Passengers’ Waiting Behavior at Bus Stops
Nobuaki Ohmori1, Takayuki Hirano2, Noboru Harata3 and Katsutoshi Ohta4
Abstract
Providing better environment that passengers can wait for bus comfortably is
an important factor for promoting bus use. This paper investigates the relationships
between passengers’ waiting behavior at bus stops and their irritation levels to
waiting for the bus. From the observation surveys on passengers’ waiting behavior atbus stops, it was found that half of them were doing some activities while waiting
but others were doing nothing and just waiting. We conducted questionnaire surveys
for collecting information on their irritation levels and some attributes in addition toobservation surveys. The results showed that irritation levels were affected by
waiting time, activity engagement at the bus stop including spending time in a
nearby convenience store, time constraints at destinations, and environment of thebus stops. Sitting on benches was very useful for mitigating the irritation levels
especially for the elderly passengers, but some factors prevented them from sitting
on the benches.
Keywords: bus stop, passenger, waiting behavior, activity
Introduction
The number of bus users in Japan has been decreasing since 1970’s. One of themain reasons is rapid progress of motorization. As a result, level of bus service has
been decreasing and this has caused further decrease of bus users, which is famous
as a vicious circle. When traveling by bus as compared with traveling by car,out-of-vehicle time such as access, egress, waiting and transfer time occupies larger
amount of travel time and is an important factor affecting the overall quality of bus-----------------1

Lecturer, Department of Urban Engineering, The University of Tokyo
Graduate Student, Department of Urban Engineering, The University of Tokyo
3
Professor, Institute of Environmental Studies, The University of Tokyo
4
Professor, Department of Regional Development Studies, Toyo University
7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8656, Japan
2

1

Ohmori, Hirano, Harata and Ohta

services. As shown in case of Curitiba city, providing better environment of bus
stops so that passengers can wait for the bus comfortably is one of the elements
which contribute to increasing the number of bus users. On the other hand, in recent
years, it should be paid attention to another noticeable revolution: spread of
information and communications technologies (ICT) such as cellular phone and theInternet. People can communicate with friends and have access to websites by using
cellular phone at any time and any place. This means that passengers can engage in
additional activities by cellular phone while waiting at bus stops.
A lot of previous research has shown that the value of out-of-vehicle timesavings is larger than that of in-vehicle time savings (e.g., Wardman (2001) reviewed
British research). In most cases, these values of travel times have been measured byrevealed preference surveys or stated preference surveys of travel choice. There has
also been some research evaluating the value of waiting time by heart rate beats(Goodwin, 1976), by equivalent time coefficients (Nitta et al., 1995) and byobservation surveys on bus choice at a bus stop (Hess, 2003). On the other hand,appropriate waiting area at bus stops tried to be evaluated by observation surveys of
waiting passengers (Tanaka et al., 2002). Recently, bus users can get information on
bus arrival from bus location systems at bus stops and it has been important tounderstand the relationships between their expected bus waiting time andinformation acquisition from bus location systems (Hall, 2001; Takami et al., 1995).
The way how passengers are waiting at bus stops and what kind of activities they
engage in while waiting can affect the value of waiting time at bus stops, but it has
not been addressed by the previous studies. The value of waiting time could bereflected on perceived irritation levels to waiting for bus. This paper analyzes
passengers’ waiting behavior at bus stops and relationships between their waiting
behavior and their irritation levels, using data collected by observation surveys atbus stops and questionnaire surveys for waiting passengers.
Observation Surveys on Passengers’ Waiting Behavior at Bus Stops
We observed passengers’ waiting behavior at six bus stops of a local bus
operated by Bureau of Transportation, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, on
weekdays in November 2001. A surveyor recorded all passengers’ behavior(activities) every one minute, from the time they arrived at the bus stop to the timethey boarded on the bus. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the six bus stops andthe number of observations. About 50% of the total passengers were engaging insome activities while waiting for the bus, for example, reading books, smoking
cigarettes, chatting with accompanied persons, talking and e-mailing by cellular
phone, and spending time in a nearby convenience store. On the other hand, the restof them were doing nothing and just waiting for the bus coming. Four of the six bus
stops were equipped with benches. About 60% of the passengers were sitting on thebench at bus stops No.2 and No.4, while only 10% of them were sitting at bus stops
No.3 and No.6. At the bus stops equipped with benches, the proportion of engaging
in some activities was higher for passengers sitting on the benches (bench users)
than for those standing (non-users, see Figure 1).

2

Ohmori, Hirano, Harata and Ohta

Table 1. Characteristics of the bus stops and the number of observations
Name of bus
Headway
Number ofNo.
Bench Other characteristics
stops(min.)
observations
Convenience store
1 Komagome-fuji
8-10
No
67
is located nearby
Convenience store
2
Kamifuji-mae
8-10
Yes
27
is located nearby
KoishikawaNew facility and
3
5-8
Yes
27
yonchōme
good environment
Enclosed by a
4
Ohtsuka-shako
5-8
Yes
37
windbreakToshima5
3-5
No
—
58
kuyakusho
Shikahama6
8-10
Yes
—
58
sanchōme
Reading books
Non-Users

Smoking cigarettes
Chatting withaccompanied persons
Talking and e-mailingby cellular phone
Doing nothing

Bench Users

0%

20%
40%
60%
80%
Percentage of the Number of Passengers

100%

Figure 1. Comparison of activity engagement while waiting between bench users
and non-users
Combined Observation and Questionnaire Surveys
Based on this preliminary observation survey results, we conductedquestionnaire surveys for waiting passengers at four bus stops (No.1–4 in Table 1),
from 9:00 to 18:00 on weekdays in January 2002. Three of the four bus stops were
equipped with benches but were in different environment; one bus stop had a bus
location system which gave information on bus approaching, and at two bus stops aconvenience store was located in front of them. Bus headways were 5 to 10 minutes
at all bus stops. Just before a bus arrived at the bus stop, surveyors had handed
passengers a questionnaire postcard and a pen for answering it during boarding time.
The respondents were required to answer the questions about their age, trip purpose,name of destination bus stop, arriving time constraints, frequency of daily bus use,amenities they wanted at bus stops and irritation level to waiting for the bus (5-point
scale, from “not be irritated at all” to “extremely irritated”). The total number of
responses was 228 and the response rate was 72% (see Table 2). This relatively high3

Ohmori, Hirano, Harata and Ohta

response rate was considered to be achieved because the questionnaire postcard had
simple questions and the respondents could answer it during boarding time and post
it after getting off the bus. Simultaneously, as in the preliminary observation surveys,
we observed each passenger’s waiting behavior (activity engagement while waiting)every one minute and other characteristics: passenger’s arrival time at the bus stop,
sex, age group, accompanied persons, whether he checked a time table at the bus
stop, whether he sat on the bench, and bus arrival time (see Table 3). Each observed
passenger was coded an identification number and matched with the questionnaire
survey postcard, so that we could combine both information collected by theobservation surveys and the questionnaire surveys. More than half of the
respondents were over 60 years old (proportion of 60’s is 14%, 70’s 31% and 80’s
7%, respectively). Trip purposes were shopping (26%), business (26%), going towork or school (16%), going home (13%) and others (19%).

No.
1
2
3
4

Table 2. Response rate of the questionnaire surveys
Number of
Number of
Response
Name of bus stops
distribution
response
rate
Komagome-fuji
52
33
64%
Kamifuji-mae
46
33
72%
Koishikawa-yonchōme
153
119
78%
Ohtsuka-shako
60
38
63%
Total
311
228
72%

Table 3. Information collected by the observation surveys and the questionnaire
surveys
Activity engagement while waiting
Observation
Passenger’s arrival time, Sex, Age group, Accompanied persons,surveys
Checking timetable, Bench use, Bus arrival time
- Age
- Trip purpose (work and school, shop, business, home,recreation, others)- Name of the bus stop you are to get off- Arrival time constraint (be in hurry, be in time, no time
Questionnaire
constraints)
surveys- Frequency of daily bus use- Amenities you want at bus stops (roof, bench, ash tray, trees, bus
location system, clock, route map, vendor machine, public
telephone, dash box, convenience store)- Irritation level (1: not be irritated at all – 5: extremely irritated)
Relationships between Waiting Behavior and Irritation Level
Ordered probit models were calibrated for investigating factors to affectpassengers’ irritation levels to waiting at the bus stops. Probabilities of irritationlevel y are formulated as follows:
4

