Minutes of the 23rd Meeting of the Traffic and Transport Committee (T&TC) Southern District Council (SDC)

Date : 4 April 2011 Time : 2:30 p.m. Venue : SDC Conference Room

Present: Mr LEUNG Ho-kwan, MH (Chairman) Mr CHAN Fu-ming (Vice-Chairman) Ms MAR Yuet-har, BBS, MH (Chairlady of SDC) Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP (Vice-Chairman of SDC) Mr AU Lap-sing Mr CHAI Man-hon Ir CHAN Lee-shing, William, JP Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung Mr CHEUNG Siu-keung Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus Mr FUNG Wai-kwong Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH Mr MAK Chi-yan Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Ada Mr TSUI Yuen-wa Mr WONG Che-ngai Mr WONG Ling-sun, Vincent Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN Dr YANG Mo, PhD Mr CHEUNG Hon-fan Mr CHOW Seung-man Mr PANG Siu-kei Mr PUK Kwan-kin Dr TANG Chi-wai, Sydney

TTC2011/mins23 1 Absent with Apologies: Dr MUI Heung-fu, Dennis

Secretary: Miss LI Mei-yee, Ivy Executive Officer II (District Council)3, Home Affairs Department

In Attendance: Mr WONG Yin-fun, Alex, JP District Officer (Southern), Home Affairs Department Miss LEUNG Tsz-ying, Almaz Assistant District Officer (Southern), Home Affairs Department Mr YAU Kung-yuen, Corwin Acting Senior Transport Officer/Southern, Transport Department Mr LEE Chen-sing, Sidney Engineer/Southern & Peak 1, Transport Department Mr LIU Po-wa, Paul Engineer 10 (HK Island Division 2), Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr MA Wing-tak, Peter Senior District Engineer/HES, Highways Department Ms AU Siu-ping District Operations Officer (Western), Hong Kong Police Force Mr LAU Wing-fu Officer-in-charge, District Traffic Team/Western District, Hong Kong Police Force

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 2): Mr WU Chun-kong Engineer 1/Special Duties, Highways Department Mr Kevin MAN Senior Engineer, Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 3): Mr Raymond CHUNG Senior Engineer/Town Planning, Transport Department

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 4): Miss Regina YEUNG Chief Transport Officer/Hong Kong, Transport Department Miss Karen PO Senior Transport Officer/Bus and Railway Branch, Transport Department Mr Simon WONG Planning and Scheduling Manager, Citybus & New World First Bus Services Limited

TTC2011/mins23 2 Ms Charlize LIU Assistant Public Affairs Manager, Citybus & New World First Bus Services Limited Mr Philip WONG Operations Manger (Department I), Citybus Mr Vincent NGAI Operations Manager, New World First Bus Services Limited Mr Roger MA Assistant Operations Manager, New World First Bus Services Limited

Opening Remarks:

The Chairman welcomed Members and co-operated members of the Committee and the following government representatives to the meeting: (a) Mr YAU Kung-yuen, Corwin, Acting Senior Transport Officer, Transport Department (TD); (b) Mr LEE Chen-sing, Sidney, Engineer, TD; (c) Mr LIU Po-wa, Paul, Engineer, Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD); (d) Mr MA Wing-tak, Peter, Senior District Engineer, Highways Department (HyD); and (e) Ms AU Siu-ping, District Operations Officer (Western) and Mr LAU Wing-fu, Officer-in-charge, District Traffic Team/Western District, Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF).

2. The Chairman thanked Mr TO Chi-keung, Gary, Senior Transport Officer, and Ms FUNG Tse-hing, Winnie, Engineer, for attending the previous meetings of the Committee on behalf of TD. The Chairman advised that Mr Corwin YAU, Acting Senior Transport Officer of TD, would represent his department to attend this meeting.

3. The Chairman informed Members that Mr WONG Siu-wah, Pierre, Senior Engineer of CEDD, was absent from this meeting due to other official commitment and Mr Paul LIU was attending on his behalf. Dr MUI Heung-fu was also absent from this meeting due to other commitments.

4. The Chairman proposed and the Committee agreed that each Member would be allotted a maximum of two 3-minute slots to speak in respect of each agenda item.

TTC2011/mins23 3 Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of the Minutes of the 22nd Meeting held on 14 February 2011______

5. The Chairman said that starting from July 2006, audio recordings of the meetings of SDC and its committees had been uploaded to SDC’s website and Members should speak concisely. Since SDC had endorsed that from July 2006 onwards, the minutes of meetings of its committees should be written in summary only, the minutes would be relatively concise and the audio records would provide details of the meetings. The Chinese and English versions of the draft minutes of the aforesaid meeting had been sent to Members, and the Secretariat had not received any amendment proposals.

6. The minutes of meeting, in Chinese and English, were confirmed by the Committee.

(Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and Dr TANG Chi-wai joined the meeting at 2:35 p.m. and 2:40 p.m. respectively.)

Agenda Item 2: Consultation on Proposed Addition of Lifts or Ramps to Existing Footbridges and Subways in Southern District (Item raised by Highways Department) (T&TC Paper No. 6/2011)

7. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives to join the discussion of agenda item 2: (a) Mr WU Chun-kong, Engineer, Bridges and Structures Division, HyD; and (b) Mr. Kevin MAN, Senior Engineer, Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd.

8. Mr WU Chun-kong briefly introduced the background information of the project as detailed in T&TC Paper No. 6/2011.

9. Mr Kevin MAN briefed the Committee on the study report on the feasibility of adding standard ramps or lifts to a footbridge (Structure no. HF59) and two subways (Structure no. HS7 and Structure no. HS13 and 13A) in the Southern District by PowerPoint presentation (Reference Material).

TTC2011/mins23 4 Elevated Walkway at Seaview Promenade (Structure no. HF59)

10. Mr FUNG Se-goun and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised comments and enquiries on this item. Details were summarised as below:

(a) A Member welcomed the above project. Nevertheless, he pointed out that Island Road, to which the ramp would be linked, did not provide any parking spaces and the driving speed of traffic going pass that area was rather fast. It was therefore not that safe for ramp users to get to Island Road, not to mention that the area was not conveniently connected with other barrier-free access;

(b) A Member proposed that HyD should enhance the barrier-free facilities at Island Road altogether, such as adding parking spaces designated for drivers holding the disabled person’s parking permit. If not, he would rather suggest relocating the ramp to the barbecue site near Deep Water Bay beach, so that ramp users could have a wider footway to the ramp after parking their cars at nearby carparks; and

(c) A Member opined that HyD did not have a comprehensive planning on developing a barrier-free environment at the said location.

11. The responses of Mr Kevin MAN were as below:

(a) The consultant would discuss the proposal of providing parking spaces designated for drivers holding the disabled person’s parking permit on Island Road with TD. He added that the location at Island Road where the ramp linked with was marked as a hatched area, ramp users could park within the area for alighting and boarding; and

(b) The barbecue site near Deep Water Bay beach was under the jurisdiction of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), therefore, the suggestion to enhance barrier-free facilities at that location would be referred to LCSD for consideration.

Subway at Shek Pai Wan Road near Wah Fu Road (Structure no. HS7)

12. Four Members, namely Mr AU Lap-sing, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and Mr CHAI Man-hon, raised comments and enquiries on this project. Details were summarised as below:

(a) A Member pointed out that the project would reduce the area of greening zone in the vicinity. Therefore, the consultant was requested to provide the Committee

TTC2011/mins23 5 with the layout plan showing the nearby greening zone after the construction of lifts;

(b) Some Members wished to know the details of the tree compensation plan; and

(c) A Member said that in planning and designing the lifts, HyD should duly consider the law and order problem inside the subway after the commissioning of the lift construction works. Besides, he suggested erecting directional signs near the lift exits at the ground level to show people the locations of the lifts and the way to bus stops.

13. The responses of Mr Kevin MAN were as below:

(a) Consideration on transplanting the affected trees on-site as far as possible had already been given during the detailed design of lifts. If it was not feasible, another location would be identified for transplanting those affected trees as a compensatory scheme; and

(b) HyD would pay attention to the law and order problems inside the subway after the addition of lifts. Therefore, HyD would consider installing CCTV system and providing enough illumination inside the subway in the detailed design, and directional signs would also be placed near the exits after the completion of the lift project.

Subway at Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road near Harbour Mission School (Structure no. HS13 and 13A)

14. Four Members, namely Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, Mr CHEUNG Siu-keung, Mr WONG Che-ngai and Mr CHAI Man-hon, raised comments and enquiries on the project. Details were summarised as below:

(a) A Member asked how the project would match with the construction of the South Island Line (East) (SIL (East)). He noted that HyD planned to re-plant trees nearby to compensate those being felled due to the lift construction and he had no objection to the proposed arrangement. He also enquired about the timetable for consulting the Council on the detailed design of the lift project and the expected works commencement date;

(b) A Member enquired if HyD would consider constructing a walkway linking the exit of lift at Harbour Mission School (Lift B) to Ap Lei Chau Drive near Sham Wan Towers so as to facilitate lift user’s access to Ap Lei Chau Drive. He added that

TTC2011/mins23 6 the subway users were mainly residents going from Lei Tung or Sham Wan Towers to Main Street, Ap Lei Chau or vice versa. Therefore, he proposed to modify the exit direction of Lift B to facing Ap Lei Chau Drive (i.e. to switch the exit direction of Lift B by 180-degree);

(c) A Member would like to know whether the design of the lift was the most convenient to residents. He commented that the lift tower at San Shi Street / Shan Ming Street (Lift A) was close to residents and enquired HyD about its liaison work with locals on this project; and

(d) Some Members opined that this project should match with the associated road facilities of the future SIL (East), for example, by providing respective directional signs at lift exits on the ground level.

