Totransport & Housing Bureau

SUBMISSION

______

TOTransport & Housing Bureau

FROMAndrew Kinloch

Logie Group Limited

REELECTRONIC ROAD PRICING – PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

DATE30 December 2015

______

INTRODUCTION

I act as an expert on infrastructure finance in Asia. I have lived in HK since 1998 and previously in 1982 – 4. For more on me, please visit

COMMENTARY

Conceptually, ERP makes sense – it has worked in London and Singapore (I don’t know Gothenburg), indeed I studied it at the University of Bristol in the 1970s in conjunction with the UK Government’s School of Urban Studies.

Of the options which you present, a cordon with DSRC technology is clearly the best. However, the impact of ERP in HK could be much less than elsewhere unless it is coordinated with other measures in the Public Transport Strategy Study (which I have not seen).More interesting than commenting on ERP as a stand - alone topic is discussing the complementary measures that should accompany it.

Incentive to change behaviour

I assume that the objective of ERP would be to 1) reduce door – to – door travel time for all travelers in the affected area 2) improve street – side air quality.

In the 2001 feasibility study (FS), the proportion of traffic in Central represented by private vehicles was an unusually low 11%. These are owned by rich people already prepared to pay FRT and ALF plus either parking or a driver. To change their behaviour would require a much more significant charge than the $8 –17(even inflation adjusted) suggested in the FS – say $500; and still many owners would not switch, surely far fewer than the 50% envisaged in the FS. Either way, the impact on overall traffic numbers would be modest.

All vehicles contribute to the congestion so all (except emergency vehicles) should pay. Minibuses and franchise buses would pass the cost onto their passengers but this would not be significant when divided between 16 or [30] passengers so the incentive would be negligible.

Trams contribute to congestion by being slower than other vehicles and requiring tram stops in the middle of the road. Nonetheless, they are cheap, well understood and contribute to the character of HK so should be retained. Like buses and minibuses, congestion charges paid by trams would be passed on to their passengers; unlike buses and minibuses, there would be no scope to change tram routes or stop them outside the cordon.

The cost to taxi passengers would be greater so would lead to some change of behaviour – amid no doubt vociferous objection from taxi drivers / owners.

Trucks could change their behaviour so as to avoid the charge if it varied by time of day. More radically, perhaps make the charge negative for trucks offloading at night (i.e. pay them) as the incentive of being paid is greater than the incentive of avoiding a charge. This part of the scheme could still be revenue neutral. On the other hand, trucks’ behaviour could be changed via legislation (see below).

The charging levels need tovary depending on when the congestion occurs – in Central, this is early morning and late afternoon rush hours and lunchtime but maybe not mid-morning or mid-afternoon. In nightlife areas such as SoHo, the rush hour is completely different i.e. early evening to midnight.

In order to change behaviour, charges need to be understood, large enough to make an impact (see above) - and known. For example, drivers paying for the cross – harbour tunnels with Autotoll are currently not told at the time how much they are paying so cannot be influenced by information which they do not have.

On its own, ERP may therefore have only modest impact.

Alternative ways to cut traffic numbers

The Government therefore needs to combine ERP with more interventionist measures.

It should revisit the one – way system as many vehicles in Central do not want to be there in the first place - e.g. driving from Western to SoHo requires a huge loop through Central; and one vehicle unloading in Elgin Street can bring Hollywood Rd or Lyndhurst Terrace to a complete halt.

Revisit some franchise bus and minibus routes to stop short of Central where passengers may interchange to the MTR / ferries / walk - so long as such interchanges are efficient, otherwise passengers may prefer to have stayed on the bus / minibus even with a bit of congestion.

Loading / unloading should be permitted only in off peak hours (see above). Drivers who loiter need to be moved on.

How to cut peak demand

Encourage people to not travel in the first place. Can the Government lead the way by promoting flexitime or decentralising departments away from Central?

Encourage taxi sharing via cooperation at individual building management level, phone apps, etc.

Encourage people to walk. Some examples:

Require/ encourage / allow premiseson e.g. Wellington St to build awnings out over the pavement.
Perhaps another escalator system.
Expand the charismatic ferry network (think of Sydney), not just cross – harbour but e.g. along the north shore of HK island in parallel with the MTR’s Island line. These ferries could also be subsidised so as encourage people away from the MTR.
Pedestrianise not just Des Voeux Rd but also areas such as SoHo.

An alternative method of discouraging private vehicles entering Central is to tax parking spaces. This avoids the cost of ERP but ignores the time of travel, does not influence drivers / spouses dropping people off who do not need to park and may be politically unpopular.

Promoting cycling as a means of commuting to work in Central is not practicable given the space constraints, climate and limited supply of shower facilities once people arrive at the office. The 23 km HarbourLoop route which has recently been proposed would therefore be mainly for recreational purposes but a cable car capable of carrying bikes and a bridge across the harbour sounds incredibly expensive.

Park & Ride would require building new car parks in space on the edge of the cordon which is not likely to be available so is impracticable too.

Logistical considerations

Some passengers will want to get out of taxis just before they get to the cordon. Space will need to be provided for taxis to turn around at that point.

Implementation would depend on when the Central – WanChai bypass opened – but when is this now expected?

Use of revenue raised

The Government should not be shy about the fact that ERP ought to make a profit. At the same time as introducing ERP, therefore, it should explain what it intends to do with the money – invest more for pedestrians and in the MTR, for example, which would become even more congested than it is at the moment if passengers switched away from road transport in response to ERP.