Origins The project began in the early 1980s when the government found that much of the east-west traffic in the area arose from north-south travel demand, as the steep topography did not allow for major roads to be built straight up the hill. There was talk of linking Central and Mid-Levels with escalators, a
monorail, or a
cable-car system. In late 1982, private consultants Peter Y.S. Pun and Associates and
MVA Asia were commissioned to investigate traffic improvement measures in Central. In their report entitled
A Study of the Transport Requirements of the Mid-Levels and Central District, the consultant recommended, among other things, to build an "escalator assisted pedestrian route" linking Mid-Levels to the existing
Central Elevated Walkway system and a new bus terminus that they proposed should be built on the site of the
Central Market.
Construction and opening The
Highways Department commissioned Maunsell Consultants Asia to draw up a detailed design for the system. The
Executive Council approved the project on 16 March 1990. Construction began at the end of February 1991, and was carried out by a joint venture between Hong Kong contractor
Paul Y. – ITC Construction and the French company
Sogen. It took two and a half years to build, and opened to the public at 6:00 am on 15 October 1993. The opening of the escalator fuelled the proliferation of new restaurants and other commercial operations in the intermediate levels, and contributed to the development of the "
SoHo" entertainment district. New businesses opened up in the first or second floors of existing buildings, and added signage to attract escalator riders.
Capital cost The system cost HK$240 million (US$31 million) to build, although it was originally approved in March 1990 with a budget of $100 million and annual maintenance costs of $950,000. In November 1996, the
Director of Audit issued a report that called the project a "white elephant", saying that it failed to achieve the primary objective of reducing traffic between the Mid-Levels and Central, as well as over-running its budget by 153 per cent. The Highways Department's poor handling of the project was the main reason for having five cost revisions of the project since the budget had been initially approved. The Director of Audit blamed it for failing to address the risks and complexities associated with the project in the pre-tender estimates, and costs rising because of delays. Land resumption costs were also underestimated by $74 million (or 180 per cent). The report also points out that a "before-and-after" study by the
Transport Department indicated no obvious reduction in traffic congestion. ==Description==