, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 317–330 | Cite as

Built environment and pedestrian behavior at rail rapid transit stations in Bangkok

  • Craig TownsendEmail author
  • John Zacharias


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.


Bangkok Mass rapid transit Pedestrian accessibility Land use transport relationships Pedestrian behavior Built environment 



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).


  1. 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)Google Scholar
  2. 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)Google Scholar
  3. Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L., Stone, A.: Public space. Cambridge University Press, Boston (1992)Google Scholar
  4. Cervero, R., Golub, A.: Informal transport: a global perspective. Transp. Policy 14, 445–457 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cervero, R., Sarmiento, O.L., Jacoby, E., Gomez, L.F., Neiman, A.: Influences of built environments on walking and cycling: lessons from Bogotá. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 3, 203–226 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang, D.: Spatial choice and preference in multilevel movement networks. Environ. Behav. 34(5), 582–615 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fouracre, P., Dunkerley, C., Gardner, G.: Mass rapid transit systems for cities in the developing world. Transp. Rev. 23(3), 299–310 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gärling, T., Selart, M., Böök, 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)Google Scholar
  11. 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)Google Scholar
  12. 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)Google Scholar
  13. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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)Google Scholar
  15. 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)Google Scholar
  16. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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)Google Scholar
  18. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Murray, A., Wu, X.: Accessibility tradeoffs in public transit planning. J. Geogr. Syst. 5, 93–107 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Sullivan, S., Morrall, J.: Walking distances to and from light-rail transit stations. Transp. Res. Rec. 1538, 19–26 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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)Google Scholar
  23. Perez, B.G.: Achieving public–private partnership in the transport sector. iUniverse, Inc., New York (2004)Google Scholar
  24. Rastogi, R., Rao, K.V.: Defining transit accessibility with environmental inputs. Transp. Res. D 8, 383–396 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thornton, S.J., Mccullagh, M.J., Bradshaw, R.P.: Shops, Pedestrians and the CBD. Department of Geography, University of Nottingham (1987)Google Scholar
  26. Vuchic, V.R.: Urban Transit: Operations, Planning, and Economics. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2005)Google Scholar
  27. World Bank: Strategic Urban Transport Policy Directions for Bangkok. The World Bank, Bangkok (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zacharias, J., Bernhardt, T., De Montigny, L.: Computer-simulated pedestrian behavior in a shopping environment. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 131(3), 195–200 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography, Planning and EnvironmentConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations