I refer to the leader headlined 'Ruling recognises harbour's true value' (January 10). Save Our Shorelines (SOS) environmental group is ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with that section of the government that wants to make the water in the harbour clean enough to support uncontaminated seafood for us to eat, safe beaches for us to enjoy and a waterfront promenade that does not stink. SOS spoke at the recent Legco public hearings on the bypass, stating our clear preference for demand management (e.g. road pricing, limiting access during rush hour) in place of the bypass and the continued destruction of our harbour. Your readers should know that the 'bypass' includes a six-lane above-ground highway next to the proposed harbour-front promenade. The vile smell of the water on the shoreline from sewage, combined with the inevitable diesel fumes of this planned highway, makes the government's plans for a pleasant promenade questionable to say the least. Your readers also need to know that after five hours of public testimony and government response, the sum total of the Transport's Department public justification for the $15 billion Wan Chai bypass (the final total cost as estimated by the Conservancy Association) was to subsidise an estimated increase in private car use from Central to Taikoo Shing at rush hour. This cost on a per car basis is astronomical. This was in the face of hard facts showing demand management successfully being implemented in London this year reducing the number of cars to the city centre by 50,000 per day - and the vast majority of the people switching to public transport. K. K. Lau of the Transport Department carefully explained that we need the bypass so that the 7 per cent of the population who own private cars can drive from Central to Taikoo Shing at rush hour in 20 minutes instead of the projected 45 minutes, rather than taking the MTR, bus or taxi like the 93 per cent of people who do not own a car or prefer to use their cars sparingly for the good of the environment. For this noble goal, he is proposing we continue destroying our harbour and spend $15 billion. Intriguingly, Mr Lau dropped his previous arguments about an estimated increase in traffic from Western. But only after the Conservancy Association pointed out that Route 7, Route 10 and the Green Island reclamation have all been abandoned, and that the MTR will be serving Aberdeen, Cyberport and Western. Furthermore, the department's estimate of traffic through the Western Harbour Tunnel is significantly higher than the tunnel operator's own estimate. SOS has no faith in the department's estimated traffic figures. In contrast, if we spend $15 billion on an improved sewage treatment project combined with the proven success of road pricing (which actually makes money) and other traffic demand management schemes, the immediate effect would be impressive. Traffic would improve, we can clean up our heavily polluted water, improve the safety of the seafood we eat, reduce the vile smell along the harbour shoreline, and truly give the harbour, with a spectacular promenade, back to the people. JOHN BOWDEN, Chairman, Save Our Shorelines
