Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Pete Davis and Dr Russ Marshall
The use of public transport can be a stressful experience, especially if you’re making a journey for the first time. There are so many uncertainties such as knowing which bus or train to take, the location of bus stops or platforms, the time the bus or train leaves; whether you have enough money; whether connections will be made in time; and so on. Uncertainties cover every element of a journey and whilst most can be minimised through planning, and detailed, up-to-date information about services, many have to be managed en-route. This management requires a degree of adaptability, to be able to modify a journey to overcome some form of barrier. For older people or people with disabilities there may be additional concerns combined with a reduced ability to adapt. Issues such as the presence of steps at a station; whether there is a lift; appropriate accessibility (level access, hand rails, etc.) to the train or bus; how to tell if the correct train has been boarded; if there are locations to sit and rest; and the potential for contributing factors such as heavy crowds all add to the potential for stress.
All of these uncertainties can be collectively called ‘anticipatory stressors’, and they have the potential to cause stress even before a journey starts. One potential response to this stress, particularly for those who have an alternative or for whom the journey is not a necessity, is to avoid making the journey altogether. Therefore people can experience exclusion from public transport even if they are capable of using it. Even on a familiar journey, there are a host of potential stressors that may be encountered. Activities like crossing roads, using ticket machines, negotiating ticket barriers, steps, escalators and lifts, reading and hearing information, and getting on and off vehicles, can all be ‘acute stressors’ depending on an individual’s abilities and experience. Similarly, environmental factors such as noise, crowds, isolation, litter, graffiti and the movement of a travelling vehicle are all ‘ambient stressors’ that affect different people to a greater or lesser extent.
What all of these stressors have in common is their inconsistency. All of them have the potential to range from unnoticeable to catastrophic depending on the conditions encountered on a particular journey. At its best, public transport can be an affordable, sustainable and liberating mechanism for social inclusion. However, the stress of travel is a genuine health risk, and commuters show increases in psychological and physical illness. This risk increases if the journey is more complicated. It has been shown that it is not duration or distance, but the ‘impedance to travel’ that has a direct link to stress; i.e. a person travelling a long distance on a mainline train will be less stressed than someone travelling across a city with several changes. The more stages there are in a journey, the more stressors are likely to be encountered. It is therefore essential to eliminate the stressors that make travel problematic for so many people. As part of the AUNT-SUE project, Loughborough University is developing two tools that apply this stressor elimination philosophy to improving public transport.
The Inclusive Journey Planner
Existing online journey planners can go a long way to reducing uncertainty about a journey. Just knowing when and where vehicles depart may be enough for most people to set off on a journey without a prohibitive level of anticipatory stress. The aim of the Inclusive Journey Planner is to demonstrate the extent to which the use of a journey planner prior to travel could eliminate pre-travel uncertainty for all users, including those who are disadvantaged by disability or circumstance. Interviews and trials with a range of inexperienced users based around existing journey planners and proposed design improvements, has lead to a number of recommendations that are largely encompassed by three main design concepts: Personal Profiles, Genuine Journey Choice and Rich Journey Plans.
Although many existing journey planners offer a number of ‘advanced options’ that can be used to customise a journey search, the approach seems to be one of providing every single option, then, realising that most people won’t want to look through them all, designing the layout so users can ignore them easily. Personal Profiles is a means to support users by exposing them to a relatively small list of the most relevant options to ensure only suitable journeys are provided. Enabling the user to personalise and then save their options for future use means that most users will only have to do this once in order to get personalised accessible journeys every time.
The journey options that existing journey planners provide are very limited, commonly just repetitions of one or two routes at different times. Given that the user has specified their time of travel, this is not especially helpful. A Genuine Journey Choice system would present alternative routes that suit the Personal Profile at the required time and give essential information about each route: modes, duration, cost and walking time (see image below). This allows the user to make a rational decision about which way they would prefer to make the journey. A good journey planner, such as the Transport for London Journey Planner, shows where there are steps, escalators, lifts and ramps and provides maps. The addition of showing level access to vehicles, warnings about likely crowding, extra information about stations and even weather forecasts would be welcomed by many users. Using dynamic web design can help to deliver such Rich Journey Plans without overloading the screen, enabling the user to get the information they need to travel with confidence.
The prototype Inclusive Journey Planner will be made available as an exemplar along with the results of the trials and guidance documentation. AUNT-SUE is also actively seeking to assist transport organisations in the design of journey planners that reduce stress and promote inclusion.
The HADRIAN Journey Stresstimator
HADRIAN is an extension to the SAMMIE 3D Human Modelling system. The purpose of HADRIAN is to carry out virtual user trials using models based on a varied sample of real people rather than population data. This allows practitioners to look at how people with different sizes, shapes, abilities and behaviours interact with products and environments. In addition to physical data, the HADRIAN Database includes information about activities at home, in urban environments and on transport, creating a rich profile of each of the 102 participants. Using this information it is possible to predict the level of stress that each participant would experience as a result of common acute and ambient stressors that occur whilst using public transport. The HADRIAN Journey Stresstimator is a spreadsheet-based application that enables a transport practitioner to interrogate these stress levels for any known journey. It effectively sends all of the participants on a journey and records every stress transaction providing results that can be used in many different ways. A practitioner could compare the inclusiveness of different routes, find out which people are most likely to be excluded, see which stages in a journey cause most stress, find out which stressors are causing the most stress and explore the effect that eliminating different stressors would have on a journey.
Whilst using the Journey Stresstimator is no substitute for thorough accessibility auditing, it may prove useful as a quick way to identify and prioritise opportunities for improvement. Because HADRIAN enables this analysis to be based on the real concerns of real people, it is also unique in its ability to deliver an empathic understanding of the importance of problems that might otherwise be overlooked.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Will be launched on April 28th, 2010
KTMB: Koc Wanita Pertama Di Malaysia Bermula Pada 28hb April 2010
FAQ on women-only coach
KTMB: Koc Wanita Pertama Di Malaysia Bermula Pada 28hb April 2010
FAQ on women-only coach
Friday, April 23, 2010
Vincenzina Santoro | Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Monaco to Mongolia: population density and prosperity
Stop the World -- I Want to Get Off” was the title of a hit Broadway play some years ago. Today, getting people off the planet is what the United Nations population control crowd would like to do in order to “save” it. After the failed Copenhagen climate control confabulation last December, they will be refocusing their strategy and may target the presumed horrors of overpopulation in the form of large concentrations of people in any given place.
The constantly updating “population clock” of the U.S. Census Bureau showed that the U.S. population was over 308 million and world population not quite 6.8 billion as I write. To the population worriers, these numbers are far too many. Population nihilists conjure up horrendous stories of hordes of people living extremely closely together in dire poverty, clamoring for scarce resources. Fewer people equals less carbon footprints, they claim.
What about “overcrowding?” China’s coercive one-child policy to explicitly curb population is well known, but is China that densely populated? Not at all, when one looks at the relevant data. While the population of China at 1.3 billion is the highest of any country in the world, China ranks only 53rd out of 192 countries in terms of population density, as can be observed in data assembled by the CIA.
This begs the question: Which is the most densely populated country on earth? It happens to be Monaco – that wonderful principality bordering France on the Mediterranean. Monaco is by far the most densely populated country, with a population of only 32,140 but a population density of 41,971 per square mile. Singapore is the distant second, followed by Malta.
What is life like in Monaco? Certainly not what the population doomsayers would predict. The tiny country has one of the highest standards of living, quality of life and personal wealth anywhere on earth. Per capita income is the 20th highest in the world, according to the World Bank. Monaco’s population density is 2.5 times that of next ranking Singapore, which is also among the most prosperous countries, and life in Malta is equally pleasant.
The least densely populated country is Mongolia, sandwiched between China and Russia, which has a density of only five persons per square mile and a total population of 2.8 million. A mountainous and cold country, it too has a vast territory, though much smaller than its two mega-neighbors, and its partly nomadic people rank among the world’s poorest in per capita income.
Of the five most populous countries – China, India, USA, Indonesia, and Russia – India, China, and Indonesia rank 18th, 53rd, and 60th in population density, respectively. India and China each have a population exceeding one billion, but they are not nearly as crowded as other places. The USA with a fertility rate that currently is at the replacement level of 2.1, ranks number 142 on the list, while Russia, the world’s largest country in land area, with an extremely low fertility rate of 1.4 and a population already in decline, ranks as low as 177.
