Do you guys think this will be feasible? How badly will it affect SG?
你們認為這可行嗎?對新加坡的影響有多大?
0
0
評論翻譯
montozkhairi
I used to be an officer on a tanker, so I think I can confidently say ship owners would still prefer calling the port of Singapore.
For one, it's the best place for crew changes. The flights out from Changi Airport caters to the crew daily, with most of them coming from India, Philippines and/or Europe.
Secondly, the cost of bunker. Singapore has consistently provide good quality bunker at a very good prices. Not to say there isn't any tampering of the flow meter occurring off the coast of Singapore, but generally, if you're diligent and cautious about the amount that's going in your bunker tank, it's probably the best place in the East to get it.
Also, Singapore has been a hub that connects the east and the west for so long, I personally think the owners will prefer a trusted route than a "shorter" route. From personal experience, Singapore port turnover can be done in less than 48 hours, whereas in other ports, it can be double the time, if we consider the same tonnage being moved.
Of course, I'm only touching the tip of the iceberg. There's many reasons as to why Thailand would be a more feasible option, but if you're looking at the next 10-15 years after completion, I think it wouldn't affect Singapore too much. Hell, until today some owners would still prefer to ships to spend an extra 10-14 days out at sea and sail past the cape of good hope than to pay to go through the suez canal.
orroro1
Is Thailand really "shorter"? There is loading/ unloading time, time to get containers on a fleet of trucks and move them across the land bridge (which seems to be 2wks), and waiting for the new ship to leave, which might not be immediate. I really find it hard to belive that this isn't going to be considerably slower and more expensive than just sailing through sg.
kopisiutaidaily
I can attest to this. I do commercial operations of ships and for many trade routes, Singapore is the best stopover for all things shipping before proceeding to next destination.
I don’t think the land crossing will make impact to Singapore’s position. Mainly because it’s a land crossing, which means ships need to dock at a terminal. Discharge the cargo (this part will cost tens of thousands in USD). Put the cargo on either rail or trucks. Another cost here. And then bring another ship alongside to load those cargo. Another tens of thousand. It doesn’t make any commercial sense imo. When a ship coming down to Singapore only takes a couple days and less touch point is less cost.
My speculation is that the Chinese are pushing and funding this project. Reason is that the Chinese wants to have an alternative route aside from the malacca straits as pretty much every trade coming from Europe/arab/india are routed through malacca straits. Should there be a blockade during war. It would be a huge issue for the Chinese.
Administrator-Reddit
This land bridge is not feasible, at least not for most commercial purposes. The main reason China wants it built is to suit their own purposes of having an alternative to the Strait of Malacca if war breaks out. As for Thailand, their economic interest is less clear because there’s no way this land bridge will have enough business to sustain operations unless China routes all of their cargo to this land bridge instead, and even then it’s unclear if that would be enough.
Either way, it’s probably safe to say that this land bridge is being pushed through for political rather than economic purposes, so it wouldn’t make sense to try to look at it from a feasibility perspective.
LucarioMagic
So this is another "China lending another country money to build empty infrastructure that only benefits China?"
那么這又是一個“中國借錢給別國建設空置的基礎設施,只對中國有利”的故事?
blorg
Except China has shown no interest in this project whatsoever and has made no mention of it. It's the Thai PM that has been trying to sell it to them, so far without success.
If China is interested in anything, it's a canal, not a land bridge... but they have shown little interest in that either.
Wameo
Bro don't go bringing facts and common sense into this conversation, just let the good people of reddit irrationally hate on China!
兄弟,別把事實和常識帶入這場對話,就讓reddit的“好人”非理性地仇視中國吧!
factforfiction
Thai politicians want the bridge. May not be profitable for the country but large construction projects like this could be very profitable for certain individuals.
Megalordrion
China doesn't trust Thailand after the stupid stunt they pull off shunning all Chinese tourists, now they want them back which is a stretch. In all likelihood China's trust in Singapore is greater than the Thais as we're seeing an increase in Chinese tourists nowadays.
go_zarian
You have to unload at one port, transport to the other port, and reload on another ship at that port.
The infographic itself says it takes one to two weeks to do that. Though it claims overall time savings, does it really take more than two weeks to sail from southern Thailand down to Singapore and from then on to the South China Sea?
They should have gone big and dug the Kra Canal. That would have led to real time savings and would have seriously challenged us.
The land bridge idea is a compromise that is not feasible in the long run. Either you go big or you don't do anything. Halfway solutions simply don't work.
jollyseaman
Digging the canal might undermine their national security. Southern Thailand have some separatist issues.
挖掘運河可能會損害他們的國家安全。泰國南部存在一些分裂主義問題。
Odd_Duty520
Not really, if you look at the map, the parts affected by the malay insurgency takes up less than half the land area below the isthmus and the population that does the insurgency is still a minority overall even with the split given how big hatyai is population-wise. It will be only slightly logistically harder to deal with the insurgency and of course the risk of terrorism would be high for such an important piece of infrastructure
CmDrRaBb1983
I think it's easier for army already on land going to the south from north to continue the journey via land than to halfway at the kra canal, get up on a transport ship from one side and then to the other. Bridges connecting one side to the other can be destroyed. There can be strategic land crossings over the railway from north to south. The army can also easily put additional bridges for the vehicles to use if it's over rails. A canal makes defending attacks from the north easier and prolonging any war.
smile_politely
I bet my money Singapore is financing these separatists to keep the north Thailand unstable, just like how Singapore is sending war supplies and funding Myanmar junta
bonkers05
Given the terrain, a canal would mean locks and therefore a convoy system and thereby lose any time savings gained by the shorter route.
Unless they wanna blast a line straight through as wide as the Strait of Johore and make Malaya an island.
bonkers05
I was making the point that even building a canal would not generate the needed time savings to make building the canal viable unless they are willing to accept an enviromental and geopolitical disaster.
ziddyzoo
Panama and Suez cut off a continent sized chunk of travel; Kra could only reduce a Malaysian peninsula sized amount of travel. Only if the Straits and ports of Singapore become too congested can a Kra canal hope to be commercially viable.
But of course commercial viability is not always the point; it’s certainly not why the US built the Panama. The commerce was just icing on the geostrategic cake. It’s hard to see what Thailand gets out of building a Kra canal in that dimension except a target painted on its back, probably a debt load to China, and a reinvigoration of separatism in the deep south.
Anomaly_101
I think you’re right on the commercial viability front, that’s not the main reason. However, once you project this map onto the existing “string of pearls” China has built the picture becomes quite clear.
Right now the biggest break in the string of pearls going to India (one of china’s main competitors today) is the straits of Singapore, which also is a US navy port.
So I think it makes total sense why China, for a while now, has been pushing to circumvent the straight of Singapore.
ziddyzoo
Agreed - the strategic logic is there for China. I just don’t get why Thailand would open itself up to that. Especially the ancient crusty Thai generals who at times have been some of the most ardent supporters. The lessons of history from Panama and Suez are pretty mixed for the host nation of such strategically vital infrastructure. I guess they think this time will be different…
midasp
I've been on a cruise from Singapore to Penang and back. It takes half a day to do that. Lets be generous and say it takes a full day to sail from south Thailand to Singapore.
If it truly takes a week to transfer goods between ports, then its more time-efficient to just go to Singapore.
kuang89
When I studied shipping in poly more than 15 years ago they already say they want to build this already.
15 年多前,當我在保利學習航運時,他們就已經說要建造這個項目了。
ziddyzoo
In Thailand they’ve been talking about the Kra canal for about a century…
在泰國,人們談論克拉運河已經有大約一個世紀了……
Separate-Ad9638
they ask investors to take the risks, if its so profitable, this thai govt wouldnt invite them to take part.
他們要求投資者承擔風險,如果真的這么賺錢,泰國政府就不會邀請他們參與了。
Nightowl11111
lol Because it has risks, that is why the Thai government wants others to die for it, it really does not want to touch such a white elephant.
哈哈,因為它有風險,所以泰國政府才要別人為它送死,它實在不想碰這樣的大白象。
Blueberry8899
Thailand was never and ever capable of doing this alone. The realization becomes clearer with the rising of China.
泰國從來都沒有能力獨自做到這一點。隨著中國的崛起,這一認知變得更加清晰。
Nightowl11111
Even with the power to do it, it does not make any sense. Even the Suez, the busiest canal in the world, only handles enough shipping in a whole year to match what the Straits of Singapore handle in one DAY. That is the difference in scale we are talking about. The canal is only 0.3% as effective as the natural route.
pestoster0ne
This is a "land bridge", which is just marketing for two ports and a highway between them. It's a lot more hassle and much slower than an actual canal that ships could just sail through.
Praimfayaa
Sounds like a logistical nightmare to transit an entire vessel of cargo inland from one port to another, for sure it will be less efficient and less green, so many things can go wrong too. Geographically, it does not save much distance for most shipping routes either.
Quite a foolish idea if you think about it.
borisslovechild
It would take decades to construct assuming the Thais manage to pull it off. There are very few huge construction projects that have not gone over budget or not blown past deadlines. Factor in corruption, local resistance (there will be a huge amount of dislocation), battles with environmental activists, etc. etc. etc. It can be done but I would always aim to triple the budget and double the time required. If I had to pluck a number out of the air, I would say it would take 50 years to complete. By which time global warming might well make the whole thing redundant.
I used to be an officer on a tanker, so I think I can confidently say ship owners would still prefer calling the port of Singapore.
For one, it's the best place for crew changes. The flights out from Changi Airport caters to the crew daily, with most of them coming from India, Philippines and/or Europe.
Secondly, the cost of bunker. Singapore has consistently provide good quality bunker at a very good prices. Not to say there isn't any tampering of the flow meter occurring off the coast of Singapore, but generally, if you're diligent and cautious about the amount that's going in your bunker tank, it's probably the best place in the East to get it.
Also, Singapore has been a hub that connects the east and the west for so long, I personally think the owners will prefer a trusted route than a "shorter" route. From personal experience, Singapore port turnover can be done in less than 48 hours, whereas in other ports, it can be double the time, if we consider the same tonnage being moved.
Of course, I'm only touching the tip of the iceberg. There's many reasons as to why Thailand would be a more feasible option, but if you're looking at the next 10-15 years after completion, I think it wouldn't affect Singapore too much. Hell, until today some owners would still prefer to ships to spend an extra 10-14 days out at sea and sail past the cape of good hope than to pay to go through the suez canal.
我曾經是一艘油輪上的高級船員,因此我可以自信地說,船東們仍然更愿意??啃录悠赂?。
首先,這里是更換船員的最佳地點。樟宜機場每天都有航班為船員提供服務,其中大部分來自印度、菲律賓和/或歐洲。
其次是燃料成本。新加坡一直以非常優(yōu)惠的價格提供優(yōu)質燃料。這并不是說新加坡沿海的流量計沒有被篡改過,但一般來說,如果你勤奮謹慎地控制油艙中的油量,這里可能是東方最好的加油站。
此外,新加坡長期以來一直是連接東西方的樞紐,我個人認為船東們更愿意選擇一條值得信賴的航線,而不是“更短”的航線。從個人經驗來看,新加坡港口的周轉可以在 48 小時內完成,而在其他港口,如果考慮到同樣的運輸噸位,周轉時間可能要長一倍。
當然,我說的只是冰山一角。有很多原因可以解釋為什么泰國會是一個更可行的選擇,但如果你著眼于建成后的未來 10-15 年,我認為這不會對新加坡造成太大影響。該死的,直到今天,一些船東仍然寧愿船只在海上多花 10-14 天,駛過好望角,也不愿花錢通過蘇伊士運河。
Is Thailand really "shorter"? There is loading/ unloading time, time to get containers on a fleet of trucks and move them across the land bridge (which seems to be 2wks), and waiting for the new ship to leave, which might not be immediate. I really find it hard to belive that this isn't going to be considerably slower and more expensive than just sailing through sg.
泰國的真的“更短”嗎?裝貨/卸貨時間、將集裝箱裝上卡車并運過陸橋的時間(似乎需要 2 周),以及等待新船離開的時間,這可能不會立即完成。我真的很難相信,這樣做不會比通過新加坡航運慢得多,也貴得多。
I can attest to this. I do commercial operations of ships and for many trade routes, Singapore is the best stopover for all things shipping before proceeding to next destination.
I don’t think the land crossing will make impact to Singapore’s position. Mainly because it’s a land crossing, which means ships need to dock at a terminal. Discharge the cargo (this part will cost tens of thousands in USD). Put the cargo on either rail or trucks. Another cost here. And then bring another ship alongside to load those cargo. Another tens of thousand. It doesn’t make any commercial sense imo. When a ship coming down to Singapore only takes a couple days and less touch point is less cost.
My speculation is that the Chinese are pushing and funding this project. Reason is that the Chinese wants to have an alternative route aside from the malacca straits as pretty much every trade coming from Europe/arab/india are routed through malacca straits. Should there be a blockade during war. It would be a huge issue for the Chinese.
我可以證明這一點。我從事船舶商業(yè)運營,對于許多貿易航線而言,新加坡是前往下一個目的地之前的最佳中轉站。
我不認為泰國陸橋會影響新加坡的地位。主要是因為陸路口岸意味著船舶需要??看a頭。卸貨(這部分將花費數(shù)萬美元)。將貨物裝上鐵路或卡車。這又是一筆費用。然后把另一艘船靠過來裝貨。又是一筆數(shù)萬美元的費用。在我看來,這沒有任何商業(yè)意義。一艘船到新加坡只需要幾天時間,接觸點少,成本更低。
我的猜測是,中國正在推動和資助這個項目。原因是中國希望在馬六甲海峽之外有另一條航線,因為來自歐洲/阿拉伯/印度的幾乎所有貿易都要經過馬六甲海峽。如果戰(zhàn)爭期間發(fā)生封鎖。這對中國來說將是一個巨大的問題。
This land bridge is not feasible, at least not for most commercial purposes. The main reason China wants it built is to suit their own purposes of having an alternative to the Strait of Malacca if war breaks out. As for Thailand, their economic interest is less clear because there’s no way this land bridge will have enough business to sustain operations unless China routes all of their cargo to this land bridge instead, and even then it’s unclear if that would be enough.
Either way, it’s probably safe to say that this land bridge is being pushed through for political rather than economic purposes, so it wouldn’t make sense to try to look at it from a feasibility perspective.
這座陸橋是不可行的,至少對于大多數(shù)商業(yè)目的來說是不可行的。中國希望建造這座陸橋的主要原因是為了滿足自己的目的,即在戰(zhàn)爭爆發(fā)時有一個替代馬六甲海峽的通道。至于泰國,他們的經濟利益就不那么明確了,因為這座陸橋不可能有足夠的業(yè)務來維持運營,除非中國把所有的貨物都運到這座陸橋上,即便如此,是否足夠也是個未知數(shù)。
無論如何,可以肯定的是,這條陸橋是出于政治目的而非經濟目的而推動的,因此從可行性的角度來考慮是沒有意義的。
So this is another "China lending another country money to build empty infrastructure that only benefits China?"
那么這又是一個“中國借錢給別國建設空置的基礎設施,只對中國有利”的故事?
Except China has shown no interest in this project whatsoever and has made no mention of it. It's the Thai PM that has been trying to sell it to them, so far without success.
If China is interested in anything, it's a canal, not a land bridge... but they have shown little interest in that either.
但中國對這個項目沒有表現(xiàn)出任何興趣,也沒有提及。是泰國總理一直在試圖向他們推銷這個項目,但至今未果。
如果說中國對什么感興趣的話,那就是運河,而不是陸橋......但他們對此也興趣不大。
Bro don't go bringing facts and common sense into this conversation, just let the good people of reddit irrationally hate on China!
兄弟,別把事實和常識帶入這場對話,就讓reddit的“好人”非理性地仇視中國吧!
