Post on 14-Aug-2020
Present:
AIR QUALITY OBJECTIVES (AQO) REVIEW WORKING GROUP
ROAD TRANSPORTATION SUB-GROUP
Digest of the 8th Meeting
held on 16 May 2017 (Tuesday) at 2:30pm
in Conference Room, 33/F, Revenue Tower,
5 Gloucester Road, Wanchai
Mrs. CHEUNG CHIU Hoi Yue, Deputy Director of Environmental
Alice, JP Protection (3) (Vice-chairperson),
Environmental Protection
Department
Mr. Paul LI
Mr. Aaron NG
Mr. Madison TANG
Mr. Stanley CHAING
Mr. Matthew WONG
Dr. Ringo LEE
Dr. HUNG Wing Tat
Ms. Suzanne Kit Yi CHEUNG
Mr. Dave HO Principal Environmental Protection
Officer (Mobile Source), Environmental
Protection Department
Mr. LI Yeuk Yue, Tony Principal Assistant Secretary for
Transport & Housing (Transport)2,
Transport and Housing Bureau
Ms. PANG Oi Ling, Irene Chief Assistant Secretary (Works) 3,
Development Bureau
Ms. Rachel KWAN Assistant Commissioner (Bus and
Railway), Transport Department
Mr. TSE Chun Tat Chief Engineer/ Land Works, Civil
Engineering and Development
Department
Mr. WONG Wai Yin, Patrick Senior Town Planner/Strategic Planning
1, Planning Department
Mr. FUNG Kin Yi Senior Engineer/Energy Efficiency A3,
Electrical and Mechanical Services
Department
1
Absent with Apologies:
Ms. Christine LOH Under Secretary for the Environment
(Chairperson), Environment Bureau
Mr. Roger LEE
Mr. LING Chi Keung
Mr. SO Sai Hung
Ir Dr. David HO
Mr. TUNG Ching Leung
Mr. Daniel NG
Ir FUNG Man Keung
Hon CHAN Choi Hi
Hon KWAN Sau Ling
Mr. Patrick FUNG
Mr. Evan AUYANG
In Attendance:
Ms. HO Wing Kam, Josephine Acting Senior Environmental Protection
Officer (Air Policy) 1, Environmental
Protection Department
Mr. IP Ho Yin, Nelson Acting Senior Environmental Protection
Officer (Mobile Source) 3,
Environmental Protection Department
Mr. CHEN Hao Ting, Ambrose Environmental Protection Officer
(Mobile Source) 31, Environmental
Protection Department
Mr. SHEK Wing Kei Environmental Protection Officer
(Mobile Source) 34, Environmental
Protection Department
Professor FUNG Chi Hung, Consultant’s representative, HKUST Jimmy
Mr. Karl AN Consultant’s representative, AECOM
Asia Company Limited
Chairperson’s Remarks 1. The Vice-chairperson welcomed members to the eighth meeting of the
Road Transportation Sub-group.
Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of the amended digest of the sixth meeting
2. The Secretariat said that the digest of the sixth meeting had been amended
according to members’ proposals. The Environmental Protection
Department (EPD) briefed members on the amendments. The amended
digest of the sixth meeting was confirmed.
2
Agenda Item 2: Confirmation of the amended digest of the seventh
meeting
3. The digest of the seventh meeting of the Sub-group held on 30 March 2017
was confirmed.
Agenda Item 3: Confirmation of revised assessment on the practicability to
implement the proposed measure D2
4. The Chairperson advised members that the Secretariat and relevant
departments had revised the assessment of Measure D2 based on members’ comments after the sixth and seventh meetings. The Chairperson invited
members to discuss and confirm the assessment. After detailed discussion
(see Annex 1), members confirmed the revised assessment on the
practicability to implement Measure D2.
Agenda Item 4: Discussion on the assessments on the practicability to
implement the proposed measures G2, G3 and measures H2, H3, H4, H7 &
H8
5. The Transport and Housing Bureau (THB) briefed members on the
assessments of “Measure G2 - Enhance enforcement against illegal
parking” and “Measure G3 - Review on-street metered parking fees”. After
detailed discussion, members confirmed the assessments of Measures G2
and G3. The Sub-group’s conclusions are summarised at Annex 1.
