11
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1993
CT9 THEREFORE IS, IN FACT, THE FRUITION OF SIX YEARS OF DETAILED PLANNING AND DESIGN INTO WHICH CONSIDERABLE RESOURCES OF TIME, MANPOWER AND MONEY HAVE BEEN INVESTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR. WORK ON THE GROUND COULD PHYSICALLY GET UNDERWAY RAPIDLY ONCE THE PROJECT HAS BEEN ENDORSED. THERE IS NO QUESTION AS ΤΟ ITS NEED. ON THE QUESTION OF COSTS AND VIABILITY, THESE ARE BEING DISCUSSED WITH POTENTIAL MEMBERS OF THE CONSORTIUM. THE REACTION FROM MEMBERS OF THAT CONSORTIUM IS THAT THEY ARE STILL INTERESTED IN GOING AHEAD.
THE NEXT QUESTION THEN IS: WILL CT9 CREATE AT TSING YI MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT WILL SOLVE? I WOULD LIKE TO COVER THREE ISSUES ON THIS QUESTION:
BACKUP SPACE FOR CONTAINER OPERATION;
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES IN KWAI CHUNG/TSING YI; AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES RELATED TO CT9'S CONSTRUCTION.
FIRST BACK-UP SPACE:- WHEN THE EARLY TERMINALS
P
I.E. TERMINALS
AMOUNT
1 TO 5 - WERE DEVELOPED IT WAS NOT REALISED THAT AN EXTENSIVE OF SUPPORT LAND BEHIND THE TERMINALS WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR STACKING EMPTY CONTAINERS, FOR PARKING CONTAINER TRUCKS AND GENERALLY FOR BACKING UP THE INDUSTRY. BY THE TIME TERMINALS 6 AND 7 WERE DESIGNED WE ADDRESSED THAT PROBLEM. AT CT8 THERE IS AN ENLARGED BACK-UP SPACE AND WE INTEND TO USE CT9 TO PROVIDE AS MUCH BACKUP SPACE AS GEOGRAPHY WILL ALLOW TO OVERCOME SOME OF THE SHORTFALLS WE INHERITED FROM THE EARLIER TERMINALS.
FOR LANTAU, WHERE WE ARE LESS RESTRICTED, WE PLAN TO PROVIDE 10 HECTARES OF BACK-UP SPACE FOR EACH 20 HECTARES OF TERMINAL SPACE RATIO OF 1 TO 2.
A
APPLYING THAT SAME RATIO TO THE EXISTING TERMINALS- (1.E. TERMINALS 1-8) WE SHOULD HAVE SOME 114 HECTARES OF LAND TO BACKUP THE 228 HECTARES OF TERMINAL SPACE. IN FACT WE HAVE ONLY 51 HECTARES NOW, A SHORTFALL THEREFORE EXISTS OF 63 HECTARES.
-
TO ADDRESS THIS SHORTFALL WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS TO DEVELOP CT9 WITH AN ENLARGED BACKUP AREA AS DESIGNED OR GO SOMEWHERE ELSE AND TAKE UP LAND. THE LATTER PRACTICE, THAT IS, TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE AND TAKE UP LAND, WOULD MEAN UTILISING THE BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN CT9 AND MEI FOO AND MEMBERS CAN IMAGINE THE OBJECTION TO THAT. OR GRABBING LAND ON WEST KOWLOON RECLAMATION EARMARKED FOR THE ROAD AND RAIL LINKS TO THE NEW AIRPORT, OR FOR COMMERCIAL, RECREATIONAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. AGAIN I AM SURE MEMBERS CAN SEE WHY THAT IS REALLY NOT ACCEPTABLE.
AS TO THE ARGUMENT ABOUT INCREASING THE CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING TERMINALS ΤΟ COVER THE THROUGHPUT OF CT9, WELL. WE HAVE LOOKED AT THAT BEFORE. IT HAS SUPERFICIAL ATTRACTIONS. BUT IT WOULD ACTUALLY INVOLVE TAKING OVER THE EXISTING BACKUP AREAS AND USING THEM INSTEAD FOR TERMINAL OPERATIONS. THE RESULT WOULD BE TO GO FOR LAND WHICH AS I HAVE DESCRIBED EARLIER OPTIONS WHICH WOULD NOT REALLY ACCEPTABLE.
t
BE
/CURRENT ENGINEERING