2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION... 1
2.1 Site Location.. 1
2.2 EIA Study Area. 1
2.3 Review of Previous EIAs. 3
2.4 Project Requirements,
Scope and Benefits. 6
2.5 Consideration of
Alternatives and Development of Preferred Option.. 9
2.6 Construction Methods and
Engineering Requirements. 15
2.7 Operation of the Project. 15
2.8 Works Programme.. 15
2.9 Related Projects. 15
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1
Site Location
2.1.1
The
Trunk Road is a dual-3 carriageway defined from the connection with the existing
Rumsey Street Flyover in Central, through to a connection with the existing IEC
to the east of the CBTS. As shown
in Figure 1.3, this EIA study covers the section
of CWB within the WDII study area. In the Wan Chai North and Causeway Bay
area, the Trunk Road will be connected to the local road system by slip roads.
The location of the Trunk Road is shown in Figure 1.2a.
2.2
EIA Study Area
2.2.1
The
following definitions of the study areas have been adopted with reference to
the EIA Study Brief registered under the EIAO:
·
Air
Quality Impact: the assessment area should include the area within 500 m from the boundary of the Project;
·
Noise
Impact Assessment: the assessment area should include the area within 300 m
from the boundary of the Project;
·
Water
Quality Impact Assessment: the assessment area should include the areas within
and 300m extended beyond the boundary of
the Project, plus the Victoria Harbour Water Control Zone (WCZ), the Eastern
Buffer WCZ and the Western Buffer WCZ as declared under the Water Pollution
Control Ordinance;
·
Waste
Management: the assessment will focus on areas within the boundary of the
Project;
·
Land
Contamination: the assessment area for land contamination impact will include
any potentially contaminated sites identified in this EIA;
·
Landscape
and Visual Impact: the area for
landscape impact assessment should include all areas within 100 m extended from the boundary of the Project, while the assessment area
for the visual impact assessment should be defined by the visual envelope from
the Project and associated works;
·
Marine
Ecology: the assessment for marine ecological impact will focus on the area
within the Project boundary; and
·
Cultural
Heritage Impact: the assessment for cultural heritage impact will focus on the
area within the Project boundary.
2.3
Review of Previous EIAs
Description
of Project Details
2.3.1
The
Trunk Road is a dual-3 carriageway defined from the connection with the
existing Rumsey Street Flyover in Central, through to a connection with the
existing IEC to the east of the CBTS.
At the Rumsey Street Flyover connection, a Central Interchange will
provide connections into the Central area, and then the Trunk Road will drop
down into tunnel and run along the Central shoreline, through CRIII, to the
WDII project area. In WDII area,
the Trunk Road will continue in tunnel until it needs to rise onto elevated
structure to connect with the elevated IEC. Total Trunk Road length is around 4.5 km and the total tunnel length is around 3.5 km.
The section of Trunk Road within the study area is around 3 km and the tunnel length is around 2.5 km. In the Wan Chai North and Causeway Bay area, the Trunk Road will be
connected to the local road system by slip roads.
2.3.2
As
the CWB is a trunk road and its tunnel is longer than 800m, it is classified as DP under Schedule 2 Part I, A1 & A7. The location of this DP1 within the WDII
study area is shown in Figure 1.2a.
2.3.3
In
reviewing the change of scope and extent of the elements of the Project for DP1
from what was originally proposed, and which was covered by the approved
CWB&IECL EIA Reports under the EIAO in 2001, the changes are confined to
the nature and extent of the Trunk Road and associated slip roads. This EIA study for DP1 focuses on those
elements that have changed significantly from the scheme as presented in the
approved CWB&IECL EIA Reports.
2.3.4
The
extent of the Trunk Road covered by the approved EIA Report on the CWB &
IECL includes the Central Interchange in Central Reclamation Phase I (CRI), the
Trunk Road tunnel that runs through CRIII and partly through WDII (extending to
the location of the ex-PCWA basin), and the IECL through WDII connecting the
Trunk Road tunnel to the IEC at the eastern end of the CBTS. It should be noted that it is only the
section of the Trunk Road through WDII that is subject to change under the WDII
Review. As the original scheme for
the Trunk Road through CRI and CRIII has not changed, findings and recommended
mitigation measures of the approved EIA Report for the Trunk Road within the
CRI and CRIII areas remain valid. The relevant environmental
findings and recommended mitigation measures are captured from the approved EIA
Report and summarised below.
2.3.5
A comparison table comparing the original scheme of
WDII and CWB under the approved EIA Report on Wan Chai Development Phase II (Application No. EIA-058/2001) and on the Central-Wan Chai Bypass and Island
Eastern Corridor Link (Application No. EIA-057/2001) and
the present scheme under the EIA Study for WDII & CWB projects (EIA Study
Brief No. ESB-153/2006) is given in Appendix
2.1.
Review of
Previously Approved CWB&IECL EIA Report
2.3.6
The previous key EIA findings, impact predictions and
recommendations as stipulated in the approved CWB&IECL EIA Report are considered
valid for the Central Interchange in CRI and the Trunk Road tunnel that runs
through CRIII. The relevant
implementation schedule of proposed mitigation measures for the CWB within CRI
and CRIII as extracted from the approved CWB&IECL EIA Report is given in Appendix 2.2.
2.3.7
The construction activities at Central Interchange and
CRIII remain the same as those given in the approved CWB&IECL EIA
Report. There will be tunnel,
bridge, tunnel building construction and demolition of part of Rumsey Street
Flyover at Central Interchange area.
There will be CWB tunnel construction at the CRIII area. The preliminary design of the West Ventilation
Building (including minimum discharge height, exhaust
directions, handling capacity and exit velocity) as given in the approved
CWB&IECL EIA Report remains materially unchanged. The related EIA assessments of the
approved CWB&IECL EIA Report for these works therefore remain valid.
2.3.8
The sensitive receivers from Sheung Wan through
Central as identified in the approved CWB&IECL EIA Report are unchanged.
2.3.9
The existing air sensitive receivers from Sheung Wan
through Central will be protected from adverse construction air quality impact
by the recommended dust control measures during construction phase. The recommended mitigation measures for
dust control include:
·
strictly limit the truck speed on site to below 10km per hour and water spraying to keep the haul
roads in wet condition;
·
twice daily watering of the work site with active
operations when the weather and the work site are dry;
·
watering during excavation and material handling;
·
provision of vehicle wheel and body washing facilities
at the exist points of the site, combined with cleaning of public roads where
necessary; and
·
tarpaulin covering of all dusty vehicle loads
transported to, from and between site locations.
