public engagement report · 2017. 12. 7. · extension study to explore the potential of developing...

AECOM in association with MVA Hong Kong Ltd.

Public Engagement Report

Agreement No. CE 35/2010 (CE)

September 2014

Review and Update of the Railway Development Strategy 2000

Review and Update of the Railway Strategy 2000


Page i Setember 2014

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background of the Study ............................................................................................ 1 1.2 Study Focus and Methodology ................................................................................... 4 1.3 Structure of the Report ............................................................................................... 6

2. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROGRAMME................................................................ 7 2.1 Purpose of Public Engagement .................................................................................. 7 2.2 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 7

3. OVERALL SUMMARY OF VIEWS ON KEY TOPICS ............................................. 9 3.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Broad Principles ......................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Comprehensive Review of Roles of Different Public Transport Modes ................... 11 3.4 Principles of Railway Development .......................................................................... 11 3.5 Funding of Railway Development ............................................................................. 12 3.6 Methods to Increase Patronage and Enhance Railway Service .............................. 12 3.7 Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Express Line (WEL) .............................................. 14 3.8 Northern Link (NOL) ................................................................................................. 18 3.9 Tuen Mun to Tsuen Wan Link (TMTWL) .................................................................. 21 3.10 North Island Line (NIL) ............................................................................................. 24 3.11 Siu Sai Wan Line (SSWL) ........................................................................................ 28 3.12 South Island Line (West) (SIL(W)) ........................................................................... 31 3.13 Tuen Mun South Extension (TMS Extension) .......................................................... 35 3.14 Hung Shui Kiu Station (HSK Station) ....................................................................... 38 3.15 Tung Chung West Extension (TCW Extension) ....................................................... 40 3.16 Kwu Tung Station (KTU Station) .............................................................................. 42

4. CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD ................................................................. 45



Page ii Setember 2014

Appendices Appendix I – Dissemination of Information about the PE Exercise Appendix II – Public Engagement Activities Appendix III – Other Suggestions from the Public on the Ten Proposed Railway

Schemes during Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the Public Engagement Exercise

Other Suggestions from the Public on New Railway Proposals during Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the Public Engagement Exercise



Page 1 September 2014

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

1.1.1 The Government commissioned AECOM Asia Company Limited (the

consultant) in March 2011 to carry out a Review and Update of the

Railway Development Strategy 2000 (RDS-2000). The objective of the

study is to update the long-term railway development blueprint formulated

in the RDS-2000 having regard to the latest development of our society.

1.1.2 When the RDS-2000 was announced in May 2000, only six railway lines

and the Light Rail were operating in Hong Kong (see Fig. 1.1). To

implement the policy of using railways as the backbone of Hong Kong’s

passenger transport system, the local railway network expanded rapidly

with eight railway projects completed between 2002 and 2009.

1.1.3 Currently, the total number of daily public transport passenger trips in

Hong Kong exceeds 10 million. Hong Kong’s railway network carries over

4.5 million passengers per day, accounting for about 38% of all public

transport passenger trips. The Government is taking forward five railway

projects in full swing. They are the West Island Line, South Island Line

(East), Kwun Tong Line Extension, Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-

Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, and Shatin to Central Link (see

Fig. 1.2). These five railway projects are expected to be commissioned in

succession between the end of 2014 / early 2015 and 2020 / 2021. Upon

completion, the total length of railways in Hong Kong will be increased to

more than 270 km. There will be 99 railway stations and 68 Light Rail

stations, serving areas inhabited by more than 70% of the local population

and forming an easily accessible mass transit network. It is anticipated

that the rail share of local public transport trips will increase to 43%, which

further underlines the Government’s policy of using railways as the

backbone of the passenger transport system.




1.1.4 As stated by the Chief Executive in the Policy Address in January 2013,

public demand for land is generated as much from the surging population

as from people’s aspirations for more space to alleviate their cramped

living conditions. The Government will continue to adopt a multi-pronged

approach and step up its efforts to meet housing and other needs. For this

purpose, the Government will increase the supply of land in the short,

medium and long term through optimal use of developed land and

identifying new land for development at the same time. Amongst these

measures, some longer-term ones include planning the North East New

Territories New Development Areas (NENT NDAs) and Hung Shui Kiu

New Development Area (HSK NDA), developing the New Territories North

and Lantau Island (including conducting the Tung Chung New Town

Extension Study to explore the potential of developing Tung Chung into a

new town with more comprehensive and better developed community

facilities), reviewing the deserted agricultural land in North District and

Yuen Long etc., with a view to building up a “land reserve” to meet future

demands in a timely manner and improve the living environment of the

citizens.

1.1.5 Development of railway transport will not only significantly speed up

passenger flow, alleviate road traffic congestion and reduce vehicle-

induced air pollution, but also release the development potential of

peripheral areas and facilitate local developments and economic activities.

If railway planning and land development can be properly integrated, there

would be synergy in broadening the living space for residents and

promoting developments in various aspects in Hong Kong.




Fig. 1.1: Hong Kong’s Railway Network in 2000

Fig. 1.2: Hong Kong’s Railway Network in 2021




1.2 Study Focus and Methodology

1.2.1 In general, our study and consultation work were conducted in two stages,

with a view to recommending a new railway development blueprint that

was fast, convenient, reliable, environmental friendly and could meet the

needs of the society.

1.2.2 For the Stage 1 Study, we conducted passenger transport demand

forecasts and reviewed the demand for major railway corridors serving key

development areas. The three major regional railway corridors (see Fig. 1.3) are

The Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Express Line

The Northern Link

The Coastal Railway between Tuen Mun and Tsuen Wan (Tuen Mun to Tsuen Wan Link)

Fig. 1.3: Major Regional Corridors proposed in the Stage 1 Study




1.2.3 The Stage 2 Study focused on optimisation and integration of the railway

network and study of local enhancement schemes to increase the overall

capacity of the railway network and reduce road-based transport needs.

The seven local enhancement schemes (see Fig. 1.4) are:

The North Island Line

The Siu Sai Wan Line

The South Island Line (West)

The Tuen Mun South Extension

The Hung Shui Kiu Station

The Tung Chung West Extension

The Kwu Tung Station

Fig. 1.4: Local Enhancement Schemes proposed in the Stage 2 Study




1.2.4 Upon completion of the Stage 2 PE exercise, we collated the public

opinions at both stages, such that the planning of the major regional

corridors and local enhancement schemes could be further optimised in a

comprehensive manner. We would provide the Government with

recommendations on future railway development which served as the

basis for the formulation of the future railway development strategy in

Hong Kong.

1.3 Structure of the Report

1.3.1 This report summarises views and suggestions received from the public

through different channels during the PE period. A short summary is

provided on the conclusion and way forward for formulating the railway

development strategy for Hong Kong.




2. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROGRAMME

2.1 Purpose of Public Engagement

2.1.1 Railway projects involve enormous investment of public funds and have

profound impact on society, people’s livelihood and economic

development. Therefore, different sectors of the society may offer diverse

views. The issue on how to cohesively integrate railway planning and land

development will need to be examined within the community of Hong

Kong.

2.1.2 It often takes eight to ten years for a railway project to take shape from

idea formulation, conceptual stage, stakeholder consultation, detailed

design, to actual construction and completion. Early consultation will

enable the public to discuss and participate in the planning process, so

that the Government can work together with the public to map out Hong

Kong’s future railway development to meet transport demand in a cost-

effective manner. This will facilitate the commencement of relevant

detailed studies of individual projects in a timely manner.

2.2 Overview

2.2.1 Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the PE exercise were conducted from 20 April to

21 July 2012 and from 21 February to 20 May 2013 respectively. At the

commencement of each stage of the PE exercise, various forms of

publicity were launched to raise public awareness of the study. PE

publications and a website were prepared to enable the public to gain a

better understanding of the study background, preliminary study findings,

and conceptual schemes of the major regional railway corridors as well as

local enhancement schemes.




2.2.2 Various forms of media, including website, on-line forum, email and other

communication channels such as hotline, fax and post were used as

platforms for the public to provide views, comments and suggestions on

different railway schemes. Details of the various means used in

information dissemination are summarised in Appendix I.

2.2.3 To facilitate public engagement and encourage interaction, a range of PE

activities were organised. They included eight Public Forums, four Focus

Group Meetings, over 30 briefing sessions to District Councils and Heung

Yee Kuk as well as meetings with academics, professionals and business

sectors. Details of these PE activities are summarised in Appendix II.

2.2.4 Over 11,600 written submissions were received during the two stages of

PE exercise. Verbal comments were also received at the public forums,

focus group meetings and through the hotline. The numbers of entries

received through different communication channels during each stage of

the PE exercise are summarised in the table below:

Communication Channels No. of Entries Received During

Stage 1 PE Stage 2 PE Email 115 663 Fax 74 19 Post 35 4,482 Other Written Submission 32 2,018 Website Post 1,209 2,956 Online Forum 20 19 Total 1,485 10,157




3. OVERALL SUMMARY OF VIEWS ON KEY TOPICS

3.1 Overview

3.1.1 In the course of the PE exercise, 8 Public Forums, 4 Focus Group

Meetings and over 30 briefing sessions were held. Over 11,600 written

submissions and many verbal comments were received.

3.1.2 The study proposals were generally welcomed by the public. Overall

views on the proposals are presented below –

3.2 Broad Principles

3.2.1 The public generally agreed that railway should be the backbone of the

passenger transportation system in Hong Kong and supported the

Government’s effort in planning for a strategic railway network and land

use development in an integrated manner. The majority agreed that

population distribution, land use planning and housing development were

key factors in determining the alignment and feasibility of new railway

development. Some professionals and scholars suggested that the study

team should comprehensively review the whole Railway Development

Strategy with other ongoing plans and studies, such as the “Enhancing

Land Supply Strategy”, to provide strategic insights for Hong Kong’s future

development.

3.2.2 Some scholars and green groups suggested that ecological and

environmental impact, carbon emissions and socio-economic impact of

railway proposals should be studied to understand the net environmental

and social gains to the community in addition to the economic benefits

derived from the new railway projects.




3.2.3 Many professionals and scholars considered that the user-pay and cost-

recovery principles would no longer be applicable and a decreasing rate of

return for railway proposals was expected because the demand for future

railways would be based on social needs rather than economic growth.

Some suggested that, since capital investment from the Government

would be required for new railway development, the Government should

treat future railway development as public works projects so that the

considerations of accessibility and connectivity would be prioritised ahead

of financial returns.

3.2.4 The general public, professionals and scholars suggested that more

information on the estimated cost, time saving, patronage, technical

feasibility, overall environmental performance as well as cost-benefit

analysis for different schemes should be made available for their

consideration.

3.2.5 The majority also pointed out that the average train loading figures in the

PE Digest might not be able to truly reflect the congestion in train

compartments during peak hours. As shown in the PE Digest, the average

train loading during peak hours in some sections was around 60% to 70%,

but from passengers’ perspective, the train compartments were very full

and unpleasant. They suggested that the figures on design capacity

should be reviewed.




3.3 Comprehensive Review of Roles of Different Public Transport Modes

3.3.1 Many members of the public, professionals and scholars suggested that a

new Comprehensive Transport Study should be carried out to define the

roles of different public transport modes; to determine the priority of

developing different types of modes; and to study how multimodal

integration and connections between modes could be carried out. Some

professionals and scholars, as well as transport operators opined that

competition among different public transport modes should be allowed,

and overemphasis on railway development might lead to misallocation of

resources which would in turn increase the operation cost for both the

MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) and other road-based transport

operators and eventually the burden of the general public.

3.3.2 While it was generally agreed that railway should continue to serve the

highly demanded corridors, many operators of road-based public transport

modes had strong reservations about providing new railways to serve

corridors with medium or low traffic demand.

3.4 Principles of Railway Development

3.4.1 The majority agreed that land use and transport should be planned in an

integrated manner, and new developments should be concentrated to a

smaller number of new areas with a higher density to enhance the

connectivity of less accessible areas and the viability of the railway

service. Some respondents opined that “Transit-Oriented Development”

should be promoted to further increase the patronage. However, some

professionals and scholars expressed that the new developments should

not be triggered solely to support railway development, as consideration

should also be given to urban morphology and overall future planning.

Besides, the social and environmental impact of high density development

should be carefully assessed.




3.4.2 Some professionals and scholars pointed out that the current practice of

railway planning was transport-demand driven or traffic-congestion-relief

driven and as a result the proposed new railway lines were converging

towards the traditional Central Business Districts (CBDs) and might cause

congestion there. They suggested that new railway planning should be

growth-demand driven and the future railways should facilitate the shifting

of business functions from traditional CBDs to new towns in the North

West New Territories (NWNT), or other new development areas, such as

Kowloon East and West Kowloon Cultural District, so that future

developments would be more evenly distributed and decentralised, and

more job opportunities would be created in these new development areas.

3.5 Funding of Railway Development

3.5.1 The majority considered that if new railway lines were not financially

viable, subsidy by the Government or from other railway lines might be

considered. However, some suggested that suitable forms of railways or

other types of public transport modes, such as medium capacity railways,

Bus Rapid Transit, electric buses etc., should also be considered as

alternatives in the long term.

3.6 Methods to Increase Patronage and Enhance Railway Service

3.6.1 The public suggested that the Government should aim at providing a fast

and affordable public transportation system. Some professionals

suggested that railway should not be built to serve the peak hour traffic

demand only. Measures should be taken to enhance the average

utilisation of the railways. In this regard, many suggested that different

concession schemes, such as “monthly pass” for different lines, greater

fare reduction at “MTR Fare Saver” or more concession schemes for the

elderly and people with disabilities, should be explored.




3.6.2 Some scholars and professionals opined that since the existing railway

network had already covered a lot of developed areas, the increase in

ridership and catchment by new railway lines or stations would be limited.

Therefore, the marginal benefit of developing new railway lines might not

justify the cost. In this regard, they suggested that more efforts should be

made to enhance the feeder services to existing stations to increase the

usage of existing railway lines.

3.6.3 Some members of the public and professionals suggested that the

pedestrian connection around railway stations should be improved to

increase the patronage of existing railway lines. Examples include: from

Central Station to the new waterfront, from Exhibition Station to the Wan

Chai district, from Tamar Station to Admiralty, from Tsuen Wan Station to

Tsuen Wan West Station, from Causeway Bay Station to Happy Valley,

from Tin Hau Station to Victoria Park, from Austin Station to Kowloon

Station and Jordan Station, etc.

3.6.4 Some members of the public suggested that park-and-ride service should

be enhanced at railway stations in order to encourage more bicycle riders

to use the railway service. There were suggestions that pets and bicycles

should be allowed on train compartments and more should be done to

improve services for the elderly and the disabled.




3.7 Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Express Line (WEL)

Fig. 3.1: Preliminary Conceptual Scheme of the WEL

The following key consultation points were provided in the PE materials to

facilitate public participation.

In your opinion, how may the Main Line and Cross Boundary Spur Line of

the WEL be planned to facilitate Hong Kong residents travelling to the

western Shenzhen and other areas?

What are your views regarding the Domestic Spur Line connecting Tuen

Mun and Siu Ho Wan proposed by the consultant? If technically feasible,

where do you think the Domestic Spur Line should connect at each end?




Why?

In your opinion, how should the three components of the WEL proposed

by the consultant (i.e. the Main Line, Cross-boundary Spur Line and

Domestic Spur Line) be phased for development if the WEL is to be

implemented?

In general, under what circumstances would you support the

implementation of the WEL? Why?

Overview

3.7.1 Some members of the public supported the WEL because it would

enhance economic development, while many others considered that the

WEL should be supported only if there was a strong traffic demand.

3.7.2 There were mixed views on the three components and the phasing of the

WEL. Some suggested that priority should be given to the Domestic Spur

Line which was considered more beneficial to local residents. On the

other hand, some public views showed support to implement all three

components together, which would enhance the connection between Hong

Kong and Shenzhen and make the WEL more viable and cost-effective. A

number of professionals and scholars and some members of the public

supported the railway corridor to link up the Shenzhen Bao’an International

Airport, Qianhai, Hung Shui Kiu, Tuen Mun and the Hong Kong

International Airport.




Main Line

3.7.3 Although some agreed on the need for the railway line, there were doubts

on the cost-effectiveness of the Main Line. Some suggested that a station

at Hung Shui Kiu or Tuen Mun should be built to enhance the financial

viability of the Main Line.

3.7.4 Many members of the public and some professionals and scholars

expressed concern on the market demand of the Main Line, and

suggested that it should be implemented only if there were clear division of

labour and agreement between the Shenzhen Bao’an International Airport

and the Hong Kong International Airport to ensure the latter could be

operated as an air transit hub.

