【明報專訊】Last year, the five franchised bus companies submitted their respective fare increase proposals and applications to the government. In documents submitted to the Legislative Council the other day, the government disclosed the details for the first time.
Citybus and New World First Bus will raise the fares of their urban lines uniformly by $2 in the first proposal of a similar kind. As for the Citybus airport services, the suggested hike is 50%, while for overnight lines and daytime North Lantau lines, it is 23%. Kowloon Motor Bus and Long Win Bus applied for 9.5% and 8.5% increases respectively. New Lantao Bus sought a 9.8% increase.
The Legislative Council Panel on Transport is to discuss the applications on Friday (17 March). Some lawmakers have described the increase as "crazy" and "a rip-off". Arguing that passenger numbers have improved after the borders reopened, they have asked the Executive Council to play the gatekeeper role and curb the hikes.
The three-year COVID pandemic has shrunk all businesses in Hong Kong. True, the five bus operators have been struggling over the past few years. However, the hikes they proposed this time easily reach 20% to 30% for some lines, and even the height of 50% for some others. While the bus companies argue they have been facing the scourge of high oil prices these two years, the general public has also been feeling the pressure of the rising cost of living. The fare increases by the five bus companies are steep. The backlash they have triggered in society is hardly surprising.
Many franchised bus companies have looked back in time and emphasised that there were not many fare increases over the past 10 years, and now the relatively higher increase is to "recoup past losses". From a public policy perspective, it is hardly reasonable to suggest "catching up" at once with the unrealised fare increases of so many years without any regard to the public's livelihood and whether people can afford the hikes.
A member of Legco has suggested that bus fares rise annually in line with inflation. This could be playing into the hands of bus operators.
Currently, the government scrutinises bus fare adjustment proposals with consideration to multiple factors, such as how much operational costs and revenues have changed since the last hike, and to what degree citizens will approve of and be able to cope with the new fares. A member of the management at a bus company has criticised the arrangement as "lacking in transparency", and recommended adopting a formula with reference to the MTR's "two-way" mechanism that directly produces an annual fare adjustment rate.
The problem is that the formula in the MTR "two-way" mechanism is obviously biased towards the operator. Unless there is a major recession similar to that in the past few years, the fare is basically going "one-way": upwards. It also means that the government is handing over its authority to act as the gatekeeper for the public interest. Many in society believe this mechanism is in need of reform. The government and lawmakers must deliberate on the matter, and not repeat that mistake.
The fact that franchised bus operations are going downhill is directly related to the current public transport policy. Tilted in favour of the MTR, it is squeezing out bus companies. They also compete with minibuses, so bus routes are designed to "go round and round" in communities to take more passengers. Bus journeys are longer as a result, and this makes them even less competitive against the MTR or minibuses.
In foreign countries, the development of a "Bus Rapid Transit" (BRT) system is a solution. This, however, requires the freeing up of road surfaces to make way for bus lanes. The SAR government does not dare to follow the example of Singapore and other cities in restricting the continuous growth of private cars. As roads are insufficient, BRT is a difficult path to go down. Piecemeal repairs will not solve the problem, but only cause a nuisance to the public. The predicament of franchised buses is exactly one example.
明報社評2023.03.16：巴士加價幅度離譜 「可加可減」教訓莫忘
去年「五巴」分別向政府提交加價申請建議，政府日前向立法會提交文件，首度披露詳情。
城巴新巴方面，市區線首次提出劃一加價2元，城巴機場線則加50%，其他通宵及日常北大嶼山線亦加23%；九巴及龍運巴士，分別申請加9.5%及8.5%，嶼巴則加9.8%。
立法會交通事務委員會周五討論申請，有議員形容加幅「瘋狂」及「獅子開大口」，又認為通關後客量向好，要求行會把關，削減加幅。
3年新冠疫情，香港百業凋敝，這幾年「五巴」經營困難是事實，但今次「五巴」加價申請，部分路線加幅動輒兩三成，有些甚至高達五成。若說巴士公司這兩年面對高油價之苦，普羅大眾一樣感受到物價上漲壓力，「五巴」今次大幅加價，引發社會反彈，毫不令人意外。
多間專營巴士公司都翻舊帳，強調過去10多年加價次數不多，現在加幅較大是「追落後」。從公共政策角度，一下子說要「追回」多年加幅，完全沒有考慮民生及市民承受能力，實在難言合理。
有議員建議，巴士票價每年按通脹加價，對巴士公司來說，也許正中下懷。
目前政府審核巴士票價調整，會考慮多項因素，包括上次加價以來營運成本及收益變動、市民接受程度及負擔能力等。有巴士公司管理層批評有關安排「欠缺透明度」，主張參考港鐵「可加可減」機制，按方程式每年自動計算票價調整幅度。
問題是港鐵「可加可減」機制，方程式設計明顯對營辦方有利，除非像過去幾年般嚴重衰退，否則基本上「只加不減」，更變相等同政府交出為民把關的權力，社會不少意見都認為需要改革這一機制。政府和議員必須想清想楚，不能重蹈覆轍。
專營巴士經營陷困，與現行公共運輸政策有直接關係。政策過度向港鐵傾斜，擠壓巴士公司生存空間；巴士公司又得跟小巴競爭，為了吸客，路線設計在社區內「兜兜轉轉」，結果是車程變長，更難與港鐵或小巴競爭。
在外國，發展「快速公交/巴士系統」（BRT）是一條出路，但這需要闢出更多路面為巴士專線，特區政府不敢效法新加坡等城市，限制私家車不斷增長情况，道路不敷應用，BRT之路難通。小修小補解決不了問題，只會苦了市民，專營巴士困局，正是一例。
■ Glossary 生字 /
rip-off : sth that is unreasonably expensive
recoup : to get back an amount of money that you have spent or lost
piecemeal : done or happening gradually at different times and often in different ways, rather than carefully planned at the beginning