I've always dreamed of a pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly Bangkok, but it seems when the City Hall initiates projects to promote such anecofriendly lifestyle, they tend to turn my dreams into nightmares.
First came the controversial 14km Chao Phraya riverside promenade to provide public space along the river from Rama VII to Pin Klao bridges. Now it's the proposed 300m pedestrian bridge linking Tha Phra Chan near the Grand Palace on the Bangkok side and Siriraj Hospital on the Thon Buri side which has drawn heavy criticism.
Will these costly projects -- the 8.6-billion-baht first phase of the riverside promenade and the 1.7-billion-baht pedestrian bridge -- really make Bangkok pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly? I am afraid not.
Sirinya Wattanasukchai is an assistant news editor, the Bangkok Post.
Many have complained about the cheesy design, with the "Thainess" engraved in its spiral top, (shortlisted from four proposed designs without real competition), as well as the inappropriate location in which the bridge is proposed to be built right next to the Grand Palace.
We should discuss the practicality and necessity of the proposed project. It is unacceptable how the City Hall has conducted a reverse process. The Department of Public Works (DPW) already presented a design of the proposed bridge, with what is claimed as a complete feasibility study in its third public hearing.
It is dubious how the department could present its proposed design before consulting the people of Bangkok to see if they really want the bridge. The DPW insisted the project was incorporated into the city's master plan to improve the river and facilities throughout the capital.
The proposed design is also part of the second phase of the riverside promenade, stretching from where the first phase ends at Pin Klao Bridge further to Rama III Bridge in Bang Kholaem district.
Before making any decision after this, the BMA should answer these questions. What is the real function of the new pedestrian bridge? For tourism, commuting, or hospital access?
I am not sure if the three functions can be mixed. Will tourists really enjoy the walk across the river? Imagine a scene of a tourist or tourists taking a selfie with Wat Arun in the background while a few ER officers push patients to the other side.
For tourism? I don't want to be bitter about the way City Hall treats always its residents as second-class citizens. But if infrastructure is meant for everyday use, I don't think the locals would mind if tourists enjoy the facilities.
For commuting? If the BMA says the new bridge will help ease traffic gridlock for those accessing Siriraj Hospital, an explanation is needed. How?
The DPW has tried to convince us with its feasibility study that a trip across the river will take only 8.5 minutes and cost about 6 baht per person. The DPW seems to forget that a trip by ferry takes a shorter time and costs just 3 baht.
If a patient has managed to travel all the way from their home to the other side of the river, Tha Prachan, in which the traffic is also known to be equally jammed, they would be capable enough to take a ferry crossing to the hospital, without using the proposed bridge.
If City Hall cares enough to facilitate patients' access to the hospital, the agency should divert the 1.7-billion-baht budget to improve the piers (we still remember the pier mishap that sadly killed 30 passengers, 22 years ago).
Or is the city administration trying to convince its people to walk and make Bangkok a "walkable" city? I am afraid the 300-metre distance crossing the river can't turn Bangkok into a walkable city overnight, especially when the pavements in the entire city remain uneven and wobbly; and even able-bodied pedestrians are threatened by live wires from electricity poles.
It would be more logical if City Hall were to spend its 1.7-billion-baht budget to improve pavements throughout the city if it wants to make Bangkok walkable.
Two other questions are: Is the 1.7-billion-baht bridge worth spending our tax money on? Is the budget spent on the feasibility study, about 50 million baht, a worthwhile investment?
The last questions are: Can Bangkok really celebrate its 250th anniversary in 2032 without this impractical, cheesy designed pedestrian bridge? Or will the number of inbound tourists shrink if we don't build this bridge (or will the number double if we do)?
Don't forget there are some bridges, namely Pin Klao, Rama VIII, Phra Pokklao and Rama I Memorial bridges, that can serve the function. City Hall only needs to modify them to facilitate the pedestrians and cyclists. If that were the case, it will cost us much less.