI Kin-lok, Kevin Public Affairs Manager of the Citybus Ltd./New World First Bus Services Ltd.

Item 17 - 18 Mr LEUNG Wang-cheong Principal Operations Officer, Lai Chi Kok Depot, The Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited

Any Other Mr CHAN Chi-ming Senior Engineer/Special Duties, Business Transport Department Mr. LEE Sai Hang, Kenneth Engineer/Special Duties 1, Transport Department Mr CHAU Lap Kong Project Coordinator/New Territories 3, Highways Department

＊ ＊ ＊

The Chairman of the Traffic and Transport Committee (TTC) welcomed Members, representatives of government departments and organizations to the meeting. The Chairman reminded Members to declare interests in accordance with the Kowloon City District Council Standing Orders (Standing Orders). He also said that if and when the number of Members present at the meeting was less than 12, he would adjourn the meeting according to Order 36(2) of Standing Orders. Lastly, he reminded attendees to turn off the ringers of their mobile phones or switch them to vibration mode, and remain silent during the meeting to avoid disturbances.

2. The Chairman said that Miss Tanna CHONG, Assistant District Officer of the Kowloon City District Office (KCDO) was unable to attend the meeting due to other duty commitment, and Miss Alletta LAM, Senior Executive Officer (District Council) of KCDO was in attendance on her behalf. In addition, Mr LEE Yuk-wah of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) had retired, and Mr PO Yiu-wa attended the meeting as representative of HKPF.

Confirmation of Minutes of Last Meeting

3. There was no amendment to the minutes of the 6th meeting, which were unanimously confirmed by TTC.

Matters Arising

Strong Call for Resolving the Noise Problem between and Kwun Tong Bypass (Shing Kai Road Section), Call for Resolving Noise Problems at Flyovers in Kowloon City District (Papers No. 53/16, 64/16)

4. The Chairman said that as agenda items 2 and 3 were both related to flyovers’ noise, he proposed a combined discussion of the two items so that the meeting could be conducted smoothly. Members attended agreed that the items be discussed together. Prior to the meeting, the Secretariat had delivered the joint reply of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD), the Highways Department (HyD), the Housing Department (HD) and HKPF to Members for perusal. In addition, the Chairman said that the agenda item had been discussed since the third meeting held in April this year till then. He enquired whether Member had any further supplementations or opinions.

5. Mr HE Huahan’s opinions and enquiries were consolidated as follows: (a) as there were three layers of noise barriers at the section of Richland Gardens of Prince Edward Road and Kwun Tong Bypass, and that there was no structural issue at the flyover of Shing Kai Road section of Prince Edward Road and Kwun Tong Bypass, he hoped that the Department would increase the layer of noise barriers from two to three at the Shing Kai Road section; and (b) he proposed that no further discussion should be conducted on the agenda item, and most recent situation should be followed up by enquiring the relevant departments six months later.

6. The Chairman said that the agenda item had been discussed many times already. He hoped that the departments concerned should be allowed sufficient time to seek a substantive option to resolve the noise issue of the flyover. He announced that no further discussion should be conducted on the agenda item.

New Items

Request for the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) to Follow up the Nuisances Caused by the Extension Project (KTLEP) to the Community, Provide Additional Fare Concession and Improve Station Facilities, Request for the MTRCL to Resolve the Odour Problem at the Works Areas at Whampoa Station (Papers No. 111/16, 112/16)

7. The Chairman said that as agenda items 4 and 5 were both related to the issue of effects of the (KTLE) on the community, it was suitable for them to be discussed together so that the meeting could be conducted smoothly. Members agreed that the two items should be discussed together.

8. Dr KWONG Po-yin introduced Paper No. 111/16, and requested MTRCL to follow up the odour problem at the works site at Whampoa Station, increase fare concessions and improve station facilities.

9. Mr YANG Wing-kit was authorized by Dr the Hon Priscilla LEUNG to introduce Paper No. 112/16, and he requested MTRCL on her behalf to solve the odour problem at the works areas at Whampoa Station before Lunar New Year.

10. Miss Lilian YEUNG, Public Relations Manager – External Affairs of MTRCL gave a consolidated reply as follows: (a) she appreciated the support and co-operation of Members on the commissioning of KTLE. Since the formal commissioning of KTLE on 23 October 2016, MTRCL had been closely monitoring its operation and progress of relevant works; (b) MTRCL had rolled out various fare concession schemes. Based on its principles of feasibility and encouraging passengers to walk to the nearby MTR Station, it set up a MTR fare saver at Hung Hom Ka Wai Chuen; and (3) at present, passengers of Whampoa Station and Station enjoyed various fare concessions, including interchange discounts, concessions for the elderly and early bird discount, etc.

11. Mr TSUI Hon-keung, Senior Liaison Engineer of MTRCL responded that as a result of bursting of underground pipes and the serious blockage of pipes of the carriageway of southbound Hung Hom Road near Tak Hong Street and Tak On Street section, odour was caused. Apart from covering the drainage affected and spread of de-odourizing powder, MTRCL on the previous Saturday had completed the installation of temporary drainage to drain the sewage. At present, the problem of odour had been greatly improved. In addition, MTRCL would continue to remove the silt at the original drainage, which was anticipated to be completed in January 2017.

12. Mr Ronnie TONG, Operations Manager – Kwun Tong & Tsuen Wan Line of MTRCL gave a consolidated reply as follows: (a) the phasing-in of facilities in the station and services would take time after the commissioning of the extension; (b) the iron gate outside the lift at the West Hall of Whampoa Station was temporarily manually operated MTRCL was discussing improvement measures with relevant departments; (c) as the staircase of A2 exit involved Government property, MTRCL was discussing the enhancement of security facilities with relevant departments; (d) the three elevators at the A3 exit of Ho Man Tin Station were pedestrian facilities constructed by MTRCL as commissioned by the Government. They were installed according to the specifications of the Government and were regularly inspected and maintained; and (e) MTRCL had made adjustments in respect of the trains’ failure to stop accurately at Ho Man Tin Station and the situation had improved. MTRCL would continue to closely monitor the speed of the trains entering the station.

13. Dr KWONG Po-yin pointed out that MTRCL at first did not handle the problem of odour at the works site near Whampoa Station. Silt was allowed to over-flood onto the road until they received Members’ complaints and opinions. She was not satisfied with the efficiency of MTRCL in dealing with the matter. She enquired the time for MTRCL to find out the reason of blockage and complete the restoration works. In addition, there were many locations near Whampoa suitable for setting up fare savers. She hoped that more concessions could be provided for Whampoa residents.

14. Mr Admond YUE pointed out that the drainage clearance works of MTRCL had caused severe traffic congestion. He hoped that MTRCL would conduct relevant works during non-peak hours and notify residents nearby who were affected by the works. The relevant departments were requested to tie in with the works. In addition, KTLEP had been delayed for nearly two years, he requested the provision of more fare savers in the District as compensation.

15. Mr YANG Wing-kit enquired the main reason for the blockage of the drainage and what could be done to avoid the same from happening again after it was clear. In addition, what measures MTRCL would adopt to further mitigate the odour problem before the works were completed.

16. Mr TSUI Hon-keung of MRTCL made a consolidated reply as follows: (a) it was initially estimated that the odour was caused by the bursting of the drains. However, the real reason could not be identified until the clearance work was completed and remedial action was taken; (b) the odour mainly came from the silt and the temporary drainage could drain the silt, so that the odour problem could be greatly improved; (c) the road surface restoration works of Whampoa area would be gradually be completed in the first quarter of 2017. However, the restoration works at the junction of Tak Man Street and Tak On Street of Hung Hom Road were complicated and there might be some delays; and (d) the clearance works and road closure measure of the above drainage would be conducted from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., which were not peak hours. If traffic was found to be busy, MTRCL would stop the works and re-open the roads.

