 |
||||
 |
||||
| (Chinese
Version 中文版) First of all, thank you for supporting Our Bus Terminal by signing the petition letter online or at our counters previously to object to the relocation of the Tsim Sha Tsui Bus Terminal (“TST Bus Terminal”). On 8 November 2011, we submitted over 7,100 petition letters and 2,000 signatures to the Chief Executive’s Office and the Transport and Housing Bureau.
Recently, signatories of the petition letter received a phone call / letter / e-mail (“Reply”) from the Highways Department with the subject “The Roads (Works, Use and Compensation) Ordinance (Cap 370) in relation to the Roundabout Works at the Junction of Salisbury Road and Canton Road”, requesting the recipients to revoke their objection unconditionally. Below are some Q&As we have prepared for signatories who do not know how to respond.
Q1: I have expressed my objection to the relocation of the TST Bus Terminal, but why does the Reply refer it as a roads project? A: Because the project was published in gazette by the Transport and Housing Bureau (“THB”), and the relevant roads works would be followed up by the Highways Department under the THB. The “Roundabout Project at the Junction of Salisbury Road and Canton Road” is the major part of the plan to relocate the TST Bus Terminal. Q2: Why am I requested to revoke my objection? A: This is part of the government’s administrative procedures. However, we urge you not to revoke your objection, because the reasons given by the government are misleading. This project aims to dismantle the existing facilities of the TST Bus Terminal (e.g., dismantling the concrete cover of over 65 years old; reducing the area of the bus terminal/taxi stand; removing the existing loading/unloading area outside Tsim Sha Tsui Pier for private cars and trucks). The landscape would be substantially changed. Q3: The government has suggested an improvement plan in the Reply, why should I still object the plan? A: Because the government has not provided sufficient information and grounds. No diagram or picture was given to illustrate complicated data and figures, and some of the information given was misleading. For details, please see the reasons of objection prepared by us. Q4: What if I do not respond to the Reply? A: Then the government might continue to categorize it as “objection” due to absence of reply, and have an excuse to deem the objection as having been dealt with. This will have negative impact on our campaign to preserve the TST Bus Terminal in its current condition. Therefore, we urge you not to revoke your objection; further, you are encouraged to provide more reasons of objection and request the government to revoke the plan of building a piazza. Q5: I wish to maintain my objection. What should I do? A: 1) Complete the reply slip attached to the Reply, 2) together with the reasons of objection suggested by us and/or any other comment, and reply to the Highways Department by e-mail (k.u@hyd.gov.hk) or by fax (2758 3394) as soon as possible. Q6: I have not received / I have lost the letter from the Highways Department. What should I do? A: You can contact the Mr Yim Wai Ki, Chief Engineer (Kowloon) of the Highways Department in charge of this project by phone (2707 7208) or by e-mail (k.u@hyd.gov.hk) to follow up your case. Suggested reasons of objection: (download MS Word doc format / Adobe PDF format / HTML format) 1) The restoration plan for the TST Star Ferry Pier is not necessary related to the relocation of the TST Bus Terminal for the construction of a piazza. I hope the Highways Department and other relevant departments do not create confusion over the two issues. 2) The Highways Department has never provided any convincing data to show how the proposed piazza could increase the number of visitors/pedestrians, further stimulate economic activities in Tsim Sha Tsui, or how Hong Kong’s economy would benefit as a whole. On the contrary, the relocation of the Central Star Ferry Pier in 2006 has proved that the degradation in the vicinity of the pier not only discouraged passenger from taking ferries, but also substantially damaged the financial viability of Star Ferry. As a result, the Central - Hung Hom route was terminated on 1 April 2011. According to figures from Star Ferry, the Tsim Sha Tsui - Central route has also suffered an 18% drop of passenger, so Star Ferry twice applied for increase of fare in last year and this year. Lately it applied for increase of fare again, to be effective from 1 January 2012. These are real figures that actually affect travelling time and costs of the general public, yet the Highways Department has never mentioned in the Reply. I hereby request the Highways Department to provide the relevant data and assessment models of the piazza plan for reference. 3) According to the Highways Department, “It is not uncommon for taxi stands to be situated on the right side of the road. Similar arrangements can also be found in some crowded areas in Hong Kong, just like the case when a driver gets on or off any other vehicles. Further, the lane of taxi stand in the proposed PTI would be wide, so there is little risk for passengers to get on or off taxis under this arrangement.” However, as far as I know, most taxi stands in Hong Kong (including the one at TST Bus Terminal) are designed for boarding on the left. Could the Highways Department or other relevant departments provide any data to support the claim that boarding on the right presents lower risk than boarding on the left? If not, why should public money be used to increase the risk faced by passengers in boarding taxis? I hereby request the Highways Department to provide data instead of merely claiming that “there is little risk for passengers to get on or off taxis under this arrangement”, as this concerns the safety of the general public and tourists! Besides, I also request the Highways Department to provide at least 10 examples of “similar arrangement in some crowded areas in Hong Kong”, as mentioned in your letter. 4) In the proposed plan published in gazette, the taxi drop-off point is located in the foremost of the lane. If a taxi must move away after dropping off, instead of being allowed to queue for new passenger immediately like the present arrangement, or if the taxi must first go along Salisbury Road to the New World Centre before returning to the pier to queue up again, then taxis would be required to move in and out of Salisbury Road twice in order to take new passengers. This would unnecessarily create more traffic congestion and exhaust, affecting the environment nearby. 5) In addition, the existing taxi stand at TST Pier can accommodate far more than 16 taxis, i.e., the number suggested by the Highways Department in the proposed taxi stand. Currently, the covered part of the taxi stand and the space at the back allows up to 30 taxis to queue up. The waiting area at the back of the covered area should also be included as part of the waiting area. I urge the Highways Department not to deceive the public by misleading figures!
