Are Thais being ripped of BTS - MRT wise

[moontang]

I have access to most of it, where I live...the cheapest, safest, and most reliable are the ferry and the old red busses...sometimes the fastest, too.  Thousands of good lookers on both.

[Dexxter]

On 12/17/2019 at 1:43 PM, Chazar said:

waste  of time unless they increase   carriages to 6 per  train as a minimum and doubt their platforms are  long enough anyway

The BTS stations have more station gates than train doors so they can easily add more cars. The MRT stations could probably handle trains 2 or 3 times the current length.

[VocalNeal]

On 12/17/2019 at 1:23 PM, scorecard said:

to get much bigger rider numbers

Have you been on it lately?

[Greyhat]

I paid around 7 quid (276 THB) to go 2 stations on the London tube last time I was there. I'm not complaining about the prices here.

[lamyai3]

On 12/19/2019 at 11:33 AM, Greyhat said:

I paid around 7 quid (276 THB) to go 2 stations on the London tube last time I was there. I'm not complaining about the prices here.

You might be using it wrong. The tube from Victoria in Central London to Heathrow is only £3.10 if paying by contactless card, and that's an hour journey with around 20 stops (zones 1-6).

 

There's a wide range of price bands on British public transport and it pays to know the system. 

[impulse]

Are Thais being ripped off by the BTS/MRT compared to Singapore? 

 

Depends on which Thais and which Singaporeans...

 

Thai people who don't use the MRT and BTS don't pay a thing.  Singaporeans who don't use their system still pay for it through taxes and subsidies.

 

I think we all know how Thais (especially the elite) like paying taxes.  Even to make life easier for the unwashed masses. 

 

Personally, I think the BTS/MRT should be subsidized by businesses whose employees depend on it to get to work, and by car owners who benefit by decreased traffic.  Then maybe they can afford to actually pay for more cars and get even more people off the roads and into the malls next to every major station.

 

[lamyai3]

On 12/17/2019 at 1:56 PM, White Christmas13 said:

BTS Group reported a net profit of 2.171 billion baht in the first half of fiscal year 2019/20.
...
O&M revenue in this quarter increased by 414 million baht or 91.5% from last year to 866 million baht.

• BTS sees mass transit driving FY19 revenue by 200%
• Riding to the rescue.
• BTS musters resources for rail projects.

Massive profits have been raked in on the BTS over the past decade and this seems to be increasing each year. 

[Gumballl]

On 12/17/2019 at 1:48 AM, robblok said:

Sure they need more carriages, but it just seems to me that the pricing is totally wrong. Its far too high compared to Singapore. 

 

I just wonder how they justify the price. 

 

If its a deterrent for more people using the service i might understand. But i doubt that is the case. I think its making fat profits on the backs of the Thais. Something that should not happen with public transport.

I've never been to Singapore. Perhaps those who work there pay more income taxes than in Thailand, and that extra gov't income goes to subsidize the train system there. And Singapore is tiny compared to Thailand.

[new2here]

I think the Singapore comparison is a tenuous one at best... SMRT Trains Ltd is wholly owned by SMRT which I turn is 100% owned by the SG sovereign earth fund... while not *directly* government owned, there are no private shareholders - only the Ministry of Finance. 
 

by comparison, the BTS is ultimately owned by the government but operates under long term concession.

 

so, I think there are fundamental differences in how the two approach not only pricing but also operating strategies. 
 

Do I myself think the BTS is “expensive”?  That’s hard to answer with a flat yes or no.  I think it IS fairly priced for: a) what/where it is, b) who are it’s target ridership/clientele and c) how it’s cost/ownership/operating structure is set up.

 

i don’t think it was ever really designed (rightly or wrongly) for the use by the minimum wage earner... now, I myself think that perhaps this I was a poor public planning idea at the onset, but I do think that’s what it was... and from the onset the routes, fare structure, times of operations etc were geared to those who were the selected target.

