Decarbonising Public Transport in Hong Kong

DECARBONISING PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN HONG KONG

Thanks to members of the HK Team: Andrew Pickford, Waltraut Ritter, Jenny Wan, Terry Graham, Marina Hyunh and RAs Valerie Pang, Chor Kui and Leslie LEI, Shuyu, Sam Ho, Kiu Sang

John Ure November 2020

Table of Contents

Summary ...... 3 Electrification ...... 3 Walkability and Cycling ...... 3 Introduction ...... 4 A. Hong Kong’s Policies ...... 6 A.1 Testing Pentograph Fast Charging Public Light Buses ...... 6 A.2 Hybrids, Trolleys, BEBs and Fuel Cell-driven Buses ...... 7 B. Electrification of Buses – Hong Kong’s Response ...... 12 B.1 The cost/benefit of BEBs ...... 12 B.2 Has Hong Kong been Slow to Test? ...... 13 B.3 Retro-fitting Euro-buses ...... 13 B.4 Batteries and the Recharging Infrastructure ...... 14 B.5 Shenzhen (Mainland China) ...... 14 B.6 Business models ...... 15 B.7 Hong Kong ...... 15 B.8 Taxis ...... 16 B.9 Renewable energy ...... 16 C. Walking and Cycling as Inter-Modal Mobility ...... 17 C.1 Connectivity ...... 18 C.2 Cycling ...... 20 Conclusion ...... 21

Decarbonising Public Transport in Hong Kong

Summary

Electrification • Estimates of the annual health cost to Hong Kong arising from air pollutants is estimated by two very different studies to be either close to HKD100 billion (CUHK-EPD website) or HKD20 billion (Hedley Institute – HKU) • This paper estimates that replacing all current buses (over 6,000) by electric-only buses by mide- 2020s would likely cost something over HKD30 billion. A recharging infrastructure would cost additional. • The reduction in premature deaths could be as high over 6,000 a year (CUHK) or nearly 2,000 annually (HKU) • Globally government grants are being made available to fleet operators and could be in the form of direct subsidies or tax redemptions on lifetime costs of ownership (which shift the focus towards fleet maintenance) • The electrification of all forms of road-using motorised transportation in Hong Kong would enable facilities sharing of e-recharging apparatus or hydrogen refuelling stations to reduce costs and incentivise the transition to e-vehicles • That electric recharging and hydrogen fuel cell refuelling is or will be less expensive than diesel or petrol refuelling seems widely supported by use cases contributing to a lower lifetime cost of ownership. • Shared facilities are bus terminals and public transport interchanges (PTIs) offer opportunities for fast 5G IoT networking and data diagnostics services alongside passenger information for multi- modal journeys • Electrification will make terminals and PTIs cleaner and allow them to become greener (oxygen- generating plants) and pleasing surroundings offering, for example, places for coffee shops and eateries • Using renewable energy sources, notable solar energy and hydrogen fuel cells, in buses and terminals/PTIs can save costs and power information boards, WiFi connectivity, and if sourced from the grid, air con, etc., but this leaves open the question of how clean is grid electricity or hydrogen capture.

Walkability and Cycling • Walking is the mode of mobility that universally links to other modes of transport, but it is rarely if ever measured as such. The last full survey in Hong Kong for all modes of mobility was 2011. • Government papers seem to reflect the insights provided by Civic Exchange to encourage walking, which include making walkways smart, connected, enjoyable and safe, offering functions of linkage and places for enjoyment • But many obstacles remain, including cluttered streets, obstacles to mobility – especially for disabled people – and uncovered walkways that deter walking when weather conditions are adverse. Redesigning streets, spaces and buildings to connect to each other with covered air con (zero marginal cost) walkways connecting to modes of transport can shift people away from cars. • Cycling is even less surveyed than walking. Besides cycling lanes for safety, bike parking at stations and bus terminals needs to be accelerated, and bike storage on buses and trains promoted.

Introduction

To achieve the decarbonisation of public transport it will be necessary to switch to electric vehicles – either electric battery or a hydrogen-fuel cell – a change that will cost money in the upfront capital costs of new buses (and a recharging infrastructure) but will reduce the lifetime costs of ownership because of lower operating costs. But there are also health costs to be included. It is well established that vehicle emissions nitrogen oxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM) – especially PM2.5 with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 μm (micrometre) – are a major cause of environment pollution, of respiratory and cardiac health problems and contribute to global warming through carbonisation,1 therefore a major benefit to society would be improvements in health.

This section of the paper offers estimates of these costs and benefits, but immediately runs into a problem. There are two major studies in Hong Kong over recent years of the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and the Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) of pollutants, one by the Hedley Institute, Department of Community Medicine, School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong published in the Open Epidemiology Journal (2011)2 and one from the School of Health and Primary Care, Chinese University of Hong Kong and posted on the website of the Environmental Protection Department (2016). 3 They come to widely differing estimates of the EIA.

At the centre of the analysis is an estimation of the RR (Relative Risk) to a baseline level of pollutants. The base 3 3 line is typically that of the World Health Organisation (WHO) of 10μm/m for PM2.5 and 40μm/m for NO2. In 3 3 the case of Hong Kong, the levels used in the 2016 study were 28.6μm/m for PM2.5 and 52.7μm/m for NO2. The difference between the two levels is referred to as the attributable fraction. The CUHK using 2012 recorded data of deaths, visits to GPs and hospitalizations due to diseases associated with pollution and loss of productivity then estimated the total cost. The estimated annual resulting cost of premature loss of life – put at 6,308 preventable deaths for the year 2012 – came to HKD99.55 billion. However, an estimate of the source of these pollutants in 2007 was 53% from Hong Kong and the rest from outside the territory. Using this estimate In the absence of more up-to-date data, the total cost due to local pollution can be re-estimated at around HKD52.8 billion.

The question for this paper is what percentage of those costs arose from pollution caused by buses and public light buses. An estimate published in 2014 of the percentage of air pollutants in Hong Kong that were due to road transport were as follows: NO2 19%, and PM 14% respiratory suspended particulates and 17% fine suspended particulates.4 Using as a ballpark figure 17% overall, and making the assumption that the total health cost of pollutants can be assigned according to their percentage contribution to the whole, the annual cost of pollutants from road transport comes to almost HKD9 billion. It is estimated that 95% of road pollutants arise from commercial traffic such as buses and heavy trucks,5 so the total health costs arising from heavy commercial vehicle emissions would be HKD8.6 billion. In 2019 there were around 124,000 commercial vehicles registered by the Transport Department,6 of which close to 9% were buses and light public buses (green and red mini buses), so using these proportions the total health costs that might be assigned to single and double decker buses and PLBs alone would be around HKD800 million annually.

Below it is assumed that by, say 2025, a new all-electric bus will cost around HKD4 million and replacing over 6,000 buses would therefore cost upwards of HKD24 billion, not including the recharging infrastructure, nor

1 Centre of Health Protection https://www.chp.gov.hk/en/healthtopics/content/460/3557.html 2 The Open Epidemiology Journal 2011:v4:pp.106-122 ‘Assessment of the Health Impacts and Economic Burden Arising from Proposed New Air Quality Objectives in a High Pollution Environment’ Hak-Kan Lai, Chit-Ming Wong, Sarah McGhee and Anthony Hedley. Copy available upon request from the Department of Community Medicine or [email protected] 3 EPD (2016) Developing an Instrument for Assessing the Health and Economic Impacts of Air Pollution in Hong Kong: Final Report https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/sites/default/files/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/studyrpts/files/instrument_impacts_air_pollution.pdf 4https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/sites/default/files/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/air_quality_objectives/files/RT%20Paper%202_2016.pdf 5 https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr18-19/english/panels/ea/papers/ea20181219cb1-319-4-e.pdf 6 https://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_4883/table41a.pdf 4 additional drivers if required due to possible recharging delays requiring additional buses to complete schedules. At this cost the payback period in terms of health costs avoided would be 30 years, including a reduction of over6,000 premature deaths in year one and the equivalent of 180,000 by diminishing numbers thereafter.

