TNAG-0770-FCO40-974-Construction-of-underground-railway-system-in-Hong-Kong-1978 — Page 117

1.38

1.39

1.40

1.41

Thus Option C could be seen as a long term LRT system which

preserves the possibility of later conversion to

raiĺ

rapid transit

standards. The cost-benefit comparison of Options C and A showed Option C to be inferior; but, as was pointed out, this was based on the option as specified (with conversion to full metro standards) not on the basis

of the financial results.

So,

as a first step in providing further data on the relative merit of LRT and upgraded tram, it was decided to recalculate the Option C/A cost benefit performance, based on Option C as revised following the financial appraisal, as a LRT system. This approach has the advantage of providing additional information on Option C in its financially viable form. The analysis showed that the net present value of Option compared with Option A was $128m, compared with

$502m obtained earlier.

However, this revised specification of Option C still represents a high performance LRT system in the corridor with considerably more capital investment involved than the system specified in Option D. Particularly Option C contained › kilometres of tunnel whereas Option D merely comprised three grade separated underpasses and underground stations at Tin Lok Lane and North Point. It is possible to establish the merit of an Option D type LRT system

•

most easily by a further modification to the Option C

analysis, with a reduction in the amount of tunnel construction for the LRT service.

The first stage of tunnel construction proposed in Option C extended from west of Pedder Station to Yee Wo Street in Causeway Bay. In practice it appears that a fully segregated on-street LRT route can be provided along Hennessy Road, and so it would be useful to examine Option C re-specified, with the tunnel section being constrained to just the Admiralty Pedder section, with appropriate connections to the surface.

18