Study to Identify the Special Transport Policies in …1.1 % 15.6 % 48.2% Area Population GRP Bangkok Metro. Region (% Share in Thai total) Km Bangkok MA Pathum Thani Nonthaburi Nakhon

Study to Identify the Special Transport Policies in Asian Megacities

アジアの大都市特有の都市交通政策に関する研究

Surya Raj AcharyaSenior ResearcherInstitute for Transport Policy Studies (ITPS), Tokyo

24 Feb 2006

79th ITPS Colloquium 24 February 2006

(C) Dr. Surya Raj ACHARYA, Institute for Transport Policy Studies, 2006 2

Contents

• Background: Features and Problems of Asian Megacities

• STREAM Study: Objectives; Framework and

Perspectives

• Comparative Examples from Seoul and Bangkok

– Urban form and Land-use

– Urban roads and motorization

– Public transport and urban rails

• Policy Implication and further works


Population

2 mil5 mil

10 mil

Legend

World 30 Largest Metropolitan Areas (1950)

In 1950, only 7 cities from Asia…


Population

2 mil5 mil

10 mil

Legend

World 30 Largest Metropolitan Areas (2003)

By 2003, 16 cities from Asia..


Population

2 mil5 mil

10 mil

Legend

Metropolitan Areas: Population >5 mil (2003)

Out of 52, 27 cities from Asia


60666163715776218351580

AreaKm2

0 20 40 60 80

Seoul (1942-70)Jakarta (1945-75)

M. Manila (1945-75)Bangkok (1945-80)

Tokyo 23-ku (1895-1932)New York (1860-1920)

London (1800-1901)

Years taken to increase city* population from 1 mil. to 5 millions

Number of Year

28

30

30

35

37

60

101

Data source: Compilation from multiple sources

* City proper (not extended metropolitan area)

1974--2004192719041863

First Subway

• Rapid urban growth in Asian megacities • Challenge of managing rapid urban growth• Late development of important infrastructure (subway)


0 100 200 300 400 500

Korea

Japan

Philippines

VietNam

Germany

China

Thailand

Indonesia

France

US

people/sq km

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Asia

Europe

Africa

Latin America

North America

Australia

people/sq km

Population DensityContinents

Selected countries

Source: UN (2005)

Higher population density in Asia


Source: UITP (2001)* Data year for Bangkok 2000, Source NSO (2004)

Urban density: Only urbanized area is considered

Higher urban density in Asian megacities

Urban density in Selected Metropolitan Areas 1995

0 50 100 150 200 250

SeoulTaipeiManila

JakartaBangkok

BeijingTokyo

LondonParis

LosAngelesNewYork

Persons/ha


1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

0100200

300400500

cars

/100

0 po

pula

tion

02000400060008000

100001200014000

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

Con

stan

t US$

at 2

000

pric

e

Seoul

Bangkok

M. Manila

Seoul

Bangkok

M. Manila

Trend of city’s per capita income

Trend of car ownership

Rapid increase of income and car ownership in Asian megacities


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Car

s pe

r 10

00 p

opul

atio

n

Income/capita, PPP constant $ 2000 price

Tokyo-to

Seoul

Taipei

Bangkok

Income Vs Car Ownership


0 5 10 15 20 25

Bangkok

Tokyo

Paris

Taipei

Manila

Seoul

Beijing

LosAngeles

Thousand Vehicle km/car/year

Car usages rate

Not only ownership, but car usage rates are also higher…


Urban Roads

Inadequate road in mega-cities of Asian developing countries

0 5 10 15 20 25

Shanghai

Bangkok

Seoul

Tokyo 23ku

Paris

London

New York

Road Ratio % （Road area/urbanized area）

Road space ratio in selected cities

Data source:MLIT, Vasconcello (2001)


0

10

20

30

40

50

Bangko

kMan

ilaJa

karta

Shanghai

Mumbai

Tokyo

London

Paris

NewYork

LosAng

eles

平均

時速

(Km

/hou

r)

Data source: UITP (2001)

Traffic CongestionAverage speed of road traffic 1995

Severe Road traffic congestion in Asian megacities


0 50 100 150 200

LosAngeles

Tokyo

Singapore

Manila

Bangkok

KualaLumpur

Shanghai

Mumbai

Jakarta

死亡者数/10億台キロ

都市別交通事故死亡率　1996

0 100 200 300 400 500

M. Manila

Bangkok

Shanghai

Mumbay

Beijing

N. Delhi

micro-gm/cu m

Recommended limit: 90 g/m3

粒子状浮遊物質（SPM) 濃度　1998

Data source: WHO AIMS

Traffic accident and PollutionTraffic accident rate (1996)

Death/bil. Veh-km

SPM Concentration (1998)


Background: summary• Specific features of Asian megacities

Special urban transport problems • Research on Urban Transport in EU and US

– Does not focus on the specialties of Asian megacities– Mostly focused on the problems of developed cities– Suggestions for Asian cities: direct lessons without context?– Project oriented studies: short-term focus– Value biased perspectives

• Pro-car vs anti-car• Road vs rail (BRT vs LRT)• Environment vs Economic growth

Need of policy-oriented research focusing on the Asian contexts maintaining a balanced perspective


Sustainable TRansport for East Asian Megacities (STREAM)

An International Collaborative Research Study(2005~2007)


Objectives of STREAM StudyGenerate policy insights to address special problems of urban transport in Asian megacities at different level of policy making:

•Vision – What are the long-term desirable scenarios?

•Policy Strategies– What are the strategic options to realize the

Vision?

•Policy measures– What are the measures to implement policy

strategies?


Current situation, problems, responses

•International experiences•Asian cities’ characteristics•Need of new perspective

Explore long-term strategic options for Asian cities

Case studies

Conceptual framework (dynamic)

Specific issues and implementation measures

Output 1: Vision-Guiding principles

Output 2: Strategic Options

Output 3: Implementation measures

Research Approach

Tokyo

SeoulHongkong

Taipei

Bangkok

M.Manila

Beijing

Jakarta

Hochimin- city


To workout solutions for the special problems of Asian megacities, we may need some new perspectives…


Mobility (High)

Mobility (Low)

Accessibility (High)

Accessibility (Low)

• Road-oriented city structure

• Car dominated transport

• Polycentric city structure

• Rail dominated transport

• High-density city structure

• Inadequate infrastructure

• Low density sprawl

• Inadequate infrastructure

Mobility or Accessibility ?Mobility: Quality of being mobile (Level-of-Service)Accessibility: Potential for interactions

Definition

ECMT (2002)

Tokyo

US Cities

DevelopingAsian cites


Income level

Desirable path

Do-nothing path

Critical stage

feasible unfeasible

feasible

difficult

Mod

e sh

are

of P

ublic

Tra

nspo

rt

Role of Mass Transit System (MRT)• Too early: financially difficult• Too late: Unfavorable land-use

The dynamics of Motorization and Suburbanization declining of Public Transport modal share


020406080

100120140160180200220

LosAnge

lesRomePari

sBerl

inNew

YorkMumbai

Seoul

London

Bangko

kSing

apore

Taipei

HongKon

gTok

yo%

of o

pera

ting

cost

Data source: UITP (2001)

Operation Revenue of Public Transport (% of operating cost)

Operational Profit

….issue is not only about how to make provision of public transport, but also how to sustain it…..

Operational Loss

Subsidies


Comparative Examples from selected cities Seoul and Bangkok

• Urban form and Land Use

• Urban Roads and motorization

• Public transport and urban rails


Seoul 11.8 %45.6 %46.4 %43.7 %48.8 %42.3 %

AreaPopulationGRPBusinessManufacturingUniversities

Seoul Metropolitan Area (% Share in Korea total)

Seoul city Area: 606 sq kmPopulation: 10.3 million

Seoul Metropolitan Area Area: 11,748 sq kmPopulation: 21.4 million


1957 1972

1985 1997

Urban Expansion in Seoul MA

• Concentrated urbanization

• Leap-frog suburbanization

Source: Seoul Metropolitan Government

Urban form and Land Use


Seoul Metropolitan Area: Land Use

• Strong land use control

• Green-belt in 1971 to control urban sprawl

• Compact and high-density city development

• Severe shortage of land for housing

Green belt

Seoul city


Trend of Population growth in Seoul Metropolitan Area (Seoul city, Incheon city and Kyonggi) 1960-2000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Popu

latio

n (m

illio

n)

Seoul

Kyung-gi

Incheon

• Until 1990: population concentration in the Seoul city

• Since 1990:population decentralized to suburban area


Paju

IlsanKimpo

Jungdong

Pyungchon

Sanbon

Pankyo

Bundang

Iyi(Suwan)

Dongtan(Hwasung)

1st New Towns2nd New Towns

Seoul Metropolitan Area: New Towns

New Town Development• New town

development plan in 1989

• Rapid development of 5 new towns

• Plan for second stage new towns

New Towns only for Housing?


Trip Patterns in Seoul Metropolitan Area

Total daily trips:1970 5.7 million1995 27 million

Average commuting distance1991 9.7 km1996 11.3 km2002 12.9 km

Decentralization of population but concentration of jobs in the city center caused increase in,

Total number of trips

Average commuting distance


Urban Roads and Motorization


Expansion of Road Network in Seoul City

1936 1966

1972 1989

Source: Seoul Metropolitan Government

Urban Roads

Priority to road building: 1960s through 1980s


Road Network in Seoul City 2000ExpresswaysMajor ArterialsMinor ArterialsRoad length in 2000 km

Expressways: 23

Highways 169

Metrop. Roads 7,697

• Expressways (tolled) are section of intercity expressways

• Highways are toll-free Freeways (expressways)

• Metropolitan road includes other general roads


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Aut

omob

iles

(thou

sand

)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Roa

d le

ngth

(100

0 km

)AutomobilesRoad length

Trend of Automobile population and Road length in Seoul 1960-2000

Rate of motorization is even faster than the rate of road expansion…


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

park

ing

units

('00

0)

Trend of public parking in Seoul 1981-2001

Increasing trend of parking: demand driven road transport strategy?


10

15

20

25

3019

8419

8819

9019

9219

9419

9619

98

Km

/hou

rCar-downtownCar-outer areasBus

Average road traffic speed in Seoul 1984-1998

0246

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2002

Bill

ion

US

$

Annual congestion cost

Data source: Seoul Statistical yearbook

Increasing trend of road traffic congestion and heavy economic cost !


Public Transport and Urban railways


Seoul Public Transport System• Traditionally, Bus system played major role

• First Subway line opened in 1974 and the network was gradually expanded


Transport Network in Seoul MA (2000)

Suburban rail lines

Freeways

Highways

Inadequate suburban rail network

Subways


Trend of Bus and Subway Fare in Seoul

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Kor

ean

Won

Subway

Bus

Bus and Subway fare is well harmonized…


Comparing Tokyo MA and Seoul MA (urban rail)

Profit~25 %Operating subsides13.2 6.5Daily ridership (mil)

190 Yen(10 km)

100 yen(12 km)

Subway fare

1973200Suburban rail (km)333287Subway (km)33.521.4Population (million)13,49411,753Area (sq km) Tokyo MASeoul MA

• Smaller suburban rail network• Need of operational subsidies: due to low fare level

Seoul


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

Mod

al s

hare

(%)

Bus

Subway

Taxi

Cars

0

10

2030

40

50

6070

80

90

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

Mod

al s

hare

(%)

PublicPrivate

Modal split in Seoul City (all purpose)

• Increasing trend of modal share of private mode

• Rapid decline of Bus share

Response?


Modal shift from private mode to public mode is the main element of current urban transport policies….

Objective: Achieve modal shiftYear 2000 2006 (target)

Bus 26.0% 33.4%Subway 34.6% 36.6%Car 26.9% 18.7 %Others 12.5 % 11.3 %

•Reform for high-quality bus service

•Restrain ownership and use of car

60.6 % 70 %


Seoul Bus Reform: 8 Programs (from 2004)Trunk, Feeder, Circular, Express

• Flat fare for non-transfer ride

• Distance-based fare for transfer-ride (include subway)

1. Bus Route System

Trunk Feeder

Circular Express

2. Bus Fare System

3. Bus Business Structure • Bus ownership privates• Operation control: public• Revenue basis: bus-km


State-of-the-Art IT application

• Makes integrated fare collection possible

4. Bus Management system

5. Smart card system

Seoul Bus Reform: 8 Programs (from 2004)


7. Quality buses & shelters

8. New urban governanceParticipation by stakeholders

6. Exclusive Median Bus Lane

Low floor buses


Impact of Bus Reform: Preliminary results

Average Bus and Car Speed (before and After Bus reform)

Significant improvement in traffic speed

0

5

10

15

20

25

Dobong-MiaStreet

Soosek-Sungsan

Street

Dobong-MiaStreet

Soosek-Sungsan

Street

Ave

rage

Spe

ed (k

m/h

r)Before reform (no bus lane)After reform (bus lane)

Bus Speed Car SpeedData source: Seoul Metropolitan Government (2005)


0

50

100

150

200

250

2003 2004 2005

Bill

ion

Won

Implementation of Bus Reform

Data source: Hwang (2005)

Bus operation deficit in Seoul

The improvement came with a significant cost !