6. THB briefed members on the assessment of “Measure H4 - Address the
personal and operational needs of heavy vehicle drivers, such as provision
of parking space and arrangement of meal and rest breaks at the Kwai
Chung Container Terminals area, so as to reduce air pollution arising from
idling engines”. After detailed discussion, members confirmed the
assessment of Measure H4. The Sub-group’s conclusions are summarised
at Annex 1.
7. EPD briefed members on the assessments of “Measure H2 - Set out
objectives/policies to support the use of cleaner vehicle fuels”, “Measure
H3 - Extend the coverage areas of the existing low emission zones and its
restriction to other vehicle types”, “Measure H7 - Provide funding support
to innovative projects initiated by the public that can alleviate traffic
congestion and improve air quality” and “Measure H8 - Raise public
awareness on environmental protection, promote green living and
encourage the public to use public transport systems as well as low
emission transportation options”. After detailed discussion, members
confirmed the assessments. The Sub-group’s conclusions are summarised at
Annex 1.
3
Agenda Item 5: Discussion on key considerations for the implementation of
proposed measures G1, H1, H5 & H6
8. THB and EPD briefed members on the background information and policy
directions relating to “Measure G1 - Raise the first registration tax of highly
polluting vehicles as well as private cars and impose higher licence fees for
highly polluting vehicles to manage the growth of vehicles” to facilitate
members’ discussion and evaluation of the proposed measure. Some
members considered that the measures should not target at private cars and
suggested to amend the title of Measure G1 to “Raise the first registration
tax of highly polluting vehicles and impose higher licence fees for highly
polluting vehicles to manage the growth of vehicles”. Members discussed
in detail the key considerations of this measure. Members’ comments are summarised at Annex 2.
9. EPD and the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department briefed
members on the background information and policy directions relating to
“Measure H1 - Provide information on the energy efficiency, emission
performance and noise level of vehicles, etc. to facilitate the public to make
a more environmentally-friendly choice” to facilitate members’ discussion and evaluation of the proposed measure.
10. THB briefed members on the background information and policy directions
relating to “Measure H5–Set up priority lanes for public vehicles” to
facilitate members’ discussion and evaluation of the proposed measure. Some members suggested amending the title of the measure to “Set up a
continuous and effective priority road network for public vehicles”. The
Sub-group agreed to the amendment.
11. The Transport Department briefed members on the background information
and policy directions relating to “Measure H6–Review the policy on
replacement of franchised buses” to facilitate members’ discussion and evaluation of the proposed measure.
12. Members discussed in detail the key considerations for Measures H1, H5
and H6. Members’ comments are summarised at Annex 3.
13. The Administration said that the Secretariat and relevant departments would
conduct a feasibility analysis on the proposed measures under the above
items after the meeting according to the comments made by members.
Assessment results would be prepared and distributed to members by
e-mail for information and confirmation. Members could provide their
comments on the assessments to the Secretariat. [Post meeting note: the
Secretariat had conducted a feasibility study and prepared assessment
4
results for measures G1, H1, H5 and H6 after the 8th
meeting, and provided
to the Subgroup members for reference and confirmation through e-mail on
28 July 2017. Member’s comments are summarised in Annexes 2 and 3.]
Agenda Item 6: Any other business
14. Some members suggested amending the title of “Measure A1 - Review the
tunnel toll policy and level (e.g. the Government to buy back the tunnels, to
launch tunnel toll subsidy pilot scheme)” to “Review the tunnel toll policy
and level to alleviate traffic congestion, thereby reducing the emissions
caused by congestion at the tunnels” with the content of evaluation
remained unchanged. The Sub-group confirmed the amendment.
15. The Chairperson said that this was the last meeting of the Road
Transportation Sub-group and thanked members for their contributions
during the discussions. The Chairperson reminded members that the 3rd
meeting of the AQO Review Working Group would be held on 15 June
2017 and invited them to attend the meeting.
Agenda Item 7: Date of the next meeting
16. This was the last meeting of the Road Transportation Sub-group.
17. The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
5
Annex 1
Members’ comments on the assessment results of measure D2, G and H
Measure Members’ Comments and Conclusion upon
Discussion
D2. Electric vehicles
pilot schemes -
switching the
existing vehicle
fleet of selected
routes to electric
vehicles
Members’ Comments Members suggested changing the conclusion from
“… for conducting trials with an aim to replace
the current franchised buses” to “…for conducting
trials with a hope to replace the current franchised
buses”.
Conclusion:
Practicability for implementation: Long Term
[Post-meeting note: the relevant departments had
further amendments on the conclusion of Measure D2.
The revision version is as follows. The Secretariat
had provided the revision to members for reference
and confirmation through e-mail.]
The Sub-group noted that the trial of 36 single-deck
electric buses fully funded by EPD is in progress to
assess the reliability of buses, batteries,
supercapacitors and charging facilities; maintenance
requirements; and economic feasibility, etc. for
ascertaining their suitability for use as franchised
buses in Hong Kong. If the trial results are
satisfactory, the Government will encourage
franchised bus companies to use electric buses on a
wider scale, taking into account the affordability of
franchised bus companies and passengers. The
Sub-group suggested the Government partner with bus
operators to help identify appropriate models which
might be potentially suitable for the local environment
for trial on a wider scale in the longer term. More
proactive and positive measures to support the
installation of ancillary facilities should also be
explored.
G2. Enhance
enforcement
Members’ Comments
Members hoped that the relevant policies
6
Measure Members’ Comments and Conclusion upon
Discussion
against illegal
parking
implemented by the Government should be
targeted to solve the traffic congestion problem
caused by illegal parking in rush hours (e.g.
against black spots of illegal parking, such as
Causeway Bay, Tsim Sha Tsui and Central).
Members also indicated that the transport trade
still has reservations about increasing the fine for
illegal parking.
Conclusion:
Practicability for implementation: Short Term
[Post-meeting note: the relevant departments had
further amendments on the conclusion of Measure G2.
The revision version is as follows. The Secretariat
had provided the revision to members for reference
and confirmation through e-mail.]
The Police will continue to step up enforcement
against illegal parking as well as other traffic problems
at the district level, and often conduct territory-wide
enforcement programme to tackle illegal parking.
G3. Review on-street
metered parking
fees
Members’ Comments No comments.
Conclusion:
Practicability for implementation: Short Term
The Sub-group confirmed the assessment. Members
in general agreed that the charges for metered parking
spaces at present are very low, and there is room for
increasing the charges in order to reduce drivers
circling around streets waiting for parking spaces
which worsen traffic congestion at some of the roads.
However, members acknowledged that the proposed
measure would induce increase of pricing in some
private carparks.
H2. Set out Members’ Comments
objectives/policies No comments.
to support the use
of cleaner vehicle Conclusion:
Practicability for implementation: Others fuels
The Sub-group confirmed the assessment. The
7
Measure Members’ Comments and Conclusion upon
Discussion
Government will continue with its multipronged
approach in reducing tailpipe emissions from motor
vehicles and continue monitoring relevant
international developments so as to adopt the most
stringent motor vehicle fuel standards and introduce
cleaner fuels when they become practicable for Hong
Kong.
H3. Extend the
coverage areas of
the existing low
emission zones
and their
restriction to other
vehicle types
Members’ Comments
No comments.
Conclusion:
Practicability for implementation: Others
The Sub-group confirmed the assessment. A number
of effective measures have been put in place to reduce
emissions from the entire vehicle fleet in the whole
territory. Such measures are more effective in
improving roadside air quality than extending the
coverage of the low emission zones or setting up
“ultra-low emission zones”. The Government will
continue the multipronged approach and consider the
latest technological developments in choosing the
most effective measures when formulating policies for
further improvement of roadside air quality.
H4. Address the
personal and
operational needs
of heavy vehicle
drivers, such as
provision of
parking space and
arrangement of
meal and rest
breaks at the Kwai
Chung Container
Terminals area, so
as to reduce air
pollution arising
from idling
engines
Members’ Comments
No comments.
Conclusion:
Practicability for implementation: Medium Term
The Sub-group confirmed the assessment. Members
acknowledged the work undertaken by the
Government on increasing commercial vehicle
parking spaces and recommended the Government to
step up the work in this area so as to provide more
commercial vehicle parking spaces for long term and
short term parking.
Other relevant views:
Members acknowledged the relevant work of THB.
Members hoped that the Government would provide
more parking spaces and at the same time the
enforcement departments should step up efforts to
8
Measure Members’ Comments and Conclusion upon
Discussion
combat illegal parking. Members also hoped that the
Government could formulate policies to accord
priority to tackle the shortage of commercial vehicle
parking spaces. The Government responded that it
would convey the concerns to the relevant
departments.
