BTS Skytrain to start trial early service from March 1

[isawasnake]

Even if it went to 2am but didn't stop at every station i.e. less staff in the non-used stations but passengers able to make use of it, stopping only at prominent points and end of the line ... better than not running at all

While we can all agree that the BTS is one of the best run aspects of Bangkok, I have never understood the stopping points. There was obviously some serious political persuasions going on. I just don't get stops that are 1 km from each other. It would just run so much faster and smoother if a good maybe 5 stops were taken out of the entire system. Too late for that though.

The problem with your solution is it would be so confusing.... tourists would get on and it would pass their stop.

Spacing on the BTS system is consistent with global practice for urban transit. By spacing stations roughly 1 kilometre apart, it means that stations will typically always be within a reasonable walking distance and provide higher levels of service in areas with higher population density.

Systems like the Airport Rail Link are designed more as commuter rail, with stops spaced further apart and designed to capture riders from a wider catchment area in less dense areas, where some will park and ride, and others will connect from different pubic modes like bus.

The BART system in San Francisco is actually a hybrid of the two, with stations in suburban areas spaced far apart, but in downtown SFO, stations are quite close together.

Is that the case? Or when the ST was first being envisioned, did they think that the CP river station would always be the terminus for the Silom Line?

Original designs for the Silom Line called for one station located immediately on the Thon Buri side of the river (think near The River condo) because at the time the system was built, there was still available space on that side of the river. For whatever reason, a decision was made to build Saphan Taksin instead, probably owing to cost savings. But at the end of the day, yes, plans have always called for the line to traverse the river.

With the number of motorbikes, I don't think you can compare asia with the US. I think stations 2km apart would be fine and run much smoother, but what do I know, I am not a city planner I do know there is one station in particular on my daily commute home, and about 3 people get on the train every day, and the train is just totally jam packed. The numbers of people getting on and off just aren't justified by the passenger discomfort the stop causes. In that same area, there is also a discrepancy in the stop numbers, ie it goes from S3 to S5, so maybe they half agreed with me at some point and took out a stop. I just wish they would take out more, but don't take mine out of course

Edited February 16, 2014 by isawasnake

[isawasnake]

Even if it went to 2am but didn't stop at every station i.e. less staff in the non-used stations but passengers able to make use of it, stopping only at prominent points and end of the line ... better than not running at all

While we can all agree that the BTS is one of the best run aspects of Bangkok, I have never understood the stopping points. There was obviously some serious political persuasions going on. I just don't get stops that are 1 km from each other.

The reason is simple: Thais hate walking, and when forced to do so, walk at a snail's pace. If the stops were more than 1 km apart, only farangs would use the BTS and it would not be economically viable. To be honest, knowing Thais' attitude to walking, I'm surprised they aren't 0.5 km apart.

I don't think the people who made the final decisions on where the bts stops are were influenced in the slightest by what the thais like and don't like. The influences were most obviously all related the the amount of revenue certain stops would create. It is obvious, and also obvious there are too many stops. But, somebody here says that is not the case, so maybe I am wrong. I would think 1km apart stops with the number of motorbikes here is way overkill though. What I am saying makes perfect sense though, if the stops were configured with revenue from these businesses in mind, what would we see? We would see an excess number of stops, equaling more revenue.... and that is exactly what we see imo.

Edited February 16, 2014 by isawasnake

[whybother]

You mean BTS actually takes notice of its customers? Perhaps they can further improve schedules by having more trains travelling in the direction that needs them, rather than in the direction that doesn't; Loy Krathong, for example.

While they're at it, perhaps they can also advise local management that the purpose of the safety barriers on the platforms is, well, safety; hence, the gates should be closed pre-arrival, at the points where the trains stop, not at either end of the platforms, where they don't. And how about improving staff training. There are still guards whose whistles are their sole authority and who think the yellow lines still sancrosanct, despite the security gates that have rendered them irrelevant - the lines, that is; though perhaps the guards, as well.

