Built environment and pedestrian behavior at rail rapid transit stations ...

Transportation (2010) 37:317–330 DOI 10.1007/s11116-009-9226-8

Built environment and pedestrian behavior at rail rapid transit stations in Bangkok Craig Townsend Æ John Zacharias

Published online: 25 September 2009 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Abstract Urbanization and demands for mobility have spurred the development of mass rapid transit infrastructure in industrializing Asia. Differences between the character of pre-existing urban structure in these localities and worldwide precedents suggest a need for studies examining how new rapid transit systems function locally. This study of Bangkok’s elevated and underground rail systems identifies relationships between the built environment and pedestrian behavior surrounding stations. Based on details of 1,520 pedestrian egress trips from three elevated and three underground stations in 2006, multiple regression and analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that types of pedestrian destinations, reflecting land uses, were related to length of walking egress trips. Trips to shopping centers and office buildings were longer, while trips to eating places were shorter. The most common type of pedestrian trip recorded was to another vehicle, and trips to automobile taxis and motorcycle taxis figured prominently. Policy implications of the findings are considered. Keywords Bangkok Mass rapid transit Pedestrian accessibility Land use transport relationships Pedestrian behavior Built environment

Introduction A major expansion of mass rapid transit infrastructure is currently underway throughout industrializing Asia. There are compelling reasons to shift passengers from private motor vehicles to mass rapid transit in Asia’s densely populated cities (Fouracre et al. 2003). Mobility is needed for development, but it would be difficult if not impossible to accommodate mass automobile use. In addition to requiring the dispersal of countless C. Townsend (&) J. Zacharias Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University, 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd West, Montreal, QC H3G 1M8, Canada e-mail: [email protected] J. Zacharias e-mail: [email protected]

123

318

Transportation (2010) 37:317–330

people and built structures for roads and parking, there would be significant environmental implications given current vehicle technologies and fuels. Thus, governments of industrializing nations are pursuing investments in rapid transit infrastructure. Based on population density and metropolitan size, much of industrializing Asia seems very well-suited to mass rapid transit; however, there are challenges. An immediate concern, faced everywhere in the world, is how to pay for these capital-intensive projects. Commonly, governments pay for infrastructure construction, while operations may be either public, private, or a combination of the two. Proactive governments such as those found in Japan and Asia’s Newly Industrialized Countries have used value-capture strategies to harness public and private investment in mass rapid transit infrastructure. However, these strategies require high ridership. In much of the industrializing world, a challenge to achieving high ridership on rapid transit is the burgeoning use of motorcycles and other small motorized vehicles. Many cities have already reached relatively high levels of transport system motorization at middle or low levels of economic output. While not ‘‘automobile dependent’’ because of high population densities and insufficient road networks, these cities are saturated with motor vehicles (Barter 2000). Large land parcels or ‘‘superblocks’’ bounded by high-capacity perimeter roads are a common challenge to achieving highly used rapid transit. It is difficult to service these superblocks with conventional buses or railways. Many are already served by unsanctioned, low capacity public transit such as motorcycle taxis or minibuses, which provide flexible service at low fares, but which contribute toward many negative externalities (Cervero and Golub 2007). In this way, cities in the developing world present an emerging set of challenges to achieving success with mass rapid transit. They also present opportunities for investigations into the nature of relationships between the built environment and travel behavior. Presently there is a marked absence of knowledge on transportation and land use interactions in cities of the developing world, where conditions vary significantly from the places where most transportation research is carried out. This research examines the interaction between walking behavior of mass rapid transit users and built environment characteristics in the particular case of Bangkok, Thailand. Bangkok displays many characteristics typical of rapidly industrializing cities. Between 1999 and 2009 47 km of heavy rail began operations and while successful according to many measures, there are clearly problems with pedestrian access around the 25 elevated and 18 underground stations. Little research has been carried out on Bangkok’s mass rapid transit systems, but there is much to be learned. Research on pedestrian access to mass rapid transit has assumed prominence in recent years; there are environmental and personal benefits to walking and highly successful public transportation systems are supported by pedestrian trips. An emerging topic of concern is the interaction between the built environment surrounding rapid transit stations and walking. Liu et al. (1998) emphasize that the quality of the street, the sidewalk, and the transfer station are as important as reliability and affordability of a transit service in encouraging ridership, and that transit service agencies need to play a larger role in shaping the environment around their facilities. Loutzenheiser (1997) finds that among physical characteristics surrounding San Francisco’s regional railway system (BART), station areas with high levels of retail activity outside downtown areas contain the highest proportion of walk trips, followed by station areas with little or no parking. Also researching the BART system, Kitamura et al. (1997) find that the presence of sidewalks and the overall pedestrian orientation of a neighborhood are closely related to the number of non-motorized trips. Pedestrians are also sensitive to details of local design and environmental qualities (Handy et al. 1998). In the developing world context of Bogota, Cervero et al. (2009) find

123


319

that where transit-supportive urban form characteristics such as mixed land use and density are widespread, facility design characteristics such as street density and interconnectivity influence non-motorized travel. This paper addresses four questions concerning built environment and walking at mass rapid transit stations in Bangkok: (1) what are the lengths of pedestrian trips linked to mass rapid transit trips? (2) do pedestrian trip lengths vary significantly between rapid transit stations? (3) are there built environment characteristics which can explain variance in walking distances? and (4) are there changes to built environments which could be made to increase both walking distances and use of mass rapid transit stations? In the short to medium term, the extent of Bangkok’s rapid transit infrastructure will remain limited. Locating stations in places that large numbers of people can reach by other modes of transport including walking could increase the accessibility of this infrastructure.

Bangkok study area In 2009 metropolitan Bangkok had well over 10 million inhabitants and persistently bad transportation problems. Private car and motorcycle use has grown quickly, facilitated by the construction of over 400 km of high speed expressways and extraordinarily high parking provision (Kenworthy 2003). The quality and modal share of public bus services have been in decline for some time and by 2007 were reported to be losing 5% patronage per year (World Bank 2007). Pedestrian conditions are poor as a result of roadside pollution, pavement conditions, sidewalk obstructions, and the lack of sidewalks (Chalermpong 2007). Traffic congestion is heavy and dispersed throughout the day. In spite of rapid economic growth and extensive social changes, most of these problems have been present since Bangkok’s transition from a small city with transport provided by streetcars and boats to a mega-city which is highly motorized given its overall level of wealth. Since the early 1970s, various forms of mass public transportation with reserved rightof-way were recommended to increase mobility and accessibility in Bangkok. The first official recommendation appeared in the 1975 Bangkok Transportation Study prepared by a West German advisory team which worked with Thai government officials to propose transport improvements, including elevated busways (F. H. Kocks KG and Rhein–RuhrIng-GMBH 1975). Rail-based mass rapid transit was endorsed in principle by the national government, but was not accompanied by finance, which was instead directed toward expressways. In the years that followed, a myriad of government agencies and politicians concerned with Bangkok’s transport introduced many inconsistent proposals to develop a variety of rapid transit technologies in numerous alignments. While proposals were abundant, it was not until the initiation of public–private concession agreements that construction began, facilitated by the availability of off-shore capital at low interest rates. The first mass rapid transit system to begin operations in Bangkok was fully financed with private capital (Halcrow Group Ltd 2004; Perez 2004). The privately financed, 26 km (23.5 km in 1999 plus 2.5 km in 2009), elevated heavy rail Bangkok Transit System (BTS) was built in the middle of some of the city’s most congested and highest rent arterial roads. These include Silom Road, the backbone of one of Bangkok’s Central Business Districts, and Sukhumvit Road, lined with hotels, shopping centers, and high-priced condominiums (see Fig. 1). The privately built, owned, and operated BTS will be turned over to the public Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) in 2039. It was designed to provide high quality transportation for passengers

123

320


0

er iv

R

Tha

ya

f ays o Railw

Ch

ao

Ph

ra

State

D

2

3

4 km

BTS (elevated) MRT (underground) Expressway Major road

3

d ilan

1

1 2 3 4 5 6

Chitlom BTS Station Phrom Phong BTS Station Lat Phrao MRT Station Petchaburi MRT Station Ratchathewi BTS Station Lumphini MRT Station

A B C D E

Siam-Pratunam-Chitlom Silom-Lumphini-Sathorn Sukhumvit Historic Core Chinatown

5 1

E

4

A C

Thonburi 2 6

B

N Fig. 1 Bangkok’s transportation infrastructure, 2009

paying fares significantly higher than bus fares to move quickly along dense activity corridors, and to increase access to some properties owned by the land development company which built and operates the system. In 2000, its first year of operations, the BTS attracted approximately 200,000 rides per day, which rose to a seven day average of 381,000 rides per day in 2006. Ridership grew more slowly in the following two years, but with the opening of a 2.5 km extension over the Chao Phraya River in 2009, peak day ridership on Fridays regularly reached 500,000 and the rolling stock was overloaded with passengers. Bangkok’s second rapid transit system, the 20 km underground railway called the ‘‘MRT’’ began operations in 2004. The subway construction was financed by a low interest loan from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) to the Government of Thailand, and it is operated by a private concessionaire which paid for electrical work and rolling stock and is seeking to generate profits from fares. In its first year of operations, the MRT attracted 200,000 rides per day, but with lower fares than those charged on the BTS for equivalent distances. When fares were raised in 2005 to a level comparable with BTS fares, MRT rides dropped to approximately 150,000 per day. In 2007 weekday ridership on

123


321

the MRT averaged about 192,000. In contrast to the 25 BTS stations, the 18 MRT stations are located on wider arterial roads which are typically more peripheral and automobile oriented, with lower land values. Nonetheless, by 2009 there was strong evidence of new residential, commercial and retail development in the vicinity of many MRT stations. It is widely perceived that in comparison to the BTS, the MRT serves a clientele with lower incomes (although still largely middle class), and fewer businesspeople and international tourists. Nonetheless, like those of the BTS, the MRT stations are in central city or inner suburban locations, fares are high compared with buses, and there are no fare transfers. As a result, the use of rapid transit is beyond the means of most low income Bangkokians. Overall, the conditions of public walkways have not been altered in response to the presence of mass rapid transit stations; problems found around stations include deteriorated sidewalk surfaces and blockages created by utility poles and street vendors. There have been no attempts to widen public walkways even in locations where pedestrians spill onto roadways. At the three locations of intersection between the elevated BTS and underground MRT, some efforts have been made to facilitate walking between the stations. Similarly, bus routes controlled by the state-owned Bangkok Mass Transit Authority (BMTA) have not been re-organized in response to the presence of mass rapid transit. Many bus stops remain far from the nearest BTS or MRT station. At the same time, significant efforts have been made to encourage inter-modal access by private car to mass rapid transit stations by using state-owned land on top of subway stations as surface parking and by constructing three large parking lots (two surface and one multi-storey parking garage). Parking prices at public lots are held at low levels, and improvements such as roofing to shade cars were made using public funds at one parking lot. Politicians and bureaucrats seem unanimous in believing that increasing parking is a sound strategy for improving access to mass rapid transit, although it has not been based on any form of cost-benefit analysis or sustainability assessment. In response to the poor walkway conditions around elevated train stations, the private owner-operator (the Bangkok Transit System Corporation or BTSC) has facilitated the creation of high quality elevated pedestrian walkways located mainly underneath the elevated track viaduct. In some cases the BTSC has paid for these privately owned walkways which are open only during BTS operating hours. In other cases the walkways have been financed by adjacent building owners seeking to capitalize on their close proximity to mass rapid transit stations. In 2006 when the field study was carried out there were elevated walkways connected to 6 BTS stations; by 2008 the number had increased to 11 BTS stations. The extent of these private and semi-public walkways is growing and has reached the point at which pedestrians not using the mass rapid transit will climb stairs to use the walkways which are safer and easier to navigate than the public walkways below. While none of the MRT underground stations in 2006 had substantial walkways connecting with adjacent buildings, the stations did allow for pedestrians to walk from one end of the station to the other, and unlike the open air BTS stations they are air conditioned and some have operational elevators. When the field study was carried out in 2006, substantial building activity had already occurred around BTS stations in service for 6 years, but there had been less activity around MRT stations which had been in service for only 2 years. At that time, most of the new developments had been shopping centers, condominiums, and hotels catering to high income earners. This property development boom surrounding rapid transit stations has been widely reported in the local news media and is consistent with theories which predict that local accessibility gains will be accompanied by increased land values and rents. Newspapers and private companies undertaking land valuations have reported that housing

123

322


close to a rapid transit station fetches a premium of approximately 9%, while rents in the vicinity of BTS stations were reported shortly after opening to be 25% higher than previously. Because BTS stations are for the most part surrounded by privately owned land, which in Thailand is subject to minimal regulation and taxation, private landowners and leaseholders have been willing and able to quickly capitalize by constructing larger buildings for uses which can command higher rents. A study by Chalermpong (2007) confirms this effect and finds that the BTS has raised land values by approximately $10 per square foot for every meter closer to a station.

Study design Site visits, maps, and satellite photographs were used to select stations occupying varying locations within the network (see Fig. 1). Three elevated and three underground stations were chosen such that it would be possible, given the expected sample of trips and the number of variables, to achieve statistical significance and reasonable effect size. We selected stations which we assumed would display significant differences in the characteristics of surrounding built environments. A 400 m radius circle centered on each station was assumed to be sufficient for recording built environment characteristics. It was felt that most pedestrian trip distances to and from stations would be low because of unpleasant walking conditions. Bangkok is already known for a pedestrian modal share that is low compared to that in other cities in Asia (Kenworthy 2003). It was also supported by studies in other cities where it was concluded that the walking catchment area of transit stations is within a 5 min or 400 m walk, and between 400 m and 800 m, the potential ridership decreases to nearly zero (Hsiao et al. 1997; Vuchic 2005). Others have observed longer average walking distances to rapid transit stations in suburban environments of automobile dependent cities such as Calgary (e.g., O’Sullivan and Morrall 1996) and Perth (Ker and Ginn 2003). Similarly, Rastogi and Rao (2003) find a mean walking distance of 910 m to suburban train stations in Mumbai. However, in Bangkok the station locations and spacing are more urban than suburban. When station spacing is wider, rapid transit vehicle speeds increase and passengers walk farther (Murray and Wu 2003), but service frequencies and ridership are also typically lower. The average distance between Bangkok’s stations (not including three ‘‘transfer points’’ between BTS and MRT) is about 1 km, typical of urban rapid transit systems designed for high frequency services. The dependent variable, walking trip length, was collected during an observational study of passengers leaving stations, or egress trips. An observational approach differs from traditional travel survey approaches which rely on interviewing people to obtain trip information. Interview-based studies offer the advantage of collecting a variety of personal and household information as well as a cross-section of travel information. Interviewing also makes it possible to talk to subjects making access trips to public transit and to identify whether they are travelling to or from home. However, in terms of detailed spatial behavior at a local scale, there are some problems with such techniques. First, there is the problem of recall when dealing with the details of a personal itinerary (Ga¨rling et al. 1997). Second, it is extremely tedious if not impossible to reconstitute the path made in the real environment with the associated time taken. Third, the intensive data gathering required makes it difficult to secure a representative sample of respondents. For these reasons, some researchers have resorted to observation, using various methods such as behavior-mapping

123


323

(Carr et al. 1992), video-recording (Thornton et al. 1987) and ‘‘tracking’’ (Chang 2002; Chang and Penn 1998; Zacharias et al. 2005; Zacharias 1997). An observational study was carried out at the six stations over a 10-day period in June 2006. Twenty-seven research assistants, who were graduate students at three Bangkok universities, randomly selected and observed individuals exiting through turnstiles at each of the stations. The pedestrians were observed unobtrusively and from a distance, while walking through public space until they entered a building or a vehicle, or made a stop exceeding ten minutes. In addition, two personal variables, sex and estimated age, were collected. While we did not conduct an inter-observer reliability test, the estimated age varied across the spectrum, ensuring that at least some crude differentiation by age was possible. The estimated age distribution was as follows: \25 years old (n = 303); 25–35 (n = 728), 35–45 (n = 283); more than 45 (n = 170). Following the survey, a database was created with 1,520 records, each consisting of one individual making a single trip. The observed trips were drawn into a Geographic Information System (GIS) map and the trip distances were extracted. Thirty-one records were discarded because of problems including interpretation of the lines drawn by research assistants. The average distances recorded were relatively low, varying from 206 m at Lat Phrao MRT station to 305 m at Chitlom BTS station (Table 1). There were significant differences in average walking distances among the six stations, such that two distinct categories could be identified (P \ 0.05). Chitlom BTS, Ratchathewi BTS, and Lumphini MRT stations were in an upper category, while Lat Phrao MRT, Phetchaburi MRT and Phrom Phong BTS were in a lower category. Given the high standard deviations in observed pedestrian egress trip distances to be expected because of disparities of purpose and timing, two levels for activity were significant. While carrying out the observational study to record trip lengths, the first destination reached by the pedestrian was recorded and later coded into one of seven categories, each of which became another independent variable (see Table 2). Overall, about half of the trips terminated at a vehicle, while about half terminated at a building. The most important destination overall was a taxi, whether sedan or motorcycle. The intermodal proportion of trips varied substantially between stations, reflecting the pre-existing urban situation and a bus system that is largely intact from before the implementation of the BTS and MRT systems.

Table 1 Pedestrian trip length Standard deviation

Station

Total average walk (m)

Standard deviation

Average destination walks (m)

Standard deviation

Average intermodal walks (m)

Chitlom BTS

305

212

319

224

199

66

Phrom Phong BTS

237

204

251

209

188

176

Lat Phrao MRT

206

174

347

200

156

133

Petchaburi MRT

247

194

276

207

227

183

Ratchathewi BTS

292

253

382

274

145

109

Lumphini MRT

296

206

344

219

246

168

Average

264

222

320

222

194

139

Standard deviation

40

49

39

123

324


Table 2 Observed destination (number of observations) Station

Destination

Intermodal

Waiting/no recorded Shopping Eating/ Services Residence/ Offices Taxi Bus Car destination Drinking (bank etc.) Hotel

Chitlom BTS

86

19

17

25

62

35

20

4

5

Phrom Phong BTS

61

29

36

28

10

67

16

8

16

108 18

1

Lat Phrao MRT

22

7

6

23

12

72

Petchaburi MRT

25

4

22

13

27

73

47

9

Ratchathewi BTS

39

13

15

53

12

30

46

1

8

Lumphini MRT

41

15

13

29

14

53

54

6

14

274

87

109

171

137

330

291 46

51

Total

7

There are many ways to interpret this remarkable finding. One, high fares mean that the segment of the population using mass rapid transit can afford to pay for the doorto-door, on-demand service provided by taxis. Two, bus routes and stops have not been re-organized in response to the presence of mass rapid transit; as a result, it is difficult for passengers to link mass rapid transit trips with destinations using buses. Three, the taxis occupy prime spots around stations (including stopping lanes for buses in some cases) and as a result have a competitive advantage over buses. The latter explanation is supportive of analysis of unsanctioned or informal transportation engaged in ‘‘cream skimming’’ (Cervero and Golub 2007). While taxis played a major intermodal role, private automobiles played an insignificant role, even at the station (Lat Phrao MRT) with the most parking. The importance of trips to other modes of transportation prompted a separate calculation of average walking trip lengths at each station, divided into the categories of ‘‘Destination’’ (a building inferred to be the trip destination) and ‘‘Intermodal’’, referring to trips which linked with another mode of transportation. The intermodal walks were noticeably long (Table 1), again reinforcing the possibility that mass rapid transit passengers are compelled to walk to buses because of a lack of well-located transfer facilities. The relatively small number of trips terminating at a residence (or hotel) suggested that most observed trips were not homeward-bound. This is consistent with the location of most of Bangkok’s rapid transit stations in the inner city areas where non-residential uses predominate. This could also have an impact on observed trip lengths, as the character of access and egress trips has been observed to vary with reference to the location of home (e.g., Loutzenheiser 1997). However, because the subjects of this research were not interviewed, it is impossible to know whether the observed egress trips were away from or toward home. It was expected that if only home-based egress trips had been analyzed we might have observed longer walking distances to destinations. Given resource limitations, it was not possible to randomly select survey times and days which could have given a better representation of different trip lengths by time of day and day of week. However, surveys were carried out on each day of the week and at a large range of times. Early in the study we decided to measure road networks and floor space as built environment measures likely to impact pedestrian trips. Roads are typically lined by sidewalks which offer space reserved for pedestrians, as well as the access points for many buildings and activities. A larger road network could influence the length of walking trips

123


325

by either increasing the number of possible routes and activities, or by creating possibilities for more direct walking routes. If there were many activities, it is possible that people would walk further because there were more possibilities for linked trips, or the experience was more enjoyable. In this way the built area could provide inducements for shorter trips by clustering activities together, or longer trips by creating activity nodes that attract many people walking to shop or undertake other activities within the area. In order to measure road density, the total center-line length of all major and minor public roads was divided by the land area within the 400 m station radius. Road connectivity was measured in terms of 4-way intersections within the 400 m station radius. The areas surrounding two MRT stations, Lat Phrao and Petchaburi, had significantly greater road density. This was consistent with their location adjacent to major intersections and to the overall feeling of the area surrounding each station. In addition, one of those MRT stations, Lat Phrao, displayed significantly greater road connectivity, with 60 fourway intersections. Many of these roads appear in plan view as unplanned and ‘‘villagelike’’, lacking sidewalks. Petchaburi was the only station with significantly lower road connectivity, with 21 four-way intersections. Four of the six stations were close to elevated roads. Chitlom and Phrom Phong BTS stations were the only stations without an elevated road structure within the 400 m radius. One reason for the choice of road density and road connectivity as independent variables influencing walking distance was the assumption that they would serve as proxies for sidewalk networks. The areas with a higher road network density and road connectivity would offer more options for pedestrians and present a more permeable network that increases the number of choices and reduces pedestrian route lengths. However, in the course of collecting and analyzing the data two problems emerged. One was that the road networks did not vary significantly between the six stations. There were only two stations with significantly different road densities (Lat Phrao MRT and Petchaburi MRT, which both had higher road density), and road connectivity (Lat Phrao MRT with a higher value and Petchaburi MRT with a lower value). The second problem was that many roads did not have sidewalks, so that measuring road length was not an accurate proxy for pedestrian infrastructure. Complicating matters further, main roads of 6–8 lanes had sidewalks, but also high levels of noise and air pollution. Thus, in the places where pedestrian infrastructure is provided, environmental conditions were poor. Finally, the elevated and underground pedestrian walkways did not follow the same routes as roads. As a result, pedestrian walkways were measured directly and independently of roads. The three BTS stations had elevated sidewalks linking the turnstile-level station concourses with surrounding buildings. Chitlom BTS Station had an elevated pedestrian walkway linking it with Siam Square BTS Station (about 900 m to the west) which was the point of transfer between the two elevated lines. Similarly, Phrom Phong BTS Station was attached by elevated walkway directly to a shopping centre, and Ratchathewi BTS Station had a small walkway connecting it with a hotel. The actual gross ratio of built floor area to total ground area (Floor Area Ratio or FAR) was calculated within an area encompassed by a 400 m radius from the centre of each station, or an area of 499,200 m2. The floor area was measured by a research assistant who traced building footprints taken from Google Earth and then manually counted the number of floors of each building in order to derive the total. There were substantial differences in FAR among the six station areas. The FAR was found to be significantly higher around Chitlom BTS and Phrom Phong BTS, two elevated stations which had direct walkway connections to high-rise buildings (see Table 3). The FAR was significantly below the 6

