Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

January 22nd, 2010:

Panel on Transport and Panel on Environmental Affairs

Jan 22nd, 2010
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet
Legco panels discussed reducing or reorganizing bus trips this morning.

Legco panels discussed reducing or reorganizing bus

Clear the Air, Edited by Ryan Chan

22nd Jan, 2010

Bus is one of the main sources of air pollution in Hong Kong. According to the document of Legislative Council, “on a territorial basis, franchised buses accounted for about 6% of respirable suspended particulates and 11% of the nitrogen oxides of road transport emission in Hong Kong in 2008. At busy traffic corridors, they could account for up to 40% of the total vehicular emissions.” Therefore reducing or reorganizing bus trips is an effective way to mitigate the roadside air pollution and hence the health risk to the people. That’s why Panel on Transport and Panel on Environmental Affairs met together to discuss about the issue.

In this meeting, many Legislative members made suggestions to the issue. They knew that reorganizing bus trips can help to reduce air pollution in Hong Kong. For example, Mr. Wong Kwok-hing mentioned that the citizens are willing to interchange between different bus trips as they want to improve air quality in Hong Kong. Mr. Kam Nai-wai had another opinion; he thought that reorganizing bus trips per se cannot solve the problem. In order to improve the air quality in Hong Kong the government needs to phrase out the use of per-euro buses promptly, and introduce environmental friendly vehicles. Some of the members stated that the Government did not provide enough information for the citizens to judge the effect of the policies. If there are research and data about different policies, the citizens can distinguish which policies is better for improving air quality.

After discussed for an hour, Ms. Audrey EU Yuet-mee concluded the meeting with two suggestions:

  • l Require Ms. Carolina YIP, Deputy Commissioner / Transport Services & Management, Transport Department to draft a report about the effect of switching to updated Euro buses in Hong Kong to be a reference to the citizens.
  • l Require Transport Department to draft a list of bus trips that can be reorganized or reduced. The list is useful for the District Council to discuss the issue. At the same time, the impact on the bus drivers brought by the reorganization of bus trips needs to be calculated, and being reported by the Transportation Department.

The citizens are not familiar with the effect of the policies about reducing or reorganizing bus trips. If government can do a research about that, the data collected can be a reference for the citizens. If they know that the policies are good to their health, we are sure that they will support the policies, just like what Mr. Wong Kwok-hing had mentioned in the meeting.

立法會交通事務委員會及環境事務委員會聯席會議

巴士是香港空氣污染的其中一個源頭，從立法會的文件，我們可以看到：「專營巴士在2008年排放的可吸入懸浮粒子和氮氧化物分別佔該年全港整體車輛的有關總排放量約6%和11%。但在繁忙的交通幹道，專營巴士的廢氣排放量佔總車輛廢氣排放量可高達40%。」因此，重整或減少巴士班次是一種有效的辦法來減少路邊空氣污染，從而降低對市民大眾所構成的健康風險。立法會交通事務委員會及環境事務委員會就為這個議題作出討論。

在2010/1/22的聯席會議中，不少議員都提出建議，希望可以儘快重整巴士路線。而其中有不少議員都明白到重整巴士路線對空氣質素有一定的幫助，如黃國興議員指出，有些市民為了改善空氣質素是不介意轉車的，所以政府就更應該要做。而甘乃威議員就提出單是重整是不足夠的，必須儘快把香港的巴士轉換成環保的型號，才能解決問題。會中亦提到政府並沒有給予足夠的數據，讓市民難以明白重整巴士路線及更換歐盟新型號環保巴士對空氣污染的改善程度，亦難以分辨那一個措施可以更有效改善空氣質素。

綜合了會議的結果，環境事務委員會主席余若薇議員建議政府作出二個行動：

第一，請運輸及房屋局首席助理秘書長(運輸)廖李可期女士為提早更換新型歐盟巴士對香港環境保護和改善空氣積素的效益作出報告，並提供足夠數據讓市民大眾可以參閱。

第二，請運輸及房屋局整理可以改動、重組的巴士路線的列表，用以交給區議會討論重整路線的可能性。同時亦希望有關方面把重組路線對職業司機的影響亦作出估量，寫成報告。

由於市民對改善空氣質素的政策效果認識不深，如果政府可以研究它們的效益，並提供資訊予市民參考，就可以令這些政策獲得更多市民的支持。重整巴士路線就是其中之一，就如黃國興議員所指，市民知道此舉可以改善空氣質素，他們是不介意改變他們的乘車習慣的。

Hong-Kong Air Quality

Jan 22nd, 2010
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

 

In an interview with Green Inc. last week, Eva Wong, a spokeswoman from Hong Kong’s Environmental Protection Department, suggested that while air quality along the city’s roads can be problematic, overall air quality in Hong Kong was generally good. With no local industry, the transport sector is the main source of Hong Kong’s pollution.

