PWP Item 454TH: Lung Cheung Road Flyover Focussed Environmental Impact Assessment
HONG KONG GOVERNMENT
ffiGHWAYS DEPARTMENT
Executive Summary IfJ in association with Enpac Lld. Urbis Travers Morgan Ltd. PWP Item 454TH: Lung Cheung Road Flyover .&l. Focussed Environmental Impact Assessment HONG KONG GOVERNMENT HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT Executive Summary If1!ll~ Peter Fraenkel BMT (Asia) Ltd. in association with Enpac Ltd. Urbis Travers Morgan Ltd. CONTENTS Page J'i LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (i) Im ~HJ ~ (i) I. INTRODUCTION 1 I. 'JI g 1 2. THE STUDY AREA 2. {If!R; fij IlII 2. 1 Site Description 3 2.1 I±1!lttl'ij)jj; 3 2.2 Site Constraints 3 2.2 I±1!l~UU 3 2.3 Route Description 4 2.3 m~ttl'ij)jj; 4 3. OBJECTIVES AND KEY ISSUES 3. Jj I!if li. :± IHQ !Iif 3.1 Objectives of ElA Study 5 3. 1 Iltf51l\1! lft ~ 'Zl¥FfMfH1f ftI 5 3.2 Key Issues 5 3.2 I~ rR'JI! 5 3.3 Assessment 5 3.3 ~Ht 5 4. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS 4. :± It ill. Hi jf! 4.1 Construction Phase 7 4.1 iliUM 7 4.2 Operational Phase 10 4.2 illHtM 10 4.3 Mitigation Measures 14 4.3 *ifOJi!itim 14 4.4 Costs 18 4.4 Illt;;$: 18 5. CONCLUSION 19 5. a Hi 19 6. RECOMMENDATION 20 6. fI! iJi 20 ILLUSTRATIONS tm~ B ~ Figure No. Title Page jijl)Ji 1!;!JIli l. Site Location Plan 1. I till f:li: ~ if lID ~ 1 2. Study Area 2 2. litf~ifiB III 2 3. Photographic View 4 3. %flll&fI- 4 4. Option C, Section. on Earthworks 9 4. 1]'!{;; "P'j" ± :1J I mS," gUlID~ 9 5. Photographic View 2 12 5. %flll&fI -= 12 6. Photographic View 3 13 6. %f1ll&1l\lI -=. 13 7. Option A, Mitigation Measures 14 7. :1J,!{;; " If'" S,"~fDfl!i1itfi 14 8. Option B, Mitigation Measures I 15 8. :1J,!{;; " z..." s,"~fDfl!ilitfi - 15 9. Option B, Mitigation Measures II 15 9. :1J ,!{;; " z..." s,"*J1 fDfl!ilitfi -= 15 10. Noise Barrier Enclosure Elevation 16 10. 'I§ 1% mIIj .&JIHfljfii to/J J1. fJlIl\ll 16 Il. Option C, Mitigation Measures 17 11. Mf< "P'j" S,"~fDfl!i1itfi 17 12. Table The Preferred Choice 19 12. Jlll.~~R'Il\lI~ 19 13. The Decision Matrix 21 13. :1J '!{;; ~ jl[l ~g ~l/! Il\lI 21 14. The Recommended Scheme 22 14. ~'F {E liil[ 1l\lI 22 (i) This booklet summarises the Final 1 INTRODUCTION 1 ~I ~ , J illIJ W}t ut ~ tl!l ' &: t.ll! :±l T '::' II~ or Report and presents a comparative The Hong Kong Government's assessment of the adverse rTaq~~ , f:EIttm~:.1J~ "!fI" , Second Comprehensive Traffic Study environmental impacts of the 'i!l' lit iE;Ul! f:E - tL J\ tL"f. 7t fi.'Zag ;:fe. :.1J~ " z.,"&::.1J~ "pq" '-3-:.1J~ (1989) identified the need for a proposed alternative flyovers during 1.1\ 'i!l' lit ~ f.l X ~ Jiff JE ¥IHr (CTS-2) ~ ~ - ~ ~ f5H.& fr.Jll: ili ' or ~ jlIj iff fl yover linking Lung Cheung Road both construction and operational with the Clearwater Bay Road in phases. Appropriate mItI gation if' t~:±l ' W~ ~ In MH1!}t - ill! J%Z ~ 12 ,3 00 ~1.I\fI%1E.m ' Kowloon to ease present and improve measures are recommended for each lUl ili fIl i~ * ~ ili fig ~ tl!l ' j;):If ~ future traffic movements in the area phase. These assessments together (Figure I). A Project Steering Group with cost estimates lead to a ~ Ii!lif.J!.H¥ &: cje1!f** fig X~ 1~i£ ~ ilic .g- ~ 1ft 1!ll@l '\ll' It :±l fig }t ~R ' -3- (PSG) was convened by Government recommendation as to the preferred ( ~ - ) 'i&IffIn-tLtL- "f.HliOC orfT8g~~~~~ j&J-intlRIU~ in 199 I to assist in planning this options. T - @ I fj t1i iJ I/HJl. (PS G) , 1$1, AA ill' fig ~'f 1i5 ' j;) 1$1, AA PSG It JildHg ~ flyover and proposed three possible ali gnments which are referred to ~, herein as Options A, Band C. Each . alternative flyover is a two lane j..' : m it. 00 r'iU I ~ IiH~~ W 11IU} 15] ( 52 single carri ageway road with a .' practical traffic capacity of 12,300 i!+I) ,;Jt: 1$1, It 0 15] 1'6 t8 ~ 1ft IfjW vehicles per day. Il& 0 15] fIl !f1E f~ a ~ WIl& 015] B jl}m In keeping with the recommendations i&'\ll'M~Ii!li~lf ' ~Jtj!HTlRlft~ of the Environmental Protection ~ fig ~'fIi5 ' &: ~;Jt:iiffll 1lt*1i *fIl}t~ Department a focussed environmental .", m x- I)}/!HH~-a-tt ' impact assessment (EIA) was proposed for each ali gnment to assist the PSG in reaching a conclusion on :<$: ilH II~HjUidHfl-a- tt &: fl-3- :.1J ~ the optimum alignment. f:E ~ :m 00 }t AA ra~ fIl iD! It B¥ fl ~ IJt jj!j Peter Fraenkel BMT (Asia) Ltd in iOC fig l' Ji! ~ ~ It :±l - @ J:U!$i jj'f 1i5 ' association with Enpac Lld and Urbis # fr ~ -3-11'1H)t or k:ii fIl l' Ji! ~ 18 aq :.1J Travers Morgan Ltd were commissioned by the Highways it. It :±l }t ~ , Itt jj'f 1i51JH Wil!liOC :<$: Department, Kowloon Region, to 1i5 i!!i ' ~If or m it ~ ~ :±l ~ i'E:.1J ~ fig undertake the EIA and produce a m~, Final Report outlining its findings and recommendations. Figure 1 - Location Plan [~ - - I Jt!!fl):1i'P¥ iliiliill LEGEND ; - = A ROUTE OPTIONS ===== B ROUTE OPTIONS = C ROUTE OPTIONS WORK ING AREA STUDY AREA Figure 2 - Study Area li'lI =. - 1Jf?1:1IIIi1J;ll 2 2 THE STUDY AREA Estates are located to the south of the 2.2 I JI!! IIIUIJ road corridor. Hammer Hill Green 2.1 Site Description Belt is dominant to the north in the Study Area. Choi Wan tower block 2.1 I JI!! !uHIi ):) r ~l~fr~'If*ttm*!ll:1J~Il'J ~ The study area encompasses an estate is visible to the northeast. JJjI!t!J~u u : Urban Area within the Wong Tai Sin District of East Kowloon including 2.2 Site Constraints lilH'Effil1 IIi!I fj'[ In * Alig ~:*: iUJ ~ pg 1l'J the Choi Hung and Ping Shek Estates iTi ~ , 'E!J5 *5 1!Ht ' J;'jZ 1] H &. *5 ~ and the south western section of the Constraints which affect the flyover H 1l'J fill l5Il5J' 0 Choi Wan Estate. alignment options include: i¥J The Lung Cheung Road and a central core of vi llage hou ses %t ~ il'J ~m ill: ~ iff iIIlill: iE iilii l~ Clearwater Bay Road corridor bisects and commercial outlets '*' * the study area in the east-west a Refuse Collection Point (RCP) liff j'G ffil1 III!I if- 5J' f!il i¥J ;j t Wj l5Il 5J' 0 iE iilii direction. Located to the north of the and public Lavatory il'J ;j t lliJ &. liff j'G ffiB I!ilI 1l'J fIlIlliJ ' 'E!.t5 f9ll road corridor and in the western preservation of open spaces and ~HLi UJ ,;t ~ 1'P LiJ ill: ~ !IlJJ sector of the study area are the Hung existing trees iJHc '*' , Sean Chow College, the Hammer a small sitting out area centred ~ , - @] li'l W*il iTi iI& )ijJ J;8j. %t ilk ii!J ~ Hill Sports Complex and a site around a shrine 1l'J tt!J:1J ' fj'[ In liif j'G ffiB IIi!I '*' :9c rei '!'tHg reserved for a future Urban Council the Home for the Aged tit ~ 1l'J J;'jZ 1] H tt!J Hi m .!Ij; %t (UC) Leisure pool complex. Ngau MTR installations ii!J I'll: 1l'J 4- ii!J iIIl H f!il il'!i fi. Wj III 1l'J %t ~ '*' Chi Wan Village which is in the Proposed MTR redevelopment at 10 0 fj'[ In ~ H;j t lliJ ' 'lUll 1'P LiJ 1l'J ~ ~tID1J centre of the study area, comprises Ping Shek estate -@]flA fi. t%t~10 - &X;liHe [gJ ; a mixture of residential structures a Water Supplies Department with a component of commercial uses (WSD) pumping station jfij :tUg it!J 1'll:;j t lliJ ' 4- iill iIIl H *ffi~ 1l'J located mainly along the Lung Chi a UC sports complex ~ ~ *,";g 9:' ~ ~Jt 0 n iilll'll: i¥J lliJ 11 il/l( Path. A private residential hillside green belt area development, Bayview Gardens, is set I~j! r'i1:J JllT %t ~ 10 ' ~ '*' 'E!. t5 4- ii!J i'Ji x against the backdrop of Hammer Hill The Study Area and the route of ~l\l '*' -C,' 0 :f£ ill: m iE iilii 1l'J i¥J lliJ ~ J;'jZ 1] and lies north of the village. St. Options A, Band C are shown on H &. *5 1!I H ; jfij:f£ liif j'G ffiB I!ilI ;j t lliJ ' Joseph's Home for the Aged flanks Figure 2. 