15. The consolidated responses of Mr WU Chun-kong and Mr Kevin MAN were as below:

(a) Preliminary investigation for the above three projects conducted by HyD were underway and were expected to be completed by the end of 2011. Afterwards, HyD would engage a consultant company for the detailed design of the projects and consult the Council on the projects and their detailed plans in due course;

(b) Given that the MTR Corporation Limited (MTR) would close the subway during the construction of SIL (East) (i.e. from mid-2011 to 2015), it was also hoped that the works could be commenced as soon as possible. In addition, HyD would study and discuss with MTR on the feasibility of MTR taking over the construction of lifts as well;

(c) This project aimed to providing a barrier-free access for the disabled, therefore, the proposal to adding a walkway at the door exit of Lift B connecting to Ap Lei Chau Drive would be referred to relevant departments for consideration and study;

(d) The door exits of the proposed Lift A would be situated at three different levels (i.e. connecting to San Shi Street / Shan Ming Street, the existing subway and Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road) to facilitate lift users heading for different destinations; and

(e) The consultant company consulted the Committee on the investigation studies of these projects first and then would consult nearby residents on the construction arrangements in due course.

16. The Chairman concluded that the Committee supported in principle the above three projects. He requested HyD to consult the Committee on the detailed designs and works

TTC2011/mins23 7 programmes of the standard ramp and lifts added to footbridges and subways in the Southern District. The Chairman further suggested that HyD should strengthen the liaison with the Members of the constituencies concerned on details of the projects.

17. The Chairman advised that Members might discuss Item A6 of “Proposed Addition of Lifts to the Existing Footbridges and Subways in the Southern District” in the Progress Report in parallel.

18. Mr WONG Ling-sun enquired if HyD had any plan to provide lift facilities on the footbridge across the Aberdeen Praya Road.

19. Mr WU Chun-kong responded that since there were standard ramps at both ends of the footbridge, which considered suitable for use by the disabled, the addition of lift would not be considered.

(Mr WU Chun-kong and Mr Kevin MAN left the meeting at 3:15 p.m.) (Mr Raymond CHUNG joined the meeting at 3:15 p.m.)

Agenda Item 3: Relief the Traffic Congestion to and from Southern District (Item raised by Ms MAR Yuet-har, BBS, MH, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, Mr CHEUNG Siu-keung, Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Mr MAK Chi-yan, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Ada, and Mr WONG Che-ngai) (T&TC Paper No. 8/2011)

20. The Chairman welcomed Mr Raymond CHUNG, Senior Engineer/Transport Planning, TD to join the discussion of agenda item 3.

21. The Chairman said that this item was raised by Ms MAR Yuet-har, BBS, MH, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, Mr CHEUNG Siu-keung, Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Mr MAK Chi-yan, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling and Mr WONG Che-ngai. He asked Members to refer to Annex 1 of T&TC Paper No. 8/2011. Prior to the meeting, the Secretariat had invited TD to send representatives to attend the meeting and provide a written reply in respect to this item (as attached in Annex 2).

22. Mr WONG Che-ngai briefly introduced the paper (see Annex 1). At present, the constant traffic congestion at Aberdeen Tunnel, the major external traffic corridor of the

TTC2011/mins23 8 Southern District, in morning and evening peaks was one of the major factors of the serious lost trip situation of bus schedule to and from the Southern District, causing great inconvenience to residents in the district. Despite the repeated discussion on the subject by the Council in the past, no concrete improvement had been observed so far. He hoped that through discussion on this agenda, the Committee could come up a motion with possible improvement measures and urge the Government to pay due attention to the congestion problem in the district as well as actively explore improvement options.

23. Mr WONG Che-ngai and Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH moved the following motion, which was seconded by Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Mr AU Lap-sing, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, Mr CHEUNG Siu-keung and Mrs MAK TSE How-ling:

“The Southern District Council requests the Government to actively study all practicable solutions, including expanding tunnel from the Southern District to other districts, re-activating the planning of Route No.4 and buying back Eastern and Western Cross Harbour Tunnels etc., in order to relieve the traffic congestion situation from the Southern District to other districts.”

24. The Chairman accepted to discuss the above motion and advised that some Members might propose amendment to it. Since both the motion or proposed amendment motion would possibly be along the same line, it was proposed that they should be discussed together first and a vote should follow.

25. Five Members, namely Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Dr TANG Chi-wai, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling and Mr MAK Chi-yan, raised comments and enquiries on the related matters. Details were summarised as below:

(a) A Member wished to propose amendment to the motion. In response to his letter, the departments concerned had responded through the Secretariat that they had been implementing a series of minor measures to improve the congestion north of the Aberdeen Tunnel. However, he had great doubt that these measures would be effective. These measures included widening the carriageway of Leighton Road, modification of the traffic signal arrangements at Canal Road East, installing CCTV system at locations underneath on Canal Road Flyover and Russell Street etc. In long term, the department expected that with the Central-Wan Chai Bypass came into operation, the outbound traffic condition in the Southern District could be improved. As it was unclear whether these measures would be effective and to prevent the traffic condition in the Southern District from deteriorating, he proposed to include a moratorium on the development of Southern District in the

TTC2011/mins23 9 motion in a bid to request the Government to restrict development until the traffic management measures were proven effective. He noted that the feasibility of constructing an additional vehicular tunnel for the Southern District as land was limited along north shore;

(b) A Member worried that the traffic congestion at Aberdeen Tunnel would deteriorate during the construction of SIL (East). He expressed the following views on the proposals suggested by the original motion:

(i) Toll adjustment of road harbour crossings (RHCs) could help reducing the traffic flow at the Cross Harbour Tunnel (CHT). So comparatively speaking, buying back the other two RHCs would be a effective and more feasible way to improve the traffic condition;

(ii) Noting that the reserved site for Route No. 4 at Tin Wan Praya Road had been rezoned as “Open Space”, he enquired about the present position of the Government towards the construction of Route No. 4; and

(iii) In the Southern District, there was another tunnel which was being used by the Hongkong Electric Company Limited (HEC) for works purpose. Opening it for public use could help diverting the traffic, thus relieving the traffic pressure of Aberdeen Tunnel.

(c) A Member pointed out that apart from the increased traffic volume resulted from major developments, the operation of schools in the Southern District also contributed to the traffic burden in the area. The situation should need further review;

(d) A Member opined that the outbound traffic via Pok Fu Lam Road was indirectly affected by the congestion in the Central District. He anticipated that with the introduction of “3+3+4” academic structure, the number of students attending the University of Hong Kong would be increased, which would add to the traffic at Pok Fu Lam Road;

(e) A Member pointed that Route No. 4 involved many sections and said that the Government should re-plan the routing so as to establish an effective vehicular traffic network linking Aberdeen to the Eastern District; and

(f) A Member asked the department concerned about the measures to be adopted to relieve the traffic congestion at the northern end of Aberdeen Tunnel.

26. During the meeting, the Chairman received an amendment to the original motion

TTC2011/mins23 10 put forwarded by Mr FUNG Wai-kwong (Amendment Motion 1) which was seconded by Mr CHAI Man-hon and Mr TSUI Yuen-wa:

“The Southern District Council requests the Government to actively study all practicable solutions, including constructing the South Island Line (West) and buying back Eastern and Western Cross Harbour Tunnels etc., in order to relieve the traffic congestion situation from the Southern District to other districts.”

27. Dr YANG Mo, PhD and Mr WONG Che-ngai raised comments and enquiries on the related matters. Details were summarised as below:

(a) A Member said that the toll charged by the West Harbour Crossing (WHC) was too high to attract vehicles from the Southern District to cross the harbour travelling via Pok Fu Lam Road. Therefore, he agreed that the departments concerned should consider buying back WHC so as to relieve the traffic burden at CHT and Aberdeen Tunnel; and

(b) A Member agreed that the Council should continue to strive for the construction of SIL (West). However, there was no concrete data at this stage to confirm that the SIL could actually improve the traffic condition in the Southern District, so he did not support incorporating the above suggestion into the motion.

28. Mr CHAI Man-hon and Mr TSUI Yuen-wa explained the reasons for putting forward the amendment to motion as follows:

(a) At present, the site at Tin Wan Praya Road previously reserved for Route No. 4 had been rezoned as “Open Space”. Apart from the environmental and visual impacts on the Southern District and the Central & Western District, the construction of Route No. 4 might affect the overall urban planning in the whole area. In comparison, the construction of SIL (West) was more feasible, the need was more urgent and in line with the government policy on basing railway to form the backbone of public transport network; and

(b) There was concern over whether enough space was available in the Southern District for the construction of a new vehicular tunnel. As such, there was doubt about the feasibility of such recommendation.

29. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN introduced his amendment to motion. He opined that residents on Hong Kong Island would have different views on improvement measures proposed in the motion in relieving the traffic congestion in the Southern District. Therefore, he felt that the Council should press for a development moratorium in the

TTC2011/mins23 11 Southern District as an economic incentive to ease traffic congestion. The amendment motion (Amendment Motion 2) read as follows:

“The SDC requests the Government to actively study all practicable solutions in order to relieve the traffic congestion situation from the Southern District to other districts and in the meantime to place a temporary moratorium on development in the Southern District until traffic amendments are evident.”

30. The amendment motion was not accepted as it had yet to be seconded by other Members.

31. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling and Mr CHEUNG Hon-fan raised comments and enquiries on the related matters. Details were summarised as below:

(a) A Member pointed out that in the original motion, it was requested that the Government should re-plan Route No. 4 to relieve the traffic congestion in the Southern District. The Route No. 4 involved many sections and their alignments were not exactly the same, so it should not come into conflicts with the rezoning of the reserved site for Route No. 4 at Tin Wan Praya Road as “Open Space”; and

(b) A Member opined that it was difficult to control developments in the district through the Council. Besides, the views of residents in the Southern District towards the construction of Route No. 4 and SIL (West) diverged.

32. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP submitted an amendment motion (Amendment Motion 3) which was seconded by Mr CHAN Fu-ming. The motion read:

“The Southern District Council requests the Government to actively study all practicable solutions, including expanding tunnel from the Southern District to other districts, constructing the South Island Line (West) and buying back Eastern and Western Cross Harbour Tunnels etc., in order to relieve the traffic congestion situation from the Southern District to other districts.”

33. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH, Mr FUNG Wai-kwong, Ir CHAN Lee-shing, JP and Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP raised enquiries and comments on the related issue. Details were summarised as below:

(a) A Member supported Amendment Motion 3;

(b) A Member pointed out that the vehicular tunnel currently used by HEC was a cable tunnel. The costs of modifying it into one that complied with the safety standards

TTC2011/mins23 12 required for public use could be much higher than constructing a new traffic tunnel; and

(c) A Member opined that although Amendment Motion 3 did not explicitly request the Government to control developments in the Southern District, TD should continue to maintain close liaison with the Council for major developments in the District.

