Panorama 360 of opinion enhances debate on Hong Kong's 3rd runway
By Jonathan Sharp
Photo Gallery | Video Review | Speaker Bios & Presentations | Media Coverage
At one of the most successful and best-appreciated events organized by the Aerospace Forum Asia in its 25-year history, the arguments for and against the construction of a third runway for Hong Kong International Airport were hashed out in depth at a Symposium held on September 2 on the airport's Master Plan 2030. The event was a much valued contribution to the debate over what panellist George Cautherley described as a "complex matrix of issues" surrounding what is demonstrably one of the more important infrastructure decisions to be made by Hong Kong in the second decade of the 21st century.
As AFA President Martin Craigs commented, the timing of the Symposium was immaculate – on the final day of the three-month public consultation period on the Master Plan. Furthermore the 10-strong cast assembled to discuss the issues came from far and wide and was stellar in quality. Crucially, speakers were by no means all on the same page in the debate. While the event was bookended by two aviation industry leaders promoting the airport expansion – Airport Authority Hong Kong CEO Stanley Hui and Cathay Pacific Airways CEO John Slosar – eloquent and respected voices were heard from the environmental camp of doubters and dissenters.
"It's an inclusive and open forum for open minds," said Craigs minutes before the 9:00 a.m. start of the Symposium. "We are here to find more common ground, not to unhelpfully have combat."
He was not disappointed. Kicking off proceedings in the first keynote speech, Hui was clearly mindful of the sometimes intemperate criticism from lobbies such as the WWF over how the consultation has been handled. "No effort has been spared to reach out to as many stakeholders and members of the public as possible," he said. More than 29,000 questionnaires and written feedback submissions – much of it favourable – had been received by the University of Hong Kong's Social Sciences Research Centre, appointed to independently collect, compile and analyse views on the Master Plan.
Concerns over the environment impact of the three-runway system were totally valid. "We have also repeatedly said throughout the consultation that the preliminary assessment is no replacement for a detailed and through statutory environmental impact assessment (EIA) that would need to be carried under Hong Kong law."
Development of the airport and environmental protection were not mutually exclusive, he said. "Our goal is to be the greenest airport in the world."
The Centre will send to the Airport Authority its report in October. "We plan to submit our recommendation [to the Government] before the end of the year," Hui added.
First up to cast doubt on the Airport Authority's green credentials was Eric Bohm, CEO of WWF Hong Kong, who joked that he felt like he was entering a "lions' den".
Undeterred, he assured the audience that WWF was not opposed to the third runway per se. But he cited basic concerns, starting with the Chinese White dolphins whose numbers near Chek Lap Kok had fallen more than 50 percent to a total of 74 or 75.
"Allow me to give you a classic example of sustainable development a la Hong Kong government," he said. In one of two marine parks set up as sanctuaries for the dolphins, a supposedly temporary fuel depot had been set up that required regular dredging. However, that "temporary" facility had now morphed into an emergency depot. "This does not protect the dolphins."
Bohm said the fundamental question for WWF was why the environmental and social costs of the expansion had not been included in the cost projections. He pointed out that the EIA did not take into account the greenhouse gas emissions. "It's not in the legislation and I think pigs will fly before the Environmental Protection Department insists that in this project, greenhouse gas emissions should be included."
He concluded by saying the greatest challenge facing the Airport Authority concerned Hong Kong's air quality, which coincidentally was particularly poor on the day of the Symposium. Bohm, a resident of Pokfulam, said on that day he could not even see Lamma Island, a short distance across the channel.
Alexi Bhanja, Technical Director, Water and Environment, SMEC Asia Limited argued forcefully that the real environmental issue was not air quality, noise levels and the like, but a legal one. "The 'real environmental issue' is the Environmental Permit needed under the EIAO (Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance). No matter how eloquently or forcefully the AAHK argues the point, no Environmental Permit - no expansion project."
Detailing the tortuous procedure entailed in acquiring the necessary approvals, Bhanja cited the experience of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge, whose construction has been held up, possibly for years, by judicial challenges. Another cautionary example, the EIAO process for the Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility for Chek Lap Kok took five years.
The solutions: to get the Director of Environmental Protection to approve the EIA report and issue the required Permit and not have those decisions successfully challenged.
To make it happen, Bhanja suggested that the AA should adopt a more realistic timeframe for the expansion project that assumes there will be a legal challenge and that at the very least there will be a hearing at the Court of First Instance. Also, engage the most experienced and capable environmental consultant to prepare the best and most comprehensive EIA report. In addition, engage an Independent EIA Reviewer who will act as devil's advocate, a nit-picker and a pain in the neck, and identify as many problems as possible, whether reasonable or not. Then work together to improve the EIA report and address all its shortcomings, deal with every objection, and strengthen the report where objections are invalid.
