None

HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT
Agreement No. 5/95
Design and Construction of

Central-Wan Chai Bypass and
Island Eastern Corridor Link
Construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel

in Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter and
ex-Wan Chai Public Cargo Working Area
October 2008
Maunsell Consultants Asia Ltd

Design and Construction of Construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel
Central-Wan Chai Bypass and in Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter and
Island Eastern Corridor Link ex-Wan Chai Public Cargo Working Area
Agreement No. CE 5/95

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF CENTRAL-WAN CHAI BYPASS
AND ISLAND EASTERN CORRIDOR LINK
CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRUNK ROAD TUNNEL

IN CAUSEWAY BAY TYPHOON SHELTER AND
EX-WAN CHAI PUBLIC CARGO WORKING AREA
LIST OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Trunk Road Scheme
1.2 Cogent and Convincing Materials for the Trunk Road
Scheme
1.3 Gazettal of the Trunk Road
1.4 Temporary Works for the Construction of the Trunk Road
and the Applicability of the PHO to these Temporary
Works
1.5 Demonstrating Compliance of the Temporary Reclamation
with the PHO
1.6 Purpose of this Report
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM i
Construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel Design and Construction of
in Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter and Central-Wan Chai Bypass and
ex-Wan Chai Public Cargo Working Area Island Eastern Corridor Link
2 THE TRUNK ROAD SCHEME

2.1 Derivation of the Trunk Road Scheme
2.2 Trunk Road Tunnel Layout
2.3 Realising Minimum Reclamation for the Trunk Road
Scheme – the Need for Temporary Works
3 CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRUNK ROAD TUNNEL IN THE

CBTS AND AT THE EX-PCWA
3.1 Avoiding Temporary Reclamation
3.2 Alternative Methods of Construction
3.3 Conclusion on the Need for Temporary Works
4 TEMPORARY WORKS IN THE CBTS AND EX-PCWA

4.1 Temporary Works Required for Construction of the Trunk
Road Tunnel
4.2 Justifications for the Temporary Reclamation for Trunk
Road Tunnel Construction
4.3 Minimum Extent of Temporary Reclamation for Trunk
4.4 Staging of the Works
4.5 Environmental Impacts of Temporary Reclamation
4.6 Conclusions on Temporary Reclamation Requirements
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
ii Maunsell | AECOM
5 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
5.1 Public Engagement Activities
5.2 Public Views
5.3 Conclusions of the Public Engagement
6 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Overriding Public Need
6.2 Minimum Temporary Reclamation Required to Meet the
Overriding Public Need
6.3 How Temporary is Temporary Reclamation?
6.4 Environmental Impacts of the Temporary Reclamation
6.5 Public Engagement
6.6 Compliance with the PHO
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM iii

ANNEXES
ANNEX A Gazette Notice No. 4767 & Plans Nos.

92995/GAZ/1000 to 92995/GAZ/1008
ANNEX B Temporary Works for Trunk Road Construction
ANNEX C Trunk Road Tunnel Layout & Plan and Profile

through ex-PCWA and CBTS
ANNEX D Trunk Road Tunnel Construction Technique under

the Cross Harbour Tunnel
ANNEX E Typical Sections through Immersed Tube Tunnel
ANNEX F Vertical Profile and Typical Section through Bored

Tunnel
ANNEX G Illustrative Cofferdam Approach
ANNEX H Typical Section through Temporary Reclamation
ANNEX I Temporary Reclamation Layout Plan
ANNEX J Construction Staging at CBTS and ex-PCWA
ANNEX K Public Engagement Records
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
iv Maunsell | AECOM
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM v
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Trunk Road Scheme
1.1.1 A comprehensive planning and engineering review of

development and reclamation proposals for the Wan Chai
Development Phase II project (the WDII Review) has sought to
assess individually the purpose and extent of each proposed
reclamation by reference to the Overriding Public Need Test in
accordance with the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) judgment
handed down on 9 January 2004 in respect of the judicial
review on the Draft Wan Chai North Outline Zoning Plan (OZP)
No. S/H25/1 and, if needed, to make recommendations on the
revised alignment for the Trunk Road (the Central-Wan Chai
Bypass (CWB) and Island Eastern Corridor Link (IECL)) and
at-grade roads, extent of reclamation and/or the land uses for the
review area covered by the assignment.
1.1.2 Under the WDII Review and through an extensive public

engagement process, a Trunk Road scheme (known as the
Trunk Road Tunnel Variation 1, or Trunk Road Tunnel) has
been developed that satisfies the traffic and functional
requirements for the Trunk Road. The Trunk Road scheme also
accommodates harbour-front enhancement ideas that have been
proposed by the public, and the scheme has the broad support of
the public.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 1
1.2 Cogent and Convincing Materials for the Trunk Road

Scheme
1.2.1 A “Report on Cogent and Convincing Materials to Demonstrate

Compliance with the Overriding Public Need Test” (CCM
Report) that was prepared in February 2007 sets out the process
by which the Trunk Road scheme and its associated reclamation
were derived, and presents the cogent and convincing materials
in support of the proposed reclamation required for such scheme
under the PHO. The CCM Report provided a full package of
materials which explained how the presumption against
reclamation was intended to be rebutted by an overriding public
need for reclamation, for the purpose of PHO as clarified in the
CFA Judgment.
1.2.2 The CCM Report sought to explain how the Overriding Public
Need Test was intended to be complied with, why the extent of
reclamation was justified, and provided an account of the
process of identifying the alignment that would best serve to
protect and preserve the Harbour.
1.3 Gazettal of the Trunk Road
1.3.1 By Gazette Notice 4767 published on 27 July 2007 (G.N. 4767),

the Permanent Secretary for Transport and Housing (Transport),
under the delegated powers by the Secretary for Transport and
Housing, gave notice under section 3(3) of the Roads (Works,
Use and Compensation) Ordinance (Cap. 370) of proposed road
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
2 Maunsell | AECOM
works as shown in Plans Nos. 92995/GAZ/1000 to

92995/GAZ/1008 (the Plans) and described in the scheme
annexed thereto. A copy of GN 4767 and the Plans are
enclosed for reference at Annex A.
1.3.2 As stated in G.N. 4767, the general nature of the proposed

works is, inter alia, the construction of a dual three-lane road
tunnel between Rumsey Street Flyover in Central and Island
Eastern Corridor (IEC) in North Point and the construction of
approach roads to the proposed road tunnel west portal and the
associated slip roads in Central, Wan Chai and Causeway Bay.
The proposed works also include “ancillary works including
construction of noise barriers and noise semi-enclosures along
IEC, central medians/ refuge islands, amenity areas,
landscaped decks, temporary breakwater, temporary piled wave
walls, phased temporary reclamation works; and drainage and
landscaping works”. It is stated expressly in G.N. 4767 that
after the construction of sections of the proposed road tunnel,
the temporary breakwater, temporary piled wave walls and
phased temporary reclamation works will be removed. Areas to
the immediate west of and within the ex-Public Cargo Working
Area (ex-PCWA), areas within the Causeway Bay Typhoon
Shelter (CBTS) and the existing sea-bed will be reinstated.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 3
1.4 Temporary Works for the Construction of the Trunk Road

and the Applicability of the PHO to these Temporary
Works
1.4.1 As noted in G.N. 4767, temporary works will be required for

the implementation of the Trunk Road scheme. Of particular
relevance in respect of the CFA ruling on the presumption
against reclamation in the PHO are the temporary works that
impinge upon the water areas of the Harbour. These include
temporary reclamation for the Trunk Road construction through
the ex-PCWA and CBTS, temporary bridge construction for
temporary traffic arrangements at the connection with the
existing IEC (of concern is the area of the temporary bridge
over water) and temporary typhoon shelter for boats displaced
by the construction works in the CBTS to facilitate the
construction of the sub-seabed tunnel (Annex B).
1.4.2 In October 2007, a declaration was sought through a judicial

review that the PHO and the presumption against reclamation
contained therein apply to the proposed temporary harbour
reclamation works referred to in G.N. 4767 and more
particularly delineated in the plans referred thereto.
1.4.3 The Court of First Instance (CFI) delivered its judgment on 20

March 2008, ruling “… That the Protection of the Harbour
Ordinance (Cap. 531) and the presumption against reclamation
contained therein does apply to the proposed harbour
reclamation works referred to in Gazette Notice 4767 published
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
4 Maunsell | AECOM
on 27 July 2007 and more particularly delineated in the plans

referred thereto.”
1.4.4 The CFI judgment can be viewed in the Internet through the
link:
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result
_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=60524&QS=%28%7BHCAL116%2F20
07%7D%7C%7BHCAL000116%2F2007%7D+%25caseno%29
&TP=JU.
1.5 Demonstrating Compliance of the Temporary Reclamation

with the PHO
1.5.1 In deriving the Trunk Road scheme and demonstrating that the
Trunk Road and its associated reclamation is in compliance
with the PHO, due acknowledgement has been given to the need
for temporary works including temporary reclamation. The
need for temporary reclamation was raised in the “Report on
Trunk Road Alignments and Harbour-front Enhancement” that
was issued in April 2006 which describes the derivation of the
Trunk Road scheme, in the Project Profile for WDII and CWB
that was exhibited in August 2006 under the Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap 499) for public
comments, and in the CCM Report.
1.5.2 However, in response to the CFI judgment on 20 March 2008

on the applicability of the PHO to temporary reclamation and in
recognition that the temporary reclamation was not separately
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 5
or specifically presented in the CCM Report, the overriding

public need for the temporary reclamation that is required for
the Trunk Road construction and its compliance with the PHO
are now presented in this report.
1.5.3 The following approach is taken to demonstrate that the

temporary reclamation for Trunk Road construction satisfies the
CFA judgment on the PHO:
(i) The CCM Report sought to explain how the Overriding

Public Need Test was intended to be complied with, why
the extent of reclamation was justified, and provided an
account of the process of identifying the alignment that
would best serve to protect and preserve the Harbour.
Overall, the Trunk Road Tunnel is considered the best
option in complying with the PHO. There has been
overwhelming public support for this option as the
preferred Trunk Road scheme, following extensive
consultations with various public, advisory and relevant
statutory bodies. Section 2 describes the layout of the
Trunk Road Tunnel in the ex-PCWA and CBTS.
It is how the end result of minimum reclamation and least

affected area of the Harbour is achieved that is now of
concern, specifically to confirm that temporary
reclamation is required and that it is the minimum
necessary to meet the overriding public need.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
6 Maunsell | AECOM
(ii) Any reasonable alternative to the temporary reclamation

needs to be identified, i.e. the feasibility of the Trunk
Road Tunnel be implemented with no/less temporary
works (including temporary reclamation). If there is a
reasonable alternative construction method that involves
no/less temporary reclamation, then it should be pursued.
Section 3 of this report addresses this issue. In fact, no
reasonable alternative construction method for the Trunk
Road Tunnel that could avoid the temporary works
(including temporary reclamation) was found.
(iii) Section 4 of this report examines the details of temporary

reclamation, including staging of works, to confirm the
compelling and present need for the temporary
reclamation for the Trunk Road construction, and to
ensure that the temporary reclamation is restricted to only
the minimum amount necessary to meet the overriding
public need.
(iv) Section 5 gives an account of the public engagement

activities that have been undertaken and the views of the
public in relation to the feasible method of construction
of the Trunk Road Tunnel and the associated need for
temporary reclamation.
(v) Finally, Section 6 of this report summarises the

conclusions of the compliance of the temporary
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 7
reclamation for Trunk Road Tunnel construction with the

