The 11th Meeting of the Traffic and Transport Committee (TTC) of the City District Council

Date : 13 July 2017 (Thursday) Time : 2:30 p.m. Venue : Conference Room, District Office

Present: Chairman: Mr LUK King-kwong Vice-chairman: Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming Members: The Hon LEE Wai-king, Starry, SBS, JP (Arrived at 3:05 p.m.) (left at 3:52 p.m.) Mr SIU Leong-sing (Left at 4:12 p.m.) Mr LAM Tak-shing Dr KWONG Po-yin Mr YUE Chee-wing, Admond Mr NG Po-keung (Arrived at 2:55 p.m.) Mr LAI Kwong-wai (Arrived at 3:05 p.m.) Ir CHEUNG Yan-hong, MH Mr KWAN Ho-yeung, Roger Mr LO Chiu-kit (Arrived at 2:45 p.m.) (Left at 4:25 p.m.) Mr YEUNG Chun-yu, Ronald Mr HO Hin-ming, BBS, MH Mr CHO Wui-hung Dr the Hon LEUNG Mei-fun, Priscilla, (Arrived at 4:42 p.m.) SBS, JP Mr NG Fan-kam, Tony Mr PUN Kwok-wah, JP Mr SIU Tin-hung, Terence Mr LAM Pok, Jimmy (Arrived at 5:25 p.m.) Mr YANG Wing-kit Mr HE Huahan Miss LEUNG Yuen-ting Mr TING Kin-wa (Arrived at 2:48 p.m.)

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

In Attendance: Mr IP Wai-kwong, Eddie Senior Executive Officer (District Council) (Atg), Kowloon City District Office Mr WONG Yee-kui Senior Transport Officer/Kowloon City, Transport Department Mr CHEUNG Chi-wa Engineer/Kowloon City, Transport Department Ms LEE Wing-chee, Joyce Engineer/, Transport Department Mr PO Yiu-wa Office-in-charge, Traffic Team (Kowloon City District), Police Force Mr HO Chi-kin Office-in-charge, Traffic Team (Sau Mau Ping District), Hong Kong Police Force Mr TAM Ho-chuen District Engineer/Hung Hom, Highways Department Mr CHUNG Siu-man District Engineer/ Kowloon City & , Highways Department

Attendance by Invitation: Item 2 & 4 Ms Lilian YEUNG Public Relations Manager – External Affairs, MTR Corporation Limited

Item 5 Miss SZE Suk-wai, Muriel Senior Transport Officer/Bus Restructuring and Projects, Transport Department Mr LEUNG Wang-cheong Principal Operations Officer, The Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited

Mr Luka LAI Planning & Development Officer, The Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited

Item 6 Mr LEUNG Wang-cheong Principal Operations Officer, The Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited Mr Luka LAI Planning & Development Officer, The Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited

＊ ＊ ＊

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

2. The Chairman said that Miss Tanna CHONG, Assistant District Officer of the Kowloon City District was unable to attend the meeting due to other duty commitment, and Mr Eddie IP of the Kowloon City District Office (KCDO) was in attendance on her behalf.

Confirmation of Minutes of Last Meeting

3. The minutes of the 10th meeting were unanimously confirmed without amendment by the Committee.

Matters Arising

Request for Installing Self-service Machines for Fare Discount at Area Request for Installing Self-service Machines for Fare Discount at Areas near Lok Man Sun Chuen, Chatham Gate, Full Wing Building and The Laguna Mall (Paper Nos. 45/17, 52/17)

4. The Chairman said that as agenda item 2 of matters arising and new agenda item 4 were both related to installing MTR fare savers, it was suitable for them to be discussed together so that the meeting could be conducted smoothly. Members at the meeting agreed that the two items should be discussed together.

5. Ms Lilian YEUNG, Public Relations Manager – External Affairs of the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) reported to the meeting the most recent situation of Members’ requesting the installation of fare savers at Kai Tak area. She said that new MTR Station and various community amenities would be installed in Kai Tak area in the future. At the current stage, Choi Hung Station was the nearest MTR Station for Kai Tak, which exceeded the distance standard for installing fare savers. However, with the development of Kai Tak area, the marketing department of MTRCL would closely monitor locations suitable for the installation of fare savers in the area.

6. Mr Jimmy LAM introduced Paper No. 52/17.

7. Mr Admond YUE opined that the opening of the Kwun Tong Line Extension (KTE) had been delayed for two years and residents of The Laguna Mall were affected. Thus he hoped that MTRCL would follow sound advice and install fare savers at The Laguna Mall to compensate residents affected. If necessary, he would be pleased to conduct an on-site inspection with representatives of MTRCL at The Laguna Mall to see if it was suitable for the installation of fare savers.

8. Mr HE Huahan’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) he was disappointed with MTRCL’s reply and he was not satisfied that MTRCL’s failure to provide information about the distance between fare savers and the nearest MTR Stations;

(b) from the commercial point of view, there were more than 30 000 passengers in Kai Tak area using MTR. He believed that the installation of fare savers would increase MTRCL’s profits. As a major public enterprise, MTRCL should fulfill its social responsibility and share fares with Kai Tak residents. He hoped that MTRCL would proactively consider the installation of fare savers at Kai Tak area; and

(c) he welcomed MTRCL to study the installation of fare savers in the district earnestly after the completion of .

9. Mr YANG Wing-kit pointed out that MTRCL replied that it would study the installation of fare savers in Kai Tak area. It did not respond to the installation of fare savers at other locations in the district that Members demanded many times in the past, such as Lok Man Sun Chuen. He hoped that MTRCL would be as pro-active in study the request. And he added that the walking distance from Lok Man Sun Chuen to Station would be approximately the same as walking from Ka Wai Chuen to . As such, he could not comprehend the reason that the shopping mall of Lok Man Sun Chuen not fulfilling the standard of installing fare savers. He hoped to invite the representatives of MTRCL to conduct on-site measurement of the above mentioned locations.