Thai politicians want the bridge. May not be profitable for the country but large construction projects like this could be very profitable for certain individuals.
泰國政界人士想要這座橋。對于國家來說可能不會有利可圖,但像這樣的大型建設項目對于某些個人來說可能非常有利可圖。
China doesn't trust Thailand after the stupid stunt they pull off shunning all Chinese tourists, now they want them back which is a stretch. In all likelihood China's trust in Singapore is greater than the Thais as we're seeing an increase in Chinese tourists nowadays.
在泰國做出了嚇跑所有中國游客的愚蠢舉動后,中國不再信任泰國,現(xiàn)在他們又想讓中國游客回來,這有點難。中國對新加坡的信任度很可能高于泰國,因為如今中國游客越來越多。
You have to unload at one port, transport to the other port, and reload on another ship at that port.
The infographic itself says it takes one to two weeks to do that. Though it claims overall time savings, does it really take more than two weeks to sail from southern Thailand down to Singapore and from then on to the South China Sea?
They should have gone big and dug the Kra Canal. That would have led to real time savings and would have seriously challenged us.
The land bridge idea is a compromise that is not feasible in the long run. Either you go big or you don't do anything. Halfway solutions simply don't work.
你必須在一個港口卸貨,運輸?shù)搅硪粋€港口,然后在該港口的另一艘船上重新裝貨。
信息圖表本身就說,這樣做需要一到兩周的時間。雖然它聲稱總體上節(jié)省了時間,但從泰國南部航行到新加坡,再從新加坡航行到中國南海,真的需要兩周以上的時間嗎?
他們應該大干一場,開鑿克拉運河。這樣就能真正節(jié)省時間,也會給我們帶來嚴峻的挑戰(zhàn)。
陸橋的想法是一種妥協(xié),從長遠來看是不可行的。要么你大干一場,要么你什么都不做。半桶水是行不通的。
Digging the canal might undermine their national security. Southern Thailand have some separatist issues.
挖掘運河可能會損害他們的國家安全。泰國南部存在一些分裂主義問題。
Not really, if you look at the map, the parts affected by the malay insurgency takes up less than half the land area below the isthmus and the population that does the insurgency is still a minority overall even with the split given how big hatyai is population-wise. It will be only slightly logistically harder to deal with the insurgency and of course the risk of terrorism would be high for such an important piece of infrastructure
其實不然,如果你看一下地圖,受馬來叛亂影響的地區(qū)只占地峽以下土地面積的不到一半,而且考慮到哈蒂亞伊的人口規(guī)模有多大,即使進行了分割,叛亂的人口總體上仍然是少數(shù)。要解決叛亂問題,在后勤方面只會稍微困難一些,當然,對于如此重要的基礎設施來說,恐怖主義的風險也會很高。
I think it's easier for army already on land going to the south from north to continue the journey via land than to halfway at the kra canal, get up on a transport ship from one side and then to the other. Bridges connecting one side to the other can be destroyed. There can be strategic land crossings over the railway from north to south. The army can also easily put additional bridges for the vehicles to use if it's over rails. A canal makes defending attacks from the north easier and prolonging any war.
我認為,對于已經在陸地上的軍隊來說,從北方前往南方,通過陸路繼續(xù)前進要比在克拉運河中途上船、從一側上運輸船再前往另一側容易得多。連接一側與另一側的橋梁可能會被摧毀。從北到南的鐵路會導致戰(zhàn)略性的陸路交叉口出現(xiàn)。軍隊還可以很容易地在鐵軌上架設額外的橋梁供車輛使用。有了運河,就能更容易地抵御來自北方的進攻,延長戰(zhàn)爭時間。
I bet my money Singapore is financing these separatists to keep the north Thailand unstable, just like how Singapore is sending war supplies and funding Myanmar junta
我敢打賭,新加坡正在資助這些分裂分子,以保持泰國北部的不穩(wěn)定,就像新加坡運送戰(zhàn)爭物資和資助緬甸軍政府一樣
based on what? Did Singapore fund Jemaah Islamiah in Indonesia as well?
有何依據(jù)?新加坡也資助了印度尼西亞的伊斯蘭祈禱團嗎?
(伊斯蘭祈禱團,又稱回教祈禱團,簡稱伊斯蘭團,是一個尋求在東南亞建立獨立國家的伊斯蘭原教旨主義的伊斯蘭武裝組織。其活動范圍遍及印尼、新加坡、文萊、馬來西亞、泰國南部及菲律賓。)
Given the terrain, a canal would mean locks and therefore a convoy system and thereby lose any time savings gained by the shorter route.
Unless they wanna blast a line straight through as wide as the Strait of Johore and make Malaya an island.
考慮到地形,修建運河意味著要修建船閘,因此需要一個護航系統(tǒng),從而失去了縮短路線所節(jié)省的時間。
除非他們想炸開一條和柔佛海峽一樣寬的直線,把馬來亞變成一個島。
also added costs to provide security for trucks moving cargo between the 2 ports.
that distance to travel is no joke.
此外,在兩個港口之間為運送貨物的卡車提供安全保障也增加了成本。
這段路程可不太平。
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網 http://nxnpts.cn 轉載請注明出處
They're not building a canal. They're building two ports, one on each coast, and a railway line between them to transport goods.
他們不是在修建運河。他們正在建設兩個港口,兩邊海岸各一個,并在兩個港口之間建設一條鐵路線以運輸貨物。
I was making the point that even building a canal would not generate the needed time savings to make building the canal viable unless they are willing to accept an enviromental and geopolitical disaster.
我的意思是,除非他們愿意接受環(huán)境和地緣政治災難,否則即使修建運河也無法節(jié)省所需的時間,從而使修建運河變得可行。
Panama and Suez cut off a continent sized chunk of travel; Kra could only reduce a Malaysian peninsula sized amount of travel. Only if the Straits and ports of Singapore become too congested can a Kra canal hope to be commercially viable.
But of course commercial viability is not always the point; it’s certainly not why the US built the Panama. The commerce was just icing on the geostrategic cake. It’s hard to see what Thailand gets out of building a Kra canal in that dimension except a target painted on its back, probably a debt load to China, and a reinvigoration of separatism in the deep south.
巴拿馬運河和蘇伊士運河切斷了整個大陸的交通;克拉運河只能減少馬來西亞半島的交通。只有當新加坡海峽和港口變得過于擁擠時,克拉運河才有希望在商業(yè)上可行。
當然,商業(yè)可行性并不總是問題的關鍵;這當然也不是美國建造巴拿馬運河的原因。商業(yè)只是地緣戰(zhàn)略蛋糕上的糖衣。除了背上的靶子、可能欠下的中國債務以及南部深處分離主義的重新抬頭之外,我們很難看到泰國在這個層面上修建克拉運河能得到什么好處。
I think you’re right on the commercial viability front, that’s not the main reason. However, once you project this map onto the existing “string of pearls” China has built the picture becomes quite clear.
Right now the biggest break in the string of pearls going to India (one of china’s main competitors today) is the straits of Singapore, which also is a US navy port.
So I think it makes total sense why China, for a while now, has been pushing to circumvent the straight of Singapore.
我認為你在商業(yè)可行性方面的觀點是正確的,但這并不是主要原因。然而,一旦你把這幅地圖投射到中國現(xiàn)有的“珍珠鏈”上,意圖就會變得非常清晰。
目前,通往印度(中國目前的主要競爭對手之一)的珍珠鏈的最大斷裂點是新加坡海峽,而新加坡也是美國海軍的港口。
因此,我認為這就完全說得通為什么一段時間以來,中國一直在推動繞過新加坡海峽。
Agreed - the strategic logic is there for China. I just don’t get why Thailand would open itself up to that. Especially the ancient crusty Thai generals who at times have been some of the most ardent supporters. The lessons of history from Panama and Suez are pretty mixed for the host nation of such strategically vital infrastructure. I guess they think this time will be different…
同意——對中國來說,戰(zhàn)略邏輯是存在的。我只是不明白為什么泰國要向中國敞開大門。尤其是泰國的那些老將軍們,他們有時也是最熱心的支持者之一。巴拿馬和蘇伊士運河的歷史教訓對于擁有如此重要戰(zhàn)略基礎設施的東道國來說是喜憂參半的。我猜他們認為這次會有所不同......
I've been on a cruise from Singapore to Penang and back. It takes half a day to do that. Lets be generous and say it takes a full day to sail from south Thailand to Singapore.
If it truly takes a week to transfer goods between ports, then its more time-efficient to just go to Singapore.
我坐過新加坡和檳城之間的游輪。這件事只需要半天時間。因此慷慨地說,從泰國南部航行到新加坡最多只需要一整天的時間。
如果在港口之間轉運貨物真的需要一周時間,那么直接去新加坡更省時。
When I studied shipping in poly more than 15 years ago they already say they want to build this already.
15 年多前,當我在保利學習航運時,他們就已經說要建造這個項目了。
In Thailand they’ve been talking about the Kra canal for about a century…
在泰國,人們談論克拉運河已經有大約一個世紀了……
they ask investors to take the risks, if its so profitable, this thai govt wouldnt invite them to take part.
他們要求投資者承擔風險,如果真的這么賺錢,泰國政府就不會邀請他們參與了。
lol Because it has risks, that is why the Thai government wants others to die for it, it really does not want to touch such a white elephant.
哈哈,因為它有風險,所以泰國政府才要別人為它送死,它實在不想碰這樣的大白象。
Thailand was never and ever capable of doing this alone. The realization becomes clearer with the rising of China.
泰國從來都沒有能力獨自做到這一點。隨著中國的崛起,這一認知變得更加清晰。
Even with the power to do it, it does not make any sense. Even the Suez, the busiest canal in the world, only handles enough shipping in a whole year to match what the Straits of Singapore handle in one DAY. That is the difference in scale we are talking about. The canal is only 0.3% as effective as the natural route.
即使有能力做到這一點,也沒有任何意義。即使是世界上最繁忙的運河蘇伊士運河,全年的航運量也僅相當于新加坡海峽一天的航運量。這就是我們所說的規(guī)模差異。運河的效率只有自然航道的 0.3%。
This is a "land bridge", which is just marketing for two ports and a highway between them. It's a lot more hassle and much slower than an actual canal that ships could just sail through.
這是一座“陸橋”,只是兩個港口之間的一條公路。與船只可以通過的實際運河相比,這要麻煩得多,速度也慢得多。
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網 http://nxnpts.cn 轉載請注明出處
Sounds like a logistical nightmare to transit an entire vessel of cargo inland from one port to another, for sure it will be less efficient and less green, so many things can go wrong too. Geographically, it does not save much distance for most shipping routes either.
Quite a foolish idea if you think about it.
把整船貨物從一個港口轉運到另一個港口,聽起來像是一場物流噩夢,肯定會降低效率和綠色環(huán)保程度,也會出很多問題。從地理上看,這也不會為大多數(shù)航運路線節(jié)省多少距離。
仔細想想,這是個相當愚蠢的想法。
It would take decades to construct assuming the Thais manage to pull it off. There are very few huge construction projects that have not gone over budget or not blown past deadlines. Factor in corruption, local resistance (there will be a huge amount of dislocation), battles with environmental activists, etc. etc. etc. It can be done but I would always aim to triple the budget and double the time required. If I had to pluck a number out of the air, I would say it would take 50 years to complete. By which time global warming might well make the whole thing redundant.
假定泰國人能夠完成這項工程,也需要幾十年的時間。很少有大型建設項目不超出預算或不超過最后期限的。還要考慮到腐敗、當?shù)厝说牡种疲〞斐删薮蟮幕靵y)、與環(huán)保人士的斗爭等等等等。這是可以做到的,但我的目標始終是將預算增加兩倍,所需時間增加一倍。如果讓我憑空捏造一個數(shù)字,我會說需要 50 年才能完成。到那時,全球變暖可能會使整個工程變得多余。
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網 http://nxnpts.cn 轉載請注明出處