‘Old’ solution for Inner Harbour problems now revived

The idea of creating a subway network of tunnels to serve transportation needs as well as providing flood prevention measures and tackling issues in Macau’s Inner Harbour area is not new but seems to have gained renewed momentum recently, as new ideas based on this system are now being proposed.

During a seminar on the development of the sea and coastal areas of Macau that took place last Friday (February 17), organized by the Civil Engineering Laboratory of Macau, Hue Rui, Senior Engineer from China Railway Siyuan Survey and Design Group, presented a solution that included the construction of these types of underground tunnels in the Inner Harbour area with multi-capabilities.

The most important ones would serve the potential “West Line” of the Light Rapid Transit (LRT) linking Barra to Border Gate through the west side of Macau. Ideally, they will also function to retain, store and conduct flood water to the sea resulting from heavy rain or storm surges, which is one of the main problems of this district.

Hue noted that this solution could also create more parking spaces as well as other public facilities which have very limited space in this historical part of the city.

Iterations of this idea have been under debate for at least a decade. Back in 2013, the Center for Architecture and Urbanism (CURB) promoted a roundtable debate titled “The Inner Harbour Roundtable on the Revitalization of Macau’s Vernacular Heritage,” which resulted in a publication by the CURB with an overview and policy recommendations on the topic.

Among these recommendations published in 2014, is the construction of the underground tunnel as mentioned. According to the publication, “Floods are the most pressing environmental issue regarding the Inner Harbour. The city is in urgent need of a flood prevention program that should advance long-term, sustainable procedures to prevent water level rises. Construction of flood walls lining the waterfront is to be avoided because these will create an undesirable physical barrier between the city and the river; an integrated underground tunnel, reservoir, and pumping system is therefore recommended as a more adequate alternative.”

To the Times, one of the mentors of the roundtable and documentation coordinator, architect Nuno Soares, recalled that this old idea came back when the government was considering building the LRT West Line in the sequence of the Taipa line, an idea that was later shelved but not yet completely abandoned.

“At this roundtable [back in December 2013], we had a gathering with 60 experts which resulted in an investigations report as well as a recommendations report in which one of these recommendations was that to solve the matter of flooding in the Inner Harbour as well as the LRT, we proposed an underwater tunnel that would have integrated a flood prevention system which is very close to this solution [from the Chinese engineering survey and design enterprise]. We thought (at the time) and still think this is the most suitable solution for the Inner Harbour,” Soares said.

He added, “At the time, there were several options on the line for the LRT. However, all experts who worked with us unanimously agreed that the LRT solution at the ground level and elevated [as in the Taipa line] would have a lot of negative impacts in the area, leaving the only remaining solution to be in between an underground or an underwater tunnel.”

Citing the conclusions of several studies as well as the debate among the experts, Soares said, “to opt [for] the underwater tunnel would have several advantages from a logistics point-of-view because it avoids roadworks and interrupting city life. This was the solution judged at the time to be wiser, and the solution that I continue to support today.”

More importantly, the architect and urban planner said the solution does not compromise the relationship between the city and the water, he noted, referring to ideas of building high walls and barriers that would disrupt the life of the city as we know it.

“Such a solution [building walls and levees] is the one that I find the most dangerous because although it can seem simpler in terms of infrastructure, it compromises the city’s relationship with the water by creating a physical obstacle. In addition, in the case of floods caused by heavy rain, it can cause more water retention that can be itself a problem.”

“I am in favor of this solution of an underwater tunnel, with a flood prevention system included, as long as there is no landfill. Alternatively, if it has one, this should be built at the same level of the current level so we do not lose the proximity with the waterside.”

Existing studies have been overlooked

The urban planner, who is also a senior lecturer and head of the Department of Architecture and Design at the University of Saint Joseph, has told the Times that although it seems that the topic is still under significant scrutiny, many studies produced over the past decade and earlier point to similar solutions.

“There are many studies on this matter and some with enough maturity that from my end, I can say not only [that] I coordinated this book but also through the Chinese University of Hong Kong we have done several studies on the Inner Harbour, including several Master’s degrees that tested the different solutions, including the buildup of walls, levees, and flood gate barriers, etc.

But it seems like there has been little attention paid to the serious academic research that has been produced on this matter. Academia has the obligation to contribute to the development of the city and it has done so on many occasions. But it is also important that the dynamic forces of the city and also the government pay due importance and attention to the work [that] is being done in academia. Many matters have already been studied and these contributions are valuable to help inform the political decisions.”

Return to

well-established ideas proves the point

Addressing the fact that after several studies and much consideration, the government is now considering dropping the idea of building a tidal barrier in the Inner based on the conclusions of well-established studies, Soares noted that there are positives and negatives to this.

“The positive side [of the return to old ideas] is that the solution has some solidity. But on the downside, it also means that we have lost a lot of time because if there were already old ideas, [this] means there were already existing studies that would support them,” Soares said, noting that on the line is not just the development and long-term future of the city but, situations that cannot be delayed and postponed as they interfere directly with the economy and with peoples’ livelihood, he noted.

He also pointed out that these conclusions were first presented to the public in 2014, three years ahead of the passage of Typhoon Hato, which caused the loss of several lives and many assets. This is not a one-off situation, as was clear a year later with the passage of Typhoon Mangkut.

Despite the delays, Soares nevertheless believes that the political decisions are now going in a direction that he approved of as being “wise.”