· WCR – the western shoreline of Junk Bay, Chiu Keng Wan Shan, Lei Yue Mun Road, Eastern Harbour Crossing ex-casting basin, Kaolin Mine Site at Cha Kwo Ling and Cha Kwo Ling Road;
· CBL – Junk Bay, land area south of TKO Area 86 and Wan Po Road;
· TCS – the newly reclaimed land south of Po Yap Road, Eastern Channel and the toe along TKO Stage 1 Landfill;
· TKL – the newly reclaimed land on the east of Ocean Shores (south of Chui Ling Road), Area 74 South (planned as district open space and school uses) and Area 73B West (planned as public housing development and a local open space); and
· PSK – the three large terraces on the east of TKO Stage 1 Landfill and Wan Po Road.
(i)
local
road and engineering infrastructure for TCS, PSK and remaining areas of TKL;
(ii)
local
engineering infrastructure for the proposed recreational development at TKO
Stage 1 Landfill;
(iii)
modification
of existing infrastructure to serve TCS development;
(iv)
WCR to
provide a linkage between TKO and the main urban area;
(v)
CBL to
provide a linkage between the weastern and
south-eastern areas of TKO as well as a direct linkage from south-eastern
areas of TKO to Kowloon via the WCR, as an alternative route bypassing
the New Town Centre;
(vi)
Road
P2 to provide an extension of Po Shun Road to connect with WCR.
· Stage 1: agenda setting (identifying the planning approach, objectives and key issues) and collection of public views/opinions;
· Stage 2: presentation, discussion and feedback on various possible development options;
· Stage 3: presentation, discussion and agreement of the recommended development option;
· Stage 4: after finalisation of the Final Report, the presentation of the study findings.
Table 2.1 Summary of Meetings/Consultations During the CPI Process
|
Date |
Subject |
Stage 1 |
28 Sept 2002 |
Public Consultation Forum
at Leung Sing Tak Primary School, Hang Hau |
30 Sept 2002 |
Sai Kung District Council |
|
Stage 2 |
2 May 2003 |
LegCo Panel on Planning
Lands and Works |
7 May 2003 |
Sai Kung District Council |
|
9 May 2003 |
Public Consultation Forum
at Leung Sing Tak Primary School hang Hau |
|
15 May 2003 |
TKO Area Committees at
King Lam Community Centre |
|
16 May 2003 |
Ocean Shores Resident |
|
20 May 2003 |
Forum with Profession
Institutes, Green Groups, Academic & Business Representative |
|
23 May 2003 |
Town Planning Board |
|
WCR Consultation |
29 July 2003 |
Kwun Tong District Council |
30 July 2003 |
Eastern District Council
(by circulation of DC paper) |
|
5 August 2003 |
Sai Kung District Council |
|
Stage 3 |
19 January 2004 |
Sai Kung District Council |
27 January 2004 |
LegCo Panel on Planning,
Lands and Works |
|
30 January 2004 |
Public Consultation Forum
at Leung Sing Tak Primary School, Hang Hau |
|
3 February 2004 |
Forum with Professional Institutes,
Green Groups, Academic and Business Representatives |
|
4 February 2004 |
TKO Area Committee’s at
Leung Sing Tak Primary School, Hang Hau |
|
6 February 2004 |
Town Planning Board |
|
18 February 2004 |
Ocean Shores Residents |
|
24 February 2004 |
Sai Kung District Council
(2nd time) |
|
31 March 2004 |
Tenants of TKO Industrial
Estate |
|
Stage 4 |
6 June 2005 |
Sai Kung District Council |
|
17 June 2005 |
Town Planning Board |
|
24 June 2005 |
Legco Panel on Transport |
Table 2.2 Summary of Public’s Views collected during the CPI Process
Elements of the
Projects |
Major Comments |
Responses |
|
Development Themes of TKO
Further Development |
Stage 2 Consultation:
objection to reclamation
environmental conditions, especially during
reclamation and further development
excessive population densities
impact of more housing provision on property
values
the need to improve the quality of life in tko
very long implementation time for completion
of the tko further development
need for provision of recreational and
leisure facilities. |
The findings of Stage 2
Consultation have been fed into the evaluation process of the alternative
development themes for the selection of the preferred development
concept. The preferred development
concept was then developed into a Concept Plan. |
|
Western Coast Road |
Stage 2 Consultation: |
|
|
Strong support for the
tunnel alignment as the preferred WCR alignment mainly because:
the tunnel alignment does not require
reclamation in Victoria harbour;
the tunnel alignment requires less land
resumption and a shorter implementation period;
there are no impacts to the Lei Yue Mun
Villages;
direct connections to EHC can be provided. |
In response to the need to minimise
reclamation in Junk Bay, the precise layout of the seawall and extent of
reclamation has been carefully examined to ensure that there is no
unnecessary reclamation and minimise the potential impact to marine
ecology. However, it should be noted
that the layout of the tunnel alignment has been adopted such that there is
minimum intrusion into Junk Bay, with the toll plaza tucked into a small
embayment as much as possible, to minimise both the extent of reclamation and
visual intrusion. The extent of
reclamation is intended to provide a smooth shoreline and avoids the creation
of embayed areas, taking account of possible water quality impacts.
The toll plaza can theoretically be reduced
from 13 down to 4 lanes (dual-2 lanes) through the use of compulsory
electronic tolling, and hence reclamation can be further minimised. However, the bus lay-bys which provide for
bus-bus exchange facilities will require additional lanes. There are also operational issues which
warrant additional lanes to avoid queuing and possible backing up into the
tunnel. However, notwithstanding the
reduction of reclamation which may arise through the use of electronic
tolling, the adoption of compulsory electronic tolling will require a policy
decision by government.
With regard to elimination of reclamation
in Junk Bay by relocating the tunnel exit on the TKO side to Tiu Keng Leng,
it must be pointed out that a number of alternative tunnel options have been
examined under this study with a view to either eliminating reclamation or,
failing that, to minimise reclamation.
A tunnel alignment which connects to the TKO road network through Tiu
Keng Leng is constrained by the existing and committed developments in Tiu
Keng Leng and the Town Centre, including existing residential development and
the MTR TKO Extension and stations and, even if feasible, would create severe
environmental impacts. For these
reasons, inland routes from East Kowloon through Tiu Keng Leng are not
feasible.
For connection between WCR
and Junk Bay Chinese Permanent Cemetery (JBCPC), it is undesirable to connect a local access road linking JBCPC to a
strategic trunk road with design speed of 80 km/hr, especially as traffic
congestion on this road during Ching Ming and Chung Yeung Festivals will
cause backing up of traffic onto WCR with risk of traffic accidents. Furthermore, as the level difference
between the cemetery and the toll plaza is some 90m, construction of an
access road will be very costly and create adverse visual impacts. It would also be difficult to justify
financially because the utilisation of the road will be very low throughout
the year except during the Ching Ming and Chung Yeung Festivals. On the other hand, the feasibility of
providing pedestrian access from the bus stops at the toll plaza to the
cemetery can be further investigated. |
|
|
Major concerns on the
tunnel alignment: |
|
||
need to minimise reclamation for the toll
plaza, including use of electronic tolling to reduce the toll plaza
requirement;
prefer to eliminate reclamation in Junk Bay
by relocating the tunnel exits on TKO side to Tiu Keng Leng;
request for provision of a connection between
WCR and Junk Bay Chinese Permanent Cemetery;
need to minimise recurrent costs of the
tunnel;
examine possible further improvement of slip
road connections to EHC. |
|||
|
The recurrent cost of the tunnel is
much higher than that of the coastal alignment mainly because of the great
difference in operating cost between the tunnel and coastal options. Tunnel ventilation and tunnel lighting are
the main expenses which account for high operating costs. However, the estimates of recurrent costs
are still preliminary at this stage and subject to refinement during the
detailed design of the WCR. Energy
saving systems will be investigated at the detailed design stage for
incorporation in the WCR in order to reduce the operating costs. |
|
|
Improvement of slip road connections to
EHC relate mainly to the possibility of direct connections between Trunk Road
T2 and EHC. These are constrained by
the planned development at Kaolin Mine Site, the proposed WCR viaduct above
the EHC approaches and the slip road from WCR to EHC. Direct connection between T2 and EHC, on
the basis of current planning in this area, is considered not feasible. |
|
||
Concept Plan |
Stage 3 Consultation: |
|
|
General Support on the
Concept Plan with no further reclamation in Town Centre South, reduced
development density and stepped building height profile. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Major issues:- |
Responses to major issues: |
|
|
Further reduction of development density and
building height of the developments;
Conversion of residential land in Tiu Keng
Leng Area 74 for open space/recreation /community facilities uses;
Improvement of cycletrack network and
provision of more cycle parking areas;
Relocation of the civic node to the central
part of Town Centre South; |
Excessive reduction of building height may,
however, affect the financial viability of the remaining development sites.
Thus the proposed densities that have been adopted have sought to strike a
balance between maintaining a critical mass of development to maintain a
vibrant and active waterfront district whilst achieving an optimisation of
views from existing developments. |
||
|
Provision of innovative/active recreational
facilities to promote tourism;
Improvement of linkage to “Oscar By the Sea”;
Over provision of schools;
Early decision of Area 56 development;
Deletion of Town Centre Link Phase II;
Adequacy of road infrastructure to serve
south-eastern area of TKO;
Need and environmental impacts of Road P2;
Need and justification of the Western Coast
Road and associated reclamation;
Need of Cross Bay Link and its form causing
impacts to the proposed developments;
Early implementation of Western Coast Road
and Cross Bay Link;
Early implementation of open space and
recreational facilities; and
Implementation/Control mechanism. |
The proposed civic node is located closer to
the TKO MTR Station than the location shown on the existing OZP. Also the
proposed location will be closer to Tiu Keng Leng, TKO Town Centre North and
Town Centre South residents. Together with the planned GIC cluster in Area
72, the civic node will form a major hub of GIC facilities serving the New
Town. As the proposed location is
more convenient for residents as a whole, relocation of the civic node
adjacent to the Town Plaza would not be considered from the planning and
implementation strategy standpoints.
The Tiu Keng Leng Area 74 now only provides
open space and education uses. The
current proposal should have addressed the public concern not to have
residential development in the area.
The need of Western Coast Road and Cross Bay
Link is driven by traffic demand and development pace of TKO planned
development. |
·
Theme
1- No Further Reclamation (Figure 2.1)
·
Theme
2- Maximise Recreation Potential- Recreation and Water Sports (Figure 2.2)
·
Theme
3- Maximise Development with Water Frontage- Landscape Crescent (Figure 2.3)
·
Theme
4- Maximise Housing and Recreation Development (Figure 2.4)
Table 2.3 Summary of Evaluation Results for Various Development Themes
|
Development Theme 1 |
Development Theme 2 |
Development Theme 3 |
Development Theme 4 |
Requirement of Reclamation |
0 ha |
41 ha |
55 ha |
72 ha |
Plot
Ratio (average) |
3 to 5 (4.1) |
2 to 5 (4.7) |
3 to 5 (4.6) |
1 to 5 (4.0) |
Planning |
Lowest score - The
smallest development area which has imposed more constraints on the provision
of larger waterfront, additional open space and G/IC facilities. |
Optimal scheme - With partial reclamation would accommodate an
attractive waterfront park and a Leisure Island, additional public open space
and G/IC facilities. It fulfils the
need for more recreational facilities and partially meets the identified
strategic housing requirements. |
Meet most of the planning criteria but by comparison are less
desirable than Theme 2. |
Meet most of the planning
criteria but by comparison are less desirable than Theme 2. |
Socio-Economic |
Lowest score – due to
smaller land area for employment generating uses and tourist facilities |
Highest score - Provide greater support to tourist facilities to Sai
Kung. |
Higher score - Provide more employment opportunities but by
comparison are less desirable than Theme 2. |
Higher score - Provide
more employment opportunities but by comparison are less desirable than Theme
2. |
Engineering |
Most desirable because
less engineering works are required. |
Less desirable compared to Theme 1. |
Less desirable compared to Theme 1. |
Least desirable compared
to Theme 1. |
Traffic & Transport |
Most desirable |
Less desirable |
Less desirable |
Least desirable |
Environmental |
Most environmentally
favourable: ·
Shorter construction period due to the requirement of no further
reclamation and less construction activities in overall terms and hence
smaller construction dust and noise nuisance generated would be expected
compared with other themes. ·
Owing to no further reclamation, no direct loss of marine ecological
habitats would be expected. ·
No adverse water quality impact associated with dredging would be
expected as further reclamation is required. ·
Owing to no reclamation and medium density developments provided
within TCS area, visual impacts to adjacent visual receivers would be minimal
compared to other themes. ·
No reclamation cause the least disturbance to the existing landscape
setting and low rise development at PSK would minimize impacts to the
existing natural environs. |
Less environmentally favourable: ·
Greater dust and noise nuisance would be expected compared to Theme 1
due to longer construction period and more construction activities. ·
Direct loss of marine ecological habitats would be expected due to
further reclamation. ·
Potential water quality impact associated with dredging would be
expected due to the requirement of reclamation. ·
Due to partial land formations and development proposed on the new
reclamation, more visual impacts to existing visual receivers in the adjacent
areas would likely be generated compared with Theme 1. ·
The proposed partial reclamation would generate some adverse impacts
to the existing landscape character and the proposed development would
generate adverse impacts to the existing bay setting. Medium rise development at PSK would have
an impact on the existing natural environs. |
Less environmentally favourable: ·
Similar to Theme 2, greater dust and noise nuisance would be expected
compared to Theme 1 due to longer construction period and more construction
activities. ·
Greater direct loss of marine ecological habitats would be expected
due to more reclamation compared with Theme 2. ·
Potential water quality impact associated with dredging would be
expected due to the requirement of reclamation. ·
Due to partial land formations and development proposed on the new
reclamation, more visual impacts to existing visual receivers in the adjacent
areas would likely be generated compared with Theme 1. Nevertheless, due to
CBL proposed in tunnel form under this theme, less visual impacts would be
generated compared to Theme 2. ·
Similar to Theme 2, the proposed partial reclamation would generate
some adverse impacts to the existing landscape character and the proposed
development would generate adverse impacts to the existing bay setting. Medium rise development at PSK would have
an impact on the existing natural environs. |
Least environmentally favourable: ·
Greatest dust and noise nuisance would be expected compared to other
themes due to longest construction period and more construction activities. ·
Greatest direct loss of marine ecological habitats would be expected
due to greatest reclamation compared with Theme 2. ·
Potential water quality impact associated with dredging would be
expected due to the requirement of reclamation. ·
Due to larger extent of reclamation and development, more significant
visual impacts to existing visual receivers in the adjacent areas,
particularly generating negative visual impacts to receivers at Ocean Shores,
Oscar by the Sea and Area 86. ·
Due to largest extent of reclamation, existing bay setting would be
significantly altered. Medium rise
development at PSK would have an impact on the existing natural environs. |
Cost Effectiveness |
Least cost effectiveness |
Most cost effectiveness |
Less cost effectiveness |
Less cost effectiveness |
Overall |
With respect to planning,
socio-economic and cost effectiveness, Theme 2 is the most desirable
option. Nevertheless, in terms of
engineering, traffic & transport, environmental aspects, Theme 1 is the
most favourable option. During the
CPI, the public expressed a desire for lower density development and some
feedback suggested a desire for Development Theme 1 but with the
incorporation of the key features of Theme 2 and Theme 3 ie. implementation
of waterfront facilities and features.
Hence, Theme 1 was selected as the preferred development theme
concept. |
·
Coastal
alignment as proposed under Feasibility Study on Alternative Alignment for the
WCR under Agreement No. CE 46/96;
·
Study
on Minimization of the Impacts of Western Coast Road on Lei Yue Mun Village
under Agreement No. NTE 5/99; and
·
Tunnel
alignment as proposed under the Preliminary Feasibility Study on Tunnel
Alignment Option of Tseung Kwan O Western Coast Road under Agreement No. NTE
1/2000.
Table 2.4 Comparison of Scheme 1 and Scheme 3 of WCR Tunnel Alignment
|
Scheme 1 |
Scheme 3 |
Reclamation Requirement |
Requires approximate 14.5
ha of reclamation for toll plaza
construction |
Requires approximate 10.5
ha of reclamation for toll plaza construction |
Engineering Consideration |
WCR-Road P2 cannot be
configured as the main route. WCR-CBL
would be the main route and this arrangement contradicts the road planning
proposal. |
WCR-Road P2 can be
configured as the main route with design speed of 80 km/hr. It is therefore is considered more
preferable in traffic terms. |
Cost Effectiveness |
Less costly for both
construction and operation compared to Scheme 3. |
More costly for both
construction and operation compared to Scheme 1, but the order is not
significant. |
Environmental Consideration |
· The WCR/CBL/Road P2
interchange trumpet would cause significant visual impact to the residential
area at TKO. · The trumpet shape
shoreline of the proposed reclamation would cause more reduction in flushing
capacity within inner Junk Bay compared to Scheme 3 and would likely cause
greater adverse water quality impact. · Potential water quality
impact associated with dredging would be expected due to the requirement of
reclamation necessary for the construction of toll plaza. · Direct loss of marine
ecological habitats would be expected due to the reclamation. However, only average value marine
habitats would be expected at the proposed toll plaza location. · Since the toll plaza and
WCR/Road P2 /CBL interchange is closer to the existing and planned sensitive
uses in TCS, greater impacts in term of air quality and noise would be
expected as compared to Scheme 3. |
· The shoreline oriented
toll plaza allows the WCR/CBL/Road P2 to be constructed close to the shoreline and hence
minimize the potential visual impact. · Smooth shoreline of the
proposed reclamation would minimize the potential reduction in flushing
capacity and adverse water quality impact. · Potential water quality
impact associated with dredging would be expected due to the requirement of
reclamation. · Direct loss of marine
ecological habitats would be expected due to the reclamation for toll plaza
construction. However, only average
value marine habitats would be expected at the proposed toll plaza location. · Lesser impacts in terms of
air quality and noise would be expected as compared to Scheme 1. |
Overall |
As discussed above, Scheme
3 is preferred in terms of air quality, noise, water quality and visual
impacts as well as traffic. Hence,
this scheme has been selected. |
·
Route
Alignment Option 1- CBL at Fat Tong Chau;
·
Route
Alignment Option 2- CBL to the south of Area 86;
·
Route
Alignment Option 3- CBL to the north of Area 86;
·
Route
Alignment Option 4- no CBL scenario.
·
Route
Alignment Option 1 requires longer distance to be travelled by the users of CBL
with less degree of utilisation and longer length will be more costly than
other options. This route also will have more ecological impacts in both
terrestrial and marine aspects in particular corals at Fat Tong Chau. It was
not selected for further consideration.
·
Route
Alignment Options 2 meets the requirements of traffic functionality. The bridge
form is compatible with Development Theme 1 and Theme 2 and the tunnel form is
compatible with Development Theme 3 and Theme 4. No insurmountable
environmental impacts are anticipated as the major ecological impacts have been
avoided. Nevertheless, since the road
alignment is close to the Area 86 development (along the southern edge), the
air and noise impacts would have to be addressed. It was considered suitable
for further consideration.
·
Route
Alignment Option 3 will increase congestion of Wan Po Road and is not
acceptable from the traffic viewpoint. Also, being closer to TCS, different
structural forms would result in some compromise of the land use planning. It
was considered not suitable for further consideration.
·
Route
Alignment Option 4 will cause heavily traffic congestion through Town Centre
and will overload its road network. Higher traffic flows through Town Centre
will result in greater levels of air and noise impacts and the option is
considered environmentally undesirable and was considered not suitable for
further consideration in particular the CBL is intended to direct the
industrial traffic away from Town Centre.
·
Noise
Impacts: impacts from the construction
phase for the CBL either in bridge or tunnel forms can be mitigated. For the operational phase, noise mitigation
measures will be required for both schemes to mitigate the impacts to the Area
86 development. Partial enclosure or
cantilever barrier will be required along the eastbound carriageway south of Area
86.
·
Air
Quality Impacts: sufficient buffer
distances have been allowed between the CBL and planned and committed
developments, and adverse air quality impacts from both schemes of CBL are not
expected. The tunnel scheme is
separated from Area 86 by some 50m.
