Am stressed, must travel: The relationship between mode choice and commuting stress

TLDR: In this article, the authors used a large-scale university travel survey to compare commuter stress across three modes of transportation (walking, driving, and using public transit) and investigated the specific factors that contribute to stress using these modes.

Abstract: The stress of commuting has serious public health and social implications. By comparing stress across different modes it is possible to determine which modes are more heavily contributing to this potential health and social issue. This study uses a large-scale university travel survey to compare commuter stress across three modes of transportation (walking, driving, and using public transit). It also investigates the specific factors that contribute to stress using these modes. Using ordered logistic regressions, the study develops a general model of stress and three mode-specific models. Results show that driving is the most stressful mode of transportation when compared to others. We also find that stressors for some modes are not stressors for others. Knowing which specific factors make certain modes stressful will help transportation and public health professionals make commuting a safer, more enjoyable, and less stressful activity; in turn this could mitigate the potentially serious health outcomes of a stressful commute.

Figures

TABLE 2 Ordered Regression Results General Pedestrian Driver Transit

TABLE 1 Summary Statistics

FIGURE 1 Study Framework 6 7 In order to better understand the factors leading to a stressful commute, this study uses a 8 large-scale university travel survey to compare commuter stress across three modes of 9

Full text

Legrain, Eluru & El-Geneidy
1
Am stressed, must travel: The relationship between mode choice and commuting stress 1
2
3
Alexander Legrain 4
School of Urban Planning 5
McGill University* 6
E-mail: alexander.legrain@mail.mcgill.ca 7
8
Naveen Eluru 9
Department of Civil, Environmental and Construction 10
EngineeringUniversity of Central Florida* 11
E-mail: naveen.eluru@ucf.edu 12
13
14
Ahmed M. El-Geneidy 15
School of Urban Planning 16
McGill University* 17
E-mail: ahmed.elgeneidy@mcgill.ca 18
19
20
* McGill University 21
Suite 400, 815 Sherbrooke St. W. 22
Montréal, Québec, H3A 2K6 23
Canada 24
Tel.: 514-398-8741 25
Fax: 514-398-8376 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
For Citation Please use:
Legrain, A., Eluru, N., & El-Geneidy, A. (2015). Am stressed, must travel: 34
The relationship between mode choice and commuting stress. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic 35
Psychology and Behaviour, 34, 141-151. 36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

Legrain, Eluru & El-Geneidy
2
ABSTRACT 1
2
The stress of commuting has serious public health and social implications. By comparing stress 3
across different modes it is possible to determine which modes are more heavily contributing to 4
this potential health and social issue. This study uses a large-scale university travel survey to 5
compare commuter stress across three modes of transportation (walking, driving, and using 6
public transit). It also investigates the specific factors that contribute to stress using these modes. 7
Using ordered logistic regressions, the study develops a general model of stress and three mode-8
specific models. Results show that driving is the most stressful mode of transportation when 9
compared to others. We also find that stressors for some modes are not stressors for others. 10
Knowing which specific factors make certain modes stressful will help transportation and public 11
health professionals make commuting a safer, more enjoyable, and less stressful activity; in turn 12
this could mitigate the potentially serious health outcomes of a stressful commute. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
INTRODUCTION 35

Legrain, Eluru & El-Geneidy
3
Many recent studies in transportation have focused on the personal experience of 1
commuters. A person’s satisfaction with their trip, overall life satisfaction, and stress 2
experienced while commuting have become increasingly crucial parts of our understanding of 3
travel behavior, especially regarding mode-choice. Mode-switching may be inhibited because 4
certain physical and mental health implications are associated with a mode (Abou-Zeid, Witter, 5
Bierlaire, Kaufmann, & Ben-Akiva, 2012). Findings from studies that focus on the personal 6
experiences of commuters can have real policy implications by suggesting that factors that may 7
inhibit the uptake of more sustainable modes of transportation should be minimized, while 8
factors that make these modes more attractive to users should be explored. 9
Stress is one of the most serious physical and mental health implications of commuting. 10
Almost all commuting can be stressful—rushing to get to work or school in the morning is often 11
an unpleasant experience—and some modes may be causing more stress than others. 12
Discovering the mode-specific factors that contribute to a stressful commute highlights where 13
policy focused on increasing sustainable mode-share can be effective. Sustainable mode use can 14
be made more attractive by minimizing the factors that make sustainable modes stressful. 15
Perhaps more importantly, commuting is almost ubiquitous: a hefty share of any population 16
travels daily and, correspondingly, the stress experienced while commuting affects a large 17
number of people. 18
Factors contributing to stress during a commute can be broadly grouped into two 19
categories (Novaco, Stokols, & Milanesi, 1990). First, there are objective or environmental 20
stressors. These stressors negatively impact a person’s control or comfort while commuting. 21
Second, there is the subjective experience of these stressors, which are influenced by (for 22
example) the satisfaction a person has with a mode. These personal subjective factors act as a 23