 

i also think that, while an unpopular viewpoint, I can see why the BTS, as the concession operator, would resist either adding frequencies or adding carriages to alleviate “overcrowding” at peak times —- it’s all down to costs... and so long as they are running with load factors that don’t ever really and truly hit 100% or even into the upper 90s across the system for *sustained* periods of time, then there’s no business cases to be made for adding costs into the equation.

sure no one likes a full carriage or waiting for the next carriage with room - myself included - but I think there’s a cost side to be considered too.

 

yes, the parent company makes a lot of money... true.. but that alone doesn’t then translate into a private business justifiable case whereby they “should” add costs into the equation— just because they can afford to ... or not.

[5633572526]

On 12/17/2019 at 1:40 PM, scorecard said:

Fair comment however is still believe;

 

"As said, it's well established that many Thai folks simply cannot afford BTS and MRT fares.

 

Seems to me that there would be several good benefits in the government subsidizing fares on both the BTS and the MRT to get much bigger rider numbers and especially whilst Thailand is a developing country" But yes they would need more trains.

Without at least doubling the number of trains anything they do to increase riders including the adding of additional lines is just adding to the overcrowding. I had to wait for 5 trains before I was able to finally squeeze on at the Sukhumvit mart station on a Thursday night. 
I would rather they double the rate to both reduce riders and buy more trains until you can finally breath while riding and then discuss subsidy.

[tonray]

On 12/17/2019 at 9:45 PM, JeffChia said:

Gov is finding the way to decrease the price now such as MRT around 1.5 to 2 dollar for round trip.

They just reduced the max fare on the purple line to 20 baht until March 2020

[tonray]

On 12/21/2019 at 6:45 AM, Gumballl said:

I've never been to Singapore. Perhaps those who work there pay more income taxes than in Thailand, and that extra gov't income goes to subsidize the train system there. And Singapore is tiny compared to Thailand.

To buy a car in Singapore you need to pay a massive tax first , part of which subsidizes Mass Transit and keeps excess cars off the road as only wealthy folks can afford the tax

[fruitman]

On 12/17/2019 at 7:42 AM, robblok said:

The wages are higher in Singapore land prices will be similar.

Land prices are sky high in Singapore.....why do you think they all live in condo's?

[Nyezhov]

Profit is not a dirty word. Profit pays for infrastructure. Its a great transit system that gets me where I want to go swiftly and comfortably at a far price, absent rough hour congestion no worse than any other city of its size.

 

If you want to see what government subsidies and cheap fares buy you, ride a third class train to Lopburi for 20 baht.

Edited December 31, 2019 by Nyezhov

[Grumpy John]

On the BTS the other month and I said to the wife why are the fares so expensive.   I am thinking a lot of the low paid Thais would struggle to live if they lived in the outer burbs and had to train in to central Bangkok for work. 300 baht a day then 80 baht for a return fare! And another thing.....why doesn't the BTS go to Morchit bus depot?   One has to get off the BTS and take the last 4-5 kilometers on a dodgy old bus. And another thing.....why is it the government are giving thousands of rai of land to CP with the fast train project?  Why the he11 do they GEt land for free??? 

[robblok]

24 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Profit is not a dirty word. Profit pays for infrastructure. Its a great transit system that gets me where I want to go swiftly and comfortably at a far price, absent rough hour congestion no worse than any other city of its size.

 

If you want to see what government subsidies and cheap fares buy you, ride a third class train to Lopburi for 20 baht.

Profit is a dirty word when its a monopoly and they are charging far more then they should. Public transport like this prices should be cheap. I have no problems with profits, i run a business. But I got plenty of competitors and I dont get awarded huge government contracts at the expense of consumers. Its not the same thing. 

[mogandave]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

Profit is a dirty word when its a monopoly and they are charging far more then they should. Public transport like this prices should be cheap. I have no problems with profits, i run a business. But I got plenty of competitors and I dont get awarded huge government contracts at the expense of consumers. Its not the same thing. 

How is it a monopoly with thousands of busses and taxis all going to the same places? 
 

it is generally cheaper and faster than taking a taxi. 
 

As someone else pointed out, only the people using it have to pay for it. 
 

I think it’s refreshing that it makes a profit. 

[FritsSikkink]

Could be the structure of the ground, a lot of Bangkok was a swampy area. The construction of the wagons is done by Siemens a German company, so European prices.

[fruitman]

34 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Could be the structure of the ground, a lot of Bangkok was a swampy area. The construction of the wagons is done by Siemens a German company, so European prices.

The 3500 new Sunlong citybuses were made in China and paid by the thai government, guess what? They 're still in china!

 

And Siemens trains last very long, just look at the BTS, 15? years old and still as new. So it's worth to buy the highest quality no matter what it costs.

[ABCinSG]

As a Singapore who moved over to Thailand about 5 years ago, I find the prices of transport here not too much more expensive then Singapore, and acceptable. At least that was the case before I got my own motorbike, which was just prohibitively expensive in Singapore. But I see a number of people talking about how much we pay for the subsidized transport fees, which has been slowly increasing over the years. 

 

Here is what an average Singaporean pays every month.

• 20% of his salary for the Central Providence Fund (CPF, more about that later)
• 7% Goods & Services Tax, to be raised to 9% soon if not already done

And, annually:

• Income tax of up to 22% based on annual income if income is over 30,000 SGD annually. (2,500 SGD/mth)

 

What we get in exchange:

• Heavily subsidized medical fees
• Housing loan subsidies with CPF
• Educational subsidies, excluding extra grants and bursaries.

 

The CPF would be described as a mandatory scheme to provide you with peace of mind for medical as well as retirement ages.

 

But in a negative light, it could be looked at as a mandatory, high-interest savings plan run by banks, trickle feeding you your mandatory savings at your retirement age. "High-interest?" you might be thinking. The total mandatory CPF contribution would be 37%, 20% from your salary, and 17% by the company that hired you. This is a challenge for companies and you as a prospect local employee; your request for a reasonable salary might not be so reasonable after the 17%. 

 

You will also not be able to do lump-sum withdraws of your CPF at retirement age (ditto to before) if your total CPF "savings" does not meet a quota, which many less-than-average income Singaporeans will never be able to. That means the total amount disbursed to them will never amount to anything more then "kopi money" (coffee money), and is the main reason why many still work post-retirement age. 

 

Getting a housing loan for a HDB (Housing Development Board) flat also drains your CPF, and also requires a monthly payment. A new flat can take anywhere from 150,000 to 550,000 SGD from you, with resale flat prices going as high as 700,000 SGD. 

 

To summarize, you could say Singapore is a state operating like one big business, bank included. As a local who came from a less-than-average wealth family, I could either continue to stay, and have an extremely hard time bursting free from the glass ceiling for my future generations, or take a gamble in a foreign country. However, I would say it's one of the best countries to live in, especially post-retirement age. With high convenience and safety, boosted by a connected and advanced infrastructure, coupled by the country's physically tiny size, it's simply a great place to be, as long as you can afford it and take the brutally humid weather.

[chessman]

I take the MRT every day. 

 

On the plus side, it is reliable... only a few very short delays in years of taking it.

 

On the minus side, they have no flexibility... they have platforms that could fit more carriages but they don't use them. They need more trains at rush hour... at my station you can wait for 5 or 6 trains (they come every 4 minutes) at around 8am. Even before 7am it is packed and basically whatever the time, day or direction - I won't get a seat. Their answer to the overcrowding was not to increase the number of carriages or trains but to get rid of half the seating. Now they are expanding the number of stations which is increasing the number of riders but not increasing the frequency of trains.

 

For individual fares, it is quite expensive but they also got rid of monthly passes a few years ago which of course makes it much more expensive for commuters. I guess they are thinking that they can get away with it because the trains are rammed. Does anybody know of another public transport system in the world that doesn't offer monthly passes? To me this is really shocking.

 

I guess in other countries they have strong regulators, that look after the users. Also government subsidies. Here, I guess, they got a lot of private finance to fund these projects and now these companies are free to try and profit as much as possible from the system. 

 

[Monomial]

On 12/31/2019 at 1:42 PM, mogandave said:

How is it a monopoly with thousands of busses and taxis all going to the same places? 
 

it is generally cheaper and faster than taking a taxi. 
 

As someone else pointed out, only the people using it have to pay for it. 
 

I think it’s refreshing that it makes a profit. 

 

It is a monopoly because only a single company is allowed to run rail cars down the track. If it were not a monopoly, the government would finance the building and maintenance of the tracks, and multiple competitive entities could then lease the tracks from the government on a non discriminatory basis. Customers could then choose which company's trains they wanted to ride, and prices would adjust to reflect this.  Very much like how airlines work today, where some people are willing to pay for luxury, but most just want the cheapest cattle car to get from A to B quickly at the lowest possible price. The government owns the airports and airspace. Airlines rent it from them. That is competition.  The skytrain is a monopoly.

 

That said, I actually did quite a bit of research on this subject several years back when investigating some research from EASTS.  The biggest contributor to cost of transportation is the cost of capital to build it.  Anywhere where the main financing comes from investors or private banks is going to cost significantly more than places where the government pays for construction.

 

The PPP arrangement for Thai transport is why public transportation in Bangkok can never be reasonably priced.  The large debt that needs to be paid back to wealthy bankers and investors prohibits any reasonable ticket prices without very heavy subsidies which are politically impractical.

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Monomial

[josephbloggs]

18 hours ago, Monomial said:

 

It is a monopoly because only a single company is allowed to run rail cars down the track. If it were not a monopoly, the government would finance the building and maintenance of the tracks, and multiple competitive entities could then lease the tracks from the government on a non discriminatory basis. Customers could then choose which company's trains they wanted to ride, and prices would adjust to reflect this.  Very much like how airlines work today, where some people are willing to pay for luxury, but most just want the cheapest cattle car to get from A to B quickly at the lowest possible price. The government owns the airports and airspace. Airlines rent it from them. That is competition.  The skytrain is a monopoly.

 

What??  That's totally normal.

You are proposing different train companies should share the same track for competition?  Absolutely unworkable.  So say there are three companies running trains on the Sukhumvit line.  So your favoured company's trains would come maybe once every 12 minutes and you would watch the other company ones go by in the mean time?  You really think they wouldn't just all end up with a standardised fare?    How would they control it if I bought a ticket for skytrain company A but I went up to the platform and go on a company B train the three stops to Ekkamai.  How would they know?   What a very weird suggestion.

Even in the UK with privatised main line rail services there is no competition - they award one line to one franchise; they don't have multiple companies running on the same line, and for mass transit it would be totally ridiculous and unworkable.

[bkk6060]

So what?

Pay a little more here for MRT yet everything else in Singapore is triple or quadruple the price.

[LivinLOS]

On 12/17/2019 at 12:42 AM, robblok said:

I just came back from a trip to Singapore and could not help to notice that the MRT or BTS they use in Singapore is better, and far cheaper. The wages are higher in Singapore land prices will be similar. So I wonder are the Thais getting ripped off by the government and the MRT- BTS providers. The prices seem far higher the service worse. How is that possible while there are lower wages in Thailand.

Thailand is inefficient at almost everything it does.. Corruption, waste, low human capital.. All these contribute to a higher price per service than you would assume. 

[Elkski]

I didn't see how the one man's question a out how any pieces in Thailand are set is hating on thai's?

Why are some so protective of Thais is a better question.   I use the bts often when I'm here..  it is over crowded and expensive for an average thai.  I have often wondered how an average thai can afford to pay say 40 baht each way  to work if they make 500-800 baht/ day? Easily 10% of income.  But also the same for an avocado.  

Seems like the licen6for bts operation would have had some %capacity maximum and profit maximum.   Yes I know tit.  I wish i was as bts shareholder.  

[bkk6060]

3 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

Thailand is inefficient at almost everything it does.. Corruption, waste, low human capital.. All these contribute to a higher price per service than you would assume. 

As they continually expand it and the other rail services.

I personally find it extremely efficient with great aircon.

But, some will hate on anything here it seems.

[josephbloggs]

5 hours ago, Elkski said:

I didn't see how the one man's question a out how any pieces in Thailand are set is hating on thai's?

Why are some so protective of Thais is a better question.  

Or why some are very much anti-Thai everything might be a fairer question.

 

Quote

I use the bts often when I'm here..  it is over crowded and expensive for an average thai.  I have often wondered how an average thai can afford to pay say 40 baht each way  to work if they make 500-800 baht/ day? Easily 10% of income.  

It is crowded at rush hour just like London is, or Tokyo is, or New York is.  The rest of the time it is fine, and even at rush hours I can squeeze on usually.

It is not as cheap as the bus but at least 85% of the people on those trains are Thais, so they obviously can afford it.

 

Quote

But also the same for an avocado.  

Er, what??

 

Quote

Seems like the licen6for bts operation would have had some %capacity maximum and profit maximum.   Yes I know tit.  I wish i was as bts shareholder.  

I don't know what tits have to do with anything.  But the contract does control prices.  If those are not to your liking that is fine, but they are controlled.

Would more carriages be nice at peak rush hours?  Of course!  But if you had invested millions and were running a system that worked well and revolutionised travel in the city but got a bit busy at peak times would you invest the million of dollars for those people to be a bit more comfortable at peak times when there is no gain for you?  No, of course you wouldn't.  During the day - and during rush hours at 90% of stops - you can always get on a train, so therefore the system is within capacity.  Can't get a seat?  Boo hoo, why should you expect one on a mass transit system in a huge, densely populated city?

It makes me laugh when people expect private enterprise to invest in something that would only lose that enterprise money and therefore put it at risk.   When the time comes that the system is straining they will invest to ensure they can handle the capacity - just as they did when they went from three to four car trains.  As of now they haven't reached that point.

Edited January 9, 2020 by josephbloggs

[Monomial]

On 1/8/2020 at 11:43 PM, josephbloggs said:

What??  That's totally normal.

You are proposing different train companies should share the same track for competition?  Absolutely unworkable. 

 

Have you looked at the long distance rail networks of nearly every country? That is how every railroad works. Of course it is workable. The same number of trains would still run. They would only be priced differently and operated by different carriers, and you would be able to choose which train you entered, just like you choose which bus to board.

 

I am not saying this is an optimal solution, but you are wrong to claim It is not workable. And I am specifically stating, that you were wrong when you said this was "not a monopoly". The current system *IS* a private monopoly, and it *IS* too expensive because of this fact.  Just because you love private companies screwing the working class out of money so you can make bigger returns on your investment, doesn't mean that it is the optimal solution either.

 

Good to know that you are of the "greed is good" brigade. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Many of us here disagree with you, and you can laugh all you want just like we can laugh at you. Today's pricing control on the skytrain is clearly not working for the majority however. It only works for the private investors. I believe that a new economic paradigm is ultimately more workable than the anachronistic PPP arrangements of the past.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Monomial

[EricTh]

It's a supply and demand situation. Even with the high ticket prices, the trains are fully-packed during rush hour and almost full during non-rush hours.

 

Imagine if they lower the ticket prices, there won't be enough breathing space left on the trains as they are still much cheaper than the taxis.

 

I guess it is because of the huge number of tourists from all over the world coming to Bangkok and using the trains.

 

Local Thai usually ride motorbikes if they are poor.

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by EricTh