Posted 2012-02-05 21:22:29
 Thai at Heart, on 2012-02-05 18:01:17, said:
animatic, on 2012-02-05 13:32:31, said:
Well it seems the Red Villages movement is attempting upgrading to
the Red City and Red Capital levels.
Bangkok itself is going nowhere, floods or not.
But to do an isolationist, Myanmar style move,
to the heart of isolated redland begs for abuses.
Can you for see the Dems not being able to campaign
or give speeches in the towns around the New Capital,
because the entrenched redshirts harass them too much?
Not to mention the isolation of being there.
How many kilos extra to the airport?
Can you imagine the cat fight in NAMING a new capital?
The only viable solution is directly Due East, but not on a flood plain.
Unless they are so paranoid about Cambodia bombing or Laos invading,
in which case Hua Hin area but high ground.
East stays close to Swampy airport, a vital diplomatic and governmental link to the world.
As well as to the many support structure activities that swarm around a government.
All the way up to Issan?
Same problems getting businesses up there,
too far from transport, and regular droughts.
How can the water table in the North East support
10 million more souls and their construction projects,
when it can't do it with those who are local now????
Then, there is always the problem of the original locals being displaced
as property values skyrocket and influential bastards move in
and force them off their land for development schemes.
And where will the go...Bangkok for 10 years of course, as it dies, it won't die,
because the shift from Issan will be SOUTH where they can now afford to live.
So many thinks this Nasa 'Rocket Scientist' did NOT consider.
When they say Isaan, why couldn't it be between Korat and Saraburi? Just needs an airport. That said, this needs only to extend to the governmental administration, which even though they have moved some to Nontaburi, is still essentially down town.
The issue about why it can never be moved is a bit silly though. Nothing stays forever, and if anyone can tell me that bangkok satisfies anything to do with a "model" city, I am willing to listen. It is basically a mess that people have to live with and it is never going to change.
Model city! Good one.
Siam moved capitol a few times, mostly from wars.
But Bangkok really tied government and comerce together by the short and curlies,
separating the tea money demanders from the tea money providers by 400 km wil run up costs significantly.
easterly location that is long term dry, not to far from Swampy, and keeps the partial day drive Mohammed needs to get to the Mountain, during the 20-40 year transition seems the far more practical solution.
Putting the capitol in Issan would require new dams to create a water source to support it.
new highways and a major not minor airport ( 40 years min.) , big wigs will not be happy
doing a Nok air flight from Swampy to Nakorn Nowhere after their extend flight in.
The city will need to be stocked and the cost of transport etc will raise all
prices and taxes to fix the roads that are not going that far
in good condition since the USA Corp of Engineers was here....
And either way the poor of issan will see little benefit other than getting
conned into selling their land fast during the boom and then having to
move somewhere they CAN afford to live.
#77
FishboneFelix
Posted 2012-02-05 21:23:04
philw, on 2012-02-05 20:48:49, said:
SICHONSTEVE, on 2012-02-05 18:36:34, said:
folium, on 2012-02-05 17:13:09, said:
Do try reading the evidence you quote as it just further underlines my initial point
The flooding in the northern and central parts of LOS were caused by the input and subsequent overload of the Chao Phraya system.
The flooding in NE LOS exited via the Mekong.
Different drainage basins. Rain falling in NE is one side of the watershed (line that separates 2 drainage basins). Thus Isaan rain ends up in the South China Sea via the Mekong.
Rain falling in Chiang Mai works its way down the Chao Phraya system and into the Gulf of Siam.
Rain cannot leap from one drainage basin to another (rather like the Continental Divide in the USA is the classic watershed) unless humans meddle.
Whatever!!! Where the water drains to is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned!!
The fact is, that the North East was inundated with water and so why would relocating the capital there from BKK be beneficial in the larger scheme of things???? It would be both impractical and unimaginally expensive. I'm afraid they have to find a means of protecting the capital - putting a Democrat government back in power would be a fine start!!!
Love it.
What if it drains to you ???
Maybe them wet dems can keep you dry.
\
IF you all take a look at the trend in earthquakes, flooding and possible tsunami damage in the near future, ISAAN would actually be the the most intelligent decision of the government under whatever false illusion of democracy they are promoting! Does anyone think that Korats expansion would be an intelligent choice or howabout Udonthani?
Posted 2012-02-05 21:28:25
SICHONSTEVE, on 2012-02-05 18:36:34, said:
folium, on 2012-02-05 17:13:09, said:
Do try reading the evidence you quote as it just further underlines my initial point
The flooding in the northern and central parts of LOS were caused by the input and subsequent overload of the Chao Phraya system.
The flooding in NE LOS exited via the Mekong.
Different drainage basins. Rain falling in NE is one side of the watershed (line that separates 2 drainage basins). Thus Isaan rain ends up in the South China Sea via the Mekong.
