19-05-2017, 03:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 19-05-2017, 04:47 PM by Duskerdawn.)
I have been think about this issue for awhile. I will just state some facts below, use it to determine your own judgement.
China took 3 years to construct the Beijing-Shanghai High Speed Railway. This is in terms of construction time, does not include the discussions and planning stages of the railway. That is a 1,319km railway.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing%E2...ed_Railway)
Taking the map of the Silk Road Economic Belt, the total of 7,197km (Xi'an>urumqi>Bishkek>Samarkand>Dushanabe>Gwadar) Note the longest distance was between Xi'an and Urumqi = 2,512km.
This is the one of the possible routes that was mentioned to use Pakistan to bypass the Straits of Malacca.
If this was to be efficiently produced, and they could possibly build all rail ways joints concurrently, the minimum period of time is 6 years.
(https://qz.com/983460/obor-an-extremely-...silk-road/)
There is already a Trans-Asian Railway (TAR): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Asian_Railway
It was hindered by political and economic obstacles.
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources...cs/497.pdf
If you have time read the full article, if not here is the summary:
Shipping is more fuel efficient (and less CO2 emissions). As journey distance increases, ratio of cost of maritime:railway increases at 1:1.7.
Additionally, the highest container costs is from the transfers.
(i.e. to make railway more attractive, have a direct railway that does not transfer. Additionally, have a direct route on land that is less than 1.7 times the distance traveled by shipping.)
(https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic...china-cash)
"China views Singapore as being less supportive of Xi’s plan because unlike other countries that announced their leaders would attend without requiring a formal invitation, Singapore sought an invite, according to people familiar with the matter. They asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the information."
======
My take on this is that it will be done, will take a significant longer time than Beijing-Shanghai railway construction. The cost savings from the railway will not be that significant but will pressure the maritime line through the Straits of Malacca, affecting Singapore's revenue from maritime trade. I believe that Singapore's status as the Asia tiger and hub of Southeast Asia will be challenged but I do not expect the impact to be immediate but a gradual decline.
Like zz.. mentioned, Singapore needs to find a way to be relevant.
Its people are still its strongest assets, the government needs to recognize it and not short-change them. Singapore is like Venice, it can and will fall if corruption rises, new trade routes is established, leaving of talent.
I will stop here as I do not want to cross into the line of politics.
China took 3 years to construct the Beijing-Shanghai High Speed Railway. This is in terms of construction time, does not include the discussions and planning stages of the railway. That is a 1,319km railway.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing%E2...ed_Railway)
Taking the map of the Silk Road Economic Belt, the total of 7,197km (Xi'an>urumqi>Bishkek>Samarkand>Dushanabe>Gwadar) Note the longest distance was between Xi'an and Urumqi = 2,512km.
This is the one of the possible routes that was mentioned to use Pakistan to bypass the Straits of Malacca.
If this was to be efficiently produced, and they could possibly build all rail ways joints concurrently, the minimum period of time is 6 years.
(https://qz.com/983460/obor-an-extremely-...silk-road/)
There is already a Trans-Asian Railway (TAR): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Asian_Railway
It was hindered by political and economic obstacles.
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources...cs/497.pdf
If you have time read the full article, if not here is the summary:
Shipping is more fuel efficient (and less CO2 emissions). As journey distance increases, ratio of cost of maritime:railway increases at 1:1.7.
Additionally, the highest container costs is from the transfers.
(i.e. to make railway more attractive, have a direct railway that does not transfer. Additionally, have a direct route on land that is less than 1.7 times the distance traveled by shipping.)
(https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic...china-cash)
"China views Singapore as being less supportive of Xi’s plan because unlike other countries that announced their leaders would attend without requiring a formal invitation, Singapore sought an invite, according to people familiar with the matter. They asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the information."
======
My take on this is that it will be done, will take a significant longer time than Beijing-Shanghai railway construction. The cost savings from the railway will not be that significant but will pressure the maritime line through the Straits of Malacca, affecting Singapore's revenue from maritime trade. I believe that Singapore's status as the Asia tiger and hub of Southeast Asia will be challenged but I do not expect the impact to be immediate but a gradual decline.
Like zz.. mentioned, Singapore needs to find a way to be relevant.
Its people are still its strongest assets, the government needs to recognize it and not short-change them. Singapore is like Venice, it can and will fall if corruption rises, new trade routes is established, leaving of talent.
I will stop here as I do not want to cross into the line of politics.