ArticlePloS one2024
Investigating the potential of aggregated mobility indices for inferring public transport ridership changes.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aggregated mobility indices (AMIs) derived from information and communications technologies have recently emerged as a new data source for transport planners, with particular value during periods of major disturbances or when other sources of mobility data are scarce. Particularly, indices estimated on the aggregate user concentration in public transport (PT) hubs based on GPS of smartphones, or the number of PT navigation queries in smartphone applications have been used as proxies for the temporal changes in PT aggregate demand levels. Despite the popularity of these indices, it remains largely untested whether they can provide a reasonable characterisation of actual PT ridership changes. This study aims to address this research gap by investigating the reliability of using AMIs for inferring PT ridership changes by offering the first rigorous benchmarking between them and ridership data derived from smart card validations and tickets. For the comparison, we use monthly and daily ridership data from 12 cities worldwide and two AMIs shared globally by Google and Apple during periods of major change in 2020-22. We also explore the complementary role of AMIs on traditional ridership data. The comparative analysis revealed that the index based on human mobility (Google) exhibited a notable alignment with the trends reported by ridership data and performed better than the one based on PT queries (Apple). Our results differ from previous studies by showing that AMIs performed considerably better for similar periods. This finding highlights the huge relevance of dealing with methodological differences in datasets before comparing. Moreover, we demonstrated that AMIs can also complement data from smart card records when ticketing is missing or of doubtful quality. The outcomes of this study are particularly relevant for cities of developing countries, which usually have limited data to analyse their PT ridership, and AMIs may offer an attractive alternative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.