2.3.10
With no increase in the proposed tunnel portals and
ventilation building emissions, and the same traffic pattern at the Central
Interchange area, the air quality assessment from the previous CWB&IECL
approved EIA is still valid for the operation phase. No adverse operational air quality
impacts at the existing and planned air sensitive receivers from Sheung Wan to
Central are predicted and mitigation measures are not considered
necessary. For the air pollution
within the tunnel section in CRIII, monitoring of tunnel air quality will be
required to ensure the acceptability of the tunnel air quality criteria.
2.3.11
The existing noise sensitive receivers from Sheung Wan
through Central, including Korea Centre, City Hall and PLA Headquarters, will
be protected from adverse construction noise impact by the recommended noise
mitigation and control measures during construction phase. The mitigation measures during
construction phase include:
·
The use of silenced powered mechanical equipment
(PMEs) for the following construction tasks:
-
piling, tunnel and deck construction at Mass Transit
Railway tunnel crossing area;
-
west ventilation building; and
-
demolition of downramp of Rumsey
Street.
2.3.12
For the operation phase, no direct noise mitigation
measures are required from Sheung Wan to Central for the three noise sensitive
receivers, Korea Centre, City Hall and PLA Headquarters for the new trunk road and slip roads at
Central Interchange. The Trunk Road
in CRIII is in tunnel and no direct mitigation measures are required. The findings and recommendations of the
approved CWB&IECL EIA Report in respect of noise are still valid.
2.3.13
As no reclamation will be undertaken directly for the CWB
at the Central Interchange (reclamation for the CWB through CRIII is addressed
in the approved CRIII EIA Report), the primary concern with regard to water
quality will be the control of runoff during construction. This could potentially contain elevated
constructions of suspended solids (SS), and could impact upon the flushing and
cooling water intakes located along the Victoria Harbour waterfront, identified as potential sensitive
receivers. However, the potential
water quality impacts could be controlled to comply with the WPCO standards by
implementing the recommended implementation measures, including provision of
drainage facilities, oil and silt removal facilities and good site
practices. No unacceptable residual
water quality impact is anticipated.
2.3.14
Mitigation measures, including road drainage with silt
traps and petrol interceptors, are also recommended to remove oil and grease
from the road runoff during operation.
No unacceptable residual water quality impact is expected. The findings and recommendations of the
approved CWB&IECL EIA Report in respect of water quality are still valid.
2.3.15
Provided that waste arising from the construction of
the CWB at Central Interchange and CRIII areas are handled, transported and
disposed of using approved methods as recommended in the approved CWB&IECL
EIA Report, and that no solid or liquid wastes enter nearby marine waters, no
unacceptable environmental impacts are envisaged. These recommended methods
include segregation of wastes, water minimization, and good site practices for
storage, collection and transport of waste during construction. The estimated
quantity of excavated material from the Central Interchange and west tunnel
building are unchanged. The mitigation
measures recommended in the approved CWB&IECL EIA Report should be
incorporated into contract specifications to ensure that environmental nuisance
will not arise from the storage, transport and disposal of various types of
waste arising from the construction of the CWB project. These recommendations should form the
basis of the site Waste Management Plan to be developed by the Contractor at
the construction stage. The
findings and recommendations of the approved CWB&IECL EIA Report in respect
of waste management are still valid.
2.3.16
Key
issues relating to the impact on the landscape and visual context of the
proposed road include the loss of existing vegetation, the addition of
infrastructure associated facilities (west ventilation building), associated
works (portals, wing walls and abutments), and elevated road sections at
Central Interchange and CRIII areas.
2.3.17
The
potential impacts during the construction phase are:
·
Moderate adverse residual landscape impacts would
occur through vegetation removal at the western above-ground sections of CWB.
·
Significant adverse residual visual impacts would
occur along the CWB from buildings with a harbour outlook around the Central
Interchange and CRIII areas.
Moderate adverse impacts on visually sensitive receivers with distant
views from Tsim Sha Tsui waterfront.
2.3.18
The potential impacts during the operational phase
are:
·
The extended Rumsey Street Flyover and its associated
elevated slip road are located further west from the proposed Central
waterfront promenade. Thus, they
have negligible residual landscape impact to the planned waterfront promenade.
·
The Central area will have significant adverse
residual visual impact at residential units at Shun Tak Centre. Moderate / significant adverse residual
visual impact would occur at the Airport Railway Hong Kong Station Northern
Site Development (the IFC and Four Seasons Hotel) due to the close view of the
elevated road structures.
2.3.19 The
overall residual landscape and visual impact after the implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures will be moderate adverse. In the context of Annex 10 of the
EIAO-TM, the landscape and visual impacts are considered acceptable with
mitigation measures. The findings
and recommendations in the approved CWB&IECL EIA Report in respect of
landscape and visual impacts are still valid.
2.3.20 In
summary, the relevant findings and recommendations of the approved CWB&IECL
EIA Report for the CWB within the Central Interchange and CRIII areas have been
reviewed and are found to be still valid.
2.4
Project Requirements, Scope and
Benefits
Project Requirement
2.4.1
The
Project is driven by the need for the implementation of the Trunk Road, which
is defined as the section of road extending from Rumsey Street Flyover
Extension to the IEC. The Trunk
Road will form an east-west strategic route through Central and Wan Chai and is
an essential element of Government’s strategic transportation planning for Hong Kong that is required to provide relief to the existing main east-west
corridor (that is, Connaught Road
- Harcourt Road
- Gloucester Road).
Project Scope
2.4.2
The
scope of the Project comprises:
(i)
The
Trunk Road (i.e. CWB) within the study area and the associated slip roads for
connection to the Trunk Road.
Project Benefits
2.4.3
The
Project provides essential key transport infrastructure, the CWB, so as to
relieve congestion on the strategic east-west routes through Central, Wan Chai
and Causeway Bay and on the public transport system, and its implementation is a core
element of Government's transport planning strategy.
Consequences of Not Proceeding
with the Project
(i) Not
able to meet the need for the Trunk Road
2.4.4
The
need to provide a strategic trunk road along the northern shore of Hong Kong Island has long been identified.
The Trunk Road is the missing link required to complete this strategic
route. The Trunk Road is needed to
divert through traffic away from the Central Business District and from the
existing east-west traffic corridor of Connaught Road Central – Harcourt Road – Gloucester Road. It is also needed to cater for the
anticipated natural growth of traffic and to alleviate the already existing
congestion on the road networks.
