Story by Kritsada Supawattanakul
Photos by Pattaraporn Phongamphai

The expansion of the BTS and MRT has significantly improved urban mobility, but it’s costly and lacks proper connections. Clearly, these systems alone cannot fully resolve Bangkok’s traffic woes.

The Bangkok Mass Transit System, popularly known as the BTS and MRT, was inaugurated in 1999 with the primary goal of alleviating Bangkok’s notorious traffic congestion. Now, 25 years later, the system boasts 10 mass transit lines, 190 stations, and spans a total distance of 277 kilometres. Despite these advancements, Bangkok's traffic congestion remains a persistent issue.

Why? Can the expansion of BTS and MRT solve the problem, or is a broader strategy needed? The initial Sukhumvit and Silom lines, now iconic for their views of gridlocked traffic, highlight that the solution may require more than just adding transit infrastructure.

Homes Pushed Further Away from Work

Sirirung Srisitthipisarnpob, a 34-year-old labor rights advocate, relies on the BTS and MRT systems for her daily commute, a choice influenced by the rising cost of housing near public transit. When she and her husband were deciding where to live, they faced a tough decision: a more expensive condo close to a train station or a cheaper, detached house further out. They chose the latter, settling in Sai Ma, Nonthaburi, a suburb further from the main road and train lines.

For her commute, Sirirung relies on her husband to drop her off at Sai Ma MRT station on his motorcycle before he heads to his job at the Government Complex on Chaeng Wattana Road. Alternatively, she sometimes takes a motorcycle taxi to the station. From there, she travels on the purple and blue MRT lines to Sutthisan MRT station and finishes her journey with another motorcycle taxi to her workplace. Her round-trip commute costs approximately 200 baht a day, nearly half the minimum daily wage.

Beyond the expense, her commute is physically inconvenient. Transfers between MRT lines involve long walks, which are especially difficult during the rainy season. Despite these challenges, Sirirung chooses public transport for its reliability, avoiding Bangkok’s notorious traffic jams.

Expanding Transit, Rising Land Prices

Sirirung’s experience points to a broader issue: as mass transit lines expand, nearby land prices skyrocket, pushing people farther from their workplaces. What should be a solution to reduce reliance on cars has become a source of more vehicles on the road instead. Workers are gradually priced out of the areas near transit lines, and while public transport is an option, the convenience of private cars remains tempting.

This pattern isn’t new. In early 2024, the Agency for Real Estate Affairs reported that land prices around key BTS stations like Siam, Chidlom, and Ploenchit reached 3.75 million baht per square wah (about four square meters), up from 3.6 million baht the previous year. The rise in land values around transit lines is a consistent trend, further squeezing residents out.

It is happening now along the soon-to-be-completed Orange Line. Though still under construction, the 22.57-kilometre line, which will stretch from the Cultural Center to Min Buri, has already triggered a land rush. According to the Agency for Real Estate Affairs, land prices along Ramkhamhaeng Road have jumped from 50,000 to 200,000 baht per square wah to as high as 250,000 baht, driven by anticipation of the line’s opening.

The Treasury Department’s land appraisal for 2023-2026 shows that land prices along Ramkhamhaeng Road have risen between 6.25% and 40% over the past decade. This corridor has become a prime target for real estate developers eager to capitalise on the rising property values. As the Orange Line nears completion, price hikes will likely continue, pushing lower-income residents further from the city’s core.

In this regard, while mass transit expansion promises to ease congestion and improve mobility, it also exacerbates inequality. As new train lines reach city outskirts, they inflate land values, benefiting developers but forcing many residents to move farther away. For people like Sirirung, the trade-off is clear: longer commutes, higher costs, and a growing disconnect between their workplaces and residential communities.

BTS and MRT: Boosting Land Prices without Traffic Relief

As Pitch Pongsawat, an assistant professor at Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Political Science, observes, “The BTS and MRT systems are public projects, but their real impact is on land values."

It's well-documented that land prices skyrocket in areas served by these transit systems. As property values rise, so do housing costs and rents, forcing long-time residents to relocate to more distant suburbs, increasing the distance between where people live and where they work.

Those priced out of areas near the train routes often find themselves with no other option than to turn to private cars for their commutes—ironically worsening traffic rather than alleviating it.

Thailand's approach stands in stark contrast to Singapore’s, where the public sector not only develops housing clusters but also integrates mass transit lines directly through them. This ensures both accessibility for residents and a steady flow of passengers. In Singapore, transit lines are designed in tandem with urban development, a form of land planning that remains conspicuously absent in Thailand. Here, the critical link between infrastructure and the public it is supposed to serve is missing, leaving an unaddressed opportunity to truly transform the urban landscape.

Accessibility and Connectivity Issues

The commute from Charansanitwong, a neighbourhood in western Bangkok, highlights issues with the city's transit system. As Pitch notes, getting from there to the city center isn’t easy. The Blue Line loops outward, serving those leaving the city rather than heading directly into the central business district, forcing commuters to switch lines without saving time.

They also incur additional costs: those transferring lines must re-enter the system, making the overall fare much more expensive

And living near a BTS or MRT station doesn’t always make it the best choice for commuting.

The case of Sarinya Arunkhajornsakul, a Bangkok University lecturer, exemplifies this.  Despite residing close to a metro train station, she drives her private car to work: the train ride takes longer, transferring lines is inconvenient, and the relatively high fares add up. For her, driving is not only faster and cheaper but more comfortable.

Pitch argues that accessibility and connectivity - things Bangkok’s transit system still has problems with  - are needed before mass transit can alleviate traffic congestion.

“The issue in Thailand is that accessibility and connectivity aren’t working together,” he explains.

“You can see it—the mass transit lines don’t reach residential areas. When they do, land prices soar, forcing the poor to relocate and rely on cheaper transport. If someone lives near a station like BTS Khu Khot, on the northern outskirts of Bangkok  … the commute should work but with fares around 200 baht daily, it’s unaffordable so people take minibuses instead. This creates a divide: some can afford access, while others can’t. And are we planning housing for everyone? If not, expanding transit lines will push vulnerable people even farther out.”

“The problem lies in our approach to transit planning. Are we just boosting land development without ensuring enough affordable housing nearby? High-rises are allowed, but with millions unable to secure loans, where can they live?”

Missed Connections

Saksith Chalermpong, a transport engineering lecturer at Chulalongkorn University, succinctly blames the problem on ‘neoliberalism’  - the privatisation of public utilities that are subsequently run for profit by private entities.

He feels that mass transport should be managed for the public by prioritising accessibility, convenience, and affordability.  In his view the idea that buses, BTS, and MRT should operate without incurring losses is fundamentally flawed. He argues that the focus should instead be on determining acceptable levels of loss and identifying appropriate budgetary sources for subsidies. Misguided questions lead to misguided solutions. Ask the wrong questions, and the answers are also wrong.

But saying that the BTS and public transport cannot solve traffic problems because of the deep-rooted influence of neoliberalism on Thai state policy is such a broad answer that it feels like no answer at all.  Saksith admits that many other issues are at work. He notes that Thailand’s approach to building mass transit is essentially ‘formless.’  Each line is treated as a separate project, disconnected from the others, without considering that mass transit is just one component of a public transport system that includes buses, boats, bike lanes, pedestrian pathways, and more. He also feels that the development of the public transport system must be done in tandem with urban development and land management—issues that pose major challenges here.

Unequal Access to Public Transportation

A 2020 study by Panupong Ratchatorn and Pathanin Buttamart analysing the distribution of train stations in greater metropolitan Bangkok found that city residents have unequal access to public transportation. Even with planned expansions, many areas, especially suburban zones, will still lack adequate access to mass transit services in the future.

The study suggests that adjusting bus routes to better cover areas outside the city center could significantly reduce this inequality. The rail system offers convenience and speed but geographic and budgetary constraints make it difficult for many to access. As a result, buses will continue to play a critical role in serving several regions. A balanced development of both systems is essential to sustainably address the disparities in transportation access.

The research echoes Saksith’s observation that Thailand’s mass transit projects have not been integrated with other public transportation systems, leaving the connectivity issue unresolved.

Is a 20-Baht Flat Fare Really the Solution?

Will the Transport Ministry’s plan to cap mass transit fares at 20 baht per trip boost ridership and reduce car use? At first glance, it seems like a clear yes. But the reality is more complex. Pitch raises a crucial question: even with lower fares, will it help people stay in the city? Many have already been priced out and face housing insecurity.

He adds that even with a 20-baht fare, someone commuting from BTS Khu Khot, spending two hours a day in transit, might not feel their cost of living has really dropped. “The real issue,” he argues, “is that we’re not asking if people can still afford to live in the city. Where the trains go, property values rise, but how many can afford that land? Even if they can, is work nearby? And we’re not even considering the pressure on communities being pushed further out.”

From a business angle, Saksith explains that cutting fares would require the state to compensate private companies. “If 500,000 riders generate 15 million baht a day, a 20-baht fare would bring in only 10 million. The state would have to cover the shortfall. But cheaper fares could push ridership to 700,000. So how do you compensate for that across multiple lines?”

Another concern is capacity. Lower fares will likely increase ridership, but can the system handle it? Could we just add more trains or increase frequency? “It’s not that simple,” Saksith clarifies. “Public transport demand peaks during rush hours. Building for that would mean excess capacity the rest of the day—it’s impractical.”

Who would benefit most from a 20-baht fare? Mainly those who already live near stations. Low income earners pushed to the outskirts of the city would gain little.

