# Analyzing the Occupied Space of Passengers with Reduced Mobility in Metro Station Platforms: An Experimental Approach Using a Tracking System

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

^{2}/passenger, represented as a polygon. In addition, when passengers started to walk, the space used increased due to limb movement. In the alighting process, passengers with reduced mobility used almost twice the space required for the boarding process due to the relatively larger platform space occupied as each passenger alights and walks away, whereas when boarding, each passenger has less space to share with the other people waiting for the train to arrive or for the doors to open. These results could help practitioners improve the design of the platform or implement control measures, such as adding waiting areas for those passengers with reduced mobility. Further research is needed regarding other types of stations and density situations.

## 1. Introduction

^{2}, including a body depth of 50 cm and a shoulder breadth of 60 cm. However, when the pedestrian starts to walk, this area increases to 0.75 m

^{2}because there is additional space used for the movement of legs and arms [4].

^{2}/passenger (i.e., 6 passengers/m

^{2}) during peak hours, affecting passenger comfort and safety. Consequently, the same authors [5] suggest that the optimal density should be 3 passengers/m

^{2}.

## 2. Existing Studies on Passenger Space in Metro Stations

^{2}. Other authors suggest that this phenomenon is caused because pedestrians compete for their space, and they walk in groups (e.g., boarding or alighting) in which each pedestrian follows the pedestrian that is in front of them [32,33,34]. In this sense, Willis et al. [19] reported that a single pedestrian walks faster than a pedestrian with one or two companions. Moussaïd et al. [35] reported that groups are commonly composed of 2–4 members, and that there is an impact of the group on the crowd; for example, at low-density, members of the group tend to walk side-by-side, reaching a high speed; however, when density increases, speed decreases, and group forms “U” or “V” walking patterns, in which “V” patterns are the most efficient because of their aerodynamic shape.

## 3. Experimental Method

^{2}), while the train had the same length as the platform and a width of 2.5 m.

^{2}, which is closer to the optimal condition in the Santiago metro, according to Tirachini et al. [5]. From the indicated density, the inverse can be applied, obtaining an average space available per person of 0.30 m

^{2}/passenger.

- Firstly, among the participants, a 24-year-old young man was selected to move around with a pram.
- Secondly, an older adult, over 60 years of age with multiple complications, was selected. He presented a hearing problem and hemiparesis, which consists of an alteration of movement and sensitivity that affects one side of the body, with the upper and lower extremities being the most affected. In addition, he had a deficit in coordination and balance, among other motor control problems of the body, while still able to walk.
- Thirdly, a young 24-year old man who used a wheelchair was chosen. He uses the wheelchair to move throughout his daily life, as he suffers from spastic diplegia, which consists of loss of strength in the lower limbs, accompanied by tension and rigidity in the musculature. The wheelchair model that he used was characterized by being light and self-propelled, which facilitates handling.

^{2}/passenger). However, if the density increases, the space used by each passenger is reduced. Therefore, it is necessary to define the boundary of the space occupied by each person in the presence of other passengers by using different criteria (the same criteria is used in the case of passengers without reduced mobility):

- The first criterion to consider passenger A as the boundary of the space used by passenger B was that passenger B should have direct visual contact with passenger A, without interference from another passenger. For this, the angle between a pair of passengers closer to passenger A must be greater than 5 degrees. For example, in Figure 2a, the angle between passenger N°2 and passenger N°3 is equal to 5 degrees, and it is possible for the passenger N°1 (with reduced mobility) to have direct full visual contact with passenger N°3, and therefore passenger N°3 is considered as a boundary of the area used by the passenger with reduced mobility.
- The second criterion establishes the distance between passengers. To be considered as a boundary of the space used by a passenger, a maximum distance between passengers of 75 cm was assumed. For example, in Figure 2b, a pair of passengers (passengers N°2 and N°3) was considered as the boundary of passenger N°1, in which a triangular area was generated between them. In this case, an average body depth of 25 cm was assumed, following the methods of [2,3], and therefore, the distance between the shoulders of passengers is taken to be 50 cm.

- x
_{i}is the cartesian coordinate on the x-axis of participant i; - y
_{i}is the cartesian coordinate on the y-axis of participant i; - x
_{R}is the cartesian coordinate on the x-axis of the participant with reduced mobility; - y
_{R}is the cartesian coordinate on the y-axis of the participant with reduced mobility.

## 4. Results

#### 4.1. Space Used by Passengers Waiting to Board the Train

^{2}/pass to 1.70 m

^{2}/pass, with an average of 1.42 m

^{2}/pass. The standard deviation is 0.26 m

^{2}/passenger. It is interesting to note that the front distance is smaller than the rear distance, which could be due to passengers keeping a greater distance from the wheelchair, as the user needs more space to maneuver (e.g., make turns or stop before boarding the train). This is represented by distance d, that has an average value of around 70 cm.

^{2}/pass) represents 5 times the average value using Fruin’s method [2] (0.30 m

^{2}/passenger, or level of service D). This average value using Fruin’s method is obtained as the ratio between the platform area of 6.3 m

^{2}and 21 passengers, the total number of passengers in the experiments. This result is relevant, as it shows that a wheelchair user needs more space to move on the platform compared to the rest of the users.

^{2}/passenger. This is because the pram needs more space to maneuver, or requires assistance from a passenger.

^{2}/passenger) is around 6 times the average space, using Fruin’s method (0.3 m

^{2}/passenger). Therefore, the space occupied is determined by the type of passengers that wait to board the train. Consequently, greater spacing is generated, and therefore, the average distance between passengers and a passenger with reduced mobility increases.

^{2}/passenger. For example, in the case of the wheelchair user, the difference is 23%, while in the case of the passenger with a pram, the difference is 35%. These variations in space use have statistical significance according to the Mann–Whitney test. Moreover, the passengers surrounding the elderly person exhibited a smaller distance compared to the wheelchair user (a reduction of 12%). Moreover, the space used by the elderly person (1.1 m

^{2}/passenger) is about 3 times the average space using Fruin’s Level of Service [2] (0.3 m

^{2}/passenger).

^{2}/pass to 1.09 m

^{2}/passenger, with an average of 0.94 m

^{2}/pass. Therefore, the space occupied by a passenger with a pram is 81% greater than that occupied by a passenger without reduced mobility. In the case of a wheelchair user, this figure is 51%. However, the case of the elderly person reached the smallest difference of 17%. Therefore, the results confirm that if the passenger with reduced mobility needs assistance or requires a mobility aid, then a bigger space is occupied on the platform.

#### 4.2. Space Used by Passengers Boarding and Alighting

^{2}/passenger, which is comparable to the space occupied by a passenger using a pram who is waiting to board the train (see Table 2). In addition, the average space occupied by a passenger without reduced mobility boarding the train is 80% greater than the space occupied by the same type of passenger waiting to board the train. In other words, when passengers are moving, they need more space for their legs and arms, which is in agreement with the study reported in [4].

^{2}/passenger) is almost twice the average space as in the boarding process (1.71 m

^{2}/passenger). This statistical difference may be explained by passengers being able to move along the platform to exit the experiment mock-up, reaching a lower density. However, in the boarding process, passengers were restricted by the train’s structure (i.e., walls and train doors). This can also be noticed in the distance d to the passenger without reduced mobility in which a value of 112.1 cm is reached (45% more than the distance as per the boarding process).

## 5. Conclusions and Discussion

^{2}/pass. This leads us to think that for similar examples of personal occupation (e.g., people with a suitcase, a guide dog, or a cane, or those accompanied by a child, etc.), there could be a pattern that determines that the area needed to move varies proportionally to the difference in the occupied area.

^{2}).

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- RSSB. Management of On-Train Crowding Final Report; Rail Safety and Standards Board: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Fruin, J.J. Designing for pedestrians: A level-of-service concept. Highw. Res. Rec.
**1971**, 377, 1–15. [Google Scholar] - Still, K. Introduction to Crowd Science; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Pushkarev, B.; Zupan, J. Urban Space for Pedestrians; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Tirachini, A.; Hurtubia, R.; Dekker, T.; Daziano, R.A. Estimation of crowding discomfort in public transport: Results from Santiago de Chile. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.
**2017**, 103, 311–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fernandes, V.A.; Tirado, H.M. Sustainable Mobility in Valparaíso, Chile, and Its Relationship with Topography and Socio-Spatial Conditions. J. Sustain. Sci. Manag.
**2021**, 16, 122–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Unsworth, C.; So, M.H.; Chua, J.; Gudimetla, P.; Naweed, A. A systematic review of public transport accessibility for people using mobility devices. Disabil. Rehabil.
**2021**, 43, 2253–2267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - The World Bank. El Transporte Público, Herramienta Para Reducir la Pobreza en Latinoamérica. 2016. Available online: https://www.bancomundial.org/es/news/feature/2014/09/16/transporte-publico-herramienta-para-reducir-la-pobreza-en-latinoamerica (accessed on 26 December 2022).
- SENEDIS. Caracterización de la Dependencia en las Personas en Situación de Discapacidad a Partir del II Estudio Nacional de la Discapacidad; Discapacidad y Dependencia: Santiago, Chile, 2017; Available online: https://www.senadis.gob.cl/descarga/i/5058 (accessed on 26 December 2022).
- TRB. Pedestrian and Bicycle Concept. In Highway Capacity Manual; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2010; Chapter 18. [Google Scholar]
- Carey, M.; Kwieciński, A. Stochastic approximation to the effect of headways on knock-on delays of trains. Transp. Res. Part B
**1994**, 28, 251–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gérin-Lajoie, M.; Richards, C.L.; McFadyen, B.J. The negotiation of stationary and moving obstructions during walking: Anticipatory locomotor adaptations and preservation of personal space. Mot. Control
**2005**, 9, 242–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gérin-Lajoie, M.; Richards, C.L.; Fung, J.; McFadyen, B.J. Characteristics of personal space during obstacle circumvention in physical and virtual environments. Gait Posture
**2008**, 27, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Templer, J.A. Human territoriality and space needs on stairs. In The Staircase: Studies of Hazards, Falls, and Safer Design; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992; pp. 61–70. [Google Scholar]
- Sinha, S.P.; Nayyar, P. Crowding effects of density and personal space requirements among older people: The impact of self-control and social support. J. Soc. Psychol.
**2000**, 140, 721–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Webb, J.D.; Weber, M.J. Influence of sensor abilities on the interpersonal distance of the elderly. Environ. Behav.
**2003**, 35, 695–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sakuma, T.; Mukai, T.; Kuriyama, S. Psychological model for animating crowded pedestrians. J. Vis. Comput. Animat.
**2005**, 16, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Daamen, W.; Hoogendoorn, S. Controlled experiments to derive walking behaviour. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res.
**2003**, 3, 39–59. [Google Scholar] - Willis, A.; Gjersoe, N.; Havard, C.; Kerridge, J.; Kukla, R. Human movement behaviour in urban spaces: Implications for the design and modelling of effective pedestrian environments. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci.
**2004**, 31, 805–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Chattaraj, U.; Seyfried, A.; Chakroborty, P. Comparison of pedestrian fundamental diagram across cultures. Adv. Complex Syst.
**2009**, 12, 393–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hall, E. The Hidden Dimension; Doubleday: Garden City, NY, USA, 1966; Volume 14, pp. 103–124. [Google Scholar]
- Sommer, R. Personal Space: The Behavioral Bases of Design; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1969. [Google Scholar]
- Schmidt, D.E.; Keating, J.P. Human crowding and personal control: An integration of the research. Psychol. Bull.
**1979**, 86, 680–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Goffman, E. Relationship in Public; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Wolff, M. Notes on the behaviour of pedestrians. In People in Places: The Sociology of the Familiar; Birenbaum, A., Ed.; Nelson: London, UK, 1973; pp. 35–48. [Google Scholar]
- Sobel, R.S.; Lillith, N. Determinants of nonstationary personal space invasion. J. Soc. Psychol.
**1975**, 97, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Collett, O.; Marsh, P. Patterns of public behaviour: Collision avoidance on a pedestrian crossing. In Nonverbal Communication, Interaction, and Gesture: Selections from Semiotica; Kendon, A., Ed.; Mouton: The Hague, The Netherlands, 1981; pp. 199–217. [Google Scholar]
- Helbing, D.; Buzna, L.; Johansson, A. Self-organized pedestrian crowd dynamics: Experiments, simulation, and design solutions. Transp. Sci.
**2005**, 39, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kitazawa, K.; Fujiyama, T. Pedestrian vision and collision avoidance behavior: Investigation of the information process space of pedestrians using an eye tracker. In Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 95–108. [Google Scholar]
- Fujiyama, T.; Tyler, N. Bidirectional collision-avoidance behaviour of pedestrians on stairs. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des.
**2009**, 36, 128–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Oeding, D. Verkehrsbelastung und Dimensionierung von Gehwegen und anderen Anlagen des Fussgängerverkehrs. In Strassenbau und Strassenverkehrstechnik; Helf 22: Bonn, Germany, 1963. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Aveni, A. The Not-So-Lonely Crowd: Friendship Groups in Collective Behavior. Sociometry
**1977**, 40, 96–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Coleman, J.S.; James, J. The equilibrium size distribution of freely-forming groups. Sociometry
**1961**, 24, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - James, J. The Distribution of Free-Forming Small Group Size. Am. Sociol. Rev.
**1953**, 18, 569–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Moussaïd, M.; Perozo, N.; Garnier, S.; Helbing, D.; Theraulaz, G. The walking behaviour of pedestrian social groups and its impact on crowd dynamics. PLoS ONE
**2010**, 5, e10047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Seriani, S.; Fujiyama, T. Experimental study for estimating the passenger space at metro stations with platform edge doors. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board
**2018**, 2672, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Valdivieso, J.; Seriani, S. Study of the Space Occupied by a Wheelchair User at Metro de Santiago Platforms by Laboratory Experiments. J. Adv. Transp.
**2021**, 2021, 1789241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Boltes, M.; Seyfried, A. Collecting Pedestrian Trajectories. Neurocomputing
**2013**, 100, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**Platform used in the experiments at the laboratory in which passengers are detected (shown in green circle) and labeled (in red) from passenger N°1 to passenger N°n, where n is the last passenger around passenger N°1: (

