Benzene May Hit 45 Baht Per Liter & Diesel Could Hit 38 Baht Per Liter In The Next Few Days

[PeaceBlondie]

We interrupt this dialogue for a question about ethanol fuel: it is about 4 baht chaper than 91 octane benzene. I suspect the sticker shock of prices in the upper 30's (or eventually, 40 baht) may be a wake-up call for many Thais. My new 2008 CBR150 takes E10 ethanol, so some other new bikes (maybe the fuel injected ones) probably do, too.

What happens to the supply if many Thais convert to ethanol?

[Ijustwannateach]

Driving to work is faster than taking a bus, being stuck on the bus for two hours in the morning is both tiring AND a waste of time.

If you ban cars, people would still be on the road, packed like sardines on the buses, but it aint the same as being on the road in your own car, that right will be reserved only for superrich (nore more 1-2% of the population).

Biggest traffic jams are not in the inner Bangkok, btw, not the same as in Singapore.

The idea that driving should be grouped together with other destructive habits (I assume drinking and smoking) is so radical that I feel the need to search for my handbook on fascism, or Khmer Rouge style of social engineering.

"superfast network of scheduled buses, trains, and bicycles" - both "superfast" and "scheduled" are alien terms in Thai society. Why don't you try proposing that in better organised societies - like the UK or Germany, if anyone would take you seriously.

I hear that dedicated bus lanes have worked quite well in some parts of Brazil, which is not exactly a superdisciplined nor a fascist society... and I was more than half-joking! But....

With few cars on the road, pollution would be reduced. Traffic would be faster, which would mean you would have fewer people on more trips, rather than "sardinic" packing. You could schedule reduced night time services all night along the same routes. Ambulance services would actually be meaningful. And because the whole network would have a huge population funding it, the per-trip costs could actually decrease.

You could specify a radius of the main city outside which private traffic would be allowed, and build large carparks there. And within the "no-drive" zone you could make emergency exceptions- persons travelling to hospitals or police stations, for example- and you could have a limited number of licensed taxis, but with fares vastly increased as a kind of "luxury tax."

Profits from all of this could go into maintenance of the bus fleet and the roads. I'd guess in the long run it would make things cheaper and faster for everyone, though it might bother people who have grown up with some kind of sense of entitlement to drive- after all, some folks might believe that the vast public moneys put into the maintenance of public roads and control of the price of fuel unfairly subsidise the middle class and the rich at the expense of *all* tax payers.

"S"

[Ijustwannateach]

We interrupt this dialogue for a question about ethanol fuel: it is about 4 baht chaper than 91 octane benzene. I suspect the sticker shock of prices in the upper 30's (or eventually, 40 baht) may be a wake-up call for many Thais. My new 2008 CBR150 takes E10 ethanol, so some other new bikes (maybe the fuel injected ones) probably do, too.

What happens to the supply if many Thais convert to ethanol?

And what will effect will this have on farming, if demand for ethanol also drives its price upward? More farmers growing corn, more pollution in the northeast, and even less rice?

[Heng]

There must be A LOT FEWER cars to make buses get from A to B at the same speed as a car. They need to make bus stops and they don't take shortcuts. Some popular stops take five minutes to clear because of the long bus lines waiting for their turn to pull in and drop off passengers.

'A lot fewer' is indeed the goal. Just 'fewer' would be an achievement in itself.

That was your own suggestion, in fact your whole plan rests on rasing taxes so that people can't afford buying cars. Have you read your own posts?

Not only have I been reading them, I'm also having them read over my neighborhood PA system. Again, taxes would be going up for everyone affecting members of all classes. You're again trying to make this into a class war. The goal is a net gain for all classes by a net reduction in cars, the effects will be as varied as some folks buyer fewer cars for their household, more car pooling, people choosing a smaller less expensive car now that what they had is cost impractical, not just some people no longer being able to afford car ownership. It's hardly a black and white super rich on the road, and the poor and Plus, IJustSteven, etc. on the buses. Nevermind that plenty of the well to do are regular users of public transport as well.

Right now top ten percent can afford driving, after raising taxes it would be what - top five? That's "superrich" territory.

Again, you're just being dramatic again. In places where there are relatively no traffic congestion problems (which is most of the country; and includes places where most of the poor who can barely afford their motorcycles and pickup trucks live, eat, sleep, and drive), there wouldn't need to be any auto price hikes. Only when those vehicles (which would be a relatively small % of that group) required access to congested metro areas would they be taxed for that habit.

Excuse me, but that is an idiotic suggestion. If you force cars to drive around one particular tight spot, they'll create even bigger jams on their detour routes, and some tolls have minimum effect on the traffic already - exressways in peak hours, even Don Muang tollway where people can choose to drive underneath for free.

Not if the number of cars on the road were reduced. The toll system could be multi-tiered, both keeping cars out of the city with higher tolls and then another levy in congested areas. People can still have access, they just have to pay for it.

Go ahead, when the superfast network is ready people will use it without raising taxes. That's what the government plans anyway. You are proposing raising taxes first, building networks later. How much later?

There isn't a country in the world that replaced cars with public transport, and for a multitude of reasons. Take off peak hours - the buses run empty and lose money big time and passengers have to wait for up to an hour on less popular routes. And there will be extra hundreds of less popular routes if you extend bus network coverage.

If a bus carries only five passengers, it would be cheaper for them to drive five cars instead, in all respects. There's a minimum required number of passengers on a bus that makes it operation economically worthwile, and Bangkok average is below that level, even with fully packed buses in the mornings and evenenings.

Bangkok bus companies are perpetually in the red and so is BTS and MRT.

There's a way to reduce empty runs - force everyone to go to work and back at the same time and make no public transport available outside peak hours. Freedom to move anytime you want or need is reserved only for top five percent of the population. I bet you'd like it.

I haven't generated a time frame for this yet, since this is all hypothetical and just an amusing webforum discussion.

Anything is possible, like 'fewer cars would mean a better traffic' situation... or even your 'empty bus' theory.

If some companies have to operate in the red under gov't subsidy for the greater good, I think that's an acceptable trade off.

Again, as mentioned, I like it the way it is now. Plights, more often than not are 90% what kind of attitude you take towards things.

[Plus]

Again, taxes would be going up for everyone affecting members of all classes

You were saying that car prices should go up by 50% (8 mil to 12 and 800k to 1.2 mil) - for the rich it would mean lesser models of Porshe, for the poor no cars at all. That's quite a difference in effect.

Paying extra fees to get into metro areas is a different proposition altogether, you mixed them up.

The toll system could be multi-tiered, both keeping cars out of the city with higher tolls and then another levy in congested areas.

Ridiculous. Are you going to charge people for driving past Lam Salee intersection? Five big feeder roads converge in that area, and there's nothing there, everyone drives somewhere else, and it's still ten kilometers and two hours away from the nearest BTS, and every bus and evey boat is packed full.

If some companies have to operate in the red under gov't subsidy for the greater good,

Have you thought that it might be cheaper to build more roads, sell more cars and collect more taxes? Then you can gradually expand BTS/MRT/Rapid Bus systems so that using public transport makes some sense at least in the city center. Already there are hordes of people who build their lives around BTS routes - they find work, apartments, go shopping, they don't need cars at all. You need to expand that community.

Traffic would be faster, which would mean you would have fewer people on more trips,

Fewer people on more trips means each trip becomes more expensive. At some point it would become cheaper to let people to drive their own cars. It is already cheaper to drive than to use public transport, even shitty one like in Bangkok, because it's inherently inefficient.

BMTA covers only the main roads because it can't afford running their big buses down every small soi, forget air-conditioned EuroIIs. Only open air pickup trucks make any economic sense there, and most of the day they carry no more than four-five people, and cost as much as gasoline on the same route.

It doesn't even matter if the government subsidises bus companies or not - they are still more expensive to run, which means they are inefficient. Cars, on the other hand, do not require government subsidies. Somchai the builder doesn't pay his 7% VAT on his Mama to buy new, shiny bus fleet or an underground train he'll never use, people pay for their own cars themselves.

[Heng]

You were saying that car prices should go up by 50% (8 mil to 12 and 800k to 1.2 mil) - for the rich it would mean lesser models of Porshe, for the poor no cars at all. That's quite a difference in effect.

That would be the effect if there were no other types of cars available besides those two price brackets, sure. A used 100,000 Baht car would become 200,000 Baht. That's just an example though as I also mentioned that taxes could be tweaked up OR down as the traffic conditions improved or worsened.

Paying extra fees to get into metro areas is a different proposition altogether, you mixed them up.

No kidding it's a different proposition. And I didn't mix anything up. I would intend for them to go hand in hand.

Ridiculous. Are you going to charge people for driving past Lam Salee intersection? Five big feeder roads converge in that area, and there's nothing there, everyone drives somewhere else, and it's still ten kilometers and two hours away from the nearest BTS, and every bus and evey boat is packed full.

The only thing ridiculous is your critique, concocting worst case scenarios to support your argument. You're imagining tolls to cross a couple of streets whereas focusing on the entire zone (say, Bangkapi) would be much more practical. What happened to your empty bus theory in this case? All of a sudden people are packing the buses, even the additional ones added here once the number of cars are reduced?

Have you thought that it might be cheaper to build more roads, sell more cars and collect more taxes? Then you can gradually expand BTS/MRT/Rapid Bus systems so that using public transport makes some sense at least in the city center. Already there are hordes of people who build their lives around BTS routes - they find work, apartments, go shopping, they don't need cars at all. You need to expand that community.

I have. And I think they could go hand in hand. I'm part of that horde from time to time, much preferring to park and ride rather than drive (even being driven). It would certainly be easier with fewer cars on the road to ramp up construction. The kind of large scale construction needed would be a 24 hour 3 shift affair, not something that could be done during night shifts only and certainly not with a high volume of traffic on the roads.

Fewer people on more trips means each trip becomes more expensive. At some point it would become cheaper to let people to drive their own cars. It is already cheaper to drive than to use public transport, even shitty one like in Bangkok, because it's inherently inefficient.

LOLZ. You argue that it'll be too crowded (and people will be tired) and then you argue that it would be too expensive (so people should just drive). There's clearly no middle ground for you, Plus. It's either one dramatic end or the other.

BMTA covers only the main roads because it can't afford running their big buses down every small soi, forget air-conditioned EuroIIs. Only open air pickup trucks make any economic sense there, and most of the day they carry no more than four-five people, and cost as much as gasoline on the same route.

No kidding. I don't think anyone would ever suggest full coverage including small sois. It's called "walking" or using motorcycle transport to the nearest stop or station. I'm sure you can come up with a dramatic "what about the sois that are 10 kilometers long?" example... but I'll save you the trouble and just go ahead and say that surely BMTA could arrange special shuttle transports for those types of sois (of the same size of whatever vehicles people are already using there).

It doesn't even matter if the government subsidises bus companies or not - they are still more expensive to run, which means they are inefficient. Cars, on the other hand, do not require government subsidies. Somchai the builder doesn't pay his 7% VAT on his Mama to buy new, shiny bus fleet or an underground train he'll never use, people pay for their own cars themselves.

Inefficient is also the definition of a work force spending X hours a day stuck in traffic while burning ever increasing amounts of oil imports. A bus with no vacant seats carrying 24 people, while somewhat uncomfortable (it's all relative, some would find that a huge improvement over standing... I think getting everyone a seat would be a goal that could be achieved), are always going to be more efficient than 24 people driving 24 cars with 3 vacant seats per car.

[Felt 35]

The magazine Scientific American reports that ethanol will actually cause more pollution than gasoline!

Burning ethanol can potentially add more smog-forming pollution to the atmosphere, however, it can also exacerbate the ill effects of such air pollution. According to Jacobson, burning ethanol adds 22 percent more hydrocarbons to the atmosphere than burning gasoline and this would lead to a nearly 2 parts-per-billion increase in ozone. This ozone, which has been linked to inflamed lungs, impaired immune systems and heart disease by prior research, would in turn lead to a 4 percent increase in the number of ground level ozone-related deaths, or roughly 200 extra deaths a year. “Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline,” Jacobson writes in the study published in Environmental Science & Technology. “It can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

There are a couple of better alternative sources for fuel than ethanol or the current bio-diesel manufacturing process. Unfortunately the government here seems fixated on both. With the current price of a barrel of oil the thermal depolymerization process as patented by Changing World Technologies would appear to be of major benefit to Thailand. In few hours the process turns materials such as agricultural waste, old tires, plastic and even sewage into oil. The company has a commercial operation in Carthage, Missouri that turns turkey and pork processing waste in to oil. They can convert low grade coal such as that found in Thailand into oil. An article form 2006 reported that countries in Europe were looking at the process since it is an efficient way to destroy prions that cause mad cow disease and at the same time yield oil. In Europe it is illegl to convert animal processing waste into animal feed so there is a ready source of feed stock for the process. One of the bi-products of the process is a liquid fertilizer and chemical feedstocks used by other industires.

A link to the 2006 article is below.

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil

[sriracha john]

Oil price may top 45 baht/liter

Energy specialist Manoon Siriwan admits that the retail prices of benzene may top 45 baht per liter while the retail diesel price could hit 38 baht per liter

The Deputy Prime Minister disputes that figure..... He say 45 isn't high enough....

Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister Mingkwan Saengsuwan

Mingkwan expects retail oil price to hit 50 baht/liter

In a seminar entitled ‘The Survival Kit for Thai Farmers: Advantages of Organiic Fertilizers,’ Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister Mingkwan Saengsuwan says retail price of domestic oil may hit 50 baht per liter in near future.

Mingkwan also stated consumption of organic fertilizers will help reduce costs of production for farmers as prices of chemical fertilizers are currently high. He instructs related organizations to observe the organic fertilizer production and ensure its quality and standard.

Mingkwan says at present, there are 17,000 groups or around 800,000 farmers resorting to the use of organic fertilizers in their paddy fields. He says a large number of farmers who resort to the use of organic fertilizers will play a significant role in expanding the use of organic fertilizers.

- ThaiNews (today)

[cclub75]

The Deputy Prime Minister disputes that figure..... He say 45 isn't high enough....

Indeed, Mingkwan is a real winner... He is the man who managed to crunch prices (with his large ears) of... tooth paste. For a few months. You don't believe me ? Read here.

By the way... I've found a rather strange news...

The U.S. government said on Friday it has sold 16.1 million barrels of oil produced on federal land to four energy companies, putting more supply on the market at a time of record high prices.

The four companies - units of Chevron Corp. , ExxonMobil Corp., Sempra Energy Trading , and Royal Dutch Shell plc - will

pay $1.9 billion for the oil based on current oil prices near $127 a barrel, the Interior Department said.

The oil will be delivered to the companies over 6 months beginning on July 1.

The move by the department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) is not a release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, an action reserved for severe supply disruptions like the hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast in 2005.

Instead, the MMS occasionally sells oil turned over to the government by energy companies as royalties that were due on the crude they drilled on federal leases in lieu of paying cash royalties.

The department's royalty-in-kind program, which is a decade old, allows the MMS to directly sell oil produced on federal lands to raise funds for the U.S. Treasury.

Of course, this program is "decade old"... And the MMS "occasionally" do it...

It's funny, Opec keeps telling us that the supply of oil is enough, that prices hikes are the result of the "speculation"... On the other hand, we see actions... that are designed to increase supply.... Somebody is lying here....

But everthing is fine... Everything is under control. Sleep good.

Edited May 18, 2008 by cclub75

[PeaceBlondie]

By the way... I've found a rather strange news...

The U.S. government said on Friday it has sold 16.1 million barrels of oil produced on federal land to four energy companies, putting more supply on the market at a time of record high prices.

The four companies - units of Chevron Corp. , ExxonMobil Corp., Sempra Energy Trading , and Royal Dutch Shell plc - will

pay $1.9 billion for the oil based on current oil prices near $127 a barrel, the Interior Department said.

If the report is correct, three of the biggest oil corps. are paying the spot price for crude. Forget the long range contracts that once were at five dollars or twenty dollars a barrel. Oil actually sells at more than $120 a barrel, in large quantities.

[cclub75]

By the way... I've found a rather strange news...

The U.S. government said on Friday it has sold 16.1 million barrels of oil produced on federal land to four energy companies, putting more supply on the market at a time of record high prices.

The four companies - units of Chevron Corp. , ExxonMobil Corp., Sempra Energy Trading , and Royal Dutch Shell plc - will

pay $1.9 billion for the oil based on current oil prices near $127 a barrel, the Interior Department said.

If the report is correct, three of the biggest oil corps. are paying the spot price for crude. Forget the long range contracts that once were at five dollars or twenty dollars a barrel. Oil actually sells at more than $120 a barrel, in large quantities.

Indeed. And it shows that the common idea that oil prices... are about to go down... is a pure fallacy.

From my point of view, oil companies have more accurate informations about the state of oil market than us... Therefore, paying cash 127 USD now for 16 millions barrels is a real sign.

We just have too many weird signs since a few months...

The s...t could hit the fan big time. Soon.

Edited May 18, 2008 by cclub75

[sriracha john]

Bus fares rise next week

In response to rising diesel prices, bus fares in Bangkok and nearby provinces will rise soon.

"We agree that the fare for non-air-conditioned buses should rise by Bt1.5 and the fare for air-conditioned buses by Bt1," Deputy Transport Minister Songsak Thongsri says.

If the rise is approved on Tuesday, a ride on cream-and-red buses will cost Bt8.5, up from Bt7, and a ride on the cream-and-blue buses will cost Bt10, up from Bt8.5. Cream-and-blue buses are considered to be of a better standard.

For the air-conditioned buses, fares are calculated based on distance travelled. Currently, their fares are between Bt14 and Bt26. Following the rise, a ride on one of these buses will cost between Bt15 and Bt27.

Songsak says the hike applies to Bangkok Mass Transit Authority and concessionaires' buses. An initial approval has also been given to requested rise of ferry and boat fares, Marine Department director-general Prasong Tanmaneewatthana.

The final rates have not been worked out, but operators of passenger boats wanted Bt2 more for each stop for those running in the Chao Phaya River and Saen Saeb canal, and Bt0.50 for ferries.

- Daily Xpress

Edited May 18, 2008 by sriracha john

[cclub75]

If the rise is approved on Tuesday, a ride on cream-and-red buses will cost Bt8.5, up from Bt7, and a ride on the cream-and-blue buses will cost Bt10, up from Bt8.5. Cream-and-blue buses are considered to be of a better standard.

To put things into perspective : that's +21 % and + 18 % !

[Plus]

You were saying that car prices should go up by 50% (8 mil to 12 and 800k to 1.2 mil) - for the rich it would mean lesser models of Porshe, for the poor no cars at all. That's quite a difference in effect.

That would be the effect if there were no other types of cars available besides those two price brackets, sure. A used 100,000 Baht car would become 200,000 Baht.

What's your goal? To put more junk on the streets? You started this whole idea of raising taxes so that people can't afford to buy cars. They are the ones to be affected, if the number of cars doesn't decrease, why bother with taxes at all?

Ridiculous. Are you going to charge people for driving past Lam Salee intersection? Five big feeder roads converge in that area, and there's nothing there, everyone drives somewhere else, and it's still ten kilometers and two hours away from the nearest BTS, and every bus and evey boat is packed full.

The only thing ridiculous is your critique, concocting worst case scenarios to support your argument. You're imagining tolls to cross a couple of streets whereas focusing on the entire zone (say, Bangkapi) would be much more practical. What happened to your empty bus theory in this case? All of a sudden people are packing the buses, even the additional ones added here once the number of cars are reduced?

You don't make any sense. Bangkapi is a residential area and traffic from nearly a hundred square kilometers converges there on the way to the city. It's a result of poor planning and the lack of alternative routes. Levying extra tolls for passing through is simply absurd.

Every morning for every packed inbound bus there's an empty bus moving in the opposite direction, not counting the rest of the day when buses run once in half an hour, which defeats clearing the streets for speed in the first place.

Fewer people on more trips means each trip becomes more expensive. At some point it would become cheaper to let people to drive their own cars. It is already cheaper to drive than to use public transport, even shitty one like in Bangkok, because it's inherently inefficient.

LOLZ. You argue that it'll be too crowded (and people will be tired) and then you argue that it would be too expensive (so people should just drive). There's clearly no middle ground for you, Plus. It's either one dramatic end or the other.

You are not paying attention, I'm talking about reaching a break point where improving public transport conditions becomes too costly for the government, assuming it wants to subsidise it at all. At the current market prices the level of convenience for the same baht is incomparable.

I don't think anyone would ever suggest full coverage including small sois. It's called "walking" or using motorcycle transport to the nearest stop or station.

"Walking" doesn't work in Thailand, and motorcycles/shuttle buses/songtaews will never compete with private cars for price and comfort, and they double or triple transportation costs.

A bus with no vacant seats carrying 24 people, while somewhat uncomfortable (it's all relative, some would find that a huge improvement over standing...

There are buses like this - pink ones. I have not idea what they charge now, but they were losing money when they charged seven times more than a regular bus. That kind of convenience is very expensive.

>>>>

IJWT, fascism is not building rapid bus routes, fascism is forcing everyone to use them against their will.

Besides, Thais have been trying to build one short rapid bus line for five years already and it's still not complete. BTS is nearly ten years old they still can't finish even one stop extention.

Thailand is absolutely hopeless when it comes to massive projects like that. It's way beyond their level of competence.

[Heng]

What's your goal? To put more junk on the streets? You started this whole idea of raising taxes so that people can't afford to buy cars. They are the ones to be affected, if the number of cars doesn't decrease, why bother with taxes at all?

I figured you'd try to counter with that. If obsolescence and fleet degradation were not enough to retire autos on the road (not that folks trying to use their cars longer would be a bad thing), their overall volume -reduction of the total number of cars on the roads... again as THE goal- could still be culled by proportionate yearly registration costs. There would be no escape, don't worry.

You don't make any sense. Bangkapi is a residential area and traffic from nearly a hundred square kilometers converges there on the way to the city. It's a result of poor planning and the lack of alternative routes. Levying extra tolls for passing through is simply absurd.

Every morning for every packed inbound bus there's an empty bus moving in the opposite direction, not counting the rest of the day when buses run once in half an hour, which defeats clearing the streets for speed in the first place.

You don't make any sense. And yes, I know what/where Bangkapi is. You're imagining the traffic situation with tolls and the current or increased number of cars. Try imagining it with a reduced number. If empty buses also meant less cars on the roads, that would be just fine.

You are not paying attention, I'm talking about reaching a break point where improving public transport conditions becomes too costly for the government, assuming it wants to subsidise it at all. At the current market prices the level of convenience for the same baht is incomparable.

What you're doing is flip flopping. You're not considering increased tax revenues from auto sales and car registrations through the Dept. of Land Transport.

"Walking" doesn't work in Thailand, and motorcycles/shuttle buses/songtaews will never compete with private cars for price and comfort, and they double or triple transportation costs.

It'll work when there are virtually no other options. They'll certainly never compete on comfort, but they certainly can on price (which can indeed by influenced).

There are buses like this - pink ones. I have not idea what they charge now, but they were losing money when they charged seven times more than a regular bus. That kind of convenience is very expensive.

No idea what pink buses you are talking about. If you're referring to the old Microbus program, yeah, it failed as a business but doesn't change the fact that 24 filled seats on a Microbus would cost the country less than 24 single seats filled in 24 cars. You're flip flopping between talking about business models when I'm talking about reductions in traffic volume and vica versa.

[Plus]

You're not considering increased tax revenues from auto sales and car registrations through the Dept. of Land Transport.

Increased revenues from auto sales will not cover even a small part of additional expenses, if there will be increased revenues at all - as people buy less cars you'll have no one to tax.

It'll work when there are virtually no other options. They'll certainly never compete on comfort, but they certainly can on price (which can indeed by influenced).

People in general prefer to have options. Thailand is not going to become a society where the government can simply force people to do what it wants. It will not work, it's not Burma.

If you're referring to the old Microbus program, yeah, it failed as a business but doesn't change the fact that 24 filled seats on a Microbus would cost the country less than 24 single seats filled in 24 cars.

That's the one, the Microbus. The problem is you can't have 24 filled seats all the time, while cars just stay parked when no one is driving, buses have to make lots of empty runs and that costs money, they can't stop. Private minivan operators can wait until their vans are full and charge minimum price (which is probably 20 baht a trip these days), but the government cannot afford to do the same for several reasons - it can't run on profitable routes only, it has to cover every nook and corner even if it means losing money, and it has to provide service at regular intervals and put up with running nearly empty with air con at full blast.

You can't seem to grasp the idea of a market - there's a reason why the government is losing money on public transport and it still costs more than driving even after decades of subisidies and heavy taxes. You might not know what this reason is exactly, but it's there and you can't beat it. In Thailand this market intevention has spectacularly failed, there's no reason to believe that giving even more subsidies and raising even more taxes is going to suddenly reverse the trend.

Besides, it's not the money that is the problem - they can easily raise half a trillion for mass transit projects, it's the general incompetence at every level. They are simply incapable of building anything really well - roads, rapid bus lines, elevated trains, underground trains, anything.

