| Literature DB >> 36097611 |
Shixiong Jiang1, Canhuang Cai2.
Abstract
The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had severely disruptive impacts on transportation, particularly public transit. To understand metro ridership changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this study conducts an in-depth analysis of two Chinese megacities from January 1, 2020, to August 31, 2021. Generalized linear models are used to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on metro ridership. The dependent variable is the relative change in metro ridership, and the independent variables include COVID-19, socio-economic, and weather variables. The results suggested the following: (1) The COVID-19 pandemic has a significantly negative effect on the relative change in metro ridership, and the number of cumulative confirmed COVID-19 cases within 14 days performs better in regression models, which reflects the existence of the time lag effect of the COVID-19 pandemic. (2) Emergency responses are negatively associated with metro system usage according to severity and duration. (3) The marginal effects of the COVID-19 variables and emergency responses are larger on weekdays than on weekends. (4) The number of imported confirmed COVID-19 cases only significantly affects metro ridership in the weekend and new-normal-phase models for Beijing. In addition, the daily gross domestic product and weather variables are significantly associated with metro ridership. These findings can aid in understanding the usage of metro systems in the outbreak and new-normal phases and provide transit operators with guidance to adjust services.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic; Generalized linear models; Metro ridership; Socio-economic variables; Weather variables
Year: 2022 PMID: 36097611 PMCID: PMC9452005 DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.09.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transp Policy (Oxf) ISSN: 0967-070X
Review of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on urban mobility.
| Source | Study time | Region | Data | Method | Key findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gibbs et al. ( | 1 Jan.–1 Mar. 2020 | Wuhan | Movement data | K-means clustering, network analysis | Network analyses indicate no sign of major changes in the transportation network. |
| Molloy et al. ( | 2 Mar.–17 Aug. 2020 | Switzerland | GPS tracking data | Descriptive and statistical analysis | The average daily distance reduces by 60%, with decreases of over 90% for public transport. The modal share of cycling increases dramatically. |
| Bucsky ( | Mar. 2020 | Budapest | Modal daily volumes | Descriptive and statistical analysis | The public transport declines by 80%, while bike sharing declines by 2%. The modal share of cycling, car, public transport changes from 2%, 43%, and 43%–4%, 65%, and 18% respectively. |
| Hasselwander et al. ( | 3 Jan. – 6 Feb. 2020 | Metro Manila | GPS data | Descriptive and statistical analysis | While significant decreases are observed for all modes, public transport decreases mostly by 74.5%. |
| Hara and Yamaguchi ( | 1 Jan.–31 May. 2020 | Japan | Mobile phone location data | Descriptive and statistical analysis | Even without strong restrictions, trips and inter-prefectural travel decreases significantly. The population density decreases by 20% and people avoid traveling to densely populated areas. |
| Pan et al. ( | 2 Feb.–30 May 2020 | America | Mobile phone location data | Mobility metrics, social distancing index | Government orders and the severity of local outbreak significantly contribute to the strength of social distancing. |
| Kim et al. ( | Feb.–Apr. 2020 | Daejeon | Trips data of car and bus | Mixed-effect regression model | The number of bus trips and car trips decrease by 40% and 12% respectively compared with earlier weeks. The reductions of trips are more intensive during the daytime and weekends. Moreover, trips of people in wealthier areas decrease more than those in lower-priced areas, particularly bus trips. |
| Zhang et al. ( | 1 Jan.–31 Mar. 2020 | Hong Kong | Metro | Descriptive and statistical analysis | Metro ridership decreases by 43%, 49%, and 59% during weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays, respectively. |
| Chang et al. ( | 1 Jan.–31 Mar. 2020 | Taipei | Metro | Difference-in-differences model, descriptive statistics | The decline in metro trips is attributed to health risks. The impacts of the COVID-19 are larger on metro stations connected to nigh markets, shopping centers, or colleges. |
| Mutzel and Scheiner ( | Jan.–Mar. 2019 and 2020 | Taipei | Metro | Descriptive and statistical analysis | The impacts of COVID-19 on metro usage are not uniform but have spatial and temporal heterogeneity. The rush hours on weekdays were affected the least, whereas ridership at night decreases the most. |
| Xin et al. ( | Jan. 2019–Sep. 2020 | 22 cities | Metro | Synthetic Control Method | Most Chinese cities experienced about a 90% reduction in ridership with some variations among different cities. Metro ridership reductions are associated with the severity and duration of restrictions and lockdowns. |
| Sy et al. ( | Jan.–Apr. 2020 | New York | Metro | Cross-sectional analysis, generalized linear regression | The metro ridership decreases by 69.7%. Areas with lower income, greater percentage of non-White people, and greater percentage of essential and health-care workers, have more mobility during the pandemic. |
| Park ( | Jan.–Mar. 2020 | Seoul | Metro | Descriptive and statistical analysis | The daily metro ridership decreases by 40.6% by the first week of March compared with the third week of January. The ridership of work-related stations decreases significantly than that of leisure-related stations. |
| Kwon et al. ( | 2019–2020 | Seoul, New York | Metro | K-means, Multiple regression | Metro ridership declines steeply after specific events and surge after the implement of interventions. The difference in station ridership which resulted from the pandemic is significantly associated with land use, station attributes, and socio-demographic factors. |
| Teixeira and Lopes ( | Feb.–Mar. 2019 and 2020 | New York | Bike sharing, metro | Ordinary least square regression, descriptive statistics | Bike sharing is more resilient than the metro, with a lower ridership decrease (71% vs 90% decrease) and an increase on its average duration (13–19 min). It is a modal shift from metro to bike sharing. |
| Shang et al. ( | 14 Jan.–10 Mar. 2020 | Beijing | Bike sharing | Estimate trip distance, complex network theory | The pandemic influences user behaviors of bike sharing significantly, a reduction of about 50%. |
| Hu et al. ( | 11 Mar.–31 Jul. 2020 | Chicago | Bike sharing | Generalized additive (mixed) models | The proportion of commuting trips declines significantly. Bike sharing is more resilient than transit, driving, and walking. The usage follows an “increase–decrease–rebound” pattern. |
Fig. 1Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic development and Chinese government's policies.
Fig. 2Data flow chart of this study.
Sample statistics and definition of selected variables.
| City | Definition | Beijing | Shanghai | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | |
| Relative change of metro ridership (%) | −35.06 | 25.37 | −21.19 | 23.36 | |
| Number of local COVID-19 cases per day | 1.37 | 4.77 | 0.62 | 2.98 | |
| Number of cumulative local COVID-19 cases within 14 days | 19.22 | 54.99 | 8.66 | 36.17 | |
| Number of imported COVID-19 cases per day | 0.46 | 1.95 | 3.45 | 3.85 | |
| Average daily GDP (in 100 million yuan) | 102.39 | 10.75 | 108.47 | 11.47 | |
| Average daily temperature (°C) | 14.49 | 10.96 | 18.63 | 8.29 | |
| Total precipitation in a day (mm) | 1.67 | 7.32 | 4.66 | 13.05 | |
| If a holiday or weekend (=1) | 0.32 | 0.47 | 0.32 | 0.47 | |
| If a first-level response to major public health emergency (=1) | 0.16 | 0.37 | 0.10 | 0.30 | |
| If a second-level response to major public health emergency (=1) | 0.12 | 0.32 | 0.08 | 0.26 | |
Fig. 3Metro ridership and number of local COVID-19 cases per day.
Fig. 4Monthly metro ridership from 2019 to 2021.
Month by month comparison of metro ridership.
| Beijing | Shanghai | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Month | Change (%) | Change (%) | Change (%) | Change (%) |
| 1 | −26.91% | −38.41% | −24.71% | −15.76% |
| 2 | −88.70% | −32.42% | −82.84% | −12.74% |
| 3 | −80.81% | −20.37% | −59.75% | −5.24% |
| 4 | −66.16% | −15.21% | −40.28% | −4.79% |
| 5 | −47.65% | −17.49% | −32.37% | −7.16% |
| 6 | −47.44% | −13.15% | −21.24% | −0.84% |
| 7 | −49.24% | −16.84% | −18.01% | −9.44% |
| 8 | −38.12% | −34.53% | −16.34% | −14.27% |
| 9 | −16.79% | n. a. | −7.77% | n. a. |
| 10 | −20.22% | n. a. | −11.63% | n. a. |
| 11 | −16.14% | n. a. | −13.47% | n. a. |
| 12 | −16.57% | n. a. | −9.66% | n. a. |
Estimation results for the metro ridership in Beijing.
