Purpose This study asks whether the Skywalk Concourse of the planned Thammasat University terminus on the SRT Red Line Phase II extension can act as a passive crowd buffer and tests the peak-demand assumptions behind the answer. Design/methodology/approach A whole-station discrete event simulation, checked against a microscopic AnyLogic model, is run for six stress scenarios at three peak-hour demand concentrations (500 iterations each), with capacity, terminus and headway sensitivity tests. Demand concentration is benchmarked against twelve months of fare data from the thirteen operating stations. Findings Every operating station concentrates more demand in its peak hour than originally assumed, so the scenarios were also run at the observed levels. In all 19 configurations, the concourse stays at level of service A and meets the density, holding and drainage criteria, peaking below 290 passengers against a service limit of 464. The binding elements are the platform up-escalator, which breaches a two-minute wait criterion in most morning peak runs, and the platform, which reaches level of service C under a delayed train or an event surge. Research limitations/implications The two tiers agree, but external validation is impossible before opening. Platform results depend on terminus operation and headway; evacuation, local density, guidance and accessibility criteria are not established. A Heat Index projection to 2050 is reported only as a planning-horizon observation. Originality/value The study turns passive crowd buffering into a testable property with eight criteria and separates what a pre-operational assessment can establish from what it must assume.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: