MTR fare hikes require effort to keep rises reasonable and affordable
- The Hong Kong-listed transportation company will make the 3.09 per cent fare increase under a mechanism that triggered an ‘affordability cap’ but defers part of the adjustment to future years
Few things upset the public as much as spiralling utility and transport bills. In the case of the latest urban railway fare adjustment, the 3.09 per cent rise is made under a revamped mechanism that is meant to be fair and reasonable to both the operator and passengers.
But the latter can be excused for still feeling short-changed, especially when the higher-than-inflation hike will be further made up by increases delayed until future years.
This is the second time commuters will have to dig deeper into their pockets under the new formula that has supposedly taken into account their affordability.
Other factors considered include inflation, the MTR Corporation’s productivity and profitability as well as a wage index for transport sector workers.
The adjustment could have been as high as 5.05 per cent, comprising a 3.2 per cent rise calculated under the formula and an outstanding 1.85 per cent increase deferred from last year.
Hong Kong MTR passengers face fare rises of 3% in June
But the actual level is limited to 3.09 per cent, after it triggered the “affordability cap” based on the fourth quarter’s median monthly household income.
It translates into an extra 70 cents, at HK$22.20 for an adult travelling from Sheung Shui to Admiralty for a single trip using an Octopus card. The existing array of concessions also will be extended to mitigate the impact, according to the MTR.
The mechanism is arguably working as the scale beyond the cap will be deferred to the future. But it also means passengers are subject to steeper rises accumulated over the years.
Lawmakers have also questioned the formula that helps reduce fare increases by linking the MTR’s property profits with productivity, saying the sluggish market would provide little cushion effect for adjustments.
The overhaul completed last year was criticised for being half-hearted, with calls for the formula to not only take into account the company’s profits from property development, but as a whole. It is regrettable that passengers are still at the mercy of the railway giant, whose fare concessions are piecemeal, limited and discretionary.
The public may well have to brave higher costs for everything as the economy further improves. Efforts must be made to keep the rises reasonable and affordable.