1 Yen = 8.5 Won


• Population decentralization• Rapid motorization • Inadequate suburban

rails network

Risk of sub-urban sprawling

2. Heavy investment in urban rail did not stop increasing use of private car

3. Alternatives? • High-quality bus service

Needs less investment Bus lane: less road space for car

• Restrain on car use

1. Suburbanization

Seoul: Summary and Issues


Bangkok

Bangkok Metropolitan Area (BMA)Area: 1,577 sq kmPopulation: 6.7 million

Bangkok Metropolitan Region (BMR)Area: 7,761 sq kmPopulation: 10.7 million

1.1 %15.6 %48.2%

AreaPopulationGRP

Bangkok Metro. Region(% Share in Thai total)

KmKm

Bangkok MA

Pathum Thani

Nonthaburi

Nakhon Pathom

Samut SakhomSamut Prakan


1900 1958

1936

1953

1967

2000

Urban Expansion of Bangkok

BMA Builtup Area 2004

• Mono-centric urban form

• Expansion of built-up area along arterial roads

• Weak land-use planning and control


Km

Bangkok MA

Pathum Thani

Nonthaburi

Nakhon Pathom

Samut SakhomSamut Prakan

Population densities in Bangkok MR (BMR)

High density in inner city areas


0123456

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Popu

latio

n (m

illio

n) Bangkok

Other provinces

Population Trend in Bangkok MR (BMR)

Trend of rapid suburbanization


Road Network in Bangkok Metropolitan RegionRoad length (km)Expressway (tolled): 200

Arterials: 900

Outer Ring road: 170

Access rd (Soi) 2800


Big urban block surrounded by wide arterial roads but

no secondary roads

Canal

Arterial roads


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

No

of c

ars/

1000

pop

ulat

ion

Car ownership rate in Bangkok

Rapid motorization road congestion


Rapid expansion of Expressway network as a response to congestion


1994-00Other1996-00IV stage

Planned/Under const

III stage

1993-00II stage

1981-87I stage

Open.Year

Exprs.ways

1994-00Other1996-00IV stage

Planned/Under const

III stage

1993-00II stage

1981-87I stage

Open.Year

Exprs.ways

Average car speed in central city area

Km/hr81015

198919982003

Speed Data Source: Hanaoka (2005)

Rapid expansion of expressway network


Public Transport and urban rails


0

1

2

3

4

5

1992 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 '00 '01 '02 '03

Pass

enge

rs (m

illio

n/da

y)

Data Source: BMTA (2005)

Bus passenger trend, Bangkok

Declining RidershipOperational deficit

307

867

560

0 500

OperationLoss

OperationExpenses

OperationRevenue

million Bhat

Revenue and Cost for Bus operation in Bangkok 2004

1 Bhat = 3 YenData source: BMTA (2005)

Major mode Bus: Operated by public corporation (BMTA)Public Transport in Bangkok: Bus


Public Transport in Bangkok: Urban Rail

Sky Train-BTS: 23.5 km• Opened: 1999

• Full BOT Scheme

• Daily Ridership (2004): 325,000 /day

Subway: 20 km • Opened: 2004

• Civil works (tunnel): Public

• Track, signals, rolling stocks: BOT

• Daily Ridership (2004) : 180,000/day

Subway

Sky Train


• Train fare is much higher than AC Bus

• Unfair modal competition !

Ordinary bus: 4-8

AC Bus: 10-18

Sky train: 10-40

Subway: 14-36

Fare Level (Thai Bhat)

1 Bhat = 3 Yen

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1995 2003

Modal Split in Bangkok MR

Bus

Car

Motor Cycle

Rail

Taxi, para

Public Transport fare level and modal split


สวน

เจาพระยา

แมน้ํา

ลุมพินี

ถนนพหลโยธิน

ทางรถไฟสายเหนือ

ถนนลําลูกกา

ถนน รตันาธิเบศร

ทางรถไฟส

ายใต

ถนน

ตวิานนท

ถนนจรญัสนิทวงศ

ทางรถไฟสายมหาชยั

ถนน สุขสวสัดิ์

ถนนลาดพราว

ทางรถไฟสายตะวนัออก

ถนนศรนี

ครนิทร

ถนนประชาราษฎร

ถนน ราม

คาํแหง

ถนน รามคาํแหง

ถนน สุขมุวทิ

ถนนพระราม 3

ถนนก าญจนาภิเ ษก

ถนนเสรไี

ทย

ถนนพุทธมณฑลสาย

3

ถนนพุทธมณฑลสาย

2

ถนนพทุธมณฑลสาย

4

ถนนพระราม2

ถน

ถนนวดันครอนิทร

ถนนพบูิลสงคราม

ถนนงามวงศวาน

ถนนรามอินทรา

ถนนแจงวฒันะ

ถนนกาญจนาภิเษก

ถนนเพชรเกษมถนนวภิาวดรีงัสิต

ถนน ตวิานนท

ถนนศรสีมาน

ถนนเจาคณุทหาร

ถนนบางนา ตราด-

ถนนเทพารกัษ

ถนนพฒันาการ

ถนนนิมิตรใหม

ถนนบรมราชชนนี

ถนนประดษิมนูธรรม

ทางหลวงหมายเลข 345

พระราม4

สุวรรณภมูิทาอากาศยาน

ทาอากาศยาน

ดอนเมือง

ถนนวดันครอนิทร แนวเหนือใต

-

ถนนเพชรเกษม

แนวตะวันออก ตะวนัตก-

บางใหญ สะพานพระนัง่เกลา

รังสิต

รามอินทรา

รัชโยธนิ

ลาดพราว

หลักสี่

บางเขนแคราย

ตลิ่งชัน

บางบาํหรุ

สามเสน

บางกะป

ออนนชุ

สําโรง

บางแค

ทาพระ ลาดกระบงั

วงเวยีนใหญ

การเคหะ

พระราม9

มกักะสันสนามหลวง

ราษฎรบรูณะ

อโศก


สยาม

ราชดําเนนิ

บางซือ่

สามแยกไฟฉาย

บางหวา

ยมราช

อนสุาวรยี

บางซอน

วังบูรพา

ดาวคะนอง

รามคําแหง

หวัลําโพง

ออนนุช

บางกะป

สําโรง

ลาดกระบัง

รงัสิต

บางใหญ

บางแค


พระนั่งเกลา

ราษฎรบูรณะ

ตลิ่งชนั

พรานนก

รถไฟรางคู

Prannok-Samautraprakarn

Sapanmai-BSTCCircle LineBangyai-Ratburana

Bangbumru-Bangkapi

Rangsit-MahachaiTalingchan-Airport

Prannok-Samautraprakarn

Sapanmai-BSTCCircle LineBangyai-Ratburana

Bangbumru-Bangkapi

Rangsit-MahachaiTalingchan-Airport

บางบําหรุ

Proposed Accelerated Development Plan

Bangkok Mass Transit (2003-2009,291km)

Proposed Accelerated Development Plan

Bangkok Mass Transit (2003-2009,291km)

Rangsit

Don Moung

Bangapi

SuwannabhumAirport

SamutraprakarnRatchburanaMahachai

Bangkae

Taling Chan

Bangbuatong

Prannok

Bangkok Urban Rail Development Plan Total route of 291 km by 2009.

Ambitious Plan!

Network hierarchy?Source: OPT (2004)


• Weak land use control• Arterial and narrow

streets only

• Road side haphazard development

• Problem of road network hierarchy

2. Rapid expansion of Expressway improved road speed: may be only short-term relief?

3. Current plans for long-term solution• 291 Km MRT network by 2009• Poly-centric urban form

1. Suburbanization

4. No concrete plan or measures to control motorization ! Implication for MRT system?

Bangkok: Summary and Issues


20.4 173 (2000)20 km/hr

(1999)

Road area (%) Car (no/1000 people)Average road speed

11.0493 (2002)15 km/hr (2003)

230 pers/ha12.9 km14.8 %

62 persons/ha20 km (106 min)47.2 %

Urban density AvgCommuting distanceCross commuting

• Expressways with toll• Secondary roads missing• No control on car use

• Toll-free Expressways• Good stock of roads? • Control on car use

Urban roads/ motorization

• Weak land use • Ribbon-type expansion

•Strong Land-use control•High density, mono-centric

Urban form and Land Use

Bangkok MRSeoul MA

Comparative analysis: differences


287 km200 km61.2 %100 yen100 yen

43.5 km-29 %35-60 yen40-120 yen

Subway/MRT Suburban railPublic mode shareBus fareMRT Fare

• PT share much lower• Late opening of MRT (1999)

• Bus fare subsidized , but MRT not subsidized

• Challenge: modal shift from private to public mode

• MRT investment

• PT mode share high• Early opening of MRT (1974)

• Balanced and integrated Bus/MRT fares

• Challenge: maintain public transport mode share

• Response: Bus reform

Public Transport (PT) and urban railways

Bangkok MRSeoul MA

Comparative analysis: differences


• High density city center • Increasing trend of suburbanization• High Motorization and congestion• Radial-ring arterial road network structure• Higher demand density for MRT in inner

city corridor• Challenge of developing suburban rails

Comparative analysis: Commonalities


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Publ

ic T

rans

port

Sha

re (%

)

Income/capita, PPP constant $ 2000 price

Tokyo MASeoul

Bangkok

What path Seoul and Bangkok are following ?

Challenge:Seoul: How to maintain Public Transport share?Bangkok: How to achieve modal shift from private to Public?

Tokyo-ku


1. Vision: What are the desirable scenarios?• Higher mobility and higher accessibility• Concentrated decentralization (polycentric urban form)• Modal balance (private vs public mode)

2. Strategies: What are the options for desirable scenarios?• Building Infrastructures (Roads and MRT facilities)• Managing motorization• Promoting Public Transported oriented land use• Improving service quality and competitiveness of public

transport

Policy Implications for Asian Megacities

Implementation measures……


3. Implementation measures, priority and sequence• Investment for new infrastructure

– What mode? What type? When to invest? – How to invest? Public or Private?

• Development of high-density MRT corridor – Land-use regulation (control oriented)– MRT investment (market oriented)

• Transport Demand Management (TDM) measures

• Hierarchical network of urban railways

• Inter-modal coordination and competition– Transfer facilities (station plaza)– Coordinated service routes – Harmonized fares for inter-modal competition

Constraints:•Institutional

•Organizational•Capacity building•Regulatory

•Financial



As the income rises, service quality is important

Quality of service• Accessibility• Frequency• Speed• Transferability• Comfort

Subsidy more effective in low income stage

Cost (affordability)

Basic infrastructure needed

Availability

Policy implicationsHigher income stage

Lower income stage

Factors

Factors for modal competition have different degree of influence at different stage of income

High Low



Further Works• Conduct full-fledge case studies on the candidate cities, in

collaboration with partner institutions:• East Asian Society for Transportation Studies (EASTS)• Korea Transport Institute (KOTI)• National Center for Transport Studies (NCTS), Manila• Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok• Institute of Traffic and Transportation, National Chiao

Tung Univ., Taiwan• Indonesia Transport Society• Hong Kong Polytechnic University• Experts from Beijing, Hochimin city (requested)

• Book publication from the research outputs


Thank you for your kind attention !


今後の課題 Task Ahead

• 国際共同研究プロジェクト「アジアの都市における持続可能なモビリティのための公共交通ー国際比較研究」として継続の予定To be continued as an International Collaborative Research Study titled “Public Transport for Sustainable Mobility in Asian Cities” covering about a dozen of Asian mega-cities

• Collaboration with,– 東アジア交通学会 (EASTS)– 韓国交通研究院 (KOTI)– 交通研究センター（NCTS）マニラ– アジア工科大学, バンコク– Indonesia Transport Society– Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityInstitute of Traffic and Transportation, National Chiao Tung Univ., Taiwan– アジア諸国の専門家– アジアの他の研究機関（予定）

Documents

Study to Identify the Special Transport Policies in …1.1 % 15.6 % 48.2% Area Population GRP Bangkok Metro. Region (% Share in Thai total) Km Bangkok MA Pathum Thani Nonthaburi Nakhon