Unresolvable congestion crisis ahead

Congestion crisis

“We need a clamp down on vehicles entering and using Hong Kong’s roads. We need park’n’ride facilities with convenient connections. We need to remind politicians that it is a win when these new border crossings are underused.”

Quota is a simple concept in capacity planning – what capacity do you need to handle a certain quota, and can you limit the quota to ensure you don’t run out of capacity. A simple example. To reach the Sai Kung Country Park you can use the bus or private car. Based on the bus routes and their frequency you can calculate the number of passengers, and you can make an assumption for people arriving by private cars based on the number of car parking spaces and vehicle permits available. Next you can ask whether we have the capacity to handle that number of people. 

Let’s look at this for Hong Kong as a whole. We used to have one rail, and a few road crossings with the mainland. Now we have two rail lines and six road crossings. Although there are fewer goods vehicles and more private cars and coaches, our average daily vehicular traffic across the boundary has been steady at about 40,000 crossings for decades. But now with the opening of the Hong Kong- Zhuhai-Macau Bridge and soon the Liantang- Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Crossing, we will be able to handle over 220,000 daily trips. And with many “white elephant” accusations flying around the pressure is on for government to get as many vehicles to use these facilities as possible. In fact, C. Y. Leung at a recent Urban Land Institute conference explained how he is pushing the Guangdong province to allow all Hong Kong vehicles to enter. And surely, this will be met with requests for  reciprocal rights.

In 2005 we pushed for a rail bridge. After funding for the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge without rail was approved, we asked government to reserve land for park’n’ride facilities. We pointed out that after Monaco, Hong Kong has the highest density of vehicles per kilometre road, and we noted the existing problems with tour coaches obstructing roads in our core urban areas. This was denied as it was deemed to defeat the purpose of the new road crossings. With the opening of the bridge and after it was found that Tung Chung was overrun by tourists, government relaxed restrictions for some 3,300 tour buses to bypass Tung Chung and to divert them to urban areas such as Tsim Sha Tsui, Mong Kok and Causeway Bay instead. Let’s be clear, Hong Kong has very few opportunities to increase road length in these areas. Or even in the new towns.

The increase in road length over the last 10 years has primarily been new roads in the New Territories which make it even more convenient for cars to reach the core urban areas. With the car journey speeds on some major traffic corridors during weekday morning peak hours already down to, or even lower than 10km/h, the oncoming traffic volume should be a concern for all. But government is blind to this. We explained that the increase in traffic quota with a new tunnel from the ‘Lantau Tomorrow Vision’ island will bring traffic on Hong Kong island to a standstill. The response was not to worry because no additional car parking would be made available. Since then they have revealed a new study into addressing the shortfall in parking. To cope with influx of vehicles there are also plans to start congestion charging - practically making roads available to the rich only. The government said we were wrong again, explaining that poor people will win as their bus will be able to move faster. We leave it to readers to judge the rationale. 

Not only will there be more vehicles and day tourism from across the boundary, the utility value of owning a private vehicle is going up significantly for residents. There was little use owning a car living in Tsim Sha Tsui for making trips to Hong Kong Island. However, if that vehicle can be used to traipse around the ‘Greater Bay Area’, more people will be compelled to own one. This comes on top of rising personal wealth and dispersed growth in the NT (and cramped conditions during peak hours on buses and MTR) which are already pushing car ownership. What to do? We need a clamp down on vehicles entering and using Hong Kong’s roads. We need park’n’ride facilities with convenient connections, and we need to mandate their use. Moreover, we need to remind politicians on both sides of the aisle that it is a win when these new border crossings are underused.

(Article published in Southside Magazine - December 2018 issue)

車滿為患 如何自處 

進行地方盛載能力的評估及規劃時，我們會考慮一個非常簡單的概念——限額（Quota），如應付某一限額所需的盛載能力、能否約束限額以確保不超過盛載能力等。舉個例，要前往西貢郊野公園，你可選擇駕駛私家車或乘搭巴士。按巴士路線組合及其班次密度，我們可以計算出訪客數量；而根據泊位以及發出的通行証數目，我們亦可估算進入郊野公園的汽車數量。再對比估算數字，我們就可得知是否有足夠盛載能力應付前往郊野公園的數量。

縱觀香港，過去我們只有一條跨境鐵路及數個關口；時至今天鐵路及關口的數量已分別增至兩個及六個。儘管貨櫃車數量減少，換上更多私家車及旅遊巴，但在過去10年，跨境汽車的平均流量始終維持在每日約4萬架次。然而，港珠澳大橋及即將啟用的蓮塘口岸預計卻會將汽車流量推至每日22萬架次，加上面對市民大白象的指責，政府在壓力下將盡可行辦法提升以上設施的使用率。事實上，梁振英近日在城市土地學會的研討會中，就解釋他如何遊說廣東省政府准許所有香港車輛進入境內，當然，這個要求需要香港雙向地開放關口。

2005年，我們要求將港珠澳大橋興建為一條行車鐵路並用的天橋。當港珠澳大橋撥款方案沒有包括鐵路時，我們則要求政府預留土地作汽車泊位以方便連接本地大型公共運輸。香港是繼摩洛哥後每公里道路汽車密度最高的地方，而現有大量的旅遊巴更會令道路堵塞問題進一步惡化。然而，以上考量卻被一句「違背新建道路原意」輕描淡寫的否定去。

大橋開通伊始，東涌遊客泛濫，政府立馬限制，讓3,300架旅遊巴途經東涌疏導人流至尖沙咀、旺角、銅鑼灣等市區。話說在前頭：香港延長這些地區以至新市鎮道路的空間絕無僅有。即使在新市鎮，過去10年新建道路的目的都不過是為方便車輛進入核心市區地帶。考慮到閒日早上繁忙時間，平均車速往往因道路堵塞維持在時速 10 公里以下，這些外來入境的交通流量絕對值得我們認真審視。

但政府卻對此視而不見。

我們已向政府提出「明日大嶼」計劃中的新隧道，將令香港島的交通堵塞問題雪上加霜，所得回應卻是「我們過慮了」。政府表示由於港島缺乏泊位，加建隧道將不會增加流量，諷刺的是相關部門卻同時公布將就汽車泊位不足進行研究；為了遏止車輛湧入堵塞區域，政府亦正研究道路收費，卻變相令進入核心地區變成有錢人的特權。政府同樣否定我們的觀點，認為道路收費下巴士將行得更快，普羅市民將成最大贏家。話說到此，講多無謂，就讓各位放長雙眼看誰是誰非。

除跨境車輛數量大增，市民買車的意欲亦會大大提升。對居住尖沙咀往來港島上班的人，駕駛車輛的作用不大。但如果能自駕經港珠澳大橋往來「大灣區」，私家車的作用則相當明顯。加上新界地區整體社會財富增加，繁忙時候大型交通工具的堵擁情況，將有更多市民選擇購買汽車作為代步工具。

解決方法？我們需要減少進入香港路面的車輛數目，並在公共交通接駁處增加泊位，加強私家車與公共運輸的連接。此外，亦要提醒各位抱持正反立場的政客，唯有適當使用新落成道路基建，香港才可獲得最大效益。