Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Diesel

Clear The Air views on the replacement of polluting Pre‐Euro and Euro 1 Diesel commercial vehicles.

paper filingClear The Air presented its views to Legco on March 10, 2010. Below are some figures.

By end of 2009, there were a total of 3,880, 920, 700, 160 and 100 licensed buses for Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited(“KMB”), Citybus Limited(“CTB”),, New World First Bus Services Limited(“NWFB”),, Long Win Bus Company Limited(“LW”),and New Lantao Bus Company (1973) Limited(“NLB”),. The relevant breakdown by engine types is as follows  :

Engine Type

KMB

CTB

NWFB

LW

NLB

Pre-Euro

300

40

30

less than 5

0

Euro I

940

310

80

0

0

Euro I above

2640

570

590

160

100

Download the CTA submission here.
(more…)

Higher fees for older vehicles opposed

polluting truckThe commercial vehicle industry has objected to government plans to increase licence fees for older commercial vehicles to reduce air pollution. The industry was hoping the government would extend or increase the current one-off subsidy to get these vehicles off the road. But the Undersecretary for the Environment, Kitty Poon, said that instead, the administration intended to raise the fee. She said the subsidy scheme had run its course.

Agree or disagree? Sound off your opinion after the jump.
(more…)

Time for tougher action on polluting trucks

LEADER

17 Feb, 2010


Authorities should be tackling roadside air pollution as a matter of urgency. They claim that this is the case: the Environmental Bureau and Environmental Protection Department said in their last annual progress report that high public expectations meant this was a top priority. An ineffective scheme to get old, polluting vehicles off the streets tells a different story. If there was any interest in making the air we breathe less dangerous, adopted measures would be forceful, not feeble.

The two-year-old scheme ends in April, having made only a small dent in the number of diesel trucks, vans and buses made before 1995, to pre-Euro and Euro I emissions standards. Such vehicles are the main reason for the poor air quality along our streets. They burn fuel far less efficiently than newer models. The subsidy aimed at phasing them out was supposed to have retired most, but there are still 39,500 on the roads – about four-fifths of the original total. Such a low take-up rate shouldn’t be a surprise. The grant averages HK$43,000, a fraction of the cost of a new truck. Owners are only taking up the offer when their vehicles are no longer roadworthy. The government has sensibly decided to end the scheme.

The tiny particulates (PM2.5) in diesel fumes are the reason air quality monitoring stations along our busiest streets record excessively high readings. Young and old people and those with heart and lung problems are especially vulnerable. They will continue to be at risk while vehicles with engines that can’t use low-polluting diesel are on roads. Measures to improve circumstances have to be assertive.

Our government has a poor track record in this regard when it comes to the environment. Pressure from business groups mean its schemes are invariably voluntary or, in cases like idling vehicle engines, left in the too hard basket. Jobs and profits are important, but Hong Kong also needs to address the serious threat to public health from roadside emissions. Without stronger measures we will pay a heavy price in lives lost and debilitating illness.

City officials in other developed parts of the world have the right attitude. Older vehicles are banned from financial and shopping districts and owners are given hefty fines if rules are ignored. In addition to subsidies, attractive interest rates are offered on new cars and trucks. Vehicles over a certain age require higher licence and registration fees – a move lawmakers here, after hearing the pleas of lobbyists, rejected last year.

The government is capable of concerted action. This was amply proven with the successful first phase of the plastic bag levy and will surely also be the case when it is widened. It has introduced the highest European standard for diesel, Euro V, and the second-best for vehicle emissions, Euro IV. Financial incentives are offered for environmentally friendly cars. Action has been less forthcoming towards commercial transport. While almost all taxis have switched to liquid petroleum gas, only 60 per cent of minibuses use the low-polluting fuel. About 35 per cent of the commercial fleet is still using diesel of the lowest, most polluting, standards. Authorities claim to want them off the road as soon as possible, yet efforts are clearly not aimed at this target.

Years may yet pass before all old diesel vehicles are out of service. Greater incentives, higher fees, no-go zones and fines have to be implemented to get them off our streets. Idling engines have to be banned. Efforts must be legally binding, not voluntary.

Cash incentives for getting polluting vehicles off the roads branded a failure

SCMP

16th Feb, 2010

A subsidy aimed at encouraging owners of old, polluting diesel trucks and vans to replace them early is failing because most of the people taking the grant would be buying a new vehicle anyway as theirs are worn out, owners and academics say.

They say the low take-up rate of the grants shows the scheme is ineffective for phasing out dirty old commercial vehicles, with one academic calling for punitive measures to be considered instead.

The HK$3.2 billion voluntary replacement scheme expires at the end of next month. It was launched in April 2007 and targets commercial diesel vehicles registered before 1995, when the so-called Euro 1 emissions standards were launched, and the later Euro I vehicles.

Owners are eligible for grants if their new vehicles comply with the latest Euro IV standards, which are up to 30 times less polluting than the older ones.

By the end of January, the Environmental Protection Department had approved 13,798 applications, involving HK$595 million, just 18.6 per cent of the fund. Of the applications, 89.2 per cent involved goods vehicles, 6.9 per cent non-franchised buses and 3.8 per cent light buses.

There are about 39,500 such old vehicles on the roads, 23 per cent fewer than before the scheme. But the number of old vehicles taken off the roads include 3,000 that were simply deregistered by their owners.

Lai Kim-tak, chairman of the Medium and Heavy Truck Concern Group, said most subsidies went to owners who needed to buy a new truck, not people changing their vehicles earlier than necessary.

Goods vehicles make up 92 per cent of pre-Euro and Euro I commercial diesel vehicles on the roads.

Lai said the scheme was not attractive to truck owners because it offered them little financial help to buy a new vehicle. The average grant is HK$43,000, while a Euro IV truck costs between HK$650,000 and HK$800,000.

“The scheme did not spur our members to replace trucks earlier because the subsidy is small and trucks are so expensive. We buy a new truck when ours no longer work and then we apply for the fund,” he said. “But by that time, with or without the grant, we need to buy a new truck.”

Dr Alexis Lau Kai-hon, an associate professor in the environmental division at the University of Science and Technology, said this was not the aim of the scheme. “The aim is to make people speed up replacement of vehicles. It they don’t, it means the scheme is not effective. In other words, the money is not well spent.”

With the scheme proving a failure, the government should consider the threat of punishment to urge owners of dirty vehicles to switch, Lau said.

“Apart from carrots, there should be sticks in government policy,” he said. “The government should give a clear signal that environmental conservation is its policy direction.

“Look at the example of the plastic bag levy. Traders opposed it fearing it would harm their business. But the levy is working very well now.”

He suggested the government set up low-emission zones or raise licence fees for dirty old vehicles.

The Environmental Protection Department said it would not extend the scheme because that would be counter to its objective of encouraging owners to replace vehicles early.

Last month, the department said it would consider compelling owners to scrap their polluting vehicles. Last year, lawmakers rejected a proposal to increase licence fees for older vehicles, citing the economic downturn.

source: scmp

Green scheme for old trucks stalls

SCMP, Austin Chiu
16th Feb, 2010

Cash incentives for getting polluting vehicles off the roads branded a failure

A subsidy aimed at encouraging owners of old, polluting diesel trucks and vans to replace them early is failing because most of the people taking the grant would be buying a new vehicle anyway as theirs are worn out, owners and academics say.

They say the low take-up rate of the grants shows the scheme is ineffective for phasing out dirty old commercial vehicles, with one academic calling for punitive measures to be considered instead.

The HK$3.2 billion voluntary replacement scheme expires at the end of next month. It was launched in April 2007 and targets commercial diesel vehicles registered before 1995, when the so-called Euro 1 emissions standards were launched, and the later Euro I vehicles.

Owners are eligible for grants if their new vehicles comply with the latest Euro IV standards, which are up to 30 times less polluting than the older ones.

By the end of January, the Environmental Protection Department had approved 13,798 applications, involving HK$595 million, just 18.6 per cent of the fund. Of the applications, 89.2 per cent involved goods vehicles, 6.9 per cent non-franchised buses and 3.8 per cent light buses.

There are about 39,500 such old vehicles on the roads, 23 per cent fewer than before the scheme. But the number of old vehicles taken off the roads include 3,000 that were simply deregistered by their owners.

Lai Kim-tak, chairman of the Medium and Heavy Truck Concern Group, said most subsidies went to owners who needed to buy a new truck, not people changing their vehicles earlier than necessary.

