TNAG-1509-FCO40-2067-Hong-Kong-roads-and-traffic-legislation-1986 — Page 137

5.

on the Review's recommendation to rationalise HYF's

cross harbour ferry routes

The Kowloon Motor Bus Co. (1933) Ltd.

Kowloon-Canton Railway

China Motor Bus Co. Ltd.

oration

Mass Transit Railway

Corporation

ANNEX D

The Hong Kong & Taumati

Ferry Co. Ltd.

Star Ferry Co. Ltd. & Hong Kong Tramways Ltd.

supported rationalisation of HYF's services, as many unprofitable cross harbour ferries also diluted MIK revenue

suggested rationalisation should be on the whole network of HIF's services, including outlying districts routes; cautioned that many of the versels used on cross harbour routes on weekdays were required to meet recreational demand on the outlying districts routes at weekends

other views on what

6.

was wrong with Hong

7.

Kong's public transport syster and possible solutions

of the Review

advocated taking away some rail cars where there was a surplus of public transport capacity, and restricting red PLBs to alleviate road congestion

on the scope and method criticised the Review for omitting PLBs, and under- playing users' require- sents such as choice and convenience;

found the Review

"arbitrary and superficial"

and suggested a cost- benefit study should be conducted on various

policy options before a

recommendation was made

advocated restrictions on red PLBs;

suggested that bus

operators should enjoy the same loan facilities as the rail corporations

criticised the Review for omitting PLBs and underplaying users' requirements such as choice and convenience

criticised the Review for omitting PIBs, taxis, non- franchised buses, and the LRT; 3

cautioned against taking the paper through any form of public consultation in "its existing level of

abstraction and ambiguity"

diagnosed the problem as unfair competition posed against rail modes by subsidised buses,and rail corporations not being allowed to operate their. own feeders;

advocated that all modes should be required to pay their full costs and then allowed to compete freely

criticised the Review for omitting PLBs, taxis, possible introduction of new franchised bus companies, and the LRT; criticised the Review as being biased towards the status quo and towards government regulation; suggested a more detailed and comprehensive study should be undertaken

advocated HYF should be subsidised by lower survey charges and waiver of premium for commercial development on piers

diagnosed the problem as the low capitalisa- tion of the rail

| corporations, and the

inherent inflexibility of the rail and ferry modes