Untitled - HKU Libraries - The University of Hong Kong

7.4.2 The East Kowloon Line would serve both the functions identified in the previousparagraph by linking Aberdeen to the urban area rail system and by relieving boththe Beacon Hill and Cross-harbour rail corridors. It would also open up the easternside of the Kowloon Peninsula to rail access, thus completing the original schemeof the Mass Transit Railway.7.4.3 In addition to these passenger rail lines, the Study also considered the possibility ofrunning passenger services along a proposed raii freight line from Sha Tin to KwaiChung.7.4.4 Some projects would preclude others; for example, three projects are in competitionto use the rail reserve from Hung Horn to Tsim Sha Tsui—the East Kowloon Line, theYau Ma Tei to Sheung Wan cross-harbour link the once planned, and the KCRextension to Tsirrs Sha Tsui. Other rail lines, while not physically exclusive, are clearlyrival projects; for example, it is unlikely to be worthwhile to build both a light and aheavy rail line to Aberdeen.7.4.5 Other projects have alternative configurations. In particular, the North West NewTerritories Urban Link projects could be run as either a rail shuttle to and from theexisting railhead, or as an extension to existing rail lines.7.4.6 There are many potential rail projects within the urban area not identified in Figure 7.3which could be tied to the plans for urban renewal projects or new harbour reclamationscurrently under consideration. These could be entirely separate projects fromthose identified in Figure 7.3, or modifications of them. The CTS-2 Study did notinvestigate these alternatives mainly because they depend upon the outcome oftechnical feasibility studies of reclamations now underway. At best, these are projectsfor the late 1990s at the very end of the current CTS-2 planning period. They will beexamined more closely in the updating of the CTS-2 (see Chapter 10). Commentsare made on the urban rail extension problem later in this chapter.Evaluation of Candidate Rail Projects7.4.7 Table 7.2 summarises the construction costs (in 1988 prices), basic operatingcharacteristics and economic evaluation results for each of the candidate railprojects. Construction costs include the costs of land associated with each project.Operating characteristics and costs apply to projected operations in the year 2001.7.4.8 The financial evaluation indicates the operators' financial return on initial constructioninvestment in the years 1996 and 2001. Financial return is defined as the annualoperating surplus (revenues from passenger fares less operating costs less depreciationon fixed assets) expressed as a percentage of initial construction costs.7.4.9 The economic evaluation indicates the community return or total annual communitybenefits on total investment in the years 1996 and 2001. This is the savings in costs ofother modes and savings in passenger travelling time expressed as a percentage ofthe total initial investment; the construction costs plus cost of rolling stock. Sincetime savings normally constitute a large proportion of the total benefits, results arepresented for two cases; (i) assuming full time savings, and (ii) assuming only onethird of the estimated time savings to reflect a lower valuation of time and to avoid theevaluation being heavily biased by this type of benefit.7.4.10 Rather than reporting specific percentages, returns are classified as follows:Negative Less than 0%Low0%to4%Medium 4% to 8%High Over 8%7.4.11 On the basis of the economic and financial criteria discussed in paragraphs 7.3.21 to7.3,24, a LOW classification indicates returns below those required for viability, aMEDIUM classification indicates the project is possibly viable, while a HIGH returnindicates a good possibility of full viability. It must be clearly understood that theseare indicators only, and that detailed financial and economic analyses would berequired to establish the economies and financing of selected projects.128