TO set the record straight regarding your April 18 article headlined, 'Lantau Port land sought', the Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE) endorsed container terminals (CT) 10 and 11 subject to eight conditions. If these conditions are not met or are rejected by Exco, then ACE withdraws its approval. This is far from the blanket endorsement that your paper implied. CTs 10 and 11 form the base for a further three container terminals by the year 2011. In total, the Lantau Port Project will require nearly three times the amount of marine fill as Chek Lap Kok. ACE's main conditions require that it is consulted on the marine borrow areas used to gather reclamation fill. In addition, ACE requests that the Government set up an independent monitoring and audit office to investigate cumulative construction impacts, provide off-site compensation projects and extend the North Lantau Country Park. Like most people, I would like to see economic development. But the North Lantau Port project centres on the question of whether funnelling 250 per cent more cargo a year through tiny Hong Kong by the year 2011, much of it driven by diesel-powered container trucks, will provide the highest economic return on our limited land and financial resources. Unfortunately, there is too little information to make an informed decision. For example, the Transport Department's Freight Transport Study (1994) estimates that the amount of freight moved by container trucks will increase from nine million tonnes to 48 million tonnes by the year 2011, a 564 per cent increase. This increase is the direct result of expanded port facilities, but, in typical fashion, the Government is pretending that this is an entirely separate issue from port construction. None of the Environmental Impact Assessments commissioned by the Government for CTs 10 and 11 address how the massive increase in container traffic will be routed through Hong Kong's Western Corridor nor do they provide estimates of the air and noise quality impact. The most basic air quality models predict that the amount of air pollution emitted by freight traffic will roughly triple for all major pollutants. The Highways Department, for its part, has yet to fully detail the infrastructure requirements, road construction costs, road locations or estimated traffic flows through different districts. Essentially then, the Hong Kong public is being asked to commit vast financial and land resources towards a project without being given the full cost estimates or the environmental and social impacts. Surely, a competent government has this information. I can only guess the reason for withholding such data is to prevent informed public criticism of the Government's development agenda, especially from the 1.4 million people living in the western corridor whose lives, health and commuting times will bear the brunt of the traffic impact. Given the dictates of an executive-led Government, I hope that the Executive Council, which is privy to such information, will take it upon itself to release this basic information to the public prior to making its decision on CT 10 and 11. CHRISTINE LOH Legislative Councillor
