Improvements Brought about by Fort Canning Tunnel

Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Transport (a) since the opening of the Fort Canning Tunnel in 2007, whether the Fort Canning Tunnel has brought about improvements to the traffic situation as projected; and (b) how has the experience helped to finetune the current system of assessing the benefits of public transport infrastructure development against the costs of the destruction of tangible and intangible assets, such as heritage landmarks and national icons.

Let me start with a brief background on the Fort Canning Tunnel. The tunnel was first mooted when URA formulated the Civic District Master Plan for the Bras Basah area, back in 1988.

There was active public engagement on the plans back then, particularly on the issue of retaining the National Library building. Options to improve the transportation network in the area were carefully studied. The conclusion was that a realignment of Stamford Road and a tunnel through Fort Canning Hill was the best option to realise the Master Plan's objective of creating a vibrant and pedestrian-friendly civic district around the Bras Basah area. The tunnel would provide the most direct link for traffic from Marina Centre and the Central Business District to Orchard Road, and, in turn, siphon traffic away from the Bras Basah area, making it more pleasant for pedestrians.

Therefore, the Fort Canning Tunnel was not justified by traffic benefits alone, but to realise other benefits for the public and in optimising land use for the area. When constructing the tunnel, LTA chose the method of tunneling that would cause the least disturbance to the surroundings and saved about 35 trees, including an iconic 50-year-old Terap tree.

Since its opening in January 2007, the Fort Canning Tunnel has served its objectives. Traffic has been diverted from Stamford Road, and public buses can now ply smoothly with minimal delays at junctions. With the narrowing of Stamford Road from four to three lanes, pedestrians too have a better walking experience in the area.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to attach a dollar value to heritage landmarks and national icons when evaluating the costs and benefits of a project. We are mindful to adopt a balanced approach by taking into consideration both the tangible and intangible aspects of projects. Decisions are not made on monetary costs and benefits alone. The preservation of heritage landmarks and national icons has always been an important consideration in our planning process, and will continue to be so going forward.