New Post: Replacing old buses, rather than route rationalization, is the key to cleaning up roadside emissions

CAN attended Friday’s Legco meeting between the Environmental and Transport Panels regarding the Transport Department’s proposal to rationalize bus routes in order to reduce air pollution. The objective of Friday’s meeting was to permit LegCo members to air their views on the proposal.

Here’s a recap of what was said by the 11 LegCo members who spoke today:

Every LegCo member with the exception of Miriam Lau (Transport Constituency) made the point that it was unacceptable for service and routes to be cut unless bus passengers were given SIGNIFICANT incentives to accept the resulting inconvenience. By “significant”, Kam Na Wai cited an example which suggested that an average fare concession of 25% would be reasonable if a bus rider was forced to make a transfer and wait an additional 15 minutes because of changes resulting from rationalization. By the same reasoning, any fare increase would be “totally unacceptable”, said Wong Kwok-Hing. The plight of the grassroots bus passenger was underscored by Wong and Andrew Cheng Kar-Foo. The former pointed out that these bus riders, who customarily spend hours every day commuting, were loath to give up point-to-point service because it would deprive them of, say, their ability to nap during the trip.

Considering the uncertain benefits and checkered results of the last set of rationalizations which took place from 2004-2009, Kam Na Wai pointed out that we should not overemphasize the gains to be made through rationalization. Rather, we should keep our eye firmly on the more effective method of reducing air pollution, early replacement of old buses.

As expected, several LegCo members emphasized the crucial importance of getting District Councils on board in advance of suggesting route or service reductions. Since the 1990s, District Councils have been the single greatest obstacle to bus route rationalization. In keeping with their raison d’etre, DCs fiercely protect the interests of their constituents. However as Cyd Ho Sau-lan pointed out, reductions should not be across the board but more finely tuned, with different districts requiring different approaches at different hours of the day. For that matter, Albert Chan Wai-Yip criticized the Government for not doing its homework, blasting the customary DC briefing paper on route rationalization as hopelessly inadequate because it fails to detail the specific proposals for each district. In an interesting twist of the argument, which reflects her base of support (i.e., the bus companies), Miriam Lau of the Transport Constituency said it would be good if districts tried to compete against each other for environmental benefits based on differential rationalization plans. Presumably, the implication of her suggestion (or, rather, hope) was that District Councillors might be motivated to approve greater cuts in service if they could show constituents that their district had netted more environmental benefits than other districts. Lau is LegCo’s greatest champion of rationalization, of course, since unnecessary excess bus capacity is economically inefficient for bus companies. “We have been fighting for greater efficiency for ten years,” she declared.

In contrast to Lau’s comments championing the cause of the bus companies, Gary Chan Hak-Kan asked, “Why is it the public who is always asked to pay? Why aren’t the bus companies being asked to pay?” Similarly, Cyd Ho commented, “The Transport Department’s LegCo paper seems like it’s been written by the bus companies.”

Well, to be perfectly honest, YES, it DOES seem that way! By the way, here is the actual paper, http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr09-10/english/panels/ea/papers/eatp0122cb1-916-1-e.pdf

Since the issue of bus route rationalization is arguably THE most controversial measure in the Government’s proposed package of 19 air pollution abatement measures, it is crucial to state CAN’s position clearly:

First, let’s not lose the forest for the trees: Kam Na Wai was totally correct to point out that the Government’s last rationalization effort was "unsuccessful". Thus, it remains imperative to clean up the bus fleet through the mandatory early replacement of buses. (At the close of the meeting, the Chairman of the Environment Panel requested more information about the exact environmental benefits of phasing out the oldest, most polluting buses. The Transport Department and EPD are slated to report back in May 2010. At that time, the two departments will also submit detailed proposals for each district, providing full information about affected routes, costs, suggested concessions and environmental benefits.) Bus route rationalization APPEARS to be the lowest hanging fruit, because it doesn’t require bus companies to incur capital investments, but, based on past experience, it’s obvious that bus route rationalization is arduous and uncertain. At best, rationalization, even if gets done within 5 years, will net marginal benefits.

