June 29, 2005
Central bypass only traffic solution

http://www.news.gov.hk/tc/category/infrastructureandlogistics/050629/html/050629p016jpg.jpg

The Central-Wan Chai Bypass is the only solution to ease traffic jams on Hong Kong Island's north shore, Secretary for the Environment, Transport & Works Dr Sarah Liao says.

Dr Liao told the Legislative Council today the Gloucester-Harcourt Road corridor, the only trunk road on the island's north shore, is usually congested during rush hours when the journey time for the four kilometres of road between Central and Causeway Bay can be around 15 minutes.

Traffic on the key road sections along the corridor exceeds their capacity. If the bypass is not built by 2011, the journey time would increase to 45 minutes.

Management measures

Dr Liao said traffic management measures, such as restricting loading and unloading activities, reducing the number of buses and using traffic management measures along the corridor will continue to relieve congestion.

On temporary traffic arrangements for the reconstruction of the Causeway Bay Flyover, Dr Liao said drivers have become familiar with the arrangements and signage improvements have been made.

She pledged publicity and public consultation will be stepped up if a similar traffic diversion has to be implemented.

:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:
The Central-Wan Chai bypass is finally on a yellow light again!!!!!
Hope the protectors can give us a break, don't tear this apart again.


May 20, 2009

ExCo approves Central-Wan Chai bypass

The Chief Executive in Council has authorised the Central-Wan Chai Bypass project, Wan Chai Development Phase 2 and its related works.

Secretary for Development Carrie Lam today told reporters the projects will cost $32.8 billion and create 8,700 jobs.

She said 12.7 hectares of reclamation will be required to construct a 3.7km tunnel to form a major part of the 4.5km bypass.

The proposals will be discussed by the Legislative Council Development Panel May 26 and will be tabled at the Public Works Subcommittee in June.

Mrs Lam said she hopes the Finance Committee will approve the funding application before LegCo's summer recess so the works can start by year's-end.

Source: http://news.gov.hk/en/category/infrastructureandlogistics/090520/html/090520en06004.htm

Wan Chai bypass gets nod after 10-year fight -

The Central-Wan Chai Bypass-Island Eastern Corridor Link has been given the green light by the Executive Council after a campaign against it by harbor activists lasting almost a decade .

Nickkita Lau

Thursday, May 21, 2009

The Central-Wan Chai Bypass-Island Eastern Corridor Link has been given the green light by the Executive Council after a campaign against it by harbor activists lasting almost a decade .

The project, along with engineering work on the Wan Chai development phase two, will cost HK$32.74 billion and create about 8,700 jobs.

Work is expected to start by the end of this year and finish in 2017.

The bypass will cut the journey time from Sheung Wan to the Eastern Corridor to less than 10 minutes.

Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said there was an overriding public need for the project and the chief executive's authorization of it should bring disputes to an end.

She said the construction sector has been badly hit by the recession with unemployment at 12.7 percent and the two projects will bring instant relief.

Society for Protection of the Harbour adviser Winston Chu Ka-sun said it will not oppose the projects as long as they are conducted in accordance with the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance.

He said the government had fulfilled its promise by including plans to put reclaimed land to public use.

The bypass project consists of a 3.7 kilometer, six-lane tunnel between the Rumsey Street flyover in Central and the Eastern Corridor in North Point, 3km of approach and slip roads and the modification and widening of ramps.

The two projects will require the reclamation of seabed in Wan Chai North and North Point to create about 9.4 hectares of permanent and 3.3 hectares of temporary land. After revisions this was ruled by the government to be likely to meet the "overriding public need" test laid down by the Court of Final Appeal for harbor reclamation work.

About 10 hectares of reclaimed land created for the trunk road's construction will be developed into a waterfront promenade at Wan Chai North adjoining the new Central waterfront.

In addition to the reclamation, the Wan Chai development project includes the construction of precast structures spanning the MTR Tsuen Wan line, the demolition and relocation of Wan Chai ferry piers and environmental mitigation and monitoring measures. Construction work will affect about 1,000 trees, including some in Victoria Park, which the government will try to relocate.

The temporary helipad in Wan Chai will be used for harborfront enhancement under the development plan.

Meanwhile, the government is proposing to construct a HK$59 million permanent helipad at the northeastern corner of the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre for use by the Government Flying Service and domestic commercial helicopter services. It will seek funding approval for the helipad from the Legislative Council's Finance Committee in July.

Source: http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_print.asp?art_id=82463&sid=23937418

'Make drivers pay to use new bypass'
Transport expert calls for electronic road pricing to avoid congestion
21 May 2009
South China Morning Post

Drivers should have to pay to use the Central-Wan Chai bypass to ensure that it will not become too congested, a transport expert and a lawmaker say.

They said this would be even more necessary if the proposed expansion of the Convention and Exhibition Centre put a greater burden on the road network in Wan Chai.

The government told the public earlier there was a compelling need for a bypass because it would alleviate the congestion along Connaught Road Central, Gloucester Road and Harcourt Road and accommodate anticipated growth of traffic on Hong Kong Island.

Traffic congestion can often be observed along the Island Eastern Corridor in both directions on weekdays between 8am and 8pm, it said, adding that the corridor's traffic volume during peak hours in 2017 would exceed capacity by 30 per cent if the bypass was not built.

But in an explanation to an objector who asked the government to reassess road network capacity, the government admitted that the projection did not take into account the phase-three extension of the convention centre, a project that would significantly increase the traffic flow in Wan Chai.

Hung Wing-tat, a transport specialist at Polytechnic University, said an electronic road pricing system should be installed on the bypass.

Under such a system, drivers would have to pay when they entered the road at certain times of the day. The measure has been discussed for years but the government so far has no plan to implement it.

"The bypass will be the last main road to be added to Hong Kong Island," Dr Hung said. "If it is used for free without the system, many drivers will take the route and congestion will definitely go out of control."

Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Wing-tat agreed. He had reservations about the convention centre being built in Wan Chai, especially when the bypass did not take into account the traffic it would generate.

"The area is unsuitable for any expansion of the centre," Mr Lee said.

In addition to traffic congestion, other impacts of building the bypass include noise pollution, felling of trees and damage to heritage sites. Apart from building noise barriers to minimise noise from the increased traffic, the government will also set up a community liaison group comprised of affected parties to handle complaints and inquiries.

'Make drivers pay to use new bypass'
Transport expert calls for electronic road pricing to avoid congestion
21 May 2009
South China Morning Post

Drivers should have to pay to use the Central-Wan Chai bypass to ensure that it will not become too congested, a transport expert and a lawmaker say.

They said this would be even more necessary if the proposed expansion of the Convention and Exhibition Centre put a greater burden on the road network in Wan Chai.

