It is difficult to limit the traffic flow levy with a progressive price increase. Can it be started from an "astronomical price"?

The Legislative Council Panel on Transport discussed the congestion levy for cross-harbour tunnels last Friday (June 17).

As expected, there was no progress in the meeting, as officials aimed to listen to MPs' views on principle, the government did not collect travel data and analysis until the second half of the year, and consulted the public in the fourth quarter. There is no plan in hand, and MPs cannot comment on whether the levy is feasible, As a result, they only concentrated on criticizing the government for changing its name, and they believed that the congestion levy was tantamount to an increase in fees.

Only Lu Chung-hsiung's proposal to limit the movement was more radical, and the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Chen Fan, responded that it should be handled with care.

The effect of traffic restriction can be discussed, but it is certain that it is difficult to limit the traffic flow by means of incremental fare increase alone, and the relief of traffic congestion cannot be lenient.

The government's three-tunnel diversion plan, which even the pro-establishment camps dare not support, has been accused of clumsy handling.

(file picture)

Too many private cars are the main cause of traffic jams. In addition to public transport passengers, there are also logistics, tourism and ambulance services. No matter how good the transport infrastructure is, the congestion will be discounted.

When private car owners would rather be stuck in traffic than abandon their driving, the government must intervene to reduce public nuisances.

Furthermore, the Government knows that the growth rate of roads has slowed down two decades ago, and that the average vehicle speed has dropped in the past ten years. It should control the growth of private cars.

The benefit of regulating traffic flow with economic incentives is that drivers bear the social and environmental costs.

To judge the effectiveness, the government has to come up with a levy plan, but we can still imagine a levy arrangement.

The government stated in the document that the goal of the levy is to "relieve road traffic congestion". The illustration also shows that the tunnel is still congested during peak hours after the levy, but the degree of congestion is reduced and the congestion period is dispersed, that is, it does not pursue unobstructed traffic.

During peak hours in the second half of last year, the traffic flow of the CHT was still 50% overloaded, that of the East Tunnel was 40%, and although the West Tunnel was not overloaded, the traffic capacity reached 98%. It is believed that the load of the three tunnels will increase after the epidemic.

Then, the price of the congestion levy will be how many drivers abandon driving under what charge, thereby reducing the traffic flow in the three tunnels.

In the early stage of implementation, the peak hour fee can be charged at a high price. For example, the current price of the West Tunnel is 75 yuan for the three tunnels...

For details, please read "Hong Kong 01" Electronic Weekly Issue No. 322 (June 20, 2022) "

Other exclusive selections from

When "Small Government" Meets "Big Society" - Is Hong Kong's Community Organization Weak?

Parliamentarians bravely speak out to defend the deliberation power of the restriction order, the government ignores the difficulty of parliament to achieve good governance and good governance

Equal emphasis on economic and administrative measures to reduce congestion

Inquiring about the Henan Red Code Civil Defence Incident: Power cannot be willful

Is the French parliamentary election a radical change or a flash in the pan?

Tao Dong: The global economy is in a "year of dislocation", and both China and the United States are facing challenges

Google ordered engineers to furlough controversy AI LaMDA has self-feeling?