And is it fair? If the state subsidises trains, should it not also support other public transport? And should national taxes fund transport systems in Bangkok when rural areas still lack public transit?

Public Transport Must Operate at a Loss

Sirirung’s experience underscores Pitch’s critique that Thailand’s BTS and MRT system was designed without adequate consideration for middle-income and vulnerable groups. As a result, it has displaced many people from the city center, obliging them to commute back in.

These issues are compounded by the lack of a cohesive planning strategy that integrates the BTS/MRT network into the broader mass transit system. While the BTS and MRT system can be efficient and fast, it is also costly. Transferring to a bus to reach destinations not served by the train further complicates the journey, testing commuters’ patience and endurance.

The unreliability of Bangkok’s bus services—marked by inconsistent schedules, insufficient numbers of vehicles, and problematic routes—adds to the frustration. Long waits, buses skipping stops, and obstacles like taxis and tricycles blocking bus stops exacerbate the problem. Both Pitch and Saksith argue that buses must be a critical component of any solution to Bangkok’s traffic woes.

Are recent reforms to the bus system adequate to address the city’s traffic problems?  Saksith does not think so: “It  wasn’t reformed at all. The legal and organisational frameworks, as well as control mechanisms, remain unchanged from 40 years ago. The only changes are in routes, vehicles, and operators. Funding still relies on fares. Claims that BMTA and operators are operating at a loss underscore the lack of real reform. True reform would treat public transport as a public service, similar to hospitals and schools, which are not expected to be profitable. If the BMTA is still incurring losses, calling it a reform is misleading—it’s merely perpetuating the same neoliberal approach from decades ago.”

Pitch agrees, stating that, “buses must operate at a loss.”

But if bus companies operate at a loss, where will the funding to cover these losses come from?

BTS/MRT First, Buses Later: The Backwards Logic of Public Transit

Saksith thinks that mass urban transit should begin with buses, not rail systems. As demand for buses increases, improvements like double-decker buses, dedicated lanes, and priority signals should follow. Only when buses can no longer meet the demand should trains come into play.

“The use of the rail system would grow naturally with the city’s development, as businesses and transportation needs expand together,” he says.

In Thailand, we skipped buses entirely and jumped straight to building train lines, like the MRT Purple Line. The result? Low ridership and inefficient public transport. Now, efforts are being made to find feeders for the stations, but the lack of planning has led to poor returns on investment and no real impact on traffic congestion.

While it might seem too late, Saksith believes bus reform is still possible. He suggests the government contract private operators under strict guidelines, while providing necessary infrastructure. Inevitably, losses will occur, but these can be managed by using profits from high-demand routes to subsidise less crowded ones, alongside taxes and fees to balance the system.

Solutions and Issues of Fairness

Addressing traffic congestion and fairness involves revisiting the tax system and fee structures. Saksith points out that many cities, like those in Europe, charge fees for driving into congested city centres. In Singapore, a car ownership license costs as much as the vehicle itself, a strategy designed to limit the number of cars and promote public transport use. Revenue from these fees helps fund public buses.

For Bangkok Mass Transit System, a proposed solution is to implement a windfall tax on landowners who benefit from increased land values due to train projects. This tax revenue could then be used to subsidise BTS and MRT, buses, and other forms of public transport.

These suggestions address some of the existing issues but do not tackle more complex challenges such as urban planning, land reform, or restructuring train concessions, which require significant political will.

As Pitch notes, it is unreasonable to think that BTS and MRT alone can solve traffic congestion without additional supportive policies.

Traffic, PM 2.5, and the Silent Killer in Bangkok



Bangkok's traffic doesn't just hurt the economy—it also severely impacts the environment and public health. A 2023 report by Rocket Media Lab shows that the city had only 31 days of "good" air quality, a number that’s been steadily declining since 2021. In contrast, there were 78 days, or 21.43% of the year, with air quality bad enough to affect vulnerable groups, and 14 hazardous red-level days—three more than in 2022.

Rocket Media Lab also highlighted that Bangkok’s average PM 2.5 level in 2023 was equivalent to smoking 1,370 cigarettes over the year—an increase of 154 cigarettes compared to 2022.

But what’s causing this rise?

Nipon Puapongsakorn, from the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI), points to traffic emmisions, especially from diesel vehicles, as a major source of PM 2.5 pollution. In December 2023, Bangkok had 11.99 million vehicles, with 27.37% running on diesel.  Many are over a decade old, contributing heavily to pollution.

Reducing cars on the road sounds like an obvious solution, but it's far from simple. Despite the city's ten mass transit lines, congestion—and pollution—persist.

Addressing this long-term crisis requires not only a Clean Air Act but also a more comprehensive approach to traffic that connects all dimensions of the problem.

Additional reporting by Pongpan Chumjai and Pattaraporn Phongamphai. The production of this investigation was supported by a grant from Earth Journalism Network’s STRIDES project.