34. The Chairman advised that according to the Southern District Council Standing Orders, if there was more than one amendments motions, they should be discussed in an order that the motions put in later be voted first. The Chairman announced that a vote would be taken on Amendment Motion 3 first.

35. After voting, the Committee unanimously endorsed the following motion:

“The Southern District Council requests the Government to actively study all practicable solutions, including expanding tunnel from the Southern District to other districts, constructing the South Island Line (West) and buying back Eastern and Western Cross Harbour Tunnels etc., in order to relieve the traffic congestion situation from the Southern District to other districts.”

36. Mr Raymond CHUNG thanked Members for their valuable comments and advice on how to relieve the outbound traffic congestion in the Southern District.

37. The Chairman thanked Mr Raymond CHUNG for joining the discussion of this agenda item.

(Mr Raymond CHUNG left the meeting at 4:15 p.m.) (Miss Regina YEUNG, Miss Karen PO, Mr Simon WONG, Ms Charlize LIU, Mr Philip WONG, Mr Vincent NGAI and Roger MA joined the meeting at 4:15 p.m.)

Agenda Item 4: Bus Route Development Programme for Southern District 2011-12 (Item Raised by Transport Department) (T&TC Paper No. 7/2011)

38. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives for discussion of agenda item 4: (a) Miss Regina YEUNG, Chief Transport Officer/Hong Kong, TD; (b) Miss Karen PO, Senior Transport Officer, Bus and Railway Branch, TD;

TTC2011/mins23 13 (c) Mr Simon WONG, Planning and Scheduling Manager, Citybus Limited (Citybus) / New World First Bus Services Limited (NWFB); (d) Ms Charlize LIU, Assistant Public Affairs Manager, Citybus/ NWFB; (e) Mr Philip WONG, Operations Manager (Department 1), Citybus; (f) Mr Vincent NGAI, Operations Manager, NWFB; and (g) Mr Roger MA, Assistant Operations Manager, NWFB.

39. Ms Karen PO briefly introduced the direction and principles adopted by TD in the formulation of the Bus Route Development Programme (BRDP) for the Southern District in 2011-2012. Details were listed in T&TC Paper No. 7/2011.

40. Mr Simon WONG briefed Members on the proposals under BRDP for the Southern District in 2011-2012 by PowerPoint presentation (Reference Material). Details were listed in T&TC paper No. 7/2011.

41. Mr CHAI Man-hon had submitted written questions on this agenda item prior to the meeting. He quoted from the paper that when devising BRDP for this year, TD would, as far as practicable, carry out effective inter-modal coordination with a view to eliminating cut-throat competition. In this regard, he would like to know the positioning of various modes of public transport (including buses, green minibuses and railway) in the Southern District. He also pointed out that residents had reflected that some of the bus interchange concessionary schemes in the district had become invalid. He asked how TD could ensure that the bus companies would implement the schemes as promised to safeguard the public interest. He continued that in the past, the implementation of some rationalisation schemes had diverged from those endorsed by the Committee. He enquired how the department concerned would monitor the implementation of rationalisation schemes as agreed.

42. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had relayed the written questions raised by the Member concerned to TD and TD would provide a written reply later. Moreover, every year, the Committee would include this item in the progress report to facilitate Members to monitor the implementation of individual items.

43. The consolidated responses of Mr Corwin YAU and Miss Karen PO were as below:

(a) As some of the concessionary interchange schemes required bus drivers to operate Octopus processor in advance, the bus companies would step up training and remind drivers to ensure the effective operation of the Octopus Bus-Bus Interchange Concessionary Fare Scheme; and

TTC2011/mins23 14 (b) In formulating the yearly BRDP, TD and the bus companies concerned would thoroughly consider the needs for public transport and community development in the district. TD would give a detailed written reply on the questions raised by the Member concerned in due course.

Citybus Route No. 99 (Annex 1)

44. Six Members, namely Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH, Mr WONG Che-ngai, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, Mr CHEUNG Siu-keung, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, raised enquiries and comments on this item. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) A Member asked the departure time of Route No. 99 leaving South Horizons which would skip Lei Tung Estate during the operation period of Route No. 99C;

(b) A Member agreed that the special departure of Route No. 99C would enable residents in Lei Tung to get on the buses more easily, even though it did not actually enhance the bus services from Lei Tung to Sau Kei Wan. He was in support of this proposal and would like to know the departure time of Route No. 99C;

(c) A Member asked whether the bus company had launched a trial run for this route to ensure that the buses could turn from Lei Tung Estate Road to Ap Lei Chau Praya Road smoothly; and also asked the locations of bus stops of Route No. 99C at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road;

(d) A Member enquired about the estimated patronage of Route No. 99C. Another Member suggested the bus company should review the operation of this route in collaboration with the Committee in due course, so as to avoid wastage of resources due to low occupancy; and

(e) A Member estimated that the occupancy for Route No. 99C would be low and the arrangement of en-route Ap Lei Chau Praya Road would increase the journey time. Another Member suggested that for the time being, the route concerned could skip Ap Lei Chau Praya Road first; when a demand had been built up with intake of the new residential development, then a bus stop at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road could be considered.