Although Africa is often the target of the population monitors, data do not corroborate their concerns. The United Nations population counters let it be known recently that Africa’s population had just reached the one billion mark. Even so, Africa accounts for only 15 per cent of global population, compared with 60 per cent for Asia. Among the 50 least densely populated countries, 19 are African. Of the 50 most densely populated countries only two are on the African continent: Rwanda and Burundi, and four are small island nations – São Tomé and Principe (in the Gulf of Guinea) and Mauritius, the Comoros and the Seychelles (in the Indian Ocean) which are considered part of Africa.
At a conference in New York on January 22nd, a highly acclaimed demographer who formerly headed the Population Division at the United Nations asked the hypothetical question: What would happen if all the 6.8 billion people currently on earth were to move to the United States? His answer was that the U.S. population density would become the same as that of the Netherlands! Moreover, New York, the most populous city in the United States with a population of 8.5 million has a population density of 26, 403 per square mile – less than that of Monaco.
And a final word about Monaco. Land-wise, all of Monaco can fit comfortably into the 1.32 square miles of New York City’s Central Park.
So, when we hear the cry that there are “too many people” here or there, we should ask, “Too many people for what?” It is all relative to the culture and the economy of the place. Those are the things we should be working to change, if necessary, not the number of people.
******
Comments (4)
First of all, we do not blame the problem on "having too many people" per se but the effect of having such a condition. True that it is relative but we cannot just totally ignore the effect of population on a locale's economic growth. The primary thing we have to look at here is the amount of resources available in a particular place since this will dictate the population that that area could support. The author's main example for a densely populated place is Monaco but she failed to consider the fact that Monaco's economy is booming due to the many hotels and casinos in that area. With the amount of money put in by rich tourists and richer locals, there is no doubt that Monaco could support its population. And then Mongolia... Well most of it is dry, non-arable land. Second, it's landlocked. These geographical features all prove to be major obstacles for economic growth. Hence, poverty. Using the most populous countries as example, is also not exactly valid since most of these have gargantuan land areas. Thus, the population density of that country will not be totally reflective of the actual condition in major cities where overcrowding is actually proving to be a threat on resources.
Totally ignoring "the number of people" factor is both arrogant and foolhardy. When considering global wellbeing, one cannot just tease out and eliminate a certain component just because it does not sit well with one's beliefs. More objectivity is needed in these situations. Especially since the sake of the entire world and all of humanity are at stake.
This issue is certainly being discussed by older Australians, who expect a huge, worrying influx of migrants or would-be migrants from world trouble spots. They are worried because of our water and drought problems. We're the hottest continent on earth, and despite our land size (similar to America's) we have many unpopulated desert regions. Demographic issues like these figure in long-term calculations.
The same Chicken Littles shrieking about overpopulation are busily constructing fantasies about the invasion of other planets while lacking the imagination to explore Utah.
Monaco to Mongolia: population density and prosperity
Stop the World -- I Want to Get Off” was the title of a hit Broadway play some years ago. Today, getting people off the planet is what the United Nations population control crowd would like to do in order to “save” it. After the failed Copenhagen climate control confabulation last December, they will be refocusing their strategy and may target the presumed horrors of overpopulation in the form of large concentrations of people in any given place.
The constantly updating “population clock” of the U.S. Census Bureau showed that the U.S. population was over 308 million and world population not quite 6.8 billion as I write. To the population worriers, these numbers are far too many. Population nihilists conjure up horrendous stories of hordes of people living extremely closely together in dire poverty, clamoring for scarce resources. Fewer people equals less carbon footprints, they claim.
What about “overcrowding?” China’s coercive one-child policy to explicitly curb population is well known, but is China that densely populated? Not at all, when one looks at the relevant data. While the population of China at 1.3 billion is the highest of any country in the world, China ranks only 53rd out of 192 countries in terms of population density, as can be observed in data assembled by the CIA.
This begs the question: Which is the most densely populated country on earth? It happens to be Monaco – that wonderful principality bordering France on the Mediterranean. Monaco is by far the most densely populated country, with a population of only 32,140 but a population density of 41,971 per square mile. Singapore is the distant second, followed by Malta.
What is life like in Monaco? Certainly not what the population doomsayers would predict. The tiny country has one of the highest standards of living, quality of life and personal wealth anywhere on earth. Per capita income is the 20th highest in the world, according to the World Bank. Monaco’s population density is 2.5 times that of next ranking Singapore, which is also among the most prosperous countries, and life in Malta is equally pleasant.
The least densely populated country is Mongolia, sandwiched between China and Russia, which has a density of only five persons per square mile and a total population of 2.8 million. A mountainous and cold country, it too has a vast territory, though much smaller than its two mega-neighbors, and its partly nomadic people rank among the world’s poorest in per capita income.
Of the five most populous countries – China, India, USA, Indonesia, and Russia – India, China, and Indonesia rank 18th, 53rd, and 60th in population density, respectively. India and China each have a population exceeding one billion, but they are not nearly as crowded as other places. The USA with a fertility rate that currently is at the replacement level of 2.1, ranks number 142 on the list, while Russia, the world’s largest country in land area, with an extremely low fertility rate of 1.4 and a population already in decline, ranks as low as 177.
Although Africa is often the target of the population monitors, data do not corroborate their concerns. The United Nations population counters let it be known recently that Africa’s population had just reached the one billion mark. Even so, Africa accounts for only 15 per cent of global population, compared with 60 per cent for Asia. Among the 50 least densely populated countries, 19 are African. Of the 50 most densely populated countries only two are on the African continent: Rwanda and Burundi, and four are small island nations – São Tomé and Principe (in the Gulf of Guinea) and Mauritius, the Comoros and the Seychelles (in the Indian Ocean) which are considered part of Africa.
At a conference in New York on January 22nd, a highly acclaimed demographer who formerly headed the Population Division at the United Nations asked the hypothetical question: What would happen if all the 6.8 billion people currently on earth were to move to the United States? His answer was that the U.S. population density would become the same as that of the Netherlands! Moreover, New York, the most populous city in the United States with a population of 8.5 million has a population density of 26, 403 per square mile – less than that of Monaco.
And a final word about Monaco. Land-wise, all of Monaco can fit comfortably into the 1.32 square miles of New York City’s Central Park.
So, when we hear the cry that there are “too many people” here or there, we should ask, “Too many people for what?” It is all relative to the culture and the economy of the place. Those are the things we should be working to change, if necessary, not the number of people.
Vincenzina Santoro is an international economist in New York City. She represents the American Family Association of New York at the United Nations.
******
Comments (4)
- Petunia
First of all, we do not blame the problem on "having too many people" per se but the effect of having such a condition. True that it is relative but we cannot just totally ignore the effect of population on a locale's economic growth. The primary thing we have to look at here is the amount of resources available in a particular place since this will dictate the population that that area could support. The author's main example for a densely populated place is Monaco but she failed to consider the fact that Monaco's economy is booming due to the many hotels and casinos in that area. With the amount of money put in by rich tourists and richer locals, there is no doubt that Monaco could support its population. And then Mongolia... Well most of it is dry, non-arable land. Second, it's landlocked. These geographical features all prove to be major obstacles for economic growth. Hence, poverty. Using the most populous countries as example, is also not exactly valid since most of these have gargantuan land areas. Thus, the population density of that country will not be totally reflective of the actual condition in major cities where overcrowding is actually proving to be a threat on resources.
Totally ignoring "the number of people" factor is both arrogant and foolhardy. When considering global wellbeing, one cannot just tease out and eliminate a certain component just because it does not sit well with one's beliefs. More objectivity is needed in these situations. Especially since the sake of the entire world and all of humanity are at stake.
- Dr Susan Moore
This issue is certainly being discussed by older Australians, who expect a huge, worrying influx of migrants or would-be migrants from world trouble spots. They are worried because of our water and drought problems. We're the hottest continent on earth, and despite our land size (similar to America's) we have many unpopulated desert regions. Demographic issues like these figure in long-term calculations.
- Rob De Witt
The same Chicken Littles shrieking about overpopulation are busily constructing fantasies about the invasion of other planets while lacking the imagination to explore Utah.
- George Bartholomew
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Science NOW
by Dave Mosher on April 7, 2010
Push, shout, or politely excuse yourself all you want, but those slowpokes in your way just won't budge. A new study shows a long-neglected reason why: Up to 70% of people in crowds socially glue themselves into groups of two or more, slowing down traffic. What's worse, as crowds gets denser, groups bend into anti-aerodynamic shapes that exacerbate the problem. The study may be a boon to urban planners.
Crowd physicists already understand the effects of bottlenecked entrances, dueling streams of pedestrian traffic, and even "turbulence" in shoulder-to-shoulder mobs. In the past 15 years, this work has led to decent mathematical models that architects, city planners, and pretty much anyone dealing with crowds can use to make their spaces safer and more flock-friendly.
Trouble is, the simulations treat people as independent particles—ignoring our love of sticking in groups and blabbing with friends. Small groups of pedestrians change everything, says Mehdi Moussaid, the study's leader and a behavioral scientist at the University of Toulouse in France. "We have to rebuild our knowledge about crowds."
Moussaid and colleagues videotaped two types of posses in Bordeaux, France, from above: the weekday rush and the weekend stroll. Weekday crowds turned out to be about half individuals and half groups (of two or more), whereas weekend footage showed that 70% of people were in groups. Groups of more than four were rare, leading the researchers to conclude that big groups split into smaller ones. In total, the researchers tracked and measured the intricate movements of more than 4500 French pedestrians—data they crunched to build more accurate simulations of crowds.
The researchers found that socializing groups slowed crowd traffic down by about 17%, compared with models in which pedestrian groups didn't interact. They also reveal today in PLoS ONE, that groups of three or more flex into V and U shapes as crowds get denser, with central group members falling back relative to flanking members. This adds insult to injury for pedestrian traffic that is already gummed up, Moussaid says, but it allows the chitchat to continue. "We're not so different from sheep when it comes to crowding. What sets us apart is social interaction," he says. "Walking backwards is not exactly practical, so we form V and U shapes at the cost of speed."
"I'm in discussion with planners from all over the world, ... and the realistic simulation of [group] effects is one of the hottest topics for application," says Tobias Kretz, a software engineer at PTV AG, a company in Karlsruhe, Germany, that consults planners on traffic mobility logistics. Kretz uses a program called VISSIM to model crowd traffic for his clients, and he says Moussaid's work is precisely what he's been waiting for. "We are definitely planning to include the model in ... VISSIM's simulation of pedestrians and make it globally available for traffic-planning projects."
Applications for improving pedestrian traffic on sidewalks, train platforms, malls, and other public spaces aside, Moussaid says he noticed something else during the work: Renegades who rush around lollygagging pedestrians only make things worse. "You're contributing to chaos," he says. "Crowds are self-organized systems, so when you don't cooperate, the system breaks and you slow everyone down."
by Dave Mosher on April 7, 2010
Push, shout, or politely excuse yourself all you want, but those slowpokes in your way just won't budge. A new study shows a long-neglected reason why: Up to 70% of people in crowds socially glue themselves into groups of two or more, slowing down traffic. What's worse, as crowds gets denser, groups bend into anti-aerodynamic shapes that exacerbate the problem. The study may be a boon to urban planners.
Crowd physicists already understand the effects of bottlenecked entrances, dueling streams of pedestrian traffic, and even "turbulence" in shoulder-to-shoulder mobs. In the past 15 years, this work has led to decent mathematical models that architects, city planners, and pretty much anyone dealing with crowds can use to make their spaces safer and more flock-friendly.
Trouble is, the simulations treat people as independent particles—ignoring our love of sticking in groups and blabbing with friends. Small groups of pedestrians change everything, says Mehdi Moussaid, the study's leader and a behavioral scientist at the University of Toulouse in France. "We have to rebuild our knowledge about crowds."
Moussaid and colleagues videotaped two types of posses in Bordeaux, France, from above: the weekday rush and the weekend stroll. Weekday crowds turned out to be about half individuals and half groups (of two or more), whereas weekend footage showed that 70% of people were in groups. Groups of more than four were rare, leading the researchers to conclude that big groups split into smaller ones. In total, the researchers tracked and measured the intricate movements of more than 4500 French pedestrians—data they crunched to build more accurate simulations of crowds.
The researchers found that socializing groups slowed crowd traffic down by about 17%, compared with models in which pedestrian groups didn't interact. They also reveal today in PLoS ONE, that groups of three or more flex into V and U shapes as crowds get denser, with central group members falling back relative to flanking members. This adds insult to injury for pedestrian traffic that is already gummed up, Moussaid says, but it allows the chitchat to continue. "We're not so different from sheep when it comes to crowding. What sets us apart is social interaction," he says. "Walking backwards is not exactly practical, so we form V and U shapes at the cost of speed."
"I'm in discussion with planners from all over the world, ... and the realistic simulation of [group] effects is one of the hottest topics for application," says Tobias Kretz, a software engineer at PTV AG, a company in Karlsruhe, Germany, that consults planners on traffic mobility logistics. Kretz uses a program called VISSIM to model crowd traffic for his clients, and he says Moussaid's work is precisely what he's been waiting for. "We are definitely planning to include the model in ... VISSIM's simulation of pedestrians and make it globally available for traffic-planning projects."
Applications for improving pedestrian traffic on sidewalks, train platforms, malls, and other public spaces aside, Moussaid says he noticed something else during the work: Renegades who rush around lollygagging pedestrians only make things worse. "You're contributing to chaos," he says. "Crowds are self-organized systems, so when you don't cooperate, the system breaks and you slow everyone down."
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Bupa investigative news - 16 January 2003
written by Rachel Newcombe, Bupa health news reporter
Daily commuting can prove an unpleasant chore for some people, especially when trains are delayed and overcrowded. Recent reports suggest the strain of regular journeys can have an effect on one's health, causing some people to suffer dangerous levels of stress. But is this really the case, is there anything that can be done to overcome it or is it out of our control?
KEY POINTS
Train commuting is used by thousands of people a year. In fact, figures from the Rail Passengers Council (RPC) reveal that 471,388 people made the regular daily commute to London in 2001.
Recent reports suggest that a university study found commuters had high stress levels causing the RPC to launch research into the situation.
In reality, the University of Nottingham merely reviewed existing stress research and found a lack of information about train stress. Plus, the RPC haven't yet launched a research project, but they are thinking about it.
Experts say commuting can be hard, but can be made better through positive thinking, relaxation and by taking control.
What were the headlines?
Reports relating to train and commuter stress were recently featured in a variety of newspapers and news websites, and within days, the story had made worldwide headlines in countries as far flung as Australia, India and Singapore. Typical UK headlines included, "Packed trains 'bad for health'" and "Commuting is bad for you," while in India and Singapore they wrote, "Overcrowded trains cause high stress," and "Blame them on crowded trains". The majority of reports claimed that a preliminary study carried out at the University of Nottingham had discovered many commuting train passengers were suffering from high levels of stress. As a result, it was reported that the Rail Passengers Council would be funding a much larger study into the matter.
Details of the proposed study were included, telling of how the researchers would measure travellers' heart rates and blood pressure in an attempt to be the first organisation to scientifically record the stress levels of passengers and fully assess the impact of overcrowded, busy trains.
The news stories gave the impression that the study was the result of lengthy plans, was fully finalised and had already been launched or was about to be launched.
"Of course the fact that trains can be crowded, late and not very clean is stressful. When you put people in a confined space, it's a pressure, and trains that are late or dirty add to that. Coping with it is a lot about attitude - we would all love it if all trains were clean, tidy and on time, but they aren't, so we have to adjust our attitude. If you do suffer from a stress-related illness, it's important to pinpoint exactly what it is, then concentrate on treating the condition and reducing the underlying stress." Alyssa Armstrong, Stress management consultant, Bupa Wellness
What is the bigger picture?
Despite these fascinating claims, the reality is rather different.
The Rail Passengers Council (RPC) described the newspaper and website reports as making "a mountain out of a molehill," exaggerating their comments and misreporting their actions. "We haven't actually commissioned research yet," explained a spokesperson. Neither has a full-blown study been carried out by researchers in Nottingham - they merely gathered together information about existing stress studies. "We did ask the University of Nottingham to look at any previous research on stress relating to trains and overcrowding. However, we found out that not a lot of research has been done on this issue," he said.
"We've said on record that there ought to be more studies conducted and we are considering future investigations on the topic. If we do decide to go ahead, we'd be most likely to commission the project to an outside research body. However, we are not conducting a report just yet and nothing is 100 per cent certain," the RPC's spokesperson added.
It's likely the stories arose following a recent inquiry, made up of a committee of MPs, into train overcrowding. The notion that passengers are being crammed into trains like cattle (what the papers referred to as cattle-truck syndrome) was mentioned at the inquiry by John Cartledge, deputy director of the London Transport Users Committee (LTUC). Anthony Smith, director of the RPC also shared his concerns and suggested that the situation should be changed for the sake of passengers.
The idea that commuting is a stressful factor for many people isn't entirely new however, and is backed up by some previous research. A survey produced for the International Stress Management Association's year 2000 National Stress Awareness Day found that 44 per cent of 400 people surveyed thought that rush hour the single most stressful part of their life.
A MORI poll conducted on behalf of Mitel Networks in 2001 found a similar situation, with 41 per cent of workers rating travel as the most stressful part of their job.
What does this mean?
Although the reports don't all paint exactly the same picture, the basic themes about stress are still important.
"I thought this was a really interesting story because clearly you don't have to be Einstein to work out that trains that are delayed, late and crowded are going to cause people stress," noted Bupa Wellness stress management consultant, Alyssa Armstrong.
"It just goes to show that anything on stress seems to be of public interest at the moment. It's probably because it is true that our stress levels are rising, or we perceive them to be, so we're interested to know more," she added.
According to Carole Spiers, chair of the International Stress Management Association (ISMA), "Commuting certainly puts pressure on individuals, there's no question of that." However, she believes it can be overcome. "People can control their pressure levels, so therefore it's not really the situation in itself - commuting - that's the problem, it's one's attitude towards the situation."
ACTION POINTS
If you're concerned about the effects of daily commuting or are worried about feeling stressed, the advice from experts is to not panic, as it can be avoided.
For stressed-out travellers, says Alyssa Armstrong, "The sooner you accept the service is quite likely to be poor, late and crowded, then you'll be a lot better off. You won't be disappointed and you won't feel so stressed about it."
"It's also really important to concentrate on relaxation," adds Alyssa. She believes simple exercises are ideal and can easily be carried out without anyone else knowing. The idea is to focus on your breathing by taking full relaxed breaths and then gradually relax all the muscles in your body, particularly the eyes, jaw and forehead where a lot of stress can be held. When you're fully relaxed she suggests silently saying affirmations to yourself, such as, "Even though this is uncomfortable, in the scheme of things it's really not that bad," or "I do this commute and accept it as part of a job I love."
Other practical ways of coping, suggests Carole, include, "planning your time and using it effectively to your own benefit".
If you do end up suffering from a stress-related illness the Mental Health Foundation says that it's important to seek professional help.
"Stress manifests itself in a lot of different ways and the treatments are as varied as the illnesses," says Alyssa. Types of help include stress management techniques, complementary therapies - such as counselling, hypnotherapy or aromatherapy - and, in some cases, medication.
Summary
Stress can be a key concern for commuters, but while travelling can be an unpleasant experience, it's a necessity for many. Simple changes to attitude could make a vast difference, but if stress does become a problem, professional help is at hand.
written by Rachel Newcombe, Bupa health news reporter
Daily commuting can prove an unpleasant chore for some people, especially when trains are delayed and overcrowded. Recent reports suggest the strain of regular journeys can have an effect on one's health, causing some people to suffer dangerous levels of stress. But is this really the case, is there anything that can be done to overcome it or is it out of our control?
KEY POINTS
Train commuting is used by thousands of people a year. In fact, figures from the Rail Passengers Council (RPC) reveal that 471,388 people made the regular daily commute to London in 2001.
Recent reports suggest that a university study found commuters had high stress levels causing the RPC to launch research into the situation.
In reality, the University of Nottingham merely reviewed existing stress research and found a lack of information about train stress. Plus, the RPC haven't yet launched a research project, but they are thinking about it.
Experts say commuting can be hard, but can be made better through positive thinking, relaxation and by taking control.
What were the headlines?
Reports relating to train and commuter stress were recently featured in a variety of newspapers and news websites, and within days, the story had made worldwide headlines in countries as far flung as Australia, India and Singapore. Typical UK headlines included, "Packed trains 'bad for health'" and "Commuting is bad for you," while in India and Singapore they wrote, "Overcrowded trains cause high stress," and "Blame them on crowded trains". The majority of reports claimed that a preliminary study carried out at the University of Nottingham had discovered many commuting train passengers were suffering from high levels of stress. As a result, it was reported that the Rail Passengers Council would be funding a much larger study into the matter.
Details of the proposed study were included, telling of how the researchers would measure travellers' heart rates and blood pressure in an attempt to be the first organisation to scientifically record the stress levels of passengers and fully assess the impact of overcrowded, busy trains.
The news stories gave the impression that the study was the result of lengthy plans, was fully finalised and had already been launched or was about to be launched.