Overriding Public Need Test and hence with the PHO.
1.6 Purpose of this Report
1.6.1 This report presents supplementary cogent and convincing

materials to demonstrate that the temporary reclamation for the
construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel satisfies the Overriding
Public Need Test, as laid down in the CFA judgment handed
down on 9 January 2004 in respect of the judicial review of the
Draft Wan Chai North OZP (No. S/H25/1), and in compliance
with the CFI ruling on 20 March 2008 that the PHO and the
presumption against reclamation therein does apply to these
temporary reclamation works.
1.6.2 The report has also been prepared with reference to the
requirements of the then Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau
(HPLB) and Environment, Transport and Works Bureau
(ETWB) Circular No. 1/04 on Protection of the Harbour
Ordinance, for the consideration of the reclamation proposals of
the WDII project and the Trunk Road, as appropriate to this
supplementary consideration of temporary reclamation.
1.6.3 In addressing the temporary reclamation for the construction of

the Trunk Road Tunnel, this report is intended to supplement
the CCM Report prepared in February 2007 that presents cogent
and convincing materials demonstrating that the Trunk Road
Tunnel satisfies the Overriding Public Need Test. As such, it
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
8 Maunsell | AECOM
should be read in conjunction with the CCM Report, which has

been issued separately.
1.6.4 Finally, it should be noted that various temporary works that

will affect the Harbour (temporary reclamation for the Trunk
Road construction, temporary bridge construction for temporary
traffic diversions and temporary typhoon shelter) may be
required to facilitate the Trunk Road construction. This report
focuses on the discussion of the construction methodology,
using safe, well proven and reliable techniques, for the section
of the Trunk Road Tunnel between the area to the immediate
west of the ex-PCWA and the eastern breakwater of the CBTS,
where temporary reclamation has been proposed as an essential
part of the construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 9
2 THE TRUNK ROAD SCHEME
2.1 Derivation of the Trunk Road Scheme
2.1.1 A detailed examination on the Trunk Road’s needs and

constraints, including an exhaustive investigation into the need
for reclamation for the Trunk Road construction and of
alternative schemes that might avoid reclamation, has been
carried out. The Report on Trunk Road Alignments and
Harbour-front Enhancement, April 2006, has described step-by-
step the derivation of the Trunk Road Tunnel as the option that
serves best to protect and preserve the Harbour.
2.1.2 The CCM Report sets out the process by which the Trunk Road
scheme and its associated reclamation were derived, and
presents the cogent and convincing materials in support of the
proposed reclamation required for such scheme under the PHO.
The CCM Report provided a full package of materials which
explained how the presumption against reclamation was
intended to be rebutted by an overriding public need for
reclamation, for the purpose of PHO as clarified in the CFA
Judgment. The CCM Report sought to explain how the
Overriding Public Need Test was intended to be complied with,
why the extent of reclamation was justified, and provided an
account of the process of identifying the alignment that would
best serve to protect and preserve the Harbour.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
10 Maunsell | AECOM
2.1.3 Copies of the CCM Report have been widely distributed to

relevant public bodies and key stakeholders. It has also been
uploaded onto the website of the Government
(http://www.devb-plb.gov.hk/reclamation/eng/ccm/cogent.htm)
and a link has been provided in the HEC website for public
reference. The Report on Trunk Road Alignments and
Harbour-front Enhancement is an annex to the CCM Report and
can likewise be viewed on the same Government and HEC
websites.
2.2 Trunk Road Tunnel Layout
2.2.1 The layout of the Trunk Road Tunnel is presented in Annex C.

Details of the Trunk Road scheme can be found in the Report
on Trunk Road Alignments and Harbour-front Enhancement
and the CCM Report.
Trunk Road Tunnel Layout through ex-PCWA and CBTS
2.2.2 The engineering layout and profile of the Trunk Road Tunnel
through the ex-PCWA and the CBTS are shown in Annex C.
2.2.3 The alignment of the Trunk Road is governed by a number of

constraints, including highway design standards that dictate the
geometry of the road and physical obstructions or restrictions.
Together, these determine the road curvature and profile.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 11
2.2.4 To the west of the ex-PCWA the existing electricity substation

and the Wan Chai East Sewage Screening Plant obstruct the
Trunk Road from a more southerly alignment. Then, the
crossing under the CHT is restricted southwards by the
foundations of the Police Officers’ Club and vertically by the
existing rock anchors of the CHT portal structure. The Trunk
Road tunnel structure must avoid these rock anchors that tie
down the CHT approach ramp structure to the underlying rock;
these anchors are there to prevent uplift caused by hydrostatic
forces (flotation). The rock anchors, based on available as-built
information, are installed from just below ground level to a
depth of around –17mPD, therefore, allowing for minimum
clearance beneath the anchors, a box tunnel section of the Trunk
Road must pass beneath the CHT at a road level deeper than
–30mPD.
2.2.5 Inside the CBTS, the Trunk Road Tunnel will cross the
proposed SCL tunnel, which will either pass above or beneath
the Trunk Road Tunnel. The SCL alignment and form of
construction are subject to preliminary design by MTRCL.
There will be a construction interface between the Trunk Road
Tunnel and the SCL, with the two tunnels crossing each other in
close separation. The forms of construction of the Trunk Road
and the SCL are important considerations in respect of avoiding
conflict with the SCL: a cut-and-cover tunnel can be
constructed with much closer separation allowance and, as the
Trunk Road tunnel box would be on diaphragm wall supports, it
should not be structurally adversely affected by the later
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
12 Maunsell | AECOM
construction of the SCL tunnel above it. Alternatively, bored

tunnel for SCL crossing underneath the Trunk Road will have
less interface with the Trunk Road Tunnel if the required
clearance is provided.
2.2.6 Through the central part of the CBTS, conflict with the existing
seawall of the Causeway Bay Promenade must be avoided while
at the same time maintaining a smooth curvature of the Trunk
Road alignment. The existing seawall in this area is an old
sheetpile seawall which is tied back to anchorage blocks along
the edge of Victoria Park Road. This seawall would be
extremely susceptible to loss of support or movement of the
seabed material in front of it. Behind the seawall are utilities
including cooling water intakes and mains serving, amongst
others, World Trade Centre, Excelsior Hotel and Windsor
House, and then the Victoria Park Road and the Causeway Bay
Flyover structures of Gloucester Road. Towards the eastern end
of the CBTS the Trunk Road Tunnel would again pass in close
proximity to the existing seawall; here, this is a blockwork
seawall on rubble mound foundation. Behind the seawall is the
Tung Lo Wan Fireboat Station and adjacent to that is the
Causeway Bay Zone Electric Substation. Behind these is the
Hing Fat Street Upramp for the eastbound connection to the
IEC.
2.2.7 Slip Road 8 connects to the Trunk Road mainline tunnel

through the central part of the CBTS. This slip road provides
connection from Victoria Park Road to the westbound Trunk
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 13
Road. The alignment for Slip Road 8 has been chosen to avoid
permanent reclamation; the slip road runs along the northern
boundary of Victoria Park before dropping into tunnel to cross
under Victoria Park Road and connect with the Trunk Road
Tunnel at a deep enough level beneath the seabed of the
typhoon shelter so that permanent reclamation for the slip road
is not required.
2.2.8 To the east of the CBTS, the Trunk Road Tunnel is located
adjacent to the existing IEC foundation piles, which constrain
the extent of the Trunk Road to move southwards further. This
therefore fixes the horizontal alignment of the Trunk Road at
this location. The tunnel alignment rises through the eastern
part of the CBTS and along the North Point shoreline to the
eastern tunnel portal. Connection to the existing elevated IEC
road structure is made on the northern side of the IEC, which is
the least disruptive form of connection.
2.2.9 The resulting alignment of the Trunk Road through the ex-
PCWA and the CBTS, as shown in Annex C, has been found to
be the optimal alignment in meeting the necessary highway
design standards within the physical alignment constraints. The
alignment ensures the least intrusion into the Harbour and the
minimum extent of permanent reclamation.
2.2.10 Annex C also shows the outline geological profile of the

bedrock through the ex-PCWA and CBTS, overlaid on the
Trunk Road Tunnel profile. The bedrock level lies at around –
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
14 Maunsell | AECOM
30mPD to –35mPD under the ex-PCWA, rising up to around –

8mPD through Kellett Island and under the CHT portal, then
dropping down to around –60mPD towards the eastern end of
the CBTS. Therefore, through the ex-PCWA and CBTS, the
Trunk Road Tunnel will pass through varied ground conditions,
including the bed rock (strong to very strong granite) and the
overlying materials which comprise completely decomposed
granite (silty clay and sands, gravels and cobbles), alluvial
sediments (silty/sandy clay and silty/clayey sands) and marine
deposits (marine mud of very soft to soft clay/silt).
2.2.11 Through the ex-PCWA, the Trunk Road Tunnel will need to be
constructed mainly in the alluvial sediments layer, but it will
then pass entirely through the rising rock stratum under the
CHT. Through the CBTS, as the rock level drops away and the
road level rises, the Trunk Road Tunnel will need to be
constructed mainly through alluvial sediments and marine
deposits.
2.3 Realising Minimum Reclamation for the Trunk Road

Scheme – the Need for Temporary Works
2.3.1 The basis of the need for reclamation for the Trunk Road
Tunnel construction is that where the tunnel lies beneath the
seabed, no permanent reclamation is required, but where the
tunnel structure lies above the seabed, reclamation is required
for the tunnel construction and to provide protection to the
tunnel structure. The rationale is discussed in the Report on
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 15
Trunk Road Alignments and Harbour-front Enhancement and in

the CCM Report.
2.3.2 For the Trunk Road Tunnel, which has been demonstrated to
affect the least area of the Harbour among all the feasible
options, reclamation has been minimised by having the tunnel
running beneath the seabed at the ex-PCWA and the CBTS.
This means that permanent reclamation in the area immediately
to the west of and within the ex-PCWA basin and in the CBTS
could be avoided. However, temporary works would be
required in order to construct the sub-seabed Trunk Road tunnel
structure beneath the sea of the ex-PCWA and the CBTS. Such
temporary works, as discussed in Section 4 of this report,
include forming temporary working platforms by temporary
reclamation for tunnel construction purposes. These temporary
works, including temporary reclamation, can and will be
removed on completion of the construction of the Trunk Road
Tunnel, and the existing seabed and water area would be
reinstated. The end result is minimum permanent reclamation
and least affected area of the Harbour. The temporary
reclamation is therefore be viewed as an essential component of
achieving the end result of minimum permanent reclamation, in
compliance with the PHO.
2.3.3 During the course of the planning and preliminary design stages
of the development of the Trunk Road Tunnel scheme (i.e. with
tunnel below the seabed of the ex-PCWA and CBTS to avoid
permanent reclamation in these areas), it has been considered
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
16 Maunsell | AECOM
whether there are alternative construction methods that could

avoid the need for temporary works, especially temporary
reclamation (this is discussed in the following Section 3), and if
not, whether the extent of temporary reclamation proposed
affects the minimum area of the Harbour (Section 4 of this
report).
2.3.4 As these temporary works would be required primarily in the

CBTS, the following discussion focuses on the construction of
the Trunk Road through the CBTS, although similar reasoning
applies to the ex-PCWA area where temporary works in the
Harbour would also be required. As can be seen in Annex C,
through the ex-PCWA, the Trunk Road Tunnel is at similar
depth (road levels are around –30mPD on both sides of the CHT
crossing), and the Trunk Road alignment is in close proximity
to the existing seawall of the ex-PCWA, similar to the central
part of the CBTS. Behind the ex-PCWA seawalls are major
roads (such as CHT approach roads) and utilities (such as cross
harbour gas mains). Geological conditions are also similar,
with the bedrock level dropping away to the west under the ex-
PCWA just as it does to the east under the CBTS, and overlain
by alluvial sediments and marine deposits. Therefore, similar
arguments on construction methods and the need for temporary
works in the CBTS would prevail for the Trunk Road Tunnel
construction through the ex-PCWA.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 17
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
18 Maunsell | AECOM
3 CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRUNK ROAD TUNNEL IN

