## 5 Results and Discussion
### Visual Identification of Locations Requiring Improvements in Consideration and Footfall  
The above joint demand model, based on both consideration and footfall, can be used by transit agencies to more precisely identify regions or stations requiring improvement, as well as the outcomes that need improvement (consideration, footfall, or both). In the previous section, the model's effectiveness in capturing the influence of key factors on consideration and footfall was demonstrated. Building on these insights, the model is applied to estimate station-level consideration probabilities (aggregated from individual responses) and hourly footfall. To systematically classify stations, thresholds are established to categorize both footfall and consideration probability into low, medium, and high levels. Specifically, the thresholds for daily footfall are set at 4900 and 6900, while the thresholds for consideration probability are 0.277 and 0.374. These cut-off values are based on the 33 rd and 66 th percentiles of the respective distributions, ensuring a balanced classification across stations. Each station is then jointly classified based on its ridership level and consideration probability, resulting in an overall demand profile characterized by the combined levels of  
Figure 9: Change in the aggregate demand measures due to the proposed and benchmark models.  
these two dimensions, which reflects both the potential and realized demand measures. This classification allows for targeted policy interventions, enabling transit agencies to design strategies tailored to the specific needs of each station category.  
Accordingly, a two-dimensional metro demand profile is determined and illustrated in Figure 10 using visual color coding. In this figure, levels 1-3 represent cases where ridership is low, but consideration is low, medium, and high, respectively. Levels 4 and 5 are cases with a medium ridership level, and consideration levels fall into the low and medium categories. These five levels are chosen as priority locations and indicate stations requiring improvement to enhance overall usage levels by improving upon both the potential intent to use as well as the observed extent of use. The color coding of levels 1-5 on this figure provides a convenient visual approach to identify which stations require improvement in what dimension and also gives an overview of the heterogeneity of the overall demand across stations.  
Interestingly, Figure 10 shows that some stations have high ridership and low consideration (level 7), whereas others show low ridership and high consideration (level 3). These contrasting trends may be attributed to the following reasons. Some stations display high  
Figure 10: Spatial plot depicting distribution of metro ridership and train consideration.  
consideration and low ridership, i.e., they may attract a greater number of passengers who may not use it repeatedly, probably due to the metro competing against frequent, cheaper, and more accessible buses, but use it occasionally to access intercity terminals, such as airports or intercity rail terminals. In contrast, stations with moderate or low consideration and high ridership indicate that fewer passengers travel by train but do so more regularly. Thus, this representation enables planners to understand which stations need to improve only their footfall or only their consideration propensity and identify dimension-specific policies. However, it is also crucial to note that due to their mutual interdependence, interventions enhancing consideration, i.e., the potential demand, could also consequently influence footfall, i.e., the realized demand, as well.