H7. Provide funding to Members’ Comments
support District No comments.
Councils for
implementing air Conclusion:
Practicability for implementation: Others quality
The Sub-group confirmed the assessment. The improvement Government will need considerable resources to projects administer a public fund in order to ensure that public
money is used prudently. Public members who
would like to conduct innovative projects at district
level that can help improve air quality can apply for
funding under the Environment and Conservation
Fund. As such, there is no strong justification to set up
the proposed funding to subsidise air quality
improvement projects at district level.
H8. Raise public Members’ Comments:
awareness on No comments.
environmental
protection, Conclusion:
Practicability for implementation: Short Term promote green
This measure has been implemented and is still living and ongoing. The Government will continue its efforts in encourage the promoting walking and cycling as well as encouraging public to use the use of public transport systems.
public transport
systems as well as
low emission
transportation
options.
9
Annex 2
Members’ views on the implementation of
measure G1 and their main considerations
[Post-meeting note: the relevant departments had further amendment after the
meeting on the title of Measure G1. The revision version is as follows.]
Measure G1 –Raise the first registration tax and annual licence fee of
more polluting vehicles, as well as to manage the growth of vehicles in
particular private cars.
Key Considerations Members’ Comments
1. Cost effectiveness Some members opined that private cars was
not the main cause of roadside air pollution
and considered that the increase in the number
of private cars was depending on population
growth and where new housing was built.
Some members reflected that the existing
roadside air pollution problem was originated
from the fact that development of new roads
was unable to cope with the growth of private
cars, resulting in traffic congestion and
unnecessary emissions from commercial
vehicles, buses, etc.
Some members said that it was technically
impossible to impose different licence fees for
different emission levels.
Some members said that the Government
could consider encouraging the public to
purchase more environmentally-friendly
vehicle models through financial incentives on
the basis of the emission levels of vehicles, or
increasing the fees of high-emission vehicles
so as to reduce roadside emissions.
THB responded that the Government accepted
a series of recommendations of the Transport
Advisory Committee (TAC), including
increasing the first registration tax and annual
licence fees, in order to alleviate the traffic
congestion. The Government is taking forward
progressively the recommendations. For
2. Public and
transport trade’s reaction
3. Implementation
timeframe
10
Key Considerations
4. Impact on the
freight transport
sector
Members’ Comments
developed areas, it is practically difficult to
build new roads due to limited land resources.
The Planning Department responded that
public transport and railway transport service
would play a dominant role in “Hong Kong
2030+”, but it is still necessary to build roads
in developing new strategic growth areas
taking into consideration the consultation
outcome. Further studies shall be required
when necessary.
Post-meeting note: The Secretariat had prepared
the assessment on the practicability for
implementation of the proposed measure G1 after
the 8th
meeting, which was sent to the Subgroup
members by email for reference and confirmation
on 28 July 2017. Member’s comments and conclusion are as follow:
Members’ Comments:
No comments.
Conclusion
Practicability for implementation: Short term
The Sub-group confirmed the assessment. On
managing the growth of vehicles (in particular
private cars), the members noted that the
Government is taking forward progressively the
recommendations of the TAC in the “Report on
Study of Road Traffic Congestion in Hong Kong”,
including recommendations for containing the
growth of private car fleet through increasing the
FRT and annual licence fee for private cars and
raising the “fuel levy” for diesel private cars. The members acknowledged that the implementation of
both fiscal and non-fiscal measures to control
private car growth needs the consensus and
supports of the community and Legislative Council
as legislative amendments are required.
As regards the control over highly polluting
vehicles, the Government has been implementing a
wide range of measures targeting high emitting
vehicles which include phasing out pre-Euro IV
11
Key Considerations Members’ Comments
diesel commercial vehicles (DCV), limiting the
service life of newly registered DCVs and vehicle
emission control programmes to identify highly
emitting vehicles and require them to fix their
problems and undergo vehicle emission tests, etc.
Therefore, vehicle owners and the transport trades
will object to the proposal of further raising the
licence fees and FRT for high emitting vehicles.
Moreover, some members pointed out that it would
be difficult to set the criteria for determining
licence fees based on emission levels. Therefore,
the proposed measure to impose higher licence fee
on more polluting vehicles is not practicable.
Managing the growth of vehicles (in particular
private cars) is a short-term measure. However, the
proposed measure to impose higher licence fees
and FRT on more polluting vehicles is not
practicable. The Government will continue to
implement the current control measures targeting
high emitting vehicles.