THE CBTS AND AT THE EX-PCWA
3.1 Avoiding Temporary Reclamation
3.1.1 Before examining the temporary works requirements, any

reasonable alternative to the temporary works (in particular
where these may constitute reclamation in respect of the PHO)
needs to be identified. If the Trunk Road Tunnel can be
implemented without such temporary works, i.e. if there is a
reasonable alternative method of construction of the Trunk
Road Tunnel that requires no/less temporary works, then it
should be pursued.
3.2 Alternative Methods of Construction
3.2.1 Alternative construction methods that have been examined for

the construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel in the CBTS and at
the ex-PCWA include immersed tube construction, bored tunnel
construction and cut-and-cover tunnel construction. These
alternatives encompass the range of possible forms of
construction based on well proven and reliable techniques
commonly adopted for tunnel construction.
3.2.2 In examining alternative methods of construction, all pertinent

aspects including technical engineering feasibility and
constructability, risk of damage to adjacent infrastructure,
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 19
construction safety, environmental impacts, implementation

time and costs are considered.
3.2.3 Further, in deriving a feasible scheme and method of

construction, it should be recognised that the recommended
proposals will form the basis of contract requirements on which
competitive open tendering can be conducted. It is the
Government’s intention to promote fairness in selecting
contractors through open tender, and the scheme that had been
developed and was gazetted under the relevant ordinances, will
become the reference scheme for tendering purposes. The
proposals for construction of the Trunk Road should not be so
specialised or unique that they deprive most contractors of the
opportunity of tendering for this work. By this approach, a tried
and tested reference construction scheme is in place while any
possible innovative alternative construction methods can always
be put forward by the tendering contractors for acceptance
provided that the requirement of minimum reclamation in
compliance with PHO is fulfilled.
3.2.4 In response to queries raised at the Public Forum of the public

engagement activities (discussed later in Section 5), further
elaboration is also provided in paragraphs 3.2.5 to 3.2.8 of this
report on tunnelling by the envisaged open face excavation
(drill and break) method for the tunnel section underneath the
CHT portal.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
20 Maunsell | AECOM
Tunnelling by Open Face Excavation
3.2.5 As discussed in paragraph 2.2.10, the bedrock rises up to a high

level (around –8mPD) through Kellett Island and under the
CHT portal, dropping away on either side through the CBTS to
the east and through the ex-PCWA to the west. Construction of
the Trunk Road Tunnel through the rock under the CHT will
require a special tunnel mining or “drill and break” technique to
avoid disturbance to the CHT portal and tunnel structures and to
ensure the stability of the surrounding ground, including the
CHT approach roads. The “drill and break” technique is the
only feasible method for constructing this particular length of
Trunk Road Tunnel underneath the CHT as it will cause the
least vibration and hence avoid any adverse impacts on the CHT
structures. Other methods like drill and blast, roadheader, rock
sawing are not feasible for this location. Drill and blast method
would cause unacceptable vibration to the CHT portal structures.
Roadheader is adopted for soft rock excavation and cannot be
applied here. Rock sawing can only be used for a short length or
volume of excavation.
3.2.6 Deep excavations (access portals) will be required on both sides

of the CHT for commencing tunnelling beneath the CHT
structures. These excavations will be supported by braced
diaphragm walls. Tunnelling under the CHT will then be
carried out using mining techniques from below a horizontal
pipe pile roof without the use of explosives. Small diameter
bores will be drilled through the rock from one access portal to
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 21
the other until a “swiss cheese” structure is created in the rock,

which can then be broken up using rock breakers. Annex D
illustrates the construction technique.
3.2.7 Numerical analyses have been undertaken to determine ground

settlements that would take place due to excavation of the
access portals and tunnelling. These analyses have
demonstrated that the settlements of ground around the CHT
portal and approach roads can be kept to within acceptable
limits. The proposed scheme will not require the closure of any
of the tunnel approach roads during construction period.
3.2.8 This tunnelling technique would be confined to the section

under the CHT, where the Trunk Road Tunnel passes through
the high rock level. On either side of the CHT, in the CBTS
and in the ex-PCWA, the rock levels drop away and the Trunk
Road Tunnel needs to be constructed through soft ground,
where the drill and break technique is not feasible. Excavating
a tunnel through soft ground will have high risk of collapse of
the tunnel; seepage through the tunnel roof will lead to ground
settlement and instability of the ground cover above the tunnel
roof.
3.2.9 Tunnelling by excavating through the soft seabed material of

the CBTS with ground freezing has been considered, but is
considered not feasible. Ground freezing for tunnelling works
involves the installation of freeze pipes around the
circumference of the tunnel. Brine water with temperature at
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
22 Maunsell | AECOM
about –35oC would be circulated inside the freeze pipes until, in

effect, an ice ring surrounding the tunnel is formed. However,
ground freezing is normally used for short sections of tunnel in
poor ground or for cross passages between bored tunnels only.
For example, ground freezing was used for excavation of cross
passages between the bored tunnels of the KCRC Lok Ma Chau
Spur Line. The cross sectional area of these cross passages is
approximately 3m x 4m with length of about 20m. Ground
freezing to facilitate excavation work of the Trunk Road Tunnel
in the CBTS, on the other hand, with a span of around 35m (or
more, up to 90m where Slip Road 8 joins the mainline) and
length of some 700m, is considered not feasible. The
infeasibility of this construction method is reinforced by the fact
that it would be difficult to freeze and maintain the frozen soil
mass at the level close to the seabed, due to heat transfer from
the flowing body of seawater just above the seabed, therefore
significantly increases the risks of this tunnelling approach.
3.2.10 Other ground improvement methods including permeation

grouting, jet grouting, and deep cement mixing have been
considered but found not suitable to enable safe tunnel
excavation through the soft seabed material beneath the CBTS.
Permeation grouting (high pressure injection of cement water
into the soil to improve the shear strength of the soil) in the
clayey alluvium will result in flow along more permeable seams
forming a localised grout network near the permeable seam
rather than forming a uniform grouted soil mass. For
subsequent tunnel excavation, there will be a very high risk of
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 23
encountering localised areas of unsuccessful grouting treatment

leading to tunnel collapse. Similarly, jet grouting or deep
cement mixing (normally used to form columns of high strength
soil-cement mix), would not provide a uniformly strengthened
soil mass through all the different soil strata, therefore during
tunnel excavation there would be a high risk of tunnel collapse
and is considered not feasible.
Immersed Tube Construction
3.2.11 Immersed tube (IMT) construction is usually a suitable form of

construction for tunnels across open waterways (for example,
across the Harbour) where the tunnel lies just below seabed
level. In this method, the tunnel is made up of lengths of
precast concrete units that are floated to the site and sunk (i.e.
immersed) into place. Before installing the tunnel, a trench is
excavated in the seabed and soft seabed material removed so
that the immersed tube units lie in the trench on a firm
foundation.
3.2.12 However, for construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel which

runs through the CBTS along the shoreline, the deep Trunk
Road Tunnel structure would require an extremely deep open
cut trench (up to around 30m deep, with side slopes). Due to
the close proximity of this deep trench to the existing seawalls
(especially the Causeway Bay promenade seawall), typhoon
shelter breakwater and the immersed tube CHT, all these key
utilities and infrastructure would be undermined or disturbed by
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
24 Maunsell | AECOM
its excavation. By way of example, typical sections through the

CBTS seawall for the IMT, at both the western and eastern parts
of the typhoon shelter, are illustrated in Annex E. Failure of
the seawall would in turn cause failure of the roads and utilities
behind the seawall (for example, Victoria Park Road, and
cooling water systems for Excelsior Hotel and World Trade
Centre). Towards the eastern end of the CBTS, the IMT trench
would undermine the existing typhoon shelter breakwater.
Failure of the CBTS breakwater would mean that the typhoon
shelter would not be functional in providing protection to the
vessels moored therein. At the western end of the CBTS, the
IMT trench would disturb the IMT section of the CHT. Any
movement of the CHT tunnel would cause structural damage to
this tunnel thus paralysing one of the most vital road links in
Hong Kong.
3.2.13 Reinforcement or structural protection of the existing seawalls

may mitigate the impacts of the deep IMT trench. The
installation of a retaining structure (sheet pile or bored pile wall)
in front of the existing seawall, to limit the extent of excavation
and thus to try to prevent undermining of the seawall, has been
examined. However, the height of retained soil arising from the
deep excavation of the trench in front of the retaining structure
would be too large to be retained by a cantilevered piled wall
and temporary anchors cannot be installed as supports below
water level; the retaining wall would deflect and therefore there
would be movement (i.e. failure) of the seawall as well as the
utilities and infrastructure behind the seawall.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 25
3.2.14 There are a number of other issues that make IMT construction
not suitable in the CBTS. Lack of access for floating in the
IMT units is one other major issue. The existing seabed of
CBTS is not deep enough (less than –4mPD) for towing in the
precast concrete tunnel box units that would be up to 12m in
height. In addition, the western and eastern entrances of the
CBTS are too narrow (50m and 70m respectively) for
manoeuvring the precast tunnel box units, together with several
attendant tug boats, through the entrances. It would therefore
be necessary to dredge a large part of the typhoon shelter as
well as a large area at one of the entrances to provide sufficient
draft to float in the IMT units, and the entrance will need to be
widened by demolishing part of the breakwater to provide
adequate access, which will affect the serviceability of the
CBTS.
3.2.15 Cofferdams would be needed at the landfalls of the submarine

tunnels (an in-situ connection would need to be made with the
section of the Trunk Road that is tunnelled beneath the CHT
and with the cut-and-cover tunnel along the North Point
shoreline, which would require cofferdams to be constructed
inside the CBTS). These cofferdams would constitute
temporary works of the very nature that the IMT alternative
would be seeking to avoid.
3.2.16 The feasibility of adoption of IMT construction in part of the

CBTS has also been examined. At the western end, tunnel
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
26 Maunsell | AECOM
construction under the CHT would extend into the typhoon

shelter within the diaphragm walls of the access portals as
described in paragraph 3.2.6 above; also, the IMT construction
must start far enough eastwards, away from the CHT, so that the
IMT trench does not disturb the IMT section of the CHT (as
noted in paragraph 3.2.12 above). Also as discussed in
paragraph 3.2.12, through the central part of the CBTS, IMT is
not feasible due to undermining of the existing seawall of the
Causeway Bay Promenade, while at the eastern end of the
CBTS, IMT construction is not feasible due to undermining of
the existing seawall and breakwater. It is only in between the
central and eastern areas of the typhoon shelter, for a length of
around 100m, where IMT might be revisited. It is not practical
to dredge over half the typhoon shelter as well as demolish part
of the breakwater for the installation of a single 100m length of
IMT. More importantly, with the partial demolition of the
breakwater, the protection of the vessels which will still be
mooring in the CBTS during construction would be vitiated.
Safety problems would be caused and the operation of the
CBTS would be severely affected.
3.2.17 From the engineering point of view, a mixed construction

method with cut-and-cover tunnel in the western part of the
typhoon shelter and IMT in the eastern part is not feasible: a
safe and reliable connection between the cut-and-cover tunnel
with end diaphragm wall and the first IMT unit in the middle of
the typhoon shelter at nearly 30m depth cannot be properly
made. The reason is that a water-tight connection can only be
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 27
achieved by deploying the hydraulic pressure from the far end

of the IMT unit in pushing the Gina gasket to close up the joint
completely. In order to do so, the surface of the concrete on
which the Gina gasket has to sit should be fairly flat. However,
the end of the cut-and-cover tunnel which is formed by
diaphragm wall construction cannot provide such flatness to
ensure such a water-tight connection for the long term
serviceability of the tunnel structure.
3.2.18 Therefore, IMT construction is considered not feasible in any

part of the CBTS.
Bored Tunnel Construction
3.2.19 Bored tunnel construction by using a tunnel boring machine