17. The Chairman enquired that whether the works of clearing the drainage could be conducted only in the specified period of time, and whether the time could be extended to expedite the progress.

18. Mr TSUI Hon-keung of MRTCL said that machines clearing the drainage would give out noise and had to be conducted within a specified period of time. MTRCL had submitted an application to EPD for extending the time of works to 11 p.m.

Motion: Strong Request for the MTRCL to Provide Fare Concession for Residents of and Whampoa Estate, Request for the Provision of MTR Fare Savers (Papers No. 113/16, 114/16)

19. The Chairman said that as agenda items 6 and 7 were both related to fare concessions of KTLE, he proposed that the two agenda items be discussed together so that the meeting could be conducted more smoothly. Members agreed to discuss the items together.

20. Ir CHEUNG Yan-hong was authorised to introduce Paper No. 113/16 on behalf of Dr the Hon Priscilla LEUNG and he requested MTRCL to provide special bonus rides to residents of Whampoa area, not the normal concessions generally offered.

21. Mr NG Fan-kam introduced Paper No. 114/16, and strongly demanded that MTRCL set up MTR fare savers at Oi Man Plaza and Homantin Plaza as soon as possible.

22. Mr HO Hin-ming pointed out that the above mentioned issue had been handed over to the Working Group on the Kwun Tong Line Extension (Working Group) for its discussion for some time. MTRCL had never made any response in respect of the relevant requests. He enquired whether the Working Group should continue its meetings, or that matters discussed in the Working Group meetings should be discussed once more at TTC meetings. He reiterated that MTRCL should provide fare concessions to passengers of Whampoa Station and Ho Man Tin Station for a period of four years.

23. Mr CHO Wui-hung said that the relevant request was made at the Working Group meetings, but they were ignored by MTRCL. He queried whether there was a need for the Working Group to hold further meetings. He said that all along he received complaints from residents of Oi Man Estate that walking to Ho Man Tin Station would take 20 minutes. They requested that MTR fare savers be set up at Oi Man Estate, Ho Man Tin Estate and Whampoa.

24. Mr Roger KWAN was skeptical of the actual terms of reference of the Working Group. He pointed out that the distance between Ho Man Tin Station and Oi Man Estate and Ho Man Tin Estate was longer than 500 metres, but there were no MTR fare savers. He thus requested that MTR fare savers be set up at Oi Man Estate and Ho Man Tin Estate. In addition, residents over the years had been bearing with the nuisance of KTLEP works. It was very reasonable for them to seek fare concessions as compensation. However, MTRCL all along ignored the opinions and requests of the Working Group. He was very disappointed with it.

25. Mr NG Po-keung’s opinions and enquires were consolidated as follows: (a) there were more than 6 000 households in Oi Man Estate and more than 4 700 households in Ho Man Tin Estate. However, MTRCL set up MTR fare savers at Ka Wai Chuen where there were fewer households. He thus enquired the criteria for its site selection; (b) Ho Man Tin Station was far away from residences. If there was no MTR fare saver, it would be difficult to attract residents to use MTR services; (c) there were no extended exits to Oi Man Estate and Ho Man Tin Estate from Ho Man Tin Station. It was very reasonable for them to request the provision of MTR fare savers as compensation; (d) he proposed that MTRCL should set up MTR fare savers at Oi Man Estate and Ho Man Tin Estate on a trial basis and then determine whether to formally providing it by reviewing its amount of usage; and (e) he requested the setting up of MTR fare savers at Kowloon City and Sung Wong Toi.

26. Mr LAM Tak-shing agreed with the Members’ opinions on various issues, such as impact of works, facilities in the stations and sanitation at the works site, etc. He hoped that MTRCL would set up MTR fare savers at Oi Man Estate, Ho Man Tin Estate and Hung Hom old areas as compensation.

27. Miss Lilian YEUNG of MTRCL gave a consolidated response as follows: (a) She was appreciative of Members’ valuable opinions on KTLE; (b) MTRCL had set up MTR fare savers at Ka Wai Chuen, Hung Hom, which would provide convenience to residents using Whampoa Station and Ho Man Tin Station. The purpose of setting up fare savers was to, through the promotion scheme, encourage more people to walk to the nearest MTR station to take MTR; and (c) the company noted Members’ opinions of setting up MTR fare savers in Kowloon City District (in the vicinity of Oi Man Estate, Ho Man Tin Estate, Whampoa Garden and Whampoa Estate) and would relay the proposals to the departments concerned so that they would be used as references when the promotion scheme was to be reviewed in the future.

28. The Chairman was deeply disappointed with the response of MTRCL. He opined that MTRCL turned a deaf ear to the proposals of locations of setting up MTR fare savers raised by Members. It did not intend to make compensation in respect of the nuisance caused by works of KTLEP, which was unfair to residents affected.

29. Ir CHEUNG Yan-hong said that MTRCL only used the site selection of MTR fare savers as excuse and it did not squarely respond to the “provision of other concessions as compensation to residents for the long term inconvenience brought about by the construction of MTR station” request as contained in the Paper. He hoped that MTRCL would bear the responsibility of a social enterprise.

30. Mr YANG Wing-kit said that the location of Lok Man Sun Chuen met the considerationS of MTRCL for setting up MTR fare savers. He reiterated the request of setting up MTR fare savers at shopping arcades of Lok Man Sun Chuen or .

31. Mr Admond YUE said that had 4 735 households and more than 20 000 residents. He requested MRTCL to set up MTR fare savers at Laguna Verde.

32. Mr NG Fan-kam was disappointed with the response of MTRCL. The request for setting up MTR fare savers at Oi Man Plaza and Homantin Plaza had been put forward for many years. However, MTRCL raised factors of consideration only at present. He requested MTRCL to explain the reason to set up MTR fares savers at Ka Wai Chuen instead of Oi Man Estate and Ho Man Tin Estate.

33. Mr Siu Leong-sing pointed out that MTR fare savers was in fact a commercial promotion scheme. MTRCL only considered profits, but not the needs of the public. The departments concerned should review the policy of railway first and introduce competition to avoid MTRCL from monopolizing the market. In addition, as Ho Man Tin Station was far away from Oi Man Estate and Ho Man Tin Estate, residents of the area tended to use other means of transport. The commissioning of KTLE could not improve the traffic condition of the area. He requested the setting up of MTR fare savers at Oi Man Estate and Ho Man Tin Estate to ease the traffic problem in the area.

34. Dr KWONG Po-yin opined that as there were other means of transport at Ka Wai Chuen to compete with MTR, thus MTRCL set up fare savers there to attract passengers. At present, around 100 000 people used Whampoa Station and Ho Man Tin Station, whereas the target of MTRCL was about 107 000 people per day. He proposed that MTRCL should set up MTR fare savers to attract residents to use MTR in order to achieve a win-win situation.

35. Mr Jimmy LAM’s opinions and enquiries were consolidated as follows: (a) he enquired the concrete criteria of MRTCL’s setting up fare savers, and the reason for objecting the locations proposed by the Members; (b) residents of North, Shun Yung Street and Ko Shan Road would want to use KTLE, but Ho Man Tin Station was too far away. He proposed the provision of MTR fare savers at Chatham Gate to attract residents to use MTR. If MTR fare savers could not be set up, he proposed that green minibus (GMB) route no. 28MS should lower its fare, or MTR interchange discounts should be installed.

36. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming said that residents of Ho Man Tin area would pay 2 to 4 dollars less per trip if they travelled to Mong Kok and Yau Ma Tei by minibus. Thus the setting up of MTR fare savers at Ho Man Tin Estate could ease the traffic congestion in the area on one hand and increase the number of passengers for MTR on the other. He hoped that MTRCL would make a sensible commercial decision.

37. Mr HE Huahan queried the criteria for site selection of setting up MTR fare savers. He pointed out that from The Gateway at Harbour City to , there was an MTR fare saver within an area of 81metres. From Enterprise Square to , however, there was also an MTR fare saver within an area of 1 500 metres. He hoped that MTRCL would give specific criteria. In addition, the provision of MTR fare savers might not be able to compensate residents affected by the works in the area. He thus proposed the provision of gate concessions at Whampoa Station and Ho Man Tin Station to meet residents’ request.

38. Mr CHO Wui-hung pointed out that the installation of MTR fare savers was simple. He requested MTRCL to provide the concrete reason for not installing them at Oi Man Estate.

39. The Hon Starry LEE’s opinions and enquiries were consolidated as follows: (a) the location of Ho Man Tin Station was far away from several major housing estates and it had been widely criticized. MTR Shatin to Central Link was seriously delayed and thus residents living further away from Ho Man Tin Station could not make use of MTR services at the soonest possible. Thus it was hoped that MTRCL would install fare savers once again to attract residents to use Ho Man Tin Station; and (b) while Whampoa area and Hung Hom area were close to Whampoa Station, she hoped that MTRCL would not presume that residents would incline to choose MTR. MTRCL should take into account its corporate image and install fare savers at Whampoa.

40. Mr HO Hin-ming enquired the reason for trains travelling in the direction of Whampoa terminated at Ho Man Tin. In addition, MTRCL should install fare savers at Ho Man Tin to compensate the long walking distance of residents in taking MTR.

41. Miss Lilian YEUNG of MTRCL said that MRTCL noted the proposal of members on installation of MTR fare savers and fare concessions. In addition, there were only 33 MTR fare savers in Hong Kong. The location of setting up MTR fare savers should not be too far or close to the nearest MTR Station. In addition, the location for setting up MTR fare savers had to be able to provide basic facilities, including adequate space for installation of fare saver and provision of electricity supply.

42. Mr Ronnie TONG of MTRCL responded that the platform at Whampoa was one- sided platform. Trains could only enter after the one in front had departed. As such, not all trains would travel to Whampoa. During peak hours, trains would travel to Whampoa alternately whereas during non-peak hours, all trains would terminate at Whampoa.

43. Mr SIU Leong-sing requested MTRCL to provide written study results and progress in respect of the proposed locations of MTR fare savers.

44. The Chairman said that according to the Standing Orders, as Dr the Hon Priscilla LEUNG who submitted the paper did not attend the meeting and as she had not entrusted another member to move the motion on her behalf, the motion could not be handled. As Members had stated clear about their opinions, it was hoped that MTRCL would take them into active consideration.

The Change in Residents’ Travel Pattern after the Commissioning of Kwun Tong Line Extension and the Latest Arrangement of the Public Transport Service Re-organisation Plan, Concern over the Impacts on the Traffic in the District following the Commissioning of the Kwun Tong Line Extension, Concern over the Impacts on Minibus and Bus Services in the District following the Commissioning of the Kwun Tong Line Extension, Request for the Provision of Additional Interchange Concession for GMB Route No. 8M, Strong Request for the Fare of GMB Route No. 8M to be Set under $3, Request for the Extension of Routeing of GMB Route No. 8M to Man Fuk Road to Facilitate Residents to Go to Ho Man Tin MTR Station (Papers No. 115/16-120/16)

45. The Chairman said that as agenda items 8 to 13 were all related to the public transport service re-organisation plan after the commissioning of KTLE and the service of GMB route no. 8M, he proposed that the items be discussed together so that the meeting could be conducted smoothly.

46. Mr NG Fan-kam introduced Papers No. 116/16 and 118/16, and enquired the patronage after the commissioning of KTLE. He also requested the provision of interchange concessions for GMB route no. 8M.

47. Miss Lilian YEUNG of MTRCL responded that MRTCL had all along monitored the changes in patronage and the ridership pattern after the commissioning of KTLE on 23 October 2016. Every day, about 107 000 people used Whampoa Station and Ho Man Tin Station. In addition, MTRCL provided passengers of Ho Man Tin Station $0.5 of interchange concessions on three GMB routes for twelve months. If those GMBs were willing to provide more interchange concessions, MTRCL would tie in correspondingly.

48. Miss Sammi AYALA, Senior Transport Officer/Railway 5 of the Transport Department (TD) introduced Paper No. 115/16.

49. Dr KWONG Po-yin introduced Paper No. 117/16, and supplemented that the substitutable services of KMB route no. 212 did not base on the provision of same fare and speediness. The fare of KMB route no. 30X was higher than that of KMB route no. 212, and she demanded that sectional fares be set up for both directions. In addition, the patronage for cross-harbour route no. 115 decreased only slightly and she urged TD to retain the bus service.

50. Mr YANG Wing-kit’s opinions and enquiries were consolidated as follows: (a) he could not understand the information contained in “The operation of bus services in Ho Man Tin/Whampoa before and after the commissioning of KTLE” (Annex I). He also enquired the reason for the increase rather than decrease in patronage of some bus routes, cross-harbour routes in particular, after the commissioning of KTLE; (b) the Department’s assessment of change in patronage, based only on November 2016’s figures, was not objective, as figures might be affected by seasonal or other factors. He hoped that the Department would analyze the causes for the change in the number of passengers of various bus routes; (c) GMB route no. 28MS split part of the services provided by route no. 27M during non-peak hours. He requested the original level of service of route no. 27M be maintained; and (d) the usage rate of GMB route no. 28MS tended to be low. He hoped that some resources would be used to support route no. 27M, or that the fare of route no. 28MS be lowered so as to mitigate the demand on route no. 27M.

51. Mr HO Hin-ming pointed out that the frequencies of GMB route nos. 13A and 13 had decreased recently and he requested TD to be mindful of the matter.

52. Mr PUN Kwok-wah’s opinions and enquiries were consolidated as follows: (a) he strongly objected to the cancellation of GMB route no. 7, and pointed out that the patronage of the route did not change after the commissioning of KTLE. The patronage was not related to the commissioning of KTLE and he hoped that TD would not use it as an excuse to cancel that GMB route; (b) the usage rate of GMB route no. 28MS was low. Also as a result of MTRCL not setting up MTR fare savers, the desire of residents of Wyler Gardens using the MTR was greatly reduced. As such, TD had no sufficient grounds to cancel GMB route no. 7; and (c) in their operation of regional minibus services, operators might come across losses in some routes. TD should assist the relevant operators to improve its operation, rather than scrap its services. He proposed that minibus frequencies during non-peak hours be reduced, or its route be altered, such as travelling via Whampoa.

53. Mr NG Po-keung’s opinions and enquiries were consolidated as follows: (a) TD’s Paper stated that many bus routes recorded a decrease in the number of passengers. However, it did not provide relevant options of re-organization of bus routes. He urged that TD should consult DCs before implementation of any re-organization; (b) he objected to the cancellation of GMB route no. 7 as the route was not related to KTLE and residents of could only travel to Tsim Sha Tsui using that route; (c) he objected to the shortening of KMB route no. 7, as that was the only route to travel to Ho Man Tin from Kowloon City District; and (d) after the commissioning of KTLE, patronage of some routes increased, such as KMB route no. 14. He enquired whether the bus company would enhance its service.