12
Annex 3
Members’ views on the implementation of measures H1, H5 and H6 and their main considerations
Measure H1 – Provide information on the energy efficiency, emission
performance and noise level of vehicles, etc. to facilitate the public to make
a more environmentally-friendly choice.
Key Considerations Members’ Comments
1. Cost
effectiveness,
trades reaction,
demand and
practicability
Members said that the measurement of energy
efficiency performance of vehicles was conducted
under the control environment at the laboratory.
There were discrepancies between the measurement
at the laboratory and the actual performance of
vehicles in daily driving.
Members pointed out that although different
standards were used by vehicle manufacturers in
different areas for measuring fuel consumption, the
Government might still consider providing such
information for public reference.
Members said that third party, e.g. the Consumer
Council, could be engaged to conduct comparison
of energy efficiency of vehicles.
EPD responded that since there were discrepancies
between the energy efficiency data obtained from
testing in laboratory and actual performance of
vehicles, and different standards were used in
different areas for measuring energy efficiency, the
data obtained could not be compared directly.
Moreover, vehicle dealers have been providing fuel
consumption data of light duty vehicles, including
private cars, upon potential buyer’s request.
Post Meeting Note: The Secretariat had prepared the
assessment on the practicability for implementation of
the proposed measure H1 after the 8th meeting, which
was sent to the Subgroup members by email for
comments and confirmation on 28 July 2017.
Member’s comments and conclusion are as follow:
Members’ Comments:
As the assessment said vehicle dealers did provide
2. Implementation
timeframe
13
Key Considerations Members’ Comments
energy consumption information to the purchasers, a
member expressed that from strategic point of view, the
government could step up and consider requiring the
vehicle dealers to publish such information on a
designated website. The member believed that the
Consumer Council is one of the suitable platforms.
Furthermore, the member urged the Government to
consider conducting a study to look into the practices in
other countries (e.g. Australia and EU), either
mandatory or voluntary, which have published vehicle
fuel consumption and noise level information.
The Government acknowledged the comments from the
member. However, currently there are no
internationally agreed standards on vehicle fuel
efficiency and the discrepancies between the fuel
efficiency figures of vehicles from vehicle dealers,
which are measured in a controlled laboratory
environment, and the actual performance of the vehicles
running on roads may mislead the public. As the
above two issues are still unresolved, the publication of
such figures is not considered appropriate at the
moment.]
Conclusion
Practicability for implementation: Others
The Sub-group confirmed the assessment. The
Government had stipulated the statutory standards of
vehicle exhaust emissions and noise emission. All
new vehicle models are required to comply with the
relevant standards. Also, vehicle dealers have been
providing fuel consumption figures of light duty
vehicles (design weight not more than 3.5 tonnes)
including private cars to potential purchasers upon
request. Since there are discrepancies between the
fuel efficiency figures from the laboratory with the
actual figures, while different regions using different
standards measuring energy efficiency, data collected
cannot be compared directly. Currently, there are no
internationally agreed standards on vehicle fuel
efficiency. EMSD will continue to follow closely the
development on testing and standards of vehicle fuel
efficiency in other countries.
14
Measure H5 – Set up a continuous and effective priority road network
for public vehicles.
Key Considerations Members’ Comments 1. Technical
feasibility
Members hoped that the Government could
consider setting up a continuous priority
network for public transport vehicles by linking
up existing intermittent bus-only lanes, so that
public transport vehicles could run more
smoothly and hence reducing emissions.
Members understood that the Government
would encounter difficulties in implementing
the measure, but they still hoped that the
Government would consider setting up a
continuous priority network for public
transport.
Members agreed that public transport vehicles
should be given priority to the use of road, so
as to attract more people to use public
transport. The proposed dedicated lanes
should cover all public transport vehicles (for
example, light buses and taxis). However,
some members opposed to the proposal of
letting taxis to use the dedicated lanes. They
considered that the priority network should be
set up for public transport vehicles with higher
passenger capacity (e.g. franchised buses).
The Transport Department (TD) said that due
to limited road resources, the aim of setting up
bus-only lanes was to attract the public to use
buses with higher passenger capacity as their
main transport mode, so as to utilise the limited
road space effectively. Thus, a smooth traffic
flow on the bus-only lanes should be ensured to
cope with the passenger carrying capacity
during peak hours.
