Pending agreement from Japan, a plan to run bullet trains along a 670km stretch of track from Bangkok to Chiang Mai may be downgraded so the trains run at top speeds of 180-200kph instead of the originally planned 300kph.
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha reportedly proposed lowering the speed to keep the project's budget within a reasonable level.
While a final decision will depend on the Transport Ministry's discussions with its Japanese counterpart, Deputy Prime Minister Somkid Jatusripitak has said on previous occasions the government was considering curbing the speed.
Soonruth Bunyamanee is deputy editor, Bangkok Post.
In my view, the project should be scrapped if we have to accept this compromise.
Japan recently concluded a study and found it would cost 420 billion baht to ensure the new trains keep pace with bullet trains running on the Shinkansen network in Japan.
In its original incarnation, the Thai-Japanese project was scheduled to call on 12 stations and take 3.5 hours to reach Chiang Mai, or about one-quarter the time it now takes using State Railway of Thailand-run trains.
The new fares would cost over 1,000 baht for a one-way trip, officials said.
According to a study by the Japan International Cooperation Agency, the first phase from Bangkok to Phitsanulok would cost 276.2 billion baht to build and handle up to 29,000 passengers per day after its planned launch in 2025.
That number was predicted to jump to 50,000 per day by 2055.
But if the planned slowdown takes effect, what will the results be?
And do we need "medium-speed" trains that are barely an improvement from traditional ones?
Moreover, Thailand is already planning to build double-track railways in the northern region. These would cover the same Bangkok-Chiang Mai route, with trains due to whistle along at 160kph, up from 80-120kph now.
My question is: Why must we shell out so much tax money for a duplicate project that is more expensive?
The government may think the northern route is not economically viable as it does not connect to industrial areas like another high-speed project in the Eastern Economic Corridor. Nor does it link to railways in neighbouring countries like the Bangkok-Nong Khai high-speed train.
Needless to say, faster trains would help to promote development and tourism in second-tier cities.
To understand the regime's sudden about-face, we should accept that this project was initiated for political purposes rather than as an economic curative.
Back in 2014, the regime was left out in the cold by major Western countries following the May 22 coup which toppled the elected government.
It had little choice but to turn to Asian superpowers for support, particularly China and Japan.
So the government granted the northeastern rail project linking Bangkok and Nong Khai to China, with the lofty aim of later connecting it with a China-built high-speed train in Laos.
To maintain a sense of balance, it then awarded Japan separately.
As the Bangkok-Chiang Mai high-speed train was never intended to be economically driven, the government could easily step in and apply the brakes -- if such a will exists.
But even with its speed compromised so savagely, the project would prove a massive drain on taxpayers' money. The regime must be mindful of this and tread carefully, similar to recent weapons-procurement cases.
Samart Ratchapolsitte, a former deputy governor of Bangkok, is widely considered an expert when it comes to transportation.
He said the cost of setting up a bullet train from the capital to Chiang Mai could run as high as 627 million baht per kilometre. This would still be 11% cheaper than a similar Thai-Sino bullet train to Nong Khai (708 million baht per km) that maxes out at 250kph.
This means any plan to limit the speed of the Bangkok-Chiang Mai train is just plain wrong.
Mr Samart has urged the government to maintain the northern route for high-speed trains or scrap the project altogether if their top speeds are going to be slashed.
The proposed downgrading could easily backfire and disappoint people living in northern Thailand, leaving them feeling discriminated against.
In short, the compromise version could be little more than a gigantic waste of people's time and tax money.
