Transit Stop environments and waiting time perception: impacts of trees, traffic exposure, and polluted air
Abstract
Reducing the burden of waiting in transit travel is critical to increasing the attractiveness of public transportation. Waiting time perceptions are highly subjective and vary according to mode, availability of schedule information, and stop amenities. The research on pedestrian design finds that high-quality and natural environments reduce stress and encourage walking and bicycling. It seems reasonable that similar effects would apply for transit users on the basis of the environments around transit stops, but little research directly explores the issue. This paper responds to this knowledge gap by examining how perceptions of waiting time vary in relation to stop environments. The research compared transit users’ actual and estimated wait time at 36 stops and stations in a mix of environmental situations in the region of the Twin Cities, Minnesota. Regression analysis explained the variation in riders’ self-reported waiting time as a function of their externally observed waiting times as well as characteristics of the environment surrounding the stop and station. For waits longer than 5 min, perceptible pollution and exposure to traffic led to significant overestimates of waiting time. Riders waiting at stops with dense, mature tree cover, however, significantly underestimated their waiting times. The effect of dense, mature tree cover is strong enough to compensate for the effects of both air pollution and traffic awareness. Policy implications and further research needs are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The presence of shelters, benches, and mature trees at stops was found to significantly lower the perceived waiting time reported by passengers.
“The presence of shelters, benches, and mature trees at stops was found to significantly lower the perceived waiting time reported by passengers (Lagune-Reutler et al., 2016).”
From Does improving stop amenities help increase Bus Rapid Transit ridership? Findings based on a quasi-experiment (2021) · cites this paper as Lagune-Reutler et al., 2016
Cites
Hot Spots of Bus Stop Crime: The Importance of Environmental Attributes
Loukaitou-sideris, A. (1999) · Journal of the American Planning Association · doi:10.1080/01944369908976070 · Cited by 299 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Loukaitou-Sideris finds that environmental characteristics surrounding bus stops have a significant influence on perceptions of safety (25).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shi, X., Moudon, A. V., Hurvitz, P. M., Mooney, S. J., Zhou, C., & Saelens, B. E. (2021) · Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.trip.2021.100323 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lagune-Reutler, M., Guthrie, A., Fan, Y., & Levinson, D.
- Affiliations
- Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455
- Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo-Engineering, College of Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, 500 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455
- Venue
- Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-01
- Volume
- 2543
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 82-90
- ISSN
- 0361-1981
- 2169-4052
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review