Minutes of the 6th Meeting of the Traffic and Transport Committee of Kowloon City District Council

Date: 29 September 2016 (Thursday) Time: 2:38 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Kowloon City District Office

Present: Chairman: Mr LUK King-kwong Vice-chairman: Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming Members: Dr KWONG Po-yin (Left at 6:42 p.m.) Miss LEUNG Yuen-ting (Left at 5:35 p.m.) Dr the Hon LEUNG Mei-fun, Priscilla, (Left at 3:28 p.m.) SBS, JP Mr HO Hin-ming, MH Mr NG Fan-kam, Tony Mr LO Chiu-kit (Left at 4:22 p.m.) Mr TING Kin-wa (Left at 5:54 p.m.) Mr LAM Tak-shing Mr LAM Pok, Jimmy Mr YUE Chee-wing, Admond (Left at 6:50 p.m.) Mr YEUNG Chun-yu, Ronald (Left at 5:04 p.m.) Mr HE Huahan Mr YANG Wing-kit Mr KWAN Ho-yeung, Roger Ir CHEUNG Yan-hong, MH (Left at 4:22 p.m.) Mr LAI Kwong-wai The Hon LEE Wai-king, Starry, SBS, JP (Left at 4:00 p.m.) Mr SIU Tin-hung, Terence (Left at 6:42 p.m.) Mr NG Po-keung Mr PUN Kwok-wah Absent: Mr CHO Wui-hung Mr SIU Leong-sing Secretary: Miss YUEN Man-ki, Vicki Executive Officer (District Council) 1, Kowloon City District 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 (Hung Hom), Transport Department Mr SUEN Wa-hing District Operations Officer (Kowloon City District), Hong Kong Police Force Mr LEE Yuk-wah OC Traffic Team (Kowloon City District), Hong Kong Police Force Mr HO Chi-kin OC 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 and Kowloon Bay, Highways Department Attendance by Invitation: Items 2 and 3 Mr NG Wai-kwong, Isaac Senior Environmental Protection Officer, Environmental Protection Department Item 5 Mr LEE Sai-hang, Kenneth Engineer/Special Duties 1, Transport Department Mr TSANG Hin-man Senior Engineer/Covered Walkway 2, Highways Department Mr CHAU Lap-kong Project Coordinator/New Territories 3, Highways Department

Item 6 Mr LEUNG Wang-cheong Principal Operations Officer, Lai Chi Kok Depot, The Kowloon Motor Bus Co. (1933) Ltd Items 8 and 9 Mr CHENG Chi-wai, Raymond Engineer/Kowloon/Land Supply 2, Transport Department Item 16 Miss SZE Suk-wai, Muriel Senior Transport Officer/Bus Adjustment and Planning, Transport Department Other Business Miss AYALA Yi-sum, Sammi Senior Transport Officer/Railway 5, Transport Department Mr KWOK Yue-fung, Samuel Transport Officer/Railway 5, Transport Department

✽ ✽ ✽ The Chairman of the Traffic and Transport Committee (TTC) welcomed Members, representatives of government departments and organization 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 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 on their mobile phones or to switch them to vibration mode, and to remain silent during the meeting to avoid disturbances.

2. The Chairman said that Miss Tanna CHENG, 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.

Confirmation of Minutes of Last Meeting

3. The minutes of the 5th meeting were unanimously confirmed by TTC without amendment.

Matters Arising

Strong Call for Resolving the Noise Problem between Prince Edward Road and Kwun Tong Bypass (Shing Kai Road Section) (Paper Nos. 53/16, 64/16)

4. The Chairman said that as agenda items 2 and 3 were both related to the noise of flyovers, it was suitable for them to be discussed together for the meeting to be conducted smoothly. Members agreed to discuss the items together. Prior to the meeting, the Secretariat had distributed the joint reply of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD), the Highways Department (HyD) and the Housing Department (HD) to Members for perusal.

5. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming said that EPD was repeating the contents given in the written reply, and it did not deal with the issue squarely. He requested that the matter be further discussed at the following meeting and that EPD should attend the meeting to explain why the noise issue in the District could not be improved.

6. Mr HE Huahan was disappointed with the written reply of EPD. He requested that the matter be further discussed at the following meeting and that EPD should attend the meeting to discuss possible resolutions.

7. Mr Isaac NG, Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Assessment & Noise) 6 of EPD said that the noise problem at issue involved several departments. EPD had merged with the Environment Bureau (ENB) and was responsible for environmental policies. On principle, it supports all policies that could enhance the environment. However, the feasibility of installation of noise barriers within the area of works and should be carried out by HyD.

8. Mr TAM Ho-chuen, District Engineer (Hung Hom) of HyD said that East Kowloon Corridor, West Kowloon Corridor and Fat Kwong Street Flyover had been built for many years. Their existing flyover structures could not withstand the extra load brought about by noise barriers. There was not adequate space in their vicinity for the construction of independent structures for supporting noise barriers. As such, based on existing technology, the Department could not install noise barriers at the three flyovers mentioned above.

9. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming pointed out that the installation of noise barriers was not the only solution to the issue of noise on flyovers. He recommended that the departments concerned should make reference to the measures adopted in Taiwan and the United Kingdom in resolving traffic noise. They passed legislations to regulate noise, such as placing limitation on car speed and restricting heavy vehicles from using relevant road sections during late night hours. If the relevant departments coordinated their efforts in seeking solutions and were keen in resolving the issue, the noise problem of the District could be mitigated.

10. Mr Jimmy LAM proposed that the acoustic materials on motor roads be increased from 30 millimetres to 50 millimetres and reduction gearbox be used on heavy vehicles, so as to mitigate the noise issue on flyovers immediately. In addition, he had recently voiced out that when vehicles drove past Kowloon flyovers, pebbles would fly to nearby housing estates and break windows. He enquired the relevant departments of the progress of investigation and follow up situation.

11. Mr HE Huahan’s opinions and enquiries were consolidated as follows: (a) since the submission of paper to TTC on 18 March 2016, the matter had been discussed many times. Relevant departments kept repeating the contents of the written reply and shifted responsibilities among themselves. They had not dealt with the issue squarely and sought resolutions; (b) he enquired that there was noise barrier at the section of Richland Gardens of Prince Edward Road and Kwun Tong Bypass, but why there was no noise barrier for Shing Kai Road Section of Prince Edward Road and Kwun Tong Bypass of which there was no structural issue of flyover; and (c) the noise level of Kwun Tong Bypass provided by EPD as recorded on 28 November 2014 was 69.5 decibels, which did not exceed the planning requirement of 70 decibels. He requested EPD to provide the most recent noise data of Kwun Tong Bypass before the following meeting.

