Land Bridge folly
Re: "Govt's ambitious land bridge project 'puts residents at risk'", (BP, Aug 29) & "Critics push to review port reports", (BP, Aug 6).
A design study is underway for the government's Land Bridge scheme.
These people seem to think there's something wrong with the greater Port of Singapore, which includes Malaysia's Pasir Gudang, Tanjung Pelepas, and Tanjung Bin and Indonesia's Karimun and Batam Islands.
When the Port of Singapore's container space became "too congested", as Deputy Transport Minister Manaporn Charoensri likes to say, Maersk decided to move next door to Tanjung Bin, Malaysia, as the foundation investor to get the project started.
What company is going to be the primary customer for the Chumphon-Ranong Land Bridge project?
Freight can be classed roughly into three categories: liquids, dry bulk, and containers. Liquids and gases travel via tanker unless it's a pipeline. Dry bulk can be corn, sugar, iron ore, coal, soybeans or rice. These travel by railcar, or truck or by bulk carrier, which is a class of ship that can be 25,000 to 300,000 deadweight tonnes.
Agricultural loading and discharging of ships have different infrastructure needs than coal or iron ore. Finally, we have containers which we see on roads and highways. Which of these three categories of freight will be the focus of this proposed Land Bridge?
There is no good reason to take cargo from a ship and load it back again. Why hasn't Ranong been a major port before? It's because the southwest monsoon is strong, and this coast is shallow and exposed.
When the British were looking for ports to support the East India Company and combat pirates, they chose Penang and Singapore because both are protected from the southwest monsoon by the Island of Sumatra.
If built, this megaproject will involve dredging every year to keep the port deep enough to be commercially viable. The project sounds expensive and pointless.