Also in the same panel, Sheila Thomas, Managing Director China, Landrum & Brown, made the interesting observation that Hong Kong's airport, compared with other major hubs such as Beijing, Guangzhou, Incheon and Schiphol, was serving the same functions as a major international gateway but with a much smaller footprint.
Thomas also made the eye-catching and counterintuitive point – one that certainly surprised the environmental lobby – that expanding an airport can actually benefit the environment.
She cited data from an airport expansion project at Fort Lauderdale that adds a runway and terminal facilities. "Ordinarily, people will say that creates impacts. What we found was the air quality impacts with the project were actually less than without the project.
How come? Because the primary impact on air quality is from fully loaded aircraft taxiing for departure. "When you increase the capacity of your airfield to a point where operations are less congested, aircraft spend less time taxiing." Thomas said while noise increased in some areas of the expanded airport as a result of the expansion, there were many areas where it decreased. Furthermore, fuel consumption decreased and safety improved.
Wrapping up the first panel, Andrew Herdman, Director-General of the Association of Asia-Pacific Airlines, noted that aviation growth "is a given", with the global rate five percent per annum and in Asia six percent. To make that growth sustainable, the aviation industry has to be environmentally responsible in all respects. "So the industry is strongly incentivized."
And while aviation was firmly embedded in society, "if truth be told the demand growth is outstripping our ability to deliver efficiency improvements." The challenge was particularly severe over achieving carbon neutral growth from 2020, although the industry was ahead of the game in dealing several other environmental concerns.
The second panel session, moderated by AFA Director-General Liz Bosher, focused on economic and business issues and was in general more sympathetic with the proposed three-runway system.
Angela Gittens, Director-General of Airports Council International, who had flown in from Montreal for the Symposium, said Hong Kong, benefitting from the high GDP growth in mainland China, is forecast to reach 100 million passenger throughput by 2027. At the same time Hong Kong faced increasingly fierce competition not just from neighbouring airports but also other traffic modes, especially high speed rail. She suggested that Hong Kong should build capacity to cope with air traffic growth before that traffic is diverted to other airports. "Our industry's growth is inevitable. The question is which operators will step up to provide the capacity to meet demand."
Randy Tinseth, Boeing's Vice President of Marketing, noted in capacity-related comments that the number of destinations served by Hong Kong had soared from 52 in 1990 to 112 in 2010. Globally, Boeing was questioning whether the infrastructure would be in place to accommodate the forecast growth, especially in Asia which was becoming the centre of the aviation market, taking over from the US and Europe.
On this issue Boeing had examined more than 250 airports to see what they were going to invest going forward to meet this growth, and Hong Kong was one of the airports Boeing was very concerned about, especially if the third runway was not built.
For Dr. C. K. Law, Associate Director of the Aviation Policy & Research Centre at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, the question of whether Hong Kong needed a third runway was absolutely a no-brainer.
The current two-runway system would reach full capacity by 2017/2020, yet the three-runway system would be fully operational only by 2022/23, he said. Hong Kong is now the major aviation hub of southern China – Hong Kong has nine daily flights to London while Guangzhou has none – and we need to keep that competitive edge, he added.
On the economic contribution of a third runway, Dr. Law said each additional flight would result in income of HK$400,000 for Hong Kong, equivalent to HK$80 billion a year when the third runway's 200,000 additional flight capacity was fully utilised.
Finally in the panel session, a highly insightful assessment of the Master Plan came from Fiona Waters, Principal Economist, Business and Infrastructure at PwC, who has been drilling down into the materials provided so far about the expansion project. After hearing a presentation about the plan recently, she said she was not particularly clear, from an economist's perspective, why the third runway option was preferred to the status quo alternative. There were too many unanswered questions.
One shortcoming she emphasised was that while the plan dealt with many complex and technical issues, there was a lack of engagement with the public and with the sort of questions that ordinary Hong Kongers might ask.
On the issue of public engagement, she said: "To be blunt I don't think we do particularly well." She added: "Be transparent. The public aren't idiots. Let's get the facts out. What really are the issues?" Hong Kong is good at planning for hardware such as infrastructure but when it comes to the software side – skills development, for example – we tend to fall down.
Rounding up the event, John Slosar – who did not just turn up to make a speech but was present to listen to much that was said at the Symposium – took a step back, saying it was impossible to imagine that Hong Kong could have achieved its growth without aviation, which was a vital underpinning of the city's development and its place in the world economy.
One of the key factors in this development was the convenient access and ability to get round Asia that Hong Kong provided. "And don't think that other people haven't cottoned on to that," noting that, for example, Beijing was offering incentives to get multinational corporates to set up head offices there. And there would be no shortage of competitors to take up the slack if Hong Kong ran into capacity constraints.
"Hong Kong is really about connecting. This is our role - what we do. We are very good at it. The future of the Hong Kong economy depends on us staying good at it."
Slosar said he would like to demolish "once and for all" the notion that other airports could act as an alternative or addition to Hong Kong. There is no recorded example of such a system working (he cited, Heathrow and Gatwick, Kennedy and La Guardia, Midway and O'Hare, Dorval and Mirabel – the list went on and on). "The brutal reality is it never works".
Looking ahead, the Cathay Pacific CEO commented that by the mid-2020s, we would be another generation down the road in terms of aircraft and engine efficiency. He called on aviation manufacturers to give more guidance as to where they would be in terms of innovation down the road. "If we do all the figures based on historical data and use historical norms, we will wildly overestimate where we are going to end up because the industry has shown its ability to innovate over time and innovate successfully. What can we expect to be using 15 years from today?"
That's what the manufacturers should be working, on Slosar said, "because the rest of us, to be honest, in the face of the technical experts they have, are really only poking around in the dark."
The Symposium was not only rich in information and views but admirably compact – we were finished by lunchtime. It was a structure that could well serve as a template for organizers of windier and wordier – and perhaps less relevant – conferences. Even the venue was appropriate: the SkyCity Marriott Hotel, within sight of where a third airport runway would be built.
