Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 52

Knowledge Management Highway

Provision of Barrier-free Access (BFA) Facilities at Public Walkways

Planning

Table of Content
1  Necessity of Provision of Barrie Free Access (BFA) Facilities ............................................ iii 
1.1  Availability of Alternative BFA in the Vicinity ......................................................... 1 
1.1.1  Distance........................................................................................................... 1 
1.1.2  Condition and Operation Hours of Alternative BFA Facilities ...................... 1 
1.2  Barrier-free Environment Surrounding Walkways..................................................... 2 
1.3  Interaction with Other Development .......................................................................... 3 
1.4  Walkway itself not Barrier-free .................................................................................. 4 

2  Considerations affecting the Feasibility of BFA Facilities ..................................................... 5 


2.1  Space Requirement for Permanent Works (HF93A) .................................................. 5 
2.2  Old and Valuable Trees (OVT) (H76) ........................................................................ 5 
2.3  No Practical Pedestrian Diversion Scheme (KF68) ................................................... 6 
2.4  At the Corner of Busy Road Junction with Pedestrian Crossing (KF82) ................... 6 
2.5  Temporary Traffic Arrangement during Construction (HF144) ................................ 6 
2.6  Space for Piling Works (KS40) .................................................................................. 6 
2.7  Site Access (NF78) ..................................................................................................... 7 
2.8  Space Requirement for Maintenance Works (KF32) ................................................. 7 
2.9  Land Interface with Private Development (HF90 & HF90A) .................................... 7 
2.10  Land Resumption (KF57) ........................................................................................... 8 
2.11  Conflicts with Existing Utilities (HF93A & KS45) ................................................... 8 
2.12  Conflicts with Underground Structures (KS22) ......................................................... 9 
2.13  Geotechnical Issues (KS31)........................................................................................ 9 
2.14  Public Concerns (HF78) ........................................................................................... 10 
2.15  Impact on Public Walkways (HF26) ........................................................................ 10 

3  Funding & Project Programme ............................................................................................. 11 


3.1  Funding ..................................................................................................................... 11 
3.2  Project Programme ................................................................................................... 11 
3.2.1  Funding application ...................................................................................... 11 
3.2.2  Investigation .................................................................................................. 12 
3.2.3  Site Investigation .......................................................................................... 12 
3.2.4  Detailed Design ............................................................................................. 13 
3.2.5  Pre-construction ............................................................................................ 13 
3.2.6  Construction .................................................................................................. 15 

i
Discussion Note on Provision of BFA Facilities at Public Walkways - Planning

List of Annexes
Annex 1.1 Examples for Section 1.1 (KF27, H115, NF(SLKR), HF145)
Annex 1.2 Examples for Section 1.2 (HF160, KF96, HF34)
Annex 1.3 Examples for Section 1.3 (HF114, NF303, HF50, KF39)
Annex 1.4 Examples for Section 1.4 (HF118, KS10, KS14)
Annex 2.1 Example for Section 2.1 (HF93A)
Annex 2.2 Example for Section 2.2 (H76)
Annex 2.3 Example for Section 2.3 (KF68)
Annex 2.4 Example for Section 2.4 (KF82)
Annex 2.5 Example for Section 2.5 (HF144)

Annex 2.6 Example for Section 2.6 (KS40)


Annex 2.7 Example for Section 2.7 (NF78)
Annex 2.8 Example for Section 2.8 (KF32, HF95)
Annex 2.9 Example for Section 2.9 (HF90 & HF90A)
Annex 2.10 Example for Section 2.10 (KF57)
Annex 2.11 Examples for Section 2.11 (HF93A, KS45)
Annex 2.12 Example for Section 2.12 (KS22)
Annex 2.13 Example for Section 2.13 (KS31)
Annex 2.14 Example for Section 2.14 (HF78)

ii
Discussion Note on Provision of BFA Facilities at Public Walkways - Planning

Synopsis

According to the Transport Bureau Technical Circular No. 2/2000, access facilities for the
disabled must be provided for all Public Walkways (footbridges, elevated walkways and
subways) either by the provision of ramps or lifts. Although most footbridges and subways
constructed in recent years have barrier free access (BFA) facilities, some older Public
Walkways completed before the enactment of the Disability Discrimination Ordinance in 1995
do not have such facilities. Hence, there is a need to retrofit BFA facilities to the existing
footbridges, elevated walkways and subways without such facilities.

The retrofitting works for BFA facilities to existing footbridges and subways have been
implemented in phases. After the Formal Investigation Report on Accessibility in Publicly
Accessible Premises released by the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) in June 2010,
which has made a number of recommendations on the improvement of accessibility, connectivity
and interface with surrounding environment and user-friendly management practices for publicly
accessible premises, the Government has introduced a package of new measures to improve
barrier-free environment in Government premises and facilities Among these measures, the
Government will accelerate the retrofitting programme for provision of BFA facilities. The
accelerated programme is undertaken by MWPMO.

Under the accelerated programme, there are about 180 structures which are selected for
investigation on the technical feasibility since July 2010 and the design and construction of the
158 structures found feasible commenced in November 2011 as the “Original Programme” for
completion in phases from 2014 to 2018. In August 2012, the Government launched a new
policy on universal accessibility (UA) to improve accessibility for existing public walkways.
So, as long as site conditions permit, the administration will still consider installing lifts at
walkways where there is already a standard ramp installed. The “Original Programme” together
with the expanded scope of works is now termed “Universal Accessibilty Programme” (UAP)

The objective of this discussion note is to share the experience with examples of our colleagues
during the Planning of the provision of BFA at Public Walkways. Due to a large number of
structures being implemented within a short period, consistency in the planning of works is
necessary to avoid being challenged by the stakeholders at various districts. The notes are not
meant to provide guidelines and procedures which can be obtained from the Project
Administration Handbook.

iii
Discussion Note on Provision of BFA Facilities at Public Walkways - Planning

1 NECESSITY OF PROVISION OF BARRIE FREE ACCESS (BFA) FACILITIES

1.1 Availability of Alternative BFA in the Vicinity

1.1.1 Distance

One of the criteria for retrofitting BFA facilities at existing public walkways (i.e.
footbridges, elevated walkways and subways maintained by HyD) is that there is no proper
at-grade crossing within about 100m of the public walkways. In this regard, it should be
noted that the distance of 100m is not absolute and other factors should also be taken into
account. Such factors include pedestrian flow and route, public opinion etc. The
following examples serve to illustrate these factors.