Ohmori, Hirano, Harata and OhtaP( y = 1) = Φ (− βx )P( y = 2 ) = Φ (µ1 − βx ) − Φ (− βx )P ( y = 3) = Φ (µ 2 − βx ) − Φ (µ1 − βx )P( y = 4 ) = Φ(µ 3 − βx ) − Φ (µ 2 − βx )P( y = 5) = 1 − Φ (µ 3 − βx )The µ’s are unknown threshold parameters to be estimated with β. Explanatory
variables x were identified by both the observation surveys and the questionnaire
surveys. They were standing waiting time and sitting waiting time for the elderly
and non-elderly respectively, whether engaging in some activities, whether spendingtime in a nearby convenience store, environment of the bus stop, bus delay time, busboarding time and time constraint (see Table 4).
The final model estimation result showed a satisfactory goodness-of-fit and thesignificant coefficients for most of the explanatory variables. In Table 5, positivecoefficients represent that an increase in the variables makes passengers more
irritated. Longer waiting time increased the irritation level. Comparing thecoefficients of the elderly with those of non-elderly, it was found that the elderly felt
less irritation for the same amount of waiting time than non-elderly passengers. The
ratio between the standing waiting time coefficient and the sitting waiting timecoefficient was 1.87 for the elderly and 1.30 for non-elderly. This result showed thatstanding waiting time caused more irritation than sitting waiting time and the effectof benches on mitigation of irritation level was especially greater for the elderly thanfor non-elderly. Furthermore, engaging in some activities and spending time at a
nearby convenience store contributed mitigation of irritation level. A significant
Table 4. Explanatory variables used in models
Variable
Description
Standing waiting time*** (min.) Standing time of total waiting time
Sitting waiting time*** (min.)Sitting time of total waiting time
1: if engaging in some activities
Activity engagement
while waiting, 0: no activities
1: if spending time in a nearby
A* Convenience store
convenience store, 0: others
1: at bus stop No.3 (KoishikawaBetter bus stop environment
yonchōme), 0: others(time bus arrived) – (scheduled time
Bus delay time (min.)of bus time table)
Time to destination bus stop
Boarding time (min.)B**
calculated by bus time table
Time constraints
1: be in hurry, 0: others* A: variables identified by the observation surveys** B: variables identified by the questionnaire surveys*** (total waiting time) = (standing waiting time) + (sitting waiting time)= (time bus arrived at the bus stop) – (time passenger arrived at the bus stop)
Type

5

Ohmori, Hirano, Harata and Ohta

Table 5. Model estimation result
Variable
Coefficientt statistic
0.2622
7.556
Standing waiting time (for the elderly)
0.2785
7.620
Standing waiting time (for non-elderly)
0.1402
4.063
Sitting waiting time (for the elderly)
0.2147
5.256
Sitting waiting time (for non-elderly)-0.9731-5.659Activity engagement-1.2509-3.725
Convenience store-0.3515-2.125Better bus stop environment
0.1085
1.862
Bus delay time
0.0244
1.417
Boarding time
1.0941
4.596
Time constraints
Constant-0.4023-1.5481.09199.448µ12.269012.397µ23.710312.409µ3
L(c)-321.79L(β)-241.91
Sample size
228
dummy variable of better bus stop environment at bus stop No.3, which was newer
and better maintained than other bus stops, indicated that better environment wasable to mitigate bus waiting resistance. The positive time constraints coefficient
showed that passengers who had an appointment and were in hurry felt more
irritation. The coefficients of both bus delay time and bus boarding time showed
positive effects on irritation level but were not significant at 95% level ofconfidence.
From the analysis of passengers’ bench use and their demand for benches, it
was found that proportion of the passengers who wanted benches as one of theamenities at bus stops was very high, even though they did not use the bench (seeTable 6). Especially the situation is not desirable that 70% of the elderly passengers
who did not use benches wanted benches at bus stops. There could be two reasons
why the passenger did not use but wanted benches: (1) there was enough space to sit
on but s/he did not feel like sitting, (2) there was little space because otherpassengers had already used the bench. For distinguishing these two reasons, weanalyzed the number of passengers sitting on the bench at two bus stops (No.1 andNo.3), when each passenger who did not use but wanted benches arrived at the bus
stop. Both benches at the two bus stops had three seats. At bus stop No.3, dominant
was the situation that when each passenger arrived at the bus stop, some passengers
had already been sitting on the bench so there was not enough space for her/him tosit on. On the other hand, at bus stop No.1, more than 90% of them did not sit on thebench, whereas nobody had been sitting on. The results suggest that the number ofseats was insufficient at bus stop No.3, while most of passengers waiting at bus stop
No.1 did not feel like sitting on the bench and wanted benches because there weresome problems in design or condition of the bench, or environment of the bus stop.

6

Ohmori, Hirano, Harata and Ohta

Table 6. Percentage of the passengers who wanted benches
Bench users
Non-users
The elderly
78%
72%
Non-elderly
85%
68%
Table 7. Number of the passengers who did not use but wanted benches by the
number of bench users when they arrived at bus stops
Number of bench users
Bus stop01
2
3
No.1 Komagome-fuji
131
0
0
No.3 Koishikawa-yonchōme
13
17
11
4
Conclusions
This study investigated relationships between passengers’ bus waiting behavior
and their irritation levels to waiting at bus stops. About half of passengers were
doing nothing while waiting at bus stops, while another half of them were engaging
in some activities; reading books, smoking cigarettes, talking with accompanied
persons, talking and e-mailing by cellular phone and spending time in a nearby
convenience store. Longer waiting time increased passengers’ irritation levels, but
sitting on benches mitigated their irritation levels and the effects were greater for theelderly than for non-elderly passengers. Engaging in some activities including
spending time in a nearby convenience store while waiting contributed mitigation of
irritation levels. Environment of bus stops affected irritation levels. There weremany passengers who did not use benches but wanted benches, even if benches wereavailable for them while waiting at the bus stop. The proportion of such passengers
differed between bus stops, depending on bench design and bus stop environment.
Further research should be directed at analyzing passengers’ waiting behavior
during morning peak periods, on weekends and in suburban/rural areas where bus
headways are much longer. These analyses enable us to better understand therelationships between waiting behavior and their socio-demographic and trip
characteristics. Introducing new survey methods for collecting activities while
waiting is very important regarding this issue (Harvey (2003) has summarized
traditional time-space diaries and mentioned some alternatives for more useful datacollection). In addition, good design of benches and comfortable environment of bus
stops need to be investigated so that passengers can use the bench willingly and wait
for bus without feeling irritation.
References
Goodwin, P.B. (1976), Human effort and the value of travel time. Journal ofTransport Economics and Policy, 10(1), pp.3-15.
Hall, R.W. (2001), Passenger waiting time and information acquisition using
automatic vehicle location for verification. Transportation Planning and Technology,
24, pp.249-269.
7

Ohmori, Hirano, Harata and Ohta

Harvey, A. (2003), Time-space diaries: Merging traditions. In Stopher, P. and Jones,
P. eds., Transport Survey Quality and Innovation, Pergamon, pp.151-180.
Hess, D.B., Brown, J. and Shoup, D. (2003), Waiting for the bus. TRB 2003 Annual
Meeting CD-ROM.
Nitta, Y. Mihoshi, A. and Mori, Y. (1995), Basic study on special bus service
planning for improving mobility of elderly. Journal of Infrastructure andManagement, No.518/IV-28, pp.43-54. (in Japanese)
Takami, K., Ohta, K. and Harata, N. (1995), Passengers’ perception toward
information from bus location systems. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Conferenceof Japan Society for Civil Engineering, pp.232-233. (in Japanese)
Tanaka, S. and Watanabe, C. (2002), An investigation of the bus-passenger’s waitingarea. Transportation Science, 32(1)-(2), pp.56-61. (in Japanese)
Wardman, M. (2001), A review of British evidence on time and service quality
valuations. Transportation Research, E37, pp.107-128.

8

Ohmori, Hirano, Harata and Ohta