The minutes were confirmed on 12.11.2020 without amendment.

Minutes of the Fourth Meeting of the Traffic and Transport Committee under the Council in 2020

Date : 13 August 2020 (Thursday) Time : 10:00 a.m. - 12:25 p.m. Venue : Conference Room, Yuen Long District Council, 13/F., Yuen Long Government Offices, 2 Kiu Lok Square, Yuen Long

Present Time of Arrival Time of Withdrawal Chairman : Mr CHEUNG Sau-yin Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Vice Chairman : Mr CHAN Shu-fai Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Members : Mr AU Kwok-kuen 11:00 a.m. End of the meeting Mr CHAN King-lun, Kisslan 10:40 a.m. End of the meeting Ms CHAN Mei-lin Beginning of the meeting 11:30 a.m. Ms CHAN Sze-nga 10:15 a.m. End of the meeting Mr CHEUNG Chi-yeung, Felix 10:05 a.m. End of the meeting Mr FONG Ho-hin Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr HAU Man-kin 10:20 a.m. End of the meeting Mr HO Wai-pan 10:25 a.m. End of the meeting Mr HONG Chin-wah Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr KWOK Man-ho Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Hon KWONG Chun-yu 10:20 a.m. End of the meeting Mr LAI Kwok-wing, Samuel Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Ms LAI Po-wa Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr LAI Wing-tim Beginning of the meeting 10:25 a.m. Mr LAM Chun Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr LAM Ting-wai Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr LEE Chun-wai Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr LEE Wai-fung, Deco Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr LEUNG Tak-ming Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr LI Chung-chi 10:30 a.m. End of the meeting Mr MAK Ip-sing Beginning of the meeting 12:05 p.m. Mr MO Kai-hong 10:20 a.m. End of the meeting Mr NG Hin-wang Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Ms NG Yuk-ying Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr SHEK King-ching Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr SZETO Pok-man 10:05 a.m. End of the meeting Mr TO Ka-lun Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr WONG Pak-yu Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr WONG Wai-yin, Zachary Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Ms WONG Wing-sze Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting

Secretary: Miss WONG Chung-wai, Executive Officer (District Council)2, Leah Yuen Long District Office

In attendance Item II Miss YU Wing-sze, Natalie Senior Transport Officer/Bus/Lantau, 1

Transport Department Miss LEUNG Ka-man, Transport Officer/Bus/Lantau, Eunice Transport Department Mr LAW Yiu-wah, Rayson Senior Officer (Planning and Development), The Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited and Long Win Bus Company Limited Mr LEUNG Ling-yin, Gary Head of Operational Planning Department, The Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited and Long Win Bus Company Limited

Item III Mr CHOCK Chi-tung Senior Engineer 6/Universal Accessibility, Highways Department Miss FOK Sze-man, Grace Engineer/Yuen Long Central, Transport Department

Item III(1) Mr CHOCK Chi-tung Senior Engineer 6/Universal Accessibility, Highways Department Miss FOK Sze-man, Grace Engineer/Yuen Long Central, Transport Department

Item IV(2) Ms TAM Lok-yan, Carol Senior Transport Officer/Yuen Long 1, Transport Department

Item IV(3) Miss FOK Sze-man, Grace Engineer/Yuen Long Central, Transport Department

Item V Ms TAM Lok-yan, Carol Senior Transport Officer/Yuen Long 1, Transport Department

Item VI Mr SHIH Yung-chi District Engineer/Yuen Long (West), Highways Department Ms CHEUNG Pui-yan District Engineer/Yuen Long (East), Highways Department

Item VII Mr LEUNG Kei-ching Officer-in-Charge, District Traffic Team (Yuen Long), Police Force Mr CHEUNG Lai-ki Police Community Relations Officer (Yuen Long District), Hong Kong Police Force

Absent 2

Mr CHING Chan-ming Mr KWAN Chun-sang Mr NG Kin-wai Mr YOUNG Ka-on (Absent with apologies)

* * * * *

Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed Members and government department representatives to the fourth meeting of the Traffic and Transport Committee (“T&TC”) under the Yuen Long District Council in 2020.

Item I: Confirmation of the minutes of the third meeting of the Traffic and Transport Committee (“T&TC”) in 2020

2. Members confirmed the above minutes unanimously.

Item II: Adjustments to franchised bus routes to tie in with the commissioning of the Northern Connection of Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link (T&TC Paper No. 45/2020)

3. The Chairman welcomed the following persons to the meeting:

Transport Department Senior Transport Officer/Bus/Lantau Miss YU Wing-sze, Natalie Transport Officer/Bus/Lantau Miss LEUNG Ka-man, Eunice

The Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited and Long Win Bus Company Limited (“Bus Company”) Senior Officer (Planning and Mr LAW Yiu-wah, Rayson Development) Head of Operational Planning Mr LEUNG Ling-yin, Gary Department

4. Ms Natalie YU of the Transport Department (“TD”) briefed Members on the above paper.

5. Members’ views on the issue were summarised as follows: (1) Since the TD did not provide the route maps in other districts, Members could hardly have a full picture of the bus routes based on the information provided by the department. For example, the bus routes would operate via Wong Chu Road as shown in the details of , but such information was not provided in the details of Yuen Long and North Districts;

(2) It was held that Wong Chu Road would fail to cope with the traffic flow and congestion problem would arise after the commissioning of the 3

Northern Connection of Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link (“TM-CLKL”). In the future, with more than ten “A” routes and “E” routes operating in North District and Yuen Long District, there would be almost 40 bus routes running via the road section. Since some of the bus routes were high capacity routes with more than ten trips per hour, the estimates provided by the department were considered unreasonable;

(3) A Member pointed out that the flyover connecting Tuen Mun Road and Wong Chu Road, with a speed limit of 30 kilometres per hour, was not suitable for large vehicles to drive through. The Member expressed concern over the potential danger if all bus routes were allowed to operate via the road section;

(4) As Tai Lam Tunnel had become toll-free under the Government’s proposed tunnel toll waiver strategy, and there would be a toll waiver for the Lantau Link and the Northern Connection of TM-CLKL, a Member did not understand how the route diversion from Tai Lam Tunnel to the Northern Connection of TM-CLKL would save cost and lower bus fares;

(5) An enquiry was made with the Long Win Bus Company on whether the bus service could achieve a frequency of 15 to 20 minutes within a short period of time after expansion of service scope;

(6) A Member said after fare and route adjustments, there were no distinct differences between “A” routes and “E” routes, with bus fares at almost the same level. The only difference was whether Tung Chung would be served. However, some routes had been lengthened under the current proposal. “A” routes, which were originally faster routes, had to run through the whole Yuen Long and Tuen Mun after the adjustment. Taking bus route no. A34 as an example, the bus had to run through 11 regions and half of Tuen Mun District before arriving at the airport. Compared with route no. E36A running through five regions only, A34 might take longer time. It was hoped the TD would explain the changes in the principles of designing “A” routes and “E” routes. Also, the Member suggested that “A” routes only stop at major stops to attract more passengers;

(7) From a passenger’s perspective, the existing bus routes were already heavily loaded. Taking route no. A37 running through as an example, it had already been highly loaded when it entered Tin Shui Wai. It was concerned that Tin Shui Wai residents might not be able to get on the bus;

(8) “A” routes and “E” routes covered a small area along Castle Peak Road – Ping Shan, which could not cater to the needs of villagers in Ping Shan;

(9) A Member pointed out that the TD’s plan was to divert all “A” routes and “E” routes in Yuen Long and North Districts to the Northern Connection of TM-CLKL, but it might have relied too much on this section. The Member suggested that one or two bus routes continue to operate via Tai Lam Tunnel to offer residents other alternatives in view of different traffic situations; 4

(10) A congestion or a major traffic accident on the Northern Connection of TM- CLKL or Tuen Mun Highway would cause a tailback. Even though the Northern Connection of TM-CLKL was adopted for all bus routes in the end, the TD should prepare a backup plan of using Tai Lam Tunnel for “A” routes or “E” routes;

(11) It was suggested that section fares be offered on N Routes to provide more overnight transport choices for residents in Kam Tin and Pat Heung;

(12) A Member pointed out that when route no. A37 was extended to cover the Tin Shui Wai North area, Tin Tsz stop which was the ninth stop had become the eleventh stop. As many residents needed to take the bus to catch the early flights, the Member expressed concern over the difficulty passengers at Tin Tsz stop might have faced in boarding the bus. It was suggested that the peak period be extended to 6 to 7 am and the service frequency of route no. A37 be increased to every 15 minutes;

(13) It was proposed that the routing of E36A be adjusted. Buses towards Tung Chung entering Tin Cheung Road from Tin Tsz Road could be routed to enter Tin Shing Road from Long Tin Road via Tin Fuk Road, and a stop could be provided at Yiu Fung House of for the convenience of passengers in Tin Yiu and Tin Tsz Estates. Buses could then return to Tin Yiu Estate from Tin Wu Road. For buses heading for Yuen Long, it was suggested that a stop be provided at Tin Tsz Estate;

(14) A Member said the TD paper did not provide any information comparing the journey time of the new and the old routes, and hoped the TD would submit a supplementary paper. Separately, some bus routes would be extended to Long Ping, Pat Heung and Kam Tin according to the paper. It was hoped the TD would provide demand statistics and the journey time regarding the extended routes;

(15) At present, the KMB did not offer section fares on bus routes travelling between Tin Shui Wai and Tuen Mun. It was suggested that the KMB examine the feasibility of offering section fares on the bus routes concerned;

(16) An enquiry was made on the grounds of a toll waiver for Northern Connection of TM-CLKL. Also, it was pointed out that the Lantau Link tolls should be waived in the future. Otherwise, traffic congestion would occur on the Northern Connection of TM-CLKL;

(17) The TD explained in its paper that route truncation had led to downward adjustments for the bus fares for “A” routes. On the other hand, such measure had not lowered the bus fares for “E” routes, and toll waiver had not been mentioned as a consideration in fare adjustment. An enquiry was made on whether there was room for lowering the bus fares;

5

(18) A Member suggested that an interchange for “E” routes be provided at the airport or the Artificial Island at the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities Island of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge as it was not necessary for all “E” routes to run via Tung Chung and other work locations; and

(19) The Northern Connection of TM-CLKL was a three-lane roundabout where numerous vehicles entered from all directions, making it difficult for vehicles to leave. An enquiry was made on how to tackle congestion at the roundabout caused by overloading there in the future.

