Page 166 of 241
312
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
The original aims and objects of the Resettlement Department had been sound, as they basically fulfilled the needs of the time. However, the criterion for eligibility of residency has definitely outlived its validity. Continuation of our present policy of expediency means more confusion. Resettlement as such should be stopped.
To rectify this situation, I would like as I said at our last annual debate to see the creation of a new Public Housing Department, to be staffed by professional officers under a qualified and experienced director, as soon as practicable. The Department should be responsible for policy, planning, co-ordination, etc. and should take over all responsibilities from the Resettlement Department, the Housing Authority and other semi-Government housing agencies. It should be the central and competent authority for all forms of public and subsidized housing in Hong Kong. The new Department should also concern itself to a certain extent with private housing so as to regulate and balance the rate and quantity of supply of all types of accommodation by private developers and Government-aided agencies and to avoid a recurrence of the present housing shortage which has caused substantial rent increases. It should also be responsible for studying, initiating and implementing new schemes such as "Flats-for-Sale" which would increase owner-occupation rate, and have a stabilizing effect on the price of domestic flats and rent increases. Future success or failure in this field will be the credit or discredit of this Department and no one's else.
The advantages of these proposals are obvious and need not be over-emphasized. The end result should be a continuously steady and regulated supply by both Government-aided agencies and private developers of housing of all classes to meet the requirements of the community. There would not be great fluctuations in supply and demand and the costs of accommodation would be kept reasonably low. The community as a whole will greatly benefit.
Mass Transit System
I was disappointed by the reported statement of the Honourable Financial Secretary last month that no decision would be made this year as regards the construction of the proposed underground railways as the cost was too high in relation to the benefits that they would bring about. I do not know on what basis the economic benefits are worked out. However, from the viewpoint of mass transportation, underground railways have proved to be one of the most efficient forms of public transport. That is, the largest number of commuters can be moved in the shortest space of time at the minimum of cost. Experience in other major cities in the world, namely New York, Tokyo, Montreal, etc. shows that they work well. Now, even San Francisco with a population of 750,000 is constructing its first subways. Hong Kong, which has its large population crowded in a small area, is obviously most suited to this form of mass transport, as verified by the experts in their "Hong Kong Mass Transport Study". If we approach this problem from another angle and ask ourselves, "Are there any other forms of mass transport that can do the job better and cheaper in Hong Kong?" The answer will most likely be no.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
313
Kong...
Our present public transport is inadequate. If the status quo is maintained, the city will become chaotic, if not choked to a slow death in 15 years' time. A decision to go ahead with this project should be made now, as any delay can only mean an increase in cost, as evident in the extension of the Hong Kong Airport runway, the cost of which has been increased by almost 50% from the original estimate of $90 million. Do we have to wait until we are forced to make a decision, like in so many previous cases? Now, even when it is decided to proceed, it will be seven or more years before the first line can be completed.
If, for reasons unknown to the public, the first stage of 2 lines costing $1,500 million cannot be carried out, then even a single line, perhaps the Tsuen Wan Line, should be built first. In other words, we should decide and start now.
Traffic
Having said something about our public transport system, I now turn to the long-suffering car-owning public. I often feel that apart from the building of a few multi-storeyed car parks, many of the proposed measures to keep the traffic flowing in Hong Kong are negative, such as heavier fines for minor traffic offences, no parking in certain areas, towing away the illegally parked cars, substantial increases in parking fees or even, as has been suggested, the restriction of the number of cars on the roads, etc. What we actually need, Sir, is a revised mental attitude, or more positive approach and constructive measures. Construct more roads and widen existing ones; build more pedestrian overhead bridges and tunnels at major road junctions; introduce elevated highways and plan for more vehicular tunnels and so on.
I agree with the Commissioner for Transport that public transport must come first. However, it would be unfair and unreasonable to penalize private car owners so long as public transport remains inadequate and unsatisfactory. Private transport in the form of private cars does perform a service to the community and should be encouraged to help ease the gravity of the problem of public transportation in Hong Kong.
While on the subject of traffic, I would like to say that many flyovers, like their predecessor, the roundabouts, have become outdated even before they are completed. What is wanted is elevated highways...
Page 166 of 241