2010年1月14日 星期四

高鐵面前的五座大山: 高鐵西九方案目前難以克服的障礙

根據政府官員在2009年12月18日及2010年1月8日在立法會財委會會議上,就議員提問的答覆,「新高鐵專家組」進行了詳細分析,確認了以下範籌的問題,基於工程技術、法律和程序的障礙,政府不可能在短期內找出解決辦法,因此無法在未來一、兩個月內向立法會提交合乎情理的答覆:


一、「一地兩檢」難產 高鐵功能變質


由於現行法律限制,要有效地在香港境內實施「一地兩檢」,需要修改法律,甚至觸動基本法,而兩者均不可能在幾個月內完成,或至少獲得中港兩地的行政及立法機關確認可行方案。一旦「一地兩檢」無法落實,高鐵乘客(特別是長途車乘客) 可能多花一、兩個小時在距離港境最近的內地車站下車接受檢查,使高速鐵路變成名不符實的中速鐵路,令高鐵服務吸引力大減,從而降低乘客量和削弱經濟效益。即使中港行政機關願意考慮電子預檢制度、列車內邊檢制度或流動檢查制度,仍然需要面對不確定的法律和操作障礙,不可能於短期內解决。


在沒有「一地兩檢」的情况下,高鐵的性質會產生根本性的變化,成為一條主要來往香港至深圳和廣州之間的區域快線,與目前「直通車」的運作模式相近。對很多長途車的乘客而言,往深圳福田站或廣州石壁站上車,可能較往西九總站上車更方便快捷。由於營運模式和收益來源的變化,整條高鐵的設計思維須從新檢討。若果只是興建一條策略位置大大降低的區域快線,如何調整方案、降低成本造價以維持營運效率,將會是至為重要的考慮因素。


二、九龍區交通擠塞和環境惡化


政府在1月8日在財委會上公開的「西九龍填海區發展交通研究」顯示:高鐵西九總站建成後,新增交通會嚴重影響九龍區內18個路口,佐敦道須拓寬至13條行車線,彌敦道上多個路口不准轉彎,強制車流駛入橫街,11條內街交通流量大增,馬路切入公園及西九文化區,大舉破壞社區環境。報告承認部分建議改善措施在技術上不可行,但並無提出解决方法。


由於部份建議的改善措施 (例如廣東道與柯士甸道交界的行車隧道) 需要進行可行性研究及環境影響評估,兼且上述措施均未開始向區議會和油尖旺區居民進行諮詢,未知市民是否接受,政府不可能於短期內向議會提交一套解决九龍區交通擠塞和環境惡化的方案。


三、西九文化區的環境破壞和工程延誤


根據「西九龍填海區發展交通研究」顯示,廣東道和柯士甸道西需要永久佔用西九文化區土地,同時在文化區東面地段,由於地底成為列車緩衝區,將來營運時的噪音和震動,構成無法克服的制約,使地面不能興建高標準的文化表演設施。在高鐵施工期間,更須徵用文化區三份一的土地和一半海岸線,使文化區難以按照原定2014至2015年的時間表落成,剝奪了市民使用的權利。


鑑於運輸局尚未把上述各種影響,正式知會西九文化區管理局諮詢會,更未有通過諮詢會向文化界和公眾諮詢,而負責總體規劃設計的三家建築師更未提交解決設計和延誤問題的報告,政府顯然無法在短期內向立法會完滿解釋,如何能夠紓緩和補償對西九文化區的破環,和保證按照原定日期落成。


四、大角咀居民欠缺完整賠償機制


政府官員在1月8日的會議上首次披露,大角咀區共有47棟樓宇的區民,即數萬名市區居民,將會因建設高鐵隧道而損失潛在發展權益,而很多居民尚被蒙在鼓裡。鑑於終審庭在2003年Director of Lands v Yin Shuen Enterprises Ltd 的裁決,這些居民即使向政府索償,也不會取得等同於正常更改地契、重新發展時所獲得的「期望價值」。更何况這些居民在索償前,先要付出大筆支付給測量師、工程師和律師的顧問費用。


鄭汝樺局長在1月8日的會議上考慮設立一個「索償委員會」,但尚未有細節,而政府若要訂立足以補償潛在發展權益損失的標準時,需要兼顧「鐵路條例」及上述


終審庭在2003年裁決的規限,有可能須修改法例。因此,政府顯然無法在短期內向立法會及大角咀居民提交完整的賠償方案。


五、遷拆菜園村違背環境補償原則


菜園村村民在過去一年多來鍥而不捨的抗爭,即使賠償金額增加,仍然有不少村民堅持「不遷不拆」的訴求。這個罕有現象,正好印證了政府至今未有就不同收地方案進行「社會影響評估」的缺失。按照環境影響補償的優次原則,凡是對環境和社區有重大影響的方案,應先考慮替代方案,完全避免該項影響;只有在替代方案不可行而避無可避時,才考慮紓緩和補償措施。鑑於菜園村村民的反應,遷拆菜園村顯然屬於重大環境影響,應適用上述優次原則。


菜園村是一片完整的可耕農地,附近有很多土地質量差劣的廢車場和貨櫃場,從善用土地的角度考慮,政府是否應該率先徵用這些半發展、半廢棄的棕色地帶,遠勝於徵用一些未受破壞的耕地,以保護本土農業和鄉郊景觀?或乾脆考慮遠離菜園村,例如在錦上路建站的方案?


由於政府顧問並未有在環評研究內,就不同方案進行完整的「社會影響評估」,政府有必要補足欠交的評估,同時研究替代方案,包括「貫通南北」錦上路站方案的可行性。這些研究需時,政府顯然無法在短期內向立法會提供完整答案。


結論


鑑於上述五項工程技術、法律和程序的障礙,猶如高鐵面前的「五座大山」,政府不但無法在短期內向立法會提供合情合理的答案,即使高鐵撥款獲得通過,也難以順理進行。新高鐵專家組呼籲,政府明知無法就「五座大山」提供答案,便不應再浪費議員時間,在1月15日勉強向財委會申請撥款。政府應該擱置撥款申請,以三個月為期,完成應做而未做的研究和程序,向市民大眾補足應該交待的資料,並啓動公眾參與機制,廣納民意;同時,立法會應聘請獨立顧問,評價「貫通南北」錦上路站方案的可行性,以便三個月後能夠與西九站方案作出公平客觀的比較,作出最符合公益的抉擇。


公共專業聯盟


新高鐵專家組


2010年1月13日


——————————————————————–
Five obstacles facing XRL:


Insurmountable obstacles faced by the government option for Express Rail link


The “XRL Expert Group” has reviewed the answers provided by government officials to members’ questions in the Legislative Council’s Finance Committee meetings on December 18, 2009, and January 8, 2010, and identified five main issues which are yet unanswered. It appears that government is either unable or unwilling to find solutions for these engineering, legal and procedural obstacles within the next few months:


1. The failure to realize “Co-location” of Boundary Crossing Facilities impacting the benefits of a “High Speed Rail” link


It appears that legal constraints limit the implementation of “co-location” in Hong Kong unless changes are made to the law or the Basic Law. It is unclear whether these modifications can be completed and it is not clear whether feasibility studies by the executive and legislative branches in both the Mainland and Hong Kong have been commenced and when these will be completed. Once “co-location” is deemed unfeasible, high-speed rail passengers (including long-distance commuters) will have to spend an additional hour or two to their journey time to get off the train and commit to inspection at the nearest mainland port border station. This means that the high-speed railway is a concept in name only and merely becomes a de facto medium-speed railway. Although the so-called high-speed rail service sounds attractive, the lack of a co-location will reduce patronage and reduce the economic benefits. Even if the executive authority in Hong Kong is willing to consider electronic pre-screening or mobile inspection in the train they would still face uncertain legal and operational obstacles which are impossible to be resolved in the near future.


In the absence of the “co-location”, the nature of the high-speed rail will be change fundamentally and it becomes a simple “regional express” connecting Hong Kong to Shenzhen and Guangzhou, similar to the existing operation of the current “through train” services. For many long distance passengers, it will become more convenient to use alternative modes to travel to Shenzhen Futian Station or the Shibi Station in Guangzhou rather than depart from the West Kowloon Terminus.


These changes in operation and patronage will require a review of how Hong Kong can most effectively connect with the national express rail network. If it is merely a “regional express” with lower efficiency the strategic position will change and the proposed operation of the link needs to be fine-tuned and the cost reduced.


2. Traffic Congestion in Kowloon and Environmental Degradation


The “West Kowloon Reclamation Development Traffic Study” was discussed in the Finance Committee on 8 January. The responses show that after the West Kowloon Terminus has been completed the additional traffic will seriously affect at least 18 junctions in Kowloon, Jordan Road needs to be widened to 13 lanes, turns will be removed from many junctions along Nathan Road, the traffic would be forced through side streets, the traffic in 11 inner streets will increase dramatically, and roads will encroach on parks and the West Kowloon Cultural District (hereafter the “WKCD”). This will result in severance and dramatically undermine the community environment.


The study also shows that it may be technically infeasible for some of the recommended improvement measures to be implemented, and that there may not be solutions for all problems.


Some of the proposed improvement measures (such as the Canton Road underpass at Austin Road) would require feasibility studies and environmental impact assessments, and neither the District Councils nor the Yau Tsim Mong District residents have been consulted on the measures. It is therefore questionable whether all these plans are be acceptable to the public. It is impossible for the Government to confirm in the near future to LegCo that the traffic improvement and environmental mitigation measures can be implemented.