Off topic? Perhaps, but technically, I think not.

The barriers aren't in operation yet. That's why they aren't opened and closed with the train's arrival and departure. The ones that are currently permanently closed won't be in use until the trains are extended, so it makes sense to have them closed now.

[bifftastic]

Yes, great! Start service early... then within ten years, you'll have it running from 5:00am till 2:00am and use the three other hours for maintenance service!

Next up... why not add extra cars to trains during peak hours.... do ya think that will improve service?!!! Dooooooooooooh!!!!

There is no need to add extra cars to the trains hours, it is a matter of speeding up the time interval between trains. The trains are all controlled by computer, the driver is only there to check the doors opening and closing. 5 extra 4 car units are being introduced this month (February) due to the extension to the Silom line, and the Thaksin station will be removed. After that the situation will improve at peak hours. BTS will run the trains for longer hours according to demand and profitability. The London Underground runs from around 5.20 until 00.20 so what is the problem Dooooooooh!!!!! Full information on the BTS and all the new and proposed skytrain, light rail and underground lines can be found here:

http://bts.listedcompany.com/misc/PRESN/20140213-BTS-managementPresentation.pdf

In London the pubs close at 2300.

Here they are open a little longer and both staff and customers need to go home.

I guess the late party goers can now take the early BTS home.

Not any more they don't. Many have 3am licences. Others will start to close at 23:00 (but they don't have to), and will be finally getting people out of the door by about midnight/1am.

Central London has many places licenced till 6 or 7am, then there are the unlicenced places, of which there are also many.

Silvery Borisconi has also dressed up his job-slashing/down-sizing crusade by simultaneously announcing that the tube will run until after 2am on Friday and Saturday nights.

[Lakegeneve]

In that same area, there is also a discrepancy in the stop numbers, ie it goes from S3 to S5, so maybe they half agreed with me at some point and took out a stop. I just wish they would take out more, but don't take mine out of course

Both S4 (Suksa Witthaya) and N5 (Sena Ruam) were planned to be built at a later date once there was expected demand, mid 2000s. That is officially still the case though unofficially they will most likely never be built. Both are still on the BTS map, http://www.bts.co.th/customer/en/02-route-current.aspx

If waht was always going to be a temp station, S6 does eventually get demolished (it was to have happened by mid 2013 but a long ped link tp S5 needs to be built first), then the increase in pax at S5 may eventually make building S4 a necessity......

It is no different that the current Bearing to Samut Prakhan ext which is being built. 7 of the planned 9 stations are being built with the other 2 (S 18 & S22) at a later date once demand is there. See post #205, http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/406991-the-new-skytrain/page-9

[planr]

Even if it went to 2am but didn't stop at every station i.e. less staff in the non-used stations but passengers able to make use of it, stopping only at prominent points and end of the line ... better than not running at all

While we can all agree that the BTS is one of the best run aspects of Bangkok, I have never understood the stopping points. There was obviously some serious political persuasions going on. I just don't get stops that are 1 km from each other.

The reason is simple: Thais hate walking, and when forced to do so, walk at a snail's pace. If the stops were more than 1 km apart, only farangs would use the BTS and it would not be economically viable. To be honest, knowing Thais' attitude to walking, I'm surprised they aren't 0.5 km apart.

I don't think the people who made the final decisions on where the bts stops are were influenced in the slightest by what the thais like and don't like. The influences were most obviously all related the the amount of revenue certain stops would create. It is obvious, and also obvious there are too many stops. But, somebody here says that is not the case, so maybe I am wrong. I would think 1km apart stops with the number of motorbikes here is way overkill though. What I am saying makes perfect sense though, if the stops were configured with revenue from these businesses in mind, what would we see? We would see an excess number of stops, equaling more revenue.... and that is exactly what we see imo.

You are of course free to think as you like, but the people who made the final decisions absolutely incorporated walking trips into their demand analyses. Whether or not they were or are accurate may be debatable, but it is most certainly standard practice and I know for a fact it was taken into account here.

