BMA approves four more elevated walkways

The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) has approved the construction of four more elevated walkways connected to commercial buildings along the skytrain route, a senior official said yesterday. It was expected that these projects would be done in one year.

BMA deputy governor Theerachon Manomaipibul said the city also invited private sector to invest in building "sky walk", an elevated walkway running underneath in parallel with the skytrain railway as seen at Chidlom, at the Airport Link Project's Makkasan Station.

-- The Nation 2009/12/1

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

Can't say they have a lot to show for however long this Governor has been in office. Some walkways and an announced light rail to serve their offices. How about the Bus rapid Transit that has just ground to a halt?

It would be nice if "The Nation" bothered to say where the proposed sites were. As is, a rather worthless article.

It would be nice if "The Nation" bothered to say where the proposed sites were. As is, a rather worthless article.

Was just going to say the same thing...

You need to read between the lines.. The Gov said that 4 have been approved and they are inviting the private sector to invest.

First come first served apparently. Meaning if you are building a new office / condo near a train station, set aside some extra money to secure on of these walkways.

You need to read between the lines.. The Gov said that 4 have been approved and they are inviting the private sector to invest.

The way I read it was that the 4 walkways that they're seeking investors for are for walkways running under (parallel to) the tracks, like at Chit Lom station.

But the first paragraph mentions walkways connected to buildings, for which construction has already been approved (i.e. no need to seek investors because these have been approved already): but no details have been given of which buildings these already-approved walkways will connect to.

So, either the aricle is confusingly written or it is missing key information: either way it's pretty shoddy journalism...

So, either the aricle is confusingly written or it is missing key information: either way it's pretty shoddy journalism...

Wouldn't expect anything else from The Nation.