What do you think of the new MTR link? I live in Tai Wai and go to work in Tsim Sha Tsui from Monday to Friday on the East Rail Line. I am extremely unhappy with the new arrangements. I now have to change trains at Hung Hom for Tsim Sha Tsui. The platform arrangement is very confusing. I have sometimes got to Hung Hom only to find that my next train will depart from a platform that is on the other side of the station. You have to go up to the main level and come down again on the other side, not knowing if you will make it in time. The other option is to wait for another train to come at the platform on the same side, which means waiting for three to six minutes during the rush hour and much longer at other times. This platform arrangement is ridiculous. I have some suggestions for the MTR Corporation. There is no need to terminate the two separate lines - East Rail and West Rail - at Hung Hom. The train can be operated from Lo Wu/Lok Ma Chau all the way to Tuen Mun. The tracks are contiguous. The drivers can be switched at Hung Hom or other stations. This will totally eliminate the hassle of changing trains. I talked with one MTR employee last Sunday and he said that the reason we need to change trains was because the East Rail line would continue on to the Hong Kong Island side when the Sha Tin-Central line is completed. I think this reasoning shows management is not thinking about its passengers. As I understand it, the cross-harbour segment of the Sha Tin-Central link will take about 10 years to complete. That is when the MTR Corp can make other arrangements and passengers will probably be more willing to change trains at that point. If the MTR Corp is not willing to adopt my first suggestion, I think it should at least align the train frequencies of the two lines so that passengers do not have to wait such a long time or have to run between platforms. At present West Rail is running less frequently than East Rail. I really hope the MTR Corp will listen to its customers. However, I expect it will just stonewall us and ignore all these complaints. Matthew Chu, Tai Wai I find the new arrangement of the East Rail-West Rail change at Hung Hom completely illogical. I do not see any advantage in this and, in fact, it is a real nuisance. Previously, from Hong Kong Island, I used to take the MTR to Tsim Sha Tsui station, walk to East TST station and go directly to my destination on the East Rail. But, now after reaching East Tsim Sha Tsui, I again have to change at Hung Hom. Having already spent considerable time getting to East Tsim Sha Tsui, I have to wait for an additional five to 12 minutes to get a train at Hung Hom. I do not see the rationale behind this awkward arrangement. Why can't we have the East-West Rail terminating at East Tsim Sha Tsui so that passengers can then conveniently move on to any other link without any unnecessary hassle? This will probably explain why the alternative old MTR route is more popular and more congested. H. Harania, Mid-Levels I believe the MTR Corporation should revise its charges as soon as possible, for example, the much reported Hung Hom to Nam Cheong (HK$5) compared to Hung Hom to Austin (HK$6). However, I've just discovered more discrepancies: (Octopus fares) Yuen Long/Tuen Mun-Kowloon Tong (35 minutes, HK$15); Yuen Long/Tuen Mun-Hung Hom (26 minutes, HK$16.80); Tsuen Wan West-Kowloon Tong (25 minutes, HK$6.70); Tsuen Wan West-Hung Hom (16 minutes, HK$8); Nam Cheong-Kowloon Tong (17 minutes, HK$3.60); Nam Cheong-Hung Hom (nine minutes, HK$4.30). There are more examples to glean online from the MTR Corp's journey planner. These discrepancies all occur on the West Rail connections with East Rail. A shorter journey on the same transport system costs more. The price difference is nearly HK$2 for one trip. It may not be much, but over a month, it will be about HK$100. It seems people who are taking the West Rail Line are being penalised for using a new route. Yvette Lui, Yuen Long Should the drug rehab school get the Mui Wo premises? It has been frustrating over the past few weeks to watch the government put into place many desperate measures in the pursuit of a quick fix to youth drug problems. It is unfortunate that it has not attempted to learn from the mistakes made by other administrations. They have discovered that long-term solutions lie in a broad approach, combining testing and rehabilitation with equitable education for all children and investment to support local communities. The case of the Christian Zheng Sheng College is an example of such short-sightedness. The government should have encouraged the college to compromise and accept one of the sites offered by the Heung Yee Kuk, remedying what few deficiencies a site might have with the large surplus funds it is now clear Zheng Sheng college possesses. Instead it continues to back just one option, which will result in the loss of the kuk site as a much-needed school for South Lantau. There could be a drug rehabilitation school and no local school for Mui Wo. The other option is to have both a rehabilitation school housed on a different site and a bilingual school, for ages five to 18, for about 800 Mui Wo students. Surely the latter would be a more constructive choice for the long-term fight against drugs. Perhaps it is time for the government and the Zheng Sheng college to show a greater love and understanding for their South Lantau neighbours and the long-term future of other communities in Hong Kong. M. Ferguson, Lantau On other matters ... Bumping into a friend on his way to donate blood made me realise with great shame that I had never performed this very necessary and worthy act. I rushed to the Red Cross donation centre in Sha Tin only to find to my chagrin that, at the age of 63, my blood is considered too old and tired to be of use to anyone. Perhaps our selfless Red Cross staff and volunteers have been too busy with their good deeds to have heard actor Tom Hanks proclaim that '50 is the new 40' and, by extrapolation, 63 might be the new fiftysomething. Depressed and filled with remorse for not having donated litres of blood previously, I sought solace on the Net and discovered that in the US there is no upper limit for donations and in Britain the limit is 70 and for new donors 65. In Hong Kong, new donors over 60 are turned away, even when there is a major disaster in Taiwan. Is it perhaps time for a rethink? Anders Nelsson, Fo Tan
