Cross Island Line: Besides a direct and skirting route, how about a semi-direct one?

By Chew Seng Yian

21 September, 2019

I refer to the report, “Through nature reserve or around? Residents, nature groups stick to guns on Cross Island Line paths” (Sept 3).

The environmental-impact assessment carried out for Phase 2 of the project is commendable for its extensive coverage of the impact and mitigation for the two alignment options. It also shed more light on the pros and cons for the direct (Option 1) and skirting (Option 2) routes.

While the former would be more economical and efficient with a faster travelling time, nature groups are rightfully concerned about boring a tunnel right under the heart of MacRitchie Reservoir.



But skirting the Central Catchment Nature Reserve will cause inconvenience to residents and businesses located in the built-up areas along that route due to construction. It will also lead to longer journeys.

I wonder if a compromise can be reached by aligning the underground tunnel directly south from Bright Hill Station, going beneath part of MacRitchie Reservoir and connecting with the southern portion of the skirting option, along Lornie Road (see the yellow line in the map adapted from the Land Transport Authority website). While this would still entail tunnelling under part of the Central Catchment Nature Reserve, it has several advantages:

• The portion under the reserve would shift further east, instead of cutting across the central core, with a section passing under a water body instead of the more sensitive forested area.

[How is a water body less sensitive or critical than a forested area? I don't go to the forest, but the water comes to my tap.]

• The worksite near Windsor Park needed for Option 1 would be shifted further out from the fringe of the reserve, or perhaps even be unnecessary altogether.
• There will be no need to tunnel beneath the built-up area along Thomson Road, avoiding construction around existing infrastructure and incurring lower costs than the extra S$2 billion for Option 2 compared with Option 1.

[Instead, they will need to tunnel under a body of water. How much cheaper or more expensive will that be? If it is cheaper, why didn't they think of that in the first place? Why did the proposed direct route seem to deliberately AVOID water bodies?]

• Shorter travelling time than the additional 11 minutes estimated under Option 2 due to a less roundabout route, albeit still taking longer than Option 1.

[Pfffttt. And this "advantage" is simply an example of "compromise".]

This third option would avoid the need for worksites to be built at the more sensitive edges of the reserve as well as the potentially complex and costly site works along Thomson Road. Tunnelling under the eastern end of MacRitchie Road would also pose a lower risk of disturbance to the integrity of the Central Catchment Nature Reserve.

While studies on the two alignment options appear to be progressing well, I hope there is still time for the authorities to consider the feasibility of this alternative proposal.

[This is the sign of the times. 

Asked whether to go direct or to skirt the Central Catchment Area, OF COURSE THE CORRECT ANSWER IS: WHY NOT COMPROMISE?

Compromise your head, ah!

If this compromise "solution" is worth considering then a thousand other compromises on compromises and variations on compromises would be just as "viable". 

Why did he draw that yellow line there?

Take a ruler. DRAW ANY OTHER LINE BETWEEN the options of Direct and Skirting option and you would have ANOTHER compromise "solution". And if you are reasonably literate, you can make a prima facie case why your compromise solution is a better solution.

As compromises go, it is simply a compromise with NO absolute advantage. This is Singapore. We make decisions. When we compromise, we make BAD decisions.]