A typical feedback came from Justin Jaques, Director, Marketing and Business Development Asia, Worldwide Flight Services. "Thanks very much for the Symposium – it was very well-organized, educational and interesting symposium with a great mix of speakers presenting some very interesting perspectives associated with the HKIA Master Plan 2030."
- Jonathan Sharp
香港國際機場
第三跑道擴建計畫爭議四起
成立已二十五年的亞洲航空航天論壇(AFA)今年九月二日在香港主辦的研討會中，對香港國際機場興建第三跑道的2030年總體計劃，正反雙方爭議不斷。論壇參與者George Cautherley 形容這次研討會的討論對此一爭議複雜的本質, 貢獻良多。這個爭議很明確地成為香港2010到2020年期間眾多基礎建設中最重要的決定之一。
亞洲航空航天論壇主席 貴馬田指出， 研討會舉行這一天正好就是總體計劃為期三個月公開諮詢期的最後一日。而且來自各方面態度堅決的十位研討會參與者都是一時之選，俊才碩彥。更重要的是，大家對爭議的看法不同，都不會當橡皮圖章。研討會由贊成機場擴建的香港機場執行長許漢忠和 國泰太平洋航空公司執行長約翰史樂山召集，但是環保團體人士的質疑聲浪和反對聲音還是充斥會場之中。
貴馬田主席在研討會早上九點開始之前數分鐘說道， " 這是一場對所有立場開放的論壇，我們是來此尋求共識, 可不是毫無助益地來開戰。"
論壇並未讓 貴馬田主席失望；香港機場執行長 許漢忠注意到環保遊說團體一些激烈的批評，例如世界野生動物基金會(WWF)針對諮詢的處理方式。他在開場演說中定調， " 我們將努力聽取各方利害相關人和大眾的意見。" 香港社會科學研究中心被指定做為獨立蒐集，編纂和分析總體計劃的公正單位；目前已經收回總計二萬九千份問卷和臉書上的文字回函。其中大多數的意見是贊成擴建計劃的。
對於香港國際機場三條跑道系統的擔憂和關切是完全有根據的。許漢忠說，" 諮詢期間, 我們一再重複保證，初期評鑑絕對不會替代現行香港法律要求的詳盡且完整合乎法定程序的環境衝擊評估報告 ( EIA )。" 機場的發展和環境保護不是相互排斥的。他說，" 我們的目標是成為全世界最綠色環保的機場。" 香港社會科學研究中心將在十月底將他們的報告送達機場當局。 許漢忠說,
"我們則會在本年底向香港政府提出我們的建議報告。"
香港世界野生動物基金會執行長 龐毅理第一個開始質疑機場當局的綠色環保承諾。他開玩笑地說他來到研討會好像進入獅子的獸欄。他接著向聽眾保證WWF 就其本身而言並不反對第三條跑道。但他提出基本的關切重點； 第一點便是赤臘角機場附近中華白海豚的數量已經減少了一半, 總數只剩七十四或七十五隻了。他又說, " 請允許我提出香港政府可行性開發的一個典型案例。庇護白海豚的兩個海洋公園保護區中,有一個建起了所謂的臨時燃料儲藏庫,並且定時在挖污泥。然而這所謂的臨時設施早已經變成緊急儲藏油庫。如此無法保護白海豚吧。"
龐毅理說基金會的基本疑問是為何擴建計劃的環保和社會支出並沒包含在計劃裡的支出費用預算中。他又指出本計劃的環境衝擊評估報告也沒有把溫室氣體排放列入考慮。" 法律並未要求這一點。要環境保護署堅持本計劃必須列入溫室氣體排放評估, 我想幾乎不可能吧。
他在結論中指出, 機場當局目前面臨的最大挑戰是香港的空氣品質問題。碰巧地在研討會當天，空氣品質特別糟糕。龐毅理是小島薄扶林村的居民, 他說那一天他無法看到隧道對面距離很近的南丫島。
SEMC 亞洲有限公司水與環境部門技術總監Alexi Bhanja 強烈主張說, 真正的環境爭議焦點並不在空氣品質, 噪音程度等等。重點是法律上的攻防。" 真正的環境爭議焦點是環境衝擊評估條例(EIAO)規定下發出的環境許可證。無論香港機場當局的說法多麼強而有力, 沒有環境許可證, 就沒有擴建計劃。"
為了說明那些曲折繁複的步驟以取得必要的同意, Alexi Bhanja 引用香港-珠海-澳門跨海大橋為例, 該建設計劃提出之後就花了數年時間在法律攻防挑戰上。另一個引以為戒的例子是赤臘角機場永久航空燃料設施的環境衝擊評估條例，核可過程就花了五年。
解決之道 ：取得環境保護部門主管同意環境衝擊評估報告並發出相關許可證，如此各項計畫的決定才不至於遭受到對抗挑戰。如何達成上述目標，Alexi Bhanja 建議香港機場應該對擴建計劃採取更實際的建造時間範圍；假設會遭遇法律上的攻防挑戰並至少在一審法院舉行一場公聽會 。同時，委任最有經驗和能力的環境顧問做出最佳和最全面性的環境衝擊評估報告。 另外還要聘請一位獨立的環境衝擊評估報告的檢視人充當令人討厭又吹毛求疵的魔鬼，雞蛋裡挑骨頭,儘量找出報告裡的問題。然後雙方面一起改良報告，揭發所有缺失, 面對每一個異議，讓反對失效並加強報告的效力。
同一場研討會中，Landrum & Brown 公司中國區營運總監, Sheila Thomas 提出她有趣的觀察；與其他具有國際轉運樞紐功能的主要航站，像北京、廣州、南韓仁川、阿姆斯特丹的史基輔機場相比，香港顯然小的多了。
Sheila Thomas 也提出令人注目不同於一般人的另一觀點, 更讓環保團體驚訝的觀點：擴建機場實際上更有利於環境保護。她舉出勞德岱堡增加一條跑道和機場航站設施的擴建計劃數據說明。" 一般來說，人們會說這樣會有衝擊。我們卻發現擴建之後的空氣品質衝擊遠遠少於擴建之前。"
為何這樣呢? 因為空氣品質的主要衝擊來自於十分頻繁的航空器離境時的滑行。"當你增加了機場場地的處理能力使之達到飛航作業不再壅塞的程度時，航空器滑行時間就減少了。"Sheila Thomas 說， 當噪音因為擴建雖在某些區域增加，其他許多區域噪音卻是減少的。油料消耗減少的更多，安全也改善了。
總結第一場討論, 亞太航空協會理事主席，赫德曼指出航空業的成長是一定會有的, 每年全球成長百分之五, 亞洲則是百分之六。為了保持持續增長, 航空業一定要全面地在環保方面負起責任來。"如此航空業必須強烈地採取行動。"
航空業是與社會結合的, " 老實說, 需求增長剝奪了我們效率改善的能力。"
雖然航空業在其他幾項環保關切議題上領先, 但是面對2020年需達到的碳中性成長的挑戰卻是非常的嚴峻。
第二場小組研討會由亞洲航空航天論壇董事長布簡瓊Liz Bosher主持，關注在經濟和商業上的議題。她相當支持這項提議中的三條跑道系統。
國際航空協會理事主席, Angela Gittens 是從蒙特婁來到這場研討會。她說, 得力於中國大陸GDP的高度成長, 香港預期在2027年全年可以達到一億人次的航空旅客流量。同時間香港不但要面對鄰近機場的激烈競爭, 也要面對其他交通工具的競爭，尤其是來自高速鐵路的兢爭。她建議香港在交通流量移轉到其他機場之前先建立起符合航空成長率的運載能力和設施。"我們航空業的成長是必然的。問題是哪些營運商可以提供符合增長需求的運載能力和設施。"
波音公司市場行銷副總裁，Randy Tinseth 指出相關航空設施評論點出香港提供的轉運目的地已從1990年的52個暴增到2010年的112個。從全球來看，波音懷疑基礎設施是否已經到位,好容納預期的成長流量。尤其是已經追過歐美，變成航空業市場中心的亞洲。
在這方面, 波音檢視了250多個機場，看有誰投資來符合此一增長。香港就是波音關切的機場之一，尤其關切她的第三跑道興建與否。
對香港中文大學航空政策與研究中心助理教授，C.K. Law博士來說, 香港是否需要第三跑道絕對是毫無疑問的。
他說，現有的兩條跑道系統將在2017/2020年期間達到飽和，然而三條跑道系統卻要到2022/2023年才能開始完全營運。香港現在是中國南方各省的主要航空站-香港每天有九架次航班飛往倫敦，廣州一架次航班都沒。他又說，我們需要保持這種競爭優勢。
第三跑道的經濟效益，C.K. Law 博士說，每增加一條航線都會帶給香港四十萬港幣的收入，當第三跑道二十萬條新增航線都在使用時，一年相當於帶來八百億港幣的收入。
討論會最終，對總體計劃眼光獨到的評語來自於PwC 商業與基礎設施首席經濟學家，Fiona Waters。她一直汲汲於挖掘擴建計劃的各方面資料。最近聽過擴建計劃的報告後，她說，從經濟學家的觀點，她不明白為何第三跑道的選擇優於現狀的選擇。太多的疑問沒有答案。
她特別強調一個缺點；計劃本身處理了許多複雜的議題和工程上的議題，卻沒有跟一般大眾連接也沒有反應一般香港民眾或許會問的種種問題。
在連接大眾議題上, 她說：" 說的明白些, 我不覺得我們做的很好。"她又說，"一定要透明，大眾不是傻瓜，讓我門說出事實。真正的爭議是哪些？香港擅長於硬體， 例如基礎設施的規劃，但是說到軟體這方面，舉例來說, 技巧發展, 香港就不行了。"
國泰太平洋航空公司執行長 翰約翰史樂山並沒有現身發表演說但是一直在現場聆聽許多相關議題的發言。稍後他說, 很難想像沒有航空業,香港能夠成長至今, 它是香港城市發展和世界經濟地位的基石。
這個發展關鍵因素之一就是香港提供通行亞洲的便捷通道和能力。"別以為其他人不了解這一點," 舉例來說, 北京就在誘使垮國企業在北京設立企業總部。假如香港自我設限, 不會沒有競爭者來填補空缺的。
"香港只能連接。這是我們的角色，我們的工作。我們精於此道。香港經濟的未來立足於此。
展望未來, 國泰太平洋航空的執行長評論道, 我們將在2020年代中期進入航空器與新效率引擎的下一世代。他拜訪了航空器製造商獲得他們目前創新技術所能創造的諮詢意見。" 假如我們依據歷史數據並使用歷史準則而來計算, 我們將大大地高估我們最後能達到的地方因為航空業已經展示了與時俱進創新的能力,成功地創新改變。
翰史樂山繼續說著, 那是製造商應該努力的方向, "坦白說, 我們其他人, 面對製造商擁有眾多技術專家的事實, 我們只能在黑暗中摸索。"
-------------
本次研討會資訊豐富看法也很多元而且進行的非常簡潔-午餐時間就結束了。這次研討會可以是更有生氣更多話語組織者的平台-或許說的不太切題-的一次正式會議。甚至研討會地點都很合適：香港天際萬豪酒店這裡就可以看到建設第三跑道的地方。
這一段代表性的回饋出自Worldwide Flight Services公司亞洲市場行銷和商業主管Justin Jacques。" 感謝研討會的舉行- 這是一次組織良好,極具教育性又有趣的研討會, 各位發言者針對香港國際機場2030總體計劃提出了非常有趣的各種觀點 。"
- Jonathan Sharp
blog comments powered by DisqusShare this post
.jpg)