54. Mr LAM Tak-shing’s opinions and enquiries were consolidated as follows: (a) KMB route no. 7B was the main bus route for students and residents of Hung Hom area to go to schools and HD and return, he urged TD to retain the existing route; (b) he enquired the actual time of conducting the survey of which the information was revealed in Annex I; and (c) he objected to the abolition of KMB route no. 212, many residents had practical needs of the routes because of the fare. He proposed that studies be conducted to reduce frequencies and set up sectional fares.

55. Mr Admond YUE objected to the cancellation of GMB route no. 7. He also pointed out that the service of KMB route no. 26 was inadequate. The average waiting time was 20 to 40 minutes and it could not take the place of GMB route no. 7. In addition, he strongly objected to the cancellation of KMB route no. 212. The elderly in the District relied on the route to travel to public hospitals. TD should not rely on the figures of one month to determine that the route should be cancelled. He proposed that figures of six months should be collected before making a decision. He agreed that studies could be conducted to reduce the frequencies of the route.

56. The Hon Starry LEE’s opinions and enquiries were consolidated as follows: (a) there was a lack of variation in the patronage of GMB in the Paper provided by TD; (b) she pointed out that if frequencies of KMB route no. 212 were reduced, the patronage would decrease further; (c) if TD hoped to replace route no. 212 with KMB route no. 30X, an incentive had to be provided. She requested that TD made a pledge to provide interchange concessions for KMB route no. 30X; (d) he objected to the cancellation of GMB route no 7, residents of To Kwa Wan and Wyler Gardens could not be benefited from the re-organization plan of TD; and (e) she requested that TD should consult the District Council (DC) before implementing other transport service re-organization plan.

57. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming said that the frequencies of GMB route nos. 8 and 8M were not adequate and they were not punctual. The waiting time was half an hour and he hoped that TD would deal with the issues squarely. In addition, new buildings would be completed in Ho Man Tin, and he urged the Department to pro-actively improve the transport facilities in the District.

58. Mr SIU Leong-sing pointed out that TD only provided the bus service operation situation of Ho Man Tin/Whampoa areas from January to March 2016 as statistics before the commissioning. He had reservation about whether the statistics could reflect the current situation. He requested the Department to provide the statistics of April to October 2016 and consult DC on the most recent statistics of six months after the commissioning.

59. Mr CHO Wui-hung said that the number of passengers of GMB route no. 8M was not adequate, whilst the supply of service of GMB route nos. 8 and 8S could meet demand during peak hours and its waiting time exceeded half an hour. In addition, new housing estates such as “Ultima” and “One Homantin” in Ho Man Tin would bring in a large amount of residents. He urged TD to deal with the traffic demand of the areas squarely and avoid reducing bus routes.

60. Mr NG Fan-kam urged TD to continue to maintain existing bus services of Oi Ma Estate and those of KMB route no. 7B.

61. Mr LAI Kwong-wai’s opinions and enquiries were consolidated as follows: (a) he objected to the abolition of GMB route no. 7. He also agreed that the route was not related to the commissioning of KTLE. He agreed with Mr PUN Kwok-wah’s opinion of conducting study to alter the route; (b) the paper provided by TD revealed that the patronage of some bus routes increased while some others decreased. However, TD made its conclusion on the basis of the overall decrease of passengers. He hoped that the Department could analyze the causes of variation of patronage of each bus route. In addition, he enquired whether TD would collect statistics once again, or whether it would base on the statistics of November 2016 to implement the re-organization plan; and (c) he requested TD to supplement the operational situation of bus services in Ho Man Tin/ Whampoa areas from April to October 2016 for Members’ reference.

62. Miss Sammi AYALA of TD gave a consolidated response as follows:

(a) she noted Members’ opinions about GMB route nos 8 and 8M, 27M and 28MS. The Department would urge minibus contractors concerned to suitably adjust their deployment of resources to tie in with passengers’ needs;

(b) with regard to the concern of Members on GMB and the amount of MTR interchange concessions, the Department would continue to urge contractors to provide concessions to passengers so as to arrive at a “win-win” situation;

(c) after the commissioning of KTLE, the patronage of relevant GMB routes decreased by about 20%;

(d) most passengers of KMB route no. 212 travelled between Whampoa and Yau Tsim Mong District. The routes of KTLE and KMB route no. 212 largely overlapped. Thus the patronage of KMB route no. 212 significantly reduced to about 26% an hour on the average during its busiest hours after the commissioning of KTLE. It was as such that the proposal of cancelling the route be made. The elderlies could take KMB route no. 30X by making use of the $2 concessionary fare per journey to replace route no. 212. Other passengers could walk to and via B1 barrier-free exit to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH);

(e) with regard to KMB route no. 7B, the Department currently did not recommend any alteration of routes. It was still observing the change in patronage of the route;

(f) the patronage of GMB route no. 7 remained low. As early as 2016, the contractor had proposed the cancellation of the route. TD then proposed that observation should continue until the commissioning of KTLE. Residents could take the newly established GMB route no. 28MS to connect Ho Man Tin Station and then transfer to Tsim Sha Tsui via railway. Then survey could be conducted in respect of the needs of passengers of GMB route no. 7. After the commissioning of KTLE, results of the survey revealed that the patronage of the route was still low and heavy losses continued to be made. It was proposed that the route be cancelled in January 2017. In the area of Wyler Gardens and To Kwa Wan, many bus routes could be used to take the place of GMB route no. 7. For example, residents could take KMB route no. 5C, the fare of which was lower. Alternatively, passengers could take GMB route no. 28MS to Ho Man Tin Station and then connect to Tsim Sha Tsui or other railway stations;

(g) after the commissioning of KTLE, the patronage of various bus routes differed in their own ways. The Department had provided in the paper the statistics of patronage of each bus route at peak hours and at stops of highest patronage. As the routes and stops of each bus route differed, the stops of highest patronage and variation of patronage all varied;

(h) based on the benchmark of “Guidelines on Service Improvement Reduction in Bus Route” (i.e. the average patronage in the busiest half hour was less than 85%), the Department would gradually reduce the frequency level of individual bus routes which had met the benchmark. There was benchmark with regard to increasing the frequency level of individual bus routes. If the average patronage of bus routes in the busiest half hour met the relevant benchmark, the Department would consider to enhance the service; and

(i) the Department would closely monitor the operational situation of various bus and GMB routes in the district, as it had been doing all along. It would consider to make adjustments to service when it was necessary according to the changes of population and actual needs of passengers in the District.

63. Dr KWONG Po-yin was very disappointed with the responses of TD. She pointed out that the route of cross-harbour bus route no. 104 completely overlapped with railway services and its operation continued for many years. In addition, she hoped that TD would proactively strive for the setting up of two-way section fares for KMB route no. 30X. She requested TD to respond to the request.

64. Mr YANG Wing-kit queried the practice of TD of making comparison between the operational statistics of bus services of Ho Man Tin and Whampoa District only from January to March 2016 to that of November 2017. She proposed that comparison be made between the monthly statistics in the first quarter of 2016 and 2017 on a month to month basis. In addition, the usage rate of GMB route no. 28MS was low. She requested that its fare be lowered so as to attract passengers.

65. Mr Roger KWAN pointed out that residents mainly took GMB route no. 7 during peak hours and the journey time was less than 25 minutes. If residents took the bus proposed by TD during peak hours, the journey was longer and it would cause inconvenience to residents. He hoped that the Department would re-consider the decision to abolish GMB route no. 7.

66. Ir CHEUNG Yan-hong’s opinions were consolidated as follows: (a) TD took a passive attitude towards KMB route no. 212. He proposed that a proactive attitude should be taken to improve the service of that bus route, and to increase its competitiveness and patronage; (b) he opined that the substitute of KMB route no. 30X could only benefit the elderly. As such, he requested the setting up of two-way section fares; (c) going to QEH by MTR would require walking up and down the stairs, it was inconvenient to the elderlies and the mobility-handicapped; and (d) he requested TD to conduct a review on the Public Transport Service Re-organisation Plan six months after the commissioning of KTLE.

67. Mr SIU Leong-sing enquired once more about the lack of bus service operational figures of Ho Man Tin/Whampoa areas from April to October of 2016 in Annex I of TD Paper.

68. Mr LAI Kwong-wai said that in the recent consultation conducted by TD, it was said that the average patronage of KMB route no. 93K was only 79%, and a recommendation was made for its frequency be reduced. However, the current paper said that its average patronage rate had been increased from 88.2% to 96.8%. He was thus skeptical of the statistics of TD and requested TD to provide the average patronage rate from April to September 2016, and whether it would correspondingly increase the frequencies of that bus route.

69. Miss Sammi AYALA of TD gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(a) bus fares were determined by the distance of the route. As to whether concessions would be provided (such as two-way section fares) was a commercial decision of bus companies;

(b) after the commissioning of KTLE, the patronage of KMB route no. 212 obviously decreased. Existing passengers figures (i.e. the average patronage rate in the busiest one hour) had met and were far lower than the level in the existing guidelines at which frequencies could be reduced. It was thus recommended that at the end of December of the current year that frequencies during non-peak hours be reduced from 20 minutes per trip to 30 minutes, as advised in the Guidelines. If the average patronage rate during the busiest hour continued to remain lower than the level of cancelling the route, then the route would be cut;

(c) Annex I listed the passengers figures of Ho Man Tin/Whampoa area from January to March 2016. It was provided as a comparison with the passengers’ figures after the commissioning of KTLE for Members’ reference. In addition, it was observed that after the commissioning of KTLE, ridership pattern had grown stable. Therefore, the Department would base on the actual passengers figures after the commissioning of KTLE, and under condition that the average patronage of the route during the busiest hours had met the benchmark in the guidelines, gradually implement the various proposals in the re-organization plan;

(d) with regard to the fares of GMB route no. 28MS, the Department would continue to encourage contractors to provide concessions to passengers; and

(e) the Department’s Paper factually reflected the statistics of the average patronage rate of various routes in its busiest half hour collected in the survey. With regard to Members’ concern about KMB route no. 93K, the Department would reduce frequencies only when the average patronage in the busiest half hour met the benchmark of the Guidelines.

70. Ms 黃秀娟, 經理(策劃及發展) of the Kowloon Motors Bus Co. (1933) Ltd. (KMB) responded that routes with two-way section fares mainly served the rural areas in the New Territories. Two-way section fares easily confused passengers who did not often take the routes. They obstructed passengers from boarding and alighting. Thus the Department currently did not consider to increase the routes with two-way section fares. In addition, the Government had implemented the Elderly and Eligible Disabled Persons Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme. The elderlies and persons with disabilities could take KMB route nos. 212 and 30X at the same fare.

71. Dr KWONG Po-yin’s opinions and enquiries were consolidated as follows: (a) she enquired the reason for implementing the two-way section fare in the rural areas, but not urban areas. In addition, KMB could conduct publicity on the use of the two-way section fare. Even if members of the public did not use it, the company would suffer no loss; (b) two-way section fare could increase the patronage of route no. 30X, so that more resources of KMB route no. 212 could be used. Thus it would be mutually beneficial; and (c) the public transport service re-organisation plan conducted by TD should give priority to the needs of the public, rather than the profits of contractors.

72. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming proposed that two-way section fares machine be set up at bus stops to avoid inconvenience. He believed that existing technology could provide convenient two-way section fares. It depended on whether the bus companies were willing to upgrade their system and services.

73. Ir CHEUNG Yan-hong opined that in facing the competition from MTRCL, KMB should set up two-way section fare even more to enhance its competitiveness.

74. Mr Admond YUE said that an all-round transport system should not only rely on the services of MTR. A fair competition should be forged and it was hoped that KMB would improve its services. He opined that existing patronage could not reflect the actual usage situation of KMB route no. 212. He requested TD to renew the statistics six months after the commissioning of KTLE so that review could be done.

75. Mr LAI Kwong-wai cited the above-mentioned example of KMB route no. 93K and requested TD to conduct observation in the few months to come on the patronage of bus routes the average of which were lower than 85%. TD was also requested to consult DC once more before the implementation of the re-organization plan.

76. The Chairman requested TD to respond to the opinions of Members on GMB route no. 7 and KMB route 212. Before the implementation of the re-organization plan, TD was requested to consult DC again and respect the opinions of Members. In addition, he opined that it was unreasonable for KMB to object the introduction of two-way section fare for route 30X. He requested TD to study the feasibility of introducing two-way section fare for buses of urban areas.

77. Miss Sammi AYALA of TD gave a consolidated reply as follows: (a) The Department would continue to observe the changes in patronage of bus routes affected. With regard to the cancellation of KMB route no. 212, the Department would conduct survey again after the adjustment of frequencies during non-peak hours. It would cut the route only if the average patronage of the route during non-peak hours met the Guidelines. Before cutting the routes (KMB route no. 212 and GMB route no. 7), the Department would maintain good communication with DC; and (b) the Department would like to supplement that KMB route no. 30X was a long distance route travelling between Tsuen Wan and Whampoa. If two-way section fare was introduced, short distance passengers might increase and long distance passengers to and from Tsuen Wan might be affected.

78. Mr CHO Wui-hung introduced Paper No 119/16. He strongly demanded that the fare of GMB route no. 8M be set at under $3.

79. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming introduced Paper No. 120/16. He proposed that GMB route nos. 5M and 8M should travel via Man Fuk Road in order to ease the traffic at Waterloo Hill.

80. Miss Sammi AYALA of TD responded that with regard to the fare of GMB route no. 8M, the Department would continue to encourage the minibus contractor and MTRCL to increase the amount of interchange concessions. In addition, she pointed out that red minibus had provided $2 service connecting the B2 exit at Ho Man Tin Chung Hau Street with Oi Man Estate. However, the service was abolished because of the low patronage. In addition, residents of Man Fuk Road could take GMB route no. 5M to travel to MTR . If GMB route no 8M was to extend to Man Fuk Road, the distance would increase and frequencies would be affected.

81. Mr NG Fan-kam said that the low patronage of the above-mentioned red minibus was caused by lack of publicity and many residents simply did not know that there was such a service.

82. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming was disappointed with the response of TD. The existing patronage of GMB route no. 8M was inadequate. Extending it to Man Fuk Road would increase the distance by about half a kilometre and could increase patronage.

83. Mr CHO Wui-hung proposed that sectional fares be set up for GMB route no. 8M. The fare for travelling between Chun Man Court, Oi Man Estate and Ho Man Tin Station should be $3 or less, or fare for the route be set at less than $3. In addition, he said that the red minibus mentioned by TD rarely stopped at Ho Man Tin Station, and there was little publicity and the minibus was not attractive to residents.

84. Miss Sammi AYALA of TD said that the Department would consult the contractor about the fare and the route of GMB route no. 8M.

Request for the Provision of Bus Stops at Lung Cheung Road near , Request for Renovating the Bus Stop Facilities in the District, Strong Request for the Provision of Additional Seats and Real-time Bus Arrival Information Display Panels at Bus Stops in Oi Man Estate and Chun Man Court (Papers No. 121/16, 122/16, 123/16)

85. The Chairman said that as agenda items 14 to 16 were all related to the bus stop facilities. He proposed that they be discussed together so that the meeting could be conducted more smoothly. In addition, the Secretariat had delivered the relevant written replies (Paper nos. 3 to 7 on the table) for Members’ perusal prior to the meeting.

86. Mr HO Hin-ming introduced Paper No. 121/16. He supplemented that the development plan of the Approved Outline Zoning Plan No. S/K/18/19 proposed the addition of bus stop at Lung Cheung Road, which coincided with the request of Paper No. 121/16. He hoped that TD would set up the relevant bus stop as early as possible.

87. Mr Jimmy LAM introduced Paper No. 122/16 and requested the bus company concerned to provide a more specific works timetable. In addition, he said that miscellaneous items and stagnant water on the covers of the bus stop at Hung Fook Street and Road Chat Ma Building needed clearance.

88. Mr CHO Wui-hung introduced Paper No. 123/16. He enquired the reason for demolition of real time information bus arrival display panels at the bus stop at Oi Man Estate Tak Man House which had never been used. In addition, he requested the overall renovation of the bus stop at Civil Engineering and Development Building at Chung Hau Street. He also requested the addition of seats and real-time bus arrival information display panels at Oi Man Estate.

89. Mr Admond YUE said that the bus stop facilities at Ma Tau Wai Road near Hok Yuen Street were very dilapidated. He requested the facilities be upgraded, and that a cover and real-time bus arrival information display panels be added.

90. Mr NG Fan-kam said that real-time bus arrival information display panels and seats were very welcomed by the elderlies. He requested that they be first installed at old housing estates including Oi Man Estate. In addition, he requested the departments concerned to provide information about the renovation of bus stop outside Civil Engineering and Development Building at Chung Hau Street.

91. Mr CHEUNG Chi-wa, Engineer (Kowloon City) of TD said that the Department would expedite the study on the feasibility of adding a bus stop at Lung Cheung Road with the departments concerned.

92. Mr LEUNG Wang-cheong, Prinicipal Operations Officer of Lai Chi Kok Depot of KMB responded that as there were many facilities of bus stops needed upgrading, thus works would be conducted in order of priority. KMB hoped that Members would note that the upgrading of bus stop facilities involved Government expenditure and had to be approved by both TD and KMB.

93. Mr Kevin LI, Public Affairs Manager of the Citybus Ltd./New World First Bus Services Ltd. (Citybus/NWFB) introduced Paper no. 6 tabled.

94. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming requested Citybus/NWFB to provide mobile application for Estimated Bus Arrival Time System as soon as possible.

95. Mr Kevin LI of Citybus/NWFB responded that the company had provided mobile application for Estimated Bus Arrival Time System for Citybus Airport Express and eight Hong Kong island bus routes. It was anticipated that the mobile application could be extended to all bus routes of Citybus and NWFB in 2018.

96. Mr Deacons SZETO, Senior Transport Officer (Kowloon City) of TD responded that in order to assist the expeditious upgrading of bus stop facilities and to allow waiting passengers to have a more comfortable environment and convenience, the Government provided subsidies to franchised bus companies to upgrade bus stop facilities. As there were more than one thousand bus stops equipped with power supply, thus works had to be conducted in stages. The Department would make announcement about the implementation of the programme as soon as possible.

Urging for the Early Provision of Whole-day Services by Bus Route No. 5D, Strong Request for Enhancing the Frequency of Bus Route No. 5M (Papers No. 124/16, 125/16)

97. The Chairman said that as agenda items 17 to 18 were both related to bus routes of Kai Tak New Area, it was proposed that they should be discussed together so that the meeting could be conducted smoothly. In addition, the Secretariat had delivered the relevant written replies (Paper nos. 8 to 10 on the table) for Members’ perusal prior to the meeting.

98. Mr HE Huahan introduced Papers No. 124/16 and 125/16. He pointed out that KMB route no. 5D was scheduled to provide service around the clock starting from the fourth quarter of 2016, but then it was postponed to mid-February of 2017. He was very dissatisfied with it. He enquired the reason for the postponement and strongly demanded that around-the-clock service be provided before the end of 2016. In addition, he requested the information of survey of patronage of KMB route no. 5M be publicized, including its methods and time of survey, etc. In addition, during the peak hours of 5 to 7 p.m. from 12 to 16 December 2016, he had conducted observation on KMB route no. 5M at Kowloon Bay Station. In the half hour during his observation, two buses were too full and some passengers could not board the bus. He requested the departments concerned to conduct a site visit with Members.

99. Mr Jimmy LAM said that some Members had informed residents that KMB route no. 5D would start around-the-clock service from the fourth quarter of 2016. He requested for providing the service as soon as possible.

100. Miss LEUNG Yuen-ting said that KMB route no. 5D was very important to Kai Tak residents. She had distributed leaflets to inform the public that route no. 5D would start around-the-clock service from the fourth quarter of 2016. She requested for providing the service be before the end of 2016. Or else the departments concerned should provide a reasonable explanation.

101. Mr Admond YUE said that many residents of the district took KMB route no. 5D to Kowloon Bay. He requested TD and KMB to be responsible and implement the around-the-clock service from the fourth quarter of 2016.

102. Ir CHEUNG Yan-hong said that many Hung Hom residents had a great demand for the service of KMB route no. 5D. He objected to the delay of implementation of around-the-clock service.

103. Mr LEUNG Wang-cheong of KMB said that reduction of services for other routes had to be done, so that resources could be deployed to implement around-the-clock service of KMB route no. 5D. He was sorry for the delay of implementation. He was confident that the measure could be implemented in mid-February. In addition, the company would closely monitor the patronage of KMB route no. 5M and make adjustment according to demand.

104. Mr Deacon SZETO of TD responded that there was room for improvement in the arrangement of service of KMB route no. 5D. After the co-ordination and follow-up of TD, KMB made a pledge that KMB route no. 5D could start around-the-clock service starting from 6 February 2017.

105. Mr HE Huahan was disappointed with the response of KMB. He also hoped that KMB would keep its pledge and would not delay any more. In addition, he requested TD to carry out its monitoring role properly to ensure that KMB route no. 5D could start around-the-clock service starting from 6 February 2017.

106. Mr LO Chiu-kit requested KMB route no. 5D would implement around-the-clock service before Lunar New Year to provide convenience for the public to enjoy new year activities.

107. Mr LEUNG Wang-cheong of KMB noted Members’ opinions, but the company could implement around-the-clock service for KMB route no. 5D only from 6 February 2017 onwards.

108. The Chairman hoped that the departments concerned could disseminate assessment and information to Members more accurately in the future.

Strong Request for the Early Implementation of Converting the Staircase near the Junction between Wo Chung Street and Fat Kwong Street into a Slanting Road (Paper No. 126/16)

109. Mr LO Chiu-kit introduced Paper No. 126/16.

110. Ms Joyce LEE, Engineer (Hung Hom) of TD responded that the Department had completed local consultation of the relevant works. However, the site was part of Fat Kwong Street Park and was under the jurisdiction of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD). Works could only be implemented if they were approved by the Leisure and District Facilities Management Committee (LDFMC) of the Kowloon City District Council. Consultation with the LDFMC would be conducted in January 2017. In addition, the above works of slanting road would affect two slopes. Consultation was being conducted to the departments responsible for slopes. If the works were supported in the consultation, TD would issue works permit to HyD to implement works.

Following up the Installation of Lifts near the Precipitous Staircase from Man Siu Street to Dyer Avenue, Following up the Replanting of Trees on the Pedestrian Ramp near Hung Hom Market at Dyer Avenue (Papers No. 127/16, 135/16)

111. The Chairman said that as agenda items 20 and 28 were both related to Dyer Avenue, he proposed that the two items be discussed together so that the meeting could be conducted smoothly. In addition, the Secretariat had delivered the relevant written reply (Paper no. 11 on the table) for Members’ perusal prior to the meeting.

112. Ir CHEUNG Yan-hong introduced Paper Nos. 127/16 and 135/16.

113. Mr TAM Ho-chuen, District Engineer (Hung Hom) of HyD responded that as the shallow layer of the barrier-free access was intensively laid with pipelines, if the three trees were to be re-planted at their original spots, it would take a long time, and users of Hung Hom Market would be affected. Thus study was being conducted with LCSD on re-planting of the three trees at other spots. After the spots for re-planting were affirmed, Members would be informed.

114. Ir CHEUNG Yan-hong was disappointed with the response of HyD. He said that the road section was wide, and the planting of three trees at their original spots should not be a problem. He requested HyD to prove that re-planting of the three trees at their original spots could not be done. Only if the justifications were reasonable would he agree to plant the trees elsewhere.

115. Mr TAM Ho-chuen of HyD said that the Department would conduct a site visit with the Members concerned in due course.

116. The Chairman concluded Members’ opinions and requested HyD to conduct a joint site visit with the Members concerned.

Illegal Parking at the Traffic Light outside 267-273 Prince Edward Road West, Request for Stepping up Enforcement Actions to Eradicate Illegal Parking on Pavements, Traffic Conditions on Ming On Street (Papers No. 128/16, 129/16, 130/16)

117. The Chairman said that as agenda items 21 to 23 were all related to illegal parking in the district, he proposed that they should be discussed together so that the meeting could be conducted smoothly.

118. Mr TING Kin-wa introduced Paper No. 128/16.

119. Ir CHEUNG Yan-hong introduced Papers No. 129/16 and 130/16.

120. Mr LAM Tak-shing said that he had reflected that illegal parking was very serious at Ming On Street, Baker Street and Bulkeley Street. After law enforcement action of the Police during weekend, the situation had improved. However, the issue of illegal parking re-emerged recently and it was particularly serious at night and in early morning. He hoped that the Police would step up law enforcement.

121. Mr CHEUNG Chi-wa of TD responded that the Department was proposing to designate the vehicular lane outside 267-273 Prince Edward Road West turning left into Waterloo Road as restricted area. If positive response was received in the consultation, the proposal would be implemented.

122. Mr PO Yiu-wa, OC Traffic Team (Kowloon City District) of HKPF responded that the Police would continue to take action against illegal parking at Prince Edward Road West. He agreed that designating the above-mentioned road section as restricted area would be helpful to mitigate the issue of illegal parking.

123. Mr HO Hin-ming proposed that Hung Hom Tai Wan Road should be clearly demarcated into Government and private lands to facilitate law enforcement of the Police.

124. Mr Deacons SZETO of TD said that to tie in with the traffic diversion measure at Ming On Street, slight change could be made to the GMB stop at Ming On Street.

125. Mr Po Yiu-wa of HKPF responded that the Police had contacted the Incorporated Owners of the private road of Hung Hom Tai Wan Road and notices had been posted to urge car owners not to park their vehicles there. In addition, if the complainant was there to provide testimony, the Police could issue tickets against the people concerned at the private road.

126. Ir CHEUNG Yan-hong said that it was difficult to explain to members of the public about the situation involving Government and private lands. He hoped that the departments concerned would expeditiously handle the situation of illegal parking.

127. Mr Admond YUE said that some vehicles parked on the pavement near Tai Wan Road. He enquired whether the practice was illegal and whether the Police could conduct law enforcement action based on that ground. In addition, he enquired whether the complainant had to be present to provide testimony so that the Police could issue ticket against offenders. He said that the condition would discourage members of the public to report to the Police and instead report to Members.

128. Miss Sammi AYALA of TD responded that apart from prescribed parking spaces, parking was not allowed at other locations, including private roads at Tai Wan Road in Hung Hom. Thus the Department was considering the installation of fence or bollards to prevent vehicles from driving onto the pavement.

129. Mr Po Yiu-wa of HKPF responded that illegal parking on private roads would usually be handled by the property management company. In case the property management company could not deal with it, the case could be reported to the Police. If the complainant was at the spot to provide testimony against the vehicle’s obstruction, the Police could issue ticket against offenders on private roads.

Problem at the Road Bend from Nga Tsin Wai Road Turning onto Lancashire Road (Paper No. 131/16)

130. Mr TING Kin-wa introduced Paper No. 131/16, and amended that the “distance in front” as contained in paragraph 2 of the Paper was 50 feet, not 50 metres.

131. Mr CHEUNG Chi-wa of TD responded that after conducting an on-site visit with Mr TING Kin-wa, they opined that if vehicles travelled at a slow speed, they stay in lane. Thus a “slow” sign would be installed at the position of a traffic light in the front part of the bend and the results of the measure would be reviewed.

132. The Chairman enquired whether the bend mentioned above was a traffic black spot.

133. Mr PO Yiu-wa of HKPF responded that the above-mentioned bend was not a traffic black spot. In the previous year, there was only one traffic accident involving minor collision of two vehicles.

134. Mr TING Kin-wa opined that even travelling at slow speed, vehicles still could not drive alongside another car. Driving at the speed limit of 50 metres would cause collision, and he recommended that the speed limit be set at 30 metres.

135. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming said that drivers not familiar with the above road section driving into the bend were subject to risks and he hoped that departments concerned would improve it.

136. Mr HO Hin-ming said that the opposite lane at the above bend was wider. He proposed that departments concerned should study redistribution of lane width to resolve the issue.

Strong Request for Provision of Pedestrian Crossing Facilities at Road near the Entrance of Block G, Lok Man Sun Chuen (Paper No. 132/16)

137. Mr CHEUNG Chi-wa of TD responded that the Department would conduct a public consultation on the installation of pedestrian crossing facilities at the spot mentioned in the Paper. If responses were positive, the relevant programme would be implemented.

138. Mr YANG Wing-kit said that he would proactively mobilize residents of Lok Man Sun Chuen to provide opinions in the consultation.

Strong Request for the Provision of Pedestrian Crossings at Waterloo Road (Paper No. 133/16)

139. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming introduced Paper No. 133/16.

140. Mr CHEUNG Chi-wa of TD responded that the Department would conduct survey on pedestrian and vehicular flows at the above locations. If necessary, pedestrian crossing facilities would be installed.

Strong Request for the Relocation of Tin Kwong Road Driving Test Centre (Paper No. 134/16)

141. Mr YANG Wing-kit introduced Paper No. 134/16, and amended that the Paper was jointly submitted with Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming.

142. Mr HO Hin-ming opined that the Driving Test Centre near Tin Kwong Road had been in use for many years. It was located in busy road section and caused inconvenience to residents and learner drivers. He thus hoped that the Driving Test Centre should be moved away from the area.

143. Mr Roger KWAN said that the residential population and the number of learner drivers were increasing at Tin Kwong Road. The location could no longer accommodate more traffic volume and safety of learner drivers was compromised. He hoped that the departments concerned would conduct a review on the design of roads and relocate the Driving Test Centre.

144. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming said that the issue of Driving Test Centre had bothered the area for many years. Many learner drivers practised driving at the location at night and during holidays and caused traffic congestion and posed risk. He had proposed to TD that the issued be dealt with by adjusting traffic lights, diverging traffic and allowing right turn, etc. However, no positive response was received. He hoped that the Department would proactively consider relocating Tin Kwong Road Driving Test Centre.

145. Mr Admond YUE said that the departments concerned chose Tin Kwong Road as the Driving Test Centre then because there were not many people and traffic. The existing issue was not caused by learner drivers. Rather, the location had developed into a busy area. He therefore requested TD to relocate Tin Kwong Road Driving Test Centre.

146. Mr CHEUNG Chi-wa of TD introduced Paper No. 12 tabled and said that he would relay Members’ opinions to the Driving Services Section of TD.

147. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming said that the problem was not improved by TD’s reducing the number of driving tests at Tin Kwong Road Driving Test Centre. The traffic situation became worse at night and he requested the Department to attend to the actual situation.

148. Mr YANG Wing-kit said that new residential projects would be completed in the following one or two years in the area. It was hoped that TD would proactively follow up on the request of relocation of Tin Kwong Road Driving Test Centre and provide the relevant timetable.

149. Mr HO Hin-ming raised objection on behalf of learner drivers. He opined that the reduction of driving tests would affect the progress of learner drivers’ obtaining driving licences. He requested that Tin Kwong Road Driving Test Centre be relocated to newly developed areas so that the number of driving tests could be increased.

150. Mr NG Fan-kam said that said that the population density of the area was high and the safety of learner drivers and the elderly was compromised. He hoped that the departments concerned would find another location for the Driving Test Centre.

151. Miss LEUNG Yuen-ting said that the driving test’s route of Tin Kwong Road went via schools area and highways and posed risk. She hoped that the departments concerned would be mindful of the safety of learner drivers and relocate the Driving Test Centre.

Any Other Business

152. The Chairman said that 13 options were provided by Members under the programme of provision of cover for walkways with priorities initially set. The Secretariat had, according to Members’ opinions, consolidated a list with priority set as follows:

Option 1: Between Hung Hom Road, Tak Hong Street and Man Tai Street Option 2: From the intersection of Hau Man Street and Chung Hau Street, Oi Man Estate to Ho Man Tin Park Option 3: Hung Hom Cheong Wan Road, from Railway Station to the direction of funeral homes Option 4: Chung Hau Street Carmel Secondary School to Oi Man Plaza Option 5: From elevator exit of Chung Hau Street Shun Man House to Ho Man Tin Station B2 exit

153. Mr Kenneth LEE, Engineer/Special Duties 1 of TD briefed the meeting on the preliminary assessment of TD and HyD on the above five options:

Between Hung Hom Road, Tak Hong Street and Man Tai Street Proposed length: about 86 metres Width of existing pavement: about 6 to 6.4 metres Existing number of pedestrians (number per hour during morning peak hours): non-elderly 1204 persons, elderly 126 persons Note: Hung Hom Road near Whampoa Estate section- there was flower bed and abutment of pedestrian footbridge; Hung Hom Road near Whampoa Garden section- there were building entrances along the pavement. No insurmountable works difficulty found at present.

From the intersection of Hau Man Street and Chung Hau Street, Oi Man Estate to Ho Man Tin Park Proposed length: about 174 metres Width of existing pavement: about 2.1 to 3.2 metres Existing number of pedestrians (number per hour during morning peak hours): non-elderly 448 persons, elderly 87 persons Note: There was a vehicular access on the alignment and the covered walkway could not continue. There was a section at Hau man Street where there was a slope/earth retaining wall. There was a traffic sign at Chung Hau Street which strode across the entire pavement. No insurmountable works difficulty found at present.

Hung Hom Cheong Wan Road, from Railway Station to the direction of funeral homes Note: Provision of cover for pedestrian footbridge was not covered by that policy

Ho Man Tin Chung Hau Street Carmel Secondary School to Oi Man Plaza Proposed length: about 158 metres Width of existing pavement: about 2.8 to 3.2 metres Existing number of pedestrians (number per hour during morning peak hours): non-elderly 448 persons, elderly 87 persons Initial observation: There was a pedestrian crossing and a vehicular access on the alignment. Covered walkway could not continue and the width of most of existing pedestrian walkway did not exceed 3 metres. After the completion of covered walkway, the width of the pavement would be further reduced. In addition, some trees were found on part of the pavement. No insurmountable works difficulty found at present.

From elevator exit of Chung Hau Street Shun Man House to Ho Man Tin Station B2 exit Proposed length: about 398 metres Width of existing pavement: about 3 to 3.7 metres Existing number of pedestrians (number per hour during morning peak hours): non-elderly 715 persons, elderly 47 persons Initial observation: There was a large traffic sign on the alignment which might hinder the construction of covered walkway. There were also slopes/earth-retaining walls along the alignment. In addition, there was a covered bus stop outside Carmel Secondary School. No insurmountable works difficulty found at present. It might be upgraded to Category “A” project.

154. The Chairman said that as Option 3 was not covered by that policy, he requested members to consider whether to set priority in the order of Options 1, 2, 4 and 5.

155. Dr KWONG Po-yin said that there were more users for Option 1, so there was a greater need to construct a cover for the walkway. She enquired how planning and connection with the Dyer Avenue elevator would be conducted. In addition, she enquired how existing flower bed and seat facilities would be relocated, and how the alignment of Option 1 would tie in with the proposed walkway cover of district minor works.

156. Mr CHO Wui-hung pointed out that there was already a covered walkway from Ho Man Tin Station B2 exit to GMB route no. 8M stop. He also enquired whether the proposed 398 metres cover of Option 4 was from the elevator exit of Chung Hau Street Shun Man House to Ho Man Tin Station B2 exit, or was it from Carmel Secondary School to Ho Man Tin Station B2 exit. In addition, the Option of Chung Yee Street to Hau Man Street connected Ho Man Tin Station A3 exit. He opined that the alignment met the requirement of “connecting public transport interchange or railway station” as proposed in the Policy Address.

157. Ir CHEUNG Yan-hong said that the aim of Option 1 was to provide a cover for the walkway for the section of Hung Hom Road near Whampoa Estates. He pointed out that the works would not affect existing flower bed and seat facilities. In addition, he pointed out that the pedestrian footbridge funded by district minor works only connected Hung Hom Estate. There was no cover from Exit A of MTR Whampoa Station to Hung Hom Estate. As such, he would endeavour to implement Option 1 in order to provide a complete covered walkway for the area.

158. Mr Lawrence CHAN, Senior Engineer/Special Duties of TD made a consolidated reply as follow: (a) the pavements of Option 1 were wider. Thus original flower beds and facilities would be retained as far as possible in the design; (b) the Department would liaise with the departments responsible for the above district minor works in order to achieve a uniformed design and a covered walkway that would meet the demand of residents; and (c) the 398 metres proposed in Option 4 was from the elevator exit of Chung Hau Street Shun Man House to Ho Man Tin Station B2 exit.

159. Mr YANG Wing-kit said that Option 8 (from (Muk Chun Street) to Rhythm Garden bus stop in the direction of Kowloon City) belonged to feasible alignment. Since Option 3 was deleted, he proposed Option 8 be included, and priority set would be Options 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8.

160. After consulting Members present, the Chairman announced that the Committee unanimously set the priority in order of Options 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8.

Date of Next Meeting

161. The Chairman announced that the next meeting would be held on 2 March 2017 (Thursday) at 2:30 p.m. There being no other business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.

162. The minutes of this meeting were confirmed on 2 March 2017.

______The Chairman

______The Secretary

Kowloon City District Council Secretariat March 2017