Translation to English
Park Island Transport’s Successful Application to Reduce Ferry Services Will Inevitably Affect Ma Wan Traffic
On June 8, the Transport Department attended a Ma Wan traffic consultation meeting, responding to Park Island Transport Co. (PITCL)’s application to reduce Park Island ferry services. Residents at the meeting unanimously opposed PITCL’s plan to “cut ferries,” which violates the original commitment to rely primarily on ferries for external transport.
Ma Wan is an isolated island with its only land connection being a road via the Tsing Ma Bridge to Tsing Yi, with no access to Lantau via the Kap Shui Mun Bridge. When accidents or heavy traffic occur on the Tsing Ma Bridge, Ma Wan’s accessibility is severely impacted. Initially, the developer Sun Hung Kai Properties, in its land application with the government, committed to using ferries as the primary mode of external transport, with this promise embedded in the land lease terms and the Ma Wan Outline Zoning Plan, stipulating a 75% ferry and 25% bus transport ratio.
On July 25, the Park Island Owners’ Committee announced receiving a letter from the Transport Department, stating that Park Island ferry services would be adjusted starting in August. The Central-Park Island ferry route will see a one-third reduction in weekday services, cutting nine trips and shortening operating hours. The last ferry, originally scheduled for 11:30 PM, will now depart from Central Pier 2 at 9:30 PM. On weekends and public holidays, over half of the ferry services will be cut, with reduced operating hours and ferries running only every two hours, effectively discouraging passengers. This creates a cycle of reduced services leading to fewer passengers, which could justify further cuts, potentially leading to the complete cancellation of ferry services. The Tsuen Wan route maintains its three daily trips, but morning and midday schedules have been adjusted to office hours, affecting residents and visitors who rely on these services.
Simultaneously, an application was suddenly made through the Ma Wan Rural Committee to allow PITCL to introduce a special bus route, 338S, to replace the reduced Central-Park Island ferry services. The Transport Department approved this application, but Ma Wan residents were not informed.
The Park Island Owners’ Committee will hold another Ma Wan traffic consultation meeting on August 10. Following the Transport Department and PITCL’s insistence on reducing ferry services, attendance is expected to be higher than in June.
Proposal to Enhance 230R Service
U suggests enhancing KMB bus route 230R (Ma Wan-Kowloon Station) by adding three stops, similar to routes 331/331S, and extending its operating hours, with the first bus from Ma Wan at 6:00 AM and services every 15-20 minutes during peak weekday hours. I believes strengthening 230R is more necessary than introducing 338S.
I also questions the effectiveness of 338S, as it only stops at two locations in Central outside the island, yet charges residents $24.1, the same as the ferry. In comparison, taking the MTR from Hong Kong Station to Tsing Yi and transferring to route 330 costs only slightly more ($15.8 + $8.5 = $24.3), making 338S unattractive.
Need for Regular Ma Wan Community Development Discussions
I believes PITCL should increase revenue through collaboration with the island’s community, including local businesses, the newly opened Ma Wan 1868 (Ma Wan Park Phase II), Ma Wan Park (Phase I), and Noah’s Ark. Recently, Ma Wan 1868 has needed to attract new visitors but lacks collaboration to boost business for its merchants.
I suggests holding traffic consultation meetings every six months over the next two years to review Ma Wan’s traffic arrangements, inviting representatives from PITCL, Ma Wan 1868, Noah’s Ark, local businesses, and the Rural Committee to discuss the impact of visitor flow and transport arrangements. Regular cooperation is essential to ensure sufficient visitor numbers.
PITCL Refuses to Respond or Provide Open Data
PITCL must also improve channels for listening to residents and public opinions to enhance transport services. On May 1, I sent requests via online forms and emails to the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (OGCIO) and PITCL, asking for open data on bus and ferry schedules. On May 28, I received an initial email response from a Transport Department official handling open data. Despite raising the issue again in person at the June 8 consultation meeting, PITCL has not responded in any form, showing a refusal to engage. How can PITCL provide quality transport services with such an attitude?
Conclusion: Unity is Key to Building a Strong Community
PITCL’s reduction of ferry services due to insufficient passenger numbers affects Ma Wan residents and does not balance the interests of all parties. The Ma Wan community should collaborate and discuss solutions to improve all aspects of the community.
- Demand that the Transport Department and PITCL immediately withdraw the reduction of Park Island ferry services and maintain the current schedule and frequency.
- Enhance KMB route 230R to provide full-day regular services.
- Establish a Ma Wan Community Development Group to foster collaboration, improve attractions, ensure stable visitor flow for businesses, and facilitate convenient travel for residents.
- PITCL, along with Sun Hung Kai’s Ma Wan 1868 and Noah’s Ark, should improve operations. May divine guidance bless and lead these efforts.
References
- Facebook Page 載空國際：珀麗灣渡輪減班 涉 「走精面」 避免違反規劃條款