Annex 1.1 provides the plans of the examples.

(a) At-grade crossing within 100m absolute distance (KF27)

KF27 is a footbridge spanning across Argyle Street at its junction with Yim Po Fong
Street and Luen Wan Street. At-grade pedestrian crossing is located at 96m from
the main span of the footbridge. Retrofitting of lifts for the footbridge is still
considered necessary because of high usage of the footbridge to the nearby Mongkok
Transport Interchange and Mongkok Station and repeated requests from DC
members.

(b) Within 200m walking distance (H115)

H115 is an elevated walkway spanning across two sections of Wong Chuk Hang
Road near Shouson Hill and Aberdeen Tunnel. There are 3 exits with staircase where
pedestrians can reach Wong Chuk Hang Road. Having considered the pedestrian
routes to the bus stops at these exits, provision of lifts as BFA facilities is considered
not necessary at these exits because the difference in walking distance between the
existing at-grade crossings and these exits is not greater than 200m as illustrated by
the yellow route and the red route in the plan in Annex 1.1. In addition, as there is
alternative barrier free routes, the DC members considered that the proposal to
provide lifts at the elevated walkway is not necessary given the low usage.

1.1.2 Condition and Operation Hours of Alternative BFA Facilities

In the case when BFA is available indirectly through adjacent development connecting the
concerned public walkway, we have to carefully study whether BFA facilities is up to the
normal standard provided under the UAP. For such alternative BFA facilities managed
and maintained by the holder of the concerned development (which may be public (other
government departments) or private), we should look into the conditions under which such
facilities are provided (for examples the lease or land grant conditions) and the actual
operation of such facilities. It can meet the requirement for BFA facilities for the public

1
Discussion Note on Provision of BFA Facilities at Public Walkways - Planning

walkway if the lease conditions of the concerned development require 24-hour opening of
the BFA facilities for public use. The following examples serve to illustrate these factors.

Annex 1.1 provides the plans of the examples.

(a) Reasonable convenience of the BFA facilities (NF(SLKR))

NF(SLKR) is connected to Luk Yeung Galleria with two lifts at the northeast corner
of the Galleria which provide those in need to reach the ground floor. The lifts are
opened from 5am to 12am. There is a ramp connecting these lifts to enable users
from the Galleria to reach Sai Lau Kok Road. To reach Sai Lau Kok Road from the
public walkway, the pedestrian can make use of the BFA facilities provided by the
Galleria. However, this route is long and not desirable as the users will have to share
it with delivery men. Therefore, additional BFA at NF(SLKR) will still be considered
under the UAP.

(b) Opening hours of the BFA facilities (HF145)

HF145 is a footbridge across Gloucester Road and Fenwick Street, a lift will be
retrofitted adjacent to Jubilee Centre as there is only escalator and staircase at this
exit. As part of the footbridge system, this exit is connected to Harcourt House
across Fenwick Street through a branch of the footbridge. There is already a lift in
Harcourt House, which is maintained for public use daily during the period from 8am
to midnight. It is considered not meeting the BFA requirements due to limited
operation hours. Moreover the long and winded route of 100m for users render it
not suitable as the BFA facility.

1.2 Barrier-free Environment Surrounding Walkways

When considering the provision of BFA facilities to a walkway, the designer shall consider
whether the adjacent environment, especially the approaching footpaths, is barrier-free. If
not, the feasibility to improve the surrounding access, such as provision of at grade
crossings, improvement of the gradient of adjacent footpath, shall be studied. If
improvement works are not technically feasible or too substantial, the designer may have
to consider whether it is appropriate to implement the BFA facilities at this moment in time.
In this respect, the designer may wish to consult relevant departments and parties, such as
PlanD, LandsD, MTRCL, HA, LINK, etc.) on the future land development in the vicinity
of the concerned public walkway. Consultation with the local public and the concerned
district council may also be necessary. The following examples serve to illustrate these
factors.

Annex 1.2 provides the plans of the examples.

(a) Provision of Crossing (HF160)

HF160 provides grade-separated pedestrian access across Gloucester Road near


Fleming Road. It is connected to the footpath of Gloucester Road at the southern end

2
Discussion Note on Provision of BFA Facilities at Public Walkways - Planning

by means of staircases and the podium level of China Resources Building at the
northern end via another footbridge. The existing staircase is accommodated within
the narrow footpath/central divider between Gloucester Road and its service road.
At-grade crossing is provided nearby to serve as pedestrian access across the service
road. Taking into account the barrier-free at-grade crossing nearby and the bus stop
next to it, the lift near the existing staircase is considered worthwhile to be installed.

(b) Adjacent environment not barrier-free (KF96 & HF34)

As KF96 is not equipped with BFA facilities, we originally planned to provide two
lifts at both exits. However, after study, we found that the structure is located in a
hilly area and the footpaths leading to the footbridge are not barrier-free. According
to the advice from Planning Department, the area in the vicinity of KF96 is under
“Green Belt” zoning and TD also indicated that there would be no new development
for public transport. We thus considered the provision of BFA facilities at KF96
unnecessary. The matter was presented to the Sham Shui Po District Council TAC on
11 April 2013. The Committee noted the findings and requested HyD to consider
provision of BFA facilities at KF96 again if there is any future development in the
vicinity.

The gradients of the footpaths connecting to the exits of HF34 are 1:8 and 1:9.5,
which are steeper than the standard (1:12) as stipulated under TPDM. Since it is
infeasible to improve the gradient of the footpath because the surrounding area has
already been developed, the footpaths are considered not barrier-free. Furthermore,
the nearby school also raised their concern on the proposed lift being too close to the
main entrance of the school, which might cause potential danger to the students.
Considering all the above-mentioned factors and the relatively low usage of the
footbridge, it is considered justified not to provide BFA facilities for HF34.

1.3 Interaction with Other Development

The need of BFA facilities for a walkway may be affected by other projects/development.
The interaction between the planning of the BFA facilities and the planning of these
projects/development needs to be taken into account. Liaison with LandsD and/or the
relevant project teams will be required to obtain information of the interfacing
projects/development, such as the details of the lease condition, confirmation of the
potential impact to the existing walkway, etc. The following examples serve to illustrate
these factors.

