With construction commenced, contracts signed or terms of reference (TOR) drafted for many key big-ticket projects, the government's development of several rail networks is not a step forward for a costly grand ambition that needs to be dealt with in a more strategic and cost-effective manner.
Deputy Prime Minister Somkid Jatusripitak on Thursday announced the military government's goal to shift Thailand's main transport from road and air links to trains. This mission is commendable for a country that is 86% reliant on road transport and just 2% on rail. But the government's actions run against its mission.
While it is promoting rail transport, this administration has also approved a motorway project from Bangkok to Nakhon Ratchasima, a route which will be covered by Thai-Chinese high-speed trains. Additionally, while it is drafting the terms for the Don Mueang-Suvarnabhumi-U-tapao high-speed rail network, worth 236 billion baht, it is also working on further terms for U-tapao airport and the Eastern Airport City, worth 200 billion baht.
The government does not need to spend on developing different modes of transport that will serve the same destinations. The overlapping of routes and destinations is also seen in different rail projects. The most notable example is the Bangkok-Nong Khai route that will see both the high-speed train and the double-rack rail system up and running.
These overlapping plans undermine the government's mission to promote rail transport. The government should ensure it sets its transport development priorities correctly and that rail development takes a higher priority than road and air transport. With different phases of development and operation for both high-speed and double-track train systems planned, there is a key issue over connectivity.
For example, the government earlier this month kick-started the construction of its first phase of the high-speed train that links Bangkok to Nong Khai in the Northeast. When it is operational in 2022 as planned, this first phase will cover a final destination as far as Nakhon Ratchasima while the rest of the route will not yet be ready for operation. It is questionable whether this short rail line will draw enough passengers and generate sufficient revenue.
Cost-effectiveness is also another issue that seems to be overlooked by the government. Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha this week expressed his intention to drastically cut the maximum speed of the Bangkok-Chiang Mai bullet train, from 300kph to 180-200kph, to bring down the overall project cost. Compromising on speed will without a doubt make the "high speed" train less appealing to passengers and less competitive versus air travel. Moreover, it will deprive Thailand of the chance to opt for the most up-to-date technology available.
The prime minister is concerned that the 420-billion-baht cost proposed by Japan is too high for the 670km bullet train project. But he should realise that his government also approved a similar range of investment for the first phase of the Thai-Chinese high-speed rail route from Bangkok to Nakhon Ratchasima -- 179 billion baht for a 252km stretch. The premier should consider cost effectiveness in the long run, rather than short-term cost cutting.
Should his government opt out of airport and motorway plans, it would not have to reduce the costs of the bullet train. Thailand should not invest in old technology but rather the latest available.
Additionally, Gen Prayut instructed the Transport Ministry to review the bullet train speed reduction plan without consulting the public. This is not transparent. Earlier, when he opted for the use of Section 44 under the interim charter to bypass certain laws for the Thai-Chinese project, his government also bypassed the need for transparency.
The development of these interwoven rail networks requires better planning and more strategic prioritisation with adequate public participation. Otherwise, the state may end up with underused, loss-ridden rail systems while incurring a massive public debt that will have to be paid off by taxpayers.