Minutes of the 10Th Meeting of the Transport Affairs Committee of Sham Shui Po District Council (5Th Term)

(Translation)

Minutes of the 10th Meeting of the Transport Affairs Committee of Sham Shui Po District Council (5th Term)

Date: 20 July 2017 (Thursday) Time: 9:30 a.m. Venue: Conference Room, Sham Shui Po District Council

Present

Chairman Mr CHENG Wing-shun, Vincent, MH

Members Mr CHAN Wai-ming, MH, JP Ms CHAN Wing-yan, Joephy Mr CHEUNG Wing-sum, Ambrose, BBS, MH, JP Ms CHOW Wing-heng, Zoé (Arrived at 9:50 p.m.) Mr CHUM Tak-shing (Arrived at 11:25 p.m.) Mr HO Kai-ming, Kalvin (Arrived at 11:45 a.m.) Mr KONG Kwai-sang (Arrived at 9:50 a.m.) Mr Lam Ka-fai, Aaron, BBS, JP (Arrived at 9:43 a.m.) Ms LAU Pui-yuk (Arrived at 9:50 p.m.) Mr LEE Tsz-king, Dominic (Arrived at 9:45 a.m.; left at 11:45 a.m.) Mr LEE Wing-man Mr LEUNG Man-kwong Mr LEUNG Yau-fong Ms NG Mei, Carman (Arrived at 9:59 a.m.) Ms NG Yuet-lan (Arrived at 10:02 a.m.) Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, MH, JP (Arrived at 9:40 a.m.) Mr WAI Woon-nam (Arrived at 10:30 a.m.) Mr WONG Tat-tung, Dennis, MH, JP (Arrived at 10 a.m.) Mr YAN Kai-wing (Arrived at 9:45 a.m.) Mr YEUNG Yuk (Arrived at 10 a.m.) Mr YUEN Hoi-man (Left at 12:17 p.m.)

- 2 - Action by

Co-opted Members

Mr LAU Kin-shing Mr LI Chun-hei, Joshua (Arrived at 10:00 a.m.)

In Attendance Ms Man Ka-wing, Kelly Assistant District Officer (Sham Shui Po) 1 Mr LAU Kin-hei, Louis Senior Transport Officer/Sham Shui Po, Transport Department Mr LEE Chung-yam, Paul Engineer/Planning 1, Transport Department Mr CHANG Yiu-wa District Engineer/Lai Chi Kok, Highways Department Mr YEUNG Pak-kin, Kelvin Assistant District Operation Officer, Sham Shui Po District, Hong Kong Police Force Mr AU YEUNG Chung-ching Officer in-charge of District Traffic Team, Sham Shui Po District, Hong Kong Police Force Mr LEE Wai-hung Neighbourhood Police Co-ordinator/Police Community Relations Office (Sham Shui Po District), Hong Kong Police Force Mr LEE Hong-ling Manager (Planning and Development), The Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited Mr LAM Sai-shu Assistant Manager (Operations), The Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited

Secretary Mr Chan Wing-ho, Patrick Executive Officer (District Council) 3, Sham Shui Po District Office

Absent

Member Mr CHAN Kwok-wai

Co-opted Members

Mr CHAN Ming-kei Ms TSE Hiu-hung

- 3 - Action by

Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed members and representatives of government departments to the tenth meeting of the Transport Affairs Committee (“TAC”) of the fifth term Sham Shui Po District Council.

Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of minutes

(a) Minutes of the 9th meeting held on 8 June 2017

2. The Committee confirmed the above minutes.

(b) Minutes of the continued meeting of the 9th meeting held on 19 June 2017

3. The Committee confirmed the above minutes.

Agenda Item 2 : Matters for Discussion

(a) Request for providing a bus-stop outside West Kowloon Law Courts Building as soon as possible (TAC Paper 71/17)

4. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong introduced Paper 71/17.

5. Mr Paul LEE responded that the Transport Department (“TD”) conducted a consultation on the provision of the bus stop in June 2013. The consultation paper showed that no proposal of tree removal at the site was made at that time. However, in 2016, TD, the Highways Department (“HyD”) and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”) inspected the site, including the growth of trees, and confirmed that an application for removal of the tree concerned had to be made before the works commenced.