Next, we agree that the bus rider – ESPECIALLY the grassroots bus rider – must NOT be asked to bear the price of rationalization through higher bus fares. Remember, air pollution is a social justice issue, with the adverse health impacts of air pollution falling disproportionately on the members of society who can least afford medical care or relocation already. Small increases in bus fares for this group can have dramatic, adverse consequences on their livelihood. Moreover, it is true that this bus rider is already penalized by having to spend hours per day commuting. Grassroots bus riders SHOULD be fairly compensated through concessionary fares or free bus service for accepting the inconvenience of rationalization. A fair concession would be something along the lines mentioned by Kam Na Wai, 15-25%.

At the same time, we do support the Transport Department’s rationalization of routes duplicative of railway service and routes in the most highly trafficked areas.

At the end of the day, CAN will focus its efforts on those measures which will result in the most health benefit to the public. Thus, we will continue to strongly emphasize early replacement of old buses over bus route rationalization. While we do support a reduction in buses on those corridors blighted with the most roadside emissions, we consider widespread rationalization to be somewhat beside the point. If confronted with the choice, we would be willing to dispense with rationalization entirely if we could have cleaner buses on Hong Kong’s roads. We would make that choice any day. And we continue to believe that this is the RIGHT and best choice for the Hong Kong people.

Below is a list of the LegCo members who spoke at Friday’s meeting. Where they made some interesting additional remarks, I included them next to their name:

Name: WONG Kwok-hing
Functional/Geographic: NT West
Political affiliation: FTU
Rationalization resulting in ANY increase of fares will not be tolerated; it will be impossible to "steamroll" DCs on this.

Name: Andrew CHENG Kar-foo
Functional/Geographic: NT East
Political affiliation: Democratic Party
A long time proponent of sectional fares -- fares payable according to distance/stops -- he talked about why especially now they would prevent wasted bus capacity.

Name: KAM Nai-wai
Functional/Geographic: HK Island
Political affiliation: Democratic Party

Name: LI Fung-ying
Functional/Geographic: Labour
Political affiliation: HKFLU
What about bus drivers? During the last round of rationalization, 300 buses (and jobs) were lost. Any rationalization plan must study the consequences on the labor force.

Name: WONG Yung-kan
Functional/Geographic: Agriculture and Fisheries
Political affiliation: DAB
She made the point that, as more and more people move to the New Territories, there will be more, not less, demand for point-to-point service. It is the vehicles which are the problem, rather than the service. (We agree, of course!)

Name: Miriam LAU Kin-yee
Functional/Geographic: Transport
Political affiliation: Liberal Party
Besides her remarks above, she repeatedly emphasized the importance of knowing the specific environmental benefits to each district.

Name: CHAN Hak-kan
Functional/Geographic: NT East
Political affiliation: DAB
He brought up examples of successful Public Transport Interchange schemes, which illustrated how to successfully encourage hub & spoke transfers. The best way, free bus service on the "spoke", to the final destination, after transfer at the hub.

Name: Cyd HO Sau-lan
Functional/Geographic: HK Isalnd
Political affiliation: Civic Act-up
In the proposal, no thought has been given to the issue of parking: if buses' frequency is cut, that means a lot of them will have to wait somewhere between trips. That requires an allocation of public space, which the TD hasn't factored into their plan.

Name: CHAN Kin-por
Functional/Geographic: Insurance
Political affiliation: NA
Perhaps minibuses can replace service where routes truncated.

Name: Albert CHAN Wai-yip
Functional/Geographic: NT West
Political affiliation: League of Social Democrats

Name: IP Wai-ming
Functional/Geographic: Labour
Political affiliation: HKFTU
"Let's not forget the drivers."

__________________
CAN is the #1 resource for health, news, policy about air pollution with a special focus on Hong Kong policy and events.

Learn more about air pollution: watch and SHARE this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw

Please sign the Petition for Clean Air, http://hongkongcan.org/eng/

FOLLOW US
http://twitter.com/cleanairnetwork
http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/

JOIN US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork