MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, I am glad that the Second Reading debate on the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2017 (“the Bill”) is resumed today. Over the years, I have been following up on the issue of increasing the seating capacity of public light buses (“PLBs”). I am really delighted that the proposal can finally be implemented.
As many people may know, I am the chairman of the owners’ committee of a large residential estate on the Hong Kong Island. I have been serving the community for some time and have handled many local issues, including the lengthy waiting time for light buses during peak hours. Several years ago, many residents relayed to me that due to an increasing number of passengers in the area, they often have to wait a long time in a queue for green minibuses (“GMBs”) during peak hours. Moreover, a large number of people at GMB stops also cause inconvenience to the passers-by. I had a meeting with GMB operators to relay residents’ views on increasing the frequency of GMBs during peak hours. While the operators agreed to improve their services, they also mentioned their operational difficulties, such as rising operating costs, failure in recruiting adequate drivers and restrictions imposed by the law, hence their hands were tied and could not increase the service frequency.
Subsequently, I learnt after discussing with members of the trade that new light bus models can accommodate as many as 20 seats. The trade always hopes that the Government may relax the current 16-seat restriction, so that more carrying capacity can be released. Actually, comparatively speaking, increasing service frequency is not a good option because road traffic will become more congested and the pollution problem aggravated. Therefore, the trade’s proposal of increasing the seating capacity is definitely desirable, and I even believe it is a “five-win option” that the Government has to reason to reject. Consequently, I helped lobby the Government. Besides relaying the proposal to the transport authorities, I also raised it directly to the Chief Executive. The Government hence agreed to give due consideration.
At present, there are 4 350 PLBs in Hong Kong. Under the current proposal, each PLB will have three additional seats. If all PLBs are retrofitted with three additional seats, the seating capacity will be increased to 13 050, which is equivalent to the carrying capacity of 815 16-seat PLBs without actually increasing the number of PLBs. Hence, I consider it a “five-win option” for all parties concerned. First, members of the public will win. As the carrying capacity of PLBs will instantly be increased by 20% upon increasing the number of seats to 19 under the current proposal, the problem of long waiting time during peak hours will be resolved and the pressure on fare rise will also be relieved with the subsequent increase of revenue of PLBs. Second, the Government will win. The Government can, without resorting to public coffers, resolve the public transport problems in the most environmental friendly way and shorten people’s waiting time for PLBs. Third, PLB drivers will win. Many operators have undertaken to improve drivers’ remuneration package with the increase of revenue, so as to resolve the problem of being unable to recruit drivers due to low salary. Fourth, the trade will win. As the trade has been facing operating difficulties, and some routes may even have to cease operation due to persistent losses, the possible increase of revenue may relieve the operators’ hardship. Fifth, the environment will win. As the carrying capacity of PLBs will instantly be increased by 20% in the most environmental friendly way without having to increase the number of PLBs, environmental pollution will be relieved. Some people are worried that PLBs will vie with other means of transport for passengers after the increase of the seating capacity. However, given that presently, the Mass Transit Railway and buses are very crowded during peak hours with deteriorating quality of service, the increase of the seating capacity of PLBs should not affect them substantively.
The Bill introduced by the Government proposes to increase the seating capacity of PLBs to 19 despite the fact that some Members consider that the seating capacity should be increased to 20. Though no amendment is proposed at the end, this idea is worth pursuing. If increasing the seating capacity does not cause operating problem while the number of passengers is on the increase, the idea to increase more seats should be considered expeditiously. Although each PLB may only have one additional seat, a total of 4 350 additional seats can be increased in all PLBs, which is tantamount to having 271 additional 16-seat PLBs. This will, to a certain extent, help alleviating the transport pressure.
Lastly, I would like to thank the Government for accepting good advice and heeding the trade’s proposals. The Bill it introduced can strike a balance amongst the interests of all parties. I also hope that the Bill can be passed smoothly, and the Government can take forward the proposal of increasing the seating capacity of PLBs, so as to benefit members of the public.
I so submit.