Cross-boundary Spur Line

3.7.5 Some members of the public supported the Cross-boundary Spur Line as

they considered that it could enhance the connection between Hong Kong

and Qianhai to facilitate economic development in the NWNT. Many

professionals and scholars considered that the patronage and demand for

the Cross-boundary Spur Line would likely be higher than the Main Line,

and it should thus be given the top priority among the three components.

3.7.6 Some professionals and scholars suggested that the Cross-boundary Spur

Line or the Domestic Spur Line would provide opportunities for developing

Hung Shui Kiu or Tuen Mun as new economic and social centres in the

NWNT, which would encourage economic growth and create employment.

3.7.7 However, some were worried that there might not be sufficient patronage,

and therefore suggested that it should also connect to Tin Shui Wai or

Tuen Mun, or the three components of the WEL should be combined into

one to enhance the overall financial viability.




Domestic Spur Line

3.7.8 Some members of the public, professionals and scholars suggested

connecting the Domestic Spur Line to Tuen Mun South and the West Rail

Line so as to facilitate north-south movement in the New Territories and

link up the West Rail Line and the Tung Chung Line. Some suggested

that railway connection between Tuen Mun and Lantau Island should be

provided to enhance the tourism development of Lantau Island.

3.7.9 Some members of the public considered that the Domestic Spur Line to

Tung Chung might not be necessary as the current public transport

services were sufficient.

Environmental Considerations

3.7.10 A number of green group expressed concern on the potential ecological

impact of the construction of the WEL. They were worried that it might

affect the ecologically sensitive wetlands in the Deep Bay area and marine

ecology near Urmston Road between Tuen Mun and the Hong Kong

International Airport, where Chinese White Dolphins were found.




3.8 Northern Link (NOL)

Fig. 3.2: Preliminary Conceptual Scheme of the NOL

3.8.1 The following key consultation points were provided in the PE materials to


Do you think that the NOL should be more focused on supporting the NDAs (i.e.

the NOL connecting with the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line at Kwu Tung), or facilitating

cross-boundary passengers to travel to the Mainland (i.e. connecting with the

Lok Ma Chau Spur Line at Lok Ma Chau)? Why?

Should the NOL be implemented, do you agree that the development density of

the rural areas along the railway should be increased at the same time, in order

to render the NOL more cost-effective and make better use of land resources with

efficient transport facilities? Why?

In general, under what circumstances would you support the implementation of

the NOL? Why?




If the patronage of the NOL is inadequate to support its operation financially,

should it be subsidised by the Government or from other railway lines? Are there

any other funding methods?

Overview

3.8.2 The general public supported early implementation of the NOL to enhance

east-west connection in the New Territories and cross-boundary traffic.

The majority considered that the NOL would form a loop by connecting the

West Rail Line and the East Rail Line to enhance connectivity. In general,

the public, professionals and scholars were optimistic towards the financial

viability of the NOL. In case of insufficient patronage to support its

financial viability, some members of the public supported subsidy by the

Government, or cross-subsidy by other railway lines.

Functions of the NOL

3.8.3 There were diverse public views on the functions of the NOL and whether

the NOL should be connected to Kwu Tung or Lok Ma Chau.

3.8.4 Many members of the public considered that the NOL should connect to

Kwu Tung to support the development of NDAs and enhance the east-

west connection in the New Territories. Some members of the public,

professionals and scholars regarded the NOL as an effective solution to

relieve the crowdedness of the East Rail Line. Some members of the

public suggested that connecting the NOL to Kwu Tung would allow future

extensions to Fanling North and Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling to support the

developments there. However, some local residents living in those areas

opposed to such extensions since they were worried that the local

community would be severely affected.

3.8.5 From a regional perspective, some professionals, scholars and members

of the public preferred connecting the NOL to Lok Ma Chau to facilitate

people travelling between the NWNT and Shenzhen and help divert cross-

boundary passengers from the East Rail Line.




3.8.6 Some members of the public considered that the NOL should support the

development of NDAs, enhance the east-west connection in the New

Territories and facilitate cross-boundary transportation, and therefore

suggested that the NOL should connect to both Kwu Tung and Lok Ma

Chau. There were also suggestions that the NOL should connect to Yuen

Long Station instead of Kam Sheung Road Station.

Development Density

3.8.7 Many members of the public agreed that development density of the rural

area along the railway could be increased to enhance the cost-

effectiveness of the NOL. However, in view of the potential impact on

wetland areas along the alignment, some respondents and green groups

opposed to the increase of development density of these areas.

3.8.8 Some respondents also suggested that stations should be added at Au

Tau, Ngau Tam Mei and San Tin to facilitate future developments.

3.8.9 Some respondents and local residents who had reservations about the

development of NDAs considered that there was no need to develop the

NOL to serve the NDAs.


3.8.10 There were concerns that the development of the NOL might destroy the

environment and speed up urbanisation in the rural area. Some green

groups expressed concern on the impact of the NOL on ecologically

sensitive areas along its alignment, including Mai Po Nature Reserve,

fishponds, wetlands, egretry and agricultural farm lands. They urged the

Government to protect the existing natural environment and adhere to the

“No Net Loss on Wetland” principle when implementing the NOL.




3.9 Tuen Mun to Tsuen Wan Link (TMTWL)

Fig. 3.3: Preliminary Conceptual Scheme of the TMTWL



The development density of the coastal area along Tuen Mun to Tsuen

Wan is not high. Should the TMTWL be implemented, do you think that

the development density along the railway should be increased at the

same time, in order to render the TMTWL more cost-effective and make

better use of the associated lands? Why?


implementation of the TMTWL?

If the patronage of the TMTWL is inadequate to support its operation

financially, should it be subsidised by the Government of from other

railway lines? Are there any other funding methods?




Overview

3.9.2 The TMTWL was supported by some residents in Tuen Mun and Tsuen

Wan, as they considered that it would relieve the traffic congestion in the

districts and facilitate land, residential and economic development along

the coastline between Tuen Mun and Tsuen Wan.

3.9.3 However, the general public and many professionals and scholars

considered that the TMTWL would have a low demand and should be

considered only when the capacity of the West Rail Line was saturated. At

present, the West Rail Line, bus and ferry services were adequate to serve

the existing population. Some further pointed out that, after the upgrading

and widening of Tuen Mun Road and Castle Peak Road, the 22-minute

TMTWL could not compete well with the point-to-point bus service

currently serving the same corridor, and thus the demand for the TMTWL

would be limited. The respondents generally considered that the TMTWL

would not be cost-effective due to its limited patronage and local demand.

3.9.4 Green groups and some residents along the coastal area did not support

the TMTWL as it would cause negative landscape and visual impact to the

scenic coast.

Further Extensions of the TMTWL

3.9.5 Some members of the public suggested that increasing the development

density along the railway line by carrying out reclamation or developing

tourism industry would be able to increase the patronage of the TMTWL.

However, some residents along the coastal area between Tuen Mun and

Tsuen Wan had reservations about these proposals and preferred

maintaining the low development density along the coastal area.




3.9.6 There were many suggestions on enlarging the service catchment of the

proposed alignment to make the TMTWL more attractive. Some proposed

to connect the TMTWL to Shatin or Tai Wai, or to the East Rail Line, West

Rail Line, Tsuen Wan Line or Tung Chung Line. Some others suggested

that extensions to Tuen Mun Pier, Sham Tseng, Lai King, Kwai Chung or

Tsing Yi could also be considered.

Alternatives to the TMTWL

3.9.7 In view of the insufficient patronage and potential environmental and visual

impact, some professionals and members of the public suggested that the

TMTWL should be built in tunnels, and some suggested that other types of

public transport modes, such as ferry service, Bus Rapid Transit, light rail

system and automated people mover, should be considered. Some

members of the public suggested that extending the West Rail Line to

Tuen Mun South would be able to serve the demand in Tuen Mun.




3.10 North Island Line (NIL)

Fig. 3.4 Preliminary Conceptual Scheme of the “Swap” Scheme of North Island Line

Fig. 3.5: Preliminary Conceptual Scheme of the “Interchange” Scheme of North Island Line






If the North Island Line is to be implemented, would you prefer the “Swap”

Scheme or “Interchange” Scheme? Do you have other suggestions?


implementation of the North Island Line along the north shore of the Hong

Kong Island? Why?

Overview

3.10.2 The general public supported the NIL and believed that it would relieve the

congested Island Line by diverting passengers to use the new railway line.

However, some respondents had reservations about the NIL as it would

further intensify commercial development on the north shore of the Hong

Kong Island, leading to more pollution and traffic congestion.

3.10.3 While the NIL was generally supported by the public, preferences on the

“Swap” and “Interchange” Schemes were divided. Many professionals and

scholars suggested that more information on the travel patterns of

passengers, cost and benefit analysis and time savings of the two

schemes should be provided.




“Swap” Scheme

3.10.4 A number of members of the public and some professionals supported the

“Swap” Scheme as they considered that it would divert cross-harbour

passengers from the crowded Tsuen Wan Line and effectively relieve the

congestion of the Island Line. Some suggested that it would attract more

passengers from Kowloon East and the New Territories to the Hong Kong

Island since passengers from the Tseung Kwan O Line and Tung Chung

Line would be able to reach more destinations along the current Island

Line with fewer interchanges. With the enhanced connectivity between the

Hong Kong Island and Kowloon East, some professionals and scholars

considered that the “Swap” Scheme would stimulate commercial

development in Kowloon East.

3.10.5 However, some members of the public, especially the residents in Fortress

Hill and the Eastern District, opposed to the “Swap” Scheme since it would

break the Island Line up and cause inconvenience to residents in the

Eastern District, who would have to alter their established travelling habits

and interchange to the Tseung Kwan O Line to reach the central and

western parts of the Hong Kong Island. As a result, they might choose

other road-based public transportation.

3.10.6 The residents were also concerned about the reduction in train frequency

in the Eastern District in the “Swap” Scheme. Some professionals and

members of the public suggested that, in order to tackle the reduction of

train frequency due to the restrictions of Tsing Ma Bridge, some short-loop

services should be introduced on the NIL to maintain an adequate service

frequency along busy sections of the line.

3.10.7 Some members of the public expressed concern on the reliability of the

NIL under the “Swap” Scheme due to the relatively more technical

incidents, service disruptions or delays on the Tung Chung Line and

Tseung Kwan O Line. Therefore, they preferred the “Interchange”

Scheme, keeping the Island Line unaffected.




“Interchange” Scheme

3.10.8 Majority of the public, especially the residents in Fortress Hill and the

Eastern District, as well as some professionals supported the

“Interchange” Scheme, which would maintain the current service of the

Island Line and minimise disturbance to residents on the north shore of the

Hong Kong Island.

3.10.9 However, some were worried that if the “Interchange” Scheme was

adopted, the NIL would be less attractive to passengers since it would not

be able to serve the traditional CBDs that are currently served by the

Island Line. As a result, the “Interchange” Scheme would not be as

effective as the “Swap” Scheme in serving the purpose of diverting

passengers and relieving congestion on the Island Line.

Interchange between the NIL and the Existing Lines

3.10.10 Many respondents expressed concern on the interchange arrangement of

the NIL and stressed that the need of interchange should be minimised. If

interchanges were required, cross-platform interchange arrangement

should be allowed as far as possible. Many pointed out that some of the

current interchange designs, including those at the Hong Kong Station-

Central Station and the Quarry Bay Station, were not convenient and

should be avoided.




3.11 Siu Sai Wan Line (SSWL)

Fig. 3.6: Preliminary Conceptual Scheme of the SSWL



Given the inadequate space for railway development in Siu Sai Wan,

would you accept demolishing existing buildings in the Eastern District or

conducting reclamation to construct the Siu Sai Wan Line? Why?


implementation of the Siu Sai Wan Line? Why?

Overview

3.11.2 Many residents in Siu Sai Wan and the Eastern District supported the

SSWL and mentioned that they had long been requesting the

implementation of the railway line to improve the local public transport

services.




3.11.3 However, many respondents had reservations about the financial viability

of the SSWL since the population of Siu Sai Wan was insufficient to

support a cost-effective railway extension, and the existing feeder services

were convenient to local residents. They suggested that efforts should be

made to relieve the congestion on the road network in Siu Sai Wan, and

the SSWL should be developed only when there were plans on further

developments in Siu Sai Wan.

3.11.4 Some scholars suggested that cost and benefit analysis of the SSWL and

a comprehensive review of the existing feeder services in Siu Sai Wan

should be carried out to assess the demand for and viability of the SSWL.

3.11.5 Some residents in Heng Fa Chuen were worried that the construction of

the SSWL might lead to adverse al impact on the environment of Heng Fa

Chuen.

“Extension” Scheme, “Bifurcation” Scheme and “Feeder” Scheme

3.11.6 Many Siu Sai Wan residents supported the SSWL but had no strong

preference on the three proposed schemes, namely the “Extension”,

“Bifurcation” and “Feeder” Schemes.

3.11.7 Some members of the public and residents in the Eastern District

supported the “Extension” Scheme since it would provide direct and

convenient railway service to Siu Sai Wan, while not affecting the existing

railway service to Chai Wan. However, some professionals and members

of the public considered that it was not worthwhile and fair to demolish

existing buildings in Chai Wan, which would affect many residents.




3.11.8 Some members of the public and residents in the Eastern District

supported the “Bifurcation” Scheme and pointed out that reclamation at the

Chai Wan Cargo Handling Basin could provide land for future

developments in Siu Sai Wan, making the SSWL more viable. Some

others, however, suggested that the SSWL should be built underground to

minimise such impact. Some also had reservations about reclamation as

it might create irreversible and permanent loss of marine habitats.

Besides, there were concerns on the reduction of train frequency to Chai

Wan under the “Bifurcation” Scheme.

3.11.9 With a view to avoiding the demolition of existing buildings and

reclamation which would cause considerable disturbance to the

community, some members of the public and residents in the Eastern

District preferred the “Feeder” Scheme since it would require less land

take. However, some professionals and members of the public pointed

out that the “Feeder” Scheme might not be viable and competitive given

the limited catchment of the railway station in Siu Sai Wan and the

availability of other convenient and flexible road-based feeder services

connecting Siu Sai Wan to existing railway stations.

3.11.10 Besides, many members of the public and professionals suggested that

other types of feeder services in Siu Sai Wan, such as light rail system,

rubber-tyred rail, automated people mover, extending the tram service and

enhancing the existing road-based feeder services, could also be

considered to enhance the overall feeder services in Siu Sai Wan.




3.12 South Island Line (West) (SIL(W))

Fig. 3.7: Preliminary Conceptual Schemes of the SIL(W)



Do you agree that the Aberdeen Section and Pokfulam Section of the South

Island Line (West) may be developed in two phases and that railway service

should first be developed from Aberdeen to Wah Fu whereas provision be made

for the future extension to Pokfulam? Why?

Should the Pokfulam Section of the South Island Line (West) be implemented,

the addition of Queen Mary Hospital Station would have bearing on the alignment

design. As a result, the section near Cyberport could hardly be constructed in

tunnel, and might create visual impact along the alignment. Do you think it is

worthwhile to include a Queen Mary Hospital Station? Why?

In general, under what circumstances would you support the implementation of

the South Island Line (West)? Why?

Aberdeen Section Pokfulam Section




Overview

3.12.2 There was general support for the implementation of the SIL(W) to relieve

the traffic congestion in the road network of Aberdeen and Pokfulam.

Majority of the public considered that the SIL(W) would complement the

future developments or redevelopment in the Southern District, such as

the potential redevelopment of Wah Fu and Tin Wan, and support IT

development in Cyberport. Some professionals suggested that extending

railway service to areas which were only served by buses and minibuses

would help reduce road traffic. Some members of the public,

professionals and scholars were concerned that the SIL(W) would have

significant social, environmental, ecological and landscape impact and

suggested that assessments should be carried out to examine these

impact of the SIL(W) when considering this new railway line.

3.12.3 Some taxi and minibus operators objected to the SIL(W) since Aberdeen,

Tin Wan and Wah Fu areas were currently well served by public

transportation and the railway line would seriously affect the market share

of other public transport modes.

3.12.4 Some professionals and scholars suggested that the SIL(W) would be

effective only if the interchange arrangement was convenient. They

pointed out that many passengers might need to interchange more than

once to reach their destinations, for example, residents in Aberdeen would

need to interchange twice when going to Central.




Implementation of the Aberdeen Section and the Pokfulam Section

3.12.5 There was general support for the Aberdeen Section. Many members of

the public considered that it would complement the future developments

and redevelopment in the Southern District, such as the redevelopment of

Wah Fu and Tin Wan.

