Revolutionary roadmap revealed: Thailand’s expressway blitz to slash emissions

[webfact]

The Expressway Authority of Thailand (EXAT) unwrapped an audacious 10-year blueprint set to roll out 200 kilometres of spanking new expressways, aimed at slashing a whopping 30% of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

 

The ambitious plan is the key to unlocking Thailand’s carbon neutrality by 2050, as revealed by EXAT Governor Surachet Laophulsuk at the electrifying Sustainability Forum 2024 hosted by Krungthep Turakij at BITEC Bangna in Bangkok.

 

Surachet, with unwavering commitment, declared EXAT’s resolute stance against climate change, aligning the agency’s vision with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Over its 51-year history, EXAT has laid down more than 224 kilometres of expressway routes, effectively cutting traffic-induced greenhouse gas emissions by a staggering 400,000 tonnes annually.

Speaking about the project Sustainable Urbanisation: Better Cities and Communities, Surachet outlined EXAT’s strategy to further extend the expressway network into urban and rural realms, providing a dual impact of reducing congestion in major cities and broadening transportation alternatives for the public.

 

by Puntid Tantivangphaisal

Photo courtesy of The Nation

 

Full story: The Thaiger 2023-12-15

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[JoePai]

So they are building yet more roads for (more?) vehicles to travel on and they think that will reduce greenhouse emissions ?

 

Someone please explain (slowly) to me how that works

[Moonlover]

7 minutes ago, JoePai said:

So they are building yet more roads for (more?) vehicles to travel on and they think that will reduce greenhouse emissions ?

 

Someone please explain (slowly) to me how that works

Expressways certainly do reduce greenhouse emissions by relieving urban roads of congestion. It's slow moving traffic on congested roads that causes most of the transport induced pollution. 

 

It would be much more affective if they also improve and clean up public transport and even better if they limit access to city centres for private vehicles as the do in many European cities and Singapore of course.

[Emdog]

"If you build it, they will come"?

in my hometown of Portland, Oregon, back in the 60's-70's many wanted to build a

Mt Hood freeway, which would have divided/destroyed many neighborhoods (that outcome well documented across USA) AND increase traffic and thus pollution.

Citizen protests etc led to building of light rail system: far far less pollution (electic), enhanced neighborhoods, very little destruction... a win win.

What connection do these decision makers have with firms that would build all these roads?

[Purdey]

The SRT has been talking about double track railroads for decades. A bullet rain was promised for 2023. More railroads would lower the carbon footprint, especially if electrified. I remember talk of reintroducing electric trams years ago. I can’t understand who made them think roads were the way to go.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Purdey

[stoner]

the hub of pollution

[Guderian]

Nice to see a sensible approach to cutting emissions for a change, all the Western politicians can come up with is to make us all live in 15-minute caves.

[mikebell]

One honest (difficult I know) cop at the start/end of motorways checking black smoke exhausts and they'd save all the concrete on new roads.

[Moonlover]

1 hour ago, mikebell said:

One honest (difficult I know) cop at the start/end of motorways checking black smoke exhausts and they'd save all the concrete on new roads.

There is no 'one simple solution' to the issue transport induced pollution.

[hotchilli]

3 hours ago, JoePai said:

So they are building yet more roads for (more?) vehicles to travel on and they think that will reduce greenhouse emissions ?

 

Someone please explain (slowly) to me how that works

EV's only lol

[BusyB]

9 hours ago, Moonlover said:

Expressways certainly do reduce greenhouse emissions by relieving urban roads of congestion. It's slow moving traffic on congested roads that causes most of the transport induced pollution. 

 

It would be much more affective if they also improve and clean up public transport and even better if they limit access to city centres for private vehicles as the do in many European cities and Singapore of course.

 

It's been known and demonstrated for at least three decades that the more roads you build the more cars come onto the roads. That it only serves to relocate gridlocks and the like.

 

https://theconversation.com/do-more-roads-really-mean-less-congestion-for-commuters-39508

 

Interesting article that looks at all aspects.

[BusyB]

9 hours ago, Emdog said:

"If you build it, they will come"?

in my hometown of Portland, Oregon, back in the 60's-70's many wanted to build a

Mt Hood freeway, which would have divided/destroyed many neighborhoods (that outcome well documented across USA) AND increase traffic and thus pollution.

Citizen protests etc led to building of light rail system: far far less pollution (electic), enhanced neighborhoods, very little destruction... a win win.

What connection do these decision makers have with firms that would build all these roads?

 

My thought exactly to that last question. Thailand: the hub of lobbies.

[MrJ2U]

9 hours ago, JoePai said:

So they are building yet more roads for (more?) vehicles to travel on and they think that will reduce greenhouse emissions ?

 

Someone please explain (slowly) to me how that works

The roads in Thailand are like roads of yesteryear.  They widening.

 

Mittihap, the main road to Issan is still one lane in both directions.