The government told the public earlier there was a compelling need for a bypass because it would alleviate the congestion along Connaught Road Central, Gloucester Road and Harcourt Road and accommodate anticipated growth of traffic on Hong Kong Island.

Traffic congestion can often be observed along the Island Eastern Corridor in both directions on weekdays between 8am and 8pm, it said, adding that the corridor's traffic volume during peak hours in 2017 would exceed capacity by 30 per cent if the bypass was not built.

But in an explanation to an objector who asked the government to reassess road network capacity, the government admitted that the projection did not take into account the phase-three extension of the convention centre, a project that would significantly increase the traffic flow in Wan Chai.

Hung Wing-tat, a transport specialist at Polytechnic University, said an electronic road pricing system should be installed on the bypass.

Under such a system, drivers would have to pay when they entered the road at certain times of the day. The measure has been discussed for years but the government so far has no plan to implement it.

"The bypass will be the last main road to be added to Hong Kong Island," Dr Hung said. "If it is used for free without the system, many drivers will take the route and congestion will definitely go out of control."

Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Wing-tat agreed. He had reservations about the convention centre being built in Wan Chai, especially when the bypass did not take into account the traffic it would generate.

"The area is unsuitable for any expansion of the centre," Mr Lee said.

In addition to traffic congestion, other impacts of building the bypass include noise pollution, felling of trees and damage to heritage sites. Apart from building noise barriers to minimise noise from the increased traffic, the government will also set up a community liaison group comprised of affected parties to handle complaints and inquiries.

'Make drivers pay to use new bypass'
Transport expert calls for electronic road pricing to avoid congestion
21 May 2009
South China Morning Post...

I agree ERP needs to be implemented, but I think it should be the other way around to have a cordon base ERP between Causeway Bay and Central to dispel traffic to stay away from the urban area. People who wish to drive in the urban area should pay the congestion cost just like London and Singapore; and all cross island traffic will use the CWB to bypass the pricing cordon. If it were like Professor Hung said, I doubt the CWB will be fully utilized. Majority of drivers will still choose to sit in traffic and use the less cost alternative.

New route 10 years in the planning
21 May 2009
South China Morning Post

1999 Government proposes building bypass to ease traffic congestion

2002 Administration gazettes plan for bypass with Wan Chai North outline zoning plan for public consultation. Plan involves reclamation of 26 hectares in Wan Chai North

2003 Harbour protection society seeks judicial review against decisions of Town Planning Board, which approved bypass plan

2004 Court of Final Appeal rules that harbour reclamation must satisfy overriding public need test. Government sets up Harbourfront Enhancement Committee to oversee all works projects along waterfront

2007 Government, with help of expert panel, says there is not a feasible "no reclamation" option for building bypass, while working to reduce scope of reclamation

2008 Court of First Instance rules on judicial review, sought again by harbour protection society, that government has failed to prove that temporary reclamation for bypass project has overriding public need. Administration forced to further reduce temporary reclamation size at Causeway Bay typhoon shelter from 10.7 hectares to 8.3 hectares. Permanent reclamation cut to 12.7 hectares from 26.

Yesterday Government says work to start by end of year

There are a number of other ways to reduce congestion perhaps you could add to the list below (trains may be suggested)

Use Hot lanes - can increase road capacity 40%
Bus priority lane - Higher efficiency of road space per user
Tax car parking spaces in areas with chronic congestion and excellent public transport
Variable tolls on the tunnels
ERP - it works in Singapore

what else could of been done before building more roads

There are a number of other ways to reduce congestion perhaps you could add to the list below (trains may be suggested)

Use Hot lanes - can increase road capacity 40%
Bus priority lane - Higher efficiency of road space per user
Tax car parking spaces in areas with chronic congestion and excellent public transport
Variable tolls on the tunnels
ERP - it works in Singapore

what else could of been done before building more roads

Do you have evidence that HOT lanes in HK would increase road capacity by 40%?

Last year we have debated about bus lanes and found out that we don't really need that many bus lanes anyway because the high proportion of buses on the road already meant that it's not going to have a great effect.

I agree that we need an excellent public transport system and probably some kind of ERP.

please read
NANCY L. O'CONNELL, W. R. T., WAYNE R. UGOLIK MARTIN YOUCHAH. (2000). HOV LANES ON THE LONG ISLAND EXPRESSWAY: HOW ARE THEY DOING? In L. I. E. H. L. M. M. P. i. F. Vehicles (Ed.), PDF. New York.

Bus lanes were debated last year and can you further explain "we don't really need that many bus lanes anyway because the high proportion of buses on the road already meant that it's not going to have a great effect." as this logic does not flow well.

What other anti-congestion strategies could have been used to avoid further reclamation or does HK follow this planning model http://greatergreaterwashington.org/images/200905/flowchart.jpg

greater priority and routes from ferries to central for the 'ding-ding'?

Long Island??!!! LOL!!!!!!! :lol: What's their car ownership like? What's their original congestion like?
What about HK island?

Your logic does not flow well either by directly comparing lengths of bus lanes with other cities.

Showing Hong Kong has a extremely low bus to bus lane ratio is evidence, highlighting a report that shows the adoption HOT lanes increases road utilisation by 40% is evidence, please reply with evidence rather than opinion and claiming that HK is special. Disregarding all other forms of evidence of traffic congestion management will not work here because of this 'specialness' rather than suggesting evidence it will not work here is not a discussion.

Bus lanes were debated last year and can you further explain

"we don't really need that many bus lanes anyway because the high proportion of buses on the road already meant that it's not going to have a great effect." as this logic does not flow well.

I would appreciate how you believe additional bus lanes will not help in a city that has a lot of buses.

Bus lanes were debated last year and can you further explain

"we don't really need that many bus lanes anyway because the high proportion of buses on the road already meant that it's not going to have a great effect." as this logic does not flow well.

I would appreciate how you believe additional bus lanes will not help in a city that has a lot of buses.


What other anti-congestion strategies could have been used to avoid further reclamation or does HK follow this planning model http://greatergreaterwashington.org/images/200905/flowchart.jpg

greater priority and routes from ferries to central for the 'ding-ding'?

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/images/200905/flowchart.jpg
:lol:

OK, follow the logic in the flow chart.

Take Tuen Mun Road in the 90s as an example....
> "Is road crowded?" Yes.
> "Would transit help?" Yes.
> "Are you sure?" Yes or may be.
> "Plan to run a bus in new lanes?" Yes, plenty.
> "Build More Highways Lanes" OK, lets do it.
> Tuen Mun Road has been widened to have three travel lanes and a bus lane since then.

