, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 921–933 | Cite as

The association between light rail transit and satisfactions with travel and life: evidence from Twin Cities

  • Jason CaoEmail author


Rail transit has been touted as a way to enhance livability, quality of life or satisfaction with life (SWL). However, the connections between transit and SWL are mainly conceptual, and little empirical evidence is available in the literature. Using the Hiawatha line in Minneapolis as a case, this study develops structural equations models on a 2011 dataset to explore the impacts of light rail transit (LRT) on SWL. We corroborate that the Hiawatha LRT positively influences SWL through enhanced access to different activities, and through improved transit service, enhanced accessibility, and their impacts on satisfaction with travel. The size of the impacts is marginal.


Subjective well-being Quality of life Land use Sustainability Travel Light rail transit 



The study was funded by the Transitway Impact Research Program (TIRP) in the Twin Cities. Jessica Schoner helped with survey administration.


  1. Banister, D.: Sustainable urban development and transport—a Eurovision for 2020. Transport Rev. 20(1), 113–130 (2000). doi: 10.1080/014416400295365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basmajian, C.: “Turn on the radio, bust out a song”: the experience of driving to work. Transportation 37(1), 59–84 (2010). doi: 10.1007/s11116-009-9220-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Akiva, M., Morikawa, T.: Comparing ridership attraction of rail and bus. Transp. Policy 9(2), 107–116 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergstad, C., Gamble, A., Gärling, T., Hagman, O., Polk, M., Ettema, D., Friman, M., Olsson, L.: Subjective well-being related to satisfaction with daily travel. Transportation 38(1), 1–15 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s11116-010-9283-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buckeye, K., Munnich, L.: Value pricing outreach and education: key steps in reaching high-occupancy toll lane consensus in Minnesota. J. Transp. Res. Board 1864, 16–21. doi: 10.3141/1864-03 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. Buckeye, K.R.: Innovations on managed lanes in Minnesota. Public Works Manag. Policy 17(2), 152–169 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byrne, B.M.: Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Multivariate Applications Series, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  8. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P., Handy, S.: Do changes in neighborhood characteristics lead to changes in travel behavior? A structural equations modeling approach. Transportation 34(5), 535–556 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cervero, R., Murphy, S., Ferrell, C., Goguts, N., Tsai, Y.-H., Arrington, G.B., Boroski, J., Smith-Heimer, J., Golem, R., Peninger, P., Nakajima, E., Chui, E., Dunphy, R., Myers, M., McKay, S.: Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (2004)Google Scholar
  10. Chapin, T.S.: From growth controls, to comprehensive planning, to smart growth: planning’s emerging fourth wave. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 78(1), 5–15 (2012). doi: 10.1080/01944363.2011.645273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CTOD: Transit Corridors and TOD: Connecting the Dots. Reconnecting America’s Center for Transit-Oriented Development, Oakland (2010)Google Scholar
  12. de Groot, J.I.M., Steg, L.: The role of value orientations in evaluating quality of life consequences of a transport pricing policy. Transp. Res. D Transport Environ. 11(2), 160–165 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delbosc, A., Currie, G.: Transport problems that matter—social and psychological links to transport disadvantage. J. Transp. Geogr. 19(1), 170–178 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., Griffin, S.: The satisfaction with life scale. J. Pers. Assess. 49(1), 71–75 (1985). doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ettema, D., Gärling, T., Olsson, L.E., Friman, M.: Out-of-home activities, daily travel, and subjective well-being. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 44(9), 723–732 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fan, Y., Guthrie, A., Levinson, D.: Impact of light rail implementation on labor market accessibility: a transportation equity perspective. J. Transport Land Use 5(3), 28–39 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. Forward, S.: State of the Art Report On Life Quality Assessment in the Field of Transport and Mobility. Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Linoeping (2003)Google Scholar
  18. Giuliano, G.: Land use impacts of transportation investments: highway and transit. In: Hanson, S., Giuliano, G. (eds.) The Geography of Urban Transportation, pp. 237–273. The Guilford Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  19. Kahn, R.L., Juster, F.T.: Well-being: concepts and measures. J. Soc. Issues 58(4), 627–644 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Litman, T.: Impacts of rail transit on the performance of a transportation system. J. Transp. Res. Board 1930, 21–29 (2005). doi: 10.3141/1930-03 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lois, D., López-Sáez, M.: The relationship between instrumental, symbolic and affective factors as predictors of car use: A structural equation modeling approach. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 43(9–10), 790–799 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mokhtarian, P.L.: Travel as a desired end, not just a means. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 39(2–3), 93–96 (2005)Google Scholar
  23. Mueller, R.O.: Basic Principles of Structural Equation Modeling: An Introduction to LISREL and EQS. Springer, New York (1996). (Springer texts in statistics)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Sullivan, S., Morrall, J.: Walking distances to and from light-rail transit stations. J. Transp. Res. Board 1538, 19–26 (1996). doi: 10.3141/1538-03 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Poortinga, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C.: Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior. Environ. Behavior 36(1), 70–93 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roseland, M.: Dimensions of the eco-city. Cities 14(4), 197–202 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Salomon, I., Mokhtarian, P.L.: What happens when mobility-inclined market segments face accessibility-enhancing policies? Transp. Res. D Transport Environ. 3(3), 129–140 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shafer, C.S., Lee, B.K., Turner, S.: A tale of three greenway trails: user perceptions related to quality of life. Landsc. Urban Plann. 49(3–4), 163–178 (2000)Google Scholar
  29. Sommer, B.B., Sommer, R.: A practical guide to behavioral research: tools and techniques, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  30. Steg, L., Gifford, R.: Sustainable transportation and quality of life. J. Transp. Geogr. 13(1), 59–69 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. TCRP: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Transit Cooperative Research Program. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations