• 青衣出行 Commute in TY
  • 攝影展:與轆同行Walking with Wheels
  • Hong Kong Island Coastal Trail – Progress Update (August 2021) 港島環島徑—最新消息 (2021年8月)
  • Abrupt closure of Instagram Pier – What next? Instagram Pier突然關閉–接下來可以做什麼?
  • World class water sports centre in Kai Tak: Call for clean water and facilities 啟德政策重陸輕水 要求增加配套設施及加強水質監控
  • Heritage status urged for entire Pok Fu Lam Conduit 促請文物保育:薄扶林水塘石板引水道
  • “Hong Kong Island Coastal Trail” has been passed in 4 District Councils「港島環島徑」獲得四區區議會支持
  • Missing Seats 邊度冇凳坐?
  • https://www.supporthk.org/?petition=lets-improve-our-municipal-solid-waste-management&lang=en
    Support waste charging and improve municipal solid waste management 支持修訂垃圾徵費條例草案,改善城市固體廢物管理
  • Understanding the economies of Hong Kong’s districts 發展香港地區經濟
23 October

青衣出行 Commute in TY

 

青衣出行 Commute in TY

「⻘⾐出⾏」是⼀個由創建香港與葵青區議會社區營造工作小組合辦、由葵⻘區議會資助的社區項⽬,⽬的是在⻘⾐島推廣單⾞作為⽇常通勤的交通⼯具。這次項⽬旨在透過實地研究和舉辦社區活動,研究在⻘⾐區內可行的單⾞通勤路線,並教育不同道路使⽤者和公眾有關騎單⾞的文化禮儀和安全意識。

Commute in TY is a community project co-organized by Designing Hong Kong and the Community Building Working Group of the Kwai Tsing District Council. The project is funded by the Kwai Tsing District Council to promote cycling as a transportation mode for daily commute on Tsing Yi Island. The project aims to investigate and propose a cyclists’ commuting path in Tsing Yi, and to educate different road users and the public on the safety of cycling in Tsing Yi.

 


 

活動  Activities

13/11 – 14/11 社區單車日 Community Cycling Day

 

資訊  Information

單車錦囊

青衣單車距離地圖


 

社區單車日 Community Cycling Day

Community Cycling Day Poster

活動一:公園單車體驗
日期:11月13及14日(星期六及日)
時間:10時至2時半
集合及活動地點:青衣東北公園單車徑

建造一個單車友善的社區,首先要理解單車禮儀和文化。參加者會由專業導師教授基本單車禮儀及注意事項,再在東北公園的單車徑上實習一下。兜完幾個圈都未知踩了多遠?我們準備了參照圖讓參加者能夠具體化於青衣區內踩單車的距離,可能你會發現用單車穿梭的青衣島原來較你預期的小。

【參加者限制】適合6歲或以上人士參與,但6-12歲的參加者必須由成年人陪同。每名成年人最多陪同兩名6-12歲的參加者。

【惡劣天氣安排】在一般的天雨情況下活動會繼續進行。假如天文台在活動開始前兩小前發出任何暴雨警告信號或三號或以上的熱帶氣旋警告,當日的活動將會取消。

活動二:初階公路單車體驗
日期:11月13及14日(星期六及日)
時間:11時至2時半
集合地點:青衣東北公園單車徑
活動地點:担杆山路

想踩馬路但又卻不知從何入手?覺得踩馬路好多車好危險?現時在沒有單車徑的路段,單車其實是可以在馬路上行走。初階公路單車體驗將會有富經驗的單車愛好者帶領參加者在馬路上騎行,並會教授參加者馬路踩單車的基本禮儀及注意事項。體驗過後,會否改變你對踩馬路的觀感呢?

【參加者限制】適合13歲或以上人士,並能充分掌握平衡、轉向、開車和停車等各種技巧的單車愛好者參與。但13-17歲的參加者必須由成年人陪同。每名成年人最多陪同1名13-17歲參加者。

【惡劣天氣安排】在一般的天雨情況下活動會繼續進行。假如天文台在活動開始前兩小前發出任何暴雨警告信號或三號或以上的熱帶氣旋警告,當日的活動將會取消。

活動三:共建單車社區工作坊
日期:11月13及14日(星期六及日)
時間:11時至12時半 及
3時半至5時(只限星期六)
地點:長發社區中心活動室1

你有想像過怎樣才能把青衣打造成為更容易通勤的社區嗎?在這個共建單車社區工作坊,我們會研究在⻘⾐區內可行的單⾞通勤路線,以及討論青衣居民所需的單車配套等。集合大家的經驗、意見、想像,一齊將青衣打造成一個單車友善的社區!

【參加者限制】適合 10 歲或以上人士參與,但10-12歲的參加者必須由成年人陪同。

【惡劣天氣空排】假如天文台在活動開始前兩小前發出黑色暴雨警告信號或八號或以上的熱帶氣旋警告,當日的活動將會取消。

 

活動照片

 

 


單車錦囊  Information Pack

事前準備篇

 


 

青衣單車距離地圖  Tsing Yi Cycling Distance Map

Foam_Map_4X8-min


14 October

土地共享先導計劃 關於南生圍及社山兩宗申請的聯合聲明 Joint Statement from NGOs concerning Two Applications under the Land Sharing Pilot Scheme at Nam Sang Wai and She Shan

Click here for the English version

土地共享先導計劃
關於南生圍及社山兩宗申請的聯合聲明

1. 就最近兩宗在土地共享先導計劃(LSPS)下分別位於南生圍(LSPS-002 )及林村社山(LSPS-003 )的申請,我們希望藉此聯合聲明表達深切關注。該兩個申請地點現在主要為鄉郊環境所覆蓋及包圍,發展密度極低;而有關申請不但會為該兩處引入高樓大廈(LSPS-002:24至25層;LSPS-003:17至39層),更會帶來龐大人口(LSPS-002:10,487人;LSPS-003:33,937人)。簡而言之,我們認為這兩個項目實在難以理解,我們會在下文詳細闡述。

生態環境問題
2. LSPS-002的申請地點位處南生圍核心濕地的南面,而該地點本身也有魚塘及河道。事實上,此地點亦位於濕地緩衝區(WBA)內;顧名思義,WBA本來就是要為緩衝敏感及具國際重要性的后海灣濕地而設 。WBA亦為繁殖期的鷺鳥提供飛行通道,以進入濕地保育區(WCA)內的覓食地。我們因此非常關注擬議的高樓會影響WBA原應發揮的緩衝作用及繁殖鷺鳥。南生圍核心濕地及周邊河道是不少具高保育重要性的水鳥的生境(包括全球性受威脅的黑臉琵鷺 Platalea minor)。區內亦有一個具區域重要性的普通鸕鷀(Phalacrocorax carbo)冬季棲地。此外,這區亦為在內地及香港都極具保育關注的歐亞水獺(Lutra lutra)提供生境。上述動物基本上對人類活動都極度敏感。擬議的9棟住宅高達24至25層,不但明顯阻礙雀鳥飛行路線,也會產生各種如光害及噪音的影響,干擾四周相對低矮的環境。擬議發展所帶來的人口亦會令區內的人類干擾大增,影響上述生態敏感受體。

3. 社山的擬議發展(LSPS-003)估計可能會令整個林村谷的人口激增約1.75倍(2016年的中期人口統計顯示林村谷只有19,369人 )。現時,該區的建築主要為三層高的村屋。明顯地此項涉及樓高17至39層共28棟大廈 (未包非住用建築)的發展建議,必然會嚴重破壞區內景觀及影響生態。擬議發展地點及其周邊現存大量農地及河道,為不少依賴開闊原野的具保育價值鳥種提供覓食及棲息地,包括全球性極危的黃胸鵐(Emberiza aureola)及易危的硫磺鵐(Emberiza sulphurate)。此外,擬議發展項目與覆蓋社山風水林的社山具特殊科學價值地點(SSSI)的最短距離少於10米,而此SSSI為不少具保育價值的動植物(如櫟子青岡(Cyclobalanopsis blakei)、褐林鴞(Strix leptogrammica)、黑冠鳽(Gorsachius melanolophus)提供生境。受法例保護的寬藥青藤(Illigera celebica)生長在社山風水林的邊陲,此稀有植物亦為稀有蝴蝶燕鳳蝶(Lamproptera curius)幼蟲的寄主。此外,最新的研究亦表明道路人工照明會對周邊環境的昆蟲數量構成重大影響 (而光害也能嚴重影響其他動物)。故此,觀乎社山擬議發展的位置,高度及規模,令人無法不聯想到此發展會大大干擾該區的野生生物(如昆蟲、在夜間活躍的雀鳥及蝙蝠)。

4. 我們相信這兩個項目更可能會大大增加路殺及鳥撞風險,直接影響野生生物和當區生物多樣性。

規劃問題
5. 如上述,LSPS-002的申請地點位於WBA內,此區的發展受到城市規劃委員會(城規會)規劃指引編號12C的規管。擬議項目地點覆蓋一些魚塘及河道,相關計劃摘要內的圖則顯示,一段河道及部份魚塘面積會因為該發展而消失。城規會規劃指引編號12C指出,在考慮后海灣地區的發展建議時,會採用「不會有濕地淨減少」的原則。儘管申請人近日在報章聲稱會遵循有關原則 ,LSPS-002現時唯一公開的正式文件(即計劃摘要)中,卻未有詳細說明該擬議發展會如何遵守這個原則。

6. LSPS-003的申請地點及林村谷均為林村分區計劃大綱核准圖 所覆蓋。而該圖則的整體規劃意向如下:

該區的發展是以「全港發展策略檢討」和「新界東北發展策略檢討」的結果作為指引的。這兩項檢討都沒有選定該區為可作策略性增長的地區。當局就新界東北的長遠發展所制訂的整體規劃政策,着重保育和保護鄉郊腹地的天然環境和景觀,而除現有新市鎭人口和已承諾進行的市區式發展帶來的人口外,會盡量遏止該區的人口增長。現在和已承諾建設的運輸和基礎設施網絡,不足以承受該區截至二零一一年的額外人口增長。

鑑於新界東北的發展受到限制,以及有需要保育/保存該區的鄉郊特色、天然景觀和生態價值,當局不鼓勵在區內闢設露天貯物場或進行非正式的工業和住宅發展。因此,該區的規劃意向,一方面是透過管制區內的發展和促進農業活動,以保存其鄉郊特色;另一方面是在適合發展的地點容許鄉村擴展……

7. 綜觀上述內容及社山擬議項目的發展參數,我們認為有關計劃根本不符合林村谷的原規劃意向。

公眾參與及透明度問題
8. 關於LSPS的公眾參與及透明度問題,我們在相關文件看到下列敘述:

立法會參考資料摘要(土地共享先導計劃) (DEVB(PL-CR)1-55/127/1) :

……為建立信心及保障公眾利益,先導計劃會採用具透明度的機制,並由特 設的顧問小組提供第三方意見。所有相關法定程序,包括修訂法定圖則及授權進行公共道路/渠務工程等刊憲程序,以至現有這些法定程序所涉及的公眾參與渠道,將繼續適用……

……自二零一九年《施政報告》公布後,發展局就先導計劃的擬議框架諮詢了主要持份者,包括立法會發展事務委員會(事務委員會)、香港地產建設商會(地產商會)、土地及建設諮詢委員會、與發展相關的專業學會、鄉議局等。事務委員會亦於二零二零年一月召開會議聽取代表團體的意見。經考慮接獲的意見及政策目的,發展局建議,行政長官會同行政會議批准以下詳列的先導計劃細節,以予實施……

立法會發展事務委員會討論文件(LC Paper No. CB(1)160/19-20(03)) :

……為保持透明度,先導計劃的資料、接獲的申請及每宗申請的進度均會於不同階段向公眾發布。我們會公布接獲的申請細節,亦會在顧問小組就個別個案討論後公布小組的意見。現行法定規劃、環境、收地及/或工程授權程序下的既定公眾參與渠道將繼續適用……

9. 我們同意建立信心、保障公眾利益及保持透明度為LSPS的重要構成部分。可是,目前我們只能從計劃摘要得悉極少有關項目的資料,相關計劃摘要亦無附上任何有關項目潛在影響的評估。沒有進一步資料,公眾如何能適切地對這些位處於環境敏感地區的發展項目提供意見?

「先破壞,後發展」問題
10. 社山的申請地點曾經被嚴重破壞(傾倒泥頭),而亦因為這個個案,有關方面修訂了分區計劃大綱圖內農業地帶的註釋,以處理農業地帶的填土問題及加強規劃管制 。
11. 城規會亦曾公布 :

城規會決心保護鄉郊及天然環境,不會容忍任何蓄意破壞鄉郊及天然環境的行動,企圖使城規會對有關土地上的其後發展給予從寬考慮……

12. 我們希望各有關方面仔細考慮在此地點擬議發展任何大型項目是否恰當。

結論
13. LSPS有一個「最少新增房屋數量」準則,原意是為儘量增加每個申請的總樓面面積8。雖然這個試驗性策略或能在一些地方增加房屋供應,我們認為在某些錯誤地點以非常高聳及高密度的發展去達至LSPS的準則本身就是一個錯誤。LSPS的目的是協調發展過程,而非漠視政府一貫的發展措守及規範,對現有社群及敏感的生物多樣性,仍須一如既往地緊慎考量及妥善兼顧。

14. 現時有關這兩個項目的資訊非常少,直接影響討論的成效及事實基礎。儘管如此,憑我們現時手上的資料,我們認為南生圍及社山這兩處絕不適合發展如此「非常」的大型項目。由於現時的公開資料沒有包含任何詳細評估報告,我們不清楚擬議項目明顯會引致的潛在影響如何能夠得到處理。

15. 我們絕對明白弱勢社群對公營房屋的需求,但確實亦難以理解在偏遠鄉郊建屋能如何切合基層所需–上述兩個申請地點不但缺乏公共運輸系統等適切的基礎建設,更為敏感環境所包圍。我們亦要問,這些項目能如何維護無價的天然資源予後代共享?我們重申並強調,社會上眾多界別早已指出,香港仍有很多適合作公營房屋發展的土地資源,也有不少增加房屋供應的方法。

16. 綜觀以上資訊,及為了確保下一代的環境不會受到不可逆轉的破壞,我們不支持這兩個項目。

聯署團體(依筆劃序):

世界自然基金會香港分會
長春社
香港鄉郊基金
香港觀鳥會
創建香港
綠色力量
嘉道理農場暨植物園

 

Joint Statement from NGOs concerning Two Applications under the Land Sharing Pilot Scheme at Nam Sang Wai and She Shan

1. We would like to express our grave concern regarding two recent applications submitted under the Land Sharing Pilot Scheme (LSPS), one at Nam Sang Wai (LSPS-002) and the other at She Shan, Lam Tsuen (LSPS-003). At present, the two application sites and their surroundings are highly rural in nature with significantly low development density. The proposed developments, however, would introduce many high-rise blocks (LSPS-002: 24 to 25 storeys; LSPS-003: 17 to 39 storeys) and large populations (LSPS-002: 10,487; LSPS-003: 33,937) into these two places. Simply speaking, from various perspectives, we have found these two proposals to be completely incomprehensible; our detailed views are presented below.

 

Ecological issues

2. The application site of LSPS-002 is located to the south of the core wetland area of Nam Sang Wai, and the site itself also encompasses several fish ponds and a watercourse. Indeed, the site is well within the Wetland Buffer Area (WBA) which is primarily delineated to buffer the sensitive and internationally important Deep Bay wetlands. More importantly, WBA also serves as a flight path/corridor for breeding ardeids to access their foraging grounds within the Wetland Conservation Area (WCA). We are highly concerned that the proposed high-rise blocks would undermine the buffering function which the area is designated to provide, and would have adverse impacts on the breeding ardeids. The core Nam Sang Wai area as well as the channels surrounding the application site are habitats for many waterbird species of high conservation importance, including the globally threatened Black-faced Spoonbill (Platalea minor). It is also a winter roosting site for Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), and is of regional importance. The area also provides habitats for the Eurasian Otter (Lutra lutra), which is of very high conservation concern in Hong Kong and mainland China. These species are in general highly sensitive to human activities. The proposed 9 high-rise blocks ranging from 24 to 25 storeys would become an obvious obstacle to bird flightpaths and impose various impacts such as light and noise disturbance on the relatively low-rise surroundings. The proposed increased population would also greatly increase human disturbance to the above mentioned ecological sensitive receivers in the region.

3. The proposed development at She Shan (LSPS-003) would greatly increase the population of Lam Tsuen Valley by a predicted 1.75 times (population of Lam Tsuen Valley is around 19,369 persons based on 2016 by-census). At present, there are mainly 3-storey village houses in this area. The proposed development, with 28 high-rise blocks (17 to 39 storeys each; not including those for non-residential uses), would completely destroy the landscape and also severely impact the ecology of the area. Within the application site and its surroundings, active and fallow farmlands as well as watercourses can be found; these habitats provide foraging and roosting grounds for various open country bird species of conservation importance (including globally Critically Endangered Yellow-breasted Bunting (Emberiza aureola), Vulnerable Japanese Yellow Bunting (Emberiza sulphurate)). Furthermore, the existing She Shan Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is located less than 10 m from the proposed development boundary and largely covers the She Shan fung shui woodland (FSW), also provides habitats for many plants and fauna of conservation interest (e.g., Blake’s Oak (Cyclobalanopsis blakei), Brown Wood Owl (Strix leptogrammica), Malayan Night Heron (Gorsachius melanolophus)). The legally protected Illigera (Illigera celebica), which is a larval food plant for the rare butterfly – White Dragontail (Lamproptera curius), also inhabits the periphery of this FSW. A recent study has already indicated that street lighting would impose significant impacts on local insect populations (it has also been clearly demonstrated that street lighting can have serious impacts on other animal groups also). Thus it is not unreasonable to expect that the proposed development, in view of its scale, height and location, would greatly disturb local wildlife populations (e.g., insects, nocturnal birds, and bats).

4. We believe that both LSPS-002 and LSPS-003 would also significantly increase the wildlife road-kill occurrence and bird collisions in the areas of concern, thus imposing another direct impact on wildlife and the local biodiversity.

 

Planning issues

5. As aforementioned, the application site of LSPS-002 is within WBA, and development in this area is governed by the Town Planning Board (TPB) guidelines no. 12c3. The proposed development would cover some ponds and a watercourse. As shown in the plans attached to the application gist1, it seems that a section of the watercourse and also some pond areas would be lost. According to the TPB guidelines no. 12c, there is a ‘no-net-loss in wetlands’ principle in considering development proposals for the Deep Bay Area. Although the applicant claimed in a recent newspaper article that this principle will be followed, we cannot see, at present, from the only available official document of LSPS-002 (i.e., the gist) how the principle can be adequately upheld under the current development proposal.

6. The application site of LSPS-003 and Lam Tsuen Valley are covered under the Approved Lam Tsuen Outline Zoning Plan (OZP). The general planning intention section of this OZP states the following:

Development within the Area is guided by the Territorial Development Strategy Review (TDSR) and the North East New Territories Development Strategy Review (NENT DSR). According to the TDSR and the NENT DSR, the Area is not identified for strategic growth development. The general planning policies for the long-term development in NENT emphasize conservation and landscape protection of the rural hinterland with minimum population growth other than those accommodated in existing new towns and committed urban development. The existing and committed transport and infrastructural networks will not be capable of sustaining additional growth up to 2011.

In view of the development constraints in NENT and the need to conserve/preserve the rural character, the natural landscape and the ecological interest of the Area, it is intended not to encourage open storage uses, nor informal industrial development and residential development in the Area. The planning intention for the Area is, therefore, to retain the rural character of the Area by controlling development and promoting agricultural activities, and to allow village expansion in areas where development is considered appropriate……

7. Looking at the proposed development parameters at She Shan with reference to the above, we consider that the current proposal is simply contrary to the original planning intention of Lam Tsuen Valley.

 

Public engagement and transparency issues

8. Regarding the issue of public engagement and transparency of LSPS, we can see from various relevant documents the following:

Legislative Council Brief for LSPS(DEVB(PL-CR)1-55/127/1):

 ……LSPS strives to build confidence and safeguard public interest, with transparent mechanism involving third-party opinion offered by the Panel of Advisors to be set up specifically for LSPS. All relevant statutory procedures on town planning and road/sewerage works gazettal, as well as the existing public participation channels under these processes, would continue to apply……

……Development Bureau (DEVB) has since the 2019 PA engaged key stakeholders including the Legislative Council (LegCo) Panel on Development, the Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong (REDA), the Land and Development Advisory Committee (LDAC), development-related professional institutes, Heung Yee Kuk (HYK), etc. on the proposed framework. The LegCo Panel on Development also convened meeting to receive views from deputations in January 2020……

Legislative Council Panel on Development Discussion Paper (LC Paper No. CB(1)160/19-20(03)):

……To uphold transparency, information on LSPS, applications received and progress of each case would be released to the public at different stages. We would publish details of the applications upon receipt and opinions of the Panel of Advisors on individual cases after its deliberation. The existing public participation channels under various statutory procedures in the planning, environment, land resumption and/or works authorisation regimes, etc. would continue as applicable……

9. We agree that building confidence, safeguarding public interest and upholding transparency are all important components of LSPS as claimed. However, at present we could only find extremely limited information regarding the proposals (i.e., from the gists only) and could not find any detailed technical assessments relating to the potential impacts of the proposal. Without further information, how can the public comment appropriately on the proposals in such environmentally sensitive areas?

 

‘Destroy First, Build Later’ issue

10. Some may remember that a case was raised previously as the application site at She Shan was impacted by serious environmental destruction (i.e., land filling), and the ‘Notes for Agriculture (AGR) zone’ on Outline Zoning Plans were even revised as a result of this case to tackle the problem of filling on AGR-zoned land and to strengthen planning control.

11. The TPB has also announced that:

The Board is determined to conserve the rural and natural environment and will not tolerate any deliberate action to destroy the rural and natural environment in the hope that the Board would give sympathetic consideration to subsequent development on the site concerned……

12. We urge all relevant parties to thoroughly consider whether it is still appropriate to propose any large-scale development at the She Shan site.

 

Conclusion

13. Under the LSPS there is a criterion called ‘Minimum Housing Gain’; its ultimate aim is to boost the gross floor area of each application8. While this experimental approach may increase housing supply in some places, we consider that applications with extraordinary high rise and high density development parameters should never appear in totally unsuitable locations, which is an incorrect way to achieve the LSPS criteria. The LSPS is not designed to over-ride all previous Government measures and controls on development but to facilitate a process which still requires careful and fair consideration for the existing communities and sensitive biodiversity.

14. Although the very limited information now available regarding the captioned proposals makes fruitful or fact-based discussion very difficult, our conclusion, based on the information we have in hand, is that the captioned localities, Nam Sang Wai and She Shan, are definitely not suitable for developments of such ‘extraordinary’ scale. We also cannot comprehend how the clear potential impacts that would be caused by the proposed developments can be addressed, as detailed assessment reports are lacking from the available information.

15. While we fully understand the public housing need of the underprivileged community in Hong Kong, it is unclear how building houses in fairly remote, rural locations is helpful to the immediate needs, given that they are lacking of basic infrastructures (e.g., adequate public transportation system), and have sensitive surroundings. It is also uncertain how such development can help to sustain the invaluable natural resources for our future generations. We would like to reiterate and emphasise that there are still many suitable land resources for public housing development and many options to increase housing supply, which have already been repeatedly pointed out by various sectors in the society.

16. In view of the above and in order to ensure that the environment for future generations is not to be impacted irreversibly, we, the signatories below, wish to make it clear that we do not support the two captioned proposals.

 

Co-organised groups (in alphabetical order):

The Conservancy Association
Designing Hong Kong
Green Power
Hong Kong Bird Watching Society
The Hong Kong Countryside Foundation
Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden
World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong

17 September

The Tsing Yi Coastal Trail 青衣環島徑

Full Route - TYCT

The Tsing Yi Coastal Trail

Since 2002, we have been advocating access along the waterfronts. After we introduced the “Hong Kong Island Coastal Trail” we received suggestions to create trails along other coastlines of Hong Kong. One such request was for a coastal route around Tsing Yi Island, connecting the Tsing Yi Promenade with the Tsing Yi Nature Trails and along Tsing Yi South.

Tsing Yi is the fifth largest island in Hong Kong with a population of around 200,000. The outer perimeter is around 16 km. It is an important transportation hub connecting New Territories West and the urban area of Hong Kong with cross-sea bridges.

Tsing Yi Island is characterized by three main areas: Residential, industrial, and nature. The proposed “Tsing Yi Coastal Trail” links all parts of Tsing Yi with a convenient coastal trail for residents and visitors.

We have studied routes, documented sights and destinations, and prepared proposals for improvements which can bring the route closer to the shore. To learn more about the trail, visit our website.

Route

Starting at the Maritime Square – Tsing Yi MTR station, walk south along the Tsing Yi Promenade with a view of Rambler Channel, and pass the Tsing Yi Swimming Pool to arrive at the Tsing Yi Public Pier. The pier once offered ferry services to Tsuen Wan and Central. Following the completion of rail and road links, the ferry service was suspended – but the pier remains as a gathering place, and an informal drop off and pick up point for different maritime operators.

Walking south under the Cheung Tsing Bridge and Tsing Yi South Bridge, Tsing Yi turns industrial. The route joins Tsing Yi Road via the elevator next to the Tsing Yi Preliminary Treatment Works. From there, walk down the path near Tsing Hung Road Playground and Tsing Yi Hong Wan Road along container terminals. Pass under Stonecutters’ Bridge and along the oil terminals at Tsing Sheung Road including Sinopec’s giant circular oil depot. Looking north, the mountains known as Sam Chi Heung act as a natural barrier between the residential areas and the heavy port industries along Tsing Yi Road. Continue west and after turning into Nam Wan, you find an abandoned Swire Paint Factory. Pass Sai Tso Wan and walk along the Nam Wan Tunnel and Cheung Tsing Tunnel for a view of other industries.

Next you join the Tsing Yi Nature Trail. At the top of the trail, you will have a panoramic view of Tsing Ma Bridge. This is a great spot for sunset and night scenes. Turn into Fong Tin Mei Path near Cheung Wang Bus Terminal, from where you walk along Tam Kon Shan Road to Tsing Yi Northeast Park. Go through the park to return to the Tsing Yi Promenade. Passing the Tsing Tsuen Bridge, you arrive back at the starting point. You will have completed the 16km Tsing Yi Coastal Trail.

Creating a great adventure

The Tsing Yi Coastal Trail links together a marvelous variety of views, including cross-sea bridges, shipyards, container terminals, factories, parks and nature. We have put forward suggestions for improvements which will make Tsing Yi more enjoyable for both residents and visitors. These include fixing narrow footpaths, trails and out-of-date road signs. Included also is a suggestion for a new pedestrian walkway to link with the Lantau Link Visitors Centre. This would make it easier to enjoy a great stopover, and enhance visitation.

We need your support lobbying the government on the improvements of the Tsing Yi Coastal Trail. Tell us your comment here.

Click here to learn more about Tsing Yi Coastal Trail!

青衣油庫 Oil Depot

 

青衣自然徑 Tsing Yi Nature Trail

青馬大橋 Tsing Ma Bridge

青馬大橋 Tsing Ma Bridge

藍巴勒海峽 Rambler Channel

藍巴勒海峽 Rambler Channel

青衣環島徑

自2002年,創建香港一直提倡讓市民能接近岸邊。去年我們曾簡介「港島環島徑」的路線,其後收到許多公眾意見,建議我們將構思拓展到港島以外的地方。當中我們收到不少街坊的意見希望嘗試在青衣環島遊。

青衣是香港第五大島,人口超過20萬。青衣島面積雖然不大,但卻是香本港重要的交通樞紐,島上有多條跨海大橋將市區及新界西和大嶼山連接起來。

在短短數小時的步行,大家可看見青衣住宅、工業及大自然三種截然不同的景貌。透過「青衣環島徑」的計劃,我們期望能接通青衣的海岸線,為遊人提供一個方便、可行的沿海行人道。

因此,我們著手研究路線,進行了多次的實地考察,沿途紀錄了不同的景點,並找出多個需要改善的地方,希望盡可能將市民帶近到青衣岸邊。想了解更多青衣環島徑的資訊?歡迎參閱我們的網頁

路線

從青衣城出發,沿著青衣海濱長廊南行,可欣賞藍巴勒海峽的景色,一直前行,經過青衣游泳池便到達青衣碼頭。昔日的碼頭曾提供客輪服務來往荃灣及中環,隨著島上的跨海大橋落成,島上陸路交通改善,航線已停航多年,但碼頭仍是不少人出海的上落點。

繼續向南面走,經過長青橋及青衣南橋底,便即踏入青衣的工業地帶。經污水處理廠旁的電梯回到青衣路,再緩緩走下青鴻路遊樂場旁的小徑,前往青衣航運路。穿過昂船洲大橋橋底,走到青尚路的盡頭,更可一睹青衣路旁一個個巨型圓桶油庫。而身後三度高低起伏的山脈,正是分隔工業帶及住宅區的天然屏障「三支香」。轉入南環的路段時,更有一座廢棄的工廠,它就是太古漆廠的舊址。其後到達西草灣一帶,沿青衣西路緩緩上斜,從南灣隧道和長青隧道的出口上經過,回頭就可從高眺西草灣一帶的重工業區。

再向前行便會到達青衣自然徑的入口。在自然徑登頂後,即可將青馬大橋景色盡收眼簾,於黃昏時更可欣賞大橋日落夜景。在長宏邨巴士總站旁轉入芳田美徑,於担杆山路直行,便到達青衣東北公園。穿過公園重回青衣的海濱,一路沿岸邊走便回到青衣海濱長廊,途經青荃橋橋底,便回到我們的起點,完成16公里的青衣環島徑。

開心暢遊青衣環島徑

青衣環島徑沿途包括大橋、工廠、公園及自然徑等景色,但我們實地考察後發現沿途仍有多個問題,例如行人路狹窄、未有更新路牌等。因此我們提出了七項改善建議,希望能夠令遊人更享受在青衣探索的過程。

除此以外,我們更希望將環島徑的路線向西擴展,接駁現行西面的小路,並連接到青嶼幹線觀景台,為環島徑增添更多景點和可能性!

因此,我們需要你的支持去游說政府改善現有的不足,按這裡告訴我們你對環島徑的意見!

更多有關青衣環島徑的資訊,請歡迎參閱我們的網頁

27 August

攝影展:與轆同行Walking with Wheels

Walking with Wheels Exhibition

Walking with Wheels Exhibition

攝影展:與轆同行Walking with Wheels
2021年9月8日至10月3日
下午5點至午夜12點歡迎入場,逢星期一休息
香港島西營盤第二街129號地庫乒乓冰室

創建香港首次主辦攝影展,Walking with Wheels與轆同行。這個項目關注手推車使用者,並旨在歸納和展示五年以來的研究成果。透過向公衆展示我們的研究成果和攝影師們的影像作品,創建香港希望能讓大衆更關注轆友每日面對的安全隱憂,並了解手推車作為重要的運輸工具,在經濟和社會層面上,能爲我們的城市所帶來的改變。同時借此機會,創建香港期望日後的城市規劃設計、道路設計和行人區建設,能回應轆友們的需要,從而使香港的交通系統更安全。

與轆同行:不可或缺的交通方式
相信大家在日常生活中,對城市裏的手推車都不感陌生。我們經常都會遇到有人帶著行李箱、手推車、嬰兒車或輪椅穿過街頭;而有些時候,我們自己也會與轆同行!事實上,手推車是支持香港經濟和社會活動的重要交通工具。使用手推車可以幫助我們更靈活地調整和安排貨物的裝卸地點,從而提升運輸效率,並有助减少交通擁堵出現的情況。

與轆同行 的挑戰是顯而易見的。當街道清潔工和回收者在日常工作中推著手推車穿過崎嶇、陡峭的街道時,狹窄的行人道上熙熙攘攘的人潮、馬路上高速駛過的車輛和「轆友」們手中裝滿貨物而沉重的手推車,都往往容易令他們陷於危險之中,而另一方面的家庭使用者,比如推著嬰兒車、輪椅或行李箱的人們則需要艱難地在香港複雜的路網中尋找能夠方便穿行的通道,因為很多地方的行人路線都並未充分考慮到「轆友」的需要,導致相關無障礙設施或指引缺失和不足。

有見於此,與轆同行項目旨在鼓勵公眾和政府針對「轆友」目前的困境,提出更多問題並期待找到解決方案。我們如何評估與轆同行可以給我們的城市帶來的好處?我們如何使與轆同行更有助於提高運輸效率和减少道路擁堵?我們能否提高城市中各人的通勤體驗,促進道路安全,和建設一個更包容的交通系統?我們如何保障及改善轆友們使用道路、行人道、電梯、行人天橋和通過建築物的權益?我們如何最大限度地减少「轆友」與路上其他使用者之間的衝突?我們如何改善「轆友」的安全和工作條件?以上或有更多的問題,有待整個社會共同去思考。www.designinghongkong.com

WWW12

Walking with Wheels Exhibition
8 September (Wednesday) – 3 October (Sunday), 17:00 – 00:00
Ping Pong 129 – Gintonería, Basement, 129 Second Street, Sai Ying Pun

The Walking with Wheels photography exhibition highlights the challenges people who walk with wheels face in Hong Kong. It draws public attention to the economic, social and safety aspects of walking with wheels. Walking with Wheels is an initiative by Designing Hong Kong to advocate for recognition of this mode of transport in urban planning, transport policy, road design, and pedestrianization.

Walking with Wheels Panel Discussion/Webinar – Tuesday 7th September 2021
(Click here to view recorded video)
WhatsApp Image 2021-10-08 at 5.43.40 PM
Speakers:
Alain Chiaradia, Associate Professor of Practice at HKU Faculty of Architecture;
Julian Kwong, Chairman of Community for Road Safety;
Ezreal Sin, Representative of Street Reset
Host:
Paul Zimmerman, CEO of Designing Hong Kong

Walking With Wheels – An Essential Mode of Transport

The challenges to walking with wheels are obvious. Street cleaners and recyclers are often in danger when pushing their trolleys across rugged, steep and cramped streets during their daily routines, while families struggle to find convenient routes with baby prams, wheelchairs or suitcases.

The ability to walk safely and conveniently with carts and trolleys allows us to move loading and unloading locations and thereby reduce traffic congestion.  The Walking with Wheels initiative seeks to encourage the public and government to ask questions and to find solutions.

Can a better understanding of the role and operation of Walking with Wheels help enhance transport efficiencies and reduce road congestion? What benefits does walking with wheels contribute to society? How can we improve the rights of those walking with wheels to the use of roads, pavements, lifts, footbridges and buildings? Can we improve the walking experience, and promote road safety? How can we minimize conflicts with other users of these routes? How can we improve the safety and working conditions of those who are Walking With Wheels? www.designinghongkong.com

 

18 August

Hong Kong Island Coastal Trail – Progress Update (August 2021) 港島環島徑—最新消息 (2021年8月)

Hong Kong Island Coastal Trail – Progress Update (August 2021)

Designing Hong Kong is working hard to improve the Hong Kong Island Coastal Trail. Below is a progress update.

Improvement Works_Progress 202108

Major improvement works

  1. Sandy Bay to Telegraph Bay under study. (Invigorate Island South Office)
  2. Waterfall Bay Bridge link between Cyberport Port Road and Waterfall Bay Park is pending agreement on maintenance. (Leisure and Cultural Services Department)
  3. Cape D’Aguilar – Shek O Trail is approved in principle and awaiting funding under the District Minor Work programme. (Home Affairs Department)
  4. Museum of Coastal Defence access route has been denied (Leisure and Cultural Services Department). For now people will have to rely on trails along the Island Eastern Corridor.
  5. Boardwalk under Island East Corridor has been gazetted and is expected to be opened in 2024. (Civil Engineering Development Department)

Minor improvement works

  1. Shun Tak Centre illegal parking has been resolved. Further pedestrian improvement is pending the land owner. (Shun Tak Holdings)
  2. Western Water Selling Kiosk footpath widening has been confirmed and is pending works. (Leisure and Cultural Services Department and Water Supplies Department)
  3. Connecting Kennedy Town Praya to China Merchant Wharf is approved as a District Minor Works programme and pending funding. (Home Affairs Department)
  4. Waterfall Bay removal of fences to improve beach access is pending reply. (Leisure and Cultural Services Department)
  5. Wong Chuk Hang Road and Island Road widening of the footpath is supported by Ocean Park (they will surrender part of their nursery). Implementation is pending. (Transport Department)
  6. Deep Water Bay re-organising road, footpath, parking and beach amenities is pending outcome of the Study of Coastal Hazards under Climate Change and Extreme Weather and Formulation of Improvement Measures – Feasibility Study. (Civil Engineering Development Department)
  7. Trail South Bay to Chung Hom Wan improvements are approved in principle and awaiting funding under the District Minor Work programme. (Home Affairs Department)
  8. Stanley Gap Road pavement improvements to Stanley East Catchwater pending. (Transport Department)
  9. Cape D’Aguilar Road pavement pending.  (Transport Department)
  10. Shek O to Big Wave Bay pavement pending. (Transport Department)
  11. Marine Police Regional Headquarters relocation to open up shore at Lei King Wan pending. (Police)
  12. Quarry Bay Park pet access route pending consultation of local stakeholders. (Leisure and Cultural Services Department)
  13. Quarry Bay Promenade widening yet to be agreed. (Harbour Office / Development Bureau)
  14. Public Open Space at North Point improvements are underway. (Harbour Office; Sun Hung Kai)
  15. Central Military Dock public access when there is no vessel in town, and improvements to surrounding area pending. (People’s Liberation Army) (Leisure and Cultural Services Department)
  16. Signage proposed but yet to receive a response. (Tourism Commission)

Completed

  1. Hung Hing Road footpath in January 2021. You can now walk from the Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter.

 

WhatsApp Image 2021-08-09 at 13.38.41

Site visit with Government Departments and District Councillors at the Western Water Selling Kiosk
與區議員及部門代表參觀西區食水賣水站

signal-2021-08-09-162735

Illegal parking at the Shun Tak Centre has been resolved
信德中心的違泊問題已經解決

 

港島環島徑—最新消息 (2021年8月)

創建香港從去年起推動港島環島徑的構思,一直與不同的政府部門、機構及持份者溝通,希望共同努力將這條65公里長的環島徑盡早打通。以下是各個改善項目的最新進度:

主要改善工程:

  1. 躍動港島南辦事處正就興建大口環至綱綫灣沿海行人路進行研究。
  2. 橫跨瀑布灣的行人天橋將連接起數碼港道及瀑布灣公園,省卻來往數碼港及華富的時間。在工程開展前,康樂及文化事務署與其他相關部門需要先釐清天橋的管理及維修責任等。
  3. 興建連接鶴咀道至石澳的行山徑已在南區區議會的地區小型工程申請中獲得原則上支持。現正等候民政署的撥款才能開展工程。
  4. 就改善筲箕灣及杏花邨之間的行人連接,康文署已經初步拒絕開放海防博物館供市民通過的建議。我們正與運輸署聯繫,希望在東區走廊旁研究設立一條安全的行人通道作為替補方案。
  5. 土木工程拓展署已就東區走廊下興建行人板道刊憲。工程預計於今年年尾展開,並在2025年落成。

其他改善工程:

  1. 信德中心地面的違例泊車問題已經解決。我們現正聯絡物業的擁有人信德集團,討論改善地面行人設施的可能性。
  2. 康樂及文化事務署及水務署將分別進行小型工程搬遷西區食水賣水站旁小徑的花槽和鐡欄以擴闊行人路。
  3. 中西區區議會已通過撥款在加多近街臨時花園對出興建臨時海濱,並連接到即將重建的招商局碼頭海濱。
  4. 拆除瀑布灣公園內的鐡閘,我們已去信康樂及文化事務署,並正等候部門的回應。
  5. 黃竹坑道和香島道部份地方的行人路因鄰近的短期租約用地而變得狹窄。我們已向地政署查詢有關短期租約的情況,當中黃竹坑道的部份,海洋公園已答應縮減苗圃的面積供擴闊行人路。
  6. 就改善深水灣行人路,需要有全盤的計劃去重新規劃深水灣的道路、泊車位及康樂設施。我們正等待政府在2019年開展的「氣候變化和極端天氣下的沿岸災害研究及改善措施的制訂」的研究結果才進行進一步的研究。
  7. 連接南灣至舂磡角的山徑已在南區區議會的地區小型工程申請中獲得原則上支持。現正等候民政署的撥款才能開展工程。
  8. 赤柱峽道的行人路非常狹窄,但每天仍有行山人士沿這條路來往赤柱及行山徑的入口。我們已經聯絡運輸署希望盡快進行工程擴闊路段以確保路人的安全。
  9. 現時鶴咀道並未設有行人路,導致行山客需走到馬路上。我們已聯絡運輸署希望盡快研究為路段舖設行人路。
  10. 每日都有大量居民及遊客來往石澳至大浪灣之間,但兩地之間的馬路並沒有設有行人路。我們亦聯絡了運輸署為此路段興建行人路進行研究。
  11. 位於西灣河海濱的水警總區總部現時以臨時撥地方式批地予警方使用現時總部隔開了西灣河海濱及愛秩序灣海濱,令東區的海濱未能連接。
  12. 現時鰂魚涌公園並未容許寵物進入。康文署表示將會繼續收集更多社區的意見,再檢視是否將公園列入現行的「寵物共享公園」試驗計劃。
  13. 擴闊鰂魚涌海濱長廊仍需要發展局轄下的海港辦事處的批准和與相闦的土地擁有人商討。
  14. 有關改善北角海濱公園,海港辦事處與發展商新鴻基已進行溝通並進行工程。
  15. 中環軍用碼頭原訂會在無軍艦停泊時開放予公眾。這需要駐港解放軍與管理海濱用地的部門例如康樂及文化事務署等商討。
  16. 就設立統一的環島徑指示牌,我們已經主動聯絡旅遊事務署並正等待他們的回覆。

已完成:

  1. 鴻興路行人路於2021年1月已經開通。加上鄰近的灣仔臨時海濱亦開通,現時市民已經可以沿港島北的海濱由堅尼地城一直走到銅鑼灣避風塘。
17 August

[新聞稿 Press Release] 2025年須全面禁膠餐具 切勿「走塑」變「走數」 10環團籲公眾提交意見書 Ban Single-use Plastic Tableware by 2025

[Text only available in Chinese]

2025年須全面禁膠餐具 切勿「走塑」變「走數」 10環團籲公眾提交意見書

20210816-RDPT-PC-03 -credit

(2021年8月16日 新聞稿) 10個環團今日聯合發佈《堂食及外賣即棄餐具派發量調查》(下稱調查)及《「外賣走塑」研究》(下稱民調)的研究結果,前者推算出快餐店年派過5億件即棄膠餐具,當中有過半仍未納入政府早前推出的「管制即棄餐具計劃」[1]的第一階段,受規管的日子遙遙無期,恐「走塑」變「走數」;另外,民調結果則指出,市民大多同意政府規定食肆不能向顧客免費提供即棄塑膠餐具,評分高達5.21分(7分為非常同意)。

10個環團認為,市民對政府實施走塑措施的訴求日漸增強,但政府早前推出的「管制即棄餐具計劃」未能解決當前嚴重的塑膠污染,促當局須於2025年前實施管制所有堂食及外賣塑膠即棄餐具,並呼籲市民於9月8日前踴躍向當局提交意見。

環團調查員本月初於4間大型連鎖快餐店,計算其早、午、晚市時段的堂食及外賣即棄餐具數目,推算出一年至少派5億件即棄膠餐具,數字十分驚人。但政府的計劃第一階段管制的膠刀叉等,只佔四成多;不包括在第一階段的如膠蓋、食物容器及膠杯,多達逾2億7千萬件,但仍未有具體受管制的時間表。香港塑膠污染已逼在眉睫,政府必須2025年前一併規管所有即棄塑膠餐具,才可有效減廢。

此外,環團與香港中文大學地理與資源管理學系副教授伍世良,在今年2月4日到5月11日,以網上問卷調查,訪問336名過去一年有購買外賣的市民,了解其對外賣走塑的意見,包括政府應否管制外賣即棄餐具、外賣習慣及走塑意願等。

調查結果發現,對於政府規定食肆不能向顧客免費提供即棄塑膠餐具,受訪者的評分高達5.21分(以7分為非常同意),反映市民普遍支持政府進行管制;逾半受訪者(56.8%)經常外賣主動走塑,但47%受訪者表示餐廳沒有經常配合,可見若欠缺政府規管,難全面推動香港餐廳外賣走塑。伍世良教授指出:「問卷反映逾半市民雖在疫市嘗試走塑,但餐廳未有配合的話,孤掌難鳴。既然市民普遍支持管制外賣即棄餐具,政府宜加快立法步伐,回應疫下外賣膠災。」

除了社會各界的走塑意識日漸提升,環團強調國際間早已立法限塑,政策均有確實時間表與分段目標,同時推動可重用措施以達至源頭減廢的初衷。但政府的是次計劃,由諮詢到推行首階段措施竟耗時4年,第二階段的落實時間更是遙遙無期,步伐十分緩慢,無法解決嚴峻的塑膠污染問題。

10個環團重申,政府必須於2025年前全面管制即棄塑膠餐具,刻不容緩。同時促當局要積極推動可重用餐具模式,禁止可降解餐具成替代品,訂立清晰時間表及各階段目標,以免令其他即棄餐具(如:紙、竹)的垃圾量倍增,才可達至真正源頭減廢。

 

[1]「管制即棄餐具計劃」諮詢文件建議的計劃分兩階段,第一階段2025年後方落實,以管制堂食即棄膠餐具、發泡膠餐具、外賣膠刀叉及飲管,而第二階段則會管制外賣的膠蓋、食物容器及膠杯等,但並沒有確實執行的時間表。

 

附表一:《堂食及外賣即棄餐具派發量調查》

4大連鎖快餐店調查 數據 (百分比或數目)
推算一年即棄膠餐具派發量 至少5億件
即棄膠餐具數量 – 堂食 26.9%
即棄膠餐具 – 外賣(第一階段) 21.1%
即棄膠餐具 – 外賣(第二階段) 51.9%

 

附表二:《「外賣走塑」研究數據》

問題 百分比 或 分數
在購買外賣時,您會否主動省去塑膠餐具? 56.8% 經常會
當你選擇外賣走塑膠餐具後,領取食物時,塑膠餐具是否已被省去? 47% 不會經常省去
政府應規定食肆不能向顧客免費提供即棄塑膠餐具 5.21分(7分為滿分)
我傾向光顧走塑或提供可重用餐具的餐廳 5.5分(7分為滿分)

 

聯署環團:(按筆劃順序)

世界自然基金會香港分會
長春社
創建香港
喜動社區
綠色力量
綠色和平
綠惜地球
綠領行動
環保觸覺
EcoDrive

傳媒聯絡

綠色和平項目主任 譚穎琳 綠色和平媒體與推廣主任 陳妍妍
電話: 2854 8337 / 9745 9080 電話: 2854 8376 / 6922 9929
電郵: [email protected] 電郵: [email protected]

 

25 January

Illegal parking blocks waterfront at Shun Tak Centre 「做show 俾老細睇」信德中心代客泊車公然違規

Illegal parking blocks waterfront at Shun Tak Centre

 

st

Illegal parking blocks waterfront at Shun Tak Centre
One of the unresolved problems in creating a continuous harbourfront and complete the Hong Kong Island Coastal Trail is Shun Tak Centre. Both pedestrian and vehicular traffic are obstructed by illegal car parking at the ground level.

Early August last year, we asked various government departments to clarify the permitted uses along the road under the Shun Tak Centre. It appears that when the land lease was signed, the plan for the ground floor failed to indicate a full set of footpaths. Neither did the approved plan allow for parking spaces. Only (un)loading and drop off / pick up facilities are allowed. Parking is available in the parking garages upstairs of Shun Tak Centre and at the adjacent Rumsey Street Multi Storey Car Park.

In October 2020, the owners of the Shun Tak Centre have been informed by Lands Department that the vehicles parking at the ground floor under Shun Tak Centre were in breach of relevant lease conditions. In its warning letter the Lands Department has requested the owner to purge the breach.

Shun Tak Centre has responded and stopped vehicles parking under the west wing. However, at the east wing, the China Merchants Tower, the parking attendant of the Macao Jockey Club continues to park vehicles at unauthorised locations under the Shun Tak Centre and along the public road, to the detriment of pedestrians as well as vehicular traffic. The Macao Jockey Club’s Hong Kong Club House is located in the Shun Tak Centre operating a collection of restaurants. Patrons drop their car for a meal, or for the day or night.

For good show, the Shun Tak security staff in full view of the Macao Jockey Club parking attendant places notices under the windshield wipers reminding owners that parking is unauthorised at these locations. These notices are removed when the attendant returns the vehicle to its owner. When we approached the security staff and attendant they told us not to worry about the notices, and that as long as we were a member of the club we could enjoy a three hour free parking service.

We have written to the Macao Jockey Club to ask them to desist from parking and interrupting pedestrian and vehicular flow. Refusing to accept their wrong-doings, we decided to explain this situation to the public of Hong Kong who wish to enjoy their waterfronts. Offering an unauthorised parking privilege to private club members to the detriment of the community’s enjoyment is a problem. I hope that the management of Shun Tak Centre and the Members and Management of the Macau Jockey Club will appreciate the situation and resolve the problems caused.

 

 

mjcedited bookmarkIMG_8319MJCLandDreply

 

「做show 俾老細睇」信德中心代客泊車公然違規

信德中心是連貫起港島海濱的最大難題之一。現時無論行人或車輛經過,都被違泊車輛擠得水洩不通,險象環生。

早於去年8月初,我們已經去信多個政府部門,要求釐清信德中心近海旁一帶的馬路使用許可。翻查地契後,我們發現信德中心的地面空間並未有預留興建行人路,但亦未有批准泊車用途。規劃署亦回覆只有信德中心上層的停車場、及鄰近的林士街多層停車場是指定的泊車地點。

2020年10月,地政總署已通知信德中心業主,指明停泊在建築物地下的車輛違反地契條款,並要求中心採取行動移除車輛。

信德中心作出行動,改善了在西冀的停泊車輛,但在東冀招商局大廈的地面,澳門賽馬會卻無視規例,維持其代客泊車服務,肆無忌憚地把車輛停泊在馬路。車龍沿行人路一直延伸,影響該處的行人和車流。我們觀察發現,澳門賽馬會的香港會所位於信德中心內,設有一系列的餐廳,專屬會員享用美食或打發時間後,帶同已蓋印的收據,就可享用3小時免費代客泊車服務。

最荒謬的是,信德中心保安不但沒有阻止違法的行為,更助長歪風與澳門賽馬會職員合演一場大龍鳳。保安員循例把違泊告示貼在相關車輛的擋風窗,提示車主未經准許不得在該處泊車,但泊車員在歸還車輛前便會把告示移除。我們曾向信德中心的保安員及泊車員詢問,雙方皆表示無需在意告示,更指出只要是澳門賽馬會會員或職員就可以享有免費泊車。

我們已再去信澳門賽馬會要求他們停止違法行為,可惜,他們多番砌詞狡辯。因此,我們決定把事情公開,讓大眾了解接通港島海濱的困難。澳門賽馬會向會員提供非法的泊車服務,對公眾環境造成影響,絕對不能接受。我們希望信德中心及澳門賽馬會的管理層會正視情況,解決問題。

(立場新聞2021年1月24日連結: 「做show 俾老細睇」信德中心代客泊車公然違規)

調查信德中心保安非法泊車:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciYekVR-5GY
調查澳門賽馬會代客泊車:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md5JuHwjNlw

調查信德中心保安非法泊車 Shun Tak Illegal Parking Investigation

video

調查澳門賽馬會代客泊車 Macau Jockey Club Illegal Parking Investigation

videomjc

(立場新聞2021年1月24日連結: 「做show 俾老細睇」信德中心代客泊車公然違規)

 

19 January

District level job losses up to 13% 經濟衰退—地區損失逾13%職位

District level job losses up to 13%

The impact of COVID on our economy is accelerating. While Government reported an overall unemployment rate of 6.6%, a study of district data by ‘Designing Hong Kong’ shows local impacts vary.  Job losses in the Southern District is 13% for the year ending September 2020. Some industries at district level show job losses of over 50%.

Percentage change of job number by district

Red colour represents a shrinking job market while green colour represents a growing job market. The data reflects the change in job number in each district between September 2019 and September 2020.

Compared with the latest available data, we have lost more than 125 000 jobs compared with the data of the third quarter one year ago. This accounts for 4.4% of the job market. Import/export trade and wholesale, and accommodation and food services suffered the most. More than 10% of the jobs or nearly 100 000 jobs were lost in these industries in one year.

Traditional commercial centres such as the Central and Western District, Wan Chai District and Yau Tsim Mong District suffered greatly from the economic recession. In these districts, the import/export and wholesale; accommodation and food services; and retail suffered and lead to 10.5%, 8.6% and 6.9% loses in jobs in these districts respectively.

The economies of the Southern District and North District suffered most. Their job markets lost 13.2% and 12.1% of the jobs. This means that one out of every eight jobs were lost during the pandemic. This is worrisome as nearly half (Southern District: 48.3%; North District 53.8%) of the jobs in some districts are taken up by local residents.

Meanwhile, three districts recorded an increase in jobs. Wong Tai Sin and Tsuen Wan showed an 11.5% and 6.9% increase in jobs. It appears to be primarily industries which benefit from changes in consumer behaviour in times of Covid, including food and courier services representing online shopping and centralised food preparation.

Analyses of the performance of the different industries in each district give out hints of possible longer term shifts in the economy. In Kwun Tong, import/export and wholesale are the largest job sectors and these lost 8 555 jobs last year. On the other hand, administrative and supporting services industries have gained more than 7 000 jobs, further strengthening their position as the second largest industry in Kwun Tong. Similarly, in Yuen Long, real estate and education industries lost some 2 600 jobs. These were compensated by a rise in jobs in the accommodation and food services, and manufacturing industries.

To identify the challenges facing the Hong Kong economy in times of Covid we need to look at the performance of industries at district levels. It is not simply about the banking industry, or the Greater Bay Area. We need to uncover opportunities for Hong Kong at district level. We need to embrace this ‘re-set’ to discover new opportunities and restructure our economy. We need to develop a more resilient and more vibrant economy in every district.

 

Click here for detailed breakdown of the performance of the job market in each district this last year.

 

Learn more about District Economy:

Fixing the economy, one district at at time

Understanding the economies of Hong Kong’s districts

 

Source:

Census and Statistics Department (2020). Number of establishments and persons engaged (other than those in the Civil Service) analysed by industry section, District Council district and sex.

