Re: Tru*o*`ng So*n Road ...to Mr. Ca

[Tuan Pham <tuan.pham@unsw.edu.au>]

Dear friends

Sorry to jump in again but since Admin said it's OK... :)

> I consider the survey, investigation, analysis .. as part of the
> job therefore, no objection to it. But it should not take forever
> and should not be a pretext to do nothing. Looking coolly at the
> situation, what have they done to these days ? Just the preparation
> of the legislation, sounding out where to get the money (which should
> be part of the preliminary study) and some rhetoric from some guys
> who may be used to the old habit of "va^.n ddo^.ng qua^`n chu'ng".
> Is that some thing that need thorough investigation ?
> 

I think the project is a bit more advanced than that isn't it?
According to the (Vietnamese) newspaper the decision has
already been made to go ahead. But then you might be better
at interpreting the Vietnamese media than me.


> I think that you agree with me that Tru*o*`ng So*n Road is very
> important for the future development and the question now
> is WHEN. In my opinion, if we just try to invest to make fast money
> as you suggested, we will just follow the people like Thailand and
> will be condemned to stay behind them forever. In fact that is what
> they did some ten years ago. The profit should be maximized but
> for more extended period and sometimes, to get a better total profit
> in 20-40 years, we have to sacrifice the profit of first 1-5  years.
> 
> Five years ago, it was not wise to make an investment with no
> foreseeable profit. But now, the economy is growing at nearly 10%,
> should we make it 10.2% with some few more bugs on investment ?
> 
> You should also notice that I favor this project as a little extra
> effort and not a all-out, drop-every-thing-else thing. So to minimize
> the impact on the economy, maybe it is better doing it ...really slow !!
> 

Good to see economics and timing being discussed. Something
that gets forgotten very easily when one is keen about a project
is to examine the ALTERNATIVES - alternative solutions and
alternative timing.

Let's discuss timing first. Let's assume we need TS by 2020. We can 
easily calculate that in 2020 VN 's GNP will be at least 5 times the
present GNP, and in 2015 about 3-4 times present GNP. Therefore, 
if we start in 2015 we can easily build the road. What are the 
advantages of starting in 2015 rather than in 1997?

1. Construction will be much quicker. With more money we can 
buy more modern equipment, more materials, hire more engineers
and supervisors, borrow more money from the banks.

2. Overall it will be less of a drain on national resources. The cost of
the road won't be 25% of a year's GNP, but much less - say 5%.

3. There won't be the cost of MAINTAINING the road while
it sits there doing nothing. TS will go through very rough terrain,
mountains with torrential rain, jungle vegetation,
landslips, not to mention the need to defend it against potential
ennemies. This maintenance cost will be a huge burden on the
economy, especially since the road will do practically nothing
for some years and is far away from population center. I have 
seen the Tha(ng Long bridge sitting idle for a decade even though
it was only about 10km from the center of Hanoi! You have 
said that we might just devote A LITTLE resource to it - without 
maintenance, it may just be money wasted.

4. If the project is started later, the needs will be better identified
and the planning more effective. What will the trade pattern be like? 
the traffic pattern? How many lanes will be needed? Where exactly 
should the road pass? Will North-South trade and traffic be even as 
large as international traffic in 20 years? What will be the 
environmantal effect? Will it cause more flooding from deforestation
and therefore aggravate the problems of Highway 1?

It is much easier to see five years ahead than 20 years ahead,
especially since statistics in VN is so poor at the moment and the
economic environment so uncertain still. Furthermore, in 15 years
the government will (hopefully) be much more competent
technically and more qualified to make these projections,
with better statistics becoming available.


Now look at alternative ways of spending the money.
You don't just put your savings into a bank because they advertise
6% interest: first you look at OTHER banks to see what interest
rates they have (as well as  the risks etc.)

Resource spent on building and maintaining the road now will 
be resource that won't be available for other infrastructure needs.
Infrastructure needs in VN are many: Educational (general
education, technical, business management), legal (business
and civil laws, court system),  financial (stable banking system,
reglatory authorities), economic (privatisation/equitisation),
transport, communication, environmental (sewage system/
air pollution control), social (corruption, work ethics). All 
these defective infrastructures are holding back the economy, 
otherwise it could easily grow at  12-14% (as Singapore's 
economy did for many years).

To keep things in perspective, the govt is intending to spend about 
US$300 million a year on this road. That's about the same as the 
entire education budget, at a time when many children can't
afford to go to schools. Is it proven yet that this road is needed
more than our children's education?

Even sticking to transport infrastructure only, there are many
alternatives: rail, air, coastal shipping. US$1 billion invested
in a fleet of coastal ships and port facilities will bring almost
immediate rewards, which would be lost for many years if 
the TS option is chosen. So, for that matter, will money put into
upgrading critical sections of Highway 1. So it's not a question 
of whether TS is needed but whether it is needed MOST and 
needed NOW. In my opinion this has yet to be demonstrated and 
I have seen no article from a Vietnamese newspaper that 
satisfactorily answers these questions. In fact, I haven't seen 
any that even RAISES these questions! :-(

Cheers
Tuan Pham