10. Mr CHO Wui-hung said that the transportation of Kai Tak area was not convenient, and MTR was one of the choices. However, the distance of walking to MTR Station was rather long and thus he hoped that MTRCL would install fare savers. And he added that the works of KTE had affected the transportation in the district and residents and shops along the line over the years. At present, the locations of the two fare savers made residents think that MTRCL favoured one more than another. In order to balance the benefits of the district’s residents, he proposed the installation of fare savers beside the entry gates of and Ho Man Tin Station so that residents of both areas could be benefited.

11. Ms Lilian YEUNG of MTRCL made a consolidated reply as follows:

(a) in order to provide convenience to residents and attract more new passengers to take MTR, MTRCL had altogether installed three fare savers after the extension of KTE to Ho Man Tin and Whampoa Station in the previous year;

(b) the purpose of MTRCL’s installing fare savers was to attract residents whose residences were 500 to 600 metres away from MTR Station and encourage them to walk to the nearest MTR Station and turn to the service of MTR. As such, the location of installing fare savers could not be too close to or too far away from MTR Stations and consideration had to be given to whether there was adequate space and electricity supply etc.;

(c) apart from Kai Tak area, MTRCL would also consider the installation of fare savers at other suitable places, including Lok Man Sun Chuen, Chatham Gate, Full Wing Building and The Laguna Mall etc.;

(d) at present, the nearest MTR Station to Kai Tak area was Choi Hung Station, and the nearest MTR Station to Lok Man Sun Chuen was Ho Man Tin Station. The distance of both to MTR Station was far. In the future when new stations in the district were completed, MTRCL would study the new locations of installing fare savers in order to tie in with the completion of new stations and the development of the community; and

(e) she was appreciative of Members’ continuous efforts to provide opinions about the location of fare savers. When the new stations were completed one after another, MTRCL would study in detail locations proposed by Members.

12. Mr Jimmy LAM said that the works of Station and Station were delayed once and again. At present, residents could only use Ho Man Tin Station or Whampoa Station and it was rather inconvenient. Thus it was hoped that MTRCL would install fare savers at To Kwa Wan to compensate residents of the area.

13. Mr NG Fan-kam appreciated MTRCL for installing fare savers at Oi Man Estate and Ho Man Tin Estate recently. However, he hoped that MTRCL would move the fare savers from the second floor to the ground floor to provide convenience to residents.

14. Ir CHEUNG Yan-hong opined that installing fare savers was a commercial decision, and MTRCL did not only consider about the distance. He proposed that Members should try to request bus companies to set up fare savers for suitable routes so as to enhance their competitive power with MTRCL. In addition, he was disappointed that MTRCL did not install fare savers in Kai Tak area. He opined that MTR was not the only means of public transport, and bus companies had also begun to provide fare savers to enhance competitiveness. He hoped that MTRCL would comply with residents’ opinions to install fare savers in Kai Tak area.

15. The Chairman hoped that MTRCL would provide a concrete reply in respect of the conditions that had to be met in installing fare savers. He also requested MTRCL to prudently consider the locations proposed by Members.

16. Ms Lilian YEUNG of MTRCL made a consolidated reply as follows:

(a) MTR fare savers were installed simply for business promotion. It was hoped that by installing fare savers, more passengers would be attracted to take MTR. Thus the selection of locations were premised on the source of passengers;

(b) MTRCL appreciated Members’ proposal of the locations for setting up fare savers. In implementing other promotional schemes, MTRCL would take into account Members’ opinions so as to tie in with the overall development of the district in the future;

(c) in providing locations for installing fare savers, owners of the shopping malls would take into account factors such as pedestrian flow and settings of the mall. MTRCL had to tie in with owners’ arrangements in management and operation;

(d) MTRCL would be pleased to conduct an on-site inspection with Members concerned.

17. The Chairman hoped that MTRCL would be pragmatic and try to meet the needs of the district. It should proactively consider the installation of fare savers at Kai Tak area, Lok Man Sun Chuen, Chatham Gate, Full Wing Building and The Laguna Mall.

Request for Adjusting the Traffic Light Signals at Sheung Shing Street to Ease the Traffic Pressure on Shek Ku Street Uphill to Sheung Shing Lane and Right Turn to Sheung Shing Street (Paper No. 48/17)

18. Mr CHEUNG Chi-wa, Engineer (Kowloon City) of the Transport Department (TD) reported on the progress of the matters arising. He said that the Department had completed a traffic investigation and study, and found that if vehicles were allowed to travel from Shek Ku Street uphill to Sheung Shing Lane and turn right into Sheung Shing Street, traffic light control of the relevant junction had to be adjusted and the capacity of the whole junction would vastly decrease. Thus he had reservation about the proposal.

19. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming was disappointed with the response of TD. In addition, he earlier found that a vehicle illegally turned uphill into Sheung Shing Lane. A policeman who was issuing fixed penalty tickets there did not notice the transgressed vehicle. He hoped that TD or the Police would take appropriate measures to prevent the same from happening again in order to avoid traffic accidents.

20. Mr YANG Wing-kit said that although TD had reservations about Members’ proposal, he hoped that it could provide an alternative proposal to ease the pressure of traffic at the location.

21. The Chairman asked TD if it could provide other options for improvement after rejecting Members’ proposals.

22. Mr CHEUNG Chi-wa of TD responded that the Department would conduct a review of the traffic signs and traffic signals of the junction so as to remind drivers that only left turn was allowed at the location, but not straight ahead and a right turn. In addition, the Department would request the Police to step up law enforcement.

23. Mr YANG Wing-kit said that he would review the effectiveness of the above measures. If they were not effective, he would continue to submit papers until improvement was made.

New Items

Strong Request for Increasing the Frequency of Bus Route No. 5M and Improving Bus Stop Facilities (Paper No. 53/17)

24. Mr HE Huahan introduced Paper No. 53/17.

25. Mr LEUNG Wang-cheong, Principal Operation Officer of the Kowloon Motors Bus Co. (1933) Ltd. (KMB) briefly introduced document no. 2 on the table. He also amended that the battery charging and shelter works of the bus terminus concerned would be completed in September this year.

26. Miss Muriel SZE, Senior Transport Officer/Bus Restructuring & Projects of TD briefly introduced document no. 1 on the table. He also supplemented that the Department was following up on the situation of the relevant bus shelter works with the Environmental Protection Department (EPD), Members concerned and KMB. EPD estimated that all installation works would be completed in September this year.

27. Mr HE Huahan’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) during peak hours, KMB route no. 5M could provide double-decker bus service only occasionally. Passengers at Amoy Plaza stop had to wait for the next bus to board because buses were full. He was skeptical of the accuracy of the maximum carrying ratio of 80% during peak hours, and hoped that double-decker buses would be deployed to operate on the route during peak hours; and

(b) he pointed out that the rainy season from July to August and the temporary shelter was only one metre wide. He hoped that the shelter works could be completed within July, so that residents would not be exposed to rain.

28. Mr LEUNG Wang-cheong of KMB noted the requests from Members and said the company would strive to complete the shelter works before the rainy season. In addition, KMB would as far as possible arrange double-decker buses to run on its route no. 5M.

29. Miss Muriel SZE of TD responded that the Department noted the opinions of Members and would continue to follow up.

Strong Request for Extending Bus Route No. 5A to Kai Tak Development Area (Paper No 54/17)

30. Mr HE Huahan introduced Paper No. 54/17.

31. Mr WONG Yee-kui, Senior Transport Officer of TD briefly introduced document no. 3 on the table.

32. Mr LEUNG Wang-cheong of KMB briefly introduced document no. 4 on the table.

33. Mr HE Huahan’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) if the number of passengers rose, KMB would naturally increase bus frequencies. At present, 40 000 people lived in Kai Tak area. One Kai Tak would take in occupants in October whereas four other major housing estates would also take in occupants one after another. The population of the area would increase to 50 000. As such, he hoped that KMB would increase the frequencies of route no. 5A to tie in with the increase in population; and

(b) he opined that TD and KMB did not take into account the needs of Kai Tak residents, nor did they resolve the issue holistically. He requested the redeployment of resources of KMB special route no. 224X to KMB route no. 5A, and that the current last stop of KMB route no. 5A at Ma Tau Wai be moved to Kai Tak area, and that sectional fares be introduced to resolve the issue of fares. He urged TD to proactively consider the above mentioned proposal in its Public Transport Re-organisation Plan of the following year.

34. Mr Roger KWAN believed that the provision of KMB special route no. 224X was to meet the demand of Kai Tak residents. However, there was only one trip per day and the effect was expected to be limited. As such, he advised that TD and KMB should adopt the proposal of redeployment of resources raised by Mr HE Huahan.

35. Mr Terence SIU’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) in considering the extension of KMB route no 5A, TD and KMB mainly took bus fares and vehicle mileage as deciding factors and he was disappointed at it. He opined that in handling the matter of fare increase, TD did not take into account the feelings of Members and members of the public;

(b) he supported Mr HE Huahan’s proposal to extend the route of KMB bus no 5A; and

(c) he hoped that TD would understand that at present the transport ancillary facilities of and Tak Long Estate needed improvement and that Tsim Sha Tsui was a hot spot for entertainment. If there were buses travelling between Kai Tak and Tsim Sha Tsui, he believed that the passenger volume would be high. He hoped that KMB would actively consider the proposal.

36. Miss LEUNG Yuen-ting opined that TD did not respond to the demand of Kai Tak residents for arranging KMB route no. 224X entering Kai Tak, and she pointed out that not all residents took a bus in the morning. In addition, KMB route no. 5A could not provide sectional fares and the walking distance from Hung Hom to Tsim Sha Tsui was long. She thus proposed the establishment of a new bus route travelling between Kai Tak and Tsim Sha Tsui. She hoped that TD would formulate a long term plan to settle the problem for the public.

37. Mr WONG Yee-kui of TD responded that the Department had tried to adjust the alignment of KMB route no. 224X. The proposal was that the bus would depart from Kai Yip and then travel via Kai Tak first. However, as there were issues about the stops, the proposal was objected by Members of the area and finally vetoed. In addition, with regard to redeploying the resources for KMB special route no. 224X to KMB route no. 5A, he said that as there was only one vehicle/trip on the special route per day, the redeployment of resources to route no. 5A would not be very helpful. The Department would discuss other options with the bus company and take into consideration the relevant opinions in the Bus Route Development Programme of the following year.

38. Mr LEUNG Wang–cheong of KMB noted Members’ request for establishing a regular bus service between Tsim Sha Tsui and Kai Tak. However, due to the consideration of resources, only one special trip departing in the morning could be provided at the current stage. As for long term options, KMB would discuss with KMB about the relevant development programme again.

39. The Chairman said that for a bus route that had been discussed for over four years, there was certainly a demand for it. What mattered was whether KMB was willing to resolve the issue practically.

Motion: Transport Department is Hegemonic and Disrespectful to Public Opinions and the Council in the Hasty Cancellation of Bus Route No. 212 (Paper No. 55/17)

40. Mr LAM Tak-shing introduced Paper No. 55/17.

41. Mr NG Po-keung’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) in the previous discussion of the Public Transport Re-organization Plan related to KTE, the consensus of the Committee was that any adjustment of bus routes had to consult the District Council (DC) before its implementation;

(b) in the previous discussion, all Members expressed the hope to retain KMB route no. 212. Thus the present abolition of the route was a practice disrespectful of Members;

(c) with the development of railway network in the district, he believed that there would be a greater need for the re-organization of bus routes in the future. He hoped that TD would pledge that it would not handle matters with a similar approach in the future; and

(d) as the department responsible for supervising bus companies, TD should consult DC and residents before making changes to any bus routes.

42. The Hon Starry LEE’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) she was not satisfied that TD cancelled KMB route no. 212 without consulting DC or gaining agreement or consensus of DC;

(b) she worried that in the future TD would implement other policies without prior discussion by DC, making DC fail to serve its function;

(c) if the date of TTC meetings could not tie in with the date of implementing a policy, she proposed that the Department should seek a solution with the Chairman, or consult DC by circulating documents; and

(d) she appreciated TD’s willingness to listen to Members’ opinions in installing fare savers. She proposed that TD should continue to follow sound advice and adjust the locations of fare savers so that more members of the public could be benefited.

43. Mr Admond YUE said that by informing Members the cancellation of KMB route no. 212 via email, TD deprived Members, who acted as a bridge between the Government and the community, of their chance of speaking for residents. The practice was hasty and TD was urged to furnish an explanation.

44. Mr YANG Wing-kit’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) he was not satisfied with TD for cancelling KMB route no. 212 hastily without consulting DC. He opined that TD did not respect DC; and

(b) he hoped that TD would not handle the re-organisation of bus service after the opening of the Shatin to Central Link in the same manner. He requested that letter be sent to the Commissioner for Transport to express the expectation of DC.

45. Dr KWONG Po-yin’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) she hoped that in the future, TD would not make adjustments to bus routes by simply informing Members through telephone or papers. TD should maintain adequate communication with Members; and

(b) when going to OK Convenience Store from Queen Elizabeth Hospital, one had to walk up a slope and staircases and this was rather tough for patients attending appointments. She thus proposed the installation of fare savers near the bus stop or in other areas of the hospital.

46. Mr TING Kin-wa strongly requested TD to respect DC and understand the needs of residents. He said that there was cancellation of bus routes in the past. The routes were restored after endeavours were made. However, there were missed trips after restoration and passengers’ desire to take the buses diminished. If KMB route no. 212 was to be restored, the service had to be of reasonable level. Or else it would be in vain to restore it.

47. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming said that if KMB opined that certain bus routes could not continue to be operated, TD should conduct open tendering to let bus companies interested to operate the routes. He opined that the existing three bus companies in Hong Kong were all inclined to provide convenience to residents of private buildings. He proposed that the Government should introduce new operators into the market to enhance competition.

48. Mr NG Fan-kam opined that TD should not be partial towards MTRCL and place emphasis on railway service and cancel bus routes. Bus companies should not only consider financial benefits but also its social responsibility and the needs of residents. Bus routes generating more profit should cross-subsidize routes earning less profit. Now that the cancellation of KMB route no. 212 was a fait accompli, he enquired TD how it would make amends.

49. The Chairman said that at the 8th TTC meeting, Members unanimously objected to the cancellation of KMB route no. 212. Since TTC meeting was scheduled to be held on 13 July, he could not comprehend why TD did not submit the relevant proposal to DC, but directly proceeded to cancel the route on 1 July.

50. Mr WONG Yee-kui of TD’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) the relevant staff of TD were aware of Members’ opinions, and thus they had requested KMB to install fare savers. He said that the existing transportation policy in Hong Kong was railway-led. After the opening of the new railway, it could cover locations originally served by KMB route no. 212;

(b) he noted the opinions of Members about the location of fare savers and the Department was diligently studying with KMB about whether it was possible to install fare savers at suitable locations; and

(c) TD was studying Dr KWONG Po-yin’s proposal and whether the bus bay of the cancelled KMB route no. 212 in Whampoa Bus Terminus could be used for extending Airbus A20 or other airport routes from Hung Hom to and then proceed to the Airport via the area of Whampoa.

51. Mr Roger KWAN’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) the cancellation of KMB route no. 212 was not within the scope of work of Mr WONG Yee-kui of TD. It was not appropriate to request Mr WONG to respond;

(b) the title of the Paper was “Transport Department is Hegemonic and Disrespectful to Public Opinions and the Council”. However, the relevant staff of TD still did not attend the meeting. Their actions contradicted with the policy vision of the new Chief Executive. He opined that DC should consider reflecting their opinions to the top level officials of the Government; and

(c) he was appreciative of TD’s willingness to take sound advices by studying the location for installing fare savers.

52. Mr SIU Leong-sing’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) at the 8th TTC meeting, Members raised many opinions about the cancellation of KMB route no. 212. It was hoped that TD could optimize the alternative proposal before the implementation of it. However, TD ignored the opinions of DC and cancelled KMB route no. 212 on 1 July. He enquired about the urgency of cancelling KMB route no. 212 on 1 July, rather than waiting for further consultation of TTC on 13 July.

(b) he appreciated TD’s willingness to accept the opinions of Members and thought that the alternative proposal could be improved;

(c) the bus company should fulfill its corporate responsibility and provide service to passengers who had the need; and

(d) he proposed writing to the Transport and Housing Bureau (THB) and request for an explanation of the matter.

53. Mr LAM Tak-shing’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) he hoped that TD would send representatives responsible for the agenda item to answer Members’ enquiries;

(b) he was skeptical of the urgency of cancelling KMB route no. 212; and

(c) the Department said that it had contacted Members on the issue, but he did not receive any phone call.

54. Dr KWONG Po-yin’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) she understood that Mr WONG of TD should only reply questions about his own work area;

(b) in the future, Kowloon City District would have to face all sorts of issues about re-organization of bus routes. She hoped the staff of TD concerned would explain why they were absent from the meeting; and

(c) she requested that apart from accepting Members’ opinions, TD would, before the implementation of any adjustments, explain relevant arrangements to Members at meetings.

55. Mr Admond YUE opined that the hasty cancellation of KMB route no. 212 only came with shortcomings with no benefit. He learnt that the contractor of minibus route no. 26 had submitted to TD a proposal of replacing KMB route no. 212. He enquired why TD did not study the proposal and submit it to DC to collect Members’ opinions.

56. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming said that the arrangement of cancelling KMB route no. 212 was not satisfactory, and the public was only left with the option of taking expensive alternative bus routes. In addition, he proposed that fare savers be installed at drop-off points. He opined that the installation of fare savers was originally a good policy, but the arrangement was not satisfactory because TD had mishandled the matter. As the department responsible for supervising public transport operators, TD should make strenuous efforts to serve the public.

57. Mr LAI Kwong-wai’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) at the previous discussion of the re-organisation plan related to the opening of KTE, all Members at the meeting objected to the cancellation of KMB route no. 212. He hoped that in the future, TD would consult DC before making any decision;

(b) TD neither sent representatives to respond to Paper No. 55/17, nor submitted any written reply. He hoped that the Department would respect DC and take the issues seriously; and

(c) he enquired TD whether it would cancel other bus routes.

58. Mr NG Po-keung’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) many Members worried that in the future, bus routes would be cancelled without Members’ knowledge of the matter. TD’s cancelled bus route in such a manner that Members would feel difficult to explain to the public, and it also would make DC fail to fulfill the function of supervision;

(b) TD and the bus company had also insisted on cancelling cross harbour route no. 113. However, after negotiation, they decided to adopt a compromising solution of scraping the first and last stops but retaining the route as a whole. He opined that sort of negotiation would be able to reduce contradictions in society; and

(c) he hoped that the Chairman would request TD to make a pledge that the practice used in cancelling KMB route no. 212 would not be used again in the future. Rather, DC had to be formally consulted before any cancellation of bus route was implemented.

59. The Chairman subsequently handled the motion moved in Paper No. 55/17, which read “Transport Department is Hegemonic and Disrespectful to Public Opinions and the Council in the Hasty Cancellation of Bus Route No. 212, and we express our deep regret.” The motion was moved by Mr LAM Tak-shing and seconded by Dr the Hon Priscilla LEUNG. However, as Dr the Hon Priscilla LEUNG was temporarily absent, Mr YANG Wing-kit would second the motion. The Chairman announced that the motion was effective and enquired whether there were any Members who would like to amend the motion. As there was no amendment to the motion, the Chairman proposed that a secret ballot would be conducted by show of hands. The results of voting were as follows:

Yes: 21 No: 0 Abstention: 0

60. The Chairman announced the motion was unanimously adopted, and he proposed that letters be sent to THB in the name of TTC to express Members’ opinions.

61. Mr LO Chiu-kit said that on 14 March 2017, the Secretariat wrote to the Commissioner for Transport in the name of TTC. He enquired whether the Department had made a reply.

62. The Secretary of TTC said that the Secretariat had relayed TD’s reply to Members in late June.

(Post-meeting notes: The Secretariat had relayed TD’s reply to Members on 19 June June. The title of the letter was “The Most Recent Arrangements of Public Transport Re-organisation Plan of Kwun Tong Line Extension”.)

63. The Chairman supplemented that the reply from TD was to inform Members of the arrangement of cancellation of KMB route no. 212. As such, he opined that letter should be sent to THB to express their opinions and he enquired whether Members had other opinions.

64. Mr LO Chiu-kit agreed to write to THB and requested that the following opinions should be relayed to THB:

(a) TD did not reflect and handle Members’ opinions expressed at the 8th meeting, including reducing the fare of KMB route no. 212 to $4, and to observe whether there was any increase in the passenger volume;

(b) he opined that the saying of “bus routes should be cancelled because the relevant road sections had been covered by railway” was not reasonable. He pointed out that bus companies should not only concentrate on profits when deciding if bus routes should be retained;

(c) Members attached great importance to the pledge of the new-term administration. They expected that the departments concerned should enhance communication with Members and attach great importance to the opinions of DC; and

(d) he requested for a review of the arrangement of cancelling KMB route no. 212 and explained the relevant alternative or remedial options and whether the bus route would be restored in the reply letter.

65. The Chairman enquired Members whether they had other proposals concerning the contents of the letter. He announced that a letter would be sent to THB in the name of TTC to reflect Members’ opinions. The Secretary was requested to follow up on the matter.

(Post-meeting notes: The Secretariat had sent the letter to THB on 9 August 2017.)

Strong Request for Combating Illegal Motorcycle Parking on the Pavement of Tsing Chau Street in Hung Hom Immediately (Paper No. 56/17)

66. Mr LO Chiu-kit introduced Paper No. 56/17.

67. Mr PO Yiu-wa, OC Traffic Team (Kowloon City District) of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) said that upon receipt of the Paper, the Police had deployed staff to conduct law enforcement in the morning, afternoon and evening at Tsing Chau Street. In the past 12 days, 40 tickets were issued against illegally parked motorcycles. In addition, the Police had tried to contact the owners of the motorcycles in question and issued a warning against them. It was hoped that the situation would be improved. In addition, the Police agreed that if illegal motorcycle parking on the pavement of Tsing Chau Street deteriorated, risk would be posed to road users when nearby housing estates took in occupants in the future. As such, the Police would step up law enforcement at the location. Before improvement was achieved, the Police would erect temporary road signs at the location to help prevent motorcycles from illegally parking at the pavement.

68. Ms Joyce LEE, Engineer (Hung Hom) of TD responded that motorcycles were illegally parked on the pavement between Lee Kung Street and Tsing Chau Street. At present, there were 35 parking spaces for motorcycles at Tsing Chau Street. As there was great demand for parking spaces for motorcycles in the area, the Department would, on the premise that traffic would not be affected, consider the feasibility of providing parking spaces for motorcycles at Tsing Chau Street or nearby road sections.

69. Mr LO Chiu-kit appreciated the efforts of the Police. However, he worried that the Police had to deal with the work of illegal parking of coaches and major traffic operation at the same time, and would not be able to conduct law enforcement at the above location on a sustained basis. Thus he hoped that the departments concerned would formulate other resolutions. In addition, he opined that the parking spaces for motorcycles at the location were inadequate and enquired TD when the addition of motorcycle parking spaces at the location could be implemented. He hoped that 8 to 10 motorcycle parking spaces could be added to mitigate the problem.

70. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming enquired the departments concerned whether they could post a notice on motorcycles first, and if owners did not remove the motorcycles within a specified period of time, they could tow the motorcycles away. In those cases, car owners would have to pay a higher fine to collect the motorcycles in order to create a deterrent effect.

71. Mr PUN Kwok-wah agreed with the view of TD and said that the best solution was to add motorcycle parking spaces at suitable locations near Tsing Chau Street. In addition, he proposed that triangular fences be installed at relevant road sections to stop motorcycles from entering.

72. Mr PO Yiu-wa of HKPF made a consolidated reply as follows:

(a) the Police was about to implement a sustained campaign against illegal parking named “Operation Movesky”. Traffic Team would conduct law enforcement at the location at the peak hours of illegal parking. Car owners would be stopped and issued warnings. The aim was to resolve the issue before the in-take of new housing estates. If the situation persists, the Police would erect temporary road signs to remind car owners not to park on the pavement. If the situation still did not improve, the Police would initiate prosecution against car owners in accordance with relevant legislations. If the driver could not be contacted, the motorcycle would be towed away;

(b) the Police had handled deserted motorcycles with the approach mentioned by Members. However, the motorcycles had to cause obstruction to the road so that the Police could invoke authority to tow it away; and

(c) as most motorcycles were illegally parked for a short period of time and they were not parked in good order, they had to be towed away one by one. Not all of them could be towed away at once.

73. Ms Joyce LEE of TD responded that the width of a motorcycle was slightly larger than that of the pavement. And thus convenience of pedestrians had to be taken into account, and adequate width had to be set aside for users of wheelchairs to pass through. As such, it would be difficult to install fences or bollards to stop motorcycles from entering. The Department would continue to monitor the situation and add more motorcycle parking spaces at suitable locations of Tsing Chau Street as far as possible.

Concern over the Obstruction of Pedestrian Passageway Caused by Illegal Parking at Hok Cheung Street and Hok Yuen Street East (Paper No. 57/17)

74. Mr Admond YUE introduced Paper No. 57/17.

75. Ms Joyce LEE of TD responded that Hok Cheung Street, and Hok Yuen Street East between Hung Hom Road and Hok Cheung Street as mentioned in the paper were all private road sections and control of parking of vehicles there was the responsibility of relevant owners. It did not fall within the jurisdiction of TD.

76. Mr PO Yiu-wa of HKPF made a consolidated reply as follows:

(a) the streets mentioned in the Paper were private road sections and were managed by Citybase Property Management Limited. The Police had relayed the situation of the garages to the property management company, which said that it would reflect it to the owners of the garages. It was hoped that there would be improvement;

(b) the Police had related the request of nearby residents to the above mentioned company. It was hoped that the company would arrange security staff to inform the garages in good time to park cars at places where pedestrians would not be obstructed; and

(c) the pavement concerned was also a private road section. When the two garages were at work, risks would be posed to other road users. As such, the Police had twice warned the garages. Traffic Team had been arranged to conduct traffic regulation at the location every afternoon and the situation had been improved recently. The Police had emphasized to the people concerned that it was peak hours when the schools finished or at lunch time and it was hoped that illegal parking would not occur again.

77. Mr YANG Wing-kit’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) there were railings and traffic lights at the location outside Guardforce Centre of Hok Yuen Street East. He believed it was not private road section and hoped that the departments concerned would review it once more;

(2) he enquired the land use of the location and whether parking on the pavement was allowed. He hoped that the Lands Department (LandsD) and the departments concerned would consider restricting illegal parking by other means, such as on the ground of violation of land use; and

(3) he enquired the Police if their advice failed to produce effects, whether they would have further action.

78. Mr Admond YUE enquired if obstruction was caused by vehicles on the private roads or when there was competition for the use of road by pedestrians and vehicles, the departments concerned would step in or not, and if giving advice was not effective, the Police could conduct law enforcement on private roads or not.

79. Mr Jimmy LAM said that as parking of vehicles on the pavement involved pedestrian safety, he proposed that impounding zone be established under the co-ordination of the departments concerned and the management company, and that figures of impounding be provided to enhance the control of parking on private roads. In addition, he hoped that the departments concerned would co-ordinate with the operator of the private road, so that tenants and owners of the road and pedestrians could all enjoy using the road.

80. Mr PO Yiu-wa of HKPD responded that if there was illegal parking on private roads causing serious obstruction, the Police could prosecute car owners by issuing tickets. However, the procedures would be more complicated than usual. Upon receiving a complaint from a complainant, who had testified on the spot against the vehicle causing the obstruction, the Police would request the owner to remove the vehicle as far as possible. If the owner could not be located, and the vehicle continued to park and cause obstruction, then the Police could conduct law enforcement. In addition, as regards the violation of land lease, the Police did not have relevant information and they would try to understand the situation with the departments concerned.

81. Ms Joyce LEE of TD responded that the control of parking on private roads should be the responsibility of the owners of such roads. According to the Road Traffic (Parking on Private Road) Regulations, owners could set up a no-parking area or erect no-parking signs. However, there should be a clear indication showing that the road section was classed as private road. The Department would write to the owners of above private road requesting them to consider the current traffic situation and erect signs of no parking. In addition, the Department would contact LandsD to study whether it was possible to follow up on the terms of land boundary.

82. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming enquired that if tenants or owners of private roads tended to allow illegal parking, whether or not the owners or their management company could be prosecuted under the existing legislations.

83. Mr PO Yiu-wa of HKPD responded that even if tenants or owners of private roads did not follow the Police’s advice, the Police still did not have the right to conduct law enforcement on private roads.

84. Mr Admond YUE said that there might be loopholes in the existing parking regulating system of private roads. If the control of parking on private roads was left unregulated, obstruction or even traffic accidents might be resulted. He enquired that apart from giving advice, what measures the departments concerned could take to avoid accidents. In addition, he asked the Chairman whether it was possible to send a letter in the name of DC to the management company concerned, stating that for good neighborliness and safety reasons, it was hoped that the garage tenants would restrain themselves from illegal parking.

85. The Chairman said that as DC was a consultative body with no law enforcement authority, thus he opined that it was inappropriate to write to the management company concerned in the name of DC. He believed that it was more suitable for the departments with authority conferred by the law to follow up on the matter. He hoped that the Police and the departments concerned would study the most suitable practice to take.

