Table of Contents
page no.
Chapter 1 Background
1
Chapter 2 Public Engagement Exercise
6
Chapter 3 Summary of Views on Basic Elements and Pertinent Issues of the Pilot Scheme
13
Basic elements
(1) Charging area 13
(2) Charging mechanism 16
(3) Charging period 17
(4) Charging level 19
(5) Exemption and concession 21
(6) Technology 25
Pertinent issues
(1) Privacy concerns 29
(2) Effectiveness 31
(3) Complementary measures 32
(4) Other issues
36
Chapter 4 Way Forward 42
Abbreviations 46
Annexes
Annex 1 Major meetings and events held during the public engagement
exercise
Annex 2 A summary of views of various stakeholder groups on the Pilot
Scheme
Annex 3 A brief summary of three “opinion surveys” conducted by
non-governmental organisations
Annex 4 A summary of views gathered at focus group meetings, District
Council forum and meetings with transport trades
Annex 5 A breakdown and numbers of submissions received from various
channels
Annex 6 A list of all submissions received and their originators (except
those requested by their originators to remain anonymous)
Annex 7 Copies of all submissions received (except those requested by
their originators to remain confidential)
Annex 8 The 13 questions on the basic elements and pertinent issues of the
Pilot Scheme set out in the public engagement document
Annex 9 The Transport Department’s written reply to the Central and
Western District Council (C&W DC) Secretariat in response to
the motion on the Pilot Scheme passed by the C&W DC (Chinese
version only)
1
Chapter 1 Background
Overview
1.1 This chapter sets out the background of planning for an Electronic Road
Pricing Pilot Scheme (“the Pilot Scheme”) in Central and its adjacent areas
(“Central District”), the objectives of public engagement exercise and an
outline of the contents of this report.
Background of planning for the Pilot Scheme
1.2 Road traffic congestion is deteriorating in Hong Kong. During morning
peak hours on weekdays, the average traffic speed of major roads in urban
areas dropped from 23.5 km/hour in 2005 to 21.5 km/hour in 2015 and the
traffic speeds of some road sections were lower than 10 km/hour. Besides,
the worsening traffic congestion caused more vehicle emissions and
adversely affected the air quality at local level. In the past decade, the
annual average concentrations of respirable suspended particles and
nitrogen dioxide as recorded at the Central roadside monitoring station
were about two to four times higher than those of the guidelines set by the
World Health Organisation. Our daily lives, our economy, air quality, as
well as the image of Hong Kong as a world-class metropolis are adversely
affected. Therefore, there is an urgent need to tackle road traffic
congestion.
1.3 At the invitation of Professor Anthony Cheung Bing-leung, the Secretary
for Transport and Housing, the Transport Advisory Committee (“TAC”)
conducted a study on road traffic congestion of Hong Kong in 2014. At
the end of the same year, the TAC submitted the “Report on Study of Road
Traffic Congestion in Hong Kong” and recommended a total of 12 short,
medium and long-term measures1. The Government agreed with the
1 The 12 short, medium and long-term measures recommended by the TAC are published at the following link:
http://www.thb.gov.hk/eng/boards/transport/land/Full_Eng_C_cover.pdf
2
recommendations and adopted a multi-pronged approach to tackle road
traffic congestion. One of the recommendations made by the TAC is that
the Government should commence the early planning of an Electronic Road
Pricing Pilot Scheme in Central District.
1.4 Electronic road pricing (“ERP”) is a traffic management tool that can
effectively tackle localised road traffic congestion. It primarily aims at
reducing the number of vehicles entering and leaving a charging area
during its charging period, thereby improving the traffic conditions in the
charging area.
1.5 The Government agrees that there is a need to implement an ERP pilot
scheme, and Central District is the most suitable location for launching the
Pilot Scheme because:
(1) Central District, being the central business district, is strategically
important to Hong Kong, yet its traffic conditions are far from
satisfactory. Traffic speeds on some road sections2 during the
morning peak hours on weekdays are only about 10 km/hour, which are
not much faster than an adult’s average walking speed of 4 to 5
km/hour;
(2) Central District is served by excellent and high-capacity public
transport services with an extensive coverage to various districts in the
territory, allowing users of private cars and taxis to use different
alternative public transport modes to access to this area; and
(3) the Central-Wan Chai Bypass, when commissioned, will provide a
free-of-charge alternative route to road users whose origins and
destinations are not in Central District to bypass the charging area, thus
minimising the number of people affected.
2 The traffic speeds on some road sections during the morning peak hours on weekdays from 2011 to 2015 were: Connaught Road Central Flyover (Morrison Street to Jubilee Street) 9.0 to 15.2 km/hour Chater Road (Pedder Street to Murray Road) 8.3 to 13.5 km/hour Des Voeux Road Central (Eastbound) (Cleverly Street to Pedder Street) 8.6 to 12.5 km/hour Hillier Street (Wing Lok Street to Connaught Road Central) 5.1 to 7.8 km/hour
3
1.6 Over the past decade, the concept of ERP had been floated in two
large-scale surveys in Hong Kong. In 2007, the Council for Sustainable
Development conducted a public engagement exercise on “Better Air
Quality”, with focused discussions on three topics, viz. high air pollution
days, road pricing and demand side management on electricity
consumption3. The public and stakeholders were invited to express views
on these three topics and more than 80 000 completed questionnaires and
about 900 written submissions were received. A greater proportion of the
views agreed4 that road pricing should be part of the Government’s air
pollution policy.
1.7 During the TAC’s study of road traffic congestion in 2014, a public opinion
survey was conducted, which included 6 000 telephone interviews with
members of the general public and 3 000 face-to-face interviews with six
groups of drivers (i.e. private car owners/drivers, taxi drivers, goods vehicle
drivers, franchised bus drivers, public light bus drivers and other bus
drivers5). The survey inquired whether the respondents supported the
implementation of ERP in busy areas so as to reduce the number of
specified types of vehicles entering these areas. The survey findings
indicated that about 63% of the general public supported this measure,
while 30% were against it and the remaining 7% had no comment. The
views of the six groups of drivers were more diverse, with 52% supporting6,
3 In its report released in 2008, the Council for Sustainable Development pointed out that Hong Kong should
adopt road pricing as soon as possible following a “polluter pays” principle to penalise polluting vehicles. The Pilot Scheme under planning is a traffic management tool primarily aimed at alleviating road traffic congestion. While the Pilot Scheme can, to a certain extent, help reduce vehicle emissions and greenhouse gas emissions thereby improving air quality, it is quite different from a road pricing scheme primarily aimed at improving air quality. As the Pilot Scheme and a road pricing scheme for improving air quality involve different stakeholders’ interests, they will adopt different charging and exemption strategies.
4 The respondents were asked a question in the questionnaire on whether they agreed that road pricing should be part of the Government’s air pollution policy. Among the responses received, 42% agreed, 21% disagreed, and 37% were neutral.
5 Other buses included tour coaches, residents’ service buses, school buses, cross-boundary coaches, hotel buses and company buses.
6 Among the various groups of drivers, over half of franchised bus drivers, other bus drivers, public light bus drivers and private car owners/drivers supported the implementation of ERP in busy areas, while slightly less than half of goods vehicle drivers and taxi drivers supported it.
4
which was marginally higher than the 44% opposing, and the remaining 4%
had no comment.
1.8 The findings of the above two surveys showed that while there was quite
some public support for the implementation of ERP, some in the
community were still doubtful about it. As a result, the first step we take in
planning for the Pilot Scheme is to conduct this public engagement
exercise.
Objectives of public engagement exercise
1.9 The Government conducted three separate studies on whether ERP should
be introduced in Hong Kong, in 1983, 1997 and 2006 respectively. The
third study was completed by the Transport Department (“TD”) in 2009.
The final paragraph of the executive summary of the study is quoted as
follows:
“ If a decision is made later to implement congestion charging (i.e. ERP) on
traffic grounds, the Government will carry out an extensive public
engagement/consultation to solicit public views. The engagement process
would involve a wide range of stakeholders as well as the travelling public
and the community as a whole. Only when a consensus is reached will the
Government press ahead with the implementation of congestion charging.”
1.10 In 2014, the TAC also mentioned in the “Report on Study of Road Traffic
Congestion in Hong Kong” that the concept of ERP remains a novel one to
many road users in Hong Kong. The TAC therefore suggested that the
Government should engage the public as soon as possible for the planning
of an ERP scheme. The Secretary for Transport and Housing stated at a
meeting with the Legislative Council (“LegCo”) Panel on Transport in May
2015 that a public engagement exercise for the Pilot Scheme would be
launched within 2015.
5
1.11 The Government commenced a three-month public engagement exercise
for the Pilot Scheme on 11 December 2015 to enhance public
understanding of the six basic elements, three pertinent issues (see Table 1)
and overseas experience of ERP. The exercise aimed at encouraging
public discussion and building a consensus in the community, and enabling
the Government to solicit the views of the public and stakeholders on the
basic elements and pertinent issues. In the next step, the Government will
appoint a consultant to conduct an in-depth feasibility study on the Pilot
Scheme and formulate detailed scheme options for further discussion by the
public.
Table 1 Six basic elements and three pertinent issues of the Pilot Scheme
Six basic elements:
1) charging area
2) charging mechanism
3) charging period
4) charging level
5) exemption and concession
6) technology
Three pertinent issues:
1) privacy concerns
2) effectiveness
3) complementary
measures
Contents of this report
1.12 The remaining chapters of this report include:
Chapter 2: Public Engagement Exercise
Chapter 3: Summary of Views on Basic Elements and Pertinent Issues of the Pilot Scheme
Chapter 4: Way Forward
************
6
Chapter 2 Public Engagement Exercise
Overview
2.1 This chapter gives a brief account of the publicity activities held, the events
organised and participated during the public engagement exercise, and a
summary of the numbers of submissions received from various channels.
Publicity activities
2.2 The public engagement (“PE”) exercise was launched on 11 December
2015 after the media session by Professor Anthony Cheung Bing-leung, the
Secretary for Transport and Housing, and Mrs. Ingrid Yeung Ho Poi-yan,
the Commissioner for Transport. The PE exercise lasted for about three
months and ended on 18 March 2016.
Figure 2.1 Media session
2.3 The TD set up a dedicated website (www.erphk.hk) for this PE exercise to
allow the public to browse and download the PE document and publicity
leaflet via the internet, and submit their views through the message box of
7
the website7. On the website there was an interactive game called “Test
Your ERP8 Knowledge” to help the public better understand ERP. The
webpage attracted over 52 000 visits.
Figure 2.2 Dedicated website (www.erphk.hk)
2.4 During the PE exercise, we made use of television and radio
Announcements in the Public Interest (“APIs”) for publicity and
encouraged the public to express their views. APIs were also broadcast on
the display panels in franchised buses, MTR stations and a number of
government premises9. About 1 000 posters were put up at numerous 7 Members of the public could also submit their views through other channels, including post, fax, email,
telephone, the Public Affairs Forum of the Home Affairs Bureau and the Transport Complaints Unit of the TAC.
8 The full name is “Test Your Electronic Road Pricing Knowledge”. 9 These included three Licensing Offices of the TD (the Hong Kong Licensing Office, Kowloon Licensing
Office and Sha Tin Licensing Office), two major parks (the Victoria Park and Urban Council Centenary Garden) and two Home Affairs Enquiry Centres of the Home Affairs Department (Central and Western Home Affairs Enquiry Centre and Wan Chai Home Affairs Enquiry Centre).
8
venues10 to enhance publicity. Leaflets (about 32 000) were distributed in
various districts at public libraries, public car parks, major Post Offices,
Home Affairs Enquiry Centres and community halls/centres of the Home
Affairs Department (“HAD”), as well as Licensing Offices and Vehicle
Examination/Car Testing Centres of the TD. PE document (about 2 200)
were made available to the public at Home Affairs Enquiry Centres of the
HAD and major Post Offices in various districts. At the same time,
publicity stickers were affixed on about 400 on-street parking meters and
banners were displayed on more than 10 footbridges/flyovers in the Central
District and Wan Chai.
Figure 2.3 Publicity materials
10 These included public libraries, sports centres, markets, public car parks, District Lands Offices, Post Offices,
Immigration Offices, Home Affairs Enquiry Centres of the Home Affairs Department, community halls/centres, Licensing Offices and Vehicle Examination/Car Testing Centres of the TD, government premises.
9
Events organised and participated
2.5 During the PE exercise, we organised and participated in 20 events and
meetings during which about 190 participants from eight major stakeholder
groups (i.e. LegCo members and political parties, District Council members,
professional bodies, academics, transport trades, business associations,
green groups and other organisations) had expressed their views. A list of
major meetings and events held during the PE exercise is at Annex 1.
2.6 One of the TAC’s recommendations in the “Report on Study of Road
Traffic Congestion in Hong Kong” was to start planning for an ERP pilot
scheme. We attended the TAC meeting on 15 December 2015 and listened
to its views on the Pilot Scheme.