Take Nathan Road as an example....
> "Is road crowded?" Yes.
> "Would transit help?" May be, bus traffic is 30% of of peak hour traffic, PLB is 4% and taxis is 38%, they make up 70% of all traffic.
> "Are you sure?" No.
> "Build More Highways Lanes"

or
> "Are you sure?" May be.
> "Plan to run a bus in new lanes?" Yes.
> "Build More Highways Lanes" OK.... but how? Let's put a flyover over Nathan Road.

Take any new highway like North Lantau Link, Route 3, Route 9 etc. as an example....
> "Is road crowded?" No.
> "Will it be crowded in the future?" No, not in the foresee time period.
> "Examine a different Road."

To the right of the flow chart, no matter what, it ends with "Build more highway lanes."

There is a research paper done by a few researchers in UST related this bus congestion topic, may as well you can find this journal somewhere at your reference. If you want to respond, respond after reading the whole paper, not just the abstract.

Hwe, S.K., Cheung, Raymond, and Wan, Yat-wah. "Mergineg bus routes in Hong Kong's central business district: Analysis and models." Transportation Research Part A 40 (2006) 918-935. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VG7-4KCPV3D-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2006&_alid=922811952&_rdoc=3&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=6031&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=4&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=485198ee85bac920e4dd40e552b73efe)

When there are a lot of buses, dedicated bus lane(s) is virtually useless.
Without the dedicated lane, the numerous number of buses have already occupy one lane for their own use, discouraging the use from other users.
Expressways like North Lantau Link, Route 3, San Tin Highway etc. uncongested highway operates in the fashion and even in non-expressway trunk road, like Nathan Road and Hennessey Road.

I believe I have argued for more bus priority aswell as more bus lanes, There is a huge difference

For aboveflow chart - final point should be pour concrete for HK

I believe I have argued for more bus priority aswell as more bus lanes, There is a huge difference

How are they different?
Bus lanes give bus priority. Bus doesn't get priority if there is no bus lane.

Many bus lanes in HK actually work by allowing certain movements for buses instead of allowing a faster travel speed within the lane. Take the CHT as an example - on the HK side, buses can squeeze directly into the cross-harbour traffic on Canal Rd flyover, while on the Kowloon side buses are allowed to travel on the nearside lane on Chatham Rd South and merge into general traffic at the last minute into Hong Chong Road with a 20m (or so) bus lane.

A good engineering solution does not require long lengths of bus lanes.

HOT lanes, part time bus lanes, bus only turning, bus only toll booths. There are many tools that can be used to give buses an advantage over other road users. The issue HK Gov has not implemented any new bus priority schemes for the last 10 years which is contra to must other developed cities.

HOT lanes, part time bus lanes, bus only turning, bus only toll booths. There are many tools that can be used to give buses an advantage over other road users. The issue HK Gov has not implemented any new bus priority schemes for the last 10 years which is contra to must other developed cities.

Except HOT lanes, everything you said are implemented in Hong Kong.
Part time bus lanes, e.g. Tuen Mun Road, Aberdeen Tunnel etc.
Bus only turning, e.g. along Nathan Road etc.
Bus only toll booths, e.g. Cross Harbour Tunnel, Lion Rock Tunnel etc.

For where frequent congestion occurs, you can definitely find some sort of bus priority facilities. For where no congestion occurs, then why bus priority is needed? Thing doesn't happen just for "just do it."

P.S. HOT isn't a bus priority oriented scheme.

Why no increase in Bus priority schemes in the last 10 years? The number of bus priority schemes is low when compared to other large modern cities with no new ones planned. It is almost as if owning a rival transport service (trains) has made the Government forget that buses carry huge numbers of passengers that need assistance in beating the ever worsening congestion.

HOT lane gives priority to high occupancy vehicles of which buses are high occupancy.

I know this is not a discussion as I have yet to see anybody exhibit independent thought and criticise any government policy.

Opinion : Electronic road pricing is not the solution for new bypass
26 May 2009
South China Morning Post

The Central-Wan Chai bypass has finally been given the go-ahead. Your editorial ("Bypass will cut jams - if we charge to use roads", May 22) says the approval should not be the end of the matter. You argue it has to be the spur for development of a comprehensive strategy for traffic flow in Hong Kong - with electronic road pricing at its heart.

Your editorial says at peak times the streets of Central are clogged, considerably lengthening travel times and charging for road use will convince a proportion of drivers to use public transport instead.

But as Central is the central business district of Hong Kong one can't imagine that people would simply drive there purposelessly. Obviously, vehicles go there because of a genuine business need and they will still go there - electronic road pricing or not - if the area remains the central business district.

Also, one can't imagine making commercial deliveries to Central by public transport, or chairmen of multinational companies coming down from The Peak to their offices at Central by bus, because of road charges. I tend to agree with the official argument that drivers heading for destinations beyond central business district would be unfairly penalised because they had no alternative but to use its streets. Building the bypass, which will go underground near the Two IFC office tower, eliminates this problem and hence road pricing would not be required.

When the bypass was adequately designed to divert unrelated traffic away from Central without the need for road pricing such a "highwayman's charge" was not even in the equation for reducing traffic congestion in Central. As such, what exactly is the motive to link electronic road pricing with the bypass?

Your editorial acknowledges that "road pricing has been controversial in most cities where it has been put in place". Why does Hong Kong now have to play "catch-up"? Do we really need to "keep up with the Joneses", irrespectively?

The bypass aims to reduce congestion but will achieve a minimal reduction in jams in other districts. Some other appropriate solutions are needed but not necessarily road pricing.

Alex Tam, Sai Kung

The bypass will just encourage more car use and relieve less congestion than it will create overall.

http://tyr.journalism.hkbu.edu.hk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=220:drivers-have-to-live-with-congestion-in-central-until-2016&catid=32:environment

Drivers have to live with congestion in Central until 2016
Written by KATIE CHAN KIT-MING
Tuesday, 20 January 2009 00:00

The government has turned down the introduction of the electronic road pricing (ERP) in busy districts, which will help reduce roadside air pollution and congestion, despite the territory suffered its worst ever air pollution in the summer.

Seventy per cent of the drivers would opt for public
transport if ERP is implemented, according to a
survey done by Council for Sustainable Development.

The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) said the government would not consider road pricing until the Central-Wan Chai bypass was completed, scheduled for 2016, and it would not implement ERP on pure environmental grounds.

“From the transport angle alone, we consider that the case for introducing road pricing, particularly before the Central-Wan Chai bypass is in place, is weak,” the EPD said, in response to the recommendations by the Council for Sustainable Development on improving the air quality.