2. Traffic condition
3. Public and Members reflected that buses changing lanes
transport trade’s across the bus-only lanes had caused traffic
reaction congestion.
Members reflected that the bus-only lanes in
some areas were too long that other road users
would need to use other driving lanes which
led to traffic congestion.
15
Key Considerations Members’ Comments 4. Implementation
timeframe
Members confirmed the evaluation.
Post Meeting Note: The Secretariat had prepared
the assessment on the practicability for
implementation of the proposed measure H5 after
the 8th
meeting, which was sent to the Subgroup
members by email for comments and confirmation
on 28 July 2018. Member’s comments and conclusion are found below:
Members’ Comments:
Some members pointed out that the conclusion on
assessment is not supported by evidences and the
adverse comments are not based on sound
scientific figures. The public transport dedicated
road network is being practiced in many overseas
cities including London and they yield substantial
benefit in terms of operational efficiency and fuel
and emission savings. Members suggested the
government to make reference to other leading
cities and to review the efficiency of the existing
bus-only lanes for making further improvement.
The Government acknowledged the comments
from members. Some members at the Sub-group
meeting opposed the idea of setting up public
transport dedicated road network. TD will keep
in view the need and feasibility of expanding the
bus priority measures as appropriate.
Conclusion:
Practicability for implementation: Others
The Sub-group confirmed the assessment. Given
the role of franchised buses as road-based mass
carriers, TD had already set up 25 kilometres of
bus-only lanes and 14 designated bus gates as at
March 2017. Initial proposals for designating
new bus-only lanes at various locations have also
been put forward in the report of the Public
Transport Strategy Study. TD will keep in view
the need and feasibility of expanding the bus
priority measures as appropriate.
The setting up of a priority road network for public
16
Key Considerations Members’ Comments vehicles may have huge adverse effect on the
effectiveness of the entire road network. Not only
that this measure may worsen traffic congestion,
the congestion may also extend beyond the starting
point of the priority road network, preventing
public transport vehicles from entering the priority
road network, and thus reducing the effectiveness
of the measure.
Moreover, the possible measure may affect the
current loading/unloading and picking up/setting
down activities, causing inconvenience to other
road users. In fact, some public vehicles may
even change lanes due to the blockage by buses
ahead which are picking up or setting off
passengers in the priority network. Therefore, the
feasibility of this possible measure is in doubt and
would cause significant impact on other road users.
This possible measure requires further detailed
study.
17
Measure H6 - Review the policy on replacement of franchised buses.
Key Considerations Members’ Comments
1. Operational and
financial
feasibility of
franchised bus
services
Members suggested shortening the 18-year age
limit for franchised buses to the same level as that
for non-franchised buses and diesel commercial
vehicles (i.e. 15 years). Some members
expressed that franchised buses should not be
compared to other commercial vehicles as the
Government is strictly regulating the franchised
bus companies as well as their maintenance
requirements.
The Transport Department responded that various
arrangements have been made to improve
emissions from franchised buses. Such
arrangements include compulsory replacement of
retired franchised buses with the latest models of
environmentally-friendly vehicles, and retrofitting
existing Euro II and III buses with selective
catalytic reduction devices.
Post Meeting Note: The Secretariat had prepared the
assessment on the practicability for implementation of
the proposed measure after the meeting, which was
sent to the Subgroup members by email for comments
and confirmation.
Members’ Comments:
No comments.
Conclusion:
Practicability for implementation: Others
The Subgroup confirmed the assessment results.
Franchised bus companies had pledged to deploy buses
under the age of 18 in providing franchised bus
services under normal circumstances. All Euro I
buses have already retired from services, while EPD
has been working with the franchised bus companies to
retrofit Euro II and Euro III buses with selective
catalytic reduction devices to reduce roadside
emissions from these buses. On the other hand,
further tightening the age limit of the franchised buses
might not be practicable as there could be substantial
2. Trades reaction
3. Public reaction
4. Operational cost
effectiveness
5. Implementation
timeframe
18
Key Considerations Members’ Comments
implications on the efficient operation of franchised
bus services. The higher cost arising from more
frequent replacement of vehicles would create pressure
for fare increase which might eventually affect the
basic fare level. In addition, it is not
environmentally-friendly to replace franchised buses
well before the end of their design life.
19