12. The Chairman said that it had been six months since the issue was first raised. He enquired the relevant departments their follow up situation and whether they had concrete proposal to resolve the issue of flyover noise.

13. Mr Isaac NG of EPD said that the expertise of each department varied. As such, there was no issue of departments shifting responsibilities among themselves. EPD supported HyD’s using surface materials that could better mitigate noise and restricting car speed to reduce flyovers’ noise as long as the traffic would not be affected.

14. Mr HO Chi-kin, OC Traffic Team (Sau Mau Ping District) of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) said that Traffic Kowloon East of HKPF had stepped up law enforcement against illegal car-racing and speeding at Kwun Tong Bypass. However, based on past records, Kwun Tong Bypass was not a black spot of illegal car-racing.

15. Ms Joyce LEE, Engineer (Hung Hom) of the Transport Department (TD) said that there were two vehicular routes to East Kowloon. One was East Kowloon Corridor and the other was a lower access through Ma Tau Wai Road. At present works were being conducted for the Shatin to Central Link. Thus temporary traffic control was implemented at Ma Tau Wai Road and traffic was reduced to three lanes from the original six lanes, two of which were southbound and the other northbound. Restriction of vehicles going through East Kowloon Corridor would increase the burden of the lower access. Thus, TD did not recommend the resolution of noise issue through traffic restriction.

16. The Chairman said that the relevant departments did not propose any solution to the issue. He hoped that they would conduct an inter-departmental consultation to deal with the problem through their own expertise and arrive at a feasible resolution. In addition, he pointed out that the departments concerned had yet responded to the proposal of increase the thickness of the acoustic materials raised by Members.

17. Mr TAM Ho-chuen of HyD said that the low noise material mentioned by Members was polymerization of improved porous surface layer. It was mainly used on vehicular roads of faster speed to increase safety during rainy weather. The laying of the material could reduce traffic noise, thus HyD and EPD had all along conducted study on the application of the material and formulated relevant guidelines, including design of road surface, thickness of materials and other points to note in usage, etc. In addition, suitable and standard low noise materials had been laid at East Kowloon Corridor in accordance with relevant guidelines. If the material’s thickness was to be increased to 50 millimetres, the load of the flyover would be increased and uneven surface could be resulted. Traffic safety and durability of road surface might be compromised and thus the Department opined that at the current stage, the laying of thicker materials at the above road section was infeasible.

18. Mr YANG Wing-kit said that Members had proposed the establishment of “Tranquility Funds” to subsidize residents who lived near flyovers to install window glazing. He hoped that EPD would give a positive response. In addition, the existing Noise Control Ordinance had become outdated and he hoped that EPD would keep up with the times to conduct review on the Ordinance and revise noise standard so as to enable the installation of noise barriers at the Shing Kai Road Section of Prince Edward Road.

19. Mr Isaac NG of EPD gave a consolidated reply as follows: (a) EPD supported any feasible measures that were environmentally friendly. However, traffic planning conducted many years ago might not have taken into account issues of environment. The Department had all along kept itself abreast of measures to deal with traffic noise in various advanced countries. If there were relevant new technologies, the Department would study their introduction into Hong Kong with other relevant departments. As a matter of fact, many advanced countries at the current stage could not effectively resolve the problem of existing traffic noise; (b) the Department had commissioned a consultant to study the feasibility of night time ban of vehicles. However, Hong Kong was populous and there was a lack of alternative routes due to limited land. The measure would only make vehicles travel through other roads and shift the problem of noise to other areas instead of getting it solved; (c) the structure at Richland Gardens section of Prince Edward Road and Kwun Tong Bypass was not a noise barrier. According to the information of HyD, the road section was close to the old Kai Tak Airport. The structure was installed for security reason. Its purpose was to stop people driving by throwing objects into the old airport; and (d) the relevant departments had, in their written replies, reported the change of vehicular flow at Kwun Tong Bypass and the most recent assessment of traffic noise level. The vehicular flow at Kwun Tong Bypass did not change much since 28 November 2014. The noise level measured at Tak Long Estate at the busiest hours of the traffic on 12 August 2016 showed that even the traffic noise level at the place most affected by Kwun Tong Bypass did not exceed the required standard of 70 decibels (A)L10 (1 hour). Thus, there was no need to install a noise barrier.

20. The Chairman pointed out that the relevant departments did not propose a resolution for the issue, which would be included into Matters Arising in the next meeting.

Request for Setting up Learner Driver Prohibited Zones in Kowloon Tong District when School Finishes (Paper No. 88/16)

21. Mr CHEUNG Chi-wa, Engineer/Kowloon City of TD said that after the school year began, the Department had conducted an on-site inspection and a traffic survey. It was found that driving training was rather active at roads such as Cumberland Road, Essex Crescent and Lincoln Road. The Department was considering the application of restriction of driver training at a certain period of time at the road sections concerned and public consultation would be conducted in respect of the relevant arrangements.

22. Mr HO Hin-ming was appreciative of the positive response of TD and hoped that TD would make available the timetable of relevant measures as soon as possible.

New Items

Provision of Covers for Public Walkways (Paper No. 94/16)

23. Mr Kenneth LEE, Engineer/Special Duties 1 of TD introduced Paper No. 94/16.

24. The opinions and enquiries raised by the Chairman were consolidated as follows: (a) he proposed that Members should submit the proposed alignment to the Secretariat after the meeting. The Secretariat would then integrate the proposals for Members to determine the priority, which would be submitted to the departments concerned; and (b) at the current meeting, Members could raise enquiries to the departments concerned about the restrictions and technicalities of works.

25. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming asked whether the three alignments proposed by the District Council (DC) would be registered if technically feasible, or only individual options be registered. He also enquired whether the $30 million funding ceiling was for all proposals or for individual proposal.

26. Mr Admond YUE proposed that the $30 million fund should be used first on the alignment proposal of district minor works, i.e. the provision of cover for pavement of Hung Hom Road to connect Hung Hom Station and Hung Hom Estate. Funding for district minor works could then be used on other alignment proposals.

27. Mr Kenneth LEE of TD gave a consolidated reply as follows: (a) in the 2016 Policy Address, the Government would only provide cover for a major passage of each district. The DCs were asked to recommend three alignments with priorities stated so that implementation could be effected as soon as possible. If the first priority was found to be technically infeasible, the second priority would be studied immediately, so on and so forth; (b) there was no prescribed funds for the provision of cover programme mentioned above. If the costs of works exceeded the $30 million proposed, the Department would upgrade the category of works from C to B and then A and funding application had to be submitted to the Legislative Council (LegCo). As there existed many uncertainties, the implementation date of the works could not be established. If works involved less than $30 million, they would be implemented earlier; and (c) the Department would conduct study in accordance with the priority laid down by DC. If proposal with priority was found to be feasible technically, the project would be registered followed by design and construction in due course.

28. Mr LAI Kwong-wai enquired about the major differences between Category A, B, C and D in public works programme.

29. Mr PUN Kwok-wah asked if the proposal of DC was found to be feasible, when the proposal could be implemented at the earliest. In addition, he pointed out that the Hung Hom Road proposal put forward by Mr Admond YUE had been incorporated into the district minor works programme. He wondered if it could also be included in the project as one of the proposals.

30. Dr The Hon Priscilla LEUNG said that as there were filibustering in the LegCo from time to time, if application of funds had to be submitted to it, the registration of works might not be smoothly conducted. She thus proposed that DC should proceed in accordance with the funding ceiling of Category D of the public works programme.

31. Mr Kenneth LEE of TD said that if the proposal of DC was found to be feasible in view of the progress of works such as consultation, detailed design and submission of funding application, the Department anticipated that works could be carried out in 2018. In addition, for projects already incorporated into district minor works, Members, if they could arrive at a consensus among themselves, could submit the proposal to TD and HyD for preliminary assessment and select the suitable option.

32. Mr TSANG Hin-man, Senior Engineer/ Covered Walkway 2 of HyD said that HyD would as much as possible tie in with the goal of TD to implement the works in 2018. In addition, he said that if the cost of works was below $30 million, the project could be implemented through Category D works without going through the procedure of LegCo funding. If the cost of works exceeded $30 million, the works had to be registered as Category C works and then upgraded to B or A in accordance with normal time table. Finally funding application had to be submitted to the LegCo and tender procedures had to be conducted. The time needed would be longer.

33. The Chairman summed up the opinions of Members and requested that Members should submit the alignment proposals to the Secretariat within a month and priorities be set.

(Post-meeting note: In accordance with the Chairman’s directives, the Secretariat wrote to Members on 5 October 2016 requesting their proposals for suitable locations and alignments for “Provision of Covers for Public Walkways”)

Request for the Early Installation of the Bus Information Display System at Bus Stops (Paper No. 95/16)

34. The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, the Secretariat had delivered the relevant written replies, i.e. document no. 1 and 2 on the table, for members’ perusal.

35. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming introduced Paper No. 95/16, and appreciated the positive response from the Government. He hoped that bus companies could as soon as possible install the Bus Information Display System at locations mentioned in the Paper.

36. Mr Deacons SZETO, Senior Transport Officer/Kowloon City of TD said that the Government was proactively assisting the bus companies to install the Bus Information Display System in the 18 districts. At present, there were 88 covered bus stops with electricity supply in Kowloon City which could be installed with the Bus Information Display System.

37. Mr LEUNG Wang-cheong, Principal Operations Officer of the Kowloon Motor Bus Co. (1933) Ltd (KMB) said that KMB would study Members’ opinions further with TD.

Request for Enhancement of Transport Ancillary Facilities and Provision of Additional Parking Spaces at Nam Kok Road (Paper No. 96/16)

38. Mr NG Po-keung introduced Paper No. 96/16.

39. Mr CHEUNG Chi-wa, Engineer/Kowloon City of TD said that he had made an appointment with Mr NG Po-keung to conduct on-site inspection after the meeting. They would follow up in consideration of the actual traffic condition.

Strong Request for the Provision of Additional Motorcycle Parking Spaces near Tak Long Estate (Paper No. 97/16)

40. Mr HE Huahan introduced Paper No. 97/16 and urged TD to proactively look for suitable locations in Kai Tak District, such as One Kai Tak, etc. to increase parking spaces for motorcycles in the district.

41. Mr Raymond CHENG, Engineer/Kowloon/Land Supply 2 of TD said that most of the development in Hong Kong was planned in accordance with the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, including public housing and the number and types of parking facilities. At present, all 78 motorcycle parking spaces of Tak Long Estate were rented. There were five open-air parking lots in Kai Tak District and their utilization rate was from 60 % to 80% approximately. There were still unused parking spaces for residents in the district. In addition, a Member proposed that motorcycle parking spaces be installed at the pavement opposite the multi-storey car park of Tak Long Estate and beneath Kwun Tong Bypass. However, the pavement connected the pedestrian passage of Wang Kwong Road and Shing Kai Road. Motorcyclists had to drive onto the pavement to park their motorcycles, which would be unsafe for pedestrians.

42. Mr YUNG Chun-yu said that the places mentioned by the representative of the government department was quite far away from Tak Long Estate. Residents of the Estate might not be willing to go so far to park their motorcycles.

43. Miss LEUNG Yuen-ting opined that there was still land underneath Kwun Tong Bypass and hoped that TD would make good use of the land and install parking spaces for motorcycles.

44. Mr Raymond CHENG of TD noted the opinions of Members. He further pointed out that most of the vacant land underneath Kwun Tong Bypass had been handed over for the use of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD). He would follow up the matter after the meeting.

Request for Combating Illegal Parking at Tak Long Estate Vigorously, request the Departments Concerned to Step Up Enforcement against Illegal Parking in Kowloon City District, request for Combating the Practice of Double Parking around Baker Street, Walker Road and Chatham Road North (Paper Nos. 98/16, 99/16, 100/16)

45. The Chairman said that as agenda items no. 9, 10 and 11 were related to illegal parking, they would be combined for discussion if Members agreed, so that the meeting could be conducted smoothly.

46. Mr HE Huahan introduced Paper No. 98/16.

47. Mr Admond YUE introduced Paper No. 99/16, and he urged the Police to step up law enforcement at main roads and traffic black spots in order to mitigate the issue of illegal parking.

48. Mr LAM Tak-shing introduced Paper No. 100/16, and supplemented that the illegal parking at Baker Street, Walker Road and Chatham Road North often obstructed traffic in the vicinity, leading to traffic congestion at Winslow Street and Lo Lung Hang Street. Residents nearby were adversely affected.

