From Suez and Panama Canal to Thailand Bypass?
King Narai the Great (1632-1688)
King Narai the Great already dreamed of it in 1677; a canal straight through the isthmus of Kra, the isthmus where Thailand is at its narrowest, for shipping from India to China and Japan. Progressive, because the Suez and Panama Canals did not exist yet.
The plan has remained dormant for centuries, but now Thailand appears to want to put it into action. Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin will ask for an international bid to build two seaports, highways and a rail network, mainly for container transport. This means that the plan for a canal has been abandoned.
A canal would immediately lead to the idea of a 'split' of Thailand into north and south. In addition, a very expensive lock system and a kilometer-wide canal zone are now avoided, which would lead to difficult issues such as the demolition of temples, cemeteries and trees, matters that are extremely sensitive in Thailand.
The cost is now estimated at a trillion baht, in our language a trillion, with twelve zeros. That equates to US$28 billion or S$38 billion. The deep-sea ports will be located in Ranong and Chumphon and highways and railway lines with a length of 100 km will be built between the two cities.
Finished? In 2040. Who will pay for that? We are considering financiers worldwide: Japan, US, China, oil countries. They think they will break even after 24 years and the other 26 years of the concession will then be purely profit.
For a link: https://shorturl.at/vxzER
https://www.whitelotusbooks.com/books/french-engineer-in-burma-and-siam-1880
This book contains some of HM King Chulalongkorn's discussion and opinion on the matter
Sounds good Erik although it is not the first alternative for a channel.
Years ago, more 'balloons' were released.
It is clear that it will give Thailand even more prestige in this part of the world and will reasonably disrupt/change relations with neighbors.
Maybe they will be right after all that Thailand is the center of the 'world'.
I am absolutely in favor of a canal being created. Over the next few centuries it will save a lot of pollution and time for shipping and transportation. There is no point in calculating costs, just plan a good route, good construction and digging. Costs are always much higher for large multi-year projects. It would be even better if they also made a dike from Satahip towards Hua Hin. We then get Bangkok's IJsselmeer. Cars no longer have to travel from east to west via Bangkok and vice versa. A large harbor on that dike. Oh well, you have to dare to dream big. In the long term, an IJsselmeer can also ensure that Bangkok does not sink below rising sea levels and that salt water does not flow deep inland via the rivers.
Nico, I have to disappoint you, there will be a railway for container transport and a motorway. I expect oil and gas tankers and bulk carriers to simply take the old route around Singapore.
I was just dreaming that there are politicians who are willing to think long term.
This plan comes as a mustard after dinner, the Chinese have already almost completed the new Silk Road, containers go by rail via Laos and Thailand to their container port in Myanmar and from there they are shipped to their container port in Greece and from there to the European hinterland.
The other countries that would like to use the canal will not nearly cover the costs of construction.
Yes and no, people in Europe have not been so fond of China for a long time, Italy has just canceled cooperation on the Silk Road, and European and American companies are increasingly withdrawing from China. Has Covid done anything good after all? Unemployment is very high in China, and young Chinese are told to leave the city and return to the countryside.
I don't think the New Silk Road will be a great success.
The transport costs of 1 twenty-foot container (1TEU) eastbound, between Shanghai and Rotterdam are in the same order as the transport costs of the same container between Rotterdam and central Europe. That says a lot about the economies of scale of mega nautical transport. The same applies to dry bulk and liquid bulk, unless the liquid is transported via pipeline.
With this basic knowledge, you don't even have to count on the back of a cigar box to understand that the Thai "land bridge" will be a completely unprofitable, useless investment. A Southern Economic Corridor as an industrial-logistics development zone is a completely different story, which could be beneficial mainly from an economic perspective.
And that channel? Yes, this has been discussed for longer and more than water has flowed through the Strait of Singapore. It is one of the busiest waterways in the world, but there are absolutely no nautical capacity problems there, let alone a bottleneck.
About the only benefit of such a channel could be (a little) time saving on the eastbound trade route. However, the costs are frequent and high and therefore impossible to recover from the lifecycle of that channel.
This is not about circumnavigating South America or the Cape of Good Hope. There are no significant time benefits here.
Maybe the Chinese will fool the Thais into throwing a lot of Thai money into the water for this. Smart of those Chinese
GeertP and Mark, there will be no channel at all. Read the press release and my text again.
As for the route through Myanmar, that country is unstable and there is even a threat of a rupture of the union. Whether the railway is profitable is a matter for international accountants. I don't know anything about those things...
There has clearly been a social demand for a transport connection for a long time. Apparently that question is currently supported by (a number of administrators).
Then the state of the art is to find out what the various solutions can be of great social importance for a region and/or a country. Selecting one mode of transport is unwise because you risk missing opportunities and therefore increase the social risks of inefficiency and therefore losses.
This rash pre-emption of one solution (direction) is the first methodological stupidity in such large-scale investment projects.
I have seen that this should run from Ranong to Chumphon. Does it start from that long stretch of water between Myanmar and Thailand (Kra Buri?) There is already a long natural road there….
According to an article in Business Times ( https://www.nst.com.my/business/economy/2023/11/981115/thai-landbridge-plan-poses-critical-challenge-malaysian-ports ) will be a relief from the Strait of Malacca and not only Thailand can benefit from faster access, but also the neighboring countries Cambodia and Vietnam. It would save about 4 days and about 15% of the costs.
What would it be like for nature in those areas? Or for the cultural pieces, such as temples? How would it affect marine life?
I do think that it is really well thought out from an economic point of view. Hopefully all other aspects.
A channel would provide (too) small an advantage.
In my opinion, the transshipment cost of ship-rail-ship costs more than the detour via Singapore.
Stefan, you forget that four days of sailing time are saved, plus one day of loading, unloading and train time. And the pirate risk in the Strait of Malacca is therefore gone for this cargo. Bear in mind that the Suez and Panama Canals also cost a lot of money and people choose them anyway, even though the detour is greater there.
Yes, you are talking about an entire continent and not a small country...
You are only calculating time benefits here. However, remember that you are switching from sea transport to one or more land transport modes. These have significant scale models compared to continued sea transport. This loss of economies of scale is significant and must therefore be charged in minus. In addition, with a land bridge you switch solutions twice from a horizontal to a vertical movement with the entire flow of goods. That also has a significant additional cost. You also have to calculate this in minus.
Of course, scale models must be diseconomies of scale...although my spell checker saw it differently.
To clarify: approximately 20.000 TEU on a seagoing vessel, 80 TEU on a train, 2 TEU on a truck. The diseconomies of scale are particularly significant and will have a very negative impact.
There has clearly been a social demand for a transport connection for a long time. Apparently that question is currently supported by (a number of administrators).
Then the state of the art is to find out what the various solutions can be of great social importance for a region and/or a country. Selecting one mode of transport is unwise because you risk missing opportunities and therefore increase the social risks of inefficiency and therefore losses.
This rash pre-emption of one solution (direction) is the first methodological stupidity in such large-scale investment projects.