Could these new delivery apps change the game for Bangkok's small businesses?
Now, an initiative is trying to address this. Two new platforms, 'Nong Khoei Maa Tao Rue' (which loosely translates to 'How much did you pay for your last ride?') and 'Taam Sang-Taam Song' ('Order & Deliver'), have entered the scene. The aim is to provide an alternative route for these drivers and small community vendors to access the digital marketplace and, hopefully, find more stable footing.
A key part of their approach? They were reportedly co-designed with actual motorcycle taxi drivers, shop owners and community food sellers to try and make them straightforward. Users can access them via a dedicated mobile app or, for those less keen on navigating new app interfaces, a Line Chat Bot.
The main pitch for drivers is a zero commission fee structure – a notable difference from some established players. The platforms also use an algorithm intended to prioritise the nearest available driver in a queuing system, aiming for fairer job distribution.
For local eateries and shops, this model also means no hefty commission fees are deducted from their earnings. Instead, it operates on a co-contribution system where the restaurant, the rider and the customer each contribute a small amount, reportedly around B5-B6 per order. The idea is to make participation more financially viable for small-scale operations.
The overarching goal is to offer these local community members a more accessible entry into the digital economy, one that doesn't squeeze their margins too tightly. Whether these platforms can truly level the playing field and gain significant traction against the giants of the delivery world remains to be seen, but it's a noteworthy attempt to address a clear imbalance. This initiative comes from a collaboration between Chulalongkorn University and the Thai Health Promotion Foundation (ThaiHealth).
They're currently active in 19 communities across the country, with stated plans to expand into 10 more areas by 2025. It's an interesting development, and one to watch if you're keen on seeing how local communities adapt to the ever-changing tech landscape.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
2 days ago
- BBC News
Thorncombe Village Shop losing trade after phone cut off
A community-run village shop said it was left in a "desperate" situation after its phone line went team at Thorncombe Village Shop on the border of Dorset, Devon and Somerset said it lost connection at the start of July after a digital phone switchover with BT to change from an analogue line to a digital who help run the shop said they had spent hours on the phone with the phone company to resolve the issue but had been unsuccessful and the situation was impacting apologised for the disruption caused to the shop and said it had ordered the relevant equipment to repair the problem. Landline operators such as BT are in the process of switching phone lines from traditional copper wire cables to an internet-based system by January 2027. The shop has been running for 15 years in Thorncombe -a village near Axminster and Chard. Phil Gordon, a volunteer, said the situation had caused a "major problem"."We're not able to support our aging local population in the village when they've been used to calling us up to place orders and occasionally get volunteers to drop things round to them," Mr Gordon said."We are rather desperate having spent hours on the phone talking to tech support people at BT and getting nowhere." Shop manager Marie Humphries added: "We have lots of suppliers who can't phone us and we can't phone them."I'm trying to do it by mobile, but we don't always have a great signal in the village."A BT spokesperson said the company was sincerely sorry for the added: "We have ordered the necessary new equipment to resolve the issue, and our team is in direct contact with the business to ensure service is restored as quickly as possible."
The Guardian
5 days ago
- The Guardian
Want to know what's going right in Britain? Come to the capital, look at the Elizabeth line railway
Another week, another piece of good news concerning London's newest railway. This time it's a timetable update showing that the Saturday service on the core section of the Elizabeth line will increase from 16 to 20 trains an hour. From December, there will be a train every three minutes between Paddington and Whitechapel, higher than the normal off-peak frequency, just in time for your Christmas shopping. OK, it's hardly world peace or a custodial sentence for the people who keep adding AI to search engines, but in 2025 you take what you can get. There are two competing narratives about what, in happier times, we used to know as Crossrail. The first and most familiar is a litany of complaints. The new line took for ever to happen, even by the standards of such things: an east-west heavy rail tunnel linking Paddington and Liverpool Street was first proposed mere weeks after the conclusion of the Blitz, and as far back as the 1990s information leaflets about the plan were appearing at outer London stations and exciting some of the cooler local teenagers. But the route didn't actually get the nod until 2008, at almost exactly the point someone in the offices of Lehman Brothers was asking: 'So, when you say sub-prime …' And then, of course, it arrived late and over budget. This is par for the course with infrastructure 'megaprojects', which have a well-known habit of costing billions more than projected – but the insulting thing about this one was that, as late as the summer of 2018, its promoters were still touting it as the exception to the rule. On the last day of August that year, though, about four months before opening day, news broke that it would not be delivered on time. In retrospect, the fact the stations were visibly unfinished should have been a useful clue. In the end, the £4bn budget overrun – on a single London project – was bigger in itself than the sum Rachel Reeves put aside for transport in any single city region in 2025. Less expensive but more irritating was the line's new name. London has a habit of doing this – the only tube lines built since the network effectively entered public ownership in 1933, the Victoria and the Jubilee, were named for the royals, too. Nonetheless, it felt deeply weird to do this while Queen Elizabeth II was still alive. And so, by the time the line opened in 2022, the shine had come off. But that's when the narrative began to change – because, while there have been teething problems (mostly involving signalling, mainly in west London), it's become increasingly obvious that the line has been an enormous success. By its third anniversary in May, it had provided more than half a billion journeys, more than any other operator in that period, including the entirety of the South Western Railway or Northern Trains networks – this, remember, for what is in essence a big tube line. It is also responsible for a staggering one in seven journeys on the entire British rail network. TfL reckons almost 30% of these are people who'd previously have travelled by car or not at all. More than that, the line has transformed the geography of London. It has halved journey times from parts of south-east London to the West End, put Paddington and points west in easy reach of the eastern suburbs and provided passengers at Heathrow with a single fast train to essentially everywhere. Even the ExCel exhibition centre in the Royal Docks is no longer hell to reach (merely to enter). Suburbs have been regenerated, more jobs created, more houses built; the line's forelock-tugging name has ceased to sound weird. It's hard to argue it was not worth the wait. All of which raises an obvious question: if it worked this well, why on earth are we not building more of it? As things stand, at least six trains an hour – a service frequency passengers in much of London, let alone elsewhere, would kill for – go no farther west than Paddington. Doesn't that suggest a case for an extension? Or what about the abandoned plan to extend the Canary Wharf branch to Ebbsfleet in Kent? Or for Crossrail 2, the latest iteration of the nearly-as-long-discussed Chelsea-Hackney route? Or for extending the Bakerloo line to Lewisham? The biggest prizes, though, are surely not even in London. One of the big constraints on the West Midlands rail networks is the shortage of space at Birmingham New Street station. A Birmingham Crossrail, allowing suburban trains to travel from east or west, could enable higher frequencies by getting local trains out of the way of intercity ones, and revolutionise transport in a city still far too dependent on cars. Then there's the M62 corridor, where four city regions with a combined population nearing London's abut. The region's terrible transport links are not the only reason productivity in Manchester or Leeds lags their continental peers – but the fact commuters can't rely on trains turning up on time or at all when deciding where to work surely can't be helping. And yet governments have repeatedly refused to back the new line – branded variously as Northern Powerhouse Rail, High Speed 3 or Crossrail for the North – meant to address this. Even less ambitious schemes – new through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly, electrification to bring the region at last into the late 20th century – have been loudly promised then quietly abandoned. Reeves has promised £3.5bn to fund upgrades on the existing TransPennine route – but given that a new Manchester-Leeds route was projected to cost £5bn when proposed over a decade ago, it is hard to see how this the extra cash could provide anything even close to the transformative new line that London is now enjoying. The reason, of course, is that the Treasury sees rail infrastructure not as investment but as a new cost centre. (Road maintenance, for some reason, never gets the same treatment.) In direct contrast to the bit of the rail network run by TfL, indeed, stealth nationalisation on the rest of the network has been accompanied by service cuts. This is absurd. Experience suggests that, if you build it, they will come, and jobs and homes will follow. Someone should take the Treasury on the Elizabeth line. Jonn Elledge is an author and former assistant editor of the New Statesman
The Independent
30-07-2025
- The Independent
Three operators given green light to run extra train services across the UK
East Coast Main Line passengers are set to benefit from additional train services starting in December, after the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) approved timetable enhancements. The regulator granted permission to open access operators Lumo, Grand Central, and Hull Trains for some new routes. However, other proposed services were rejected due to concerns over insufficient capacity, potential performance impacts, and the effect on government revenue. Approved changes include Lumo extending London King's Cross-Edinburgh services to Glasgow, and adding more routes between London King's Cross and Newcastle. Hull Trains will run an additional train from London King's Cross to Hull on weekdays and Saturdays, while Grand Central will increase its regional operation, including a new link to Seaham on the County Durham coast. Stephanie Tobyn, ORR's director of strategy, policy and reform, said: 'Approving these additional open access services will increase connectivity on the East Coast Main Line. 'Importantly, we have ensured the approval of these services can be accommodated alongside the major service uplifts by other operators, which have been planned into the December 2025 timetable, so together passengers and freight customers can benefit from more direct connections and greater choice from December.' Among the rejected proposals was a plan from Hull Trains for new services between London King's Cross and Sheffield. Owner FirstGroup said it was 'disappointed' by the decision, as the plan would have provided Sheffield with its first regular service from London King's Cross since 1968, and introduced a direct service to the capital for 'an estimated 350,000 people in the Worksop and Woodhouse catchment areas'. Open access operators set their own fares, take on all revenue risk and receive no taxpayer-funded subsidies. They are excluded from the Government's ongoing nationalisation of Britain's train services. In January, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander wrote to the ORR expressing concerns that the open access model can cause 'potential congestion' and result in taxpayers being 'left to fill shortfalls' in maintenance costs. She stated that she expects 'the impacts on the taxpayer and on overall performance' to be 'given primacy' by the regulator when it analyses open access proposals. Government-owned LNER, which runs services on the East Coast Main Line, is planning a major timetable change in December, with up to 37 daily services and quicker journeys between London King's Cross and Edinburgh. It has previously described the overhaul as 'transformational' and 'the biggest change in a generation'.