1iWiI=!1j:i~liifj'GffiBlIi!I&.:1J~"Ej3" , II U:*: l5Il5J' Jml1'P LiJ 1l'J M1< ~Jt!J 1\'1' ' jit the village on its east side, north of * :1J~ " G" ':1J~" p;j" ll'Jm*!ll 0 Lung Chi Path. A number of medium ;jtlliJll U OJ'l'fiU5~Hs'JW+ 0 and high rise developments are located south of Lung Chi Path including the UC Ngau Chi Wan Complex. Ping Shek and Choi Hung 3 2.3 Route Description passing through Ngau Chi Wan till /J W/J '#;. • if!. ffi Jfl: ' IIIH:E ~ ~ All routes start and end at the same Village. locations in Lung Cheun g Road and 4- ?til iY!;ftn'l' ' J!: mJfl::I t lID 0 Clearwater Bay Road. The three route Route Option C is the longest route PTr lHUll ~ J;..( om i1l: & ilif *i'Jl i1l: 1: alignments are specified and outlined at 1090 metres and crosses the lower ~ - I!!! i'F l1il it9 ilJZ:!IIl! 0 Ilt.=. fi!Ii n MI! ~ /J '#;. • f!Ngau Chi Wan Village. 8 ~'t Ji!b It:- ill! filHi11 pIT tJHIHn 1i>lI5! 1J I*J ' JlF tJli ;fa 4- iill i'''l H the EIA should be based. jliJ fl Fi! iN. ~ ilil s/;J lff 1t ;fj; ~Ji j:) Ilt Y:. 1'l' The alignments for Option A, Band ~ = ~m/J'#;. ·if!· ' /J~ ·0· & i'F l1il ¥ M! 0 Route Option A is 985 metres long C are as shown on plan in Figure 2 /J '#;. • f! SI Josephs Ho me: For The Aged Pak Fung House (S R28) SRtO SRII (SRI2·16) I Figure 3 - View: From Library: VC Ngau Chi Wan Complex (SR3) IiilI ~ - {lfllb1'lliill - 4 3 OBJECTIVES AND KEY mitigation measures where :(£ 'if fI,j ~ B"J ' iti H l!t.. m t±l fig ~~ ISSUES necessary. ~;f11 Jiil 1ft ~ Ws',] 1J 0 estimates the cost of constructing i* This study identifies and evaluates the route Options A, Band C with lltJJ;j litf JE 1!t :I.Ul' l!t.. 7t iili s',] ill WHO current and projected environmental '*' iti H :(£ 'E:\ :l3lllG l' 'E:\ m1ii!i mHo or without mitigation measures. impacts for the year 20 II due to ± till ill! FIl :(£ El il1I l!t..l1Ut:(£ 20 11 if-plf Jiil IUH!' 1J it< 1 ~ i£ ¥A fT proposes an optimum alignment s',] r ' existing and proposed roads and Jl1i JJt s',] JiiWt ~ \w it t±l £t' 1E;f11 iti ~t 0 and the recommended mitigation 1J~. Efl" • 1J~. l, " l!t..1J landuses. Likely environmentally measures. litfJE]'j; Mtf:liii t±lll~!t!;; ilJ ~glltJiil 1ft ~ \w ~ • j7ij" plf fI,j s',] JJt;$: 0 'sensitive receivers' are identified and 'if~7J~!XH! s ',] • @(!®:It~U,li" , J;) mitigation measures where feasible are 3.2 Key Issues mt±l iN I'€! &" S',J 7<: ~ ~ ~ l!t.. plf H! recommended for each Option. l!t.. !it .j§.1J ~ mi~ ilJ W~HO Jiil 1ft ~ ~ 1ii!i fTS',] *i;fa Jiil 1ft ~ Ws',] 1J i* 0 The Study Brief outlines the Key s',] i).tiilJ fT1Jit< 0 A 'sensitive receiver' is a receiver Environmental Issues requiring considered sensitive to given impacts consideration in the assessment. from changes in noise or air quality, • @(!®:lUzll,li " )jHiii ll~!t!;; wr llt "l" These key issues are: *" vibration, landuse, visual or landscape Noise ~ a ltl ' ± till ill! FIl • m1't ll',(J:ill impacts. * . litf JE liSi ~ we i!!! :(£ ~'f iti '*' H! ~ ~ Jt\ s',] Air Quality J1Il Jiil 1ft H',] c,<: 31t ~ 7J ~ @( !® s',] till1J 0 .=E ~ Jiil 1ft r"~ JIll ' 'E:\:l3 : Vibration 3.1 Objectives of EIA Study Landuse Visual Impact 3.1 lit f~ ~ m~ 1I iW fti ff,! ~ ~ /if The objectives of the EIA are as O;\H;H"~ JIll Landscape Impact ~(:I:&'i follows. It "l" *" ~ *r"~ JIll 3.3 Assessmeut assembles information on the altl r"~ JIll background to the Project. In this EIA the key issues are till ill! FIl assesses the environmental impact ± evaluated for each route by assessing should a flyover not be m I f1[~:m'lfc~U~1q 0 the environmental effect on 'sensitive m1't~W constructed. receivers' both during construction ~'f iti l' Jl. 7t 7<: ~ 1!t Jiil 1ft Jl1i JJt s',] assesses the existing and future till J1Il Jiil 1ft ~ \w and operational phases. The degree planned landuses and the of impact is assessed as low, implementation of Planning moderate or severe and is given a Wf iti :fjl.'if ;fo Mtf s',] I1f lE ± till ill! Policy. '* 3.3 iWfi!i rating of 1, 2 or 3 respectively. assesses the impact of constructing FIl ;f0 mi!F J jl'JIJ~ s',] ¥A fT 0 Where the degree of noise and air Options A, B or C on the basis quality impact exceeds predetermined fE!~.=E~r"Ull (ye rfRi3 .2~.ll:) ~'f :(£ ~ Jiil 1ft ~ ~ ~ iMIH'j- '*' ' 4iJ f~ ~ of the Key Issues (see paragraph limits, mitigation measures which 3.2). iti1ii!ifT1J~ • Efl " , 1J~ • l," *ill s',] .=E ~ r"~ JIll jIffl ~ fE! ~:(£;It 1ii!i I Il'~ could reduce the impact are evaluates and recommend s l!t..1J ~ • j7ij" plf Jl1i JJt s',] ~~~! 0 ~.ll: l!t.. ill! it BHt • @(!®:It ~'<:!!M" Jl1i JJt considered. Reassessment then yields 5 a set of values for comparison of the recommended, in line with the Exco 8"J ~ IU,; !,IHF tlH'P it 0 ~ li' t¥.,§!' l!r'lj ~ ilHiil iT i&)jij ·)\'t st Wi ill lllFf Wr j~ impacts with proposed mitigation directive, "Equitable Redress for 5HUll ,§!' , '*' ,§!' Edi~ £ ' jft 5:F 7J IJ j;) 1m8"J ~ N ~ li' 81 g B': H! T :f} '¥ Htf measures in place. The impact ratings Persons exposed to Increased Noise with and without mitigation are Resulting from the Use of New l ' 2' 3 *&.*~ffi 0 @.ij Qn%:N'&~ li" 8"J =I~ ffi ' f.§. fL JJl. fl illlll\ 8"J X jffj entered in a decision matrix Roads ", ~ Ji! * 8"J ~ ~ f¥. ,§!' i!1l jl1oH ~ lE ~~ iM ' D%: N i!1l j@ HKPSG FIT lE 81 lili i1!' ' }t illustrated in Figure 13. l'IiJ 1W~ !li/.1i1fi iT~jft] m1i1fi 0 1* JI)(~ jft] ~ 1i1fi iTiiJ w: tZf ~J.j Jl:. IJQ i~ ~,; li' 81 J:!i lltr Air Quality: The criteria on which each of the Key m 1i1fi iW i&FIT i~ :±I * ~ lJi ~,; 13' 8"J H it '11miJ<1J$ 0 Issues were assessed are as follows: Dust concentrations during W'd~ l?f 1W lHI3 tt ~Ji ; jfij FIT i~ B"J ~ ~ construction were predicted and ~H&# B-tE[lli] + ='*' j;) 1Jf!!Ijjf; )o\JiJ Noise: hourly concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide :±I 0 Sensitive receivers exposed to traffic (NO,) and particulates from vehicle m t J 8"J JJj El 'E), 13 sOlI ff 1i1fi I FIT 51 of construction noise were first emissions during operation were iI'9 81 Jj( !!ill i/li! ,§!' .