Three's a crowd? Examining evolving public transit crowding standards amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q4 Engineering
Tianxing Dai, Brian D Taylor
{"title":"Three's a crowd? Examining evolving public transit crowding standards amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.","authors":"Tianxing Dai, Brian D Taylor","doi":"10.1007/s12469-022-00311-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically affected public transit systems around the globe. Because transit systems typically move many people closely together on buses and trains, public health guidance demanded that riders should keep a distance of about two meters to others changed the definition of \"crowding\" on transit in 2020. Accordingly, this research examines how U.S. public transit agencies responded to public health guidance that directly conflicted with their business model. To do this, we examined published crowding standards before the COVID-19 pandemic for a representative sample of 200 transit systems, including whether they started or changed their published standards during the pandemic, as well as the reasons whether agencies publicize such standards at all. We present both descriptive statistics and regression model results to shed light on the factors associated with agency crowding standards. We find that 56% of the agencies surveyed published crowding standards before the pandemic, while only 46% published COVID-19-specific crowding standards. Regression analyses suggest that larger agencies were more likely to publish crowding standards before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, likely because they are more apt to experience crowding. Pandemic-specific crowding standards, by contrast, were associated with a more complex set of factors. We conclude that the relative lack of pandemic standards reflects the uncertainty and fluidity of the public health crisis, inconsistent and at times conflicting with the guidance from public health officials, and, in the U.S., a lack national or transit industry consensus on appropriate crowding standards during the first year of the pandemic.</p>","PeriodicalId":37804,"journal":{"name":"Majlesi Journal of Electrical Engineering","volume":"1 1","pages":"321-341"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9762872/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Majlesi Journal of Electrical Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-022-00311-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Engineering","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically affected public transit systems around the globe. Because transit systems typically move many people closely together on buses and trains, public health guidance demanded that riders should keep a distance of about two meters to others changed the definition of "crowding" on transit in 2020. Accordingly, this research examines how U.S. public transit agencies responded to public health guidance that directly conflicted with their business model. To do this, we examined published crowding standards before the COVID-19 pandemic for a representative sample of 200 transit systems, including whether they started or changed their published standards during the pandemic, as well as the reasons whether agencies publicize such standards at all. We present both descriptive statistics and regression model results to shed light on the factors associated with agency crowding standards. We find that 56% of the agencies surveyed published crowding standards before the pandemic, while only 46% published COVID-19-specific crowding standards. Regression analyses suggest that larger agencies were more likely to publish crowding standards before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, likely because they are more apt to experience crowding. Pandemic-specific crowding standards, by contrast, were associated with a more complex set of factors. We conclude that the relative lack of pandemic standards reflects the uncertainty and fluidity of the public health crisis, inconsistent and at times conflicting with the guidance from public health officials, and, in the U.S., a lack national or transit industry consensus on appropriate crowding standards during the first year of the pandemic.

三人成群?研究在 COVID-19 大流行中不断演变的公共交通拥挤标准。
COVID-19 大流行极大地影响了全球的公共交通系统。由于公交系统通常将许多人紧紧地挤在一起,公共卫生指南要求乘客与其他人保持两米左右的距离,这改变了 2020 年公交系统 "拥挤 "的定义。因此,本研究探讨了美国公共交通机构如何应对与其商业模式直接冲突的公共卫生指南。为此,我们对具有代表性的 200 个公交系统样本在 COVID-19 大流行之前公布的拥挤标准进行了研究,包括这些系统在大流行期间是否开始或改变了其公布的标准,以及各机构是否公布此类标准的原因。我们提供了描述性统计和回归模型结果,以揭示与机构拥挤标准相关的因素。我们发现,56% 的受访机构在大流行前公布了拥挤标准,而只有 46% 的机构公布了 COVID-19 的具体拥挤标准。回归分析表明,在 COVID-19 大流行之前和期间,规模较大的机构更有可能发布拥挤标准,这可能是因为它们更容易经历拥挤。相比之下,针对大流行病的拥挤标准与一系列更复杂的因素有关。我们的结论是,大流行病标准的相对缺乏反映了公共卫生危机的不确定性和多变性,与公共卫生官员的指导不一致,有时甚至相互冲突,在美国,在大流行病的第一年,全国或公交行业对适当的拥挤标准缺乏共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Majlesi Journal of Electrical Engineering
Majlesi Journal of Electrical Engineering Engineering-Electrical and Electronic Engineering
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: The scope of Majlesi Journal of Electrcial Engineering (MJEE) is ranging from mathematical foundation to practical engineering design in all areas of electrical engineering. The editorial board is international and original unpublished papers are welcome from throughout the world. The journal is devoted primarily to research papers, but very high quality survey and tutorial papers are also published. There is no publication charge for the authors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信