Legrain, Eluru & El-Geneidy
4
filter through which objective stressors are experienced. This interaction between personal 1
experience and objective stressors is derived from the work of Raymond Novaco (1990) and 2
Meni Koslowsky (1997) , and is shown in Figure 1. 3
4
5
FIGURE 1 Study Framework 6
7
In order to better understand the factors leading to a stressful commute, this study uses a 8
large-scale university travel survey to compare commuter stress across three modes of 9
transportation (walking, driving, and using public transit) during a cold snowy day. By 10
highlighting which factors lead to stress on different modes, transportation planners, engineers 11
and policy makers can better understand the factors that can make the commute more enjoyable 12
and provide a less stressful experience. 13
14
LITERATURE REVIEW 15
What is stress? Lazarus and Launier (1978) define stress as a situation where the 16
environment overwhelms the person: “these relationships refer neither to person nor environment 17
as separate variables, but they describe a balance of forces such that environmental demands tax 18
or exceed the resources of the person.” Other seminal work on stress echo this definition (see, for 19

Legrain, Eluru & El-Geneidy
5
instance, Fink, 2000; Selye, 1976). Furthermore, commuting has been linked to stress numerous 1
times (for a review see, Novaco & Gonzales, 2009). The experience of being stuck in traffic or 2
waiting for a delayed train is understandably a hardship and quite common. These and other 3
demands experienced while commuting often lead to stress. Yet, the relationship between 4
commuting and stress is not clear. For example, just because a delay is experienced does not 5
mean that the user experiencing that delay is necessarily stressed. 6
7
The Effects of Stress 8
Commuting stress (especially if it is unduly associated with specific modes) may inhibit 9
people switching to a more sustainable mode of transportation. Certainly, this is a concern. Also 10
of concern are the potential public health effects of stress, and, consequently, the serious health 11
and life satisfaction implications of stressful commuting. Longer commutes by car, for instance, 12
have been related to an increased risk of heart attack and obesity (Hoehner, Barlow, Allen, & 13
Shootman, 2012). In particular, the stress of commuting has been linked to poor quality sleep, 14
exhaustion, depression, and feelings of poor health (Gee & Takeuchi, 2004; Hansson, Mattisson, 15
Björk, Östergren, & Jakobsson, 2011). Commuting stress has also been shown to negatively 16
impact a person’s ability to focus or complete tasks (Wener, Evans, & Boately, 2005). Poor job 17
performance and shortened job tenure, no doubt exacerbated by these health and mental effects, 18
are also linked to commuting stress (Koslowsky, Kluger, & Reich, 1995; Novaco, et al., 1990). 19
Nevertheless, the view that commuting, and travel in general, is an unavoidable burden 20
has come under much criticism. Mohktarian and Salomon (2001) have argued that travel is not 21
always a derived demand. Rather, travel, including commuting, can be enjoyed for its own sake. 22
A recent study showed that travel is linked to higher life satisfaction (Ory, et al., 2004). Morris 23

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions in this paper?

Legrain et al. this paper studied the relationship between mode choice and commuting stress and found that commuting stress is correlated with stress. 

Q2. What is the important point of the study?

Unpredictability can occur at any moment in the transit experience, dissatisfaction 17 with these moments may indicate a decrease in feelings of control over their situation, and thus 18 more stress. 

Q3. What is the effect of increasing the predictability and 7 range of transit options in an era?

Increasing the predictability and 7 range of transit options in an era of increasing driving unpredictability could lead to a greater 8 transit mode share. 

Q4. What is the purpose of increasing pedestrian mode-share?

On way to increase pedestrian mode-share 4 is to protect walkers from traffic and provide more pleasant and more comfortable streets to walk 5 on. 

Q5. What is the effect of public transportation on commuters?

public transportation is also less stressful than driving, which is found to 6 involve (somewhat perversely) less control for commuters. 

Q6. What is the effect of having a high comfort rating on stress?

Having a (self-reported) high comfort rating has a 4 negative effect on stress and is significant in the pedestrian and transit models. 

Q7. What is the effect of the interaction between the two?

2 Furthermore, their study confirms that commuting stress is caused by an interaction 3 between objective stressors and mediators (time, control, and comfort) and subjective stressors 4 which act as mediators (feelings, desires, and satisfaction). 

Q8. What is the important point of this study?

More importantly, this study demonstrates that the stress 21 of commuting is intimately related to the mode being used: A general conception of commuting 22 stress is not as powerful as mode-specific models. 

Q9. What is the important factor in determining how much stress a person experiences when using public?

using a more standard stress scale while also incorporating 17 outcomes of stress (missed days at work or school, mental or physical side effects) could make 18 their findings more robust, and could be incorporated into future research. 

Q10. What is the funding source for this research?

This research was partially funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of 9Canada collaborative research and development (NSERC-CRD) program. 

Q11. How long should the study be conducted?

Future research collecting data to measure stress due to a 1 commute need to be conducted across a longer time frame allowing for weather variation. 

Q12. What are the factors that affect the stress of commuting?

The mode used to get to the station, 14 satisfaction with the time to reach the station (for train riders), and waiting time at the station are 15 all related to stress.