45. Mr Simon WONG and Mr Philip WONG replied that the provision of the special departure of Route No. 99C was catered specially for the residential development project at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road, and it was expected that the departure time would be 8:00 a.m. The departure time of Route No. 99 skipping Lei Tung would complement with that of Route

TTC2011/mins23 15 No. 99C to avoid duplication of resources. The bus company had conducted a trial run for Route No. 99C, and would discuss with TD on the exact locations of bus stops.

46. The Chairman concluded that the Committee endorsed this item, and requested that after its implementation, the bus company should continue to work with the Committee to review the occupancy and routing of the newly added Route No. 99C.

Citybus Route No. 171 (Annex 1)

47. Eight Members, namely Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH, Mr WONG Che-ngai, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, Mr CHEUNG Siu-keung, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Mr FUNG Wai-kwong and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, raised enquiries and comments on this item. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) A number of Members supported this proposal;

(b) Some Members said that a proposal had once been put forward to TD raising that during the morning peak (from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.), the total number of vehicles serving existing Route Nos. 171 and 171P for Kowloon bound should be split into Route Nos. 171P and 171A in proportion with the respective occupancy. Under this proposed arrangement, all departures of Route No. 171 from South Horizons would take the routing of Route No. 171P, that is, en-route Ap Lei Chau Estate onward to Aberdeen Tunnel while skipping Lei Tung; and all departures of Route No. 171A from Lei Tung Estate would en-route Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road onward to Aberdeen Tunnel;

(c) A Member asked about the respective allocation of vehicles and frequency of Route Nos. 171P and 171A during the morning peak under the above proposed arrangement. Another Member said that the existing Route No. 171P was more popular than Route No. 171 among residents. He hoped that TD could implement the proposal of splitting these two routes as soon as possible;

(d) A Member said that at this meeting, TD only consulted the Committee on the deployment of additional vehicle for Route No. 171, hence it was not appropriate to discuss the splitting of bus routes under this agenda item;

(e) A Member said that deploying more vehicles for the said route would best meet the needs of the residents; and

(f) A Member asked if the Committee would discuss the rationalisation of public transport services in the district in future.

TTC2011/mins23 16

48. The Chairman said that Members could raise any comments on the arrangement of the route concerned to TD for consideration. Nevertheless, since the proposal of splitting two routes raised by Members was not included in the discussion paper, the Committee would not discuss this subject in detail at this meeting. The Chairman suggested that TD should consider the proposal and report to the Committee later on. The Chairman continued that the Committee would conduct a workshop for bus route development every year to tap Members’ views on the bus services in the Southern District.

49. Miss Regina YEUNG responded that it was understood that residents in South Horizons generally preferred Route No. 171P, and that the difficulty for the residents in Lei Tung to get on the buses. In this connection, TD would work with the bus companies concerned to carefully study and consider the proposal of splitting the two routes during the morning peak, and would consult the Committee on the detailed feasible plan in due course.

50. The Committee approved the proposal of deploying additional vehicle for Route No. 171.

Citybus Route No. N171 (Annexes 1 and 2)

51. Mr WONG Che-ngai and Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH supported the proposed extension routing of Route No. N171 to Lai Chi Kok.

52. The Committee endorsed this proposal.

Citybus Route No. 6 and NWFB Route No. 65 (Annex 1)

53. Three Members, namely Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Mr CHOW Seung-man and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, raised enquiries and comments on this item. Details were summarised as below:

(a) A Member was concerned that it would be dangerous for the buses en-route Chung Hom Kok Road turning left to Cape Road, instead of travelling directly via the roundabout at Chung Hom Kok Beach. He would consider accepting the recommendation of Route No. 6 bypassing the roundabout at Chung Hom Kok beach, provided that Route No. 14 would en-route Ma Hang Estate;

(b) A Member commented that there had already been two bus routes bypassing Chung Hom Kok beach, and worried that this arrangement would further reduce the bus

TTC2011/mins23 17 services passing through this road section, thus causing inconvenience to the residents; and

(c) A Member supported this recommendation because it could minimise noise nuisances and the environmental impact on the district.

54. Mr Philip WONG and Mr Vincent NGAI responded that according to a passenger occupancy survey, the number of passengers boarding and alighting on the said road section during the subject period was very low, and therefore, it was expected that the residents would not be seriously affected. Moreover, this improvement was proposed in response to the expectations of some residents in Chung Hom Kok, with a view to minimising noise nuisances caused by buses.

