Normally the time allowed for idling is for startup of diesel heavy goods vehicles after the engine has been switched off then restarted. They cannot move until the airbrakes have sufficient pressure to release the handbrake. Small goods vehicles and cars do not have such a necessity. Also overseas legislation has to contend with sub zero temperatures which does not apply
in Hong Kong.
Idling Engines
Only heavy goods vehicles need to idle after startup or they cannot move until the air brake reservoirs are full
Engine Idling: Just the Facts
It’s a toxic health hazard, it’s hard on your engine, and it wastes expensive gasoline.
Idling gets you nowhere.
Download the leaflet from the City of Portland Office of Transportation
Clear the Air Letter to Editor SCMP
Roadside pollution comes mostly from local vehicles here. The Government has finally proposed a further exemption to the Motor Vehicle Idling (FP) Bill by allowing a 3 minute ‘still legal to pollute’ grace period for stationary drivers to run their engines which issue the most microfine pollutants at idling speed.
The Government chooses to cherry pick that several Toronto municipalities (but not elsewhere in Canada) have a three minute vehicle and boat idling period. It conveniently omits that Toronto allows car and boat engines to continue idling when the temperature inside the vehicle is above 27 Deg C or below 5 deg C, that the fixed penalty for the offence is between C$100 – C$ 380 (two to 8 times more than here) and can be up to C$ 5,000 if contested in court. It does not mention that the vehicle emissions’ standards in Canada are far stricter than Hong Kong http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/ca/#hdv
nor that Toronto has an average of 15 cms of snow and at 630 sq kilometers with a 7,200 sq kilometer green belt surrounding it, is far more spread out as a city and does not have the same curtain wall urban canyon effect that traps roadside microfine pollutants here.
Here is yet another example of Hong Kong’s obdurate Government trying to issue a loopholed piece of legislation to pander to big Business and is worthy of a sketch from ‘Yes Prime Minister’. The law as proposed , is unenforceable – should the enforcers stand next to the vehicles for an hour and count a total of 3 engine idling minutes to wait to issue a ticket ? The Government should learn from its deliberately flawed anti smoking laws that allowing such exemptions resulted in legal tobacco sales’ increase in 2008 after the flawed ban with exemptions came into place, so must we expect the same increase in engine idling with this potholed legislation ? They should re-name the Engine Idling legislation the ‘Amazing Grace’ Ordinance. It seems the Government yet again puts vested interests ahead of the health of the local public to which it has a duty of care.
James Middleton
Chairman Energy Committee
Tel 26930136
Toronto’s Idling Control By-law
Idling and Air Quality
Contaminants from vehicle exhaust are major contributors to deteriorating air quality in Toronto. Recent studies by Health Canada and other agencies link a number of contaminants from vehicle emissions to significant respiratory health effects. Reducing these contaminants in Toronto’s air by restricting unnecessary idling is part of a comprehensive air quality strategy for the City. The goal of this strategy is to improve air quality and respiratory health.
What is the purpose of the by-law?
The by-law is intended to reduce unnecessary idling in the City. It limits idling to no more than three minutes in a given 60 minute period. The by-law allows transit vehicles to idle when picking up or discharging passengers and also allows limited idling when transit vehicles are waiting for passengers. As well, the by-law provides for idling during extreme outdoor temperatures to ensure heating or cooling inside a vehicle.
If you wish you may read the idling control by-law: Chapter 517 of the Municipal Code.
How will the by-law be enforced?
The City’s intention is to achieve compliance with the by-law through voluntary measures. If these measures are not successful, the by-law provides for a fine of up to a maximum of $5,000 for infractions of the by-law. For further information about issuing a complaint, by-law compliance or by-law enforcement, you may contact:
Permit Parking
City Hall
100 Queen St W
Main Floor, West Tower
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Phone: 416-392-7873 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 416-392-7873 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Fax: 416-392-1911
E-mail: pparking@toronto.ca
Why should we reduce the unnecessary idling of vehicles?
There are known environmental impacts and economic costs associated with vehicle emissions.
Environmental and Health Impacts
· Motor vehicles and related activities are the major sources of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, suspended particles and volatile organic compounds in the City. Nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are the two main substances involved in the formation of ozone, a component of smog.
· Ozone and suspended particles are included in the group of chemicals associated with significant respiratory health effects and hospital admissions.
· Toronto Public Health has been promoting the idle-free message through its ongoing programs on smog and air quality, and the City’s Corporate Smog Alert Response Plan.