& lIl\ $.lit JlI! It D!j i1J /J ' B!j identified. Future traffic noise was assessed. The as sessment was based ijiffj FIT :±I 8"J - then assessed, based on peak hour on the popUlation affected and the EI3 iT W2 '*' -'Ii 1JF ~ 1Uiil1 ' traffic flows predicted by Transport extent to which NO, concentrations =- ~1 t iJl\ ' Jj( !!iIl lIUli~,§!' 0 Department's CTS-2 transport model (as representative of vehicle pollution for the year 2011. Noise from levels) would exceed both those fit 81 jffj D%: N }t ~ D%: l¥f It lili i1!' 'E), =13 st ~ ~ g B': 81 JlIl( El .& construction was assessed on the predicted should a flyover not be m: 7t lE Jil: st X jft] basis of assumed requirements for constructed, and the Hong Kong Air N~~81@(~tZf~US ' l?f*8"JJlI!~ ~ 1t iJl\ i/li!,§!' ( I~ ~ EI3 -'Ii fffj 5 I iI'9 8"J 15 construction equipment. Quality Objectives (HKAQO) I ~Nl?fm~j!I!~ 'i!!f~ 2011 if. ~1tB!j ~ f¥.,§!' ) i!1l j@ /f !Ill- }t *fi B!j l':Il 'i'J 7J, maxima. F~' X jffj im ill: FIT it 8"J CTS-2 X jffj fJ»; )0\ '¥.& 1'Iit~~Ji!* =I ~~ (HKAQO ) 8"J The assessment for each Option was based on the affected population and Vibration: it:±lil'Ht 0 }t~IfU€:H"J n%:Nl'I iJ ~ "" ~U iJ 8"J f¥. ,§!' 0 degree to which predicted facade 1W f~ ~ il'X lE FIT ~ 81 }t ~ jjj! filii it ~ ~'P noise levels exceed both maximum It was agreed by the Study Working it ~Iif 0 levels recommended by Hong Kong Group that the effects of vibration Planning Standards and Guidelines need only be considered at (HKPSG) and the levels predicted if construction stage. The Study found ~ 1J ~ 81 ~'P it Jil: f~ ~ st ~ !,& g B': B"J Jiff 1'C I It /HIH,,] ~.R ~ -tE If¥. 1i1fi I the flyover were not built. that detailed design can reduce the JlIl( El ' j;)'&ffiWl~[§j~N7.k,¥ ~Ji1'I Wl ~ J1i: 11lH! s"J ~ li' 0 @. ijQf~ lJ$l tt!J r effects to an acceptable level for all Where HKPSG Standards are Options by requiring compliance with it mill1 J ~ i1!' W. i1!' ll iJ (HKPSG) pIT lE 81 $1,1 lIl\ 1~ I;~H* W~ 81 lili ~ it :±I ~UIll 8"J ~ exceeded due to traffic on existing criteria in the Mass Transit Railway m: "" ~UiJ.& i~fl* fiB!j 8"J D%:N7.k'¥ H ' l'I iJ ~ 1J~pIT 5Ii1'98"J~~iS] 1W*1t roads, direct technical remedies to Protection Ordinance. Vibration does FIT "" :±I8"J f¥. ,§!' jfij It :±I8"J 0 :J'1i -tE iiJ J¥ st 81 *'¥ r 0 IEl t1U.HlH~ reduce further deterioration of the not therefore affect the choice of the noise , environment have been Option. 1[ilJ1El*/f1W~~~m1J~8"JiJ<1E 0 6 Landuse: the context of the view in which the road would be seen. Future land use has been determined with reference to the Ngau Chi Wan Landscape: Ht; * 8<.1 ± till i1! ffl Jil: fJU~ 4 i1!l jl.ll ~ n' Outline Zoning Plan (OZP), the ~ Ilt i!l1J;f;JI1J IJi,lI , M!lli j:J11J IJi,lIliUHt Outline Development Plan (ODP) and Landscape elements which were the Village Layout Plan. The considered in the assessment include till ID /li'iI jlij"}i:' :±l8<.1 ; jlij 1"'F :±l ~'H!; If.'} 8 1£ ii= :±l Ilif iti If.'} pIT ~ IJ, iU8<.1 till J1I!. Jiillj! assessment considered the direct areas of hillside, open spaces and ~ J.'IUU & IIUi\ flll ~:it !ilil D ill pIT 51 IEl ~ 'E). ti5liJf j'C fii[j /!i!I r:*J 8<.1 Lli ~ till ~ , land use impact on sites within the existing trees in the study area. The ]l!; S" till lk !Jl.1f m:et 0 ~if fti 8<.1 J!Hr Jil: fN construction corridor for each route assessment was based on evaluating iE9 8<.1 jjH~ ± till i1! ffl 8<.1 iI ' lk IEl :7( and the indirect impact arising from the degree of di sruption, the relative t!ii ljiHjll;IT ffl till Ha ~ pti"51 iE9 8<.1 F.ll Mf ~ till J1I!. Jiillj! ~ t.lHli!. It . ~ ~ ]l!; 12' till incompatibility of the fl yover with value of each affected landscape ]l!; ~ 0 ~'Hti Jil: fJU~ ± till i1! ffl8<.1 t/3 :g J1I!. 5C ~ 8<.1 1'/3 fli!Ht1! • ~ IEl ~ 8<.1 7j, 7.. adjoining land uses. Impact has been component, the degree of permanence assessed with reference to landuse of that element and the degree to tl: ' W:7( t!ii IIIH!8<.1 fEl ;IT 1Ur. . ~~.; '11 lk mill J1I!. ~ lJt ~ /lJt ]l!; l,& 8<.1 ilJ *i,fIJ compatibility, proximity of the route, which impact on the landscape could l!' JlEi B': 8<.1 U& El • Ht; * 8<.1 Hi!l1J lk ± till fli!.1t 0 the size of populations affected, the be mitigated. jjj! 1f It jlij ii= :±l8<.1 0 future planning prognosIs and land ownership. JQiU~CiJI0'M l~nm[i!S I' I I 4.1 IiI!i I JtII Visual: 4.1 Construction Phase From site visits and desk top studies Noise: 'l'f till fiUHll ~ L jiff j'C 8 ~ W - IIU! a Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) MOi:' T - ~ ilJ t.U:r m~ IIUHJ1,' 8<.1 till defined as the area from within During the construction period the which the road structure would be majority of the sensitive receivers wx ' 1, ~ tJ!. j!l; ~.; 1,& ~ (ZVI) 0 ~ r.I ~ 1f ~ 8<.1 llU!l£ litu JtIl r:*J Ht; fl 7<: $ visible was identified for each route. will be significantly affected by ]l!; ill11JJ..J. r Jltt ~ lfI' iHHti : 51- i!i!Z ~ t~ 4UIi ~ /lJt ~ 7<: ]l!; 1,& , I fli!. The following criteria were applied construction works for all route ii: 1: 8<.1 ~ 1i!f Ht; i] i@ ilJ Mf ~ 8<.1 iifi rllJ 71< to assess the overall impact: alignment options. Noise levels will the extent and proximity of the tend to exceed desirable maximum :7( t!ii 8<.1 ilJ J(I, fli!. It ,fIJ ~ ;IT fli!. It view of the fl yover levels. the sensitivity of each type of W - ~'lHU( !!1Ht ]l!; l!' 8<.1 i!i!Z ~ fli!. =i11!11f ~ 8<.1 lli\ *! jjijj %ii 8<.1 ot!l I Ifli!. pIT receIve r Construction noi se impacts at each It the population or number of end of the alignment are similar ii: H<.I DJ\l11i!f]l!; ~ Ht; wr 7<: /OJ I H'Ic 0 receivers under all options. Mf4UM<.IU&El the planning policy and degree of mi!JIJ j\J( ~ lk & JiIl Mf 411 !l!li 8<.1 7j, 7.. permanence of each group of Under Options A and B, sensitive receivers receivers in Ngau Chi Wan Village '1:1 7 and SI. Joseph's Home for the Aged resumption and clearance of existing ~ )j IJ ~ if 4- iill il!ii 11 "& ~ *1G * liX ix j;J"& ± tillllfl j;jJ t5] • ~ /lJt If] tjIJ would be particularly affected by buildings, clearance of vegetation and itYilllill i*JfI"JiW®\W~,;(~ 0 ;ri@ , tj'~ 7j{ ?- c';( ~ fI"J @: W~ is' ; ilO Ei31n fHijl works, but the impact would be land formation, resulting in a somewhat less severe for these permanent change of use. Indirect r rg J fI"J I f§'. fi;¥!; fI"J Ji.; ~ ~iJ $51 'P 0 ;[ If] till ~ /lJt 'f * ~ Iil§ t~ Z. Ml1l ilO i1t ~ receivers under Option C. impact would result from disruption a"J r.ll m~!B' l1 iJ i~Ht : or loss of amenity to adjoining !Jt~ , JjjZtJ 11"& 'f~ ~Hta"J 'J,~t5] ~ Primary schools in Ping Shek and landuses including: Chai Wan Estates are currently Disruption to Traffic 1H~ j'§- fgU~ "& ~ ~J ~5Ufrli ' DJ ~ 5't Ii'iJ protected from ambient noise by Restriction on Access [jiJ fJ"J ~ j'§- ~* 0 i!!i ill 5't ,.El glazing and air conditioning. Visual Impact Noise Pollution t~tl)j(3.!B' Air Quality: Air Pollution The nature of the construction works The direct impact would be .=. itru ;!] * fI"J .fil!j I iI& :f§'. t5] Wl % ~ ~ '*' is such that there will be some permanent and would therefore a"J J3( ~ i3 Ji 1'f PIT Jlll !J~ 0 increase in dust concentrations for all persist throughout the operational Options. phase. The indirect impact would be @:~~!~?;~7j{?-tl: ' ;jft.:t£~@n temporary and similar to the indirect *!jl Ji ii= Wl:f.'f ~~ ; ilO r"~ mI'; is' l1iJ .R Ifil The assessed impact of dust impact of the flyover in the }ft ;[ 9.' ~ F>1G "& 'f~ ~ ~ 10' Hf-' ' !El 'Il!T Dif tl: ' ~ 7<: m :t£ Ji ii= Wl i*J pIT i1t ~ transmission in constructing Option B operational phase. *'" is expected to be slightly greater than jlt I f§'. pIT i1t ~ O"J J3( ~ lll'; if j:fi Wl ~tH5i a"J r"~ W~ is' ~J! [OJ 0 that for Option A due to the route's Visual: ;!]* "Ej3" fJ"Jtill"" ; ilO;!]* "rg" relative proximity to the Home for the !El1:E.fil!j I iI& fE fiBol' 1lJj 7H1"J ± ;!] I Aged and Choi Wan SI. Joseph's The construction of Options A and '*' Primary School. Dust concentrations B would result in similar levels of fE ' !El lie ~ ~ '*' fJ"J J3( ~ i3 :!It Wl ~5i ;!] for Option C would be greater than visual impact summarised as follows: * " Ej3" "&;!]* " G " al]lfilr'ID 0 :t£ ;!]* "Ej3" "&;!]* "G" a"JIm~?; those for Options A or B due to the - m5!"I'~i£T ' ~~,*,fJ"JJ3(~i3:ljH Wl i1t ~ t§ J!J'i a"J tJBU'; ~ , filii ~ 110 additional earthworks required in it's Views of the construction works construction. In general dust within the Lung Cheung Road and DJ~iI&wm~Ji['lUd~!~ 0 T : concentrations are not expected to Clearwater Bay Road corridors. exceed the HKAQO. llg 'fJJ ill "& ii!f * i!'!! ill 711fri !fiB [jiJ i*J Visual impact caused by the .fil!jI:fEa"J7t-lm 0 Landuse: clearance of existing properties within Ngau Chi Wan principally ~ ;!] * :t£ DIn Wl r.Ht ± tu! If] a"J lll~ Impact during construction would be affecting adjoining village houses ~~?; DJ 51 Ifil@:W"& r"~w ~;!]f!ij 0 I !El ii!f tIT 4- i1iJ i!'!! i*J al] Ut 1'f ~ ~ t!JJ two fold. Direct impact within the and views from surrounding high tjIJ V'] 7!: '!~H!J) a"J ~';( @] "& if!HIT ' Ili'J pIT i1t H"J tJH~ ~ 11 ' I ~ 'E1 tt Works site would arise from level developments. !J1.1'f 8 Visual impact of the construction grounds of the Home for the Aged works in progress also affecting and an area of tree planting to the ~ t,!! itI1l31I H §,! J;) & liE Ji!lII!l!I r'il:J ~ n ~ • pg" s'i nli! '1ll' ~ :f:E LlJ J&l adjoining village houses and east of the WSD pumping station. ~ l'Wlo/J J[J( 1~ si ~ ill 0 surrounding elevated viewpoints. But since many of the trees within ;f§ 1ll :;I;: s'i ifiill!l!l P'J jjfO iT ilHfF I i'!= the village would also be felled as & ± 1J I fli! ' Ilil!lt fr 1M fJ!, A!} LlJ The construction of Option C would a result of the implementation of jjfO IT cp si nli! 1M itI1l31I H §,! & Ji!lI result in similar visual impact to planning policy, the apparent I!l!I JItl i!iHJi r'il:J si iiff tJBlil plf ~ ~ si ~s'i7}ilIj§jjJ(::Rm"'simlllt 0 Options A and B at its eastern and advantages of Option Bare t51 :i'l ~ il 0 western ends. Visual impact on outweighed by the lesser impact on village houses within Ngau Chi Wan the landscape of the grounds of the would be less than that of Options Home for the Aged and therefore 1J ~ • pg" *i1!i ~~ffij :f:EmH 1J i~iJai 1J~ Ej3" &1J~ ·0' s'iIfli!~ A and B. Overall, the impact of Option A is preferable. t511U,; t,!! ~?f ~ 1J ~ • Ej3' & 1J ~ • Options C would be greater than that • 0" si ;fIHIHJ;.l ; ilil Jt 4- itll i'''l P'J si '1ll' liX f:lt 4 itll i!l!l H & ~ et; I!iG P'J s'i fJ!, W of Options A and B for the following The extensive site clearance and 0 :ilU~ 1J ~ • 0" :f:E 4- itll i!l!lH reasons: formation of cuttings in the natural H §,! plf mjjJ(: si m1'~ ~,; illliJ 'iJ( 1J ~ m* P'J '1ll' ~ liX 1:It a'illft *!l& EUJi 0' ' if! I The greater length and elevation hillside and green belt required for • Ej3" &1J~ ·0" ai ~0' 0 *~,~ of the route would result in far Option C is in stark contrast to ilil § , 1J ~ • pg" si 'l51 ~ ~ t,!!~?f ~Ji fli!~?f J,; 13' ¥iJ ~ et; ~Jt P'J ~Ji:;l;: a'i ± ttll & greater visibility of the planning policy (Figure 4). The 7Jq9Hlli ~>I'(j't,!; lID s'i-f'I '1'* ilil construction works throughout the disturbance to landform and 1J~ • Ej3" &1J~ • 0" s'i~:;I;:, * * ' study area. vegetation would result in a long. W-1lil~QT : JUt P'J MlIl5f a'i m* ~ fr Ilil H \!11J iI& term severe impact and therefore, of 'ifJ a'i '!'l' 1if!j ilil '1ll' ~ liX 1:It ' Ilil rlt 1J ~ Construction of Route C would the three routes, Option C is the ·0" s'iI~l!'lil~;P.lEJ;)m~rlt1J~ require clearance and earthworks worst option. 1J ~ • pg " s'illiHiUJi:R & Ij'[ ~ ~ I!iG ~ ~ 1,1 ' over a considerable area a hillside ~Ji r'il:J ' Ilil IJUt!! I I fli! :f:E ~ {@j ID 1M et; ± till ill S'i Ilil ilil1J resulting in significant long term ~ • Ej3" ~?f ~ 'iJ( f.!Il:I~ s'i ~ jl(l 0 ~ fIi'B IMI P'J S'i1'iJ ye 13!' + 5f i'i1Ii 0 scarring of the existing green backdrop. 1J ~ • pg" '1ll' ~:f:E 7;:~,<\ LlJ J&l tllllilli & Landscape: Wi1lff P'J jjfOfT:;I;::lil:s'i ItMl'f.!I!& {J] j1jiJ nli! ' rlUI' ~ m !!.~ iI& 'ifJ 7t :N§ R The construction of Options A and ,"'"" ('$-~llliIjZg) 0 wr;mnnHtlll& B would result in the clearance of existing trees within Ngau Chi Wan m* j§ jjJ(:a'i flI!i~ ~?fW :R ffi a1 ~ 13' ' V iUage and the Home for the Aged. Ililrlt ' 1J~ • pg" ~J1Hf.!I!~a1- Option B would involve the felling {@j~jl(Io of fewer trees within the village but Figure 4 - Option C Section on Earthworks would affect a greater area of the ~~-~.·N"±~Ift~mOO~ 9 4.2 Operational Phase Air Quality: 4.2 :i!l!f1;JUJ Noise: Option A would be expected to have the greatest air quality impacts, tJ '!f; .. ~.. ilt ~ *" '1U,~;§}jjt si ~!,& Noise levels due to traffic on existing followed by Option B. Option C f.ll JtJl wr ~5i :*: ' tJ '!f; .. G" ;/J( z ' tJ roads in the Study Area are already would have the least impact. The high, and frequently exceed HKPSG differences in expected impacts lifO'G ij(g ~ fI>]J.YI. ff i:@: fiI) L El3 X i!ii PiT i£' '!f; .. l"i " JlIJ ~ '.Y ' {g =~ z F.