Urban planner urges transparency to build trust in LRT development

The extension of the light rapid transit (LRT) system from Seac Pai Van to Coloane Village has faced significant opposition from residents there, with social media discussions highlighting connections to the long-standing controversy over the LRT route in Areia Preta.

The government has scheduled consultations on multiple LRT routes, including one connecting Seac Pai Van to the outskirts of Coloane Village.

However, this has led many Seac Pai Van residents to voice concerns about the design of the extension line, with participants in a recent public consultation reportedly accusing the development plan of “sacrificing” the community’s safety, tranquility, and harmony.

This social controversy has drawn online comparisons to the 2014 “Areia Preta” incident, when a proposed elevated LRT plan for the “Areia Preta Urban Park” station sparked public debate due to its severe impact on residents’ recreational environment.

Urban planner Lam Iek Chit acknowledged that residents’ perceptions may not be entirely aligned, potentially leading to misunderstandings.

He noted that while the controversy surrounding Areia Preta primarily revolved around the elevated structure crossing the park, the Seac Pai Van project is situated along the roadway and does not encroach on green spaces.

“The northern district has a high population density with insufficient parks and green spaces,” Lam explained in an interview with the Times yesterday.

“Residents are understandably concerned about the LRT being built over the park, as this would reduce park area and the elevated structure could obstruct views.”

He expressed apprehension about the potential discrepancies in understanding between residents and the government, stating, “Such differences could create communication and comprehension issues, which would be highly challenging.” In contrast, Lam said that the Seac Pai Van proposal runs entirely along the road and occupies no green space.

He went on to stress that the government must provide comprehensive information and arrangements to build residents’ trust and prevent misunderstandings arising from information asymmetry.

During discussions on the Seac Pai Van expansion, residents proposed an underground extension of the line.

In response, the government’s consulting firm cited significant geographical constraints in the area, suggesting that underground construction might not be technically feasible. However, Lam expressed a different perspective, stating, “Technically, underground construction is feasible.” He acknowledged that the costs and time associated with underground construction are significantly higher than those for elevated structures, which may contribute to the difficulties in implementation.

From an urban planning perspective, Lam noted that this decision requires deeper discussion and consideration. He noted that underground construction is typically suitable for densely populated areas, such as Central in Hong Kong.

In contrast, Seac Pai Van is relatively distant from the city center and has wide roads, making surface-level tracks a viable option. “Continuing with elevated structures in this context is understandable, particularly considering the impact of costs and construction on the environment and residents’ lives,” Lam said.

He further explained, “This actually involves a cost-benefit issue. Prolonged underground construction may not be an ideal approach, as it would entail greater disruption and extended construction periods. Therefore, from a scientific perspective, continuing with the elevated solution for the Seac Pai Van extension is understandable.”

While acknowledging that both elevated and underground options have their pros and cons, Lam stated bluntly, “Elevated may be more cost-effective,” citing the high expenses associated with underground construction and noting that limited population growth near Seac Pai Van makes such an investment seem less worthwhile.

The urban planner emphasized the importance of engaging residents in more detailed discussions – covering aspects like LRT height, noise levels, and privacy concerns – to maintain transparency and dispel misunderstandings. This proactive approach, he believes, can help avoid the confrontations seen in projects like Areia Preta, where insufficient communication fueled opposition.

“When community divisions deepen, issues that could have been negotiated become intractable. Opportunities for resolution remain when tensions are less acute.”

Lam also pointed out that some residents may be undecided, so efforts should focus on winning their support rather than dismissing communication based solely on technical rationality.

During the first public consultation session for the Macau LRT Development Strategy Study, citizens proposed extending the elevated line toward the University of Macau (UM). Lam noted that a single-track elevated line entering Coloane township from the proposed Lai Chi Van station is already a feasible solution.

However, environmental constraints surrounding Coloane limit expansion space, particularly due to mountain conservation zones. He said that design considerations must ensure the light rail infrastructure harmonizes with Coloane’s landscape to avoid jarring visual impacts.

“The single-track elevated solution has become an unavoidable choice, as Rua de Entre-Campos in Coloane lacks expansion space, and mountain conservation areas restrict excavation,” Lam stated. “Nevertheless, the single-track light rail remains a viable solution for accessing Coloane’s urban center.”

Meanwhile, some residents have proposed extending the Seac Pai Van line westward to the University of Macau.

However, Lam believes this proposal faces challenges, particularly due to the need to cross waterways and the current single-track system of the Hengqin branch line, which limits its capacity. To better serve university students, he recommends expanding the Hengqin branch line to allow for future station placement closer to the university.

According to him, this would necessitate negotiations with mainland authorities, as control over the waterways does not fully reside with Macau.

While some residents reportedly expressed understanding of the need for city development, Macau authorities also addressed their concerns regarding the Seac Pai Van Extension Line, stating that all future lines will undergo comprehensive environmental and traffic assessments. These evaluations will include assessments of air quality, noise levels, and ecological impact to safeguard residents’ quality of life.

Authorities emphasized the planned distance between the LRT viaduct and residential areas, noting that, using the Seac Pai Van line as a reference, the viaduct is expected to maintain a distance equivalent to three traffic lanes from homes.

Additionally, sound barriers will be installed above the tracks to effectively reduce noise, while the LRT system utilizes rubber-tired vehicles, which generate significantly less noise.