For further information about the environmental and health impacts of unnecessary idling, contact the Environmental Protection Office of Toronto Public Health at 416-392-6788 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 416-392-6788 end_of_the_skype_highlighting.
Economic Costs and Operational Impacts
· It has been estimated that 3 per cent of Ontario’s fuel is wasted by idling. An idling diesel engine will burn about 2.5 litres per hour. An idling gasoline engine will burn about 3.5 litres per hour. Ten seconds of idling uses more fuel than restarting the engine.
· Lubricant contamination occurs from excessive idling. This is because engine operation at idling temperatures creates soot deposits and condensation of water vapour that mixes with sulphur oxides to become sulphuric acid in the crankcase.
You may obtain further information about saving energy at the Energy Efficiency Web site.
What are the alternatives to unnecessary idling?
· From a cold start, it is better to warm up an engine by driving it rather than idling. Warm up times are reduced to half and fuel consumption is reduced.
· If you are concerned about turning off your engine because you may have trouble restarting it, a well maintained starter system and engine is a better alternative than idling.
A condition referred to as “hot stall”, where older diesel engines may be difficult to restart, should not occur if the engine is shut down properly.
517-1
Chapter 517
IDLING OF VEHICLES AND BOATS
§ 517-1. Definitions.
§ 517-2. Restrictions on idling;
exceptions.
§ 517-3. Offences.
[HISTORY: Adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto 1998-10-2 by By-law No.
673-1998. Amendments noted where applicable.]
GENERAL REFERENCES
Traffic and parking — See Ch. 950.
§ 517-1. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
BOAT — A ship or any other description of vessel not propelled by oars and includes
a boat used exclusively for towing purposes, a water taxi and a boat used on
water for living purposes.
IDLE — The operation of the engine of a boat or vehicle while the vehicle or boat
is not in motion and not being used to operate auxiliary equipment that is essential
to the basic function of the vehicle or boat, and “idling” has a corresponding
meaning.
LAYOVER — A stopping point along a transit route for a maximum of 15 minutes
used by transit vehicles to allow transit vehicles to adjust to service schedules.
MOBILE WORKSHOP:
A. A vehicle containing equipment that must be operated inside or in association
with the vehicle; or
B. A vehicle serving as a facility for taking measurements or making observations
operated by or on behalf of a municipality, public utility or police, fire or
ambulance service.
OFFICIAL — A police officer, police cadet, municipal law enforcement officer or
any person authorized to enforce this chapter.
STOPOVER — A scheduled delay of a maximum of 15 minutes at a transit vehicle
terminal to allow transit vehicles to adjust to service schedules.
TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE
§ 517-2 IDLING OF VEHICLES AND BOATS
517-2
TRANSIT VEHICLE — Public transit vehicles, tour buses and motor coaches.
VEHICLE — A motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor or road-building
machine as defined in the Highway Traffic Act1 and any vehicle drawn, propelled or
driven by any kind of non-muscular power, but does not include cars of electric or
diesel electric railways running only upon rails.
§ 517-2. Restrictions on idling; exceptions.
A. No person shall cause or permit a vehicle or boat to idle for more than three minutes
in a sixty-minute period.
B. [Amended 1999-5-12 by By-law No. 238-1999] Subsection A does not apply to:
(1) Police, fire or ambulance vehicles or boats while engaged in operational activities,
including training activities, except where idling is substantially for
the convenience of the operator of the vehicle or boat.
(2) Vehicles and boats assisting in an emergency activity.
(3) Ferry boats operated by the City of Toronto or the Toronto Harbour Commissioners
providing service to the Toronto Islands, including the Toronto Island
Airport.
(4) Boats not at anchor or tied to a dock.
(5) Mobile workshops while they are in the course of being used for their basic
function.
(6) Vehicles or boats where idling is required to repair the vehicle or boat or to
prepare a vehicle or boat for service.
(7) Armoured vehicles where a person remains inside the vehicle while guarding
the contents of the vehicle or while the vehicle is being loaded or unloaded.
(8) Vehicles or boats required to remain motionless because of an emergency, traffic,
weather conditions or mechanical difficulties over which the driver has no
control.
(9) Vehicles or boats engaged in a parade or race or any other event authorized by
Council.
(10) Transit vehicles while passengers are embarking or disembarking en route or
in terminals.
(11) Transit vehicles while at a layover or stopover location except where idling is
substantially for the convenience of the operator of the vehicle.
1
Editor’s Note: See R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8.
TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE
IDLING OF VEHICLES AND BOATS § 517-3
517-3
(12) Vehicles transporting a person where a medical doctor certifies in writing that
for medical reasons a person in a vehicle requires that temperature or humidity
be maintained within a certain range.
(13) Vehicles or boats when the ambient temperature inside a vehicle or boat is:
(a) More than 27 degrees Celsius; or
(b) Less than 5 degrees Celsius.
§ 517-3. Offences.
[Amended 1999-11-25 by By-law No. 746-1999]
Every person who contravenes any provision of this chapter is guilty of an offence and on
conviction is liable to a fine as provided for in the Provincial Offences Act.2
2
Editor’s Note: Under section 61 of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, a person convicted of an offence is liable
to a fine of not more than $5,000.
Exhausting work
Last updated: March 12, 2010
Source: South China Morning Post
In a letter to the SCMP, Christine Loh Kung-wai, chief executive of the think-tank Civic Exchange, had this to say:
If Hong Kong doesn’t get the “carrots and sticks” formula right, it will continue to be hard to replace the old and highly polluting commercial diesel bus and truck fleet. There is no doubt about the harm these vehicles cause. Government data shows they are the principal emitters of roadside pollution, accounting for 88 per cent of the highly health-damaging particulates and 76 per cent of nitrogen dioxide, another pollutant.
Overseas research shows that those living within 500 metres of busy and congested roads are the worst affected. Negative health impacts include asthma, allergies, impaired lung functions in children and cardiovascular problems for the elderly.
(more…)
Traffic congestion on the three road harbour crossings
First published: March 5, 2010
Source: 7th Space
Hong Kong (HKSAR) – Following is a question by the Dr Hon Lam Tai-fai and a written reply by the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Ms Eva Cheng, at the Legislative Council meeting today (March 3): Question: In its paper submitted to the Panel on Transport of this Council in November 2008, the Government has indicated that the traffic distribution among the three road harbour crossings (“RHCs”) is uneven, and there is room for improvement. One of the major causes of uneven distribution is the difference in toll levels of the three RHCs.Moreover, quite a number of members of the public have relayed to me that congestion occurs in north bound and south bound traffic at the Cross-Harbour Tunnel (“CHT”) every morning and evening, and it has not only resulted in longer journey time but has also aggravated air pollution as it has increased vehicle emissions. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council: (a)of the respective average daily vehicular flows, as well as the maximum and minimum traffic flows of CHT, WesternHarbour Crossing (“WHC”) and Eastern Harbour Crossing (“EHC”) in each of the past five years, together with a breakdown by vehicle type; (b)since the implementation of the Journey Time Indication System (“JTIS”) at the end of 2003, whether the authorities have reviewed the effectiveness of JTIS, including the accuracy in its estimation of journey time; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (c)whether the Transport Department (“TD”) has received complaints about journey time being wrongly estimated by JTIS; if it has, of the total number of complaints received since the implementation of JTIS and, among such complaints, the maximum and minimum differences in the estimated and actual journey times involved; (d)whether TD has assessed if the traffic congestion problem at CHT is serious at present, and whether it has studied ways to solve the problem, including formulating time indicator for cross-harbour journeys or other vehicle divergent measures (for example, increasing the number of autotoll lanes); if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (e)whether it had, in the past three years, assessed the impact of the traffic congestion problem at the three RHCs on the journey time to work and to school of members of the public, as well as on air pollution, and whether it had assessed the resultant economic losses to Hong Kong (including the impact on the gross value of production of relevant industries and the development of the tourist industry in Hong Kong); if it had, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (f)whether it has assessed the impact of the Central-Wanchai Bypass Project, West Kowloon Cultural District Project and the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link Project on the traffic at CHT during their construction; whether it will aggravate the traffic congestion problem at CHT; if it has, of the details, and how such problems are to be solved; (g)whether it has assessed if the traffic congestion problem at the three RHCs can be alleviated after the commissioning of the Shatin to Central Link; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (h)given that the Government indicated in November 2008 that it had commissioned a 12-month consultancy study on the improvement in traffic distribution among the three RHCs, when the consultancy study will be completed, and whether it will make public the outcome of the study; and (i)given that the franchises of EHC and WHC will expire in 2016 and 2023 respectively, what factors the Government will consider in deciding whether it will propose buying out or extending their franchises; how the outcome of the consultancy study will affect the Government’s decision? Reply: President, (a)A breakdown by vehicle type of the average daily vehicular flow, maximum vehicular flow and minimum vehicular flow of Cross-Harbour Tunnel (CHT), Western Harbour Crossing (WHC) and Eastern Harbour Crossing (EHC) for the past five years is set out in the Annex.
