Serious problems emerged with 3^rd runway reclamation fill

Overseas import of marine sand leads to high cost and multiple pollution

Suspension of rock dust from artificial sand causes murky waters

Green Sense claims ‘Halting project is the only way out’

Facing the enormous demand of marine sand by reclamation works of the 3^rd runway of the International Airport, contractors are presented with two choices: Importing marine sand from Hainan, China or Southeast Asia, or replacing a portion of marine sand fill with artificial sand. Both are equally destructive, as the former causes multiple pollution of oceans, while the latter leads to the suspension of fine rock dust in the water, resulting in unacceptable deterioration of the local marine environment. Green Sense criticized the huge environmental cost of the project, and urged LegCo members to push for detailed accounts from the Airport Authority and the Environmental Protection Department in a meeting of the Three-Runway System LegCo Subcommittee held today.

Cost of the reclamation works, which requires a total of 100 million cubic meters of marine sand, has already amounted to a vast HKD 56.2 billion, and may continue to rise due to a shortage of sand supply from China and subsequent rising prices, easily leading to serious budget overrun and delays. In fact, marine sand supply has never been enough – last year, construction of an artificial island in the Macau section of the Hong-Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge experienced delays due to this very reason. The 3^rd runway project is facing the same crisis, said a contractor last month, and the proposed solution to keep the project going was to import marine sand from Southeast Asia, as well as to mix in artificial sand – finely crushed rocks produced with sand making machines – in place of marine sand.

Roy Tam Hoi-pong, Chief Executive (Voluntary) of Green Sense, emphasized that overseas import of marine sand would cause multiple environmental pollution. Not only would the reclamation site suffer a permanent loss of marine habitat, and the seabed from which marine sand was extracted be permanently destroyed, but the lengthy transport of sand would also lead to unacceptable carbon emissions.

On the other hand, artificial sand consists of not only larger rock grains but also fine rock dust, which, when used for reclamation, would suspend in water and cause severe marine pollution. As a demonstration, Tam prepared two glasses of clear water and added a sample of marine sand and artificial sand to each. The marine sand sank within minutes leaving the water clear, yet the glass of water containing artificial sand remained turbid throughout the press release.

‘A rinsing step is needed to remove the fine dust during artificial sand production,’ said Tam. ‘But this would in turn pollute rivers close to the factories, and the cost could very likely rocket. Thus it is unrealistic to rinse artificial sand before use. However, direct use of artificial sand without rinsing would likely be violating requirements stated on environmental permits, or lengthen construction processes, resulting in delays and budget overrun.’ He added that over the years the project has already been criticized for being overly ambitious, unhelpful in resolving limited airspace issues, and destructive to habitats of the Chinese White Dolphins, and has consequently faced strong oppositions. It was clear that the Airport Authority is stuck in a dilemma and the project should be stopped immediately.

Lawmaker Edward Yiu Chung-yim expressed equal concern with the project and the fact that authorities have failed to make public the environmental and budget-relating problems of using artificial sand, despite it being clear that marine sand was on shortage. He agreed to demand detailed explanations during the subcommittee meeting.

The first time I saw pictures of the iconic cotton candy coloured dolphins local to Hong Kong, I assumed that the images were modified. But each of these exceptionally intelligent creatures truly comes with their own distinctive pattern of pink and purple coloration. On a recent tour in the north Lantau waters, I was lucky enough to see several of these curious animals, who swam right up to the boat and showed off their beautiful hues while spiritedly diving around in the increasingly polluted waters. The dolphins seem to have a special relationship with the dedicated researchers from the Hong Kong Dolphin Conservation Society, who have been patiently and non-invasively collecting data about the creatures for decades. The researchers are able to recognize each dolphin on sight, and can casually chat about their quirky personalities and life history in the Pearl River Delta. Sadly, these histories are becoming alarmingly short, as development in the estuary has caused massive destruction to the pods. After a devastating report that an adult and an adolescent dolphin were recently discovered dead on local shores, the current number of local white dolphins left in Hong Kong is down to 60. A decade ago there were well over 150.

More than 1,400 hectares of sea area has been reclaimed since the mid 90s, ruining habitats and fisheries in the Pearl River Delta. Major development projects like the still uncompleted bridge standing between Hong Kong and Macau has caused toxic levels of water pollution, hazardous traffic, and overfishing. Dredging in the delta deposits suspended solids into the water, while dumping in contaminated mud pits releases heavy metals and organochlorides which poison dolphins and further deplete fishing reserves. The toxins affect baby dolphins the most, many of whom are born sick and die very young.

Dolphins are incredibly social creatures that rely upon the strength of their pod for survival. Upsurges of noise pollution caused by development and ferry traffic obscures the echolocation necessary for dolphins to hunt, communicate, and navigate in the delta, leaving many stranded and helpless. The high speed ferry routes directly traverse dolphin estuaries and it has become commonplace for researches to see mangled fins and other injuries from collisions with boat turbines. But the greatest peril is undoubtedly the development still to come. The proposed third runway at Hong Kong International Airport would be the final nail in the coffin for the local population of Chinese white dolphins.

The AAHK’s proposal to build a third runway at Hong Kong International Airport would cause irreparable damage to local marine ecology. The proposed repossession of 650 more hectares of waterway in the heart of three dolphin hotspots in North Chek Lap Kok represents one of the largest reclamation projects in Hong Kong history. The AAHK has claimed that a marine park will be established for the dolphins after the runway is completed in 2022, with utter disregard to the fact that the proposed “park” is already an existing marine area, and therefore cannot possibly mitigate the loss of reclaimed waterways. The assumption that the dolphins would simply return to Hong Kong after construction is finished would be laughable if it wasn’t so devastating.

The loss of the Chinese white dolphins in Hong Kong may be the first casualty on the frontline of a vastly ill-conceived white elephant project, but they would certainly not be the last. The third runway will also greatly damage Lantau Island and contribute to pollution levels that would be hazardous to human health in surrounding areas. The plan is flawed even in its conception. Chek lap Kok is already one of the most congested airspaces in the world, and there is a finite number of flights that can travel through that area regardless of the number of runways. The crowded airspace, and the subsequent narrower waterways below, will not only be unsafe according to international safety standards, but will also have to be merged with airspace that is owned by mainland China and controlled by the People’s Liberation Army.

The endless repercussions of this conservatively estimated $141.5 billion project have yet to be addressed, and “quick fix” mentality is not only deadly to the white dolphin population and their surrounding environment, but it is also politically, socially, and financially unsustainable. It must be made clear that the nonchalance with which this development is being approached is simply unacceptable, and the plight of the irreplaceable white dolphins must be spread in order to save them before it is too late.

Abi Speers - Student from summer internship programme 2016

The government approved the HK$141.5 billion Hong Kong International Airport Third Runway project. The decision immediately sparks criticisms and doubts on the project cost-effectiveness, and most importantly, the worrying HK-Shenzhen airspace conflict issues.

Government officers stress that once the third runway is completed, the airport could achieve a maximum 102 flights per hour, a significant increase to the maximum 68 flights per hour under our current two-runway system. However, such claim does have a prerequisite: the flights taking off from Hong Kong may head North without restrictions, i.e. occupying the low-attitude airspace controlled by the Shenzhen Airport.

Unfortunately, if our flights are allowed to do so, the normal operation of the only 24-miles away Shenzhen International Airport will be seriously disturbed. It is unreasonable to believe that the developing city will give way to us. The government responses to the negative prediction by releasing “unofficial news” to the press that, “even if we are not able to make use of the North bound flight tracks, the third runway could still bring around 20 flights up (ie. 85 – 90 flights hour) to the maximum capacity to the current airport”.

But for the Ma Wan residents, who complained about the serious airplane noise for years, such statement is going to be a “death-sentence”. Civil aviation experts studied the third runway project plan carefully and concluded that, sadly, if Shenzhen does not agree our flights to head into their airspace, the additional planes taking off from the future mid-runway will have to fly across Ma Wan, while taking off flight track from the South runway is kept close to Ma Wan [See figure]. In other words, Ma Wan residents are going to suffer from higher level of plane noise and air pollution, which could make the place unsuitable for living.

Green Sense chief executive Roy Tam urges the government to release more information. He says: “The environmental impact assessment report did not explain the potential harm, in respect to the noise and air pollution level, to Ma Wan residents under the situation that the airspace conflict cannot be solved. The report is simply faulty. The government ought to stop the project right now and redo the EIA report to relieve residents’ worries. Ma Wan residents have already borne enough noise from the airplanes for these years!”

Recently some experts suggests cutting some part of the hills to increase the capacity of the current two runways. According to the 1992 New Airport Master Plan, to achieve parallel arrival and departure, part of the two hills in Eastern Lantau, namely Tai Yam Teng (607feet) and Fa Peng Teng (897 feet), can be cut off. Only 36 feet and 197 feet should be cut respectively. These two hills are not in country park and these areas are not forest. If cutting off part of the mountain can be the alternative for the third runway, it is worthwhile for discussion. Besides, planes can turn earlier and do not need to fly across Ma Wan island. Noise pollution can be reduced.

Dangerous for Landing and Departure on third runway
Too Many Mountains & 1962 ft Castle Peak
Number of Tourists already Exceed HK’s Capacity
Stop Unlimited Expansion of Private Aircrafts and Narrow-body Aircrafts

退休外籍機師Jan Bochenski 指出第三條跑道安全成疑

About a month ago, the Project Profile of the Expansion of Three Runway System submitted by the Hong Kong Airport Authority (HKAA) found no favour before the Environmental Protection Department (EPD). Therefore HKAA has submitted supplementary information to EPD with a public consultation ended on 13th July this Friday. We, Green Sense, will again write comment to EPD and request an internationally qualified professional of aviation to assess the risk of air crash and related damage imposed by the third runway and the surrounding mountains of Tai Lam Chung, Castle Peak and Tai Mo Shan.

There is serious concern over the prevailing constraint on airspace for civil aviation and possible safety hazards since HKAA launched the Three Runway System proposal. However, as current pilots are still employed by airlines, they are reluctant to speak on the safety issue of the third runway. We have finally contacted a retired expatriate pilot who is willing to analyse the safety issues of the third runway in detail.

Professionals have come to the conclusion that the third runway will not fit with the current two runways. Most of the mountains located in the South and North of the Hong Kong International Airport (the Airport) are over 1000 ft. Therefore, the amount of possible flight paths will be limited. (For details please see pages following.) Roy Tam, President of Green Sense, remarked, “The third runway is located almost a strict line with Tai Mo Shan. In other words, it requires a sharp landing from as high as 4000 ft for an aircraft to landing safely without a crash on the mountain. It is not a desirable flight path.”

On the other hand, if the aircraft land from the southwest and such attempt is not successful, the aircraft must try to reach a higher altitude within a short distance. According to the internal documents of HKAA, one of the emergency plans is to turn left while attempting to reach a higher altitude. However, there is risk of crashing with the Castle Peak.

In recent years, narrow-body aircrafts occupy a higher percentage in the use of the Airport. Roy Tam says, “Although there are more flights, the average number of passengers per aircraft is declining.” Green Sense is of the view that, it is not necessary to have an expansion of a three-runway system to increase the overall carrying capacity. HKAA can, instead, encourage the use of wide body aircrafts (having 2 aisles inside) with administrative and economic incentives or policies.

私人飛機泊滿機場多個角落，可見私人飛機佔用跑道情況越來越多

Moreover, it is said that private aircrafts secure a steady increase of percentage in occupying the Airport. During our site visit, we, Green Sense, has taken photos from different spots and found that many private aircrafts were parked almost all over the Airport. Green Sense emphasizes, runways of the Airport should be used by aircrafts with large carrying capacity but not those owned by millionaires.

Together with many Hongkongers, Green Sense cares much about the impact on our society caused by the Individual Visit Scheme. As pointed out by Mr. Lam Chiu Ying, Ex-director of Hong Kong Observatory, the current large amount of tourists has already exceeded the capacity of Hong Kong and the third runway should not be built for a further boost for tourism.