Based on the currently envisaged traffic flows along the CBL, air
quality impacts attributed to tunnel emission at the eastern portal are not
expected.
·
Water
Quality Impacts: the potential
hydrodynamic impact of bridge scheme arrangement would be smaller than that of
tunnel scheme. The former would
generate minor hydrodynamic impact near the bridge columns. The latter, which requires the formation of
additional land for tunnel landfalls and protection and road connections to
WCR, would be developed with the further reclamation scenario of the TKO Town
Centre South that would alter the hydrodynamic regime within the Inner Junk
Bay, although no major adverse impacts would be anticipated. Water quality impacts associated with the
dredging and reclamation works can be minimised by the deployment of silt
curtains and silt screens, and through control of dredging rates at the
reclamation site.
·
Waste
Management: whilst no insurmountable
impact is be anticipated for both schemes, the tunnel scheme will result in a
greater volume of dredged sediment to be disposed off and more contaminated
sediment to be dealt with than the bridge scheme.
·
Marine
Ecology: the bridge scheme would be
preferred from the marine ecological perspective since this scheme would result
in the relatively minor loss of low ecological value seabed area and because of
its limited potential for adverse impacts to corals in Junk Bay. By contrast, direct loss of habitat and the
potential for adverse impacts to corals would be markedly higher if the tunnel
scheme is adopted.
·
Visual
Impacts: in summary, the bridge scheme
would be likely to generate considerably more residual visual impacts than the
tunnel scheme. However, the bridge
scheme has the opportunity to provide a feature bridge within TKO. The CBL could be designed as a high quality,
aesthetically pleasing structure which would become a new landmark feature at
the gateway of TKO. Assuming that an
attractive feature bridge is implemented, visual impacts are likely to be acceptable.
·
A
riverine park along a landscape corridor adjacent to the Eastern Channel that
provides connections to the waterfront;
·
A high
quality waterfront promenade with related leisure and commercial uses;
·
An
open space corridor linking the commercial centre adjacent to TKO Station to
the waterfront;
·
Land
formation along the western shoreline of Junk Bay to provide land for WCR
Tunnel Alignment;
·
Reduced
population density in TCS and TKL from that formerly proposed;
·
A
stepped height building profile diminishing towards the waterfront with
modulations in building height at the waterfront to enhance variety in the
built environment;
·
A
feature bridge across the mouth of the Eastern Channel;
·
Low
rise development at PSK; and
·
A
proposed feature bridge for the CBL.
·
More
landscaped open space, including the proposed TKL Park north of Ocean Shores to
help to alleviate the impact of the surrounding high density environment;
·
Landscaped
decks are proposed across a depressed Road P2 to provide pedestrian linkages to
the waterfront;
·
The
civic node proposed for TCS extends across to TKL along the western side of
Road P2 to form a significant civic cluster;
·
Conversion
of the originally planned residential sites in Area 74 South to district open
space and GIC uses to further thin out the population in TKL;
·
New
land formation extends southwards from TKL to facilitate the construction of
the WCR. This will include landscape buffering and the provision of promenade
footpath and cycle track.
·
Residential
development south of Po Yap Road, with Waterfront development along the
promenade to enhance activity and to create an interesting and vibrant
waterfront for the use of the local residents and visitors;
·
A
Central Avenue extends from the centre of TCS to the waterfront providing
physical and visual connectivity from the TKO MTR station to the waterfront. At
the south end of the Central Avenue opens out to a town plaza which in turn
extends to the waterfront;
·
A
Waterfront Park which is integrated with the Town Plaza, will contain high
quality soft and hard landscape treatments and will be the new central
gathering place for TKO residents;
·
A
Civic node is located on the western side of TCS with linkage to the waterfront
area. This will be a new government complex;
·
Committed
schools are located on the eastern side (south of Bauhinia Garden) and
additional schools are sited adjacent to the civic node on the western side;
·
The
promenade along the Eastern Channel is a leisure resource with direct access to
the water activity potential of the Eastern Channel (rowing, water cycling and
dragon boat racing);
·
A
water sport centre and boat facilities will be provided along the TKO Stage 1
Landfill site. Active recreation will be located at the toe of the Landfill
site whilst remaining areas will provide a park environment for passive
recreation (kite flying area, walking and cycling trails).
· Phase 1- Dredged reclamation with dredged seawalls at the southern end to form the land for the tunnelling works;
·
Phase
2- the reclamation will be a drained reclamation with band drains and surcharge
to treat the mud under the reclamation;
·
Phase
3- the reclamation will be a drained reclamation with band drains and surcharge
to treat the mud under the reclamation.
·
Since
a 9 m high approach embankment will be built on this reclamation, immediately
behind the seawalls, in order to ensure the stability of the seawalls, it is
necessary to dredge out the soft marine muds and soft alluvial clays from the
base of the seawalls and the reclamation areas.
·
The
embankment is to provide vehicular access to and from the tunnel portal on this
proposed major dual 2-lane carriageway of WCR. If the road is constructed on a
high embankment over soft muds, it would be subject to residual settlements
arising from the secondary consolidation settlements and possibly some
contribution from residual primary consolidation settlements from the soft
muds. Since the tunnel portal will be in rock, at the portal it would form a
hard/soft interface on the road and any residual differential settlements will
be clearly visible requiring regular repair works and disruption to the traffic
flow on the WCR.
·
Carrying
out site investigation to determine the property, grading, chemical composition
of the sediment.
·
Obtaining
sediment samples for laboratory investigation to produce design mix of cement
slurry.
·
Placing
of sand blanket to cover the seabed at the area where DCM would be carried out.
·
Positioning
of marine DCM plant.
·
Inserting
piling pipe of mixing treatment equipment into the soft layer at the designated
level.
·
Pulling
up of piling pipe together with the injection of cement slurry and mixing of
soft material by the agitator
·
Monitor,
control, review and adjust the cement slurry content during mixing.
·
Repositioning
of the marine DCM plant and repeat the mixing procedure until the required
pattern of strengthened material is formed.
·
Taking
core samples of strengthened material and carrying out associated tests to
verify the integrity of the strengthened material.
·
Removal
of the sand blanket and heaved material where necessary.
·
Dolphins - Bored piles or equivalent system
would be provided for the dolphin. The
piles are to be bored with a permanent steel casing, which remains to combine
with the concrete hearting to sustain the design impact loading. The dolphin
piles would be installed from a “spud” barge (i.e. jack-up) with templates and
gates used to preserve the positioning.
A derrick would be used to lift the tubes and the lowering off would be
carried out on close monitoring of verticality. The pile would be driven into the bedrock head level with the
soft material being excavated. While excavating within the casing, the
excavation depth will not be deeper than the casing head depth at any time.
·
Marine
Bored Piling for the Viaduct - Following completion of pile construction
for the dolphin ring beams, the temporary stagings used to access the pile
heads would be removed and replaced by a steel platform which serves as a
piling platform for bored piles of the main cap. The intention is that these platforms enable the bored piling and
cap construction to be carried out effectively as ‘land based’ operations with
benefits in terms of output, safety and environmental protection. The platforms
would be designed for convenience of construction and would be fully decked
out, with wastewater collected for controlled discharge into a derrick lighter
or other collection system.
·
The
platforms would be designed to allow the piling rigs to stand in their best
position for piling efficiency; and the decking would have circular upstands
round each pile location such that a protective skirt formed in lapped conveyor
belting can be strapped/clamped to the casing and upstand as sketched below.
This is for effective control over spillage of excavated material or wash
water.
·
Temporary
steel casings would be provided for each pile; and this also protects the
excavation against slumping. The
casings would be driven into the seabed with soft material inside the temporary
casing being excavated. After the bored pilling, steel reinforcement would then
be placed into the excavated pile followed by concreting works. The concrete
will be ready mixed off-site and delivered by truck which would drive onto a
vessel from a facility on site adjacent to landing point. A mobile crane on the
vessel or other service crane will lift the concrete to the piles by means of
concreting skips.
·
All
wastewater generated from the piling activities will be collected by a derrick
lighter or other collection system and be treated before controlled discharge.
Spoil will be collected by sealed hopper barges for proper disposal.
