A bridge too far?

0

It is a pleasant ride in the tambang, Kuching’s iconic river taxi, across the Sarawak River.

For generations it has been that way to cross the river from the north to the south and vice versa. If the tide is high the ride may be wobbly but it is generally a pleasant ride.

Early morning, they come across from the north shore to market at the Gambier Street bazaar. Students would also stream across to get to school at St Mary’s, St Thomas as well as St Joseph and St Teresa’s.

Sarawak River dissects Kuching into old Kuching city to the south and Petra Jaya to the north.

Rivers were the lifeblood in Sarawak but it has changed. Roads have displaced much of the rivers’ roles for Sarawak economy.

But the proposed four hundred-metre S-shaped Golden Bridge across the river will be the new integrator.

If we follow the authorities, it will be a new icon for the city. It will integrate the people from the north with the people of the south of Sarawak River.

It will be a tourism draw. It will be a hit for the city. The Golden Bridge will be the pride of the city.

But would it be so?

It is first, only a pedestrian bridge and if that is the case, we must ask why it does not go directly to where the pedestrians are.

Looking at the map, there is no kampung (village) near to the State Legislative Building.

Kampung Boyan and Kampung Gersik are about a kilometre to the east and Kampung Bedil

Besar is of the same distance to the west.

At the north shore, the bridge arrives at the east of the Astana and to the west of the DUN building. Behind the DUN building is the Orchid Garden.

Both the Astana and the DUN building lord over and into the river front, meaning pedestrians will have to walk the whole way to the end of the road, get to the main road and make a round behind these parcels of land to get from the bridge to the kampungs.

If the houses were further away into the kampung, the residents will have to walk a further kilometre or so.

Unless you have feeder transport, from these points, to the kampungs it is a rather long walk – about two kilometres away from the bridge.

That is the first portion.

If the bridge is to target the students of City South, then the schools such as St Thomas’s and St Mary are at least about five hundred metres further from the south end of this bridge.

That is the second portion. And the bridge is about three hundred metres long. Add all the three portions and we have a distance of about two to three kilometres.

If it is to serve pedestrians why not direct the bridge to where the kampungs are?

If the bridge is to integrate the north and south, then why not keep the Gambier Street wet market where there were numerous numbers coming from the north to do their morning marketing there at the south.

The wet market was a hive of activities, and was a show of economic dynamism, which is always better than an icon of desertion as the replaced section of that part of Kuching Waterfront where the market once stood is sometime wont of showing.

By demolishing the wet market the numbers coming from the north to the south has been drastically reduced.

Thus the wet market which has been demolished had served what the bridge now tries to achieve to serve.

As a tourism draw, the wet market is any time a better draw than the bridge.

There are enough interesting bridges across the Thames or along Paris or Seoul or any of the other big cities. To say that a bridge per se will be a tourist draw is a little premature to say the least.

The argument that there was congestion and traffic jam caused by the market could have easily been controlled by the regulation and reduction of licensees within the market. But the die has been cast.

Would you, after doing morning marketing, with a load of three-four kilos in hand, walk the distance across the pedestrian bridge back home?

What many people do not know is that there is a proposal to construct a causeway further up river around Sungai Maong Paroh. How will a causeway affect the downstream? Do we still need a pedestrian bridge then?

Further, in the original masterplan of Kuching there was already an allocated space for the construction of a pedestrian bridge across Sarawak River.

That is located at Pengkalan Abok nearby the Petanak Market at the south end.

Would not a pedestrian bridge here better serve those from the north to do their marketing at Petanak Market?

The north end links right into Kampung Gersik and Surabaya. However, this is admittedly far away for those to go to schools in St Thomas’, St Mary, St Joseph’s or St Teresa.

As an aside, one would have to ask if the soon-to-be demolished Petanak Market also suffers from congestion and therefore has to be demolished. Does the city want desolation instead of economic dynamism? These structures serve as economic pulses for the city.

Would a pedestrian bridge per se achieve the objective of integrating the north and south shores?

It may be interesting to walk the bridge once or twice after coming into commission. But would it really bring out an integration of the two sides of the river?

Of course it will be an architectural icon. Every time a building is built with fanfare some politician has to say it will be a tourism draw as well as an architecture icon.

The Kuching Civic Centre, the DBKU building, the MBKS building and the DUN Building. Haven’t one politician or another said that these buildings would attract tourists and yet others said that they would be the town’s icon?

Before we begin to sound like cynic for cynicism’s own sake, it must be said that the bridge does look good.

But the purpose of this article is to refine our thoughts, relook our city.

It is of an ‘S’ curve and with steel cable suspensions holding the main structure and a small loop at each end to create the height clearance over the river for river traffic.

Another consequence of this bridge is the livelihood of the tambang operators. Can they survive? If no one wants to walk the bridge, then they may survive.

Otherwise, this will be another nail to the coffin. Perhaps the RM30 million would have been better served to sustain, and even to thrive the tambang icon (and here is really the icon) of Kuching.

It is a cheap means of transport at 50 sen each way. Given the number of embarkation/disembarkation points, it is more a door-to-door transport service that the bridge will never be.

Then again, I believe the speaker of the DUN august house has a secret agenda. For any recalcitrant YBs in the house that has to be sent out, he now can send the recalcitrant to stand in the hot sun in the middle of the bridge! Yes, just like in the days when students get sent by their teachers to stand under the hot sun in the middle of the padang. What nostalgia this bridge will bring!

Better still, let them walk the plank! Yo! Ho! Ho! And a glass of rum!

Write Straight, Write Sharp!