2.20
2.21
2.22
As with the overall evaluation of options, the first concerns must
be feasibility and financial viability. Given the substantial
land cost involved in the coastal alignment adopted for the Chai-
wan extension in Option A, a tunnel connection is preferred.
This is not only cheaper overall in capital cost terms, but
would be cheaper to operate, without, it is thought, losing
any passenger revenue or benefits. Such a tunnel link would follow the MTR alignment, but the final section in Chaiwan
itself would be at-grade rather than elevated. There appear to
be no feasibility problems associated with the scheme.
In financial terms, it is estimated that the Chaiwan tunnel extension combined with Option A (trams operating with a 35 cent fare as per the financial analysis results) produces a net present value of +856m for HKT, compared with the -$6m obtained with the coastal alignment with Option A as originally
specified at a 35 cent fare level. However, without any Chaiwan
extension at all, the net present value of the tramway is $37m.
These results may be interpreted as follows. The best financial
outcome may be obtained by including a tunnel connection to
Chaiwan; the next best result is obtained by having no extension
to Chaiwan; the worst option is to build the extension by the
coastal route.
2.23
2.24
The issue of whether or not to include the Chaiwan extension
must be based on further consideration of costs and benefits;
it is both feasible and financially viable. An analysis of Option D (which has no extension to Chaiwan) user benefits compared with Option A (which has) suggests that the Chaiwan
extension would provide of the order of $8m user benefits in
1991 which is a significant sum in relation to the total
user benefits generated by the options tested.
-
It would appear that on cost benefit grounds, an extension is
likely to be justified.
However the deciding argument in
25
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.