·
TCS,
TKL, PSK & TKOL Development (by year 2011);
·
Western
Coast Road (around year 2016);
·
Cross
Bay Link (around year 2016);
·
Road
P2 and D4 Flyover (around year 2016).
TCS, TKL, PSK & TKOL Development Package
·
Town
Centre South and Tiu Keng Leng Construction Package;
·
Pak
Shing Kok Construction Package.
·
Tseung
Kwan O Landfill Construction Package;
·
Roads
L651, L661, L662, L671, L672, L673, L681, L721 and L722 and the associated
junction works;
·
Drains,
sewers, water mains (fresh water and salt water) and utilities (by utility
undertakers) along roads, footpaths and drainage reserves;
·
Landscape
soft works and hard works;
·
Realignment
of existing single cell box culvert in Area 72 to facilitate future
construction of the depressed section of Road P2;
·
Removal
of the existing preloading mound in Town Centre South (Areas 67 and 68) and Tiu
Keng Leng Area 72 left from the existing TKO construction contract;
·
Raising
of the existing Town Centre South seawall; and
·
Pile
deck for protection of the tidal gate at Western Box Culvert including removal
of existing temporary culvert.
·
Road
L781 and the associated junction improvement works with Wan Po Road and Road
L782 (including the slope works);
·
Junction
improvement works at Wan Po Road/Shek Kok Road;
·
Drains,
sewers, watermains and utilities (by utility undertakers) along roads and
footpath;
·
Landscape
soft works;
·
Site
formation (laying of some 2 to 2.5m thick fill material on the three
development platforms- about 400,000m3 of fill material is required);
·
Construction
of a freshwater service reservoir, water pumping station and access road to
service reservoir and the associated distribution mains.
·
Northern
and Southern Footbridges across Eastern Channel (no bridge piers located in the
channel);
·
Construction
of the proposed sewage pumping station (small size capable of handling 53m3/day
of average sewage flow) near the roundabout of Road L861;
·
Laying
of twin rising mains along Road L861 to connect to the existing sewer along Wan
Po Road;
·
Laying
of water mains (freshwater and salt water) along Road L861 to connect to the
existing water mains along Wan Po Road;
·
Cycletrack
and footpath along the toe of Tseung Kwan O Stage 1 Landfill from the end of
Road L861 to the open space under the cul-de-sac of Fung Loi Road; and
·
Landscape
soft works and hard works adjacent to the cycletrack and footpath along the toe
of Landfill site.
·
Reclamation
Phase 1 (first reclamation phase and the DCM trial);
·
Reclamation
Phase 2 and Phase 3 and Associated Works (reclamation phases 2 and 3, toll
plaza and its associated facilities and at-grade roads on the Phase 1 and Phase
2 reclamation areas);
·
Main
Tunnel and Associated Works (twin tunnels including civil and E&M works and
the Eastern Portal, Mid and Western Portal ventilation buildings); and
·
Kowloon
Section- Viaducts and Roads (all the works on the Kowloon side including
reprovisioning of the Lam Tin Ambulance Depot).
Status |
|
Development at Cha Kwo Ling Kaolin Mine Site |
According to Kaolin Mine Site Development Study, the site formation of Kaolin Mine Site and Road A would be completed before WCR construction. The building construction by Housing Department would likely be in parallel with WCR construction. |
Trunk Road T2 under South East Kowloon Development |
The completion of Trunk Road T2 should tie in with WCR and vice versa. |
1200mm diameter fresh watermain in Cha Kwo Ling area |
Unknown at this stage based on WSD’s information. |
Area 137 development |
Uncertain at this stage, TIA under this study assumed completion of 11ha of DWI and 12ha PHI and 15ha SENT Landfill Extension by 2016. |
Area 86 Housing Development |
To be implemented in phases and construction take place between 2005 and 2015. |
Recreational Development in TKO Stage 1 Landfill |
Infrastructure to be provided along the toe of the landfill to serve the development. Development is assumed to take place after infrastructure provision. |
Road L861 |
Construction is to commence in mid-2006 and to complete around late 2008. |
TKO South MTR Station |
April 2006 to March 2009 |
Remark: Lei Yue Mun Underpass project is assumed to be completed before commencement of WCR construction on Kowloon side. (Original programme start in Dec 04 - Dec 07).