Using the HKU’s Hedley Institute model, the number of preventable deaths is estimated at 1,860 and the EIA from the three categories of premature deaths, visits to GPs and hospitalisations and lost productivity as USD2.58 billion or HKD20 billion after adjustment to Hong Kong’s Air Quality Standard Objectives (HKAQO)7 – although the HKAQO has itself been criticised as inadequate by the HKU School of Public Health in 2011,8 and the Clean Air Network.9 Clearly the gap between just under HKD100 billion and HKD20 billion is substantial. If all the estimates are reduced by 4/5th the financial payback period would stretch into several generations of citizens, while the cumulative reduction in premature deaths would exceed one million.

The reasons for such variance in estimates has to be explained by the methodologies used – although the actual death data used by the Hedley model is an average of 2000-2004 (35,064 deaths) and by the CUHK is for 2012 is notably higher (43,917 deaths)10 – together with the assumptions made, for example of the Value of Statistical Life (VOSL). A key difference between the two approaches is, according to the author of the CUHK paper, that in the CUHK model “only the impact of long-term exposure to air pollution” is estimated, whereas the HKU was “designed as a communications tool of the effects of short-term exposure to air pollutants on health.”11 The critique of this approach is that the levels of pollution are not constant over a year. It seems that the HKU/HEI model uses a highly granulated bottom-up approach, “predicting annual pollution levels” (p.108) and then estimating the number of deaths hourly for the pollutants and aggregating them over 24 hours and from there extrapolating to annual projections using the WHO model and an RR to extrapolate the number of likely deaths, using a VOSL of USD1.28 million to calculate the cost. By contrast, according to a professor from HKU, the CUHK model multiplies “the attributable fraction of a pollutant RR-1/RR by the total number of deaths per year - resulting in the total number of deaths attributable to a pollutant per annum. This potentially inflates the number substantially 12…” The CUHK approach appears to be more top-down, again estimating pollution rates and again an RR and WHO modelling but estimating the proportion of actually recorded deaths that could be premature due to air pollution and using a VOSL of USD2.02 million. Hovering somewhere between theses extremes will lie the real figure; in reality the answer would become apparent very shortly after all buses became electric.

There are countervailing costs. The cost – and the possibility – of generating electricity from non-renewable sources, or capturing hydrogen without a methane as a by-product, is an unavoidable issue that has to be addressed in terms of Hong Kong’s commitments to the Paris Agreement on climate change; and the costs of building a recharging (for e-vehicles) and refuelling (for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles) infrastructure. Some of the facilities for buses and commercial vehicles could be shared, and maybe for taxis also, but not really for private cars.

Building such an infrastructure could integrate with multi-modal transport initiatives because e-vehicles could share much of the same recharging and refuelling infrastructure, especially all forms of public and heavy commercial vehicles, along with vehicle diagnostics facilities and passenger multi-modal transport information systems at points of interchange.

7 https://www.aqhi.gov.hk/api_history/english/report/files/aqr96e.pdf 8 https://www.hku.hk/press/news_detail_6375.html 9 http://www.hongkongcan.org/doclib/2012%20Air%20Quailty%20Review%20-%20ENG_v3.pdf 10 https://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B10100022019MM11B0100.pdf 11 Email 4th November 2020 from Prof Tze Wai Wong, School of Health and Primary Care, Chinese University of Hong Kong. 12 Email 30th October 2020 from Dr T.Thach, School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong. 5

A. Hong Kong’s Policies

The HKD99.55 billion estimated cost of air pollution on the health and human suffering of Hong Kong citizens is truly horrific. This is what economists call an externality, the external effects of the emissions resulting of a combination of public and private activities, but with the advent of electric vehicles it will become a largely unnecessary cost. It is the responsibility of good government to make that happen as soon as technologically feasible. That includes battery-only driven buses and, as a half-way house, hybrids where the motor is driven a hydrogen fuel cell supported by an auxiliary battery for capacitance – the difference between the actual electric charge and the potential electric charge – together with the necessary supporting infrastructure. While it may be a phased-in process as the technology improves over time and becomes more cost-effective, it demands a public policy urgency.

That in turn requires a public policy transparency and consistency of purpose. This point is highlighted in a report by the Government’s own Ombudsman in December 2019 who found that despite Government policy from the early 1990s being to promote the use of EVs, policies and measures to implement them had subsequently changed “without clearly explaining to the public the reasons and justifications behind. As a result, the public cannot fully grasp the Government’s stance in promoting the use of EVs.”13 14

Policy was set in the 2010 Chief Executive’s Policy Address and reiterated by the Secretary for the Environment in Legco in December 2018: “[t]he ultimate policy objective of the Government is to have zero emission buses running across the territory." The only reassurance was that government would promote the use of single decker buses if the outcome of their trials was satisfactory – for which a fund of HKD180 million was available – and would “at a suitable juncture” carry out trials of double-decker buses.15

In the event, the trails of the single decker buses by the five franchised bus operators – the Kowloon Motor Bus Company Ltd (KMB), Long Win Bus Company Ltd (LWB), CityBus Ltd (CTB), New World First Bus Services Ltd (NWFB) and the New Lantau Bus Company Ltd (NLB) – was not satisfactory. Twenty-eight battery-driven single decker buses and 8 super-capacitor buses were tested. After 20 minutes of recharging the super- capacitor buses could travel only 20-30Km depending upon the gradient of the road and, for example, without becoming stuck in traffic with the air con running, evidence that super-capacitor charging is better adapted for shorted journeys.16 For battery-powered single decker buses tests they could only cover a range of up to 150 km with high levels of air-conditioning, whereas the daily requirements were typically 200 km - 300 km. There was also the problem of finding adequate space and power capacity for daytime recharging at bus terminals and transport interchanges.17 A.1 Testing Pentograph Fast Charging Public Light Buses

Green PLBs – of the 4,350 mini-buses 77% are GMB and the rest RMB18 – while only 0.6% of all vehicles are nevertheless responsible for about 8% of respirable suspended particulates and 4% of nitrogen oxides emitted,19 so their conversion to electric needs to be a priority issue.

In 2019 the Government established an interdepartmental e-PLB Task Force consisting of nine government agencies plus advisory groups, an indication of two things: first, many of these agencies would need to be involved in an approvals process for tests to be implemented in public spaces, including the Buildings

13 https://ofomb.ombudsman.hk/abc/files/DI415-Executive_Summary_EN.docx 14 Another woeful example were the subsidised trials started in 2014 of diesel hybrid e-buses. Independent assessors were required to file 6-months reports, yet by April 2020 of the 83 trials, reports on 40 of them, accounting for subsidies of HKD300 million, were still missing - https://transitjam.com/2020/04/22/lawmaker-calls-nonsense-on-missing-hk300m-ev-subsidy-reports/ Where results were available they indicated higher running levels of costs and emissions - https://transitjam.com/2020/08/18/hybrid-minibus-emits-10-times-the-pollution-of-old-bus-costs-double- to-run/ 15 https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201812/12/P2018121200670.htm 16 https://www.arrow.com/en/research-and-events/articles/supercapacitor-vs-battery-ultracapacitor-pros-and-cons 17 https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201812/12/P2018121200670.htm 18 https://www.td.gov.hk/en/transport_in_hong_kong/public_transport/minibuses/index.html 19 https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr19-20/english/panels/ea/papers/ea20200122cb1-336-4-e.pdf 6

Department which is not actually a member of the committee;20 second, the apparent complexity of what is, in principle, a fairly straightforward pilot project, yet one that involves several crucial parties, such as the maker of the buses, the bus operators, the supplier of the charging apparatus, the construction site such as a terminal or depot or on-route bus stop, the supplier of the power, the management, monitoring and data-recording of the pilot, a series of planning approvals and business contracts, for example covering equipment failure and liability issues.