6. Mr CHANG Yiu-wa responded that HyD had confirmed with TD and LCSD that it was necessary to remove a tree before the works commenced and had submitted an application to the Lands Department (“LandsD”). The removal concerned would commence upon LandsD’s approval.

7. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following enquiries: (i) the reasons of spending so much time on the tree removal by the departments concerned; (ii) he enquired about the works schedule of the provision of the bus stop; (iii) the bus company said in October 2012 that they had no objection to the works concerned, and the consultation work was completed in 2013. - 4 - Action by

He enquired why the works had not commenced yet; (iv) he enquired about the justifications if the works were given a lower priority.

8. Mr Aaron LAM raised the following views and enquiries: (i) there was a certain distance between the West Kowloon Law Courts Building and the MTR station. He hoped that a bus stop would be provided at the above location as soon as possible to bring convenience to the citizens; (ii) he requested the government departments concerned to clearly explain the works process and the time required for each step; (iii) as LandsD and LCSD did not send staff to attend this meeting, he suggested that the Committee should write to these two departments asking them to respond and provide a works schedule.

9. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquires (i) there was a need for the provision of a bus stop at the above location to facilitate citizens’ travelling to and from the West Kowloon Law Courts Building; (ii) he requested the departments concerned to provide a works schedule and explain the works that had been carried out since completion of consultation; (iii) he opined that the departments concerned should have proper co-ordination when the works were being carried out.

10. Mr LAU Kin-shing pointed out that the departments concerned said the works were delayed because it took time to remove the tree. He hoped that the problem could be solved as soon as possible and the works would be completed early.

11. Mr Paul LEE responded that after receiving a request for the provision of a bus stop at the above location in 2012, TD discussed with the Architectural Services Department (“ArchSD”), which was in charge of the works of the West Kowloon Law Courts Building, to discuss the feasibility for the contractor who undertook the works of the law courts to build the bus stop together. However, as ArchSD did not agree at last, TD conducted consultation on the works concerned in June 2013.

12. Mr CHANG Yiu-wa responded as follows: (i) after receiving TD’s request for the provision of a bus stop in August 2016, HyD conducted an inspection with TD and LCSD and confirmed that removal of a tree was needed for the works. In March 2017, HyD applied to LandsD for the tree removal and learned that LCSD had specific requirements on the species and height of the compensatory trees. HyD found the tree species required by LCSD recently and LandsD had started vetting the application concerned; (ii) after LandsD approved the application concerned, HyD would need to apply for an Excavation Permit before the works commenced. The works were expected to commence in around February 2018 and would take about four months.

- 5 - Action by

13. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the consultation was conducted in June 2013 but TD did not ask HyD to commence the works until August 2016. He enquired what the Department had done during this period; (ii) it was not acceptable for the works to commence in 2018. The works had been delayed for many years so priority should be accorded to the works. He hoped that the Committee would ask LandsD and LCSD to handle the matters related to the works as quickly as possible.

14. Mr Aaron LAM raised the following views and enquires: (i) a lot of citizens went to the West Kowloon Law Courts Building every day. He hoped that the works concerned would commence as soon as possible; (ii) he enquired how long this type of works would normally take.

15. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that he agreed to speed up the pace of the works. However, as there might be other important works scheduled to be done, there might be major impact if this works commenced earlier. The Government should handle this with caution.

16. Mr Paul LEE responded as follows: (i) the consultation of the works concerned was completed in September 2013. According to record, TD did not issue a works order to HyD right after that. He guessed that as there was still some time to go before the West Kowloon Law Courts Building was completed and the passengers’ need to board and alight at the said location was not great, the Department adjusted the construction time to make it in line with the date of completion of the law courts building. Later, as there was staff movement, the works concerned did not continue until 2016. However, as the growth of trees at the site had changed, the tree concerned needed to be removed before the works could commence; (ii) the Department was studying the provision of a temporary bus stop in Tung Chau Street near Lai Chi Kok Road during the period of construction to satisfy citizens’ need to travel to and from the West Kowloon Law Courts Building.

17. Mr CHANG Yiu-wa responded that HyD would study whether resources could be increased to commence the works as soon as possible.