(TBM) has also been examined. This method would involve the
TBM boring beneath the seabed surface to form a circular
tunnel through the existing soil and rock, which is then lined
with concrete and within which the road tunnel is constructed.
In order to accommodate three traffic lanes on each carriageway
of the Trunk Road, separate tunnels would be required for each
carriageway, and the diameter of the circular bores would need
to be very large (more than 15.5m for each carriageway).
3.2.20 Use of a TBM requires sufficient ground cover above the tunnel
(i.e. the tunnel must lie at a deep enough level beneath the
seabed to avoid failure through the soft marine sediment and
alluvial layers above the tunnel bore). Normal practice requires
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
28 Maunsell | AECOM
a minimum ground cover of around 1 time the bored tunnel

diameter to be provided, but in this case, with tunnelling in or
immediately below soft marine sediments within the CBTS, a
clearance beneath the seabed level of at least 1.5 (and preferably
even 2) times the bored tunnel diameter should be provided to
ensure stability of the soil layer above the bored tunnel in view
of the smaller densities of the overlying marine sediments in
countering the floatation of the tunnel structure.
3.2.21 Throughout the whole CBTS, soil cover would not be sufficient
for safe TBM construction; indeed, at the eastern end of the
typhoon shelter where the tunnel rises back up towards the
seabed to the ground level portal, there would be no cover at all.
This situation is illustrated in Annex F.
3.2.22 Furthermore, Slip Road 8 is a shallow tunnel connecting the at-

grade roads at Causeway Bay with the mainline tunnel, to be
constructed by cut-and-cover method. The connection with the
mainline tunnel would be at a small oblique angle, resulting in a
long taper connection. Therefore, if TBM were to be used for
the construction of the mainline tunnel, creation of the Slip
Road 8 connection would require cutting into this long taper
length of the bored tunnel shaft and breaking out the bored
tunnel lining for the full height of the tunnel, resulting in loss of
structural integrity of the bored tunnel, which would likely
cause its collapse. There is no precedent case in which two
joining tunnels at sharp angle can be constructed using TBM.
As a result, the Slip Road 8 connection could not be provided if
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 29
the Trunk Road Tunnel through the western part of the CBTS
were to be constructed by TBM, and this would undermine the
function of the Trunk Road in relieving traffic congestion. For
this reason, bored tunnel through the western part of the
typhoon shelter is also not feasible.
3.2.23 The PHO implications of bored tunnel construction are also of

concern. Due to the separation of the two tunnel bores in order
to allow sufficient clearance (conventionally 1 diameter
separation) between the eastbound and westbound TBM tunnels
(as illustrated in Annex F) to ensure ground stability in the
vicinity, there will be a consequential increase of the extent of
permanent reclamation at the Wan Chai shoreline and the North
Point shoreline; this will go against the requirement under the
PHO for a minimum reclamation alternative.
3.2.24 Another factor to be considered is the unknown technical

feasibility of construction with TBM diameters greater than
15m in mixed ground conditions (in this case the TBM would
be tunnelling through rock, alluvium and marine sediments),
and especially through hard rock condition (TBM with such
large diameter through hard rock has not been used anywhere
else).
3.2.25 In view of the above, construction of the Trunk Road through

any part of the CBTS by bored tunnel is found to be not feasible.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
30 Maunsell | AECOM
Cut-and-Cover Construction
3.2.26 In simple terms, cut-and-cover tunnels are built by excavating

from the land surface, constructing the tunnel box and then
backfilling over the tunnel structure to reinstate the ground
above it. For cut-and-cover construction using diaphragm walls,
the tunnel side walls are installed first: these diaphragm walls
are reinforced concrete wall panels that are constructed by
excavating a narrow trench from ground level down to the
required depth, often to the underlying rock layer, and then
inserting steel reinforcement and concrete filling.
3.2.27 Diaphragm walls are commonly used for retention systems and
foundation walls. They can be installed in close proximity to
existing structures with minimal loss of support to the existing
foundations. They also provide effective deep groundwater
barriers, avoiding groundwater drawdown outside the site.
Consequently there is no associated subsidence of the
surrounding ground. After the diaphragm walls are installed on
both sides of the tunnel, the soil in the area between the walls is
excavated down to the bottom level of the tunnel while the two
side walls are propped against each other. Then the top and
bottom slabs of the tunnel are constructed between the
diaphragm walls to form the tunnel box. Afterwards the area
above the tunnel is backfilled (in this case, to the original
seabed level).
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 31
3.2.28 The diaphragm wall technique is a tried and trusted construction

method, and provides unequalled support of existing
foundations during adjacent construction operations. It is well-
suited to the construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel structure
along the existing shoreline and through the CBTS, catering for
the varying depths of the tunnel alignment and in particular the
deep tunnel through the CBTS, and avoiding disturbance to the
adjacent seawall, other tunnel structures and infrastructure.
3.2.29 In essence, this cut-and-cover form of construction will not

cause any disturbance to the existing adjacent infrastructure,
does not have any minimum ground cover or clearance
restrictions, will readily enable the Slip Road 8 connection and
facilitates the minimum extent of permanent reclamation at the
adjoining areas.
3.2.30 However, construction of the Trunk Road by cut-and-cover

method requires a dry working platform on which the
contractor’s construction plant would stand and is thus normally
carried out on existing or formed land to provide the necessary
construction access from the land surface. Diaphragm walls
would need to be constructed from a surface above sea level. It
is not feasible to construct diaphragm walls through water.
Therefore, where the tunnel alignment crosses over water, land
would need to be formed first, through which the diaphragm
walls would be constructed.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
32 Maunsell | AECOM
3.2.31 The provision of a dry working platform through the CBTS and
ex-PCWA, and the formation of land through which diaphragm
walls can be constructed, constitute temporary works that would
be required to facilitate the cut-and-cover tunnel construction
through these water bodies.
Alternative to Adopting Diaphragm Wall in Cut-and-Cover

Construction
3.2.32 The only alternative to diaphragm wall that might practically be

considered to facilitate a cut-and-cover tunnel construction
would be by building a cofferdam around the works area and
pumping out the seawater inside the cofferdam so that the
contractor can work on the dry seabed (cut-and-cover
construction cannot feasibly be carried out under water).
Though there are views that dry seabed formed through the
method of cofferdam as working platform could also be
regarded as reclamation under the PHO, the cofferdam has been
examined to see whether it is a feasible and reasonable
alternative.
3.2.33 The cofferdam would need to be constructed around the outer

edge of the Trunk Road tunnel structure. Enough working space
around the edges of the tunnel has to be reserved to enable the
tunnel structure to be constructed in situ within the deep
excavation inside the cofferdam. The main structure of the
cofferdam wall would comprise tubular steel bored piles:
preliminary assessment indicates that these would be 2m
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 33
diameter concrete-filled piles at 3m spacing (this spacing is

necessary to allow for vertical misalignment (i.e. driving
tolerance)) that would take up the structural loading. To cater
for water tightness above sea level, a double row sheet pile wall
would be constructed on either side of the row of tubular piles,
with clay infill. To cater for water tightness below seabed, a
grout curtain would be installed between the piles. However, a
large lateral deflection would be expected (possibly as much as
450mm) and the effectiveness of the grout curtain would be in
question, which would lead to safety concerns.
3.2.34 For the very deep excavations below the seabed required for the
Trunk Road tunnel structure construction (up to 35 metres
below sea level), there would be very high water and soil
pressure, and the critical issues in relation to the cofferdam
would be possible movement of the cofferdam walls which
would lead to movement of and consequential damage to
adjacent structures and facilities such as the Causeway Bay
Promenade seawall and the CHT, and ingress of water which
would lead to safety concerns. Furthermore, construction of the
Trunk Road tunnel structure inside the CBTS would be carried
out while the typhoon shelter is still in operation, and the
cofferdam would therefore be susceptible to damage from
accidental ship impact. This would again be a major cause of
concern regarding the safety of the workers working at depths
of up to 35 metres below sea level. Past practice suggests that,
more usually, around 20m would already be considered a ‘deep’
cofferdam, so working at nearly twice this depth would
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
34 Maunsell | AECOM
certainly raise both technical engineering and safety concerns.

Certainly, use of cofferdam in this particular situation is not a
reliable method to provide a safe working environment.
3.2.35 Staged cofferdam construction across the CBTS and ex-PCWA

is also examined. Whilst construction using diaphragm walls
within temporary reclamation will give a robust
seawater/groundwater retention system with the end walls
providing effective retention and allowing adjacent reclamation
from a preceding stage to be safely removed, intermediate
cofferdam walls will not provide such structural or watertight
integrity. This is particularly so when considering the depth of
construction and the complexity of the CWB tunnels (separate
eastbound and westbound bores and the joining Slip Road 8
tunnel, all at varying alignments and levels, i.e. not a single
continuous tunnel box section). There would be problems of
sealing the intermediate cofferdam walls around the various
tunnel structures, massive retaining structures over the top of
the tunnel structure, and always an overriding risk of inundation
with obvious safety implications. Therefore, in this particular
instance, staged construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel through
the CBTS is considered not practically feasible using cofferdam.
Instead, the cofferdam would need to be constructed entirely
around the whole of the works area to form a barrier to the
surrounding water. This means that the whole of the works in
the CBTS would need to be constructed in one single stage (as
illustrated in Annex G).
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 35
3.2.36 The consequence of this is that, instead of affecting a relatively

small area of the typhoon shelter for limited periods of time as
would be the case for staged construction using temporary
reclamation, construction of a cofferdam around the whole of
the works area in the CBTS means that the whole of this works
area would be occupied throughout the whole Trunk Road
Tunnel construction period at the CBTS. The total area of the
CBTS affected by the cofferdam, including the area occupied
by the cofferdam and the typhoon shelter area to the south of
the cofferdam that would be isolated by the cofferdam, would
be around 12ha.
3.2.37 A further consequence of using the cofferdam approach is that,

with the cofferdam constructed around the whole of the works
area through the typhoon shelter, from the western to the eastern
end, the inner water bodies of the CBTS would be cut off from
the open water and isolated. There would be no circulation or
flushing in these isolated water areas whilst drainage outfalls
continue to discharge into them. This would result in extremely
poor water quality, verging on a cesspit. In turn, it would not be
possible to maintain the seawater supply to the existing cooling
water intakes at the CBTS (including Excelsior Hotel, World
Trade Centre and Windsor House).
3.2.38 Due to the above reasons, the cofferdam approach is considered

not to be a reasonable or practical alternative to diaphragm wall.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
36 Maunsell | AECOM
3.2.39 Rather, the use of diaphragm wall with temporary reclamation

is found to be the safe, feasible and practicable approach for
constructing the Trunk Road Tunnel structure through the
CBTS. A cut-and-cover tunnel construction method using
diaphragm walls through temporary reclamation which forms a
temporary working platform above sea level, is the reasonable
construction method. The proposed works using temporary
reclamation in the CBTS would not cause any disturbance to the
CHT or to the adjacent seawalls, and operation of all the
adjacent roads, tunnels and services would be maintained at all
times during construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel.
3.2.40 By enabling the construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel beneath

the seabed of the CBTS and ex-PCWA, the approach of using
temporary reclamation to facilitate the cut-and-cover tunnel
construction would, in the end, affect the least extent of the
Harbour, thus serving best to protect and preserve the Harbour.
3.3 Conclusion on the Need for Temporary Works
3.3.1 All alternative forms of construction have been examined for

the construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel beneath the seabed
of the CBTS and ex-PCWA to determine if there is any
reasonable or practically possible form of construction that
would require no/less temporary works, in particular temporary
reclamation.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 37
3.3.2 All construction methods have different limitations and

constraints for constructing the Trunk Road Tunnel in the CBTS
and at the ex-PCWA. Drill and break tunnelling is the
appropriate method of construction under the CHT, but this or
similar form of open face excavation tunnelling under the
seabed of the CBTS and ex-PCWA is not feasible through the
soft ground on either side of the CHT. IMT may be considered
a “zero temporary reclamation” method, but, primarily because
it would cause unacceptable damage to adjacent infrastructure
and utilities, and severely affect the operation of the CBTS, this
method is found to be not feasible. Bored tunnel is not feasible
as there is insufficient ground cover through the CBTS and ex-
PCWA for its construction. It would not allow the construction
of Slip Road 8, and the separation of the eastbound and
westbound bores would result in a greater extent of permanent
reclamation at Wan Chai and North Point. There is therefore no
practically feasible form of construction for the Trunk Road
Tunnel through the CBTS and ex-PCWA that could achieve
“no/less temporary reclamation” while minimising permanent
reclamation.
3.3.3 The only safe, feasible and practicable form of construction for
the Trunk Road Tunnel, and indeed the only suitable form of
construction, is by cut-and-cover method using diaphragm walls.
This, though, will require temporary works (including
temporary reclamation) to provide a dry working platform for
the construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
38 Maunsell | AECOM
3.3.4 It is concluded that there is no reasonable alternative method of

constructing the Trunk Road Tunnel that require no/less
temporary works, and that temporary works (including
temporary reclamation) are required to enable the construction
of the Trunk Road Tunnel beneath the seabed of the CBTS and
the ex-PCWA.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 39
4 TEMPORARY WORKS IN THE CBTS AND EX-PCWA
4.1 Temporary Works Required for Construction of the Trunk

Road Tunnel
4.1.1 Cut-and-cover method is the only safe, feasible and practicable

method for construction of the Trunk Road.
4.1.2 It is particularly well-suited to the construction of the Trunk

Road tunnel structure along the existing shoreline and through
the CBTS and ex-PCWA. (The exception is the section of the
Trunk Road Tunnel under the CHT, where a drill and break
technique will be employed for tunnelling through the rock.)
4.1.3 However, construction of the Trunk Road by cut-and-cover

method requires a dry working platform from which the
contractor can carry out his works. Construction of diaphragm
walls must be carried out through land from above sea level.
4.1.4 Through the CBTS and ex-PCWA, this would mean forming a
working platform above water level by means of temporary
reclamation to around +2.5mPD. These are temporary works
that would be required to facilitate the cut-and-cover tunnel
construction through these water bodies.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
40 Maunsell | AECOM
4.2 Justifications for the Temporary Reclamation for Trunk

4.2.1 The use of temporary reclamation to provide a working

platform for the construction of the Trunk Road tunnel structure
beneath the seabed at the CBTS is the only safe, feasible and
practicable way of constructing the Trunk Road Tunnel and
thereby ultimately avoid permanent reclamation. Diaphragm
walls would be installed through the temporary working
platform above the sea level in a safe working environment for
the construction of the tunnel box at depth. In addition, the
temporary seawalls that contain the temporary reclamation
would protect the diaphragm walls against damages from ship
impact by vessels using the surrounding water areas.
4.2.2 After the tunnel has been constructed, the temporary

reclamation and temporary seawalls above the seabed level will
be removed and the seabed reinstated, as stated in the road
scheme referred to in G.N. 4767, thereby returning this part of
the Harbour to its original condition. The contractor would be
legally bound by the construction contract to remove the
temporary reclamation and reinstate the seabed.
4.2.3 In facilitating the construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel and

therefore meeting the overriding public need for the Trunk Road,
there is consequently a compelling and present need for the
temporary reclamation in the CBTS and at the ex-PCWA.
Without the temporary reclamation, the Trunk Road Tunnel
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 41
cannot be constructed. In other words, the purpose of the

temporary reclamation is to avoid the need for permanent
reclamation, and therefore, ultimately, to serve best to protect
and preserve the Harbour.
4.2.4 The use of temporary reclamation for construction of the Trunk

Road Tunnel structure will also enable staged construction of
the works through the CBTS, which minimises the extent of
temporary reclamation. The works can be completed in several
stages of temporary reclamation: temporary reclamation will be
undertaken to enable construction of the first section of the
tunnel box, then temporary reclamation will be formed for the
construction of the next section of the tunnel, allowing the
temporary reclamation from the previous stage to be removed.
In this manner, the tunnel construction will advance
progressively through the typhoon shelter while only occupying
minimum water area at any one time.
4.2.5 This staged construction is very important for three main

reasons:
(i) it will minimise the area of temporary reclamation at any

one time;
(ii) it will allow water circulation through the typhoon shelter

during the construction period, which is critical for
maintaining acceptable standards of water quality and for
ensuring uninterrupted supply to the existing cooling
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
42 Maunsell | AECOM
water intakes at the CBTS (including Excelsior Hotel,

World Trade Centre and Windsor House); and
(iii) it will minimise the loss of mooring area for the vessels
currently using the typhoon shelter as sheltered anchorage,
and therefore the extent of reprovisioning of typhoon
shelter.
4.2.6 The use of temporary reclamation for the Trunk Road Tunnel
construction will enable staged construction, use of temporary
reclamation for the Trunk Road Tunnel construction which in
turn minimises environmental impacts and impacts to the
concerned CBTS users.
4.3 Minimum Extent of Temporary Reclamation for Trunk

4.3.1 In the preceding paragraphs, temporary reclamation has been

shown to be required for the Trunk Road cut-and-cover tunnel
construction through the CBTS. This temporary reclamation is
for the purpose of enabling the construction of the diaphragm
walls, between which the tunnel structure will be constructed.
4.3.2 The extent of temporary reclamation is determined primarily by

the extent of the temporary seawall in front of the tunnel. In
order to minimise the construction works and hence the
temporary reclamation above the seabed, a vertical seawall is
proposed to contain the temporary reclamation. Blockwork
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 43
seawall is the most effective type of seawall in these

circumstances. It is an inherently stable gravity structure that
can be reasonably easily removed upon completion.
4.3.3 The separation between the edge of the Trunk Road diaphragm
wall and the seawall copeline is determined by the widths of the
seawall and foundation, and the clearance between the seawall
foundation and the diaphragm wall. It has been determined
from ground investigation that for a typical dredge level of
around –11 mPD in the typhoon shelter and maintaining the
necessary clearance between the seawall foundation and the
diaphragm wall of the Trunk Road tunnel structure, a distance
of approximately 20m, derived on the same principles as
presented in Annex O of the CCM Report, needs to be
maintained between the outer edge of the Trunk Road tunnel
structure and the seawall copeline, in general.
4.3.4 A typical section through the temporary reclamation is

illustrated in Annex H.
4.3.5 This minimum separation between the Trunk Road tunnel

structure and seawall copeline is maintained along the
temporary reclamation through the CBTS, with the seawall
copeline following the curvature of the Trunk Road Tunnel
edge. The overall area of temporary reclamation in the CBTS
as defined by this seawall copeline is 6.4ha.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
44 Maunsell | AECOM
4.3.6 Temporary works and temporary reclamation are also required

at the ex-PCWA (within and immediately to the west of the ex-
PCWA basin). The need for and the minimum extent of the
temporary reclamation in these areas are similar to the
temporary reclamation in the CBTS. The overall minimum
temporary reclamation requirements for the Trunk Road at the
ex-PCWA and in the CBTS, in terms of total working areas to
be formed during the course of construction, are:
(i) CBTS : 6.4 ha
(ii) ex-PCWA : {within the basin 1.5 ha }

{to the west of the basin 0.4 ha } 1.9 ha
4.3.7 This is considered to be the minimum overall extent of

temporary reclamation required to facilitate the construction of
the Trunk Road Tunnel beneath the seabed in the CBTS and at
the ex-PCWA. A layout of the proposed temporary reclamation
works in the CBTS and at the ex-PCWA is shown in Annex I.
4.3.8 However, this is not the maximum extent of temporary

reclamation that is required to be in place at any one time.
Staging of the works will significantly reduce the extent of
temporary reclamation at any point in time.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 45
4.4 Staging of the Works
4.4.1 The construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel in the CBTS will be
carried out in stages. Whilst the entire works in the CBTS will
require an overall construction period of around 6 years, there
will actually be four stages of works within the CBTS and the
temporary reclamation areas under each stage will only need to
be in place for a much shorter period of time than 6 years.
4.4.2 An illustrative construction staging plan for the works through

the CBTS is shown in Annex J. The staging plan also
illustrates some of the individual construction works areas that
have been broken down further in relation to their major
construction activities, in order to demonstrate more clearly
what areas of the CBTS will be affected and for how long. The
timing of the stages for each of the areas of works shown is
from the time of starting seawall construction and filling above
the seabed to the time when the temporary reclamation is
removed and the seabed reinstated.
4.4.3 Referring to Annex J, construction works would commence at

both the western and eastern ends of the CBTS at Stage 1 and
then move progressively towards the centre of the CBTS from
the eastern end. At the western end, this part of Stage 1 will be
constructed to form the access portal at the side of the CHT so
as to commence tunnelling beneath the CHT as soon as possible
(as this is a time consuming activity). At the eastern end, the
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
46 Maunsell | AECOM
Stage 1 works will be carried out piece by piece in order to

avoid blocking the eastern entrance to the typhoon shelter. First
the temporary seawall at the western part of Stage 1 will be
constructed, keeping the area behind this clear for access; then,
with access moved to the front of the completed seawall, the
seawalls of the remainder of the Stage 1 works area will be
completed and fill placed inside the seawalls. After completion
of the tunnel works, the temporary reclamation will be removed
before starting the Stage 2 temporary reclamation (leaving an
approximately 30m wide transition section behind) so that
access to the eastern entrance of the typhoon shelter is restored
behind the Stage 1 works area.
4.4.4 The works areas of Stages 2, 3 and 4 would then proceed

progressively in similar fashion (though not as constrained as
Stage 1 to avoid blocking the eastern entrance due to the more
distant locations of the Stage 2-4 works areas from the entrance).
Essentially, before each new area of temporary reclamation is
constructed, the preceding area will be removed, except for an
intermediate transition section which is left in place as part of
the next temporary reclamation area’s construction works. In
this way, the area of temporary reclamation that is in place at
any one time is minimised, as is the disruption to the CBTS
users. Upon completion of each area of works, with the
removal of the temporary reclamation, the seabed will be
reinstated to its original levels.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 47
4.4.5 The critical areas of works in terms of construction programme

are the Stage 1 works at the western end of the CBTS, where
access is required for a longer period for the rock tunnelling
under the CHT, and the Stages 3 and 4 works at the centre of
the CBTS, for the connection of Slip Road 8 where the more
complex construction of the slip road tunnel joining to the
middle of the mainline Trunk Road Tunnel requires a longer
construction period. Each of these areas of works will take
around 3 years to complete. The temporary reclamation for
these two areas must be carried out consecutively in order to
avoid cutting off water circulation to the south-west corner of
the typhoon shelter and seawater supply to the cooling water
intakes. Therefore, the works under these stages account for the
critical path for construction works in the CBTS, with overall
duration of CBTS works being around 6 years.
4.4.6 In respect of the overall works in the CBTS, the durations when
the individual temporary reclamation areas will be in place
would vary from around 1 year to just over 3 years. At any one
time the affected area of the seabed in the CBTS will vary from
1.8ha to a maximum of 3.7ha. (The durations when the
individual areas of temporary reclamation will be in place in the
CBTS, together with their associated plan areas, are indicated in
Annex J.) In determining the staging of the temporary
reclamation, consideration has been given to the efficiency and
effectiveness of the staging. For example, scattered areas of
temporary reclamation will require more temporary works and
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
48 Maunsell | AECOM
will extend the overall duration of the construction, which in

turn will lead to more disturbance to the Harbour.
4.4.7 Therefore, whilst the overall area of temporary reclamation in

the CBTS in terms of total seabed coverage is 6.4ha, the area of
temporary reclamation in the CBTS under staged construction
will actually range from 1.8ha to a maximum of 3.7ha at any
one time and, as stated above, for a period of 1 to just over 3
years for any given temporary reclamation area.
4.4.8 Similar considerations apply to the temporary reclamation at the

ex-PCWA. While the overall area of temporary reclamation in
terms of total seabed coverage is 1.9ha, these works will be
divided into three stages, two of 0.7ha and 0.8ha in the ex-
PCWA basin and the third of 0.4ha at the west of the basin.
The temporary reclamation at the ex-PCWA at any one time
will range from 0.7ha to a maximum of 1.2ha. The durations of
these temporary reclamation stages will vary from 2.5 years to
just over 3 years. (The durations when the individual areas of
temporary reclamation will be in place at the ex-PCWA,
together with their associated plan areas, are also indicated in
Annex J.)
4.4.9 Provisions will be included in the contract documents to ensure

that the temporary reclamation works to be carried out by the
contractor will be the minimum extent of temporary reclamation.
The temporary reclamation will be removed by the contractor
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 49
after completion of the tunnel construction and the seabed will

be reinstated.
Marine Access Arrangements
4.4.10 It is important that marine access is maintained in the CBTS

during construction. The detailed temporary marine traffic
arrangement will be worked out in the detailed design stage
with the assistance from Marine Department in consultation
with concerned CBTS users. The temporary marine traffic
arrangement will maintain a safe navigation environment for all
users in the CBTS. The agreed arrangements will be
incorporated in the construction contract for implementation to
ensure safe and smooth operation of the CBTS.
4.4.11 Notwithstanding the above provision, at this stage the envisaged

works have taken into consideration the need to allow the
maintenance of marine access to the CBTS through both
entrances of the typhoon shelter. In particular, the Stage 1
works at the eastern entrance have been planned to keep access
through this entrance available at all times as mentioned in
paragraph 4.4.3 above. However, for provision of a safe
navigation environment to the CBTS users, the eastern entrance
will only be used as emergency access while construction works
are taking place in this area (normal access would be through
the western entrance during this period). For works inside the
CBTS, provision has been made for the works areas, to separate
construction plant from nearby moorings.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
50 Maunsell | AECOM
4.4.12 More details of the provision of marine access envisaged at this

