Let's set it straight. Yes, the Mass Transit Railway (MTR) is clean, fast and a mighty convenient way of commuting. Your correspondent uses it frequently.
This is in the nature of urban underground railways. They are all like that compared to alternative modes of transport. That's why so many are now being built.
It is also why you cannot compare the MTR to other modes of transport when you talk of its efficiency. You have to compare like with like to assess whether we are getting enough bang for the buck we sink into it.
It is an important question because the Government is resisting any restructuring of MTR operations in line with more modern practices abroad on the grounds that it is already a very efficient system so why tinker with it? This may indeed be true but while we have had many claims of efficiency we have been given precious little to support these claims and sometimes, as in the assertion that MTR fares have been kept below inflation, these claims are dubious.
Take another example. In its 1998 accounts the MTR compares itself with eight other metro systems around the world and gives itself high scores on eight measures of efficiency.
It does not name these metros, however, which makes the question of how they were picked only that more pressing. Here is a short list of cities with metros. Under the 'A' we have Alma Ata, Adana, Amsterdam, Ankara, Antwerp, Athens, Atlanta. Want the listings under 'B'? That's 17 more.