18. The Chairman concluded as follows: (i) the Committee was concerned about the progress of the provision of a bus stop outside the West Kowloon Law Courts Building, and requested the department concerned to commence the works as soon as possible and provide a temporary bus stop before the completion of the works; (ii) he requested the Secretariat to convey the Committee’s concern about the progress of the works to LCSD and LandsD after the meeting.

(Post-meeting note: The Secretariat wrote to LCSD and LandsD on 14 September 2017 to - 6 - Action by convey the Committee’s concern on the progress of the works.)

(b) Monitor the impact of the housing development proposals submitted by Yuen Fat Godown and Kerry Warehouse on the traffic in the vicinity (TAC Paper 72/17)

19. Mr YUEN Hoi-man introduced Paper 72/17.

20. Mr YEUNG Yuk added that parking spaces were insufficient in Sham Shui Po District (“SSP District”). He hoped that TD would respond to the demand in this respect through this development.

21. Ms Zoé CHOW added remarks and raised enquiries as follows: (i) there was serious illegal parking in the vicinity of Tung Chau Street, Fat Tseung Street and Hing Wah Street. She hoped that there would be more parking spaces in the new development project to ease the problem of insufficient parking spaces in the district; (ii) she enquired why the above development project privatised Lai Fat Street; (iii) TD estimated that the vehicular flow in the vicinity of the development project would increase by no more than 20% ten years later. However, many development projects would be completed in the said area in the future. She queried the calculation of the increase; (iv) illegal car racing frequently took place near the above development project. She hoped that TD and the Police would put forward practicable improvement proposals.

22. The Chairman said that Llewelyn-Davies Hong Kong Limited and the Planning Department (“PlanD”) had submitted written responses before the meeting. Members could refer to Papers 83/17 and 84/17.

23. Mr Paul LEE responded as follows: (i) Lai Fat Street was situated in the composite development area and therefore the street could also be developed when the composite development project was carried out; (ii) after Lai Fat Street was cancelled, vehicles would change to go to Sham Mong Road and Tung Chau Street. Although the developer had briefly estimated the project’s impact on the traffic flow, TD still requested the developer to consider the traffic flow in the whole area and provided a more comprehensive estimate; (iii) TD had requested the developer to provide the parking spaces needed by the composite development project in accordance with the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines; (iv) regarding the distance between the development project and the MTR station, there was a difference between TD’s measurement and the developer’s. The Department had requested the developer to clarify its measurement method; (v) the developer needed to provide public parking spaces for goods vehicles in the development project. As for provision of public parking spaces for other types of vehicles, the Department had to discuss it with the developer; - 7 - Action by

(vi) TD would study the provision of appropriate road markings to improve the speeding problem in the West Kowloon Corridor.

24. Mr AU YEUNG Chung-ching responded as follows: (i) the Police received eight complaints of illegal car racing in the West Kowloon Corridor between January and June 2017; (ii) the Police conducted 51 anti-speeding operations in the West Kowloon Corridor between January and June 2017 and detected 259 speeding vehicles. The Police would step up enforcement actions in the West Kowloon Corridor.

25. Mr YUEN Man-hoi raised the following views and enquiries: (i) illegal car racing in the West Kowloon Corridor was serious and the provision of road markings could not solve the problem. He requested TD to consider the provision of speed enforcement cameras to achieve a deterrent effect; (ii) the noise pollution from the vehicles on Lai Chi Kok Bridge was serious. It was not advisable for the windows of the flats in the development project to face the bridge; (iii) he enquired how many parking spaces TD would request the developer to provide; (iv) TD needed to request the developer to accurately measure the distance between the development project and the MTR station in order to assess the demand for parking spaces.

26. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) after the warehouse was converted to residential premises, the demand for goods vehicle parking spaces would drop while the demand for public car parks would rise; (ii) citizens could park their cars in the new car park and then change to take MTR; (iii) the development project should take into consideration the population growth in the reclamation area in Sham Shui Po instead of the population change in the whole SSP District. Many buildings in SSP District would be demolished due to redevelopment, causing a temporary drop in the population. However, many new projects would be completed in the reclamation area, causing an increase in the population there. Therefore, the estimate would be inaccurate if the population change of the whole SSP District was taken into consideration; (iv) keeping Lai Fat Street would help ease the traffic.

27. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG said that he hoped TD and PlanD would focus on the overall planning of SSP District, e.g. population growth, pedestrian and traffic network, noise control and open space, etc. in the district, when vetting this application so that the ancillary facilities in the district could meet the demands.

28. Mr YEUNG Yuk said that the population in the reclamation area in Sham Shui Po would rise in the future for sure. If the developer was not asked to provide sufficient parking spaces, there would be serious illegal parking problem in the reclamation area causing obstruction to traffic in the future.

29. Mr Paul LEE responded as follows: (i) noise control was not under the purview of TD. - 8 - Action by

The developer would probably include traffic noise as one of the considerations in the project design and submit the assessment report concerned to the Environmental Protection Department for vetting; (ii) TD had requested the developer to provide the parking spaces needed by the development project in accordance with the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines. However, the number of parking spaces could not be calculated until the number of flats in the project was confirmed; (iii) TD would request the developer to clarify how to measure the distance between the project and the MTR station; (iv) TD would vet the traffic impact assessment report submitted by the developer, which included the impact caused by the closure of Lai Fat Street; (v) TD would approach PlanD to see whether data on the population in the reclamation area in Sham Shui Po could be obtained for internal reference; (vi) if the construction of facilities such as a footbridge was proposed in the development project, TD would discuss it with the developer.

30. Mr AU YEUNG Chung-Ching responded that the Police would pay attention to the illegal parking near the development project and take appropriate action.

31. Mr YUEN Man-hoi raised the following views: (i) he requested TD to examine the traffic impact assessment reports of the developer and the Government to see whether the same assessment method was used; (ii) he requested PlanD and TD to provide professional advice on the development project and the Sham Shui Po District Office (“SSPDO”) should reflect citizens’ views on the development project; (iii) he requested TD to consider the provision of cover for the pedestrian walkway between this development and the Sparkle so that residents could avoid the sunshine and rain.

32. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) TD should carefully examine the traffic impact assessment report provided by the developer; (ii) she hoped that the Committee would continue to follow up on this issue at future meetings.

33. Mr Paul LEE responded as follows: (i) TD had been handling the traffic assessment of this development professionally, and had requested the developer to consider the traffic flow in the whole district and conduct a more comprehensive traffic assessment.

34. The Chairman concluded that the Committee was concerned about the impact of the above housing development proposal on traffic flow, number of parking spaces and traffic noise. It was hoped that the government departments concerned could vet the application cautiously.

35. Mr YUEN Hoi-man enquired whether SSPDO would reflect the views of the Committee on this development to PlanD.

36. Ms Kelly MAN responded that if further information about this project was provided - 9 - Action by to the relevant departments for consideration and provision of views, SSPDO would then reflect the views of the Committee.

37. Mr YAN Kai-wing introduced Paper 73/17.

38. The Chairman said that the Water Supplies Department and the Drainage Services Department had submitted written responses before the meeting. Members could refer to Papers 78/17 and 79/17.

39. Mr Paul LEE responded as follows: (i) TD had designated a no-stopping area (from 7 a.m. to 12 midnight) in Wai Lun Street and installed railings at the junction to protect the safety of pedestrians; (ii) as space should be provided in the vicinity of the public light bus stand for the access of public light buses, and the location concerned was the exit point of the emergency vehicular access of the housing estate nearby, no railings could be provided there. The Department would study the provision of notice boards at that location to remind the pedestrians not to cross the road there.

40. Mr AU YEUNG Chung-ching responded that (i) there were two traffic accidents in Wai Lun Street between January and June 2017. One case involved injuries and the other one involved property damage only; (ii) during that period, the Police issued a total of 119 fixed penalty tickets in Wai Lun Street; (iii) the Police would step up enforcement actions against heavy vehicles parked illegally at that location.

41. Mr YAN Kai-wing suggested that the Police should send police officers to patrol Wai Lun Street to step up the efforts against illegal parking.

42. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong said that the shops in Shun Ning Road, Po On Road and Fuk Wing Street often left goods on the roads, causing danger easily. There was one fatal traffic accident in Shun Ning Road some time earlier because of this. He suggested that TD should improve the road design of the above roads and asked the Police to step up enforcement actions. He also enquired about TD’s progress on improving road design.

43. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu suggested that TD should consider the provision of a pedestrian crossing in Wai Lun Street. He said that a pedestrian crossing could make the vehicles move slowly. Moreover, in order not to cause obstruction to other vehicles, drivers would probably not park illegally nearby if the road became narrower. The probability of accidents would - 10 - Action by then be reduced.

44. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG said that the Police should continue to take enforcement action at the black spots of illegal parking to change the bad habits of road users and ensure traffic safety.

45. Mr Paul LEE responded as follows: (i) TD would study whether a pedestrian crossing could be provided in Wai Lun Street; (ii) TD had implemented various traffic management measures in Wai Lun Street. Currently, TD could only improve the situation through the provision of notice boards; (iii) TD would follow up on the illegal parking problem in Shun Ning Road, Po On Road and Fuk Wing Street.

46. Mr AU YEUNG Chung-ching responded as follows: (i) the Police would step up enforcement actions in Wai Lun Street and promote the message of road safety to pedestrians; (ii) on the suggestion that the Police should send police officers to patrol Wai Lun Street, he would discuss the arrangements concerned with the divisional police station.

47. The Chairman concluded that the Committee was concerned about the illegal parking problem in Wai Lun Street. The Committee requested TD to improve the road design at that location and the Police to step up patrols and enforcement actions to protect the safety of the pedestrians.

(d) Replacement of the cover of the footbridge at Ching Lai Court to solve water leakage problem (TAC Paper 74/17)

48. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG introduced Paper 74/17.

49. Mr. CHANG Yiu-wa responded as follows: (i) the construction cost of replacing the cover at the above location was about $400,000; (ii) it was more suitable to carry out the works in the dry season because rainy days would affect the progress of the works; (iii) it was expected that the works would take about two months and be completed in February 2018; (iv) steel plates protected by galvanised coating would be used for the works instead of plastic plates.

50. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following enquiries: (i) whether the residents’ access would be affected during the construction; (ii) how many years the new cover was expected to be in use for.

51. Mr Joshua LI raised the following enquiries: (i) he requested HyD to replace the - 11 - Action by cover of the footbridge at the above location in 2015 but the Department said that it was not appropriate to replace the cover at the time. He enquired about the reason for carrying out the works now; (ii) the cover of the footbridge had been repaired but there was still water leaking afterwards. He enquired what materials were used by the Department for the repair; (iii) the drainage outlets at the cover of the footbridge were often blocked by wilted leaves. Overflowing happened when too much water accumulated. The relevant department should sweep away the wilted leaves more often; (iv) he enquired how many years the cover was expected to be in use for; (v) he enquired whether it was necessary to close the whole footbridge or part of it for the works.

52. Mr YAN Kai-wing enquired how the design of the new cover could prevent water leakage.

53. Ms NG Yuet-lan enquired whether the new cover would use a different design to prevent the water leakage problem at the old cover from occurring.

54. Mr CHANG Yiu-wa responded as follows: (i) during the construction, the footbridge would be closed partially in stages only and the residents’ access would not be affected; (ii) it was expected that the new cover would be in use for 15 to 20 years; (iii) he would ask the section of HyD concerned why the cover was not replaced in 2015; (iv) only the cover would be replaced in this works. As the supporting frame of the cover would continue to be used, the overall design would remain unchanged; (v) the Department would study if it could deal with the drainage system problem when replacing the cover.

55. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views: (i) the pedestrian flow on the footbridge concerned was very high and the pedestrians included many elderly people and wheelchair users. He requested HyD to take care of the pedestrians’ needs when arranging the works; (ii) he requested HyD to pay attention to the design of the cover of the footbridge to prevent water leakage, which would endanger the safety of the users.

56. Mr Joshua LI raised the following views and enquiries: (i) to prevent water continuing to accumulate on the cover of the footbridge, he suggested that its flat top design should be changed to slanting design; (ii) he enquired if the footbridge would be closed partially during the construction.

