“TRAFFIC”OMIC ISTANBUL In today’s contemporary world, traffic jam is a disgrace for most of developed metropolises. These metropolises always try to find a solution for the traffic jam. People in Istanbul which is one of these metropolises are accustomed living with this traffic chaos. Recently, the third bridge has been discussed as a solution of traffic problem in Istanbul. Government approves and supports the constructing of the third bridge. However, although the third bridge in Istanbul might be seen as a solution for the traffic jam, it should not be constructed whatever the situations are.
Proponents of the third bridge assert that the third bridge might solve the traffic problem of Istanbul. It is the contention of these supporters that the third bridge increases the road opportunities for drivers. They also believe that it is thanks to the third bridge that the traffic in the other two bridges of Istanbul can be reduced. However, this idea can not go further than being an immature claim because the third bridge will be unsufficient help for traffic jam. The third bridge has much more longer road than other two bridges for travelling Asia and Europe continents.
According to previous general director of highways Coskunoglu (2010), the third bridge do not contribute the traffic problem in the city. It is not a solution. Anyone who does not have to use this road does not prefer going approximately 60 more kilometers. (para 6. ) Thus, the third bridge causes waste of time and increases gas consumption. Moreover, only long and big devices use the third bridge. The head of chamber of city planning, Turgut (2007) emphasizes that transit pass is indicated as the main reason of traffic problem in Istanbul in order to build the third bridge.
However, there is not too much transit pass on the bridge when the traffic jam reach the peak. In fact, transit pass is around 4-5 %. In other words, transit pass does not lead to the real traffic chaos. (para 8. ) Therefore, the third bridge is not essential to overcome the traffic problem in Istanbul. For Istanbul, the third bridge should not be constructed since it influences the Istanbul negatively in two main areas. First of all, the third bridge in Istanbul makes destructive effects on economy of Turkey. For example, the third bridge has very expensive construction cost.
Spending million dollars to construct the third bridge can be disastrous for economy of Turkey. Besides the construction cost, the third bridge causes economic inadequacy in the face of raising population in Istanbul. Hence, the third bridhe leads to an economic fall and it is also known that “specific” people improve their profits by means of this economic fall. Secondly, in addition to economic damages, the third bridge is also harmful for environment of Istanbul. After the third bridge, the environment of Istanbul is exposed to very effective ruins.
For instance, it is considered that the construction of the third bridge destroys the forests of Istanbul. The chief of chamber of forest engineering, Sertok (2009) says “Approximately, five thousands hectares forest will be destroyed after the third bridge. ” (para2). In other words, the third bridge will usurp the fresh air in Istanbul. Furthermore, the third bridge causes the urban sprawl. Likewise other two bridges, lots of people squat nearby the third bridge. All in all, it is never appropriate to build the third bridge for Istanbul in spite of traffic problem of Istanbul.
It is clear that the third bridge is not a formula not only to increase road opportunities for drivers but also to reduce traffic in the other two bridges. On the contrary, the third bridge impair the economy with the expensive construction cost. Besides economy, it also damages the environment. Therefore, the only conclusion one can draw is that the third bridge is not a sufficient project for Istanbul. The government should find ecofriendly and cheaper alternatives like Marmaray in order to get rid of this traffic chaos. We should not let the government construct the third bridge.