123

326


Table 3 Built Environment Characteristics Station

FAR

Total pedestrian infrastructure (m)

Public sidewalk (m)

Platform-level walkways (m)

Chitlom BTS

3.4

5,232

4,401

831

Phrom Phong BTS

2.5

3,396

2,936

460

Lat Phrao MRT

0.7

3,715

3,343

372

Petchaburi MRT

0.9

4,055

3,805

250

Ratchathewi BTS

1.4

4,509

4,204

305

Lumphini MRT

1.1

2,711

2,587

124

Average

1.7

3,936

3,546

390

Standard deviation

1.1

879

716

244

station average of 1.7 around two underground stations in more peripheral locations. One of these, Petchaburi MRT, was surrounded mainly by roads and surface parking (including a lot for 60 cars surrounding one of the three station exits), and was within close proximity to the walled Embassy of Japan compound and the Siam Square-Sukhumvit corridor to its south, and a surface railway and an expressway toll plaza to its north. Lat Phrao MRT was located on the northern, more suburban outskirts of the inner city, abutted by two wide roads and a 2,200 stall parking garage built and operated by the public Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand. Also close to the station was a substantial quantity of mid- and lowrise housing occupied notably by more middle and low income households than in most central areas where housing prices and rents were very high. The stations with intermediate FAR levels were Ratchathewi BTS and Lumphini MRT. Ratchathewi BTS was surrounded by government offices, a high-rise hotel, shops, middle to low income residences, and a large outdoor eatery. Lumphini MRT Station was surrounded by a park, boxing stadium, a night market, foreign consulates, and high-priced condominium and office towers. Between mid-2006 when the field study was undertaken and mid-2009 when this paper was written, new buildings appeared or were under construction within 400 m of Lat Phrao MRT, Petchaburi MRT, Ratchathewi BTS, and Lumphini MRT stations. There was little evidence of recent construction activity at Chitlom BTS and Phrom Phong BTS stations which had the highest FAR figures, suggesting that they had already reached build-out. While carrying out the observational study, passenger boarding figures were obtained from the private operators of the BTS and MRT. The figures demonstrated a significant amount of variation, with the highest, Chitlom BTS, having almost three times as many as Lumphini MRT, the lowest. Analysis of the confidential data demonstrated that total boardings at the stations were clearly related to FAR (R2 = 0.84; t = 4.65; P = 0.005). While boardings were not statistically related to the presence of all pedestrian infrastructure combined within the 400 m radius areas, they were strongly related to the amount of walkway infrastructure (R2 = 0.75; t = 3.49; P = 0.013). Clearly, the walkways have been added in areas already built up at higher density. Subsequent counts of people exiting stations and the mapping of pedestrian trip volumes and general routes (see Fig. 2) suggested that the presence and length of walkways influenced the direction of pedestrians exiting the stations. People chose with greater frequency station ends that were closer to platform-level walkways.

123


Fig. 2

327

Volume distributions of pedestrian trips (400 m radius indicated)

Multiple regression results The data were treated in a multiple regression and analysis of variance to determine the role and power of individual variables in explaining the distances of pedestrian egress trips. Some of the dummy-coded station variables displayed significant correlations with walking distance, suggesting that station-specific characteristics were important. However, the only variables to display significant correlations with walking distance were destination types (Table 4). In effect, the type of destination was a proxy for both land use and activity. Trips that terminated at shops and personal services such as banks were positively correlated with walking distance. Interestingly, there was no significant correlation between walking trip lengths and trips terminating at a bus, but there was a negative correlation between a taxi (either motorcycle or automobile) and walking distance. This suggested that taxis were better located relative to the stations than buses.

Policy implications and conclusions The findings of this study are supportive of recommendations made by transportation consultants for a number of government agencies in Thailand. Intermodal connections between railways and public buses are poor (Pacific Consultants International (PCI) 2001), and the creation of intermodal transfer facilities or ‘‘station plazas’’ which include business centers could improve transport functions (AEC et al. 2005). Because density is already relatively high in Bangkok and uses are already mixed, the greatest payoffs should come

123

328


Table 4 Environmental and personal factors in walk distance from stations (n = 1,499) Multiple regression variables

Regression coefficient

t value

Model 1 stations Intercept

291.10

29.43***

Chitlom

-24.03

1.33*

Phrom Phong

-56.03

3.22***

R2

Adjusted R2

0.1344

0.1256

2324***

0.1189

0.1118

32,882***

ANOVA F value

Station

Lat Phrao

16.77

0.94

Petchaburi

23.55

1.31*

Ratchathewi

11.78

0.62

64.19

2.75***

Destination type Shopping Food services

-51.78

Personal services

84.02

Residence/hotel

12.85

Work Motorcycle/taxi Bus

-65.87 -117.51

2.13** 2.96*** 0.53 5.71*** 5.71***

8.66

0.54

Age

-0.001

0.49

Sex

-4.85

0.49

Model 2 FAR and infrastructurea Intercept

236.77

FAR

-3.92

0.60

0.00

0.60

Total pedestrian infrastructure

36.94***

Note: Purpose reference variable: waiting outside; Station reference variable: Lumphini; Age reference variable: 0–16; Gender reference variable: female a

With trip purpose variables not shown

Significance: * P \ 0.10; ** P \ 0.05; *** P \ 0.01

from the better design of facilities such as intermodal transfer terminals. Because intermodality currently plays a major role in access to rapid transit stations in Bangkok and intermodal journeys are relatively high, measures should be taken to plan intermodal interchanges which reduce walking for those transferring modes, while at the same time improving walking conditions for those travelling to destinations in the surrounding environments. This would require relocating bus stops, creating bus loops, and taxi stands where better regulated taxis would be located. These measures could significantly increase the attractiveness of rapid transit in Bangkok and could free up road space occupied by a variety of vehicles dropping off and picking up passengers. It is worth emphasizing that intermodal access (at least in the observed egress trips) is very small, suggesting that accommodating car trips to rapid transit would be a misuse of resources, particularly if it was to further degrade walking conditions surrounding stations. Long walks associated with transfers to another mode of transportation or in environments with few buildings are negative. Long walks that take place in activity-intensive places are positive. It was clear from the observational study that people were walking

123


329

under unpleasant conditions for long distances and some of this walking such as trips to bus stops which were a long distance from the stations was unnecessary. While the level of pedestrian infrastructure measured within a 400 m radius of each station was not correlated with observed walking distances, it is nonetheless clearly important because building owners are paying to have connections made at platform-level. The elevated walkways have in effect been a response of individual building owners or landowners to the failure of the government to provide adequate public sidewalks. It is likely the pedestrian infrastructure has followed the pedestrian volumes, as evidenced in the incremental building of these systems since the BTS opened. However, these short connections may not necessarily be increasing the surrounding access to rapid transit, and instead are seeking to capture or channel pedestrians into commercial buildings oriented on main roads where established activity levels are already high. While this is not in and of itself problematic, it creates a dual system with higher quality semi-public walkways (which are not open all of the time) and lower quality public walkways. As with any form of privatization, this planning approach runs the risk of creating two tiers of activity and exacerbating social inequality. There are innumerable future avenues for research on Bangkok’s rapid transit systems. One is the impact of fare levels on regional accessibility. Currently fares are high for most low income earners, and this limits much of the population’s access to rapid transit. High fares could also affect walking distances and may change in the future as buildings close to stations charge higher rents. Finally, this case study underlines the importance of considering movement in three dimensions. The study would have been significantly improved with a more fine-grained analysis that was able to detect movements between levels in stations and shopping facilities. For example, the highest walk distance at Chitlom BTS was nevertheless substantially underestimated due to our inability to account for pedestrian movement within the shopping complexes that line the station. Therefore, an improvement on the methods in this study would include recording movement through the facilities adjacent to the stations in three dimensions. Acknowledgements This work was supported by a Concordia University Faculty Research Development Program grant. The authors wish to thank three reviewers of the paper, our research assistants in Bangkok and Montreal, Dr. Suraphong Laoha-Unya at the Bangkok Mass Transit System Public Company Limited (BTSC), Dr. Vilas Nitivattananon at the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), and Dr. Rithika Suparat at the Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (MRTA).

References AEC (Asian Engineering Consultants Corp., Ltd.), PCI (Pacific Consultants Limited), TESCO, and TC: The Intermodal Service Integration for the Improvement of Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability and Livelihood for Bangkok Metropolitan Region (BMR) and Surrounding Area (Final Report prepared for the Office of Traffic Policy and Planning), Ministry of Transportation, Bangkok, Thailand (2005) Barter, P.A.: Transport dilemmas in dense urban areas: examples from Eastern Asia. In: Jenks, M., Burgess, R. (eds.) Compact Cities: Sustainable Urban Forms for Developing Countries, pp. 271–284. Spon Press, London (2000) Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L., Stone, A.: Public space. Cambridge University Press, Boston (1992) Cervero, R., Golub, A.: Informal transport: a global perspective. Transp. Policy 14, 445–457 (2007) Cervero, R., Sarmiento, O.L., Jacoby, E., Gomez, L.F., Neiman, A.: Influences of built environments on walking and cycling: lessons from Bogota´. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 3, 203–226 (2009) Chalermpong, S.: Rail transit and residential land use in developing countries: hedonic study of residential property prices in Bangkok, Thailand. Transp. Res. Rec. 2038, 111–119 (2007) Chang, D.: Spatial choice and preference in multilevel movement networks. Environ. Behav. 34(5), 582–615 (2002)