2.7 We organised a District Council (“DC”) forum and invited the
representatives from each DC to express their opinions. Moreover, we
attended meetings of the LegCo Panel on Transport, and the Central and
Western DC to solicit opinions from different levels of councils. We also
invited academics, professional bodies and green groups to attend three
focus group meetings and had in-depth discussions with them on the basic
elements and pertinent issues of the Pilot Scheme. In order to understand
the concerns of the transport trades, we met and discussed with the
representatives from urban taxi, Hong Kong-Guangdong cross-boundary
coach, green minibus, public light bus, goods vehicle, franchised bus,
school bus and non-franchised bus trades.
2.8 We were invited to attend several seminars and meetings arranged by
various organisations, including the Hong Kong General Chamber of
Commerce (Economic Policy Committee), the Small and Medium
Enterprises Committee, the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (Civil
Division and Logistics & Transportation Division) and the Clean Air
Network, to share and exchange views and ideas with the participants.
10
Figure 2.4 Some events held during the PE exercise
2.9 Furthermore, we were invited by the Education Bureau to attend a seminar
on ERP for geography teachers teaching senior secondary students. We
explained to the teachers the basic elements and overseas experience of
ERP and exchanged opinions with them. We also participated in an online programme (called「通識直播室」in Chinese) co-organised by the Hong
Kong Federation of Youth Groups Media 21 and the Education Bureau,
during which we answered questions raised by students of three secondary
schools about the Pilot Scheme and exchanged views with them.
2.10 We attended the thematic interviews by three media agencies at four
programmes aired, including “Talkabout” of Radio Television Hong Kong
(“RTHK”), “On a Clear Day” of Commercial Radio, “Backchat” of RTHK
and “A Closer Look” of Television Broadcasts Limited. Through these
programmes, we were able to spell out the basic elements and pertinent
issues for planning the Pilot Scheme to the wider community and
encouraged them to voice their opinions. In addition, the Commissioner
11
for Transport wrote an article11 (entitled「齊來籌劃電子道路收費計劃」
in Chinese) which was published on a number of local newspapers in early
March 2016 to respond to several key questions of public concern as well
as to give readers a better understanding of the need of the Pilot Scheme and
the way forward.
Numbers of submissions from various channels
2.11 During the PE exercise, we received from various channels (including
website, post, fax, email, telephone, the Public Affairs Forum of the Home
Affairs Bureau and the Transport Complaints Unit of the TAC) a total of
515 submissions, of which 50 were “submissions from major stakeholder
groups”12, three were the findings of three “opinion surveys” 13, and the
remaining 462 were “submissions from the general public or organisations”.
The major views contained in “submissions from major stakeholder groups”
and “submissions from the general public or organisations” are summarised
at Annex 2, whereas a brief summary of the findings of three “opinion
surveys” is at Annex 3.
2.12 The major views gathered at the 13 key events that we organised are
summarised at Annex 4.
11 The Commissioner for Transport’s article on the Pilot Scheme as published in early March 2016 is at the
following link (Chinese version only): http://www.td.gov.hk/mini_site/erphk/download/document/article_commissioner_for_transport_newspapers_tc.pdf
12 The 50 “submissions from major stakeholder groups” included (1) LegCo members and political parties (8 submissions); (2) DC members (3 submissions); (3) professional bodies (7 submissions); (4) academics (1 submission); (5) transport trades (9 submissions); (6) business associations (5 submissions); (7) green groups (6 submissions); (8) other organisations (11 submissions).
13 The findings of three “opinion surveys” were submitted by the Lion Rock Institute, Southern District Council member Mr. Paul Zimmerman, and Designing Hong Kong.
12
2.13 A breakdown of the submissions received from various channels is at
Annex 5. A list of all submissions received and their originators (except
those requested by their originators to remain anonymous) is at Annex 6.
The copies of all submissions received (except those requested by their
originators to remain confidential) are at Annex 7.
************
13
Chapter 3 Summary of Views on Basic Elements and Pertinent Issues of the Pilot Scheme
Overview
3.1 The PE document set out 13 questions on the basic elements and pertinent
issues of the Pilot Scheme and invited views from the public and
stakeholders (see Annex 8). This chapter provides a summary of views
received during the PE exercise on the six basic elements (i.e. charging area,
charging mechanism, charging period, charging level, exemption and
concession, technology), three pertinent issues (i.e. privacy concerns,
effectiveness, complementary measures) and other issues of the Pilot
Scheme14.
3.2 When conducting the feasibility study of the Pilot Scheme at the next stage,
we would take into account the views collected during this PE exercise and
develop detailed options for the implementation of the Pilot Scheme for
further public discussion (see Chapter 4).
Major views on six basic elements
(1) Charging area
3.3 In the PE document of the Pilot Scheme, we showed the extent of the
proposed charging area (see Figure 3.1). The suggestions made by the
public and stakeholders on coverage of the charging area can be
summarised into the following five main groups:
(1) Central only
(2) Central, Sheung Wan and Admiralty
14 A summary of views of various stakeholder groups on the Pilot Scheme is at Annex 2. A summary of views
collected at focus group meetings, DC forum and meetings with transport trades is at Annex 4. Detailed records of views provided by the general public, organisations and stakeholders are at Annex 7.
14
(3) Central, Sheung Wan, Admiralty, Wan Chai and Causeway Bay, extending to Cross Habour Tunnel and its connecting roads
(4) Hong Kong Island North, Tsim Sha Tsui and West Kowloon
(5) Areas outside Central (e.g. East Kowloon)
Figure 3.1 The proposed charging area of the Pilot Scheme in the Central District shown in the PE document
3.4 Regarding what factors should be taken into consideration in drawing up
boundary of the charging area, the views of the public and stakeholders
were as follows:
(1) free-of-charge alternative route with adequate traffic capacity should
be made available to motorists whose origins and destinations are not
in the charging area, so that they may bypass the charging area and
will not be mandated to pay ERP charges;
15
(2) the charging area should be demarcated according to the level of
traffic congestion with a focus on frequently congested areas;
(3) whether the roads outside the charging area would become congested
as a result of the implementation of the Pilot Scheme should be
considered;
(4) whether adequate public transport services would be available to road
users for entering or leaving the charging area;
(5) whether the roads entering or leaving the charging area would have
adequate traffic capacity, and whether suitable loading/unloading and
turnaround facilities would be available to motorists to avoid driving
into the charging area;
(6) whether the Pilot Scheme would cause inconvenience to residents
living in or close to the charging area; and
(7) whether there is sufficient space for the installation of ERP charging
facilities.
3.5 Some LegCo members and academics took the view that the charging area
should not be too large and should not extend to the Mid-levels, so that the
Pilot Scheme can be implemented as soon as possible and the impact on the
residents nearby can be minimised. On the contrary, a number of green
groups suggested designating a larger charging area in order to enhance the
effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme in alleviating traffic congestion and
reducing air pollution.
3.6 Some individuals and organisations provided the following views on the
charging area:
(1) exclude large-scale car parks and their access roads in the Central
District from the charging area so as to encourage more motorists to
drive their cars directly into these car parks; and
16
(2) include the connecting roads of the three road harbour crossings
(“RHCs”) in the charging area so as to achieve a more reasonable
distribution of the traffic flows among the three RHCs.
(2) Charging mechanism
3.7 Regarding the two charging mechanisms described in the PE document,
namely the cordon-based mechanism (charging per pass) and the
area-based mechanism (charging per day), a larger proportion of the public
and stakeholders favoured the cordon-based mechanism (charging per pass)
because it allows the charging level to vary according to time of day,
location, and travel direction, hence allowing greater flexibility in
managing different degrees of congestion.
3.8 While the area-based approach (charging per day) received less support,
there were views that this charging mechanism, which is relatively simple,
should be easier to implement in the Central District which is a small area.
3.9 There were views that a vehicle should be charged according to its duration
of stay within the charging area. This “time-based” charging mechanism
can better address the issue of prolonged stay or circulation of certain
“chauffeur-driven vehicles” within the charging area and is more in line
with the “user pays” principle. Some LegCo members and political parties
even suggested a progressive charging approach under which the charging
rate increases with the duration of stay within the charging area, such that
the longer the duration of stay, the higher the charging rate. However,
there were also suggestions that the time period a vehicle stayed in a car
park should be deducted from the duration of stay within the charging area.
3.10 Some green groups suggested that a vehicle should be charged according to
the distance it travelled within the charging area. The longer the distance
travelled, the higher the fee charged. This type of charging mechanism,
which can better reflect the social costs (e.g. expenses on public health
17
services and healthcare system) incurred by vehicle emissions, is more in
line with the “polluter pays” principle.
3.11 On the cordon-based (charging per pass) charging mechanism which
gained more support, the major views received were as follows:
(1) a vehicle should be charged only once even if it passed through
several charging points within a designated time period;
(2) a vehicle that entered and re-entered the charging area several times
on the same day should be charged a higher amount (i.e. the charge
per pass will increase according to the number of times a vehicle
entered and re-entered the charging area);
(3) whether the “charging per pass” would lead to disputes between taxi
drivers and passengers should be attended to; and
(4) whether the “charging per pass” would create loopholes for charge
evasion, e.g. taxi passengers could hire two taxis, one before a
charging point and another one after a charging point, to evade the
ERP charge.
(3) Charging period
3.12 The public and stakeholders basically agreed that the ERP charge should
only be imposed during the time period when the traffic flow is
comparatively high, and they almost unanimously opined that there should
be no ERP charge on Sundays and public holidays as the traffic demand
would be low. Mixed views were received on whether the ERP charge
should be imposed on Saturdays.
3.13 As regards the setting of charging period on Mondays to Fridays, some
agreed with the time period mentioned in the PE document (i.e. from 7:00
a.m. to 8:00 p.m.) since the traffic flow in the Central District remains high
18
throughout the period. However, there were also views that the charging
period should only be confined to the morning and evening peak hours.
3.14 Some academics and professional bodies considered that there is no need to
pre-set a charging period. They suggested that the Government should
first define the criteria for traffic situation being considered as congested,
for example, using traffic speed, and then levy a charge whenever the actual
traffic speed is lower than the acceptable level. The charge should
increase as the traffic speeds decrease. Some academics considered this
“dynamic pricing” approach (i.e. the charge varying with degree of
congestion) very effective because it would leave little room for argument
given that motorists could see and experience the actual traffic speed
themselves.
3.15 If a fixed charging period is set, some motorists may speed up to enter the
charging area when the charging period is about to start, or slow down to
delay entering the charging area when the charging period is about to end,
thereby causing temporary traffic and safety issues. This issue needs to be
addressed in future.
3.16 To the logistics industry, the length of the charging period will have direct
implications on trade operations. On the one hand, the setting of a
charging period can provide economic incentives to encourage trade
operators to deliver goods outside the charging period, thus staggering the
delivery traffic demand. On the other hand, as pointed out by the
representatives of goods vehicle trade, since goods delivery has to suit the
practical constraints of freight operations and delivery schedules of
different businesses in the Central District, it is probable that only a small
portion of delivery work could be re-scheduled to avoid the charging
period.
19
(4) Charging level
3.17 The major views provided by the public and stakeholders on the charging
level were as follows:
(1) the charging level should be high enough to make the Pilot Scheme
effective;
(2) the charging level could be set low at the beginning of the Pilot
Scheme in order to reduce resistance to implementation and foster
acceptance by the public, and could be increased gradually
afterwards;
(3) the charging level should be set according to the prevailing level of
traffic congestion so as to reduce traffic flow or increase traffic speed
to meet a pre-defined target;
(4) the charging level should be set according to the level of congestion at
different times of the day, and should be adjusted during different
times of the day; and
(5) in setting the charging level, consideration should be made to the
parking charges of car parks inside and outside the charging area,
parking charges of accessible park-and-ride facilities, tolls of the
three RHCs and motorists’ value of time, etc.
3.18 The public and stakeholders also suggested that the charging level could be
determined based on the following two factors:
(1) factors directly related to congestion
(i) location (higher charge for more congested area / higher charge at the core of the charging area);
(ii) time of the day;
(iii) travel direction;
(iv) vehicle size, type, carrying capacity/efficiency, occupancy; and
20
(v) duration of stay within the charging area.
(2) factors indirectly related to or unrelated to congestion
(i) vehicle emission rate/vehicle emission rate per capita;
(ii) air pollution level;
(iii) cylinder volume;
(iv) luxury level of a private car; and
(v) vehicle owner’s income.
3.19 Many green groups suggested linking the charging level to vehicle
emissions, i.e. vehicles generating more emissions should pay higher
charges. They urged the Government to provide more relevant data at the
next PE exercise, such as quantification of reduction of air pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions due to the Pilot Scheme, and how a charging
level that is linked to vehicle emissions would affect the traffic,
environmental and economic performance of the Pilot Scheme.