49. Mr HO Hin-ming said that there were vehicles parking at double yellow lines, and he enquired the Police the purpose of painting double yellow lines.

50. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming said that the problem of illegal parking was worsening. He proposed that the Department should install CCTV at traffic black spots which could produce deterrent effects on the one hand, and could resolve the shortage of police manpower on the other.

51. Miss LEUNG Yuen-ming said that TD had pledged to install metal poles at Muk Chui Street to prevent vehicles from parking onto the pavement. She enquired about the progress of the works.

52. Mr LO Chiu-kit said that he could not understand that although locations such as Station Lane, Tai Wan Road and Hung Hom Estate (Phase 2) were near to the police station, there was often illegal parking. He further enquired the Police what difficulties they faced in law enforcement and implementation of traffic safety measures such as installation of railings at private streets.

53. Mr YANG Wing-kit said that illegal parking at Kau Pui Lung Road and Ko Shan Road was serious and pedestrians’ view was blocked. He urged the Police to step up enforcement action. Mr Jimmy LAM supplemented that in the vicinity of Anhui Street, Ko Shan Road and Chi Kiang Street, vehicular roads were relatively narrow. Traffic congestion had adverse effects on residents nearby.

54. Mr LAM Tak-shing said that traffic accidents often occurred in the vicinity of Cooke Street, Lo Lung Hang Street and Baker Street. He urged TD to propose feasible solutions to resolve the issue of illegal parking in the area.

55. Mr Admond YUE enquired TD about the utilization of Bailey Street Temporary Car Park. He also pointed out that tourist coaches obstructed the traffic of Sung On Street, Man Lok Street and Man Yue Street.

56. Mr NG Fan-kam opined that the deterrent effect of uniformed police was less than that of traffic police and traffic wardens. He enquired the Police whether an incentive and penalty mechanism in respect of issuance of penalty tickets was established, which would provide an incentive for the police to step up law enforcement. In addition, he proposed that the Police could hire staff to be responsible specifically for issuing penalty tickets. He also urged the Government to conduct timely review of the amount of penalty fixed.

57. Mr LI Yuk-wah of HKPF gave a consolidated response as follows: (a) the Panel on Transport of the LegCo had conducted a discussion in 2014 on the territory-wide issue of illegal parking. Nine measures to solve the problem were raised, including the increase of the amount of fixed penalty which had not been increased for many years. The proposal was objected and thus the deterrent effect of fixed penalty was limited; (b) the problem of illegal parking should be tackled at source and a multi-pronged approach should be adopted. The Police had been strict in law enforcement all along but the problem remained unresolved; (c) the law enforcement authority of the Police at private streets was restricted. However, if there was double parking or parking at double yellow lines, the Police would surely conduct law enforcement; (d) the Police was studying the use of technology in law enforcement, but various factors had to be taken into account; (e) it was one of the duties of the Police to issue fixed penalty tickets and hence, no mechanism of incentive or penalty was necessary. According to the survey conducted, the situation of penalty tickets issued by uniformed police, traffic police and traffic warden was more or less the same.

58. Ms Joyce LEE of TD gave a consolidated reply as follows: (a) TD had all along co-operated with the Police. Lay-bys and no-stopping restriction zones etc. had been set up at suitable locations to ensure smooth traffic flow; (b) after conducting an on-site investigation, it was found that from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon the traffic from Lo Lung Hang Street to Gillies Avenue South was relatively busy. Thus the Department had adjusted the traffic lights and traffic from Winslow Street and Lo Lung Hang Street was given the priority to turn into Gillies Avenue South and traffic condition was improved; (c) at where Ming On Street turned right into Baker Street, vehicles stopped at the junction and blocked traffic. Thus the Department had installed yellow boxes there to prohibit vehicles from stopping; (d) the setting up of restricted zone was not to prevent illegal parking, but to restrict parking at a certain period of time. Most of the road sections of Baker Street were restricted areas and the Department was studying if areas should be extended; and (e) the ratio of private cars and coaches using Bailey Street Temporary Car Park was more or less the same. The Government would continue to encourage the tourist industry to use that car park in order to reduce illegal parking.

59. Mr Raymond CHENG of TD said that the Department was proactively studying suitable measures to prevent vehicles from parking on pavements. In respect of installing metal poles at Muk Chui Street, TD had requested HyD to implement works. He would follow up with HyD and replied to Miss LEUNG Yuen-ming.

Strong Request for Facing up to the Problem of Road Crossing Safety at San Lau Street (outside Cheong Shing Court) (Paper No. 101/16)

60. Mr Jimmy LAM introduced Paper No. 101/16. The enquiries and opinions he raised were consolidated as follows: (a) TD was requested to install vehicles’ directional signs and slow-down signs as well as repaint vehicles’ directional sign on the ground at pedestrian crossing at San Lau Street outside Cheong Shing Court; (b) TD was requested to conduct a joint on-site inspection at the above location to determine whether the installation of a pedestrian light was feasible; and (c) he enquired about the duration of traffic light signal at Bailey Street and Ma Tau Wai Road.

61. Mr YANG Wing-kit said that when using the pedestrian crossing at San Lau Street outside Cheong Shing Court, pedestrians found it difficult to determine whether vehicles were travelling to Gillies Avenue North or San Lau Street. He proposed that TD should encourage drivers to select the lane early and stay in lane so that pedestrian would know the direction the vehicles were travelling to.

62. Ms Joyce LEE of TD made a consolidated reply as follows: (a) the pedestrian crossing already bore the “Look Left” and “Look Right” road signs to remind pedestrians of the direction of traffic. There were road signs at Ma Tau Wai Road to remind drivers to select lane early and stay in lane. However, the colour might have faded and become not clear. The Department had requested HyD to re-paint the road signs and lanes; (b) at present, there was a clear view at the pedestrian crossing and the location of cautionary crossing was suitable. The Department would continue to monitor the situation; and (c) the Department could provide to Members the time of traffic lights after the meeting. The Department could also study whether road signs could be installed near Ma Tau Wai Road to remind drivers that there was a pedestrian crossing in front.

Strong Request for Improving the Traffic Signs at Wuhu Street to Avoid Vehicles from Changing Lanes Illegally (Paper No. 102/16)

63. Mr LAM Tak-shing introduced Paper No.102/16, and he urged TD to install red light cameras and CCTV at Wuhu Street and Gillies Avenue South.

64. Ms Joyce LEE of TD said that there were two “Go Straight Only” road signs, a green filter arrow light and a blue “Go Straight Only” road sign at Wuhu Street travelling towards Gillies Avenue North to remind drivers that left turning was not allowed. In addition, the Department had installed one more “Go Straight Only” road sign in front of the traffic lights.

Proposing to Open the Last Section of Gillies Avenue South to Divert Traffic and Alleviate Congestion in Hung Hom District (Paper No. 103/16)

65. Mr LAM Tak-shing introduced Paper No. 103/16 and pointed out that the last section of Gillies Avenue South could connect many roads that led to Tsim Sha Tsui. These roads could effectively ease the vehicular flow at the section of Ma Tau Wai Road at Eldex Industrial Building. At present, that road section was only open to restricted vehicles and TD was thus urged to open the last section of Gillies Avenue South.

66. Ms Joyce LEE of TD said that the road section mentioned above was an emergency access to be used only by emergency vehicles and vehicles with permits. At present, vehicles travelled from Man Lok Street, Man Yue Street could turn left into Ma Tau Wai Road, then via Bulkeley Street to Gillies Avenue South and then proceeded to the railway station. If the last section of Gillies Avenue South was to be open, then vehicles would travel from Man Yue Street, Fat Kwong Street, then to the railway station through Gillies Avenue South. However, the traffic flow from Wuhu Street into Gillies Avenue South was almost saturated. If Gillies Avenue South was to be open, the pressure on traffic would be increased. The Department would conduct a traffic flow assessment in October and study whether it was necessary to adjust the traffic light at Man Yue Street left turning into Ma Tau Wai Road in order to ease vehicular flow.

67. Mr LAM Tak-shing said that if the reason for closing the emergency access was to enable emergency vehicles’ arriving at destinations quickly, then school buses with permit entering there when schools opened and closed would block emergency vehicles all the same. He asked if TD could open the last section of Gillies Avenue South for public use at times.

68. Ms Joyce LEE of TD said that vehicles with permits could only board and alight passengers there but they were not allowed to park.

Request for Adjusting Traffic Light Signals at Sheung Shing Street to Ease the Traffic Pressure (Paper No. 104/16)

69. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming declared interest that he owned a property in Ho Man Tin.

70. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming introduced Paper No. 104/16 and said two major housing estates would be completed in the district and that the load of traffic would increase substantially. He thus requested TD to alter the traffic light at Shek Ku Street so that vehicles could turn right and that the traffic pressure of Perth Street could be eased. He also requested TD to restrict learner drivers from using the middle lane of Perth Street.

71. Mr YANG Wing-kit was concerned about the issue of learner driving at Sheung Shing Street and Tin Kwong Road. He requested TD to relocate the Driving Test Centre at Tin Kwong Road to somewhere else.

72. Mr TING Kin-wa said that members of the area committee pointed out that from 9:00 p.m. to 12 midnight, some people illegally learned to drive motorcycles at Sheung Shing Street and caused noise nuisance.

73. Mr CHEUNG Chi-wa of TD said that the Member’s opinion to move the Driving Test Centre would be conveyed to Driving Test Section. The Department would also study the proposal of adjusting the traffic light at Perth Street and that the case of illegally learning driving at midnight would be relayed to the Police.

74. The Chairman concluded Members’ opinions and said that with the completion of new housing estates, the pressure on traffic in the District would vastly increase. He urged the departments concerned to study solutions seriously.

Request for the Highways Department to Repair the Footpath and Carriageway on Man Fuk Road As Soon As Possible, Concern over Uneven Road Surface in To Kwa Wan Street (Paper Nos. 108/16, 109/16)

75. The Chairman said that as the progress of the meeting was beyond expectation and that the representative of TD had yet arrived, agenda items 19 and 20 would be discussed first.

76. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming introduced Paper No. 108/16. He appreciated HyD for having repaired the footpath and carriageway concerned.

77. Mr PUN Kwok-wah introduced Paper No. 109/16. He supplemented that it was rainy season and the road surface was uneven. As such, pools of water were found. Despite HyD’s speedy filling of the uneven road surfaces, it failed to produce long lasting effects. He hoped that TD would repair the road comprehensively.

78. Mr TAM Ho-chuen, District Engineer/Hung Hom of HyD said that the Department had temporarily repaired some of the road surfaces, and it was applying for Excavation Permit and conducting study on road realignment with a view to repairing the road comprehensively.

Strong Opposition to the Substantial Fare Increase of Green Minibus No. 88, Proposal for Provision of Express Service of Green Minibus No. 88 to Wong Tai Sin MTR Station, Request for Following up the Problem of Green Minibus No. 8 Skipping Stations (Paper Nos. 105/16, 106/16, 107/16)

79. The Chairman said that both agenda items 16 to 18 were related to minibus services in the district. It was suitable for them to be discussed together for the meeting to be conducted smoothly. Members agreed to discuss the items together. The Chairman requested Members to refer to the written reply on the table, i.e., Paper No. 3.

80. Miss LEUNG Yuen-ting and Mr HE Huahan introduced Paper No. 105/16 and 106/16.

81. The Chairman introduced Paper No. 107/16 and said that the issue of green minibus route no. 8 alighting and boarding passengers outside stops was prevalent. He hoped that the departments concerned would take more vigorous actions to deal with the issue.

82. Mr NG Fan-kam supplemented that drivers of green minibus route no. 8 often deviated from the specified route and took short cuts because the minibuses were full. In addition, there were sectional fares for green minibus route no. 8 on its return trip from Hung Hom. However, drivers often forgot to adjust the Octopus fare collection reader in good time. Passengers often paid more than they should.

83. Mr Deacons SZETO of TD responded in respect of the service of green minibus route no. 8 as follows: (a) to ensure safety of passengers, TD did not allow drivers to alight passengers earlier or at the middle lane of the road. The Department had urged operators to squarely supervise the performance of drivers. Minibus operators had issued notices to urge drivers to alight passengers near pavement when road condition was safe; (b) the Department had conducted on-site inspection at the bus-stop outside the Housing Authority. It was found that some other vehicles parked by the side of the pavement, obstructing bus and minibus from boarding and alighting passengers. The Department had informed the Police about the situation; (c) Members and passengers were requested to provide the license plate number of the vehicles or information of the drivers who violated regulations, so that TD could directly follow up on the misconduct of drivers; and (d) the Department would step up surprise inspection of the service of green minibus route no. 8 against the misconduct of drivers.

