WORKING PAPER No. 30 BROADBRUSH ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON of DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This subject paper is intended to be a research paper delving into different views and analyses from various sources. The views and analyses as contained in this paper are intended to stimulate public discussion and input to the planning process of the "HK2030 Study" and do not necessarily represent the views of the HKSARG. WORKING PAPER No. 30 BROADBRUSH ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS Purpose 1. This paper provides the broad-brush environmental comparison of the development options formulated under the Reference Scenario of the HK2030 Study and an overview of the environmental issues related to the options. It should be noted that the current assessment is part of the staged Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the HK2030 Study and there are still uncertainties as regards many of the current results. Reference Scenario and development options 2. The Reference Scenario has been developed under the HK2030 Study illustrating the key planning assumptions as well as land use and infrastructure requirements, based on which the long-term spatial development patterns would be formulated and assessed. Under the Reference Scenario, a population of 9.2 million and an employment of 4.0 million by 2030 have been assumed (a summary of the key planning assumptions is at Annex A). 3. With the forecasted demand, various planning choices, including intensification of existing and planned development areas as well as identification of new growth areas, are devised to accommodate the additional demand for various land uses. After that, an Initial Scoping Exercise has been conducted to identify the more realistic and practical development options by examining the key considerations of various planning choices. Having examined the implications of the various planning choices, the core components are consolidated under two broad development patterns (i.e. consolidation and decentralization patterns) for a more comprehensive assessment. It should be noted that, while planning choices are numerous, the various components proposed under the development patterns have largely been structured upon recommendations of past and current studies as well as community views which were gathered in earlier stages of the HK2030 Study. The focus of the Study is therefore to critically re-examine the past development proposals, with particular reference to the timing and priority for implementation. It should also be noted that the broad proposals of these patterns are not mutually exclusive, although the common ones may still vary in detail. 4. The development options will be focused on the spatial distribution of land for housing and economic activities, while many of the strategic infrastructure (for example, on-site improvements at the airport, logistics facilities, tourism/cultural facilities, cross-boundary transport, environmental and strategic infrastructure) have already been studied or are being studied in different contexts and will be taken forward as common elements for all options. 5. Regarding the location of new container terminal facilities, the Port Development Strategy Review 2001 has recommended four possible sites, namely West Tuen Mun, Northwest Lantau, East Lantau and Southwest Tsing Yi. The East Lantau site is now rendered non-feasible by the Hong Kong Disneyland project. The other three sites are being evaluated under the Study on Hong Kong Port – Master Plan 2020 (HKP2020 Study) in terms of environmental impacts, traffic impacts and other concerned factors. 6. However, due to the timing of the HKP2020 Study, a single preferred location is not available for incorporation into the HK2030 development options at this stage. In view of that the West Tuen Mun site has already been covered by the Tuen Mun Port Development Study1, the broad-brush assessments for the Study will be carried out based on the other two possible port locations, i.e. Southwest Tsing Yi and Northwest Lantau. Together with the two broad spatial development patterns, four options have been generated as follows: • Consolidation Pattern with Tsing Yi Port Option • Consolidation Pattern with North West (NW) Lantau Port Option • Decentralisation Pattern with Tsing Yi Port Option • Decentralisation Pattern with NW Lantau Port Option 7. A table summarising the key differentiating elements of the two broad development patterns, as well as the proposed transport networks, for both the medium and long term, is at Annex B. Evaluation Methodology 8. The objective of the evaluation at this stage is to provide a broad qualitative assessment of the key environmental issues carried out on a comparative basis without reference to required standards and criteria. This has been undertaken to provide an indicative comparison of the development options. A preferred option, which will be formulated in the next stage of the Study, will be assessed quantitatively as far as possible. It should be noted that the level of detail available for option evaluation at this stage has meant that environmental issues have been addressed on a qualitative basis, using existing information/studies/knowledge where available. 1 Tuen Mun Port Development Study carried out by the Territory Development Department (1993) - 2 - 9. The comparative assessment of the performance indicators is qualitative and based on the likely performance as judged against the other development options. There are no implications for whether the indicated “preferred” options are likely to meet required environmental standards and criteria, or whether the cumulative environmental impacts associated with the “preferred” option or its components are likely to be acceptable. Such assessment will require further quantitative analysis which will be undertaken in the next stage of the HK2030 SEA Study. Evaluation Results 10. Evaluation has been conducted for the three benchmark years of 2010, 2020 and 2030. As most of the major projects to be completed before 2010 are already in the pipeline, all development options for year 2010 are very similar, giving rise to broadly the same results from an environmental perspective. The biggest difference between the options is seen in the medium term (i.e. year 2020) due to the implementation of new development areas (NDAs) and new port facilities, together with associated transport infrastructure. 11. This stage of the assessment will focus on a qualitative comparison of the likely environmental impacts of those components that comprise the difference between the options. This will provide an indication of which options are likely to be the least environmentally damaging. At the present stage of assessment, it is not possible to provide an indication of whether or not the “preferred” option will have acceptable levels of environmental impact. A detailed assessment of the preferred option will be conducted at Stage 4 of the Study to determine whether or not the preferred option and its components are likely to meet required environmental standards and criteria. Impacts of Development Projects for the Short Term (up to 2010) Water Quality 12. With a projected increase of about 0.3 million population in the Metro Area within this period, particularly at the HK Island catchments not served by Stage 1 of the Harbour Area Treatment Scheme (HATS), the Victoria Harbour may be significantly affected. While Stage 1 of HATS (which was fully commissioned at the end of 2001) has enabled 70% of the sewage flow to be treated before entering the Harbour, the remaining stages of HATS will not proceed as originally planned due to a review conducted in year 2000. 13. The timing for the implementation of the remaining stages of HATS is subject to the outcome of the trials and studies to be completed by early 2004, and the subsequent public consultation for the way forward of HATS. Any increase in population and employment within the Metro Area may affect the water quality in the Harbour Area in the short term if the implementation programme of HATS does not match the growth. - 3 - 14. In the New Territories, the Deep Bay Water Control Zone (WCZ) is a sensitive water body and the Government’s Zero Discharge Policy requires that developments should not cause a net increase in pollution load to Deep Bay. Sewerage networks in the Deep Bay catchment are mainly covered by the North District Sewerage Master Plan (SMP) and the Yuen Long & Kam Tin SMP. The North District SMP will provide for the proper collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater in the Sheung Shui and Fanling area, whereas the Yuen Long & Kam Tin SMP covers the areas of Yuen Long, Tin Shui Wai, Kam Tin, San Tin and Ngau Tam Mei. Under the latter scheme, wastewater will be exported and disposed of at Urmston Road via the North West New Territories Effluent Tunnel. 15. According to the approved Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau (LMC) Spur Line EIA Report, the construction and operational impacts of the rail on water quality would be minimized through various measures. Particularly, in order to comply with the Zero Discharge Policy for the Deep Bay, a reedbed around LMC Station will be used to polish (a “natural” treatment mechanism in the form of reedbeds) sewage effluent and to treat pollution load from the adjacent river channel.2 Air Quality 16. Hong Kong people generally perceive air quality as the key environmental issue. Deterioration in air quality may be related to a number of factors, including emissions from trans-boundary sources as well as locally from vehicle emissions and power plants (nitrogen oxide (NOx) and respirable suspended particulates (RSP)) as well as construction works (total suspended particulates (TSP) or RSP). 17. Poor air quality is a health issue, particularly roadside pollution due to the emission of RSP by motor vehicles which has been linked to higher death and disease rates. As a result of the enhanced vehicle emission control programme implemented by the Government since 2000, concentrations of RSP and NOx at roadside have been dropping gradually over the past few years. Whereas concentrations of sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and lead remained at levels well below their respective Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) limits in 20023.