English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Smart card datasets in the public transit network provide opportunities to analyse the behaviour of passengers as individuals or as groups. Studying passenger behaviour in both spatial and temporal space is important because it helps to find the pattern of mobility in the network. Also, clustering passengers based on their trips regarding both spatial and temporal similarity measures can improve group-based transit services such as Demand-Responsive Transit (DRT). Clustering passengers based on their trips can be carried out by different methods, which are investigated in this paper. This paper sheds light on differences between sequential and combined spatial and temporal clustering alternatives in the public transit network. Firstly, the spatial and temporal similarity measures between passengers are defined. Secondly, the passengers are clustered using a hierarchical agglomerative algorithm by three different methods including sequential two-step spatial-temporal (S-T), sequential two-step temporal-spatial (T-S), and combined one-step spatiotemporal (ST) clustering. Thirdly, the characteristics of the resultant clusters are described and compared using maps, numerical and statistical values, cross correlation techniques, and temporal density plots. Furthermore, some passengers are selected to show how differently the three methods put the passengers in groups. Four days of smart card data comprising 80,000 passengers in Brisbane, Australia, are selected to compare these methods. The analyses show that while the sequential methods (S-T and T-S) discover more diverse spatial and temporal patterns in the network, the ST method entails more robust groups (higher spatial and temporal similarity values inside the groups).

Comparing Sequential with Combined Spatiotemporal Clustering of Passenger Trips in the Public Transit Network Using Smart Card Data