shuttle bus for ph 3 & 4

[Poppet]

Agree it should be user pays to make the buses more viable

[giantsean]

There must be a balance somewhere.  I am in Phase 1 and sometimes use Phase 2 buses, for whatever reason.  Generally I am satisfied but I see it being a bit unfair Phase 3/4 have to pay but do not use (or it is inconvenient to do so).  On the other hand there are probably areas of 3/4 that we collectively pay for but which do not give us any benefits.  It's a challenge.

There must be a SMARTER way to use these buses, also more ideal choices in livery that will suit the needs.  Sometimes the small bus is fine for off-peak, but during peak it is much too small.  I would not endorse small bus AND reduced frequency ALL the time.  Maybe a medium sized bus with standing room is better?  The large bus is not really suitable for most cases... no luggage capacity (or unused) and very cramped.  On the other hand the small bus when full can not even be safely navigated.  At 6'1", I find it hard to sit in either of them as the seats so I end up taking up extra seat space (or aisle space) for my spread legs.  Standing room might solve this.

LPG is also a good idea, user pays also not a bad idea if done right.  Perhaps folks who use the bus often will actually save money over their management fees.

[Wandering_TamBrahm]

Collect a fixed monthly fee (in the range of $50-$100) from every family who wants to use the shuttle bus and allow them usage via the chip on the Octopus card that the bus reader can validate. Issue 2 cards per family.

Try it out for a quarter, if you can't run it either wholly with payments collected or at an acceptable subsidy level, disband the service. After all, if there aren't enough people willing to pay even a nominal amount for the service, do you even need the service? In an estate as large as this, there's got to be sufficient requirement/support for a service from the majority before we can consider that it's fair to charge every one equally for it.

W_tB

[chubbya]

Disband the busses? It brings to mind two visuals... One is a huge line of taxis, like at the airport, every morning for the people who feel like they need to break out their hiking gear and a packed lunch to make it all the way to the MTR station and the other is the hundreds of people that would be doing what I call the Hong Kong Shuffle (Def: Shuffling your feet in such a way as to give the impression you are moving quickly when in actuality you are going the same speed. Usually accompanied by flailing arms!!) every morning running to get to the train.

Can I take this opportunity to start a movement to have everyone set their alarm clocks 5 minutes earlier in the morning? I am tired of getting bowled over by the same people who are running late every morning... In my experience these are not isolated incidents but a wide spread epidemic.

PS
If the walk from phase 3 to the bus is too hot and sweaty in the summer why not walk thru the bazaar and take the elevator?

[Chejai]

Totally agree with Charles last comment regarding strollers and shopping.

I would vote that we get low-riding buses similar to those that go to Discovery bay as they are far better for loading luggage / strollers / shopping.  These buses can also accomodate standing as not everyone wants to try to squeeze into those ridiculously small so called three seater rows. 

Why do we need to have buses that are designed to carry as many (small) people as possible when it is a shuttle bus, not a school / tour bus?

More thought needs to be put into what buses are being provided as well as where they are actually going to.

[garyhk]

Goodness, such a simple thing of providing transport to and from the MTR causes such a lot of needless headaches.

As someone says the DB buses are a good example to follow; we seem to be using some expired tourist company's buses and are quite unsuitable and cramped for people with even the slightest of luggage, prams, strollers etc.  Maybe our exalted MO wish to discourage such users...

I am in Phase 1 and I don't mind to give up our bus and have everything converge on the existing Phase 2 bus location.  I walked the walk from the far towers in both phase 1 and phase 4 and in my humble opinion people need to get a grip.  It is not a marathon.  Considering other places where I have lived the walk was just as far if not farther to get to transport.  Having ONE central location could solve all this small, large, middle sized bus debate by maximising the load on each journey.  Obviously peak usage forecasting is needed to find out the optimal bus provision.  Charging a minor contribution per journey is the answer so that those who use the bus the most contribute a bit more beyond the management charges and those who do not use it don't have to pay this little premium.  I also think that so many journeys are only taken because it's all so very convenient -- almost at the standard of bus on demand for 18+ hours a day.  Introducing some minimal charging would reduce these unnecessary journeys and raise some money towards costs.  FIXED timetabling could avoid the dashing about at the last minute also.  Cut down the frequency during the day.  As someone said people should be encouraged to walk more anyway; it is excellent for health. 

Honestly, we do not need such extreme suggestions of cutting the bus service altogether nor having it run as now on an almost on demand basis.  We don't need 3 routes for CC...  It is already too extravagant.  If people are honest and reasonable we can and should all compromise.  Personally I would not like to live in Phase 2 because of the general hubbub around there and so am happy to compromise by walking there to get on and off any bus.  People who choose Phases 1, 3 and 4 presumably chose those locations for reasons other than bus service and so those original reasons probably remain valid.

We are already lucky to live in such a nice place.  Making a mountain of a minor bus molehill is not necessary.  We can all compromise for a suitable solution that is acceptable to the majority.  It will not be possible to please everyone 100% but we can get a consensus, surely........?

[marco]

Why include the shuttle bus charges into the management fee? Why not charge it per passenger per ride ?
 
1)  I live in H Flat, but I only have 3 family members.  I feel unfair to share the shuttle bus charges by calculating the flat area.
2)  I live in phase 4, I seldom take the suttle bus.

If the charge is separated from the management fee, I think the problems raised from the shuttle bus will be highly reduced.  Have you ever heard any problems related to the shutte buses operated by CC Club?  

[prisms]

Can anyone tell how much of management fee (per sft) going for these busses? Like Marco, we seldom use the bus but we kept paying management fee for a longtime now.
Having said I also feel that we need these "free" busses to promote the property.

[marco]

Anyone knows there's no free lunch. If we want a "free" shuttle bus, we have to pay a lot in the management fee, and it is never an easy job to decide how 'free' a shuttle bus should be appropriated. That is why we have so many problems here.  

If the charges are not shared fairly among all the residents here, and if the management fee is always over-budgeted,  it will definitely produce a bad reputation to our estate.

In order to make it simple, just pay the bus fare whenever you take it.  

[garyhk]

When you decided to move here the bus service was not hidden from you; it is not a surprise.  It is obvious that everyone should contribute generally to everything.  Those of us who choose to use the gym also pay a per visit charge, like the pools and other facilities.  It can be argued these are being subsidised by the rest of the owners but this would be a wrong way to look at it, in my opinion.  These facilities all add up to building in value to each and every unit.  It would be impossible and very short sighted to start opting out of the various bits and pieces on offer here; totally impractical to do so and in the end the place would be derelict as more and more services are withdrawn and property values would plummet.  As Marco suggests a way to approach this bus issue is to charge users a token contribution (like the gym users) and everyone else even those who claim they NEVER use it will have it available for when they may suddenly find a use for it.  In any case, there are a lot of old people who live here who rely on it.  As I have suggested before, everyone needs to compromise and no one is going to get everything they want. 

I really do not believe we should be adding new routes and more vehicles; the bus service should be reduced to one pick up at Phase 2 only; the schedule should be FIXED (i.e. 15, 30, 45 and 00 past the hour) and reduced to say twice an hour during the day when demand is lower.  I have observed before that there is an extravagance of bus scheduling here and it simply is not necessary.

Another issue that has struck me is that there are over 5,000 units in CC.  Less than 0.5% of owners participate regularly in this forum, suggesting that 99.5% of owners just don't care (ignoring that they may have no English language ability).  Consequently, what is the point of 0.5% of the decision makers to discuss all this anyway?  It seems to me, upon some reflection, to all be rather pointless.

[Poppet]

The only fair way to run the buses  is user pays , i see NO reason why phase 1 and 2 should get buses but not towers 15/16 when they pay the same in fees. I have used the bus a couple of times in two years but would use it in the summer months if it came to our end of the estate. If they cut frequency to phase 1 and 2 it would mean phase 3/4 could also benefit from the buses along with everyone else without need for management fees especially if people who use it pay a small amount . There are after all lots of elderly people living in towers 15/16as well as phases 1 and 2.

[JEFF LAM YUET]

CC Shuttle Bus Concerns


1.         Poor planning and lack of consultation made.

2.         The proposed route 3 drives INTO the estate with more air
    and noise pollution concerns to all phase 2, 3 and 4, while
    the existing route 1 and 2 only stop at the entrance of the
    estate. Route 3 also takes a longer distance which smaller
    buses are recommended for quicker time and better environmental efficiency.

