The Bridge

Should be impressive


http://www.newsgd.com/news/picstories/content/2009-12/15/content_7159219.htm

Yep,


so was CLK, when it was tabled in the early 80's, and the MTR when it was tabled in the 70's.

the difference is, neither CLK nor the MTR are the massive white elephants that this bridge is going to be...another article yesterday shed light on another delta bridge in the works, more convenient to Shenzhen's cheaper ports, less expensive and likely to be finished on or before the completion date of this monster...

@funbboy


You don't know whether it will be a white elephant. You have no idea. As far as betting on infrastructure projects go, if I had to bet, it would be with the SAR government as opposed to against it.


In terms of infrastructure investment the government of the SAR has pretty much had it down. They will have looked at feasibility studies, considered the level of road trade a bridge would generate and the follow on impact for the container terminal.


There are many reasons why Hong Kong is used as a preferred port rather than ones in China.


People said the government spending 30 Billion US dollars on an airport reclaimed from the sea was nuts when that was first mooted, They said the MTR was too expensive, and the fact of the matter is the MTR looks modern even by todays standards, and CLK, well 8 or 9 consecutive worlds best airport awards speaks for itself.


They're nobody's fools, Infrastructure investment is what has kept Hong Kong competitive, and enabled it to withstand pretty much everything that has come its way since the 70's.


That is why they do it.


The notion that it is a white elephant, can't be argued prior to building it. That is a contradiction in terms. You couldn't possibly know that. And no fool would go about deliberately spending billions of dollars building something they believe is going to be a white elephant.


White elephants usually get built because of lack of foresight, and I personally believe that is quite the opposite of what is going on here.


If governments do build them on purpose for employments sake, those projects are rarely or even never in conjunction with two other governments.


You and others may think what you think now, that is up to you and them, but the fact of the matter is neither you nor they know.


As far as I am concerned I expect that bridge will pay for itself as I imagine the promoters of the idea do, which will be the entire reason behind building it in the first place.


If you want to debate that, fine, but their track record speaks for itself.


Not sure what notaeuropeans anti western diatribe is about.

db....if you read what i had said, note the words 'is going to be'. That puts my opinion squarely in the realm of speculation...as is yours. Sorry if I somehow put you off your lunch entirely...last time i checked, a public forum was a place for opinions as well as facts...i hope you're right and this gleaming marvel of technology transforms HK into the economic powerhouse is has always meant to be (and the value of my flat goes thru the roof too!).


As for CLK/MTR (and heck even Nathan's folly for that matter) I pointed them out as NOT white elephants when I said 'unlike'....not sure what your on about there....they were and continue to be vital parts of the infrastructure here, no question...it's just that IMHO, this bridge, in comparison (and I feel the same about the high speed rail project) aren't nearly as vital, and are more Tsang's 'legacy' projects than anything else

yes i read what you said, and was aware that you say this project is unlike those.


And of course you have a right to an opinion and make that known. I would never suggest anything differently.


I question the validity of the speculation, with the full weight of a government who has a track record of building world class multi billion dollar infrastructure projects successfully.


You believe there is no need. There wasn't any particular need to spend US$30 billion on the airport. They could have probably done one at a third of that cost.


They do these things, because outstanding infrastructure is the single most important reason behind Hong Kong's initial economic rise and its ability to compete at a global level.


I would question anyone who speculates that an infrastructure project in Hong Kong is a white elephant.


It will be used, and I have no doubt it will turn a profit eventually.


TBH improving connectivity with China is probably the most important thing the Hong Kong government can do.


If you were to make the argument that perhaps they should spend the money on trying to improve the environment, if that can at all be done, rather than a bridge to China, I would not argue with that.


But the logic behind why they are planning such a thing is by no means wrong.

new bridge -bah humbug-!see my plea under latest thread for directions ,la ...grrrr...thanks

While I would agree that in general the government has a track record those projects since the handover such as the Western Crossing and the Lok Ma Chau / Futian Ko An train crossing have been under utilised by more than 50% below government projected figures and therefore do fall into the White Elephant category.


I'm not convinced, yet, that the projections made for the new bridge are wholly realistic and am surprised that there has been no thoughts to using this for trains rather than cars. Notwithstanding the fact that there are still issues to be ironed out in regard to using cars cross border surely the fact that the world is moving away from the internal combustion engine should have come into play. We have yet to hear more form the government on these points, although I'd say they'd be conveniently avoided.


As for the new rail track my wife has family over in the village due to be flattened. They don't want any compensation and are actually very scared. The village is their whole life, their friends are there, their whole life is there. Even with compensation all the government would do is move them to a public high rise and as they say if the village goes so does their whole life, for them life is over. As for the train again I would question the predictions on usage. This whole "link to the high speed internal network" is a red herring, there are other areas within China where that can be done.

If it gets used, and it pays itself off, the term white elephant is moot.


It neither concerns nor surprises me in the slightest that government projections are optimistic.


These are very long term investments in the future.


The only real argument against spending on them I find compelling is perhaps, if it is indeed possible, because I am not sure it is, that perhaps the SAR government should or could spend the money on improving the environment, then that is what they should be doing now.


If indeed throwing money at that problem is a solution. Perhaps the city could lower its carbon footprint, but it is still at the mercy of pollution originating from China.


But as far as I can tell, the SAR government has two main issues confronting it alongside the two perpetual issues of healthcare and education..


(1) it needs to improve connectivity with China to keep it competitive with other Chinese cities in the region.


(2) it drastically needs to shape an environmental policy.


If this was a government that was in bad fiscal shape, perhaps I may find the notion that some people feel that its infrastructure investment is folly agreeable, and we should spend the money elsewhere.


But again, I have no doubt these projects will pay for themselves ultimately, and probably end up turning a profit.

If this was indeed about infrastructure and improving links with China then the HK - Zhuhai could be justified (although still doesn't answer questions of why no rail, just a road for a transportation that will be declining in future years but I digress). But to Macau? From where the bridge joins Zhuhai the distance from there to Macau would be similar to Kowloon Tong to Shatin. Apart from the ease of those in office being able to get away quickly with their mistresses and the odd person bring a wooden furniture piece back I can't see the reason for that part of the link.

I would not argue with the point you are making about whether it could either done more efficiently or direct, or if indeed someone made the point about whether it could be done for a far lower cost.


Those are both very valid arguments.


The only real argument I have is the suggestion that it will be a white elephant. I think there are many cities in the world, that would love to have a bridge connecting them to the pearl river delta. It's not a bridge to nowhere.