經濟衰退—地區損失逾13%職位

疫情對香港經濟的影響逐漸浮現,政府報告的最新失業率升至6.6%。創建香港早前研究了各地區的就業環境,發現疫情對各區的影響有所不同。截至2020年9月,南區的職位數目下跌了13%,為全港之冠。在地區層面,部份行業的職位數目更減少了一半。

Percentage change of job number by district

紅色代表萎縮的就業市場,而綠色代表增長的市場。數據反映了2019年9月至2020年9月之間每個地區的職位數目變化。

根據政府提供最新的數據,與一年前的第三季度比較,我們損失了超過125 000個職位,佔了就業市場的4.4%。當中進出口貿易及批發和住宿及膳食服務兩個行業受最大打撃。一年間兩個行業各自損失了超過10%的職位,合共令就業市場減少了接近十萬個職位。

疫情對傳統的商業中心例如中西區、灣仔區和油尖旺區造成嚴重的打擊。受到進出口貿易及批發、住宿及膳食服務及零售業的萎縮,這三區分別流失了10.5%、8.6%及6.9%的職位。

全港18區中,南區和北區的就業市場受到最大的打擊。兩區的就業市場分別萎縮了13.2%及12.1%,這代表在疫情期間損失了八份一的職位。更令人擔憂的是,這兩個地區的職位中,有大約一半的職位(南區48.3%;北區53.8%)都聘請了當區居民(更多有關本區就業的數據),因此職位的減少對當區的經濟名居民帶來極大的影響。

雖然整體的就業市場持續萎縮,但有三區的職位數目卻有所提升。當中黃大仙區11.5%的增幅最為突出,而荃灣亦有6.9%的增長。仔細查看各行業的變動,可以發展兩區的住宿及膳食服務和運輸、倉庫、郵政及速遞服務皆有顯著的升幅,這可能與疫情間消費模式改變有關。

細看各個地區的職位變化亦可以找出部份地區未來的發展方向。以觀塘為例,進出口貿易及批發是該區的最大行業,但在過去一年卻失去了8 555個職位。但另一方面,行政及支援服務比去年提供多超過7 000個職位,進一步鞏固它們在觀塘第二大產業的地位。同樣地,元朗的地產及教育合共在去年失去了大約2 600個職位,但住宿及膳食服務及製造業的擴張卻彌補了這些損失。

在這個充滿挑戰的經濟環境下尋找出路,我們不應只將目光放在金融業或大灣區發展,更需要了解我們社區的經濟表現,去發掘各區獨有的機遇。我們應該藉此機會去「重新設置」我們的城市,去調整我們的經濟架構和發掘更多的可能性,從而令各個地區都發展出一套更多元化及具韌性的經濟。

按此去了解各區去年的就業市場表現。

 

了解更多有關地區經濟:

改善經濟,由地區做起

發展香港地區經濟

 

資料來源:

政府統計處(2020)。按行業主類、區議會分區及性別劃分的機構單位數目及就業人數(公務員除外)

18 January

Water Supply in Hong Kong – The Far Eastern Review 1927 – 1934

Water supply in Hong Kong – The Far Eastern Review 1927 – 1934
Articles on “Water supply in Hong Kong” published in The Far Eastern Review in 1927 and 1934, courtesy of the P. A. Crush Chinese Railway Collection

Far Eastern

Water supply in Hong Kong – The ‘Shing Mun’ Valley Scheme
The Far Eastern Review Jan 1927
Vol. XXIII No.1
http://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Far-Eastern-Review-Jan-1927.pdf

Shing Mun Valley Contract, Hong Kong
The Far Eastern Review Mar 1927
Vol. XXIII No.1
http://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Far-Eastern-Review-Mar-19271.pdf

Part I – The Many Difficulties and First Efforts
Water supply in Hong Kong – The Story of a Triumph of Applied Science
The Far Eastern Review Jul 1934
Vol. XXX No.7
https://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Far-Eastern-Review-Jul-1934.pdf

Part II – Increasing The Stroage and Areas of Supply on the Island
Water supply in Hong Kong – The Story of a Triumph of Applied Science
The Far Eastern Review Aug 1934
Vol. XXX No.8
http://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Far-Eastern-Review-Aug-1934.pdf

Part III – Works to Increase the Supply on the Island Carried Out Since 1920
Water supply in Hong Kong – The Story of a Triumph of Applied Science
The Far Eastern Review Sep 1934
Vol. XXX No.9
http://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Far-Eastern-Review-Sep-1934.pdf

Part IV – The Second Harbour Pipe Line and The Problem in Kowloon
Water supply in Hong Kong – The Story of a Triumph of Applied Science
The Far Eastern Review Oct 1934
Vol. XXX No.10
http://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Far-Eastern-Review-Oct-1934.pdf

Part V – The New Reservoir at Shing Mun
Water supply in Hong Kong – The Story of a Triumph of Applied Science
The Far Eastern Review Nov 1934
Vol. XXX No.11
http://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Far-Eastern-Review-Nov-19341.pdf

Part VI – Problems For China Concerning the Utilization and Control of Water
Water supply in Hong Kong – The Story of a Triumph of Applied Science
The Far Eastern Review Dec 1934
Vol. XXX No.12
http://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Far-Eastern-Review-Dec-1934.pdf

30 December

Fixing the economy, one district at a time 改善經濟,由地區做起

Fixing the economy, one district at a time

With the pressure on employment, Hong Kong will need to rethink job opportunities. With three simple visuals we offer three reasons why District Councils must get involved:
1.    The number of job opportunities in their district.

job opp
2.    The proportion of jobs taken up by local residents.

work population
3.    The proportion of local residents who work in their own district.

same district
Employment is top heavy around Victoria Harbour. Residents working in their own district is especially evident in Central & Western and Tsim Sha Tsui. Districts with few job opportunities see most of those jobs taken up by local residents – up to 81% in Tuen Mun.

These statistics do not answer all the questions. They do indicate the importance of district councillors to get involved. Understanding which industries can help improve employment requires a healthy amount of local knowledge (see details).Growing local economies is not simply about arts and craft, community markets or tourism. The absence of floor space designated for commercial uses hampers job opportunities in the NT. In the Southern District it is about reorganising Aberdeen Harbour and allowing the marine industry to grow. The underutilised Tolo Harbour is an obvious opportunity in the Taipo District. These investments will directly benefit local residents.

Each district has their own challenges and offer their own opportunities. It is upon the District Councillors and the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau to “deep dive” district by district to develop a strategy and action plan to address the growing unemployment.
改善經濟,由地區做起

本港經濟及就業市場持續低迷,我們需要重新思考發展社區經濟的可能性。通過三個簡單的地圖,讓我們解釋區議會為何應該協助發展地區經濟:
1. 各區職位數目
2. 本區就業百分比
3. 居民佔本區職位百分比

本港的就業集中於維多利亞港兩岸,因此無論是職位數目或本區就業百分比,中西區及油尖旺區都名列前矛。同時,新界區雖然就業機會較少,但本地居民卻填補了大多數的職位,當中屯門區的數據更高達81%。

這些數據雖未能帶出解決方法,卻提供了一個機遇讓議員能對症下藥。議員能透過整合現有的資料(按此參閱各區詳細就業資訊),在區內進行研究及對當區的了解,去推動該區的可持續就業機會。現時商業用的樓面面積集中在港九,令新界等欠缺就業機會,因此發展地區經濟並不限於開拓新的工業、擴闊區內的市場或發展旅遊業,而是要集中資源去發掘各區的優勢。在南區這關乎香港仔漁港及其他海洋產業的發展。而大埔區可能需要加以利用吐露港這個天然資源並整合現存的工業。

各區都有不同的問題和限制,但因此卻可以為香港帶來各種的機遇。了解過自己的地區後,便可以與商務及經濟發展局協商,就各區的獨特情況製定相應的策略和行動,從地區做起,改善本港的就業環境。