stage are provided in a separate report on Options For
Reprovisioning of Affected Moorings and Anchorage During
Trunk Road Tunnel Construction at the Causeway Bay
Typhoon Shelter.
4.5 Environmental Impacts of Temporary Reclamation
4.5.1 A full environmental impact assessment of the temporary

reclamation has been included in the Environmental Impact
Assessment (“EIA”) Report that was submitted to the Director
of Environmental Protection under the EIAO on 31 October
2007 and subsequently exhibited for public inspection and
comments from 20 December 2007 to 18 January 2008. The
Advisory Council on the Environment endorsed the EIA Report
(with conditions) on 14 February 2008.
4.5.2 The findings of the EIA are that there will be no unacceptable
impacts during both the construction and operation stages,
including the major concerns on water quality and marine
ecology.
4.6 Conclusions on Temporary Reclamation Requirements
4.6.1 Having concluded that there is no reasonable alternative to

temporary reclamation for constructing the Trunk Road Tunnel
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 51
beneath the seabed of the CBTS and ex-PCWA, this

requirement for temporary reclamation is found to meet a
compelling and present need. Without it, the Trunk Road
Tunnel cannot be constructed. The need for the temporary
reclamation is, essentially, to avoid the need for permanent
reclamation and thus inherently to meet the overriding public
need for the Trunk Road.
4.6.2 The use of temporary reclamation is the only safe, feasible and
practicable approach to constructing the Trunk Road Tunnel.
The use of temporary reclamation to provide a temporary
working platform, to facilitate cut-and-cover Trunk Road tunnel
structure construction:
• is a structurally sound, safe and cost effective form of

construction;
• will adequately protect adjacent key infrastructure and

utilities from damage or disruption during construction;
• will allow staged construction that will, in turn, minimise

adverse environmental impacts and impacts to the
concerned CBTS users.
4.6.3 A minimum extent of temporary reclamation has been

determined, that will serve solely to facilitate the Trunk Road
construction. Through a staged construction approach, the
maximum temporary reclamation area in the CBTS will range
from 1.8ha to a maximum of 3.7ha at any one time, while the
temporary reclamation at the ex-PCWA at any one time would
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
52 Maunsell | AECOM
range from 0.7ha to a maximum of 1.2ha. These are the

minimum extents of temporary reclamation required to meet the
overriding public need. The durations of the individual
temporary reclamation areas will vary from around 1 year to
just over 3 years. The overall duration from the first stage up to
the removal of the final stage of temporary reclamation will be
around 6 years. The temporary reclamation will be removed
after the completion of the tunnel construction and the seabed
reinstated.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 53
5 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
5.1 Public Engagement Activities
5.1.1 Public engagement exercise to brief and consult the public on

the issues associated with the construction of the Trunk Road
Tunnel in the CBTS and at the ex-PCWA was undertaken
through a number of public and professional forums, seminars,
discussions with District Councils, the Harbour-front
Enhancement Committee and other concerned parties.
5.1.2 In particular, the following public engagement activities were

held over the period from April 2008 to August 2008:
7 April 2008 Hong Kong Institution of Engineers

Seminar
11 April 2008 Hong Kong Contractors Association

Seminar
16 June 2008 Joint Professional Forum for Hong Kong

Institution of Engineers, Hong Kong
Institute of Architects, Hong Kong
Institute of Planners, Hong Kong
Institute of Surveyors and Hong Kong
Institute of Landscape Architects
3 July 2008 Eastern District Council
15 July 2008 Wan Chai District Council
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
54 Maunsell | AECOM
17 July 2008 Central and Western District Council
19 July 2008 Public Forum
28 July 2008 Southern District Council
18 August 2008 Harbour-front Enhancement Committee
5.1.3 Records of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers Seminar, the

Hong Kong Contractors Association Seminar, the Joint
Professional Forum and the Public Forum can be found at
Annex K for reference. Minutes of the meetings with the
District Councils and the Harbour-front Enhancement
Committee can be referenced through their respective websites.
5.2 Public Views
5.2.1 The outcome of the public engagement activities and the public
views received on the construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel in
CBTS and ex-PCWA are summarised as follows.
Professional Institutes and Contractors
5.2.2 The concerned professional institutes and contractors expressed

strong support for the project and agreement to the
consideration that cut-and-cover construction is the only safe,
feasible and practicable method in view of the various
constraints and maintenance of operation in CBTS and ex-
PCWA. Some technical issues, such as alternative tunnelling
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 55
techniques, staging of temporary reclamation, maintaining the

operation of the CBTS, tunnelling under CHT, associated
dredging works and potential interfaces with the SCL, were
raised for discussion at the professional forums.
5.2.3 In addition to supporting the proposals for the Trunk Road

construction, members of the professional institutes and
contractors association also urged for early implementation of
the project.
District Councils
5.2.4 Members of the Central and Western District Council, Wan

Chai District Council and Southern District Council supported
early implementation of the project and raised no objection to
the proposed construction method. As the CBTS falls within
the boundary of the Eastern District Council, members decided
to set up a Working Group to help foster the public engagement
process. The Working Group held its first meeting on 29 July
2008; members of the Working Group were concerned about
the reprovisioning arrangements for the CBTS and the
environmental impacts of the project. A forum was held on 22
September for residents of the Eastern District to address
concerns on these issues. The Eastern District Council will
continue to be engaged through the Working Group.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
56 Maunsell | AECOM
Public Forum
5.2.5 At the public forum on 19 July 2008, in essence, the public

raised questions concerning matters of detail, including whether
the method for the CWB tunnelling underneath the CHT
(clarified as “drill and break” method at the public forum) could
be adopted in the CBTS and ex-PCWA; whether blasting can be
used; whether a combination of the different methods for
constructing the sections of CWB tunnels in CBTS and ex-
PCWA can be considered; consequential effects of cut-and-
cover construction with temporary reclamation on the existing
moorings in the CBTS; whether the temporary reclamation can
be carried out in one go; staging of the temporary reclamation
work, and their durations of existence and their removal;
environmental impacts during construction on nearby
residential receivers; and potential interfaces with the SCL.
Public views concerning the interfaces with the SCL and
associated reclamation requirements, and marine traffic
arrangements, were also received prior to the forum through
email enquiries.
5.2.6 These questions or concerns were responded to at the forum. In

general, the public did not indicate any strong objection to the
recommended option of cut-and-cover construction using
temporary reclamation at the conclusion of the forum.
5.2.7 For those aspects which were not fully addressed at the public
forum, additional information has been provided through further
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 57
liaison with the concerned parties, and more elaboration has

now been included in this report on the rationale of the Trunk
Road construction method and the assessment findings.
Harbour-front Enhancement Committee
5.2.8 The Harbour-front Enhancement Committee (HEC) raised

concerns regarding the maintenance of the operation of the
CBTS during construction of the Trunk Road; interfaces with
SCL; the potential of alternative tunnel boring techniques or
mixed construction methods; arrangement of dredging works
and treatment of the dredged marine mud. These concerns were
responded to at the meeting, with further elaboration on why
alternative construction methods are not feasible.
5.2.9 The HEC also suggested that consideration should be given to

improve connectivity to the harbour-front and further shorten
the overall construction period and hence the impacts during
construction. It also requested early consultation with the users
of the CBTS in order to arrive at consensus over the
construction methods and the arrangements to relocate their
vessels.
5.2.10 There was support from members for the Trunk Road project
and acknowledgement of the need for temporary reclamation
for its construction.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
58 Maunsell | AECOM
5.3 Conclusions of the Public Engagement
5.3.1 Overall, through the series of public engagement forums and

meetings, the recommended method of cut-and-cover
construction with temporary reclamation was generally received
as the only safe, feasible and practicable method of construction.
5.3.2 Most of the comments received during the public engagement

have been addressed directly in the various forums, or the
responses have been further elaborated in this report. Some of
the queries which concern matters of detail would be addressed
in the detailed design stage or the construction stage of the
project.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 59
6 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Overriding Public Need
6.1.1 The proposed Trunk Road scheme (the Trunk Road Tunnel)
affects the least area of the Harbour among all feasible options.
Reclamation would be minimised by having the Trunk Road
Tunnel running beneath the seabed of the CBTS and ex-PCWA,
which means that permanent reclamation in these areas would
not be required. However, to achieve this end result, temporary
works (with temporary reclamation being considered to be the
safe, feasible and practicable form of temporary works) would
be required in order to construct the sub-seabed tunnel.
6.1.2 Alternative forms of construction have been explored for the

construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel beneath the seabed of
the CBTS and ex-PCWA to examine if there is any reasonable
form of construction that would not require temporary works, in
particular temporary reclamation. It is concluded that there is
no reasonable alternative method of constructing the Trunk
Road Tunnel that does not require temporary works, and that
temporary works in the form of temporary reclamation are
required to enable the construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel
beneath the seabed of the CBTS and the ex-PCWA. The only
safe, feasible and practicable form of construction method for
the Trunk Road Tunnel sections at the ex-PCWA and CBTS is
by cut-and-cover method with diaphragm walls.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
60 Maunsell | AECOM
6.1.3 The requirement for temporary reclamation is found to meet a

compelling and present need. Without it, the Trunk Road
Tunnel cannot be constructed. The need for the temporary
reclamation is, essentially, to avoid the need for permanent
reclamation and thus inherently to meet the overriding public
need for the Trunk Road, with the end result being a Trunk
Road scheme with the minimum amount of reclamation and the
least affected area of the Harbour.
6.1.4 In meeting an overriding public need, the use of temporary

reclamation is found to be the safe, feasible and practicable
approach to constructing the Trunk Road Tunnel. Temporary
reclamation is the only safe, feasible and practicable form of
construction, that will adequately protect adjacent key
infrastructure and utilities from damage or disruption during
construction, and will allow staged construction that will, in
turn, minimise adverse environmental impacts and impacts to
the community.
6.2 Minimum Temporary Reclamation Required to Meet the

Overriding Public Need
6.2.1 A minimum extent of temporary reclamation has been

determined, that will serve solely to facilitate the Trunk Road
construction. Through a staged construction approach, the
maximum affected area of the Harbour in respect of temporary
reclamation in the CBTS will range from 1.8ha to a maximum
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 61
of 3.7ha at any one time, while the temporary reclamation at the

ex-PCWA at any one time would range from 0.7ha to a
maximum of 1.2ha. These are the minimum extents of
temporary reclamation required to meet the overriding public
need. The durations of the individual temporary reclamation
areas will vary from around 1 year to just over 3 years. The
overall duration from the first stage up to the removal of the
final stage of temporary reclamation will be around 6 years.
The temporary reclamation will be removed after the
completion of the tunnel construction and the seabed reinstated.
6.3 How Temporary is Temporary Reclamation?
6.3.1 With the Trunk Road Tunnel constructed entirely beneath the
seabed of the CBTS and ex-PCWA basin and the area to its
immediate west, there is no engineering reason to leave any
temporary reclamation behind. The temporary reclamation is
planned to be removed after completion of the Trunk Road
Tunnel construction. Moreover, under a staged construction
programme, the earlier stages of temporary reclamation will be
removed as the next stage commences, and the contractor will
therefore be removing the temporary reclamation as his works
progress through the CBTS. From the engineering point of
view, the temporary reclamation will only be in place for the
duration of the construction of the works.
6.3.2 From a land use point of view, there is also no reason to leave
the temporary reclamation beyond the construction period.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
62 Maunsell | AECOM
There has never been any intention to use the temporary

reclamation for any long term planning purpose. Further, if
such reclamation were to be permanent, the isolated water
bodies at the south-east and south-west corners of the typhoon
shelter would become septic and would need to be filled in,
which in turn would require gazettal under the Foreshore and
Sea-bed (Reclamations) Ordinance and proper procedures to be
gone through. Again, we do not have plan to do so
6.3.3 The Government has committed in the Trunk Road scheme