6. Ms Natalie YU gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(1) Upon Members’ request, a paper on bus routes in other districts would be submitted to Members through the Secretariat after the meeting;

(2) According to the latest traffic flow forecast, upon the commissioning of the Northern Connection of TM-CLKL, the traffic demand of the busier major road sections in Tuen Mun, including Tuen Mun Road (Town Centre Section) and the slip road connecting to Wong Chu Road, would remain acceptable until 2026. The TD would closely monitor the traffic demand and changes in the traffic conditions of the road network of Tuen Mun, and would formulate traffic management measures, such as junction widening works for road sections prone to traffic congestion, changes to traffic signal control, implementation of traffic diversion measures, etc., in a timely manner;

(3) The fares of franchised bus services were determined according to the scales of fares. All franchised bus companies had their own scale of fares. They determined the maximum fare chargeable based on the route group and the journey distance of a bus route. In deciding the tentative single fares of individual bus routes, franchised bus companies would review the bus routes diverted to the Northern Connection and the route adjustment arrangement specified in the paper. The actual bus fares would be determined depending on the on-site trials. When vetting applications for route adjustments, the TD would ensure the fares for the bus routes met the scales of fares;

(4) “A” routes and “E” routes were under different route groups, which were Airbus routes and North Lantau External routes respectively. As a result, maximum fares chargeable in the two scales of fares were different;

(5) In 2019, the Chief Executive announced in the Policy Address that the Government would waive the tolls of the new tunnel and the Lantau Link upon the commissioning of the TM-CLKL Subsea Tunnel. Tai Lam Tunnel currently managed and operated by a private company was not covered by the toll exemption measure;

(6) Most bus services provided by Long Win Bus Company were airport routes serving tourists who would take luggage with them. There was 6

reservation about offering section fares on the bus routes in the district considering the possible impacts on passengers travelling to and from the airport with luggage;

(7) Regarding Members’ request for re-routing E36A to Tin Tsz Estate, residents in Tin Tsz Estate could take route no. E37 to Tung Chung near Tin Yau Court at Tin Fuk Road under the route adjustment arrangement;

(8) She noted Members’ concern over the patronage of route no. A37. Under the route adjustment arrangement, route no. A37 would depart from Long Ping and run through Tin Shui Wai North and Tin Shui Wai South before heading for the airport. At present, the carrying capacity of route no. A37 during the busiest hour was about 60% and the patronage was expected to increase after the route was diverted to serve Tin Shui Wai North. In view of this, the service frequency would be improved from 20-30 minutes to 15-20 minutes during the peak hours in the morning. It was expected that the measure would meet the increased passenger demand;

(9) She said that further information on the actual journey time of the bus routes could only be provided after the commissioning of the Northern Connection of TM-CLKL (including the TM-CLKL Subsea Tunnel); and

(10) She suggested that residents near Castle Peak Road – Ping Shan take “A” routes or “E” routes at Shui Pin Wai Estate or Yuen Long Park to the North Lantau area.

7. Mr Gary LEUNG of the Bus Company gave the following response:

(1) The Bus Company had conveyed its concern about the traffic condition at Wong Chu Road after the commissioning of the Northern Connection of TM-CLKL to the TD. According to TD’s assessment, the traffic at Wong Chu Road would be smooth and would cope with the traffic flow. As an operator, the Bus Company could only consider whether there was a need for route diversion according to TD’s assessment. It would pay close attention to the traffic condition along the road section;

(2) He noted Members’ concern about the service frequency of routes A37 and E37. After diversion, the service frequency of bus route no. A37 would increase during the peak hours in the morning. In the initial period after the commissioning of the Northern Connection of TM-CLKL, the Bus Company would provide backup resources for districts including Yuen Long and Tuen Mun so that special departures under the same route might be operated from an en route stop where necessary. If the patronage remained high, special departures would be included in the bus schedule; and

(3) He noted Members’ suggestion that section fares be offered on “N” routes or “NA” routes. Concerning buses to Kam Sheung Road, taking route no. A36 as an example, section fares had been offered in Yuen Long District. Section fares were also offered on night bus routes to Pat Heung or Kam 7

Tin. Other operators had also offered two-way section fares on “A” routes. The Bus Company would study the implementation of section fares, although the TD had some reservations. As the patronage of “NA” routes was lower than that of “E” routes, there should be enough space for passengers to tap their payment cards for two-way section fares on the bus for the convenience of those returning to Yuen Long from Kam Tin and Pat Heung.

8. Mr Rayson LAW of the Bus Company said that the Bus Company was concerned that the traffic condition in Tuen Mun might affect the service quality of the suggested routes. It would pay attention to the situation and continue to discuss with the TD and study how to implement the scheme, i.e. whether to implement the suggestions in the paper at one go or in phases, or adopt other proposals.

9. The Chairman concluded that Members hoped the TD would submit the re- routing proposals in Tuen Mun and North Districts and review the capacity of the routes. He asked the TD to consider Members’ views on section fares for bus routes, including the assessment of two-way section fares. Members hoped the TD would submit supplementary information including proposals on bus routes via Tai Lam Tunnel for comparison, the differences in the scales of fares, journey distances and tolls among different routes, and a backup plan to have the bus routes diverted via Tai Lam Tunnel in case of an emergency. The Chairman decided to refer the routing design for “A” routes and “E” routes to the Working Group on Bus Services and the Joint Working Group of Yuen Long-Tuen Mun District Councils on Traffic and Transport for further discussion.