57. Mr CHANG Yiu-wa responded as follows: (i) he would asked the section in charge of the works to consider members’ views on the design of the cover of the footbridge; (ii) the Department would implement safety measures during the construction and would arrange a pedestrian passage to facilitate the citizens’ movement across the footbridge, with a view to - 12 - Action by reducing the impact on the citizens by the works.

58. The Chairman concluded that the Committee was concerned about the water leakage problem at the cover of the footbridge at Ching Lai Court, and requested HyD to consider members’ views on the works and complete the works as soon as possible.

Agenda Item 3: Follow-up Matters

(a) List of follow up actions for matters of discussion at TAC meeting (TAC Paper 75/17)

59. The Chairman said that members expressed their views on the cancellation of KMB route No. 212 at the continued meeting of the ninth meeting and requested TD and KMB to respond at this meeting. He invited TD and KMB to respond.

60. Mr Louis LAU responded as follows: (i) after the continued meeting of the ninth meeting, KMB contacted the members who objected to the cancellation of route No. 212. Explanation was given to them about the alternative options after the cancellation of the route, which included the option of taking route No. 18 and then changing to route No. 2E or route No. 7 with the interchange fares not higher than the fares for the original route No. 212. If Octopus Card was used to take route No. 30X to Queen Elizabeth Hospital, a rebate of $3.8 would be given at the fare saver machine at the 7-11 convenience store in the hospital; (ii) TD understood that some members hoped that route No. 6F would be changed to travel via Sham Mong Road and Yen Chow Street. However, as route No. 6F would not travel past the bus stop outside Lai Lo House of Lai Kok Estate if such change was made, KMB needed further consideration. They would seek members’ views on this proposal again in the Bus Route Planning Programme 2018-2019; (iii) KMB was positively considering interchange concession for route Nos. 6F and 18 going to the direction of Kowloon City.

61. Mr LEE Hong-ling responded as follows: (i) after the opening of the MTR Kwun Tong Line Extension, the patronage of route No. 212 dropped significantly. During peak hours, the average patronage was only 19.5% so KMB decided to cancel route No. 212; (ii) to facilitate passengers’ travelling between Sham Shui Po and Queen Elizabeth Hospital after the cancellation of route No. 212, KMB provided interchange combinations including routes Nos. 2E, 18 and 7 and such arrangements could satisfy the passengers’ demands in general; (iii) KMB would study the route change proposal of route No. 6F and would continue to listen to members’ views to improve service.

62. Mr WAI Woon-nam asked TD and KMB to explain each alternative proposal for route No. 212 clearly. - 13 - Action by

63. Mr Louis LAU responded as follows: (i) in mid-February and mid-March 2017, TD conducted a survey of the patronage of route No. 212. It was found that the patronage of that route in the busiest one hour was only 19.5% and the highest patronage was 19.6% only, meeting the criteria for route cancellation; (ii) after the cancellation of route No. 212, TD and KMB would proactively follow up on members’ views, including considering submission of the proposal to change route No. 6F to travel via Sham Mong Road and Yen Chow Street in the Bus Route Planning Programme 2018-2019, and the provision of interchange concession for route Nos. 6F and 18 going to the direction of Kowloon City for members’ consideration; (iii) after the cancellation of route No. 212, TD received seven complaints and was handling them.

64. Mr Wai Woon-nam enquired whether the seven complaints received by TD included members’ complaints.

65. Mr Louis LAU responded that the seven complaints were received by the Transport Complaints Unit of TD and 1823 and did not include members’ complaints.

66. Mr CHUM Tak-shing said that route No. 6F would not travel past the bus stop outside Lai Lo House of Lai Kok Estate after the route change so it was opposed by the residents of Lai Kok Estate and the Member of the constituency concerned. Even if TD arranged to seek members’ view on this proposal in the Bus Route Planning Programme 2018-2019, the situation would not change. He suspected that TD only wanted to drag its feet so that the voice against the cancellation of route No. 212 would become less gradually.

67. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong suggested that there should be special trips of route No. 6F travelling via Sham Mong Road and Yen Chow Street to satisfy the demands of the passengers of both route No. 6F and the original route No. 212.