But critics of the government’s measuring methods continue to argue that the department’s analysis is flawed.

“The E.P.D. continues to make comments about Hong Kong’s very high pollutant levels which are distorted, disingenuous and misleading,” said Anthony Hedley, a public health physician and chairman of community medicine at the University of Hong Kong’s School of Public Health.

The EPD is using a biased system to test air pollution in Hong Kong, in two aspects:

·          One is the coverage of the stations is not good enough

·          Another bias is the air quality objectives (AQO’s) used by the government are outdated for over 20 years.

In Hong Kong, 11 general stations and 3 roadside pollution stations test air quality. But these are not enough nor a valid basis on which to base a proper assessment of Hong Kong’s air quality:

  •  Firstly, because Hong Kong has 18 districts, and yet there are only 14 stations, and the coverage of the stations is not good enough to reflect the accurate situation of Hong Kong air pollution.

From the Mobile Air-monitoring Platform (MAP) from University of Science and Technology, it is clear that even the air pollution in the same district in which there is one of the stations is at variance to the EPD’s readings.

Ex. In Des Voeux Road in Central, the MAP records a higher pollution standard than the main station of EPD. It’s the same situation in other main street of different districts such as King’s Road…

Therefore, the coverage of the stations is not good enough to let the people know the whole picture of air quality in Hong Kong.

  •   Secondly, there is a bias in respect of the pollution objectives of the EPD, which are now considerably outdated.

Joanne Ooi, the chief executive of the Clean Air Network, a local environmental group, and a marketing officer with Filligent, a company that has developed an antipollution mask, points out that Hong Kong’s air quality guidelines have not been revised since 1987.

Indeed, in the NYT’s article, the EPD mentioned that “Our Air Pollution Index (A.P.I.) system makes reference to Hong Kong’s current Air Quality Objectives (A.Q.O.’s)”. However, Hong Kong’s current Air Quality Objectives have not updated since 1987! What the EDP is really saying, therefore, is that” For the whole in 2009, the A.P.I. level breached the 100 mark 7 to 13 percent of the time at each of our three roadside air-quality monitoring stations.”, based on standards set in 1987 when not only traffic volumes and conditions were considerably different than those of today, but also today’s Hong Kong is a very different place.  In 1987 there were nothing like as many skyscrapers and high-rise buildings as there are today, and this has further exacerbated Hong Kong’s air pollution problems by the “chasm effect” of trapped roadside polluted air.

As the data collected by the EPD does not effectively state the real position, we need to look at all the other data, and which has been collected by academic experts in this field by one of Hong Kong’s leading universities, in order to judge whether the air quality in Hong Kong is dangerous or not.

But Sarath Guttikunda, the founder of Urbanemissions.info, a Web site that informs the South Asian public about pollution issues, believes that the E.P.D.’s statements are helpful, in that they put the spotlight on Hong Kong’s transport sector.

The data collected by MAP of 12 busy locations in Hong Kong, who used the WHO standard as well in their analysis of the data, is very relevant and really tells a much more accurate story of the reality of road side pollution in Hong Kong than the data that the EPD chooses to rely on.

However, it is hardly surprising that the EPD does not make any reference to this new data as in 6 of these locations the readings even exceed Hong Kong’s grossly outdated A.Q.O. standard, and in 10 of them, the readings reach the dangerous level when one compares the data with the WHO standard. So there really should now be no question as to whether the ambient pollution levels are reaching life threatening levels.

The data is there plain and simple for all to see. The sad fact remains, however, that the EPD not only refuses to recognize that, but still seeks to portray a picture to the public of Hong Kong, and, indeed, to the world at large, that Hong Kong’s air is safe and at acceptable levels.

According to Dr. Hedley, although high pollution days certainly hit the headlines, it is the high average levels that are most harmful.

                “In the case of air pollution and protecting public health, comparisons between nations are less important than assessment of standards based on the latest medical research,” said Ms. Ooi.

The present air-quality regulations in Hong Kong, Ms. Ooi argued, “permit 1,100 avoidable deaths per year.”

Ms. Ooi maintained that in 2006, Hong Kong’s air was three times more polluted than that of New York and twice as polluted as Singapore.

To conclude, the Data collected by EPD, in order to test the air pollution in Hong-Kong, does not state effectively the real position since it refers to Hong Kong’s current Air Quality Objectives which has not been updated since 1987. To measure air quality more precisely, the government should work more closely with universities since the data collected by MAP appears more relevant than those collected by the EPD.

 

 

xin_2203043016561132251874Source: The New York Times,

 

 

To see the article, click here