3.20 Regarding the three charging approaches described in the PE document,
namely:
(1) a unified charge for all vehicle types;
(2) differential charges based on vehicle sizes; and
(3) differential charges based on vehicles’ carrying capacities,
a larger proportion of the public and stakeholders preferred charging
approach (2), i.e. each vehicle type is charged differently according to road
space occupied. While many members of the public and stakeholders
opined that the charging level should be set according to different factors,
very few made specific suggestions on the magnitude of ERP charges. For
those who made specific suggestions on the charging level, some of them
suggested charging $10 to $40 for passing one charging point, and there
were also views that a higher charging level, such as a charge of over $50 or
21
even $500 for passing one charging point, should be levied in order to
change motorists’ travel behaviour.
3.21 Some individuals and organisations expressed the following views on the
charging level:
(1) Levying the same charge for all vehicle types is a comparatively
simple and easy approach, and incurs less administrative and
monitoring costs. If charges are set according to vehicle size or
carrying capacity, it will be necessary for the Government to conduct
regular random checks to prevent the charging mechanism from
being abused, such as by making fraudulent claims that vehicles are of
smaller sizes or larger carrying capacities to pay less ERP charges.
(2) If differential charges are imposed based on a vehicle’s carrying
capacity, due regard should be given to goods vehicles which are not
used for carrying passengers and a corresponding charging
mechanism based on goods carrying capacity will be required.
Besides, if private cars are charged according to their carrying
capacity, consideration should be given to prevent a large number of
5-seater private cars from being changed to 7-seaters.
(3) The charging level should not be linked to the costs of the Pilot
Scheme lest road users would directly share the hefty capital costs and
operating costs of the Pilot Scheme. The Pilot Scheme should adopt
the “user pays” principle as in the case of road traffic congestion
instead of the “self-financing” principle.
(4) Cross-boundary vehicles should pay double.
(5) Exemption and concession
3.22 Views on exemption and concession were most often expressed by the
public and stakeholders in this PE exercise. Nine transport trades (i.e.
trams, franchised buses, green minibuses (“GMBs”), Hong
22
Kong-Guangdong cross-boundary coaches, school buses, non-franchised
buses, goods vehicles, taxis and public light buses) requested exemption
from ERP charge for the vehicle types of their trades. Some of the
transport trades (e.g. taxis and franchised buses) made it very clear that they
would support the Pilot Scheme if they were granted exemption. In
addition, some of the transport trades (e.g. public light buses and goods
vehicles) also clearly expressed that if their vehicle types were not given
any exemption or concession, they would pass on the ERP charges to their
passengers, customers or merchants.
3.23 Many of the public, LegCo members, DC members and political parties
supported granting exemption to three public transport modes with high
carrying capacities (i.e. trams, franchised buses and GMBs). They opined
that such an exemption conformed to the transport policy of according
priority to public transport and could spare passengers of these three public
transport modes from paying additional fares. While concurring with the
above considerations for granting exemptions for their vehicles, the Hong
Kong Tramways Limited, franchised bus operators and GMB operators
also emphasised that their vehicles operated on fixed routes and frequencies,
and the number, frequency and service schedule of their vehicles entering
or leaving the Central District would not change with or without the ERP
charge. Hence, their vehicles should be granted exemption, unless it is the
intention of the Government to discourage commuters from using these
three public transport modes to enter or leave the Central District, or to
make them switch to MTR, or even to raise revenue to the public coffers
through the Pilot Scheme.
3.24 Some academics, professional bodies, goods vehicle trades and a small
number of members of the public took the view that all vehicles should be
treated equally and no vehicle should be granted exemption or concession.
Their major argument was that all vehicles shared the limited road space
and contributed to traffic congestion, and therefore every vehicle ought to
be fairly charged based on the “user pays” principle. In addition, if no
exemption or concession is given to any vehicle, the administrative and
23
monitoring costs of the Pilot Scheme will be reduced. If public transport
modes were not exempted, the public still had the option to make less trips
or travel during non-charging periods.
3.25 Apart from trams, franchised buses and GMBs, the vehicle types that had
been suggested to be granted exemption or concession in the PE exercise
are listed below:
(1) public transport vehicles/commercial vehicles
(i) public light buses
(ii) taxis
(iii) non-franchised buses
(iv) residents’ service buses
(v) Hong Kong-Guangdong cross-boundary coaches
(vi) school buses
(vii) tour coaches
(viii) goods vehicles
(2) vehicles having associations with the charging area
(i) vehicles of residents living in or close to the charging area
(ii) vehicles of schools and non-profit-making organisations locating in or close to the charging area
(iii) vehicles with designated parking spaces in the charging area
(iv) vehicles of public organisations and utility companies with operational needs to enter or leave the charging area
(3) other types of vehicles
(i) vehicles carrying people with disabilities
(ii) electric vehicles
24
(iii) environment-friendly vehicles
(iv) vehicles of non-profit-making and charitable organisations
(v) motorcycles
3.26 Regarding whether taxis should be exempted from ERP charge, there were
both supporting and opposing views. Those who supported asserted that
taxi is one of the public transport modes. The taxi trade also pointed out
that if taxis were not given exemption, their business would be affected and
the associated administrative costs would increase. Without exemption,
vacant taxis would avoid entering the charging area and hence there would
be an inadequate supply of taxis to meet passenger demand, making it even
more difficult for passengers to hail taxis. However, those who opposed
granting exemption to taxis opined that taxi is a personalised transport
mode similar to private cars and taxis generate more vehicular traffic than
private cars. If taxis, which currently take up about 35% of the traffic flow
in the Central District15, were exempted from ERP charge, the effectiveness
of the Pilot Scheme would be significantly weakened. Some academics
suggested that the Government should offer solid proposals at the next PE
exercise to address taxi trade’s concern over the possible dwindling effect
on business, including a detailed study on whether exemption could be
given to vacant taxis entering or leaving the charging area.
3.27 Whether exemption should be given to goods vehicles is also contentious.
Those who supported exemption asserted that freight transport plays a
crucial role in sustaining the commercial activities in the Central District
and goods vehicles serve the community similar to public transport. If
public transport modes were granted exemption, goods vehicles should also
be given similar treatment by the same argument. Those who opposed
granting exemption to goods vehicles opined that goods vehicle operators
or their users could choose to schedule the delivery services either outside
15 According to the information as at 2015, between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. (13 hours in total) from Monday to
Friday, private cars accounted for about 45% of all the vehicles entering or leaving the Central District, taxis about 35%, goods vehicles slightly over 10%, and buses and minibuses close to 10%.
25
the charging period or during period of a lower charge. However, goods
vehicle trades pointed out that different businesses would inevitably be
subject to practical limitations in scheduling their operations. Some
political parties suggested that the Government could phase in the full ERP
charge on goods vehicles to allow time for the trades to gradually adjust
their operations. Moreover, there were suggestions that exemption should
be given to goods vehicles that entered the charging area for a short
duration in order to accommodate the actual delivery needs of the trades.
3.28 As regards whether exemption should be given to vehicles of residents
living in or close to the charging area, quite a number of members of the
public and stakeholder groups provided their views. Some political parties
and DC members advised the Government that the definitions of “residents”
and “residents’ vehicles” should be carefully drawn up to safeguard against
any abuse of the exemption. There were also views that giving exemption
to the vehicles of residents living in the charging area might impose
constraints on future expansion of the charging area because, once granted,
it will be difficult to revoke any exemptions.
(6) Technology
3.29 Regarding the choice of technology for the Pilot Scheme, the public and
stakeholders suggested the following considerations:
(1) general considerations
(i) whether motorists’ privacy would be adequately protected;
(ii) overall costs and staffing requirements, including those for
installation, management, operation, maintenance, etc.;
(iii) specific law enforcement arrangements; and
26
(iv) whether the technology would be easy to use, in particular
whether it would be easy for motorists to master the operation of
in-vehicle units (“IVUs”).
(2) technical considerations
(i) whether the technology would be compatible with the automatic
toll collection system used at the existing tolled tunnels;
(ii) whether different technologies could be integrated so that they
could complement each other’s inadequacies and limitations;
(iii) whether the technology could foster the development of
Intelligent Transport Systems, Transport Information System and
Incident Management System in Hong Kong, and could even be
used for other purposes (e.g. payment of car park charges); and
(iv) whether adequate space would be available for the installation of
roadside charging and enforcement facilities as well as their visual
impact.
3.30 As regards the two charging technologies (i.e. Dedicated Short-range Radio
Communication (“DSRC”) and Automatic Number Plate Recognition
(“ANPR”)) described in the PE document, a greater proportion of views
were favoured DSRC technology because it would better protect motorists’
privacy by allowing instant payment of charges with anonymous payment
cards. Moreover, as vehicles equipped with IVUs could be instantly
charged, the operation would be relatively more automatic. In terms of
future management and operation, the DSRC technology would entail
lower costs and less manpower requirements as compared with the ANPR
technology which would require substantial manpower for manual
cross-checking of unclear photographic images of vehicle number plates
and for charging settlement. Those members of the public and
stakeholders who favoured the DSRC technology also suggested that the
IVUs should be used to pay tunnel tolls to obviate the need for vehicles to
be fitted with two IVUs. Some professional bodies were in favour of the
27
use of the DSRC technology because the usage of IVUs could foster the
development of intelligent transport in Hong Kong.
3.31 For the DSRC technology which gained greater support, the following
views had been given by some individuals and organisations:
(1) whether the installation of IVUs would be a mandatory requirement
for all vehicles (or whether some vehicles would be exempted from
the installation of IVUs);
(2) whether the use of IVUs would give rise to privacy concerns (e.g.
whether the IVUs would be assigned with identification
numbers/serial numbers, what data would be stored in the IVU, what
data would be kept in the charging system, would data of other smart
cards be captured when a vehicle passing through the charging point,
etc.);
(3) who should bear the costs of the installation, maintenance, removal
and replacement of the IVUs;
(4) suggestion that the Government could start testing out the DSRC
technology at existing tolled tunnels;
(5) whether the IVU installed could be configured to record the time a
vehicle entered and exited the charging area so as to facilitate the
“time-based” charging mechanism or enable the short-stay vehicles to
be exempted from charging;
(6) specific arrangements for the installation of IVUs (including the
installation arrangements of newly-registered vehicles and vehicles
already registered);
(7) whether the use of IVUs require a regular payment of administrative
fees;
28
(8) if differential charges would be levied based on vehicle types, a
monitoring system should be developed to ensure that the required
types of IVUs would be installed in the corresponding vehicles;
(9) the feasibility of using Octopus Card for paying charges;
(10) whether the IVU should be registered under a vehicle or a car owner;
and
(11) maintenance arrangement for the system.
3.32 Separately, there were views supporting the application of ANPR
technology. The main argument was that through adopting ANPR
technology, there would not be a need for installing IVUs, thus providing
convenience to motorists who only enter the charging area occasionally,
and saving them the costs for procuring and installing IVUs which would
not be low. With the expected growth in the number of cross-boundary
vehicles which would be probably not fitted with IVUs, ANPR technology
might be a more convenient option for these vehicles as they could simply
settle the ERP charge upon leaving Hong Kong. Besides, ANPR
technology would be comparatively simple to understand and suitable to be
applied in a small charging area under the Pilot Scheme.
3.33 Apart from the above two charging technologies, there were also views that
the Government should consider other technological options such as:
(1) direct adoption of the automatic toll collection system currently used at the tolled tunnels;
(2) Global Navigation Satellite System (“GNSS”) technology16;
(3) integration of DSRC, ANPR and other charging technologies;
(4) Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”) technology;
16 In 2016, Singapore awarded a contract for the development of the second generation of ERP using GNSS
technology. Adopting a global positioning technology in ERP charging may engender more privacy concerns.
29
(5) Near Field Communication (“NFC”) technology;
(6) Wireless Fidelity (“WIFI”) technology;
(7) Cloud Infrastructure technology; and
(8) Electronic Number Plate technology.
Major views on three pertinent issues
(1) Privacy concerns
3.34 During this PE exercise, there were relatively fewer views expressed by the
public and stakeholders on privacy issues. Of the views received, only a
minority raised concerns over privacy issues arising from the Pilot Scheme,
while the majority considered that the Pilot Scheme would not give rise to
privacy concerns or there were measures in place to protect the motorists’
privacy.
3.35 Some members of the public and stakeholders were of the view that, at
present, there are already ways to protect the motorists’ privacy upon the
implementation of the Pilot Scheme, which can be grouped into four
categories:
(1) legislation
(i) new legislation or legislative amendments should be introduced
to protect the motorists’ privacy;
(ii) new legislation should be introduced to restrict the use of data
collected under the Pilot Scheme; and
(iii) images and data collected should only be used for charge
settlement. Transfer of data to other parties (including law
enforcement agencies) should be prohibited unless with prior
authorisation from the court.
30
(2) policy
(i) data that were no longer required for follow-up actions should be
erased within a reasonable period of time; and
(ii) data collected should mainly be related to vehicle number plates
and should not include the appearance of motorists.
(3) technology
(i) current technology (e.g. the DSRC technology) already protects
motorists’ privacy;
(ii) images and data collected (including the serial numbers of IVUs)
should be encrypted; and
(iii) personal data related to charge payment should be stored in a
standalone and offline database system.