Goods vehicles make up 92 per cent of pre-Euro and Euro I commercial diesel vehicles on the roads.

Lai said the scheme was not attractive to truck owners because it offered them little financial help to buy a new vehicle. The average grant is HK$43,000, while a Euro IV truck costs between HK$650,000 and HK$800,000.

“The scheme did not spur our members to replace trucks earlier because the subsidy is small and trucks are so expensive. We buy a new truck when ours no longer work and then we apply for the fund,” he said. “But by that time, with or without the grant, we need to buy a new truck.”

Dr Alexis Lau Kai-hon, an associate professor in the environmental division at the University of Science and Technology, said this was not the aim of the scheme. “The aim is to make people speed up replacement of vehicles. It they don’t, it means the scheme is not effective. In other words, the money is not well spent.”

With the scheme proving a failure, the government should consider the threat of punishment to urge owners of dirty vehicles to switch, Lau said.

“Apart from carrots, there should be sticks in government policy,” he said. “The government should give a clear signal that environmental conservation is its policy direction.

“Look at the example of the plastic bag levy. Traders opposed it fearing it would harm their business. But the levy is working very well now.”

He suggested the government set up low-emission zones or raise licence fees for dirty old vehicles.

The Environmental Protection Department said it would not extend the scheme because that would be counter to its objective of encouraging owners to replace vehicles early.

Last month, the department said it would consider compelling owners to scrap their polluting vehicles. Last year, lawmakers rejected a proposal to increase licence fees for older vehicles, citing the economic downturn.

Rationalizing of bus routes and replacement of pre euro diesel vehicles‏

SCMP

25th Jan. 2010


The SCMP article (Saturday) below demonstrates the normal modus operandi of the apathetic HK Government – tell the public it will cost them more for the right to have clean air. Meanwhile the hospital admissions due to roadside pollution and loss of productivity would reverse if we used hybrid buses so the Government would save billions in healthcare costs.

They should privatise the bus transportation system if the mega rich tycoons running our bus routes don’t like to do what they are told under their franchises which require all new buses to be Euro 4 or higher and force them to replace their polluting fleet, again listed within their franchise terms. Diesel bus routes should terminate in large interchanges and the adjoining main arterial roads should be served by non polluting hybrid electric shuttle buses only and paid for by the Government so the bus companies have no say in the matter other than to pay a portion of the electric shuttle interconnection fee. Only the hybrid  electric shuttle buses should ply the Nathan Road / Causeway Bay / Central routes and the Octopus fare would include the shuttle portion.

London will shortly have 330 such hybrid buses on its congested streets. Shanghai’s complete bus fleet operates on methanol fuel. Australia uses LPG and natural gas buses. Hong Kong kowtows to the bus tycoons.

Our 5,800 franchised buses (+110 single deckers on Lantao ) carry 3.8 million passengers per day mostly during the rush hours whilst the rest of the day they are polluting mobile painted advertising billboards travelling mostly empty nose to tail on Nathan Rd or in Causeway Bay to Western . The vast majority of these franchised buses are pre Euro or Euro 1 buses. A Euro 5 bus is 5 times less polluting than a Euro 1 bus. Meanwhile these buses account for 40% of HK’s total vehicle emissions. There are 73,000 pre Euro or Euro 1 diesel vehicles in Hong Kong which together with unregulated high sulphur bunker fuel burning from ocean going ships mostly contribute to our roadside pollution. The Government has a voluntary scheme for diesel truck owners to scrap their vehicles and this needs to become mandatory as does the introduction /enforcement of an Emissions Control Area for local shipping.

Section 26 (2) of the KMB Franchise (and no doubt other franchises) states

“The grantee shall adopt, at such time and in such manner, such commercially available and proven technologies and products on its existing and newly acquired buses as the Commissioner may reasonably specify after consultation with the Grantee for the purpose of reducing exhaust and noise emissions in the operation of the Bus service.”

It is within the power of the Government to clean up our bus routes today. They must enforce the retirement of old polluting diesel vehicles and setup a hybrid electric bus shuttle network in our downtown congested areas whilst allowing registration of LPG driven private cars.

SCMP

Trimming bus routes could see fares go up

Cheung Chi-fai Saturday Jan 23, 2010

Transport officials warn that bus fares may go up as they trim the number of routes, but lawmakers are pressing for operators to explore new types of fare concessions, such as a single trip discount endorsed by several companies.