| Panel I: Full model (control for imported COVID-19 cases) | Panel II: Restricted model (no control for imported COVID-19 cases) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | ||||||
| Coef. | S.E. | Coef. | S.E. | Coef. | S.E. | Coef. | S.E. | ||
| −36.988*** | 6.971 | −37.308*** | 7.311 | −38.125*** | 6.964 | −38.041*** | 7.295 | ||
| −0.091*** | 0.010 | n. a. | n. a. | −0.087*** | 0.010 | n. a. | n. a. | ||
| n. a. | n. a. | −0.627*** | 0.109 | n. a. | n. a. | −0.608*** | 0.108 | ||
| −0.528** | 0.254 | −0.320 | 0.263 | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | ||
| −48.157*** | 1.883 | −51.239*** | 1.911 | −49.021*** | 1.843 | −52.700*** | 1.876 | ||
| −19.796*** | 1.797 | −23.834*** | 1.789 | −19.732*** | 1.803 | −23.701*** | 1.788 | ||
| 0.208*** | 0.068 | 0.204*** | 0.071 | 0.218*** | 0.068 | 0.211*** | 0.071 | ||
| −0.250*** | 0.051 | −0.209*** | 0.053 | −0.257*** | 0.051 | −0.215*** | 0.053 | ||
| −0.150** | 0.064 | −0.177*** | 0.066 | −0.151** | 0.064 | −0.177*** | 0.067 | ||
| −10.967*** | 0.993 | −10.716*** | 1.037 | −10.977*** | 0.997 | −10.732*** | 1.038 | ||
| 4712 | 4761 | 4714 | 4759 | ||||||
| 4756 | 4809 | 4754 | 4799 | ||||||
| 609 | 609 | 609 | 609 | ||||||
Note: ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
Estimation results for the metro ridership in Shanghai.
| Panel I: Full model (control for imported COVID-19 cases) | Panel II: Restricted model (no control for imported COVID-19 cases) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | ||||||
| Coef. | S.E. | Coef. | S.E. | Coef. | S.E. | Coef. | S.E. | ||
| −13.981*** | 5.355 | −13.589** | 5.594 | −12.857** | 5.302 | −12.912** | 5.534 | ||
| −0.112*** | 0.014 | n. a. | n. a. | −0.110*** | 0.014 | n. a. | n. a. | ||
| n. a. | n. a. | −0.414** | 0.164 | n. a. | n. a. | −0.404** | 0.164 | ||
| −0.151 | 0.109 | −0.092 | 0.114 | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | ||
| −54.895*** | 2.101 | −61.276*** | 2.044 | −55.038*** | 2.101 | −61.325*** | 2.044 | ||
| −31.336*** | 1.610 | −31.428*** | 1.681 | −31.744*** | 1.585 | −31.675*** | 1.654 | ||
| 0.100** | 0.049 | 0.089* | 0.051 | 0.084* | 0.048 | 0.079* | 0.050 | ||
| −0.182*** | 0.053 | −0.154*** | 0.055 | −0.175*** | 0.052 | −0.149*** | 0.055 | ||
| −0.261*** | 0.031 | −0.262*** | 0.032 | −0.261*** | 0.031 | −0.262*** | 0.032 | ||
| −10.011*** | 0.849 | −9.817*** | 0.889 | −9.968*** | 0.850 | −9.795*** | 0.889 | ||
| 4519 | 4571 | 4519 | 4570 | ||||||
| 4563 | 4616 | 4559 | 4610 | ||||||
| 609 | 609 | 609 | 609 | ||||||
Note: ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
Estimation results for the metro ridership by weekdays and weekends.
| Panel I: Beijing | Panel II: Shanghai | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weekday | Weekend | Weekday | Weekend | |||||
| Coef. | S.E. | Coef. | S.E. | Coef. | S.E. | Coef. | S.E. | |
| −36.795*** | 7.080 | −29.589*** | 1.237 | −12.739** | 5.458 | −16.195*** | 0.987 | |
| −0.096*** | 0.010 | −0.081*** | 0.020 | −0.127*** | 0.015 | −0.076** | 0.030 | |
| n. a. | n. a. | −1.429* | 0.750 | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | |
| −51.189*** | 1.898 | −46.152*** | 3.118 | −55.833*** | 2.222 | −55.167*** | 3.499 | |
| −17.574*** | 1.875 | −28.434*** | 3.412 | −28.732*** | 1.663 | −37.907*** | 3.169 | |
| 0.209*** | 0.069 | n. a. | n. a. | 0.088* | 0.049 | n. a. | n. a. | |
| −0.266*** | 0.053 | n. a. | n. a. | −0.224*** | 0.054 | n. a. | n. a. | |
| −0.157*** | 0.058 | n. a. | n. a. | −0.202*** | 0.031 | −0.395*** | 0.068 | |
| 3090 | 1588 | 2957 | 1517 | |||||
| 3122 | 1608 | 2989 | 1537 | |||||
| 415 | 194 | 415 | 194 | |||||
Note: ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
Phases for the two cities.
| City | Outbreak phase | New normal phase |
|---|---|---|
| Beijing | 20/1/2020–19/7/2020 | 20/7/2020–31/8/2021 |
| Shanghai | 20/1/2020–9/5/2020 | 10/5/2020–31/8/2021 |
Metro ridership in Beijing decreases by 63.89% and 22.86% in the outbreak and normal phases, respectively, compared with those in the pre-COVID-19 period. In Shanghai, metro ridership decreases by 57.49% and 11.64% in the two phases, respectively, compared with the pre-pandemic ridership in 2019.
Estimation results for the metro ridership in the two phases.
| Panel I: Beijing | Panel II: Shanghai | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outbreak phase | New normal phase | Outbreak phase | New normal phase | |||||
| Coef. | S.E. | Coef. | S.E. | Coef. | S.E. | Coef. | S.E. | |
| −71.638*** | 13.866 | −106.065*** | 9.658 | −43.987** | 17.663 | −42.114*** | 6.834 | |
| −0.076*** | 0.008 | −0.607*** | 0.081 | −0.102*** | 0.014 | −0.540*** | 0.144 | |
| n. a. | n. a. | −1.811** | 0.762 | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | |
| −48.999*** | 2.801 | n. a. | n. a. | −54.399*** | 4.579 | n. a. | n. a. | |
| −20.314*** | 2.734 | n. a. | n. a. | −36.385*** | 4.937 | n. a. | n. a. | |
| 0.623*** | 0.166 | 0.868*** | 0.090 | 0.407** | 0.191 | 0.333*** | 0.059 | |
| −0.541*** | 0.140 | −0.359*** | 0.050 | n. a. | n. a. | −0.121** | 0.054 | |
| n. a. | n. a. | −0.151*** | 0.058 | n. a. | n. a. | −0.258*** | 0.030 | |
| −10.914*** | 1.388 | −11.353*** | 1.031 | −11.418*** | 1.894 | −10.162*** | 0.910 | |
| 1325 | 3012 | 826 | 3500 | |||||
| 1350 | 3045 | 845 | 3530 | |||||
| 182 | 408 | 111 | 479 | |||||
Note: ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
Results of robustness check in Beijing.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. | S.E. | Coef. | S.E. | Coef. | S.E. | Coef. | S.E. | |
| −37.532*** | 7.120 | −37.535*** | 6.843 | −37.185*** | 6.970 | −35.351*** | 7.243 | |
| n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | −0.091*** | 0.010 | −0.090*** | 0.010 | |
| −0.134*** | 0.018 | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | |
| n. a. | n. a. | −0.077*** | 0.007 | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | |
| −0.429* | 0.259 | −0.602** | 0.251 | −0.531** | 0.254 | −0.543** | 0.255 | |
| −49.628*** | 1.900 | −46.559*** | 1.886 | −48.330*** | 1.914 | −48.355*** | 1.898 | |
| −21.598*** | 1.800 | −18.096*** | 1.809 | −19.929*** | 1.816 | −19.893*** | 1.800 | |
| 0.210*** | 0.069 | 0.215*** | 0.066 | 0.204*** | 0.068 | 0.197*** | 0.069 | |
| −0.233*** | 0.052 | −0.262*** | 0.051 | −0.248*** | 0.051 | −0.241*** | 0.052 | |
| −0.170*** | 0.065 | −0.135** | 0.063 | −0.151** | 0.064 | −0.155** | 0.064 | |
| n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | 0.198 | 0.396 | n. a. | n. a. | |
| n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | n. a. | −0.008 | 0.010 | |
| −10.868 | 1.015 | −11.194*** | 0.978 | −10.961*** | 0.993 | −10.919*** | 0.995 | |
| 4737 | 4694 | 4714 | 4713 | |||||
| 4781 | 4738 | 4762 | 4762 | |||||
| 609 | 609 | 609 | 609 |
Note: ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.