The Transport Infrastructure in Thailand
The transport infrastructure is a significant and inevitable aspect of human life since it allows people to move from a single place to another in search of goods, services, desires, and opportunities. There exist numerous transportation modes globally with the most common types being, road, air, rail, and water transportation. Transportation modes in Thailand are unique when compared to those of other regions of the world but similar to those used in neighbouring nations such as China and India. The most common modes in the country include motorcycles, bicycles, and tuk-tuks in the rural areas, and bus and rail transport in cities. This report's primary aim is the definition of the current state of transport in Thailand, comparison of available options which include the improvement of the rail transport and bicycle sharing models, and the provision of recommendations on the most appropriate model based on a cost and environment analysis.
2.0 Background
Thailand is a fast-growing nation with fully developed transportation systems. According to Sengers (2016, p.1), transportation in Thailand, like most other developed nations around the globe, is chaotic since the country has no defined regulations governing the transport systems. The primary transportation modes in the nation include road transport and the use of low-speed rail transport for long distance travel. Sengers (2016, p.13) argues that motorcycles, buses, taxis, personal cars, and tuk-tuks struggle for equal portions of the road networks resulting to traffic jams in most of the city highways in Thailand. Overreliance on these transportation types has in the past had devastating implications on the environment since the buses, motorcycles, car taxis, and tuk-tuks depend on fossil fuel and Sengers (2016, p.65) acknowledges that this types of fuel are a key contributor to global warming. While the transportation costs using shared models such as buses and trains remain generally affordable, Sengers (2016, p.221) argues that the use of other transportation modes such as taxis is expensive and the fuel costs constantly increase making the use of private cars difficult. Therefore, the Thai transport infrastructure is poor and requires the development of existing models and introduction of other modes that are cost-effective and environmentally sustainable.
3.0 Options
The chaotic nature of Thai transport systems can only be solved using two key options.
3.1 Bicycle-Sharing System
The first option is the adoption and implementation of the bicycle-sharing model. This transportation mode is common in most developed economies of Europe such as France (Dias 2010, p.26). Bicycle sharing entails the provision of bicycles to the public for short-time use. The government or private entities provide these bicycles to individuals at some cost (Lutogniewska 2014, p.9; Dias 2010, p.5).
Image 1: Paris bike-sharing system (Reuters)
The diagram illustrates the Paris bicycle-sharing scheme. According to Jennings (2015, p.6), this mode of transport is common in all continents except Africa and has demonstrated positive cost and environmental effects. For instance, bicycles provide green transportation that has zero negative environmental implications and remains one of the most cost-effective models.
3.2 Improvement of Rail Transportation
The second option is the improvement of rail transportation for use in cities. There exist two primary rail systems utilized in the cities: (1) sky-trains and underground trains or subways. The rail system has excellently been implemented in most developed nations in Europe and the U.S. This system is cost-effective since trains carry passengers in large volumes enabling them to share costs. According to Pojani and Stead (2015, p.7784), in the U.S. more than half of the city dwellers using public means prefer rail or the subway system to road transportation. An improved rail system would potentially reduce congestion in the cities and emission of carbon residues that result in global warming.
4.0 Cost and Environment Requirements
4.1 Cost
The suitability of a particular project is dependent on many factors; among them being its ability to meet a particular cost expectation. Cesbron and Luckhurst (2015, p.3) argue that the implementation cost of a public bike sharing system in a particular country varies depending on the desired design and size. In a report written for the "European Cyclists' Federation," the authors contend that the capital and operational costs vary between €2500-3000 and €1500-2000 per bicycle respectively (Cesbron and Luckhurst 2015, p.3). However, these values might vary depending on network size. Based on these estimates, Thailand might incur up to €5000 per bicycle of its budget when putting up this infrastructure and charge small fees such as €5 per day per bicycle so that citizens can afford the service. The improvement of the rail system in Thailand, in contrast, would be affordable to both the government and citizens since there currently exists a rail network that could be improved to provide affordable transportation.
4.2 Environment
According to Dominković et al. (2018, p.1825), the current Thai transport modes are all dependent on fossil fuel. The burning of fossil fuels which are carbon in nature has devastating implications for the environment since they result in the emission of carbon dioxide which is a greenhouse gas. Consequently, the Thai transport system contributes to global warming due to the large numbers of petrol and diesel-driven vehicles. The implementation of the proposed options would result in environmental sustenance since it would have reduced the percentage of carbon gas emission by more than half. The current trains could be replaced with electric locomotives which would not be dependent on fossil fuels.
5.0 Comparison
5.1 Costs
According to Reuters (2016), the Thai cabinet was optimistic that the transport infrastructure would improve after $25 billion was set aside for transportation. The move by the government to invest such humongous monetary resources to the transport infrastructure development plan is promising and beneficial in that some portion of this budget can be set aside for the implementation of the proposed options. The adoption of the bicycle sharing transportation model would demand up to €5000 per bike. Assuming that the government approves the implementation of the system and commission 1 million bicycles for the major cities, the total costs for the entire project would be €5 billion. Therefore, the cost implication for the adoption of the project for the citizens would be increased taxes to cater for the system. Buehler and Hamre (2014) argue that contrary to the common belief that a bicycle system can potentially reduce transportation costs for customers, riders spend more resources when using the system than when utilizing other modes of transport since riding demands a lot of energy. Thailand would also remain one of the Asian tourist hubs once the project is implemented since foreign nationals would be curious to experience the bicycle sharing system.