The EPD argued that the diverted traffic would bring roadside pollution to other areas, and in order to relieve traffic jam effectively, there needs to be alternative routes for drivers to bypass the charging zone, if EDP is to be implemented.

The Central-Wan Chai bypass is a 4.5km long dual three-lane truck road plus a 3.5km tunnel which will link to the Eastern Corridor. The bypass aims at smoothing the traffic congestion along the Gloucester Road, Harcourt Road and Connaught Road Central corridor.

“[The bypass] was just an absurd excuse. The consensus of the community on ERP has been crystal clear,” Dr Hung Wing-tat, associate professor from the Civil and Structural Engineering Department of Hong Kong Polytechnic University, said.

He said that there were always roads to be built and reconstructed, the gist of the problem that the administration ought to deal with should be the overflowing demand in the congested areas rather than the inadequacy of roads.

Former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, also said in an interview with the South China Morning Post, that the construction of the Central-Wan Chai bypass would be a “complete waste of time” as it might fill up as quickly as two months.

Mr Livingstone introduced the controversial congestion charge in central London when he was the city’s mayor in 2003. According to Transport for London, traffic entering the original charging zone remains 21 per cent lower than pre-charge levels, or 70,000 fewer cars a day.

The government changed its mind quickly one year after Chief Executive Mr Donald Tsang Yam-kuen said in his previous policy address that he would re-examine the option of ERP charging accordingly to the greenhouse gases emission level of vehicles in order to promote the use of clean fuels in Hong Kong.

Dr Timothy D. Hau, Associate Professor from the School of Economics and Finance of the University of Hong Kong, has also been recommending road pricing to the government and the public for more than ten years. He said that the tax base of Hong Kong was too narrow and he did not think that spending so much on an extra road was a wise idea.

Dr Hau was confident that the government has the ability to launch ERP successfully, as there were plenty of successful examples from other international cities like London and Singapore that might shed light on the issue.

[The bypass] was just an absurd excuse. The consensus of the community on ERP has been crystal clear,
Dr Hung Wing-tat said.

But Professor Wong Sze-chun, the Deputy Head of the Civil Engineering Department at the University of Hong Kong, said despite ERP could lower air pollution and soothe congestion,“we could not have ERP alone without the bypass”.

“The toll would be very high if ERP was introduced now. We need the Central-Wan Chai bypass to provide a larger capacity to accommodate the busy traffic so that an acceptable road toll could be introduced to avoid overuse,” Prof Wong explained.

Prof Wong is also the President of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in Hong Kong.

Regarding the supportive majority the Council for Sustainable Development obtained from the public consultation – Better Air Quality Engagement Process – Prof Wong said the research could tell that the public was only in favour of ERP in principle.

“If the interviewees had known that an effective road price would mean $50 to $60 per crossing the road, I’m sure not as many people would have agreed,” he said.

Also, the deputy chairman of the Legislative Council environmental panel Mr Gary Chan Hak-kan, from the pro-government Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, believed that the community has not yet reached a consensus on the issue.

“Motor transport workers will definitely not welcome the road pricing. It will seriously affect their business as well as their livelihood,” Mr Chan said.

Road pricing has been discussed for more than a decade, Dr Hau said that the government was lagging behind in using road pricing as a means to solve congestion problem in Central, provided that the policy could actually help improving the city’s roadside air quality as well as increasing the government’s revenue.

Starting from October, the government will gather public’s views towards the ERP with the proposed price given.

In view of the government’s lack of passion in the issue, the Friends of the Earth is planning to urge the government to ban heavily polluting vehicles in the near future instead of charging them a heavy price for using the road.

“In our opinion, those commercial diesel vehicles are the source of roadside pollution, especially the Pre-Euro, Euro I and Euro II ones,” the Environmental Affairs Officer of the Friends of the Earth Mr Angus Wong Chun-yin said.

The EPD said the government will keep the need for road pricing under review.

Edited by TIMMY SUNG SHIU-CHUNG

中環龍和道首段通車

http://www.news.gov.hk/tc/category/infrastructureandlogistics/100222/html/roadzoom.jpg

新里程：中環首段龍和道通車，為往灣仔方向車輛提供替代路線。

位於中環民耀街和添華道之間的首段龍和道，明天（2月23日）通車，為往灣仔方向的車輛提供替代路線，附近東行的交通擠塞情況，可望得到紓緩。



龍和道是中環填海計劃第3期的道路網絡之一，由民祥街起向東伸延，屬於P2路。



P2路是由中環填海計劃第1期的民祥街，經第3期和灣仔發展計劃第2期的新土地，連接至在灣仔發展計劃第2期內重新定線的鴻興道。



中環填海計劃第3期的填海工程已大致完成，中環灣仔繞道工程進展良好，所有工程預期明年底完成。



龍和道首段讓車輛可繞過非常擠塞的干諾道中，避免在相同路段匯合其他前往金鐘和半山區的車輛，有助紓緩現時附近東行的交通擠塞情況。



隨整條由林士街天橋接駁至東區走廊的中環灣仔繞道，以及其相關的道路網在2017年完成，目前在干諾道中、夏愨道、告士打道走廊一帶的交通擠塞情況，屆時可望解決。

it just started putting the road together last month when i was in hk, and it's now opening for the public. so quick......

i guess we can name the new bus stop, the queen's stop.
http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/rr280/ericishim/2010%20Hong%20Kong/CIMG2466.jpg

it just started putting the road together last month when i was in hk, and it's now opening for the public. so quick......

i guess we can name the new bus stop, the queen's stop.
http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/rr280/ericishim/2010%20Hong%20Kong/CIMG2466.jpg


wow it can be considered as the most efficient government project so far. To be politically accurate, the new bus stop is better to be named "人民解放站 " haha:lol:

trains and cars - not an holistic policy

When were the last independent public consultations on ERP published?

trains and cars - not an holistic policy

When were the last independent public consultations on ERP published?

never. who pays the consultant to do the public consultation works when it is not even on the agenda to implement at this stage? waste of money.

the civil society, universities etc.

organizations that challenge the establishment

Academia's role is not to challenge the government. They exist to facilitate understanding and knowledge of topics, which may mean performing studies, but these studies may support or not support a government stance.

To formulate government policy, previously-done studies can be used but oftentimes something very specific needs to be commissioned since our projects are very specific and cannot be readily generalized from an academic study.

universities DO challenge established thinking,be it Dr Timothy D. Hau, with his roving pollution van or Dr Hedley with his index. Part of free thought is to challenge the establishment.

universities DO challenge established thinking,be it Dr Timothy D. Hau, with his roving pollution van or Dr Hedley with his index. Part of free thought is to challenge the establishment.

there have been number of engineering/planning studies and academic studies on the feasibility part of ERP implementation, and as far as I've seen majority of them are positive. but remember, these are only feasibility studies, i.e. ERP is technically feasible, but doesn't mean the government is going to socially and/or politically implement them any time soon. in fact the first ERP study was done in the late 70s, 30 years ago.

your point in public consultation is flawed because there is no plan on implementation that will affect the public, then why do you need to ask for input from the public? it is too early in the game to let the public and politic to play in the technical grounds.