Rain falling in Chiang Mai works its way down the Chao Phraya system and into the Gulf of Siam.
Rain cannot leap from one drainage basin to another (rather like the Continental Divide in the USA is the classic watershed) unless humans meddle.
Whatever!!! Where the water drains to is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned!!
The fact is, that the North East was inundated with water and so why would relocating the capital there from BKK be beneficial in the larger scheme of things???? It would be both impractical and unimaginally expensive. I'm afraid they have to find a means of protecting the capital - putting a Democrat government back in power would be a fine start!!!
"whatever"...sounds like some teenager who's run out of argument.
LOS is not Bangladesh where in a bad year 70% of the country disappears under floodwater.
here flooding is relatively localized along the major rivers and their tributaries. However the most vulnerable area is the lower course floodplain of the Chao Phraya, and Bangkok sits at the nexus of this area.
Indiscriminate building on the flood plain up to Ayutthaya has worsened the problem and increased the financial cost. Flooding rice padi is nothing compared to high-tech industrial estates.
Combine location with general subsidence, sea level rising, piecemeal & un-coordinated flood defences (which actually make things worse), and a vast expansion of non-permeable roof area and hard standing plumbed into drains/culverts that speed runoff into already full rivers, and you have the perfect cocktail for expensive flooding.
Moving the capital out of BKK is not as crazy as it might seem. It is far too predominant and transplanting the government would not detract from BKK's role as financial and retail heart of LOS. Think Mumbai to New Delhi or Brasilia to Sao Paulo.
Posted 2012-02-05 21:34:47
folium, on 2012-02-05 21:28:25, said:
SICHONSTEVE, on 2012-02-05 18:36:34, said:
folium, on 2012-02-05 17:13:09, said:
Do try reading the evidence you quote as it just further underlines my initial point
The flooding in the northern and central parts of LOS were caused by the input and subsequent overload of the Chao Phraya system.
The flooding in NE LOS exited via the Mekong.
Different drainage basins. Rain falling in NE is one side of the watershed (line that separates 2 drainage basins). Thus Isaan rain ends up in the South China Sea via the Mekong.
Rain falling in Chiang Mai works its way down the Chao Phraya system and into the Gulf of Siam.
Rain cannot leap from one drainage basin to another (rather like the Continental Divide in the USA is the classic watershed) unless humans meddle.
Whatever!!! Where the water drains to is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned!!
The fact is, that the North East was inundated with water and so why would relocating the capital there from BKK be beneficial in the larger scheme of things???? It would be both impractical and unimaginally expensive. I'm afraid they have to find a means of protecting the capital - putting a Democrat government back in power would be a fine start!!!
"whatever"...sounds like some teenager who's run out of argument.
LOS is not Bangladesh where in a bad year 70% of the country disappears under floodwater.
here flooding is relatively localized along the major rivers and their tributaries. However the most vulnerable area is the lower course floodplain of the Chao Phraya, and Bangkok sits at the nexus of this area.
Indiscriminate building on the flood plain up to Ayutthaya has worsened the problem and increased the financial cost. Flooding rice padi is nothing compared to high-tech industrial estates.
Combine location with general subsidence, sea level rising, piecemeal & un-coordinated flood defences (which actually make things worse), and a vast expansion of non-permeable roof area and hard standing plumbed into drains/culverts that speed runoff into already full rivers, and you have the perfect cocktail for expensive flooding.
Moving the capital out of BKK is not as crazy as it might seem. It is far too predominant and transplanting the government would not detract from BKK's role as financial and retail heart of LOS. Think Mumbai to New Delhi or Brasilia to Sao Paulo.
I see, so only transferring the government out of Bangkok, and that would solve what exactly?
Edited by wxyz, 2012-02-05 21:34:59.
Posted 2012-02-05 21:52:49
wxyz, on 2012-02-05 21:34:47, said:
folium, on 2012-02-05 21:28:25, said:
SICHONSTEVE, on 2012-02-05 18:36:34, said:
folium, on 2012-02-05 17:13:09, said:
Do try reading the evidence you quote as it just further underlines my initial point
The flooding in the northern and central parts of LOS were caused by the input and subsequent overload of the Chao Phraya system.
The flooding in NE LOS exited via the Mekong.
Different drainage basins. Rain falling in NE is one side of the watershed (line that separates 2 drainage basins). Thus Isaan rain ends up in the South China Sea via the Mekong.
Rain falling in Chiang Mai works its way down the Chao Phraya system and into the Gulf of Siam.
Rain cannot leap from one drainage basin to another (rather like the Continental Divide in the USA is the classic watershed) unless humans meddle.
Whatever!!! Where the water drains to is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned!!
The fact is, that the North East was inundated with water and so why would relocating the capital there from BKK be beneficial in the larger scheme of things???? It would be both impractical and unimaginally expensive. I'm afraid they have to find a means of protecting the capital - putting a Democrat government back in power would be a fine start!!!
"whatever"...sounds like some teenager who's run out of argument.
LOS is not Bangladesh where in a bad year 70% of the country disappears under floodwater.
here flooding is relatively localized along the major rivers and their tributaries. However the most vulnerable area is the lower course floodplain of the Chao Phraya, and Bangkok sits at the nexus of this area.
Indiscriminate building on the flood plain up to Ayutthaya has worsened the problem and increased the financial cost. Flooding rice padi is nothing compared to high-tech industrial estates.
Combine location with general subsidence, sea level rising, piecemeal & un-coordinated flood defences (which actually make things worse), and a vast expansion of non-permeable roof area and hard standing plumbed into drains/culverts that speed runoff into already full rivers, and you have the perfect cocktail for expensive flooding.
Moving the capital out of BKK is not as crazy as it might seem. It is far too predominant and transplanting the government would not detract from BKK's role as financial and retail heart of LOS. Think Mumbai to New Delhi or Brasilia to Sao Paulo.
I see, so only transferring the government out of Bangkok, and that would solve what exactly?
A workable answer.
Civil servants basically will go where they are told to go. Private sector companies tend to do their own thing. However if government moves out of BKK that will take with it a lot of ancillary industries and activities who feed on the crumbs off government's table.
For logistic reasons CM makes the best sense and I'm sure the reigning Shinawatra family would like to bring that trophy back home. The Lanna kingdom reborn.
Edited by folium, 2012-02-05 21:54:27.
Posted 2012-02-05 22:47:32
animatic, on 2012-02-05 17:11:27, said:
Widen the river to the east.
Add one or two large scale sluice ways north south through Bangkok
using existing road right of ways and putting the traffic up above,
during wet season and through and above during dry.
The main problem is not specifically the rains and subsidence,
but the reduced through-put that over building has caused.
Chao praya and 3 major water ways should handle the load.
Then with with reclaimed or re-placed catchments up north,
AND some water walls around critical resources that
send the water the right place at the right speed,
then it becomes manageable.
And more likely to get done than moving Bangkok lock stock
and astronomical property values losses to Issarn.
There is a relatively obvious (albeit classic TV style, armchair-general stuff, big hand/small map, seems good on paper etc etc) solution to the flooding issue in Bangkok.
The Chao Phraya has a fairly rare feature, namely a major distributary in the Tha Chin river, which runs parallel to the main river but some way to the west, entering the Gulf of Siam at Samut Sakhon, 35 kms west of BKK. A distributary is the opposite of a tributary, as a distributary is where a river splits (Tha Chin is probably an earlier route of the main river).
See maps below.
The Tha Chin, if canalized (ie straightened and concrete lined), could be an amazing spillway (alternative river course in times of flood) which would bypass Ayutthaya, BKK and the entire lower section of the Chao Phraya. This would massively increase the capacity of this section of the drainage basin and take the pressure off the areas hardest hit by the flooding last year.
While an obvious answer, and one that has probably been advanced many times before, there is one massive fly in the ointment. Namely that such a spillway would be bad news for the residents of Suphan Buri (amongst others), and that bit of real estate happens to be the power base of the 21 st PM of LOS, aka the Slippery Eel. With flood management a locally controlled issue, he has always made sure that flooding happens on someone else's manor and the Tha Chin option has never been developed.
Perhaps if his construction company won the contract for the new spillway everyone might come out happy or at least wealthier.
Posted 2012-02-05 23:23:30
Do a bit of research as to who owns a significant part of Bangkok, and you will quickly realize why the capital will never be moved......
#83
janverbeem
Posted 2012-02-05 23:24:59
Quote Thai Capital Should Be Moved To Northeast
At least it would save a lot on traveling costs for the red shirts.
Edited by janverbeem, 2012-02-05 23:26:02.
Posted 2012-02-06 01:26:35
Is Isaan isolated? Well it depends what connections you want to make. Nobody has mentioned the Asian super highway plans, and especially the connections from Khon Kaen via the Mittraphap Highway north to Laos and China, and the new highway planned to Mukdahan and Cambodia/Vietnam. . Some of the old US airforce bases might also provide a reasonable starting point for airport expansion. Yes, the new capital seems very unlikely to happen, but if China is the future a capital in the Northeast or North is not completely off the wall.
Edited by citizen33, 2012-02-06 01:28:01.
Posted 2012-02-06 02:47:26
Saaay - didn't another brilliant scientist here claim not too long ago that Bangkok was too far from the poles to be affected by rising sea levels?