123

330


Chang, D., Penn, A.: Integrated multilevel circulation in dense urban areas: the effect of multiple interacting constrains on use of complex urban areas. Environ. Plan. B 7(25), 507–539 (1998) Fouracre, P., Dunkerley, C., Gardner, G.: Mass rapid transit systems for cities in the developing world. Transp. Rev. 23(3), 299–310 (2003) Ga¨rling, T., Selart, M., Bo¨o¨k, A.: Investigating spatial choice and navigation in large-scale environments. In: Foreman, N., Gillett, R.A. (eds.) Handbook of Spatial Research Paradigms and Methodologies, pp. 153–180. North Holland, Amsterdam (1997) Halcrow Group Ltd: A Tale of Three Cities: Urban Rail Concessions in Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Manila, Paper commissioned for the ADB-JBIC-World Bank East Asia and Pacific Infrastructure Flagship Study. Halcrow Group Ltd, London (2004) Handy, S., Clifton, K., Fisher, J.: The effectiveness of land use policies as a strategy for reducing automobile dependence: a study of Austin neighborhoods, Research Report SWUTC/98/465650-1. Southwest Region University Transportation Center, Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, September (1998) Hsiao, S., Lu, J., Sterling, J., Weatherford, M.: Use of geographic information system for analysis of transit pedestrian access. Transp. Res. Rec. 1604, 50–59 (1997) Kenworthy, J.: Automobile dependence in Bangkok: an international comparison with implications for planning policies. In: Whitelegg, J., Haq, G. (eds.) The Earthscan Reader on World Transport Policy and Practice, pp. 61–77. Earthscan, London (2003) Ker, I., Ginn, S.: Myths and realities in walkable catchments: the case of walking and transit. In: Proceedings of the 21st ARRB and 11th REAAA Conference. Transport. Our Highway to a Sustainable Future, p. 16 (2003) Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P.L., Laidet, L.: A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 24, 125–158 (1997) Kocks F.H.K.G., Rhein–Ruhr-ING-GMBH: Bangkok transportation study. Technical Cooperation between the Federal Republic of Germany (German Advisory Team) and the Government of Thailand (Office of Metropolitan Traffic Planning) (1975) Liu, R., Pendyala, R.M., Polzin, S.E.: A simulation of the effects of intermodal transfer penalties on transit use. Transp. Res. Rec. 1623, 88–95 (1998) Loutzenheiser, D.R.: Pedestrian access to transit: model of walk trips and their design and urban form determinants around bay area rapid transit stations. Transp. Res. Rec. 1604, 40–49 (1997) Murray, A., Wu, X.: Accessibility tradeoffs in public transit planning. J. Geogr. Syst. 5, 93–107 (2003) O’Sullivan, S., Morrall, J.: Walking distances to and from light-rail transit stations. Transp. Res. Rec. 1538, 19–26 (1996) PCI (Pacific Consultants International) URMAP: Mass transit: urban rail transportation master plan (BMA and Surrounding Areas). Final report volume 1: executive summary. office for the commission of management of land traffic (OCMLT), Bangkok (2001) Perez, B.G.: Achieving public–private partnership in the transport sector. iUniverse, Inc., New York (2004) Rastogi, R., Rao, K.V.: Defining transit accessibility with environmental inputs. Transp. Res. D 8, 383–396 (2003) Thornton, S.J., Mccullagh, M.J., Bradshaw, R.P.: Shops, Pedestrians and the CBD. Department of Geography, University of Nottingham (1987) Vuchic, V.R.: Urban Transit: Operations, Planning, and Economics. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2005) World Bank: Strategic Urban Transport Policy Directions for Bangkok. The World Bank, Bangkok (2007) Zacharias, J.: The impact of layout and visual stimuli on the itineraries and perceptions of pedestrians in a public market. Environ. Plan. B 24(1), 23–35 (1997) Zacharias, J., Bernhardt, T., De Montigny, L.: Computer-simulated pedestrian behavior in a shopping environment. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 131(3), 195–200 (2005)

Author Biographies Craig Townsend is an associate professor in the Department of Geography, Planning and Environment at Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. His research and teaching interests include urban passenger transportation performance, policies, and politics in South East Asia and Canada. John Zacharias is a professor in the Department of Geography, Planning and Environment at Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. His most recent work is concerned with transportation-land use relationships with particular application to cities in China. He has operated a laboratory on pedestrian behavior modeling for more than 10 years.

123