68. Mr CHAN Wai-ming said that TD should study different alternative proposals for route No. 212 and obtained the relevant data to reduce the negative impact on passengers by the alternative proposals.

69. Ms Joephy CHAN objected to route No. 6F changing to travel via Sham Mong Road and Yen Chow Street because it would not travel past the bus stop outside Lai Lo House of Lai Kok Estate then, causing inconvenience to the residents in the vicinity of Lai Kok Estate. Moreover, the travel time of the original route No. 6F was 59 minutes. The route change would make the travel time longer, thus reducing the attractiveness of the route.

- 14 - Action by

70. Mr YEUNG Yuk said that route No. 6F changing to travel via Sham Mong Road and Yen Chow Street was a feasible alternative proposal. However, TD needed to collect the relevant data to analyse the impact of the proposal on the residents before deciding whether the proposal was feasible and whether it was necessary to increase the frequency of the new route.

71. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that TD and KMB should study the proposal of route No. 6F changing to travel via Sham Mong Road and Yen Chow Street and report on the finding at the next meeting of the Committee. They should not delay handling the matter until the next year’s Bus Route Planning Programme.

72. Mr LEE Wing-man said that the Committee had objected to the cancellation of route No. 212 earlier but TD did not listen, which reflected that the Department did not take members’ views seriously. Further discussions would be useless.

73. Ms LAU Pui-yuk said that TD should carefully examine the proposal of route No. 6F changing to travel via Sham Mong Street and Yen Chow Street, including the frequency and travel time, to avoid causing inconvenience to the residents in the vicinity of Lai Kok Estate.

74. Mr CHUM Tak-shing said that TD and KMB should collect data and conduct a survey regarding the proposal of route No. 6F changing to travel via Sham Mong Road and Yen Chow Street in order to assess the proposal’s impact, and report on the finding at the next meeting of the Committee instead of delaying handling the matter until next year.

75. Mr Joshua LI raised the following views: (i) he suggested using some buses of the original route No. 212 to increase the frequency of route No. 6F; (ii) TD and KMB should not delay handling the alternative proposals for route No. 212 until next year; (iii) the Committee had objected to the cancellation of route No. 212 earlier but TD and KMB did not listen and ignore the views of the Committee; (iv) KMB advising passengers to take the MTR instead was an act of no self-respect.

76. Mr YAN Kai-wing raised the following views: (i) KMB made a lot of profit and should not cancel routes easily as it would cause inconvenience to passengers; (ii) route No. 212 travelled through the new development project which would be completed soon so there would be more potential passengers. Therefore, the route should not be cancelled.

77. Mr LAU Kin-shing raised the following views: (i) many passengers objected to the cancellation of route No. 212, especially the elderly passengers who needed to go to Queen Elizabeth Hospital by route No. 212; (ii) although the passengers who took route No. 30X to - 15 - Action by go to Queen Elizabeth Hospital would get a fare rebate, many passengers did not understand the arrangement concerned. KMB should enhance publicity in this respect; (iii) TD and KMB should not delay reviewing the arrangements of the alternative proposals until next year.

78. Mr Louis LAU responded as follows: (i) according to the guidelines of TD, for any bus route which ran every 15 minutes during peak hours and every 30 minutes during non-peak hours, if its patronage during the busiest one hour kept falling below 50%, it would meet the criteria for route cancellation; (ii) TD and KMB would study the proposal of route No. 6F changing to travel via Sham Mong Road and Yen Chow Street, and would collect the data on the travel time and the passengers affected before reporting to the Committee again.

79. Mr LEE Fong-ling responded as follows: (i) KMB would positively consider members’ views and hold discussion with TD about feasible arrangements; (ii) KMB would study the proposal of route 6F changing to travel via Sham Mong Road and Yen Chow Street and consult the residents and members in due course.

80. The Chairman concluded that: (i) the Committee had all along objected to the cancellation of route No. 212 and TD should listen to the views of the Committee; (ii) TD and KMB were requested to study members’ proposals and try to find ways to solve the problems caused by the cancellation of route No. 212.

81. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he had submitted papers twice requesting the provision of a footbridge outside Dragon Centre but TD did not give a positive response and only said that they were drawing plans for the pedestrian crossing in Yen Chow Street outside Dragon Centre; (ii) he enquired which department was responsible for the provision of footbridge at the above location.

82. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he enquired about the progress on the public consultation regarding the crossing facilities for crossing Po On Road at So Uk Estate Service Building and when TD would provide the crossing facilities; (ii) the situation of pedestrians crossing the road at the above location was not satisfactory. He requested the Police to step up enforcement actions.

83. Mr KONG Kwai-sang enquired when the works of So Uk Estate bus terminus commenced.

84. Mr CHUM Tak-shing suggested that after providing crossing facilities in Po On Road near So Uk Estate Service Building, TD should also provide railings nearby to guide the pedestrians to use the crossing facilities. - 16 - Action by

85. Ms LAU Pui-yuk enquired about the exact location of the works for widening the pedestrian crossing in Yen Chow Street outside Dragon Centre.

86. Mr Paul LEE responded as follows: (i) it was not feasible to build a footbridge outside Dragon Centre. TD would widen the pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Yu Chau Street and Ki Lung Street and consider adjusting the traffic lights to lengthen the crossing time so that pedestrians could cross the road more easily; (ii) TD would cautiously consider the width and location of the pedestrian crossing in Po On Road, and provide railings nearby to guide the pedestrians to use the pedestrian crossing; (iii) TD had received the views of the schools nearby on the works of So Uk Estate bus terminus earlier and was following up on this matter. If the consultation conducted by SSPDO showed that nobody objected to the works, a works order would be issued to HyD.

(b) Project items and schedules of district traffic improvement works completed, under construction or under planning within the past two months by Transport Department / Highways Department (as at 12 July 2017) (TAC Paper 76/17)

87. Mr WAI Woon-nam enquired about the progress on the traffic lane widening works at the cul-de-sac of Cheong San Lane.

88. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG enquired how long the road had to be closed for the works for providing signalised pedestrian crossing facilities in the slip road of Cheung Sha Wan Road going up Castle Peak Road, and whether the traffic light at the pedestrian crossing facilities would not turn green until pedestrians pressed the button.

89. Mr CHANG Yiu-wa responded as follows: (i) the traffic lane widening works at the cul-de-sac of Cheong San Lane would commence in August 2017 and the completion was expected to be in October 2017; (ii) regarding the works for providing signalised pedestrian crossing facilities in the slip road of Cheung Sha Wan Road going up Castle Peak Road, the contractor would decide the road closure time depending on the progress of the works. Completion of the works was expected to be in August 2017.

90. Mr Paul LEE responded that the traffic light at the said signalised pedestrian crossing facilities would not turn green until pedestrians pressed the button.

Agenda Item 4: Report from Working Group under the Committee

(a) Report from the Working Group on Public Transport Services (TAC Paper 77/17) - 17 - Action by

91. The Committee noted and endorsed the above report.

Agenda Item 5: Any other business

92. Mr KONG Kwai-sang said that there was a fatal traffic accident at the intersection of Shun Ning Road and Fat Tseung Street on 18 July 2017. The Committee had said earlier that there were miscellaneous items in the road section, which would cause accidents easily. Shortly afterwards, there was an accident. He requested the department concerned to formulate a long-term proposal and the Police should step up enforcement actions to improve the road safety of the section.

93. Mr CHUM Tak-shing said that there was also a fatal traffic accident involving a speeding public light bus in Shun Ning Road last year. He requested the Police to step up enforcement actions in the road section.

94. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG said that vehicles for transporting staff were often found to be parked illegally and without switching off the engine in Mei Lai Road in the morning, causing air and noise pollution. TD should try to reduce the problem and the Police should step up enforcement actions.

95. The Chairman requested TD and the Police to take follow-up action on the views put forward by members.

96. Ms NG Yuet-lan said that she requested TD to consider the provision of parking spaces in Shun Ning Road to improve the road safety of the section.

Agenda Item 6: Date of next meeting

97. The next meeting would be held at 9:30 a.m. on 12 October 2017 (Thursday).

98. The meeting ended at 12:40 p.m.

District Council Secretariat Sham Shui Po District Office September 2017