Without the Trunk Road, there will not be sufficient capacity to serve
the heavy demands at both the strategic and local levels.
2.4.5
The
existing east-west corridor (Connaught Road Central – Harcourt Road – Gloucester Road)
serving the CBD on Hong Kong
Island is already
operating beyond its capacity, as can be observed on site. Previous and recent strategic transport
studies have predicted further increase in traffic demand along the east-west
corridor, and confirmed the need for a parallel east-west Trunk Road to avoid
more extensive and frequent traffic congestion, and even gridlock, on the road
network.
2.4.6
A
district traffic study has confirmed that a dual 3-lane Trunk Road (or
Central-Wan Chai Bypass), together with intermediate slip roads, is required to
divert traffic away from the existing east-west corridor and to provide
adequate relief to the corridor and the local road network.
2.4.7
Traffic
management and fiscal measures are already in place to maximise the capacity of
the existing road network and suppress traffic demand. Further measures including ERP have also
been considered. However, all these
existing and proposed measures, alone, cannot resolve the traffic congestion
problem along the east-west corridor.
In other words, the Trunk Road is essential, and ERP can complement the
Trunk Road but cannot replace it.
2.4.8
The
need for the Trunk Road has also been confirmed by the Expert Panel on
Sustainable Transport Planning and Central-Wan Chai Bypass, comprising leading
independent local and overseas transport planning experts. The Expert Panel supports the
construction of the CWB to improve the reliability of the road network and to
enhance multi-modal public transportation in the Connaught Road Central – Harcourt Road – Gloucester Road
corridor. The Expert Panel agrees
that the inability of the present infrastructure capacity to cope with the
present and future travel demand would persist even if development in the
Central reclamation area were stopped and territory-wide car ownership held
unchanged from now until 2016, and therefore recommends the construction of the
Trunk Road as a medium term solution to tackle the problem of deteriorating
traffic congestion in the Central and Wan Chai area. The Expert Panel further supports the
provision of the planned slip roads at the HKCEC area and at the Victoria Park Road
/ Gloucester Road
/ Hing Fat Street
passageway, to magnify the benefits of the CWB.
2.4.9
In
environmental terms, the likely conditions in the absence of the project are:
·
The
existing odour nuisance at the CBTS would persist and no improvement of the
situation would be expected. The
Project will provide opportunities to remove the potential sources of odour
nuisance within the CBTS so as to alleviate this existing environmental problem
as well as to provide an acceptable environment for the future land uses within
the project area.
·
In
the absence of project, similar air quality conditions along the northshore
areas of Wan Chai, Causeway Bay and North Point as currently exist would be expected to continue. There would be no opportunity to improve
air quality condition by diverting traffic underground. With the project, air quality at the
east tunnel portal area of the proposed Trunk Road would be enhanced by the
introduction of an electrostatic precipitator system into the tunnel ventilation exhaust system and zero portal emission design of the East Tunnel Portal.
·
In
the absence of the project, the noise environment of the project area would be
increased due to the natural growth of traffic. In the presence of the project,
it would help lessen the traffic burden on Gloucester Road by diverting traffic to the proposed Trunk Road tunnel. There would be
an improvement of the noise environment alongside Gloucester Road. Besides, the project
would provide an opportunity to alleviate the noise impact at noise sensitive
receivers along IEC at North Point area by installing the proposed landscaped
deck at the east tunnel portal area of the Trunk Road and direct noise
mitigation measures on the reconstructed IEC. In this regard, it is anticipated
that the future noise environment would be improved in the presence of the
project.
·
No
improvement of the existing landscape and visual conditions of the waterfront
would be expected. With the implementation of the Project, there will be
substantial to moderate positive landscape and visual impact along the new
waterfront as the landscape and visual amenity are generally enhanced and
strengthened.
·
Water
quality at Victoria Harbour would be similar for both the situations with and without the Project.
2.5
Consideration of Alternatives and
Development of Preferred Option
Introduction
2.5.1
Having
established the need for the Trunk Road, any reasonable alternative to
reclamation that may meet this overriding need must be determined. In other words, can an alternative
alignment or form of construction for the Trunk Road be adopted that will
obviate the need for reclamation?
If there is a feasible “no reclamation” option, then it should be
pursued. Only if the need for reclamation
can be demonstrated to be necessary will scenarios involving minimum
reclamation be contemplated.
2.5.2
A
detailed examination of Trunk Road needs and constraints, including an
exhaustive investigation into the need for reclamation for the Trunk Road
construction and of alternative schemes that might do away with reclamation or,
at least, minimise reclamation, has been carried out. A “Report on Trunk Road Alignments and
Harbour-front Enhancement, April 2006” was submitted to the HEC Sub-committee on WDII Review, which set out
the findings of these investigations and the conclusions regarding the need for
reclamation and the minimum extent of reclamation. A copy of the report is given in Annex G
of the CCM Report which can be
viewed at the website:
http://www.harbourfront.org.hk/eng/content_page/reportTRA.html?s=1.
Alternative Trunk Road Alignments
and Construction Methods
Alignment
Constraints
2.5.3
In
assessing the alignment of the Trunk Road through the WDII project area, the
following constraints have to be considered:
·
at the western end, connection to the Trunk Road tunnel
to be constructed under the CRIII project is required;
·
at the eastern end, the Trunk Road needs to connect
to the existing elevated IEC flyover structure;
·
provision of slip road connections in Wan Chai
North and at Causeway Bay;
·
avoid affecting the MTR Tsuen Wan Line tunnel
structure;
·
avoid affecting the Cross Harbour Tunnel (CHT) or
conflicting with the rock anchors at the CHT tunnel portal;
·
allow for proposed rail infrastructure: SCL and
NIL; and
·
avoid affecting existing services infrastructure
such as electricity sub-stations and sewage treatment plants and the basement
or piled foundations of existing developments along Wan Chai North, such as the
HKCEC Extension, Grand Hyatt Hotel, Wan Chai Towers, Central Plaza, Renaissance
Harbour View Hotel, Great Eagle Centre, Harbour Centre, China Resources
Building and Sun Hung Kai Centre, etc.
Trunk
Road Route Assessment
2.5.4
Alternative
routeings for the Trunk Road along offshore, inland and foreshore corridors
have been examined to determine practicable and feasible Trunk Road
alignments. Trunk Road alignments
are, however, constrained by existing development along the Wan Chai and Causeway Bay northshore area, existing cross harbour tunnels, proposed rail
infrastructure and essential services infrastructure.
2.5.5
Offshore
alignments are obstructed by the HKCEC Extension, will pose unacceptable risk
to the Cross Harbour Tunnel when tunnelling beneath it, and cannot provide the
necessary slip road connections.
Due primarily to the physical conflict with the HKCEC Extension, Trunk
Road offshore alignments are found to be not feasible.
2.5.6
Inland
alignments are obstructed by existing development in Wan Chai North, including
the HKCEC Phase I, Grand Hyatt Hotel, Great Eagle Centre and Sun Hung Kai
Centre. Trunk Road inland
alignments will also conflict with the proposed NIL and SCL rail
infrastructure, and existing road and services infrastructure. Due to these physical conflicts, Trunk
Road inland alignments are also found to be not feasible.
2.5.7
The
feasible Trunk Road routeing is along the foreshore of Wan Chai and Causeway Bay. After crossing over the
MTR Tsuen Wan line, the Trunk Road will run in shallow tunnel through the HKCEC
water channel and along the Wan Chai shoreline. Thereafter, the Trunk Road can pass either
below the Cross Harbour Tunnel portal in tunnel or over the top of the Cross
Harbour Tunnel portal as flyover, continuing as either tunnel or flyover
through the Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter to a connection with the existing
elevated IEC to the east of the typhoon shelter.
2.5.8
However,
foreshore alignments do require reclamation for Trunk Road tunnel construction
at the western end of WDII where the Trunk Road tunnel crosses over the MTR
Tsuen Wan Line, and at the eastern end of WDII where the Trunk Road tunnel must
rise to ground level for the connection with the elevated IEC, at least.
Alternative Trunk Road Ideas
2.5.9
The
following alternative Trunk Road ideas, including suggestions received from the
public through the Envisioning Stage public engagement exercise, have been
examined to determine if they would constitute a feasible “no reclamation”
option, or result in an avoidance of reclamation:
·
deep
bored tunnel
·
double-decking
over Gloucester Road
·
full
flyover idea
·
total
offshore idea
·
shallow
water idea.
2.5.10
All
the alternative Trunk Road ideas that have been proposed to avoid reclamation
are found either to be not feasible, or result in an even greater area of
reclamation or affected area of the harbour than a foreshore alignment
constructed as cut-and-cover tunnel and flyover.
Alternative Construction Methods
2.5.11
For
the feasible Trunk Road routeing along the foreshore of Wan Chai and Causeway Bay, the Trunk road will start in tunnel at the connection with CRIII,
crossing over the MTR Tsuen Wan line, and staying in shallow tunnel through the
HKCEC water channel and along the Wan Chai shoreline. Thereafter, the Trunk Road can pass
either below the CHT portal in tunnel or over the top of the CHT portal as
flyover, continuing through the CBTS to a connection with the existing elevated
IEC to the east of the typhoon shelter.
2.5.12
For
tunnel options, cut-and-cover tunnel construction is considered to be a
technically feasible form of construction for implementation of the Trunk Road.
2.5.13
Whilst
there is broad support from the public for a tunnel option, especially where
this can incorporate suggested harbour-front enhancement ideas while at the
same time provide for the functional requirements of the Trunk Road, a flyover
option is also technically feasible.
This option has therefore also been considered, in particular as it
represents a scheme requiring a lesser area of new land formation. At issue, though, is which option,
tunnel or flyover, would comply with the PHO.
2.5.14
At-grade
Trunk Road options are not acceptable as they would require extensive
reclamation in the CBTS, thus not complying with the PHO, and the reclaimed
land would be used mainly for roads, leaving little opportunity for
harbour-front enhancement.
Comparison of Feasible Trunk Road
Options
Tunnel Option
2.5.15
For
the tunnel option for constructing the Trunk Road, three variations have been
considered. These three variations
are illustrated in Figures 2.1 to 2.3. Key features of the three variations are
briefly described as follows:
Variation 1
2.5.16
The
Trunk Road tunnel to be constructed under CRIII will be extended eastward to
pass underneath the existing rock anchors of the CHT portal structure, and
continues the tunnel to the east of the Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter (CBTS) and
connects to the northern side of the existing IEC.
Variation 2
2.5.17
The
Trunk Road tunnel to be constructed under CRIII will be extended eastward to
pass underneath the CHT at a position to the south of that in Variation 1 to
avoid the rock anchor zone, and continues the tunnel to the east of the CBTS
and connects directly into the IEC by reconstructing a section of the existing
IEC. For widening the harbour-front
promenade adjoining the CBTS and provision of a wide landscaped deck for
extending Victoria Park to the harbour-front, the Victoria Park Road and associated connecting roads would be realigned inland.
Variation 3
2.5.18
Except
that the tunnel passes underneath the rock anchors of the CHT portal as in Variation
1, other arrangements will be similar to Variation 2.
Flyover Option
2.5.19
Under
the flyover option, the tunnel to be constructed under CRIII will be extended
eastward, and will rise up onto an elevated road structure at the waterfront
opposite to the Wan Chai Sports Ground.
Figure 2.4 illustrates this option.
2.5.20
The
PHO requires the Harbour to be protected and preserved as a special public
asset and a natural heritage of Hong Kong people. Therefore, when examining options for
the Trunk Road, the one that may serve best to protect and preserve the Harbour
should be identified. For the
flyover option, the land formation by physical reclamation together with the
water areas of the Harbour affected by flyover structures should be taken into
account.
Comparison of Trunk Road Tunnel Variations
2.5.21
Table 2.1 provides a comparison between the Trunk Road Tunnel Variations 1, 2
and 3, in broad terms, in respect of key indicators: area of reclamation, impacts
to existing traffic, technical highway concerns and impacts to existing highway
structures, impacts to existing development, planning and land use
considerations, environmental concerns, time for construction and costs.
2.5.22
The
following major issues are highlighted as being of particular concern:
·
more
reclamation due to filling in of the corners of the Causeway Bay Typhoon
Shelter (south-east and south-west corners for Variation 2, south-east corner
for Variation 3);
·
major
road diversions and traffic impacts during construction (particularly for
Variations 2 and 3);
·
intrusion
into and demolition of Victoria Park for the construction of the realigned Victoria Park Road (both Variations 2 and 3);
·
need
for the reconstruction of major existing highway structures, including the IEC,
Gloucester Road Flyover and the newly constructed Causeway Bay Flyover (both
Variations 2 and 3);
·
demolition
of the Police Officers’ Club (Variation 2);
·
air
quality concern at the tunnel portal, due to close proximity of residential units
(all tunnel variations, but more so for Variations 2 and 3).