(more…)
Tourism legislator should take fight for clean air to the streets
Edward Yau Tang-wah was testing electric car outside Legislative Council. Will Mr. Yau agrees the car park beside Legco should close down, or he needs to encourage his peers to use electric car? (Source: Ming Pao)
When Paul Tse Wai-chun, the Legislative Council representative for tourism, was asked about the effect of recent record street-level pollution on tourism, he responded that the government was doing its best to remedy the situation. Really?
When we can no longer take our tourists to Mong Kok to visit the street markets, because the pollution levels are so high there, we have to question what the administration is doing.
Very little, judging by the ever-present PCCW, Hutchison 3G and CSL promotion minibuses that are parked on the streets of Mong Kok, hogging drop-off points and forcing other vehicles to double park and block the traffic.
At metered facilities, vehicles covered in promotional banners are parked there for no reason other than to provide a low-cost but highly visible advertising medium. This is despite the fact that commercial activities are prohibited at parking meters.
Some of this activity, and the accompanying illegal parking, is taking place within sight of Mong Kok police station. Where are the traffic wardens and patrolling officers who should be on the streets, writing tickets and getting the traffic moving?
Last week, while enjoying the serenity of Kowloon Park, I was asked to move out of the way to allow some government cars to drive by. What were these cars doing inside a public park, particularly when there is an MTR station close by?
It is high time that the car park beside Legco was closed down and Legco members and government officials forced to walk on the streets with the majority of the population.
We expect our Legco members to battle for the right of tourists and locals to clean air, not to recycle the feeble excuses that the Environmental Protection Department trots out about pollution coming from across the border.
It is being generated right here on our streets, under our noses. Take action, Mr Tse.
Source: SCMP, Martin Brinkley, Ma Wan
Roadside air pollution up sixfold in 4 years – HK traffic not Guangdong factories to blame: scientists
Cheung Chi-fai – SCMP
Air pollution at street level has soared in the past four years while improving at the city’s rooftops, calling into question assertions that Hong Kong’s chronic air-quality problems have a regional more than local source.
Roadside monitoring stations recorded more than six times as many periods of health-threatening pollution levels in the first half of this year than in the same period in 2005.
The stations, in Central, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok, registered 1,066 hours – the equivalent of more than 44 days – during which the air pollution index rose above the “very high” 100 level. (A 100 level prompts a health warning to those with heart and respiratory conditions.)
But above street level, the number of such hours recorded by general monitoring stations – which track sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone and respirable suspended particles – fell by more than half, to 56, according to an analysis of Environmental Protection Department data by the South China Morning Post (SEHK: 0583, announcements, news) .
There are 13 general monitoring stations across the city, located on building rooftops 11 to 25 metres above ground.
Scientists consulted by the Post say the improvement in air quality high above ground is due largely to Guangdong’s efforts to install sulphur scrubbers in power plants and the closure of many factories because of the recession.
The worsening street-level air is likely the product of cars and trucks on the city’s congested streets, the experts say.
“It is undeniably a local pollution problem at street level. All we need is a lot more and urgent measures to address vehicular pollution to protect public health,” said Alexis Lau Kai-hon, an atmospheric scientist from the University of Science and Technology.
But the Environmental Protection Department blamed regional air pollution for deteriorating street-level air quality. It said three key pollutants emitted by motor vehicles had in fact fallen, while regionally generated ozone was combining with other pollutants to form nitrogen dioxide by the road, pushing up the figures.
The department said changes in pollutant concentration readings were more reliable than the index in reflecting air quality trends.
It credited emission-control measures introduced in the past decade for bringing down levels of sulphur dioxide, suspended particles and nitrogen oxides by about 20 per cent between 1999 and last year.
But another roadside pollutant, nitrogen dioxide, rose 9 per cent in the first six months of this year and has remained at 1999 levels.
“The increase is mainly due to the rise in ambient background ozone concentration, which has aggravated the conversion of nitrogen oxides from motor vehicles to nitrogen dioxide,” a spokesman said.
Levels of ozone – the major component of smog – have risen 18 per cent in the first six months of the year and in recent years have been at higher levels than in 1999. Ozone can react with nitrogen oxides to form nitrogen dioxide.
But the government’s explanation was not accepted unquestionably by scientists.
“Without a high level of roadside nitrogen oxides from vehicles, the ozone would not have caused more serious secondary pollution of nitrogen dioxide,” Professor Lau said.