Improving the current rail system would be costly to the government in that it would spend numerous resources to build the transport infrastructure. According to Schiller and Kenworthy (2017, p.111), the primary hindrance for the implementation of a rail transport system is the cost of purchasing locomotive and building or renovating the existing rail networks. The citizens would benefit from the transport network since it would cost less than other transportation means such as the use of buses to move from one point to another. A new rail system would also boost tourism since people from diverse regions would come to the country to witness this advancement. Therefore, this cost analysis establishes that the improvement of the rail system would be costly since the purchase of trains requires increased funds compared to the adoption of the bicycle system which would be cost-effective (roughly €5 billion) and would fit in the $25 billion budget.
5.2 Environment
According to Wong and Zhou (2015, p.156), one of the UN's major objectives regarding the environment is the development of smart green technologies that would reduce carbon emission while increasing sustainability. The adoption and implementation of the proposed transportation models would have numerous advantages to the environment both in the short and long term. Hull and O'Holleran (2014, p.375) argue that in addition to the healthcare benefits of cycling, the cycling scheme or bicycle sharing system reduces fuel consumption and vehicular emissions. Transportation using vehicles would be substantially reduced when the system is implemented since most people would prefer cycling due to its flexibility and healthcare benefits (ARUP Global Research 2016). In the long run, global warming would be contained.
The improvement of the rail system and replacement of the diesel-driven locomotives with electric trains would also cut off the reliance on other modes of transport. Jiang et al (2014, p.40) argue that the use of electric trains in different regions of the globe has become prevalent not only due to their high speeds but also because of their energy efficiency. Electric trains do not use any carbon-containing fuels and purely depend on the power generated from hydro or geothermal sources. In the long run, the replacement of the current trains with high-speed locomotives would reduce the reliance on motor vehicles resulting in reduced carbon emission and pollution. However, improving the rail system would also require the use of diesel-driven trains that have negative environmental implications. Therefore, comparing the two systems, the bicycle sharing model of transport is a more impactful environmental system than the improvement of the rail system which would not fully eliminate pollution and carbon emission.
6.0 Conclusion
In sum, this report establishes that an overhaul of the current transport infrastructure of Thailand is not a requirement but a necessity. The adoption and implementation of a bicycle sharing system and the improvement or rail system were found to be the most viable options for the elimination of the chaotic nature of transportation models. Another primary finding is that the use of electric trains and bicycles would eliminate the reliance on vehicles that use carbon-containing fuels thereby resulting in environmental sustainability and the reduction of pollution while minimizing maintenance costs for the government and transportation costs for citizens and tourists. Lastly, the report establishes and concludes that the bicycle sharing system is more effective and viable than improving the rail system and network.
7.0 Recommendations
The primary recommendation for the government is the allocation of enough resources that would enable the actualization of the proposed changes in the Thai transportation models or system. Secondly, the citizens should be supportive of the changes in the transportation model and work with the government to enable the implementation of the bicycle sharing model whose cost and environmental benefits outweigh those of the improvement of the rail system.
8.0
References
ARUP Global Research (2016). The future of bicycle transport in urban China: a case study in Xi’an | Global Research. [online] Research.arup.com. Available at: https://research.arup.com/projects/the-future-of-bicycle-transport-in-urban-china-a-case-study-of-xian/ [Accessed 12 May 2018].
Buehler, R. and Hamre, A., 2014. Economic benefits of capital bikeshare: a focus on users and businesses (No. VT-2013-06). Mid-Atlantic Universities Transportation Center.
Cesbron, S. and Luckhurst, S. (2015). Public Bike Sharing. Final Guidance Note. [online] Oxfordshire: Ricardo - AEA Ltd. Available at: https://ecf.com/sites/ecf.com/files/BSS-FINAL-REPORT-150121.pdf [Accessed 12 May 2018].
Dias Batista, E., 2010. Bicycle Sharing in Developing Countries: A proposal towards sustainable transportation in Brazilian median cities.
Dominković, D.F., Bačeković, I., Pedersen, A.S. and Krajačić, G., 2017. The future of transportation in sustainable energy systems: opportunities and barriers in a clean energy transition. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.
Hull, A. and O’Holleran, C., 2014. Bicycle infrastructure: can good design encourage cycling?. Urban, Planning and Transport Research, 2(1), pp.369-406.
Jennings, G., 2015. Finding our balance: Considering the opportunities for public bicycle systems in Cape Town, South Africa. Research in Transportation Business " Management, 15, pp.6-14.
Jiang, Y., Liu, J., Tian, W., Shahidehpour, M. and Krishnamurthy, M., 2014. Energy Harvesting for the Electrification of Railway Stations: Getting a charge from the regenerative braking of trains. A. IEEE Electrification Magazine, 2(3), pp.39-48.
Lutogniewska, E., 2014. Developing bicycle culture in a city prioritizing automobiles: A case study with attitude-based analysis of the city of Gliwice, Poland.
Pojani, D. and Stead, D., 2015. Sustainable urban transport in the developing world: beyond megacities. Sustainability, 7(6), pp.7784-7805.
Reuters (2016). Thai cabinet approves $25 bln infrastructure plan for 2017. [online] Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/thailand-infrastructure-idUSL4N1E83HZ [Accessed 12 May 2018].
Schiller, P.L. and Kenworthy, J.R., 2017. An introduction to sustainable transportation: Policy, planning and implementation. London: Routledge.
Sengers, F.F., 2016. Transforming transport in Thailand: experimenting for transitions in sustainable urban mobility (Doctoral dissertation, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven).
Wong, J.K.W. and Zhou, J., 2015. Enhancing environmental sustainability over building life cycles through green BIM: A review. Automation in Construction, 57, pp.156-165.