~ si ~ maxima, particularly in the Housing among the three Options are small, Hi IIlidif * '1'- B *'4 fN r'i\J ' ol!z B iIJ:1 i!iQ ~§t§*/fjj! , :!tJt:ll":tJ'!f; .. ~ .. "& Estates. There are some shielded particularly between Options A and HKPSGS'Hlt r'i\J fll'i ~ , :it Jt Jl": ~ H ij(g tJ'!f; .. G" o:(:E + tL@~Hti W4~!!M areas such as Ngau Chi Wan Village B. Of the nineteen assessed recei ver tJ7f< .. ~ .. "& tJ'!f; .. G .. 5j7JrJ and parts of St. Joseph 's Home for points, six exceeded the AQO Iill vJB'J 0 gB 5j ff miliH5t fMj si ±illlJ!1i ' '*' ' the Aged and some facades which maximum for NO" under Options A ~D 4- iill r.!i11"& ~ *'J,g y t ~ g~ 5j till fft\@W4U~ s'J -= ~ 1t: ~fll'i ~iIJ:1:±l face away from existing roads where and B. Five of these exceedances are traffic noise levels are lower and at facades near existing Lung Cheung tJ ' ):),"& /f Jl": lE j!fi j!fi rOJ fJl. ff i:@: fiI) si ~ *" 'I![ ~d:Hll'i (AQO) s'J mAE ' Jt '*' within HKPSG standards. Flyover Road and Clearwater Bay Road, and till tJ ' Jt X i!ii ~ 'l§"- *'1'- ~5i i~ , ol!z 1'1' Ii JWi i.li: In W3li)JI. BHHJJ i:@: "& i~ * ~ Option A or B would have little are due in large part to traffic on i1i!l't-!liml!r'1jfll'i~W~JlIJ 0 tJ'!f; .. ~ .. i:@: s'J iEF, , et ~ :ll": El3 I'I'i i:@: fiI) '~Ht s'J effect on sensitive facades already these roads. exposed to high levels of noise from !iX tJ '!f; .. G" si 7C t~ ~Ht B :It ~~ rn x i!ii PiT ;§}jjt 0 traffic on Lung Cheung Road or Landuse: i:@: !iX i~ i'4 i:@: L ~ ~ 11;\<1 tl' ~ ~ si IiiV: Clearwater Bay Road, but would * increase noise levels in previously Both Options A and B follow similar !1l0t ~ to/J ;§ }jjt ~5i '.Y si !;l,; 1& ' {g wrJlli shielded areas such as Ngau Chi Wan alignments at their western and 11U 4- illl i'~ 11 ~ ff mil& ~5t fMj tilllJ!1i si ~ Village. Options A and B would also eastern ends and have similar direct tl' 7J~ '1'- 0 uH} , tJ '!f; .. ~.. "& tJ '!f; tJ7f< .. ~ .. "&tJ'!f; "G" *i1!iI'l'i~iffi affect potential future highrise and indirect impacts on the Lung developments in Ngau Chi Wan. Cheung Road and Clearwater Bay .. G" ]); wr!;l,; 194- illl i!l! fig * * si r'i\J S'J fiI) *!H§ 3lI ' !tH~!jJ i:@: "& i~ 7h~ i:@: Option C has a greater effect, Road corridors, the residential blocks !llt Jt ~ 'to/) 0 '£ In tJ '!f; .. l"i" JlIJ/f i 13. lE Jrul ' ~iH~ i:@: J¥j j!fi 8".1 :¥HH1 ii. "IS tW however, by introducing road traffic of Choi Hung Estate to the south of ;fU 3lI i~ i'!!! i:@: s'J Ii F.~ ~ tlt PiT ~ }jjt noise to areas previously shi elded, as Lung Cheung Road and the four wr -% ff mil& ~ fMj tilllJ!1i si x i!ii 11;\<1 tl' * m * well as at facades that previously schools adjoining Clearwater Bay '1'- ff PiT t(l1 tm ' ffiL§. ~ wr fl /f :ll": lE j!fi B'J@:W"&Fa'*~'i'~:*:IOJ!J'Jl 0 I'I'i faced away from traffic, such as Road. Both options would result in j!fi rOJ 1Jl. ff i:@: fiI) si till tJ m }jjt 11;\<1 tl' ~ @tJ~~ wr [Z;Jff;w,~M~~-fi5Ii~i!\'Q north facing facades in Bayview direct impact due to the clearance of Gardens. Option C also affects a corridor of land through the centre 1!lI ' ~D ~ ~ 1t ~ rOJ ~t8i lE F' ; IOJ 4- illl i''''l 11 '*' {,' (d ~il illll!f ~ t iID ~ i!iQ ~ potential future high ri se of Ngau Chi Wan Village, the north Dil' ' tJ '!f; .. l"i" ]); wr !;l,; 'S' 4- iill i!l! fig *'J ,g y ~ s'J It i:@: jjiJ ~ }jjt @: tU'; ~ , developments in Ngau Chi Wan of Lung Chi Path, and across the 0 ol!z wr Fa~ tU'; ~ 4- illl i'.iJ JJI. ff "& ~Hlm Village. grounds of St. Joseph Home for the **Sir'i\JroHI';~to/J '*' Aged. There would be an indirect }t ~ 'to/)"& 4- illl i'J1:X: Plll '*' {, 0 impact on existing and planned il 10 properties in Ngau Chi Wan and on The rou te alignment conllicts with 15 ~ " z.. " t;Ij Jilt a"I r~' W~ liffi ffi y El3 lR l5~ "IfI " lk. l5 ~ "z.." l'I'Jot the Ngau Chi Wan UC Complex. an existing WSD pumping station on Clearwater Bay Road. 1R15~ " 1fI " , J)j(1!I,"l',: 15~ " z.. " j;)f&ot S"I @ W ~li ~5i :*: ' I!IJtt l5~ The indirect impact of Option B a"J ll/HU§ ij£ I;g ilM![ , 4- il!l ~)C Ii!il cp " 1+1"'r " ]:E~03 .~)-.:E~ "" ;ffi, ~, ""1J'J~1¥ 'If "" 0 wou ld be marginally less than Option As a result of the greater direct ,I:' &to'! * iI"1 i¥i l!ii a"I * fX~Q jj! 0 15 ~ A due to its greater di stance from impact of Option B, of the two Lung Chi Path, the Ngau Chi Wan options, Option A is considered " z.. " ~fj1' Wi ~ lin il!l f![ 5';' a"J it ~ 15 ~ " P'j " n I!m il:llk. ij!f 7.1< i!J1I il:l iE complex and the schools to the south preferable. ±ill lk. !Wi '-T-lJ\Z 'ti.' :r: I\tG :*: r~ a"I r, f~r :i: ' Ifri tl/J Jilt s"I @W ~ li ' j;) lk. n I!~ rJJ il:l of Clearwater Bay Road. Option B m 15 ~ " 1fI" l'l1J Wi n l'I'J 1lUt lilt ~ would not affect the sitting area and Option C wou ld have a lesser direct i¥i l!ii s"I *~ ~ H fi. 'S tlt '-T- lk. iJ!f 7.1< i'Ji il:l shrine located along Lung Chi Path impact on the Lung Cheung Road ~ 0 1' ;@' , *ii oI!UiJi ~ 15 ~ " z.." a"I i¥i l!ii a"I = r.ll * fX PIT!l!i /JJt a"I r~' w~ ~ or the gate house at the entrance to and Clearwater Bay Road corridors 7j<.?. @WJjt;~ ~Q:*: ' J)j( 1!I,"l',: : J$]~5iy 0 the Home fo r the Aged, both of and lesser indirect impact on the wh ich be would be affected by residential blocks of Choi Wan Estate Option A. Option B has however to the south of Lung Cheung Road li\t ~ ilHJTJ.ll, B\'i 4- iltl i'.!1 p;j ]I! og, a"I HHtZ T ' 15~ "P'j" Wil\'HWJ'i been found to have a greater and the three schools to the south of H ~o 13 t~ Jilt@ W JjlJli : permanent direct impact for the Clearwater Bay Road. following reasons: By contrast, Option C would have a More existing village houses direct impact on : would need to be cleared in Ngau Chi Wan. The UC Hammer Hill Sports riii '&' ]I! et/: H ~ 5J-flli IlIlI p;j pIT m~ gjl: H tiH!HIH"I 1F LlJ il:l LlJ IIW 0 'ff< Complex football pitch. B"I 310 1Hill riif A 0 li\t ~ 1iii I 'Ii ~~ ~ - fg;; 25* ~ a"I More private land would need to '* be resumed within the village. The lower slopes of Hammer Hill iE m~7~ , )il1Hl ~:*:a"Il!iim~fj which is designated as green belt. ]I! og, ± till Wi ~ 'ti.' :r: I\tG p;j ± till a"I The future pattern of land usage A sign ificant area of land would ;ID r.rn Jjt; ~ lk. '&' ~HJ jffi EL shown on the Village Layout Plan be affected, in addition to a f'T li\t ' wou ld need to be revised. corridor 25m wide necessary for 15~ " z.. " a"I n*.3l~~ li'ti.':r: ~ 1"0 ~ 'ti.' :r: I\tG *l!ii s"I rnr :i: lk. construction. I\tG p;j - ~!i1 f.ll, 11 }£ ~ !WJ 0 1'lI1Jl[ - h a \f*,,* 0 More land would be resumed or affected by a wayleave in the A lodge to the east of St. Joseph grounds of the Home for the Home for the Aged and an 15 ~ " z.. " a"J n ~ Wi J!f 7.1q!,! il:l 15 ~ " P'j " iJl; ~nt I'lII Jl[ III ±Ut Jilt E Aged and the route would impact adjoining area of dense tree f.ll,8;'j s'~7.I<;f;lj=~ ~*Ml1 pITtj\;~ 0 '&' a"I WJjlJ i!.\! ' '§ on an existing building within the planting. re' r.s : grounds. Option C would also have a wide 11 spread indirect im pact on adjoining The main advantage of Option C is 11 '*' " p;j' a/Et ~ 11t !lit; ~ or iIlHUt land uses principally including: the avoidance of direct impact on Ngau Chi Wan (Figure 5); but the 4- i1!Jilo!! Jl!j nlt ~ t~ lll,; li' ( ~ ~ [l:1i] The future UC Leisure Pool significance of this factor is Ii ) , f;.{\ ilO lit !!it; 1'.lE J:.at if!! lfHHlt Complex. diminished by consideration of the ~ iiHiT ,& !I! m5t I~HHllJ :* Wl 00 0.J m eventual clearance and redevelopment The Hammer Hill Sports of the village as shown on tbe OZP 7f, a"J Hl~W,,& lHHt i!JIJ '* a"J ii1ii Jlff m Complex. and the resultant indirect impact of ~ 49J Jl!j IlJt rdl m ~ \S! a"J M!!it; 0 Option C on the planned hi gh ri se 4-ii!lil't 5.HhH ffi1J:*Wl[l:1i] (ozP) Bayview Gardens. development. iAJW~frWma"J ii1iiM {i.'tm~49J ' :t:E ~ LIt l@ mffi1 Ji& ma"J'1'I mH *~ lJi! Future hi gh ri se residential In view of the wide spread direct and 'El. tt if!! ~Jj .!W! 11l ~ 0 ± till ;m ffl ; ilO 11 '*' " p;j ' eTl \l!; f.t ffl developments zoned on the OZP indirect impact of Option C on in the area of Ngau Chi Wan landuses which wou ld not otherw.ise till m. iIr'1Jtii'i IlJt IPf i;U!~ li' 1& ' 11 '*' including future quarters for Fire be affected by the implementation of " Efl' W~ ~ jg 11 lID a"J ~Ji J!!! :m ~ f\fi 0 Services Department. planning policy, Option A bas been selected as the preferred option in St. Joseph's Home for the Aged. land use terms. p" F"c, Ho"" (SR28) i I Figure 5 - View 2: From Roof Top of Choi Wan St Joseph's Primary School (SRll) 1l'lIE. - fJiflllltll'll .=. : 1:t~ ~!w if;\]~'J'~nHprFg[ (SRlI) 12 Visual: Landscape: /j"*, "fi'j" '!tt fJ!. B'f 4- ii!J i'JI tta<.J ~ ~ The impact of Options A and B The landscape impact of either of the wr ~j( 'P . f.§. '!tt ~ pg H 'J J!ll. J!: a<.J "'" M {fm1'~/j would be very similar. Option A three route options would take place /j"*, " If'" lJ../j"*, " G" J!: lUH&J l'l1J fl ~j( * a<.J ~ ~ 0 El31n /j "*' would have slightly more impact on at the construction stage when the ilil il"J ~ 1-5H§ )IT 0 El31n /j"*, " If' " " fi'j" jllH.lIl ,Ht ' fj'[ ii: il!j( "'" • [zg III the vi llage houses to the south of road corridor is cleared. Impact Lung Chi Path and the three schools would tend to diminish in the a<.J jlU.lIl ~ ~~ ii!J *,1l¥.i a<.J 1'1 ~ lJ.. i~ 7}; ~ '!tt lil' @litI1i;w If.!! fl ~ ~ iz a<.J tJB'l ~ to the south of Clearwater Bay Road operational phase as landscape is ili l¥.i ilil a<.J .::: F.ll '$' tt ~j( t¥)IT • [zg III ~ ~ • I'1J B'f ]); wr 1lt Li.J ~ a<.J j } !ill Jl!i /lx>j( because it would be closer to them. restored by the provision of new i!fffj* ; ffiJ/j"*, " G " l'l 1J{f~ ~£ 7- ·11 lllt 0 flHo l' j;)i FIl Option B would have a significantly open space and replanting of m /j "*' more severe impact on the Home for vegetation. The impact of Option C J!: ilfj iW&: ;t; f\7t lJ.. JJ!. ~ Ii~ ii!J 1~ ~ t ilil a<.J "fi'j" • Li.J ~ ill': l' wr"51: 3'1J ~ ~ 0 [zg the Aged and on the existing village would be more prolonged due to the 1'1~wrfl~~£a<.J~~ 0 [zgJlt/j"*, III • {f =fl !UU.lIl '*' . /j"*, "fi'j" {f houses north of Lung Chi Path prior permanent scarring of the natural to redevelopment in this area. Option landform and the long term impact " If'" ~;It '*' il!j( fjj!:t~ a<.J ~ Ri 0 m}'tl&*H Option C would have a lesser impact on the existing Ngau Chi Wan Village but a greater impact on planned high rise development in this area. The longer length and higher elevation of Option C would result {f Ill! :ffi ili lli\; t*~ • [zgIll~~1'JlI[~a<.J~t' 0 Figure 6 indicates the possible visual impact of Option C viewed from Figure 6 - View 3: From Top Floor of Hung Shek House, Ping Shek Estate (SR4) Ping Shek Estate. fi.'lI" - fJiflm'ifi.'ll':=: : EIIlfIitHHiw'!JJiW.!""F.!iIl (SR4) 13 The choice between Options A and Proposed Ornamental M!I m [!''IJ ' ~fj'- Mh In ii f'F Wl pq I'f 1it!i i1I B relates mainly to the number of B A\'e nue Tree Planting the trees affected by the two routes, fil!Ofiffi'Zi~ /f ~ ~i&a"J m1it!i 0 ):J T ~ the likely permanence of the trees i1I-fil!liliiffl a"J~fDm1it!i : as a result of the assumed future implementation of planning policy and the ability to mitigate impact Lung Ch i Palh I - ' -'-'-'-'-~-B-'- ' - ' - '- ~ Of H o:m,;--j:;;;;:I:=~Q~...L------: after construction. From For Tile Aged consideration of these factors Route Plan: Example of Mitigation Measures SECTION BB ~:tU ~ ~ ~ ~ ji,t ifd'~ A emerges as the preferred option. within The Home For The Aged DJk iif iB' a"J 11 15 itiU DJk iif a"J * iJEi 0 :t:E ~ ~ l1ll • @.lIi!J li'f ·tJ l\liti!(ation Measures Figure 7 - Option A Mitigation Measures ~l1llllel1llDm.L.Lm •• , "&m 1i'lI-t - 15 ~ "If!" (J() *l·filUIH1§ Measures to mitigate adverse §m~l1ll.~ •••"&~ffl'~Of. 3'.1J;:/J~ • if!" "& 15~ • G" , 1: environmental impacts are desirable ensuring that they are properly i~l1ll.lIeIFfplT~tl:lB"JDJkiif 0 Ilt7~ , both during construction and upon maintained and used. The power ~ i,t( JE In l'I'l {~ lIl'r ~ ~ iIJ a"J ~H* 0 {Fm DJk completion during the operational units of non-electric stationary plant ~ j!!H!(!i j!,Hll: a"J iif' ffl "& ~ ~ tl:l iif phase of the flyover. Adequate and earth-moving plant can be rJ;- , ~j 7f'lw I!I M!J'- 3tHY!!!FJ i& m a"J 1'4' 1it!i a"J Jiij _lOJl. iHrl)i ]j\Z 7'G 3': it H!(!i • m supervision is required throughout the quietened by vibration isolation and iffi Jl!i t~ 7]( 7.. i~ Wa"J Of jjg '11 ' ):J"&:t:E it to/J ' #- Of iffi'Z f~ ~~ ~ Nj'ld~ B11?il JE construction phase to ensure by partial or full acoustic enclosures 1it!iIWlt&Of*~:tu~ilJa"JOfjjg'I1 0 ~ compliance with the specified for independent noise generating m. lie iiHll:. ii: 't B"J IIJk iif ' x.]j\Z measures. Measures to reduce impact components. Temporary noise I.~U~):J L j)J( I!I ' 15 ~ • if!" ~fj'- ~ ilx iif' ffl rim. B~ '!(!i iif m {Fm ):J~!