The Government is currently undertaking a study on how to optimise 'traffic' cross the three tunnels which should include variable tolling as an option

universities DO challenge established thinking,be it Dr Timothy D. Hau, with his roving pollution van or Dr Hedley with his index. Part of free thought is to challenge the establishment.

They don't ALWAYS challenge, because their mandate is to understand problems, not to be the full-time opposition. Just because you can highlight an example of an academic study being used against government policy doesn't mean that is the norm or expectation from the academic world.

trains and cars - not an holistic policy

When were the last independent public consultations on ERP published?


Stop rmaking a fool of yourself... the Government of Hong Kong encourages automobile usage? Not! Hong Kong has some of the taxes on automobiles in the world.

Universities DO challenge the establishment, but they do know better that their raison d'etre is about spreading and cultivating higher learning.

HK has probably the highest car/road densities in the world.

Car purchase tax has not changed in many years while cars have become more affordable, petrol tax has limited effect due to short journeys.

Every new shopping centre, housing development etc must have car parking.

HK Gov counts road based traffic on a per vehicle basis so this skews decision making towards cars - Ask the TD

For road based transport the options are

1) Public transport bias
2) Car Bias
3) Mixture of the above.

If the answer was 1 0r 3 then the city would be littered with pro-bus initiatives similar to other European and Asian cities. As other cities around the world are taking road based privileges away from car owners HK is building more roads to facilitate access to already congested areas. Although there has been lots of new roads for cars there have been no new bus initiative for over 10 years which strongly suggests the current administration is pro-car.

HK has probably the highest car/road densities in the world.

Car purchase tax has not changed in many years while cars have become more affordable, petrol tax has limited effect due to short journeys.

Every new shopping centre, housing development etc must have car parking.

HK Gov counts road based traffic on a per vehicle basis so this skews decision making towards cars - Ask the TD

For road based transport the options are

1) Public transport bias
2) Car Bias
3) Mixture of the above.

If the answer was 1 0r 3 then the city would be littered with pro-bus initiatives similar to other European and Asian cities. As other cities around the world are taking road based privileges away from car owners HK is building more roads to facilitate access to already congested areas. Although there has been lots of new roads for cars there have been no new bus initiative for over 10 years which strongly suggests the current administration is pro-car.

It is YOU are who are obsessively pro-bus. Germany is pro integrated public transport with rail as the backbone of the system. On the other hand, The German government is actively involved in building new roads and maintaining existing roads within its territorities.

On this forum the pro-bus camp is pretty small with most people proposing an either / or approach for bus / rail when both are possible.

Just because government policy is pro-transit doesn't mean road construction needs to stop. Taxes for maintaining and fueling a car are very high in Hong Kong, so whether they rise significantly year-after-year is not an issue at all. While we should encourage transit use, carpooling is also a valid option to reduce congestion. There will always be a percentage of people who will drive over taking transit. We cannot forget them, but the key is what proportion do we expect and how can we cater to them as well? The fact that there is a parking lot at the mall doesn't mean the pro-transit ideology has been thrown out the window.

HK has probably the highest car/road densities in the world.

It's only because we don't have lots of roads. Thought you would have understood the fact that too many roads would promote too many cars but obviously I overestimated you. HK has probably the lowest car ownership in the rich world.

Car purchase tax has not changed in many years while cars have become more affordable, petrol tax has limited effect due to short journeys.

Tax comes in percentages. Are you sure that car prices didn't go up?

Every new shopping centre, housing development etc must have car parking.

That applies to almost everywhere else in the world. You must somehow provide mobility to the disabled anyway or else you're discriminating.

HK Gov counts road based traffic on a per vehicle basis so this skews decision making towards cars - Ask the TD

Please elaborate what you mean.

For road based transport the options are

1) Public transport bias
2) Car Bias
3) Mixture of the above.

If the answer was 1 0r 3 then the city would be littered with pro-bus initiatives similar to other European and Asian cities. As other cities around the world are taking road based privileges away from car owners HK is building more roads to facilitate access to already congested areas.


You missed out 4) Heavy public transport bias.

Although there has been lots of new roads for cars there have been no new bus initiative for over 10 years which strongly suggests the current administration is pro-car.

O right. Your ideas/logic:
1. If any roads are built, it is for cars only and not buses, as if buses are not allowed to use roads.
2. The absence of something can prove otherwise. Well, I didn't see you protest about wars at all "which strongly suggests" you are really pro-war? I don't think it's very convincing if you're speaking in front of the jury.

To be honest, I personally have nothing against buses but I don't like people to twist all the facts as they want to see it. I respect your view but again to be honest, go and tell any transport engineer around the world that Hong Kong is pro-car and they'd laugh their head off.

.. go and tell any transport engineer around the world that Hong Kong is pro-car and they'd laugh their head off.

Thanks God, I still have my head attached. :lol:

It is YOU are who are obsessively pro-bus. Germany is pro integrated public transport with rail as the backbone of the system. On the other hand, The German government is actively involved in building new roads and maintaining existing roads within its territorities.

Agreed......

:)

Lung Wo Road is just another monument to 'concrete coalition'

SCMP Mar 04, 2010

Lung Wo Road, the new dual carriageway on the Central reclamation, is an unmitigated disaster. Of all government departments currently engaged in public vandalism, the Transport Department is the major culprit.

Lung Wo Road is not the Central-Wan Chai bypass, which is now going underground. It was shown on the outline zoning plan for the Central reclamation as the surface road P2. Activists urged the government to look at P2 as a pleasant, tree-lined, pedestrian-friendly ocean boulevard with room for a tramway and lined with shops and cafes.

In a meeting two years ago with Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, I said P2 was instead being envisioned as a "thundering thoroughfare". She said I was exaggerating. I wonder what she would say now? Instead of being tree-lined, it is lined by pedestrian barriers. It is well on its way to becoming the Salisbury Road of Central. Anyone who has tried to cross Salisbury Road in Tsim Sha Tsui will understand. Pedestrians are treated like rodents, herded into underground warren-passageways. The whole ambience of the area around the Cultural Centre has been destroyed by the Transport Department's worship of the car.

What traffic is Lung Wo Road meant to relieve? I drive along Gloucester Road every day. A bad jam will add 10 minutes to my journey time. I can live with it. The eastbound choke-points are the Cross-Harbour Tunnel and Canal Road/Times Square. Westbound, the choke-point is the Central gridlock. None will be relieved either by Lung Wo Road or the Central-Wan Chai bypass. Message to government - try sensible policies before pouring concrete.

The Transport Department is not under Mrs Lam's authority, where it might be more effectively controlled. Instead, it is left to prowl and devour. It can grab land without the Town Planning Board's oversight. And it has access to Hong Kong's biggest money pot. All government revenue from land sales is hypothecated (that is, goes exclusively) to the capital works reserve fund, which can be used only for infrastructure development. It is not available for health care, education, provision for the elderly, solving air pollution or our fisheries crisis.

This treasure chest is reserved for the one interest group that matters - the concrete coalition. When I sat on the Advisory Council on the Environment, I suggested that income from the plastic bag levy should be used for conservation. Government representatives were aghast: "We can't hypothecate - it's against every principle of government revenue." Conservation, although it begins with "c", does not belong to the concrete coalition, for whom the usual principles don't apply. Record prices are again being paid at land auctions - more concrete is coming your way.

I don't regret the Central reclamation. I regret the opportunity we have lost to make it a world-class waterfront. It is entirely due to the pig-headedness of the authorities. Lung Wo Road should be renamed "Donald Tsang Expressway", so future generations will know whom to commemorate.

Markus Shaw, founding member, Designing Hong Kong

Yes .. the beautification is not much different than the other typical roads. A tree-lined boulevard would have been nice.

No road would of been better - but this IS a pro-car town

No road would of been better - but this IS a pro-car town

Don't think you can conclude that just because there are few trees along the road. There is a sidewalk after all.

What would a none PRO-car Government of done with prime tourist land situated in one of the top ten harbours in the world?

The road blocks free access to and from the harbour, any other Government would not have a road on the list. In the 1970's such decisions were made.

What would a none PRO-car Government of done with prime tourist land situated in one of the top ten harbours in the world?

The road blocks free access to and from the harbour, any other Government would not have a road on the list. In the 1970's such decisions were made.

Is it true? Could you cross the road to access the harbour front under a safe manner at crosswalk, subway or footbridge?
It may not be today, but where are you going? Visiting the giant construction site which will become the promenade in a few years?

What would a none PRO-car Government of done with prime tourist land situated in one of the top ten harbours in the world?

The road blocks free access to and from the harbour, any other Government would not have a road on the list. In the 1970's such decisions were made.

Of course the road doesn't block harbour access. We all need to wait until all the reclamation and decoration works are complete, then we all get an accessible, big public park.

http://sc.info.gov.hk/gb/www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201002/22/P201002220081_photo_1013783.htm

http://www.discoverybayforum.com/save/upload/P201002220081_photo_1013783.jpg.jpg

As the picture above shows - Cars 1st people 2nd Elevated walkways can not be argued as people 1st. they are used to allow cars to use at grade. Perhaps if the road was a tram way or bus only areas it would not be as bad. Will give it a test drive tomorrow.

http://sc.info.gov.hk/gb/www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201002/22/P201002220081_photo_1013783.htm

http://www.discoverybayforum.com/save/upload/P201002220081_photo_1013783.jpg.jpg

As the picture above shows - Cars 1st people 2nd Elevated walkways can not be argued as people 1st. they are used to allow cars to use at grade

You are not looking at the big picture in the Master Plan, but at one point of the time and assumes it will be like that forever.

1. Again, who is going to the left side of the road today? No one unless you work there, so what's the point of having any crossing facility at this point of time. In fact, it is better not to have anything today, so not to encourage or deliver a wrong message to the general public going to the construction area.
2. There will be two to three more intersections with at grade-crossing with traffic signal control in the future.
3. Part of the roadway will be under a elevated platform connecting the harbour front with the inland elevated walkway systems.

there IS a 5 lane highway blocking direct access to the harbour front. That will not change. Obviously access will improve, If access doesn't improve the Government will probably have a very large protest on their hands for abusing the most valuable public land in Hong Kong.

there IS a 5 lane highway blocking direct access to the harbour front. That will not change. Obviously access will improve, If access doesn't improve the Government will probably have a very large protest on their hands for abusing the most valuable public land in Hong Kong.

A road doesn't block access if there are crossings. Eventually once everything is done the harbourfront will be accessible to all. You can't judge the outcome based on a half-finished project.

there IS a 5 lane highway blocking direct access to the harbour front. That will not change. Obviously access will improve, If access doesn't improve the Government will probably have a very large protest on their hands for abusing the most valuable public land in Hong Kong.

Sorry, it is going to be 6 lanes on Lung Wo Road, 5 lanes is only temporary. You failed again.

Accessibility is not just about "direct" and "at-grade", it is also an art of "connectivity," how well are infrastructures are connected.
If the network is well connected, it doesn't matter if there is a separated 10 lane expressway, people are still well connected above or below.
It is Hong Kong, things happen in 3D, not 2.

The road could have gone overhead, or is that what you prefer to gain pedestrian at-grade accessibility?

A few points to make:

1. I think this road may have been over-designed.
2. I don't think judging an entire city by a few roads is mature thinking.
3. I have yet to see Longershanks answer most of our previous arguments.

If there is a belief that Hong Kong People prefer walking in non-direct over-head walkways then there must be some evidence to prove this. Works just OK in super dense Central where the roads are too busy to allow walking at the pavement level and buildings are close together, but everywhere else it is just annoying with lots of people jay walking to avoid bridges. If significant people Jay Walk then the correct way is not the easiest way and the traffic engineer has surely failed.

The current 2 pedestrian bridges to the ferries add significant time to journeys with the enforced walking through shopping centres.

Is there an independent survey asking people what they think of elevated walkways v pedestrianisation? Or is it just easier to look at which areas are busiest shopping areas?

Can a parallel be drawn to Boston's big dig or what is happening in Seoul? The TD's drive for transport efficiency is hurting the city. Pouring concrete is not always the answer.

If there is a belief that Hong Kong People prefer walking in non-direct over-head walkways then there must be some evidence to prove this. Works just OK in super dense Central where the roads are too busy to allow walking at the pavement level and buildings are close together, but everywhere else it is just annoying with lots of people jay walking to avoid bridges. If significant people Jay Walk then the correct way is not the easiest way and the traffic engineer has surely failed.

If the whole system is new, then you may have been right about it isn't as convenient as to cross a road at-grade because of walking up and down. But the elevated sections will be an extension of the existing system, this provides greater connectivity than terminating the system completely and putting the walkway back on the ground level.