**a**) passengers waiting to board the train; (

**b**) passengers boarding the train; (

**c**) passengers alighting the train.

**Figure 2.**Criteria a passenger with the reduced mobility (labeled as passenger N°1) and those passengers around him/her (labeled as passengers N°2 to N°5): (

**a**) according to the angle between them; (

**b**) regarding the distance (in cm) between them.

**Figure 3.**Example of the method used to identify a passenger with reduced mobility (passenger N°1) and those passengers around him/her (passengers N°2 to N°10): (

**a**) passenger N°1 (pushing a pram) surrounded by 9 passengers (passengers N°2 to N°10); (

**b**) dimensions in cm of the area used by the passenger N°1, who is located at (0,0).

**Figure 4.**Bound graph represent the space used by a passenger with reduced mobility: (

**a**) user with a pram; (

**b**) wheelchair user. Coordinates are in cm.

Runs | Occupied Space (m^{2}/pass) | Rear Distance (cm) | Lateral Right Distance (cm) | Lateral Left Distance (cm) | Front Distance (cm) | Distance d to the Passenger with Reduced Mobility (cm) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 1.65 | 59.52 | 43.69 | 34.31 | 57.68 | 78.94 |

2 | 1.65 | 78.02 | 48.82 | 19.01 | 55.29 | 66.97 |

3 | 1.67 | 89.81 | 45.94 | 24.16 | 48.92 | 64.61 |

4 | 1.47 | 62.70 | 53.61 | 15.73 | 53.33 | 75.77 |

5 | 1.03 | 42.02 | 46.39 | 27.96 | 52.52 | 67.17 |

6 | 1.55 | 68.14 | 37.86 | 45.18 | 43.79 | 67.59 |

7 | 1.50 | 53.30 | 46.56 | 46.69 | 45.55 | 75.81 |

8 | 1.70 | 84.68 | 31.89 | 23.46 | 60.54 | 77.65 |

9 | 1.27 | 53.26 | 36.37 | 36.18 | 52.19 | 73.19 |

10 | 1.08 | 57.26 | 61.66 | 14.32 | 41.52 | 73.24 |

11 | 1.09 | 57.16 | 29.87 | 23.60 | 56.32 | 68.56 |

Average | 1.42 | 64.17 | 43.88 | 28.23 | 51.60 | 71.77 |

Standard Deviation | 0.26 | 14.61 | 9.41 | 11.06 | 6.03 | 4.96 |

Runs | Occupied Space (m^{2}/pass) | Rear Distance (cm) | Lateral Right Distance (cm) | Lateral Left Distance (cm) | Front Distance (cm) | Distance d to the Passenger with Reduced Mobility (cm) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 1.77 | 23.11 | 58.51 | 38.92 | 91.42 | 92.53 |