55. The Chairman concluded that given the diverging views of Members, the Committee did not endorse this proposal.

NWFB Route Nos. 14 and 66 (Annexes 1 and 3)

56. Three Members, namely Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Mr FUNG Se-goun and Mr CHAI Man-hon, raised enquiries and comments on this item. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) A Member supported the proposal of Route No. 14 en-routing Ma Hang Estate only, and objected to the reduction in the frequency of Route No. 66. He opined that locals generally took Route Nos. 6, 6X and 66 to the other parts of Hong Kong Island, and worried that the frequency reduction of Route No. 66 would cause inconvenience to the residents in Stanley;

(b) A Member opined that with the frequency reduction of Route No. 66, the bus company should increase the frequency of Route Nos. 6, 6X and 260 correspondingly, especially during the swimming season and public holidays; and

(c) A Member opined that Route No. 14 should be enhanced to en-route Ma Hang Estate in the whole day. Under the proposed arrangement, not all residents could be benefited because of the complicated operation of Route No. 14 en-routing Ma Hang Estate for some periods of the day instead of the whole day. He also asked how the bus company would utilise the resources released from this arrangement.

57. Mr Simon WONG, Mr Philip WONG and Mr Vincent NGAI responded that the bus routes concerned needed to be implemented as a whole because the bus company had to

TTC2011/mins23 18 use the resources saved from the frequency reduction of Route No. 66 to fill the resource gap for arranging Route No. 14 routing via Ma Hang Estate. With the reduction of frequency schedule of Route No. 66, the bus company would closely monitor the occupancy of other bus routes and make corresponding adjustment if necessary. This recommendation could, on the one hand, step up the bus service to and from Ma Hang Estate, and on the other hand minimise the impact on existing passengers by ratonalising the bus routes.

58. The Committee did not endorse this proposal.

NWFB Route Nos. 91, 94, 94X and 590 (Annexes 1 and 4)

59. Five Members, namely Mr WONG Che-ngai, Mr CHEUNG Siu-keung, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung and Mr CHAI Man-hon, raised enquiries and comments on this item. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) Some Members opined that although this proposal could enhance the express bus service of Route No. 94X from Lei Tung to Central and vice versa, and provide a special departure of Route No. 590C, the bus service from Lei Tung to the vicinity of Sai Ying Pun had to be cancelled. Considering the local needs for travelling to the vicinity of Sai Ying Pun, he objected to this proposal;

(b) A Member opined that although the bus company had introduced bus-bus interchange concessionary fare schemes for passengers to interchange to other routes for Sai Ying Pun, the bus interchange arrangement might increase the overall waiting time for the average passengers, thus bringing inconvenience to the passengers, especially the elderly and infirm,;

(c) A Member was in support of the introduction of Route No. 590C. However, if TD and the bus company considered that it was necessary to provide bus service at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road to complement the development in the district, extra bus resources should be deployed to serve this route, instead of using the resources released from the frequency reduction of Route No. 94 under a bundled arrangement. He asked TD’s views on this comment; and

(d) A Member asked why the special departure of Route No. 590C was introduced. He also opined that this special departure contradicted the principle of minimising point-to-point bus service as put forward by TD.

60. Mr Simon WONG responded that the two items should be implemented as one package, and the bus company would closely monitor the occupancy of Route No. 590C and

TTC2011/mins23 19 review this arrangement at a suitable time.

61. Miss Karen PO replied that TD had recommended to provide Route Nos. 99C and 590C in this year’s BRDP, having regard the community development at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road. To better utilise resources, TD and the bus company would, as far as practicable, deploy resources from bus routes of low occupancy to provide new routes.

62. The Committee did not endorse this proposal.

(Mr FUNG Wai-kwong left the meeting at 5:35 p.m.) (Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP left the meeting at 6:00 p.m.) (Miss Karen PO, Mr Simon WONG, Ms Charlize LIU, Mr Philip WONG, Mr Vincent NGAI and Mr Roger MA left the meeting at 6:10 p.m.)

Agenda Item 5: Road Safety of Pokfulam and Regular Traffic Incident Reports (Item raised by Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN) (T&TC Paper No. 9/2011)

63. The Chairman said that this agenda item was raised by Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and asked Members to refer to Annex 1 of T&TC Paper No. 9/2011. Prior to the meeting, the Secretariat had invited HKPF and TD to send representatives to attend the meeting and provide consolidated written reply in respect of this item (as attached in Annex 2).

64. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN presented the paper (see Annex 1). He was concerned about the road safety in Pokfulam. Therefore, he proposed that HKPF and TD should provide regular reports on all traffic accidents including damage-only accidents in the Southern District to the Committee with information such as locations, types and trends of accidents. Such reports could help Members identifying potential risk areas for further monitoring so as to enhance road safety. As for the 2010 report on accidents in Pokfulam, he requested more details on the locations to be provided after the meeting.

65. Ms AU Siu-ping and Mr Sidney LEE supplemented and responded as follows:

(a) The Police agreed that the release of traffic accident figures could help raising public awareness on traffic safety and formulating appropriate road safety measures for different locations more effectively. The Police had a set of established guiding principles on the release of traffic accident figures and relevant information to the public. They would prepare the report for submission to the Committee

TTC2011/mins23 20 which in line with the said principles; and

(b) TD had been monitoring the figures and causes of traffic accidents in different locations in the Southern District. Before the junction of Pokfulam Road with Sassoon Road was listed as a blacksite, TD had already reviewed the traffic facilities at the location concerned and implemented improvement measures accordingly. Since then, no traffic incident of the same causes at the location concerned had been reported.