3. The Impairment of the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD)


According to the “West Kowloon Reclamation Development Traffic Study ,” Canton Road and Austin Road West will need to be widened and permanently occupy part of the land earmarked for the cultural district. At the same time, an area underground will be designated for rail which will result in constraints on the development of the district as noise and vibrations limit the placement of high quality cultural and performing venues above it. During the construction of the express rail link, it has to recoup one-third of the land in the WKCD and half of the seashore line for a long period of time. This will make it difficult for the WKCD to be completed in 2014 and 2015 as scheduled, and deprives the public the benefit of investments made to date.


It appears that the Transport and Housing Bureau has failed to officially notify the Board of the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority of the various impacts, neither did it consult the cultural sector or the general public. The rail plans will now result in delays as the three architectural firms involved in the master plan design are unable to submit their design proposal on time. It is clear now that the Government is unable or unwilling to submit to LegCo solutions and compensation for the damage inflicted on the development of the West Kowloon Cultural District.


4. The compensation arrangements for the residents in Tai Kok Tsui


During the meeting on January 8, the Government revealed for the first time that there are 47 buildings in the Tai Kok Tsui District, equivalent to tens of thousands of residents, for which the potential development rights will be undermined as a result of the construction of the tunnel for the Express Rail Link. As the ruling of the Court of Final Appeal in the case of Director of Lands vs Yin Shuen Enterprises Ltd. in 2003 indicated, that although residents will be compensated by the Government, they are unable to obtain the “expected value”, which would be equivalent to the value of the change of land lease and the value when the site is being redeveloped, not to mention that the residents incur significant cost in recruiting surveyors, engineers and lawyers before they will be able to receive compensation.


During the meeting on January 8, the Secretary for Housing and Transport Eva Cheng said that she would consider setting up a “compensation committee” but did not volunteer any details. Nor did the Government indicate any amount for compensation of the loss in potential development rights under the “Railway Ordinance” and in light of the 2003 judgment of the Court of Final Appeal. Hence, it is now obvious that the Government cannot give full disclosure of the cost of compensation for the residents of Tai Kok Tsui to LegCo in the near future.


5. Social Impact Assessment in Choi Yuen Village


Persistent resistance by Choi Yuen Villagers includes a “No Moving No Demolition” demand irrespective of the increase in compensation offered by the Government. This is an unique situation which demonstrates the Government’s incompetence in completing a “Social Impact Assessment” of various land acquisition alternatives before proceeding. Such


Such assessment allows alternatives to be prioritized based on their likely environmental and social impact, and help to mitigate any impact as much as possible. Monetary compensation and “remedial measures” are “last resort” solutions after all options have been evaluated based on scientific and professional analyses. Villagers’ vigorous reaction revealed that the demolition of Choi Yuen Village is apparently causing a huge environmental and social impact.


Choi Yuen Village is a piece of arable land whereas large areas of brown field land degraded by scrap yards for cars and container storage can be found nearby. The use of green field for rail facilities breaches all principles of proper land use. Question remains why Government does not consider acquisition of semi-deserted and un-developed brown field sites, so as to safeguard the countryside landscape and local agriculture? Why has there been no evaluation of moving the proposed infrastructure away from Choi Yuen Village in favour of the “Kam Sheung Road” option for the link to the national express rail? Government consultants did not undertake a comprehensive “Social Impact Assessment” of all available options in their Environmental Assessment Research.


It is unacceptable that the Government has failed to develop and consider alternative options including the “Integrated Option” (the Kam Sheung Road Station plus extension of the Airport Express Rail link). Having failed to do so, sufficient time must be allowed to make provide answers to the issues set out above


Conclusion


In view of the five engineering, legal and procedural obstacles set out above, it appears that we now have “five mountains” facing the Express Rail Link. Not only is the Government unable to provide appropriate answers with good justification in good time, it has proven to be difficult to obtain financial support for the Express Rail Link in a smooth manner. The XRL Expert Group appeals to the Government to not waste the time of the legislators by applying for funding in great haste without first resolving the “five mountains”.


The Government should now shelve the application of funding for three months to allow for time to conduct complete and adequate research.


It should disclose all relevant information to the public and allow time for a professional and adequate public debate to address all concerns.


At the same time, the Legislative Council should employ an independent consultant to assess and review the “Integrated Option” (the Kam Sheung Road Station plus Airport Express Rail extension proposal) against the West Kowloon Terminus option, so that a decision can be reached which best suits the needs of the public.


XRL Expert Group


The Professional Commons


13 January 2010


沒有留言:

張貼留言