(4) code of practice
(i) a code of practice on handling charging data should be
developed; and
(ii) a code of practice governing the use of, and access to, data stored
in the system by authorised personnel should be developed.
3.36 During the PE exercise, we wrote to invite views from the Office of the
Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (“PCPD”) on the privacy issues
pertaining to the Pilot Scheme. We also explained in detail to the PCPD
the potential privacy issues pertaining to the three types of ERP
technologies mentioned in the PE document (i.e. DSRC, ANPR and GNSS)
and how they could be addressed. We also indicated that privacy impact
assessments would be conducted in the course of the feasibility study on the
Pilot Scheme to critically examine all potential privacy risks and propose
relevant mitigation measures.
31
3.37 The PCPD pointed out in their reply that the Pilot Scheme would be legally
bound by the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) as it would
involve the collection, use or retention of personal data. The PCPD also
stressed that the organisations responsible for the collection, retention,
handling or use of personal data under the Pilot Scheme would be required
to comply with the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance and its six data
protection principles17.
3.38 The PCPD considered that the future evaluation of the effectiveness of the
Pilot Scheme should take into account the overall public perception on
whether privacy protection will be upheld. The PCPD also indicated that
it would continue to advise on privacy related issues pertaining to the Pilot
Scheme.
(2) Effectiveness
3.39 There were many views stating that there is a need to establish indicators
for evaluating the effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme. The public and
stakeholders generally supported using quantitative indicators directly
related to road traffic congestion to evaluate the effectiveness of the scheme,
such as:
(1) traffic volumes going in and out of the charging area (the total number of vehicles and a breakdown by vehicle types);
(2) average traffic speed within the charging area;
17 The PCPD suggested the adoption of the following six guiding principles regarding the collection and
handling of personal data pertaining to the Pilot Scheme: (1) Only adequate but no excessive personal data shall be collected; (2) Data subject shall be explicitly informed of the purpose for which the data are to be used and the persons to
whom the data may be transferred; (3) Data retention policies must be formulated and strictly followed. Duration of retention of personal data
shall not be too long, and any data collected for purposes other than the original collection purposes shall be erased;
(4) Personal data shall not, without the prescribed consent of the data subject, be used for a new purpose; (5) Policies, guidelines and procedures on managing and processing personal data shall be formulated to
preserve data confidentiality; and (6) Contractual means shall be adopted to ensure that contractors who handle personal data will comply with
requirements on personal data protection.
32
(3) average traffic speed on roads adjoining the charging area;
(4) average traffic speed of buses going in and out of the charging area;
(5) patronage of public transport services going in and out of the charging area; and
(6) total distance travelled by all vehicles within the charging area.
3.40 Some members of the public and stakeholders suggested using certain
indicators that are indirectly related to or even unrelated to road traffic
congestion to evaluate the effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme, such as:
(1) roadside air pollutant concentrations in the charging area;
(2) Air Quality Health Index in the charging area;
(3) number of pedestrians in the charging area;
(4) pedestrian flows into and out of the charging area;
(5) public acceptability of the Pilot Scheme;
(6) overall economic benefits of the Pilot Scheme;
(7) impacts on commerce, retail sector, consumption, real estate, rental market, etc. in the charging area; and
(8) total revenue and expenditure incurred under the Pilot Scheme.
3.41 There were many views stating that there is a need to establish a review
mechanism for adjusting the charging level as and when necessary to
maintain the effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme.
(3) Complementary measures
3.42 The suggestions made by the public and stakeholders on the
complementary measures for the Pilot Scheme can be grouped into the
following four categories:
33
(1) existing measures which should be enhanced upon the
implementation of the Pilot Scheme
(i) enhance road networks and public transport services;
(ii) conduct bus route rationalisation to reduce duplication of service;
(iii) implement more public transport priority schemes (such as bus-only lanes and bus gates);
(iv) adjust the toll levels of the three RHCs; and
(v) properly manage the land use and town planning in the Central District and ensure that the number of existing parking spaces will not be substantially reduced when approval is given to redevelop building sites in the Central District.
(2) the 12 short, medium and long-term measures as recommended by the
TAC in the “Report on Study of Road Traffic Congestion in Hong
Kong”, with which the Government agreed and has adopted a
multipronged approach
(i) implement measures to manage the fleet size of private cars (including raising first registration tax and annual licence fee for private car);
(ii) increase meter parking charges;
(iii) strengthen publicity and education to promote compliance with traffic rules and regulations;
(iv) raise the fixed penalty charges for congestion-related offences to restore their deterrent effect;
(v) adopt a stricter approach to enforce congestion-related offences;
(vi) make further use of information technology in enforcement;
(vii) review the parking policy and conduct regular surveys on the supply and demand of parking spaces across the territory to set an optimum level of parking provision;
34
(viii) provide real-time information on parking vacancies at car parks so as to encourage motorists to drive their cars into car parks as soon as possible;
(ix) encourage the loading and unloading activities of goods vehicles to be conducted outside peak hours;
(x) implement more park-and-ride (or park-and-walk) facilities and provide shuttle bus services plying between the charging area and park-and-ride facilities;
(xi) assign parking spaces in car parks near public transport interchanges across the territory for park-and-ride purposes; and
(xii) start planning for an ERP pilot scheme in the Central District (i.e. the proposal put forward in this PE exercise).
(3) complementary measures that need to be implemented together with
the Pilot Scheme
(i) strengthen/enhance various public transport services serving the charging area and ensure adequate carrying capacity of public transport services upon the implementation of the Pilot Scheme;
(ii) conduct bus route rationalisation in the charging area and its adjacent areas and consider providing bus-bus interchanges;
(iii) provide pedestrian and tram precincts in the charging area;
(iv) enhance the pedestrian environment/provide more pedestrian facilities in the charging area (e.g. improve the pedestrian network connecting to the public transport system, designate pedestrian precincts, construct additional hillside escalators/lifts connecting the Central District and the Mid-levels, construct travelators, etc.);
(v) upgrade/enhance cycling facilities in the charging area and its adjacent areas;
(vi) increase the number of parking spaces in the charging area;
(vii) disseminate real-time traffic and charging information (e.g. disseminate real-time charging information and real-time
35
parking vacancy information through website and mobile apps to help motorists plan their journeys);
(viii) develop mobile apps to enable motorists to check the charging information pertaining to the Pilot Scheme and pay the charges by electronic means;
(ix) study how to handle and release the vast amount of data collected from the Pilot Scheme;
(x) attend to the needs of those motorists who only go to the Central District occasionally and keep them well informed of the charging arrangements;
(xi) provide clear traffic signs;
(xii) provide turnaround facilities to enable motorists to avoid entering the charging area;
(xiii) provide kerbside parking and loading/unloading facilities in the charging area and its adjacent areas;
(xiv) implement traffic management measures in the areas adjoining the charging area to prevent road traffic congestion or rampant illegal parking immediately outside the charging area;
(xv) install kerbside railings at appropriate locations to make it less convenient for “chauffeur-driven vehicles” to pick up/drop off passengers; and
(xvi) step up enforcement actions against traffic offences in the charging area and its adjacent areas.
(4) other suggestions
(i) introduce a vehicle quota system to restrict the number of new vehicles;
(ii) introduce a rationing scheme to restrict the number of vehicles on roads, such as only allowing vehicles with car plates ending in odd or even numbers to travel on alternate days;
36
(iii) set higher fixed penalty for illegal parking inside the charging area than that outside the charging area;
(iv) introduce a real-time traffic surveillance system to facilitate enforcement actions against vehicles obstructing traffic flow;
(v) designate a “low driving speed zone” to further improve road environment;
(vi) designate certain places inside the charging area as “car-free zone”/“low emission zone”/“high occupancy vehicles only zone” during certain periods and extend the restriction of access to the existing low emission zones from buses to all other vehicles;
(vii) provide tax concessions to all environment-friendly vehicles;
(viii) introduce more electric public transport vehicles and increase the provision of charging stations;
(ix) introduce new designs of car parks to increase parking capacity; and
(x) promote a transport policy of pedestrians being accorded the highest priority, mass transport the second priority, and private cars the lowest priority.
3.43 The feasibility and cost effectiveness of the complementary measures
mentioned above will be explored in depth in the feasibility study to be
conducted at the next stage. This is to ensure that certain complementary
measures that are practicable and socially acceptable can be implemented
together with the Pilot Scheme.
(4) Other issues
3.44 Apart from the above three pertinent issues, the public and stakeholders
also expressed their views on other issues, including the use of revenue
generated from the Pilot Scheme, stepping up enforcement actions against
traffic offences, inadequate parking spaces and traffic distribution among
37
three RHCs. A summary of the views received and the responses by the
Government are set out below.
(i) Use of revenue generated from the Pilot Scheme
3.45 There were views that the revenue generated from the Pilot Scheme should
be spent on traffic improvement projects in order to dispel some public
misconceptions that the Pilot Scheme would be “another tax revenue source”
of the Government.
3.46 There were views that the revenue generated from the Pilot Scheme can be
earmarked for specific transport-related purposes (i.e.
“dedicated-fund-for-dedicated-use”), including the following purposes
related to the Pilot Scheme:
(1) reduce/stabilise the fares of public transport entering or leaving the
charging area;
(2) enhance the public transport services serving the charging area;
(3) procure electric buses to improve public transport services serving the
charging area;
(4) improve the overall pedestrian environment in the charging area;
(5) increase the enforcement manpower to combat traffic offences in the
charging area;
(6) provide concessions to car parks inside and outside the charging area
to promote park-and-ride service or encourage motorists to drive their
vehicles into the car parks as soon as possible for reducing traffic
congestion;
(7) plough back for the operation and maintenance of the Pilot Scheme;
and
(8) procure and install IVUs.
38
3.47 There were also views supporting the “dedicated-fund-for-dedicated-use”
approach and considering that the revenue generated should be earmarked
for the following purposes not directly related to the Pilot Scheme:
(1) improve transport infrastructure and facilities;
(2) improve public transport services and facilities;
(3) enhance road safety measures;
(4) enhance the quality and maintenance standards of existing roads;
(5) upgrade walking environment and pedestrian facilities;
(6) reduce annual licence fee or first registration tax of vehicles; and
(7) develop and encourage the public to make use of
environment-friendly transport modes, bicycles and pedestrian
walkways.
3.48 Some academics pointed out that if the revenue generated from the Pilot
Scheme is to be spent on specific purposes under the
“dedicated-fund-for-dedicated-use” approach to provide direct benefits to
the community (e.g. reductions of public transport fares or annual vehicle
licence fees), the Pilot Scheme would gain more support from the public
and stakeholders, and greater consensus could be built in the community.
Some academics also called on the Government to explore the
establishment of an authority, which might be named as the “ERP
Authority”, with reference to the Housing Authority or the Airport
Authority. The authority so established could be tasked with operating the
Pilot Scheme, managing the revenue generated under the
“dedicated-fund-for-dedicated-use” approach and deciding on the use of
the revenue.
3.49 The public finance policy of the Government is to put revenue received into
the General Revenue Account and then allocate resources according to the
priorities of society as a whole with a view to meeting public aspirations.
39
The “dedicated-fund-for-dedicated-use” approach does not align with such
an established policy of the Government. We will explore its feasibility
in detail with regard to public opinions.
(ii) Stepping up enforcement actions against traffic offences
3.50 A considerable number of views opposing the Pilot Scheme were that
traffic congestion problem in the Central District was resulted from
rampant illegal parking and loading/unloading activities (in particular those
of “chauffeur-driven vehicles”) which caused obstruction to traffic. As
such, the problem could be solved effectively by more stringent
enforcement actions by the Police.
3.51 Illegal kerbside parking and loading/unloading activities affect the smooth
flow of traffic. More stringent enforcement actions can only alleviate
traffic congestion at some road sections, but cannot bring about a
significant reduction in the number of vehicles entering or leaving the
Central District.
3.52 Though stepping up enforcement actions against traffic offences and
implementing ERP are initiatives of different nature with different effects,
they are in fact complementary to each other and can achieve synergy. In
light of this, a multipronged approach should be adopted to use different
measures to solve different problems. Moreover, we consider that the
Pilot Scheme is no substitute for enforcement actions by the Police. As
evident from overseas experience (including Singapore and London18),
stringent enforcement is one of the prerequisites for the effective
implementation of ERP.
18 In Singapore, prior to the implementation of ERP in 1998, a Driving-Offence Points System was introduced in
1983, whereby offenders of certain congestion-related offences were imposed with fines and demerit points. Those who received demerit points repeatedly would be disqualified from driving for at least one year. In London, before the commissioning of the London Congestion Charging Scheme in 2003, closed circuit television systems were deployed to enhance enforcement of traffic offences. Moreover, regarding the penalty level of congestion-related offences (such as illegal parking and loading/unloading of passengers and goods), the maximum penalty for Singapore and London are SGD 230 (about HKD 1 300) and GBP 130 (about HKD 1 300) respectively, both higher than the current maximum penalty of HKD 450 for Hong Kong.