(!i :l;il @ 7J~ B"J DJk in the operational phase can be barriers may be used to screen f!Il.:W a"J ~ flIi 0 applied by careful consideration at specific sources. planning and design stages. The applicability of a variety of measures Recommended construction noise 4.3 *l I'll mM!i ijt ~ a"J 1it!i I IIJk iif ~;fO m 1it!i ' '§ tt 1it!i has been considered as follows . mitigation measures, including construction noise limits, will be I IIJk iif 'g itiU ' ~fj'- m Illt if [Il] j~ iH"J - Construction Phase: incorporated as contract m: MHg:t:E 1it!i I Wl pq lie 7': liliJ I ~!1$' I requirements. i& a"J ii i'F Wl '*' ' 1'l' 1it!i i1HjU~ fD m 1it!i The most effective noise mitigation measure is to control the noise at its In controlling dust generation and ):J iffi'Z iMt Jilt 1J! ~ Illt a"J /f ~ ~ 1& ' i!i![ ~j1l;iti~ ii:'tEk ~"& ~ ± m~ a"J jj source. Noisy plant and processes transmission, watering is the most ffi\l1it!iIWl~ m'lmil1 JE ~'!I a"J ~'g m i5G ' 1ft £ ~ 'ill' ffl a"J 15 it: 0 IlH~ , can be made quieter by using common control method adopted. * 1it!i ' ):Jlil1ii~Wi1l-J.lH~JE~*H3 f.f 0 I!ilI fR Of ffl ):J j1l; itilml)i:t:E I f§1 ~ tl' mufflers on generators, pneumatic Hoardings also serve to contain some #- Jw jjg:t:E n§1l;! IDIJ "& ~ll: H ~'F breakers and power units and of the dust raised during construction ® Il".r w: '*' Wl r.ll ii: 't a"J Ek ~ 0 activities. 14 Direct landuse impact may be limited Other measures which can be applied ilR 'i;';' 1i ~ " fj3" I*J fJ!.1'r si Jil tlJ1 ~$c ~ '&~jlm)!Itlll[.l1;s~x~1ifll'! ' #iiJ by allowing the retention of existing include hydroseeding and replanting significant land uses such as the RCP, the affected areas as early as !E.s ' 41"illi'Jls~iH~ J"ill'&i!lJjf ' j:),& iIlty~ rp S'J r"~ jtJ!!;~ 0 1i~ " fj3 " sitting area and shrine in Ngau Chi possible. ,& 1i~ " G" I1IJiiJ ~iI!Q:tEH~ifiBIli!I Wan, and the entrance gateway to the I*J if IfIIhlI t&,& $]( r"ll S'J IhlIlIlJl e$c ~!HJH'l Home for the Aged (for Option A). This would be achieved by designing l&!fi: ' i'§Ill~n 1i~ "ji The landscape input of Option C can , ; be reduced by forming more of the '0 route on elevated structure rather than SECTION CC earth embankment. Figure 9 - Option B Mitigation Measures IT 1l'lI1L - 1i 'if> .. Z" iJtJ ~ ""Ult Iif!i =-- 15 WATER PROOfED) CRC CLADDING WA~~ CLADDING~~'t, - 1111 \ ON STeEl SUP FRAMEWORK 13 28 8 259 OOlNG PANELS ~LfNG FRAMEY«>RK :";'C ""ESI CONCRETE PROV IDED TO EITHER OR \ / lOO THK. SURFACING \ I I 8 250 I I \ I I \ I 100 TH . ,",,''''Na7 TYPICAL SECTION OF NOI SE BARRIER SCALE 1 : 50 SECTION OF NOI SE ENCLOSURE TYPICAL SC.l.Lf I : so NOISE BARRIER NOISE ENCLOSURE .: - :- ... .-=. ~. - ,- I I I . ...r-.l..! ._ . - . Noise Barrier and Enclosure Elevation Figure 10 . '"' "" lIBl!iifm:l'l::m1>'ll 1>'lI+ . ~iif~JIII11k ...... 16 flows along existing major roads. Disturb'cd Area of Hillside E~isling Hillside V~gN:llion ~ ~ Jjjz:l11; SS II;\i! ff *if ~~ fl1j!l ~1I ~ ~ Sm Wide Area AvailabLe fOr' Re;lI5latel1ll.'nt of inditcnOll ill' f!!LlJ'lJl1J ~ iI" Wi lHIIJ 0 JHH'SJ ~ Noise mitigation measures .:t recommended include the use of IH'.'d'V·'·"H rei I' !.l/.lf .:t ~ l1i n f'r ~ SS • mfl :;p friction course on the proposed Wii~~lI;\i!ffo flyover, noise barriers, and a total enclosure. Where existing and future highrise dwellings are nearby, a total m~ or iIiit f.Il: II;\i! ff SS ;IJ ?t; 'et t5 :tf ~ ij!: SECTION GG enclosure over a section of the 7<: tilLt I~ ill 19 tL liii M ' '1Ii ff IlHf,l' 1-:J, flyover would be the only effective t measure to block the transmission of 31. - @WMm~~ 0 w. m!lll'li3P.l/. noise. A form of total enclosure is {Hs & ~tj fl tIl J.l/. as i'ili M ff. 'i:; , flU\1\l' [' r"'I',,~J .... "'i "'lII i"~ 5m \Vide ,\rea A"ailable shown in Figure 10, and the section 1,,,,,1 CUI1IJlln Screen,ffiulTer Planting ) v, or , :tf 7<: f.ij as ffi :5 $ Jt 00- ij!: - @ :i: liii SS for which it is recommended is 1 shown in Figure 14. Those segments I 'et ~ 1: ~ , j~J~: lIfE - IM"l '.EH~ II;\i! ff of the fI yover that are not enclosed as If 5& ;IJ?t; 0 Il;,l] +FIT ff-; ff,i; :i: liii SS 'et should be paved with a friction ~ 1: ~ if; Ill: ' jjjJ 111+ IZ9 FIT ff-; ~ IJ ~ course material, both to improve the as skid resistance of the surface, and to ~ 00- ij!: 1: ~ SS7<: f.ij $ Jt 0 jJ~ ~ i5t If help reduce the incremental increase 1:~ SS7<:f.ij$ Jt /!!l(~~ 1: 19JLliii M in traffic noise for all exposed liii Il.1J receivers. In addition, a 2-m barrier SECTION FF ~ '¥if ' P.I IfUUD n as "nl] fi~ , is recommended along the northern 1-:J, & M" llj] iIiit tj) FIT If ~ Jjjz !!lIi FIT iMl: as side of the flyover where it passes :*::lil:x~lI;\i!ffoflt~'El3tn7<:f.ij~ in front of the Home for the Aged. Assessment of the eli gibility for ~ ~ ~ ¥-J ,'(Hi:' ~ ~lt iltr liii ' iI!< 1ft ij!: ~ indirect technical remedies was :tf 7<: lit ~ t liii 00- ij!: - 00. ~ *i'iii ss Iff conducted and the findings indicated ~ 0 lifI '9'C ¥IHi'i' # ~ ~ lff It ~ ~ 15 If that no noi se sensitive receiver along the proposed flyover would be ~ ~ ilH'J ~F 00: ~ ss jj: j,tj/ill iJ& ' *J!1 '" eligible for the provision of such Indigenous !I,Ij ff-; j(z J!\\ \1\l' ~ ~ ~ ij!: ss 7<: ~I;j" ss . Planting lit lli indirect measures. II;\i! ff fijJ( ~ !!1; m Itt 1ft ~ ~F 00: ~ ss rill Along the north side of the flyover's iJ&o western end there are currently no Plan: Example of Mitigation Measure Across The Hillside 7<: lit iffi %ii ss ~ t liii j(z J!\\!.l/. 1'+ l!lG H illiJ 00- existing or planned highrise receivers. ij!:ssi'iliM:*:!i 0 ~3!HUg~lforfi~ It is possible that this area may be Figure 11- Option C Mitigation Measures developed in the future. L'!lI-t - - 15 ~ "i1i" JltJ *11~H:1iI!i llHHf.lf! 0 17 If highrise recei vers are planned at of affected trees and replanting of ~~~.*.~~.~A~E~R~ m*'T~RoffER~m.M.~&. the detailed design stage of the trees on completion of construction flyover, noise barriers or a full either in the urban area in the case ~~.~M~~E •• '~.D •• !ltfm.*titfjfm~!if~. ~ j;)'l~f~m enclosure at the western end should of Options A or B or on the hillside tit f~HIli 'If !if ~ jj\Z 'El.l!i!Lt i1ii 0 be provided for. in the case of Option C. Open spaces affected by Options A and B could No local measures to control air be reprovisioned in the redevelopment ~n~m~& •• ~~m ••ff*~ 4.4 Illt* pollution from vehicles on existing of the village area. Visual impact tt~~.~~.~m.'.~A •• and proposed roads can be could be reduced by careful design of 1992"1' ~ ~m ffl fII ~t ~ 0 implemented. Control of vehicle the road structure and by the planting •••A~~Mtt~m.~&~E* 1lX;t,'il: j;), a"J ~~a"JIlX;tJJj ~QT exhaust requires territory-wide of trees to provide visual screening. 1,\'HYl!!rU.Rflli 0 § : measures and effective planning of infrastructure. 4.4 Costs . Ifi.I .t · .A · .h&.+-.~~~ Possible mitigation measures to Costs have been estimated in 1992 · ~ll @] ± :l:i!l .ft*g.~&m •••~M~o. reduce landscape and visual impacts prices. The following costs were taken · riUii are illustrated in Figures 7, 8, 9 and into consideration: 1J.>@:J¥a"J±:l:i!lJIlim."".R ~~1J;f,*'/li'jJ~ · .JJt.~jii;f[]m. 11. !tt~ ••a"J.IJtIljii;f[]m. ~ fiJTtiii BJl • Construction · JIlifF&*lH~ JJ:tj~#'t~7'GllXa"J~. The reduction of direct landuse • Land Resumption aU:l:i!lml£ ' impact would be limited to the • Reprovisioning T ~!I!H I!jj(!