Rail fare cap misses its stop

As the mob demanding big cuts to fuel prices continues to grow beyond the government’s ability to downplay its presence, a quieter change to transport costs in Bangkok has been declared an achievement in cost-of-living management, even though a closer look at the numbers might say otherwise.

According to a cabinet-approved Ministry of Transport plan, starting on Jan 1, passengers on the metropolitan electric rail network that includes the BTS and MRT will pay no more than 45 baht per journey, with the state subsidising the difference between the capped and actual fares.

An upper limit on tickets is definitely appreciated and should not be overlooked, but the reality of the move and its actual potential to improve life in Bangkok must also not be glossed over.

Limiting the highest possible price for a train ride is sure to prove positive for a sizeable number of commuters in the capital, but is the 45-baht maximum really the best that can be done within the Thai context? Is it even targeted at the demographic where it would have the greatest impact?

The National Statistical Office reports that the average monthly wage of private-sector employees in Bangkok was 19,663 baht in 2025.

At the maximum capped fare of 45 baht, a worker making one return rail journey every working day would spend as much as 90 baht daily, or 1,980 baht over 22 working days each month.

That amounts to approximately 10% of their average monthly wage.

By comparison, available data indicates that the average percentage of monthly income spent on commuting to work in major cities like Singapore, Tokyo and New York is between 2% and 3%.

One analysis in 2024, released by a US bicycle marketplace platform, showed that even in the US cities where work commuters were paying the most for their transport, the monthly spending was between 1% and 2% of a person’s salary.

Data collected by a ride-sharing service in the UK maintains that it costs about 1% of the average salary to commute in London.

All of this points to Bangkok being several-fold higher in terms of the cost of travelling to work by train.

Looking beyond the pure numbers, consider that getting around in Bangkok, even when using the train, is not a straightforward matter of walking from one’s residence to the nearest station and then stepping off within a reasonable distance to one’s place of work.

A journey to work here rarely begins at a BTS or MRT station and ends at another. Many people working in the city do not live close enough to their nearest station to walk there – and the walkability of most places is an entirely separate issue.

They might start on a motorcycle taxi, a songthaew or a bus. Each of these modes of transport comes with its own costs.

Upon arriving at their station, many will have to again use a secondary transport method to finally reach their destination.

A commendable part of the transport ministry plan in 2027 is that it will also seek to do away with redundant entry fees for the train system.

If the ministry achieves its Single Ownership model, passengers will see the 45-baht cap in effect even if they transfer between lines that currently require them to start a new payment. That would mean a single maximum-cost journey could go from one end of a BTS line to the other end of an MRT line.

However, that would still mean a worker paying the highest possible fare to get to and from their job each day would be spending 90 baht on train rides alone.

Once the total price of a day’s commute exceeds 100 baht, it also breaks through the already too high 10% of salary level, effectively placing rail travel beyond the reach of many average workers.

It is here where it becomes important to note that these conclusions are based on averages, a convenient device that is not necessarily a useful indicator of the people to whom a policy such as this is relevant.

Bangkok is an economically diverse city with major gaps in wealth and earnings between its poorest and most affluent. Payment averages here are likely heavily skewed by the disparities anyone can see simply by walking along the street.

The high cost of commuting by train as indicated by global statistics would be worrying enough on its own. But one must also consider that the average income of a rail user may not even be what was used for these calculations.

If we accept that those earning less than the average do not ride the BTS and MRT and face very inconvenient bus journeys, would that not be even more reason to look to lower rail fares further?

If public transit is not serving those least likely to be able to seek alternative ways to commute, then how is it uplifting quality of life at all?

The National Statistical Office’s findings were that Bangkok employees in accommodation and food services earn an average of 15,961 baht a month, while those in administrative and support services earn 15,925 baht.

These are precisely the kinds of workers who are unlikely to have the luxury of choosing where they live or how they travel to work. It is also people in these economic circumstances who would see a major boost to their quality of life if they were able to comfortably access Bangkok’s extensive train network.

The government would like Bangkok commuters to regard its latest transport initiative as a victory for affordability. However, making public transport cheaper and making it affordable are two different outcomes.

If the desired result is to make Bangkok’s workers more mobile, so that they may produce more, spend more and keep the wheels of the economy turning, the 45-baht cap does not appear to be the correct variable.

If limiting fares to keep commuting costs under 10% of a monthly wage is unrealistic, the government may be better served by disembarking the 5.8-billion-baht subsidy budget for this scheme and putting it on a different track.