Annex 1.3 provides the plans of the examples.

(a) Demolition and/or reconstruction of the public walkways (HF114 & NF303)

These existing walkways will be demolished / reconstructed due to other project /


development and provision of BFA facilities for these existing walkways are
rendered unnecessary.

3
Discussion Note on Provision of BFA Facilities at Public Walkways - Planning

(b) Provision of alternative BFA facilities under adjacent developments (HF50 & KF39)

The adjacent new development will be obliged to provide alternative BFA facilities
and/or barrier-free route under lease conditions and provision of BFA facilities o
these existing walkways become unnecessary.

1.4 Walkway itself not Barrier-free

For various historical reasons, some existing public walkways are not themselves
barrier-free. For instance, the gradient is steeper than 1:10 for the footbridge
deck/subway barrel. There are some footbridges/subways which have steps in the
footbridge deck/subway barrel. The provisions of BFA facilities for these public
walkways have two aspects to be considered, viz one for the exits and the other for the
deck/barrel. They should be considered at the same time so as to provide a barrier-free
route. The following examples serve to illustrate these factors.

Annex 1.4 provides the plans of the examples.

(a) Modification works for improving the footbridge deck/subway barrel is not
disproportionate to retrofitting BFA facilities at the exits (HF118)

HF118 is a footbridge across Connaught Road Central near Western Market. Lift
retrofitting is proposed at its exits to provide BFA facilities. Nevertheless, there are
steps at the footbridge deck of the main span. The modification of the steps to
standard ramps is feasible and the works involved are relatively minor. Thus the lift
installation and step modification works are recommended to proceed at the same
time to provide a barrier-free route.

(b) Modification works for the footbridge deck/subway barrel are physically infeasible
or disproportionate to the BFA retrofitting works at the exits. Nevertheless, the
gradient and the length of the substandard footbridge deck/subway barrel together
with other factors (such as public opinion) should then be taken into consideration.
If the footbridge deck/subway barrel is only slightly steeper than 1:10 for a short
section, the BFA retrofitting works at the exits can still bring convenience to the
needy. (KS10)

The ramps at both ends of subway KS10 across Prince Edward Road East near Ta Ku
Ling Road in Kowloon City are sub-standard with gradient of 1:8. A short section
of the subway barrel is also sub-standard with gradient of about 1:9.3. Lift
retrofitting is thus proposed to provide BFA facilities at both ends. However,
underground utilities exist both above and below the existing subway barrel.
Modification works of the subway barrel to improve the steepness would be
infeasible due to the very substantial utility diversion works along Prince Edward
Road. On considering that the gradient of the subway barrel is only slightly steeper
than 1:10 for a short length of about 13m, it is recommended to install lifts at the
exits as it will provide substantial convenience to the elderly and needy.

4
Discussion Note on Provision of BFA Facilities at Public Walkways - Planning

(c) Modification works for the footbridge deck/subway are physically infeasible or
disproportionate to the BFA retrofitting works at the exits. Contrary to the (b)
above, the footbridge deck/subway barrel is much steeper than 1:10 and may be for a
longer section. Even though the exits are barrier-free, it cannot provide added
convenience to the elderly and needy because of the sub-standard footbridge deck
and subway barrel. Thus BFA retrofitting at the exits is not recommended. (KS14)

The barrel of the subway KS14 across Prince Edward Road East outside Choi Hung
Estate is much more substandard at a gradient of 1:7 for a section of 14m. With this
steep gradient, it would be difficult for wheelchair users and those in need to
negotiate the subway barrel for this length. Modification of the subway barrel to
standard gradient would be physically infeasible because the vertical alignment of
the subway barrel is constrained by existing large diameter watermain, sewer and
stormwater drain. Also, one of the exits of the subway consists of staircase only.
BFA is not recommended at this exit because it leads to an open space with no other
destination. Hence, installation of lift at that exit would not provide added
convenience to the needy.

2 CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING THE FEASIBILITY OF BFA FACILITIES

2.1 Space Requirement for Permanent Works (HF93A)

There are numerous utilities under the footpath of Lift 1 and diversion of which is
considered infeasible since the remaining footpath is only 800mm wide after installation of
the lift and is insufficient to contain all the utilities. Diversion of the utilities into
Connaught Road Central is also infeasible due to the existence of an 1800mm diameter
sewer main under the carriageway. Moreover, Connaught Road Central is classified as a
Red route which had stringent restriction on lane closure.

Annex 2.1 provides the plan of the example.

2.2 Old and Valuable Trees (OVT) (H76)

The proposed lift at the exit to the south of the bridge will affect many OVTs and
according to ETWB 29/2004, works should be avoided within the driplines of these trees.
If construction works within the tree protection zone are practicably unavoidable, the
project office shall obtain the approval of LandsD at an early stage of the project before the
design is finalized. The project office (or maintenance department) shall submit an
application with full justifications and a method statement to LandsD for approval and
copy it to LCSD/AFCD for comments as to whether the application should be supported.

Annex 2.2 provides the plan of the example.

5
Discussion Note on Provision of BFA Facilities at Public Walkways - Planning

2.3 No Practical Pedestrian Diversion Scheme (KF68)

Retrofitting works is proposed to KF68 at Waterloo Road in Kowloon City. Due to the
limited width of the footway, construction of the lift shaft requires closure of the footway.
Consequently, the slow lane of Waterloo Road has to be closed to provide footway
diversion during the construction of the lift shaft. As closure of the slow lane of Waterloo
Road for lift shaft construction will cause very significant traffic impact and is not
acceptable, the lift retrofitting is considered infeasible.

The relevant DC’s T&TC was informed of the infeasibility for lift retrofitting because of
the need to close the slow lane of Waterloo Road. Thus, it is necessary to look into the
constructability of the lift retrofitting works in the planning/ feasibility stage to avoid the
embarrassing situation that a feasible item is later found to be infeasible due to
constructability problem.

Annex 2.3 provides the plan of the example.

2.4 At the Corner of Busy Road Junction with Pedestrian Crossing (KF82)

The proposed lift for KF82 is located at the junction between Granville Road and Chatham
Road South. Due to the limited space in the existing footpath, a section of the existing
planters has to be temporarily removed and a new traffic lane has to be formed in order to
maintain the existing footpaths and six traffic lanes on Chatham Road South during
construction to allow adequate space for carrying out the retrofitting works. The works to
provide temporary traffic arrangement is substantial and costly as the contractor has to
revert the temporary traffic lane to its original condition.

Annex 2.4 provides the plan of the example.

2.5 Temporary Traffic Arrangement during Construction (HF144)

Though there is adequate space for carrying out the retrofitting works at the footpath for L1,
the space is not adequate for accommodating the construction plants. As TD objects to
narrow Tonnochy Road for the construction works, the adjacent planters will be occupied
and the kerblines will be realigned during construction. Pedestrians will have to be
temporarily diverted to an open area of a private property. The consent from the owner of
the property has to be sought

Annex 2.5 provides the plan of the example.

2.6 Space for Piling Works (KS40)

If there is inadequate space for piling works, pad/raft footing as the foundation of a lift
structure at a subway may be considered. Nevertheless, strong justifications shall be
provided to HyD/B&S and HyD/Region for agreement as there is a great concern about
differential settlement due to varied geotechnical profile underneath the foundation, future
excavation adjacent to the structure or leakage of watermains or drains resulting in soil

6
Discussion Note on Provision of BFA Facilities at Public Walkways - Planning

erosion adjacent to the structure, etc. This would affect the proper function of the lift and
may have adverse structural impact to the lift structure. Detailed calculations shall be
provided for anticipated differential settlement, impact to lift structure when there is
excavation or leaking utilities adjacent to the structure and the impact to the existing
adjacent structure due to the increased horizontal loading from the lift.

Annex 2.6 provides the plan of the example.

2.7 Site Access (NF78)

There is no proper site access to the location of the proposed lift at NF78.

In design stage, the Consultant planned to make use of the cycle track and footpath which
was under construction in CEDD’s Contract No. TP/2010/02 as site access. CEDD
expressed that their contract would be completed in end 2013 which was before the
commencement of Phase 3 Contract 3. However, after the commencement of Phase 3
Contract 3, CEDD’s contract was still on-going.

We are seeking agreement from CEDD to see if we can use their cycle track and footpath
which are still under construction as our site access.

Annex 2.7 provides the plan of the example.

2.8 Space Requirement for Maintenance Works (KF32, HF95)

To allow a desirable clearance of 2m around the proposed lift structure for ease of future
maintenance. HyD was allowed by HD for using the access inside Un Chau Estate for
maintenance of the louvres at KF32.

In HF95 Lift 1, due to the close proximity of the proposed lift and the footbridge’s
escalator tower, the side of the lift tower facing the escalator tower is designed as a
full-concrete wall to avoid difficulty in future maintenance.

Annex 2.8 provides the plan of the example.

2.9 Land Interface with Private Development (HF90 & HF90A)

Lifts are proposed at both ends of footbridge HF90 and HF90A across King's Road and Tin
Chiu Street in Eastern District. It is connected to FitFort Shopping Mall of Heathy
Garden at the southern end. Since it is connected directly to FitFort Shopping Mall, it is
proposed to place the proposed lift inside the lot boundary.

The management company of Heathy Garden agreed to placing the proposed lift within the
FitFort Mall provided that Bonus Gross Floor Area could be given by Government. The
case is not yet finalized. Experience showed that land matters are of major concern for
lifts to be provided within private development. Unless the lease conditions have allowed
for such provision, the proposed scheme would take a long time to settle if not infeasible.

7
Discussion Note on Provision of BFA Facilities at Public Walkways - Planning

Alternative BFA schemes such as provision of BFA facilities outside the private
development should be considered as far as possible.

Annex 2.9 provides the plan of the example.

2.10 Land Resumption (KF57)

The proposed lift at KF57 is near Tin Ma Court. Due to limited space at the footpath, one
lift needs to be installed within the lot boundary of Tin Ma Court. As this is a private lot,
land resumption is required. The land resumption has to be gazetted in accordance with
Roads (Works, Use and Compensation) Ordinance Chapter 370.

Consultations for the proposed works had been done during the design stage from 2012 to
2013 before gazetting the proposed works. Parties consulted included the Traffic and
Transport Committee of Wong Tai Sin DC, the Incorporated Owners of Tin Ma Court
(with the presence of the Management Company of Tin Ma Court), etc.

Government Notice (G.N. 4589) under section 8(2) of the Ordinance was published in 2
successive issues of the Government Gazette commencing 9 August 2013. The objection
period will last till 8 October 2013. During the gazette period, plans indicating the
proposed works and the land area to be resumed are available for public inspection.

Before 8 October 2013, one objection and one suggestion were received. The objection
was from two residents of Tin Ma Court, and the suggestion was from the Management
Company of Tin Ma Court. Further briefing sessions and discussions with the objectors,
Incorporated Owners of Tin Ma Court, the Management Company of Tin Ma Court to try
to resolve the objection and to clarify the implications of the suggestion involving an
alternative location for the lift. The objectors withdrew their objection unconditionally in
late March 2014.

Government Notice (G.N. 2237) under section 11(9)(a) of the Ordinance was published in
2 successive issues of the Government Gazette commencing 17 April 2014, i.e. the
proposal was authorized.

Experience shows that even if the stakeholders’ representatives are consulted, normally the
relevant DC, Incorporated Owners, Management Office etc., there is no guarantee that
there will be no objection from individual owners / residents during the gazette period.

Annex 2.10 provides the plan of the example.

2.11 Conflicts with Existing Utilities (HF93A & KS45)

The feasibility of installation of BFA facilities (lifts or standard ramps) at existing public
walkways is often affected by the presence of underground utilities. When underground
utilities are encountered, either the utilities are diverted or alternative locations of the BFA
facilities are proposed. As the proposed retrofitting works are often in built-up areas,

8
Discussion Note on Provision of BFA Facilities at Public Walkways - Planning

diversion of the underground utilities or relocation of the BFA facilities may not be
feasible due to insufficient space.

For major utilities (such as Dongjiang water supply and very high voltage cable of 132KV
and above), the diversion of the concerned utilities may take a very long time in terms of
years and very costly even though there may be sufficient space.

Apart from utilities, the proposed BFA facilities may be in conflict with other underground
services such as foundation to earth retaining structures and adjacent buildings/structures.
It may result in insufficient space for the foundation of the proposed lifts or ramps.