® m:l:i!l 0 retention of existing land uses within • Environmental Impact Mitigation the road corridor as described in the • Operating and Maintenance recommended mitigation measures for imHJTill!; , ~1t~.&O*'If~~l~~l& ::('f!lM~m1ltQfJi:- the construction phase and also in The estimated costs for the Options ft&~~milim*~~R~m~m~ zoning un sensitive uses underneath are as follows: MJC ( j;X8;li\\~ ) the completed structure. .~~.ftMJ¥~m*.""o~'/li'~ Without mitigation measures:- ~ ~ " 238.00 .~~~~.* · 8~~ ••~.* .. Indirect landuse impact could be ~. ·Z" 252.58 HK$ Million ).:J.&~7'GIlXIfil&m*'Tfmfi1!.*.~g reduced by minimising factors such Option A 238.00 ~'Ji< • fi'i " 270.88 as noise and air pollution, discussed ~M*g.~."".ft;~.·~" Option B 252.58 above, and by rezoning adjoining - Option C 270.68 &~.Z~.*M'tfm~ffi~ ; ~~ f!lM~m1ltQfJi: planned landuses to avoid With mitigation measures:- •• fi'i" ~m*'Tfmfi1!a"J.*Jlrjwrfm~ incompatibility. Landscape impact ~'Ji< . ~ " 293.05 Option A 293.05 would be reduced by retaining wmo~~ . · ~"&~.·Z ". ~'Ji< • Z" 307.62 Option B 307.62 existing trees along the edge of the .a"J~:l:i!l~ j;),~*B~HiliB.m*'Tftmi:l& ~'Ji< • fi'i" 359.08 construction corridor, the transplanting Option C 359.08 18 CONCLUSION ~mm~~n~~~~fl~Ji['iIl*. 151 The Ngau Chi Wan Village Layout •• *'ffi~~@~.ffi.~~~Ji[ Un surprisingly, the environmental Plan already includes a high level impacts of Options A and Bare road on the route of Option A. ~~ffiM ' ~.·~·"&~.·~· ~~*.ffi~o~jjij~.·~·"&~ similar but B is considered to be less fl.~~ffi.~~ •• ,m~.~. .·~·wr.~.·W · ~ft.*~ environmentally acceptable than A There is a clear choice against Option • ~. !Wtl1Jli!'lH"&:!!'1jt.J10y~llJt~ because of its increased impact on C on grounds of Landscape .*~ ,.~~.~~~.~. the Ngau Chi Wan Village and St. Assessment. .. M~* 4'-i1Jl~H8'J l!~!fo/]wrff~ Joseph's Home for the Aged. No • ~ " .if\: 0 1':E~fl!'!l~ifii5 '*' ' ~. rllJJlll' clear choice in favour of Option B Option C is 23 % more expensive • ~. i5!:~i±j"H§fl~flJa'JPJId4 ( W • • W· ffi. ~ 8"1 t5!. ~ ••t§ J!jti~ ±~ 0 has emerged in any assessment than A and 17% more expensive than ;gllffil+=) 0 (Figure 12). B when provision is made for noi se mitigation. 4'- i1Jl i'~ H 8"1 ~ Illl i[ Ill'II B 'eHI'i 1':E ~ • The choice in environmental terms !Jl. ~ 1i£ .IJt ~ iID 'i!j rIl\ ~ mid U* 'lf ' ~ thus falls to be made between Recommended measures taken in Ji[ 'ill * ' ± tMHIl ' tUc"& t1Jl f.!I! ~ .~ . 8'Jn*jjl~!IlJl!-M"rllJ!¥l~n 0 Options A and C with regard to both Option A and C to mitigate IJt a'J ~~!,S, , 1i£ jjij if( JE ~1'!! ~. • ~. Noise, Air Quality, Landuse, Vi sual noise impacts make the noise impacts ~ .. ~ .. 0 1':E~iffi5!mf.!l!.IJt ••H~ , ~ •• W· and Landscape Impacts. of A and C similar. aJl!!,ll~:ElJlXtt 0 After adopting noise mltJgation A is the preferred option on the J;R III ~ if\: 11;\!1 -Ira'J ~ it; fit ' ~ 1'!! ~ • measures the choices between grounds of Landuse, Visual and .~. , ~ •• ~. QlZ~. ·W· 1':E.~J.~.'lf ••~m •• '~ Options A, Band C on the basis of 8'J~*51l.i1J~j(~ ~. Landscape impacts and is cheaper ?!T~ 8"1 11;\!1 'If. 1,& * j!.Jl: - f~ 0 ;g /f J;R • • W· •• "& noise are equal. Without mitigation that Option C. lIl~ff\:II;\!1'lf8'J~iH IJ~ • • W' 8"1 ~ •• ~. 8"1 rllJ t±l 23%"& 17% 0 Option C has the most impact. Option A is therefore the preferred ••wr~*o Because traffic on existing roads has choice. l!.1':E~.·~·"&~.·W·.ft the greatest impact on air quality, the ~~W.'lf.~~~.·~·"&~. Preferred Choice three Options are similar in terms of • W· fi!T.~8'J1'*'lf ••*.t§;g 0 their contribution to pollution levels. Option A Option C However, Options A and B have Landscape X 1':E tiJ!. Jl!! III ' t5!. ~ "& t1Jl f.!I! .IJt •• slightly greater impacts than Option Visual X ± ~iID ' ~ • • ~ . 'Ilf\Jik,j(~JfX:8'J~ C. Land Use X Air Quality 1'!! ' jjij..EL~~*.~ •• f'i " 8"1. Future high ri se development in Ngau Construction Stage X if\: 0 Chi Wan Village will result in the OperationStage X visual impact of Option C increasing Noise Construction X proportionally. Without Mitigation X With Mitigation X X Figure 12 - The Preferred Choice IiilI += - :flU!:! JI! Ilil 19 161RECOMMENDATION The proposed fl yover should be constructed in accordance with }UH':J 7': m I!iHJH~ 1J;t: • Efl ' !Jl! Option A. }to Construction methods should meet the req uirements of MTRC with !Jl!}t 1J it- ~ fB' ~ ill' ii§ ij/J l' iiHlr 0 i'i] regard to foundations throughout the project to minimise vibration. e':J~* ' t!t;lj!;Ifje"Jij/J:lj!;~M~ lll! i'!liiffi£~~ijJ: 0 Existing facilities such as the RCP, the fJ!.'1Hll:ni!iJmtj'rJ;li(J&*M ' 0Jlffi ' ~ public latrine, the entrance to the Home for the Aged and the shrine on to ;jl. 9: ~ IiJt e':J A ]:] l-:J.,& ~E il!l f'fl. e':J IWl Lung Chi Path should be preserved '¥~~iJt(& ' l&7':me/;J~H£H~1l1i by designing the flyover to cross over ~ J: jz!j;tj/J 1J 0 them. 1:E!Jl!}t WJ r.~ f!.l' ~ tiDI~ iil!i 'iJl e':J rJi fO m Appropriate attenuation measures DtJj M~ I ~ Tif ,& ~ !i1J. jlO% e':J ill'; 11 iJ;t ~ ~ should be adopted during construction to minimise noise and air quality impacts. }t ~ 1£ 7': m ii A ~um HI!',,\' I'll: f& In IilI -t JZ9 Pfr if, ; 1. ASSESSMENT OF DECISION ISSUES: 2. COMPARISION OF DECISION ISSUES 3. COMPARISION OF 4. ROUTE NOISE / AIR QUALITY / LAND USE OPTIONS SELECTION VISUAULANDSCAPE TYPICAL ASSESSMENT TABLE OPTIONS DECISION ISSUES + OPTIONS+OVERALL ASSESSMENT FOR RANKING EACH 1'IT/ 2ND/3RD OVERALL ASSESSMENT l=LOW 2=MODERATE RECEIVERS CRITERIA ASS ESSMENT 3=SEVERE RI Hung Ngok Ilouse Kam Hon House R2 Tan Fung House NOISE' R3 UC Ngau Chi Wan Compl ex m AIR QUALITY (Library + Childrens Play) m R4 Ping Shek Es Late r-- ROUTE A LAND USE m - ROUTE A fi1 RS Ping Shek Estate Catholic VISUAL m Primary School LANDSCAPE IT! R' Ya n Kau School R7 SI Johns Primary School R8+9 Ping Shek Temporary SELECTED Housing Area OPTION RIO Sau Man House l=Low Rn Choi Wan SI Josephs NOISE' m Primary School 2 = Moderate AIR QUALITY Rl 2-16 SI Josephs Home For The m 3 = Severe ROUTE B LAND USE IT! - 2 Aged ROUTE B A R17·19 8ayvjewGardens VISUAL IT! R20 Hun g Sea n Chow Memorial LANDSCAPE IT! Co llege R21 US D Hamm er Hill Sports Complex R22 US D Hamm er Hill Proposed Swimming Pool Compl ex R23 Lung Chi Path NOISE* CiJ R24-26 Ngau Chi Wan Vill age AIR QUALITY CiJ R27 Hammer Hill ~ ROUTEC LAND USE - ROUTEC 02' Pak fung Hou se m S- R29 Area Zo ned For Futu re rSD VISUAL CiJ Quarters LANDSCAPE IT! OVERALL ASS ESSMENT 1/ 2 / 3 , WITH MITIGATION MEASURES Peter Fraellke1 BMT (Asia) Ltd. Figure 13: The Decision Matrix Enpac Ltd. I URBIS WlI +~ ::1il;iI!"~J{iIi~ '., •