Chan Chak-keung, a professor in chemical and biomolecular engineering at HKUST, said controlling ozone-inducing volatile organic compounds coming from a wide spectrum of sources such as vehicles, factories and products like paints was never an easy task. There are nearly 636,000 cars, buses and trucks on the road in Hong Kong, up 5.7 per cent from the end of 2005.
Roadside pollution is also linked to poor dispersion of pollutants, caused by an urban design that favours high-rise towers even in congested streets.
Client Saw Red As Cabbie Tried To Be Green – Taxi Sector To Fight Idling-engine Ban After Driver Fined For Row
Joyce Man, SCMP – May 30, 2009
Taxi drivers have vowed to oppose proposed legislation banning them from idling their engines while parked – which causes pollution but keeps the air conditioner running – after a driver was fined for getting angry with a passenger who left his car because it was too hot.
Taxi and Public Light Bus Concern Group chairman Lai Ming-hung said the taxi sector unanimously disapproved of the measure and this incident had increased their opposition. “The proposal hasn’t even come into law yet, and it has already caused problems,” he said.
Chan Man-kin, 29, plans to appeal after being fined HK$1,200 by Deputy Special Magistrate Liza Li Lai-shan in Tsuen Wan Court for behaving other than in a civil and orderly manner.
The court heard that early on November 4 last year Chan had parked his taxi on Nathan Road near Shan Tung Road in Mong Kok and switched off his engine, meaning the air conditioning was also off.
At about 1am firefighter Cheung Wing-hei got into the cab and asked to be driven to Wong Tai Sin, but then got out complaining the car was too stuffy.
Angry, Chan shouted at Mr Cheung, telling him not to play around, but Mr Cheung ignored him. Chan continued shouting and Mr Cheung turned around and said he was going to file a complaint.
It was not clear whether Chan had already started his meter, the court heard.
But Mr Lai said it had been turned on and likened the passenger’s action to going to a restaurant, drinking tea and leaving without paying.
“This law would be very inappropriate for our industry,” Mr Lai said, referring to the proposed legislation. “That person wouldn’t take the car because of the heat. It has happened already.”
But lawmaker Andrew Cheng Kar-foo said that in this case it might have been the lack of legislation that caused the confusion.
“If there was legislation, it would have been clearer. Because there was no legislation, this guy asked why he switched off his engine,” he said.
“You need to make sacrifices to be environmental,” added Mr Cheng, who is deputy chairman of the Legislative Council’s panel on transport and a member of the subcommittee on improving air quality.
Mr Lai wrote to the Department of Justice and police yesterday asking why charges had been laid against Chan when both he and Mr Cheung had been involved in the argument.
Police had told Chan to pursue the payment in the Small Claims Tribunal, but that would be a waste of time, Mr Lai said in the letter. A date has not yet been set for the Legislative Council to discuss the proposal.
Proposed Idling Ban To Be Eased For Taxis
Daniel Sin – Feb 24, 2009 – SCMP
The proposed ban on idling engines would be relaxed, but not dropped, for taxis, the environment chief told lawmakers.
Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah told the Legislative Council’s environmental affairs panel that the legislative proposal to ban idling engines would be revised for taxis. The change would exempt from the ban the first five taxis, rather than the first two, at a taxi stand, and taxis in a moving queue or in the process of passengers boarding or alighting.
The taxi trade had demanded that cabbies be given a full exemption. But Mr Yau was not willing to make that concession, saying it would lead other sectors to make the same demand, defeating the purpose of the legislation.
He also dismissed suggestions for exemptions during exceptionally hot or rainy weather, saying there was no such precedent in other jurisdictions adopting a ban.
The government would draft the law with a view to introducing the bill to Legco before mid-July, when the current legislative session ends, Mr Yau said.
Miriam Lau Kin-yee of the Liberal Party criticised Mr Yau for being ignorant of how the taxi trade operated, saying the revised proposal was not workable. “How would the sixth taxi driver, and those behind him in the queue, know whether to switch off the engine, especially when the queue is long or the view is obstructed?” she asked.
The Motor Transport Workers General Union called for the legislation to be shelved, saying the proposed measure would be ineffective in improving air quality while putting drivers’ and passengers’ health at greater risk.
Edwin Lau Che-feng, director of Friends of the Earth, said the legislation should take effect as early as possible, but flexibility in enforcement should be allowed in special circumstances such as extreme hot weather or heavy rain. He said the regulation could be fine-tuned as more experience was gained in making it work.