40
(iii) Inadequate parking spaces
3.53 Many views considered that parking spaces are inadequate to accommodate
the continuous growth in the number of vehicles in recent years. As a
result, vehicles circulate on roads or park by the kerbside, causing traffic
congestion.
3.54 The TD has been monitoring the demand and supply of parking spaces
across the territory. As far as the Central District is concerned, according
to a survey conducted by a traffic consultant in 2014, vacant parking spaces
were available in car parks of some commercial buildings in the district
during busy periods (i.e. from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.), but many motorists chose to
park illegally or circulate on roads instead of parking in the car parks.
Overall speaking, the provision of parking spaces across the territory is still
at an acceptable level.
3.55 It is the Government’s policy to provide an appropriate number of parking
spaces if overall development permits, but at a level which will not unduly
attract potential passengers to opt for private cars in lieu of public transport
modes. How a balance can be struck will depend on the policy principles
as well as the actual situations in individual districts. For the Central
District, it is extremely difficult to identify suitable sites to provide car
parks. When there are new development or redevelopment projects
creating opportunities to increase the parking spaces for private cars, we
also have to consider the needs of the land or floor area for other uses.
Besides, the provision of additional parking spaces in the Central District
may attract vehicles going to or from the district, thus aggravating traffic
congestion on existing roads.
3.56 The Government is reviewing the parking policy and will accord priority to
considering and meeting the parking need of commercial vehicles.
Depending on the review results, we will explore improvement measures,
including the need to update the Hong Kong Planning Standards and
Guidelines. We will also examine the feasibility of relevant
41
complementary measures in the feasibility study of the Pilot Scheme to be
conducted at the next stage.
(iv) Traffic distribution among three RHCs
3.57 There were views that the road traffic congestion currently experienced on
Hong Kong Island was closely related to the uneven traffic distribution
among the three RHCs and that toll adjustments could effectively
rationalise the traffic distribution among the RHCs.
3.58 The Government attaches great importance to this issue. We have
commenced a consultancy study in January 2017 to explore options for
rationalising traffic distribution among the three RHCs, including traffic
volumes along the connecting roads of RHCs after rationalisation of traffic
distribution and traffic impact on districts concerned. The Government
has undertaken to complete the study and submit toll adjustment proposals
to the LegCo Panel on Transport for discussion within the 2017-18
session.
************
42
Chapter 4 Way Forward
Overview
4.1 This PE exercise had triggered a lot of discussion on the Pilot Scheme in the
community. It had enhanced the understanding of the public and
stakeholders of the basic concepts of ERP and overseas implementation
experience. It also enabled us to collect many invaluable views. The
initial public reaction indicates that there are views supporting the
implementation of the Pilot Scheme while there are also views opposing or
expressing concerns.
4.2 We will appoint a consultant to conduct an in-depth feasibility study on the
Pilot Scheme. The consultant will analyse in detail the views collected and,
based on the latest traffic data, overseas experience and findings from past
studies on ERP, develop specific implementation proposals for the Pilot
Scheme for further discussion with the public and stakeholders. This
chapter outlines the issues to be explored in the feasibility study and sets out
the steps ahead.
Scope of feasibility study
4.3 The following will be included in the scope of the feasibility study:
Detailed option(s)
(1) Formulate one or more detailed option(s) taking into account the
views collected during the PE exercise and overseas experience. The
detailed option(s) shall cover various aspects of the six basic elements
(charging area, charging mechanism, charging period, charging level,
exemption and concession, technology).
Traffic survey, technical evaluation and analysis
(1) data collection through in-field traffic surveys;
43
(2) technical evaluation and analysis of detailed option(s), including:
(i) carry out an in-depth traffic analysis using transport models;
(ii) evaluate the effectiveness of detailed option(s), including
quantified benefits/impacts of the option(s) in traffic,
environmental (including air quality, noise and greenhouse gas
emissions), economic and social terms;
(iii) evaluate capital and recurrent operating expenditure, as well as
cost-benefit analysis (both short-term and long-term); and
(iv) evaluate the privacy impact of the Pilot Scheme and recommend
specific privacy protection strategies.
Operation of the Pilot Scheme
(1) examine the future management and operational arrangements of the
Pilot Scheme (including whether it should be directly operated by
government departments);
(2) examine the legal framework for implementing the Pilot Scheme
(such as the scope of any new legislation, any necessary legislative
amendments, relevant offences and penalties, etc.); and
(3) formulate the implementation timetable of the Pilot Scheme.
Others
(1) study the complementary measures for the Pilot Scheme;
(2) consider critically the use of revenue generated from the Pilot Scheme
on specific transport-related purposes (i.e.
“dedicated-fund-for-dedicated-use”);
(3) evaluate the traffic impact on the Central District upon the
commissioning of the Central-Wan Chai Bypass; and
44
(4) examine the compatibility of the ERP technology with the automatic
toll collection system currently used at the tolled tunnels/roads as well
as how best to further use the traffic data collected under the ERP
system for the purposes of traffic management and planning and
development of intelligent transport systems without compromising
privacy protection.
Steps ahead
4.4 The Government is determined to implement the Pilot Scheme. As
remarked by the Secretary for Transport and Housing at the media session
on the launch of the PE exercise on 11 December 2015, the question is not
“whether” but “how” to implement the Pilot Scheme.
4.5 We recognise that building a consensus in the community is instrumental to
the successful implementation of the Pilot Scheme. At the next stage, we
will appoint a consultant to conduct an in-depth feasibility study on the
Pilot Scheme to develop one or more detailed options for further discussion
and selection by the public during the more extensive Stage 2 PE exercise.
4.6 Having regard to the views collected from the Stage 2 PE exercise, the
consultant will recommend a practicable proposal to the Government.
Based on the proposal, the Government will prepare the legislation required
and seek funding from LegCo to carry out various tasks, such as detailed
design, construction, equipment installation and trial runs, etc.
4.7 We do not underestimate the challenges in implementing the Pilot Scheme.
Overseas experience shows that an ERP scheme may not necessarily gain
overwhelming support at the beginning of its implementation. For
example, we note that nearly 70% of the community opposed to the ERP
scheme in Stockholm of Sweden at the beginning of its implementation.
However, after the scheme had been operated for a period of time,
significant improvement in road traffic situation was apparent and over
two-thirds of the community became supportive of the continued operation
45
of the ERP scheme in Stockholm. We understand that the key for gaining
the acceptance of the public and stakeholders on the Pilot Scheme lies in
the preparation of an effective implementation proposal. We believe that
the Pilot Scheme will gain more support when it can effectively alleviate
road traffic congestion for the benefit of the community.
4.8 While implementing the ERP is one of the important aspects of the
Government’s efforts in tackling traffic congestion, it is not our only
measure. The Government will continue to adopt a multi-pronged
approach to tackle traffic congestion, including improving transport
infrastructure, enhancing public transport services, stepping up
enforcement actions against traffic offences, implementing traffic
management measures, reviewing the parking policy, studying ways to
contain vehicle growth and usage, as well as rationalising the traffic
distribution among the three RHCs, etc.
************
46
Abbreviations
ANPR Automatic Number Plate Recognition
APIs Announcements in the Public Interest
DC District Council
DSRC Dedicated Short-range Radio Communication
ERP Electronic Road Pricing
GMBs Green Minibuses
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System
HAD Home Affairs Department
IVUs In-vehicle Units
LegCo Legislative Council
MTR Mass Transit Railway
NFC Near Field Communication
PCPD Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data
PE Public Engagement
RFID Radio Frequency Identification
RHCs Road Harbour Crossings
RTHK Radio Television Hong Kong
TAC Transport Advisory Committee
TD Transport Department
WIFI Wireless Fidelity
A1-1
Annex 1
Major meetings and events held
during the public engagement exercise
Legislative Council (“LegCo”) / District Council meetings
Date
LegCo Panel on Transport meeting 16 December 2015
LegCo Panel on Transport special meeting 5 January 2016
Central and Western District Council meeting 10 March 2016
Meetings with government advisory bodies Date Transport Advisory Committee meeting 15 December 2015
Small and Medium Enterprises Committee meeting 22 February 2016
Focus group meetings / forum / transport trade meetings (arranged by the Government)
Date
Urban taxi trade conference 16 December 2015
Hong Kong-Guangdong cross-boundary coach services trade conference
18 December 2015
Green minibus operators trade conference 21 December 2015
Public light bus services trade conference 23 December 2015
Goods vehicle driver associations trade conference 30 December 2015
Trucking industry associations trade conference 31 December 2015
Franchised bus operators trade conference 11 January 2016
Focus group meeting – academics 26 January 2016
School bus operators trade conference 30 January 2016
District Council forum 2 February 2016
Focus group meeting – professional bodies 3 February 2016
Public bus operators (non-franchised bus) trade conference
17 February 2016
Focus group meeting – green groups 18 February 2016
Topical seminars (arranged by individual organisations)
Date
Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce: Economic Policy Committee meeting
29 January 2016
Hong Kong Institution of Engineers: topical seminar co-organised by Civil Division and Logistics & Transportation Division
4 March 2016
Clean Air Network: “community talk series” seminar 16 March 2016
A1-2
Educational seminars Date Curriculum Development Institute of the Education Bureau: topical seminar for geography teachers
22 February 2016
Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups: Media 21 online programme (called「通識直播室」in Chinese)
1 March 2016
Media interviews Date Radio Television Hong Kong: “Talkabout” thematic interview
14 December 2015
Commercial Radio: “On a Clear Day” thematic interview
14 December 2015
Radio Television Hong Kong: “Backchat” thematic interview
17 December 2015
Television Broadcasts Limited: “A Closer Look” thematic interview
5 January 2016
A2-1
Annex 2
A summary of views of various stakeholder groups on the Pilot Scheme
1.1 During the public engagement (“PE”) exercise, we received a total of 515
submissions, of which 462 were “submissions from the general public or
organisations” and their major views are summarised in the first part of this
Annex. Another 50 were “submissions from major stakeholder groups”
and their major views are summarised in the remaining part of this Annex.
The remaining 3 submissions set out the findings of three “opinion surveys”
which were summarised in Annex 3.
(1) The general public or organisations
1.2 The Government considers it necessary to implement the Pilot Scheme to
tackle road traffic congestion in the Central District and it is crucial to
draw up a comprehensive implementation proposal. The main objective
of this PE exercise is to collect views from the public and stakeholders on
the basic elements and pertinent issues of the Pilot Scheme. Among the
462 “submissions from the general public or organisations”, some
members of the public clearly stated their support for or opposition to the
Pilot Scheme, while some only provided their views or expressed concerns
over the Pilot Scheme. These views can be broadly grouped into seven
categories, as shown in Table 1.
A2-2
Table 1 Seven categories of views on the Pilot Scheme
1) support the Pilot Scheme
2) support the Pilot Scheme on conditions (e.g.
exemption will be granted to certain vehicle types /
usages)
3) express views on the Pilot Scheme without stating
their stance
4) maintain a neutral position / have no comments on
the Pilot Scheme
5) request implementation of other measures (e.g.
strengthening enforcement) or awaiting the
commissioning of other transport infrastructure (e.g.
the Central – Wan Chai Bypass) before considering
the implementation of the Pilot Scheme
6) express negative views on the Pilot Scheme but
without stating any opposition to it
7) oppose the Pilot Scheme
1.3 Among the members of the public who supported the Pilot Scheme, more
considered that there was a need to charge motorists for using the roads in
the charging area during peak hours to reduce the number of vehicles
entering and leaving the Central District and alleviate the serious traffic
congestion in the district at present so that business operations and
efficiency could be improved. Some supporters pointed out that the Pilot
Scheme would be more in line with the “user pays” principle and is fairer
when compared with other congestion relief measures (e.g. raising first
registration tax or annual licence fee for vehicles). There were also
supporting views that the Pilot Scheme could help reduce emissions of
vehicle exhaust and greenhouse gases, thereby improving the air quality in
A2-3
the Central District and providing better walking environment for
pedestrians. Moreover, some pointed out that the traffic data collected
from the Pilot Scheme could be put into wider use for the development of
intelligent transport system, which is conducive to developing Hong Kong
as a smart city. They called for an early implementation of the Pilot
Scheme.
1.4 Among the members of the public who opposed the Pilot Scheme, many
held the view that the Pilot Scheme could not effectively solve the traffic
congestion problem in the Central District which would be caused by a
host of factors. They opined that instead of implementing ERP, the
Government should adopt measures like stepping up enforcements against
traffic offences and restricting the growth of private cars to solve the traffic
congestion problem, or should await the commissioning of the Central –
Wan Chai Bypass, before considering the need to take forward the Pilot
Scheme. Some opposing views also considered that the Pilot Scheme
might add to the fare burden on public transport passengers and affect the
commercial activities in the district. There were also views that the Pilot
Scheme would virtually give priority to the rich in using the roads in the
Central District and would cause inconvenience to those who need to use
the roads (e.g. residents living in the charging area).