Item III: “Universal Accessibility” Programme (T&TC Paper No. 37/2020)

Questions raised by Members: (1) Ms CHAN Mei-lin proposed to discuss the Universal Accessibility Programme – a request for the installation of lifts at the footbridge connecting Tin Tsz Estate at Tin Shing Road and Tin Yiu Estate in Tin Shui Wai (T&TC Paper No. 38/2020)

10. The Chairman welcomed the following person to the meeting:

Highways Department Senior Engineer 6/Universal Accessibility Mr CHOCK Chi-tung

11. Mr CHOCK Chi-tung of the Highways Department (“HyD”) briefed Members on the above paper.

12. Members’ views on the item were summarised as follows:

(1) A Member pointed out that there was a low level of pedestrian flows on Ping Yee Road - the location for the proposed lift - where there were only facilities at a car park in the vicinity that were suitable for 8

installation of barrier-free passages. It was pointed out that persons with disabilities had to take a detour and enter the car park before they reached a podium;

(2) A Member suggested that the planter at Ping Yee Road be dismantled and replaced with a pedestrian crossing leading to the existing lift located tens of metres away, in order to save on maintenance costs that might arise from the installation of a new lift. The Member enquired why the HyD planned to install a lift there, saying that, unless the installation cost was low, the problem should be addressed through the existing lift and provision of a pedestrian crossing;

(3) A Member said that the elderly would never complain about too many lifts. A lift should be provided at a location frequented by residents and the elderly if they mostly agreed on this in a consultation. As the HyD had given no pedestrian walking data, the Member hoped that the department could provide the data and installation costs to persuade Members of the necessity of installing a lift there, and to ensure the proper use of government resources;

(4) A Member expressed concerns about how long the HyD would take to install a lift after submission of documents. The installation of a lift at Chun Yin Square under the Universal Accessibility Programme had taken a long time, where site survey and geotechnical investigation alone took two to three years to complete;

(5) A Member pointed out that the proposed lift should be located within the precincts of Long Ping Estate. Relevant departments should clarify who was responsible for lift maintenance: the Government or residents of Long Ping Estate. If the Government was responsible, it should also help improve other public facilities in the housing estate under the Tenants Purchase Scheme;

(6) A Member pointed out that the footbridge linking Tin Tsz Estate to Tin Yiu Estate was about two storeys high and most pedestrians would select to cross the road at pedestrian crossings. However, pedestrians would be crowded out of the pedestrian refuge during peak hours, putting their life at risk. Members of the previous terms had requested the TD to enlarge the pedestrian refuge, but no action had been taken so far. Wheelchair users had difficulty going up and down the footbridge ramp, especially those using manual wheelchairs. It was also dangerous for them to do so. It was hoped that the HyD could consider installing a lift there through the programme to enhance pedestrian safety;

(7) A Member pointed out that Yuen Long District Council (“YLDC”) had approved funding for the construction of a lift at West Rail Station at Tin Fuk Road - Project No. NF374 under the second phase of the Universal Accessibility Programme. However, the project was shelved later, giving way to the construction of a wet market and lift 9

facilities there. As the NF374 project was intended to benefit the residents of Tin Tsz Estate and Tin Yiu Estate, the Member suggested that the authorities consider spending the funding on the construction of a lift at the footbridge between Tin Tsz Estate and Tin Yiu Estate;

(8) A Member requested the HyD to brief Members on the daily management and related expenses of housing estates according to its staff’s experience; and

(9) A Member enquired about the life expectancy of lift facilities and whether it was incumbent on the Government to replace them in the future.

13. Mr CHOCK Chi-tung made the following response:

(1) According to the paper, the Government would be responsible for the maintenance and related expenses of the additional lifts installed under the “special programme” after their completion;

(2) Flat owners of the relevant housing estates would be responsible for the daily management of the lifts after their completion and related expenses (such as security and cleaning expenses);

(3) He noted that Members had requested the HyD to provide relevant data on pedestrian flows, construction costs and suitable lift locations. As the consultation was in a preliminary stage, the department would send Members’ views collected to a consultant for a study within two to three months. The study would cover pedestrian flows, technical difficulties and the preliminary estimates of construction costs, as well as an inspection of the location suitable for lift installation. The HyD hoped that the results of the preliminary study would be released to Members at the end of the year, and that they would then be invited to select a pedestrian passage as a project under the “special scheme”;

(4) He pointed out that it was impossible that funds would be insufficient for implementation of the proposal to install a lift at the footbridge linking Tin Tsz Estate to Tin Yiu Estate because each additional lift installed for a pedestrian passage would be initiated individually. He added that the HyD’s budget already included the project; and

(5) He noted that the footbridge proposed by Members could cause inconvenience to wheelchair users, citing that the zebra crossing nearby was busy and only a spiral ramp could be built as a barrier-free passage to link with a footbridge because of the geographical restrictions in the area. If Members agreed on the proposal, the HyD would also include the item in the preliminary study.