86. Ir CHEUNG Yan-hong agreed with the arrangement of the Chairman. He opined that if follow up work of the relevant departments were effective, there was no need to write to the management company in the name of DC. If the follow up work of departments was not effective, then letter could be sent to the management company in the name of DC to exert on it the pressure of public opinion.

87. Mr Roger KWAN agreed to the viewpoint of the Chairman and proposed that letter be sent to the above mentioned management company by District Building Management Liaison Teams (DBMLTs) of the District Office (DO) to provide opinions from the angle of building management.

88. Mr PUN Kwok-wah said that Members could contact the management company in the capacity of DC Member of the area to understand the situation and enhance the communication between residents and the company.

89. Mr YANG Wing-kit said that he agreed with the opinion of the Chairman and hoped that DO, TD and HKPF would resolve the issue together.

90. Mr Eddie IP of DO responded that he would relay Members’ opinions to DBMLTs in due course.

(Post-meeting notes: DO had relayed Members’ opinions to DBMLTs after the meeting.)

Strong Request for Connecting Sung On Street and Man Lok Street to Alleviate the Traffic Problems in the District (Paper No. 58/17)

91. Mr Admond YUE introduced Paper No. 58/17.

92. Mr YANG Wing-kit said that the issue had been discussed at meetings of many terms of DC and the crux of the issue laid with LandsD. As such, he was extremely disappointed with LandsD for not sending representatives to the meeting. He proposed that the matter should be further discussed and LandsD be requested to attend the following meeting. In addition, he said that the parking of tourist coaches was the main cause of traffic congestion in To Kwa Wan district. If Sung On Street was put through, tourist coaches would not have to turn around at Sung Kit Street outside Sunshine Plaza to leave. They could travel straight ahead and the problem of the traffic congestion of the district could be substantially resolved. However, the arrangement would involve resumption of land and LandsD had to discuss with the relevant owners. One of the owners, Hung Hom Green Island Cement Limited, had said that it was willing to return the land.

93. Mr Jimmy LAM supported the request contained in the Paper. The issue of tourist coaches had caused nuisance to the district for many years and it caused contradiction and arguments between tourist and members of the public. It also blocked vehicles using Sung On Street Carpark from entering and leaving the carpark and caused traffic congestion. Residents were very disgusted with the current situation. He hoped that LandsD would send representatives to the meeting to resolve the problem proactively.

94. Ir Dr CHENG Lee-ming said that the issue had been discussed at DC for many years. The crux of the issue was contained in Paragraph 3 of the Paper, i.e. the acceptance criteria of the departments concerned. As the owners were not willing to spend money on land leveling works, the land was unable to meet the acceptance criteria of the Government. If the Government was willing to deploy some resources to level the land and connect Sung On Street with Man Lok Street, the issue of traffic congestion in the district could be resolved.

95. Mr PUN Kwok-wah’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) two terms of DC had been discussed the issue all along. He was appreciative of the adequate communication between Member of the area and the relevant owners, leading the owners to agree to return the land unconditionally in the end. However, LandsD said in its written reply that, as TD did not propose the road improvement works programme and the request of land resumption, LandsD therefore did not follow up and there was no progress in the matter up till present;

(b) in the last term of DC, TD said that based on the traffic volume at that time, there was no need to resume the private road to ease the traffic of the district. However, many years had passed and the issue of tourist coaches in Hung Hom and To Kwa Wan districts grew very serious. Thus it was hoped that TD would once more re-consider the matter;

(c) he hoped that TD would once more analyze the traffic flow data of Sung On Street and Man Lok Street and compare them with the existing data. If the new data revealed that the connection of Sung On Street and Man Lok Street could ease traffic congestion, LandsD could be requested to follow up; and

(d) he hoped that LandsD would study the relevant land lease to find out whether there were stipulations in it requiring the owner to opening part of the private road for public use.

96. Mr NG Po-keung’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) the main stakeholder of the issue was LandsD because the problem of private ownership was involved. He hoped that both LandsD and TD would deploy representatives to attend the meeting to conduct discussion;

(b) the issue was reflected in two terms of DC and thus its seriousness was evident. The proposal of Members was technically feasible. If the departments concerned were determined enough, the proposal could be materialised; and

(c) recently there was a fatal traffic accident caused by tourist coaches in To Kwa Wan. He hoped that LandsD and TD would provide feasible proposal at the following meeting to avoid incidents involving tourist coaches from happening.

97. Mr HE Huahan’s opinions were consolidated as follows:

(a) he supported the proposal as contained in the Paper. As the two roads were not connected, many tourist coaches and private cars chose to park illegally and board and alight passengers at Sung On Street and Man Lok Street. By connecting the above the two roads, mobility could be improved, hence alleviating the problem of illegal parking and boarding and alighting passengers causing traffic jams. He hoped that the departments concerned would pro-actively take the proposal into consideration;

(b) he agreed with what Mr PUN Kwok-wah, who said and requested TD to conduct an analysis once more and prove to LandsD with substantive data that there was a need to resume the above two roads; and

(c) if the owners concerned were all willing to support the Government’s resumption of the above land, it was hoped that LandsD could handle technical and ownership transfer issues involved with efforts. Otherwise, the traffic problem at the location would remain difficult to be solved.

98. Mr HO Hin-ming enquired if the relevant owners removed railings, fences and levelled land on their own to let vehicles pass, how the Government would handle the situation.

99. Ir CHEUNG Yan-hong agreed that the issue should be further discussed and the relevant departments including LandsD and TD should be invited to attend the meeting so that they could make clear their viewpoints. In addition, he proposed that the relevant departments, stakeholders and Members concerned could hold a separate four-party meeting to discuss the feasibility of connecting Sung On Street and Man Lok Street.

100. Mr TING Kin-wa appreciated the efforts made by Mr Admond YUE on the issue to better the livelihood of the people. In addition, he opined that connecting Sung On Street and Man Lok Street would greatly benefit the tourist industry of the district. Conflicts between shops and residents could be reduced. He strongly demanded that the Government should accept the proposal contained in the Paper.

