Purpose
and Objective of the Project
2.1
A key aspect of the construction of Shatin to Central Link - Hung Hom to Admiralty
Section (hereafter known as SCL (HUH-ADM)) inside the CBTS will be the coordination of
the interfaces with the CWB project. The
CWB will be constructed in cut-and-cover tunnel from temporary reclamation in
the CBTS. Construction of the CWB will
tentatively start in the third quarter of 2010 and will overlap with the target
construction period of the SCL. There is
a need to address how the SCL can be integrated with the proposed CWB project
to minimize the extent and duration of reclamation for both projects in the
CBTS.
2.2
The purpose of the SCL Protection Works and associated works (which is
the Project being considered in this EIA Report) is to temporarily reclaim land
for construction of a section of tunnel box for SCL by cut-and-cover method at
the crossing above the CWB tunnels within the CBTS. The
Protection Works is limited to civil and structural elements and cannot serve
to function for any railway service or operation. The prime objectives
of the Project are:
·
To avoid repeated
temporary reclamation and minimize the extent and duration of reclamation in
the CBTS by constructing the SCL Protection Works together with the main CWB
works that is undertaken by Highway Department.
·
To ensure future
construction of the SCL on both sides of the CWB tunnels is protected and
ensure its feasibility without damaging or unduly affecting the CWB tunnels
which could be operational by then.
Brief
Description of the Project
2.3
The Project involves
the construction of a section of the twin track railway tunnel box (the SCL
Protection Works) by cut-and-cover method at the crossing above the CWB
tunnels. The length of the SCL Protection Works is approximately 160m long and
it is located entirely offshore within the CBTS. Upon implementation of the SCL
in the future, the south end of the Protection Works will be extended from the
temporary reclamation to connect with the South Ventilation Building (SOV) at
the existing Police Officers’ Club and the north end of the Protection Works
will be continued in cut and cover construction to connect to an Immersed Tube
Tunnel (IMT) beneath the harbour.
2.4
Temporary reclamation
is required for the construction of the Protection Works and will be authorized
under the Foreshore and Sea-bed (reclamations) Ordinance. The temporary
reclamation will be removed once the Protection Works is completed except a
small area at the southwest corner of the reclamation which will be retained to
enable construction of the future SCL tunnels connecting to the proposed SOV
(the Police Officer Club site). This section of the temporary reclamation will
be removed by the SCL project.
2.5
Due to the temporary
reclamation for the SCL Protection Works, vessels in the southwest corner will
be affected. Hence, the southeast corner of the CBTS will need to be dredged to
provide sufficient water depth to allow the relocation of moorings. The
temporary reclamation for the Protection Works will also require relocation of
the temporary RHKYC jetty within the CWB temporary reclamation to a new
location.
2.6
Location, boundary
and general layout of the Project are illustrated in Figure Nos. NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M50/501
to NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M50/503.
2.7
The Project comprises
the following key elements:
·
Temporary
reclamation, which occupies about 0.7ha of Government foreshore and sea-bed (of
which 0.3ha is already authorized under CWB project, i.e. additional
reclamation of 0.4ha is required).
·
Dredging works at
the southeast corner of the CBTS to provide space for temporary relocation of
anchorage area due to the additional temporary reclamation for the Project.
·
Construction of a
section of the twin track railway tunnel structure (approximately 160m long)
above the proposed CWB located entirely offshore within the CBTS.
·
Relocation of the
temporary RHKYC jetty within the CWB temporary reclamation to a new location.
·
Removal of the
temporary reclamation, except the small area at the southwest corner of the
reclamation (which will be removed by the SCL project upon completion of the future SCL tunnels connecting to the proposed SOV).
2.8
All of the above construction works, including the dredging work at the
southwest corner of the temporary reclamation area, would be entrusted to the
CWB project and hence carried out by the CWB Contractor. The only exception is
the removal of temporary reclamation at the southwest corner, which would be
performed under the SCL (HUH-ADM) when the future SCL tunnel is connected to
the shoreline at the proposed SOV.
Benefits of the Project
2.9
Since the Project will
interface with CWB project at the CBTS, there is a need to address how the two
projects can be integrated, not only to optimize the use of temporary
reclamation provided by CWB but also to minimize the impacts on the users of
the CBTS. Based on feedback from consultation with stakeholders and users of
the CBTS, they opined that there should be a better coordination with the CWB
project to minimize disturbance to the moorings and operations of the typhoon
shelter and expedite the works to avoid prolongation of the impacts.
2.10
The Project is a
win-win option to both SCL and CWB projects in terms of project costs and risks
during construction. It allows optimum usage of the temporary reclamation
provided by CWB for the construction of SCL, so that future temporary
reclamation due to SCL works in the interfacing region can be avoided. On one
hand it reduces the extent of temporary reclamation area required for future
SCL works which in turn facilitates the allocation of resources, on the other hand it as well shortens the duration of temporary
reclamation within the CBTS and hence the impacts on the users of CBTS. Despite
that temporary reclamation additional to that proposed in the CWB project is
required, it would be significantly reduced in terms of size and duration in
comparison to that which would be required if the Protection Works is
undertaken after completion of the CWB.
2.11
As CWB would be
operational during the construction of the SCL, the Project will allow the
future construction of the SCL on both sides of the CWB tunnels without
damaging or unduly affecting the CWB tunnel. The risks of both SCL construction
and CWB tunnel operation are therefore minimized.
2.12
In environmental
terms, the following potential benefits would likely be achieved with the implementation
of the Project:
·
Repeated dredging
could be avoided at the interfacing area of the two tunnels when future SCL
tunnel works are constructed by cut-and-cover method. The seabed in the
interfacing region would not be disturbed once again,
and additional release of suspended solids (SS) and sediment-bound contaminants
such as heavy metals and nutrients, if present, into the water column, can be
avoided. The overall water quality impact in the CBTS due to dredging is thus
minimized in absolute terms.
·
In a similar fashion,
repeated temporary reclamation following the dredging operation could be made
unnecessary in the interfacing area. Duration of temporary embayment due to the
partially reclaimed land for SCL tunnel works in the southwest part of the CBTS
would be shortened and hence potential accumulation of pollutants from
contaminated stormwater runoff can be minimized. Moreover, loss of fill
materials into the water column due to filling activities for the temporary
reclamation can also be limited as a result of the minimized extent of
temporary reclamation.
·
Besides, the amount
of waste including Construction and Demolition (C&D) materials would be
reduced, which would otherwise be increased due to the repetition of dredging
and temporary reclamation at the interfacing area.
Without Project Scenario (Not constructed under the
CWB project)
2.13
If the SCL Protection
Works is not proceeded, temporary reclamation will be
required in future construction of SCL at the interfacing area of the two
projects. The construction may risk the operation of the CWB tunnel as the
closest distance between the crown of the CWB tunnel and the SCL tunnels is
merely around 3m. From the perspective of cost-effectiveness, both the higher
construction risks and larger temporary reclamation area will result in a
bigger project cost compared to the scenario which the Protection Works is
constructed under the CWB project,
2.14
While the temporary
reclamation will be carried out after the completion of CWB project, the size
and duration of the temporary reclamation in the CBTS will be significantly
more than that of having the Protection Works constructed under the CWB
project, leading to a prolongation of impacts to the users of CBTS, disturbance
to the moorings and operations of the typhoon shelter.