There's also a price people are willing to pay for speed and comfort of a car, it has a value and it's not something you can just manipulate by issuing executive orders. Thais value their comfort very highly - at two-three times their annual income, they are not going to give it away without a fight. It's simply politically impossible.

[Heng]

Increased revenues from auto sales will not cover even a small part of additional expenses, if there will be increased revenues at all - as people buy less cars you'll have no one to tax.

Again, it's not an all or nothing deal. We're not trying create a Mad Max wasteland, there will still be plenty of cars on the road, just not a parking lot like state of affairs.

People in general prefer to have options. Thailand is not going to become a society where the government can simply force people to do what it wants. It will not work, it's not Burma.

More drama please? Minor to major price increases hardly makes a Burma like state. Singapore maybe.

That's the one, the Microbus. The problem is you can't have 24 filled seats all the time, while cars just stay parked when no one is driving, buses have to make lots of empty runs and that costs money, they can't stop. Private minivan operators can wait until their vans are full and charge minimum price (which is probably 20 baht a trip these days), but the government cannot afford to do the same for several reasons - it can't run on profitable routes only, it has to cover every nook and corner even if it means losing money, and it has to provide service at regular intervals and put up with running nearly empty with air con at full blast.

You can't seem to grasp the idea of a market - there's a reason why the government is losing money on public transport and it still costs more than driving even after decades of subisidies and heavy taxes. You might not know what this reason is exactly, but it's there and you can't beat it. In Thailand this market intevention has spectacularly failed, there's no reason to believe that giving even more subsidies and raising even more taxes is going to suddenly reverse the trend.

Besides, it's not the money that is the problem - they can easily raise half a trillion for mass transit projects, it's the general incompetence at every level. They are simply incapable of building anything really well - roads, rapid bus lines, elevated trains, underground trains, anything.

There's also a price people are willing to pay for speed and comfort of a car, it has a value and it's not something you can just manipulate by issuing executive orders. Thais value their comfort very highly - at two-three times their annual income, they are not going to give it away without a fight. It's simply politically impossible.

Assuming any bus system that is introduced or revamped in the future must be exactly like the Microbus failure is a silly argument. Plenty of airlines have gone out of business, it doesn't mean people should stop trying to build airlines.

I think I understand the market more than you do. I run my fair share of it.

If anything, your incompetence argument supports getting people off the roads first before any mass transit + road improvement project is undertaken.

Wrong again with your last point, that's exactly how things are manipulated, by issueing executive orders. They (the majority) already give most of their comfort away without a fight. Have you been out and about anytime in the past 80+ years?

[cclub75]

You can't seem to grasp the idea of a market - there's a reason why the government is losing money on public transport and it still costs more than driving even after decades of subisidies and heavy taxes. You might not know what this reason is exactly, but it's there and you can't beat it. In Thailand this market intevention has spectacularly failed, there's no reason to believe that giving even more subsidies and raising even more taxes is going to suddenly reverse the trend.

Besides, it's not the money that is the problem - they can easily raise half a trillion for mass transit projects, it's the general incompetence at every level. They are simply incapable of building anything really well - roads, rapid bus lines, elevated trains, underground trains, anything.

There's also a price people are willing to pay for speed and comfort of a car, it has a value and it's not something you can just manipulate by issuing executive orders. Thais value their comfort very highly - at two-three times their annual income, they are not going to give it away without a fight. It's simply politically impossible.

I agree with your first part : SRT (trains), BMTA (buses in BKK) are walking disasters.

If you look at other projects, even with concessions to private companies , it's almost the same. The BTS for instance, that looks like a success, but actually... bares a huge debt (the thai state is willing to buy it ! old project launched when Thaksin was Prime Minister).

As for the "mega projects", the financing is not that easy. We can even say that to this day, it's pure fiction (read here).

On the total budget of 770 billions (or 1,8 trillion, it's not even clear), only 2,5 % are REALLY FINANCED (by a loan from the japanese bank JBIC).

As for the "not going to give away without a fight"... as I said previously, one day... nobody will ask them their opinion : thai people (among other) will have to drive less.

By the way... new record for oil... 129 USD... But remember the official motto : everything is fine, everything is under control.

[LaoPo]

In my own small EU country I paid € 1,54/liter or Baht 77,3/liter, last Saturday; that's with an unmanned station.

The 'normal price is € 1,63/liter which is Baht 81,8/liter (That's 309,6 Baht/Gallon or US $ 9,66/Gallon)

This morning the newspapers warned that the time we have to pay € 2/liter or Baht 100/liter isn't far....time to start walking again

LaoPo

[cclub75]

In my own small EU country I paid € 1,54/liter or Baht 77,3/liter, last Saturday; that's with an unmanned station.

The 'normal price is € 1,63/liter which is Baht 81,8/liter (That's 309,6 Baht/Gallon or US $ 9,66/Gallon)

This morning the newspapers warned that the time we have to pay € 2/liter or Baht 100/liter isn't far....time to start walking again

-Minimum wage in France (net, for 151 hours per month) 1 030 euros = 6,82 euro per hour = 54 euros per day = 2 700 THB

-Minimum wage in Bangkok per day = 190 THB

Voila. Of course, on the net wage, french worker has to pay more for food, house and other expenses etc.

But, if you consider the purchasing power calculated in... liter of gasoline.... there is no escape : thais workers are suffering and will suffer more than western workers.

And, second factor : gasoline prices are not taxed a lot in Thailand... against a very heavy taxation in european countries.

This issue is potentially explosive. And to this date, the thai government has only one strategy to handle the problem : head into the sand, light some candles, and pray for a quick decrease of oil prices...

All the datas show that... unfortunatly it will stay... a prayer... at least on short/mid term

[usatrader]

In my own small EU country I paid € 1,54/liter or Baht 77,3/liter, last Saturday; that's with an unmanned station.

The 'normal price is € 1,63/liter which is Baht 81,8/liter (That's 309,6 Baht/Gallon or US $ 9,66/Gallon)

This morning the newspapers warned that the time we have to pay € 2/liter or Baht 100/liter isn't far....time to start walking again

-Minimum wage in France (net, for 151 hours per month) 1 030 euros = 6,82 euro per hour = 54 euros per day = 2 700 THB

-Minimum wage in Bangkok per day = 190 THB

Voila. Of course, on the net wage, french worker has to pay more for food, house and other expenses etc.

But, if you consider the purchasing power calculated in... liter of gasoline.... there is no escape : thais workers are suffering and will suffer more than western workers.

And, second factor : gasoline prices are not taxed a lot in Thailand... against a very heavy taxation in european countries.

This issue is potentially explosive. And to this date, the thai government has only one strategy to handle the problem : head into the sand, light some candles, and pray for a quick decrease of oil prices...

All the datas show that... unfortunatly it will stay... a prayer... at least on short/mid term

Respectfully in no way to counter your points here but merely to add a layer on ther pile of issues about rising costs which includes taxation, both the hidden and open.

Rich continue to flee French wealth tax: report

PARIS (AFP) - The exodus of the well-heeled seeking to escape France's wealth tax picked up in 2006, with 843 taxpayers holding an estimated 2.8 billion euros in assets leaving the country, Le Figaro reported Tuesday.

The figure was around 200 higher than in 2005, the daily reported citing the French Senate's budget pointman, Philippe Marini.

The tax is a levy on assets above 770,000 euros (1.2 million dollars) rather than on income, and has forced numerous well-off to take up residency in other countries, such as French rock icon Johnny Hallyday.

Marini suggested raising the minimum threshold to one million euros.

"We have a need for well-off people in our country to invest, create jobs, wealth and finally to pay taxes," said the lawmaker.

As land values rise the tax has also become a bane to many property owners who find that they must pay the tax, known as the ISF, even though their income is modest

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080520/bs_afp/francetaxwealth

I believe I have read in the Times or perhaps the Telagraph that a similar fleeing of the wealthy is occuring in the UK and in Germany as well. Then again perhaps I am mistaken?

[LaoPo]

In my own small EU country I paid € 1,54/liter or Baht 77,3/liter, last Saturday; that's with an unmanned station.

The 'normal price is € 1,63/liter which is Baht 81,8/liter (That's 309,6 Baht/Gallon or US $ 9,66/Gallon)

This morning the newspapers warned that the time we have to pay € 2/liter or Baht 100/liter isn't far....time to start walking again

-Minimum wage in France (net, for 151 hours per month) 1 030 euros = 6,82 euro per hour = 54 euros per day = 2 700 THB

-Minimum wage in Bangkok per day = 190 THB

I wasn't comparing EU gas prices with Thailand but merely with the US.

Why the EU has to suffer -more than 50%+ - for gas prices is a mystery to many.

$ 3.75/gallon in the USA OR Baht 120,1/gallon = Baht 31,7/liter

or

$ 9,66/gallon in my EU country is a huge difference. (Baht 81,7/liter)

or

$ 5,31/gallon in Thailand (Baht 170,3/Gallon or 45 Baht/liter)

The -complaining- Americans AND the Presidency candidates, now using gas prices as a BIG ISSUE in the President's Race in their country should feel ashamed....even more ashamed, realizing that POOR Thai have to pay a lot more for the same gas as their RICH US counterpart car driver

LaoPo

[Ijustwannateach]

Wasn't it a French politician who quipped that it was hard to feel sorry for a country most of whose fiscal problems could be solved by stopping the fuel subsidy?

[Xaryt]

+

[tracker]

The time seems to be right to do a change like in brazil. Make your own alcohol, and force car manufacturers to make the engines "flexifuel". Thailand has enough argi resources to pull something like this off.

[Heng]

I agree with your first part : SRT (trains), BMTA (buses in BKK) are walking disasters.

If you look at other projects, even with concessions to private companies , it's almost the same. The BTS for instance, that looks like a success, but actually... bares a huge debt (the thai state is willing to buy it ! old project launched when Thaksin was Prime Minister).

Are they big enough failures to conclude that the expressways, BTS, and MRT should not have been built or that the bus system be scrapped altogether though? Or that any improvement should not be attempted? That sounds like Plus' reasoning here.

As for the "not going to give away without a fight"... as I said previously, one day... nobody will ask them their opinion : thai people (among other) will have to drive less.

He's also of the opinion that people will not drive less because there are no alternatives, no matter what the fuel cost. Yeah, that makes sense. ( )

[jumnien]

There is always the alternative to stay home! How many trips are really necessary out there? Most people on the roads are just wasting gas that could be put to better use in my speedboat or airplane!

[Plus]

As for the "mega projects", the financing is not that easy. We can even say that to this day, it's pure fiction (read here).

They can find the money if their proposals are clear and workable and they are dedicated to fulfiling them. At the moment everything is subject to a sudden change, everyday the planners can be sent back to a drawing board. Who is going to lend to projects like that? The money is there, they are just not qualified to get these loans.

As for the "not going to give away without a fight"... as I said previously, one day... nobody will ask them their opinion : thai people (among other) will have to drive less.

Public transport prices have just been increased, and they will increase again to adjust to rising oil prices, and so will everything else - everything depends on price of oil.

The market will force people to choose the most efficient way of getting around, and so far it's driving, not the existing public transport system. The government is subsidising it not because it's better but because it's the only choice for millions of poor. They are scrambling for a less wasteful solution and the best solution all around the world has been undeground/elevated trains, not buses. But, whatever the solution is, it's not going to be cheap and easy, and Thais will be found incapable of implementing it. The unstable political situation even further weakens government's ability to deal with any big, long term projects.

I think I understand the market more than you do...that's exactly how things are manipulated, by issueing executive orders.

Year, right. Like ordering to sell one million Elite cards in three years. Some people believe that if someone has CE letters in their job title, every dumb idea that comes out of that head will make money. Are you one of them?

Yesterday I wanted to finish this debate because you resorted to throwing out half arsed ideas without a minute of thinking about their effects, today you are staking your personal business acumen on them. Amusing.

What you are trying to propose is suburbs without cars, or metropolis without suburbs. This the opposite how Bangkok, or any other major city in the world has been growing since WWII when cars became a general commodity.

Don't talk about extremes again - where do you propose to draw the minimum entry level to afford to live in suburbs? You clearly think too many people live there now, the government thinks too many people live in inner Bangkok and wants to move them out. They moved out middle classes already, the problem is they all want to drive back, hence the idea of fast, "park and ride" train network that is not going to materialise anytime soon the way things are going. Government has never thought of covering suburbs with a bus network - it's doesn't work anywhere in the world.

>>>>

If there was a better business model than Microbus, someone would have found it already. It doesn't exist no matter how many execitive orders you threaten to issue.

[Heng]

The market will force people to choose the most efficient way of getting around, and so far it's driving, not the existing public transport system. The government is subsidising it not because it's better but because it's the only choice for millions of poor. They are scrambling for a less wasteful solution and the best solution all around the world has been undeground/elevated trains, not buses. But, whatever the solution is, it's not going to be cheap and easy, and Thais will be found incapable of implementing it. The unstable political situation even further weakens government's ability to deal with any big, long term projects.

The public will choose the most comfortable way of getting around, and that is indeed driving. It will no longer be the most comfortable way of getting around once they can no longer afford it. The gov't is not doing anything for the poor, as usual. Whatever they are doing for the poor is an incidental by product to their usual self serving behavior. I'm not saying buses are the end all, I'm all for elevated trains and buses as well... at the same time reducing cars on the road though to aid in the construction process. As to what Thais are capable of, that's your own negative opinion, I've always been more optimistic.

Year, right. Like ordering to sell one million Elite cards in three years. Some people believe that if someone has CE letters in their job title, every dumb idea that comes out of that head will make money. Are you one of them?

Apples and rotten oranges. I've had more than a few good and bad ideas, and the few successful good ideas have been more than worth it.

Yesterday I wanted to finish this debate because you resorted to throwing out half arsed ideas without a minute of thinking about their effects, today you are staking your personal business acumen on them. Amusing.

Today is a new day. I'm with you on the amusement scale though... am curious how long you can squirm around with your "people will drive no matter how little money they have in their pockets" theory.

What you are trying to propose is suburbs without cars, or metropolis without suburbs. This the opposite how Bangkok, or any other major city in the world has been growing since WWII when cars became a general commodity.

Yeah, and bucking the trend is what non-comformists have always done.

Don't talk about extremes again - where do you propose to draw the minimum entry level to afford to live in suburbs? You clearly think too many people live there now, the government thinks too many people live in inner Bangkok and wants to move them out. They moved out middle classes already, the problem is they all want to drive back, hence the idea of fast, "park and ride" train network that is not going to materialise anytime soon the way things are going. Government has never thought of covering suburbs with a bus network - it's doesn't work anywhere in the world.

Yawn, I'll talk about whatever I want to talk about. Entry level of what? The price of cars? Or the price of houses? I'm not thinking of affecting any kind of changes to home prices at the moment, just a change in the initial price and year registration cost of automobiles. An initial 40-50% increase would IMO be a good start in all vehicle classes, with perhaps higher increases for larger and luxury vehicle classes, open to upward and downward adjustments as required. Again, I'm not saying there will be buses or trains built into your neighborhood, just nearby on a main artery. You'll find your own way to get to it. Might be a little sweaty, but you'll be cooled down just fine in the aircon on board. If you don't want to have that option, you could always just work harder and avoid the whole thing.