融合「就高不就低」 港珠澳大橋劃準繩

<轉載自2018年10月3日 明報 加東版 中國版>

港珠澳大橋日前完成3天試運，預料年底通車。港珠澳大橋是全球跨海距離最長的橋隧組合公路，兩年來先後通過超強颱風「天鴿」和「山竹」考驗，安全疑慮應可消除。港澳與內地各有做事方法，大橋設計標準「就高不就低」，可為未來大灣區合作奠下良好準則，香港在這方面可以發揮更積極角色，同時借鑑別人所長。本港跨境陸路貨物運輸下跌，加上連接珠三角東西岸的深中通道和虎門二橋等即將陸續開通，港珠澳大橋尚未通車，已面對不少挑戰競爭，如何爭取車流客流，關鍵在於香港能否做好自己，力爭在大灣區融合扮演領頭羊角色。

香港口岸成瓶頸隱憂 高鐵混亂教訓應記取

為準備港珠澳大橋開通，香港、澳門及內地政府早前舉行聯合試運，測試三地口岸運作，以及大橋行車安排、配套設施和服務等，讓穿梭三地的旅遊巴公司模擬上落客及過關程序，兼讓司機熟習路段。有直通巴士業人士認為，珠海口岸較為混亂，未見「直通巴士上客區」指示牌，出入境安排亦較為複雜，上下車及出入境在不同樓層，旅客需帶同行李「上上落落」，估計要15至20分鐘才完成過關。相比之下，香港口岸設施較為人性化，旅客上下車及過關均在同一樓層，若人流不多，約10分鐘應可完成過關手續。港珠澳大橋是打通珠三角東西部的核心基建之一，便捷最為重要，香港營運管理經驗較佳，可以起示範作用，然而在配套規劃方面，特區政府亦應多參考別人做法，檢視自身不足。

今年初澳門公布大橋邊檢大樓東停車場將提供3000輕型汽車泊位，相比之下，香港口岸停車場只提供約650個泊車位，數量明顯不足。特區政府表示，規劃香港口岸設施時，預計大橋旅客主要都是乘坐公共交通工具前往香港口岸，可是業界關注香港口岸跨境巴士上落客位有限，前往香港市區以及珠海澳門方向，分別各有30至40個跨境巴士上落客位，估計通車初期尚可應付，惟日後大橋車流增長，上落客位可能很快飽和，香港口岸可能成為瓶頸，特區政府有必要及早增加口岸交通配套。高鐵通車後，西九總站因為沒有內地自動取票機，導致內地旅客要排長龍到櫃位取票。前車可鑑，香港不應重蹈覆轍，再犯同類技術失誤。

粵港澳大灣區融合硬件先行，港珠澳大橋與高鐵均是打破三地物理阻隔的重要基建。就像高鐵香港段一樣，鑑於三地制度文化差異，港珠澳大橋由興建過程到日後具體運作，都需要好好磨合，當中所體現的，正是未來大灣區融合必經過程。三地各有一套工程準則及做事方式，主體大橋總工程師林鳴亦提到，香港方面的程序更多更複雜，最初內地工程團隊也很不適應香港的做事程序及思維，大至施工方案，小至人工島燈飾安排，雙方均有分歧，然而最重要是各方都以做到最好為大前提，願意互相遷就。

大橋流量迎來挑戰 折射港深龍頭之爭

大灣區融合目標是追求共贏發揮更大效益，既非事事要跟內地標準，亦不應抱着「大香港心態」，一定要內地跟香港一套，港珠澳大橋一個重要經驗，是強調「就高不就低」原則，內地與香港可以各師各法填海興建人工島修築高架橋，然而大橋設計每項要求均採用三地當中最高的標準，例如大橋所用混凝土壽命，內地標準是100年，香港標準是120年，最終大橋採用了香港標準；行車線闊度方面，香港規格是3.667米，內地是3.75米，結果大橋每條行車線闊度用了內地標準。未來大灣區融合，應該在堅持一國兩制、尊重三地制度差異之上，繼續朝「就高不就低」的方向走。

港珠澳大橋的汽車流量，原設計約為每天9萬輛，最高可達14萬至15萬輛，惟近年珠江口多項基建陸續上馬，三地政府已調低大橋車流預測，估計2030年平均每日汽車流量為2.9萬架次，只及原設計流量三分之一。連接廣州南沙和東莞的虎門二橋明年開通，耗資447億元人民幣的深圳至中山跨江通道（深中通道）預計2024年通車，加上本港陸路貨運量下滑，港珠澳大橋無可避免要面對競爭，可是亦毋須悲觀認定大橋流量長遠必然不濟。

大灣區融合，香港、深圳無可避免會競爭，港珠澳大橋和深中通道長遠車流客流表現，某程度是港深競爭的一個側寫，然而亦非全貌。港深兩地各有優勢，有競爭才有進步，香港只要做好自己，努力提升，有力爭當領頭羊。香港社會要避免自我膨脹，亦毋須妄自菲薄。

Mega bridge sets the standard for Bay Area integration

A three-day trial run was carried out a few days ago at the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) in preparation for the bridge's opening expected at the end of this year. The HZMB, the longest bridge-cum-tunnel sea crossing in the world, has been fully put to the test by Super Typhoons Hato and Mangkhut over the past two years. The fact that it has stood the tests should dispel worries about the bridge's safety. Hong Kong, Macao and the mainland have separate ways of getting things done. The principle adopted in designing the HZMB, "adhering to the highest rather than the lowest standards", can be used as a good guide for future cooperation in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (the Greater Bay Area). In this respect, Hong Kong can play a more active role while learning from others' strengths. Because of the dropping volume of Hong Kong's cross-boundary land freight transport as well as the upcoming opening of other crossings linking the east and west of Pearl River Delta like the Shenzhen-Zhongshan Bridge and the Humen Second Bridge, the HZMB is already facing significant challenges and competition even before it comes into operation. The key of securing traffic and passenger flow for the HZMB will lie in whether Hong Kong can play its part well and fight hard to attain the leading position in the integration of the Greater Bay Area.

Infrastructural construction takes the precedence in the process of the Greater Bay Area's integration. Both the HZMB and the High Speed Rail are examples of important infrastructures breaking the geographical barrier between Hong Kong, Macao and the mainland. Similar to the case of the High Speed Rail (Hong Kong Section), from the construction of the HZMB to its future operations, adjustments and adaptations were and will be necessary given the three regions' various differences in system and culture. That exactly embodies the processes inevitable in the future integration of the Greater Bay Area. Each of the three places has its own set of standard specifications for works and its own way of practice. Lin Ming, the chief engineer of the HZMB main bridge, has also mentioned that the procedures required by the Hong Kong side were more numerous and complicated. At first, the engineering team from the mainland was not accustomed to the working procedures and people's way of thinking in Hong Kong. From major issues like construction plans to minor matters including lighting arrangements on the artificial islands, there were disagreements between the two sides. However, the most important thing is that all parties have been willing to accommodate each other for the sake of achieving the best outcome.

The goal of integrating the Greater Bay Area is mutual benefit and higher cost-effectiveness. This can be achieved neither by following every standard on the mainland nor by believing in "Hong Kong supremacy", thinking that the mainland must follow Hong Kong in all manners. An important experience learned from the construction of the HZMB is the principle of "adhering to the highest rather than the lowest standards". The mainland and Hong Kong have been working on land reclamation, building artificial islands and constructing sections of the elevated bridge in their own ways. Nevertheless, when setting out the design of the bridge, the highest standard among the three places was adopted for every item of the project. For example, the mainland standard for the service life of concrete structures is 100 years while that required in Hong Kong is 120 years. The Hong Kong standard was ultimately adopted. In the case of lane width, the Hong Kong standard is 3.667 metres compared with 3.75 metres on the mainland, which was adopted as a result. In the future integration of the Greater Bay Area, we should continue to follow this direction of "adhering to the highest rather than the lowest standards" on the basis of upholding the "one country, two systems" principle and respecting the three regions' differences in the systems.

The HZMB was originally expected to have a traffic flow of around 90,000 vehicles per day and was designed to accommodate a daily maximum of 140,000 to 150,000 vehicles. However, in view of the successive launches of other infrastructural projects across the Pearl River estuary in recent years, the governments of the three places have greatly lowered the forecast for 2030 to 29,000 vehicles per day, only one-third of the prediction in the original design. It is inevitable that the HZMB will face competition. Still, one does not have to pessimistically presuppose that the bridge is doomed to fare badly in terms of traffic flow in the long run. Hong Kong society should avoid self-aggrandisement as much as it should avoid self-deprecation.

融合「就高不就低」 港珠澳大橋劃準繩

港珠澳大橋日前完成3天試運，預料年底通車。港珠澳大橋是全球跨海距離最長的橋隧組合公路，兩年來先後通過超強颱風「天鴿」和「山竹」考驗，安全疑慮應可消除。港澳與內地各有做事方法，大橋設計標準「就高不就低」，可為未來大灣區合作奠下良好準則，香港在這方面可以發揮更積極角色，同時借鑑別人所長。本港跨境陸路貨物運輸下跌，加上連接珠三角東西岸的深中通道和虎門二橋等即將陸續開通，港珠澳大橋尚未通車，已面對不少挑戰競爭，如何爭取車流客流，關鍵在於香港能否做好自己，力爭在大灣區融合扮演領頭羊角色。

粵港澳大灣區融合硬件先行，港珠澳大橋與高鐵均是打破三地物理阻隔的重要基建。就像高鐵香港段一樣，鑑於三地制度文化差異，港珠澳大橋由興建過程到日後具體運作，都需要好好磨合，當中所體現的，正是未來大灣區融合必經過程。三地各有一套工程準則及做事方式，主體大橋總工程師林鳴亦提到，香港方面的程序更多更複雜，最初內地工程團隊也很不適應香港的做事程序及思維，大至施工方案，小至人工島燈飾安排，雙方均有分歧，然而最重要是各方都以做到最好為大前提，願意互相遷就。

大灣區融合目標是追求共贏發揮更大效益，既非事事要跟內地標準，亦不應抱「大香港心態」，一定要內地跟香港一套，港珠澳大橋一個重要經驗，是強調「就高不就低」原則，內地與香港可以各師各法填海興建人工島修築高架橋，然而大橋設計每項要求均採用三地當中最高的標準，例如大橋所用混凝土壽命，內地標準是100年，香港標準是120年，最終大橋採用了香港標準；行車線闊度方面，香港規格是3.667米，內地是3.75米，結果大橋每條行車線闊度用了內地標準。未來大灣區融合，應該在堅持一國兩制、尊重三地制度差異之上，繼續朝「就高不就低」的方向走。

港珠澳大橋的汽車流量，原設計約為每天9萬輛，最高可達14萬至15萬輛，惟近年珠江口多項基建陸續上馬，三地政府已調低大橋車流預測，估計2030年平均每日汽車流量為2.9萬架次，只及原設計流量三分之一。港珠澳大橋無可避免要面對競爭，可是亦毋須悲觀認定大橋流量長遠必然不濟。香港社會要避免自我膨脹，亦毋須妄自菲薄。