翠豐臺

[Panky]

很難公開的因為大部份業主都填滿張紙如下:

同意除非全日供應........................................................
不同意除非不限制時間(二小時及二十五分中一班)........................
.......................
.................


其實大家都想要村巴不過唔知點答
怕班委員睇唔明
全是媽媽差差

[Karl Lau]

Dear all,
To be faith, I agree on launch such programme even if I seldom live on the premises. But provide that the service must serve all the residents in Summit Terrace. Not (6 times x 24 passengers)=144 passengers. What about the other residents? Did they express their will on not using such service? Or just another joke by wild guess?

In my opion, I suggest the service must operate more than 15 hours a day and 7 days a week. Otherwise, the service will become so unattactive that no one will consider using such service and cease after the trial run. It also improve the image of our little community among other estate and sense of belongings.

Karl

[Panky]

100% agree

[1000001747]

First of all, the price quotation of the serivce only for the short period time every day does not make sense to us at all. If it is so expensive, it does make more sense to purchase our own shuttle bus and hire a bus driver as the return on investment won't be long at all. For the long term benefit of our residents, the management company should be asked to submit another option for us to select instead of only giving us rubbish and nonsense plan to us.

In addition, the repsonse of the management company has been unreasonably slow. I did call up the managament office several times within the past half a year ago giving them suggestions. I haven't received any prompt repsonse from them. I don't know what they are doing.

Complaints about the management office are as follows :

1) Slow response time to tackle problems or complaints sometimes even no repsonse)

2) Security at the building lobby is not tight enough to check all comers

3) How long have we been waiting for the services of shuttle bus ? Please ask oursleves

4) How long have we been waiting for the post box ? Just a simple service. It is totally unacceptable for us to have waited for the long time. I am living in Tower 5. I don't mind to put the box at Tower 1 as long as no oral fight among residents should have happened. Via this forum, I encourage and convince all the residents here to calm down and analyse all the matters relating to us in a way nothing personal and objective.

5) We should repsect all committe members as they spend their own time ot work for us. Please be considerate of not just pointing fingers to them for faults and errors. No matter what opinions you have, we can call the management office for their action but not just too relying on the members helping us taking action.

[柳子飛]

1. Before we deciding whether a green light be given to Estate Shuttle Service, I would like to make a simple calculation on the cost and effect. In short, only 28 additional capacity would be increased instead of 144 (24x6). Following is the rationale, please communicate.

2. Suppose 95A mainly serves residents (荃德, 翠豐臺, 錦豐園, 千里臺 & 家興大廈 . . ) each day.

3. Assume the market equilibrium, 800 residents would enjoy the service (for example only). others would end up be forced to take other mode of transport for multiple reason (As people like you might imagine some)

4. Let’s assume the composition of passengers as follows:
荃德 - 200
翠豐臺 - 200
錦豐園 - 200
千里臺 & 家興大廈 - 200

5. Now 翠豐臺 introduces a shuttle service which provides additional passenger capacity 144 (24 seaters multiple 6 trips) & provided the services provided by 95A remains unchanged. The daily capacity increases from 800 to 944.

6 Theoretically, we can expect in the initial stage as follows:
荃德 - 200
翠豐臺 – 200 + 144
錦豐園 - 200
千里臺 & 家興大廈 - 200
(another 144 would return to the pool when they find that travelling becomes more easily and conveniently)

7. Eventually, the most likely result would be balanced amongst these estate, that is as follows:
(800 + 144)/5 = 228 (round down)
荃德 - 228
翠豐臺 – 228
錦豐園 – 228
千里臺 - 228
家興大廈 – 228

6. From the assumption, we could reasonably conclude that in the long run, only 28 capacity instead of 144 would be increased. But the cost charges to Summit Terrace is the same, in another word, we are doing something that could be interpreted as subsidizing other estates. The fool is not someone but every one of you.

7 We could raise whatever we desire – without any obligation, of course. When taking account on the expense and reason that lay behind, it would be more wise to consider the cost and effect

8 Another question that bring forth would be “Is it reasonable to subsidize someone you don’t know on the traffic expense? “

柳子飛

[Karl Lau]

Mr.柳 really give me a brand new view on this topics.