1.5 Members of the public generally concerned more with the exemption and
concession arrangements of the Pilot Scheme. A considerable number of
views requested granting exemption to public transport. Some residents
in the Central District were concerned with the inconvenience and extra
financial burden brought on them by the Pilot Scheme. Some members of
the public requested that the revenue generated from the Pilot Scheme be
allocated for specific transport-related purposes (i.e.
“dedicated-fund-for-dedicated-use”), such as reducing public transport
fares, building new roads and implementing traffic management measures.
Regarding the technology to be deployed, more members of the public
supported the use of dedicated short-range radio communication (“DSRC”)
technology mainly because of privacy concerns on personal data.
A2-4
However, some indicated that they had no strong preference on the
technology to be adopted.
(2) LegCo members and political parties
1.6 During the PE exercise, we attended two meetings of the LegCo Panel on
Transport1, at which views of 15 LegCo members2 on the Pilot Scheme
were collected. Moreover, six political parties3 provided submissions.
1.7 Four political parties4 expressed positive views on the Pilot Scheme and
agreed with the Government’s rationale for implementing the Pilot Scheme.
They called on the Government to exempt public transport from ERP
charges in order to encourage people to use more public transport and
reduce the usage of private cars.
1.8 Three political parties5 and nine LegCo members6 requested the
Government to implement other measures (e.g. strengthening enforcement
actions against illegal parking, addressing the issue of inadequate parking
spaces, rationalising the traffic distribution of the three road harbour
crossings, etc.), or to await the commissioning of other transport
infrastructure (e.g. the Central – Wan Chai Bypass, the South Island Line
(East), etc.) before considering the need to take forward the Pilot Scheme.
1 The two meetings of the LegCo Panel on Transport were held on 16 December 2015 and 5 January 2016
respectively. 2 They included Hon Chan Han-pan, Hon Christopher Chung Shu-kun, Hon Kwok Ka-ki, Hon Lee Cheuk-yan,
Hon Leung Kwok-hung, Hon Lo Wai-kwok, Hon Charles Peter Mok, Hon Poon Siu-ping, Hon Tang Ka-piu, Hon Michael Tien Puk-sun, Hon Tony Tse Wai-chuen, Hon Wong Kwok-hing, Hon Wu Chi-wai, Hon Frankie Yick Chi-ming and Hon Yiu Si-wing.
3 They included the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong, the Civic Party, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, the Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the New People’s Party.
4 They included the Civic Party, the Democratic Party, the Labour Party and the New People’s Party. 5 They included the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong, the Democratic Alliance for the
Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and the Liberal Party. 6 They included Hon Chan Han-pan, Hon Christopher Chung Shu-kun, Hon Kwok Ka-ki, Hon Charles Peter
Mok, Hon Poon Siu-ping, Hon Tang Ka-piu, Hon Wong Kwok-hing, Hon Frankie Yick Chi-ming and Hon Yiu Si-wing.
A2-5
1.9 Some LegCo members objected to the implementation of the Pilot Scheme,
claiming that strengthening enforcement actions in the Central District
would be far more cost effective than implementing the Pilot Scheme.
Besides, some LegCo members were concerned with the long-term
effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme.
1.10 Some political parties requested the Government to provide more
comprehensive data and information on the Pilot Scheme for public
discussion during the next PE exercise, given that the Pilot Scheme could
bring about far-reaching socio-economic impact. Some political parties
considered it necessary to conduct opinion surveys during the next PE
exercise to gauge public views on the Pilot Scheme in a more scientific and
objective manner.
1.11 Several LegCo members requested granting exemption to commercial
vehicles. As far as charging mechanism was concerned, more LegCo
members and political parties preferred the cordon-based mechanism
(charging per pass). Some LegCo members advocated that vehicles
should be charged based on their durations of stay within the charging area.
(3) District Council members
1.12 A District Council (“DC”) forum was held at which views of 15 DC
members7 from 10 DCs8 on the Pilot Scheme were gathered. Among the
DC members who spoke at the forum, more were in support of the Pilot
Scheme or made positive responses. Some supporters pointed out that
Hong Kong was a small place but the vehicle fleet was ever growing,
resulting in serious traffic congestion in some parts of Hong Kong. They
7 They included Mr. Joseph Chan Ho-lim, Mr. Chan Shung-fai, Mr. Chiu Chi-keung, Mr. Hui Chi-fung, Ms.
Kwan Sau-ling, Ms. Kenny Lee Kwun-yee, Mr. Leung Ming-kin, Mr. Lo Siu-kit, Mr. Mak Ip-sing, Mr. George Pang Chun-sing, Mr. So Shiu-shing, Mr. Wong Ka-wa, Mr. Yip Man-pan, Mr. Michael Yung Ming-chau and Mr. Paul Zimmerman.
8 They included the Central and Western, Eastern, North, Sha Tin, Southern, Tsuen Wan, Tuen Mun, Wan Chai, Yau Tsim Mong and Yuen Long DC.
A2-6
considered that, sooner or later, the Government inevitably needed to
implement ERP in congested areas.
1.13 At the DC forum, some DC members expressed reservation about the
implementation of the Pilot Scheme, claiming that there was currently no
pressing need to introduce the scheme as the traffic congestion in the
Central District would ease off upon the commissioning of the Central –
Wan Chai Bypass. Certain DC members pointed out that the traffic
congestion problem at the Cross Harbour Tunnel (“CHT”) was far more
serious than that in the Central District and requested the Government to
first tackle the congestion at the CHT.
1.14 Since the Pilot Scheme is proposed to be implemented in the Central
District, we attended the Central and Western (“C&W”) District Council
meeting during the PE period to listen to the views of the DC members9 at
district level. At the meeting, most of the DC members did not agree to
the rash implementation of the Pilot Scheme in the Central District. They
opined that the main causes of traffic congestion in the Central District
were rampant illegal parking causing road obstruction and inadequate
parking spaces. They therefore requested the Government to first
strengthen enforcement actions and increase the number of parking spaces
in the district. Only a few C&W DC members held positive views about
the Pilot Scheme, yet they suggested that if the Pilot Scheme was to be
introduced in the Central District, a multi-pronged approach, with the
implementation of various measures, should be adopted to tackle the
congestion in the district. In the end, the following motion was passed at
the meeting:
“That the Council opposes the rash implementation of the ERP Pilot
Scheme in Central, and that the Administration should first step up efforts
to combat illegal parking to release the original road traffic capacity,
instead of leaving law-abiding citizens required to travel to the district to
9 They included Mr. Stephen Chan Chit-kwai, Mr. Chan Choi-hi, Mr. Joseph Chan Ho-lim, Mr. Chan
Hok-fung, Ms. Cheng Lai-king, Mr. Cheung Kwok-kwan, Mr. Hui Chi-fung, Mr. Kam Nai-wai, Mr. Sidney Lee Chi-hang, Miss Lo Yee-hang, Mr. Ng Siu-hong, Ms. Siu Ka-yi, Mr. Yeung Hoi-wing, Mr. Yeung Hok-ming and Mr. Yip Wing-shing.
A2-7
bear the responsibility for traffic congestion caused by law-breaking
drivers.”10
1.15 We noticed from the DC forum and the C&W DC meeting that quite a
number of DC members requested granting exemption or concession to
public transport, vehicles of residents living in the charging area and
environment-friendly vehicles. Some DC members raised concerns on
the complementary measures that should be implemented together with the
Pilot Scheme, such as strengthening enforcement actions, enhancing public
transport services serving the charging area, providing additional facilities
for parking, park-and-ride and loading/unloading of passengers and goods,
providing appropriate information to facilitate motorists who seldom drive
to the Central District, etc.
(4) Professional bodies
1.16 During the PE exercise, a total of 15 professional bodies11 provided
submissions or sent representatives to attend the focus group meeting
organised by the TD. Nine of them gave their support to the Pilot
Scheme or made positive responses. They included:
1) Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in Hong Kong
2) Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation (Hong Kong
Branch)
3) Hong Kong Institute of Planners
10 In response to the motion, the TD gave a reply in Chinese to the C&W DC Secretariat on 30 March 2016 (see
Annex 9 with Chinese version only). 11 They included Association of Consulting Engineers of Hong Kong, Association of Engineering
Professionals in Society Ltd., Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in Hong Kong, Institution of Civil Engineers - Hong Kong Association, Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation - Hong Kong Branch, Hong Kong Institute of Architects, Hong Kong Institute of Planners, Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design, Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, Hong Kong Institution of Highways and Transportation, Hong Kong Professionals and Senior Executives Association, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (Hong Kong Section), Intelligent Transportation Systems Hong Kong Ltd and Internet Professional Association.
A2-8
4) Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors
5) Hong Kong Institution of Engineers
6) Hong Kong Institution of Highways and Transportation
7) Hong Kong Professionals and Senior Executives Association
8) Intelligent Transportation Systems, Hong Kong Ltd.
9) Internet Professional Association
1.17 The professional bodies which supported the Pilot Scheme agreed that
ERP would be a sustainable congestion relief measure and there were
mature charging technologies readily available for application. Some
professional bodies considered that the implementation of other draconian
traffic management measures (e.g. restricting the number of private
vehicle licences issued or allowing only vehicles with number plates
ending in odd or even numbers to travel on alternate days) might face
greater obstacles than the implementation of the Pilot Scheme.
Moreover, the Pilot Scheme would be a more effective measure to tackle
traffic congestion problems occurring in specific areas at specific times.
1.18 For the remaining six professional bodies, some expressed reservation
about the Pilot Scheme while others indicated that they would not state
their stance until the Government put forward more solid options during
next PE exercise. Of those expressing reservation, some took the view
that the commissioning of the Central – Wan Chai Bypass might suffice
in addressing the traffic congestion problem in the Central District.
They also considered that the traffic congestion problem of the Central
District was mainly caused by the rampant illegal parking and
loading/unloading of passengers and goods.
1.19 The professional bodies generally agreed that the charging levels should
be linked to factors directly related to congestion (e.g. differential
charging levels should be set based on traffic conditions at different times,
locations and travel directions). They tended to support adopting DSRC
technology which required the installation of in-vehicle units. Moreover,
A2-9
the professional bodies generally opined that the Pilot Scheme would not
give rise to privacy problem and believed that the existing technologies
were adequate in safeguarding motorists’ privacy. Some professional
bodies also indicated that the revenue of the Pilot Scheme should be used
for specific transport-related purposes (i.e. the
“dedicated-fund-for-dedicated-use” approach), such as enhancing the
public transport services serving Central District and being ploughed back
into the day-to-day operation of the Pilot Scheme.
(5) Academics
1.20 A total of 23 academics12 provided submissions or presented their views at
the focus group meeting. They unanimously agreed to the introduction of
the Pilot Scheme and supported its early implementation. Some
academics were worried that if the Pilot scheme would not be introduced
after this PE exercise and the completion of the feasibility study, the public
would doubt the Government’s determination to implement ERP. Some
academics pointed out that the Government had, upon the completion of
the second ERP study in 2001, claimed that there was no need for the
implementation of ERP at that time considering that the annual growth rate
of the number of private cars had not reached 3%. Over the past decade,
the annual growth rate of private cars had soared to a level far exceeding
3%, thus it is an opportune time now to re-activate the planning for ERP.
1.21 Quite a number of academics who supported the Pilot Scheme were also
the members of the “Expert Panel on Sustainable Transport Planning and
Central-Wan Chai Bypass”13 set up in 2005. Back then, the panel had
12 They included Dr. Chan Yan-chong, Dr. Gu Weihua, Dr. Timothy D Hau, Prof. Sylvia He Ying, Prof. Huang
Bo, Dr. Hung Wing-tat, Dr. Kuo Yonghong, Dr. Andy Kwan Cheuk-chiu, Prof. William Lam Hing-keung, Dr. Leng Zhen, Prof. Janny Leung May-yee, Prof. Lo Hong-kam, Prof. Becky Loo Pui-ying, Prof. Mak Ho-yin, Dr. Ng Cho-nam, Dr. Jason Ni Meng-cheng, Dr. Sze Nang-ngai, Dr. Szeto Wai-yuen, Dr. James Wang Jixian, Dr Wang Yuhong, Prof. Wong Sze-chun, Prof. Alan Wong Wing-gun and Prof. Yang Hai.
13 “Expert Panel on Sustainable Transport Planning and Central-Wan Chai Bypass” was appointed by the “Sub-Committee on Wan Chai Development Phase II Review” under the “Harbour-front Enhancement Committee” in 2005. The terms of reference of the Expert Panel were mainly to review and make recommendations on the sustainable transport planning for the northern shore of the Hong Kong Island.
A2-10
already pointed out that the most opportune time to introduce ERP would
be upon the commissioning of the Central – Wan Chai Bypass. There
were views that the Government should seize the opportunity arising from
the commissioning of the Central-Wan Chai Bypass to implement the Pilot
Scheme promptly.
1.22 Most of the academics considered that the Pilot Scheme should not grant
any exemption or concession as far as possible because all vehicles
entering or leaving the charging area contributed to road traffic congestion.