Not only are the traditional shopping districts like Mongkok, Causeway Bay and Tsim Sha Tsui full of tourists from the Mainland, but also new towns, including Tsuen Wan, Sha Tin, Tuen Mun and Tai Po. Such changes have affected our daily life a lot. Many shopping malls and streets are crowded with tourists from the Mainland. As a result, rent of shops has become more and more expensive. Shops which sell gold, jewellery, cosmetics and watches blossomed in malls and main streets.

Green Sense requests the government, before the discussion of the expansion of a three way system of the Airport, conduct a strategic research into the threshold of the capacity of Hong Kong, in order to find out whether we should attract more and can afford more tourists. Otherwise, a goal of attracting more tourists by the new runway will only bring us more social problems.

機管局建議的三跑道系統，將在不同風向的情況下，使用兩幅圖中其一種的升降模式。 但無論那一種情況，也存在安全風險。

Fake Consultation by Airport Authority  Underestimate Pollution
12 Infrastructures on Lantau and in Tuen Mun
Exceed Environmental Threshold
Air Pollution threaten 600,000 Tung Chung and Tuen Mun Residents
Abandon “Economy Overrides All” Mindset!

大嶼山北岸及屯門的污染性基建

Today is the World Environment Day. We urge all citizens of Hong Kong to oppose the construction of the third Runway of the Hong Kong International Airport. Such opposition is, at present, the most effective way to protect our environment.

Aviation industry is a polluting industry. A significant amount of carbon dioxide and other pollutants will be emitted during flights. The greenhouse effect produced by upper-air emission of carbon dioxide is double that made near the ground. However, the Airport Authority Hong Kong (Airport Authority) has barely mentioned the increase of carbon emission in its consultation paper (Hong Kong International Airport Master Plan 2030). Nowadays, more and more citizens are adopting a lifestyle of low carbon emission. Ironically, however hard we tried to reduce of use of airconditioning, to enforce legislation related to idling engines, and to replace old buses, still, we can hardly cancel out 50% increase of the carbon emission generated by the three-runway system. The omission of this environmental destruction is surely a loophole of the consultation paper.

The consultation paper has also omitted the threshold of environmental sustainability. There are already 5 polluting facilities in Tuen Mun District and North Lantau. If those under consultation and planning are included, namely, the third runway, Hongkong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities Reclamation Works, Incinerator at Tsang Tsui, Sludge incineration facility, Reclamation for Tung Chung New Town, Logistic Park and the possible railway connecting the airport of Hong Kong and Shenzhen. There will be 12 polluting infrastructures concentrated. The carrying capacity of the whole area is clearly exceeded. Among the 7 polluting infrastructuresyet to be constructed, some require huge area of reclamation; some at the same time produce lots of air pollutants. If the North Lantau coastline is reclaimed for the third runway, the channel (between the North Lantau and Tuen Mun) will face the same fate of Victoria Harbour and become narrower and narrower. Surely regrets will not help at that time. Moreover, the severe sir pollution generated by these infrastructures threaten the health of 600,000 Tung Chung and Tuen Mun Residents.

Another problem of the consultation paper is that it releases misleading information in relation to the impact on the Chinese White Dolphins. According to the consultation paper, the proposed reclamation area is a wide stretch of Contaminated Mud Pits. It claims that it is an area of low Chinese White Dolphins abundance. Therefore, the area has little marine conservation value but reclamation. We, Green Sense, thinks that the conclusion of the above two observation is erred because of lack of common sense. As the government designated the area as Contaminated Mud Pits, Chinese White Dolphins does not stay for long. The Dolphins dash and pass because of the is turbance of the marine environment. As a result, they are not counted. Yet it does not mean they don’t use the area to and from the three core areas. The professional knowledge and independence of the consultants of the Airport Authority are under serious doubt.

Improving the current two runways(first option of the consultation) can ensure a limit of pollutants and carbon emission, while the third runway (second option of the construction) will increase the emissions endlessly. The construction of the third runway reflects the old fashioned mindset of trading environmental quality for economic gains. We, Green Sense, sincerely invite all Hong Kong citizens to seriously think about whether we should still adopt the said old fashioned mindset for thefuture of Hong Kong.