TRANSPORT BRANCH
6.80 Paragraphs 97-106. Implementation of the Government's policy for reducing traffic congestion. The Chairman. asked the Secretary for Transport whether he had anything to add to the Government Paper tabled in the Legislative Council in answer to certain policy matters which had been commented upon in the Director of Audit's report. (A copy of the Government Paper is at Appendix B to this report). The Secretary said that one of the main elements in the Government's traffic congestion policy was the need to restrain private vehicles. The main question was how best to carry out that element of the policy. He believed that policy should be dynamic and adjusted if there were good reasons for doing so. It was the prerogative of the Governor in Council to modify policy after bringing to bear its wider perspective of social, political and economic considerations. It was the duty of the Administration to respond to such directions. That was what had happened in the case of the traffic congestion policy.
6.81 The Secretary for Transport was asked whether he agreed with the Director of Audit's criticism that there had been inefficiencies, including delays, inaction, uncertainties and inconsistencies in implementing the policy. He explained that in circumstances where policy was changing uncertainties were inevitable but he disagreed that there had been delays, inaction and inconsistencies in the implementation of the policy. He said that the 1979 White Paper made it clear that the Government had no wish to impose fiscal restraint measures until they were absolutely necessary after non-fiscal measures, such as area traffic control and public transport priority schemes, had been tested. He explained that the policy on parking control measures had been changed from the old concept of a blanket restriction on parking to a more pragmatic one of being selective in the areas and even buildings where parking was permitted. He said the policy on taxis had also changed after taking account of public opposition to severe increases in taxi fares and after reconsidering the role of taxis in the hierarchy of public transportation, resulting in the decision of the Governor in Council not to act on the recommendation of the Administration to restrict the number of taxis.
6.82 In answer to the question of whether parking and taxi control measures would be re-examined should electronic road pricing (ERP) be rejected, the Secretary for Transport said that a decision on whether to introduce ERP would be made very soon. He acknowledged that parking and taxi control measures were important, explaining that the number of taxis was controlled and that it was proposed to extend the present freeze on the number of urban taxis. However, he would consider reinforcing parking and taxi control policies should it be decided not to proceed with ERP.
6.83 On the question of whether the time had now come to review the 1979 White Paper, the Secretary for Transport confirmed his intention to commission a new comprehensive transport study taking each major element of transport policy one by one, including all aspects of congestion control policy, and subjecting them to careful review. 6.84 The Secretary for Transport was asked whether the ERP pilot stage project had given good value for money. The Secretary explained that because the Governor in Council had rejected parking and taxi control measures, leaving only high taxation out of the original package of measures proposed in the 1979 White Paper, it had been necessary to look for another option to provide a viable alternative to the blunt instrument of heavy taxation. Therefore, the money spent on the pilot stage project had given good value. The Secretary was unable to provide a comparison between the benefits of ERP and the original package, involving parking and taxi controls and vehicle taxation, but he explained that the consultants had quantified the benefits of ERP and compared them to the single alternative of high taxation. Using sophisticated computer model techniques they had concluded that the economic benefit to the community from ERP would be three to four times higher than that of high taxation and he was left in no doubt that if ERP was implemented in full it would provide the best economic and social benefit to the community. He added that at the time of the Comprehensive Transport Study in 1976 ERP technology was not available but it had now been confirmed that this was a viable option.
6.85 Conclusions and Recommendations. The Committee accept the statement by the Secretary for Transport that policy implementation and policy itself may have to adapt to changing circumstances, that policy formulation ist dynamic and that decisions which may have been right in 1979 may not be right in 1985. The Committee are of the view that their principal function is to be forward looking and therefore to concern themselves with the lessons for the future rather than with apparent inconsistencies in the past.
6.86 The Committee are pleased to note that the Secretary for Transport intends further studies on the lines of the 1976 Comprehensive Transport Study but emphasizing selected transport problem areas. The Committee wish to be kept informed of the progress of this review.
6.87 The Committee are of the view that the instruments for implementing transport policy should be chosen with regard to social, transport and economic considerations.
6.88 The Committee are of the view that the money spent on the ERP pilot stage project was timely and necessary. The Committee are also of the view that the ERP scheme, when compared with other instruments, is potentially highly cost-effective having regard to the failure of parking restraints, the social difficulties of restraining the number of taxis and the blunt inequitability of fiscal measures.
6.89 Paragraphs 184–192. The expenditure of $250 million a year on the student travel scheme and its relevance to the Government's overall policy objectives. The Chairman referred to the Government Paper tabled in the Legislative Council on 20 November 1985 in answer to certain policy matters which had been commented upon in the Director of Audit's report and asked the Secretary for Transport whether he had anything to add to the Paper. The Secretary had nothing to add. (A copy of the Government Paper is attached at Appendix B).
6.90 The Committee asked whether the Secretary for Transport considered the student travel scheme was good value for money. The Secretary said that this was a matter of judgment. On the one hand, there was the social advantage that
18
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.