gazetted on 27 July 2007 under the Roads (Works, Use and
Compensation) Ordinance that the temporary works will be
removed after construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel and the
existing seabed reinstated. The construction works will be
arranged according to this commitment. In fact, the
construction contract will be a legally binding document that
will oblige the contractor to remove the temporary reclamation
and reinstate the seabed.
6.4 Environmental Impacts of the Temporary Reclamation
6.4.1 A full environmental impact assessment of the temporary

reclamation has been included in the EIA Report that was
submitted to the Director of Environmental Protection under the
EIAO on 31 October 2007. The findings of the EIA are that
there will be no unacceptable impacts during both the
construction and operation stages, including the major concerns
on water quality and marine ecology.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 63
6.5 Public Engagement
6.5.1 A comprehensive public engagement exercise has been

undertaken to brief and consult the public on the issues
associated with the construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel in
the CBTS and at the ex-PCWA. Public engagement activities
include public and professional forums, seminars, consultation
with District Councils and the HEC, as well as liaison with
other concerned parties.
6.5.2 The outcome of the public engagement is that the recommended

method of cut-and-cover construction of the Trunk Road in
temporary reclamation was generally received as the only safe,
feasible and practicable method of construction.
6.5.3 Further on-going engagement with the concerned bodies and

stakeholders will continue to be undertaken to address concerns
regarding details of the project and its implementation.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
64 Maunsell | AECOM
6.6 Compliance with the PHO
6.6.1 In facilitating the construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel and

therefore in meeting the overriding public need for the Trunk
Road, there is consequently a compelling and present need for
the temporary reclamation in the CBTS and at the ex-PCWA.
The purpose of the temporary reclamation is to avoid the need
for permanent reclamation, and therefore, ultimately, to serve
best to protect and preserve the Harbour. The temporary
reclamation is therefore an essential component in achieving the
end result of minimum reclamation, in compliance with the
PHO. Without it, the minimum reclamation of the Trunk Road
Tunnel cannot be achieved and the requirements and intentions
of the PHO to protect and preserve the Harbour would not be
satisfied.
6.6.2 No reasonable alternative to temporary reclamation is found for

constructing the Trunk Road Tunnel.
6.6.3 The extent of temporary reclamation has been determined to be

the minimum required.
CCM_TR1 (23Oct08)
Maunsell | AECOM 65
Annex A
Gazette Notice No. 4767 &

Plans Nos. 92995/GAZ/1000 to 92995/GAZ/1008
CCM_TR (16Oct08)
Maunsell
G.N. 4767
ROADS (WORKS, USE AND COMPENSATION) ORDINANCE (Chapter 370)
(Notice under section 8(2))
PWP ITEM NO. 6579TH

CENTRAL—WAN CHAI BYPASS AND ISLAND EASTERN CORRIDOR LINK
Notice is hereby given that under powers delegated by the Secretary for Transport and Housing
under section 3(3) of the Roads (Works, Use and Compensation) Ordinance (Chapter 370), the
Permanent Secretary for Transport and Housing (Transport) proposes to execute the road works
as shown on Plans Nos. 92995/GAZ/1000 to 92995/GAZ/1008 (the ‘Plans’) and described in the
scheme annexed thereto, which the Plans and scheme have been deposited in the Land Registry.
The general nature of the proposed works is as follows:—
(i) construction of a dual three-lane road tunnel between Rumsey Street Flyover in Central
and Island Eastern Corridor (IEC) in North Point;
(ii) construction of approach roads to the proposed road tunnel west portal and the associated
slip roads in Central, Wan Chai and Causeway Bay;
(iii) construction of footpaths in Central, Causeway Bay and North Point;
(iv) construction of administration building, ventilation buildings, ventilation shafts and buried
fresh/exhaust air adits to facilitate ventilation and tunnel control operations serving the
proposed road tunnel in (i) above;
(v) modification and realignment of a section of Man Po Street and its U-turn to Finance
Street, and a section of Man Kwong Street westbound and its U-turn to Man Kwong Street
eastbound;
(vi) permanent closure and demolition of Man Chiu Street, the link road between Man Chiu
Street and Finance Street, a right-turn from Hing Fat Street southbound to Victoria Park
Road westbound, and a section of IEC;
(vii) modification of Rumsey Street Flyover westbound up ramp; permanent closure and
demolition of Rumsey Street Flyover eastbound down ramp onto Connaught Road
Central;
(viii) widening of a section of Rumsey Street Flyover Extension;
(ix) modification of a bus terminus at the junction of Man Yiu Street and Man Po Street;
(x) modification of IEC between Hing Fat Street and Po Leung Kuk Yu Lee Mo Fan
Memorial School and an up ramp from Hing Fat Street to IEC eastbound;
(xi) permanent closure and reconstruction/modification of sections of Watson Road and Oil
Street;
(xii) permanent closure and demolition of sections of the existing at-grade carriageways,
elevated carriageways, footpaths, central medians/ refuge islands and amenity areas;
(xiii) temporary closure and reconstruction/modification of sections of the existing at-grade
carriageways, elevated carriageways, footpaths, central medians/refuge islands and amenity
areas; and
(xiv) ancillary works including construction of noise barriers and noise semi-enclosures along
IEC, central medians/refuge islands, amenity areas, landscaped decks, temporary
breakwater, temporary piled wave walls, phased temporary reclamation works; and
drainage and landscaping works. After the construction of sections of the proposed road
tunnel, the temporary breakwater, temporary piled wave walls and phased temporary
reclamation works will be removed; and areas to the immediate west of and within the ex-
Public Cargo Working Area, areas within the Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter and the
existing sea-bed will be reinstated.
The lots where land is to be resumed are listed below:—
Lots where land is to be resumed
Lot No.
M.L. 277 RP & Ext. (Portion)
RP of M.L. 281 & Ext. (Portion)
I.L. 7106 S.A & Ext. (Portion)
I.L. 7106 RP & Ext. (Portion)
The lots where easements and permanent rights are to be created are listed below:—
Lots where easements

and permanent rights are to be created
Lot No.
M.L. 709 (Portion)
The lots where rights of temporary occupation of land are to be created are listed below:—
Lots where rights of temporary occupation

of land are to be created
Lot No.
RP of M.L. 281 & Ext. (Portion)
M.L. 396 (Portion)
M.L. 709 (Portion)
I.L. 7106 S.A & Ext. (Portion)
I.L. 7106 RP & Ext. (Portion)
I.L. 8898 (Portion)
The Plans and scheme may be inspected by members of the public free of charge at the following
places and during the following hours when those offices are normally open to the public:—
Opening Hours
Places (except on public holidays)
Central and Western District Office, ⎫
Public Enquiry Service Centre, ⎪
Unit 5, Ground Floor, The Center, ⎪
99 Queen’s Road Central, Hong Kong ⎪
Wan Chai District Office, ⎪
Public Enquiry Service Centre, ⎪ Monday to Friday
Ground Floor, 2 O’Brien Road, ⎬
Wan Chai, Hong Kong
⎪ 9.00 a.m.–7.00 p.m.
⎪
Eastern District Office, ⎪
Public Enquiry Service Centre, ⎪
Ground Floor, Eastern Law Courts Building, ⎪
29 Tai On Street, Sai Wan Ho, Hong Kong ⎭
Opening Hours
Places (except on public holidays)
District Lands Office, Hong Kong West ⎫
and South, ⎪
20th Floor, Southorn Centre, ⎪ Monday to Friday
130–150 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai, ⎪ 8.45 a.m.–12.30 p.m.
Hong Kong ⎬ and
District Lands Office, Hong Kong East, ⎪ 1.30 p.m.–5.30 p.m.
19th Floor, Southorn Centre, ⎪
130–150 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai, ⎪
Hong Kong ⎭
Further enquiries regarding the proposed works can be addressed to Major Works Project
Management Office, Highways Department, 3rd floor, Ho Man Tin Government Offices, 88
Chung Hau Street, Ho Man Tin, Kowloon and at telephone number 2762 3592.
Any person who wishes to object to the works or the use, or both, is required to address his
objection in writing to the Secretary for Transport and Housing, 16th Floor, Murray Building,
Garden Road, Hong Kong so as to reach the office of the Secretary not later than the 25th day of
September 2007, describing his interest and the manner in which he alleges that he will be affected
by the works or the use. Objectors are requested to provide contact details to the Secretary to
facilitate communication.
23 July 2007 Francis HO Permanent Secretary for

Transport and Housing (Transport)
Annex B
Temporary Works for Trunk Road Construction
CCM_TR (16Oct08)
Maunsell
Annex C
Trunk Road Tunnel Layout & Plan and

Profile through ex-PCWA and CBTS
CCM_TR (16Oct08)
Maunsell
Annex D
Trunk Road Tunnel Construction Technique

under the Cross Harbour Tunnel
CCM_TR (16Oct08)
Maunsell
Annex E
Typical Sections through Immersed Tube Tunnel
CCM_TR (16Oct08)
Maunsell
Annex F
Vertical Profile and Typical Section through Bored Tunnel
CCM_TR (16Oct08)
Maunsell
Annex G
Illustrative Cofferdam Approach
CCM_TR (16Oct08)
Maunsell
Annex H
Typical Section through Temporary Reclamation
CCM_TR (16Oct08)
Maunsell
Annex I
Temporary Reclamation Layout Plan
CCM_TR (16Oct08)
Maunsell
Annex J
Construction Staging at CBTS and ex-PCWA
CCM_TR (18Apr08)
Maunsell
Annex K
Public Engagement Records
CCM_TR (16Oct08)
Maunsell
Central-Wan Chai Bypass and Island Eastern Corridor Link
(Trunk Road)
Construction of Trunk Road Tunnel in Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter and

Ex-Wan Chai Public Cargo Working Area
Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE) Seminar

on 7 April 2008
General
Members expressed strong support to the Trunk Road project and appreciated that the
proposed tunnel construction method with temporary reclamation at the ex-Public
Cargo Working Area (ex-PCWA) and Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter (CBTS) was a
safe, feasible and practicable way of construction and the best option in satisfying the
Overriding Public Need Test under the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance.
They urged the Government to launch the necessary public engagement with the
stakeholders for the temporary reclamation and expressed strong support for the early
construction of the Trunk Road as soon as possible.
Major views/questions raised:
1. A member suggested that as the Trunk Road was such an important infrastructure
project to the engineering community, HKIE should show expressed support to the
Government to press ahead with the implementation of the project. In response,
a member said that the Institute has always been supportive of the project and
would make public the Institution’s position at the appropriate juncture.
2. A member expressed views on the possibility of adopting the alternative method

for forming working platform by barrettes or diaphragm walls instead of
temporary reclamation with vertical blockwork seawall. MCAL reckoned that
the suggested alternative method was unusual and not proven to be a practical and
safe construction method to proceed with the statutory procedures. Instead, the
currently proposed temporary reclamation with vertical blockwork seawall was
considered to be practically feasible and a safe way of construction. The
member also agreed with MCAL views. He also enquired about dewatering
arrangement under the proposed method and whether sheet piles wall had been
considered as an additional environmental control measures. MCAL explained
in brief the proposed dewatering arrangement and responded that additional sheet
piles wall was considered not feasible due to sideway movement of long
1
cantilever wall.
3. A member enquired about the comparison of flyover option with tunnel option.
Another member said that it was discussed in the previous meeting with HKIE
and members supported tunnel option.
4. A member enquired about the arrangement of staged construction of the

temporary reclamation and tunnel construction. MCAL explained the
arrangement in details.
5. A member enquired why bored tunnel could not be adopted in the design.
MCAL explained a minimum cover of 1.5 times the diameter (i.e. about 23m)
depth of cover would be required for the tunnel construction. Additional
temporary reclamation would thus be required especially near the portal area,
which could offset the benefit of saving temporary reclamation at the ex-PCWA
and CBTS. Moreover, temporary reclamation might also be required to install
the reception shaft for the tunnel boring machine for tunnel construction at the
CBTS. The member also asked about whether the constraints of the Shatin to
Central Link (SCL) could be minimized with its advanced implementation.
MCAL replied that the alignment of the SCL was still uncertain and provision for
SCL should be allowed.
6. A member enquired about whether the Government would appeal to the judicial
review judgment of the temporary reclamation. HyD responded that the
Government was still studying the judgment. Notwithstanding the above, the
Government would like to take proactive approach to enhance public engagement
on the temporary reclamation under the project.
7. In response to a member’s enquiry, HyD expressed that the Hong Kong Contractor
Association would be consulted shortly.
2
Central-Wan Chai Bypass and Island Eastern Corridor Link
(Trunk Road)

Hong Kong Construction Association Seminar

on 11 April 2008
General
Twenty representatives from ten members of the Association attended the
seminar. Members expressed strong support to the project and noted that the proposed
tunnel construction method with temporary reclamation at the ex-Public Cargo
Working Area (ex-PCWA) and Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter (CBTS) was a safe,
feasible and practicable way of construction in satisfying the Overriding Public Need
Test under the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance (PHO). They urged for early
implementation of the project.
1. A member expressed the possibility of adopting a combination of Tunnel Boring

Machine (TBM) and in-situ method, i.e. to use temporary reclamation on top of
the tunnel to overcome the problem of insufficient cover during TBM
drilling. He elaborated that the temporary reclamation could be supported by
cofferdam in stages. He was also of the view that the extent of reclamation and
the period of each stage of works could be much smaller and quicker than the
proposed temporary reclamation with diaphragm wall method. In response,
MCAL said that temporary reclamation was still required and there existed high
risk of failure for adopting cofferdam to support the temporary reclamation. The
close proximity with the alignment of the proposed Shatin to Central Link
Railway imposed constraints on the use of TBM method. In addition, temporary
reclamation would still be required for the construction of slip road 8.
2. A member enquired whether the tunnel construction method would be prescribed

in the tender. He was of the view that there was possibility to use cofferdam for
construction of the tunnel. MCAL replied that the Engineer's proposed
construction method was a feasible, practicable and safe way of construction in
satisfying the Overriding Public Need Test under the PHO. Other innovative
construction method proposed by the Contractor based on his own expertise,
3
which could fulfill the requirements of PHO, would be considered. MCAL
reminded that alternative construction method would be allowed and the design
of all temporary works was the contractor’s responsibility. The meeting also
noted that there was no precedence of installing cofferdam to a depth of 35m
below water as required in the subject site condition.
3. A member enquired the rationale for staged construction of the tunnel within the
CBTS. MCAL replied that the proposed staging of works was developed based
on a balance between the programme of works and the effects on the water quality
within the CBTS. The proposed staging of works could maintain the water flow
and hence, the water quality, within the CBTS to an acceptable level, as well as
ensuring uninterrupted supply to the existing cooling water intakes to the nearby
buildings (including Excelsior Hotel, World Trade Centre and Windsor House).
4. A member enquired whether strengthening the soft material at the seabed by

grouting to facilitate the use of TBM method had been considered. MCAL
replied that the required grouting works would be extremely expensive and
difficult. In addition, the strengthening of soft material could not overcome the
problem of insufficient cover for TBM method and hence, temporary reclamation
would still be required.
4
Central-Wan Chai Bypass and Island Eastern Corridor Link (Trunk Road)

Joint Professional Forum for HKIA/HKIE/HKILA/HKIP/HKIS

on 16 June 2008
General
Attendees raised questions on the details of the construction methodology, duration
and phasing of works, potential impacts on the continued operation of CBTS,
construction method for section underneath CHT etc while acknowledging that the
current trunk road scheme has an overriding public need and the cut-and-cover
method using temporary reclamation is the only safe, feasible and practicable
construction method.

1. A member raised the interface with SCL construction. In response, HyD
mentioned that the two currently considered alignments of SCL were still very
preliminary and the interface would be kept in view.
2. A member asked whether the considerations for CBTS could be applied similarly
to ex-PCWA like the non-applicability of cofferdam construction. MCAL replied
that as the tunnel profile on both sides of CHT continued, the tunnel was also very
deep at ex-PCWA and the same considerations applied.
3. A member enquired whether the operation of CBTS would be affected. MCAL

responded that in order to minimize the impacts of construction the temporary
reclamation would be carried out in stages but not in one go. HyD pointed out that
water quality within the CBTS was a major issue and had to be maintained during
construction.
4. A member enquired about the construction method and precaution for the section
of CWB tunnel underneath CHT. MCAL responded that sufficient clearance from
the rock anchors of the CHT approach had already been allowed and a mining
operation adopting temporary pipe pile arches was envisaged as the construction
method.
5. A member enquired about details of dredging for the envisaged construction
5
method and details were clarified by MCAL. MCAL also elaborated briefly on the
construction sequence of cut-and-cover method and the associated diaphragm
walls.
6. A member enquired about the duration of the temporary reclamation stages.

MCAL responded that within the overall period of 6 years the different stages
would last for about 1 year to 3 years depending on locations and complexity of
construction.
7. A member enquired about the transition from one stage to another. MCAL
responded that the effect of the transition had already been considered and taken
into account in coming up with the temporary reclamation area at any one time so
as to identify the maximum area of temporary reclamation within CBTS at any
one time being 3.7ha.
8. A member enquired whether the tunnel portal could be shifted from the current
location to ex-North Point Estates. HyD responded that this would result in greater
permanent reclamation at North Point and hence not acceptable and this issue had
been addressed during the previous consultation.
6
Central-Wan Chai Bypass and Island Eastern Corridor Link (Trunk Road)

Public Forum on 19 July 2008
General
The public did not indicate any strong objection to the recommended option of
cut-and-cover construction using temporary reclamation for the tunnel construction
although there were questions concerning matters of details, including whether the
method for the CWB tunnelling underneath the CHT (clarified as “drill and break”
method at the public forum) could be adopted in the CBTS and ex-PCWA; whether
blasting can be used; whether a combination of the different methods for constructing
the sections of CWB tunnels in CBTS and ex-PCWA can be considered; consequential
effects of cut-and-cover construction with temporary reclamation on the existing
moorings in the CBTS; whether the temporary reclamation can be carried out in one
go; staging of the temporary reclamation work, and their durations of existence and
their removal; environmental impacts during construction on nearby residential
receivers; and potential interfaces with the SCL.
1. An attendee asked whether the issue of temporary typhoon for reprovisioning the
existing vessels in CBTS would be addressed and the public would be consulted.
HyD responded that the method of constructing the concerned section of CWB
tunnel within CBTS and ex-PCWA has to be established first so that the effect of
construction on the existing vessels can be ascertained and any methods of
reprovisioning can then be considered and assessed.
2. An attendee asked whether there would be any overlapping periods of different

stages of temporary reclamation. MCAL responded that the durations of
individual reclamation areas would vary from about 1 to 3 years. MCAL further
advised that there would be transition from one stage to another and that due
consideration had been given to this aspect in assessing the construction time and
the area of temporary reclamation at any one time.
3. An attendee enquired whether the cut-and-cover method using temporary

reclamation could be constructed in one go. MCAL responded that this would
7
sterilize the whole CBTS and block the existing drainage outfalls and cooling
seawater intakes. In order to minimize the impacts to the existing vessels in CBTS
the temporary reclamation would be carried out in stages.
4. An attendee asked whether the four stages of temporary reclamation could be

shortened to say 3 or even 2 stages, thus reducing the overall construction period.
MCAL responded that the staging had been considered and the currently
envisaged 4-stage construction would be optimum in terms of time management
and minimizing the impacts on the existing vessels in CBTS.
5. An attendee enquired who would be responsible for removing the temporary

reclamation and how to make sure he would fulfill this obligation. HyD responded
that the future construction contract would obligate the contractor to remove the
temporary reclamation. In case the contractor does not fulfill, the Government
undertakes to remove the temporary reclamation according to the road gazette.
6. An attendee enquired whether the three discussed construction methods could be

made use of in combination in view of their pros and cons. MCAL clarified that
the other two methods of IMT and TBM had been assessed as not feasible and
could not be applied. Precast IMT tunnel segments could not be towed into CBTS
because of inadequate navigation widths and draft. The required ground cover for
TBM operation cannot be achieved in the CBTS.
7. An attendee asked about the construction method for the tunnel length underneath
CHT and why this method could not be applied to CBTS. MCAL clarified that the
tunnel underneath CHT would be constructed by “different drill and break”
method through rock using temporary pipe pile arch to be constructed in advance
of excavation by small scale drilling machine. The excavation would be carried
out in dry condition being surrounded by diaphragm walls constructed on the two
temporary reclamation areas abutting CHT tunnel approach. This method could
not used to excavate the soft materials under CBTS as the soft materials would
collapse under water pressure during excavation. Besides, drill and blast method
could not be used for constructing the tunnel underneath the CBTS as there is
mainly soft material instead of rock underneath the CBTS.
8. An attendee enquired about the environmental impacts arising from the project
especially the air quality impact due to the proposed eastern ventilation building.
As this subject was outside the scope of the public forum, it was not addressed at
the public forum. (Follow-up action: HyD met the attendee and explained the
8
subject in details on 14 August 2008.)
9. An attendee enquired about the potential interface with SCL and whether
additional temporary reclamation would be required for SCL. HyD explained
that MTRCL would carry out preliminary design of the SCL alignment and taking
all considerations especially the PHO into account in finalizing the alignment.

None

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

None

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

None

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT

Agreement No. 5/95

Design and Construction of

Construction of the Trunk Road Tunnel

Maunsell Consultants Asia Ltd

Agreement No. CE 5/95

CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRUNK ROAD TUNNEL

2 THE TRUNK ROAD SCHEME

3 CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRUNK ROAD TUNNEL IN THE

4 TEMPORARY WORKS IN THE CBTS AND EX-PCWA

Maunsell | AECOM iii

ANNEX A Gazette Notice No. 4767 & Plans Nos.

ANNEX B Temporary Works for Trunk Road Construction

ANNEX C Trunk Road Tunnel Layout & Plan and Profile

ANNEX D Trunk Road Tunnel Construction Technique under

ANNEX E Typical Sections through Immersed Tube Tunnel

ANNEX F Vertical Profile and Typical Section through Bored

ANNEX G Illustrative Cofferdam Approach

ANNEX H Typical Section through Temporary Reclamation

ANNEX I Temporary Reclamation Layout Plan

ANNEX J Construction Staging at CBTS and ex-PCWA

ANNEX K Public Engagement Records

1.1 The Trunk Road Scheme

1.1.1 A comprehensive planning and engineering review of

1.1.2 Under the WDII Review and through an extensive public

1.2 Cogent and Convincing Materials for the Trunk Road

1.2.1 A “Report on Cogent and Convincing Materials to Demonstrate

1.3 Gazettal of the Trunk Road

1.3.1 By Gazette Notice 4767 published on 27 July 2007 (G.N. 4767),

works as shown in Plans Nos. 92995/GAZ/1000 to

1.3.2 As stated in G.N. 4767, the general nature of the proposed

1.4 Temporary Works for the Construction of the Trunk Road

1.4.1 As noted in G.N. 4767, temporary works will be required for

1.4.2 In October 2007, a declaration was sought through a judicial

1.4.3 The Court of First Instance (CFI) delivered its judgment on 20

on 27 July 2007 and more particularly delineated in the plans

1.5 Demonstrating Compliance of the Temporary Reclamation

1.5.2 However, in response to the CFI judgment on 20 March 2008

or specifically presented in the CCM Report, the overriding

1.5.3 The following approach is taken to demonstrate that the

(i) The CCM Report sought to explain how the Overriding

It is how the end result of minimum reclamation and least

(ii) Any reasonable alternative to the temporary reclamation

(iii) Section 4 of this report examines the details of temporary

(iv) Section 5 gives an account of the public engagement

(v) Finally, Section 6 of this report summarises the

reclamation for Trunk Road Tunnel construction with the

1.6 Purpose of this Report

1.6.1 This report presents supplementary cogent and convincing

1.6.3 In addressing the temporary reclamation for the construction of

should be read in conjunction with the CCM Report, which has

1.6.4 Finally, it should be noted that various temporary works that

2 THE TRUNK ROAD SCHEME

2.1 Derivation of the Trunk Road Scheme

2.1.1 A detailed examination on the Trunk Road’s needs and

2.1.3 Copies of the CCM Report have been widely distributed to

2.2 Trunk Road Tunnel Layout

2.2.1 The layout of the Trunk Road Tunnel is presented in Annex C.