Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Pilot experimental study evaluates seating design effects on comfort in urban bus interiors, indicating improvements for inclusivity.
Accessible and comfortable public transportation is a cornerstone of sustainable and inclusive urban mobility. However, there is a knowledge gap in how interior layout influences riders’ comfort perception under constant occupancy conditions. We conducted a pilot laboratory experiment in Valparaíso, Chile using a full-scale urban bus mock-up. Twenty-five participants each experienced four seating scenarios (yielding 100 total observations per outcome) that varied seat pitch (20, 30, 45 cm) and seat orientation (forward-facing vs. side-facing). Cumulative link mixed models were used to estimate seat pitch and orientation effects on the comfort outcomes, with participant-specific random intercepts. Increased seat pitch dramatically improved comfort ratings (e.g., virtually no participants felt comfortable at 20 cm, whereas nearly all did at 45 cm). Side-facing bench seating (longitudinal orientation) yielded significantly higher comfort, legroom, and ease-of-movement ratings than the forward-facing configuration at ~30 cm pitch (p < 0.001). Within the tested mock-up conditions, the results suggest that seat pitch is a major driver of perceived comfort and in-vehicle usability, and that a side-facing bench layout (tested at ~30 cm spacing) can improve perceived spaciousness relative to forward-facing seating. Because this is a small, non-probability pilot sample and a partial factorial design, these findings should be considered preliminary design sensitivities that warrant validation in larger, in-service studies before informing fleet-wide standards.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fukushi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: