Annex 1
Major meetings and events held
during the public engagement exercise
Legislative Council (“LegCo”) / District Council
meetings
LegCo Panel on Transport meeting
LegCo Panel on Transport special meeting
Central and Western District Council meeting
Meetings with government advisory bodies
Transport Advisory Committee meeting
Small and Medium Enterprises Committee meeting
Focus group meetings / forum / transport trade
meetings (arranged by the Government)
Urban taxi trade conference
Hong Kong-Guangdong cross-boundary coach
services trade conference
Green minibus operators trade conference
Public light bus services trade conference
Goods vehicle driver associations trade conference
Trucking industry associations trade conference
Franchised bus operators trade conference
Focus group meeting – academics
School bus operators trade conference
District Council forum
Focus group meeting – professional bodies
Public bus operators (non-franchised bus) trade
conference
Focus group meeting – green groups
Topical seminars (arranged by individual
organisations)
Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce:
Economic Policy Committee meeting
Hong Kong Institution of Engineers: topical seminar
co-organised by Civil Division and Logistics &
Transportation Division
Clean Air Network: “community talk series” seminar
A1-1
Date
16 December 2015
5 January 2016
10 March 2016
Date
15 December 2015
22 February 2016
Date
16 December 2015
18 December 2015
21 December 2015
23 December 2015
30 December 2015
31 December 2015
11 January 2016
26 January 2016
30 January 2016
2 February 2016
3 February 2016
17 February 2016
18 February 2016
Date
29 January 2016
4 March 2016
16 March 2016
Educational seminars
Date
Curriculum Development Institute of the Education
22 February 2016
Bureau: topical seminar for geography teachers
Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups: Media 21
1 March 2016
online programme (called「通識直播室」in Chinese)
Media interviews
Radio Television Hong Kong: “Talkabout” thematic
interview
Commercial Radio: “On a Clear Day” thematic
interview
Radio Television Hong Kong: “Backchat” thematic
interview
Television Broadcasts Limited: “A Closer Look”
thematic interview
A1-2
Date
14 December 2015
14 December 2015
17 December 2015
5 January 2016
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.
A2-1
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
A2-2
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.
A2-3
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 parties 5 and nine LegCo members 6 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.
A2-4
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.
A2-5
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.
A2-6
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.
A2-7
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,
A2-8
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.
A2-9
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
A2-10
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.
A2-11
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
A2-12
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.
A2-13
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)”.
A2-14
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 organisations 17 .
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
A2-15
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
A3-1
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
A3-2
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
A3-3
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.
A3-4
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.
A3-5
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.
A3-6
(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.
A3-7
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.
A3-8
Annex 4
A summary of views gathered
at focus group meetings, District Council forum and
meetings with transport trades
Index
Focus group meetings, forum and meetings with
transport trades
Urban taxi trade conference
Hong Kong-Guangdong cross-boundary coach
services trade conference
Green minibus operators trade conference
Public light bus services trade conference
Goods vehicle driver associations trade conference
Trucking industry associations trade conference
Franchised bus operators trade conference
Focus group meeting – academics
School bus operators trade conference
District Council forum
Focus group meeting – professional bodies
Public bus operators (non-franchised bus) trade
conference
Focus group meeting – green groups
A4-Index-1
Serial number of
summary of views
M001
M002
M003
M004
M005
M006
M007
M008
M009
M010
M011
M012
M013
M001
Summary of views on the Pilot Scheme collected from
the urban taxi trade conference (16 December 2015)
Names of representatives and their respective organisations are in Chinese only
and are set out in the Chinese version of the report.
Major views on six basic elements
(1)
(2)
Charging area
(i)
After the implementation of the Pilot Scheme, even though some of
the vehicles would not enter the Central District, traffic congestion
would possibly occur in the areas adjoining the charging area, such as
Wan Chai.
(ii)
Taxis have not been granted any profit guarantee by the Government.
While the Government is now planning to implement the Pilot
Scheme in the Central District, it may later launch other schemes in
other districts. This will make the taxis’ operating environment
difficult.
Charging mechanism
(i)
(3)
Charging period
(i)
(4)
An enquiry was made on whether taxis, after entering the charging
area, would be charged once or be charged every time they travel
along a street.
No comment had been made.
Charging level
(i)
No comment had been made.
M001-1
(5)
Exemption and concession
(i)
The majority of the representatives requested that exemption be
granted to urban taxis. Some indicated that only when taxis were
exempted, they would support the Pilot Scheme. Some of the
representatives were worried that the taxi business would be affected
if taxis were not exempted.
(ii)
If taxis were not exempted, they would stay away from the charging
area and avoid entering it to ply for hire.
(iii) If the Pilot Scheme was implemented and a taxi passed through
charging points without paying the charges, then the fines incurred
would be borne by taxi owners instead of rentee-drivers. This would
incur additional administrative cost to the taxi owners. For example,
the taxi owners would have to check with relief-drivers on the costs
incurred. In addition, if taxis were not exempted, there could be
disputes between passengers and drivers on whether a charging route
should be taken.
(iv) If taxis were exempted while private cars were charged, this would
encourage private car owners or users to switch to taxis while
boosting the taxi business. That would kill two birds with one stone.
(6)
Technology
(i)
No comment had been made.
Major views on three pertinent issues
(1)
Privacy concerns
(i)
(2)
No comment had been made.
Effectiveness
(i)
No comment had been made.
M001-2
(3)
Complementary measures
(i)
No comment had been made.
Other views
(i)
If the Pilot Scheme was implemented, traffic conditions would be
smoother and taxi drivers would be able to do more business.
(ii)
The Pilot Scheme could add to the costs of daily necessities. It was
pointed out that the root cause of road traffic congestion should be
excessive growth of private cars.
(iii) Some representatives of the urban taxi trade understood that ERP
could help alleviate road traffic congestion, but they considered that
the Government should first tackle illegal parking in the Central
District and control the growth of private cars while the Pilot Scheme
should be implemented after the commissioning of the Central – Wan
Chai Bypass.
M001-3
M002
Summary of views on the Pilot Scheme collected from the
Hong Kong-Guangdong cross-boundary coach services trade conference
(18 December 2015)
Names of representatives and their respective organisations are in Chinese only
and are set out in the Chinese version of the report.
Major views on six basic elements
(1)
(2)
Charging area
(i)
The issue of whether Cotton Tree Drive should be included in the
charging area has to be handled carefully as it is the essential route
used by the residents of the Mid-levels area and many school buses.
(ii)
An enquiry was made on whether there would be a pre-determined
boundary for the charging area.
Charging mechanism
(i)
(3)
Charging period
(i)
(4)
For those vehicles without exemption granted, levying charges on
them for entering the charging area on a “charging per pass” basis
would be more effective than that on a “charging per day” basis
because the latter would encourage motorists to stay in the charging
area for longer time and would aggravate road traffic congestion.
No comment had been made.
Charging level
(i)
The issue of whether charging levels should be varied according to
the vehicle size or carrying capacity has to be handled carefully
M002-1
because this approach might run against the mass transport policy
promoted by the Transport Department.
(5)
(6)
Exemption and concession
(i)
Cross-boundary coaches belong to non-franchised buses but serve as
public buses, and they have all along been allowed to use bus-only
lanes. Under the Government’s principle of encouraging the public
to make use of mass carriers, cross-boundary coaches should be
exempted from ERP charges or should pay reasonable and low
charges.
(ii)
If franchised buses are exempted from ERP charges, non-franchised
buses (including cross-boundary and local coaches) should also be
exempted.
Technology
(i)
No comment had been made.
Major views on the three pertinent issues
(1)
Privacy concerns
(i)
(2)
Effectiveness
(i)
(3)
No comment had been madet.
No comment had been made.
Complementary measures
(i)
Clear road markings and signage, and turnaround facilities should be
provided at the fringe of the charging area (such as 1km from the
charging area) to enable drivers to decide in time on whether to enter
the charging area. Such arrangements would be particularly
important to tourists and drivers who seldom visit the area.
M002-2
(ii)
Large car parks and pick-up/drop-off points should be provided in
the areas adjoining the charging area so that some of the drivers
could park their cars or drop off their passengers outside the
charging area and then the passengers could walk into the area.
M002-3
M003
Summary of views on the Pilot Scheme collected from
the green minibus operators trade conference (5 January 2016)
Names of representatives and the respective organisations are in Chinese only
and are set out in the Chinese version of the report.
Major views on six basic elements
(1)
Charging area
(i)
(2)
Charging mechanism
(i)
(3)
No comment had been made.
Charging level
(i)
(5)
No comment had been made.
Charging period
(i)
(4)
No comment had been made.
The implementation of the Pilot Scheme would turn the Central
District into a “wealthy people” zone. Unless the charging level
would be exceedingly high, it might not serve as a disincentive for the
“wealthy people” to drive in the charging area.
Exemption and concession
(i)
Some trade representatives indicated that the public transport modes,
including green minibuses, should be granted full exemption if the
Government would like to take forward the implementation of the
Pilot Scheme.
M003-1
(ii)
(6)
An enquiry was made on the breakdown figures for different types of
vehicles going in or out of the Central District and how the granting
of exemption to vehicles of schools, government and social welfare
organisations would undermine the effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme.
Technology
(i)
No comment had been made.
Major views on three pertinent issues
(1)
Privacy concerns
(i)
(2)
Effectiveness
(i)
(3)
No comment had been made.
No comment had been made.
Complementary measures
(i)
Although the concept of the Pilot Scheme was very good, the main
cause for traffic congestion in the Central District would be the
illegally parking of “chauffeur-driven vehicles”. The Government
should first address the problems of illegal parking and insufficient
parking spaces, raise the fixed penalty for congestion-related traffic
offences, and ascertain their effectiveness in tackling the illegal
parking problem before deciding on whether to implement the Pilot
Scheme.
(ii)
No new car park would be built in the Central District but some car
parks would be demolished. Given that the car park next to the City
Hall is only two-storey, the Government should explore whether the
car park could be demolished and redeveloped.
M003-2
Other views
(i)
The implementation of the Pilot Scheme should be deferred until the
Government has taken over the Eastern Harbour Crossing and the
Central – Wan Chai Bypass has been commissioned. Then after
reviewing the changes in traffic movements, the Government can
decide on whether to implement the Pilot Scheme.
M003-3
M004
Summary of views on the Pilot Scheme collected from
the public light bus services trade conference (23 December 2015)
Names of representatives and their respective organisations are in Chinese only
and are set out in the Chinese version of the report.
Major views on six basic elements
(1)
Charging area
(i)
(2)
Charging mechanism
(i)
(3)
No comment had been made.
Charging level
(i)
(5)
No comment had been made.
Charging period
(i)
(4)
No comment had been made.
No comment had been made.
Exemption and concession
(i)
Some trade representatives agreed that ERP could help alleviate road
traffic congestion, increase the operating speed of public light buses
(“PLBs”), attract more passengers and boost the revenue. However,
the major premise was that PLBs would be granted exemption.
M004-1
(ii)
PLBs should be treated the same as buses. It would be unfair if
buses were exempted but PLBs were charged. All public transport
modes including PLBs should be granted exemption.
(iii) If PLBs were charged, drivers of PLBs would pass on the charges to
passengers who in turn would have to pay higher fares.
(iv) It was worried that the administrative costs incurred on PLB owners
would increase if they were charged by the Pilot Scheme and they, in
turn, had to cross-charge different rentee-drivers on different days.
Therefore, it was demanded that PLBs should be granted exemption.
(6)
Technology
(i)
No comment had been made.
Major views on the three pertinent issues
(1)
Privacy concerns
(i)
(2)
Effectiveness
(i)
(3)
No comment had been made.
No comment had been made.
Complementary measures
(i)
The Government should first control the growth of private car fleet,
including controlling the number of the private car licences to be
issued.
(ii)
More pick-up/drop-off points for PLBs should be provided in the
Central District if the Pilot Scheme would be implemented.
M004-2
Other views
(i)
The Pilot Scheme would only waste manpower and financial
resources and would have little effect on the “wealthy people”. It
was pointed out that if the Police could take more stringent
enforcement actions against illegal parking in the Central District,
road traffic congestion would not occur. Besides, excessive
duplication of bus routes was another cause of road traffic
congestion and it could be redressed by rationalising bus services.
M004-3
M005
Summary of views on the Pilot Scheme collected from
the goods vehicle driver associations trade conference (30 December 2015)
Names of representatives and the respective organisations are in Chinese only
and are set out in the Chinese version of the report.
Major views on six basic elements
(1)
Charging area
(i)
(2)
Charging mechanism
(i)
(3)
No comment had been made.
No comment had been made.
Charging period
(i)
The timing of goods delivery is subject to a lot of limitations in
Hong Kong and is not solely determined by the goods vehicle trade.
It is also subject to the constraints set by the parties who pay for the
delivery service. As such, the suggestion that goods vehicle trade
should schedule delivery or collection of goods in the Central
District only during non-peak hours (such as before 8 a.m. or after 6
p.m.) would be impracticable. In view of this, when setting the
charging period, the Government should take into consideration the
practical operational situations of the goods vehicle trade and the
timing of goods delivery for different businesses.
(ii)
When setting the charging period, the Government should take note
of the existing access restrictions imposed on certain goods vehicles
in some road sections in the Central District. For example, vehicles
M005-1
weighing 5.5 tonnes or above are currently prohibited from using
Cotton Tree Drive from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. except
on Sundays and public holidays. Take concrete mixers as an
example, they need to access to construction sites in the Mid-levels
area frequently. If the Pilot Scheme is implemented, many of these
vehicles may need to rush to enter the charging area before the
commencement of the charging period, thus aggravating traffic
congestion in the Mid-levels area.
(4)
Charging level
(i)
(5)
Exemption and concession
(i)
(6)
No comment had been made.
It was considered that goods vehicles played a very important role in
supporting the commercial activities in the Central District. As the
congestion problem in the Central District is mainly caused by
private cars and the number of goods vehicles and their traffic
volumes going in or out of the Central District are much lower than
those of private cars, therefore goods vehicles should be given
exemption.
Technology
(i)
There may be difficulties in applying the “Automatic Number Plate
Recognition” (ANPR) technology in Hong Kong because vehicles
are densely packed on roads and one follow another, thus it may not
be possible to take photographs of their licence plate numbers.
(ii)
Concerns were raised on the type of technology to be adopted by the
Government (e.g. whether Radio Frequency Identification and
Electronic Number Plate technology would be considered) as well as
the safety and compatibility of various technologies.
M005-2
Major views on the three pertinent issues
(1)
Privacy concerns
(i)
(2)
Effectiveness
(i)
(3)
Concerns were raised on whether all vehicles would be required to
install in-vehicle units (IVUs), who would bear the cost of IVU
installation (including installation fee and deposit) and the associated
privacy issues.
No comment had been made.
Complementary measures
(i)
It would be necessary to address the traffic congestion problem that
might arise in the areas adjoining the charging area (including
finding ways to avoid continued expansion of the charging area and
providing adequate buffer zones) and to ensure that public transport
services (including the MTR) would have sufficient carrying
capacity.
(ii)
The Government should consider setting up bus-bus interchanges in
the Central District and designating vacant sites along the fringe of
the charging area, such as Wan Chai, for the loading/unloading
activities of goods vehicles.
Other views
(i)
Illegal parking of private cars is the main cause of traffic congestion
in the Central District. The Police should tackle the illegal parking
problem at source by strengthening enforcement actions rather than
solely combating illegal loading/unloading activities of goods
vehicles.
M005-3
(ii)
If the Pilot Scheme is to be implemented in the Central District, it
should be implemented only after the commissioning of the Central
– Wan Chai Bypass.
(iii) The Pilot Scheme will not have much effect on the “rich”. The
reasons are many: if they can afford to hire chauffeur to drive
“chauffeur-driven vehicles” to go in or out of Central, they will not
mind paying the ERP charges; the companies of “rich” will pay for
their charges; the “rich” are undeterred even if they are issued
multiple fixed penalty tickets by the Police for illegal parking. It
was also pointed out that the Pilot Scheme, in effect, would create a
zone for the “rich” to illegally park their cars and turn the charging
area into an exclusive driving zone for the “rich”, while the goods
vehicles might be discriminated against when entering the charging
area.
(iv) It is not appropriate to commence the preparatory work of the Pilot
Scheme and, at the same time, to propose raising the fixed penalty
charges for congestion-related offences. It is better to ascertain the
effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme before proceeding to raise the
fixed penalty charges for congestion-related offences.
M005-4
M006
Summary of views on the Pilot Scheme collected from
the trucking industry associations trade conference (31 December 2015)
Names of representatives and their respective organisations are in Chinese only
and are set out in the Chinese version of the report.
Major views on six basic elements
(1)
Charging area
(i)
(2)
Charging mechanism
(i)
(3)
The three bigger car parks in the Central District, namely the car parks
at the Macau Ferry Terminal, Rumsey Street and the International
Finance Centre, and their approach roads should be excluded from the
charging area because vehicles entering or leaving the above three car
parks are less prone to causing traffic congestion in the Central
District.
If the charging levels under the Pilot Scheme were set according to
vehicles’ duration of stay in the charging area, the Government
should consider not counting the time period a vehicle staying in the
car park because it would not cause any traffic congestion during
such period.
Charging period
(i)
If the charging period ended at 8 p.m., the Central District would
possibly receive an influx of goods vehicles immediately after the end
of the charging period and the traffic congestion would thus be
caused.
M006-1
(ii)
(4)
(5)
The situation that vehicles will slow down to avoid entering into the
charging area when the charging period is about to end should be
carefully addressed.
Charging level
(i)
Private cars are the culprits for road traffic congestion. It is
reasonable for private car users to pay the charges for entering the
charging area during the charging period because the use of private
cars is for personal enjoyment. Moreover, the charging levels to be
set should have a deterrent effect and charging only several dollars
will be useless.
(ii)
The Government can consider setting higher charges for places at the
core of the charging area and lower charges for peripheral places in
the charging area.
Exemption and concession
(i)
Some trade representatives opined that goods vehicles play an
important role in supporting the commercial activities of the Central
District where there are supermarkets and restaurants. Goods
vehicles also provide services to the public as what the buses do. For
these reasons, goods vehicles should be exempted.
(ii)
However, some trade representatives considered that all vehicles
should be accorded the same treatment and no vehicle should be
granted exemption. This is because if a certain type of vehicles is
exempted, those which are not exempted will certainly raise strong
objection. If no vehicle type is given exemption, there will be less
opposition.
At present, even “cross-harbour buses” are not
exempted from the tunnel tolls. In fact, buses also contribute to road
traffic congestion.
(iii) If goods vehicles were not exempted, the charges would be passed on
to their clients.
M006-2
(iv) Taxis, which are a personalised transport mode, should not be
exempted.
(v)
In view of the need of residents living the charging area to travel using
their own cars and the need of people with mobility difficulty to go to
see doctors in the Central District, the Government should consider
granting exemption or concession to them accordingly.
(vi) The Government should grant exemption to vehicles of utility
companies with urgent services (e.g. recovery vehicles of electricity
companies).
(6)
Technology
(i)
There was a view stating that the administrative cost incurred by the
Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology would be higher.
(ii)
An enquiry was made on who would bear the cost of installation of
in-vehicle units.
Major views on three pertinent issues
(1)
Privacy concerns
(i)
(2)
Effectiveness
(i)
(3)
There was a view stating that there would still be certain privacy
problems for the implementation of the Pilot Scheme.
No comment had been made in this aspect.
Complementary measures
(i)
If the Pilot Scheme was implemented in the Central District, the
congestion problems that might arise in the areas adjoining the
charging area (including the Mid-levels and Wan Chai) should be
addressed.
M006-3
Other views
(ii)
If the Pilot Scheme would be operated under the “user pays” principle
or even the “self-financing” principle in which the road users who
access to the Central District would need to share the costs of the Pilot
Scheme, then they might have to shoulder very heavy financial
burden when the number of vehicles accessing to the Central District
would be substantially decreased. This would be a very unfair issue.
(iii) An enquiry was made on whether there would be free-of-charge
alternative route leading from the junction of Ice House Street to the
pier area bypassing the charging area.
(iv) The Government should consider measures to alleviate the traffic
congestion of the Central District after it had taken over the Eastern
Harbour Crossing.
(v)
The Government should address the reasons behind its past failure to
implement the ERP Scheme.
(vi) An enquiry was made on how the congestion situation of the Central
District would be improved after the commissioning of the Central –
Wan Chai Bypass.
(vii) The Pilot Scheme should only be implemented after the
commissioning of the Central – Wan Chai Bypass.
(viii) The Government should not make light of the role of buses in causing
traffic congestion in the Central District since they usually take longer
time to pick up and drop off passengers.
M006-4
M007
Summary of views on the Pilot Scheme collected from
the franchised bus operators trade conference (11 January 2016)
Names of representatives and their respective organisations are in Chinese only
and are set out in the Chinese version of the report.
Major views on six basic elements
(1)
(2)
Charging area
(i)
If the Pilot Scheme is implemented in the Central District, it is likely
that a “congestion belt” will be formed in the areas adjoining the
charging area, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the scheme.
Therefore, the actual boundary of the charging area should be
mapped out with great care.
(ii)
If the Pilot Scheme proves a success, consideration can be given to
extending the scheme to cover Tsim Sha Tsui and West Kowloon.
Charging mechanism
(i)
(3)
The cordon-based charging mechanism is more flexible than the
area-based charging mechanism because the former allows tackling
the traffic congestion situation at different locations and in different
time periods.
Charging period
(i)
Traffic congestion, at present, affects bus operation more in the
evening peak period than in the morning peak period.
(ii) The Government should examine how to achieve traffic
rationalisation through the setting of charging periods because
M007-1
different types of road users would respond differently to the
charging periods set.
(4)
Charging level
(i)
The Government should conduct comprehensive data evaluation in
the feasibility study to be conducted at the next stage, so as to
explore how the charging level would affect the travel habits of
different types of road users, including making projections on the
responses of different types of road users to different charging levels
and estimating how the overall travel speed could be improved.
When setting the charging level, it should be noted that drivers who
could afford to pay and are willing to pay would not be easily
affected by ordinary charges.
(ii) The Government should determine the charging level carefully. If
a low charging level is set at the beginning, it will be difficult to
raise the charges at a later stage even when traffic congestion
persists in the charging area. If this really happens, the public will
no longer perceive the advantages of ERP and will only feel that the
ERP charges keep increasing.
(iii) The setting of charging level should take account of the vehicle
nature (e.g. carrying passengers or goods is different in nature),
rather than just considering the vehicle size or carrying capacity.
(5)
Exemption and concession
(i)
Franchised buses should be given exemption as their
carrying-capacity is high and their routings are fixed and they are not
allowed to bypass the charging area without permission.
(ii) Franchised bus companies will pass on the ERP charges to
passengers if franchised buses are charged.
M007-2
(6)
Technology
(i)
Technology with lower administrative cost should be adopted, but as
no specific data was available at the current stage, it would be
difficult to make a comparison.
(ii) An enquiry was made on the approximate cost of in-vehicle units
(IVUs). It was considered that if they were too expensive, users
might resist installing them.
Major views on the three pertinent issues
(1)
Privacy concerns
(i)
(2)
(3)
No comment had been made.
Effectiveness
(i)
The Government could select some representative bus routes in the
Central District and record their journey times. Such data could be
used as the basis for the review and adjustment of the ERP charges
upon the implementation of the Pilot Scheme.
(ii)
A crude estimation on how many minutes of bus journey time can be
saved upon the implementation of the Pilot Scheme is a simple
indicator that can be understood easily by the general public. As
buses can carry the largest number of road users, and if bus
passengers can benefit, the whole community will stand to benefit.
Complementary measures
(i)
Alternative routes or turnaround facilities should be provided so that
motorists could avoid entering the charging area.
(ii)
The Government should adopt a multi-pronged approach in tackling
the traffic congestion problem in the Central District, such as raising
first registration tax and annual licence fee for private cars as well as
M007-3
stepping up enforcement actions against illegal parking and illegal
loading/unloading activities.
Other views
(i)
It was requested that the revenue generated under the Pilot Scheme,
after deducting administrative costs, should be used for subsidising
the public transport operators. This would bring about fare
reduction and encourage the public to make use of public transport.
(ii)
Bus fare reduction should be introduced to tie in with the
implementation of the Pilot Scheme to encourage more people to
switch to using buses. Bus companies might then need to provide
additional bus services. From the perspective of bus companies,
they definitely would not want their operating costs to be increased
by the implementation of the Pilot Scheme.
(iii) Some trade representatives expressed in-principle support for the
implementation of the Pilot Scheme in the Central District, and they
agreed that the reduced road traffic congestion would help reduce
lost trips, achieve more reliable journey time, enhance the
attractiveness of bus service and lower the operating costs. It was
pointed out that if the Pilot Scheme was not implemented, its
effectiveness would never be known. Moreover, the overall
effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme would depend on how the traffic
demand could be controlled by the charging levels and time periods.
(iv) Even if the patronage and profits of the bus companies would be
increased upon the implementation of the Pilot Scheme, bus
companies would be required to return the additional profits to
passengers under the established mechanism as agreed with the
Government. As such, it could not be said that the Pilot Scheme
would benefit the bus companies.
M007-4
M008
Summary of views on the Pilot Scheme collected from
the focus group meeting – academics (26 January 2016)
Present:
ACE Centre for Business and Economic
Research
Chu Hai College of Higher Education
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
The City University of Hong Kong
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
The University of Hong Kong
The University of Science and
Technology
Dr. Andy KWAN Cheuk-chiu
Prof. Alan WONG Wing-gun
Prof. HUANG Bo
Dr. CHAN Yan-chong
Dr. Jason NI Meng-cheng
Dr. ZHI Ning
Dr. HUNG Wing-tat
Prof. William LAM Hing-keung
Dr. LENG Zhen
Dr. Timothy D HAU
Dr. NG Cho-nam
Dr. James WANG Jixian
Prof. WONG Sze-chun
Prof. LO Hong-kam
Major views on six basic elements
(1)
Charging area
(i)
The charging area should not be too complicated and should only
cover several major strategic routes in Central without extending to
the Mid-levels. An additional charging point could be set up along
the strategic routes within the charging area for charging motorists
circulating within the charging area.