Don't forget, crossing at grade requires the pedestrian to stop and wait multiple times at even one intersection; but walking overhead doesn't, and this is Central, everyone is in rush who doesn't want to stop, just like every driver.

The current 2 pedestrian bridges to the ferries add significant time to journeys with the enforced walking through shopping centres.

Well... you have an option to walk on the one outside not in 2IFC, but some people do like walk inside the A/C mall on hot days.


Is there an independent survey asking people what they think of elevated walkways v pedestrianisation? Or is it just easier to look at which areas are busiest shopping areas?

If you understand Chinese, here is a documentary put together by the RTHK about the footbridge system.
http://programme.rthk.org.hk/rthk/tv/programme.php?name=tv/hkstories12&d=2010-02-22&p=4742&e=104051&m=episode


Can a parallel be drawn to Boston's big dig or what is happening in Seoul? The TD's drive for transport efficiency is hurting the city. Pouring concrete is not always the answer.

Lung Wo Road is nowhere near the Boston's Big Dig, Central-Wan Chai Bypass is the one that is comparable, which is underground with public space above as well. Lung Wo Road is not just a through fare, but also an access and service road for the future public space which can't be skipped for just a large piece of land.

Seoul has removed some expressways away, and so does many other cities around the world. New York just closed a good stretch of Broadway from motor vehicles. Yes, these are nice moves, very attractive to pedestrianize, and very popular to the public (what you call trophy project). But don't be blinded again something works elsewhere would directly work in Hong Kong without considering the local situation. Why traffic problem in all these cities have not been worsen after some major roads are closed? A lot of them are in grid or dense roadway network which can alleviate traffic from one point to the other via other roadways in the surrounding. Hong Kong Island doesn't have that pleasure, how many roads are there to travel east-west on Hong Kong Island? You can count with one hand. There is no back-up roadways in HK to support, shut down Connaught Road or Gloucester Road would cause a complete fail of the whole system.

Also, the width of the road is not a problem if the pedestrian crossing factor is considered, and planned in the system. How wide are Nathan Road, King's Road and Hennessey Road etc.? All these are 6-laner with multi-level crossings, at-grade, footbridges and subways. If no pedestrian crossing is considered during the design process, you can be killed even crossing a 2-lane road.

Video focuses on Central. The Prince Edward walk way would be more appropriate.

Wouldn't a couple of single lane roads with restricted access times be enough for services the 'park' in central?

The 20% drop in Cross harbour ferry traffic is an indication of peoples desire to walk a long way on a raised bridge. Again cars 1st

Video focuses on Central. The Prince Edward walk way would be more appropriate.

Wouldn't a couple of single lane roads with restricted access times be enough for services the 'park' in central?

The 20% drop in Cross harbour ferry traffic is an indication of peoples desire to walk a long way on a raised bridge. Again cars 1st

You aren't even understanding the point of the documentary is about the elevated walkway NETWORK, not a single footbridge. The uniqueness is its connectivity.

The new road is a combination of through road and service road, it is not single functioned.

And you are steering away from accessibility of the harbourfront and the Central core by showing the reduction of Star Ferry traffic. Yes, people are less willing to walk to the Star Ferry these days to cross the harbour, it is because the walk is long, and the MTR is more reachable. It isn't because the ferry can't be reached.

The Prince Edward elevated walkway has poor connectivity - hence it not being mentioned. This would be a closer comparison. An urban express way with limited connetivity. Although soon ferry commuters and tourists will be forced to walk through more shopping malls to get to the harbour.

The Prince Edward elevated walkway has poor connectivity - hence it not being mentioned.

Of course it has poor elevated walking connectivity because it is not intended to do so, and this is true for the hundreds of other footbridges in Hong Kong, a single footbridge that crosses and/or runs along the roads. The whole documentary isn't about a single footbridge / elevated walkway, but it is about the extensive connectivity, from the harbour front to the mid-level, from Admiralty to Sheung Wan. You are missing the point that the unique connectivity of elevated walkway in Central making it worths to be on the documentary, otherwise why?

network externalities are significantly reduced when you consider 2 areas divided by a barrier. e.g Prince Edward, Donald's Way

The Prince Edward elevated walkway has poor connectivity - hence it not being mentioned. This would be a closer comparison. An urban express way with limited connetivity. Although soon ferry commuters and tourists will be forced to walk through more shopping malls to get to the harbour.

The actual equivalent system in Kowloon is the underground pedestrian (subway) system.

network externalities are significantly reduced when you consider 2 areas divider by a barrier. e.g Prince Edward, Donald's Way

I guess in your ego-centric, obesssive and opinionated mind the only alternative is the Longershanks way.

I guess in your ego-centric, obesssive and opinionated mind the only alternative is the Longershanks way.

What? Buses only with no MTR at all (while supporting an MTR station in Happy Valley), bus lanes all over the place, walking only from CWB to Wanchai, no elevated walkways at all in HK, a privatised housing department, parking meters all auctioned off, demolishing T2, HOT lanes in the Cross-Harbour Tunnel, government breaking contract and buying tunnels back, no new roads to be built from now on, road pricing around most parts of Hong Kong, pro-car Red Routes like London's to be implemented on major trunks, legally forcing people to recycle without knowing where to recycle, and a new HSR which runs to Kam Sheung Road?

Or perhaps change the wording of point 3 of the TD's policy

http://www.thb.gov.hk/eng/policy/transport/policy/objective/index.htm

'to effectively manage congestion and to reduce average journey time, roadside pollution and improve road safety'

At the moment the TD measures journey time for Vehicles on roads and by passenger journey time on trains resulting in skewed policy implementation.

Point 4 is quite funny as the Transport Department does not know the current pollution per passenger Km for current modes of transport in the city, so they are not actively looking at this.

Another point to perhaps have a walking policy as all current policies seem vehicular based.

Or perhaps change the wording of point 3 of the TD's policy

http://www.thb.gov.hk/eng/policy/transport/policy/objective/index.htm

'to effectively manage congestion and to reduce average journey time, roadside pollution and improve road safety'

At the moment the TD measures journey time for Vehicles on roads and by passenger journey time on trains resulting in skewed policy implementation.

Point 4 is quite funny as the Transport Department does not know the current pollution per passenger Km for current modes of transport in the city, so they are not actively looking at this.

Another point to perhaps have a walking policy as all current policies seem vehicular based.

"Walking"-based policy? For you, even walking in Hong Kong is polluting the environment because most people only want to walk through shopping malls and air-conditioned structures. I do not want to walk on the streets of Hong Kong half of the year because I sweat by simply standing on the streets. I walk all the time in northern Europe; I even walk in the dead of winter.