3.12.6 There were reservations from some local residents of Pokfulam,

professionals and scholars about the need for the Pokfulam Section

because there were no major developments along its alignment and the

Pokfulam area was already well served by public transportation. Many

suggested that the Pokfulam Section would be supported if the whole

alignment was to be built underground so that the visual impact would be

minimised. Some members of the public suggested that the Pokfulam

Section would provide an alternative route to the urban area in addition to

the South Island Line (East) and help relieve the traffic congestion in

Pokfulam, benefitting the residents and workers in Pokfulam and

Cyberport.

Phasing of the South Island Line (West)

3.12.7 The general public had diverse views on whether the Aberdeen Section

and the Pokfulam Section should be built in one phase or two phases.

3.12.8 Many members of the public and residents in the Southern District

expressed the view that it would be more cost-effective to build the SIL(W)

in one phase. They were worried that if only the Aberdeen Section was

built, Wong Chuk Hang Station might not be able to handle the increased

number of passengers. As a result, people would still use road-based

transport modes and the congestion of the Aberdeen Tunnel could not be

effectively relieved.




3.12.9 In view of the imminent need for railway service from residents in

Aberdeen, Tin Wan and Wah Fu and for relieving the heavily congested

Aberdeen Tunnel, many members of the public and residents in the

Southern District considered that the Aberdeen Section should be given

priority and developed first. While there was general consensus on the

development of the Aberdeen Section in the local community, there were

some reservations from the local community in Pokfulam on the need and

design of the Pokfulam Section. Some members of the public and

professionals suggested that more detailed information on the estimated

cost for construction and maintenance, as well as cost and benefit analysis

on implementing the SIL(W) in one phase or two phases should be

provided to facilitate public discussion.

Need for Queen Mary Hospital Station

3.12.10 Some members of the public supported the addition of Queen Mary

Hospital Station since it would provide convenient railway service to

visitors, patients and hospital staff with minor visual impact. However,

some others considered that it was not worthwhile to include this station,

since there were no major developments near the hospital and the hospital

was already well served by other public transportation.




3.13 Tuen Mun South Extension (TMS Extension)

Fig. 3.8: Preliminary Conceptual Scheme of the TMS Extension



To provide effective railway service in Tuen Mun South, do you consider

that the area near Tuen Mun Ferry Pier is the suitable location for

constructing a railway extension? Why?

Upon completion of the Tai Wai to Hung Hom Section of the Shatin to

Central Link, the West Rail Line will become a part of the East West

Corridor which runs through northwestern New Territories, East Tsim Sha

Tsui, Hung Hom, Kowloon East, Tai Wai, Ma On Shan and Wu Kai Sha.

To avoid congestion from arising along the East West Corridor, do you

agree that the way forward for the Tuen Mun South Extension should be

decided after the actual usage of the East West Corridor becomes

observable? Why?





implementation of the Tuen Mun South Extension? Why?

Overview

3.13.2 The general public, especially Tuen Mun residents, supported the TMS

Extension since it would improve the public transport connectivity and

reduce travel time. They urged that the TMS Extension should be

implemented as soon as possible since there was an imminent demand

from the local community for the railway extension.

3.13.3 Some members of the public considered that the TMS Extension would

not only improve the public transport services from Tuen Mun South to the

urban area, but also enhance the connectivity between Yuen Long and

Tuen Mun Districts by relieving the congestion in the Light Rail network,

benefitting the local economy in Tuen Mun.

3.13.4 Some professionals were worried that the TMS Extension would only

serve the peak hour demand and therefore cost and benefit analysis

should be carried out to determine whether it should be built. Some

scholars suggested that since the Light Rail was serving Tuen Mun South,

implementing the TMS Extension would lead to duplication of transport

services and misallocation of resources.

3.13.5 Some respondents expressed concern on the patronage of the TMS

Extension as Tuen Mun South was well served by public transportation,

which could provide more direct and point-to-point services. They

suggested that the TMS Extension should further extend to the Hong Kong

International Airport or the Tung Chung Line to increase patronage. Some

professionals and scholars were worried that the TMS Extension might

affect the sustainability of other public transportation currently serving

Tuen Mun South and urged the Government to assess the impact on other

public transport modes.




3.13.6 Some professionals suggested that the fares of the West Rail were

relatively high and, with the inclusion of the new extension, they should be

made more affordable in future in order to encourage more patronage and

enhance its competitiveness.

Location of Stations of the TMS Extension

3.13.7 Many members of the public, residents in Tuen Mun and professionals

suggested that, since there was undeveloped land in areas near Tuen

Mun Ferry Pier, Butterfly Estate and Wu King Estate, it was suitable to

extend the West Rail along Tuen Mun River Channel and develop a

station near Tuen Mun Ferry Pier. The location of the station for the TMS

Extension should be close to residential developments and Light Rail

stations. However, some local residents were worried that the TMS

Extension would cause visual impact along Tuen Mun River Channel.

3.13.8 Some members of the public suggested that another station near the Tuen

Mun Swimming Pool should be developed to serve the new residential

developments in the surrounding areas.




3.14 Hung Shui Kiu Station (HSK Station)

Fig. 3.9: Preliminary Conceptual Scheme of the HSK Station



Do you agree that the Government should plan the Hung Shui Kiu Station

in tandem with the HSK NDA to satisfy the local transport demand?

Upon completion of the Tai Wai to Hung Hom Section of the Shatin to

Central Link, the West Rail Line will become a part of the East West

Corridor which runs through northwestern New Territories, East Tsim Sha

Tsui, Hung Hom, Kowloon East, Tai Wai, Ma On Shan and Wu Kai Sha.

To avoid congestion from arising along the East West Corridor, do you

agree that the way forward for the Hung Shui Kiu Station should be

decided after the actual usage of the East West Corridor becomes

observable? Why?


implementation of the Hung Shui Kiu Station? Why?




Overview

3.14.2 The general public and many professionals agreed that the HSK Station

should be implemented in tandem with the HSK NDA to integrate land use

planning and transport planning. Many suggested that the start of

operation of the HSK Station should tie in with the population intake of the

HSK NDA.

3.14.3 Many professionals and members of the public agreed that if the

population of the HSK NDA was around 60,000 to 100,000 or above, then

the HSK Station would be needed to serve the local transport demand

since the road network and the Light Rail system would be insufficient to

meet the traffic needs of the residents. They also considered that the

addition of the HSK Station on the existing West Rail would not

significantly affect the patronage of the West Rail.

3.14.4 However, some members of the public were worried that the population in

the HSK NDA might not be able to support the station and the marginal

benefit of providing the station would not be able to justify the capital cost.

Some expressed concern that development of the HSK Station and the

HSK NDA would lead to the loss of farmland and ecological impact.

Interfacing with Other Railway Lines and Transportation System

3.14.5 Members of the public suggested that the HSK Station should be well

connected to the existing Light Rail system to provide convenient railway

service to serve the future HSK NDA.

3.14.6 Some professionals recommended that the relationship between the HSK

Station and the WEL should be studied since the WEL would affect the

ridership patterns at Hung Shui Kiu.




3.15 Tung Chung West Extension (TCW Extension)

Fig. 3.10: Preliminary Conceptual Scheme of the TCW Extension



Apart from the vicinities of Yat Tung Estate, low-density development

sprawls across most parts of Tung Chung West. Do you think that the

Tung Chung West Extension should tie in with the new town extension

plan to improve the cost-effectiveness of the railway project? Why?

A large number of bus routes are available in Tung Chung West, which

provide feeder service to Tung Chung Station of the Tung Chun Line, and

travel to and from Tsuen Wan, Ho Man Tin, Tsim Sha Tsui, Hung Hom,

Tin Hau, Tseung Kwan O, Tin Shui Wai and Shatin etc. Do you think there

is an imminent need to construct the Tung Chung West Extension if Tung

Chung West is not further developed? Why?


implementation of the Tung Chung West Extension? Why?




Overview

3.15.2 Majority of the public agreed that the TCW Extension should tie in with the

new town extension plans to provide convenient traffic connection for

future residents and facilitate new town developments. They also pointed

out that integrating the planning for new town extension and that for the

TCW Extension would make the railway project more cost-effective.