3.         Keep the traffic controller at the MTR shuttle bus stop especially when we may have 3
    routes all stopping at the same place. However, the salary of this 6-hour daily job should
    be reduced from the $33000 to $11000. We should also find out who did approve such an
    unreasonable rate from day one, is there any beneficial relationship with certain parties?

4.         Other than the 56 units in phase 5, there is no population increase in Caribbean Coast, so
    there is no reason to increase about 80 seats all the time. Given that the current resources
    isn't fully utilized especially during thedaytime and  non-peak hours,  increasing 80 extra
    bus seat, that is about 1.5 big buses and 3 small buses may only increase our operational
    costs without reason.

5.         Our management Office assumes most of tower 11, 12 residents from phase 3 will take
    the new route 3, this is highly risky when route 3 has less frequency with longer traveling
    and waiting time. I believe most tower 11 and 12 residents may still choose route 2.
    Therefore, dramatically reducing the bus number and frequency of route 2 as they
    proposed is an unacceptable proposal due to their miscalculation. Anything improves our
    estate service by adding route 3 is considerable but the current service quality of route 1
    and 2 must not be scarified. If residents taking route 1 and 2 dissatisfy with the new
    service quality, then management office and their pro-MO fans will restore the current
    frequency, then who will pay the costs for their mistakes?

6.         If well consultation and route 3 proposal is confirmed. I recommend providing 2 buses for
    route 3 and keeping the existing route 1 and 2 unchanged. It is also  possible to provide
    circle route after 10p.m that one bus can stop 3 phases, so we save  costs from 9 buses to 3
    buses for about 4 hours per day, in order to  maintain the daytime and peak hour route 1
    and 2 service quality while the savings can also afford the new route 3 service.

7.         Our hard-working phase 1 and 3 owners' committee members and I have attended all
    forums to offer our opinion to the management office. However, I realize that the MO
    only listens to their fans who can only suggest proposal to cut service and increase costs.
    This is pity that our voice cannot be heard by our management office. I still thank our
    good committees who really speak for us small owners instead of the landlord or
    management office. I also seek support from you to encourage our community services.
    Thank heaps!

[JEFF LAM YUET]

I was distributing flyers about our concerned shuttle bus issue today 6-8pm, however our MTR beloved Chairman of PH II OC insulted us, asking us to get permission from MTR so we can give information to owners in public area outside our mtr station shuttle bus stop. I think MTR is everything in his mind that even bypass our freedom of standing at public space. I would also like to complain the chairman of PH II OC that he took photo of residents waiting buses, he also took photos of my helpers and me at shuttle bus stop today even if I have clearly told him to stop. This is not the first time he did this kind of behaviour in our community. He insulted pet owners, took photo of the current PH I OC chairlady before too. I assume any well-educated person can respect others. I hope our residnets to know that we have such a "leader" in our estate, and the facts are we had big deficit, poor tendering and some OC not really speaking for small owners. I hope small owners can join together to influence our Management Office and OC, and please support the good OC of PH I & III to fight for justice for our residents. THX ALL!

[giantsean]

Seriously again... why would this guy love the MTRC so much unless he was on the take... and if he is on the take can't we just call the ICAC on him?

[JEFF LAM YUET]

I have reported his bad bahaviour to police and they will keep close eyes on him. I think ICAC may also be doing something given such a continous betroying of owners' right happened in our estate. Thx to those MTRC-friendly people in our estate, we had 8 million total surplus in 2007 (saved 6 years), reduced to 4m in one year, then this year another 2 million deificit, such a big estate with over 6 phases and 5000 units but only 2 million surplus, this is a JOKE! Seaview Crescent only has 1500 units but now has about 7 million surplus while 2 years ago it was only 1.7 millions. They only pay $1.48 management fee per ft. Also under the MTRC's management, why can't CC achieve something good too? It proves that a good OC can really make big difference in our life, management fee, estate standard, etc.

I seek you guys and ladies to support the current good PH I and III OC, and replace the bad OC with new people if there is a chance. Thanks.