Debate About The Project
The project is not without its critics. Some commentators have argued that the funds could be better used for other urgent infrastructure projects. Others have argued that overall policies relating to interisland transport are more important than the construction of the bridge. Concerns voiced about the project have focused on both technical aspects and economic and financial matters. Few public details have yet been released by the Indonesian Government about these matters. A thorough cost-benefit analysis is not yet available. A well-informed public discussion has therefore not yet been possible. The Indonesian government's Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology (Badan Pengkajian dan Penerapan Teknology, or BPPT) has sponsored a number of preliminary discussions about aspects of the possible bridge technology in recent years. Some of the difficult technical, financial and economic issues involved in the construction of the Channel Tunnel between the United Kingdom and France appear to be relevant for planning about the best arrangements for a transport connection across the Sunda Strait. Demand forecasts for the use of the Chunnel Tunnel, for example, turned out to be far too optimistic thus leading to a benefit shortfall. The result was that revenues received through the operation of the tunnel were much less than expected during the first few years of operation.
Read more about this topic: Sunda Strait Bridge
Famous quotes containing the words debate and/or project:
“Abject flattery and indiscriminate assentation degrade, as much as indiscriminate contradiction and noisy debate disgust. But a modest assertion of one’s own opinion, and a complaisant acquiescence in other people’s, preserve dignity.”
—Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th Earl Chesterfield (1694–1773)
“Indigenous to Minnesota, and almost completely ignored by its people, are the stark, unornamented, functional clusters of concrete—Minnesota’s grain elevators. These may be said to express unconsciously all the principles of modernism, being built for use only, with little regard for the tenets of esthetic design.”
—Federal Writers’ Project Of The Wor, U.S. public relief program (1935-1943)