2.5.23
It
should be noted that the areas of reclamation given in Table 4.1 are the areas of permanent reclamation, and include a
notional allowance for reprovisioning requirements (for ferry pier, salt water
pumping station, cooling water pumping stations, etc) associated with each of
these tunnel variation options.
Table 2.1 Comparison
of Trunk Road Tunnel Variations
2.5.24
It
should also be noted that there will be a requirement for temporary works
(including temporary reclamation) to facilitate cut-and-cover tunnel
construction and for temporary traffic diversions. These temporary works will be required
in the ex-PCWA basin and in the Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter. In the Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter, the
extent of the temporary works, for all three tunnel variations, will be such
that the existing moorings will need to be relocated outside the typhoon
shelter during the construction period.
2.5.25
As
can be seen, neither Tunnel Variation 2 nor 3 perform as well as the Trunk Road
Tunnel Variation 1. The major
drawbacks of Tunnel Variations 2 and 3 include additional reclamation for
filling in of the corners of the Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter, major traffic disruption,
demolition of a large part of Victoria Park, demolition and then reconstruction
of major highway structures, and air quality concerns at the tunnel portal area
in North Point.
2.5.26
The
reclamation issue is particularly important in respect of the PHO. The Trunk Road Tunnel Variation 1
requires a lesser extent of reclamation than that associated with the Tunnel
Variations 2 and 3.
Comparison of Tunnel and Flyover Options
2.5.27
Table 2.2 provides a comparison between the tunnel and flyover options in broad terms,
in respect of key indicators: affected area of the Harbour, impacts to existing
traffic, technical highway concerns and impacts to existing highway structures,
planning and land use considerations, environmental concerns, time of
construction, and costs. Trunk Road
Tunnel Variation 1 is used as the basis of tunnel option comparison. The key issue that is of concern in
respect of the PHO is the area of the Harbour that will be affected by the
tunnel and flyover options.
2.5.28
The
PHO requires the Harbour to be protected and preserved as a special public
asset and a natural heritage of the Hong Kong people, and establishes a presumption against reclamation in the
Harbour. Notwithstanding that there
is an overriding need for reclamation for the project, it is essential to find
the option that will best serve to protect and preserve the Harbour, with the
minimum area of the Harbour affected by reclamation. In this regard, the area of the Harbour
affected by the alternative Trunk Road tunnel and flyover options is of
concern. The flyover structures
over water will impinge upon the water area of the Harbour and their visual
impacts do not promote the protection and preservation of the Harbour. Moreover, where the marine use of
existing water areas is restricted due to the presence of highway structures
and the like, these affected water areas may not be regarded as “protected” or
“preserved” for the purposes of the PHO.
2.5.29
Therefore,
when examining Trunk Road options, and especially when examining the flyover option,
the land formation by physical reclamation is taken into account together with
the water areas of the Harbour affected by flyover structures in order to
determine which option may serve best to protect and preserve the Harbour.
Table 2.2 Comparison
of Tunnel and Flyover Options
2.5.30
In
most respects, it is found that the Trunk Road tunnel option (Tunnel Variation
1) performs better than the flyover option. The tunnel option:
·
will
result in a lesser affected area of the Harbour;
·
will
cause less traffic disruption during construction;
·
will
not require any major reconstruction of existing highway structures;
·
will
have more opportunities for harbour-front enhancement and providing access to
the waterfront;
·
will
cause less extensive air and noise impacts (although air quality at the tunnel
portal will need to be carefully addressed);
·
will
have no significant visual impacts (the flyover, on the other hand, will have
significant visual impacts along the harbour-front).
2.5.31
Only
in respect of time for construction and costs can the flyover option be seen as
performing better than the tunnel option.
2.5.32
The
key issue of concern is which option would serve best to protect and preserve
the Harbour. In addressing this
concern, the area of the Harbour that is affected by the Trunk Road options
should be taken into account, including not only land formed by reclamation but
also the impingement of highway structures on the existing water areas and the
restricted use of water areas due to the presence of the highway structures (ie
the areas where the functionality of the Harbour is adversely affected). In addition, the visual aspects of the
flyover option (viewed in terms of “preserving the Harbour”) should be
considered. In these respects, the
Trunk Road tunnel option is clearly the option that would serve best to protect
and preserve the Harbour.
Conclusion of the Comparison of Trunk Road Options
2.5.33
Comparing
the tunnel variations, Tunnel Variation 1 is found to require the least extent of reclamation, would cause the least
disruption to traffic during construction, has the least impacts to existing
highway infrastructure and the least impacts to Victoria Park. It should be noted that, when considering
Trunk Road variations having similar functional/traffic performance (ie in
meeting the overriding need), the CFA ruling on the PHO requires that the one
with the least amount of reclamation (in this case Tunnel Variation 1) should
be selected. Therefore, of these
tunnel variations, Trunk Road Tunnel Variation 1 is recommended, in
compliance with the requirements of the PHO.
2.5.34
Although
both capital and annual recurrent costs would be higher for the Tunnel Option
when compared with the Flyover Option, the Tunnel Option is recommended, in
compliance with the requirements of the PHO, primarily because the affected
area of the Harbour would be smaller and it would cause less visual impact than
the Flyover Option.
2.5.35
Trunk
Road Tunnel Variation 1 affects the minimum area of the Harbour and serves best
to protect and preserve the Harbour, among all the options that have been
assessed.
Public Views
2.5.36
The
first stage of the HER project, the Envisioning Stage, had as its purpose the
engagement of the community at an early stage to solicit their visions on the
need for and the form of Trunk Road as well as the types of harbour-front
developments they aspire for at Wan Chai, Causeway Bay and the adjoining
areas. Five public forums and two
community design charrettes were convened during May to July 2005, and opinion
surveys were carried out. These
public engagement activities were well received by the public, in particular by
the key stakeholders, as providing a platform for thorough exchange of views,
rational discussions and consensus building.
2.5.37
The
public’s views collected and findings of the Envisioning Stage are presented in
a Public Engagement Report, March 2006.
The report can be viewed at the HEC website:
http://www.harbourfront.org.hk/eng/content_page/doc/engagement_report/Main_Report.pdf.