M008-1
(ii)
If the charging area was too large, there would be vehicles circulating
within it but only charged once; if it was too small, vehicles might be
charged several times for the repeated entries and exits.
(iii) A charging point should be set up at each congestion point in the
charging area so as to reduce the number of vehicles circulating in the
charging area.
(iv) The design concept of the ERP charging area in Singapore was
dynamic in nature. Their government would install additional ERP
gantries at places where traffic congestion aggravated while some
gantries would be dismantled when congestion had eased off.
(2)
Charging mechanism
(i)
Some academics agreed that the area-based mechanism should be
adopted, but there should not be too many charging points within the
charging area.
(ii)
For the first generation ERP system in Singapore, vehicles were
charged every time they passed through the ERP gantries, and after
that, they did not need to pay again even if they stayed in the charging
area for a prolonged period of time. However, there were cases in
which some motorists were unfamiliar with the system, crossed the
cordon of the charging area for several times, thus passing through the
gantries for four or five times and incurring charges four or five times.
(iii) If charges were imposed on those “chauffeur-driven vehicles”, their
“owners” might let the “drivers” to park the vehicles inside car parks
to take a break instead of having the vehicles circulating the roads
within the charging area. This might not only contribute to the
alleviation of traffic congestion but would also benefit those
“drivers”.
(3)
Charging Period
(i)
It is undesirable to pre-set a charging period. Instead, the definition
of “traffic congestion” should be first drawn up, for example, using
M008-2
traffic speed, so that charges could be imposed according to different
degrees of congestion. If a charging period is set, some motorists
may be tempted to speed up to enter the charging area when the
charging period is about to start, thereby causing congestion during
the transition period.
(4)
Charging level
(i)
Changing the charging level according to the degree of congestion
will be the most effective approach because everyone can observe the
actual traffic speed, thus leaving little room for argument.
(ii)
While the charging levels should be set according to the degrees of
congestion, the charges should not be set too high at the initial stage.
It is because there would be less resistance against the
implementation of a scheme with a low charging level. For instance,
when traffic speed exceeds 20 km/h, no charge should be imposed,
but when traffic speed falls below 20 km/h, charges ranging from $10
to $50 should be imposed on the basis that the lower the traffic speed,
the higher the charge.
(iii) Charge level should be set based on the quantification of traffic
demand in monetary terms, and the charges may be determined
according to motorists’ values of time. As the income levels in Hong
Kong and Singapore are quite similar, reference can be made to the
charging levels set in Singapore.
(iv) With a concentration of major economic activities, some motorists
are required to go in or out of the Central District. As such, the
charging level should be carefully set to bring about a change in the
motorists’ travel behaviour.
(5)
Exemption and concession
(i)
Granting exemption should be avoided as far as possible.
Theoretically speaking, the ERP scheme should not offer any
M008-3
exemption or concession since all vehicles, regardless of their types,
would contribute to traffic congestion. However, on the premise that
the resistance to the implementation of the Pilot Scheme could be
reduced as much as possible to increase the chance of its successful
implementation. It was suggested that public transport modes
should be granted exemption to minimise the resistance to the
implementation of the Pilot Scheme.
(ii)
As regards whether taxis should be granted exemption, the foremost
matter would be to address the taxi drivers’ concern over the possible
dwindling effect on business because, without exemption, the taxi
drivers would not want to enter the charging area to ply for hire, for
fear that they might not be able to pick up any passenger and then they
had to bear the ERP charge themselves. This would lead to the
problem of insufficient supply of empty taxis in the Central District.
As such, the Government should examine whether technologies could
be deployed to allow exemption from paying ERP charge to “vacant
taxis” for entering the charging area.
(iii) Some academics noted that some taxi drivers opposed to the Pilot
Scheme because they worried that their business would decline upon
the implementation of the Pilot Scheme. The taxi drivers’ worries
ought to be addressed. Some academics pointed out that the taxi
drivers might not absolutely oppose to the Pilot Scheme because
serious road traffic congestion would adversely affect their income.
(iv) Some academics considered that there should not be a problem to taxi
drivers even if taxis were not given exemption, because the income of
taxi drivers could be increased because they could do one or two hired
trips with a reduction in road traffic congestion.
(v)
Drivers of “vacant taxis” would be more willing to enter the charging
area to ply for hire if taxi passengers were required to pay the ERP
charge to the taxi drivers when boarding in the charging area.
M008-4
(vi) Whether taxis should be exempted is the most contentious issue.
Granting exemption to taxis at the initial stage may be a key to the
successful implementation of the Pilot Scheme.
(vii) Goods vehicles should not be granted exemption because there would
still be other alternatives, such as scheduling deliveries at night or
during other uncongested periods.
(viii) Goods vehicle trade operates with an eye on economic benefits.
Upon implementation of the Pilot Scheme, goods vehicle trade would
definitely make operation adjustments in response, such as
scheduling deliveries at night or during non-charging periods, or
some shops requiring frequent delivery activities would be relocated
away from the Central District. In the long run, the number of goods
vehicle movements in the Central District would reduce.
(ix) It was worried that the Pilot Scheme could fall in the political process
because too many transport trades requested exemptions, turning the
Pilot Scheme into a “toothless tiger”. Therefore, discussions on the
Pilot Scheme should not be dominated by the transport trades,
motorists or District Council members.
(6)
Technology
(i)
The Government could consider adopting the charging technology
using global positioning system (“GPS”) as it could allow charging
the vehicles according to their duration of stay within the charging
area. Even vehicles were kept circulating on roads in the charging
area, they would be charged according to their duration of stay rather
than being charged only when they went in or out the charging area.
Besides, the GPS could be flexibly applied and its application would
not be constrained by the locations of charging gantries. For
example, if Kowloon would become congested in future, the
boundary of the charging area could be flexibly and swiftly adjusted
using GPS. But there are problems in using GPS, in particular, it is
M008-5
capable of keeping track of vehicle movements and satellite signals
may be blocked by high rise buildings in Hong Kong.
(ii)
Singapore is now developing the second generation charging system
using GPS. Vehicles could then be detected for any movement
within the charging area and be charged according to the duration of
stay in the charging area.
(iii) As the size of Central District is small, the use of GPS might not be
necessary. The use of cordon-based mechanism with appropriate
equipment could record the time that vehicles entering or leaving the
charging area. Besides, GPS technology would be costly and might
take a long time to implement. The problem of poor signal reception
might also occur.
(iv) As technology is advancing rapidly, the Government should prepare
for future technological development apart from making reference to
the past data and experience.
Major views on the three pertinent issues
(1) Privacy concerns
(i)
Privacy concerns can now be resolved. For example, the charging
technology adopted in Singapore does not require the retention of
personal data and thus does not give rise to privacy issue.
(ii)
The use of the “Automatic Number Plate Recognition” (ANPR)
technology is not supported because motorists’ movements could be
easily traced and engendering privacy issue. As a matter of fact,
the “Autotoll” electronic toll collection system currently used in
Hong Kong is quite successful.
M008-6
(2)
Effectiveness
(i)
The effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme should be reviewed on a regular
basis. If vehicle speed is used as an indicator to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme, the effectiveness is deemed to be
achieved once the vehicle speed is raised to the target level; otherwise
the target cannot be met and the charging level will need to be
adjusted. The scheme effectiveness and charging level are linked.
(ii)
Taking reference from the London case, a series of review reports
should be complied on a half-yearly or quarterly basis during the
initial implementation stage of the Pilot Scheme. The issues to be
reviewed may include the improvements in vehicle speeds within and
outside the charging area, changes in levels of roadside air pollutant
emissions, impacts on retail consumption, etc. Relevant data should
be collected prior to the implementation of the Pilot Scheme for
comparison purpose.
(iii) The long-term effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme should be considered
carefully and incessant increases in ERP charges as a means to
alleviate road traffic congestion should be avoided
(iv) Increases in ERP charges under the Pilot Scheme would be
unavoidable. With the existence of inflation, there was no point in
hoodwinking the public by saying that the ERP charges would never
be raised.
(3)
Complementary measures
(i)
The Government ought to better manage the traffic in the Central
District. For example, rampant illegal parking could be found, yet
the Police had not taken stringent enforcement actions. While the
Government had not doing its job of managing the traffic well enough,
it still proceeded to levy ERP charges on the public. The
Government should first fulfill its responsibility in enforcing the law
strictly against traffic offences before it could convince the public on
the implementation of the Pilot Scheme.
M008-7
(ii)
There were concerns over insufficient parking spaces.
(iii) Along with the implementation of the Pilot Scheme, more footways,
buses and convenient public transport services should be provided in
the Central District.
(iv) Related publicity should be launched for tourists before implementing
the Pilot Scheme.
Other views
(i)
An authority, which can be named as “the ERP Authority”, should
be established to ensure that the revenue generated from the Pilot
Scheme would be specifically used on transport-related matters
instead of being transferred to the Treasury. In this way, the
revenue generated from the Pilot Scheme could be re-allocated for
dedicated purposes, such as reducing annual licence fee of vehicles
which did not enter the Central District, lowering first registration
tax, establishing a subsidy mechanism to reduce the fares of buses
and MTR routes serving the Central District, etc. The foregoing
measures would benefit the majority of the community, instead of
just facilitating the smoother access to the charging area for the
“chauffeur-driven vehicles” which had paid the ERP charges. The
purpose of “revenue re-allocation” is to bring more stakeholders’
supporting views to the Government side and encourage more
supporters to come forward with their views. Otherwise, only the
views of opponents would be heard.
(ii)
The revenue generated from the Pilot Scheme should be used to
subsidise the public transport users. Those who prefer to drive had
to pay more while those who use public transport could save some
money. This would help muster support in political terms.
M008-8
(iii)
The revenue generated from the Pilot Scheme should be ploughed
back to solve traffic problems at district level, such as making
improvements to traffic signalling or public transport services.
(iv)
“The use of the revenue generated from the Pilot Scheme” should be
highlighted for discussion at the next PE exercise. It is hoped that
the Government would be sincere in implementing the Pilot Scheme
for improving traffic congestion and air quality rather than for
collecting tax.
(v)
The revenue generated from the “dedicated-fund-for-dedicated-use”
approach could be used to reduce annual vehicle licence fee, but this
might require an approval from the Financial Secretary. In fact, the
annual vehicle licence fee in Hong Kong is very high, which is
ranked only after Singapore, and there is room for reducing such a
fee in Hong Kong.
(vi)
There was a suggestion of injecting the revenue generated from the
“dedicated-fund-for-dedicated-use” approach into a fund which can
be named as “Octopus Fund”. The fund so established would only
provide subsidy to Hong Kong Identity Card holders aged 11 or
above, with conditions stipulating that the subsidy could only be
used for paying fares of public transport. The subsidy would be
provided to the eligible persons but not a particular bus company or
the MTR. The general public should regard this “Octopus Fund” a
very practical subsidy to them, by returning wealth to the people.
(vii) In the British tradition, the “dedicated-fund-for-dedicated-use”
approach had not been adopted, and all their government revenues
could only be allocated for “non-designated use”. Other places,
such as Stockholm, Oslo, Bergen, etc., have however adopted the
“dedicated-fund-for-dedicated-use” approach in improving public
transport, infrastructure, the environment, etc. with a view to
winning support from stakeholders and convincing the community
that the implementation of ERP would be beneficial, not just to the
“well-off people”, but also the general public. In fact, the ERP
M008-9
scheme implemented in London also provided for the dedicated use
of revenue for improving public transport, such as bus procurement.
(viii) Some academics agreed that the Pilot Scheme should be
implemented as soon as possible. They considered that the
Government need not fear the Pilot Scheme would be challenged by
others as long as it can provide justifications and work under the
principle of fairness and impartiality.
(ix)
Some academics pointed out that while they support the Pilot
Scheme, they are not convinced that the Government is sincere in
taking it forward as the Government is still deliberating on how best
to implement the Pilot Scheme by a desktop study. The academics
opined that the report of the first ERP study as complied 30 years ago
was actually the best one in which it had covered various aspects
such as legal, social, and economic issues, etc. That was a view
considering that the Pilot Scheme should be implemented now,
without the need to conduct further feasibility study. Some
academics considered that as the current study is the fourth of its
kind, if the Pilot Scheme still cannot be implemented, the
Government will be accused of “crying wolf”.
(x)
Some academics wondered why the Pilot Scheme would take five to
ten years to complete and they were disappointed by such a long
completion time. The Government should press ahead with the
Pilot Scheme as soon as possible.
(xi)
When the second ERP study was conducted, Hong Kong was
experiencing an economic downturn and therefore the Government
decided not implementing the Pilot Scheme. At that time, the
Government pointed out that the ERP should be revisited when the
annual growth rate of private cars exceeded 3%. At present, the
annual growth rate of private cars has reached 5%.
(xii) The Central – Wan Chai Bypass project was once a controversial
project, and the report compiled by the relevant expert panel
M008-10
mentioned that the commissioning of the Central – Wan Chai Bypass
would provide a good opportunity for introducing ERP scheme in
parallel at the same time. If the implementation of the Pilot Scheme
will be deferred several years after the commissioning of Central –
Wan Chai Bypass, then by that time the public will request the
Government to provide an additional alternative route as they will no
longer regard the Central – Wan Chai Bypass as an alternative route
but only part of the traffic network. However, in reality it is
impossible to provide any other alternative route bypassing the
Central District.
(xiii) The Council for Sustainable Development once conducted a survey
on environmental protection, in which public views were sought on
whether the implementation of the ERP scheme would be supported.
It was recalled that the majority of the respondents expressed support
for the implementation of the ERP scheme.
(xiv) In some overseas places, it was common that quite a considerable
number of people objected to the ERP scheme before its
implementation, but more people gradually became receptive to the
scheme after it was implemented.
(xv) Building roads is the worst option in terms of traffic management.
Apparently, building roads can help reduce road traffic congestion,
but in effect, it encourages more people to own cars.
(xvi) If no further action is to be taken to regulate the land use planning of
the Central District, the ERP charges will only keep rising in the long
run, thus giving rise to opposition and resentment.
(xvii) The Government should first figure out the capacity of the road
traffic system in the Central District.
(xviii) It is wrong to say that only “well-off people” could access the
charging area because “less well-off people” could also choose to
take buses and MTR, which are very convenient and sometimes even
faster than those using private cars.
M008-11
(xix) It is disagreed that the congestion problem of the Central District can
be readily solved by strengthening the enforcement actions
conducted by the police. The police actions to disperse the illegally
parked vehicles at one end of the street would only force those
vehicles to move and illegally park at another end of the street.
(xx) The ERP scheme could possibly address people’s aspirations for
owning and using cars at the same time. Even when there would be
larger numbers of people owning cars, it would be possible for cars
accessing to appropriate places at appropriate times where the road
traffic system could still accommodate through the implementation
of the ERP scheme.
(xxi) One of the objectives of the Pilot Scheme is to let the public
understand that the number of private cars could not increase
indefinitely.
(xxii) Some aspects of the Pilot Scheme should be handled by experts and
need not consult the public.
(xxiii) The Pilot Scheme should not be treated as a district matter because
although the scheme is to be implemented in the Central District, it
will affect all the people entering or leaving the Central District of
whom a large proportion do not live there. As such, the
Government should win the support of those who go in or out the
Central District but do not live there.
(xxiv) It is vital to specifically address the stakeholders’ concern. The
Government should, taking reference from the experience gained in
the past three studies, identify those stakeholders who are inclined to
take the opposing views. The Government should deal with
stakeholders' concerns carefully, e.g. the rental issue in the Central
District, whether it will cause inconvenience to people accessing to
the Central District, the costs to be incurred when entering the
Central District, etc.
M008-12
(xxv) In the future PE exercise of the Pilot Scheme, the Government
should get well prepared for packing the Pilot Scheme as well as for
the publicity work to facilitate dissemination of the messages to
young people who might come out to voice their opinions.
(xxvi) Attempts should be made to persuade the public in supporting the
Pilot Scheme from the environmental protection’s viewpoint. For
example, the Government should let the public know the extent to
which exhaust emissions could be reduced or how many degrees the
temperature of the Central District would be lowered upon the
implementation of the Pilot Scheme. Apart from environmental
improvement, the Government should also evaluate the economic
benefits because the economic losses caused by road traffic
congestion could be quite substantial.
M008-13
M009
Summary of views on the Pilot Scheme collected from
the school bus operators trade conference (30 January 2016)
Names of representatives and their respective organisations are in Chinese only
and are set out in the Chinese version of the Report.
Major views on six basic elements
(1)
Charging area
(i)
(2)
Charging mechanism
(i)
(3)
No comment had been made.
Charging period
(i)
(4)
The traffic congestion problem that might appear in the free-of-charge
alternate routes (e.g. the Central – Wan Chai Bypass) after the
implementation of the Pilot Scheme should be kept in view.
No comment had been made.
Charging level
(i)
“A unified charge for all vehicle types” was not supported because the
contribution of school buses to the traffic congestion problem in the
Central District was small. The contribution of private cars to the
problem was much bigger. School buses would not go to the Central
District unless really necessary.
(ii) Concerns were raised over whether automatic, monthly or weekly
payment would be accepted for the payment of ERP charges.
M009-1
(5)
Exemption and concession
(i)
(6)
All school bus trade representatives requested exemption or
concession to school bus.
Technology
(i)
Concerns were raised over whether in-vehicle units must be installed
in the newly registered vehicles or in the existing vehicles upon their
renewal of vehicle licence.
Major views on three pertinent issues
(1)
Privacy concerns
(i)
(2)
Effectiveness
(i)
(3)
No comment had been made.
No comment had been made.
Complementary measures
(i)
The road traffic congestion in the Central District was caused by the
excessive number of franchised buses. The Government should
redress the situation of excessive number of buses running in the
district.
Other views
(i)
An enquiry was made on whether the Central – Wan Chai Bypass
would have any slip road leading to the Central District.
(ii)
The planning of the Pilot Scheme should be deferred until one to two
years after the commissioning of the Central – Wan Chai Bypass.
M009-2
M010
Summary of views on the Pilot Scheme collected from
the District Council forum (2 February 2016)
Present:
Central and Western District Council
Eastern District Council
Islands District Council
Kowloon City District Council
Kwun Tong District Council
North District Council
Sha Tin District Council
Southern District Council
Tai Po District Council
Tsuen Wan District Council
Tuen Mun District Council
Wan Chai District Council
Wong Tai Sin District Council
Yau Tsim Mong District Council
Yuen Long District Council
M010-1
Mr. Joseph Chan Ho-lim
Mr. Hui Chi-fung
Mr. Chiu Chi-keung
Mr. Wong Man-hon
Mr. Kwan Ho-yeung
Mr. Ting Kin-wa
Ms. So Lai-chun
Mr. Chan Shung-fai
Mr. George Pang Chun-sing
Mr. Michael Yung Ming-chau
Mr. Paul Zimmerman
Mr. Lau Yung-wai
Mr. Lo Siu-kit
Mr. Wong Ka-wa
Mr. Kam Man-fung
Mr. So Shiu-shing
Mr. Yip Man-pan
Mr. Wind, Anson Lam Wai-man
Ms. Kenny Lee Kwun-yee
Ms. Wendy Lui Kai-lin
Mr. Wu Chi-kin
Mr. Yuen Kwok-keung
Ms. Kwan Sau-ling
Ms. Michelle Tang Ming-sum
Mr. Leung Ming-kin
Mr. Mak Ip-sing
Major views on six basic elements
(1)
Charging area
(i)
ERP charges should be levied in Sheung Wan, Central, Wan Chai and
Causeway Bay.
(ii)
The Pilot Scheme could be implemented outside the Central.
(iii) The ERP should be implemented at more places of Hong Kong (e.g.
Yuen Long, Tin Hau and Causeway Bay) in a timely and sustained
manner.
(iv) The charging area should cover only the busiest roads.
(v)
(2)
It was worried that the Pilot Scheme would shift the traffic congestion
problem to other areas, but roads in the areas adjoining the charging
area could not accommodate the additional traffic flow.
Charging mechanism
(i)
The area-based mechanism should be adopted.
(ii)
It was worried that vehicles would still stay in the charging area after
paying ERP charges and would not be parked inside car parks without
any incentives. As a result, traffic congestion in the charging area
could not be reduced. Consideration should be given to charging
vehicles according to their time spent on using the roads in the
charging area (no charges should be imposed if parked), and to
putting in place a progressive charging mechanism.
(iii) Consideration should be given to increasing the cost for vehicles
circulating in the charging area, and by doing so, the associated
problem of “chauffeur-driven vehicles” might be addressed to a
certain extent.
(3)
Charging period
(i)
The charging period should cover only the busiest periods.
M010-2
(ii)
Charges should only be levied during morning and afternoon peak
hours.
(iii) The Government should formulate plans to cater for people working
in the Central District, but vehicles passing through Central District
on Sundays should not be affected.
(iv) Charges should not be levied on public holidays.
(4)
Charging level
(i)
It was worried that if the charging level was set too high, then it might
affect people’s travel behaviour.
(ii)
The setting of charges should take account of the vehicle’s length,
carrying capacity and emission levels as well as whether the vehicle
is electric.
(iii) Cross-boundary vehicles should pay double. Otherwise, methods
should be deployed to control their right of using roads.
(5)
Exemption and concession
(i)
Exemption or concession should be granted to public transport modes
(e.g. buses, residents’ service buses and green minibuses), and this
could encourage their use.
(ii)
Consideration should be given to granting exemption to commercial
vehicles or arranging for them to carry out loading and unloading
activities during off-peak hours.
(iii) Electric vehicles, low-emission vehicles or Euro V vehicles should be
granted exemption or concession for the sake of environmental
protection.
(iv) Concerns were raised on whether residents living in the charging area
would be granted concession.
M010-3
(v)
(6)
Consideration should be given to granting exemption or concession to
vehicles for the disabled.
Technology
(i)
Whichever technology is adopted, the future ERP system should be
compatible with the existing tunnel toll system. It is also suggested
that the testing of charging technologies can start now at the existing
tolled tunnels without waiting.
(ii)
There were views suggested adopting the global positioning system
technology.
(iii) Concerns were raised about how the technology deployed to capture
the images of vehicle’s licence number plates could confirm the
identities of drivers.
(iv) An enquiry was made on whether the Government had already
decided on what technology would be adopted and which company
would be involved.
Major views on the three pertinent issues
(1)
Privacy concerns
(i)
(2)
Effectiveness
(i)
(3)
Some were worried that their privacy would be infringed or their
movement records might be stolen as a result of the implementation
of the Pilot Scheme.
Concerns were raised on whether there would be a timetable for
increasing the ERP charges.
Complementary measures
(i)
In tackling illegal parking problem, the Police should carry out
resolute enforcement actions without giving prior verbal warning.
M010-4
Additional police officers and traffic wardens should be deployed for
enforcement duties.
(ii)
An enquiry was made on whether measures to increase the fixed
penalty for illegal parking or to deploy additional traffic wardens in
the Central District could be taken first as part of the Pilot Scheme.
(iii) To combat illegal parking, consideration should be given to
installing kerbside railings at appropriate locations to make it less
convenient for “chauffeur-driven vehicles” to pick up / drop off
passengers.
(iv) Park-and-ride facilities should be provided at suitable locations.
(v)
Consideration should be given to rationalising the traffic distribution
among the three road harbour crossings and making use of the
Central – Wan Chai Bypass to resolve the traffic congestion problem
of the Central District.
(vi) Sufficient parking and loading/unloading facilities should be
provided in the areas adjoining the charging area. It was pointed
out that some car parks in the Central District during daytime were
often full.
(vii) Real-time information on parking vacancies should be provided so
as to reduce the number of vehicles circulating on roads searching
for a parking space in the Central District.
(viii) The Government should first ensure that good public transport
service could be provided, and if this could be done, the number of
motorists would drop correspondingly.
(ix) To address the overlapping of some bus routes entering into busy
areas that caused road traffic congestion, consideration should be
given to providing more convenient public transport interchange
facilities.
M010-5
(x)
The North Island Line should be implemented as soon as possible
for enhancement of public transport network.
(xi) The Government should formulate measures to clearly inform those
who do not go to Central frequently (such as tourists) about the
charging arrangements.
Other views
(i)
In London of the United Kingdom, the revenue generated from
their ERP scheme was allocated to investments in public transport
modes. An enquiry was made on whether the revenue generated
from the Pilot Scheme in Hong Kong would be well spent.
(ii)
It would be easier to acquire public support if the revenue generated
from the Pilot Scheme would be allocated to investments in
transport infrastructure or improvement of public transport.
(iii)
Concerns were raised about whether the revenue generated from the
Pilot Scheme could be partly used for improving air quality of the
Central District.
(iv)
Some participants supported the Pilot Scheme and opined that the
Government had to introduce the ERP sooner or later. As Hong
Kong has limited space and its vehicle fleet size has been growing,
traffic congestion occurs frequently. If traffic conditions in some
of the districts could be improved upon the implementation of the
Pilot Scheme, society would benefit.
(v)
Some participants supported the Pilot Scheme because the
implementation of ERP schemes in many overseas places had
positive effects.
(vi)
The foremost task is to lay down the objectives of the Pilot Scheme,
which should not only alleviate traffic congestion but also to
improve the air quality of the Central District. As such, it is
M010-6
suggested that Pilot Scheme should be studied in conjunction with
the Environment Bureau and the Environmental Protection
Department.
(vii)
There was a worry that the traffic congestion problem could be
solved even after the implementation of the Pilot Scheme.
(viii)
The effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme might not sustain in the long
run. The Government should not solely rely on the ERP to solve
the traffic congestion problem and the long-term solution should lie
in increasing the transport resources of the city.
(ix)
The Government should formulate a number of options and
evaluate their effectiveness with the quantified data on traffic flows,
time savings and environmental improvements.
(x)
There was a worry that the Central – Wan Chai Bypass could not
accommodate the vehicles that would bypass the central business
district.
(xi)
In view of traffic condition will be improved after the
commissioning of the Central – Wan Chai Bypass, it is suggested
that the ERP scheme should be considered later in light of the traffic
condition in the Central District after the Central – Wan Chai
Bypass has been commissioned.
(xii)
At present, the major cause of traffic congestion in the Central
District is illegal parking. Along Queen’s Road Central and
Chater Road, at least two of the three traffic lanes are occupied by
illegally parked vehicles. As for Ice House Street, Duddell Street,
Pottinger Street, etc., one of the two lanes is also occupied by
illegally parked vehicles. The Police’s current practice of
handling the illegal parking problem by issuing verbal warnings
needs to be changed. In light of this, enforcement actions against
illegal parking should be stepped up first before a discussion can be
made on the need of implementing the ERP.
M010-7
(xiii)
Measures like stepping up enforcement actions and making use of
technology to speed up the issuance of fixed penalty tickets
against traffic offences should be implemented first. However,
there is no need to object to the implementation of the Pilot
Scheme right now.
(xiv)
The traffic congestion problem of the Central District is not as
serious as that of the Cross Harbour Tunnel. The more pressing
task is to solve the congestion problem of the Cross Harbour
Tunnel.
(xv)
The ERP has been implemented successfully in overseas cities
because these places have roads with sufficient capacity. It was
worried that if the implementation of the ERP Scheme, even
together with the provision of park-and-ride facilities, were not
complemented by the enhancement of public transport services,
traffic conditions in Wan Chai would be affected.
(xvi)
There was a view stating that the Pilot Scheme will penalise those
living in the Peak area, as the public transport services in that area
are inadequate and the residents need to rely on their cars or taxis
for commuting.
(xvii) It was worried that many road users in the Central District would
be affected if buses and goods vehicles were subject to ERP
charges.
(xviii) It was worried that the Pilot Scheme would increase the operating
costs of motorists and public transport services, and such costs
would be passed on to consumers.
(xix)
“Chauffeur-driven vehicles” is the major cause of traffic
congestion in the Central District. If the Police can take stringent
enforcement actions against offending “chauffeur-driven vehicles”,
the traffic congestion will be eased.
M010-8
(xx)
The issue of inequality arising from the Pilot Scheme should be
handled with care because some people may get the impression
that only the well-off people can go to the Central District after the
Pilot Scheme is implemented. In light of this, suitable measures
should be taken to improve the pedestrian facilities in the district
so that the low-income people will benefit and non-motorists will
find it easier to move around in the district and access to the
public transport facilities more quickly.
(xxi)
The costs of implementing the Pilot Scheme could be exorbitant.
(xxii) Concerns were raised on whether there should be designated time
periods for delivery of goods by goods vehicles. It was hoped
that through the implementation of the Pilot Scheme, the travel
patterns of goods vehicles in carrying out the loading/unloading
activities could be changed, and the goods vehicles would access
to the Central District only during off-peak hours.
(xxiii) It was suggested that the Government should explore whether
there are any better economic incentives for fine-tuning the
options of the Pilot Scheme.
(xxiv) It was suggested that for the ERP Scheme to achieve its intended
effectiveness, the Government should first ascertain the types of
vehicles that should be charged so as to reduce their number
entering the charging area and the types of vehicles that should be
exempted.
(xxv)
Consideration should be given to the impacts of the Pilot Scheme
on retail sectors in the charging area and their customers.
(xxvi) An enquiry was made on the volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of
certain road sections in the Central District. If traffic volume of
the roads had not exceeded their capacity, the roads still had spare
capacity to accommodate more vehicles although some vehicles
might get stuck along the roads.
M010-9
(xxvii) An enquiry was made on the implementation timetable.
(xxviii) An enquiry was made on whether contingency measures would be
put in place to cope with some special situations, such as terrorist
attack and snow storm.
M010-10
M011
Summary of views on the Pilot Scheme collected from
the focus group meeting - professional bodies (3 February 2016)
Present:
Association of Engineering Professionals in
Society
Intelligent Transportation Systems - Hong Kong
The Association of Consulting Engineers of Hong
Kong
The Chartered Institute of Logistics and
Transport in Hong Kong
The Chartered Institution of Highways &
Transportation - Hong Kong Branch
The Hong Kong Institute of Architects
The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors
The Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design
The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers Electronics Division
The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers Logistics & Transportation Division
The Hong Kong Institution of Highways and
Transportation
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (Hong Kong Section Office)
The Institution of Civil Engineers – Hong Kong
Association
M011-1
Mr. C M Chan
Mr. Steven Liu
Mr. C Y So
Mr. Francis W C Kung
Mr. Francis Sootoo
Mr. Sam M S Chow
Mr. Ricky S B Lam
Mr. W H Tsang
Mr. Kelvin Man
Mr. Alan M F Tam
Mr. Ivan M Y Ho
Mr. Andy K M Leung
Mr. Conrad H W Tang
Mr. P Y Tam
Mr. Andy Lam
Mr. K F Tsang
Mr. Charles H T So
Mr. Victor C M Wong
Mr. Derrick Y P Pang
Mr. George H K Lau
Mr. Y W Liu
Mr. Louis Wong
Major views on six basic elements
(1)
Charging area
(i)
The coverage of the area should be kept to a minimum so that the
effectiveness of the scheme can be ascertained.
(ii)
To avoid wastage in resource, the Government may consider
launching the Pilot Scheme on a trial basis in the Kowloon East
Development. The place to implement ERP may not necessarily be
in the Central District.
(iii) An enquiry was raised on whether the Government had any long-term
plans to extend the ERP to cover other areas of Hong Kong.
(2)
Charging mechanism
(i)
The cordon-based mechanism is suitable to be used in the Central
District because the area is not large and is linked with strategic roads.
“Charging per pass” mechanism is more preferable to “charging per
day” mechanism as the former will discourage vehicles to enter the
charging area repeatedly.
(ii)
A specific duration of stay (which may be just two hours or even a
shorter period of time) should be set as the charging basis because
vehicles parking in the charging area would be the main cause for
traffic congestion. If vehicles will be charged according to the
duration of stay in the charging area, the Government will need to
technically differentiate the time period that vehicles circulating in the
charging area, parking by the kerbside, or parking in car parks.
(iii) The Government needs to conduct a large-scale survey to analyse the
traffic patterns of vehicles going in or out the Central District (e.g.
duration of stay, numbers and times of entries and exits) before
formulating the detailed charging mechanism.
M011-2
(3)
Charging period
(i)
(4)
No comment had been made.
Charging level
(i)
Setting a low charge (e.g. $30/$40) may not have much effect on most
of the private car owners who are well off.
(ii)
The charging level for taxis should be set higher than those of other
public transport modes because taxis contribute to traffic congestion
as private cars do. A higher charging level for taxis can encourage
the public to make use of high-capacity public transport modes such
as minibuses and buses.
(iii) Taxis could be charged according to the numbers of passengers they
carry. The total charges to be imposed on taxis would reduce with
the number of passengers carried. If this suggestion would be
adopted, the fare meter of taxi ought to be modified so that taxi driver
could input the number of passengers into the meter for calculation of
fare.
(iv) Charging levels should vary according to different degrees of
congestion and the levels should be defined using more objective
indicators, such as volume/capacity ratio or journey time.
(v)
Charging levels should vary according to the time of a day, vehicle
type and traffic situation, having regard to real-time congestion and
emission data.
(vi) Consideration could be given to linking the charging level to the Air
Pollution Index. For example, if the Air Pollution Index of the
Central District exceeds a certain level, the charges imposed on that
day will be doubled, and at the same time, the fares of public transport
may be cut by half to encourage and attract the public to make use of
public transport services.
M011-3
(vii) Given that the process from conducting the feasibility study to
implementing the scheme would take several years, it is suggested
that the charging level (after factoring in inflation) should be carefully
assessed to ensure that it would be accepted by the public.
(5)
Exemption/concession
(i)
Exemption and concession should be kept to a minimum to make the
system simple.
(ii)
While it would be fairer to grant fewer exemptions, there was support
for granting exemption to public transport modes.
(iii) Public transport modes, which are the most effective road users,
should be granted exemption or the most favourable concession to
avoid the charges being passed on to passengers.
(iv) Consideration should be given to granting exemption to buses, green
minibuses, vehicles carrying the disabled and emergency vehicles.
(v)
Taxi is a type of public transport but also belongs to a personalised
transport mode. It is doubtful whether they should be granted
exemption.
(vi) Goods vehicles should be charged.
(vii) Consideration should be given to granting concession to residents
living in the charging area.
(viii) Low-emission vehicles should be granted concession.
(6)
Technology
(i)
The “Automatic Number Plate Recognition” (ANPR) technology and
“Dedicated Short-range Radio Communication” (DSRC) technology
have their own advantages and disadvantages.
The ANPR
technology will likely give rise to privacy concerns and accuracy
issue. The DSRC technology will require the installation of
in-vehicle units (IVUs) and may entail considerable manpower and
M011-4
financial resources. In light of this, concerns were raised on whether
the Government would consider any other charging technologies.
(ii)
Several technologies could be deployed for implementing ERP.
Global positioning system had made substantial headway and many
ancillary packages were available for application. Yet, it was
considered that the ANPR technology was probably the simplest as it
would not require the installation of IVUs and thus the overall capital
cost might be lower.
(iii) Consideration can be given to adopting Wireless Fidelity (WIFI)
technology and using the existing street lamp posts as WIFI hotspots
for detecting the locations and numbers of vehicles.
(iv) A mature automatic toll collection system such as “Autotoll” could be
adopted so that the existing users of “Autotoll” could be spared the
need of installing additional IVUs.
(v)
It was worried that as the ANPR technology would require manual
cross-checking of images of licence number plates, thus incurring
high operating costs. Beside, errors might occur which could lead to
unfairness.
(vi) Supercomputers could be used to collect data and study could be
conducted on the development of a territory-wide smart city system.
(vii) Universities should be invited to conduct research on the
technologies.
Major views on three pertinent issues
(1)
Privacy concerns
(i)
The implementation of the ERP will not give rise to privacy issue
and it is believed that the Government will address the privacy issue
in a safe and fair manner.
M011-5
(ii)
The existing automatic toll collection system does not have privacy
problem, and it is suggested that the Government should enact
legislation to restrict the use of the data collected under the Pilot
Scheme.
(iii) If the ERP technology is similar to that for collecting data of the
existing closed circuit television system, it is envisaged that severe
privacy problem will not arise.
(iv) ANPR technology is being used by the Police as well. It is
understood that the data collected will be erased upon completion of
each operation, and this way of handling data will suffice for
meeting the requirements of the existing Personal Data (Privacy)
Ordinance. As such, it is considered that there would not be any
concerning privacy issue.
(2)
Effectiveness
(i)
(3)
Charging level should be adjusted every few months based on the
congestion level.
Complementary measures
(i)
Park-and-ride facilities should be provided outside the charging area.
(ii)
Consideration
could
be
given
to
deploying
shuttle
minibuses/medium-sized buses to carry passengers to/from the
park-and-ride facilities outside the charging area. Such public
transport modes would be more flexible than the MTR and could
provide access to the local streets in the area.
(iii) More car parks should be provided so that vehicles do not need to
circulate for searching parking spaces.
(iv) More public transport priority schemes should be implemented, such
as designing more spacious bus stops with convenient access.
M011-6
(v)
Pick-up/drop-off points should be provided outside the charging area
to allow alighting passengers to walk to the Central District.
(vi) Redeveloped buildings should be set back and more covered
pedestrian walkways and green spaces should be provided.
(vii) Concerns were raised about whether the data collected under ERP
can be used by the traffic control and surveillance systems so as to
provide drivers with more information for better trip-planning.
Apart from traffic-related purposes, it was suggested conducting
studies to examine whether such data can be used for other purposes
such as matters related to our daily life or consumption.
(viii) Given that the Central District has limited space for building new
roads and implementation of more draconian traffic management
measures in Hong Kong is difficult, ERP is considered an effective
tool in controlling the number of vehicles going in/out of the Central
District, but it should be accompanied by comprehensive
complementary measures.
Other views
(i)
Whether the use of revenue generated from the Pilot Scheme is
agreeable to the public is of utmost importance. The Government
should clearly explain how the revenue will be used.
(ii)
The revenue generated from the Pilot Scheme could be used to
subsidise public transport serving the Central District. Separate
funding sources should even be obtained to subsidise public
transport.
(iii)
The revenue generated from the Pilot Scheme could be used for
enhancing the pedestrian accessibility.
(iv)
The revenue generated could be ploughed back into the Pilot
Scheme itself.
M011-7
(v)
Some participants supported the Pilot Scheme and urged for its
early implementation.
(vi)
Publicity activities could emphasise on the beneficiaries of the ERP
scheme would largely be public transport passengers.
(vii)
ERP is fair in that those who do not want to pay can adjust their
trips according to their needs while motorists who are willing to
pay can choose to pay the ERP charges and benefit from shorter
journey time.
(viii) The Pilot Scheme can help mitigate traffic congestion but a
multi-pronged approach should be adopted if the problem is to be
holistically solved.
(ix)
Comments could not be made until the Government came up with a
comprehensive
Pilot
Scheme
(together
with
various
complementary measures).
(x)
If the Pilot Scheme is to go ahead, comprehensive information
should be provided in the next stage to convince those who need to
pay that the charges are reasonable.
(xi)
The Government should provide analytical data to enhance the
understanding of the public. It should also make known to the
public on the findings of past ERP studies.
(xii)
The Government could install cameras and computer systems at
major road junctions to detect the times of vehicles entering and
leaving the Central District and the data collected could be used for
designing the Pilot Scheme.
(xiii) The Government must take cost-effectiveness into consideration.
(xiv) There are several causes of traffic congestion in the Central District,
including rampant illegal parking, tailback of traffic queues from
the Cross Harbour Tunnel and Wan Chai to the Central District,
excessive number of bus routes and large number of vehicles of
M011-8
“well-off people” simultaneously travelling along some roads
before and after office hours.
(xv)
The traffic congestion problem of the Central District may be eased
upon the commissioning of the Central – Wan Chai Bypass, so
there is no need to implement the Pilot Scheme.
(xvi) It was worried that bus fares would have to be raised after the
implementation of the ERP Scheme, thus causing unfairness to
public transport passengers. The Government should examine the
impacts on the public transport fares upon the implementation of
the Pilot Scheme.
(xvii) Given that people who need to drive to the Central District are not
for entertainment or recreational purposes but for work purposes, it
is envisaged that the implementation of the ERP scheme may
undermine the economic vitality of Hong Kong.
(xviii) It was doubtful whether ERP would be effective in reducing the
number of vehicles because many people had the need to drive to
the Central District, such as the elderly going to clinics and people
carrying infants.
(xix) The implementation of ERP would create social contradiction as
only people who could afford to pay the charges can drive to/from
the charging area.
(xx)
The initial investment into the Pilot Scheme should be kept to a
minimum.
(xxi) It was worried that the implementation of the Pilot Scheme would
become a norm and be extended to different places. The result
would be that charging areas gradually becoming places where
only people who could afford the charges could enter and live,
thereby creating social problems.
(xxii) It was suggested that advisory letters could be issued to habitual
motorists via the car owners to urge them not to drive to the Central
M011-9
District as far as possible. Rewards could be offered to the car
owners who had reduced the use of roads in the charging area
during designated periods.
(xxiii) The charging system should be led by the Government to avoid
criticism about collusion between the business sector and the
Government.
(xxiv) As the major cause of traffic congestion in the Central District is
rampant loading/unloading activities and parking along the
kerbside which occupy some of the traffic lanes, it is considered
that the Government should first strengthen enforcement actions
through issuing fixed penalty tickets instantly when illegal parking
is found. It is also suggested that enforcement actions should be
strengthened during peak hours.
(xxv) Concerns were raised over how the pedestrian facilities in the
charging area could be improved (e.g. providing more covered
pedestrian walkways, enhancing the greening environment,
widening the footpath).
(xxvi) The Pilot Scheme is expected to improve the pedestrian
environment. For example, consideration could be given to
designating Des Voeux Road Central as a pedestrian or tram
precinct.
(xxvii) Other measures, such as controlling vehicle ownership, adjusting
tax rates, etc. should be considered to discourage the public from
driving.
M011-10
M012
Summary of views on the Pilot Scheme collected from
the public bus operators (non-franchised bus) trade conference
(17 February 2016)
Names of representatives and their respective organisations are in Chinese only
and are set out in the Chinese version of the Report.
Major views on six basic elements
(1)
Charging area
(i)
(2)
No comment had been made.
Charging mechanism
(i)
The area-based charging mechanism which involves charging per
day, will be easier to administer in the Central District which is a
small area, as compared to the cordon-based charging mechanism
which involves charging per pass.
(ii) The cordon-based charging mechanism which involves charging per
pass, will be more likely to give rise to disputes for cases of taxi
passengers suspecting taxi drivers of not using the most direct route.
(3)
Charging period
(i)
It is reasonable to set the charging period from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
(ii) Passenger transport is time specific while goods delivery to the
Central District may be scheduled to non-peak hours at night as far
as practicable. In places like Beijing, Europe and Australia, goods
vehicles are only allowed to make deliveries at night. Besides, the
noise from delivery operations in the Central District at night will
not cause much nuisance.
M012-1
(4)
Charging level
(i)
Vehicles in the Central District are mostly driven by chauffeurs
waiting for orders. Many of these car owners will not be affected
by any high charges.
(ii) The Pilot Scheme should operate based on the principle of fairness
and a unified charge should be applied to all vehicle types. It is
inappropriate to grant exemption to franchised buses but not to
non-franchised buses.
(iii) Goods vehicles accessing to the Central District during off peak
hours at night should be exempted. However, they should be
charged more when accessing to the Central District during the
charging period.
(5)
Exemption and concession
(i)
Some trade representatives, while supporting the Pilot Scheme,
pointed out that even if non-franchised buses were not given
exemption, non-franchised bus operators would still need to arrange
their buses to enter the Central District, and the charges incurred
would be passed on to passengers.
(ii) Non-franchised buses are also mass carriers serving the public. It
was requested that they should be granted exemption.
(iii) Since the Electronic Road Pricing charge does not exist, it would be
unreasonable to exempt certain types of vehicles while those not
exempted would be required to pay more, unless the Pilot Scheme
aimed to recover its capital costs or even to make money.
(6)
Technology
(i)
When deciding on the technology to be adopted, the Government
should consider its compatibility with the “Autotoll”, which is the
automatic toll collection system currently used by tolled
M012-2
tunnels/bridges, so that there is no need to install two different
in-vehicle units for charging purpose.
(ii) The cost of in-vehicle units should be borne by the Government.
Major views on three pertinent issues
(1)
Privacy concerns
(i)
(2)
Effectiveness
(i)
(3)
No comment had been made.
No comment had been made.
Complementary measures
(i)
The Police should strengthen enforcement actions in the Central
District to ensure smooth traffic operation.
(ii) Pick-up/drop-off points should be provided in the areas adjoining the
charging area to encourage access to the charging area on foot.
Other views
(i)
Upon completion of the Central – Wan Chai Bypass, it is likely that
a large number of vehicles can bypass the Central District without
entering it. If this brings about a substantial drop in traffic volume,
there will be no need to implement the Pilot Scheme.
(ii) The massive number of franchised buses, particularly during
morning and evening peak hours, is the cause of traffic congestion in
Central and Wan Chai.
(iii) Before implementing the Pilot Scheme, the Government should first
consider introducing a rationing scheme to restrict the number of
M012-3
vehicles on roads, such as only allowing vehicles with car plates
ending an odd or even number to access to the Central District on
alternate days.
M012-4
M013
Summary of views on the Pilot Scheme collected from
the focus group meeting - green groups (18 February 2016)
Present:
Ms. Gentiane Gastaldi
Ms. Maya de Souza
Mr. Sunny Lam
Mr. T W Loong
Ms. Winnie W L Tse
Ms. Andrea W Y Ng
Dr. Jeffery Hung
Dr. Francis Kee
Ms. Patricia Chung
Mr. Billy Lee
Mr. Andrew Yung
Mr. K Y So
Mr. Sunny Cheng
Business Environment Council
Civic Exchange
Clean Air Network
EarthCare
Friends of the Earth (Hong Kong)
Green Technology Consortium
The Conservancy Association
World Green Organisation
Major views on six basic elements
(1)
Charging area
(i)
(2)
It was concerned that the roads outside the charging area would
become congested after the implementation of the Pilot Scheme.
The Government was suggested studying if the roads along the
boundary of the charging area would have adequate traffic capacity
after the implementation of the Pilot Scheme.
Charging mechanism
(i)
No comment had been made.
M013-1-
(3)
Charging period
(i)
(4)
No comment had been made.
Charging level
(i)
The Government should consider adopting a charging approach that
would link the charging level to vehicle emission rate.
(ii)
The Government was suggested considering air pollution issues when
setting the charging level so that car owners will be made to bear the
social costs incurred by vehicle emissions directly, including impacts
on public health and additional expenses on public healthcare system.
(iii) Consideration should be given to setting the charging level for
“zero-emission” vehicles.
(iv) It is inappropriate for setting the charging levels of goods vehicles
according to their passenger-carrying capacities.
(5)
(6)
Exemption/concession
(i)
Exemptions should be granted to more environmental-friendly and
low-emission rate vehicles, such as Euro IV or higher buses.
(ii)
If the charging area of the Pilot Scheme overlaps with the existing
designated “low emission zone”, it was suggested exempting those
buses that have been permitted to operate in the “low emission zone”
because they are environmental-friendly, efficient and mass carrier.
Technology
(i)
No comment had been made.
M013-2-
Major views on three pertinent issues
(1)
Privacy concerns
(i)
(2)
Effectiveness
(i)
(3)
A representative strongly opposed to the Pilot Scheme, saying that it
should be shelved indefinitely until the protection of basic human
rights, the rule of law and privacy could be clearly seen. The social
environment in overseas places like London and Sweden are different
from Hong Kong. These two places are more mature in terms of
freedom, democracy, human rights and political systems and their
privacy awareness is also very high. Even if the charging technology
adopts the encryption feature, it still cannot fully address the privacy
issue.
No comment had been made.
Complementary measures
(i)
It was suggested that the Government should introduce the concept of
“low emission zone” through the implementation of the Pilot Scheme.
Reference could be made to the experience of London in introducing
“low emission zone”, and further discussion with the Environment
Bureau on the concept would be necessary.
(ii)
If the Pilot Scheme could effectively reduce the traffic volume of the
charging area, the Government should seize the opportunity to
introduce a “car-free zone”. The “car-free zone” would not
necessarily cover the whole of the charging area. Instead, the zone
may only be a part of the charging zone or may be designated during
certain periods (such as Sundays) in order to promote the concept of
“walkability”.
(iii) Given that there are inadequate parking spaces outside the Central
District, the Government should examine whether the shortage of
parking spaces will cause road traffic congestion outside the charging
area.
M013-3-
(iv) It was suggested that the Government should make a fundamental
change to the people’s travel habit of using private cars to go to/from
the Central District. For example, the traffic congestion in the
Central District can be radically alleviated by enhancing the planning
of pedestrian precinct and cycle tracks.
(v)
The Government should examine the complementary measures that
could be put in place together with the implementation of the Pilot
Scheme.
Other views
(i)
The Government should consider using the revenue generated from
the Pilot Scheme to subsidise public transport users by way of fare
reduction, thereby encouraging the public to make wider use of public
transport and attracting more private car users to switch to more
environmental-friendly public transport.
(ii)
The Pilot Scheme could be treated as one of the measures for solving
traffic congestion.
(iii) The Government should provide more data on the reduction in
pollution and emissions upon the implementation of the Pilot Scheme.
(iv) The ultimate aim of the Pilot Scheme should be to change the travel
habits of the public and not to levy charges for the Government.
(v)
More comprehensive review should be conducted on the overall
transport policies. For example, consideration should be given to
implementing a rationing scheme to allow vehicles with car plates
ending in odd or even numbers to travel on alternate days, increasing
the annual vehicle licence fee and controlling the size of private car
fleet in a holistic manner.
(vi) There were concerns on whether the Pilot Scheme could effectively
enhance the air quality in the charging area.
M013-4-
(vii) The Pilot Scheme could only improve air quality at local level. The
Government should address the territory-wide air pollution problem
by implementing other policy initiatives.
(viii) The Government was urged to present a complete picture to illustrate
how the Pilot Scheme could complement other policies or the other
eleven measures as recommended by the Transport Advisory
Committee to tackle road traffic congestion.
(ix) It was worried that after the implementation of the Pilot Scheme, only
“chauffeur-driven vehicles” could use the roads in the charging area
while the areas outside the charging area became congested. This
would indirectly lead to social division.
(x)
The traffic congestion problem plaguing the Central District does not
occur all the time, but is particularly serious at some bottleneck road
junctions. The main causes of the congestion are loading/unloading
activities and illegal parking of “chauffeur-driven vehicles”.
M013-5-
Annex 5
A breakdown and numbers of submissions received from various channels
submission channel
dedicated website
post
fax
email
telephone
Public Affairs Forum of the Home Affairs
Bureau
Transport Complaints Unit under the
Transport Advisory Committee
Total
number of submissions
362
27
4
93
12
14
3
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.
A5-1
These
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.
submission.
This case was treated as a single
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.
were not treated as submissions received.
A5-2
The documents
Annex 6
A list of all submissions received and their originators
(except those requested by their originators to remain anonymous)
submission
originator
remark
number
Submissions via the Transport Complaints Unit under the Transport Advisory
Committee (C00001 - C00003)
李文照
C00001
-C00002
Unidentified
-C00003
Unidentified
-Submissions via email (E00001 - E00264)
莊禮明
E00001
-Requested to remain
-E00002
anonymous
E00003
Unidentified
-E00004
Unidentified
-E00005
Unidentified
-E00006
Jenny Yau
General enquiry
E00007
Lawrence Tan
-Treated as the same submission as
馮先生
E00008
E00010
Treated as the same submission as
馮先生
E00009
E00010
馮先生
E00010
-Ir. Dr. Cheung Shu Sang,
-E00011
William
E00012
Unidentified
General enquiry
E00013
Unidentified
-E00014
Raymond Wu
-Treated as the same submission as
E00015
Unidentified
E00004
Requested to remain
-E00016
anonymous
E00017
Unidentified
-E00018
Monis Beraha
-E00019
Kwan Chung Hin
-A6-index-1
submission
number
originator
remark
E00020
Monis Beraha
E00021
E00022
E00023
Andrew Kinloch
James Middleton
Unidentified
E00024
Monis Beraha
E00025
E00026
E00027
E00028
E00029
E00030
Ronald Li
Record Media Hong Kong
Johnny
Henry Tam
Oscar Cheung
Kevin
E00031
Unidentified
E00032
Unidentified
E00033
E00034
E00035
E00036
E00037
E00038
E00039
C.G. Carline
David Au Yeung
Mr. Ven
Dave
Mark Webb-Johnson
王紫燕
林小姐
Frontline Tech Workers
Concern Group
E00040
E00041
George Wong
E00042
E00043
E00044
E00045
E00046
E00047
E00048
Hong WONG
Madelaine
殷兆威
JKK Lee
David Akers-Jones
Ronald Taylor
Unidentified
Treated as the same submission as
E00018
---Treated as the same submission as
E00018
-----General enquiry
Treated as the same submission as
E00004
Treated as the same submission as
E00004
--------Treated as the same submission as
W00392
----General enquiry
---
A6-index-2
submission
number
E00049
E00050
E00051
E00052
E00053
E00054
E00055
RJF Brothers
David M. Webb
Danny Chan
Geoffrey S. Harris
Peter 郭
Kam Kin Pong
Jon
E00056
David Holdsworth
E00057
Raymond Chan
Requested to remain
anonymous
E00058
originator
remark
-------Support / quote the views of
submission no. E00050
---
E00059
Wai Leung TANG
E00060
Neil Thomason
E00061
Peter 郭
E00062
The Lion Rock Institute
E00063
AUSTIN Gregory
E00065
E00066
E00067
E00068
Hong Kong Professionals and
Senior Executives Association
Mac Overton
Terrence
Lam Nga Wing
Bingo
E00069
Hong Kong Taxi Council
E00070
Mo Kwan Tai
Hong Kong General Chamber
of Commerce
pui ng
Cheung Kwan Ling
chunyan
Chan fung ha
E00064
E00071
E00072
E00073
E00074
E00075
A6-index-3
Supported / quoted the views of
submission no. E00050
-Treated as the same submission as
E00053
-Treated as the same submission as
W00441
-----Treated as the same submission as
P00010
-Treated as the same submission as
P00012
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
submission
number
E00076
E00077
E00078
E00079
E00080
E00081
E00082
E00083
E00084
E00085
E00086
E00087
E00088
E00089
E00090
E00091
E00092
E00093
E00094
E00095
E00096
E00097
E00098
E00099
E00100
E00101
E00102
E00103
E00104
E00105
E00106
E00107
E00108
E00109
E00110
originator
remark
Kong Tat Shing
Leung Yuk Ying
Joe Hui
Alan Chan
YANNIS CHEUNG
Brad Ku
Mok wing kei
Helex chan
張小軍
Ricky Chow
Chun Hei Lau
chan kin wai
Leo Cheung
Jac Lo
Rick Wong
chau
Kavin
OR SIU HIN
May Kwok
Daryl Liu
Joanne Leung
Desmond To
Wong Yee Ting
Bill Chan
Cheung Chun Sai
Alvin Cheng
Chan Tsz Ning
Katie
Noelle Kwok
wong chun pong
shanshan
Yeung Wai Man
Anthony Ng
Yeung Wun Ting
Kenny Chan
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
-Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
A6-index-4
submission
number
E00111
E00112
E00113
E00114
E00115
E00116
E00117
E00118
E00119
E00120
E00121
E00122
E00123
E00124
E00125
E00126
E00127
E00128
E00129
E00130
E00131
E00132
E00133
E00134
E00135
E00136
E00137
E00138
E00139
E00140
E00141
E00142
E00143
E00144
originator
remark
Aldous
Raymond Chow
Ivan Wong
Chan Siu On
Lau Chun Hung
Johnny Wong
Dashun Foundation
Tang. fu. Wing
PAM MA
Wong Yuk Hing Alice
Gigi Tai
Lillian chan
Law Lok Hang
Yeung Tsz Ching
Brandon Choi
Ko Wai Pui
Helen Tse
Fung yan ching
Elaine Mak
Miss Wong
KaiChakTang
Leung fei fung
P chan
Kennith Chan
edward ng
Howard
Lau mee yin
So Sin Lam
Winky
Mike Chan
Sin Wing Ming
Requested to remain
anonymous
Lee Pui Yin
林凱欣
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
-Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
-Note 1
Note 1
A6-index-5
submission
number
E00145
E00146
E00147
E00148
E00149
E00150
E00151
E00152
E00153
originator
Hung Nga Sai
Law wing chi
Anthony Wong
黃玉卿
Crystal
周德宏
Men c
LM Cheng
Ng may
E00154
LH Chung
E00155
E00156
E00157
E00158
E00159
E00160
E00161
E00162
E00163
E00164
E00165
E00166
E00167
E00168
E00169
E00171
E00172
E00173
E00174
Kwan yue heng selma
Winnie Ng
胡深
Brenda Choy
Philip Cheung
Ze Chan
Wong Wai Shan
Ryan
Ryan Tai
Wong Sik Man
Kevin Liu
lee king shing
Penny Lau
Michelle Fung
Jacky Lam
Internet Professional
Association (iProA)
Dennis Chan
Hoiky Tsang
Tom Chow
Unidentified
E00175
Unidentified
E00176
Unidentified
E00170
remark
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Treated as the same submission as
W00481
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
-Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
-Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
-Treated as the same submission as
E00174
Treated as the same submission as
A6-index-6
submission
number
originator
remark
E00177
E00178
E00179
E00180
E00181
E00182
Anna Lee
譚桂桐
M.H.Lam
CHAN CHI CHUNG
CHAN CHI HO
CHUNG YUK YING
E00183
Unidentified
E00184
Tommy Lam
E00185
Unidentified
E00186
E00187
Sze Nga Cheng
Kevin Cheng
E00188
Unidentified
E00189
Unidentified
E00190
Unidentified
E00191
E00192
E00193
E00195
E00196
WONG TSZ YAN NATALIE
kathy lam
Lisa Wong
The Hong Kong Electric Co.,
Ltd
Ng Wai Ni
Mok kwok ying
E00197
George J. Ho
E00194
E00198
E00199
E00200
The Australian Chamber of
Commerce – Hong Kong and
Macau
Momentum 107
kwong wai yan micky
A6-index-7
E00174
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Treated as the same submission as
E00174
Note 1
Treated as the same submission as
E00174
Note 1
Note 1
Treated as the same submission as
E00174
Treated as the same submission as
E00174
Treated as the same submission as
E00174
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
-Note 1
Note 1
Requested to keep the views
confidential & treated as the same
submission as F00004
--
-Note 1
submission
number
E00201
E00202
E00203
E00204
originator
remark
E00222
E00223
E00224
E00225
Paul Zimmerman
Designing Hong Kong
Clean Air Network
Shelley
Business and Professionals
Alliance for Hong Kong
Vera Chan
yung mei po
Chau Kai Kan
Yim
Unidentified
Lam Yin Ling
Unidentified
Ben Leung
PC Chan
Dr. L. Ramsden
New People’s Party
Hong Kong Institute of
Planners
Democratic Alliance for the
Betterment and Progress of
Hong Kong
伍細輝
Business Environment Council
Limited
The American Chamber of
Commerce in Hong Kong
tony chik
Democratic Party
Civic Party
David Rainsford
E00226
Octopus Cards Limited
E00227
E00228
Jonathan Kwan
Sandy Ng
E00205
E00206
E00207
E00208
E00209
E00210
E00211
E00212
E00213
E00214
E00215
E00216
E00217
E00218
E00219
E00220
E00221
A6-index-8
---Note 1
-Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
--Note 1
-Note 1
---Treated as the same submission as
P00020
--
---Note 1
---Requested to keep the views
confidential
Note 1
Note 1
submission
number
E00229
E00230
E00231
E00232
E00233
E00234
E00235
E00236
originator
remark
E00249
James Woo
Andrew Tam
Ken Fong
Harriet Wong
Community for Road Safety
MC Lee
Friends of the Earth (HK)
ChungLam
Hong Kong Green Strategy
Alliance
Jonathan Cheung
Cheung Man Hin
Cheng Chun Wai
Civic Exchange
Melody Cheung
Matt lai
Kelvin mok
Lo Shun Chint
Requested to remain
anonymous
KC LEUNG
Inchape Motor Services
Limited
Loiengman
E00250
Charles Peter Mok
E00251
E00252
Yau Wai Ching
Paul WH Chau
E00253
Joseph Chan
E00254
E00255
Tang Tsz Lun
Rosski
Public Transport Research
Team
Chan Wing Lun
E00237
E00238
E00239
E00240
E00241
E00242
E00243
E00244
E00245
E00246
E00247
E00248
E00256
E00257
A6-index-9
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
-Note 1
-Note 1
-Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
-Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
Note 1
-Note 1
-Note 1
Requested to keep the views
confidential
Note 1
Note 1
Treated as the same submission as
P00006
Note 1
Note 1
-Note 1
submission
number
E00258
E00259
E00260
E00261
E00262
E00263
originator
remark
boy au
Rishi Kukreja
Mary Mulvihill
Green Sense
Mr. HUNG Kin Ho
王潔瑩
Timothy Hau and a group of 15
academics
Submissions via fax(F00001 - F00005)
Hong Kong Scheduled (GMB)
F00001
Licensee Association
F00002
AMS Central Maxicab Limited
Rehabilitation Alliance Hong
F00003
Kong
E00264
Note 1
----Treated as the same submission as
W00554
--
----
Requested to keep the views
confidential & treated as the same
F00004
George J. Ho
submission as
E00197
F00005
Wan Ho Kin
-Submissions via Public Affairs Forum of the Home Affairs Bureau (H00001 H00015)
郭金鋒
H00001
-H00002
CB
-葉柏麟
H00003
-麥順邦
H00004
-H00005
ABHin
-H00006
michaelo
-H00007
Gary
-H00008
JPONG2226
-Treated as the same submission as
H00009
JPONG2226
H00008
王偉倫
H00010
-H00011
Jason Chow
-王偉倫
H00012
-A6-index-10
submission
originator
number
H00013
Maple Leaf
小蜜蜂
H00014
H00015
Yvonne Wong
Submission by post (P00001 - P00029)
P00001
Unidentified
鄧鎔耀
P00002
P00003
Unidentified
British Chamber of Commerce
P00004
in Hong Kong
The Chartered Institute of
P00005
Logistics and Transport in
Hong Kong
P00006
Joseph Chan
香港貨車運輸業協會
P00007
P00008
Cherry Chow
Hong Kong Professionals and
P00009
Senior Executives Association
P00010
Hong Kong Taxi Council
P00011
K.F. Wong
Hong Kong General Chamber
P00012
of Commerce
Sun Cheong Transportation
P00013
Hong Kong Co. Ltd.
Motor Transport Workers
P00014
General Union
Office of the Privacy
P00015
Commissioner for Personal
Data, Hong Kong
P00016
Hong Kong Tramways, Limited
The Canadian Chamber of
P00017
Commerce in Hong Kong
The Kowloon Motor Bus Co.
P00018
(1933) Ltd
Intelligent Transportation
P00019
Systems, Hong Kong Limited
A6-index-11
remark
---------
---Treated as the same submission as
E00064
--Treated as the same submission as
E00071
----
-----
submission
number
originator
remark
P00022
P00023
P00024
Hong Kong Institute of
Planners
Hong Kong Institution of
Highways and Transportation
Cheung Fu Chi, Patrick
Chan Wing Kam
李君傑
P00025
Tony TSE
P00020
P00021
The Hong Kong Electric Co.,
Ltd
P00027
Hongkong Land
P00028
Ir Andrew Mario
P00029
Michelle Tang Ming-sum
Submissions by telephone (T00001 - T00015)
T00001
Mr. Chan
T00002
Jonathan Wong
T00003
Unidentified
T00004
Unidentified
T00005
Louis Li
T00006
Ms Lau
黃漢強
T00007
卓先生
T00008
T00009
Mr Peter A Crush
李先生
T00010
P00026
Treated as the same submission as
E00217
----Treated as the same submission as
T00012
-----
----------Requested to keep the views
T00011
Unidentified
confidential
Treated as the same submission as
T00012
Tony TSE
P00025
香港貨車商會
T00013
-Intelligent Transportation
Treated as the same submission as
T00014
Systems, Hong Kong Limited
P00019
T00015
Liberal Party
-Submissions via dedicated webpage (W00001 - W00555)
W00001
Unidentified
-A6-index-12
submission
originator
number
W00002
Unidentified
W00003
Unidentified
W00004
Unidentified
W00005
Unidentified
W00006
W00007
W00008
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00009
Unidentified
W00010
W00011
W00012
W00013
W00014
W00015
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Requested to remain
anonymous
W00016
W00017
Unidentified
W00018
W00019
W00020
W00021
W00022
W00023
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00024
Unidentified
W00025
Unidentified
W00026
Unidentified
W00027
W00028
W00029
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
remark
---Submission with meaningless
content
--Article by third party
Treated as the same submission as
W00008
---Article by third party
---Submission with meaningless
content
-----Article by third party
Treated as the same submission as
W00023
Treated as the same submission as
W00023
Treated as the same submission as
W00023
Article by third party
Article by third party
Note 2
A6-index-13
submission
number
W00030
W00031
W00032
W00033
W00034
W00035
W00036
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00037
Unidentified
W00038
Unidentified
W00039
W00040
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00041
Unidentified
W00042
Unidentified
W00043
Unidentified
W00044
W00045
W00046
W00047
W00049
W00050
W00051
W00052
W00053
W00054
W00055
W00056
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Requested to remain
anonymous
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
夏明威
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00057
Unidentified
W00048
originator
remark
Note 2
Note 2
Note 2
Note 2
Note 2
Note 2
Note 2
Treated as the same submission as
W00036
Treated as the same submission as
W00036
-Article by third party
Treated as the same submission as
W00023
Identical to submissions nos.