"Of course the fact that trains can be crowded, late and not very clean is stressful. When you put people in a confined space, it's a pressure, and trains that are late or dirty add to that. Coping with it is a lot about attitude - we would all love it if all trains were clean, tidy and on time, but they aren't, so we have to adjust our attitude. If you do suffer from a stress-related illness, it's important to pinpoint exactly what it is, then concentrate on treating the condition and reducing the underlying stress." Alyssa Armstrong, Stress management consultant, Bupa Wellness
What is the bigger picture?
Despite these fascinating claims, the reality is rather different.
The Rail Passengers Council (RPC) described the newspaper and website reports as making "a mountain out of a molehill," exaggerating their comments and misreporting their actions. "We haven't actually commissioned research yet," explained a spokesperson. Neither has a full-blown study been carried out by researchers in Nottingham - they merely gathered together information about existing stress studies. "We did ask the University of Nottingham to look at any previous research on stress relating to trains and overcrowding. However, we found out that not a lot of research has been done on this issue," he said.
"We've said on record that there ought to be more studies conducted and we are considering future investigations on the topic. If we do decide to go ahead, we'd be most likely to commission the project to an outside research body. However, we are not conducting a report just yet and nothing is 100 per cent certain," the RPC's spokesperson added.
It's likely the stories arose following a recent inquiry, made up of a committee of MPs, into train overcrowding. The notion that passengers are being crammed into trains like cattle (what the papers referred to as cattle-truck syndrome) was mentioned at the inquiry by John Cartledge, deputy director of the London Transport Users Committee (LTUC). Anthony Smith, director of the RPC also shared his concerns and suggested that the situation should be changed for the sake of passengers.
The idea that commuting is a stressful factor for many people isn't entirely new however, and is backed up by some previous research. A survey produced for the International Stress Management Association's year 2000 National Stress Awareness Day found that 44 per cent of 400 people surveyed thought that rush hour the single most stressful part of their life.
A MORI poll conducted on behalf of Mitel Networks in 2001 found a similar situation, with 41 per cent of workers rating travel as the most stressful part of their job.
What does this mean?
Although the reports don't all paint exactly the same picture, the basic themes about stress are still important.
"I thought this was a really interesting story because clearly you don't have to be Einstein to work out that trains that are delayed, late and crowded are going to cause people stress," noted Bupa Wellness stress management consultant, Alyssa Armstrong.
"It just goes to show that anything on stress seems to be of public interest at the moment. It's probably because it is true that our stress levels are rising, or we perceive them to be, so we're interested to know more," she added.
According to Carole Spiers, chair of the International Stress Management Association (ISMA), "Commuting certainly puts pressure on individuals, there's no question of that." However, she believes it can be overcome. "People can control their pressure levels, so therefore it's not really the situation in itself - commuting - that's the problem, it's one's attitude towards the situation."
ACTION POINTS
- If you think you could have a stress-related illness, consult your GP or a stress counsellor.
- If you feel stressed while travelling, try simple relaxation techniques and positive affirmations.
- Rather than thinking negatively, try to be positive and make the most of the situation.
- Think about how you can practically use the time spent travelling - by working, reading a good book or listening to music.
If you're concerned about the effects of daily commuting or are worried about feeling stressed, the advice from experts is to not panic, as it can be avoided.
For stressed-out travellers, says Alyssa Armstrong, "The sooner you accept the service is quite likely to be poor, late and crowded, then you'll be a lot better off. You won't be disappointed and you won't feel so stressed about it."
"It's also really important to concentrate on relaxation," adds Alyssa. She believes simple exercises are ideal and can easily be carried out without anyone else knowing. The idea is to focus on your breathing by taking full relaxed breaths and then gradually relax all the muscles in your body, particularly the eyes, jaw and forehead where a lot of stress can be held. When you're fully relaxed she suggests silently saying affirmations to yourself, such as, "Even though this is uncomfortable, in the scheme of things it's really not that bad," or "I do this commute and accept it as part of a job I love."
Other practical ways of coping, suggests Carole, include, "planning your time and using it effectively to your own benefit".
If you do end up suffering from a stress-related illness the Mental Health Foundation says that it's important to seek professional help.
"Stress manifests itself in a lot of different ways and the treatments are as varied as the illnesses," says Alyssa. Types of help include stress management techniques, complementary therapies - such as counselling, hypnotherapy or aromatherapy - and, in some cases, medication.
Summary
Stress can be a key concern for commuters, but while travelling can be an unpleasant experience, it's a necessity for many. Simple changes to attitude could make a vast difference, but if stress does become a problem, professional help is at hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)