Hong Kong is about to test whether it can build public transport without automatically reaching for the railway blueprint.

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government has received two bids for the Smart and Green Mass Transit System in Kai Tak, a roughly 3.5-kilometer route that will link Kai Tak Station with the cruise terminal and will serve the Kai Tak Sports Park, parks and surrounding developments. Six elevated stations are planned, with the system expected to begin service in 2031.

At first glance, this looks like another transport project. In reality, it could become something more consequential: a test of whether Hong Kong is willing to rethink how it builds, finances and operates urban transport.

Hong Kong has never been short of railways. Its MTR network is one of the city’s great achievements, moving millions of passengers with a reliability that many cities envy. But the success of heavy rail has also created a habit of thinking that if a city needs better transport, the answer is to build more railway. That is not always the right answer.

New districts do not necessarily have the passenger volumes to justify a full-scale railway. Yet they still need fast, reliable connections between homes, offices, shopping centers, sports venues, parks, and existing stations. This is the gap that smart green mass transit is supposed to fill.

The Kai Tak experiment is particularly interesting because the government is not simply buying a vehicle. It is testing a different model of urban development.

The two bidders also represent two rather different strengths. MTR Corp brings decades of railway operating experience and an established network. The consortium formed by Kowloon Motor Bus parent Transport International Holdings and Sun Hung Kai Properties brings bus operations, property development expertise and, according to the bid proposal, the China Railway Rolling Stock Corp’s (CRRC’s) smart rail technology.

Competition matters here. For years, Hong Kong’s transport infrastructure market has been dominated by a small number of familiar players, with MTR naturally occupying a central position. Opening the door to other operators and technologies is not an attack on the MTR. It is simply a recognition that even the best system benefits from competition.

The more interesting question is what happens after the winner is announced.

The government has structured the Kai Tak project around a build, operate, and transfer arrangement. The successful bidder will be responsible for financing, designing, building, operating, and maintaining the system, with a 20-year franchise. Property development rights will also form part of the financing framework, before the system eventually returns to the government. This is, in effect, an evolution of Hong Kong’s signature railway-plus-property model.

The old model was simple enough: Build a railway, develop property around stations, and use the value created by transport connectivity to support the infrastructure. The new model potentially broadens that idea. Transport, property, and commercial interests can be brought together within one financial structure, while the government uses competitive tendering rather than simply handing the project to the traditional railway operator. That could be useful well beyond Kai Tak.

Hong Kong’s infrastructure problem has never been simply a shortage of ideas. It is the price and time required to turn those ideas into concrete, steel, and operating systems. Traditional rail projects can involve enormous capital expenditures and lengthy construction periods. A lighter system could provide another option where demand does not justify a heavy railway.

This is where the Chinese mainland’s rapid development of alternative transit technologies deserves a closer look.

CRRC’s automated rapid transit system, commonly known as ART, or smart rail, uses rubber tires and virtual tracks rather than conventional steel rails.The concept has been deployed in several mainland cities including Shanghai and Zhuzhou and is also being explored overseas. Its appeal is not that it magically makes infrastructure cheap. Rather, it potentially reduces the need for extensive physical rail infrastructure and offers greater flexibility in how routes are constructed. That flexibility matters in Hong Kong.

Some future routes may have dedicated rights of way. Others may need to share roads with ordinary traffic. Some may require elevated structures, tunnels or underground sections. A technology that can adapt to different environments may therefore have an advantage over a one-size-fits-all approach.

But Hong Kong should resist the temptation to fall in love with the technology before testing the economics. A shiny new vehicle is not a transport policy.

The real questions are less glamorous. How much will passengers pay? How frequently will trains run? How reliable will the system be in Hong Kong’s weather and dense urban environment? How will it cope with crowds after a major event at the Sports Park? How smoothly will passengers transfer to the MTR and buses? And, perhaps most importantly, will passenger numbers justify the investment?

These are the questions that should determine the winner, not the novelty of the technology or the nationality of the supplier.

The government’s decision to use a two-envelope tender, with technical and nonprice considerations carrying greater weight than the price proposal, is significant. Public infrastructure should not become an auction in which the cheapest bidder automatically wins. A transport system lasts for decades. The cheapest construction proposal can become a very expensive decision if it produces poor reliability, weak integration, or disappointing ridership.

Kai Tak also offers Hong Kong an opportunity to think differently about city planning. For much of the city’s history, transport has followed development. Build the housing estate, commercial district, or public facility first, then figure out how everyone will get there.

The smarter approach is to let transport help shape the city. A well-designed transit network can connect the cruise terminal to the Sports Park, the waterfront to residential neighborhoods, and all of them to the wider railway system. It can create movement corridors around which businesses, public spaces, and community facilities develop. Transport becomes not merely a service responding to urban growth, but one of the tools that creates it. That is the greater significance of Kai Tak.

Hong Kong is not choosing between railways and smart transit. It is beginning to assemble a layered transport system in which heavy rail, buses, lighter automated systems, walking, and other forms of mobility each do the job they are best suited to perform.

If Kai Tak succeeds, the lessons should not stop at Kai Tak. The government is also considering smart green mass transit systems in East Kowloon and Hung Shui Kiu, among other projects. The first project therefore has an unusually important responsibility: It must establish whether this new approach deserves to be replicated.

There is also a useful philosophical lesson here. Hong Kong has spent decades proving that it can build world-class infrastructure. The next challenge is to prove that it can build the right infrastructure.

The author is chairman of the Asia MarTech Society and sits on the advisory boards of several professional organizations, including two universities.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.