2.5.38
In
addition, discussions with the Town Planning Board, Legislative Council
(LegCo), District Councils and relevant statutory and advisory bodies have also
been held, as part of an on-going and continuous process of public engagement
for seeking consensus on the project proposals. In particular, the Town Planning Board,
relevant District Councils, LegCo Planning Lands and Works (PLW) Panel, Transport Advisory Committee and professional
institutions were further engaged from April to May 2006 on the findings
regarding alignments and construction forms for the Trunk Road and
harbour-front enhancement ideas.
2.5.39
The
general sentiment of the public, in respect of the Trunk Road ideas and
aspirations for harbour-front enhancement, expressed through the Envisioning
Stage consultation, includes:
·
a
preference for having the Trunk Road in tunnel;
·
generally,
an acceptance of the need for reclamation for shallow tunnel construction at
the HKCEC and along the Wan Chai shoreline;
·
but,
rather have tunnel options that do not result in reclamation in the Causeway
Bay Typhoon Shelter.
2.5.40
Overall,
Trunk Road Tunnel Variation 1 is seen as the best option in complying with the
PHO, and this Trunk Road option has clearly expressed support as the preferred
Trunk Road scheme.
Alternative
Slip Road 8 Alignments
2.5.41
Slip
Road 8 will encroach into Victoria Park, affecting existing trees, recreational
facilities and open spaces.
Alternative alignments have been thoroughly examined with a view to
minimising these impacts. A
discussion paper that explains the considerations in examining the alignment of
Slip Road 8 and associated at-grade road layout has been prepared and is
attached in Appendix 2.4.
2.5.42
With
reference to this discussion papers, amongst the different options of Slip Road
8 alignments, Option 1B, which has no encroachment into the North Pavilion
Garden of Victoria Park, has been adopted.
The final layout of Slip Road 8 and associated at-grade roads is given
in Appendix 2.4.
2.5.43
Although
the existing facilities and trees at the North Pavilion
Garden will not be affected, Slip Road
8 will affect part of the bowling
green and the nursery compound at the north of the
Victoria Park. The reprovisioning
of affected facilities at Victoria Park is given in Annex A of Appendix 2.4.
Alternative Tunnel Portal Locations
2.5.44
The
location of tunnel portal is directly related to the alignment of the Trunk
Road, including both the vertical and horizontal alignments. The preferred Trunk Road Option, Trunk
Road Tunnel Variation 1, provides for the necessary functional requirements of
the Trunk Road, in meeting the overriding need for the Trunk Road, as well as
resulting in the least affected area of the Harbour, determined as described
above. The location of tunnel
portal follows the alignment for Trunk Road Tunnel Variation 1.
2.5.45
Alternative
tunnel locations have been included in the examination of alternative Trunk
Road alignments and forms of construction, for example a portal location at Wan
Chai North (flyover option) and further east along the North Point shoreline
(deep bored tunnel option).
Alternative tunnel portal locations, such as extending the tunnel and
portal eastward, would result in more affected area of the Harbour as compared
to the Trunk Road Tunnel Variation 1 and would not be in compliance with the
PHO. These alternative tunnel
portal locations are not recommended, nor are they permitted under the PHO.
2.5.46
Although
the location of the tunnel portal is driven by the Trunk Road scheme with the
minimum extent of reclamation and the least affected area of the Harbour,
opportunity has been explored to enhance the east tunnel portal area. A
landscaped deck has been proposed over the east tunnel portal area as shown in
the Concept Plan (Figure 2.5) and the RODP (Figure 2.5a).
Alternative locations of Ventilation Buildings and Administration Building
2.5.47
The
location of the Central Ventilation
Building is determined by the available area along the Trunk Road tunnel box in
the Wan Chai north area, and is constrained by existing development and road
and railway reserves. The proposed
location at the west of the HKCEC and adjacent to the proposed landscaped deck
is off the waterfront area and would not compromise the area for a promenade
along the waterfront. The location
of the Central Ventilation Building
is shown in both the Concept Plan (Figure 2.5) and the RODP (Figure 2.5a). Alternative locations such as the open
spaces next to the HKAPA Extension or even the waterfront open spaces at the
east of HKCEC are not recommended as these locations would sacrifice the use of
areas for other beneficial land uses, in particular, waterfront enhancement.
2.5.48
The
location of the East Ventilation Building is determined by the available area along
the Trunk Road tunnel box in the Causeway
Bay and North Point
areas. The proposed location at the
north of the FEHD Whitfield Depot is at the west end of the North Point
reclamation area has been selected in order to increase the distance to the
nearby residents as far as practicable.
The building height has been minimised by placing some E&M equipment
in a basement. The overall height
of the building will be lower than the adjacent existing IEC elevated road.
2.5.49
During
the Realization Stage of the HER public engagement activities, there were
public views and suggestions on the location of East Ventilation Building proposed in the Concept Plan (Figure 2.5). The feasibility of separating the
exhaust vent shaft further away from the ventilation building has consequently
been considered. The enhanced
proposal with the vent shaft separated from the East Ventilation
Building and extended to
the tip of the eastern breakwater of the CBTS has been incorporated in the RODP
(Figure 2.5a). The air quality impact assessment
presented in Section 3 of this EIA Report indicates that the predicted air
quality at the air sensitive receivers (ASRs) would comply with the air quality
objectives (AQOs).
2.5.50
Alternative
locations of the vent shaft at the northern breakwater or the western
breakwater of the CBTS have also been explored. In view of the small contribution of the exhaust
from the vent shaft to the overall air quality, moving the vent shaft at the
eastern breakwater of CBTS to the northern breakwater or the western breakwater
of the CBTS would not result in any significant improvement of the predicted
air quality at ASRs in North Point.
From the perspective of noise impact, no difference is anticipated as
the noise source is from the fixed plant of the ventilation fans installed
inside the East Ventilation
Building, instead of the vent shaft.
The alternative locations will also have low energy efficiency as the
tunnel emission will be required to be extracted from the East Ventilation
Building to the northern
breakwater or western breakwater through a much longer air ventilation duct
than the one at the eastern breakwater.
