17億元建行人天橋 大花筒文化須煞住

<轉載自2018年6月21日 明報 社評>

路政署計劃興建有蓋行人天橋，連接西鐵朗屏站和元朗市中心，工程造價高達17億元，堪稱全港最貴行人天橋。政府明天將向立法會財委會申請撥款，惟五大專業學會罕有聯署反對工程，並提出造價便宜近一半的替代方案。社區工程講求便民，也要考慮成本效益，耗資17億元興建行人天橋是否有必要，叫人懷疑。政府庫房「水浸」，不代表公帑可以隨便亂花。近年社區「天價」工程項目接二連三，建築商笑逐顏開，然而政府一再慷納稅人之慨，恍如羊牯，反映「大花筒文化」愈來愈嚴重，必須深切檢討。

成本效益須考慮 17億元造價太高

元朗行人天橋項目談了10年，最近終於提交立法會討論。根據政府方案，天橋將連接西鐵朗屏站及教育路，全長約540米。當局強調天橋建成後，能將元朗市中心的行人有效分流，然而有議員指出，當年路政署表示天橋造價只需2億元，未料現在竟然超過17億元，較諸荃灣大河道青山公路500米行人天橋1.1億元造價，高出16倍。

政府承認，元朗天橋造價較一般行人天橋高出大約八成，路政署解釋主因有二，一是天橋走線所經的元朗明渠地底有溶洞，令天橋地基和樁柱等設計較為複雜，10米高的天橋，打樁最深要100米；二是地基工程只能在旱季進行以免影響排洪，導致整項工程需要更長時間完成，估計做好樁柱需要3年。

政府提出一大堆技術理由，強調天橋走線無法避開溶洞區域，沒有其他方法可以降低造價，現有方案是「最佳選擇」，然而諷刺的是，根據2014年政府一份可行性研究報告，發展局認為天橋其實不用接駁至教育路，只需延伸至元朗大馬路即可，意味天橋工程絕對可以縮短減省開支。運房局和路政署對於為何沒有採納相關意見，迄今並未提出一套有說服力的解釋，官員說來說去，就是路政署再三研究後，始終認為現在方案最好，發展局意見已不適用，云云。公眾看在眼裏，完全不覺得當局有認真考慮成本效益問題。

興建有蓋行人天橋，原因不外是做好人車分隔、縮短步行時間和遮陰擋雨，然而要達到這些目標，不一定要興建天橋。政府的元朗天橋方案，不僅造價高得令人咋舌，也存在景觀通風等問題。4年前，建築師學會、規劃師學會、園境師學會和城市設計學會已指出，興建500多米的天橋，會破壞區內開揚環境，既遮掩陽光，又影響通風。根據四大學會向政府提出的替代方案，只需在朗屏站與安寧路之間，興建一條長約180米的行人天橋，再配合道路擴闊工程，已可大大改善擠迫問題。

四大學會的替代方案，既省錢又惠民，還有利明渠兩邊商戶，可謂三方皆贏，然而政府並未採納。隨着元朗天橋項目提交立法會審議，現在測量師學會也加入四大專業學會行列，向政府重提替代方案。根據測量師學會估算，替代方案造價只需9億元，僅為政府方案一半左右，當局沒理由不好好考慮。當然，官員和一些區議員會堅稱，替代方案需要行人上上落落，不夠「完美」，然而政府運用公帑必須有分有寸，不能一味慷納稅人之慨。政客着眼選票，往往樂見當局不惜工本在他們的選區大興土木，可是就算政府坐擁萬億元財政儲備，也不應該隨便亂花。

社區天價工程增 政府恐變冤大頭

近年政府在社區搞了不少民生工程，當中不乏造價高昂項目，不少市民質疑這些「小白象工程」大而無當，浪費公帑，例如去年政府要求撥款3.5億元，在西九龍文化區興建一條「富有藝術氣息」的行人天橋，惹來輿論狠批，最終當局要修訂方案，降低造價三成。社區「天價工程」問題一再出現，背後一定有結構因素。

現時政府腰纏萬貫，人盡皆知，不少人都在打政府主意，希望當局一擲千金，滿足他們一己之私，至於政府似乎也不介意大灑金錢，導致「大花筒文化」變本加厲，忽略成本效益。政府工程猶如「超級肥豬肉」，一旦當局監管粗疏，各種違規腐敗現象自然容易滋生，最近沙中線工程問題叢生，便令人關注建造業界的流弊。近年政府大小工程超支司空見慣，市民擔心政府做了「冤大頭」也不自知，有國際反貪機構亦提醒，由於政府大型工程的獨特性，承建商總可找來藉口，強調工程無法直接比較，設法抬高造價，趁機漁利。政府有必要對建築工程項目加強把關，不必要的奢侈項目可免則免。

元朗天橋項目所費不菲，政府有責任向全港納稅人交代，為何一定要選擇最奢侈的方案，而不揀選成效相差不遠而造價便宜得多的替代方案。如果當局無法提供令人信服的解釋，立法會財委會應否決建橋方案。

Stop culture of profligacy

THE HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT plans to build a covered footbridge that connects West Rail Line Long Ping Station with Yuen Long town centre. Its estimated cost is as high as $1.7 billion. The government will seek funding approval from the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council tomorrow. However, in a rare move, five professional associations have signed a joint statement opposing the plan. They have also put forward an alternative plan that costs only half of that of the government plan. The aim of community projects is to bring convenience to the people, but cost-effectiveness should also be taken into consideration. Even though government coffers are flush with cash, it does not mean that public money can be squandered. In recent years, exorbitant community projects have been introduced one after another. The builders are of course delighted, but the government's constant generosity at the expense of taxpayers shows that its culture of profligacy is becoming more prevalent, something the government must deeply reflect on.

The only reasons for building a covered footbridge are separating pedestrians and vehicular traffic, reducing walking time and providing shelter for pedestrians from the sun and rain. However, building a covered footbridge is not the only way to achieve these goals. Not only is the Yuen Long covered footbridge proposed by the government shockingly expensive, it has other problems, such as the blocking of views and poor ventilation. Four years ago, the Hong Kong Institute of Architects, the Hong Kong Institute of Planners, the Hong Kong Institute of Landscape Architects and the Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design already pointed out that building a footbridge over 500 metres long will spoil Yuen Long's environment with its open views. It will not only block sunlight, but also cause poor ventilation. In the alternative plan put forth by the four professional associations, only a 180-metre long footbridge has to be built between Long Ping Station and On Ning Road. With some road-widening works, the problem of congestion can be alleviated to a large extent.

Not only is the alternative plan proposed by the four professional associations cheaper and beneficial to the public, it is also advantageous to the shops along the town nullah. It is indeed a win-win proposal for all three parties concerned. However, it was not accepted by the government. As the government has submitted its plan for the Yuen Long footbridge to the Legislative Council for scrutiny, the Institute of Surveyors has joined the ranks of the four professional associations and has proposed the alternative plan to the government again. The Institute of Surveyors estimates that the cost of the alternative plan is only $900 million, about half of that of the government plan. There is no reason for the government not to consider it carefully.

In recent years, the government has initiated many livelihood projects at community level, some of which were very costly. Many citizens criticise these "small white elephant projects" for being big, useless and a waste of public funds. For example, last year the government sought funding approval for $350 million to build a covered footbridge with "an artistic design" at the West Kowloon Cultural District. The plan provoked strong public criticism. In the end, the plan was revised, and the cost was reduced by 30%.

Everyone knows that the government has abundant financial resources. Many people, out of their own interest, hope that the government will spend money lavishly. The government does not seem to mind giving away money generously either. This has resulted in the aggravation of the culture of profligacy.

The Yuen Long covered footbridge is costly. The government has the duty to explain to all Hong Kong taxpayers why it must choose the most expensive plan rather than an alternative plan that is similarly effective but much less expensive. If the authorities cannot give a convincing explanation, the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council should reject the plan.

17億元建行人天橋 大花筒文化須煞住

路政署計劃興建有蓋行人天橋，連接西鐵朗屏站和元朗市中心，工程造價高達17億元。政府明天將向立法會財委會申請撥款，惟五大專業學會罕有聯署反對工程，並提出造價便宜近一半的替代方案。社區工程講求便民，也要考慮成本效益。政府庫房「水浸」，不代表公帑可以隨便亂花。近年社區「天價」工程項目接二連三，建築商笑逐顏開，然而政府一再慷納稅人之慨，反映「大花筒文化」愈來愈嚴重，必須深切檢討。

興建有蓋行人天橋，原因不外是做好人車分隔、縮短步行時間和遮陰擋雨，然而要達到這些目標，不一定要興建天橋。政府的元朗天橋方案，不僅造價高得令人咋舌，也存在景觀通風等問題。4年前，建築師學會、規劃師學會、園境師學會和城市設計學會已指出，興建500多米的天橋，會破壞區內開揚環境，既遮掩陽光，又影響通風。根據四大學會向政府提出的替代方案，只需在朗屏站與安寧路之間，興建一條長約180米的行人天橋，再配合道路擴闊工程，已可大大改善擠迫問題。

四大學會的替代方案，既省錢又惠民，還有利明渠兩邊商戶，可謂三方皆贏，然而政府並未採納。隨着元朗天橋項目提交立法會審議，現在測量師學會也加入四大專業學會行列，向政府重提替代方案。根據測量師學會估算，替代方案造價只需9億元，僅為政府方案一半左右，當局沒理由不好好考慮。

近年政府在社區搞了不少民生工程，當中不乏造價高昂項目，不少市民質疑這些「小白象工程」大而無當，浪費公帑，例如去年政府要求撥款3.5億元，在西九龍文化區興建一條「富有藝術氣息」的行人天橋，惹來輿論狠批，最終當局要修訂方案，降低造價三成。

現時政府腰纏萬貫，人盡皆知，不少人希望當局一擲千金，滿足他們一己之私，政府似乎也不介意大灑金錢，導致「大花筒文化」變本加厲。

元朗天橋項目所費不菲，政府有責任向全港納稅人交代，為何一定要選擇最奢侈的方案，而不揀選成效相差不遠而造價便宜得多的替代方案。如果當局無法提供令人信服的解釋，立法會財委會應否決建橋方案。