Posted 2012-02-06 03:34:42
How ever you look at it flood mitigation is the best answer. As has been pointed out by several posters there are options for diverting large amounts of the water relatively (versus moving the capital!) easily.
Posted 2012-02-06 06:09:11
Quote
Thai Capital Should Be Moved To Northeast, Top Scientist Says
Nakhon Nayok is sorta the Northeast... northeast of Bangkok, anyway...
Quote
Buchholz, on 2011-11-15 19:48:22, said:
The other paper on this report explains more on the Pheu Thai Party MP's proposal. It is to move the capital to Nakhon Nayok.
This is a revitalization of the original proposal to do so that Thaksin had made to spend One Trillion Baht to accomplish.
=====
The government announced at the end of 2003 that in the next 6 years it planned to spend over one trillion baht on infrastructure projects, including a new city project in Nakhon Nayok http://pioneer.netse...haksinomics.pdf
. Located about 100km northeast of Bangkok, Ban Na - which literally means "home of paddy fields" - is a little world of its own where farmers work all day in paddy fields and buffalos graze on grassland. Thaksin planned to turn this farmland district into a modern metropolis. He even coined a name for it - Nakhon Nayok Muang Mai, or New Town.
After all the publicity given to Thaksin's plans for the area, land prices increased tenfold to as much as one million baht per rai, especially in the central parts of the district, with most of the property speculators coming from Bangkok.
http://2bangkok.com/...it-newcity.html
.
Edited by Buchholz, 2012-02-06 06:13:15.
Posted 2012-02-06 08:35:17
Macmundi, on 2012-02-05 14:22:27, said:
Moving the capital would be ideal.
If we disregard the millions of billions invested in property development and the number of lives and families that are bound to their birthland and their ancestor's ancestor's birthland, and the history this capital holds.
Yet, it still does not compare to the millions of lives and their livelihood that will be affected in the process, whether it takes 20 years, or 200 years.
Building a dyke around the whole city is cheaper. (excluding the bits and pieces of the pie that some officials expect to get for their authorisation autograph..)
Modern Bangkok is a very young city built over a river settlement. Ancestors, bah. Even the "ancient" cities the Khmer taught the Thai to build directly north are not that old.
Posted 2012-02-06 08:45:44
"Thai Capital Should Be Moved To Northeast, Top Scientist Says"
This message has been bought & brought to you by the mr T consortium.
Edited by wxyz, 2012-02-06 08:45:55.
Posted 2012-02-06 09:12:33
He must be a MAD sientist then, or could it be this moron is actually from the North east?
Posted 2012-02-06 09:44:40
20 years to move BKK? It's taken the local government in Patts 6 years to widen a 1.5k strip of road between Patts and Jomtien and it's still only 90% done.
I'd say 10 years to come to agreement to do it, 10 more to agree on how to do it and another 30 to get it 90% done.
Posted 2012-02-06 09:53:41
won't happen............. its too far from the HISO shops for the officials wives to be seen in
Posted 2012-02-06 10:28:49
Buchholz, on 2012-02-06 06:09:11, said:
Quote
Thai Capital Should Be Moved To Northeast, Top Scientist Says
Nakhon Nayok is sorta the Northeast... northeast of Bangkok, anyway...
Quote
Buchholz, on 2011-11-15 19:48:22, said:
The other paper on this report explains more on the Pheu Thai Party MP's proposal. It is to move the capital to Nakhon Nayok.
This is a revitalization of the original proposal to do so that Thaksin had made to spend One Trillion Baht to accomplish.
=====
The government announced at the end of 2003 that in the next 6 years it planned to spend over one trillion baht on infrastructure projects, including a new city project in Nakhon Nayok http://pioneer.netse...haksinomics.pdf
. Located about 100km northeast of Bangkok, Ban Na - which literally means "home of paddy fields" - is a little world of its own where farmers work all day in paddy fields and buffalos graze on grassland. Thaksin planned to turn this farmland district into a modern metropolis. He even coined a name for it - Nakhon Nayok Muang Mai, or New Town.
After all the publicity given to Thaksin's plans for the area, land prices increased tenfold to as much as one million baht per rai, especially in the central parts of the district, with most of the property speculators coming from Bangkok.
http://2bangkok.com/...it-newcity.html
.
It is still Nakhon Nowhere.
Posted 2012-02-06 10:59:11
Off topic posts have been removed. Paranoid comments on moderation have been removed as well. If you have an issue with moderation policy, send an email to support (at) thaivisa.com and discuss your complaint there.
Posted 2012-02-06 22:31:01
CM could do with some improvement.
If the government moves up here that would mean all the diplomats, media types and assorted hangers on have to move also. It would certainly change the demographics of the farang population.
As Myanmar & Laos open up and the links with China come online, CM would become a regionally crucial centre.
Where's the downside?
|
|
0