As of January 2020 the view of the Environment Bureau (BN)/the Environmental Protect Department (EPD) was that ‘fast charging’ using a pantograph would only require 10 minutes with several chargings per journey. But owing to a lack of suitable PLBs equipped for pantograph charging – it requires rails on the roof of the bus and a WiFi connection to help manoeuvre the bus into position – the first trial of e-PLBs would be delayed until mid-2023 by which time PLBs designed and manufactured by the Hong Kong Productivity Council (HKPC) should be available. A tender for the pantograph and back-up plug-in chargers for installation at the new Kwun Tong PTI which is due to open early 2021 was issued by the EPD in October 2020.21

Diagram 1: Single decker BEBs undergoing ‘fast’ charging by Pentograph

Examples of a Pentograph ‘fast charger’ in action on single-decker e-buses connecting to conductor rods on the roof of the bus.

Source: https://www.sustainable-bus.com/parts/autonomous-driving-will-keep-bus-pantographs-alive-siemens-explains-why/ However, Green Mobility Innovations Ltd (GMI)22 a Hong Kong-registered manufacturer of PLBs is already collaborating with Siemens and the Hong Kong Science & Technology Park (HKSTP) to run tests.23 There are several manufacturers of Pantographs, such as TGood24 and Siemens, diagram 2. A common standard is OppCharge, a design that works with any marque of e-bus – see OppCharge YouTube videos.25 A word of warning is that methods of ‘fast charging’ may more rapidly degrade the charging components on the bus adding to the lifetime costs.26 A.2 Hybrids, Trolleys, BEBs and Fuel Cell-driven Buses

Replacing single (medium) and double decker (heavy) diesel buses with battery E-buses (BEB) is the aim of almost every transport authority worldwide. Diesel is a dirty fuel and, for example, children exposed to diesel fumes from school buses are much more likely to develop asthma and other respiratory ailments.27 The question is which of four types of e-buses are practical alternatives and over what timescale. There are currently four technology-types available or in development, each suitable for different environments – see diagram 2

20 The Task Force comprises representatives of the EPD, Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, Government Property Agency, Housing Department, Innovation and Technology Commission, Lands Department, Transport Department, Architectural Services Department, Highways Department, representatives of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, as well as academics and experts of electric vehicles technologies. 21 https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202010/15/P2020101500414.htm 22 http://www.gmi-hk.com/portfolio/gemini-public-light-bus/ 23 Interview (15th October 2020) with Thomas Chan, Senior Manager, Green Technology Cluster, HKSTP https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomas-chan- 07627559/?originalSubdomain=hk 24 http://tgood.com/int/en/pages/about 25 https://www.oppcharge.org/ 26 https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-electric-buses-benefits-outweigh-costs 27 https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-electric-buses-benefits-outweigh-costs 7

Diagram 2: Types of E-buses

A.2.1 Hybrid The hybrid28 is a bus powered by electricity generated by a fossil fuel cell which is refuelled from a pump and supported by an onboard auxiliary battery for capacitance. Commercially hybrids can be cost-effective at higher battery prices, but they still give off very unhealthy tailpipe exhaust even if less than diesel engines.

Source: https://www.changing-transport.org/wp-content/uploads/TCC-Week_Stefan-Baguette-Electric-Buses.pdf

Diesel Hybrids (e.g. a Euro Bus Vl)

There are two drivetrains or powertrains designs for hybrids. In the ‘series’ hybrids if the fuel tank is diesel it drives the motor as a conventional and polluting internal combustion engine (ICE), but driving can be switched to a non-polluting auxiliary battery while journeying through urban centres. The bus switches back to an ICE for longer distances between urban centres. The battery is recharged in the usual away as the ICE runs from a generator. An option is a plug-in using a larger battery to extend the distances covered using electricity. In the ‘parallel’ hybrids – which are currently the most used – the ICE and the battery drivetrains as independently connected to the transmission, the battery adding power when needed, for example during acceleration. As battery use is less, the batteries are smaller.

Source: https://landtransportguru.net/hybrid-buses-in-singapore/

A.2.2 Trolley buses Trolley buses receive electric charging from overhead wires. They have over century of history, and while they were “environmentally friendly and cheap, they finally succumbed to car ownership and fossil fuel.”29 Today there is a revival of interest, for example, growing widespread adoption for in many European cities.30 They do require an overhead infrastructure of wires in the same way trams require an infrastructure of rails embedded

28 A hybrid is any vehicle that can call upon more than one means of propellant. 29 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-51034523 30 https://www.sustainable-bus.com/trolley-and-tramway/trolleybus-market-a-growing-demand-thanks-to-zero-emission-operations/ 8 in the roads, but have far greater flexibility of movement than trams, especially if hybrid powered by batteries that permit the trolley bus to become independent of the overhead wires for part of the route31 – see diagram 3. One study found that “the battery assisted trolleybus is the most cost-effective bus system for high capacity lines.”32 However, in Hong Kong overhead cables might be vulnerable to typhoons.

Diagram 3: Trolley bus route with and without overhead wires

Source: www.sciencedirect.comTransportation Research Procedia 40 (2019) 229–235

Trackless trams that do not require expensive and constraining rails embedded in the road are a recent innovation seen as a highly flexible substitute for light rail.

Each tram has sensors that allow then to track their own routes, but at around 30 metres in length they need suitable roads and regulations permissive. They run entirely on batteries that can be recharged at stations in 30 seconds or at terminals in 10 minutes. According to one report from Australia the costs of trackless trams works out at between ASD6-8 million (HKD34-45 million) per kilometre compared with conventional light rail at between ASD80- 120 million (HKD450-680 million). 33

A.2.3 Hydrogen Fuel cells Hydrogen fuel cells generate electricity through the reaction of different chemicals, in the case of vehicle fuel 34 cells most often hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O), plus an electrolyte – which can be liquid or a solid - with a waste product of water H2O. The water can be recycled to extract the two chemicals to repeat the process. See Diagram 4.

31 “Hess of Switzerland, one of the main trolleybus producers can offer the option of a battery range extender.” https://www.busworld.org/articles/detail/5269/electric-buses-the-evidence 32 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352146519301966 33 https://theconversation.com/why-trackless-trams-are-ready-to-replace-light-rail-103690 34 https://americanhistory.si.edu/fuelcells/basics.htm 9

Diagram 4: A Hydrogen Fuel Cell

But the means by which the hydrogen and the oxygen are extracted and pumped through the cell consumes power, so electricity is used to power a process that generates electricity. Further, if the hydrogen extract involves fossil fuel/natural gas with methane as a by-product,35 the effects in global warming are intensified offsetting gains from zero emissions from fuel cells.36 This is part of the Well-to-Wheels supply- chain, as illustrated in Diagram 5, which includes each step of the journey from hydrogen capture to the drivetrains which are the mechanisms that turn the vehicles wheels. 37

Source: Google

Diagram 5: Well-to-Wheel Fuel-Cell Supply Chain

Source: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/jec/activities/wtw

Comparing the costs of fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) with battery electric vehicles (BEVs including buses or BEBs) or fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles (FCHEVs) depends upon the research source and the measures used. The most fruitful assessment is the lifetime cost of ownership or total cost of ownership (TOC) that includes the amortisation of capital costs – the cost of buying the vehicle – and operational or running costs, including maintenance, energy costs, the cost of drivers – assuming not autonomous vehicles – management costs, etc. Each of these is an extrapolation of trends – and as such are ‘guestimates – such as declining prices due to economies of scale, changes in fuel prices or advances in battery technologies. For example, one research report concludes that compared to FCEVs, by 2030 “both the BEV and FCHEV have significantly lower lifecycle costs.”38 In complete contrast, a 2019 report by Deloitte estimates that while FCEVs are currently

35 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell_vehicle#Criticism 36 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell_vehicle#Criticism 37 https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/all-about-drivetrains 38https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222517464_Comparative_analysis_of_battery_electric_hydrogen_fuel_cell_and_hybrid_vehicles_in_a_fut ure_sustainable_road_transport_system 10 approximately 40% more expensive than BEVs on a per 100km basis “the TCO of FCEVs is forecasted to be less than BEVs by 2026… Overall, we estimate that the TCO of FCEVs will decline by almost 50% in the next 10 years.” 39 One part of the problem no doubt lies in the pricing of vehicles which may stand far above marginal costs of production until the market matures. Only the manufacturers have the cost data.

