Tsing Ma Bridge height debacle costing Hong Kong billions
The bridge is eight metres higher than official records show, meaning mega-ships have been needlessly prohibited from using the Ma Wan channel for years. Seven months after the finding was revealed, nothing has been done
The bridge that was once an icon of Hong Kong’s engineering prowess and enterprising spirit is now the focus of a debacle that shipping industry leaders say is costing the city billions of dollars in lost revenue.
According to a special technical report dated November 1, 2016 and seen by the SCMP, the height of the Tsing Ma Bridge spanning the Ma Wan Channel is not what the government says it is. Detailed measurements reveal it is 8.1 metres higher than the official height of 62.1 metres – from base to road span – stated by the Highways Department.
This discrepancy has shocking economic implications for the city. It means that the biggest mega container ships have been prohibited from using the channel for years unnecessarily, despite repeated requests for relaxation of the height restriction rule on ships.
The Marine Department is responsible for the accuracy of the information on local charts and it is clearly incorrect
The same report, commissioned by the Hong Kong Liner Shipping Association and undertaken by maritime consultants BMT Asia-Pacific, calculates the financial impact caused by the error is huge. Hong Kong’s port will lose nearly 10 per cent of its throughput in 2017 if the issue is not resolved; in 2014 alone, the loss of one million TEUs (half-container equivalent units) of cargo cost the city HK$800 million and 2,000 jobs.
“It’s a billion-dollar balls-up,” was how one local shipping industry veteran described the situation, as normally restrained maritime professionals are quickly running out of patience.
Given the severe economic damage and the fact that the height restriction row has been rumbling away in shipping circles for more than five years, it might be assumed that the matter would now be urgently addressed. Yet, seven months after the report’s publication, there is no consensus on how high the bridge really is, or who should measure it, and the situation appears to be descending from confusion into farce.
