SCMP – 19 June 2012

Legislation that is enacted but not enforced is nothing more than meaningless text on the statute books. It is even more absurd when weak legislation continues to be watered down unnoticed after its passage into law. A case in point is the much-criticised law against idling engines, which seeks to combat roadside air pollution. After 14 years of negotiations, the law finally came into force six months ago. But slack enforcement and an array of exemptions still leave a lot to be desired. To ease the impact of the ban, the government issued only verbal warnings in the first month. However, despite 180 spot check operations over the past few months, no penalty ticket has been issued so far. Questions have to be asked whether all drivers have suddenly turned green or whether enforcement has been slack. Indeed, the public could be excused for wondering whether the government is determined to punish drivers who leave the engines of stationary vehicles running.

More disturbingly, as this newspaper has reported, the director of environmental protection last month exercised her discretionary power to exempt 200 vehicles operated by welfare agencies to carry the elderly or operate as mobile clinics. This is in addition to more than a dozen exemptions already passed by the legislature last summer. The approval for this was gazetted without publicity and explained only when asked by our reporter.

Any exemption is effectively a licence to pollute. That is why it should be exercised with great caution. It is disappointing that the official who is supposed to act like a guardian for a clean environment has quietly exercised her power without public scrutiny. The need for more transparency and accountability is evident.

The hot season is putting the law to the test. The tolerant approach over past six months has given drivers more than enough time to get used to the new rules. It is time for enforcers to act tough. Every effort must be made to show the ban on idling engines is not just a cosmetic exercise in the fight against air pollution.

Winnie Chong

Tuesday, June 05, 2012

“Sir, your engine is running. I’m clocking you.”

With such a courteous reminder from traffic wardens, it is not surprising that no one has been prosecuted under the idling engine ban since it came into effect on December 15.

A drivers’ concern group has characterized as a “toothless tiger” both the ordinance and efforts to enforce it.

Not so, said the Environmental Protection Department, pointing out that there have been 180 warnings even though nobody has been slapped with a fixed penalty ticket of HK$320.

Mok Wai-chuen, assistant director for air policy, said officers have stepped up enforcement action but it is sometimes hard to tell whether or not an engine is running.

But he insists the prohibition is effective since drivers turn off their engines once they spot the approach of a police officer.

Ng Chi-wai, the owner of Chi Wai TV Engine at Shau Kei Wan, said he has not seen a noticeable change in drivers’ behavior.

“Some even stay in their vehicles so they can enjoy the air-conditioning during meal breaks,” he said.

Regina Ng Wai-yi, who drives a seven-seater vehicle, said the ban would improve air quality but is difficult to enforce.

“You cannot turn off the engine on a hot day while waiting, especially if there are children in the car.”

She said it is also hard to enforce the ban in busy districts like Causeway Bay, Central and Wan Chai, where the air is heavily polluted. She urged the government to extend the idling time from three to 10 minutes.

Van driver Bao Chi-kin said the idling engine law is ridiculous.

“The driver of a goods vehicle has to stay behind the steering wheel while his colleagues are loading or unloading. How can we stand it if there is no air-conditioning?”

Taxi and Public Light Bus Concern Group chairman Lai Ming-hung, who called the law a ” toothless tiger,” said the three-minute rule leaves plenty of room for disputes between the drivers and the authorities.

But he believes the ban can stop drivers from sleeping in their vehicles.

Under the law, taxis at stands and the first two minibuses at terminals are exempt. All drivers are exempt during very hot weather or rainstorm warnings.

SCMP – June 5, 2012

Inspectors targeting drivers idling their vehicle engines have not ticketed any offenders yet, but their presence on the streets has forced many motorists to turn off engines, the Environmental Protection Department said yesterday.

Since the anti-idling law came into force in December, 180 enforcement actions had been undertaken at black spots across the city, said Mok Wai-chuen, assistant director of the department. Those actions included publicising the law, warning drivers and timing idling engines.

Drivers had generally been co-operative with the officers, Mok said.

In 110 cases, the inspectors started timing idling vehicles but the drivers always switched their engines off within the time limit allowed under the law.

Drivers face prosecution if they idle their engines for more than three minutes in any one-hour period. Violators are liable to a fixed-penalty ticket of HK$320.

“We will continue our enforcement and publicity efforts to urge drivers to comply with the idling engine ban,” said Mok, who launched an anti-idling publicity campaign on Tsim Sha Tsui streets yesterday.

Several roving exhibitions promoting the ban will be staged from now until early next month in Causeway Bay, Mong Kok, Tsim Sha Tsui and Tuen Mun.

In the first few months of the ban inspectors were lenient, verbally warning drivers who might not have been familiar with the new law, Mok said. But in recent months they had stepped up enforcement and drivers were no longer warned before the officers started their timing. However, drivers can always see that they are being timed.

Moreover, drivers get an obvious warning when the inspectors check to see if their engine is idling – coming close to listen, or looking at the exhaust pipe.

Mok said inspectors would step up enforcement during the summer months.

He urged drivers to do their bit to improve air quality in the city.

chifai.cheung@scmp.com

From: idlingenq@epd.gov.hk [mailto:idlingenq@epd.gov.hk]
Sent: 22 May, 2012 18:52
To: James Middleton
Cc: idlingenq@epd.gov.hk
Subject: RE: Statistics
Dear Mr. Middleton,

The EPD has conducted 165 roadside publicity and joint enforcement actions in total, 58 more since the end of March, and the traffic wardens have continued to enforce during normal patrol against drivers who contravenes the idling prohibition.  So far, drivers have been cooperative and no Penalty Notice has been issued.  As the summer is approaching, the EPD has stepped up the ongoing publicity activities to remind drivers to observe the law, including staging outdoor roving exhibitions between May and June.  Meanwhile, environmental protection inspectors and traffic wardens will continue to strengthen roadside publicity and joint enforcement actions.

Regards,
Ray LEUNG
Environmental Protection Department

What is the current level of fixed penalty notices issued please ?

James Middleton

From: idlingenq@epd.gov.hk [mailto:idlingenq@epd.gov.hk] 
Sent: 31 March, 2012 10:28
To: James Middleton
Subject: Re: Statistics
Dear Mr. Middleton,

Apart from the enforcement conducted by the traffic wardens during their normal patrol duty, we have conducted 107 pre-planned enforcement and publicity operations since the implementation of the Motor Vehicle Idling (Fixed Penalty) Ordinance in December 2011.  In general, the drivers are co-operative and so far no Fixed Penalty Notices have been issued. We will continue our extensive publicity and education programmes throughout Hong Kong to promote the message of switching off idling engines and encourage drivers to take up the green driving habit.

Regards,
Ray LEUNG
Environmental Protection Department

Clear the Air says:

The SCMP omits the fact that, as well as the first two red minibuses at a stand allowed to idle their engines, if a passenger sits in the third bus , it can also idle its engine and the one behind also ! So if the stand operators have one person sitting in each of the following minibuses , they can all run their engines legally.

i.e. a pointless and flawed piece of legislation in its current state.

The ban on idling engines could improve air quality by at least 30 per cent, according to a test conducted a day before and a day after by the South China Morning Post (SEHK: 0583, announcements, news) .

However non-compliance as a result of lax enforcement and polluting vehicles could also offset these potential benefits.

The Post took measurements at idling hot spots between 7pm and 9pm on December 14 and 16, in Causeway Bay and Mong Kok, to assess the effectiveness of the ban, introduced on December 15.

Using a hand-held device that automatically registered air quality data every two seconds, the Post measured the carbon monoxide reading at each hot spot for about four to five minutes on both days.

Air quality improvements were recorded in parts of Tung Choi Street, Mong Kok, where red minibuses line the left and middle lanes on a 100-metre stretch between Fife Street and Argyle Street.

On the day before the ban was introduced, about eight out of 15 red minibuses parked on the street had their engines idling.

The new law allows idling for a maximum of six buses for the three bus routes operating from the street.

On the second day, only six out of 16 buses were found idling.

Readings taken during a four-minute walk along the street showed carbon monoxide readings had dropped by 30 per cent from 7,400 micrograms on the first testing day to 5,200 micrograms.

There was also a noticeable improvement near a news stand close to the end of the street, where the average reading fell from 7,300 micrograms to 3,100 micrograms.

The stand owner said he felt the street was becoming “a lot more peaceful” than before.

But air pollution readings fluctuated outside an electronic product shop in the middle of the street, rising from 7,200 micrograms to 7,700 micrograms.

There was also an increase in Fa Yuen Street near Tung Choi Street, possibly due to more buses idling.

However, a semi-covered red minibus station next to Langham Place in Mong Kok remained a hot spot despite the ban, with more than 12 minibuses inside the station running their engines on both days the measurements were taken.

Average readings from a five-minute air sampling at one of the passenger queuing areas hit more than 18,000 micrograms on the first day, and a huge 59,000 on the second day.

The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) sets the maximum hourly allowable carbon monoxide levels at 30,000 micrograms.

A spokesman said the Post‘s findings, based on these short periods of measurement, should not be benchmarked against the department’s objectives.

Dr Lau Ngai-ting, who is with the University of Science and Technology’s environment division, said longer measurement periods would be needed to ascertain the benefits of the ban. But he wondered if other emission sources, including moving vehicles, might have overshadowed the improvements.

“No doubt there are incremental benefits if engines are switched off, but these can also be offset by other factors like moving traffic nearby,” Lau said.

This idea was supported by the Post’s findings. At one point on the second day, the maximum reading soared to a maximum of 157,000 micrograms as a diesel minibus overtook a LPG-powered bus and closed in on the air sampling device. “The reading was quite consistent until the diesel bus came closer and pushed the reading to this extremely high level,” said Nancy Fong Siu-pui, a research student who helped the Post with the measurement.

Lau said clamping down on idling engines was just one way of reducing pollution. Other measures, such as tighter vehicle emission standards and monitoring of ageing and polluting vehicles, were also required.

People working in the area said they had not yet seen officers enforcing the ban. One elderly worker said the pollution was better in the cooler weather, but worse in summer. “I am used to it,” he said.

The EPD did not respond directly when asked if officers patrolled the bus station and issued warnings to drivers breaching the ban, but it promised to refer the issue to the Transport Department.

Across the harbour in the section of Lockhart Road between Cannon Street and Percival Street, there was little change in the pollution readings. This was because most drivers had already started switching off their engines before the ban, with no need for air conditioning now the weather has cooled down.

chifai.cheung@scmp.com