Kapok: Swift and resolute

The recently dismissed mayor of Bogota, Gustavo Petro, was absolutely right when he stated that “a developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation.” I am pretty sure our neighbors in Hong Kong, having just been listed ‘best city in the world for commuters’, would beg to disagree: indeed developed countries can have it all—nice cars for those who can afford them and great public transportations for everybody—it just comes at a price.
If Hong Kong tops the list of the 84 cities assessed in the “The Future of Urban Mobility 2.0”, it still underachieves when it comes to the development of cycling paths and is clearly not faring well as far as air quality indicators are concerned. And yet, even in the first installation of the very same report produced by consulting firm Arthur D. Little in 2011, Hong Kong was already No. 1 and its success was seen as resulting from “a well-balanced split between different forms of transport that move people away from individualized motorized transport”—the Octopus card, owned at the time by 95% of citizens, was being deemed the cornerstone of a “well-articulated mobility strategy”. 
In 2014 the wording has grown stronger: Hong Kong is now doted with “the most advanced urban mobility system in the world.” Among the key elements of that system: public transport represents 64% of the modal split; the number of vehicles registered per capita is among the lowest amongst the cities surveyed; and the average number of smart cards per citizen reaches 3.1! Residents often own two cards, whereas both cross-border commuters and tourists alike are strongly encouraged to get one. When it comes to “green” drawbacks, things have obviously deteriorated since 2011, apart from cycling paths: transport-related CO2 emissions have doubled in just three years! Hence the adoption of the resolute and ambitious “Clean Air Plan” in March 2013, clearly a pre-condition for cycling paths to be rolled out beyond the New Territories…
What about Macao? 
In a previous column, I already stressed the inadequacy of the yearly assessment provided by the Transport Department (DSAT) regarding the setting in motion of the “General Policy on Traffic and Land Transportation in Macao (2010-2020)”—which, back in 2009, lucidly identified the main issues while making some far-reaching, although not mandatory, recommendations. To put it simply, the DSAT report can hardly hide that “too little” is done and “too slow”. Key statistics, like the share of public transport in the modal split, the penetration of smart cards or the cars per capita ratio are simply absent—despite some of these indicators being used in the 2009 consultation document. 
The criteria delineated by the Arthur D. Little survey could therefore be of interest: all together, it is some 19 factors divided between “maturity” and “performance” elements that allow for a fruitful comparative perspective. On the “maturity” side, only 2 out of 12 criteria seem to bode well in favor of Macao: the low public transportation fare and the frequency of the busiest transportation lines. But road density is about 7 times more than in Hong Kong and the number of cars per capita at least 2 times more, even if we exclude the 2-wheelers. On the side of “performance”, hardly any criteria seem to have improved based on measurements available in Macao: air indicators are deteriorating; traffic-related fatalities are worsening; the evolution of the share of public transport or zero-emissions means in the modal split are marginally positive; and the mean travel time to work has clearly gotten worse. 
While waiting for the LRT to be completed, swift and resolute action seems needed. Even though the “how(s)” would require undoubtedly more than a column to explore, redesigning bus routes and operations might prove useful, while making a better integrated usage of the Macau Pass could help—all parking meters in Hong Kong have been Octopus friendly since 2004. But first things first: let’s improve the assessment criteria!

Published in Macau Daily Times on April 18 2014

Kapok: Echo logic

Coincidences are always troubling; on the same weekend that the Macao International Environmental Cooperation Forum & Exhibition (MIECF) was coming to an end a group of concerned citizens rallying via Facebook marched to safeguard “green Coloane.” On the one hand were a yearly jamboree of grand plans, grandiose declarations of intent and a quantitative expression of self-satisfaction for the big “n” numbers of agreements signed: each aimed to arouse awareness of environmental protection, and this year in particular to advance the cause of “green tourism” - a form of tourism involving environmentally positive activities from choosing to have hotels wash towels less often to developing full-scale eco-friendly architecture. On the other hand, a small, but highly motivated group of residents, accompanied by rather low-key activists and legislators, demonstrated their unease at the unrestrained greed that, they claim, is being exhibited by some real-estate developers. These activists argued that these developers are desecrating what was once considered the “green lung” of Macao with towering and uninventive concrete blocks.
The inadequacy of current public policies and regulations must share some of the blame, especially because environmental impact studies are undertaken post licensing and are merely considered as flexible technicalities. This should not be so as there is indeed a somehow “binding” document issued by the government aptly entitled “Environmental Protection Planning of Macao (2010-2020)” that clearly states one of the strategic orientations is “to make holistic investigation into local ecosystems, to implement district-based protection by dividing them into different environmental functional districts according to their nature and the protected [zones], and to apply protective measures for the sensitive ecosystem, together with continual monitoring.” The Urban Planning Law is currently under discussion in the legislature and the legal aspects of the discussion have stalled on the extent of the discretionary power the government should have in evading the law on the grounds of “higher public interests” (yet to be defined). The irony of the situation is that principled legislators and more business-oriented ones are on the same side albeit for different reasons: the former because of their desire for cleaner and more sustainable development and the latter because of the lack of predictability these changes bring to their profit-seeking endeavors.
Meanwhile ecological awareness is growing amongst the general population. Last time we viewed the official gazette online there were no less than 61 associations dealing with such issues in Macao under the “environment protection” section of “associations” registered with the government. Yet, as only one hundred people showed up on a Sunday to protect what is left of Macao’s hilly green horizon, one could still ask the question “where are (the activists) to be seen?” It seems that just increasing awareness is not enough and time is not on our side.
The Macao government has taken a few steps in the right direction, although a good ten years later than Hong Kong. The most significant example of positive action is the document pertaining to environmental protection planning. But the implementation is too timid, too gradual and always emphasizing continuity over a clean break. The issues currently being faced are increasing as the city develops faster, higher and with an unprecedented urban density. In March, the Hong Kong government released its guidelines regarding “A Clean Air Plan for Hong Kong” urging for emergency measures and precise commitments—in budgeting and targeting—towards a reduction in and the exposure of the public to harmful emissions. The protection of the environment and a cleaner atmosphere are not only ideological in nature, they are also a matter of public health, especially when cardiovascular and respiratory disorders are concerned which will thus impact public spending. A poor environment will soon weigh on government coffers, and be more keenly felt as the population ages. So let’s learn from Hong Kong and not make the same mistakes when it comes to limiting the exposure to lethal fumes and tunneling effects that are amplified by high-rise structures.

Published in Macau Daily Times, April 12th 2013.