Get rid of the Bus

[Zorro]

From what I understand the busses cost as follows:

HK$7.5 plus 10% override for MO of HK$0.75 so total HK$8.25m per year =

HK$22,602.74 per day

Assume 4 each way per hour during 16 hour day = 64 trips x 2 128 trips

Assume 55 seats x 128 trips = 7,040.00 seats

Assume total occuapancy of seats of 50% = 7,040 / 2 = 3,520 trips per day.

So cost per trip is:

HK$22,602.74 / 3,520 = HK$6.42 per trip.

In other words is it not time we got rid of the busses and either got a taxi or walked as it would work out about the same price if you are more than one person.

[Muttley]

I hate to say this but I agree with you on this one

Get rid of the buses or at least charge each user via the Octopus systems we paid for.

[Icarus]

I think the user should should pay some contribution like with all the other facilities but it must be remembered that this bus service can be a lifeline for some senior citizens.

It's a very expensive commodity which when the public housing opens nearby will also be open to attempted abuse by none CC residents if it remains free.

Charge a nominal fee which all goes back into the collective Owners Management fee account.

[Zorro]

Can one of the Owners Committee members please post how many bus trips there are per day as I ahve just been told that the cost of each seat is more like:

HK$11 per trip

If this is indeed the case then the sooner we get rid of the free buss the better.

[mango on the run]

Are you day dreaming again You do that and the property value will drop by 10% as there will be no buyers to support the price at current level.

[Zorro]

Mango,

Disagree mate. The vast majority of the people in the place are renters not owners.

People rent in the place because it is cheap, not because of the bus

[JEFF LAM YUET]

I don't mind to have the bus cos it helps the property price and some convenience for residents, although $6 is not cheap, it is still far cheaper than the new year special overnight bus service simply suggested by one of the current OC member BUT PAID by all owners.

compared to the cost and users, it costed over $70 per PERSON, while we can take a taxi to home from MTR station for less than $18 for 5 PEOPLE. Why MO/MTR always only listen to CERTAIN OC members but costed all of our $$$? Why CERTAIN OC members always HELP MTR to spend OUR $$$ and earn extra MR commission from US again??? UNBELIEVABLE! 

ALSO, why those OC don't pay attention and don't fight for fairness in the just-past cleaning and security contracts that cost us over 100millions in the next 3 years while the whole tendering process has full of question marks and black box!?? If we can have better OC, better policies, we will have better savings then everything will be possible to bring better life to CC reisdents instead of counting little here and there but forget the big numbers.........

Please take action to protect our own $$$ and own rights when you can, let's start with the coming PH III OC election, kick the poor/non-performing pro-MTR OC out and replace by those who really act and speak for small owners' rights. Thanks.

[Zorro]

I suppose an alternatvie would be for the MO / OC to give us the exact cost per seat for the bus for the year 2008 (I know they have it) and then charge that per person for the bus.

I can tell you now that as soon as they start charging for the bus its usage will go down by at least 70% and thus we will then have a good reason to stop it alll together.

[prisms]

Mango,

Disagree mate. The vast majority of the people in the place are renters not owners.

People rent in the place because it is cheap, not because of the bus

You are half right here, zorro.

The agents show this free shuttle bus as a selling point to the would-be tenants. That is the first thing they tell when they pick you up at the MTR and take to the bus.

I see a few issues once we start charging.
- There will be fewer new tenants. And existing tenants might move to CS.
- CS will become more popular.
- As there will be more people walking to/from the MTR, there will be more people marching on CS bridge.  CS might not cope with it and close it forever.
- Phase 1 will be become more cheap.

So there should be some other way of handling this fee and show this as 'free' bus. Cheaper busses, less frequent trips are a couple I can think of

[Icarus]

I don't think the levy of a nominal charge will adversely effect property rates or demand from tenants. User pays is the only fair system.

As for the CS walkway point. CS walkway is a public right of way irrespective of traffic levels and will always be so. Don't you think CS residents would have closed it long ago if they possibly could?

The CC podium will also be much busier when the Public Housing opens as it will be the only covered public right of way from the Public estate to Citygate.

[prisms]

As for the CS walkway point. CS walkway is a public right of way irrespective of traffic levels and will always be so. Don't you think CS residents would have closed it long ago if they possibly could?

I did not know it was public walkway. I always thought it's the agreement between two developers (or MOs).

The CC podium will also be much busier when the Public Housing opens as it will be the only covered public right of way from the Public estate to Citygate.

This sounds bad.

[Fust]

Keep the bus, but charge a nominal fee.
(whatever it takes to keep cost down to a reasonable level or break-even)

I still don't understand why the CC podium should be a public access area.
It never used to be when the guards where stationed at the staircases (much preferred IMHO).

The shopping mall also serves as a covered public walkway. 
Let the "visitors" from the new public housing units use that. It may increase business for the shops there (keep them happy), and doesn't increase the security risk on our podium...

 

[Icarus]

The public walkways are part of the original land lease agreement between the Govt and developers and cannot be varied.
The essence is the developer is granted land on the condition they create and maintain designated rights of way and the Govt has no future financial burden to maintain them.
The developers are fully aware of their responsibilities but a little shy in telling prospective purchasers of how it may impinge on their privacy.
As for the Security guards on the podiums in front of CC & CS, they have no powers whatsoever bar deterrent value and previously were unlawfully blocking public access.
Fact of life and we just have to live with it.

Back to the subject - Charge for the bus!

[kent]

The public walkways are part of the original land lease agreement between the Govt and developers and cannot be varied.
The essence is the developer is granted land on the condition they create and maintain designated rights of way and the Govt has no future financial burden to maintain them.
The developers are fully aware of their responsibilities but a little shy in telling prospective purchasers of how it may impinge on their privacy.
As for the Security guards on the podiums in front of CC & CS, they have no powers whatsoever bar deterrent value and previously were unlawfully blocking public access.
Fact of life and we just have to live with it.

Back to the subject - Charge for the bus!

what have you put into consideration to come to such a hot blooded conclusion? 

[Icarus]

The public walkways are part of the original land lease agreement between the Govt and developers and cannot be varied.
The essence is the developer is granted land on the condition they create and maintain designated rights of way and the Govt has no future financial burden to maintain them.
The developers are fully aware of their responsibilities but a little shy in telling prospective purchasers of how it may impinge on their privacy.
As for the Security guards on the podiums in front of CC & CS, they have no powers whatsoever bar deterrent value and previously were unlawfully blocking public access.
Fact of life and we just have to live with it.

Back to the subject - Charge for the bus!

what have you put into consideration to come to such a hot blooded conclusion? 

Sorry but I don't understand your point or what you want me to say?

The first paragraph appertains to the legal position of the walkways in reply to Fust's post.

The second is my vote/opinion that a user pays system (subject to exceptions such Senior citizens & children etc) for the bus is fairer. The reasoning I have posted on this thread and others previously.

Thanks for the hot blooded compliment. It makes me sound as if I really care. Unfortunately I have long since given up getting worked up about the extravagance and waste of this place or the management who run it. I now just pay the fees and chuckle at some peoples pettiness and insecurities.