Thailand’s Bus Network Faces Rail Threat Can It Adapt Or Wither
What happens when a nation’s arteries, hardened by decades of one infrastructural choice, suddenly require angioplasty? What happens when the concrete dries on yesterday’s bets and the future demands something radically different — not just faster transport, but a more sustainable urban fabric? Thailand’s state-owned Transport Company, Bor Kor Sor, is currently writing that prescription. As Bangkok Post reports, Bor Kor Sor is scrambling to “improve its market share” as shiny new railway lines threaten to siphon off its long-distance passengers.
The immediate triage involves a predictable, if underwhelming, cocktail: more airport connections, cross-border routes aimed at the tourism sector, and a fresh coat of paint for Bangkok’s central bus terminal. They are adding “feeder services” and procuring 311 new busses to replace older ones, all part of a 3 billion baht investment aimed at boosting revenue from 1.9 billion to 3.5 billion in two years. But the core question remains: Can wi-fi and a new paint job truly compete with the allure of faster, cheaper, more reliable rail, especially when those rails connect to a vision of a very different future?
The Transport Company is adjusting to new travel patterns by seeking to establish more bus connections to airports for convenience and to reduce walking distances.
This isn’t just about buses versus trains; it’s about path dependency writ large. Thailand, like many developing nations seduced by the siren song of American automotive supremacy in the mid-20th century, prioritized highways, believing them to be the express lane to economic prosperity. The 1961–1966 National Economic Development Plan, for example, poured resources into road construction, explicitly framing it as a catalyst for agricultural expansion and regional development. This bet, however, also encouraged decentralization, sprawl, and a carbon-intensive lifestyle.
The shift towards rail represents something of a developmental mea culpa. As urban economist Edward Glaeser has long argued, density is a feature, not a bug; it’s what unlocks agglomeration effects, fostering innovation and efficient resource use. Rail investment, particularly the 300 billion baht double-track project aiming to convert 1,312 kilometres of tracks across the country by 2028, is an implicit acknowledgement that connected density is now a crucial competitive advantage.
But this transformation also raises profound questions about equity. Will these new rail lines primarily serve the affluent, accelerating gentrification and further marginalizing rural communities and those dependent on the affordability of bus travel? As the late transportation scholar David Levinson noted, infrastructure investments inevitably redistribute wealth and access. “The question isn’t whether they do,” he wrote, “but how, and for whom?” The bus routes are often the only connections linking rural populations to the city, providing access to jobs and social services. A reduction in state subsidies on buses would disproportionately impact those with lower income.
These competing projects embody the central tension of development: how to reconcile economic growth with social inclusion, efficiency with accessibility. It’s a recognition that infrastructure isn’t just about moving goods and people, but also about shaping the societies they inhabit. The bet on rail may well pay off in economic terms, but the true measure of its success will be whether it lifts all boats, or simply leaves the bus, and those who rely on it, stranded.