Annex 2.11 provides the plans of the examples.

 HF93A - Lift 1 is at the footpath of Connaught Road Central outside Infinitus Square.
There are numerous utilities underneath the footpath. Diversion of these utilities is
needed for construction of the lift. Yet, the remaining footpath is only 800mm wide
after installation of the lift and is insufficient to contain all the utilities. Thus,
diversion of these utilities is considered infeasible, which renders the lift installation
infeasible as well.

 Subway KS45 – this subway is at Soy Street. There are large drains and pipes
along one side of subway and pump house on the other side making it costly if not
impossible for their diversion. It thus renders lift installation along the subway
infeasible. In addition, the middle section of the subway has some steps. Thus the
construction of lifts at both ends of subway would not provide a barrier free access
for the subway.

2.12 Conflicts with Underground Structures (KS22)

KS22 is a subway at Sai Kung Street with private buildings alongside. The exit at the
western end of the subway is very close to the foundation of Wong House rendering it
impossible for installation of a lift for the subway due to insufficient space.

Annex 2.12 provides the plan of the example.

2.13 Geotechnical Issues (KS31)

We need to assess effect of loadings induced from proposed foundations of UAP/HEL


facilities to existing geotechnical features such as slopes and retaining structures. We
have to propose improvement works if factor of safety of existing geotechnical features
will be reduced to below current standards or their structural integrity will be affected.

KS31 is a subway connecting to the basement level of the Hong Kong Polytechnic
University (HKPU) and subway KS3 at the same level. There is also an existing private
slope no.11NW-D/F239 within the proposed project boundary and any additional loading
on the existing private slope should be avoided. Instead of the original scheme of locating

9
Discussion Note on Provision of BFA Facilities at Public Walkways - Planning

the lift at the upper portion of the existing slope proposed in the investigation report, the
alternative solution to accommodate the lift on level ground is adopted in the design.

Annex 2.13 provides the plan of the example.

2.14 Public Concerns (HF78)

In assessing the feasibility of BFA facilities, we have to take public concerns into
consideration.

Three lifts are proposed for footbridge HF78. One of the lifts is located in the amenity
area in the middle of Chai Wan Road Roundabout. During the DC consultation, DC
members considered it would be a waste of money to provide a lift for the amenity area of
which the usage is very low, and suggested to provide a ramp. The feasibility of the ramp
option was studied. Since the ramp would occupy a significant area and cause negative
impact to the overall layout of the amenity area, LCSD did not support the ramp option.
Considering the ramp option was not preferable, T&TC requested HyD to shelve the plan
to provide BFAF facilities for the amenity area.

Annex 2.14 provides the plan of the example.

2.15 Impact on Public Walkways (HF26)

Retrofitting BFA facilities to existing public walkways requires provision of connections


between the facilities and the walkways. For footbridges and elevated walkways, the
usual arrangement is to make an opening in the parapet for receiving the connection. For
subways, an adit is usually provided to link the proposed lift and the subway barrel.
Whether an opening can be made at the public walkway to link with the proposed BFA
facilities depends on the form of construction of the walkway and the position of the
proposed link. In most cases, it is not technically feasible to have an opening cannot be
made at the parapet of a footbridge deck if the structural form is of parapet beam.

HF26 is a footbridge across Connaught Road Central outside Hutchison House. Due to
site constraint, the proposed lift at the northern end can only be connected to its main span.
However, the main span’s structural form is of parapet beam. As such, an opening in the
parapet will cause structural damage to the main span rendering the proposed lift
installation infeasible.

Annex 2.15 provides the plan of the example

10
Discussion Note on Provision of BFA Facilities at Public Walkways - Planning

3 FUNDING & PROJECT PROGRAMME

3.1 Funding

It is necessary to identify and plan for the bidding of funds for the procurement of
consultancy services, ground investigations and construction works to enable smooth
implementation of the project.

Since the UAP is being taken forward in phases, a number of funding arrangements have
been in use.

In early years, retrofitting BFA facilities at public walkways were through scattered small
projects and thus Category D items were created under Subhead 6100TX for the funding of
investigation, design and construction in a case by case manner.

As the project develops, a large number of structures were identified as feasible and
necessary to be retrofitted with BFA facilities. Hence, a PWP item no. 6167TB –
“Provision of barrier-free access facilities at public footbridges, elevated walkways and
subways – design works and phase 1 construction works” was created to fund the review,
design and tender phases of these structures, as well as the construction works of ten
structures in the previous phase.

In order to implement retrofitting of BFA facilities flexibly and expeditiously, a block


allocation Subhead 6101TX – “Universal Accessibility Programme” under Head 706 –
“Highways” was created in early 2013 for public walkways under HyD’s maintenance.
Category D item, with a ceiling of $75 million each, has to be created for each structure,
covering the costs of planning, design and construction stages of BFA facilities retrofitting
projects for public walkways, including the consultants’ fees and charges for project
management, feasibility studies, investigation, design and contract procurement and
construction supervision, and the construction cost.

From our experience, early identification of the project funding source would facilitate
smooth implementation of the project.

3.2 Project Programme

3.2.1 Funding application

The duration of funding application should be taken into consideration in the planning of
project programme. From our experience, it may be up to 4 weeks for approval of
Category D item if it involves THB. It should be born in mind that works should
commence within 6 months after the Category D item is created. For more efficient
implementation of the project, consideration can be given to tendering before funding from
Category D items is secured. Moreover, it would allow better estimation of the cost of
the works.

11
Discussion Note on Provision of BFA Facilities at Public Walkways - Planning

3.2.2 Investigation

This is to study the technical feasibility of retrofitting works for the BFA facilities and to
develop a preliminary scheme for the works. In the planning stage, an assessment of the
duration should be made for the investigation study which includes activities such as:

 Choice of BFA facilities (lift or ramp) and preliminary scheme of the retrofitting
works;

 Land availability for the permanent BFA facilities;

 Availability of sufficient space for construction and future maintenance;

 Whether trees affected, particularly old and valuable tree;

 Whether any major utilities;

 Any significant impact on traffic both during construction and for the completed
works;

 District Council and public consultation;

 Circulation of the preliminary scheme to relevant government department and, where


appropriate, other parties (e.g. MTRCL); and

 Revision of the preliminary scheme to address the comments received, where


necessary.

3.2.3 Site Investigation

Site investigation consists of obtaining design information for the detailed design of the lift
structure, mainly the location of lift shaft and depth of foundation.

Inspection pits are to locate utilities whereas borehole drilling is to locate depth of rock
head. Boreholes may not be necessary if there are geotechnical data nearby. We consider
data further than 20-30m is not accurate but take into account variation in data, for
example in Tuen Mun District.

Implementation by an independent GI contractor through tender invitation and the process


will take appropriately 6 months. It is not economically viable if each contract has less than,
say, 20 locations.

Term contractor (from GEO /HyD/CEDD) may be used but the progress of works depends
on their work load.

In view of the lead time for the preparation of site investigation plan and the employment
of contractor for the works, site investigation for BFA retrofitting works are usually carried
out in the detailed design stage.

12
Discussion Note on Provision of BFA Facilities at Public Walkways - Planning

3.2.4 Detailed Design

To assess the duration and timing of key activities and milestones such as:-

 Review of preliminary design and key deliverables in Review Phase (e.g. Papers to
Preliminary Design Review Committee);

 Detailed design and circulation of design schemes to relevant government


departments and other parties (e.g. MTRCL);

 Revising the scheme to address the comments received;

 District Councils and public consultation;

 ACABAS submissions;

 Site investigation;

 Funding application (such as preparation and seeking approval of Category D papers


or preparation of PWSC paper for inclusion/upgrade of items under PWP);

 Gazetting of schemes or authorization under Minor Works before invitation of


tenders; and

 More time should be allowed if gazette is required (about 2 months for draft plan
circulation, about 3 months for clearance with THB and DoJ, 2 months for objection
period, 9 months for objection resolution and 2 month for authorization).

It should be noted that some of the activities may have been carried out in the investigation
stage, or that the activities carried out in the investigation stage may need further study in
the detailed design stage.

3.2.5 Pre-construction

In the planning of project programme, on top of a reasonable estimate of the construction


period based on technical consideration, other pre-works preparations should also be well
catered for.

BFA facilities retrofitting works are usually minor works that do not require a long
construction period. However, with its scattered nature, each item in the works contracts
would require more or less the same amount of effort in pre-works preparations as if it
were a standalone project. These would mean a significantly larger proportion of time
and effort in pre-works preparation than in the other projects.

With these in mind, adequate time should be allowed for pre-works preparations in the
planning stage, especially for the following determining items:

13
Discussion Note on Provision of BFA Facilities at Public Walkways - Planning

(a) Excavation permits / Temporary traffic arrangement (TTA) schemes

Experience was that once the works contracts were awarded, it took the resident site
staff (RSS) and Contractor’s team an average of 4 months to 6 months to get TTA
schemes approved and obtain excavation permit for each of the works locations.
Taking into account of about 10 structures at 4 to 5 districts for each works contract,
it required significant effort from both the RSS and Contractor’s team to prepare and
seek approval on TTA and obtain excavation permit.

It is thus recommended to have workable reference TTA schemes prepared and


accepted by relevant Authorities before the contracts are awarded so that these
schemes could serve as robust bases for subsequent amendments by the contractor to
suit their construction method and site arrangements. The consultant could also
prepare the application of excavation permits in an early stage and commence
coordination with relevant underground utilities undertakers and interfacing road
projects, which could significantly lower ambiguity on the project programme and
minimize hurdles in the excavation permit application process. During planning
stage, adequate time should also be allowed in the construction programme for
application of excavation permit. Closure of walkways is not encouraged as the
works will have to be gazetted under Roads Ordinance. Temporary closure of a road
to use shall not exceed 14 days in any period of 3 months unless an alternative route
is provided. Temporary closure of portion of the existing footpath or traffic lanes
should be thoroughly consulted and TIA should be carried out before the submission
of TTA. Without the information it is likely that TTA will be rejected by Police and
thus will affect the granting of excavation permits.

(b) Diversion of underground utilities / records of UU

It usually took around 6 months to a year to divert underground utilities before


retrofitting works could commence. This is a significant duration when compared
to the overall construction period of the retrofitting works of around 2 years.
Moreover, with the scattered nature of BFA retrofitting works, each location would
require the effort from the RSS and contractor’s team in preparation and coordination
as if it were a standalone project. Hence, it is recommended to obtain as much
information and records of underground utilities as possible, and kick off
coordination with utilities undertakers in early design stage. Designer should also
consider alternative design schemes to avoid utilities diversion. If utilities diversion
is inevitable, ground investigation should be carried out to locate and record the
utilities. Coordination meeting should be held to confirm the information and
commence liaison on the programme of diversion works. Allowance in the project
programme should be made to cater for utilities diversion, especially at locations
without robust utilities information, in the planning stage.

(c) Arrangement of electricity supply

Whether to have an exclusive or shared power supply for each lift was always a
discussion topic between the maintenance party and the project team, and this has to

14
Discussion Note on Provision of BFA Facilities at Public Walkways - Planning

be considered and discussed in a case-by-case manner. Consideration should be


given to the aesthetic and safety issues if shared power supply is adopted as it is not
preferable to have an exposed thick cable and cable tray running along the existing
main structures. Experience showed that the discussion would usually carry on to
the construction stage and require extra effort from the RSS team in their resolution.
It is suggested that the subject should be raised and agreed at an early stage rather
than leave it to the construction stage. Allowance should be made in the project
programme on resolution of issues of this kind.

3.2.6 Construction

If the pre-construction works can be completed in good time, the construction of the
foundation and superstructure will hinge on resources available from the contractor
including plant and labour. The adoption of mini-piles as foundation is more suitable at
locations with limited working space. However, if there are many construction sites, the
progress of work will have to take into account that at one time only a few sites may be at
work due to the limited number of piling equipment.

In the case when it is possible to amend the pile caps to avoid utilities diversion, the
designer should issue variations in good time to avoid delays in the construction works.

The progress of lift installation will also be affected by the available labour resources to
install the lourves and glass panels which have to be installed in small quantities by
different subcontractors. The installation of lift can only start after the shaft is enclosed.
The resource available from the lift contractor is also a factor affecting the lift installation
works.

The construction duration shall be assessed on a case by case basis and the assessment
should be formally entered in the project file. The duration may need to allow for design
review if adequate GI work has not been carried out.

15
0mm 100 200

12.4 L
L 20.7

No Ped /

No Ped /End /

L

10.0
F E
»› ·

Mong Kok E⁄ s
East Station L
6.3
'⁄¤ • l⁄ s
K/MK/LueW-01A 22.4

K/KC/Arg-05A

6.2
L

NE

NLT
NLT
L
NE

22.3 K-TS286 L
NE


⁄¨p‚¨¤ K/MK/Arg-23
L

Argyle Street Waterworks Depot


K/MK/Arg-22

H
101.3m
7.1

7.8
L
L

H
H
6.0
Hong Kong
6.3
»›
K/MK/Arg-03 L

L KF27
NUT
L
96m WIP Jun 2012
24.8

H
H
6.5
L
5.9

L H
L
Hong Kong (W)

H »› · W
5.9
L 6.9
6.2
K/MK/Arg-06 15.7
L
L

Nelson Street
7.0
19.7
12.7
⁄¥‚
H
K/MK/YimPF-02A
L 11.6
L
13.6

midnight am

¨⁄ 12 W⁄ 7 34.0 L
K-TS155
16.9

14.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 m
17.0

23.3
L L
7.3 1 : 1 000 SCALE BAR

ˇ„h« drawing title ˇ„h« drawing no. æ⁄ scale

†c”s‰„‚ KF27 1:1000

‚¨¤‹ƒæ“V
C '“v¯ COPYRIGHT RESERVED
Structure No. KF27 HIGHWAYS
‚F
»›
Across Argyle Street near Yim Po Fong Street D¥n›u⁄{
DEPARTMENT
MAJOR WORKS
and Luen Wan Street PROJECT MANAGEMENT OFFICE HONG KONG
R:\Team 1\P11001\Drawing_ICC Report\list A_Final\UA-YTMDC-KF27 -TRAFFIC AIDS.dgn
A4 210 x 297
5RXWHWR%XV
6WRSVQHDU 
([LW$%DQG&
YLD(OHYDWHG
:DONZD\+

5RXWHWR%XV 
6WRSVQHDU 
([LW$%DQG& 
YLD([LVWLQJ$W
JUDGH&URVVLQJV
DQG(OHYDWHG
:DONZD\+

Red Route Yellow Route


(via H115) (via at-grade
crossing & H116)
From C to A about 310 m about 380 m
From C to B about 190 m about 340 m
NF(SLKR) is connected to Luk Yeung Galleria, which is equipped NF(SLKR)
with a lifts and barrier-free route to the ground level. The lifts are
open from 5am to 12am. However, this route is long and not
desirable as the users will have to share it with delivery men.
Therefore, provision of BFA at NF(SLKR) under UAP is considered.

$FFHVVIURPIRRWEULGJHOHYHOWR*)
RSHQKRXUVIRUSXEOLFXVH

6WDLUFDVHV
/LIWVZLWKLQ/XN<HXQJ*DOOHULD
RSHQIURPDPWRDPIRU 
GHOLYHU\DQGSHRSOHZLWKQHHGV

⮳取Ḕ⾪ 6WDLUFDVHV
/LIWSURYLGHGXQGHU
3KDVH&RQWUDFW
1) 6/.5
1)
/LIW5HTXHVWHGE\3XEOLF

/LIWPRGLILFDWLRQZRUNVE\*3$WR
FRQQHFW*)DQGIRRWEULGJHOHYHO

1)

/LIWSURYLGHGXQGHU
3KDVH&RQWUDFW
HF145
There is a lift in Harcourt House, which is maintained for public use daily
during the period from 8am to midnight. It is considered not meeting the
BFA requirements due to limited operation hours. Moreover the long and
winded route of 100m for users render it not suitable as the BFA facility.

ORQJDQGZLQGHGURXWH
IRUXVHUV

3URSRVHG/LIW1R

([LVWLQJ/LIWPDLQWDLQHGIRUSXEOLFXVHGDLO\
GXULQJWKHSHULRGIURPDPWRPLGQLJKW
HF160 provides grade-separated pedestrian
access across Gloucester Road near Fleming
Road. It is connected to the footpath of
Gloucester Road at the southern end by means
of staircases and the podium level of China
Resources Building at the northern end via
another footbridge. The existing staircase is
accommodated within the narrow footpath/
central divider between Gloucester Road and its
service road. At-grade crossing is provided
nearby to serve as pedestrian access across the
service road. Taking into account the barrier-
free at-grade crossing nearby and the bus stop
next to it, the lift near the existing staircase is
considered worthwhile to be installed.
KF96 is located in a hilly area
and the footpaths leading to the
footbridge are not barrier-free.
TD indicated that there would be
no new development for public
transport. We thus considered
the provision of BFA facilities at
KF96 unnecessary.