Consideration
of Alternatives/Options
Introduction
2.15
The engineering
design, location and scale of the Project are governed by the alignment scheme
of the SCL (HUH-ADM). Different alignment options and construction methods of the
SCL (HUH-ADM) would have direct implication on the design of the Project in
various aspects, including the location and size of works area, extent of
dredging and temporary reclamation, works sequence and phase implementation and
even the necessity of the Project. It is essential to apprehend different
alternative options of the SCL (HUH-ADM) and to acknowledge the preferred
scheme of the alignment which fundamentally defines the scope and need of the
Project.
Compliance
with the Protection of The Harbour Ordinance
(PHO)
2.16
The PHO Cap 531
recognises the harbour as a special public asset and a natural heritage of
2.17
The presumption
against reclamation can only be rebutted by establishing an overriding public
need for the reclamation work. Guidance for addressing the public need for
reclamation (referred to as “the overriding public need test”) is provided in
the Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau Technical Circular No. 1/04 (HPLB TC
1/04). This applies to all reclamations within the boundaries of
2.18
The HPLB TC No. 1/04
states that a “no reclamation” scenario must be taken as the starting point in
considering alternatives and that it is imperative to examine if an overriding
public need can be met without reclamation through a reasonable alternative. It
further states that all circumstances should be considered in determining
whether there is a reasonable alternative to reclamation, including the
economic, social and environmental implications, cost and time incurred, and
other relevant considerations, including technical feasibility and safety
considerations.
2.19
A detailed
examination of the SCL needs and constraints, including an exhaustive
investigation into the need for reclamation for the SCL (HUH-ADM) construction
and of alternative schemes that might do away with reclamation or, at least,
minimise reclamation, has been carried out. A “Cogent and Convincing Materials
to Demonstrate Compliance with the Overriding Public Need Test” (CCM Report for
SCL), which set out the findings of the investigations and the conclusions
regarding the need for reclamation and the minimum extent of reclamation has
been prepared. The CCM Report can be viewed at the website: http://www.mtr-shatincentrallink.hk/en/construction/work-in-victoria-harbour.html.
2.20
As detailed in the
CCM Report, the three tests in rebutting the presumption against the
reclamation as set out in the PHO have been satisfied:
·
In facilitating the
construction of the SCL and therefore in meeting the overriding public need for
the railway, there is consequently a compelling and present need for the
reclamation in the CBTS and adjacent to Hung Hom landfalls. All of the
reclamation is essentially temporary and will be removed upon completion of
construction, with the seabed reinstated to the original level.
·
No reasonable alternative
to temporary reclamation is found for constructing the SCL (HUH-ADM) (known as
SCL Cross Harbour Section in the CCM Report).
·
The extent of
reclamation has been determined to be the minimum required.
SCL (HUH-ADM)
Alignment Options
2.21
In general, two broad
groups of engineering design have been considered for the SCL (HUH-ADM), namely
the “No Reclamation Options” and “Alternative Options Requiring Reclamation”
and are described in the sections below. Details of the options are described
in the CCM Report.
Alternatives of SCL (HUH-ADM) - “No Reclamation”
Options
2.22
Three
“no-reclamation” options have been investigated as a part of the engineering
design of the SCL (HUH-ADM), however each of these options are considered to be
either not viable or not a reasonable alternative to reclamation. These options
include:
·
Bridge Option;
·
Shallow Bored Tunnel
Options; and
·
Deep Tunnel Option.
Bridge Option
2.23
The Bridge Option
would have huge impacts on existing infrastructure and buildings on both sides
of the harbour as well as significant visual impact. The problems arise from
the need to provide sufficient navigation clearance under the bridge deck and
the limiting 3% gradient for the railway. The approach ramps on other side of
the harbour would have to be 1km long for every 30m of clearance.
2.24
On the
2.25
On the Hong Kong side
the approach ramp would have to extend a significant distance along the north
shore on Hong Kong Island, including sections at grade and in trough and would
fail to provide acceptable interchange stations at Exhibition and Admiralty
because of the significant level differences involved. This option is therefore
not considered to be viable.
Shallow Bored Tunnel Options
2.26
The Shallow Bored
Tunnel Options would have to be constructed by Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) in
view of the anticipated ground conditions along the alignment corridor (Figure 2.1 of Appendix 2.1).
The alignment of these options is driven by the need to pass under the CWB
tunnels with adequate clearance to avoid damaging the CWB tunnels during SCL
tunnel construction and also to maintain adequate cover under the seabed,
particularly below a large depression in the seabed near the HUH seawall in
order to allow the TBM to operate.
2.27
In order to adopt the
Shallow TBM Tunnel Option, sufficient ground cover is required over the TBM to
enable ground control and steering so as to meet safety requirements. The
absolute minimum ground cover above the tunnel is generally one TBM diameter
and preferably two diameters. It is expected for an internal diameter of 9m
would be required for a single track SCL tunnel with ventilation duct. The
external diameter of the TBM would be about 10.35m. Accordingly, to allow for
sufficient ground cover, the tunnel would require an absolute minimum depth
below seabed of 10.35m and preferably more than 20m clearance from the top of
the tunnel to the seabed.
2.28
Due to these
constraints, this option would involve twin bored TBM tunnel which would
require an invert level of approximately -50 mPD, at the lowest point under the
CWB tunnel, and a general depth below -44 mPD within the remaining areas of the
Harbour. At these levels the tunnel would pass in and out of rockhead several
times and significantly increase both the likelihood of corestones being
encountered and the general engineering difficulty of the alignment.
2.29
The particularly
onerous tunnelling conditions demand the TBM to be capable of operating in
mixed face conditions at deep tunnel depths. Based on previous experience, and
in view of the expected high cutter wear and risk of damage to the cutterhead,
daily interventions would be required at the tunnel face for inspection, maintenance
and repair. These works would require workers to enter the pressurised
cutterhead via air locks in the pressure bulkhead of the TBM, and would be
undertaken in a small and confined space at deep tunnel depths under the
harbour at pressures exceeding 50 pounds per square
inch (psi) (approximately 3.45 bar) (Figure 2.2 of
Appendix 2.1).
2.30
In
2.31
This option therefore
associates with high engineering difficulties in relation to the requirements
on the ground cover and stability of the tunnel face, as well as the
significant risks to health and regulatory requirements associated with working
under high pressures. Moreover, this option also bears very high cost and can
only provide a considerably poorer interchange arrangement to rail users due to
large vertical separation between the east-west and north-south corridor
platforms, which in return lengthens the interchange times. Therefore the
Shallow TBM Tunnel Option is not considered to be a viable alternative option.
Deep Tunnel Options
2.33
An alignment under
the HKC foundations but above the rockhead is preferred in order to avoid
undermining the existing foundations and limit the volume of rock to be
excavated. However, the Deep TBM Tunnel
Option is expected to have cost and programme implications and cause disruption
to the community and environment in the area surrounding the HKC.
2.34
Figure 2.3 of
Appendix 2.1 illustrates that the
Deep TBM Tunnel Option also results in a deeper HUH such that the SCL cannot
connect into the existing alignment south of Tunnel 1A (approximately 800 m
north of HUH) given the limiting 3% rail gradient requirements. The rail level
at HUH would be required to be lowered from the preferred level of -10 mPD to
approximately -25mPD, requiring the installation of two escalators and an
intermediate platform, which would increase interchange time by approximately
40 seconds. The line would also have to
be extended almost 2km to the north to join with the existing East Rail Line.
This additional section of rail would require design and construction 2 km of
tracks and other associated rail infrastructure, significantly increasing the
environmental impacts, cost and engineering difficulty of the SCL.
2.35
The Deep TBM Tunnel
Option also has similar engineering and safety difficulties relating to working
at depth as the Shallow TBM Tunnel Option.
The requirement to undertake daily interventions at the tunnel face for
inspection, maintenance and repair requiring man entry into the pressurised
cutterhead via air locks would be required to be undertaken at pressures far
exceeding 50psi. This again would exceed
the current regulated level and must be supported by argument that there is no
reasonable, safer way to carry out the construction. Similar to the Shallow TBM
Tunnel Option, compressed air is not considered to be practical for face
interventions due to the limited working time available at the face at such
high pressures and difficulties in using compressed air under F&IUO.
2.36
Given the constraints
in relation to working under high pressures at depth, the engineering
difficulties in working around the HKC foundations and the less favourable
interchanges provided by the deeper HUH and EXH, the Deep TBM Option is deemed
not able to meet the SCL project objectives.
2.37
To conclude, there is
no acceptable “no-reclamation” option for the SCL (HUH-ADM). It must be
accepted that some reclamation will be required to enable its construction.
Alternatives of SCL (HUH-ADM) -
Options Requiring Reclamation
2.38
The Immersed Tube
Tunnel (IMT) construction method has been adopted for all existing
cross-harbour transport tunnels in Hong Kong, including the Eastern Harbour
Crossing, Western Harbour Crossing and Central Harbour Crossing transport
tunnels across
2.39
The standard practice
for IMT construction is to dredge a trench in the seabed to remove soft
materials, provide a foundation base within the trench, float in precast tube
tunnels in sections, sink the precast units into place within the seabed using
a floating pontoon system or from a barge and finally connect and backfill the
tunnel with a rock blanket or other suitable material to protect and anchor the
tunnels. This approach would raise some sections of sea-bed but does not result
in any dry surface or land formed. Nonetheless, the raising of the sea-bed
level would not affect the use or access to that part of the harbour.
2.40
The maximum depth and
portion of IMT extending above the seabed is generally dictated by marine
clearance requirements. The top level of the IMT will be slightly above the
Cross Harbour Tunnel located at the north of the CBTS but the slightly reduced
water depth should have no impact to the marine users and it will not affect
the main fairway.
2.41
An envelope covering
various alignment options of the SCL (HUH-ADM) is shown on Figure 2.4 of Appendix 2.1. This is bounded by the existing Cross Harbour Tunnel on the west and
the need to identify a suitable landfall on
Eastern and Western Corridor Options
2.42
On the
2.43
For both the Eastern
and Western Alignment Corridors, the requirements at the Hung Hom landfall are
common. At the Hung Hom landfall, the SCL tunnel would need to pass under the
Hung Hom Bypass. During construction of the SCL tunnels, some of the fender
piles for protecting the Hung Hom Bypass would need to be removed and
reprovisioned in a slightly different form. The reprovisioned fender piles are
considered to be permanent reclamation but are not considered to affect the use
or enjoyment of the Harbour.
Eastern Corridor Options
2.44
The Eastern Corridor options
are shown on Figures 2.5 to 2.8 of Appendix 2.1 and the key
characteristics are summarised below:
·
Option 1A:
Alignment runs under CWB tunnels along the same corridor as far as possible.
·
Option 1B:
Alignment runs partly under the CWB tunnels and then to the south of the
tension anchor zone at the Cross Harbour Tunnel and then parallel to and just
to the south of the CWB tunnels.
·
Option 1C
non-stacked: This is a similar alignment to Option 1B through the CBTS but then
follows a non-stacked inland alignment to EXH to provide cross platform
interchange. A similar alignment option to provide a cross platform at EXH was
also considered but found to be unfeasible.
·
Option 1D:
Shallow alignment above the CWB tunnels.
2.45
Options 1A to 1C
would require construction of the SCL tunnels beneath the CWB tunnels within
the CBTS. These works would have to be carried out under the CWB contract. Due
to the extra depth of construction and complexity, completion of the CWB
tunnels is expected to be delayed for 3 years, which hence prolongs the period
of disruption in the CBTS. Other
problems associated with these options include increased construction risk, in
particular to the construction of the combined CWB and SCL tunnels under the
Cross Harbour Tunnel.
2.46
The assessment of
Option 1D has shown that the currently proposed CWB tunnels would have to be
lowered to avoid the SCL tunnels from either clashing with the CWB Slip Road
No. 8 or protruding above the seabed at this location, and in the eastern part
of CBTS as shown on Figure 2.8 of
Appendix 2.1. The Highways Department has advised that
deeper CWB alignment would result in the CWB tunnel portal being moved further
east towards North Point. This would increase the permanent reclamation in
North Point from 3.3 hectares to approximately 10 hectares.
2.47
All options would
require temporary reclamation of up to 2ha while Option 1B would also require
additional permanent reclamation to allow the SCL to be constructed parallel to
the CWB tunnels adjacent to the Wanchai East Screening Plant and Hong Kong
Electric Sub-station.
2.48
The Eastern Alignment
Options are therefore not favoured because of a combination of the need for
permanent reclamation and the prolonged period of construction required in
CBTS. In addition, the route length for the alignment within the Eastern
Corridor would be extended resulting in greater construction impacts and longer
journey times during operation.
Western Corridor Options
2.49
The horizontal
alignment of the Western Corridor Options is shown on Figure 2.9 of Appendix 2.1. At the location where the SCL crosses the CWB, the SCL tunnels will
pass over the CWB tunnels.
2.50
After passing through
the Hung Hom landfall section, the alignment will run in a southerly direction
towards the CBTS, to the east and generally parallel to the existing Cross
Harbour Tunnel. South of the CBTS breakwater, the alignment will then run in a
south westerly direction towards the Police Officers’ Club site where a
ventilation building will be located.
2.51
The tunnel between
the Hung Hom landfall and a point approximately 72m north of the breakwater
will be constructed using the IMT method. South of the IMT section, the cut and
cover construction method will be adopted. The cut-and-cover section requires
temporary reclamation, with a total area of approximately 2.2ha, including the
temporary reprovisioned jetty for the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club.
2.52
The existing
breakwater will be removed after the surround area has been temporarily
reclaimed. The breakwater will be reinstated at the existing location and in a
similar form after completion of the SCL tunnels below. The typhoon shelter
will be protected at all times by the temporary seawalls and reclamation
provided while the existing breakwater is removed for the SCL tunnel
construction.
2.53
There are several
challenges with constructing the cross-harbour SCL tunnel through the CBTS
section, these include:
·
The need to
reduce disturbance to the moorings and operations of the typhoon shelter as
much as possible and ensuring the works are undertaken as quickly as possible
to avoid prolongation of any impacts, particularly as this area will be
affected by the CWB tunnel construction.
