Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design (HKIUD) position paper on Highways Department’s “Our Future Railway - Review of the `Railway Development Strategy (RDS) 2000’”– public consultation on its `Stage 1 study findings and major regional railway corridors’

Overview

1.The proposed railways are major, regional and strategic infrastructure projects for the future of Hong Kong. They have significant impacts on the urban environment and thus prudent evaluation must be made with regard to their real needs, their financial viability, their sustainability and their social benefits.



2.It appears an updated regional and territorial planning vision and strategy is missing since the completion of the HK2030 in year 2007. The profession of Urban Design, which we advocate, is not only concerned with place-making at street block level but also the urban forms and its justifiable regional, financial, environmental and social contexts. Hong Kong needs a comprehensive overview of these before making investments in urban mobility infrastructure, although we generally support rail based transport as the backbone of public transportation in Hong Kong. A multi-disciplinary review, involving land use planning and urban design besides engineering, is essential for making such strategic decisions.

Overall Planning Issues

3.The consultation document pointed out a phenomenon of an ageing population in Hong Kong and an anticipated increase in population as well as employment places in the NW New Territories. These are all higher than the rates in the urban area and the other parts of the NT. It is noted that the review is being carried out at a time just shortly after the completion of the Census in 2011 while forecasts on the future trends of these parameters are not yet made available. Some parameters may possibly change according to the past trends. Other parameters may not necessarily do so since they would be subject to policy change. It is particular applicable to the land supply policy, housing supply policy and their geographical distributions. In planning for future infrastructure works, Government should take into account Government’s own population forecasts together with its land supply policy, housing policy, and economic and social welfare policies as appropriate under the new administration.

4.The Review made reference to “HK 2030”. However, the “HK2030” Planning Objectives included: (1) Providing a good quality living environment by ensuring our development is undertaken with due regard to the environmental carrying capacity; enhancing the townscape; and regenerating the old urban areas; and (2) Conserving the natural landscape which is of ecological, geological, scientific and other significance and preserving our cultural heritage. These in fact echo our concerns from an urban design point of view. 



5.We generally support the basic directions given to guide this Review, i.e. Coverage, Connectivity and Capacity and that the future urban development pattern should be transit-based, i.e. close to mass transit corridors (rail- or BRT-based) or to public transport hubs so as to minimize the need for private road-based transport and undue sprawling into the rural hinterland.

Station Area Planning and Design



6.Walled building forms development shall be avoided at station sites. The station platforms and concourses and the associated structures should be carefully designed and controlled to ensure the objective of pedestrian-friendly design being achieved.  Facilities should be provided to meet the needs of the ageing and disabled population to achieve fully barrier-free access. Government should also take a vigorous lead in application of sustainable building technologies in the design of such structures, and more greenings should be provided in these developments and in areas adjoining the developments as a buffer for noise generated by the railway lines. The railway lines should be sunken as far as possible to avoid segregation of urban fabric and social network and to allow pedestrian, landscape and ecological linkages/corridors to be provided or maintained between adjoining neighborhoods. Public open spaces shall be provided at ground/street level whenever it is feasible with visual linkages and good access.



7.For major stations as well as the developments above, we suggest that project competitions be arranged to identify and foster local design talents and initiatives. Design characters should strive to reflect the local context instead of standardized built form throughout.



Rail Network Coverage – General

8.Regarding “Coverage”, it is not clear why the Review would not also study the feasibility of different options of rail-based transport in other areas. An example is the North Island Line on Hong Kong Island, which could serve to relieve congestion on the existinginfrastructure and improve access to recreational and business areas to be created as a result of the Central reclamation project. Development opportunities of possible new connection nodes would have been missed out unless a more comprehensive study is undertaken involving the total network (instead of singling out only three lines for consultation) and also environmental improvement opportunities in congested areas which could otherwise be relieved would also be missed out.



9.“Coverage” is a matter that should involve land use planning. The Review raised questions on the justifications for development at San Tin, Ngau Tam Mei and Au Tau, and also suggested that Tung Chung should be connected with Shenzhen via Tuen Mun. The former, whilst related to the Northern Link (NOL), touches on hinterland and cross-boundary development strategies in the Northern New Territories and the latter touches on the cooperation of the Chek Lap Kok airport and the Shenzhen airport as well as the impact of Shenzhen’s Qianhai development on Hong Kong. These appear unfortunately to be major policies which have not been tackled in the subject Review. 



Western Express Line (WEL) 



10.The proposed WEL has several sections and components which seem to offer very different development value and present different challenges. We are not convinced that the proposed route is a “package deal” and suggest that different parts of it be evaluated for their relative merit, and only those which have clear benefits for Hong Kong be carried forward. 



11.Air-rail-air airport link. The air-rail-air service linking Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) and Shenzhen Bao’an International Airport (SZIA), while being the original driver of the proposed WEL, seems the least convincing part of the proposal. While the basic argument of efficiently linking domestic and international airports is compelling on a simplistic level, several studies have shown that the business case for such an airport-to-airport link is weak at best. It is also highly doubtful that the existing infrastructure at both airports, including the brand-new Terminal 3 at SZIA, can support the complex facilities required for processing transfer passengers and baggage while meeting a competitive and commercially viable Minimum Connect Time (MCT). Even though it is not directly related to urban design issues, HKIUD suggests that the enormous funds required to build this project, to be mostly borne by HK taxpayers, are better spent elsewhere on improving the urban environment, including urban mobility, in Hong Kong. 



12.Land-to-air access to HKIA. Land-to-air service from western Shenzhen, including the planned new business district in Qianhai, to HKIA seems to have merit, as it would expand the catchment area of HKIA and thus enhance regional integration, although the benefits of using the WEL to provide this service should be weighed against the cost and environmental impact of rail infrastructure compared to installing additional direct ferry service to the cross-border ferry terminal at HKIA (SkyPier).



13.Land-to-air access to SZIA. Convenient rail access to SZIA would be of great benefit to the people of Hong Kong, as noted in the Consultation Document, as it would provide an alternative to the relatively limited domestic air service from HKIA to second- and third-tier cities. However, such rail service would ideally be linked to the main urban areas and key business districts in Hong Kong, much like the Airport Express Link (AEL) service. In that context, the connection of the WEL alignment to the AEL/TCL alignment holds some promise, but the current proposal does not elaborate on how such service will be accommodated without compromising the existing AEL and urban commuter service on the TCL.  



14.Cross-boundary spur line. There seems to be a good rationale for providing the proposed cross-boundary link between the NWNT and western regions of Shenzhen. If planned correctly and coordinated with land supply and housing policies as noted in #2 above, the proposed link could support synergetic employment and commercial opportunities between Hong Kong and Shenzhen. However, the location of the WEL terminus in the NWNT should be carefully considered, and should ideally provide seamless link to West Rail to further improve connectivity between all parts of Hong Kong and western Shenzhen.  



15.Domestic spur line(s). As the Consultation Document notes, the need to provide better links between the NWNT and northern Lantau is already being addressed by the TMCLKL, and so in itself a costly underwater rail link cannot be justified in the foreseeable future. However, we consider part of the proposed spur line mentioned in the Document to be very valuable: the link between the HKBCF and the urban railway network via the AEL/TCL alignment. Such a link would greatly improve the connectivity between various parts of Hong Kong and Macau / western PRD via the HZMB. We urge government to consider such a link with highest priority, which could simply be built as an extension to the TCL as early as possible. 



16.If the spur line of WEL is ultimately extended to connect Tuen Mun new town, it is hoped that a balance could be made between its “connectivity” (with the existing public transport systems, the West Rail and Light Rail systems) and the townscape of Tuen Mun would be achieved and avoid the abrupt intrusion into the Tuen Mun’s townscape and coastal and beach areas since the existing system has to be extended westwards to Lung Mun Road area first. 



The Northern Link (NOL) 



17.The NOL proposal would seem to offer numerous benefits, including access to new developments in the NENT, improved access to border crossings, rebalance of traffic between East Rail and West Rail, and an east-west connection along the northern part of the NT.  



18.Access to NDA’s. The RDS-2000 study, where the NOL was originally explored, proposed stops in Au Tau, Ngau Tam Mei and San Tin, and Kwu Tung, four locations where the government at the time wanted to locate NDA’s. The current Consultation Document takes as a starting point changed government plans for NDA’s under the 2007 Hong Kong 2030 study, which envisioned large-scale development only around Kwu Tung, and only explores rail access to that area as well as further east north of Fanling. As such, the Document clearly illustrates the problem of planning rail service independent from overall urban planning, the point made earlier in this document. Indeed, if Hong Kong is to pursue sustainable transit-oriented development, promoting NDA’s in the rural areas along the proposed NOL route, such as Au Tau, Ngau Tam Mei and San Tin, would seem to be precisely the kind of policy the government should pursue. Building the rail line without such development plans will be a missed opportunity and amount to a misallocation of urban mobility resources.



19.Improved border access. The NOL will provide viable rail access from the western NT to both Lok Ma Chau and Lo Wu. Between the two alignments being considered, the direct link to Lok Ma Chau will provide far more convenient service from the western NT, and will also serve to better equalize traffic between West Rail and East Rail. On the other hand, such an alignment would not provide convenient connection between the western NT and Kwu Tung as well as other potential NDA’s to the east. The choice between the two should be informed by an updated and more coordinated planning approach to NDA’s and cross-border development, as well as existing and planned mobility infrastructure on the Shenzhen side of the two border crossings. 



The Coastal Railway (TMTWL)



20.As the Consultation Document notes, demand from Tuen Mun is already met by the West Rail Line, which will continue to offer quicker service even if the TMTWL got built. On the other hand, the relatively low density along the proposed route at present does not in itself justify heavy rail, and increased density along this scenic stretch is likely to require significant reclamation and face objections from the local community and the general public.



21.The proposal suggests the construction of substantial overhead infrastructures throughout most of the 20 km alignment. This would undoubtedly cause significant environmental and visual damages to a large stretch of the scenic coastal areas of the Western New Territories. The Review says that a lot of the area is hilly terrain. It is this hilly terrain which forms the unique scenic value of the area. The proposed overhead infrastructure engineering works, which will unavoidably result in scars and remedial works incompatible with this scenic and natural environment, must be abandoned.

22.Overall, the cost-benefit of this particular rail route does not seem to justify the significant investment, which is better spent elsewhere in Hong Kong. 

HKIUD

July 2012