7KHUHLVQR%)$OHDGLQJWRWKHIRRWEULGJH
The gradients of the footpaths
connecting to the exits of HF34 are
1:8 and 1:9.5. Since it is infeasible
to improve the gradient of the
footpath and the nearby school
raised their concern on the proposed
lift being too close to the main
entrance of the school, it is justified
not to provide BFA facilities for HF34
HF114 will be demolished and
reconstructed due to Shatin to Central
Link. Provision of BFA facilities for the
existing HF114 is unnecessary.
CEDD is planning to demolish and
reprovide NF303 as a part of the
recommended scheme for the "Flyover
from Kwai Tsing interchange upramp to
Kwai Chung Road" Project. Provision of
lifts under the UAP would be abortive
and hence it is not recommended to
include NF303 in the D&C consultancy.
6LQFHODQGVDOHFRQGLWLRQRIWKH0XUUD\5RDG0XOWL6WRUH\&DU3DUN
%XLOGLQJZLOOUHTXLUHWKHGHYHORSHUWRSURYLGH%)$IDFLOLWLHVDW
+)DQG+)7 7&RI& :'&ZDVDGYLVHGRIWKLVILQGLQJDQGGLG
QRWUDLVHDQ\REMHFWLRQWRWKHSURSRVDORIQRWWDNLQJIRUZDUGWKH
UHWURILWWLQJZRUNV
KF39 is adjacent to a potential
land sale site. The future
developer will be obliged to
provided BFA facilities from the
deck level of KF39 to the ground
under the lease conditions.
Therefore, provision of BFA
facilities at KF39 become
unnecessary.
HF118 is a footbridge across Connaught Road Central near
Western Market. Lift retrofitting is proposed at its exits to
provide BFA facilities. Nevertheless, there are steps at the
footbridge deck of the main span. The modification of the
steps to standard ramps is feasible and the works involved
are relatively minor. Thus the lift installation and step
modification works are recommended to proceed at the same
time to provide a barrier-free route.
The ramps at both ends of KS10 are sub-standard with
gradient of 1:8. A short section of the subway barrel is
also sub-standard with gradient of about 1:9.3. Lift
retrofitting is thus proposed to provide BFA facilities at
both ends. Modification works of the subway barrel to
improve the steepness would be infeasible due to the
very substantial utility diversion works along Prince
Edward Road. On considering that the gradient of the
subway barrel is only slightly steeper than 1:10 for a
short length of about 13m, it is recommended to install
lifts at the exits as it will provide substantial convenience
to the elderly and needy.
The barrel of KS14 is substandard, at a
gradient of 1:7, for a section of 14m.
Modification of the subway barrel would
be physically infeasible because the
vertical alignment of the subway barrel is
constrained by existing UUs. Due to the
very steep gradient of the barrel for a
relative long section, it would be difficult
for wheelchair users and the needy to
negotiate the barrel. Hence, installation
of lift at that exit would not provide added
convenience to the needy.
There are numerous utilities under the
footpath of Lift 1 and diversion of which
is considered infeasible since the
remaining footpath is only 800mm wide
after installation of the lift and is
insufficient to contain all the utilities.
The construction of the lift at KF68
requires closure of the footway due to
the limited width of the footway. The
slow lane of Waterloo Road needs to
be closed to provide footway
diversion during the construction of
the lift shaft. As Waterloo Road is a
Red Route, closure of the slow lane
causes very significant traffic impact
and is not acceptable, thus rendering
the lift retrofitting infeasible.
KF82
The proposed lift is located at the junction between
Granville Road and Chatham Road South. Due to the
limited space in the existing footpaths, it is required to
realign the kerblines of the footpaths and six traffic
lanes on Chatham Road South during construction to
allow more space for carrying out the retrofitting works.
HF144
Though there is
adequate space for
carrying out the
retrofitting works at the
footpath for L1, the
space is not adequate
for accommodating the
constructional plants. As
TD objects to narrow
Tonnochy Road for the
construction works, the
adjacent planters will be
occupied and the
kerblines will be
realigned during
construction.
KS40
It was considered to use pad
footing as the foundation of the lift
structure connecting to subway
when there is inadequate space
for piling works.
NF78
There is no proper site
access to the location of
the proposed lift.
(QFORVXUH

KF32
To allow a desirable clearance
of 2m around the proposed lift
structure for ease of future
maintenance. HyD was
allowed by HD for using the
access inside Un Chau Estate
for maintenance of the louvres.
(QFORVXUH

In HF95 Lift 1, due to the close proximity of the


proposed lift and the footbridge's escalator tower,
the side of the lift tower facing the escalator tower is
designed as a full-concrete wall to avoid difficulty in
future maintenance.
HF90 & HF90A
Lifts are proposed at both ends of
footbridge, connecting to FitFort
Shopping Mall of Heathy Garden at the
southern end. The management
company of Heathy Garden agreed
placing the proposed lift within the FitFort
Mall provided that Bonus Gross Floor
Area could be given by Government.
Annex 2
HF93A
There are numerous utilities under the
footpath at Lift 1 and diversion of which
is considered infeasible since the
remaining footpath is only 800mm wide
after installation of the lift and is
insufficient to contain all the utilities.
Subway across Nathan Road near Soy Street

Subway across Nathan Road near Soy Street

6
Subway across Nathan Road near Soy Street

⺢嬘䘬⋯旵㨇䁢ᶵ
⎗埴炷⍿⛘ᶳ䭉忻
旸⇞炸

䎦㚱䘬ᷣ天⛘ᶳ℔䓐姕
㕥炻⊭㊔䚜⼹䁢IJįij䰛䘬
梇㯜䭉忻
7

Subway across Nathan Road near Soy Street


Legend
1200 dia. Fresh Watermain
1800 dia. Storm Drain
Proposed Lift

8
Subway across Nathan Road near Soy Street

A
A

Section A
9

Subway across Nathan Road near Soy Street


大㲳厄⋿埿
⻴㔎忻

~150䰛

䘣ㇻ⢓埿

10
Subway across Nathan Road near Saigon
Street

Subway across Nathan Road near Saigon


Street

2
Subway across Nathan Road near Saigon
Street
ᯬ“A”ࠪਓѻॷ
䱽₏нਟ㹼
⨮ᴹ哳∿བྷᓸ
‱ส⼾
⨮ᴹൠл䴘≤
㇡ᖒ᳇⑐

ᖼ〫⨮ᴹ⁃ở
ᴳ๥ຎ哳∿བྷ
ᓸ‫ޕ‬ਓ

Subway across Nathan Road near Saigon


Street

ᔪ䆠ᯬ“B”ࠪ
ਓѻॷ䱽₏

ᔪ䆠ᖼ〫⨮ᴹ
⁃ở৺䆧ℴ

ᔪ䆠䟽ᇊ䐟䚺

4
KS31 is a subway connecting to the
basement level of the Hong Kong
Polytechnic University (HKPU) and subway
KS3 at the same level. There is also an
existing private slope no.11NW-D/F239
within the proposed project boundary and
any additional loading on the existing
private slope should be avoided. Instead of
the original scheme of locating the lift at
the upper portion of the existing slope
proposed in the investigation report, the
alternative solution to accommodate the lift
on level ground is adopted in the design.
Three lifts are proposed for footbridge HF78. One of
the lifts is located in the amenity area in the middle of
Chai Wan Road Roundabout. During the DC
consultation, DC members considered it would be a
waste of money to provide a lift for the amenity area of
which the usage is very low, and suggested to provide
a ramp. The feasibility of the ramp option was studied.
Since the ramp would occupy a significant area and
cause negative impact to the overall layout of the
amenity area, LCSD did not support the ramp option.
Considering the ramp option was not preferable, T&TC
requested HyD to shelve the plan to provide BFAF
facilities for the amenity area.

Вам также может понравиться