3.15.3 However, some considered that the TCW Extension would not be required

since the new station would be too close to the existing Tung Chung

Station, and the marginal benefit of the extension would not be able to

justify the capital cost. They suggested that enhancing the feeder

services, such as introducing community light rail system within Tung

Chung or free shuttle services to the Tung Chung Line, should be

sufficient to improve the connectivity in Tung Chung West.

3.15.4 Many members of the public and professionals agreed that the TCW

Extension would be beneficial to the existing community in Yat Tung

Estate by providing a more direct railway connection in lieu of the

expensive and inconvenient existing feeder services between Yat Tung

Estate and Tung Chung Station. However, if Tung Chung West was not to

be further developed, then the TCW Extension should not be constructed

since the population in Yat Tung Estate would not be sufficient to support

the railway service.

3.15.5 Some members of the public suggested that the future Tung Chung Line

with the TCW Extension should be more affordable with convenient feeder

services, in order to encourage more patronage and enhance its

attractiveness and competitiveness.





3.15.6 Some green groups and members of the public were worried that the TCW

Extension would involve reclamation in Tung Chung West and affect the

ecologically important Tung Chung River and Tung Chung Bay.

3.15.7 Some professionals suggested that the environmental impact of air

pollution generated by other road-based feeder services should be taken

into consideration. If the TCW Extension was not implemented, other

types of electric feeder services should be considered.

3.16 Kwu Tung Station (KTU Station)

Fig. 3.11: Preliminary Conceptual Scheme of the KTU Station






Do you agree that the Government should plan the Kwu Tung Station in

tandem with the KTN NDA to satisfy the local transport demand?

Adding an intermediate station along an existing railway line may increase

the overall journey time. In your opinion, what conditions should be

considered when new intermediate stations are added? Why?


implementation of the Kwu Tung Station? Why?

Overview

3.16.2 Majority of the public supported the implementation of the KTU Station and

agreed that if the Kwu Tung North New Development Area (KTN NDA)

was to be developed, then the KTU Station should be built to meet the

local transport demand in time. They considered that the cost of

implementing the KTU Station should not be a problem since provisions of

the station were made during the construction of the Lok Ma Chau Spur

Line. Many suggested that the KTU Station should be connected to the

NOL to improve the east-west connectivity of the New Territories.

3.16.3 However, some local residents in Kwu Tung strongly objected to the

development of the KTN NDA and suggested that the KTU Station would

not be required since the existing public transportation in Kwu Tung was

sufficient to meet the current transport needs of local residents. They

were also concerned about the impact on farmlands, fish ponds and

building structures during the construction of the station.




Concern on the Capacity of the East Rail

3.16.4 Many member of the public responded that the East Rail Line was already

very full in the morning peak hours. They were concerned that the East Rail

Line could not accommodate the additional passengers from the KTU

Station. They were worried that, if the KTU Station was added and the

capacity of the East Rail Line was decreased due to the operation of the

Shatin to Central Link, passengers might not be able to get on the train at

Sheung Shui and Fanling Stations to travel to the urban area since the

East Rail Line would already be fully occupied by the passengers boarding

at the KTU Station.

3.16.5 They considered that the KTU Station would increase the patronage of the

Lok Ma Chau Spur Line when the KTN NDA was implemented, and

therefore measures should be taken to ensure that the East Rail Line

would be able to cope with the transport needs of the North District.




4. CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD

4.1.1 With reference to the public views collected at both stages of the PE

exercise, we conducted further assessment on the railway proposals put

forth for public discussion, such that the planning of the major regional

corridors and local enhancement schemes could be optimised in a

coordinated manner.

4.1.2 Suggestions on other railway proposals were also received from the public

during two stages of the PE exercise and are summarised in Appendix III.

Subsequent to the collection of the public views, we conducted further

study on some of these railway proposals and attempted to integrate them

into the existing railway network (with adjustments, additions and deletions

where necessary), with a view to providing our overall recommendations to

the Government in formulating the railway development blueprint for Hong

Kong.




Appendix I: Dissemination of Information about the PE Exercise

The following sections summarise the means of dissemination of

information and collection of public views during the PE period.

PE Publication

PE Documents and PE Digests (in both Chinese and English) were

released to the public for them to gain a better understanding of the study

background, preliminary study findings, and conceptual schemes of the

ten proposals. The documents were available at public enquiry service

centres of 18 District Offices of the Home Affairs Department and public

libraries throughout Hong Kong and were also downloadable from the

study website.

Study Website

The study website (www.ourfuturerailway.hk) was officially launched on 20

April 2012. Apart from general background information of the study,

descriptions and illustrations of the conceptual schemes, the website also

featured “Key Consultation Points” of various topics to enhance the

public’s understanding and to gather their views. The public might submit

their views, comments and suggestions on the schemes.

Upon the completion of the Stage 2 PE exercise on 20 May 2013, the

website recorded over 303,000 visits; over 1,200 and 2,950 comments

were received on the website during Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the PE

exercise respectively. Although the Stage 2 PE exercise officially ended

on 20 May 2013, the study website remained available until the completion

of the study.




Online Forums

Official government online forums (“Public Affairs Forum”

www.forum.gov.hk) on the topics “Our Future Railway Stage 1 Public

Engagement Exercise” and “Our Future Railway Stage 2 Public

Engagement Exercise” were set up to facilitate public discussion on the

internet. A total of 39 comments were received through this channel.

Apart from the “Public Affairs Forum”, it was noted that the public also

discussed "Our Future Railway" on other online forums and discussion

groups.

Emails, Hotline, Faxes and Written Submissions

To encourage public participation, a hotline (3922 9777) was set up for

registration for the PE activities and general enquiries. The public could

submit their comments via email ([email protected]), fax (3922

9713) and by post to the Railway Development Office of the Highways

Department. The Government also received comments from the public via

general enquiry channels and Integrated Call Centre (ICC).

Publicity

Different publicity initiatives were used to augment the reach and visibility

of the PE exercise. These include posters; newspaper advertisements; TV

and radio Announcements in the Public Interest (APIs); and a series of

roving exhibitions.

Posters

Posters were put up on notice boards at public libraries and public enquiry

service centres with a view to facilitating the participation of the PE

exercise and publicity of the study.




Newspaper Advertisements

Newspaper advertisements in Chinese and English were placed to

publicise the PE activities, and to call for participation. Advertisements

were placed on a few local newspapers on 25 April 2012 and 25 February

2013 for Stage 1 PE and Stage 2 of the PE exercise respectively.

TV/Radio APIs

The APIs were broadcast on the radio and television from 7 and 9 May

2012 respectively until 20 July 2012 during the Stage 1 PE period; and

from 22 February 2013 until 19 May 2013 during the Stage 2 PE period.




Roving Exhibitions

To increase public awareness of the PE exercise, a series of roving

exhibitions were set up at over 20 different locations, covering both the

urban and the New Territories areas.

Roving exhibitions for Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the PE exercise were held

from 26 April to 22 June 2012 and from 22 February to 20 May 2013

respectively.

Stage 1 PE Date Venue 26 - 28 April 2012 Exhibition Corner, Yuen Long Theatre

2 - 5 May 2012 FJ Podium, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

9 - 12 May 2012 Immigration Tower, Wan Chai 16 - 19 May 2012 Subway of East Tsim Sha Tsui MTR Station 21 - 23 May 2012 Tsuen Wan Government Offices

24 - 27 May 2012 Covered Piazza, G/F, Times Square, Causeway Bay

30 May - 1, 4 June 2012 Mongkok Government Offices

11 - 14 June 2012 North District Government Offices 19 - 22 June 2012 Queensway Government Offices Stage 2 PE Date Venue

22 - 24 Feb 2013 Covered Piazza, G/F, Times Square, Causeway Bay

25 Feb - 1 March 2013 Tuen Mun Government Offices 4 - 8 March 2013 North District Government Offices 11 - 15 March 2013 Cheung Sha Wan Government Offices 18 - 22 March 2013 Queensway Government Offices 25 March - 2 April 2013 North Point Government Offices

4 - 10 April 2013 Subway of East Tsim Sha Tsui MTR Station 12 - 18 April 2013 Tung Chung Municipal Services Building 24 - 30 April 2013 Immigration Tower, Wan Chai 6 - 10 May 2013 Ho Man Tin Government Offices 13 - 20 May 2013 Sha Tin Government Offices




Appendix II: Public Engagement Activities

To facilitate public engagement and enhance interaction, a range of PE

activities were organised during the PE period. They included:

Public Forums

The Public Forums aimed at providing a platform for the Government, the

consultant and the general public to gather and discuss in a

comprehensive and interactive manner. Four Public Forums were

conducted during each stage of the PE exercise, covering both the urban

and New Territories areas.

