Study period ‘too short’ for Chao Phraya promenade

It said that two academic institutions – King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Latkrabang (KMITL) and Khon Kaen University – had signed a Bt120-million agreement on planning and to conduct an environmental impact assessment for the promenade. KMITL must complete its study for the first phase of the project in 210 days. The study involves a model scheme for the Chao Phraya River development, public relations work for the project, public hearings, and reporting progress to the BMA committee and the public.
Khon Kaen University is responsible for the environmental impact study.
The public has urged KMITL to allow all stakeholders to participate in decision-making and promenade planning.
Critics yesterday condemned the study period as being too short for such a large development project. The project budget has also been described as “ambiguous”.
Under the BMA terms of reference, the promenade would include a footpath and bicycle path. There would also be a riverside recreation area, park and other facilities. The design must reflect Thai architecture to represent Thailand’s culture and it must open the riverside space to everyone, including disabled people.
The administration has ordered the KMITL study team to comply with the BMA engineering plan and Cabinet decisions. If the team wants to adjust the proposed design, it has to get BMA permission first.
Commenting on the KMITL study, Yossapon Boonsom, a leader of the Friend of the River (FOR) group, said the study team’s viewpoint regarding the public sector was hostile and they had not included all stakeholders’ voices.
“We all wish that the KMITL study team would work together with us to design the best plan for the Chao Phraya, but from their stance at the project press conference last Tuesday, we can see that they see us as an opposition and said our information was incorrect,” Yossapon said.
“They said their study involved local opinions, but when they went to riverside communities, they only told the good side of the project. They did not include other stakeholders, who will be affected by the promenade – such as the business sector, hotels or water transport operators.”

Study period ‘too short’
He said the study period was too short to come up with a comprehensive design for such a large project. He added that there were details lacking about the planned budget.
“I don’t think the KMITL study will be accepted because of its lack of transparency and academic bias.
“Meanwhile, FOR is studying a parallel public plan to be an alternative to their study,” he said.
“I urge KMITL to adhere to academic neutrality and study the project according to academic standards. We don’t want to work against them and hope that we can work together to seek the best plan for the Chao Phraya River and everyone who lives on its banks,” Yossapon said.