14. Miss Grace FOK of the TD said that her colleagues concerned did not attend the meeting because of the epidemic outbreak. She would pass on the proposal of

10

providing a pedestrian crossing at Ping Yee Road to her relevant colleagues for follow- up after the meeting.

15. The Chairman concluded that the agenda item would be discussed again at the next meeting. He hoped that the relevant departments could respond more specifically to the proposals of providing a pedestrian crossing at Ping Yee Road and of installing a lift at the footbridge between Tin Tsz Estate and Tin Yiu Estate.

(Post-meeting Note: The HyD wrote to the Secretariat on 24 August, saying that it had held a follow-up discussion with relevant Members on 20 August. The HyD included Members’ proposal of providing a pedestrian passage as a preliminary study No. TY02 under the “special programme” after inspecting the surrounding environment of the site. The Secretariat forwarded the HyD’s reply to Members for reference.)

Item IV: Questions raised by Members (con’d): (2) Mr CHEUNG Sau-yin, Ms CHAN Sze-nga, Mr MO Kai-hong, Mr WONG Pak-yu, Mr KWOK Man-ho, Ms NG Yuk-ying, Mr NG Hin-wang, Mr LEE Chun-wai, Mr FONG Ho-hin, Mr SZETO Pok-man, Mr LI Chung-chi, Mr LEE Wai-fung, Deco and Mr CHEUNG Chi-yeung, Felix raised objection to taxi fare increase ______(T&TC Paper No. 40/2020)______

16. Members’ views on the item were summarised as follows:

(1) A Member said that members of the public could not afford travel expenses during the epidemic outbreak, citing that taxi fare increases had aggravated the burden on the public;

(2) A Member pointed out that the taxi trade association was calling for taxi fare increases in the hope that this could help sustain the rising cycle of rental cost and taxi licence price, although both of them had not fluctuated a lot recently. The Member opined that, even if the fares per trip were increased, this would not necessarily lead to an increase in taxi driver salary, and instead would only benefit taxi licence owners;

(3) A Member said that the TD should not limit the number of taxi licences given that the demand exceeded supply, and that the department should instead issue more taxi licences to create an effective competition environment. Taxi fare increase would be supported as long as online taxi-hailing services operators could enter and compete in the market;

(4) A Member said that any fare hike in the prevailing economic climate would only discourage taxi usage and reduce driver wages, thus doing more harm than good to both drivers and passengers;

(5) A Member quoted the Government as saying earlier that it had lowered the application threshold for the Public Transport Fare Subsidy Scheme with fewer people travelling by taxi amid the epidemic outbreak coupled with the economic downturn. Transport operators would always cite multiple reasons for their 11

support for a fare hike. The Government’s criteria for allowing an increase in taxi fares could not be understood. The taxi fare hike in September 2018 was approved although the public opposed the application and the economic conditions were not particularly bad. The Member called on the TD to simply reject the application;

(6) A Member expected the Hong Kong economy to shrink continuously as the availability of vaccine supplies was not in sight and the epidemic outbreak was likely to continue into the middle of the next year. The application for a taxi fare hike ran counter to the current economic cycle, and the Government should instead consider cutting taxi fares; and

(7) A Member said that quite a few taxi drivers had revealed to District Council Members that rather many taxi licence owners, in order to apply to the Anti- epidemic Fund, had collaborated with other people in resuming their “frozen” taxi licences. That was why the Fund could not enhance the support for grassroots families greatly affected since the outbreak of the pandemic.

17. Ms Carol TAM of the TD made the following response:

(1) The Government would take public acceptability into account and then assess and evaluate a fare increase application in the light of the earlier social events and the pandemic. The application would then be submitted to relevant departments for processing after completion of the vetting procedures;

(2) She pointed out that the Government would consider the taxi fare increase application according to a number of factors, including the financial viability of taxi operations, the reasonable difference in fares between taxis and other forms of public transport, and the public acceptability of the proposed fare increase. The views expressed by the relevant Members would be sent to her colleagues from relevant teams for their consideration;

(3) She said that the Government had already provided financial assistance to the entire transport industry, including the taxi industry and other operators in the transport industry;

(4) She noted that she would reflect to relevant policy bureaux the T&TC’s proposal of increasing the number of taxi licences; and

(5) She said the TD was still processing the application and would conduct assessment again as Hong Kong Taxi Owners’ Association had expressed no intention to retract the fare increase application.

18. Mr CHEUNG Sau-yin moved the following motion, which was seconded by Mr AU Kwok-kuen, Mr Kisslan CHAN, Ms CHAN Sze-nga, Mr Felix CHEUNG, Mr FONG Ho-hin, Mr HAU Man-kin, Mr HO Wai-pan, Mr HONG Chin-wah, Hon KWONG Chun-yu, Ms LAI Po-wa, Mr LAM Chun, Mr LAM Ting-wai, Mr LEE Chun- wai, Mr Deco LEE, Mr LEUNG Tak-ming, Mr LI Chung-chi, Mr MAK Ip-sing, Mr MO Kai-hong, Ms NG Yuk-ying, Mr SHEK King-ching, Mr TO Ka-lun, Mr WONG Pak-yu, Mr Zachary WONG and Ms WONG Wing-sze. The motion was as follows: 12

“This Committee considers that the COVID-19 outbreak in Hong Kong is severe and has greatly impacted the taxi industry. As any taxi fare increase at the moment will deal a further blow to the taxi industry, this Committee urges the TD to reject the taxi fare increase application.”

