感覺現況是，政府和議員也沒法有效監管愉景灣的交通票價，每次加價居民都只能迫於無奈及氣憤地接受，極有監察及制定愉景灣交通費的基制之必要及迫切性，政府和議員也不應只在加價前才做功夫，而應持續地去爭取有效監管愉景灣的交通票價的政策和事宜，這樣才是急居民之所急。

88. 感覺現況是，政府和議員也沒法有效監管愉景灣的交通票價，每次加價居民都只能迫於無奈及氣憤地接受，極有監察及制定愉景灣交通費的基制之必要及迫切性，政府和議員也不應只在加價前才做功夫，而應持續地去爭取有效監管愉景灣的交通票價的政策和事宜，這樣才是急居民之所急。

• 
  Our ferry fare is among the highest of all ferry services to outlying islands. And we just have a raise not too long ago. Without support of financial reports, a ferry fare increase cannot be justified.
  

• 
  Out bus routes are short and yet their fare $4 internal. $9.1 to Tung Chung, are comparable of not way more expensive than same very long-distance routes in HK and Kowloon. Cannot see how an increase is justified.
  

113. I would like to receive an audited copy of the financial statements each for the ferry and the bus operations.

I believe last time they should have produced the financial statements, but did not.

Its about time that HKR and its associated companies become a little more transparent.
118. The proposed increase is higher than CPI. Not only higher than CPI, it is much higher than the average proposed increase of public transport in HK. The proposed is a rip=off and not justified, just a greedy attempt from HKR. Given worsening service level, fee should be reduced instead!
119. This is totally unacceptable in apply for any fare increase on both ferry and bus. The so-called loss reason can be & most probably due to their bad mamagement. Survices have been duimunating instead of improving in last several fare increases. The existing fares are already too high and unreasonable.

125. Bus services at peak times are shocking

Illegally overloaded

Fare increase should come with big improvents in services In present econ climate increase in bus and ferry fares should only be 5 percent max There is some validity in the operators statement of risimg costs Regards Amy

1. 
   air conditioning of the waiting area on HK side, all year long, 24 hours, at too cold levels most of the time (especially evenings and night), very annoying for those who do not like temperature changes, and on top of that a real crime in matter of waste of money and climate channge. This is a wastage of our money, that is not desirable and did not fit any request from the residents. It only serves HK RI for trying to market their new developments for top end Fridge style of investors. SO HKRI should bear the cost of this (and the moral liability of increasing pollution and climate change through wastage of energy.
   
2. 
   The DB waiting area was revamped, again we guess for attracting more investors. We never were asked whether we wanted it. We actually don’t.
   
3. 
   The air conditioning on the ferry is not considerate of people and of legal advice: when we should be at around 23-25 degrees, we constantly enter ferries that are refrigerated at 19 or 20 degrees. That is increasing the fuel consumption, the pollution, and is not confortable. We live in the XXIst century, energy saving IS cool!, clever and considerate.
   

Marine fuels are killers, they not only lower IQ, decrease respiratory/lungs functions, low immune systems but are also strong carcinogenic (lung/liver cancers). Our life expectancy, due to your indecent choice for cheap fuel, is in average, cutting our lifespan by 7 years (cf European researchers on Rotterdam’s barbour/impact of marine diesel fuel). We have asked many times for cleaner fuels, or at least the use of auxiliaries of combustion, to lower emissions (and fuel consumption).

increase) when the pricing was changed from dollar based to points based

($1,310 beget 46 trips instead of 50 trips under the dollar based arrangement). At best this latter measure was a cowardly deceit by DBT.

Since those increases we have witnessed a huge increase in bus and ferry passenger loads which makes DBT's latest loss claims somewhat doubtful; hardly surprising when there can be so little trust in their motives and actions. I have also been present on board the No. 8 bus when the No. 5 ran into the back of it in the Plaza terminus last November and when the No. 8 broke down half way up Caperidge last month. The latter incident involved an old bus which was in service when my wife moved here 9 years ago. It was readily apparent at the time of the breakdown that the old No. 8 was mechanically unsound as it could barely get up the hill from the Plaza, with a full passenger load. There was no injury to passengers (unlike the incident with bus No. 5) but that seemed more due to good fortune than the consequence of a sound R&M programme.

category. Most impressed.