6) According to your reply letter, “It only takes one or two more minutes on average for bus passengers to walk between the new PTI and the Star Ferry pier.” However, it only takes about 5 seconds for bus passengers to walk from the current drop-off point to the TST Pier. The claim that “it only takes one or two more minutes on average for bus passengers to walk” might make it seem a like a short distance. But in fact, we have conduct a test where it took nearly 3 minutes for a 30 years old healthy man of about 1.8 m tall to complete the entire 200m distance (see http://youtu.be/jKV3zEwMk7k). This is 36 times of the current required time, not to mention fragile or disabled persons. According to the Highways Department, “Except the bus drop-off stops and a few stops outside Star House, the other bus stops would be provided with cover so that passengers (especially fragile and disabled persons) sheltered from weather. For the bus stops outside Star House, the canopy of the building can serve similar purposes.” This is particularly misleading, because currently the canopy of Star House is too high above the ground to provide a shelter from weather. Besides, the proposed bus stop cover is not connected to the pier. By comparison, currently there is a canopy right next to the drop-off point, and passengers can reach the pier within 5 seconds with no worry about sunshine or rain. The proposed plan published in gazette is obviously less convenient.
7) According to the Highways Department, “The bus stop lane at the entrance outside the Cultural Centre would be wide enough, and the narrowest place would be at least 10.5m,” so that even when one bus has stopped by the bus stop, the lane is still wide enough for another two buses two pass side by side, and would not cause congestion. This is also misleading. If I have understood it correctly, among the 3 westbound lanes, one of them is used as bus stop, and another one is used by the taxi stand, and only one remains for other vehicles. It is even difficult for a bus at the bus stop to overtake another bus after dropping off. Besides, there is little buffer space in the proposed plan. If fails to consider that most bus routes using this bus terminal uses urban trunk roads (e.g. Nathan Road, Chatham Road South), so buses of the same route always arrive at the terminal at or nearly at the same time. The proposed plan only allows each route terminating at the TST Pier to occupy one parking space, while two routes passing the TST Pier have to share one parking space. Only 3 shared drop-off points would be situated on Salisbury Road opposite Kowloon Park Drive. This is hardly enough to cope with the traffic. When the first bus of the same route has not yet departed but the second bus has already dropped off passengers, where should the second bus be parked? This is similar to the problem at the Hung Hom Harbour Tunnel bus stops where buses all congest together. I understand that Our Bus Terminal conducted a bus traffic survey for 90 minutes on 21 June 2011. It was found that for 20% of the time, over 14 westbound buses were within the TST Bus Terminal and on the Salisbury Road between Kowloon Park Drive and Canton Road (there were 15-16 buses for 16 minutes, and 19 buses for 2 minutes). Obviously, the 15 parking spaces suggested by the Tourism Commission are not enough for buffering and coping with the bus traffic. Buses would need to queue up on the westbound Salisbury Road outside the Space Museum to go to the bus stop, causing congestion and confusion to the nearby area. 8) The TST Bus terminal has become a Historic Urban Landscape concerned by the UNESCO. In the Hanoi declaration announced in 2009 and the Burra Charter, the historical landscape should be preserved under the principles of “respecting citizens’ life” and “preserving as a whole”. However, this landscape and physical environment would be destroyed upon the proposed works. 9) It has been the third time for the Government to put this proposal on Gazette. Your department should respect the Antiquities Advisory Board by publishing gazette notice only after AAB has finished its evaluation on TST Bus Terminus. Otherwise, if the works have started before AAB have given a rating, it would be almost impossible for the Government to terminate the works contract. We would definitely not accepting such a scenario which is similar to the demolishment of the Central Star Ferry Pier in 2006 to happen again.
10) No loading/unloading area is provided in the proposed roundabout. This will be severely affecting the right of the newspaper stores and shops around the pier area. In every midnight, the aged workers moving newspaper and magazines for the stalls will need to walk for a much longer distance from Canton Road with more risks of damaging the goods.
11) Besides, the proposed roundabouts will affect the business operations of the existing mobile ice-cream cart and van (as these vehicles will be disallowed to enter the pier area), as well as the newspaper stalls. This will be seriously affecting the unique street characteristics of the pier area.
12) Your department did not provide in all three related gazette notices the details on the estimated project costs and time, as well as the road closure arrangements (especially on the arrangements of existing TST Pier Bus routes). Besides, replies to objections in all three gazette notices are in text only, without a single diagram to illustrate. How can the public understand your explanations? Other reasons: I would not withdraw my objection to this problematic and unnecessary road work and piazza plan. In addition, I am requesting the Government to withdraw the works mentioned in G.N. 5862, otherwise I may lodge further actions against it, such as legal actions.
(Last Update 上次更新: 2011-12-11) |
||||