19. Members voted on the above motion by a show of hands with their names recorded. Mr AU Kwok-kuen, Mr Kisslan CHAN, Ms CHAN Sze-nga, Mr Felix CHEUNG, Mr CHEUNG Sau-yin, Mr FONG Ho-hin, Mr HAU Man-kin, Mr HO Wai- pan, Mr HONG Chin-wah, Hon KWONG Chun-yu, Ms LAI Po-wa, Mr LAM Chun, Mr LAM Ting-wai, Mr LEE Chun-wai, Mr Deco LEE, Mr LEUNG Tak-ming, Mr LI Chung-chi, Mr MAK Ip-sing, Mr MO Kai-hong, Ms NG Yuk-ying, Mr SHEK King- ching, Mr SZETO Pok-man, Mr TO Ka-lun, Mr WONG Pak-yu, Mr Zachary WONG and Ms WONG Wing-sze expressed support for the above motion.

20. The Vice Chairman said that the motion had been passed by an absolute majority of Members, with 26 votes in favour, zero against and zero abstaining.

(Post-meeting Note: The Secretariat wrote to the TD on 3 September 2020 to reflect Members’ views, and forwarded its reply to Members for reference on 15 September 2020.)

(3) Mr CHEUNG Sau-yin proposed traffic diversions in the Fung Kwan Street area ______(T&TC Paper No. 41/2020)______

21. Members’ views on the motion were summarised as follows:

(1) A Member pointed out that the traffic load near Kai Tei at Fung Kwan Street had almost reached the capacity limit. According to the Government’s blueprint, roads would be built to connect Fung Cheung Road to Yuen Ching Street, while road planning would be carried out at the Yuen Long South Development Area. However, the Member opined that the Government should first work on the issue of road network planning;

(2) A Member pointed out that the problem of illegal parking at Fung Kwan Street was serious as there were often private vehicles parked on both sides of the two- lane-two-way road, reducing it to a single-lane carriageway. Large-sized vehicles could not turn around there. It was difficult to resolve the problem as there were also vehicle repair workshops nearby;

(3) A Member said that the section between Fung Yau Street South and Fung Yau Street East as well as Fung Kum Street were two-way lanes. The Member suggested converting them into clockwise one-way lanes so that the locations of the meters could dovetail with the existing arrangements. This would also allow refuse collection vehicles to access nearby refuse collection points more easily and help relieve and divert high traffic flows on Fung Kum Street and Fung Yau Street South;

13

(4) A Member said that the proposal of drawing double yellow lines on the road section near Yuk Lung Mansion at Fung Kum Street had not yet been implemented. Vehicles had difficulty entering the road section, prompting drivers to blow their horns frequently, causing a noise nuisance to nearby residents;

(5) A Member said that there had been more residents and vehicles in the district since the completion of Yoho Town. The road was too narrow as a two-lane- two-way road and overloaded with traffic and thus should be converted into a one-way road;

(6) A Member pointed out that if drivers could drive clockwise on the road section, they could access car parks on both sides of the road more easily. The Member added that if the road section was converted into a one-way lane, members of the public could cross the road more conveniently;

(7) A Member said the residents had been consulted about the proposal, and they were supportive of the proposed change;

(8) A Member pointed out that the YLDC had already agreed to the proposal during the first-quarter consultation, which was about a rather large-sized project that would lead to a time-consuming process of changing road directions while involving many road sections. The TD had replied in writing that it would study the issue. The Member enquired how quickly the TD would implement the proposal if it started studying the route map now; and

(9) A Member pointed out that the TD had proposed to conduct a relevant study on the issue more than a decade ago, but some shops voiced objection. At that time, the YLDC requested the Government to guarantee that the problem of illegal parking at the road sections would be less serious after their conversion into one-way lanes, and that the problem would not prevent emergency vehicles from turning around. However, the TD and the Police gave no guarantee and the YLDC eventually did not approve the proposal. The Member enquired why the TD said it would need to study the same proposal again.

22. Miss Grace FOK of the TD made the following response:

(1) She said that the TD had always been concerned about the traffic condition in the Fung Cheung area and had commenced a traffic study on the issue, in the hope of improving once and for all both traffic management and traffic facilities at the relevant road sections, such as parking spaces and loading spaces;

(2) She said that no preliminary proposal had been confirmed so no actual consultation and construction timetables had come out. She said that the TD also hoped that construction could begin earlier to improve the traffic condition in the area;

(3) She said that the TD was studying the traffic situation that might happen if Fung Kwan Street was converted into a one-way lane. A preliminary proposal would be submitted to the T&TC to seek Members’ views; 14

(4) She noted the views expressed by the YLDC at that time, and included them in the research report, which ranged from U-turns of emergency vehicles to shops’ objections and the handling of illegally parked vehicles; and

(5) She said that the TD would study the possibility of providing more parking spaces in the Fung Cheung area, while carrying out planning and addressing the situation of car parking along the road section.

Item V: Progress Report from the Transport Department ______(T&TC Paper No. 42/2020)______

23. Members noted the above paper.

Item VI: Progress Report from the Highways Department ______(T&TC Paper No. 43/2020)______

24. Members’ views on the item were summarised as follows:

(1) A Member enquired whether the HyD would brief Members on the temporary traffic arrangements for the works projects mentioned in the report;

(2) A Member enquired about the rationale behind the implementation or shelving of the works projects as well as the progress involved, and about whether the HyD had consulted local residents on the works projects;

(3) A Member pointed out that a temporary traffic test for Project 1 was supposed to take place in December 2018, but had yet to begin for nearly two years. Instead, the MTR Corporation had successfully conducted a traffic test on the narrow eastbound line of the LRT Tai Tong Road Station. It was hard to understand what difficulties the HyD had encountered in conducting the test;

(4) A Member enquired about the progress of Project 4. The project was not complicated but its temporary traffic arrangements had not been completed as of April 2020 since its launch in 2009;

(5) A Member urged the TD to carry out the works of Projects 5 and 14 in the paper according to the schedule, which stated that they would commence in the fourth quarter of 2020;

(6) A Member pointed out that the HyD was still handling the tree relocation problem with LandsD after it said in April that the traffic pressure test for Project 8 had been completed. The Member enquired about the current work progress, the overall construction schedule and traffic arrangements after the issue of LandsD’s approval documents; 15

(7) A Member pointed out that, according to the report, temporary traffic arrangements for Project 9 had been scheduled for the third quarter of 2020. According to the last report submitted by the HyD last year, the advance works of widening pedestrian ways under the project were underway and scheduled for completion in the third quarter of 2020. However, the project had been lagging far behind schedule. The Member requested the HyD to give explanations about the delay;

(8) A Member pointed out that Projects 13, 15, 18 and 19 had been initiated in 2018. The HyD had said that the projects would have been completed by the end of last year, whereas the report said that the projects would be launched in the third and fourth quarters of 2020 respectively. However, there had been no news about the commencement of construction. The Member enquired whether construction under the project would commence in the third quarter as scheduled or would be suspended due to the epidemic;

(9) A Member said that Project 17 had been initiated in 2015 and the Consent on Commencement of Building Works issued in the same year. An enquiry was made on why the project had not been completed yet;

(10) A Member pointed out that the YLDC had been enquiring of the TD about Project 23, saying that the signs on both sides of a pedestrian refuge, due to the limitations of its design, could cause obstruction to buses passing by. Buses could not get through as there were any illegally parked vehicles. The same problem would occur if there were any plans to provide any additional pedestrian crossings in the area. The Member hoped the HyD could improve the design to avoid the problem; and

(11) A Member enquired about the progress of three projects not included in the report. First, the traffic signals diversion project at Tin Yiu Road and Tin Ho Road had not been implemented after it had been approved by the YLDC of the last term. Second, the YLDO had consulted residents about the project of setting up a taxi stand at Ping Ha Road near and had received their support. The TD said that a construction notice had been issued to the HyD, but there had been no news about when construction would begin. Third, Members had pointed out that the cycling track located under Tin Shui Wai West Rail Station did not fit in with the planter of the cycling track stretching from Ping Yan Court to . The HyD said that it had consulted residents about the issue and promised to carry out the works, but the report did not mention the works.

25. Mr SHIH Yung-chi of the HyD made the following response:

(1) He briefed Members on the procedures of initiating a project. The TD would first determine the design and necessity of a works project and then submit a viable design to the HyD for implementation. The HyD was mainly responsible 16

for construction and would provide advice on the issues of maintenance and construction during the process. The TD would then issue a Works Request Form if a project was found problem-free, and request the HyD to apply for funding and carry out preliminary work, such as applying for a temporary traffic diversion, a traffic diversion paper and land allocation. The TD, as a designer, was in a more suitable position to determine the criteria for project approval;

(2) He said that the HyD was maintaining on-going communications with the TD on Project 23. He also cast doubt on the viability and necessity of the project. He said that there were already multiple pedestrian crossings, where zebra crossings and traffic lights were at the front and rear positions and there were also pedestrian refuges and bus stops. He said this might pose difficulty for large-sized vehicles to turn around, whereas construction of pedestrian crossings would be disturbing to residents with one lane having to be closed during the construction, thus seriously affecting the traffic there. The HyD proposed other more viable methods, such as educating pedestrians to use the front and rear locations of a pedestrian crossing. The HyD would first discuss the issue with the TD before responding to Members’ questions; and

(3) He said that as relevant TD engineers did not attend the meeting, he would respond to questions from individual District Council Members in relation to the three items not included in the report, after liaising with the TD after the meeting.

26. Miss CHEUNG Pui-yan of the HyD made the following response:

(1) She said that the temporary traffic test for Project 1 could not be conducted in December 2018 due to safety concerns, as the project was close to a station. The HyD subsequently discussed with the contractor other proposals of temporary traffic arrangements, and found two options available. However, the HyD still needed to take into account construction details and the safety of pedestrians crossing the road when the proposal was implemented. The HyD planned to discuss again with the Police and the TD through the Traffic Management and Liaison Group in September 2020 the method of implementing a traffic testing proposal;

(2) She said that several temporary traffic arrangement proposals had been made for Project 4, but the Police expressed reservations through the Traffic Management and Liaison Group. The HyD was considering other viable proposals for implementation of the project as the Police remained opposed even in July to the department’s proposal to rearrange the temporary traffic test;

(3) She said that the temporary traffic arrangements for Project 5 had been submitted to departments for approval at the end of last year and the proposal was being revised according to the comments of the departments. She said that there had been only minor issues left, pending a review by relevant departments. As 15 trees had to be removed from the location, the HyD and LCSD were in discussion about the location for replanting the trees. The tree-cutting application had to be approved by the LCSD;

17

(4) She said that the excavation permit for Project 8 had been approved, but it was necessary to obtain with the assistance of the District Lands Office, Yuen Long, the consent to carry out the construction at a location where a tree in a nearby housing estate was located within the area of the works. The works in the project consisted of five stages. As each stage took one month to complete, it would take four to five months for completion of the works. In response to traffic flow concerns, she said that the HyD had successfully conducted a temporary traffic arrangement test for the project in the middle of the year, and would notify Members and the persons-in-charge of the housing estate of details of construction works prior to the formal commencement;

(5) She said that the HyD had obtained police consent to the application for an excavation permit for Project 9, while at the same time arranging a seven-day temporary traffic arrangement test in September at the Police’s request; and

(6) She said that the HyD had completed in principle temporary traffic arrangements for Projects 13 and 17 with construction scheduled to commence anytime from the end of August to the beginning of September after the excavation permit was obtained;

(7) She expressed awareness of Members’ concerns about Project 14, saying that the HyD had been discussing with the TD the drafted temporary traffic proposal. She said the HyD was revising the proposal according to TD’ views in a bid to kick-start the works within 2020;

(8) She said that the HyD had submitted the plan for temporary traffic arrangements for Project 15 and was revising it according to the views of the traffic unit. If other things went well, the project could hopefully be launched in the fourth quarter of 2020; and

(9) She said that the works of Project 18 were more complicated and called for construction of three pedestrian refuges and removal of the existing pedestrian refuge. The HyD was drafting a temporary traffic arrangements proposal, which was scheduled for completion and submission to approval departments within the year for comments.

27. The Chairman concluded that the YLDC would write to invite the Traffic North Headquarters of the Hong Kong Police Force (“Police Force”) to discuss whether it could approve the traffic arrangement tests. He also requested Members to follow up with the HyD on individual projects.

Item VII: Statistics on cycling accidents and related enforcement actions (T&TC Paper No. 44/2020)

28. Members’ views about the item were summarised as follows:

(1) A Member enquired why there had been only reports on the number of traffic accidents involving bicycles, rather than reports on the number of law

18

enforcement actions against road traffic offences, such as illegal parking, illegal modification of vehicles, and failure to obey pedestrian control signals;

(2) A Member enquired about the source of the figures of traffic accidents involving bicycles;

(3) A Member enquired whether there were any specific numbers of cycling-related accidents associated with inverted-U racks on cycling tracks;

(4) A Member suggested that the TD improve the existing inverted-U racks on cycling tracks; and

(5) A Member suggested that the Police release the figures of various road and driving-related accidents and prosecutions to the T&TC on a quarterly basis.

29. Mr LEUNG Kei-ching of the Police Force made the following response:

(1) He said that the Police had prepared reports on the figures of cycling-related accidents on a regular basis. As the YLDC had only requested the Police to provide the figures of cycling-related accidents at the beginning, the report did not include the figures of other types of traffic offences. He said that Members were particularly concerned about the figures probably because Yuen Long District was a district in Hong Kong with a bigger number of cycling-related accidents;

(2) He said that figures of cycling-related accidents in the report referred to traffic accidents involving injuries to cyclists, and would be recorded as long as people who got injured reported their case to the Police;

(3) He said that the Police could provide no specific figures of cycling-related accidents associated with inverted-U racks on cycling tracks; and

(4) He said that he needed to study whether his department could provide a complete set of relevant statistics as it was not within the scope of their duties to provide figures of road traffic and driving-related accidents and prosecutions.

30. Mr CHEUNG Lai-ki of the Police Force said that the traffic team of the Yuen Long Police District was mainly responsible for the traffic conditions of non- expressways in Yuen Long District. As different types of traffic matters were dealt with by different units of the Police, he would need to study how traffic accident figures for each and every road in Yuen Long District could be provided before he could answer the question completely.

31. In conclusion, the Chairman suggested that Members follow up at the next meeting on whether the Police could provide a report covering the figures of different kinds of traffic accidents in Yuen Long District.

Item VIII: Any Other Business

19

32. In conclusion, the Chairman said that he, after consultation with Members, endorsed Mr MO Kai-hong’s participation into the Working Group on Mass Transit Services as well as Mr YOUNG Ka-on’s withdrawal from the Working Group on Traffic and Pedestrian Congestion in Yuen Long, the Working Group on Mass Transit Services, the Working Group on the Joint Working Group of Yuen Long-Tuen Mun District Councils on Traffic and Transport, and the Working Group on Bus Services.

33. There being no other business, the meeting came to an end at 12:25p.m.

Yuen Long District Council Secretariat August 2020

20