101. Ms Joyce LEE of TD made a consolidated reply as follows:

(a) the private road mentioned in the paper was located in the vicinity of the Kowloon City Government Offices. It was the road between the end outside Sung On Street and Hok Yuen Street. The Department was all along concerned with the traffic situation at Man Yue Street and Man Lok Street and suitable traffic management measures were adopted, including the addition of a bus bay for tourist coaches to alight and board passengers and for lorries to load and unload goods, and setting up suitable restricted area;

(b) the Department had conducted a review on the existing traffic situation. At present, there was adequate traffic capacity at all junctions, including Hok Yuen Street, Hok Yuen Street East and Man Yue Street. Traffic congestion at the location was not caused by inadequate traffic capacity. Rather, it was caused by illegal parking of tourist coaches at the side of the road, which obstructed the vehicular road. Therefore, the Department did not consider the resumption of the above mentioned private roads;

(c) in respect of obstruction of traffic caused by tourist coaches, the Department had proposed remedial measures. For example, tourist coaches at Man Yue Street could not smoothly make a left turn or travel straight ahead onto Ma Tau Wan Road because they were obstructed by other vehicles. The Department therefore lengthened the time of the green traffic light outside Man Yue Street during peak hours of tourist coaches (i.e. from 10 a.m. to 12 and from 2 to 4 p.m.), so that tourist coaches at Man Yue Street could go out more smoothly;

(d) the Department had all along reviewed the traffic situation at the location, and would follow up if and when necessary; and

(e) as Sung On Street and the above mentioned private roads were not under the jurisdiction of TD, the Department thus could not respond to the enquiry of Mr HO Hin-ming.

102. Mr Admond YUE declared that he had a property in Man Lok Street. In addition, he pointed out that the design of Man Yue Street and Man Lok Street and traffic management measures could not improve the issue of traffic congestion at Sung On Street. The issue of congestion from Sung On Street to To Kwa Wan was becoming more and more serious and the location was also a blackspot of illegal parking. He hoped that the departments concerned would seriously review the traffic of Sung On Street and consider connecting the above mentioned roads.

103. The Chairman reminded Members that declaration of interests should be made before the formal discussion. It was not appropriate to declare interest after discussion had begun.

104. Dr the Hon Priscilla LEUNG supported the proposal of the Paper. In addition, she hoped the representative of TD would reflect to the high level officials Members’ opinions that illegal parking of tourist coaches had deeply troubled the residents and community harmony was affected. There had to be long term cross- district planning, or even diverging tourist coaches to Kai Tak area, so that the problem could be resolved.

105. The Chairman, after consulting the relevant Member, announced that the issue would be further discussed as matters arising at the next meeting. He also said that the written reply of LandsD could not assist Members in their discussion and LandsD was requested to send representatives to attend the next meeting.

(Post-meeting notes: The Secretariat had conveyed Members’ opinions to LandsD after the meeting.)

Installation of Railings on Pavement of 90-92 Waterloo Road and outside (Paper No. 59/17)

106. Mr TING Kin-wa introduced Paper No. 59/17.

107. Mr CHEUNG Chi-wa of TD responded that the Department did not object to the installation of railings at the above mentioned location. It would consult the relevant departments and the public and if the results were positive, the Department would implement the proposal.

108. The Chairman enquired TD about the time of implementation so that Members could follow up on the matter.

109. Mr CHEUNG Chi-wa of TD responded that the Department expected that consultation could begin in August and if the results were positive, HyD could be requested to begin works within September.

110. Mr TING Kin-wa said that the process provided by TD was normal and acceptable.

Vehicles Making Illegal Left Turns at the Junction between and La Salle Road (Paper No. 60/17)

111. Mr TING Kin-wa introduced Paper No. 60/17.

112. Mr Po Yiu-wa of HKPF responded that there were adequate notices at the above location to inform drivers that left turn was not allowed at the road section, including two sets of “ahead only” road signs, one road sign of “no left turn” and a traffic light of “no left turn”. He believed that the offending car owners committed the offence knowingly. The Paper had been related to Kowloon City District so that every patrolling officer would be aware of the matter. In addition, the district’s traffic team would organise 4 to 6 operations every month and the Police would take targeted actions at the above location. In addition, the Police would conduct traffic control at the above location when schools finished.

113. Mr PUN Kwok-wah pointed out that similar situation had occurred in the last term of DC, and the location was Pak Tai Street travelling ahead to Tin Kwong Road and turning left into Ma Tau Wai Road. At that time TD added yellow hatched marking or double white lines at the turning corner to remind drivers not to turn left. He enquired TD whether road signs or yellow hatched marking could be added to the junction between Boundary Street and La Salle Road, so that drivers would clearly know that no left turn was allowed at the location, or could alternatively make it a 90 degree bend rendering it impossible for vehicles to turn left.

114. Mr CHEUNG Chi-wa of TD responded that the Department would conduct review to see whether there were other measures which could enhance the warning of no left turn at the junction.

Concern over the Problems Caused by Rugged Road Surface at Man Tai Street (Paper No. 61/17)

115. Ir CHEUNG Yan-hong introduced Paper No. 61/17.

116. Mr Admond YUE said that the road surface of Man Tai Street was rugged and MTRCL did not restore the uneven road surface. He requested MTRCL to fulfill its pledge and repair the road surface.

117. Mr TAM Ho-chuen, District Engineer (Hung Hom) of HyD responded that based on the pledge MTRCL made to Members, the Department would write to MTRCL to urge it to implement road re-surfacing works as early as possible.

118. The Chairman said that as vehicles often travelled through the location, he hoped that MTRCL could expedite the works, whereas HyD should instruct the departments concern or MTRCL to expedite the progress.

Date of Next Meeting

119. The Chairman said that the next meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. on 12 October 2017 (Thursday). There being no other business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:38 p.m.

120. The minutes of this meeting were confirmed on 12 October 2017.

The Chairman

The Secretary

Kowloon City District Council Secretariat October 2017