Untitled - Civic Exchange

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT IN HONG KONG: DIRECTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES
government was apparently promoting Route 10 as something that would be generally useful for a new
port, wherever it might be located.
On March 8, 2002, LegCo voted against the TB's request for HK$134 million to carry out detailed design
for the northern section of Route 10, demanding that the TB reconsider its plan. Prior to the vote of LegCo's
Finance Committee, the Transport Panel held numerous meetings to discuss the government's proposal and
receive public deputations, most of which raised questions about the basis for many of the TB's
assumptions. The fact that these kinds of critical issues were not raised until a late stage of the planning
process indicates the failure of the CS and FS to pick up on key problems at an earlier date.
The Route 7 controversy
Controversy over Route 7 is ongoing, even though the plan for a highway from Kennedy Town to Lantau
has been axed. The remaining portion of Route 7 was designed as a six-lane highway that would run from
Kennedy Town to Aberdeen. 268 Public objection to the Route 7 plan is based primarily on the existence of
a direct non-road transport alternative that is arguably more sustainable and cost-effective. The non-road
alternative is a South Island Line (SIL) that would connect Aberdeen and Pokfulam to Central. 269 The SIL
would provide faster, cleaner, and far more widely accessible transport for people in the area than the
proposed highway. In addition, unlike Route 7, a SIL would be mostly self-financing. Based on engineering
cost estimates for similar projects and projected ridership, it is estimated that the amount of government
support needed for the new rail line would be under HK$5 billion and may well be under HK$4 billion,
equal to less than half the cost of building Route 7.
However, the TB's consultancy report showed that the provision of a rail line would only reduce the
number of private cars and taxis on the road during peak hours by about 3%. This consultancy model was
not based on a rail versus road comparison but on an old model, which considered whether local residents
in the area who were private car owners and/or could afford regular taxi rides would use rail or not. 270 As
such, the TB's study did not take into account factors such as relieving congestion in Central, convenience
of a rail option for major population centers in Southern and Western Districts, and the potential for lowcost
park and ride facilities at area stations. 271 A further flaw in the TB consultancy report was that no
environmental assessment was done on air and noise impacts.
In the debate over Route 7, the TB argued that "roads and railway are complementary to each other and
one cannot always replace the other." 272 This argument failed to address the central question of whether a
SIL would provide better service than a road in this particular area. The TB continues to argue that plans
for a South Island rail line remain on the drawing board, despite the fact that building Route 7 will
268 Plans for Route 7 have been scaled back due to public objections to the original design, which located the road
along the shoreline, thereby destroying the natural beauty of the area and increasing air and noise pollution. The
government was forced to agree to redesign the road to go through Mount Davis, submerging a section to reduce
unsightliness. These measures would increase costs dramatically, putting the cost of the whole project in the region
of about HK$10 billion. The TB also proposed to reduce the road to four lanes and extend only as far as the new
Pokfulam Cyberport.
269 The South Island Line (SIL) was discussed in RDS2 as a desirable but non-priority line.
270 The TB's consultant assumed that 22% of households in the Route 7 catchment area own a car and that even
with a rail option, relatively few of them would use rail to travel to the northern part of Hong Kong Island.
Community groups lobbying for a rail option, such as SOS-Save Our Shorelines, found it difficult to have an open
discussion with transport officials as the TB's dismissal of the feasibility of rail was based on this critical
assessment.
271
Mathematical models are essential to decision-making. Yet all models rely on an extensive set of built-in
assumptions, many of which may not even be evident to model users. The prudent user recognizes that the model's
outputs must complement (not replace) critical human thinking on the part of the analysts.
272 Transport Bureau (2001), personal communication to Christine Loh, Oct 26, 2001.
84