The two biggest drawbacks to FCEVs are first, they are using fossil fuel and unless a ‘clean’ way to extract hydrogen can be found the purpose of decarbonisation is undermined – of course the same is true for the generation of electricity – and second, is the current lack of refuelling facilities at regular petrol/diesel stations which have to be supplied either by pipeline or tanker trucks or the hydrogen captured onsite. Despite having only 80 refuelling stations by 2020, Germany is leader in the use of FCEVs in Europe and its vehicle manufacturers have partnered with hydrogen producers and filling station operators in the Clean Energy Partnership Initiative (CEP)40 with a target of 130 stations by 2022 allowing for 60,000 FCEVs on the roads. The target for 2025 is 400 stations.41 In Asia, Japan is a leader.42 Several members of the CEP formed an H2 Mobility group and agreed to reduce the price of hydrogen in Germany to USD4.80 compared with USD14 in the USA, but at current low levels of demand for hydrogen the costs of running a VCEF remain high. The CEP projection is that the costs will converge over time.

Although hydrogen fuel produce lower levels of power than batteries, they compete on distance which makes them suitable for commercial vehicles and can be recharged within minutes and therefore have the additional advantage of not requiring a separate electric recharging grid.43 By 2020 the first hydrogen fuel cell buses were in use in the UK,44 and in least 14 cities across the EU.45

Diagram 6 – A hydrogen fuel cell vehicle

Source: https://www.bmw.com/en/innovation/how-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-work.html#pwjt-1

The refuelling time for hydrogen is around 5 minutes, whereas it can take hours for larger batteries and FCEVs can currently travel up to 300 km after one refuelling, or 500 km according to other estimates. 46 And there also needs to be a hydrogen tank in the vehicle, typically three-to-four times the size of a fossil fuel tank – see

39 https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/cn/Documents/finance/deloitte-cn-fueling-the-future-of-mobility-en-200101.pdf 40 https://cleanenergypartnership.de/en/clean-energy-partnership/what-is-the-cep/ 41 https://cleanenergypartnership.de/en/clean-energy-partnership/what-is-the-cep/ 42 https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Hydrogen-infrastructure-status-update_ICCT-briefing_04102017_vF.pdf 43 https://www.power-technology.com/comment/standing-at-the-precipice-of-the-hydrogen-economy/ 44 https://www.fuelcellbuses.eu/ 45 https://www.fuelcellbuses.eu/category/demos-europe-0 46 https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Hydrogen-infrastructure-status-update_ICCT-briefing_04102017_vF.pdf 11 diagram 6 – so the hydrogen option may not be an optimal choice for electric cars but would be better suited to large commercial vehicles47 like trucks, articulated lorries, bull-dozers and fork-lifts.48 This is especially important given that 95% is all toxic emissions in Hong Kong arise from commercial vehicles. Likewise marine vessels. 49

A.2.4 Battery Electric Buses (BEBs) BEBs are often forecast to become price-competitive with standard diesel-driven buses and hybrids by the mid-2020s, but cost comparisons on their own are misleading because the conditions under which the buses have to operate are crucial to the lifetime cost of ownership of a bus. Battery costs are typically 30% or more of the capital costs (capex) and prices have reduced by 87% 2010-2019 – and are anticipated to fall a further 50% by 2025, bringing EVs in line with internal combustion engine (IC) vehicles by 2024.50 A key driver to lower costs has been economies of scale in production with demand growing from vehicles of all types, including two-wheelers, motorbikes and scooters in addition to large-scale energy storage requirements from industry.51

B. Electrification of Buses – Hong Kong’s Response B.1 The cost/benefit of BEBs

The cost/benefit of BEBs typically varies according location and manufacturer, but the quality of the manufacture may also differ as some of the tests in Hong Kong seem to indicate.52 In the USA in 2019 a price of USD800,000 per vehicle or HKD6.3 million is cited, compared with a diesel bus of around USD550,000 or HKD4.3 million.53 In London a hybrid diesel/electric bus by 2014 was estimated to cost much less, around GBP340,000 or HKD3.4 million at today’s exchange rate.54 A dozen BEBs in Poland including the re-charging apparatus, battery packs on the roof together with solar panels averaged just over USD630,000 (HKD4.9 million).55 The total bus fleet in Hong Kong currently stands at around 6,000 buses,56 so to replace them with BEBs and assuming that by 2025 and with a discount they cost HKD4 million each,57 it would require about HKD24 billion in today’s money.58 The total capital costs could be less if prices fall further by the mid-2020s, against an estimated annual cost to health in Hong Kong arising solely from emissions from buses and PLBs of around HKD800 million, a payback of around 30 years but at a considerable saving of premature deaths estimated at over 6,000 a year. A caveat is if the transition to e-buses requires a higher ratio of e-bus: diesel than 1:1 due to the fact that e-buses may have distance restrictions that pose the need for more buses and therefore more drivers over the lifetime of the buses. In Berlin it is estimated their additional lifetime costs could be the equivalent of HKD20 billion.59

But it is the lifetime cost that is commercially important including maintenance and wear and tear and replacement costs of parts and components, and battery replacements – batteries are judged to have 7-8

47 https://www.busworld.org/articles/detail/5542/man-zero-emission-roadmap-batteries-fuel-cell-and-h2-combustion-engine 48 https://medium.com/swlh/toyota-hydrogen-fuel-cell-strategy-f54ff2afcb47 49 CNN (2013) ‘Ship emissions blamed for worsening pollution in Hong Kong’ “Maritime pollution in Hong Kong is blamed for the most sulphur dioxide- related deaths within the region. According to a recent report jointly compiled by the Civic Exchange and The University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong saw 385 deaths caused by the hazardous chemical, for which shipping is to blame” https://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/19/world/asia/hong- kongs-worsening-ship-pollution/index.html 50 https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-electric-buses-benefits-outweigh-costs 51 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-17/the-electric-car-battery-boom-has-screeched-to-a-halt-for-now 52 https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr18-19/english/panels/ea/papers/ea20190128cb1-487-3-e.pdf 53 https://www.liveabout.com/bus-cost-to-purchase-and-operate-2798845 54 https://londonist.com/2013/05/new-bus-for-london-cost-revealed 55 https://cleantechnica.com/2020/05/23/4-of-european-union-bus-sales-electric-buses/ 56 https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201812/12/P2018121200670.htm 57 “As mentioned in the paper by the Environment Bureau, the price of each hybrid bus is $5.5 million, being about 60% to 80% more costly than its conventional counterpart” Transport and Housing Bureau Public Transport Strategy Study 2017 https://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/publication/ptss_final_report_eng.pdf. By 2025, economies of scale in production, improvements in battery technology and bulk-buying should lower that price. 58 By pre-Euro and Euro buses 1-3 were phased out in 2020. 59 https://berlinspectator.com/2020/03/09/berlin-5-billion-euro-for-the-most-elegant-electric-buses/ 12 years or half the lifetime of a bus although companies like China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Ltd. (CATL) claim a new generation of batteries that can last in cars up to 16 years 60 One study in the US using 2017 data assumed 12 years.61 The benchmark for many of these developments is Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk’s ‘Battery Day’ announcements.62 Added to these costs is the cost of re-charging apparatus, its installation and the electricity consumed. It is estimated that on their own, no bus operator could afford to cover all these costs for at least 5 years according to a McKinsey analyst.63 There are numerous lifetime cost studies and models available for operators and governments alike, many of them available from the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory.64 Typically they find that while the capital costs of creating an e-bus fleet with an effective recharging infrastructure can be higher than using diesel buses – although this finding is “strongly refuted” by at least one Hong Kong expert – the lower operating costs more than compensate, but subject to the distances to be covered. The advantages can be lost over longer distances that require larger and heavier batteries depending upon the charging methods in use but these can be easily outweighed for the operator if the external health costs of emissions are factored into a grant or tax concessions. This is a crucial policy decision beyond the powers of the operators to determine. B.2 Has Hong Kong been Slow to Test?

