Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor continued to be wrong-headed when she later said that “when these proposals can’t get enough support from the Legislative Council, we will respect them”. If she really wanted to respect them, she could have accepted some of their suggestions and moved forward. To equalise the tolls by not raising the lowest rate would be better than not equalising them at all.

The real issue that should have discussed is acceptance of congestion charging as a means for achieving a more efficient and environmentally acceptable city, but that debate has not taken place in Legco. Surely, for better management of Hong Kong, it is more important to gain the public’s and lawmakers’ acceptance of the principle of the proposal than to get a particular toll accepted.

One significant factor which should have been debated is the use of modern technology to adjust fares and manage congestion. A more acceptable – and palatable – solution to the congestion problem could have been to charge maximum rates during peak periods, and adjustable lower rates during off-peak hours. But the administration, in its proposal, just stuck with the outdated concept of fixed charges.

The Central scheme at least seems to embrace technology and flexibility: radio-frequency identification technology will be used to charge fees, which will vary depending on the time of day. But the big issue will remain the principle of introducing congestion pricing in areas where charging does not exist.

For the tunnels, the proposal was relatively simple – change existing fees. The proposed congestion charging zone in Central is extensive, covering 14 streets from the waterfront to Hollywood Road. While priority in the area is likely to be given to public transport, the initial reaction from the councillors has been negative, and the scheme is thus unlikely to take off. One view is that congestion pricing would make the area accessible only to the rich.

The proposal’s objectives do not seem clear. The vast majority of people reach Central by public transport and become pedestrians once they are in the area. The congestion charging scheme seeks to reduce traffic by 15 per cent so that vehicle speeds can creep up by 2km/h. Surely the point should be to remove non-essential traffic from the area so that public transport is more efficient. Also, less traffic would mean less air pollution, more space for pedestrians and perhaps a better environment, softened with landscaping.

I don’t hold out much hope that Hong Kong will move into an era of modern traffic management via congestion charging because not enough has been done to gain public acceptance of the benefits of the concept. The administration needs to be more receptive to suggestions for refining the tunnel tolls plan before it rolls out a road pricing scheme for a new area. In the meantime, issues directly impacting the man in the street – air pollution, noise, inadequate space – become even more urgent.

Ian Brownlee is managing director of Masterplan Limited and a member of the NGO WalkDVRC