66. Seven Members, namely Mr CHEUNG Hon-fan, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Mr FUNG Se-goun, Mr AU Lap-sing, Mr WONG Che-ngai, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, raised comments and enquiries on the related matters. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) A Member urged the relevant departments to curb the serious speeding problem at the road section along Cyberport Road between Bel-Air Phase 4-6 and Bel-Air Phase 1-3, such as installing speed enforcement cameras, to enhance traffic safety at the location; and

(b) A number of Members agreed that traffic incident reports could help monitoring traffic safety in the district. Given that the contents in the report involved various locations in an extensive area, it was suggested that the report should also be forwarded to the Area Committees, so that they could follow up the situation in their respective areas more thoroughly and in a practical manner, hence enhancing the monitoring. This could also facilitate the Area Committees in giving their views on traffic matters.

67. In closing, the Chairman suggested that the Police should submit the report to the Committee, so that Members could comment first. Furthermore, the Chairman agreed that the report could be forwarded to the Area Committees for reference. The Chairman suggested the relevant department to liaise with the member concerned after the meeting on the details of accidents happened in Pokfulam.

Agenda Item 6: Progress Report on Previously Discussed Items (as at 14.3.2011) (T&TC Paper No. 5/2011)

68. Members raised questions on the above report.

Multi-Storey and Public Transport Terminus at Stanley Village Road, Stanley

TTC2011/mins23 21

69. Ir CHAN Lee-shing, JP and Mr CHAI Man-hon raised comments and enquiries on this item. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) A Member enquired about the latest progress of the above project; and

(b) A Member asked TD about the timetable for the funding application to the Legislative Council for the project.

70. Mr Sidney LEE replied that it was expected that the Architectural Services Department would engage a consultant in mid-2011 to carry out the detailed design and public consultation on the project. The funding application for the project would proceed according to the established procedure.

Short-term Measures for Improving Traffic Condition of Southern District

71. Three Members, namely Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Mr FUNG Se-goun and Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, raised comments and enquiries on this item. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) A Member suggested that TD should report the number of intermittent closure of Aberdeen Tunnel regularly at each meeting. And also, various measures to improve the traffic congestion in the Southern District should be included in the progress report to facilitate Members’ monitoring of such measures;

(b) A Member commented that the installation of Variable Message Signs (VMSs) at Wong Chuk Hang Road near Island Road and Wong Chuk Hang Recreation Ground had been finished and would like to know when it would come into operation; and

(c) A Member hoped that TD could provide the detailed design and plan of the VMS to be installed on Ap Lei Chau Bridge.

72. Mr Sidney LEE replied that TD agreed to provide the monthly figures on the intermittent closure of Aberdeen Tunnel regularly to the Committee. The installation of two VMSs at Wong Chuk Hang Road were nearly completed and were now under testing. They were expected to come into operation in May 2011. Based on the consensus reached by the Committee on the location for the installation of VMS on Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road, TD was in the process of designing the VMS and would submit the detailed design to the Committee in due course.

TTC2011/mins23 22 Lost Trip Situation of Bus Schedule in Southern District

73. Four Members, namely Mr WONG Che-ngai, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Mr CHAI Man-hon and Mr CHEUNG Siu-keung, raised comments and enquiries on this item. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) A number of Members said that they had received the report of the comprehensive survey on bus service in the Southern District provided by TD. They would like to know if the Committee would convene meetings to follow up the related matters; and

(b) A Member pointed out that the contents on some of the bus routes in Ap Lei Chau area in the report were incomplete.

74. The Chairman replied that he would explain the follow-up work on this item to Members later.

Major Resurfacing Works and their Schedules in Southern District

75. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying reminded the department concerned to make proper arrangement for the resurfacing works at Tai Tam Reservoir Road so that the road surface could become even.

76. The Chairman requested HyD to follow up the resurfacing works at that road section as soon as possible.

77. Mr AU Lap-sing and Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that at the 22nd meeting, the Committee had thoroughly discussed the temporary traffic management schemes (TTMSs) to be implemented by MTR at various road sections in the Southern District in the first year to cope with the construction of SIL (East). Afterwards, MTR had contacted them directly to explain why it was unable to change the one-way westbound traffic at the section of Heung Yip Road between Nam Long Shan Road and Ocean Park Road to eastbound. They also wished that the related department could draw up a traffic contingency plan for Wong Chuk Hang Road, so that in case of serious congestion, the traffic could be diverted effectively. Mr AU Lap-sing further proposed to include this item in the progress report so as to follow up in the future.

78. The Chairman proposed and the Committee endorse to include the item “Temporary Traffic Management Scheme of the South Island Line (East)” in the progress

TTC2011/mins23 23 report so that Members could follow up the related matter regularly.

(Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung left the meeting at 6:33 p.m.) (Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and Mrs MAK TSE How-ling left the meeting at 6:37 p.m. and 6:38 p.m. respectively.)

Agenda Item 7: Any Other Business

79. Members did not raise any other business.

Agenda Item 8: Date of Next Meeting

80. The Chairman said that the 24th T&TC meeting would be held on Monday, 30 May 2011 at 2:30 p.m. at SDC Conference Room.

81. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:47 p.m.

Southern District Council Secretariat May 2011

TTC2011/mins23 24