W00024 and W00025
Treated as the same submission as
W00026
Article by third party
-Article by third party
---------Article by third party
Treated as the same submission as
W00056
A6-index-14
submission
number
W00058
W00059
W00060
W00061
W00062
W00063
W00064
W00065
W00066
W00067
W00068
originator
remark
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
馮先生
-Article by third party
-Article by third party
Article by third party
Treated as the same submission as
E00010
Treated as the same submission as
E00010
--Treated as the same submission as
E00010
Treated as the same submission as
E00010
Treated as the same submission as
E00011
--Article by third party
----Submission with meaningless
content
-Submission with meaningless
content
---General enquiry
-Article by third party
馮先生
Unidentified
Unidentified
馮先生
馮先生
W00069
Unidentified
W00070
W00071
W00072
W00073
W00074
W00075
W00076
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00077
Unidentified
W00078
Unidentified
W00079
Unidentified
W00080
W00081
W00082
W00083
W00084
W00085
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
A6-index-15
submission
originator
number
W00086
Unidentified
W00087
Unidentified
W00088
Unidentified
W00089
Unidentified
W00090
W00091
W00092
W00093
W00094
W00095
W00096
W00097
W00098
W00099
W00100
W00101
W00102
W00103
W00104
W00105
W00106
W00107
W00108
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Henry Wong
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Requested to remain
anonymous
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Mr IP
W00109
W00110
W00111
W00112
W00113
W00114
W00115
W00116
W00117
remark
Article by third party
Treated as the same submission as
W00086
Article by third party
Treated as the same submission as
W00088
----------------------------A6-index-16
submission
number
W00118
W00119
W00120
W00121
W00122
W00123
W00124
W00125
W00126
W00127
W00128
W00129
W00130
W00131
W00132
W00133
W00134
W00135
W00136
W00137
W00138
W00139
W00140
W00141
W00142
W00143
W00144
W00145
W00146
W00147
W00148
W00149
W00150
originator
remark
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
CHAN TSZ FUNG
Unidentified
Got, Chong Key
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
何振賢
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Requested to remain
anonymous
Requested to remain
anonymous
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Lai Chow Keung
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
------------------General enquiry
--Requested to keep the views
confidential
Treated as the same submission as
W00139
---------Treated as the same submission as
A6-index-17
submission
number
originator
W00151
Unidentified
W00152
W00153
W00154
W00155
W00156
W00157
W00158
W00159
W00160
W00161
W00162
W00163
W00164
W00165
Unidentified
Edward
莊斯明
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00166
Unidentified
W00167
Unidentified
W00168
Unidentified
W00169
Unidentified
W00170
Unidentified
W00171
Unidentified
W00172
Unidentified
W00173
Unidentified
W00174
Unidentified
remark
W00149
Treated as the same submission as
W00149
--------------Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
A6-index-18
submission
number
originator
W00175
Unidentified
W00176
Unidentified
W00177
Unidentified
W00178
Unidentified
W00179
Unidentified
W00180
Unidentified
W00181
Unidentified
W00182
Unidentified
W00183
Unidentified
W00184
Unidentified
W00185
Unidentified
W00186
Unidentified
W00187
Unidentified
W00188
Unidentified
W00189
Unidentified
W00190
Unidentified
W00191
Unidentified
W00192
Unidentified
remark
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
A6-index-19
submission
number
originator
W00193
Unidentified
W00194
Unidentified
W00195
Unidentified
W00196
Unidentified
W00197
Unidentified
W00198
Unidentified
W00199
Unidentified
W00200
Unidentified
W00201
Unidentified
W00202
Unidentified
W00203
Unidentified
W00204
Unidentified
W00205
Unidentified
W00206
Unidentified
W00207
Unidentified
W00208
Unidentified
W00209
Unidentified
W00210
Unidentified
remark
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
A6-index-20
submission
number
originator
W00211
Unidentified
W00212
Unidentified
W00213
Unidentified
W00214
Unidentified
W00215
Unidentified
W00216
Unidentified
W00217
Unidentified
W00218
Unidentified
W00219
Unidentified
W00220
Unidentified
W00221
Unidentified
W00222
Unidentified
W00223
Unidentified
W00224
Unidentified
W00225
Unidentified
W00226
Unidentified
W00227
Unidentified
W00228
Unidentified
remark
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
A6-index-21
submission
number
originator
W00229
Unidentified
W00230
Unidentified
W00231
Unidentified
W00232
Unidentified
W00233
Unidentified
W00234
Unidentified
W00235
Unidentified
W00236
Unidentified
W00237
Unidentified
W00238
Unidentified
W00239
Unidentified
W00240
Unidentified
W00241
Unidentified
W00242
Unidentified
W00243
Unidentified
W00244
Unidentified
W00245
Unidentified
W00246
Unidentified
remark
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
A6-index-22
submission
number
originator
W00247
Unidentified
W00248
Unidentified
W00249
Unidentified
W00250
Unidentified
W00251
Unidentified
W00252
Unidentified
W00253
Unidentified
W00254
Unidentified
W00255
Unidentified
W00256
Unidentified
W00257
Unidentified
W00258
Unidentified
W00259
Unidentified
W00260
Unidentified
W00261
Unidentified
W00262
Unidentified
W00263
Unidentified
W00264
Unidentified
remark
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
A6-index-23
submission
number
originator
W00265
Unidentified
W00266
Unidentified
W00267
Unidentified
W00268
Unidentified
W00269
Unidentified
W00270
Unidentified
W00271
W00272
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00273
Unidentified
W00274
Unidentified
W00275
W00276
W00277
W00278
W00279
W00280
W00281
W00282
W00283
W00284
W00285
W00286
W00287
W00288
W00289
W00290
W00291
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
袁尚文、于承忠
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Matthew Murdoch
Unidentified
Unidentified
remark
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
--Requested to keep the views
confidential
Treated as the same submission as
W00273
-----------------A6-index-24
submission
number
W00292
W00293
W00294
W00295
W00296
W00297
W00298
W00299
W00300
originator
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00301
Unidentified
W00302
Unidentified
W00303
W00304
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00305
Unidentified
W00306
Unidentified
W00307
蘇澤暉
W00308
W00309
W00310
W00311
W00312
W00313
W00314
W00315
W00316
W00317
W00318
W00319
W00320
W00321
W00322
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
許耀鴻
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
關先生
Unidentified
Unidentified
remark
---------Treated as the same submission as
W00298
Treated as the same submission as
W00298
--Submission with meaningless
content
-Submission with meaningless
content
---------------A6-index-25
submission
number
W00323
W00324
W00325
W00326
originator
W00328
W00329
W00330
W00331
W00332
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Requested to remain
anonymous
Francis Sootoo
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00333
Unidentified
W00334
W00335
W00336
W00337
W00338
W00339
W00340
W00341
W00342
W00343
W00344
W00345
W00346
W00347
W00348
W00349
W00350
W00351
W00352
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
AB NASIR
李先生
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Mr. Wong
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
J
Unidentified
W00353
Unidentified
W00354
Unidentified
W00327
remark
----------Submission with meaningless
content
-------------------Treated as the same submission as
W00352
-A6-index-26
submission
number
W00355
W00356
W00357
W00358
W00359
W00360
W00361
W00362
W00363
W00364
W00365
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
George Salamon
W00366
George Salamon
W00367
W00368
W00369
W00370
W00371
W00372
W00373
W00374
W00375
W00376
W00377
W00378
W00379
W00380
W00381
W00382
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Mr Sung
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Requested to remain
anonymous
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00383
W00384
W00385
W00386
W00387
originator
remark
-----------Treated as the same submission as
W00365
---------------------A6-index-27
submission
number
W00388
W00389
W00390
W00391
W00392
originator
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
George Wong
W00393
Unidentified
W00394
W00395
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00396
Unidentified
W00397
Unidentified
W00398
W00399
W00400
Unidentified
Unidentified
Arthur
W00401
Unidentified
W00402
W00403
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00404
David C. Parker
W00405
Unidentified
W00406
Unidentified
W00407
Unidentified
W00408
Unidentified
W00409
W00410
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00411
Unidentified
W00412
Unidentified
remark
-----Treated as the same submission as
E00040
--Submission with meaningless
content
Submission with meaningless
content
---Submission with meaningless
content
--Support / quote the views of
submission no. E00050
Support / quote the views of
submission no. E00050
Support / quote the views of
submission no. E00050
Support / quote the views of
submission no. E00050
Support / quote the views of
submission no. E00050
--Support / quote the views of
submission no. E00050
Support / quote the views of
A6-index-28
submission
number
originator
W00413
Unidentified
W00414
Unidentified
W00415
Unidentified
W00416
Unidentified
W00417
W00418
W00419
Unidentified
Unidentified
P.A. Bowring
W00420
林小姐
W00421
Unidentified
W00422
林小姐
W00423
W00424
W00425
W00426
W00428
W00429
W00430
W00431
W00432
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Requested to remain
anonymous
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00433
Unidentified
W00434
Unidentified
W00435
W00436
Edwin McAuley
Unidentified
W00437
Unidentified
W00427
remark
submission no. E00050
-Support / quote the views of
submission no. E00050
Support / quote the views of
submission no. E00050
Support / quote the views of
submission no. E00050
---Treated as the same submission as
E00039
-Treated as the same submission as
E00039
----------Support / quote the views of
submission no. E00050
Support / quote the views of
submission no. E00050
--Support / quote the views of
submission no. E00050
A6-index-29
submission
originator
number
W00438
Unidentified
remark
W00439
The Lion Rock Institute
W00440
W00441
W00442
W00443
W00444
W00445
W00446
Unidentified
Gregory Austin
Mr. Lam
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00447
Unidentified
W00448
W00449
W00450
W00451
W00452
W00453
W00454
W00455
W00456
W00457
W00458
W00459
W00460
W00461
W00462
W00463
W00464
W00465
W00466
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00467
Unidentified
W00468
W00469
Unidentified
Unidentified
A6-index-30
-Treated as the same submission as
E00062
-------Submission with meaningless
content
-------------------Support / quote the views of
submission no. E00050
---
submission
number
W00470
Herman
originator
remark
W00471
Unidentified
W00472
W00473
W00474
W00475
W00476
W00477
W00478
W00479
W00480
W00481
W00482
W00483
W00484
W00485
W00486
W00487
W00488
W00489
W00490
W00491
W00492
W00493
W00494
W00495
W00496
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
LH Chung
Unidentified
Unidentified
梁漪婷，劉晉熙
連海瞳，黃逸軒
李美雪，黃樂峰
許妙鴻，黎健霈
黃政豐，童慧琳
麥紫諾，蔡嘉晴
吳嘉琪，洪家俊
黎加華，謝曉琳
law man ying, leung yat ho
林澆嵐，張晞彤
黃浩文，區愷彤
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00497
Unidentified
W00498
W00499
W00500
W00501
W00502
蕭偉琦，楊東鵬
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Requested to remain
A6-index-31
-Submission with meaningless
content
-------------------------Treated as the same submission as
W00496
------
submission
number
originator
W00503
anonymous
曾憲林
W00504
Unidentified
W00505
W00506
W00507
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00508
Unidentified
W00509
W00510
W00511
W00512
W00513
W00514
W00515
W00516
李念祖，董瀟
王梓禧，陳海霖
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00517
Unidentified
W00518
W00519
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00520
Unidentified
W00521
W00522
W00523
W00524
W00525
W00526
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00527
Unidentified
W00528
Unidentified
W00529
Unidentified
remark
-Submission with meaningless
content
---Submission with meaningless
content
--------Treated as the same submission as
W00516
--Treated as the same submission as
W00519
------Treated as the same submission as
W00526
Treated as the same submission as
W00526
Treated as the same submission as
W00526
A6-index-32
submission
number
W00530
W00531
W00532
W00533
W00534
W00535
W00536
W00537
W00538
W00539
W00540
W00541
W00542
originator
remark
Unidentified
朱詠茵,梁靜娜
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
W00543
Unidentified
W00544
W00545
W00546
W00547
W00548
W00549
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Robinson Place Management
Office
W00550
W00551
Unidentified
W00552
W00553
W00554
W00555
Unidentified
Unidentified
王潔瑩
Unidentified
-------------Treated as the same submission as
E00225
-------Submission with meaningless
content
-----
Notes:
Note 1: Identical to submission no. E00070
Note 2: Treated as the same submission as W00028
A6-index-33