Public Forums during Stage 1 PE Date Venue 5 May 2012 Lecture Room 2, Tuen Mun Town Hall

21 May 2012 Function Room AC2, Hong Kong Cultural Centre, Tsim Sha Tsui

2 June 2012 Room 502, The Boys & Girls Clubs Association of HK, Wan Chai

19 June 2012 Function Room 2, Tai Po Civic Centre Public Forums during Stage 2 PE Date Venue 16 March 2013 Multi-Purpose Hall, City Gallery, Central

19 March 2013 Function Room AC2, Hong Kong Cultural Centre, Tsim Sha Tsui

20 April 2013 Lecture Room 2, Tuen Mun Town Hall 23 April 2013 Auditorium, North District Town Hall

The forums were moderated by an independent media professional and

conducted in Cantonese. Each forum started with an introduction on the

study background and preliminary study findings, followed by a

presentation on the conceptual schemes proposed in each stage of the PE

exercise. The forum then went into open floor discussion with responses

from Government representatives.




Participants at the forums included the general public, students, District

Councillors, professionals, residents from different local communities and

other stakeholders. The eight Public Forums were attended by over 490

participants in total.

Focus Group Meetings

To facilitate in-depth discussion with professionals and academics, two

Focus Group Meetings were conducted during each stage of the PE

exercise. They were conducted on 12 May 2012 and 23 May 2012 during

the Stage 1 PE exercise and on 6 March 2013 and 23 March 2013 during

the Stage 2 PE exercise. Participation was by invitation. A total of 32 and

25 experts with relevant professional and academic background

participated in the Focus Group Meetings held during Stage 1 and Stage 2

of the PE exercise respectively.

Briefings to Statutory and Advisory Bodies/Committees

Briefing sessions were conducted with various statutory and advisory

bodies/committees during the two stages of PE exercise. These included:




Stage 1 PE Stage 2 PE Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways, Legislative Council

(LegCo) Transport Advisory Committee

Heung Yee Kuk District Councils (DCs) (upon their invitations)

- Tsuen Wan (Traffic & Transport Committee)

- Southern - Tuen Mun (Traffic & Transport

Committee) - Yau Tsim Mong (Traffic &

Transport Committee) - Islands (Traffic & Transport

Committee) - Eastern (Traffic & Transport

Committee) - North - Yuen Long

- Southern - Islands (Traffic & Transport

Committee) - Kwun Tong (Traffic & Transport

Committee) - Eastern (Traffic & Transport

Committee) - Sham Shui Po (Transport Affairs

Committee) - Central and Western (Traffic &

Transport Committee) - Yuen Long - Tsuen Wan (Traffic & Transport

Committee) - Tai Po (Traffic & Transport

Committee - Tuen Mun (Traffic & Transport

Committee) - North (Traffic & Transport

Committee) - Wan Chai

Briefings to Professional Institutes and Business Sector

Briefing sessions were also conducted with the following bodies from the

professional and business sectors upon their invitations:

Invitations received during the Stage 1 PE exercise:

Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in Hong Kong (CILTHK)

Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce (HKGCC)

Business and Professionals Federation of Hong Kong (BPFHK)




Invitations received during the Stage 2 PE exercise:

Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in Hong Kong (CILTHK)

Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce (HKGCC)

Hong Kong Institute of Planners (HKIP), Hong Kong Institute of Urban

Design (HKIUD), Hong Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA) (Joint

invitation)

Architectural, surveying and planning professionals (organised by the

Hon. Tony TSE, Legislative Council Member of Architectural,

Surveying and Planning Functional Constituency)

Briefings to Political Parties on invitation

Briefing sessions were also conducted with the following bodies from the

political parties upon their invitations during the Stage 2 PE exercise:

Invitations received during the PE exercise:

Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong

(DAB)

New People s Party (NPP)

Democratic Party

Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (HKFTU)




Appendix III

Other Suggestions from the Public on the Ten Proposed Railway Schemes during Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the Public Engagement Exercise

Hon

g K

ong-

Shen

zhen

W

este

rn E

xpre

ss L

ine

(WEL

)

Extension of the WEL 1. Extension of the Domestic Spur Line to different areas, e.g.

Discovery Bay, Sunny Bay and Cheung Chau 2. Provision of the Domestic Spur Line by extending the West Rail

Line from Yuen Long to Ching Chung via Tuen Mun 3. Extension of the Cross-boundary Spur Line to Tin Shui Wai Other Suggestion 4. Tin Shui Wai as the interchanging hub for the Cross-boundary Spur

Line

Nor

ther

n Li

nk

(NO

L)

Extension of the NOL 1. Extension to the NENT, e.g. Liantang, Kwan Tei and Sha Tau Kok

2. Extension to Chau Tau, Lok Ma Chau and Lo Wu

3. Extension to Tuen Mun and Tung Chung

4. Extension to Tai Po Industrial Estate and Science Park via Lau Shui Heung, and further connection to the Shatin to Central Link

5. Extension from Kam Sheung Road to Tai Wai

6. Connection to Yuen Long Station and further extension to Long Ping and Tin Shui Wai

Other Suggestion

7. Provision of stations at Palm Springs and Fairview Park

Tuen

Mun

to T

suen

W

an L

ink

(TM

TWL)

Extension to the TMTWL 1. Extension to Tin King Estate, Tuen Mun Town Centre, Hung Shui

Kiu and Yuen Long Other Suggestion

2. Alternative alignment of the TMTWL via Ma Wan 3. Provision of stations at various locations, e.g. Gold Coast, Tai Lam

and Siu Lam. 4. Provision of a spur line of the TMTWL to Tsing Yi




Nor

th Is

land

Lin

e (N

IL)

Extension of the NIL 1. Extension of the Tseung Kwan O Line in the “Interchange” Scheme

to the southwest areas, e.g. Hong Kong Station, Central South and Pokfulam area with connection to the SIL(W).

2. Extension of the Tung Chung Line in the “Interchange” Scheme to Wan Chai South, Leighton and Happy Valley

Other Suggestion 3. Provision of a station near Fortress Hill on the Tseung Kwan O Line

between North Point and Tin Hau in the “Swap” Scheme 4. Extension of the Tung Chung Line parallel to the Island Line, with

fewer stops for provision of “express rail” service 5. Expansion of the current Island Line by running parallel lines, i.e. two

tracks in each direction 6. Extension of the Airport Express Line and connection to the NIL 7. Deletion of the Tamar Station

Siu

Sai W

an L

ine

(SSW

L) Extension of the SSWL

1. Extension of the SSWL to various locations, such as Cape Collinson, Ngan Wan, Tseung Kwan O, Tung Lung Chau and Shek O / Stanley

2. Extension of the Island Line to Siu Sai Wan and then to the Tsueng Kwan O Line via LOHAS Park to form a loop.

Other Suggestion 3. Bifurcation of the SSWL from Shau Kei Wan instead of Heng Fa

Tsuen




So

uth

Isla

nd L

ine

(Wes

t) (S

IL(W

))

Extension of the SIL(W) 1. Extension of the SIL(W) by linking with the proposed artificial island

near Lamma Island, and further extension to Cheung Chau and Lantau Island

2. Connection of the SIL(W) to the unused platform at Rumsey Street in Sheung Wan, and further extension to Kai Tak and Kowloon East

Other Suggestion 3. Shifting the alignment from Cyberport toward the Chi Fu area 4. Connection of the SIL(W) to Kennedy Town Station instead of Hong

Kong University Station 5. Direct connection from Cyberport to Central 6. Extension of the South Island Line (East) and the Shatin to Central

Link to Aberdeen and Pokfulam areas. 7. Running the alignment of the SIL (W) by tram service to form a loop

along the south shore of the Hong Kong Island

Tuen

Mun

Sou

th

Exte

nsio

n (T

MS)

Extension from Tuen Mun South 1. Extension from Tuen Mun South to the west to River Trade

Terminal or Lung Kwu Tan, and Nim Wan 2. Extension from Tuen Mun South to the south to the Airport or Tung

Chung Other Suggestion 3. Provision of a station near Tuen Mun Swimming Pool 4. Integration of the TMS Extension with the WEL

Hun

g Sh

ui

Kiu

Sta

tion

(HSK

)

1. Provision of a spur line to connect the HSK Station with the WEL.

Tung

Chu

ng

Wes

t Ext

ensi

on

(TC

W)

1. Provision of a community railway, light rail or monorail to connect Tung Chung West, Tung Chung and the Airport.

2. Provision of stations at Tung Chung East and Siu Ho Wan




K

wu

Tung

Sta

tion

(KTU

) 1 Connection from the KTU Station to the Shenzhen Metro 2 Provision of two stations to serve the Kwu Tung North NDA.




Other Suggestions from the Public on New Railway Proposals during Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the Public Engagement Exercise

Oth

er S

ugge

stio

ns o

n N

T Li

nes

from

the

Publ

ic

Provision of railway service to NT North 1. Extension of the Shatin to Central Link to Fanling South, Ping Che,

Ta Kwu Ling and Liantang 2. Extension of the West Rail Line to Tin Shui Wai North Provision of railway service to NT East 3. Extension of the Tseung Kwan O Line from Po Lam to Wu Kai Sha

and Fo Tan via HKUST and Sai Kung 4. Extension of the Tseung Kwan O Line to Tsui Lam and Ma Yau Tong 5. Extension of the Ma On Shan Line from Wu Kai Sha to Tai Po via Ma

Shi Chau 6. Provision of a station at Kam Ying on the Ma On Shan Line 7. Extension of the East Rail Line to Ma Liu Shui and Science Park 8. Provision of a new station at Tai Po Market Station, and between Tai

Wo and Fanling on the East Rail Line Provision of railway service to NT West 9. Provision of a railway between Tsuen Wan, Tsuen Wan West and

Tsing Yi 10. Extension of the Tsuen Wan Line to Discovery Park, Tsuen King

Garden, Belvedere Garden and Hanley Villa 11. Extension of the West Rail Line from Tsuen Wan West to the

industrial areas along Texaco Road 12. Extension or realignment of the West Rail Line to serve Hung Shui

Kiu, Butterfly Beach, Tin King, Leung King, Shan King, and Area 46 / Area 40 of Tuen Mun

13. Extension of the West Rail Line to Sham Tseng 14. Provision of a railway between Shek Yum (Kwai Chung) and Lai King Connection between NT East and NT West 15. Provision of a railway between Tsuen Wan West and Tai Wai via Lai

King, NE Kwai Chung and Lei Muk Shue 16. Provision of a railway between Tsuen Wan or Yuen Long and Tai Po Connection between NT East and West Kowloon 17. Provision of a railway between Mei Foo or West Kowloon and Shatin Provision of railway service to Lantau Island




18. Extension of the Tung Chung Line to the Airport, AsiaWorld-Expo and Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF)

19. Provision of stations at Siu Ho Wan and HKBCF on the Airport Express Line

Provision of railway service to Outlying Islands 20. Provision of a railway between Sunny Bay and Kennedy Town via Hei

Ling Chau, Cheung Chau and Lamma Island 21. Extension of the Shatin to Central Link or the South Island Line (East)

to Lamma Island 22. Extension of the Disneyland Resort Line to Peng Chau 23. Extension of the West Island Line to Ma Wan via Peng Chau,

Discovery Bay and Disneyland Connection between NT West and other areas

24. Extension of the Airport Express Line to Tuen Mun 25. Provision of a railway between Tuen Mun Ferry Pier to Sheung Wan

via Tai Lam, Siu Lam, Disneyland Resort, Cheung Chau and Lamma Island

26. Extension of the West Rail Line to Sai Ying Pun / Shek Tong Tsui Provision of cross-boundary railway service

27. Provision of a railway between Shenzhen Bay and Tin Shui Wai 28. Provision of a railway between Stanley and Man Kam To 29. Provision of a railway between Lok Ma Chau and Shenzhen Futian

station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL)

30. Provision of a station in New Territories for the XRL 31. Provision of Intercity Through Trains services by the XRL track or

connection of the XRL to Lo Wu Other Suggestions

32. Provision of express railway service along the East Rail Line or connecting districts with a population of over 500,000

33. Provision of the Port Rail Line by making use of the NOL and the East West Corridor




34. Provision of Light Rail systems at/between: - NENT NDAs - Hung Shui Kiu NDA - Tung Chung New Town - Sheung Shui – Fanling – Tai Po - Tai Wai – Shatin – Fo Tan – Ma On Shan - Tsueng Kwan O – Lam Tin – Kwun Tong

Oth

er S

ugge

stio

ns o

n U

rban

Lin

es fr

om th

e Pu

blic

Connection within West / Central Kowloon 1. Provision of a railway between East Tsim Sha Tsui and Lai Chi Kok

via Cultural Centre, Austin Station, Prosperous Garden, Hoi Fu Court, Lai On Estate and Hoi Lai Estate or via Centenary Garden, Pui Ching Road, Parc Oasis, Shek Kip Mei, Pak Tin Estate, Chak On Estate, Lei Cheng Uk and Caritas Medical Centre

2. Provision of a railway between Mong Kok East and Olympic via Mong Kok Station

3. Provision of a railway between Jordan and West Kowloon Cultural District via Austin Station and Kowloon Station

4. Provision of a railway between West Kowloon Terminus and Hong Kong Coliseum via Hong Kong Culture Centre, Hong Kong Space Museum and Hong Kong Science Museum

5. Extension of the East Rail Line to East Tsim Sha Tsui Station Connection within East Kowloon 6. Provision of a railway between Yau Tong Industrial Area and Lok Fu

via Tak Tin, Po Tat, Sau Mau Ping, Anderson Road, Shun Tin, Shun Lee, Choi Wan, Hammer Hill, Tsz Wan Shan, Chuk Yuen and Kowloon Tong

7. Provision of a railway between Yau Tong and To Kwa Wan via Kowloon City, Lok Fu, Tsz Wan Shan, Choi Wan, Shun Lee, and Sau Mau Ping

8. Extension of the Tseung Kwan O Line to serve Sau Mau Ping, Shun Lee, Kai Cheung Road and connection to Kai Tak Station of the Shatin to Central Link

9. Provision of a railway between Diamond Hill and Kwun Tong via Choi Hung, Choi Wan, Shun Lee, Sau Mau Ping, Po Tat, Tak Tin and Lam Tin

10. Provision of a railway between Lam Tin and Tin Ma Court via Sau Mau Ping, Anderson Road, Shun Lee, Choi Wan, Hammer Hill, Tsz Wan Shan and Chuk Yuen

11. Extension of the Kwun Tong Line from Tiu Keng Leng to Hang Hau and Po Lam




Connection between East and West Kowloon 12. Provision of a railway between Olympic and Kwun Tong via Mong

Kok, Kowloon City, Kai Tak and Kowloon Bay 13. Provision of a railway between Yau Ma Tei and Sam Ka Tsuen via

PolyU, Whampoa, Laguna Verde, Kai Tak and Laguna City or Richland Gardens, Kai Yip Estate, Amoy Gardens, Lok Wah Estate, Hong Ning Road, Yuet Wah Street, Tsui Ping Road, Kai Tin Road, Ping Tin Estate, Kwong Tin Estate, Ko Cheung Court and Lei Yue Mun Village

14. Provision of a railway between Tsz Wan Shan and Lai King 15. Provision of a railway between Nam Cheong and Anderson Road via

Olympic, Mong Kok and Kowloon City Provision of railway service on the Hong Kong Island 16. Provision of an alternative interchange station of the South Island

Line (East) at Causeway Bay or Tin Hau 17. Provision of Wan Chai Station on the South Island Line (East) 18. Extension of the Island Line from Chai Wan to Tai Tam Bay Provision of harbour-crossing railway service 19. Provision of a railway between Olympic and Sheung Wan via Mong

Kok East, Sung Wong Toi, Ma Tau Kok, Kowloon Bay South, Cruise Terminal, Lam Tin, Tai Koo, Tin Hau, Victoria Park, Exhibition, Tamar and Hong Kong Station

20. Extension of the Kwun Tong Line from Lam Tin to Cha Kwo Ling, Quarry Bay, North Point, Fortress Hill, Causeway Bay North, Exhibition, Tamar and Hong Kong Station

21. Extension of the Kwun Tong Line from Whampoa to Fortress Hill 22. Extension of the Kwun Tong Line from Yau Ma Tei to Hung Hom and

North Point to form a loop 23. Extension of the XRL from West Kowloon Terminus to Central and

Tamar 24. Extension of the Shatin to Central Link to Central South or Tamar