報道和社論都以nimby的角度去看問題，將巴士視為空氣污染的大敵卻看不見更大的圖象，eg9515有關整體汽車量增加的角度正補足了南早的忽略。巴士線的削減必須配合遏止其他種類汽車的增幅，否則只是騰出道路空間給其他車輛。

報道節錄：Eastern bus routes face axe

More than half of the 26 bus routes serving Eastern District may be axed or have the number of
their trips cut if a proposal by the Transport Department is approved. And cuts in the other 17
districts may follow.

Hong Kong Island could lose at least 163 bus trips a day, or 4,890 trips a month, if the
department's latest development plan to remove four routes that either end at or pass by Eastern
District wins support from the district council. Another 11 bus routes may be shortened, or run less
frequently.

But a district councillor said the council was unlikely to accept such drastic changes.
Sources familiar with the plan said this was only the first step of a major realignment scheme
that sought to consolidate and reduce the number of buses running along the island's main arteries
such as King's Road and Hennessy Road.

At any bus stop along King's Road, a passenger always has dozens of bus lines to choose from, all
going more or less along the same route, a government source said.

This neither helps improve air quality nor the bus operator's finances.

Similar-sized cuts are also expected in plans for Wan Chai and Central and Western districts, to
be released in February. The same principle applies to Nathan Road, the often choked-up convergence
point for buses from Kowloon and the New Territories.

Air-quality reviewers have advised the government to cut 10 per cent of bus trips by 2010 through
route rationalisation.

Eastern District councillor Lai Chi-keung agreed that some of the bus routes should be merged,
but he expected the suggestion to merge bus No 19 - an old route serving mainly schoolchildren
between North Point and Happy Valley - with No 63, which goes from North Point to Stanley prison,
would face strong protests from the community. No 19 was 83 per cent full during peak hours, and it
has been running for a long time. Why are they cutting it?

A spokeswoman for New World First Bus said No 19 sometimes carried only a dozen passengers
outside peak hours, and most passengers only went as far as Causeway Bay from Happy Valley.
Other proposed reductions include a night bus running between Central and Sha Tin, a service
between Wan Chai and Braemar Hill, and a holiday route between Stanley and Siu Sai Wan.
The department is proposing additional services for five harbour-crossing routes in its latest
plan.

A bus route can have trips added only if its occupancy rate in the busiest hour of the day exceeds
85 per cent.

One bus route at least ran on its last legs yesterday.

Fans of bus No 70 waved it a fond farewell as one of Hong Kong's oldest bus routes was taken off
the roster after 40 years in service.

No 70, the first Kowloon Motor Bus line to run between Sheung Shui and Jordan, started in January
1968. It pulled out of the Jordan terminus at 12.35am yesterday for the last time.

The route, which was served mainly by a non-air-conditioned bus that took two hours to complete
each run, was only 21 per cent full on average in 2006.

Fans agreed it was inefficient to keep the route, but they had been unwilling to let it go for
sentimental reasons.

KMB is also planning to trim routes between Tin Shui Wai and Jordan as it expects a drop in
patronage after the Kowloon Southern Link comes into service next year.

社論：Bus services should reflect changing needs

Our buses are a marvel of functionality on the city's choked main thoroughfares, helping to keep
people moving almost anywhere they want to go. They are an integral part of a safe, affordable public
transport system that is the envy of most other places. Moves to streamline the services to meet the
city's changing needs are therefore welcome. But as we report today, they also face resistance.

Bus services, once confined to one operator on each side of the harbour, have proliferated even as
the MTR trains have spread their reach underneath them. Compared with other large cities, travellers
are often spoilt for choice. It is not surprising that there is room for streamlining, by removing or
reducing some services that are duplicated and/or underused. The benefits of such a move include
fewer buses contributing to congestion, and cleaner roadside air. People readily agree that would be
a good thing, subject of course to the nimby (not in my backyard) syndrome. For the sake of their own
convenience, they do not want services that run past their homes to be affected. Some even cite
emotional attachment as a reason for keeping an old bus service. As a result, government officials
find that however strong the case for cancelling or reducing a bus service on economic and
environmental grounds, it can take years of lobbying to convince councils and residents to accept it.

There is no reason to suppose that a proposal to remove or reduce services on more than half the 26
bus routes that serve Eastern District will be any different. As we report today, a district
councillor says the council is unlikely to accept such a "drastic" proposal. It is, however, only the
beginning of the Transport Department's route realignment plans for the 18 districts. The aim is to
consolidate and reduce the number of buses that converge on major arteries such as King's, Hennessy
and Nathan roads. A government source rightly says that in King's Road, for example, the choice of
dozens of lines, all more or less going along the same route, does nothing for air quality or the
economics of bus operations, not to mention traffic flow. Advisers to the government on air-quality
objectives have suggested a 10 per cent cut in total bus trips by 2010 through route rationalisation.

The government's policy intentions are good, but will challenge its powers of persuasion. The
question is how to strike a balance with people's desire for easy access to the most direct route to
where they want to go. In such a densely populated, highly mobile society, tailoring transport
services to demand is a constant priority. Reversing over-servicing can be politically difficult. But
it could be made more palatable by a modern network of bus interchanges that offer flexibility in its
place. An example is the airport route, serviced by buses that are often near empty. Granted, air
travellers with luggage want the convenience of a direct route to the airport. But the wasteful,
polluting use of resources could be reduced by an interchange at, say, Tsing Yi, where buses from all
over could feed passengers to frequent departures for the airport.

The controversy over reclamation for the Central-Wan Chai bypass is a reminder that we cannot go on
building new roads to improve traffic flow. Experience shows that they tend to create more traffic to
fill them. Innovative solutions are called for to make better use of the roads we have. Bus
interchanges that offer a pleasant, convenient experience and frequent, reliable services that meet
demand could enhance the role that public transport plays in keeping us on the move.

那商營巴士公司的蝕本問題怎處理？

簡單回應。

我是沙田人，看到的70號的乘客量，是以源禾路或新田圍村這兩個地方判斷，所以意見不能作準。

無疑，沙田段的70號真的很少乘客。你問我應否取消，我會答應該。

澄清一下，我不是一見到人少就殺線的人。正如作者所說，巴士公司有責任為市民提供服務，尤其是沒有其他替代，所以我贊成51號繼續經營。

但大前提是會否有替代選擇，減低現有搭客影響。

好像加密73的班次，這能否彌補？加了271P能否令大窩西居住的上班一族不用頻撲？希望作者和網友跟進和回覆。此外，除了73外，73A能否設雙向分段，有需要時能否加設小巴往返大窩西和粉嶺太和火車站？會否提供轉乘優惠？這是運輸署和巴士公司應盡的責任。

無錯，政府所謂的鐵路主導其實是趕絕其他公共交通工具競爭，屯門和元朗就是例子。但70號的事例有點特別，如果要由上水到佐敦，75分鐘一點兒也不誇張，我相信除了有很多時間，否則居民也會選擇鐵路代步。正如我相信大部份第一城居民也會搭80K / 804 而不會選擇82K到大圍。(所以82K應該調整路線。)

感謝作者的文章，因為文章不是空喊反對取消70號，而且不訴諸感情，但點出重點：如何令居民獲得合理的公共交通服務。