84. The opinions given by Mr HE Huahan in respect of green minibus route no. 88 were consolidated as follows: (a) he was disappointed at the circular about fare adjustment of TD and he opined that fare was not the main reason for losses of the minibus operators. It was possible that the route, frequencies and service qualities of minibus were disappointing and led to a decrease in patronage. Thus an increase of fare to offset the mismanagement of minibus was unfair for the public. As the rate of fare adjustment far exceeded the rate of increase of residents’ income and affordability, he had collected signatures from more than a thousand residents of Kai Tak to strongly object to the fare increase of green minibus route no. 88; (b) he was deeply disappointed at the operators’ cancelling on its own concessions to students. The Education Bureau borrowed 200 primary places from Wong Tai Sin District in 2014-2016 for Kai Tak residents and students mainly used green minibus route no. 88 to travel between Kai Tak and Wong Tai Sin. The operator increased fare on one hand and cancelled concessionary fare for students on the other. Students simply could not bear the excessive fare increase and thus it was hoped that TD would proactively request the operator to reinstate the concessionary fare for students; and (c) he pointed out that operators would make pledges such as fares, concessions and services in the tender. However, when they were awarded the license, they would cancel their pledges, which was very unfair for the residents.

85. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming said that the losses of green minibus route no. 88 recorded by minibus operators originated from mistake in commercial decisions and operators should bear the consequences. Losses should not be shifted to the public. In addition, numerous complaints were lodged against green minibus route no. 8. They pointed out that the quality of drivers varied very much. There were often lost trips, boarding and lighting outside stops and speeding. He hoped that TD would step up its supervision of minibus services.

86. Miss Muriel SZE, Senior Transport Officer/Bus Restructuring & Projects of TD responded in respect of service of green minibus route no. 88, which was consolidated as follows: (a) the minibus operator had used its own fund to install a temporary cover at Kai Ching Estate Stop to improve the quality of service. However, the operator had to raise its income at the same as it improved its service. If long term losses were recorded, the operator might have to give up operating the route at the end; (b) TD had established procedures to vet the applications for fare increase of green minibuses service. The 11% rate of increase (i.e. $0.40) approved by the Department was 25% less than the original rate applied for. It was half of the rate originally applied for; (c) the minibus operator had recently added an express trip to travel from Wong Tai Sin MTR station directly to Kai Ching Estate during morning peak hours. At the same time, the operator was studying the feasibility of an express route from Kai Ching Estate to Wong Tai Sin MTR station in order to improve the quality of service; (d) the minibus operator had requested for cancellation of concessions to students since February 2016 because of difficulties in operation. The operator had maintained the provision of concession, as requested by TD, up till 30 May. The concession was later extended to August. As the operator suffered a loss of 20%, the concession could no longer to be maintained; and (e) the tendering procedures of minibus operators were effective and selection was conducted by TD and the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). The process was fair and equal, but various factors had to be taken into consideration, such as fare, frequencies, facilities and services, etc. Minibus operators adjusted fares after being selected in tendering mainly because the cost of operation continued to rise, not because of quoting mistaken tender price at tendering.

87. The Chairman said that if, in the process of vetting applications of fare increase of green minibus service, TD had shown too much concern for operator’s giving up operation because of making losses, the operator might continue to apply for fare increase based on that concern. Minibus operators would surmise that about half of the amount of fare increase applied for would be approved and thus they might make it as a practice to apply for higher increase in fare. On the other hand, TD’s supervision on green minibus service was relatively relaxed. That gave the public the impression that green minibus service took the lead and the Department inclined to protect the interest of operators rather than that of the public.

88. Mr TING Kin-wa said that while the tendering procedures of green minibus operators were conducted by TD and ICAC, but effective supervision of operators after being selected was not conducted to ensure that contractual pledges were fulfilled. If application for fare increase was submitted because of difficulties in operation, then it amounted to failure to honour contractual commitments. The losses were shifted unfairly to the public. He hoped that TD would improve the system of supervising minibus operators to fulfill contractual obligations.

89. Mr PUN Kwok-wah said that he agreed to the Chairman’s views. He pointed out that TD allowed minibus operators to apply for fare increase when it made losses. He wondered if the operators would lower fares when they made profits. In addition, for cases in which more than sectional fare was collected as a result of drivers’ forgetting to adjust the Octopus fare collection reader, TD had a mechanism for refund in order to safeguard passengers’ interests or not.

90. Mr Admond YUE said that a fare increase was also proposed for green minibus route no. 26. He hoped that TD would conduct a review on the contractual terms with minibus operators and the corresponding supervision mechanism in order to stop fare from only increasing without lowering.

91. Miss Muriel SZE of the TD gave a consolidated reply as follows: (a) TD had a supervision mechanism in respect of fare and quality of service of green minibus. It would conduct a mid-term review for minibus services. Service level, records of complaints and measures for improvement would be stated in the assessment report and TD would determine whether passenger service licence would be extended for green minibus operators base on the basis of the above assessment results; (b) in vetting the application for fare increase of green minibus service, TD had to achieve a balance between the service of green minibus and the affordability of the public. DCs had to be consulted over the amount of fare increase, and the amount of $0.40 increase was in line with the general level of increase of green minibus this year; (c) TD had a refund system for collection of more than due fare by an Octopus fare collection reader. Members of the public could lodge a complaint to TD, which would request the minibus operator to conduct an inspection on the payment records of the day. If it was proven that an amount of more than due fare was collected, refund could be arranged by both sides; (d) if minibus operators were found to have made profits, TD would further request the operator to improve the quality of service and to provide concessions to passengers; and (e) while the existing financial situation of the minibus operator did not allow it to provide concessions for students, TD would continue to request for restoration of the concessions.

92. Mr Deacons SZETO of TD responded that if the Octopus fare collection reader had collected a wrong amount of fare, the member of the public could provide to TD the information of the Octopus card, date of the incident, place and the vehicle’s license plate number. If verified, TD would require the minibus operator to do the refund. In addition, he welcomed Members’ opinions about the service of green minibus route no. 26.

93. Mr HE Huahan hoped that the concessionary fare for students of green minibus route no. 88 be restored immediately. In addition, he enquired up to what financial level the operator would restore the concession. He hoped TD would provide a time table or plan for the restoration of the above-mentioned concessions.

94. The Chairman hoped that TD would be concerned about the need of students and the elderlies in the district and restore the concessionary fare for students of green minibus route no. 88.