The officials, who this month began with district councils their annual review of bus routes, admit that winning community support for plans to axe or merge trips remains an uphill battle.

At a joint panel meeting of transport and environmental affairs in the Legislative Council yesterday, lawmakers urged officials to study incentives such as the various operators offering joint-concessions on fares for interchanges.

Some lawmakers pressed officials to accelerate the rate that older, more polluting buses are replaced with ones that meet latest European Union emission standards – Euro V. There are still about 1,700 buses on the road that conform to Euro I, meaning their particles emission is 50 times higher than the latest models. Companies must retire buses after a maximum of 17 years on the road.

Buses form the city’s second-largest public transport system, carrying 3.8 million people a day. But they also account for 40 per cent of the total emissions from vehicles.

In its air quality objective review released last year, the Environment Bureau proposed cutting back the frequency of bus service by 10 per cent. The bureau now says such a reduction would eliminate 2 per cent of particles emissions and reduce nitrogen oxide concentration by 10 per cent at the roadside level.

Environment officials say route rationalisation efforts can save operators money and will affect fares less than upgrading vehicles will, which they fear may drive up prices by 15 per cent.

But Yau Shing-mu, the undersecretary for transport and housing, said he would not rule out some passengers might have to pay more for changing buses after adjustments to service.

“Some might have their fare cut but there could also be some who have to pay more. We know these passengers might not like it, but in general, bus services would become more convenient too,” Yau said.

Yau said there were rules governing the replacement of buses but whether the government and bus firms had to bear all the cost was subject to debate. “If there is a consensus on that, we will do it,” he said.

Kam Nai-wai, a lawmaker with the Democratic Party, said the government should consider subsidising fare concessions on interchanges.

“What consumer would change buses if the fare was not substantially lower?” he said.

Between 2004 and 2009, 46 routes have been cut and 19 have been shortened. But at the same time, 20 new routes were introduced to new areas not covered by rail, and 86 routes had their frequency of service increased. The number of buses during the same period fell from 6,179 to 5,793.

Cutting the number of routes or trimming the frequency of service are sensitive topics for local politicians as residents and district councillors tend to oppose them. Many people still prefer “point to point” transport, and find it a hassle to switch buses mid-way.

Transport officials say 59 out of 105 proposals to cut routes or reduce service frequency were rejected by district councillors in the past three years. One-fourth of the rejected proposals duplicate railway lines.

Dr Kitty Poon Kit, undersecretary for the environment, said she hoped there would be broad support for route changes from across the political parties. Her bureau can provide data on the environmental benefits of each district proposal for local politicians.

Dirty, old vehicles in the cross hairs

Cheung Chi-fai
Updated on
Jan 05, 2010

Tougher measures might be considered to phase out old and dirty diesel commercial vehicles given that a voluntary replacement scheme had received a lukewarm response, a senior environment official said yesterday. They could include forcing owners of such vehicles to replace them.

The scheme, which expires at the end of March, provides HK$3.2 billion for cash grants to operators who switch to cleaner vehicles. Since its launch in March 2007, just 13,000 applications have been approved, and of the money, HK$2 billion remains unused. There are still 39,000 of these old diesel vehicles on the road. That is 20,000 fewer than in 2007, but of the 20,000 some 5,800 have simply been deregistered by their owners.

The vehicles are classified as pre-Euro or Euro I, meaning they were built either before the European Union introduced its first (Euro I) restrictions on truck and bus exhaust emissions in 1992, or before they were tightened in 1996. The current Euro V standards are between 62 per cent and 94 per cent tighter than Euro I standards.

Dr Kitty Poon Kit, acting Secretary for the Environment, told the Legislative Council’s subcommittee on improving air quality the government had written to owners of these remaining vehicles reminding them to submit applications for grants under the scheme soon.

However, she said it was not known how many more owners would take up the offer given that the economic downturn had hit the transport sector hard.

Poon said that, as well as the “carrot” of replacement grants, the government would consider wielding a stick – by compelling owners to scrap their polluting vehicles. However, she ruled out the administration buying the vehicles. Last year lawmakers rejected a proposal to increase licence fees for older vehicles, citing the economic downturn.