2 | 2.19 | 58.75 | 37.78 | 77.76 | 50.76 | 70.83 |

3 | 2.04 | 48.58 | 49.66 | 65.67 | 63.05 | 88.97 |

4 | 1.40 | 49.68 | 36.97 | 61.82 | 42.44 | 77.28 |

5 | 1.10 | 54.12 | 20.09 | 76.08 | 25.41 | 49.99 |

6 | 1.22 | 53.27 | 37.55 | 57.48 | 35.17 | 59.83 |

7 | 1.95 | 28.87 | 66.76 | 46.82 | 59.18 | 81.22 |

8 | 1.63 | 49.60 | 71.23 | 61.76 | 28.83 | 82.04 |

9 | 1.50 | 43.95 | 56.96 | 68.97 | 24.96 | 80.38 |

10 | 2.08 | 32.86 | 40.11 | 77.57 | 61.44 | 83.04 |

11 | 1.86 | 55.84 | 42.73 | 91.97 | 34.28 | 72.25 |

Average | 1.70 | 45.33 | 47.12 | 65.89 | 46.99 | 76.21 |

Standard Deviation | 0.37 | 11.84 | 15.10 | 15.05 | 20.51 | 12.47 |

Runs | Occupied Space (m^{2}/pass) | Rear Distance (cm) | Lateral Right distance (cm) | Lateral Left Distance (cm) | Front Distance (cm) | Distance d to the Passenger with Reduced Mobility (cm) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 1.04 | 52.95 | 4.79 | 65.40 | 43.88 | 72.38 |

2 | 0.55 | 55.37 | 30.50 | 30.14 | 2.69 | 65.25 |

3 | 1.15 | 50.07 | 45.69 | 43.65 | 48.08 | 60.89 |

4 | 0.96 | 44.58 | 44.60 | 46.67 | 25.25 | 61.76 |

5 | 1.53 | 49.37 | 47.74 | 54.59 | 43.86 | 53.44 |

6 | 1.28 | 55.64 | 67.08 | 43.28 | 19.08 | 79.96 |

7 | 1.51 | 54.77 | 68.63 | 47.31 | 29.46 | 60.93 |

8 | 1.43 | 54.08 | 59.35 | 49.16 | 25.72 | 53.89 |

9 | 1.14 | 58.88 | 22.07 | 50.50 | 32.72 | 74.06 |

10 | 0.49 | 41.17 | 24.44 | 32.50 | 23.04 | 50.41 |

Average | 1.11 | 51.69 | 41.49 | 46.32 | 29.38 | 63.30 |

Standard Deviation | 0.36 | 5.45 | 20.85 | 10.15 | 13.62 | 9.69 |

Runs | Occupied Space (m^{2}/pass) | Rear Distance (cm) | Lateral Right Distance (cm) | Lateral Left Distance (cm) | Front Distance (cm) | Distance d to the Passenger without Reduced Mobility (cm) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 1.02 | 53.39 | 35.80 | 41.25 | 40.55 | 61.81 |

