2
(iii) whilst a first floor level walkway system is
desirable, pedestrians have to be brought down to ground level at selected locations, otherwise the walkway system would not serve its full purpose;
(iv)
(v)
the proposed staircase at the northern end of the Stewart Road Footbridge would not preclude the provision of a lay-bye along the Causeway Centre frontage. Ecwever, the lay-bye would have to be shorter than your proposed lay-bye to fit between the existing footbridge column and the run-in to Causeway Centre;
the existing Tonnochy Road Footbridge is heavily used and has inadequate width to allow free pedestrian flow during peak periods. The Stewart Road Footbridge is necessary to provide for the shortfall in existing capacity.
It is hoped that the above explanations will clarify your understanding of the need for the Stewart Road Footbridge
You are asked whether in view of the foregoing, you still witha to treat your letter, referred to above, as an objection to the scheme, or agree to withdraw it.
Please reply within three weeks of the date of this letter to ne at the above address. Should a reply not be received from you within this time, it will be assured that the contents of your letter still stand as en objection to the scheme.
inv
KW/Cw
CH
Yours faithfully,
(LEUNG Min-sun)
Regional Highway Engineer/Hong Kong