In addition, the location of the vent shaft at the northern breakwater
or western breakwater is considered practically not feasible due to the
following technical constraints:
·
there
are two major infrastructures located on both sides of the western breakwater
namely the cross harbour gas main (about 30m west of the western breakwater) and immersed tube section of the CHT
(about 60m east of the western
breakwater). Any damage to these
two major infrastructures would cause profound disruption to the gas supply and
operation of the CHT. The construction
of the air ventilation duct and vertical shaft in close proximity to these two
infrastructures is extremely risky;
·
if
the exhaust vent is located at the western breakwater, the air duct will go
alongside the mainline tunnel of the CWB in order to reduce the construction
difficulty and potential risk of being damaged. As the mainline tunnel will run below
the CHT at around
-30mPD, there will be great level difference of about 30m between the air ventilation duct and the ground level at the western
breakwater. Only limited
underground space in the vicinity of the CHT south tunnel portal, Hung Hing Road and
RHKYC is available for the underground duct and the vertical air duct
shaft. In order to bring the air
ventilation duct to the ground level and extend it to the western breakwater
while keeping it away from the CHT tunnel structure, the cross harbour gas
main, the clubhouse building of the RHKYC, which is a potential heritage
building, and a substantial portion of the RHKYC site will be affected;
·
the
alignment of the CHT is right underneath the western end of the northern
breakwater, any extension of the air ventilation duct to and construction of
the exhaust vent at this location will entail reconstruction of the breakwater
and impose great risk of damaging the immersed tunnel tube of CHT. Furthermore, the alignment of the
proposed Shatin to Central Link (SCL) will run at about 150m to the east of the CHT in order to achieve a safe clearance from CHT
during construction and operation of SCL in future. The required working space
for constructing the SCL will further impose restriction on locating the
exhaust vent within the western and middle portions of the northern
breakwater. Therefore, the exhaust
vent cannot be practicably located at or near the western end and the middle
portion of the northern breakwater in view of the constraints imposed by the
CHT and the proposed SCL.
There is
no better practically feasible alternative location than the proposed location
of the vent shaft at the eastern breakwater of CBTS in terms of a balance of
engineering practicality, environmental benefits and visual compatibility to
surrounding environment.
2.5.51
The height of the vent shaft is
required to facilitate air dispersion and discharge, To achieve dispersion of the vitiated
air from the tunnel to the open air, the recommended minimum height measured
from the bottom of the louvres is 12.5m to provide the required
stack height to prevent the tunnel exhaust from affecting future users of the
breakwater. Besides, to allow an
acceptable air discharge velocity and to achieve the required air flow rate, a
minimum louvre area of 94m2
should be provided and thus the height of the louvre is around 7.5m depending on the width of the
louvre. Given the ground level of
the eastern breakwater is around 5mPD, the height of the vent shaft is around
+25mPD for a building height of around 20m.
2.5.52
The
location of the Administration Building is selected at the least prominent location along the available
waterfront area. It is proposed at
a location underneath the elevated IEC, where other beneficial use is limited,
and adjacent to the tunnel portal area, where the tunnel operation and
maintenance vehicles can access the tunnel efficiently. The location of the Administration Building is shown in both the Concept
Plan (Figure 2.5) and the RODP (Figure 2.5a). Alternative locations along the
waterfront would compromise the opportunity for harbourfront enhancement and,
hence, are not recommended.
2.6
Construction Methods and Engineering Requirements
2.6.1
Alternative
construction methods have been considered in the CCM Report. Deep bored tunnel construction is
given in Section 3.4; immersed tube tunnel construction method is discussed in Section
4.2; temporary reclamation for tunnel construction below seabed is discussed in
Annex O of the CCM Report.
Deep Bored Tunnel Construction
2.6.2
A
deep bored tunnel option for the Trunk Road has been examined with a view to
avoiding reclamation. The idea
being that a tunnel constructed by tunnel boring machine (TBM) at sufficient
depth below the surface would not require reclamation and can be constructed
without disturbing existing facilities and infrastructure.
2.6.3
However,
at the western end of WDII, at the connection with the Trunk Road tunnel
constructed under CRIII and for the crossing over the MTR Tsuen Wan line, the
deep tunnel option must start off as shallow cut-and-cover tunnel, in
reclamation, similar to all other Trunk Road options. At the eastern end, as the tunnel rises
towards the seabed and ground cover becomes insufficient for the TBM
construction, the form of construction needs to change to cut-and-cover tunnel,
with associated reclamation to facilitate this construction along the North
Point shoreline. Therefore
reclamation is still essential and the bored tunnel is not a “no reclamation”
option.
2.6.4
The
major issue associated with a deep tunnel option is that the longer length of
the Trunk Road tunnel along the North Point shoreline, all the way to the
connection with the IEC near the North Point ferry piers, results in extensive
reclamation along this part of the shoreline.
2.6.5
The
issue of reclamation, and whether it is unnecessarily extensive, is the key
concern in this instance. Because
the bored tunnel must rise from a deeper level under the Causeway Bay Typhoon
Shelter than the alternative cut-and-cover tunnel option, the tunnel portal
will need to be located further to the east along the North Point shoreline,
where there is no existing formed land that can be put to good use to
accommodate the ground level tunnel portal, as is the case for the connection
immediately to the east of the CBTS.
As a consequence, the deep bored tunnel option will require a greater
area of reclamation along the North Point shoreline than the alternative
cut-and-cover tunnel option. As the
deep tunnel option will result in a greater area of reclamation than an
alternative available tunnel option, and as in any event the deep tunnel option
does not perform as well as the alternative cut-and-cover tunnel option, there
is no justification or overriding need to pursue this deep tunnel option. Furthermore, the affected area of the
harbour, the foreshore and seabed, will be greater, and the corresponding
environmental impacts, such as marine ecological impacts, would be greater than
the adopted Trunk Road Tunnel Variation 1.
Immersed Tube vs Cut-and-Cover
Tunnel Construction
2.6.6
Immersed
tube tunnel form of construction may be used where the tunnel lies just below seabed;
reclamation would not be required for this form of tunnel construction. However, this form of construction is
not suitable where the tunnel level rises above seabed level, as the exposed
tunnel section would then be at risk of damage from ship impact, anchors, etc,
the tunnel structure would be more susceptible to degradation in the aggressive
marine environment, and the protrusion of the tunnel structure above the seabed
would restrict marine access to the shoreline. Also, even where the tunnel lies below
seabed level, the soft seabed materials would need to be excavated so that the
immersed tube units lie in a trench on a firm foundation. Along the Wan Chai shoreline, this would
involve excavating a deep trench immediately adjacent to the existing seawalls,
which would undermine these seawalls.
