Safety for City Residents at the Expense of the Poor? Examining the Policy to Cancel City Train to Reduce Accidents

"Why has Thailand allowed dangerous railway crossings for decades?

Until finally, the solution is to remove trains from the city."

Following a tragic collision between a freight train and bus line 206 at the Makkasan-Phetchaburi crossing, which caused many deaths and injuries, along with chaotic traffic scenes—motorcycles squeezing under barriers and vehicles stopped on the tracks—many risk their lives to avoid long waits. This has become a familiar sight before and after the incident, highlighting the failure to manage traffic in inner Bangkok.

Most recently, this led to the idea from Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Transport Pipat Ratchakitprakarn, who announced a 3-month plan to tackle the issue by "canceling trains running into inner Bangkok." The proposal is for eastern line trains to stop only at Lat Krabang, southern line trains at Taling Chan, with passengers transferring to BMTA buses, the Red Line, or the Airport Rail Link (ARL) to enter the city, aiming to reduce accident risks.

On the surface, this seems like a solution, but for daily wage earners, small company employees, security guards, housekeepers, or students without income who rely heavily on trains each morning and evening, this is not just a travel inconvenience. It shifts the infrastructure burden to citizens’ personal finances, dramatically increasing their living costs.

Let's look at real numbers to see what additional expenses ordinary people would face if city trains were canceled.

Example: Students and workers traveling from Chachoengsao junction to Sukhumvit 71 station by State Railway of Thailand (SRT).

• Currently: Fare is 11 baht (22 baht round trip per day).
• If the system changes: They must get off at Lat Krabang and transfer to ARL and other transport, raising costs to 80–150 baht per day.

This group would pay an additional 2,000–3,000 baht monthly. While thousands may seem small to some, this equals a family’s monthly food budget, children’s tuition, or motorcycle installments.

Another case: An office worker earning 18,000 baht monthly.

• Currently: Using the train at 22 baht daily, spending about 500 baht per month.
• If changed: Travel costs jump to 120 baht daily, totaling 2,600 baht monthly.

The difference—or extra amount paid—could be as much as 2,100 baht per month.

To put it in perspective, 2,100 baht lost means paying the entire household electricity bill, internet, and nearly all lunch expenses for a month for a salaried worker.

While some pay more for convenience and time-saving, others must ask themselves if they will even have money left for meals this month. Beyond the higher fares, the government may not have fully grasped the realities of forced transfers, which hide many pain points, including problems such as...

• Walking from SRT Lat Krabang station to the ARL is not as comfortable as transferring at Siam, where escalators or a short walk of 10 steps allow easy crossing.
• There is also a shortage of trains: Currently, an SRT train can carry over 600 passengers in the morning, but ARL trains are shorter. How can they accommodate the huge number of SRT passengers?
• Time is unevenly distributed as a cost: ARL trains run every 15 minutes, which is too infrequent during rush hour. The trains also break down often and are overcrowded.
• Moreover, ARL has fewer stations than SRT, meaning passengers who previously could get off near home must now spend extra on buses or motorcycle taxis.

Someone insightfully noted that suburban trains are "heaven for those living far away." Traveling to Ayutthaya by train costs 15 baht versus 160 baht by van for a similar time. In reality, everyone wants convenience, but financial constraints mean some families cannot choose.

Furthermore, there are "hidden costs" borne by workers: parking fees at outer stations (where parking is limited), lost time, taxi fares when missing trains, higher food prices because of late returns, and even lost job opportunities.

Ultimately, this is not just a story about policies to reduce traffic accidents but also about the class impact of travel amid divided opinions. One side demands safety, which is valid, but the other rightly demands that problems not be solved by carelessly shifting burdens onto the poor. Do you agree?

Follow the Facebook page: Thairath Money at this link.https://www.facebook.com/ThairathMoney