You're absolutely correct that in locating stations, existing and potential future built form (which translates into ridership) was taken into account along with demographics, but you must also remember that 20 years ago when plans for the BTS were being finalized, the Bangkok's built form looked much different.

In fact, the BTS (and MRT) have enabled additional development that would likely not have taken place if there were no stations. Looking at Ari and Phrom Pong as examples, which had little development 20 years ago and are now growth hot spots.

Last point... more stops doesn't necessarily equal more revenue. There are plenty of stops which under perform, such as Ratchadamri and Sanam Pao, that without, the BTS could potentially turn a higher profit (though not necessarily revenue).

[isawasnake]

While we can all agree that the BTS is one of the best run aspects of Bangkok, I have never understood the stopping points. There was obviously some serious political persuasions going on. I just don't get stops that are 1 km from each other.

The reason is simple: Thais hate walking, and when forced to do so, walk at a snail's pace. If the stops were more than 1 km apart, only farangs would use the BTS and it would not be economically viable. To be honest, knowing Thais' attitude to walking, I'm surprised they aren't 0.5 km apart.

I don't think the people who made the final decisions on where the bts stops are were influenced in the slightest by what the thais like and don't like. The influences were most obviously all related the the amount of revenue certain stops would create. It is obvious, and also obvious there are too many stops. But, somebody here says that is not the case, so maybe I am wrong. I would think 1km apart stops with the number of motorbikes here is way overkill though. What I am saying makes perfect sense though, if the stops were configured with revenue from these businesses in mind, what would we see? We would see an excess number of stops, equaling more revenue.... and that is exactly what we see imo.

You are of course free to think as you like, but the people who made the final decisions absolutely incorporated walking trips into their demand analyses. Whether or not they were or are accurate may be debatable, but it is most certainly standard practice and I know for a fact it was taken into account here.

You're absolutely correct that in locating stations, existing and potential future built form (which translates into ridership) was taken into account along with demographics, but you must also remember that 20 years ago when plans for the BTS were being finalized, the Bangkok's built form looked much different.

In fact, the BTS (and MRT) have enabled additional development that would likely not have taken place if there were no stations. Looking at Ari and Phrom Pong as examples, which had little development 20 years ago and are now growth hot spots.

Last point... more stops doesn't necessarily equal more revenue. There are plenty of stops which under perform, such as Ratchadamri and Sanam Pao, that without, the BTS could potentially turn a higher profit (though not necessarily revenue).

I am talking about revenue generated by the businesses the bts stations generate. My claim is that the layout was almost assuredly driven and pressured by this, and this alone for the most part. As you say, we can all believe as we like, but if you can imagine a scenario where say less stops would generate more money somehow, that is what I think they would have done. The powers that be would not give a flying hoot about Thais and their walking proclivities (or lack thereof).

I rode the MAX once or twice in Portland. As I remember, for one it is terribly efficient, much like the BTS, and also, the stops are quite a bit further apart. Different cities, maybe apples and oranges. Whatever the case, it certainly is nice to go say 10 km in 5 minutes as opposed to 3 km in 5 minutes.

Edited February 17, 2014 by isawasnake

[Lakegeneve]

A few facts to throw into the mix of this conversation. With every BTS extension that has been built, the initial number of planned stations has been reduced to save construction costs. In all cases this was done to save costs given that the BMA funded each extension.

We have had extensions built in 3 phases and in each case 1 station was cut;

1) ST(S6) to WWY (S8) opened May 09- initially planned to be 3 stations (one immediately on the other side of the river) but cut to 2,

2) On Nut (E9) to Bearing (E14) opened in Aug 11- planned to be 6 stations but reduced to 5,

3) WWY(S8) to Bang Wah (S12) opened in 2013 - reduced to 4 stations from the original 5.

Adjustments to what where original station locations, have and will impact some future local connectivity - especially so on the silom line.

