Bilingual Editorial: Distribution of traffic among the three tunnels
雙語社評:三隧分流取捨難免 社會需要面對現實
文章日期:2018年11月9日

雙語社評齊齊聽

[英語 (足本收聽)] Presented by Mr TANG, Calvin Yiu-san, Lecturer of Hong Kong Community College, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

[普通話 (足本收聽)] Presented by Dr WANG, Iris Xiang, Lecturer of Hong Kong Community College, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

 

THE policy address suggests an adjustment of tunnel tolls by sharply increasing the cost of using the Cross-Harbour Tunnel and the Eastern Harbour Crossing while lowering that of the Western Harbour Crossing. The government hopes that such a plan to "distribute traffic among the three tunnels" can ameliorate congestion at the Cross-Harbour Tunnel and the Eastern Harbour Crossing. Opponents of the plan, however, argue that it will only "distribute congestion" among the three tunnels.

[ENG audio 1]

Currently the Cross-Harbour Tunnel has a traffic flow 77% higher than its designed capacity during the morning rush hour, while at the Eastern Harbour Crossing it is 38% higher. In contrast, the traffic flow at the Western Harbour Crossing in the morning is around 10% lower than the designed capacity. The plan to distribute traffic among the three tunnels can encourage some drivers to switch to the Western Harbour Crossing and alleviate the congestion problem at the Cross-Harbour Tunnel and Eastern Harbour Crossing.

[ENG audio 2]

The government and members of society came up with numerous proposals for alleviating the congestion at the cross-harbour tunnels. Some suggested applying the same set of tolls across the three tunnels by lowering the cost of using specific tunnels. Some proposed buying back the Western Harbour Crossing and making them free to use, saying that it could improve the traffic flow by doing away with the collection of payments. A study commissioned by the government, however, has demonstrated that these measures will do nothing to ameliorate the congestion problem, but will further lengthen the queues of cars at every tunnel. The removal of toll booths does not necessarily mean that the congestion problem will disappear, let alone creating the effect of distributing traffic. It is clear from the research that to relieve the congestion of cross-harbour transportation, the only effective thing to do is to increase the tolls of the Cross-Harbour Tunnel.

[ENG audio 3]

Drivers decide which tunnel to use to cross the harbour by taking into consideration no more than three criteria, namely cost, time and convenience. Despite constant congestion, the Cross-Harbour Tunnel has the best geographical location. Its tolls, the lowest amongst the three tunnels, have never been adjusted since 1999. The law of market demand and supply is such that a dramatic increase in the tolls of the Cross-Harbour Tunnel is the only way to divert drivers to other cross-harbour tunnels. The congestion problem at the three tunnels lies in an excess of cars. Any measure to reduce tolls will only encourage more citizens to drive when they have to cross the harbour.

[ENG audio 4]

It is true that a dramatic increase in the tolls of the Cross-Harbour Tunnel and the Eastern Harbour Crossing will translate into a heavy burden on those who have to drive across the harbour every day. Some drivers who take the Cross-Harbour Tunnel habitually might have to take a long detour to use the other tunnels, which is a waste of time and money spent on petroleum. According to analysis by the government, after the plan comes into effect, the queues of cars at the Cross-Harbour Tunnel during the morning and evening rush hours will shorten by 30 to 40%, while the Eastern Harbour Crossing will also see a reduction of 10 to 30%. As a result, society will save more than $800 million every year. Ordinary citizens find it difficult to judge whether such an estimate is on the side of optimism. What is certain, however, is that the plan will cause only a minority of drivers to change their habits, while a majority of them will have to accept the toll increases reluctantly. Inevitably, they are dissatisfied with the plan.

[ENG audio 5]

Be it a plan to distribute traffic among the three tunnels or an electronic toll collection system, it is merely an attempt to allocate limited road space with pricing means. The government should launch the Fourth Comprehensive Transport Study as soon as possible so as to review the division of roles played by different means of transport and how they should work with each other. As long as the fourth cross-harbour tunnel remains non-existent, there is not an inexpensive and time-saving way to cross the harbour available to the driver. The plan to distribute traffic among the three tunnels goes to illustrate that "you cannot have the cake and eat it". Society has to face the reality and ponder what to take and what to give.

[ENG audio 6]

三隧分流取捨難免 社會需要面對現實

施政報告提出調整過海隧道收費,紅隧東隧大幅加價,西隧則調低收費,政府希望「三隧分流」紓緩紅隧東隧擠塞,反對者質疑只會導致「三隧齊塞」。

[PTH audio 1]

現時紅隧平日早上繁忙時間汽車流量,超出設計容車量的77%,東隧也超出38%,相比之下,西隧早上車流,仍比設計容車量低約一成,三隧分流可以鼓勵部分駕車人士改用西隧,減輕紅隧東隧擠塞。

[PTH audio 2]

政界和民間提出不少主張,希望紓緩過海隧道塞車,有人主張以減價方式劃一三隧收費,有人提議盡早回購西隧,三隧免費,省卻收錢安排,加快行車。然而政府顧問研究顯示,這些措施均無助改善塞車,反而令各隧道車龍延長;即使移除收費亭,也不代表隧道口不會塞車,更不會有分流作用。研究表明,若要減輕過海交通擠塞,唯一有效方法就是提高紅隧收費。

[PTH audio 3]

車主選擇哪條隧道過海,離不開價錢、時間、方便三大考慮。紅隧雖然經常塞車,惟地理位置最佳,收費自1999年以來從未調整,「平絕三隧」。根據市場供求邏輯,紅隧大幅加價是唯一有可能令車主改用其他隧道過海的方法。三隧擠塞問題在於車太多,任何減價措施只會鼓勵更多市民駕車過海。

[PTH audio 4]

紅隧東隧大幅加價,對於每天需要駕車過海的市民,確實負擔不輕。部分車主慣用紅隧過海,若要改用其他隧道過海,可能要「兜大圈」,既花時間又花油錢。政府分析,分流方案實施後,紅隧早晚繁忙時間車龍會減少約三至四成,東隧減少一至三成,每年節省社會成本超過8億元。有關估算會否偏向樂觀,市民難以判斷,然而可以肯定是,分流措施只會令少數車主改變過海習慣,大多數車主過海都要「硬食」加價開支,當然感到不滿。

[PTH audio 5]

三隧分流也好、電子道路收費也好,只是設法以價格手段分配有限路面空間,政府應盡快展開「第四次整體運輸研究」,檢討現有交通工具的分工及配合。在未有第4條過海隧道之前,車主不存在又便宜又慳時間的過海選擇,三隧分流方案正是說明魚與熊掌難以兼得,社會需要面對現實,思考如何取捨。

[PTH audio 6]

明報社評2018.10.12

Bilingual Editorial