 

Bottlenecks and cars stuck in hours of traffic jams contributes huge amounts of Carbon Dioxide. 

[Moonlover]

10 hours ago, Moonlover said:

Expressways certainly do reduce greenhouse emissions by relieving urban roads of congestion. It's slow moving traffic on congested roads that causes most of the transport induced pollution. 

 

It would be much more affective if they also improve and clean up public transport and even better if they limit access to city centres for private vehicles as the do in many European cities and Singapore of course.

 

56 minutes ago, BusyB said:

 

It's been known and demonstrated for at least three decades that the more roads you build the more cars come onto the roads. That it only serves to relocate gridlocks and the like.

 

https://theconversation.com/do-more-roads-really-mean-less-congestion-for-commuters-39508

 

Interesting article that looks at all aspects.

Yes, but more cars will come onto the roads anyway, whether you build more roads or not. Thailand has a developing economy. More wealth means more cars, it's a given.

 

And that is why I added my second paragraph. They have to greatly improve public transport in order to offer viable alternatives to driving, especially in the city centres. 

[rickudon]

55 minutes ago, MrJ2U said:

Mittihap, the main road to Issan is still one lane in both directions.

Except for all the dual carriageway bits - which means most of it. Between Udon and Nong Khai all dual carriageway, some 6 lanes. South of Udon, mainly dual carriageway, although haven't travelled that part much recently. Maybe they have grassed over a lane or two....

[mfd101]

6 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

Yes, but more cars will come onto the roads anyway, whether you build more roads or not. Thailand has a developing economy. More wealth means more cars, it's a given.

More cars doesn't HAVE to be a given. Decent rail systems - between suburbs, within cities, between cities - would be a much better investment.

[BusyB]

1 minute ago, Moonlover said:

 

Yes, but more cars will come onto the roads anyway, whether you build more roads or not. Thailand has a developing economy. More wealth means more cars, it's a given.

 

And that is why I added my second paragraph. They have to greatly improve public transport in order to offer viable alternatives to driving, especially in the city centres. 

 

I disagree. Massive investment in public transport would negate the need for wasteful new cars and roads.

 

Public transport needs to be affordable, efficient, safe, well run, regular, 24/7, local, regional and long distance. Make public transport something people WANT to use, not as a second best. That's where all this money needs to go. And the neighborhood stuff could then be done safely on bikes, with bike parking lots and garages. 

 

All that is available now. It just needs the political will, and for people to realize that if everyone on the planet gets a car the whole place will be worse than Chiang Mai in February. I far prefer train to car, because I can read, listen to music, look out of the window and relax. I think most people have forgotten that and prefer their status symbols which they call a transport solution. But pollution is not their only negative, driving stress is the other major downside. It makes noone at all happy.

 

I haven't owned a car in 30 odd years because public transport where I live is excellent and affordable.

[MrJ2U]

1 hour ago, rickudon said:

Except for all the dual carriageway bits - which means most of it. Between Udon and Nong Khai all dual carriageway, some 6 lanes. South of Udon, mainly dual carriageway, although haven't travelled that part much recently. Maybe they have grassed over a lane or two....

There slowly making it two lanes the entire way.  The US originally had it built (paved) during the Vietnam war. 

 

 It's tough when it's a holiday, cat breakdowns, or following a slow truck full of chickens. 

 

Lots of it aren't well lit or not at all.  It's a third world highway in many aspects. 

[mikebell]

20 hours ago, Moonlover said:

There is no 'one simple solution' to the issue transport induced pollution.

I didn't say there was.  I offered a cheap solution to pouring billions of tons of concrete.

[JoePai]

12 hours ago, MrJ2U said:

 

 

Mittihap, the main road to Issan is still one lane in both directions.

 

 

And when was the last time you drove from Bangkok to Nong Khai !!

[brianthainess]

22 hours ago, JoePai said:

So they are building yet more roads for (more?) vehicles to travel on and they think that will reduce greenhouse emissions ?

 

Someone please explain (slowly) to me how that works

Thai science and math, not same same as falang, water runs up not down according to the drain gullies near me.

[brianthainess]

12 hours ago, mfd101 said:

More cars doesn't HAVE to be a given. Decent rail systems - between suburbs, within cities, between cities - would be a much better investment.

Agree the nearest railway station to me from Trat is in Cambodia 

[brianthainess]

Maybe what would help nationwide are computerized traffic lights like the UK have had for 50yrs+

Here 6 lanes of traffic have to stop to let a couple of cars out from a side road and wait a while with nothing else coming, sometimes none at all, and that stupid law of not being able to make a right turn with the lights on green , even though nothing is coming but have to wait for the green arrow, not even allowed to move to the center of the road. every little helps init.

[MrJ2U]

3 hours ago, JoePai said:

And when was the last time you drove from Bangkok to Nong Khai !!

1978

[John Drake]

200km more of expressways to be brought to a screeching halt when the police set up road checks.