Use of immersed tube is therefore considered not feasible in this
instance, and the most practical and reasonable form of construction for the
Trunk Road tunnel along the Wan Chai shoreline is cut-and-cover, constructed
through reclaimed land.
2.6.7
Through
the ex-PCWA basin and the CBTS, where the Trunk Road tunnel lies below seabed
level, immersed tube or cut-and-cover tunnel construction may be
considered. For both forms of
construction, permanent reclamation is not required. In the case of cut-and-cover tunnel,
temporary reclamation may be formed to facilitate the tunnel construction, but
this can be removed on completion of construction so that the finished product,
ie retention of the existing seabed condition, is the same for both
methods. Factors to be considered
in selecting an appropriate construction method include: whether the tunnel
alignment runs wholly through seabed or partly in existing seabed and partly
under existing seawalls and land formation, the latter making cut-and-cover
construction more practically feasible (more efficient and cost effective
construction with less disruption to existing shoreline facilities and
infrastructure) than use of precast immersed tunnel sections that need to be
placed in open trenches; the depth of the tunnel (where the tunnel lies at a
significant depth below the seabed, for example near the Cross Harbour Tunnel
crossing, at –30mPD, major deep and wide trenches will need to be excavated, making
immersed tube construction more disruptive with greater impacts); or the tunnel
length available for immersed tube construction (short lengths will not be cost
effective for the precast fabrication of tunnel units). The form of tunnel construction is an
important consideration in respect of avoiding conflict with the SCL, as Trunk
Road cut-and-cover tunnel can be constructed across the future SCL alignment
with much closer separation allowance.
Because the Trunk Road tunnel is on diaphragm wall (piled) supports, it
will not be structurally adversely affected by the construction of the SCL
tunnels.
2.6.8
Where
the Trunk Road tunnel rises up above the seabed to ground level, for the
connection with the IEC at the eastern end of the CBTS, cut-and-cover tunnel in
reclamation will again be the feasible form of construction.
2.6.9
In
summary, cut-and-cover tunnel in reclamation is considered to be the practical
and feasible form of construction for implementation of the Trunk Road at the
west of the HKCEC, through the HKCEC water channel, along the Wan Chai
shoreline and through the CB TS.
2.6.10
Cut-and-cover tunnel
construction involves first installing the tunnel walls by using diaphragm
walls (these are reinforced concrete wall panels constructed in existing ground
from ground level down to the required depth, usually to the underlying rock
layer) on both sides of the tunnel, then excavating the soil from between the
diaphragm walls, constructing reinforced concrete top and bottom slabs between
the diaphragm walls to form the tunnel box and, finally, backfilling over the
tunnel. This form of construction
is carried out in existing or formed land to provide the necessary construction
access from the surface – should the tunnel alignment cross over seabed,
reclamation will be required to first form the land through which the diaphragm
walls need to be constructed.
2.6.11
Whereas cut-and-cover tunnel
construction is the practical and feasible form of construction for the overall
Trunk Road, there is localised section underneath the CHT portal approach ramp
where the Trunk Road tunnel will be generally in rock. As mentioned in paragraphs 2.4.3 and 2.4.16 above, the Trunk
Road tunnel will pass underneath the existing rock anchors of the CHT portal
structure. The rock anchors, based
on available as-built information, are installed to a depth of around -17mPD,
therefore, allowing for minimum clearance beneath the anchors, the Trunk Road
must pass beneath the CHT rock anchors and through the rock strata at a road
level of around -30mPD. Drilling
and breaking construction method will be carried out for this section of tunnel
underneath the CHT. Small
diameter drills will be used to drill through the rock to form a honeycomb type
structure in the rock, which would then be easily broken out without the use of
explosives or chemical expanding grouts.
This construction method for hard rock tunnelling is considered to
minimise the impacts on the existing CHT portal structure.
2.6.12
Alternative
construction method like the drill-and-blast method which is normally used for
tunnels through rocky hills and mountains, not for tunnels below seabed with
mixed soil conditions, is considered not applicable in this case.
Piled-Deck Spanning across the MTR
Tsuen Wan Line
2.6.13
The Trunk Road must not impose
any loads on, or cause any movement of, the existing MTR Tsuen Wan Line
immersed tube tunnel. Tunnelling
under the MTR tunnel at sufficient depth to avoid disturbance to the existing
ground and movement of the MTR tunnel would result in exceedance of permissible
tunnel gradients from the connection to the existing road network at the
Central Interchange. A piled Trunk
Road tunnel structure spanning across the MTR tunnel will be constructed to
meet statutory limitations on allowable surcharge, lateral pressure and
movement.
Temporary reclamation for tunnel
below seabed
2.6.14
The
Trunk Road tunnel beneath the ex-PCWA basin and the CBTS will be constructed by
cut-and-cover method, for which reclamation is required (as explained
above). Through these areas,
though, the Trunk Road tunnel structure lies at sufficient depth below the
seabed that consideration can be
given to removing the reclamation after the tunnel has been constructed. The criteria for deciding where the
reclamation can be removed are: that the top tunnel should be deep enough to
allow for adequate structural protection in the absence of the protective
reclamation, and where the tunnel passes through anchorage areas, an additional
seabed layer for ships’s anchor embedment; and that the removal of reclamation
should not have the effect of creating new embayments, in order to avoid water
quality impacts..
2.6.15
Note
that these temporary reclamation areas are not considered as areas affecting
the harbour, insofar as they are short term (for the duration of the
construction period) and solely for the purpose of achieving the end product
(ie in order to ultimately achieve minimum reclamation). The temporary works will not cause
permanent damage to the harbour.
2.7
Operation of the Project
2.7.1
Operational activities, on
completion of the DP1, would comprise essentially traffic movements on the new
roads and public use of the waterfront.
2.8
Works Programme
2.8.1
The Trunk Road construction works
are anticipated to commence on site in early 2009, with completion of the works
by 2016. A construction programme
is presented in Appendix 2.5 for
reference.
2.9
Related Projects
2.9.1
The following projects are
related to the WDII and CWB
project:
(i)
Civil Engineering and
Development Department's CRIII project, comprising reclamation along the
Central waterfront for transport infrastructure needs (including CWB and NIL)
and basic land use requirements. A
section of CWB tunnel will also be constructed under CRIII project. Construction will take place from
February 2003 to September 2012.
(ii)
Trade Development Council’s
Atrium Link Extension project, comprising a link bridge spanning across the
water channel between the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre (HKCEC)
Phase I and HKCEC Extension.
Construction will take place from May 2006 to March 2009.