·
Ensuring the
tunnels are placed at a sufficient depth to reduce the potential risk of damage
from ship impact, anchors, etc. and are not exposed, whilst minimising the
amount of materials to be dredged from within the typhoon shelter during
construction, due to the expected high levels of contaminants in the sediment,
and ensuring that contaminants are contained as best as possible when removed.
·
Interfacing
with the CWB project construction at this area.
2.54
The above
requirements contribute to the need for temporary reclamation to be undertaken
for construction works. In particular, the most significant implication to the
project is the interface requirements with CWB.
Other Alternative Considerations
2.55
Other
alternative alignment options to the west of the Cross Harbour Tunnel and to
the east of CBTS were studied but considered not preferable for the reasons
given below.
Alternative Alignment to West of
2.56
These
options would require the SCL tunnels to pass under the Cross Harbour Tunnel on
the
2.57
There are
a number of major challenges with this alignment which renders it unfeasible.
These include conflicts with the Coliseum foundations, retaining structures or
footings for the East Rail tunnels and the adjacent flyover. Mined tunnelling
under the existing Cross Harbour Tunnel on
2.58
The
tunnel across the harbour would be particularly deep (approximately 40m below
sea level) as it would have to pass below the CWB tunnels. This would lead to
excessive dredging and significant areas of temporary reclamation. EXH Station
would have to be much deeper and a cross platform interchange could not be
provided.
2.59
The risks
associated with this alignment, the impacts of construction and less favourable
EXH Station interchange mean that this option is unacceptable.
Alternative Alignment to East of CBTS
2.60
This
alignment option will shift towards Eastern side of
Conclusions of Options Reviewed
2.61
A number of
“no-reclamation” options have been investigated and are considered to be not
viable or not a reasonable alternative to reclamation. These options include:
(i) Bridge Option; (ii) Shallow Bored Tunnel Option; and (iii) Deep Tunnel
Option.
2.62
The Bridge Option
would cause very significant adverse impacts on both sides of the Harbour. It
is not possible to engineer a scheme which meets the SCL project objective.
This option is therefore rejected. The Deep Tunnel Option is considered not
viable because of the impractical interchanges created and the need for
tunnelling at pressures greater than 50psi. The Shallow Bored Tunnel Option
would require working in high pressures exceeding the statutory limit of 50psi.
The MTR are not prepared to accept the risks to health, life and the project
with this option when there is an acceptable alternative option available which
avoids these risks. Also, the poor interchange arrangement would not meet the
SCL Project objective.
2.63
For the “Options
Requiring Reclamation”, the Immersed Tube and Cut-and-Cover Tunnel option has
been adopted as the approach for the construction of tunnels, thanks to the
well established technology and construction process for this method and the
relatively little risk involved.
2.64
Based on the analysis
of the alignment options for the IMT, it has been concluded that the IMT
alignment should follow the Western Corridor option as it minimizes interfaces
with CBTS and is the most direct railway alignment. The Eastern alignments have
more significant impacts on reclamation durations and greater construction
risks.
2.65
Permanent reclamation
would not be required under the Western Corridor option by the IMT and
cut-and-cover tunnel, as all permanent works would be below seabed or lowest
astronomic tide level, other than the reprovisioned fender piles for the Hung
Hom Bypass. However, temporary reclamation will be required to construct the
cut-and-cover tunnel to connect with the IMT and inside the CBTS.
2.66
It is thus concluded
that there is no reasonable alternative to the IMT tunnel option which requires
temporary reclamation for construction at the Hung Hom landfall and adjacent to
and in the CBTS and replacement of the fender piles for the Hung Hom Bypass
(which is considered as permanent reclamation.) This option is the most
appropriate option that can achieve the project needs and benefits to the
public and be constructed with proven technology, with lower costs and less
risk to programme.
2.67
A
comparison of the key aspects of each alignment is presented in Table 2.1 below.
2.68
Based on feedback from the public consultation
process particularly from the Professional Forum and taking into account
construction risks and programme, the Western Corridor option is considered to
be a better option than the Eastern Corridor options.
Table
2.1 Comparison of Alignment
Design Options for Cross Harbour Tunnel
|
Construction
alignments/ Aspects |
“No Reclamation” Options |
Alternative Options Requiring Reclamation |
|||||||
|
Bridge
Option |
Deep TBM Tunnel
Option |
Shallow TBM
Tunnel Option |
IMT Eastern
Corridor |
IMT Western
Corridor |
|||||
|
Option 1A (below CWB) |
Option 1B (below CWB) |
Option 1C (below CWB) |
Option 1D (above CWB) |
||||||
|
Engineering
Factors |
|||||||||
|
Implementation
Programme |
- |
+ 2 further
years as compared to IMT. |
+ 2 further
years as compared to IMT. |
Extended 3
years of works in CBTS & cause delay to CWB |
Extended 3
years of works in CBTS & cause delay to CWB |
Extended 3
years of works in CBTS & cause delay to CWB |
Extended 3
years of works in CBTS & cause delay to CWB |
Extended 1.5
years of works in CBTS
but no delay to CWB |
|
|
Interface with Existing
Facilities |
Major impact on the East Rail Line,
existing roads and other infrastructure on Major resumption of land on The Hong Kong Coliseum would also have
to be demolished. |
- |
- |
Prolonged occupation of moorings at CBTS
and major interaction with CWB. |
Limited mooring affected. |
||||
|
Construction/ Operation
Safety, Flexibility and Maintainability |
Shipping at the busy |
Use of face interventions at greater
than the maximum 50 psi pressure as currently set in the Factories and
Industrial Undertakings Ordinance (Cap 59). It is considered that the Health
& Safety risks associated with these options cannot be justified. |
Increased construction complexity and
risk, particularly for the construction under
the Cross Harbour Tunnel, Adverse impact on interchange at EXH |
Increased construction complexity and
risk, particularly for the construction of the
combined CWB and SCL tunnels under the Cross Harbour Tunnel, |
More simple construction method. Size
and duration of temporary reclamation would be significantly reduced. All
permanent works would be below seabed or lowest astronomic tide level |
||||
|
High risk |
High risk |
High risk |
Medium
risk |
Low risk |
|||||
|
Temporary / Permanent
Reclamation |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
0.6ha Temporary
Reclamation + Permanent reclamation required for the
reprovision of fender pier piles for Hung Hom Bypass (not considered to
affect the enjoyment of the Harbour) |
2ha Temporary Reclamation
+ Permanent reclamation required for the
reprovision of fender pier piles for Hung Hom Bypass |
2ha Temporary
Reclamation + Permanent
reclamation required for the reprovision of fender pier piles for
Hung Hom Bypass |
0.6ha Temporary
Reclamation required for the reprovision of fender pier piles for
Hung Hom Bypass + additional 6.7ha Permanent reclamation for
CWB. |
2.2ha Temporary
Reclamation Required. + Permanent Reclamation required for the reprovision
of fender pier piles for Hung Hom Bypass.