No excuse not to switch bus fleet to diesel-electric hybrid models

SCMP, Charlie Chan Wing-tai, Sha Tin

7th Jan, 2010

I read with interest the report (“Roadside pollution a bigger life threat”, January 4).

The severe roadside pollution in Hong Kong is a result of traffic emissions, in particular those from diesel buses.

Even though bus companies have pushed for more environmentally friendly buses over the past few years, there is room for improvement.

As the largest bus operator in Hong Kong, KMB continues to study the feasibility of electric hybrid vehicles and the use of alternative fuels.

In a letter to these columns in 2004, Susanne Ho, the head of corporate communications at KMB, pointed out that the diesel-electric hybrid technology for buses was still in its infancy and was limited to a small number of single-deck prototypes.

She said that issues such as mechanical reliability, battery life, fuel economy, drivability and passenger capacity would need to be improved before diesel-electric technology could be seriously considered for a mass-transit bus fleet that provides reliable services.

However, there has been a rapid advancement of hybrid technology.

Bus operators running hybrid vehicles in London have been unreserved in their praise of the performance, reliability, fuel and CO{-2} reductions being achieved by the single and double-decker made by the firm Alexander Dennis.

Alexander Dennis is one of the main manufacturers of Hong Kong’s double-deckers.

This brand’s single and double-decker hybrid buses are already achieving CO{-2} and fuel reductions of between 35 and 38 per cent in London.

Also, the fleet of hybrid buses operating in Britain’s capital is achieving service availability of 94 per cent, a figure that is steadily increasing.

At the same time, the Greater London Authority has made it clear that it is determined to meet its greenhouse gas targets.

The British government has also made commitments.

It has set up a £30 million (HK$374 million) green bus fund designed to promote the purchase of several hundred new low-carbon buses.

Hong Kong, as a world-class city, must have good air quality.

London has already begun to replace the city’s public buses with a hybrid version.

So when will our government and bus companies follow and eventually catch up with policies being implemented in other international cities?

Natural partnership

SCMP

Reducing highly toxic emissions from ships must be a key part of the government’s clean-air strategy. Right now, shipping emissions are regarded as a problem that can wait. Officials have not given this a higher priority because they take a total-quantity approach rather than a public health one. Total emissions from power plants and road vehicles are many times higher than that from ships. But this approach misses the high toxicity of bunker fuel. Data from the maritime industry shows that the 15 biggest ships in the world today may emit the same amount of pollution as all the cars in the world.

Imagine a large container ship coming into Kwai Chung terminal. It stays there for, say, a day to load and unload cargo. While the ship is docked, it is still burning bunker fuel to generate electricity. Under international agreements, oceangoing vessels can burn bunker fuel with up to 4.5 per cent sulphur content, although the average is about 3 per cent. This is extremely high compared to the 0.005 per cent sulphur content of ultra-low sulphur diesel that road vehicles burn in Hong Kong. Kwai Chung is close to the homes and workplaces of millions of people. Even light breezes can blow the emissions to heavily populated areas.

The issue, then, is straightforward. The government must multitask – while it prepares plans to drive down power and vehicular emissions, it must at the same time deal with ships. So far, officials have only proposed to deal with local vessels. These are the smaller vessels operating in local waters, such as pleasure boats, ferries, hydrofoils and barges. They are already burning much cleaner fuels, with 0.5 per cent sulphur content. The government is proposing that all local vessels should use ultra-low sulphur diesel, which will help. A refinement to this proposal is to set a limit on emissions and allow owners to use other means to achieve the same emission levels as ultra-low sulphur diesel, since other technology may be able to achieve the same results.

The problem remains that oceangoing vessels are not included in this proposal and they are the heavy polluters burning bunker fuel. Let’s face facts. The container ports of Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Guangzhou handle about 12 per cent of the global container traffic. This is an awful lot for a small body of water. Hong Kong and Shenzhen are, in fact, sister ports because of their proximity, and also because they share essentially the same investors and operators. And even if ships are heading for Shenzhen, many pass through Hong Kong waters and their emissions affect our residents.

In fact, all major port cities and cross-jurisdiction regions face the same problems. International maritime agreements on emissions have moved quite slowly. For example, oceangoing ships will only have to meet fuel standards with 3.5 per cent sulphur content by 2012, and perhaps 0.5 per cent by 2020. This is far too slow, so port authorities are taking the initiative to clean up marine emissions and related container-truck pollution.

