The proponent listened to public opinion gathered during public consultation. For example, the original viaduct bypass across the Hong Kong International Airport was changed to a tunnel after concerns of sight and noise pollution were voiced from residents of the town of Tung Chung, which was less than 2km away.
The EIA was generally professionally written and well organized, with lots of tables that made it easy for readers and stakeholders to read.
The project website which was home to a wealth of information about the project was done very nicely, with ample photos and videos.
The proponent made a lot of quality videos about the every aspect of the project, the majority of which are offered in both English and Cantonese, complete with subtitles.
Negatives
No terms of reference are included in the EIA. As such, readers were forced to search through multiple other sections in order to find definitions of "significance" relevant to other sections.
Relevant info scattered throughout EIA. For example, when Geneviève was looking for specific construction-related information in her section, Sarah found that information in her ecology section.
There is no "no-go" alternative considered: The project is treated as inevitable. The main bridge itself is outside of the purview of the EIA, and as such a "no-go" for the HKLR and HKBCF would still have the main bridge built up to the Hong Kong Border. No strategic or trans-boundary EIA was performed by the three governments involved.
No mention of operational cumulative impacts in any of the EIA sections. For example, there is no mention of the cumulative effect of car exhaust runoff into the ocean.