The idea of a land bridge connecting the Gulf of Thailand and the Andaman Sea has been in the pipeline for a few years. Former transport minister Saksayam Chidchob had pushed for the multi-billion-dollar project when serving in the Prayut Chan-o-cha government. The current Cabinet of Srettha Thavisin has given it added impetus, approving the project in principle in October.

 

The project is currently undergoing feasibility studies, environmental and health impact assessments even as Srettha is already selling the project abroad to woo foreign investors.

 

An ambitious project 

 

The land bridge proposal is effectively a land transport route that will connect the sea transport routes on the Gulf of Thailand and the Andaman Sea.

 

It would comprise a six-lane motorway 90 kilometers long, a double-track railway, pipelines for transporting oil and natural gas. It would include two deep-sea ports, each capable of handling 20 million cargo containers (twenty-foot equivalent unit: TEUs) — one port would be in Ranong province on the Andaman Sea coast and the other in Chumphon province on the coast of the Gulf of Thailand.

 

International bidding is expected to be held next year and the bridge could open for services in 2030, according to the Transport Ministry’s Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning (OTP).

 

Full story: [source name + source link] 2024-01-23

 

- 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

 

The obvious part for our politicians is obviously that it is a multi-billion-dollar project.

Any such project will find lots of politicians who want it, all those hundreds of millions on "commissions".

It seems 30% "commission" is usual in Thailand. Which politicians doesn't want to be rich.

 

And obviously there are always some reasons why something is a good idea.

I didn't follow this project, but I wonder if there are any people or companies who support this idea who will not financially profit from it?

I.e. are there international shipping companies lobbying for this?

Or are there lots of people who don't want it because they don't see that it makes sense, and they won't profit from it?

23 minutes ago, webfact said:

International bidding is expected to be held next year

Watch out for the chinese and their debt trap.....

 

 

The Suez canal is 193 kms long. The Thailand LandBridge project is about 100 kms long. With the unloading and reloading of containers at two different locations I'm not seeing the benfits of a landbridge over a canal. Is the terrain the problem?

The missing full story link to PBS is HERE.

6 minutes ago, khunPer said:

The missing full story link to PBS is HERE.

A very good article explaining why it's not just not worth it. This project has been discussed and rejected for decades.

Pipe dream 

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The obvious part for our politicians is obviously that it is a multi-billion-dollar project.

Any such project will find lots of politicians who want it, all those hundreds of millions on "commissions".

It seems 30% "commission" is usual in Thailand. Which politicians doesn't want to be rich.

 

And obviously there are always some reasons why something is a good idea.

I didn't follow this project, but I wonder if there are any people or companies who support this idea who will not financially profit from it?

I.e. are there international shipping companies lobbying for this?

Or are there lots of people who don't want it because they don't see that it makes sense, and they won't profit from it?

you could probably make a bet on who is buying up that land that will be used for all the passages.

Best guess is that they end up with an oil pipeline (for China) after borrowing the money from China.

2 hours ago, rbkk said:

The Suez canal is 193 kms long. The Thailand LandBridge project is about 100 kms long. With the unloading and reloading of containers at two different locations I'm not seeing the benfits of a landbridge over a canal. Is the terrain the problem?

Correct.

 

Commodities are very sensitive to intermodal costs, ie moving shipping containers off ships and onto trucks or trains. And then back again.

 

The only thing that works in this situation is a canal.

1 hour ago, mokwit said:

Best guess is that they end up with an oil pipeline (for China) after borrowing the money from China.

Perhaps food for thought re oil pipeline; not the Chinese bit. At the moment Singapore banned VLCC and ULCC from entering its ports. A portion of the Malacca Straits (Phillip Channel) is quite shallow which limits the size of ships over 200 thousands dwt to pass through. The land bridge will not replace the Malaca straits but will offer an alternative route for the larger ships and for the IndoChina and West China hinterland. 

18 hours ago, webfact said:

The project is currently undergoing feasibility studies, environmental and health impact assessments even as Srettha is already selling the project abroad to woo foreign investors.

Thailand cannot afford to build it, so foreign investors are needed to fund the project, and they will have a huge stake in any profits to be made.

The cost of building it and using it to move cargo across the land bridge would be far too expensive and time consuming.

I don't think this one is going anywhere soon.

16 hours ago, rbkk said:

The Suez canal is 193 kms long. The Thailand LandBridge project is about 100 kms long. With the unloading and reloading of containers at two different locations I'm not seeing the benfits of a landbridge over a canal. Is the terrain the problem?

Because part of the Thais surrendering to the British after 2nd world war included they are forbidden to build a canal without British consent

It would include two deep-sea ports, each capable of handling 20 million cargo containers.

20 million ffs!! Would that not stretch end to end round the world plus?????

 

the link to the full story doesn't work. what are the economic benefits of this proposal? simply cutting and pasting a halfarsed article without a live link is a waste of time.

flyingtlger  -  You are 100% correct.  The Chinese want you to borrow more than you can handle and the take over the infrastructure and control this part of the economy and even more.

I think, you dont have to be highly educated to conclude it is not worth it. It is even totally absurd.

Only a canal would make sense, nothing else.

On 1/23/2024 at 12:41 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

The obvious part for our politicians is obviously that it is a multi-billion-dollar project.

Any such project will find lots of politicians who want it, all those hundreds of millions on "commissions".

It seems 30% "commission" is usual in Thailand. Which politicians doesn't want to be rich.

 

And obviously there are always some reasons why something is a good idea.

I didn't follow this project, but I wonder if there are any people or companies who support this idea who will not financially profit from it?

I.e. are there international shipping companies lobbying for this?

Or are there lots of people who don't want it because they don't see that it makes sense, and they won't profit from it?

 

The Chinese want it  !  When Thailand can't pay them for it, the Chinese will get TWO Ports and a Military base out of it  !
Ask Sri Lanca  !

it makes sense for a lot of billionaire politicians getting even more rich...

To build a canal without British consent is the way to go after you got their consent and not allow the Chinese's anywhere near it.