Permanent taxi access to Park Island confirmed
Well, you heard it from me first in my earlier post on the Park Island blog:
I can now confirm, Park Island has been opened up to 24/7 taxi access. I really feel this is long over due, and I suspect the reason why it was not granted sooner was that the ferry service operator was trying to protect its monopoly on public access to Park Island.
A number of people predicted this would happen, and they clearly were now correct.
We must again thanks Justin Tseng who has been pushing for open taxi access to be granted.
In my earlier post I speculated that if confirmed, the increased taxi access might lead to minor price increases on Park Island, as higher income earners, who are less prices sensitive and who are willing to pay extra for the ease of taxis rather than the ferry or the bus, will be more inclined to rent or buy on Park Island knowing that Park Island has 24/7 taxi access, is 15 minutes away from Central and Mid Levels by taxi, and yet with a great environment and facilities that you simply cannot get in most parts of Hong Kong. This might be so especially for the more expensive and larger penthouses on Park Island. These might rent for 50-60K on Park Island, whereas something the same size and quality might be 150-200K on HK Island. So now that Park Island is accessible by taxi 24/7 one can easily do a calculation as to what if might cost to live on Park Island and commute by taxi, vs living in the same sized place in the Mid Levels. I would expect the larger apartments on Park Island to be in more demand now as news of the open taxi access becomes more widely known, and as there is an increase in demand from expats living in Hong Kong to move to Park Island.
Now, the million dollar question (literally, or in fact most likely multi-million dollar question) remains. WHEN WILL PARK ISLAND GET PRIVATE PARKING FOR RESIDENTS? I strongly urge all relevant Government and private parties to unite and work to making this happen, to help make Park Island the ultimate place to live in Hong Kong.
few of us emailed the TD to try to hurry them along with some answers.
ReplyDelete1. Had you ever taken the Tseun Wan ferry? The reason they took away the service beacause there was not enough passengers at any given time. I rode it irregularly and the highest number count of passengers was about 25 or less. So no surprise that they stopped the ferry. I don't blame them.
ReplyDelete2. I would like to ask you what brought you to Ma Wan island in the first place? If you find not having a private car inconvenient, why do you want to live here? Ma Wan does not need any carpark structure! Which part of the eco-friendly island do you and your " carpark wanted" fans not understand?
By the way, the beach is a public beach for the use of all Hong Hong, not just Park Island residents.
As a Park Island owner, I want to keep the tranquility as is!
Anon what a stupid comment. Just because a person has moved to a place, that does not mean they have no right to want to improve it. In my case, I moved to Park Island hoping that they will in the future allow cars. Just like people in the Mid Levels might have moved there before the esculator came, hoping that one day there will be an esculator. Is called progress which is what HK is all about. Why did you move to Park Island then? Do you want it to be back to the way it was before the apartment buildings were built and just a local villiage? Of course one can move to a place and hope to improve it.
ReplyDeleteMa Wan does not "need" a car park, but it would be "nice" to have one for residents that want to drive and own cars.
Also what is your point about ecofriendly? Do you think a ferry is eco friendly? HK has many many cars. 500 more cars added by Park Island residents will make almost zero difference on pollution in HK.
What's your point about the public beach?
We would love to improve Park Island. Allowing cars on Ma Wan is not an improvement. We moved to Ma Wan because it is quiet, the air is fresh, it is uncrowded, and the vegetation is lush. We assume everyone who moved here had similar reasons. Any number of cars would detract from this. Residents who want to own cars should move somewhere else so that all the Ma Wan residents do not have to listen to your car engines and horns and breathe in your car's exhaust. We, like the Park Island blogger, are environmentalists. Unlike the Park Island blogger, we encourage the use of public transportation over private cars.
DeleteI think the Park Island residents, the Owner's Association, the Transportation Department, and the HK government as a whole have an obligation to keep in place the conditions that caused us all to move here. Anything else amounts to a sort of breach of contract. Example; say I and others did not like dogs and worked to outlaw them on Ma Wan. How do all the dog owners feel about that? Is it likely that the pet rules in force here influenced their decision to move here? Are we not obligated to maintain that condition? I think there is an obligation to maintain the lifestyle of Ma Wan for everyone who cherishes that lifestyle, and revoking existing rules are not "improvements".
(This is a quote from the Park Island blogger: "Park Island's image as a healthy, eco-friendly community". Let's maintain that image!)
FINALLY WE HAVE IT. 24 HOURS TAXI ACCESS TO MA WAN. IT TOOK THE GOVT 7+ FXXXING YEARS TO APPROVE. DON'T KID YOUR SELF ITS ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, ITS ABOUT MONEY. THEY COULD APPROVE ACCESS FOR PRIVATE CARS TOO, BUT SUN HUNG KAI IS TRYING TO PROTECT ITS LUCRATIVE TRANSPORT MONOPOLY. EVENTUALLY PROVATE PARKING WILL COME.
ReplyDeleteTHE TAXI ACCESS MIGHT HAVE PUSHED UP PRICES 5-10% BUT THIS IS SORTF OF OFFSET BY THE RECENT GOVERNMENT MEASURES TRYING TO SLOW DOWN THE MARKET. GO FIGURE. EITHERWAY, PARK ISLAND WILL BE DOUBLE IN VALUE IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS OR LESS I AM SURE.
Prices doubling in 10 years is not far fetch - it requires an annual increase of 7% over that period. Over the 6 years, prices for phase 5 in Park Island has increased at an average of 9%, just to put things into perspective.
ReplyDelete