Alternatives
The only alternatives considered in the HKBCF EIA are the location of the Border Crossing Facility itself, as well as the layout of the Link Road. Due to the inter-governmental nature of the project, this EIA does not consider alternatives to the HZMB main bridge itself. As such, there is no "no go" alternative to the project: the HZMB main bridge is expected to cross the Hong Kong border where it does, and as such a lack of Link Road and Border Crossing Facility is not considered an option.
A number of general constraints are considered in the selection of HKBCF sites and HKLR layouts. Chief among these are airport height restrictions, which limit the location and height of viaduct options for the HKLR, as well as the location and height of the HKBCF and its associated facilities and buildings. In addition, effects on tidal flow in the Pearl River Delta, shipping channels, concurrent and planned developments, ecologically significant areas of Lantau north, and nearby residential areas must all be considered.
A number of general constraints are considered in the selection of HKBCF sites and HKLR layouts. Chief among these are airport height restrictions, which limit the location and height of viaduct options for the HKLR, as well as the location and height of the HKBCF and its associated facilities and buildings. In addition, effects on tidal flow in the Pearl River Delta, shipping channels, concurrent and planned developments, ecologically significant areas of Lantau north, and nearby residential areas must all be considered.
Alternative locations for the HKBCF. Photo: EIA
The above image shows alternative locations considered for the HKBCF. The disadvantages and reasons for foregoing each of them are discussed below.
WCLK: The primary disadvantage of this option, as stated by the EIA, is that it lies between the two areas of highest occurrence of Chinese White Dolphins, thus blocking an important movement corridor for the species. Whether or not this is truly a factor of great importance to the proponents is up for debate: as mentioned in the ecology section, the HKLR was subsequently built directly over a Chinese White Dolphin juvenile nursery. It seems more likely that the reasons for foregoing the WCLK option were the strong effect it would have on Pearl River Delta tidal movements, and the relatively thick marine deposits of the area. These would require more dredging, and more mud disposal.
SSW: This option would have involved some land reclamation, as well as some hillside cutting. There are a number of reasons why this was not considered a viable option. The hillside cutting would have done considerable environmental damage to a valued natural woodland. In addition, it would have lead to the loss of about 2km of natural coastline. Visual impacts on the nearby rural village of San Shek Wan would have been extremely detrimental to the area.
SWCLK: This option was considered non-viable because of the need for land on airport island that is already in use. Attempting to install a Border Crossing Facility on this land would lead to considerable conflict with the operation of the airport.
TCB: The primary drawback for this option was its small size: it would not have been sufficient to house all of the facilities required for the HKBCF, and as such further reclamation would have been necessary. In addition, visual and noise impacts on the nearby Tung Chung residential district would have been considerable.
TH: This option would have posed a considerable threat to the ecologically valuable areas of Tai Ho Wan and Tai Ho Bay. Necessary reclamation for the project would take place less that 100m from the sole outlet for the bay. Additionally, the project would have severe visual impacts on the nearby Pak Mong residential area.
NECLK: This option was considered to the be most favorable. It has the advantage of sharing reclaimed land with the Tuen Men Chek Lap Kok Link, reducing total reclamation when both projects are considered together. In addition, it is far from sensitive areas for the Chinese White Dolphin, and is far enough from any residential areas as to not pose a threat of visual pollution.
WCLK: The primary disadvantage of this option, as stated by the EIA, is that it lies between the two areas of highest occurrence of Chinese White Dolphins, thus blocking an important movement corridor for the species. Whether or not this is truly a factor of great importance to the proponents is up for debate: as mentioned in the ecology section, the HKLR was subsequently built directly over a Chinese White Dolphin juvenile nursery. It seems more likely that the reasons for foregoing the WCLK option were the strong effect it would have on Pearl River Delta tidal movements, and the relatively thick marine deposits of the area. These would require more dredging, and more mud disposal.
SSW: This option would have involved some land reclamation, as well as some hillside cutting. There are a number of reasons why this was not considered a viable option. The hillside cutting would have done considerable environmental damage to a valued natural woodland. In addition, it would have lead to the loss of about 2km of natural coastline. Visual impacts on the nearby rural village of San Shek Wan would have been extremely detrimental to the area.
SWCLK: This option was considered non-viable because of the need for land on airport island that is already in use. Attempting to install a Border Crossing Facility on this land would lead to considerable conflict with the operation of the airport.
TCB: The primary drawback for this option was its small size: it would not have been sufficient to house all of the facilities required for the HKBCF, and as such further reclamation would have been necessary. In addition, visual and noise impacts on the nearby Tung Chung residential district would have been considerable.
TH: This option would have posed a considerable threat to the ecologically valuable areas of Tai Ho Wan and Tai Ho Bay. Necessary reclamation for the project would take place less that 100m from the sole outlet for the bay. Additionally, the project would have severe visual impacts on the nearby Pak Mong residential area.
NECLK: This option was considered to the be most favorable. It has the advantage of sharing reclaimed land with the Tuen Men Chek Lap Kok Link, reducing total reclamation when both projects are considered together. In addition, it is far from sensitive areas for the Chinese White Dolphin, and is far enough from any residential areas as to not pose a threat of visual pollution.
Alternative alignments for the HKLR
The above video shows alignment options considered for the HKLR. Benefits and drawback for each are discussed below.
Northernmost option: The principal problem with the northern option is its length relative to the other two alignments. This length means a significant increase in reclamation, as well as cost of construction material. It also leads to increased driving time and vehicle emissions. In addition, more tunnels require more energy, as they must be lit and ventilated 24 hours a day.
Southernmost option: This option was considered undesirable because of the considerable excavation of natural hillside and landscape required. This would have had severe implications for Lantau North Country park, under which it would pass, as well as a nearby ancient trail. The only benefit would be diminished visual impact on residents of Lantau North.
Middle option: This option was considered the most attractive simply because it did not possess any of the problems inherent in the other two alignments. The only drawback is the proximity of the viaduct to Sha Lo Wan village.
Northernmost option: The principal problem with the northern option is its length relative to the other two alignments. This length means a significant increase in reclamation, as well as cost of construction material. It also leads to increased driving time and vehicle emissions. In addition, more tunnels require more energy, as they must be lit and ventilated 24 hours a day.
Southernmost option: This option was considered undesirable because of the considerable excavation of natural hillside and landscape required. This would have had severe implications for Lantau North Country park, under which it would pass, as well as a nearby ancient trail. The only benefit would be diminished visual impact on residents of Lantau North.
Middle option: This option was considered the most attractive simply because it did not possess any of the problems inherent in the other two alignments. The only drawback is the proximity of the viaduct to Sha Lo Wan village.
One final consideration should be given to the finer-level alternatives considered in the EIA. There are three of these: they include the layout of car kiosks within the HKBCF, and the use of a viaduct or reclamation bund to connect the HKBCF to Airport Island. The final alternative is shown here: Originally, a viaduct was meant to run from Scenic Hill along the south of Airport Island to the HKBCF. After protestations against the visual impact this would have on Tung Chung during public consultations, this was changed so that the Link Road instead passed under Scenic Hill via a tunnel, before continuing as at-grade reclaimed road to the Border Crossing Facility.
Our Critique
Positives
|
Negatives
|