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