Some of points are true. However, some are not!

For example, the assumption on no. of people using minibus 95A is evenly distributed which I believe is not the truth. It depends very much on the no. of tenancies of the each estate. ie. the larger the estate(tenancies), the more the no. of ppls. using the minibus.

second, if we launch the programme, the no. of seats had been increased and the result would probably be trimming down the frequency of the minibus services which may have to take into account.

But I agree that we may more or less subsidising the other estates INDIRECLY. However, we are not runing a profit making business, pls understand that it is rally difficult to give out 1 dollar and return for 1 dollar.

Yours,
Karl

[salvatore]

做咩依傢好似無佐件事咁既~~
csadmin~~~
快出來解釋~~~
_________________
Sal(音: 筲): 叫我Sal Sal就ok囉~

[chun]

根本由始至終佢哋都唔想攪啦,俾D咁嘅時問同收費做問卷就梗係大部份人反對啦,重唔不了了知咩,又話申請渺汒,唔去試就直情無望添啦,真係不知所謂.

[Eunice]

我睇完CS份report, 我覺得將95a拆兩條線根本冇幫助, 有不少業主都希望小巴路線可增加到街市街、楊屋道等地方, 因為現在根本沒有車到那邊, 建議將95A分拆有何作用?
另外, "建議小巴增加班次"其實已睇到好多次, 每次的答案都係咁......

[1000002127]

有關村巴一事, 已講了三、四個月, 但未見有任何建設性之進展, 以此方式做事, 恐怕再過三數年也沒有結果.

1. 有關 CS 十月二日之報告, 建議將 95A 分拆為兩條線為 A線 及 B線, 本人覺得是白痴之說法; 因兩條專線之路線全完是重疊, 運輸署根本是不會批準; 為何不是直接要求把小巴專線之班次加密?

2. 在 CS 收回之問卷資料指出, 不少業主都希望小巴路線可增加到街市街、楊屋道等地方, 因為現在根本沒有車到那邊, 何不向運輸署申辦村巴 (或專線小巴) 行走現時在 ST 未有公共汽車可直達之地點如: 荃灣廣場、西鐵站、街市街、楊屋道....; 既可方便 ST 之住戶及附近之居民, 同時更可舒緩 95A 之需求.

本人建議由業委會草擬兩、三條路線 (全日服務), 重新再作問卷調查. 以確定 ST 住戶之意向.

[chun]

CSADMIN pls reply us as soon as possible

[柳子飛]

自問一句 – 在村巴問題上, 是否一定要人有, 所以我一定要有? 在此我們須理智分析, 在屋苑成本,需要與效益間找出它的平衡點. 交通問題是大圍事(包括附近屋苑), 若翠豐臺成立村巴, 會惠及其他屋苑(道理以前已分析, 在此不贅述), 我唔覺得翠豐臺在交通問題上須獨力承擔.八月屋苑財務匯報有赤字四萬, 透過消費模式可反映一個人的社會地位及身份. 同樣亦可顯示他/她的思維邏輯, 須知, 過度消費就是破產故事的引子. 我認為袛要95A於繁忙時段加密班次, 問題應可迎刃而解. 可還記得早起的鳥兒有蟲吃的道理. 思思思行(註)

葫蘆樽
註-三思而後行

[1000002127]

沒有人說一定要有村巴, 祇是希望可改善乘車方便; 試問你身在 ST, 可如何往荃灣廣場, 沙咀道, 楊屋道街市, 西鐵站 .....等地方. ( 或由上述地方到 ST )

除村巴外, 是否可考慮專線小巴? 早前雖然運輸署否決 ST 申請開辦專線小巴, 但事隔半年, ST 入伙人數亦大增, 是否可向運輸署舊事重提?? 亦可聯同附近之屋苑一起向運輸署商討專線小巴一事, 未必是不可行.

雖知交通便利, 亦是影響樓價其中一個重要之因素.

[chun]

AGREE

[tommy]