The existing port has served us well but at considerable environmental cost. The massive land requirements, road congestion, destruction of rural northern New Territories for container-stacking and air pollution are the most obvious. The port was built when Hong Kong had a manufacturing industry, and mainland ports were in their infancy. Those days are long gone.

Hong Kong port is no longer cost- effective, and initiatives to make it more so are almost wholly dependent on the mainland's charity. Without these, Hong Kong Port is fated to go the way of other industries which have served us well and then faded away. Why cannot the administration embrace the free-market realities that it trumpets? To postulate not only the arresting of the decline but massive growth is reckless speculation.

A new port means yet more environmental degradation. To come up with a single preferred option is an abuse of process, and wholly evocative of the super-prison fiasco. To site it off Tai O flies in the face of all publicly agreed conservation plans.

CLIVE NOFFKE, Green Lantau Association

Bridge landing site

I refer to the letter headlined 'Bridge landing site threatens unique Lantau geology' (January 17), by John Bowden.

In it, he expressed concern about the proposed landing point of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge at San Shek Wan which the chief secretary mentioned on January 11.

Mr Bowden questioned why the government has changed the proposed landing point from the one that our bureau indicated to Save the Shorelines (SOS) some time ago and which he considered would have a smaller ecological impact. We would like to clarify that the government's preferred landing point is, as indicated to SOS by our bureau before, at the headland between Sha Lo Wan and San Shek Wan. It has been most carefully chosen to minimise the ecological and other environmental impacts on Lantau Island.

The exact position of the landing point is being fine-tuned in the investigation and the preliminary design study is being conducted by the Highways Department. The alignment of the Hong Kong section of the bridge, including the landing point on Lantau and the infrastructure connecting it to the existing local network, will be subject to an environmental impact assessment procedure. The public will have the opportunity to comment on the project in due course.

AVA CHIU for secretary for the environment, transport and works

Folly of catering to cars

The Wan Chai reclamation is not needed in any form. The only 'reason' is to 'ease traffic congestion'.

Frankly, if people wish to sit in their tin box to move from one place to another, that is for them to decide, but do not concrete over the harbour to provide for and genuflect to the private car and its selfish owner. Experience overseas has shown greater road capacity leads to an increase in vehicles using them, which sometimes adds to, and certainly does not reduce, traffic congestion.

If you wish to ease traffic congestion then decrease the number of vehicles. How? By making cars and their use so prohibitively expensive that nobody can afford to run one.

N. MILLAR, Mongkok

Guard hub fees

In the contest for the much-debated West Kowloon arts and cultural hub, some have suggested that since Cyberport was awarded to Cheung Kong, another company (for example, Sun Hung Kai) may win this one. Yet Cheung Kong will not let it go so easily, and has joined with Sun Hung Kai to make a bid.

Whoever wins, it is important to ensure there are sufficient funds to maintain and run the hub. For this purpose, perhaps part of the development money should be put into an independent fund, which cannot be sold. Even so, unforeseen circumstances may force the successful consortium to wind up and withdraw its assets. How to guarantee against such a scenario should be thoroughly worked out.

Also, the huge canopy that is part of the design will be subject to higher risks and big expenses to maintain. Is it the only design offered? That it is best for the arts hub is highly questionable. Hong Kong should not just go on, hoping for the best.

P. H. WONG, Mid-Levels

Economic tsunami

I thoroughly endorse Alan Morison's article regarding Phuket ('Tourists, please come back', January 22).

I have recently returned from a visit to Phuket with a fact-finding group from Hong Kong International School. It has been far easier for this Thai tourist-hub to repair the physical damage caused by the seawater incursion than it will be for it to recover from the 'economic tsunami' that has so unnecessarily followed it.

Our team investigated services in the Phuket district and found no problems with water supply, health, hygiene, transport, communications, food sources, nor with the incredible beauty of the environment. The famous beachfront at Patong is a hive of well co-ordinated renovation activity, thanks to the Thai royal family and generous interest-free loans and assistance. Well before Chinese New Year, all will be back to normal on Phuket's west coast.

Two of our group visited the Similan Islands and re-dived our school's regular dive sites, and two of us kayaked our way through the islands and caves of Phang Nga Bay. Neither area had suffered from the effects of the tsunami, but sadly, both places are experiencing an unwarranted loss of tourist interest.

The media's mixing of reports and visuals from different areas, their appalling lack of specificity in describing locations, and the near absence of detailed maps has left places like Phuket with a 'bad name'. Thais are busy getting on with their lives, but are at a loss to understand why tourists are deserting them.

PAULINE BUNCE, Heng Fa Chuen

Warning the planet

I hope Nicola Mahncke ('Doomsday predictions', Sunday Morning Post, January 16) read yesterday's article 'Planet '10 years away from disaster''.

Global warming and changing weather patterns are not science fiction, as she suggested. My previous letter was prompted by the National Geographic global warming issue, a conservative publication. The ostrich outlook is no longer acceptable. In 1997, 2,409 scientists wrote an open letter warning of major problems within 50 years. Now it is 10 years.

With this in mind, big bonuses paid to the banking community are criminal and $400 billion in defence for the US government is offensive - a new missile defence will not save anyone when there is no air to breathe, fresh water or food. I agree completely with her suggestions on better allocation of funds. I merely suggest that governments and corporations should overcome their greed and lead the way.

ADAM WILLIAMS, Peng Chau