The US ports of Seattle and Tacoma and their neighbouring Canadian port of Vancouver have formed an extensive partnership to maintain clean waterways and air quality. Its members include port operators, local environmental authorities and public health experts. The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are also co-operating to find solutions that include using financial incentives for ships to burn cleaner fuel as they enter Californian waters. European ports are exploring similar initiatives.

Hong Kong and Shenzhen are ideal partners to devise green port policies. The public should insist that it becomes part of the government’s push to work with Guangdong to improve air quality, and also make it an important element of cross-border collaboration. The good news is that many ship owners, liners and terminal operators are ready to act because their ships and overseas operations have already been forced to clean up. They know the global trend. The authorities here need to demand action so there is a level playing field. In other words, discriminate against the laggards, not those who can lead.

Christine Loh Kung-wai is chairperson of the Clean Air Network and chief executive of the think tank Civic Exchange. cloh@civic-exchange.org

Business groups back air quality plan, despite activists’ criticism

Cheung Chi-fai and Paggie Leung, SCMP

Two major business groups have thrown their weight behind the air quality improvement plan unveiled by the government two days ago, despite reservations voiced by a clean air advocacy group.

Teresa Au, deputy chairwoman of the General Chamber of Commerce environment and sustainability committee, said it was worth paying for better air, which was vital to the city’s competitiveness and attractiveness to overseas talent.

“There is always a price for better environment and long-term benefits will require some short-term investments,” she said.

Suen Kai-lit, the new chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries, also backed the plan, saying: “We support the government putting in more effort to improve the environment, even if it needs to use taxpayers’ money.”

But the Clean Air Network, a newly formed advocacy group on air quality, said even if the new targets were met, it would not be enough to prevent harm from bad air.

A consultation paper has proposed a set of air quality objectives and 19 control measures to attain them. It offered no timetable but said the measures had the potential to increase the average life expectancy of city dwellers by a month.

Ms Au said the lack of a timetable would give officials room to negotiate with power firms and bus operators who would be asked to use cleaner fuel and phase out polluting vehicles.

She said the chamber would submit a detailed response later.

Mr Suen said that if power stations had to use cleaner raw materials to improve air quality, consumers would be prepared to pay more for electricity.

But the Clean Air Network said if the measures were implemented, there would still be at least 950 premature deaths a year, compared with about 1,100 based on emissions figures for 2007.

The estimates were projected from the Hedley Index, developed by local scientists, which tracks the health and economic costs of pollution.

Lai Hak-kan of the University of Hong Kong’s department of community medicine said new sulphur dioxide targets could be worse than the existing ones as they allowed more exemptions.

“We are surrounded by ports in the region and many ocean-going vessels are using dirty fuel loaded with sulphur. But we do not see the government taking it seriously,” he said.

Meanwhile, Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah told RTHK that the consultation was “not all about expenses”.

“The energy-efficiency measures can give savings to consumers and rationalising bus routes costs almost nothing and saves running costs.”

Long wait to clean up air is unacceptable

SCMP

I could not agree more with the comments made in the report (“Clean-air ideas abound but hard choices rare, green groups charge”, July 15) on the heavy roadside pollution caused by Hong Kong buses. Green Power and Friends of the Earth deserve credit for pointing out the core factor behind the serious air pollution here, buses and trucks.

Unfortunately, the government appears to be far too complacent in the face of bus companies and truck drivers’ groups’ opposition to replacing polluting fleets. Hong Kong’s roadside air pollution has reached a serious level. Any sensitive and responsible government would jump at every chance to improve the situation. But it seems our administration is biased towards profit-driven bus companies, which have reportedly threatened to raise fares.

The government should act swiftly to replace the many pre-Euro and Euro I diesel vehicles on our roads.

Should the bus companies decide to raise fares, let Hong Kong people decide if they want to rely on selfish, greedy transport providers.

Rather than giving subsidies to operators to replace their vehicles, why not subsidise people to take other forms of transportation such as the under-utilised West Rail? Bus route rationalisation should also be a priority, as many routes are apparently serving the same districts, for example, Central and Wan Chai.

It is unreasonable for the government to ask Hong Kong people to wait till 2015 to enjoy good air quality. A responsible and visionary administration would not adopt such an attitude.

W. Yeung, Mid-Levels