Did you mean...
MTR, Buses and trams
Bus priority systems in more places especially where heavy congestion is
More pedestrianisation and Walk-able routes
Elevated walkways where network effect can be developed and pedestrianisation not possible
Privatisation of more public housing
Parking meters prices set for 85% occupancy,
Restructuring T2 to focus on passenger
ERP system with HOT lanes (not cordon pricing as this system still suffers form peak time congestion)
Red Routes like London's to be implemented on major trunks,
Legally forcing Developers to provide recycling points in buildings
Mandatory insulation requirements for domestic properties (not optional BEEM)
New HSR to have economic pay-back that works or admit that it must be built for other reasons

rather than just build new look to optimise current with a focus on passengers not vehicles

SCMP Mar 11, 2010

I refer to the letter from Markus Shaw ("Lung Wo Road is just another monument to 'concrete coalition'", March 4) and wish to clarify several issues.

Lung Wo Road, which is now open to traffic, is a part of road P2 designed to connect the existing Man Cheung Street via the land formed under the Central Reclamation Phase III and Wan Chai Development Phase II projects with Hung Hing Road to be realigned under the latter project.

Upon completion of the Central-Wan Chai bypass and road P2 by 2017, the road will serve to distribute traffic between the east-west traffic corridor formed by the bypass and Rumsey Street flyover to the neighbouring areas including Central, Admiralty, Mid-Levels and Wan Chai.

We see benefits in opening Lung Wo Road now before completion of the whole road P2 as it will help relieve the traffic congestion in this locality.

It provides an alternative route for Wan Chai-bound traffic to bypass the congested Connaught Road Central and avoid merging with other traffic heading for Admiralty and Mid-Levels.

We have observed that, following its opening, Lung Wo Road has helped ease traffic congestion especially at the Central Reclamation Phase I areas including Connaught Place, Man Yiu Street, Man Cheung Street and Man Po Street.

Traffic queues on the above roads during peak hours have shortened quite significantly.

The Transport Department will continue monitoring the traffic situation and undertake fine-tuning measures where necessary to maximise the benefits.

When completed, road P2 will become a tree-lined boulevard as recommended under the Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront commissioned by the Planning Department.

There will also be at-grade and grade-separated pedestrian crossings to facilitate convenient access to the new, vibrant, green and sustainable promenade planned for the waterfront.

Whilst Lung Wo Road is now open and works at the reclamation are yet to be completed, we have provided temporary footpaths and traffic barriers to ensure public safety.

No doubt we will undertake the necessary works to achieve the said planning intention in tandem with the development of the waterfront promenade.

C. K. Hon, project manager for Hong Kong Island and Islands, Civil Engineering and Development Department

So the 6 lane underground by-pass is not enough a six lane urban-highway is also needed on some of the most valuable land in Asia.

Luckily the new 6 lane highway will be bus free for a while as it is car only.

3/10

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2010/0310/IMG_2924.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2010/0310/IMG_2925.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2010/0310/IMG_2927.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2010/0310/IMG_2928.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2010/0310/IMG_2929.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2010/0310/IMG_2930.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2010/0310/IMG_2935.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/2010/0310/IMG_2939.jpg

SCMP Mar 11, 2010

I refer to the letter from Markus Shaw ("Lung Wo Road is just another monument to 'concrete coalition'", March 4) and wish to clarify several issues.

Lung Wo Road, which is now open to traffic, is a part of road P2 designed to connect the existing Man Cheung Street via the land formed under the Central Reclamation Phase III and Wan Chai Development Phase II projects with Hung Hing Road to be realigned under the latter project.

Upon completion of the Central-Wan Chai bypass and road P2 by 2017, the road will serve to distribute traffic between the east-west traffic corridor formed by the bypass and Rumsey Street flyover to the neighbouring areas including Central, Admiralty, Mid-Levels and Wan Chai.

We see benefits in opening Lung Wo Road now before completion of the whole road P2 as it will help relieve the traffic congestion in this locality.

It provides an alternative route for Wan Chai-bound traffic to bypass the congested Connaught Road Central and avoid merging with other traffic heading for Admiralty and Mid-Levels.

We have observed that, following its opening, Lung Wo Road has helped ease traffic congestion especially at the Central Reclamation Phase I areas including Connaught Place, Man Yiu Street, Man Cheung Street and Man Po Street.

Traffic queues on the above roads during peak hours have shortened quite significantly.

The Transport Department will continue monitoring the traffic situation and undertake fine-tuning measures where necessary to maximise the benefits.

When completed, road P2 will become a tree-lined boulevard as recommended under the Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront commissioned by the Planning Department.

There will also be at-grade and grade-separated pedestrian crossings to facilitate convenient access to the new, vibrant, green and sustainable promenade planned for the waterfront.

Whilst Lung Wo Road is now open and works at the reclamation are yet to be completed, we have provided temporary footpaths and traffic barriers to ensure public safety.

No doubt we will undertake the necessary works to achieve the said planning intention in tandem with the development of the waterfront promenade.

C. K. Hon, project manager for Hong Kong Island and Islands, Civil Engineering and Development Department

Civil engineers think alike.


So the 6 lane underground by-pass is not enough a six lane urban-highway is also needed on some of the most valuable land in Asia.

Luckily the new 6 lane highway will be bus free for a while as it is car only.

The land is only "valuable" if they will be auctioned out, but they won't and will be for recreation use only for the most part. So are you saying the government has done the wrong thing not leasing the land for more money?

The wider and less quantifiable 'Value' to society.

World class harbour with 1970's approach to infrastructure. TD seems to be stuck in an era when HK needed infrastructure projects to eliminate gross inefficiencies. Most of these gross inefficiencies are now eliminated (ex train to the border, MTR to west/south Island etc)

As this road shows - ruin a potential world class pedestrian area in one of the best natural harbours in the world to save car drivers a couple of minutes at peak time.

Civil engineers think alike.?

mmmmm....

Is that a good thing.

I still think this road is probably a little bit over-designed.

over designed ?

Too pretty
Too fast
Too big
Too pedestrian friendly

What aspect is over-designed?

Trenching in CWB Typhoon Shelter
http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/rr280/ericishim/2011%20Random%20Hong%20Kong/CIMG7796.jpg

Cut-and-cover tunnel entrance in Central
http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/rr280/ericishim/2011%20Random%20Hong%20Kong/CIMG8702.jpg

Unfortunately this will not solve congestion along the north shore of Hong Kong Island. It is just a reclamation project that will allow cordon style congestion charging that will be set so low that it will offend no one.

There is no need to have this tunnel to implement a cordon price. Vehicles that pass on through could just get a rebate. It is a reclamation project 1st, 2nd and 3rd