CONFIDENTIAL #2
機密
6.
The respondents also maintained that the MTR was not really a convenient mode of public transport as it claimed to be, since many of the commuters, after taking the MIS would still have to rely on the feeder
services of buses and PLBs to take them nearest to their
destinations. And, taking into account the walking time wasted going up and down the stations, the waiting time required for the arrival of trains and the general discomfort of travelling in the trains especially during peak hours, a moderate fare structure would be more acceptable. A minority view had it that the MIS passed through the main industrial areas and since the commuters would generally be ordinary workers and labourers, they might not be able to afford too high a fare.
7.
Whilst the respondents were largely adopting a wait-and-see attitude, being unable to make up their minds whether the MTR would serve their personal travel needs or not, their initial reactions to the press report on MTR faros on 18.4.79 (i.e. a fare structure ranging from $1.30 to $3.50) confirmed the observations described above. Respondents who were frequent commuters along the MIS route considered the reported fares too expensive particularly when the minimum charge was set at $1.30. Those of them coming from the lower-middle income households were worried that such fares would mean an overall increase
in transport expenses and would necessitate a rebudgetting of their tight household expenditure. For this reason, they had indicated that they would turn to other alternatives such as buses even if this entailed the need of getting up earlier in the mornings or getting home later in the evenings and having a longer wait for buses.
8.
But the greatest worry expressed in respect of a high MTR fare was that it would inevitably push up the fares of other modes of public transport. Already, the
/respondents
CONFIDENTIAL ## 機密
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.