Untitled - Civic Exchange

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT IN HONG KONG: DIRECTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES
largely through fares, coupled with a major cross-subsidy to bus companies through free provision of road
infrastructure, means that bus travel tends to be considerably less expensive and much more readily
available to riders than travel by rail. As more journeys occur by road than rail, the external costs for
everyone in Hong Kong are higher as the extra buses add to the already serious congestion, air pollution,
and noise.
The Third Comprehensive Transport Study (CTS3) cites a 1990 White Paper on Transport Policy regarding
the need to "minimize wasteful competition." 69 Yet while the Transport Bureau (and its predecessor within
the colonial government) have been aware of this problem for over a decade, little has actually been done
by the HKSAR government to better coordinate bus and rail service.
While more than one out of every four passengers on the MTR arrives at the station by bus, 70 this feed-in
is almost entirely haphazard. There is very little coordinated bus service to rail stations. In contrast, in eight
of the 13 systems in the urban rail systems survey, rail-bus coordination is strongly encouraged or
facilitated by the government. While CTS3 noted the need for improved bus-rail coordination, specific
measures to promote such coordination, whether in the form of regulations or incentives, were not even
mentioned. 71
One way to reduce the likelihood of wasteful competition in new development areas is to create a "hub and
spoke" transport system in which rail stations serve as transport "hubs" and feeder buses serve as the
"spokes" leading into rail "hubs." 72 This would limit bus-rail competition for longer journeys. In a similar
but less extensive manner, "hub and spoke" systems could also be introduced gradually in Hong Kong's
older urban areas. 73
CTS3 does mention the need for more park and ride facilities at rail stations. 74 Yet in Hong Kong, land
shortages mean that providing such facilities would be expensive, while the commercial returns to the rail
provider would be modest at best. As with many of the benefits of rail, a shift away from private car use
creates important external benefits to Hong Kong, but the rail provider is able to capture only a modest
internal financial benefit. Furthermore, CTS3 lacks any recommendations for some form of governmentprovided
incentive with regard to park and ride facilities.
Indeed, a number of recent Transport Department assessments and publications, including CTS3, contain
serious flaws. This raises questions about the quality of the assessment process, an issue that is discussed
further in Chapter 7. The basic problem is not the technical competence of the consultants, but rather the
restricted scope of their work. Basically, it appears that the options reviewed by consultants and/or what
26
69 Transport Department (1999), Third Comprehensive Transport Study: Technical Report.
70 Barron, B., Ng, S., and Kwok, V. (2001), Financing Urban Passenger Rail: An International Survey.
71 Transport Department (1999), Third Comprehensive Transport Study: Final Report, Technical Report and
Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment.
72 This was a major recommendation of the report by D. Rooks and D. Smaling (2002), Sustainable Transport in
Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Civic Exchange & the Asia Foundation.
73 As a "hub and spoke" system would reduce the number of transport modes offering service between two points,
it would limit modal choice for some passengers. However, the benefits associated with a more streamlined and
better-coordinated transport system, including reduced congestion, air pollution, and noise, indicate that greater
modal choice comes at a high cost.
74
Transport Department (1999), Third Comprehensive Transport Study: Technical Report.