95. Miss Muriel SZE of TD noted the opinions of Members and said it would continue to request the operator to restore the concessions for students. However, the Department did not have a mechanism which required the mandatory provision of concessions from minibus operators.

96. The Chairman concluded that it was hoped that in vetting applications for fare increase of green minibus, TD would be fair and consider the interests of the public.

Any Other Business

97. The Chairman said that TD had earlier submitted an information paper for circulation to Members of TTC in respect of Public Transport Re-organization Plan to tie in with the Commissioning of Kwun Tong Line Extension. Prior to the meeting, the Secretariat had delivered the Paper to Members for perusal. As the issue was closely related to the overall traffic situation of Kowloon District, representative of the department was invited to explain the Paper to Members.

98. Miss Sammi AYALA, Senior Transport Officer/Railway 5 of TD introduced Paper No. 110/16.

99. The opinions and enquiries of Mr YANG Wing-kit were consolidated as follows: (a) he enquired about the information of the stop of green minibus route no. 27M/28MS at the Kau Pui Lung Road; (b) he requested that seats be set aside for mid-route passengers when green minibus route no. 28MS departed from Wyler Gardens; (c) green minibus route no. 27M/28M were operated by the same contractor. At present the frequencies of route no. 27M were not adequate. If the contractor deployed vehicles of route no. 27M/28M for the use of route no. 28MS, the original levels of service would be severely compromised; (d) he hoped that green minibus route no. 28MS would lower its fare, and introduced sectional fare as route no. 27M so as to effect fair treatment to residents of Lok Man Sun Chuen; and (e) he opined that the MTR should provide concession to all passengers for interchange at Ho Man Tin, rather than providing $0.5 concession to adult passengers.

100. Mr NG Po-keung asked that after the addition of green minibus route no. 2M, whether green minibus route no. 2/2A, the route of which was similar to that of green minibus route no. 2M, would be retained. In addition, he said that the fare of green minibus route no. 2M was too high. He hoped that the fare would be lowered.

101. The opinions and enquiries of Mr NG Fan-kam were consolidated as follows: (a) he was disappointed at the $4.5 fare of green minibus no. 8M. DC had requested many times in the past that the fare for each journey of the above minibus service be fixed at $3 or below; (b) the interchange concession of $0.5 for a year provided by MTR was only a small favour; and (c) he enquired whether the interchange concession of $0.5 for a year provided by MTR would benefit the elderly.

102. Miss KWONG Po-yin said that it took some time to walk from MTR station to Lai Chi Kok Road or Queen Elizabeth Hospital and it was very inconvenient for the elderlies. Thus it was hoped that KMB would retain its route no. 212, or sectional fare would be provided for trips of both directions travelling between Sham Shui Po and Jordan, so as to achieve the aim of reducing the number of vehicles on roads. In addition, she said that the cancellation of bus route would only increase the number of private cars using the road and traffic congestion would not be eased. She hoped that the bus service would be retained.

103. The opinions and enquiries of Mr PUN Kwok-wah were consolidated as follows: (a) he requested TD to pledge that after the opening of Kwun Tong Line Extension, the Department would submit to DC the substantive figures of changes in the quantity of passengers of various franchised buses/green minibuses for its vetting, before the Public Transport Re-organization Plan was to be implemented; and (b) he strongly objected to the cancellation of green minibus route no. 7, which travelled directly between Wyler Gardens and Tsim Sha Tsui East. Green minibus route no. 28MS, however, only connected with Ho Man Tin Station and passengers travelling to Tsim Sha Tsui would not use green minibus route no. 28MS for interchange. Thus it was hoped that green minibus route no. 7 would be retained for the convenience of passengers to travel directly to Tsim Sha Tsui.

104. The opinions and enquiries of Mr HO Hin-ming were consolidated as follows: (a) he was not satisfied with TD or bus companies in their recent consultation of Members’ opinions through circulation of information paper; (b) he enquired TD of the basis of making the proposal of Public Transport Re-organization Plan. He requested the Department to provide relevant data and the criteria of re-organization of bus services for Members’ reference; and (c) he objected to TD’s practice of cancelling various franchised buses/green minibuses in order to force the public to take MTR of which the fare was higher.

105. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming said that the Public Transport Re-organization Plan proposed by TD did not take into account the opinions of Members. For instance, the frequencies of green minibus route no. 8 were not adequate. However, the setting up of green minibus route no. 8M and the reduction of frequencies of green minibus route no. 8 made the supply of service even less than demand. In addition, the Public Transport Re-organization Plan did not suggest ways of improving the overall transportation service. For example, green minibus route no. 5M often came across traffic congestion when it travelled towards Mong Kok. He thus proposed the setting up of green minibus route no. 5MS which would travel directly from Man Wan Road to Ho Man Tin Station in order to ease traffic congestion.

106. The opinions and enquiries of Mr LAM Tak-shing were consolidated as follows: (a) many residents needed the service of KMB route no. 212 and he requested TD to retain the route; (b) KMB route no. 7B was the main bus route for Hung Hom students travelling to and from Lok Fu. He urged the TD to retain the original route of no. 7B; and (c) before the implementation of the Public Transport Re-organization Plan, it was hoped that TD would report to DC the figures they collected most recently so that Members would be able to answer public enquiries.

107. Mr Admond YUE said that KMB route no. 212 was very important to residents of the district and should not be cancelled. He requested that any alteration of bus routes had to be reported to DC beforehand.

108. The opinions and enquiries of Mr LAI Kwong-wai were consolidated as follows: (a) DC and Yau Tsim Mong DC both objected to the cancellation of KMB route no. 212; (b) TD could not provide data to prove that there was a need for a large scale reduction of frequencies of franchised buses/green minibuses. He requested TD to provide substantive figures of changes in the quantity of passengers after the opening of the Kwun Tong Line Extension, and then submit to the Committee the Public Transport Re-organization Plan; and (c) members of the public should have the right to choose means of transport. TD should not place emphasis on railway services and reduce the frequencies of franchised buses/green minibuses.

109. Miss Sammi AYALA of the TD made a consolidated reply as follows: (a) the information paper circulated was mainly to provide to Members information of the four green minibuses connecting the new railway station. As for the information of re-organization of other franchised buses/green minibuses and the criteria of re-organization of bus services, the Department had already provided them to Members at the meeting on 7 April 2016. However, the Department still had to wait till the opening of the Kwun Tong Line Extension to observe the pattern of the public in choosing means of transport and to collect relevant date of passenger flow. The Department would make adjustments to the Public Transport Re-organization Plan according to the public’s choices and changes in passenger flow. The Department would be pleased to respond to Members’ request to conduct the discussion of the Paper of Public Transport Re-organization Plan by consultation; (b) the Department would provide to the DC data of passenger flow six months after the opening of the Kwun Tong Line Extension and the revised Public Transport Re-organization Plan; (c) with regard to the provision of concessionary fares, the Department had all along encouraged operators to provide concessions to passengers. However, the decision was a commercial one and had to be taken by the operators themselves. The above-mentioned green minibus’ fare was calculated on the basis of existing mileage. The operator of green minibus and MTR provided an interchange concession of $0.5 for green minibus nos. 8M and 28MS after taking into account Members’ requests. While the amount of concession was less than the ideal level of Members, the Department would conduct regular discussion with the operator and urge the operator to extend the period of concessions and introduce more concessions; (d) at the initial period of operation of new green minibus routes, TD and the operator would closely monitor the demand of passengers along the route. Vehicles would be suitably deployed to satisfy the needs of passengers; (e) green minibus route no. 2M was a short route, mainly for the amount of passengers increased after the opening of Kwun Tong Line Extension. Green minibus route no. 2/2A would be retained; (f) the Department was aware of the concern of Members about the cancellation of green minibus route no. 7. However, the operation of the route was continuously not satisfactory. The Department would closely monitor the change in the quantity of passengers of green minibus route no. 7 after the opening of the Kwun Tong Line Extension; (g) the green minibus operator would use back-up vehicles to run the new route and it had set aside extra vehicles for deployment; (h) the Department was aware of Members’ concern about the reduction of frequencies of the above-mentioned franchised buses. However, it had to wait till the opening of Kwun Tong Line Extension to obtain the actual statistics of passengers flow before it could discuss with Members and make adjustments; and (i) the Department would follow up on the performance of green minibus route nos. 8 and 5M with their operators.

110. Mr YANG Wing-kit was extremely dissatisfied with the response of TD. He pointed out that he had put forward the following requests and opinions at the previous meeting: (a) he enquired about the location of the stop of green minibus route no. 27M/28MS at the Lok Man Estate; (b) the frequencies of green minibus route no. 27M were inadequate and the waiting time in the morning exceeded half an hour. He could accept the deployment of its back-up vehicles to run green minibus route no. 28MS; (c) 2 to 3 seats of green minibus route no. 28MS had to be reserved for passengers of Lok Man Sun Cheun. If the reservation of seats were to be implemented only after observation conducted after the route’s opening, disputes would be caused; (d) he asked about the reason for the operator’s failure to provide interchange concessions for the elderlies and children; and (e) the route of green minibus route no. 28MS was longer than that of green minibus route no. 27M but its fare was lower than that of the latter. He asked TD about the criteria of setting fare level.

111. Miss Sammi AYALA of TD gave a consolidated reply as follows: (a) the stop of green minibus route no. 28MS at Lok Man Estate was basically the same as that of green minibus route no. 27M, i.e. there was a stop at Kau Pui Lung Road. The Department would provide its exact location to Members after the meeting; (b) green minibus operators had to meet the frequency requirements during peak hours. Apart from running the new route with back-up vehicles, the operator had increased extra vehicles for deployment. If after opening of the route the actual quantity of passengers exceeded expectation, the operator had the ability to increase frequencies; (c) the Department would discuss with the operator of green minibus route no. 28MS about the practice of reserving seats for mid-route passengers; (d) at present the green minibus concerned had provided a $2 concession for elderlies. Whether extra concessions would be provided depended on the operating conditions of the operator and it was a commercial decision to be made by the operator. The Department would encourage the operator to extend concessions to elderlies and students; and (e) reference to the sectional fare of green minibus route no. 27M had been made in setting the fare for green minibus route no. 28MS. Most of the passengers of green minibus route no. 28MS would interchange to MTR and thus they would have an interchange concession of $0.5.

112. The opinions and enquiries of Mr YANG Wing-kit were consolidated as follows: (a) at present there was a shortage of manpower for green minibuses. He enquired whether the operator had an adequate number of drivers to meet the demand of the new service; (b) he enquired how many vehicles and drivers had the operator increased in its running of green minibus route no. 28MS; (c) he hoped that TD would pro-actively endeavor to have seats of green minibus route no.28MS set aside for residents of Lok Man Sun Cheun; and (d) he asked about the information of the travelling distance of green minibus route nos. 28MS and 27M (sectional fares)

113. The Chairman concluded the opinions of Members and said that the above-mentioned concession was even lower than that of MTR fare saver and it was unacceptable. In addition, he concurred with Mr YANG Wing-kit that TD had not been fair and performed satisfactorily in the role of a middleman.

114. Miss Sammi AYALA of TD gave a consolidated reply as follows: (a) the green minibus operator was proactively seeking to increase extra vehicles and drivers in order to provide service for the new route. It had to meet the prescribed frequency requirements of each route. The Department would provide to DC in due course the number of vehicles and drivers newly acquired; (b) the concession of MTR fare saver was different from the concession mentioned above. Fare concession was a commercial decision on the part of individual operators; (c) the fare for the whole journey of green minibus route no. 27M from Lok Man Sun Chuen to Mong Kok Station was $6.9. Passengers alighting mid-route had to pay full fare. On its return trip, passengers boarding mid-route would be able to enjoy the sectional fare of $4.6. Thus the fare of green minibus route no. 28MS had been set according to the sectional fare of green minibus route no 27M.

115. Mr YANG Wing-kit requested that sectional fare be introduced for green minibus route no. 27M, or adequate seats of green minibus route no. 28MS had to be set aside for passengers boarding at Lok Man Sun Chuen.

116. The Chairman said that the Public Transport Re-organization Plan was very important for the traffic of the district. He requested TD to take note of opinions given by Members. He also hoped that in the future, discussions would be conducted in the form of consultation. In addition, the location of Ho Man Tin Station was not convenient for residents of the area, while the concessions provided by green minibus operators were not attractive. He hoped that TD would strive for more concessions from the operators in order to benefit residents of the area.

Date of Next Meeting

117. The Chairman announced that the next meeting would be held on 1 December 2016 (Thursday) at 2:30 p.m. There being no other business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:03 p.m.

118. The minutes of this meeting were confirmed on 19 December 2016.

______The Chairman

______The Secretary

Kowloon City District Council Secretariat December 2016