We all know that 'reducing car ownership' is an excuse for the government, they want to reduce car ownership but don't want the middle class back lash.
Yes, exactly. If they truly wanted to reduce car ownership, going after the 93% ICE portion (as it was back in late 2016, early 2017) would make more sense than the 7% EV.
Reinstate FRT exemption, which will certainly increase car ownership even higher but at least we have less ICE.
Again, no; you keep saying this, but the facts show the opposite to be true. Full FRT exemption had no noticeable impact on total car ownership. Historical numbers back that up (both when the numbers were on the way up, as well as going down). The total growth in vehicle ownership was there before mass market EVs arrived here, as well as after the exemption was capped.
Vehicle ownership numbers over the past 10 years clearly show that the only effect the FRT exemption had was to result in a larger share of EVs and less ICE. Total growth was unchanged.
The reasons for this seems to be that even with full FRT exemption, EVs are still extremely expensive to buy and maintain on the roads here; especially vs comparable ICE. Charging is, in general, a major PITA and disincentive to purchase an EV. Our relatively low mileages minimise the long-term fuel savings costs.
So, what do you want them to do? (snip) Or increase FRT together or go with some type of quota? Do a mix of some sort? Or you just want them to say that they are removing FRT exemption because they were lobbied by traditional car companies?
A sensible approach would be to tackle the pollution problem by incentivising EVs and dis-incentivising ICE. Adjust the tax rate so that the two choices are comparable, and then push the decision towards EVs by addressing the charging problem, and providing other incentives. This can be done in a revenue neutral and total car ownership neutral manner (by increasing FRT for ICE, and decreasing for EV, until such time as EVs obtain and maintain a reasonable market share). Countries like Norway can be a good example for how this is done. Access permits to country parks on week days, support for EV charger installation, perhaps parking or tunnel fare concessions, etc, are examples. I would also set a hard date by which time no new ICE vehicle registrations will be permitted.
Then, we have the separate issue of addressing the total vehicle growth rate. A sensible approach would be to address that by improving public transport (particularly in and out of remote areas), encouraging new forms of shared economy style public transport (such as Uber, Lyft, car sharing, autonomous vehicles, premium taxis, etc). I am not, in general, in favour of a quota system as that unfairly penalises the portion of Hong Kong's population not served by public transport. Unlike Singapore, Hong Kong has the city centres, but also a large portion of remote areas. Vehicle ownership for people in those areas is not a luxury, but a necessity.
Regarding congestion, I would look to other world cities such as London, Paris, etc. ERP, congestion area charges, park-n-ride, balancing tunnel toll fees, etc. All have been proven to work in other places. What makes HK so different?