2 | 0.70 | 41.60 | 46.51 | 23.59 | 31.94 | 54.12 |

3 | 1.00 | 51.96 | 38.93 | 43.83 | 32.03 | 59.87 |

4 | 1.08 | 42.47 | 46.45 | 45.94 | 32.92 | 61.37 |

5 | 1.00 | 46.33 | 49.74 | 41.53 | 27.54 | 57.14 |

6 | 1.03 | 35.51 | 46.06 | 38.49 | 39.69 | 59.40 |

7 | 0.89 | 40.54 | 41.37 | 45.11 | 28.96 | 58.80 |

8 | 1.09 | 42.39 | 50.88 | 36.45 | 37.47 | 63.68 |

9 | 0.83 | 35.87 | 35.68 | 51.51 | 27.55 | 51.83 |

10 | 0.76 | 41.89 | 39.52 | 43.17 | 22.59 | 52.06 |

11 | 0.91 | 44.70 | 38.21 | 40.31 | 28.42 | 56.05 |

Average | 0.94 | 43.33 | 42.65 | 41.02 | 31.79 | 57.83 |

Standard Deviation | 0.13 | 5.64 | 5.47 | 7.04 | 5.59 | 3.96 |

Runs | Occupied Space (m^{2}/pass) | Rear Distance (cm) | Lateral Right Distance (cm) | Lateral Left Distance (cm) | Front Distance (cm) | Distance d to the Passenger without Reduced Mobility (cm) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 1.57 | 57.22 | 46.17 | 50.91 | 37.39 | 76.86 |

2 | 1.76 | 70.45 | 62.51 | 41.78 | 41.58 | 83.37 |

3 | 1.65 | 71.16 | 59.53 | 45.50 | 39.58 | 73.12 |

4 | 2.30 | 81.03 | 59.60 | 58.49 | 37.64 | 79.23 |

5 | 1.93 | 61.77 | 68.93 | 53.35 | 45.57 | 76.26 |

6 | 1.91 | 60.54 | 67.92 | 54.44 | 40.89 | 80.39 |

7 | 1.72 | 51.06 | 67.20 | 48.28 | 42.95 | 78.93 |

8 | 1.37 | 47.58 | 49.27 | 50.01 | 50.97 | 69.51 |

9 | 1.35 | 50.21 | 51.70 | 49.67 | 44.22 | 68.42 |

10 | 1.56 | 50.08 | 67.95 | 67.09 | 45.27 | 79.01 |

11 | 1.65 | 55.63 | 67.45 | 50.17 | 41.19 | 79.55 |

Average | 1.71 | 59.70 | 60.75 | 51.79 | 42.48 | 76.79 |

Standard Deviation | 0.61 | 19.44 | 16.36 | 16.43 | 9.18 | 13.41 |

Runs | Occupied Space (m^{2}/pass) | Rear Distance (cm) | Lateral Right Distance (cm) | Lateral Left Distance (cm) | Front Distance (cm) | Distance d to the Passenger without Reduced Mobility (cm) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 2.63 | 103.77 | 83.53 | 72.39 | 36.05 | 102.74 |

2 | 3.67 | 98.95 | 78.17 | 87.29 | 55.84 | 97.22 |

3 | 3.64 | 102.55 | 70.56 | 97.20 | 58.82 | 125.53 |

4 | 4.06 | 106.38 | 76.20 | 82.59 | 60.92 | 118.45 |

5 | 3.65 | 125.99 | 85.74 | 84.51 | 42.23 | 104.22 |

6 | 4.60 | 125.06 | 100.34 | 69.43 | 60.88 | 109.80 |

7 | 4.17 | 108.96 | 101.21 | 60.18 | 62.79 | 122.18 |

8 | 3.76 | 104.91 | 105.82 | 68.31 | 55.48 | 105.78 |

9 | 3.49 | 117.09 | 91.05 | 65.24 | 53.17 | 112.20 |

10 | 2.91 | 100.40 | 89.71 | 54.75 | 48.57 | 115.21 |

11 | 4.52 | 114.16 | 125.03 | 64.19 | 47.16 | 119.81 |

Average | 3.74 | 109.84 | 91.58 | 73.28 | 52.90 | 112.10 |

Standard Deviation | 1.09 | 24.23 | 28.29 | 25.46 | 20.66 | 18.51 |

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Seriani, S.; Guzman, P.; Fujiyama, T.
Analyzing the Occupied Space of Passengers with Reduced Mobility in Metro Station Platforms: An Experimental Approach Using a Tracking System. *Appl. Sci.* **2023**, *13*, 1895.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031895

**AMA Style**

Seriani S, Guzman P, Fujiyama T.
Analyzing the Occupied Space of Passengers with Reduced Mobility in Metro Station Platforms: An Experimental Approach Using a Tracking System. *Applied Sciences*. 2023; 13(3):1895.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031895

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Seriani, Sebastian, Pablo Guzman, and Taku Fujiyama.
2023. "Analyzing the Occupied Space of Passengers with Reduced Mobility in Metro Station Platforms: An Experimental Approach Using a Tracking System" *Applied Sciences* 13, no. 3: 1895.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031895