BMA May Have To Review Its Expensive Bangkok Skywalk Plan

[webfact]

BMA may have to review its expensive Skywalk plan

By The Nation

The Office of the Auditor General of Thailand (OAG) has reportedly recommended the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) to review its expensive Skywalk projects, following its findings that it was not worthwhile the money, lacked good menegerial readiness, did not serve the purposes of encouraging less use of passenger cars, and rather be beneficial to business operators than the general public.

In an OAG written statement to the BMA, it said no mandatory feasibility study had been conducted while there were no details over who were exact beneficiaries of the Bt15.2billion project, as well as over those who had opposed it. The OAG recommendation called on the BMA leadership to review its 4.25billion first phase of the project, or continue partly with sections considered worthwhile.

"The Bt4.25billion project is at risk of failing to serve its purported purposes and ending up in detrimental results. And on condition that linking with those buildings could product monetary returns, but this idea is rather beneficial to those buildings rather than to the public," the OAG statement said.

In two BMAconducted surveys of opinions, which favoured the project, respondents were not notified of expensive project cost and worthiness and usefulness of the project. In the BMA's own project proposal, the numbers of roadside buildings or condominium which might be interested in linking walkways with the Skywalk were not provided.

The OAG, in a statement signed by acting governor Phisit Leelawachirophas, also said a public hearing over the project, with opponents and academics present, was required, while the BMA was needed to submit its management plan of the project if it want to further continue with the project.

The BMA also failed to give details on how to prevent hawkers putting up their stalls on Skywalk, on details and the number of motorists who would park their cars and use the Skywalks in all four planned directions. In certain sections of Skywalk connected to BTS stations, Skywalk users still have to pay skytrain tolls to walk through.

An advocacy group on environmental conservation, AntiGlobal Warming Association (AGWA), issued a statement last month questiong the BMA high project cost, more than Bt300 million per kilometre, while the existing structure built under BTS route cost just Bt58.82 million a km.

In three surveys of opinions, with the first and third by BMA, the first showed 88.8 per cent of support, and second, conducted by Chulalongkorn University at BMA request, showed 68.9 per cent, and the third showed 87.2 per cent.

-- The Nation 2011-04-11

[BrianCR]

Did anyone understand that crap? If so, please translate for me!!!!

[BrianCR]

By the way, that's how they get their corruption, by confusing the populous in both Thai and English languages. Whoever wrote that crap should return to the bar from which they came!!!

[phiphidon]

Basically it translates as "Abhisit has spoken,There's an election coming up and you dodgy barstewards in the BJP have got me in enough trouble already. I can possibly get away with paying off the armed forces with their ridiculous budget demands, but you lot have got to stop, at least until after the election and then we can all get stuck back into the trough, but don't you ever forget, I'm the Teflon Don, nothing EVER sticks to me, geddit"

[tomyummer]

I usually think of Thais as being creative. But those in the government are actually like a pack of sheep. Oops! Sorry sheep!

[Macmundi]

Plain and simple. Just another scheme to rip off taxpayers. (Amongst the many other schemes). The surveys showed nothing but total BS. BMA conducted showed 80% approval while Chula (under BMA's request) showed only 60%? What if the survey was conducted independently by the Bangkokians. I'm sure it will be less than 20% approval. This is just from the 100% negative responses from forums like this that I have read in regards to this skywalk project.<_<

[chmiroau]

Um, there is a real problem here, the words 'mandatory, feasibility and study, do not translate into Thai very well. So for the majority these words are a complete mystery.

Second, rampant consumerism is totally understood here and that is why such a walkway would greatly benefit he businesses that it links.

And finally, selfishness is also well understood, and somewhat rampant as well, so the people that are expected to pay for this walkway wouldn't want to spend the money if it financially benefits someone else.

[pauljones]

The footpaths we have already are good enough if government officials stop renting it like it was their own personal property to vendors, scammers and beggars.

If I owned a business at street level, I would be outraged they now are going to send my customers to the skywalk.

How dumb.

[scorecard]

This scheme has all the wrong priorities.

Such vast amounts of money should be spent public transport systems (mostly underground and a lmited amount on overhead public transport systems (and by the way, the simple overhead system in Kuala Lumpur works well and cost a mere fraction o fht BTS capital costs.

And in na dveloping country the better public transport systems should be subsidised so that very large numbers of people can afford to use them.

As already said, there should be action (perhaps over several years) to get vendors off the footpaths, so that there is no need for overhead walkways.

Another part of the vendor puzzle is to make them establish proper busines registration etc., and make them pay taxes.

[asiawatcher]

Simply clear the streets of the vendors and the footpaths will be fine - set up designated areas for vendors as markets - no issue. Why they have to occupy the footpath I have no idea! T.i.T.

[jfchandler]

I actually like the idea of expanding the current BTS related SkyWalks... But leaving that opinion aside...

The answer to the question below is simple:

If I'm a vendor on the sidewalk, potential customers at least HAVE TO walk right past me while going from point A to point B, giving me a potential sales opportunity.

If I'm a vendor in some kind of market area, the people walking on the streets would never see me, unless they specifically decided to walk into the market.

Simply clear the streets of the vendors and the footpaths will be fine - set up designated areas for vendors as markets - no issue. Why they have to occupy the footpath I have no idea! T.i.T.

[aussiebebe]

I'd like to see the proposed route of this Skywalk as they should just extend the existing one which is rather good and lots of tourists love it also. It's pretty great to be able to walk from MBK all the way round to Paragon, Central World and futher; you are high up above the cars, there's no-one trying to sell you stuff and the breeze is quite good. Surely some bright spark in the government could propose extending this under all the BTS lines, the Bt58.82 million a km option - does anyone know the proposed new route?

[chiang mai]

I also like the idea very much indeed, it's a good solution to an otherwise impossible problem. I also think the report is correct on two key points, the first being how to avoid street hawkers moving up a layer and secondly, who is the main beneficiary of the proposal and why. I hope they do a full blown study and move the concept forward.

[Oberkommando]

I hope that new Mercedes S-Class can be returned to the dealer or the order can be cancelled.

[Oberkommando]

there's no-one trying to sell you stuff

2/3 of the area was covered with vendors selling t-shirts, handbags and other merchandise last week when I went to MBK, early evening time.

It's also a favourite place for the Thai cops to pick up foreigners for littering, having themselves removed the bins and ashtrays from the vicinity of the National Stadium BTS station and the entrances to the skywalk (this I myself witnessed some years ago now, they still haven't been replaced). A favourite hangout of these policemen is at the large bin/ashtray outside MBK where they like to stand around in an attempt to hide it (or intimidate people from using it).

Can't share your enthusiasm about skywalks, sorry. :jap:

[powderpuff]

Yet another group of Marxists who think jobs come from government not from evil "business" or the private sector. Government can build infrastructure (with tax payer money) to facillitate business which in turn provides more tax.

Marxists just can't grasp these concepts. It will benefit the people. Less time wasted moving from place to place. More time for shopping.

[powderpuff]

...public transport systems (and by the way, the simple overhead system in Kuala Lumpur works well and cost a mere fraction o fht BTS capital costs.

In Thailand here how it works. You have a group of investors who want to build mass transit. In case it gets built & is running smoothly then government moves in & nationalizes it. Zero risk for Big Daddy.

Another part of the vendor puzzle is to make them establish proper busines registration etc., and make them pay taxes.

The last part is quite funny. License them sure.

It amazes me how many on here want to make LoS just like Europe. Regulate them to death.

[HereIAm]

This scheme has all the wrong priorities. ......

there should be action (perhaps over several years) to get vendors off the footpaths, so that there is no need for overhead walkways.

Another part of the vendor puzzle is to make them establish proper busines registration etc., and make them pay taxes.

Any attempt to drive vendors out of Bangkok's streets would be disastrous, not the least, politically. That said, the city itself would lose a great part of its charm as a tourist destination if it were rid of all its street shopping and street foods. No doubt local citizens' needs come first and then tourists'. But, as anyone would have seen, a large proportion of shoppers at street vendors is the local populace. In most not-so-rich countries the mega cities serve as a watering hole to the hordes of unemployed people from the interiors or to skilled artisans to ply their wares. Justly so. Let the street vendors stay. You are right, there should be enforcement of registration and taxation but those things, at the street level, work well only in a state where the bureaucracy and the administration is honest and clean. Knowing Bangkok, the present chaos is better left as it is.

As for skywalks, one should also ask, which foreign corporation gave them this idea. Not fair to attribute ulterior motives to the Thais alone, leaving out the mega corporates or consultants raking it in. There's hardly a corner in the world where public projects spending is free from ulterior motives.

[HereIAm]

Yet another group of Marxists who think jobs come from government not from evil "business" or the private sector. Government can build infrastructure (with tax payer money) to facillitate business which in turn provides more tax.

Marxists just can't grasp these concepts. It will benefit the people. Less time wasted moving from place to place. More time for shopping.

Actually, I'm afraid, I can't grasp what you said either ! Who are the Marxists here ? The ones canvassing for the skywalks (government projects ) ? Or the ones who want to drive out the "evil business of the private sector" (street vendors, street foods, etc) ? Probably your post appears at a spot where I can't relate it with the foregoing :-)

BTW, do the Marxists also include governments in other countries who pioneered the QE1 and QE2 ? Not Queen Elizabeth 1 and 2, but you-know-what-i-mean. They also gave refunds to taxpayers to kick start the economy which the "evil private sector" had ruined.

Edited April 13, 2011 by HereIAm