In 2020 the Hong Kong Government fund set aside for the trial purchase of e-buses was raised from HKD180 million to HKD800 million 65 to “fully subsidise” five franchises bus companies – see above.66 This was part of the declared “ultimate policy objective of the (Hong Kong) Government … to have zero emission from buses.”67 Of Hong Kong’s 6,000 franchised buses, 95% are double decker but the EPD reported in 2018 that few suitable models of electric double-decker buses were available on the market and “their passenger carrying capacity and operational efficiency still fail to fulfil the local operational needs (including long daily service hours, high peak passenger loadings, the need to tackle hilly terrains as well as intense air-conditionally in hot and humid summer, etc..” For battery-powered single decker buses the tests showed they could only cover a range of up to 150 km with high levels of air-conditioning, whereas the daily requirements were typically 200 km - 300 km. There is also the problem of finding adequate space and power capacity for daytime recharging at bus terminals and transport interchanges.68 The same report mentions trials had shown the super-capacitor single- decker buses can be fully charged within 20 minutes but may thereafter only travel 20-30 km depending upon whether uphill or level roads. The charging stations are located at a KMB bus terminal and a KMB bus depot. B.3 Retro-fitting Euro-buses

Retro-fitting Euro-buses to Euro VI hybrid standards has been a widespread strategy to ameliorate some of the worse effects of tailpipe emissions. As early as 1999, KMB used diesel oxidation catalytic converters (otherwise known as SCR or selective catalytic reduction) on 1,800 of its vehicles to reduce emission levels, but the “decision was not prompted by regulatory requirement, but rather the company's desire to support broad initiatives to make Hong Kong a world-class city.”69 This voluntarist approach was quite typical of Hong Kong’s market-led laissez-faire policy of “positive non-intervention” of the period – the policy was announced as abandoned by the Chief Executive in 2015.70

60 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-17/the-electric-car-battery-boom-has-screeched-to-a-halt-for-now 61 https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/financial_analysis_be_transit_buses.pdf 62 https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a34114885/elon-musk-tesla-battery-day-recap/ 63 https://www.ft.com/content/5c81dee4-ffe1-11e9-b7bc-f3fa4e77dd47 64 www.nrel.gov/publications 65 http://www.government-world.com/deadline-of-current-first-registration-on-arrangement-for-electric-vehicles-extended-for-three-years/ 66 https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201812/12/P2018121200670.htm 67 http://www.government-world.com/deadline-of-current-first-registration-tax-concession-arrangement-for-electric-vehicles-extended-for-three- years/ 68 https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201812/12/P2018121200670.htm 69https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/TRUE%20London%20Bus%20Fact%20Sheet%2020181218.pdf 70 https://www.chinadailyasia.com/opinion/2015-08/12/content_15302803.html 13

Compared with other cities Hong Kong has been quite hesitant in testing electric buses. For example in London by 2019 there were 200 electric buses and the aim is to have all 9,200 buses electric by 2037.71 In 2019 it was reported Paris is ordering 800 new zero-emission e-buses to combat the city’s smog problem ahead of the Olympic Games in 2024.72

The Hong Kong government took the first active steps when the Policy Address in 2010 announced subsidies for SCR devices for PLBs and for Euro II and III buses, but the buses were only to be phased out at the end of their life by 2019 and 2026 respectively, such was the lack of perceived urgency. A subsequent Legco paper in 2013 explained that part of the drive came for “working with the Mainland to reduce the concentration levels of ozone, which can promote the conversion of the zero emissions from vehicles to NO2 at the roadsides, in the Pearl River Delta region.”73 The retro fitting was completed by 2017, and was followed by a plan in 2019 to subsidise a retro-fit the nearly 4,000 Euro IV and V buses to the tune of HKD38 million “with reference to London’s experience.” 74

Retro fitting lessens but does not solve the emissions problem, but it can be more cost-effective than buying new – given that new does not yet mean emission-free – especially for Hong Kong, because the retro buses can be tailored to local needs such as hilly terrains and humidity. A report issued 2015 by Clean Air points out that there is a noticeable difference between testing new buses – the standard for testing is the Portable Emission Measurement System (PEMS) 75 that avoids reliance upon the manufacturers’ claims, a necessary precaution after a series of emission falsifications by car manufactures 76 – and actual performances when buses are on the roads travelling their entire routes, noting the Euro V bus in particular does not meet the required NOx limits. 77 For the moment, tests in Hong Kong along the Franchised Bus Low Emission Zones (FBLEZs) – of which there are three located in Central, Causeway Bay and Prince Edward Road – are confined to the Euro V or Euro Vl.78 B.4 Batteries and the Recharging Infrastructure

Batteries and the Recharging Infrastructure come together as capital expenditures and their running as operational expenditures. As seen above, batteries currently cost around 30% of the e-bus cost and have a life expectancy of about 7-8 years or half or less than the bus. Although a new generation of batteries from companies such as CATL and Tesla are promising much longer lifetimes these are mostly batteries for private cars where the operational demands are much lower. B.5 Shenzhen (Mainland China)

Shenzhen is the leader in the field. China already has 400,000 electric buses representing 98% of the global total, and Shenzhen is the world’s first all-electric fleet of 16,000 vehicles – in 2005 Hong Kong-based KMB became a founding shareholder of the Shenzhen Bus Company.79 A Legco paper 2019 notes that the ratio of bus replacement was 1.2 electric for 1 diesel – see Berlin above – which raises the costs somewhat and the lifetime costs of the fleet including the additional drivers. According to one expert, the reason for the disparity is 4-5 hours charging time with only two or three buses per charging pole, meaning bus operators need more buses to maintain the same service schedules. He advocates the use of pantographs with lighter batteries and more frequent stops for fast charging. 80 Annex III of the Legco paper reports on trials of e-buses. The lowest

71 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-17/the-electric-car-battery-boom-has-screeched-to-a-halt-for-now 72 https://www.france24.com/en/20190409-paris-orders-800-new-electric-buses-fight-smog 73 https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/english/panels/ea/papers/ea0614cb1-1269-1-e.pdf 74 https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr18-19/english/panels/ea/papers/ea20181219cb1-319-4-e.pdf 75 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?Lab=OTAQ&dirEntryId=72469 76 https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/dieselgate-timeline-car-emissions-fraud-scandal-germany 77 http://www.cleanair-europe.org/fileadmin/user_upload/redaktion/downloads/BUND/10_B2_Update_Guideline_-_Cleaner_Busses_EN.pdf 78 https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201912/31/P2019123100268.htm 79 http://www.tih.hk/english.php?page=others&file=press/news2005011901.html 80 Interview (21 October 2020) Paul Bromley, Managing Director of Phoenix Business Consulting, Hong Kong. See also https://transitjam.com/2020/04/16/ditching-heavy-batteries-will-save-e-buses-says-bus-expert/ and https://transitjam.com/2020/10/21/breaking-bus- new-paradigms-for-ev-transport/ 14 kWh/km reported was 1.36 kWh/km which came from a trial involving a BEB driven the greatest distance (over 360,000 km) over the trial period but this exceeds the 1 kWh/km average for Shenzhen.81 Perhaps this is due to a less hilly terrain in Shenzhen. The costs are heavily subsided under the 2011 ‘Shenzhen City Public Transport Financial Fixed Subsidy Policy Implementation Plan’ with the Shenzhen Bus Company and its Eastern and Western subsidiaries reportedly each receiving around HKD270,000 equivalent per vehicle per year,82 although private sources suggest this may be an underestimate. According to the company, while the cost of BEBs has in the past been between twice and four times that of diesel – hence the need for the subsidies – running costs including maintenance are only around one-third of diesel buses.83

In the case of Shenzhen there is a well developed ecosystem, at the heart of which is Shenzhen-based BYD, China’s largest producer of batteries. Providing the electricity are China Putian Energy and the China Southern Power Grid. 84 Finding locations for the recharging infrastructure has been the biggest challenge. Thirteen larger bus hubs have been developed with recharging poles supporting three e-buses at one time, but most bus terminals are on short leases and unsuitable for long term construction work. As a result the Shenzhen Bus Company sought to rent locations and enter agreements with a recharging pole manufacturers Yonglian and ZTE.85 Over a thousand locations have been constructed offering plug-in recharging poles for other vehicles, including private cars using ZTE wireless recharging technology.86 Also used is are mobile charging vehicles which reduces the need for permanent recharging stations. B.6 Business models

Business models such as outsourcing, lease-back and facilities sharing are a way to reduce operator costs. The role of BYD is a case in point in Shenzhen where there is a clear synergy between BYD’s manufacturing business and its venture into the battery recharging infrastructure. Another example comes from the UK where Zenobe Energy which has specialised in providing off-grid electricity storage to support grid peak- loading times. The Newport Bus company in Wales has purchased Yutong electric buses from China and outsourced to Zenobe Energy who charge an annual fee. The bus operator only needs to know that recharged batteries are always available. In 2020 Zenobe secured a £20m loan from NatWest to finance enough batteries to power about 100 electric buses owned by private transport firms and councils around the UK.87 B.7 Hong Kong

In Hong Kong there are two power companies that could easily offer such services if regulations permit, and opportunities for new entrants specialising in off-grid and renewable energy storage systems. Having depots of recharged batteries could require planning permission to build extensions either horizontally or vertically or city-planning to relocate terminals and take the opportunity to turn them into multiplex and green facilities. Further, as the Environmental and Energy Study Institute has pointed out, in the US many commercial delivery and truckling companies, such as FedEx, DHL and UPS, are purchasing their own recharging infrastructure which could be shared by BEBs reducing the costs and search for locations.88 Given the volume of cross-border trucks in Hong Kong journeying to and from the Greater Bay Area, recharging points, either fast charging or hydrogen fuel cell pump refuelling could serve numerous modes of transport and even act as transit points for passengers switching modes. A level of scheduling would be required for public transport vehicles. A Pubic Transport Interchange would be a natural location for recharging facilities, for use by BEBs, PLBs, taxis and

81 https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr18-19/english/panels/ea/papers/ea20190128cb1-487-3-e.pdf 82 http://jtys.sz.gov.cn/zwgk/xxgkml/zcfgjjd/zcjd/content/post_4218805.html 83 https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1599590554306971453&wfr=spider&for=pc 84 http://en.szbus.com.cn/intro/1.html and http://en.szbus.com.cn/intro/18.html 85 https://evhui.com/54398.html 86 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjj- 770o8fsAhVq63MBHSlcChUQFjABegQIBBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.unece.org%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F12058681%2FEVE-07- 09e.pdf%3Fapi%3Dv2&usg=AOvVaw3lIfyvAjVoSB_R6sH-9ra5 87 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/23/uk-electric-buses-battery-deal-zenobe-energy 88 https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-electric-buses-benefits-outweigh-costs 15 other on-demand services and data sharing in the form of vehicle diagnostics and digital passenger information boards. B.8 Taxis

Since 2006, like mini-buses, have been using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) which was supposedly cleaner than diesel, but without constant maintenance the emission levels remain dangerously high, a fact recognised by the EPD since at least 2013.89 By converting to electric, including hydrogen hybrids, taxis could make shared use of recharging poles with other forms of public transport, and shared use of hydrogen refuelling stations with other commercial and private vehicles, spreading the costs involved.

In 2017, after a two year trial, the EPD abandoned a scheme to promote e-taxis due to “High production cost, limited service life, long charging time [emphasis added] and low energy density of e-vehicle batteries are the key constraints for electric vehicles to take up commercial transportation duties…” adding “A taxi under normal operation cannot spare about four hours a day for charging.”90 As hydrogen refuelling is as fast as diesel and taxis can easily accommodate hydrogen fuel tanks, the hybrid does indeed seem to be the way to go, the planning for a network of refuelling facilities needs to start soon. Inchcape which as owner of Crown Motors is the sole distributor of Toyota taxis in Hong Kong – 98% of 18,000 taxis and 80% of the mini-bus market – in 2020 launched a Toyota ‘Comfort Hybrid’ as it no longer produces LPG vehicles and understandably now advocates the government should offer incentives for drivers to switch to hybrids.91

B.9 Renewable energy

Renewable energy sources are going to become increasingly important if the extra demand from e-vehicles to reduce air pollution is offset by increased carbon release from power plants. At the distribution end of the well-to-wheel power supply chain solar power is already in use as an option to provide power to provide onboard information systems, WiFi connectivity, vehicle diagnostic systems and more, but insufficient to power air con.92 In Hong Kong, a Green Bus Shelter programme was introduced by the Kowloon Motor Bus company (KMB) in 2017 to provide lighting and anti-mosquito lamps,93 including solar panels in over 100 bus stops and on newly-purchased buses,94 with a reduction of temperatures within the buses of up to 10% with a fuel saving up to 3%.95 New World First Bus/City Bus in 2020 introduced a double decker bus with solar panels on its roof.96 Under the Government-supported Used & Retired Bus Programme scheme, retired buses can be renovated with solar power and donated to schools and charities.97

Hong Kong can do more. 2017 was also the year Singapore first experimented with solar to power up various services to a bus stop, including interactive digital screens connected to the National Library to allow e-book downloads using QR codes, broadcast bus timings, weather, and news highlights. 98 A recent study from Sweden estimates the use of solar panels at bus stops at Hong Kong equivalent dollars would be between HKD74,000 – HKD109,000 for installation depending upon the length of the connecting cables, and around HKD16,000 for the PV system itself.99

89 https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/english/panels/ea/papers/ea0614cb1-1269-1-e.pdf 90 https://www.scmp.com/yp/discover/news/hong-kong/article/3055185/hong-kong-governments-electric-taxi-trial-backfires 91 https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/transport/article/3094763/hong-kong-taxi-distributor-says-including-hybrid-models 92 Confirmed by NWFB/CityBus in tests by email 27th October 2020 and by KMB in tests by email 28th October 2020. 93 http://www.kmb.hk/en/news/press/archives/news201711212604.html 94 http://www.kmb.hk/en/news/press/archives/news201810032704.html 95 Correspondence with KMB by email 96 http://www3.nwstbus.com.hk/en/uploadedPressRelease/17846_05062020_05062020_eng.pdf 97 https://opengovasia.com/retired-hk-buses-revamped-with-green-tech/ 98 https://www.planetcustodian.com/worlds-most-high-tech-bus-stop-has-rooftop-solar-panels-and-garden/9314/ 99 http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:626331/FULLTEXT01.pdf 16

C. Walking and Cycling as Inter-Modal Mobility

Walking is the mode of mobility that universally links to other modes of transport, but it is rarely if ever measured as such. This needs to change, and with it consideration of the ways in which to incentivise walking both as a way to avoid private vehicle use and as a way to keep people healthy.100 This needs imply that walkways that are free from pollutants – or pollutant levels are significantly low – and are attractive as pathways, for example connected covered walkways between buildings sharing their aircon at zero marginal cost and offering shops and cafes along the way. This in turn needs to involve town planning and the architecture of linked-buildings, subways, etc.

Not since 2011 has there been a study of walkability as part of a territory-wide survey of travel characteristics commissioned by the Transport Department.101 The study includes motorised and non-motorised trips.102 Of motorised trips, the study estimated 84% involved only one form of motorised travel, mostly by public transport (rail or bus). 14% of trips involved two motorised legs and 2% involved more than two. Most multimodal motorised trips involved the MTR (33%)103 followed by franchised buses (27%), public light buses (19%), ‘others’ (13%) and special purpose buses such as school buses (8%). Interchange between motorised modes of transport was most frequent where travel involved ferries where 69% involved at least one other motorised mode of transport.

For non-motorised modes of mobility, of those walking the ‘first or last mile’ to their destination over 75% of residents walked 5 minutes or less to their point of transport, as illustrated in Diagram 7. The time to walk at the interchanges was 5 minutes or less for 85% of pedestrians.

Diagram 7

Source: ARUP, Travel Characteristics Survey 2011 Final Report https://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_4652/tcs2011_eng.pdf But some people are prepared to walk longer up to 15 minutes under sheltered and air conditioned walkways – or where there were escalators – to the different types of public transport. The average walking time outdoors involving transport under sheltered conditions ranged 10-12 minutes. Respondents generally placed a higher value on walking time than upon travel distances and cost – except for the lowest income households – implying a ‘door-to-door’ service is highly desirable. The premium given to time came to the fore when asked whether a major increase in travel time would result in a change of mode of transport or a change in the hour of travel, say from peak to off-peak. The respondents clearly would choose to change their mode of transport, which naturally correlates with the purpose of their journey, to work, to school.

100 For a study of the positive relationship between walkability and health see https://www.citywayfinding.com/walkability-of-cities-is-linked-to-health- scientific-study-proves/ 101 ARUP, Travel Characteristics Survey 2011 Final Report https://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_4652/tcs2011_eng.pdf 102 The report uses the term mechanised, but rightly excludes bicycles, so motorised is the preferred term. 103 Since 2011 the MTR network has expended considerably implying >33% by 2020. 17

C.1 Connectivity

Apart from leisure activities such as hiking in country parks and following the signage along the routes of the ‘Walk in Hong Kong’ programme,104 walking in Hong Kong for more functional reasons, such as shopping or going to work or to school, has to contend with weather that is often hot and humid or cold and wet. Nevertheless, improving walkways and taking steps to encourage walking as a non-polluting and healthy lifestyle combined with the convenience of walkways connecting in easy ways to other modes of mobility is clearly desirable. For example, the NGO DesigningHongKong has produced interesting proposals for connecting overhead walkways in crowded urban districts to create a latticework of skywalks, although these would be open to the elements. In one case, easing the connectivity of pedestrians to the MTR in the Tsim Sha Tsui district,105 and in another the Admiralty/Wan Chai districts.106

While the focus of this paper is upon inter-modal mobility it remains the case that promoting walkability in general will encourage citizens to venture further afield in their exploration of Hong Kong, be it Hong Kong’s heritage or new town developments or country parks, and that in turn is likely to involve two or more modes of transport. Thus inter-connectivity is an inherent aspect of walkability.107 In 2017 the Planning Department issued a consultation paper outlining its approach,108 followed up in 2018 with a Walk Hong Kong strategy paper,,109 and at the same time the Transport Department issued an outline paper.110 Both were influenced by a framework proposed by Civic Exchange111 that identifies four conditions that could encourage citizens to walk, and makes an important distinction between the link and space functions of walkways.

Making walkways attractive by making them • Smart – providing user-friendly information on walking routes, for example, to stations, bus stops, taxi ranks • Connected – enhancing pedestrian walkways, for example, covered air con walkways between buildings leading to transport hubs • Enjoyable – making walking a pleasant experience, for example, with green surroundings, street art and shops • Safe – providing a safe pedestrian environment, for example, wide well-lit and covered walkways

The Link function – providing efficient, comfortable and interesting walkways, e.g. to transport interchanges from shopping areas, from footbridges, etc. The Place function – providing environmentally enticing areas, e.g. plant green spaces around interchanges with fountains, sitting areas and surrounding art and shops The Combination – the 4-criteria framework for good walkability

Efficient to Walk Comfortable to Walk Interesting to Walk Possible to Walk Source: Civic Exchange Measuring and improving Walkability in Hong Kong, December 2016

104 https://walkin.hk/ 105 https://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/tst-crossing/ 106 https://www.designinghongkong.com/edm/index.php?option=com_acymailing&ctrl=archive&task=view&mailid=345&key=oltItJKr&subid=179375- XDA6YtbbOM5kny&tmpl=component 107 Good Wayfinding also encourages a shift of mode away from private cars https://www.citywayfinding.com/city-wayfinding-can-be-justified-using-a- benefit-cost-ratio/ 108 https://www.hk2030plus.hk/document/KSS_PPT/2nd_KSS/Rethinking_Public_Space_and_Walkability.pdf 109 https://walk.hk/en/aboutus/background 110 https://www.thb.gov.hk/eng/psp/publications/transport/publications/TB%20Environmental%20Report%202019_en.pdf 111 https://civic-exchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/201612URBAN_Walk2report-1.pdf 18

Civic Exchange proposed a 10-item CEx Walkscore index accompanied by guidelines112 to be used by the public and a version for professionals to assess the walkability of different routes in different districts of Hong Kong. As confirmed by the 2011 study, walking time is an important consideration for pedestrians, especially those going to work or eager to get home, and walking time could be reduced by improved walkways:

“For example, MTR patrons in Hong Kong on average would walk 500 metres or a 10-minute journey to the MTR station in a typically cluttered and crowded urban street environment. With better street design and pedestrian facilities, such as widened sidewalks and prioritized pedestrian crossings, MTR patrons could complete over 800 metres in 10 minutes, instead of 500 metres, as they can walk more efficiently. As a result, the 10-minute walking catchment of an MTR station would be enlarged from a 500-meter radius to an 800-meter radius.” Overall, surveys tend to find citizens are not particularly negative about walkability of Hong Kong. A study in 2010 (cited by Civic Exchange) estimated 39% of daily trips (not trip times) in Hong Kong were by walking,113 while Civic Exchange estimate 90% of these are feeding into public transport involving over 10,000 trips per hour. The 2010 report found that

“more than fifty percentage of people are satisfied with the existing pedestrian facilities in the city and those who are not happy feel the need of improvements in street lighting; clean, weatherproof and wider foot paths; reducing road traffic and speed; removal of obstacles along the walking paths and more crossing points. Among the nine variables that were evaluated in the field observational survey, walkways in commercial areas have the best infrastructures and level of service, including provision of facilities for the physically disabled. There is plenty of room for improvement in other areas, in particular the industrial areas.”114 Several things follow from this. First, over 50% satisfied leaves many who may be expecting improvements, and the guidelines expressed by Civic Exchange are a good starting point for these. Second, cleanliness and physical obstacles along walkways are specifically highlighted which suggests a need to go beyond simply clearing them away and to consider redesigning walkways and spaces along with rethinking the way they are managed to accommodate different modes of mobility – pedestrians, cyclists and motorised forms of transport. 115 Examples could include extending the role of electric trams and introduce trolley buses for district-level travel and supporting the further construction of shopping precincts adjacent to MTR stations and bus interchanges to encourage the use of public transport to minimise carbon emissions as recommended in a report for the World Resources Institute (2020) by Civic Exchange Pathways to Net Zero Carbon Emissions by 2050.116

The report recommends • Transport Department oversight of the system should shift from decisions on matters such as specific bus routes to regulating at the whole-service level. • The key service measure should be how long it takes to get from a public transport pick-up point to a destination. • District councils should be provided with comparisons of actual and target service levels for their district and focus on the quality of the service level provided rather changes to individual bus routes.

112 The guidelines are that walkways provide: accessibility and connectivity to nearby destinations, easy wayfinding, a safe, comfortable and healthy environment, equitable access, diversity and vitality, built on a human scale, streets as public spaces that require appropriate management, and integration with public transport (“walking offers the most natural, emission-free and healthy option for public transport patrons to complete the first- or last-mile of their journeys.”) 113 Hung, Manandhar and Ranasinghe, (2010). “A Walkability survey in Hong Kong”, Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled Persons (TRANSED 2010), Hong Kong, 2-4 June 2010 (USB) http://ira.lib.polyu.edu.hk/handle/10397/50308 114 https://trid.trb.org/view/1126939 115 A major constraint on creating an inviting outdoors environment is the lack of a cohesive policy for street management, often involving multiple government agencies and red tape as highlighted by a Civic Exchange report Managing Vibrant Streets (2018) https://civic-exchange.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/08/Managing-Vibrant-Streets-for-web.pdf 116 https://civic-exchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Hong-Kong-2050-policy-report_Final-20200626-1.pdf 19

Third, there needs to be a much greater recognition of the needs of the physically disabled in the design and redesign of walkways. A heavily built up environment need not be a major challenge for disabled people. On the contrary with conveniently-placed braille signage and well-paved sheltered connected walkways with lifts and chairlifts for wheelchairs it should offer ease of mobility.

Transport Department Response The Transport Departnment’s strategy to improve mobility options for People with Disabilities (PwD) is laid out in the 2017 Public Transport Strategy Study,117 where the Transport and Housing Bureau scopes out a series of measures to remove obstacles along pavements and especially in bus terminals and public transport interchanges (PTIs) in conjuction with efforts to upgrade PTIs and bus stops for passenger convenience with electronic information boards, WiFi access, toilets, install seating and “improvement to the exterior design … refurbishment, brighter lighting, etc.” The Transport Department provides subsidies to operators to make these improvements and to run pilot projects. Throughout the document the focus is upon the management of these improvements by the operators rather than direct management by government where the focus is more upon (i) a rationalisation of transport services to meet the changing patterns of demand, for example, more bus routes serving hospitals as the population ages, (ii) creating guidelines and designs for operators to implement, and (iii) collaborting with other departments such as the Archtectural Services Department and the Highways Department and with District Councils to bring about these changes. This laissez-faire approach – it used to be called ‘positive non-intervention’118 – includes the setting up of bus-to-bus (B2B) interchanges which is left to the private agreement of the bus companies. Presumably, the exceptions would be where town planning of new PTIs linked to shopping malls are under consideration.

In November 2020 the Report on Public Engagement on Long-term Decarbonisation Strategy 119 by the Council for Sustainable Development stressed the importance of moving to electric buses and acknowledged the need to “enhance inter-departmental coordination in facilitating EV and green ferry development” but did not lay out the details of a phased approach. C.2 Cycling

The Transport Department survey 2011120 notes the absence of independent statistics on cycling and warns that as a result it may be under-estimated while recommending a survey focused on cycling. However, in November 2020 in Legco the Secretary for Development answered a question about cycling data saying there was no need to collect utilisation data on bike paths as these were only “public recreational facility for leisure and recreational purposes.”121 The 2011 survey found that there were 347,000 bicycles owned by households and that 20% of cycling trips involved interchange with another mode of mobility. These were mostly Home- Based Other (HBO 45%) and Home-Based Work (HBW 43%) related trips, and 85% of these were made within the same district. Of all residents who had bicycles, over the three months prior to the survey interview, 12% had used them for business, commuting or school trips during weekdays and 28% had used them for other activities such as leisure. In other words, there were between 12% (41,640) and 40% (138,800) ‘regular’ (not necessarily daily) cyclists and 20% of them involved a mode of transport interchange. Of the routes taken, 85% of cyclists usually used cycle tracks and 15% usually used carriage ways.

The Transport Department being committed to encouraging ‘first mile, last mile’ use of bicycles to connect to public modes of transport has focused upon new towns and the New Territories to provide parking facilities, according to a Legco Paper May 2020, such as “over 330 bicycle parking spaces at the former Sheung Shui Park-and-Ride car park site, and the number of spaces will increase in phases to over 700 spaces in 2020… TD

117 https://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/publication/ptss_final_report_eng.pdf 118 The oft-announced death-knell of positive non-intervention was first enunciated by the then Chief Executive in 2006 https://www.scmp.com/article/564320/positive-non-intervention 119 https://www.susdev.org.hk/download/report/council_report_e.pdf 120 https://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_4652/tcs2011_eng.pdf 121 https://transitjam.com/2020/11/11/govt-clueless-on-cycle-track-use-admits-sec-dev/ 20 will continue to identify suitable locations at PTIs and near railway stations when opportunity arises.”122 Under the circumstances, ‘when the opportunity arises’ sounds a rather passive response, suggesting that raising the level of priority with greater collaboration with the Lands and Planning Departments is due.

The Tragedy of the Commons? It is reasonable to assume that regular bike commuters who transfer to public motorised transport will own their bikes, not rent them on a daily basis. The use of ADBRS (Automated Dockless Bicycle Rental Services) is more likely by occasional leisure bikers, but when a shared resource is abused by individuals indifference towards the collective good – illegal parking, vandalism and abandoning bikes in unauthorised locations requiring clearance operations – the result becomes unsustainable. In Hong Kong the initial enthusiasm peaked in 2018 at seven ADBRS companies operating 26,000 bikes, but rapidly declined to three companies operating 5,200 bikes by 2020. Government policy has been to introduce a Code of Practice for the operators,123 including “their bicycles will not be deployed in the urban areas.” (Legco Paper).

Conclusion

1. Hong Kong needs better and more up-to-date information on both walking and cycling preferences and options for citizens 2. Based upon that information, Hong Kong would do well to accelerate its programmes to encourage walking and cycling by creating more opportunities for both, creating more space for both at the expense of polluting vehicles, and by facilitating and encouraging multi-modal mobility, for example, providing storage for bikes in trains and buses. 3. There needs to be far more inter-agency urgency and planning given to these programmes with a significant reduction in the red tape of permissions and licencing that may be required. 4. Consideration should be given to an ombudsman with ‘mayor-like’ powers of coordination of Hong Kong’s response to climate change, and the cleaning and greening of Hong Kong 5. Hong Kong should replicate the best practices that are to be found in many other global cities – for example, see Paris below.

Paris – A City encouraging walking and cycling

Paris is a compact city ideal for cycling, but with dense traffic congestion caused by private cars. Led by an energetic mayor, and as part of its own effort to meet the climate accords, Paris has a programme to encourage both walking (the Paris Pietons programme) and cycling (the Paris cycling plan 2015-2020). Seven city squares have been redesigned to shift space from vehicles to people with cars banned from long stretches of the riverside and 50% more space give over to walkers and cyclists. The plan aims to give 15% modal share of traffic to cycling, with bike parking at all Parisian railway stations, 10,000 new parking spaces by removing them from private cars, a real-time cycling app for routes, and buses will be required to provide storage spaces for bikes. The result is that by 2020 there has been over 40% increase in bike traffic since 2015. Source: research by RA Valerie Pang

Postscript: 12th Nov - A company called China Dynamics demonstrated a “Pure Electric AI Accessible Minibus’ using fuel-cell technology at the Hong Kong Science & Technology Park that can travel up to 200 Kms after recharging for 30-60 minites. It holds 12 seats and can accommodate up to 4 wheelchairs124

122 https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr19-20/english/panels/tp/papers/tp20200515cb4-532-5-e.pdf 123 https://www.td.gov.hk/mini_site/cic/files/others/code_of_practice_en.pdf 124 https://www.businessnewsasia.com/2020111252321263-china-dynamics-launches-first-electric-accessible-minibus-in- hong-kong/ 21 https://www.businessnewsasia.com/2020111252321263-china-dynamics-launches-first-electric-accessible- minibus-in-hong-kong/