Besides, a lot of academics suggested that the revenue generated from the
Pilot Scheme should be used for specific transport-related purposes (i.e.
the “dedicated-fund-for-dedicated-use” approach) which could greatly
benefit the community at large, such as enhancing public transport services,
lowering fares of public transport services, reducing annual licence fee or
first registration tax for vehicles, improving the overall pedestrian
environment in the charging area, etc.
(6) Transport trades
1.23 During the PE period, we solicited views from the following nine transport
trades on the Pilot Scheme through three different channels (including
meetings with the transport trades, LegCo Panel on Transport meeting and
written submissions):
1) tram 6) franchised bus
2) green minibus (“GMB”) 7) non-franchised bus
3) Hong Kong-Guangdong
cross-boundary coach
8) school bus
4) goods vehicle 9) urban taxi
5) public light bus
A2-11
1.24 Six transport trades (namely tram, franchised bus, Hong Kong-Guangdong
cross-boundary coach, school bus, GMB and non-franchised bus) were
inclined to support the Pilot Scheme. They considered that the Pilot
Scheme could provide a more efficient operating environment for the
road-based public transport modes and commercial vehicles, thereby
minimising service delays caused by road traffic congestion and indirectly
encouraging users of private cars and taxis to switch to use public transport.
The above six transport trades all requested that exemption or concession
be provided to their trade vehicles based on the three major reasons:
1) Routings and frequencies of trams, franchised buses and GMBs were
prescribed by the TD and could not be altered by the operators at their
discretion. Therefore, despite mandatory charges are applied to
these public transport vehicles, their number going in or out of the
Central District cannot be reduced.
2) Trams, franchised buses and GMBs are more efficient passenger
carriers in that they can carry more passengers while occupying less
road space. The granting of exemptions to these mass carriers could
spare their operators the need to pass on the ERP charges to
passengers and provide an indirect financial incentive to encourage
passengers to make more use of these three transport modes, which is
in line with the Government’s transport policy of according priority to
public transport services.
3) Operators of non-franchised buses, Hong Kong-Guangdong
cross-boundary coaches and school buses considered that they were
providing public bus services to the general public and school
children. They remarked that all buses (including franchised and
non-franchised buses) were allowed to use bus-only lanes when the
Government implemented them. If franchised buses are granted
exemption, other public buses, including non-franchised buses, Hong
Kong-Guangdong cross-boundary coaches and school buses, should
also be given the same treatment for the sake of fairness.
A2-12
1.25 The goods vehicle, taxi and public light bus trades expressed slightly
negative views about the Pilot Scheme. Some representatives of the three
trades unequivocally stated their opposition to the Pilot Scheme, and some
of the opposing reasons were similar to those held by the public.
1.26 All the nine transport trades requested granting exemption or concession to
their trade vehicles. Some of the transport trades (e.g. the taxi and
franchised bus trades) clearly stated that they would support the Pilot
Scheme if they were granted exemption. The goods vehicle, taxi and
public light bus trades expressed their worries that if their trade vehicles
were not exempted under the Pilot Scheme, their revenues and businesses
would be seriously affected and some of their drivers would not be able to
sustain their living.
1.27 The goods vehicle trade pointed out that both goods vehicles and public
transport modes serve the community at large, and goods vehicles play an
important role in supporting the commercial activities of the Central
District. It therefore requested that goods vehicles should be exempted.
The taxi trade pointed out that if taxis were not exempted, vacant taxis
would avoid entering the charging area to ply for hire, resulting in an
inadequate number of taxis to meet passenger demand and leading to a
lose-lose situation for taxi drivers and taxi passengers.
1.28 Some representatives of the goods vehicle, taxi and public light bus trades
indicated that if they were not given exemption, they would pass on all the
related charges to passengers or users, who would end up paying higher
fares or delivery charges.
1.29 Apart from requesting exemption or concession, the transport trades were
generally concerned about the complementary measures that would be
implemented with the Pilot Scheme, including controlling the growth in
the number of private cars, providing more kerbside facilities for
loading/unloading of passengers and goods, providing turnaround facilities
outside the charging area, etc. The transport trades were also concerned
about the demarcation of the charging area and opined that the Government
A2-13
should ensure that the roads outside the charging area would not become
congested as a result of the implementation of the Pilot Scheme.
(7) Business associations
1.30 We received submissions from five business associations14 and attended
meetings of the Economic Policy Committee of the Hong Kong General
Chamber of Commerce and Small & Medium Enterprises Committee.
The five business associations which provided submissions unanimously
gave their support to the Pilot Scheme, considering that this was the first
step towards enhancing Hong Kong’s competitiveness. They stressed that
socio-economic and environmental benefits of the Pilot Scheme could
only be achieved if it is properly planned and designed, and its
implementation ought to conform to the overall transport policy.
1.31 The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce suggested the
Government conducting cost-benefit analysis of the Pilot Scheme, and
publicise the results, so as to enhance public understanding and facilitate
further discussion. Some members of the Small & Medium Enterprises
Committee suggested that when designing the charging system, the
Government should consider releasing the data related to road usage to the
public and the business sector so that the creative industries might be
benefitted from using such data. Some business associations raised
concern over the implementation timetable of the Pilot Scheme and
suggested the Government adopting the “public-private partnership”
approach in taking forward the Pilot Scheme.
1.32 Several business associations drew attention to the uneven traffic
distribution among the three RHCs and suggested that this issue should be
taken into account when deciding the boundary of the charging area.
Regarding the charging mechanism, several business associations 14 They included the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, the Australian Chamber of Commerce -
Hong Kong and Macau, the British Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong and the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce.
A2-14
supported adopting the cordon-based approach (charging per pass) as it
would be more in line with the “user pays” principle.
(8) Green groups
1.33 During the PE period, a total of 13 green groups15 provided submissions or
sent representatives to attend the meeting of the LegCo Panel on Transport
or the focus group meeting. Nine of the green groups16 tended to support
the Pilot Scheme, considering that it could relieve traffic congestion and
the associated air pollution and thus enhancing the city’s livability. Some
green groups requested setting the roadside air quality improvement as one
of the objectives of the Pilot Scheme to conform to the “polluter pays”
principle. They also requested the Government providing more data on
how the Pilot Scheme could reduce the air pollution at the next PE exercise.
A few green groups had some reservations about the Pilot Scheme,
claiming that it could only mitigate air pollution problems in the local area.
1.34 A number of green groups suggested designating a larger charging area so
that the Pilot Scheme could achieve greater effect in mitigating traffic
congestion and air pollution. Quite a number of green groups also
suggested that the charging level should be linked to vehicle emissions and
requested using roadside air pollutant concentrations in the charging area
as the performance indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of the Pilot
Scheme.
1.35 Regarding the vehicle types that should be given exemption or concession,
views of green groups were mixed. Some green groups opined that no
vehicles should be exempted except emergency vehicles to avoid
weakening the effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme. Some green groups 15 They included Business Environment Council Limited, Civic Exchange, Clean Air Network, Clear the Air,
Designing Hong Kong, EarthCare, Friends of the Earth (HK), Green Sense, Green Technology Consortium, Hong Kong Green Strategy Alliance, The Conservancy Association, World Green Organisation and “關注香
港空氣大聯盟 (with Chinese name only) ”.
16 They included Business Environment Council Limited, Civic Exchange, Clean Air Network, Designing Hong Kong, Friends of the Earth (HK), Green Sense, Green Technology Consortium, Hong Kong Green Strategy Alliance and “關注香港空氣大聯盟 (with Chinese name only)”.
A2-15
were of the view that even electric vehicles should not be exempted,
because although electric vehicles have zero emission, they still
contributed to road traffic congestion which in turn caused other
non-environment-friendly vehicles to emit more pollutants. Nevertheless,
some green groups considered that trams, low-emission buses and electric
vehicles should be exempted.
(9) Other organisations
1.36 In its Report on Study of Road Traffic Congestion in Hong Kong, the TAC
suggested that the Government should start planning for an ERP pilot
scheme as soon as possible. The TAC discussed the PE document at its
meeting on 15 December 2015. Apart from welcoming the Government’s
proposal of implementing the Pilot Scheme, the TAC also concurred with
the Government’s stance that ERP is an effective traffic management tool
to tackle localised road traffic congestion and that the Central District is a
suitable location for implementing the Pilot Scheme.
1.37 We also received another 11 submissions from other organisations17.
Their views were rather diverse with both supporting and opposing views.
The views of these organisations on the implementation of the Pilot
Scheme were largely the same as those of the public and other stakeholder
groups as summarised in this Annex.
17 They included Community for Road Safety, Dashun Foundation, Frontline Tech Workers Concern Group,
Hong Kong Electric Company Limited, Hong Kong Land Holdings Limited, Inchcape Motor Services Limited, Momentum 107, Octopus Cards Limited, Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Public Transport Research Team and Rehabilitation Alliance Hong Kong
A3-1
Annex 3
A brief summary of three “opinion surveys” conducted by non-governmental organisations
During the public engagement exercise, we received three submissions
from stakeholder groups that contained the findings of three “opinion
surveys”. The submissions were from the Lion Rock Institute, Mr. Paul
Zimmerman, Southern District Council member, and Designing Hong
Kong. Based on our consolidation and analysis of the findings of the
three opinion surveys, a brief summary of the findings are presented
below.
1. The Lion Rock Institute
The Lion Rock Institute (“LRI”) conducted an opinion survey on the ERP
Pilot Scheme on streets and at public transport interchanges in the Central
District. A total of 1 080 members of the public were successfully
interviewed. Among the respondents, 85% of them went in or out of the
Central District more than four times a week, about 50% frequently used
public transport and nearly 30% were professional drivers (including bus,
minibus, taxi and goods vehicle drivers). The key survey findings were as
follows:
1) Nearly 90% of the respondents considered that traffic congestion in the
Central District was serious; 60% to 70% considered that private car
and goods vehicle were the major vehicle types causing traffic
congestion.
2) 70% of the respondents objected to the Government’s plan of
implementing the Pilot Scheme and expanding it to other areas in
future.
3) 60% of the respondents considered that the Pilot Scheme would not be
necessary if the Government had already implemented such measures
A3-2
as raising the tolls of Road Harbour Crossings (“RHCs”), rationalising
bus services, strengthening enforcement actions against offending
vehicles and commissioning the Central – Wan Chai Bypass.
4) Nearly 50% of the respondents considered exemption should be
granted to public transport (including buses, minibuses and trams);
only 20% to 30% considered that taxis, private cars and commercial
vehicles should be granted exemption. Moreover, 65% considered
that exemption should be given to environment-friendly vehicles (such
as electric vehicles).
5) Nearly 70% of the respondents objected to passengers shouldering the
additional operating costs if public transport would not be given any
exemption.
6) About 65% of the professional drivers and private car drivers
interviewed were not worried about any privacy issues that may be
engendered by the implementation of the Pilot Scheme.
7) 40% of the respondents were reluctant to pay any ERP charges for
solving the congestion problem; 40% were only willing to pay less than
$5 a day; about 20% were willing to pay more than $5 a day.
The LRI considered that the above findings showed that the public had not
given support to the implementation of ERP. The survey reflected the
public aspirations that the Government should first implement measures
such as raising the tolls of RHCs, rationalising bus services, strengthening
enforcement actions against offending vehicles and commissioning the
Central – Wan Chai Bypass. The foregoing measures were considered
more effective in alleviating the traffic congestion in the Central District.
As such, before the Central – Wan Chai Bypass has been commissioned and
the foregoing simple measures have been carried out, the LRI would oppose
to the implementation of the Pilot Scheme. Besides, the LRI considered
that since the Government had not yet proposed the amount of the charges
to be levied under the Pilot Scheme, it would not be possible to assess the
effectiveness of the scheme. Also, many of the respondents objected to
A3-3
ERP charges being passed on to passengers if public transport would not be
given any exemption.
2. Mr. Paul Zimmerman, Southern District Council member
Mr. Paul Zimmerman, Southern District Council member, conducted an
online survey on the Pilot Scheme targeted at the residents of the Pokfulam
Constituency. In that survey, 25% of the respondents usually used private
cars for commuting while 27% usually used public transport. Those who
used both accounted for 48%.
Views on the implementation of the Pilot Scheme
The survey collected 135 responses from the Pokfulam residents. Among
them, 46% supported the Pilot Scheme, 48% opposed it and 6% had no
comment. The survey results showed that the level of support or
opposition of the Pokfulam residents to the Pilot Scheme was about the
same.
Major views on six basic elements
(1) Charging area
A higher proportion of Pokfulam residents considered that the
charging area should be confined to the Central District or some of the
roads within it. Some views suggested that the charging area should
cover the Central District and other areas, such as Sheung Wan,
Admiralty, Wan Chai and Causeway Bay, etc. The residents mainly
suggested that the boundary of the charging area should be drawn up
according to the level of traffic congestion.
(2) Charging mechanism
The Pokfulam residents were more inclined to choose the area-based
mechanism (charging per day) but some residents had no strong
A3-4
preference on the two charging mechanisms (i.e. the area-based and
cordon-based mechanisms).
(3) Charging period
More views agreed that the ERP charge should be imposed
throughout the hours of a day when the traffic flow is high, and there
should be no charge on Sundays and public holidays.
(4) Charging level
The residents had diverse views over the charging approaches to be
adopted under the Pilot Scheme. Although more views were in
favour of a unified charge for all vehicle types or differential charges
based on vehicle sizes, there were also views in support of differential
charges based on vehicle’s carrying capacities. More respondents
considered that if the Pilot Scheme adopted the cordon-based
mechanism (charging per pass), the suggested charging rate ranged
from $10 to $50 per pass, with some suggesting very high levels such
as $200. Some respondents considered that if the Pilot Scheme
adopted the area-based mechanism (charging per day), the suggested
charging rate ranged between $20 and $200 per day.
(5) Exemption and concession
A higher proportion of the residents supported giving exemption or
concession to public transport, taxis and vehicles for the disabled.
However, there were a number of residents who held the view that no
vehicles (except emergency vehicles) should be given exemption.
(6) Technology
The numbers of views preferring the DSRC technology or ANPR
technology were roughly the same while some respondents had no
strong preference on the technology to be adopted.
A3-5
Major views on three pertinent issues
(1) Privacy concerns
Only a minority of all views were concerned about any privacy issues
pertaining to the Pilot Scheme. Certain residents were worried about
the data collected in the Pilot Scheme would be used for purposes
other than charging or their movements might be monitored. Most
residents were not worried or had no comment on the privacy issue.
(2) Effectiveness
An overwhelming majority of residents opined that the charging level
should be kept under regular review and suitably adjusted as and when
necessary to maintain its effectiveness. On the evaluation of the
effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme, many respondents considered using
traffic flows or traffic speeds as the main key indicators but may
consider using air pollution level in the charging area as an indicator.
(3) Complementary measures
The residents mainly suggested that the enforcement actions against
traffic offences should be strengthened along with the implementation
of the Pilot Scheme. Moreover, there were voices calling for
enhanced public transport services, additional park-and-ride facilities,
improved pedestrian or cycling facilities, and restriction on the
number of vehicles.
In the submission letter of the online survey results, Mr. Paul Zimmerman
pointed out that as the Pokfulam district had not yet been served by railway
services and the minibus and bus services in the district were not quite
regular, he worried about the impact that might be brought by the Pilot
Scheme on the Pokfulam residents as some of them used to commute by
their private cars.
A3-6
3. Designing Hong Kong
Designing Hong Kong conducted an online survey targeted at the visitors∗
of its webpage. In that survey, 14% of the respondents usually used
private cars for commuting while 54% usually used public transport.
Those who used both accounted for 32%.
Views on the implementation of the Pilot Scheme
The survey collected 375 responses. Among them, 68% supported the
Pilot Scheme, 29% opposed it and 3% had no comment.
Major views on six basic elements
(1) Charging area
A higher proportion of responses considered that the charging area
should cover the Central District and other areas such as Sheung Wan,
Admiralty, Wan Chai and Causeway Bay, etc. Some views
suggested designating a larger charging area to cover as many
congested places as possible. There were views suggesting that the
charging area should be confined to the Central District or some of the
roads within it. Regarding how the boundary of the charging area
should be demarcated, a majority of views suggested considering it
according to the level of traffic congestion, traffic flow and traffic
speed as well as the provision of a free-of-charge alternative route for
bypassing the charging area.
(2) Charging mechanism
The numbers of respondents preferring the area-based mechanism or
cordon-based mechanism were roughly the same. Some respondents
had no strong preference on the two mechanisms.
∗ Designing Hong Kong conducted an online opinion survey at its webpage (www.designinghongkong.com)
between 2 March 2016 and 15 March 2016 and invited participation by people who visited the webpage.
A3-7
(3) Charging period
More views agreed that the ERP charge should be imposed
throughout the hours of a day when the traffic flow is high, and there
should be no charge on Sundays and public holidays. There were
also views indicating that the charges should be imposed on some of
the Sundays and public holidays when special events would be held
and could cause the traffic congestion.
(4) Charging level
A larger proportion of respondents considered that differential
charges should be set based on various traffic conditions / vehicle
sizes / vehicles’ carrying capacities / occupancies. There were also
views supporting a unified charge for all vehicle types. A majority
of respondents considered that if the Pilot Scheme adopted the
cordon-based mechanism (charging per pass), the suggested charging
rate ranged from $10 to $90 per pass, while some suggesting higher
levels between $100 and $180. Some respondents considered if the
Pilot Scheme adopted the area-based mechanism (charging per day),
the suggested charging rate ranged from $30 to $50 per day, while
some suggesting higher levels between $100 and $500.
(5) Exemption and concession
More respondents supported granting exemption or concession to
public transport, taxis, vehicles for the disabled and residents living in
the charging area. However, there were many views expressing that
no vehicles (except emergency vehicles) should be given exemption.
(6) Technology
The numbers of views preferring the DSRC technology or ANPR
technology were roughly the same while some respondents had no
strong preference on the technology to be adopted.
A3-8
Major views on three pertinent issues
(1) Privacy concerns
Most of the respondents were not worried about any privacy issues
pertaining to the Pilot Scheme while only very few respondents
expressed concern on this issue.
(2) Effectiveness
An overwhelming majority of respondents opined that the charging
level should be kept under regular review and suitably adjusted as and
when necessary. On the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Pilot
Scheme, many respondents considered using traffic flows, air
pollution level or traffic speeds in the charging area as key indicators.
(3) Complementary measures
More respondents suggested that the enforcement actions against
traffic offences should be strengthened along with the implementation
of the Pilot Scheme. Some respondents suggested enhancing public
transport services and providing additional park-and-ride facilities.
There were individuals suggesting the enhancement of pedestrian or
cycling facilities and the toll adjustment of the three RHCs.
In the submission letter of the online survey results, Designing Hong Kong
expressed the grave concerns made by the respondents over inadequate
parking facilities and ineffective enforcement actions against illegal
parking in the Central District. As the costs and merits of different
technologies were not yet available at this stage, the views on the
technology to be adopted were diverse. In the same vein, as the details of
different charging area boundaries and charging approaches were not yet
available, the Government ought to formulate more detailed options for
discussion with the public.
A4-1
Annex 4
A summary of views gathered at focus group meetings, District Council forum and
meetings with transport trades
Focus group meetings, forum and meetings with transport trades
Serial number of summary of views
Urban taxi trade conference M001 Hong Kong-Guangdong cross-boundary coach services trade conference
M002
Green minibus operators trade conference M003
Public light bus services trade conference M004
Goods vehicle driver associations trade conference M005
Trucking industry associations trade conference M006
Franchised bus operators trade conference M007
Focus group meeting – academics M008
School bus operators trade conference M009
District Council forum M010
Focus group meeting – professional bodies M011
Public bus operators (non-franchised bus) trade conference
M012
Focus group meeting – green groups M013
The summaries of views gathered at the 13 meetings shown above are uploaded to the dedicated website (www.erphk.hk).
A5-1
Annex 5
A breakdown and numbers of submissions received from various channels
submission channel number of submissions
dedicated website 362
post 27
fax 4
email 93
telephone 12
Public Affairs Forum of the Home Affairs Bureau
14
Transport Complaints Unit under the Transport Advisory Committee
3
Total 515 Notes:
1. The following cases were treated as a single submission:
• identical submissions sent from the same individual / organisation (regardless of whether they were received from
the same channel)
• several submissions containing sequential views sent from the same individual / organisation
2. Arrangements on the identical submissions sent from the same Internet protocol (IP) address:
• sent continuously: treated as a single submission
• not sent continuously: treated as separate submissions
3. The following submissions were not included in the total numbers of submissions:
• submissions containing strings of meaningless symbols / numerals / alphabets (122 nos.)
• submissions containing only enquiries on the public engagement exercise (6 nos.)
• submissions containing no views and providing the articles of a third party (such as articles or press releases from
other organisations / institutions) (16 nos.) [Among them, 1 no. only mentioned traffic congestion situations, 9 nos.
discussed overseas ERP experience, 5 nos. discussed ERP concepts and 1 no. quoted the views of a third party]
4. Handling of the following special cases:
• We noted that after an online article was published by a member of the public under the name of David M. Webb
(who also sent us an email), 14 members of the public provided their submissions to express their support for or
quote the views of David M. Webb. Another two members of the public provided their submissions to express their
own views in addition to expressing support for the views of David M. Webb. These cases altogether were counted
as three submissions.
• A group of elderly people living at the Mid-levels represented by LH Chung provided a submission via our dedicated
website. This case was treated as a single submission.
• A group of academics (16 in total) represented by Dr. Timothy D. Hau of the School of Economics and Finance of
the University of Hong Kong sent an email to us. This case was treated as a single submission.
• We received a total of 142 emails with identical contents and they were sent in response to an online appeal. These
A5-2
cases were treated as a single submission.
• Designing Hong Kong submitted a report on an online opinion survey which attracted a total of 375 responses.
This case was treated as a single submission. A brief summary of the survey report was set out in Annex 3.
• The Lion Rock Institute submitted a report on an opinion survey in which a total of 1 080 persons were interviewed.
This case was treated as a single submission. A brief summary of the survey report was set out in Annex 3.
• Mr Paul Zimmerman, Southern District Council member, submitted a report on an online opinion survey which
attracted a total of 135 responses from the residents of the Pokfulam Constituency. This case was treated as a single
submission. A brief summary of the survey report was set out in Annex 3.
• 13 documents were received during the week after the public engagement exercise was completed. The documents
were not treated as submissions received.
A6-1
Annex 6
A list of all submissions received and their originators
(except those requested by their originators to remain anonymous)
The list of all submissions received and their originators (except those requested by the originators to remain anonymous) are uploaded to the dedicated website (www.erphk.hk).
A7- 1
Annex 7
Copies of all submissions received (except those requested by their originators to remain confidential)
submission number submission channel C00001 – C00003 Transport Complaints Unit under
the Transport Advisory Committee E00001 – E00264 email F00001 – F00005 fax H00001 – H00015 Public Affairs Forum of
the Home Affairs Bureau P00001 – P00029 post T00001 – T00015 telephone
W00001 – W00555 dedicated website
Copies of all submissions received (except those requested by their originators to remain confidential) are uploaded to the dedicated website (www.erphk.hk).
A8-1
Annex 8
The 13 questions on the basic elements and pertinent issues of the Pilot Scheme set out in the public engagement document
Charging area Q 1 Do you have any views on how the boundary of the Central
District ERP Pilot Scheme should be drawn up, and what are your reasons?
Q 2 Do you think some neighbouring areas of Central, say some
parts of Admiralty or Sheung Wan, should be covered in the Central District ERP Pilot Scheme? If so, which area(s)?
Charging mechanism Q 3 Do you prefer an area-based or cordon-based charging
mechanism for the Central District ERP Pilot Scheme? Why? Charging period Q 4 Do you agree that ERP charges for the Central District ERP
Pilot Scheme should be imposed throughout the hours in a day when the traffic flow is high in the charging area?
Q 5 Do you agree that Sundays and public holidays should be
excluded from the ERP charges for the Central District ERP Pilot Scheme? Do you have any other views on the charging period?
Charging level Q 6 Which charging approach do you prefer for the Central District
ERP Pilot Scheme – a unified charge for all vehicles, differential charges based on vehicle sizes (i.e. larger vehicles to be charged more), or differential charges based on a vehicle’s carrying capacity (i.e. vehicles with higher carrying capacities to be charged at lower levels)?
A8-2
Q 7 Do you have any suggestion on the range of ERP charge which you believe could induce motorists to adjust their travel behaviour when (a) ERP charge is levied on a per day basis; or (b) ERP charge is levied on a per pass basis (charging at each and every charging point)?
Exemption and Concession Q 8 Do you support providing exemption / concession to vehicles
other than emergency vehicles for the Central District ERP Pilot Scheme? If so, what are the type(s) of vehicles and why do you choose them?
Technology Q 9 DSRC technology requires the installation of an IVU in each
vehicle entering the charging area for ERP payment, while ANPR technology captures the licence number plate of a vehicle every time when it enters / leaves / circulates in the charging area. On the whole, would you say that ANPR or DSRC is a more preferable technology for the Central District ERP Pilot Scheme?
Privacy concerns Q 10 Do you have any concern over the protection of privacy in the
Central District ERP Pilot Scheme? What are your concern(s) and how do you think it / they could be addressed?
Effectiveness Q 11 What indicators do you think we should use to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Central District ERP Pilot Scheme? Q 12 Do you agree that the charging level should be reviewed
regularly and adjusted where necessary in order to maintain the effectiveness of the Central District ERP Pilot Scheme?
Complementary measures Q 13 Do you have any suggestions on measures which could
complement the implementation of the Central District ERP Pilot Scheme?
Annex 9
A9-1
A9-2