|
|
|
Land
Acquisition & Railway Operation |
Bridge
extends a significant distance along the North Cross-platform interchange not
engineered practical at the stations. |
80m below sea level in bedrock; HUH Station at 50m deep and EXH at 43m
deep Cross-platform interchange
not possible and unacceptable level of service for passenger entering or
leaving stations. |
Deep Station; Cross--platform interchange not OK. |
Longer tunnels; Cross-platform interchange at EXH not
OK. |
Longer tunnels; Cross-platform interchange at EXH not
OK. |
Longer tunnels; Cross-platform interchange at EXH not
OK. |
Longer tunnels; Cross-platform interchange at EXH not
OK. |
Min length; Cross-platform interchange at EXH OK. |
|
|
Environmental
Factors |
|||||||||
|
Environmental
Considerations |
·
Significant visual impact ·
Water and ecology/fishery impacts would be concerns. |
·
Much more sediment/C&D will be generated due to a longer alignment. |
·
Much more sediment/C&D will be generated due to a longer
alignment. ·
Construction noise and dust would be a concern at the cut-and-cover
section at the landing points only. ·
Water and ecology/fishery impacts would be concerns. |
·
Localised construction noise and dust impact at the cut-and-cover
section at the landing points. ·
Water and ecology / fishery impacts would be concerns. |
|||||
|
Other
Factors |
|||||||||
|
Avoidance of
Issues/Constraints |
SCL (HUH-ADM) would be a major concern on
marine traffic. |
Tunnelling for the SCL (HUH-ADM) would
be a major concern on Health & Safety risks. |
Engineering constraints cannot be
resolved. |
Avoidance of engineering and
environmental constraints has largely been investigated and resolved. |
|||||
|
Disruption to the
Community |
Due to the longer time span and larger
works area, a larger disruption to the community would be expected. |
- |
- |
Long interfacing/ disruption at CBTS. |
Limited interfacing/ disruption at CBTS. |
||||
Preferred Option
2.69
As discussed, the IMT
along the Western Corridor option is considered as the most appropriate option
that can both achieve the needs of the SCL project and benefit to the public and
be constructed with proven technology, at lower costs and less risk to the
programme.
2.70
Under this preferred
option, temporary reclamation will be required to construct the portion of the
SCL tunnel running through the existing CBTS breakwater and inside the CBTS by
cut-and-cover method. This method is
similar to that of the CWB project, which involves cut-and-cover construction,
temporary reclamation and seawalls. It is thereby proposed that the section of
SCL tunnel above the CWB tunnel will be constructed in conjunction with the CWB
tunnel under the Project.
2.71
This scheme of the
SCL (HUH-ADM) has essentially defined the scope and components of the Project
as described in Section 2.7, since the design of the Project is aimed to tied
in with and meet the requirements of the preferred option of the SCL (HUH-ADM).
This, on the other hand, has imposed more constrains on possible alternatives
in terms of feasible engineering design, size and location requirements.
Construction
Methods
2.72
As aforementioned,
the preferred scheme of the SCL (HUH-ADM), which was found to be the most
all-rounded option that can achieve the project needs and benefit to the public
at the least expense of cost and risk, has largely defined the scope and design
of this Project.
2.73
The
section of SCL within the CBTS will be constructed using the cut-and-cover
method thus requiring temporary reclamation; relocation of the temporary RHKYC
jetty and dredging at the southeast corner of the CBTS to provide space for
temporary relocation of anchorage area for the vessels. A small fraction at the southwest corner of
the temporary reclamation will be retained until the completion of the SCL
tunnel works scheduled in 2017. Detailed descriptions on each activity are
given below.
Cut-and-Cover Tunnel
Construction
2.74
Temporary
reclamation will be required to construct the SCL Protection Works inside the
CBTS using cut-and-cover method. The temporary reclamation would be located on
the western side of the CBTS.
2.75
The
cut-and-cover method would involve constructing a temporary reclamation area to
provide a dry working platform and the installation of temporary walls propped
by steel struts. The soil between the temporary walls would then be excavated
and a reinforced concrete tunnel box would be constructed to form the permanent
structure. Backfilling would then be undertaken on top of the tunnel and
followed by the removal of temporary reclamation. Certain provisions would be
built into the end of the tunnel to enable subsequent extension of the tunnel
by the SCL project. This approach is similar to that adopted by the CWB tunnels
for construction within the CBTS.
2.76
Based on
feedback from consultation with stakeholders and users of the CBTS and taking
into account constraints on availability of off-site reprovisioning, the
general view is that no additional moorings (i.e. over what CWB has proposed)
should be relocated outside of the CBTS to facilitate SCL construction. For vessels to be relocated to other
locations within the CBTS to suit the construction works, buoy and sinker
moorings and/or pontoons could be used. It is therefore proposed that the
section of SCL tunnel above the CWB tunnel will be constructed in conjunction
with the CWB tunnel under the CWB project.
2.77
The CWB
project would construct the SCL tunnels from adjacent to the shoreline to just
north of the CWB tunnel. This will
require some modification to the limits of temporary reclamation carried out
under the CWB project on authorisation of the SCL scheme under the Foreshore and
Sea-bed (Reclamation) Ordinance upon approval of EIA report. A small part of
the temporary reclamation would be left in place adjacent to the shoreline to
allow the SCL project to construct the SCL tunnels through the seawall. This temporary reclamation would be removed
by the SCL (HUH-ADM).
Area of Temporary
Reclamation
2.78
The width
of the temporary reclamation is driven by the following requirements:
·
Working space for
construction of tunnels;
·
Temporary walls;
·
The need to
minimize conflicts between the seawall foundation and temporary wall
construction.
2.79
The total
area of temporary reclamation (measured as the area within the copelines of the
vertical seawall) including the reclamation outside the CBTS is approximately
2.2ha in addition to that required for CWB construction. To be specific, the
Protection Works would require 0.7ha of temporary reclamation, of which 0.3ha
has been authorized under the CWB project and the remaining 0.4ha being
additional. This 0.4ha area is the minimum extent for temporary reclamation
required to allow the construction of the 160m Protection Works on top of the
CWB tunnel.
2.80
However,
this is not the extent of temporary reclamation at any one time. The staging of
the works will have a significant effect on the extent of temporary reclamation
at any one time.
Options to reduce temporary reclamation in CBTS
2.81
Alternatives to
reduce temporary reclamation as a result of cut-and-cover tunnel have been
considered, such as the use of a pipe piled cofferdam without temporary
seawalls and reclamation, for the section of SCL works adjacent to the
breakwater. However, these were rejected due to the risks associated with the
depth of the piles and excavation, and also the risk of marine collisions.
2.82
An option of
extending the immersed tube tunnel into the CBTS was also considered with the
aim to reduce the extent of temporary reclamation required. However, during
consultation with the users of the CBTS, clear views have been expressed that
there should be no reduction in the protection provided to their moorings by
the existing breakwater. Construction of IMT through the breakwater would
require a significant section of the breakwater to be removed. The extent of
mooring area affected in the CBTS would also be similar to the proposed
cut-and-cover option.
Dredging for Temporary Mooring Space
2.83
Due to the increase
in the temporary reclamation area required for the SCL Protection Works,
vessels within the increased reclamation area as well as those in the southwest corner will be affected. The southeast corner of the CBTS will therefore need
to be dredged to provide sufficient water depth to allow the relocation of
moorings.
2.84
The
anchorage area of the CBTS will be expanded into the southeast corner
underneath the existing Island East Corridor. The extent of dredging in the
southeast corner is around 1ha, which is already the minimum extent for
dredging the seabed to a level of -3.5m to -4.0mCD, which is sufficient for
temporary anchorage and at the same time maintaining a navigation channel of
not less than 20m wide. Temporary use of this area for anchorage will not
affect the future permanent use of the site to its immediate east for the
reprovisioning of the Tin Hau Temple Boat.
Relocation of RHKYC Jetty
2.85
Certain
facilities required for operation of the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club will be
affected by the SCL and CWB construction works. These will require temporary
reprovisioning during SCL construction and reinstatement at its original
position upon completion of the project. These include the pontoon and the
jetty for hoisting boats from the water for maintenance etc. The jetty will
require to be piled both in its temporary location and when reinstated in its
permanent position. The temporary reprovisioning of the jetty is considered to
be temporary reclamation. The floating pontoon system will not be piled and
this is not considered to involve either temporary or permanent reclamation.
Retaining of Temporary Reclamation
2.86
While most of the
temporary reclamation will be removed after the completion of the Project, a
small area (approximately 0.26ha) in the southwest of the temporary reclamation
will be retained in order to enable the construction of future SCL tunnels to
connect with the proposed SOV. This part will be removed upon completion of the
concerned tunnel works by 2017.
Option without retaining the southwest corner of the temporary
reclamation
2.87
Option without
retaining this small area of temporary reclamation has been considered in view
of the extended occupancy of the
2.88
In environmental
terms, the extent of temporary reclamation and dredging will be increased under
this option. Additional Impacts on water quality and extra waste materials
which could otherwise be avoided will arise as a result of the repeated
reclamation works. While on the contrary, retainment of temporary reclamation
in this small area will not cause any adverse environmental impacts to the
surroundings. No construction activities will be carried out throughout this
period until future SCL tunnel construction has reached this section.
2.89
In terms of programme
implementation, repeated temporary reclamation under this option will lengthen
the project duration of the SCL (HUH-ADM) within the CBTS and hence the
associated impacts to the sensitive receivers will be prolonged. All these
programme and environmental implications due to this option have drawn to the
conclusion that, the retaining of temporary reclamation option would minimize
the environmental impacts to the CBTS not only by keeping the extent of
temporary reclamation and dredging at a minimum level, but also at best
shortening the duration of SCL works within the CBTS and fulfil the requirements of the
Protection of the Harbour Ordinance by minimizing the extent of reclamation. For the benefits of users in CBTS and surrounding environment, this
option is not reckoned as the most environmentally beneficial one.
Other Alternatives besides retaining the southwest corner of the
temporary reclamation
2.90
An option of
encompassing the construction of the SCL tunnel to SOV section into the scope
of the Project was considered. Under this option, no reclaimed area would need
to be retained after the completion of the Project. Whilst efficient
integration of the two projects is aimed to minimize duration and disruption to
the CBTS users, it was emphasized by HyD that the entrusted SCL works should
not delay the completion date for the CWB project. In this connection, this
option may lengthen the duration of the Project and hence the scheduled
completion of the CWB project. The original length of SCL tunnel structure to
be constructed under the CWB project is considered to be at an optimum extent
without adversely affecting the CWB project, both in the sense of construction
programme and engineering risks associated with future construction of SCL
tunnel above the CWB tunnel. This option is therefore not recommended.
2.91
On the other hand,
re-arranging the sequence of construction work of SCL (HUH-ADM) to shorten the
retaining time of the temporary reclamation at the said location has been
considered. It should be noted that if the SCL (HUH-ADM) construction works,
particularly those within the CBTS, are to be conducted earlier to trim the
period of retaining the reclamation area, cumulative environmental impacts
especially on air and water quality will likely be intensified. In addition,
this option will further diminish the available area for temporary mooring in
the CBTS and reprovision of mooring site outside the CBTS will be unavoidable
which the CBTS users have expressed strong opposition to such arrangement.
Above all, this is again not a preferable option to go for.
Environmental Consideration of Alternative
Construction Methods
2.92
Potential
environmental issues associated with alternative construction methods for the
Project have been considered and a summary of the benefits and dis-benefits of
the construction methods is presented in Table
2.2 below.
Table 2.2 Benefits and Dis-benefits of
Construction Methods
|
Construction
Method |
Benefits |
Dis-benefits |
|
Construction of Protection Works |
||
|
Cut-and-Cover Tunnel |
·
Protection to the moorings/anchorage vessels
in CBTS is maintained. ·
Same construction method as CWB tunnel
allowing integration of the two projects and hence shorter construction
period. |
·
Temporary reclamation and associated dredging will
be required that would give rise to potential water quality impact and
sediment disposal issue. ·
Potential dust impact from the construction
activities, such as seawall construction, excavation, backfill, material
handling, etc. ·
Potential noise impact from the use of powered
mechanical equipment (PME) during the construction activities. |
|
Immersed Tunnel |
·
No temporary reclamation is required and hence
lesser construction dust impact is anticipated compared to cut-and-cover
tunnel. |
·
Significant section of the breakwater needs to
be removed thus impede the protection provided to the moorings in CBTS. ·
Dredging operation is required that would give
rise to potential water quality impact and sediment disposal issue. ·
Potential noise impact from the use of PME
during the construction activities. |
|
Pipe piled cofferdam |
·
No filling, dredging and seawalls construction
are required and hence impact on water quality and sediment disposal issue
are not anticipated. ·
No potential construction dust impact |
·
Potential risk of marine collision ·
Risks associated with the depth of the piles
and excavation. ·
Potential noise impact from the use of PME
during the piling activities. |
|
Retaining the southwest corner of temporary reclamation |
||
|
Retainment Option |
·
Repeated temporary reclamation can be avoided. ·
Reduce potential water quality impact and
sediment disposal issue |
·
Temporary occupancy of the harbour |
|
No Retainment option |
·
Temporary occupancy of the harbour can be
avoided. |
·
Repeated temporary reclamation and associated
dredging will be required that would result in potential water quality impact
and sediment disposal issue. ·
Project duration will be lengthened and hence
longer disturbance to the users of CBTS and the public. |
|
Including the construction of the tunnel to SOV into
the scope of the Project |
·
Temporary occupancy of the harbour can be
avoided. |
·
May cause delay to the CWB project ·
May increase engineering risks to future
construction of SCL tunnels in CBTS |
|
Re-arranging sequence of SCL (HUH-ADM) construction
works |
·
Temporary occupancy of the harbour can be
avoided. |
·
Cumulative environmental impacts especially on
water and air quality could be intensified. ·
Available area for mooring in the CBTS will be
diminished, resulting in reprovision of temporary mooring site outside CBTS. |
Sequences of
Works
2.93
In
determining the staging for construction of the SCL works adjacent to and
within the CBTS, due consideration has been taken of views expressed in
consultation with the District Councils, the public and affected stakeholders.
The principal concerns were:
·
The SCL works should be integrated with the CWB works
where possible with a view to minimizing the duration of construction.
·
Stakeholders do not want to have any more moorings
reprovisioned out of the CBTS (i.e. over what CWB has already proposed).
·
Adequate
separation should be provided between moorings and the construction equipment
for the required marine works. The level of protection provided by the existing
breakwater should be maintained.
2.94
The
construction of the SCL tunnels through the CBTS would be carried out in
stages, using the same approach to dealing with the moorings as developed under
the CWB project. Whilst it is envisaged
that the SCL works within the CBTS can be completed within 18 months of
completion of the CWB works within the CBTS, the full area of temporary
reclamation would not be in place up until that time. Illustrative construction
staging plans for the works through the CBTS are shown in Appendix 2.2.
2.95
Key
aspects of the staging are:
·
The section of
SCL tunnels which run above the CWB tunnel and to the south of the CWB tunnel within
the CBTS will be constructed under the CWB construction contract.
·
Construction of
the SCL tunnels immediately to the north of the existing breakwater will
commence during Stage 3 of the CWB construction to allow the connection between the immersed tube tunnel and the cut-and cover-tunnel to be
completed.
·
Construction of
the SCL tunnels through the breakwater and into the northern part of the CBTS
would commence once the CWB Stage 3 works are completed. These works will extend as far as possible
into the CBTS without affecting CWB construction or requiring additional
moorings to be relocated out of CBTS. Earlier commencement of these works is
not possible without additional moorings being relocated out of CBTS.
·
The final stage
of SCL construction would commence once all of the CWB works within the CBTS
are completed. These would take a
further 18 months to complete.
2.96
The
durations of the temporary reclamation stages for SCL works from the time of
starting seawall construction and filling above the seabed to the time when the
temporary reclamation is removed and the seabed reinstated will vary from 15
months to 28 months, except for a small area near the shoreline (Area SCL 1.4
in Appendix 2.2) which will stay for
a longer period.
2.97
Upon
completion of each stage, the temporary reclamation would be removed and the
seabed reinstated. There would be some
overlapping of temporary reclamation between stages. At any one time the maximum area of temporary
reclamation for SCL would be around 1.6ha (excluding temporary reclamation for
CWB).
2.98
Therefore,
whilst the overall area of temporary reclamation required for SCL construction
at the CBTS is approximately 2.2ha, the additional affected area of the harbour
in respect of temporary reclamation in the CBTS will only be around 1.6ha for
approximately 8 months. This would be
reduced to approximately 0.8ha for the final 10 months of SCL construction
after completion of the CWB.
Environmental Consideration of Alternative Sequences
of Construction
2.99
Environmental
issues arising from alternative sequences of construction have been reviewed.
The relative benefits and dis-benefits of the different sequences of
construction for the Project are summarised in Table 2.3 below.
Table 2.3 Benefits and Dis-benefits of
Construction Sequences
|
Construction
Sequence |
Benefits |
Dis-benefits |
|
Construction of Protection Works together with CWB works |
·
Significantly minimize
the extent and duration of disturbance to the users of CBTS and the public ·
Avoid potential
dust, noise, waste and water quality impacts due to repeat temporary
reclamation. |
·
Potential
cumulative construction noise and dust impacts from the construction of CWB
project to local communities |
|
Construction of Protection Works upon completion of CWB works |
·
Reduce potential
cumulative construction dust and noise impacts from the CWB project to local
communities |
·
Potential dust, noise,
waste, water quality impacts due to repeat temporary reclamation and
prolonged construction period ·
Longer duration of
disturbance to the users of CBTs and the public |
2.100 The construction of the Project is anticipated to
commence in 2012 and be substantially completed by 2013. A tentative
construction programme for the Project is presented in Appendix 2.3. The small
reclaimed area at the southwest corner that will be retained to enable the
construction of future SCL tunnels to connect with the proposed SOV will be
removed in 2017 under the SCL (HUH-ADM).
2.101 Concurrent projects in the vicinity of the Project
which would likely interact with this Project include:
·
Wan Chai
Development Phase II (WDII); and
·
Central-Wanchai
Bypass including its road tunnel and slip roads for Island Eastern Corridor
Link (CWB)
2.102
In terms of water quality assessment, the
assessment area covers the Victoria Harbour Water Control Zone (WCZ) and hence
concurrent projects within this WCZ are identified. They are:
·
Dredging Works for Proposed Cruise Terminal at Kai Tak (CT Dredging);
·
Public Landing
Steps cum Fireboat Berth under the KTD Project;
·
Runway Opening under the KTD Project;
·
Disused Fuel Dolphin under the KTD Project;
·
Installation of Submarine Gas Pipelines from Ma Tau Kok to North Point
for
·
Road T2 and
·
Lei Yue Mun Waterfront Enhancement.
2.103
The potential cumulative environmental impacts of
the identified concurrent projects during the construction of the Project are
summarised in Table 2.4 below.
Table 2.4 Summary
of Concurrent Projects
|
Project |
Tentative Start |
Tentative Finish |
Potential Cumulative
Environmental Impact |
|
WDII |
2010 |
2016 |
·
Cumulative
dust impact at ·
Cumulative
water quality issue |
|
CWB |
2009 |
2017 |
·
Cumulative
dust, water quality and air-borne noise impact at |
|
CT Dredging |
2013 |
2015 |
·
Cumulative
water quality issue |
|
Public Landing Steps cum Fireboat Berth under the
KTD Project |
2010 |
unknown |
·
Cumulative
water quality issue |
|
Runway Opening under the KTD Project |
2014 |
unknown |
·
Small-scale
dredging at 2km away, cumulative
impact no anticipated |
|
Disused Fuel Dolphin under the KTD Project |
unknown |
unknown |
·
no
dredging work, cumulative impact not
anticipated |
|
Installation of New Submarine Gas Main |
2012 |
2012 |
·
Cumulative
water quality issue |
|
Road T2 and |
2012 |
2013 |
·
Cumulative
water quality issue |
|
Lei Yue Mun Waterfront Enhancement |
unknown |
unknown |
·
8km
away, cumulative impact not anticipated |
2.104 Public consultation activities were conducted to brief
the public on the issues associated with the proposed SCL (HUH-ADM) works in
the harbour and seek their views. These included public forums, professional
forums and seminars, presentations to and discussions with District Councils
and Harbour-front Enhancement Committee. Table
2.5 summaries the meeting the public consultation activities.
Table 2.5 Summary of Public Consultation
Activities
|
Date |
Public
Consultation Activity |
|
16
June 2009 |
First Professional Forum |
|
6
July 2009 |
CBTS
Stakeholder Briefing cum Forum |
|
21
July 2009 |
Presentation
to Wan Chai District Council |
|
23
July 2009 |
Presentation
to Eastern District Council |
|
5
August 2009 |
Seminar
for The Hong Kong Institute of Planners (HKIP) |
|
17
August 2009 |
Presentation
to Harbour-front Enhancement Committee (HEC) |
|
18
August 2009 |
Seminar
for The Chartered |
|
19
August 2009 |
Seminar
for The Hong Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA) |
|
24
August 2009 |
Public
Forum – The New Territories |
|
29
August 2009 |
Public
Forum – |
|
1
September 2009 |
Public
Forum – |
|
10
September 2009 |
Presentation
to Yau Tsim Mong District Council |
|
14
September 2009 |
Presentation
to North District Council |
|
29
September 2009 |
Presentation
to Kwun Tong District Council |
|
9
November 2009 |
CBTS
Stakeholder Briefing cum Forum (PMA users) |
|
20
November 2009 |
Seminar
for |
|
30
November 2009 |
Presentation
to Southern District Council |
|
4
December 2009 |
Second Professional Forum |
|
17
June 2010 |
Presentation to
Eastern District Council |
|
16
July 2010 |
Presentation to
Eastern District Council |
2.105 Detailed public’s feedbacks and recommendations on the
SCL (HUH-ADM) works in the harbour are presented in the CCM Report. Table 2.6 summaries the key public
views on this Project.
Table 2.6 Summary of Key
Public Views on the Project
|
Concern Groups |
Major Public Views Sought |
|
Professional
Institutes / Harbour Protection Concern Groups |
·
In the first Professional Forum and
subsequent seminars, most of the participants agreed that there was an
overriding public need for SCL. It was recognised that it could not only
relieve congestion of existing lines, but also increase mobility especially
for those from the ·
Most of them supported the finding that
there was no reasonable “no reclamation” option. ·
It was generally agreed that the Western
Alignment was a better option as it would cause less disruption to the CBTS
than the Eastern Alignment, and was a more direct route. ·
There was a view expressed that the extent
of the proposed temporary reclamation in the CBTS should be minimised. As explained in Chapter 6 of the CCM
Report, the SCL works have been integrated with the CWB project to optimise
the use of temporary reclamation formed under that project for SCL tunnel
construction. Other areas of temporary reclamation required for SCL
construction have been minimised and presented at the second Professional
Forum. ·
In response to suggestions by the public,
including one raised at the HKIA seminar,
alternative alignments which avoided passing through the CBTS were
investigated as discussed in Chapter 5 of the CCM Report. These options were
found to be unacceptable. ·
There was a view expressed that the SCL and
CWB projects teams should work closely together to avoid repeated temporary
reclamation and also if possible to reduce the period of construction to
minimize disruption to the stakeholders and the public. As described in
Chapter 6 of the CCM Report, this close liaison has taken place with the
result that it is now intended approximately 160m of the SCL tunnel be
constructed under the CWB project subject to the timely authorisation of the
SCL project. · The second Professional Forum was held in December 2009 to report the public consultation activities conducted, to update the design development and to explain how the reclamation would be minimized. The invitees were the same as those for the first Professional Forum, plus the non-official members of the Harbour-front Enhancement Committee. Participants recognized the coordination work undertaken between the SCL and CWB projects and supported the findings on the duration and the extent of temporary reclamation. |
|
Harbour-front
Enhancement Committee (HEC) |
·
Most of
the HEC members supported the SCL project. They opined that the option that
would be completed in the shortest period of time should be pursued, and
coordination with the CWB project should be necessary. They were concerned
about the temporary occupation of the harbour-front areas by different
railway projects and asked for mitigation measures to be implemented. ·
Suggestions
were offered that the temporary reclamation at CBTS could be further reduced
by extending the immersed tube tunnel method into the CBTS or by moving the
breakwater outward to provide more sheltered space and allow the SCL
construction to be expedited. However, as described in Paragraphs 6.3.15 and
6.3.16 of the CCM Report, the former impacted a similar extent of mooring
area in the CBTS and the latter option contravened the requirements of the
PHO. These findings were reviewed and
supported at the second Professional Forum. |
|
District
Councils |
·
An
information paper on the SCL (HUH-ADM) was sent to all 18 District Councils.
Presentations were given to Wan Chai, Eastern, Yau Tsim Mong, North, Kwun
Tong and Southern District Councils as requested to introduce the scheme. ·
Most of
the District Councillors considered that there is an overriding public need
for the SCL. Many District Councils urged for its early implementation. There
was no specific view on the findings that there would be no reasonable “no
reclamation” option but there was a preference for the Western Alignment. ·
Eastern
District Councillors expressed objection to any SCL works being carried out
in the CBTS, unless the agreement from all stakeholders of CBTS was obtained.
Follow-up meetings with the key Councillors representing the fishermen were
held to further explain the need for SCL to pass through CBTS, and a written
reply was subsequently sent to the District Council. As noted above it was
concluded in Chapter 5 of the CCM Report that the alignment must pass through
the CBTS. ·
Follow-up
meeting with Eastern District Council was held in July 2010 and the
Councillor’s view to obtain agreement from all stakeholders of CBTS was
maintained. On-going discussion with stakeholders in the CBTS will be carried
out. |
|
Stakeholders
at CBTS |
·
A
Stakeholder Briefing cum Forum for CBTS users, except those in the Private
Mooring Area (PMA), who would be affected by the construction of SCL was held in early July 2009. Another briefing
specifically for PMA users in CBTS was organised in early November 2009. ·
Meetings
with individual stakeholders were held from June 2009 onwards in order to
better understand their concerns. Their views are summarised in the
followings: -
RHKYC did not object to the construction of the SCL. They had a number
of principal concerns and requirements including: the moorings that they had
should remain in CBTS; facilities for their operational and sailing
activities should be reprovisioned; the protection level offered by the existing
breakwater should not be compromised; and, sufficient depth should be
provided at reprovisioned locations for their moorings. These issues have
been considered in the development of the proposed construction approach
described in Chapter 6 of the CCM Report. -
The anchorage users preferred that the SCL be realigned to avoid
passing through the CBTS. However, on
the understanding that the SCL would pass through the CBTS, their primary
concerns were: on the duration of the works; the existing breakwater would be
removed exposing their moorings to risk, and, dredging would affect the
marine ecology and in turn their catches. The alternative alignment has been
reviewed and is not considered viable, as explained in Annex A and Chapters 4
and 5 of the CCM Report. Protection to the vessels in the CBTS has been a
major factor considered in developing the SCL scheme. The preferred scheme
has ensured that the level of protection will not be undermined during
construction of SCL. The impact due to dredging will be addressed in the SCL
EIA report and where necessary mitigation measures will be proposed. -
The PMA users expressed no particular strong views on the possible
postponement of their return to the CBTS for a period of up to 18 months
after completion of the CWB but were concerned about whether they would be
able to moor in the same location if they were able to return to the CBTS
within the 18-month period. Further discussions with the PMA users will be
held to address their concerns. - The commercial boat operators
did not object to the SCL and the possible postponement of their return to
the CBTS for a period of up to 18 months after completion of CWB works in
CBTS. Some requested to reprovision
their moorings temporarily within the harbour to accommodate their
operational requirements. They were concerned about the lack of sufficient
protection during typhoon if the moorings were to be reprovisioned at
non-typhoon shelter areas and asked for earlier completion of the works in
the CBTS. The approach adopted for the CWB project will continue to be
followed for the integrated CWB and SCL works. |
|
Public
Forums |
·
At the three public forums held from late August to early September,
most of the participants showed strong support for the SCL project and many
urged for earlier completion of the SCL. The general view was that
reclamation should be minimized and close coordination with interfacing
projects would be necessary. There was a preference that the duration of
construction be minimised through close integration with the CWB project but
there was recognition that impacts on existing moorings also be mitigated.
These issues have been addressed in this Report, i.e. the extent of
reclamation and duration minimized. ·
Throughout the forums, no disagreement with the findings that there
was no reasonable ‘no-reclamation’ option was raised. |
2.106 To conclude, the majority of the public agreed that
there is an overriding public need for the SCL and urged for early completion
of this infrastructure. They supported
the finding that there is no reasonable “zero reclamation” option, and
preferred the Western Alignment as it requires a shorter construction period
and provides a shorter routing between HUH and EXH. Moreover, many people
opined that there should be better coordination with the CWB project to
minimize disturbance to the CBTS. Having considered the views of the public, as
well as all other engineering and environmental factors, it is proposed that
the Project is to be implemented as described above.