The Sukhumvit line will eventually be 59 stations (N28 to E27)!! The total trip time would be approx 1hr 15mins. In another place years ago I suggested that the Mo Chit - Saphan Mai section and Bearing to SP should both have a third track built that could be used for peak semi-express services. ie. morning for to Siam and afternoon from Siam.

However, the previous plan by the BTSC was to reconfigure the lines so that West would run to East and North to South instead of the current W-S & N-E. However, with the BMA now evaluating a further extension of the Silom line north beyond Bang Wah to Taling Chan and add another 7 stations it may not make much difference. (especially as if this ext does get built many speculate that the line will be further extended north into Nontaburi or to from an eventual loop line)

[planr]

I don't think the people who made the final decisions on where the bts stops are were influenced in the slightest by what the thais like and don't like. The influences were most obviously all related the the amount of revenue certain stops would create. It is obvious, and also obvious there are too many stops. But, somebody here says that is not the case, so maybe I am wrong. I would think 1km apart stops with the number of motorbikes here is way overkill though. What I am saying makes perfect sense though, if the stops were configured with revenue from these businesses in mind, what would we see? We would see an excess number of stops, equaling more revenue.... and that is exactly what we see imo.

The reason is simple: Thais hate walking, and when forced to do so, walk at a snail's pace. If the stops were more than 1 km apart, only farangs would use the BTS and it would not be economically viable. To be honest, knowing Thais' attitude to walking, I'm surprised they aren't 0.5 km apart.

You are of course free to think as you like, but the people who made the final decisions absolutely incorporated walking trips into their demand analyses. Whether or not they were or are accurate may be debatable, but it is most certainly standard practice and I know for a fact it was taken into account here.

You're absolutely correct that in locating stations, existing and potential future built form (which translates into ridership) was taken into account along with demographics, but you must also remember that 20 years ago when plans for the BTS were being finalized, the Bangkok's built form looked much different.

In fact, the BTS (and MRT) have enabled additional development that would likely not have taken place if there were no stations. Looking at Ari and Phrom Pong as examples, which had little development 20 years ago and are now growth hot spots.

Last point... more stops doesn't necessarily equal more revenue. There are plenty of stops which under perform, such as Ratchadamri and Sanam Pao, that without, the BTS could potentially turn a higher profit (though not necessarily revenue).

I am talking about revenue generated by the businesses the bts stations generate. My claim is that the layout was almost assuredly driven and pressured by this, and this alone for the most part. As you say, we can all believe as we like, but if you can imagine a scenario where say less stops would generate more money somehow, that is what I think they would have done. The powers that be would not give a flying hoot about Thais and their walking proclivities (or lack thereof).

I rode the MAX once or twice in Portland. As I remember, for one it is terribly efficient, much like the BTS, and also, the stops are quite a bit further apart. Different cities, maybe apples and oranges. Whatever the case, it certainly is nice to go say 10 km in 5 minutes as opposed to 3 km in 5 minutes.

The layout (station locations) had very little to do with businesses that existed at the time the BTS was being planned and built. Back in the 1990s, BTSC offered to connect shopping malls, offices, etc via the now ubiquitous skybridges FREE of charge (including construction costs).... an offer to which most declined as they believed at best, would have no impact on their operations, and at worst, actually bring in "undesirable" foot traffic if you can believe it. The 1990s were dark days in terms of commuter perspectives on rail, bearing in mind that the only benchmark was the SRT's trains, which being perfectly honest, are not an attractive option for many people, even now.

Things are very different today. Not only do developers have to pay to build their own connections, but the BTS actually charges them "access" fees in the millions of Baht.

As for MAX, never been to Portland but I do know it is a light rail system which has a different operating profile than heavy urban rail like the BTS. Also, that aside, as you say, it is a bit like apples to oranges as transit design standards in the US are a little different than other places, particularly when it comes to aligning to street grids / road networks. For example, the METRO light rail system in Phoenix has fairly wide-spacing on its system (relative to Bangkok), but a big reason for this has to do with the street layout where major intersections are one mile (1.6km) apart.