CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Transportation Planning and OptimizationUrban Transport and AccessibilityTransportation and Mobility Innovations

Does improving stop amenities help increase Bus Rapid Transit ridership? Findings based on a quasi-experiment

Open access
Shi, Xiao, Moudon, Anne Vernez, Hurvitz, Philip M., Mooney, Stephen J., Zhou, Chuan, Saelens, Brian E.·2021·Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives
DOI 10.1016/j.trip.2021.100323
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Amenities at bus stops are thought to affect transit ridership, yet this relationship is rarely quantified. We assembled data on ridership and stop amenities, including Real-Time Information System (RTIS), shelters, lighting, litter receptacles, benches, and bike hoops, at 96 stops along two new Bus Rapid Transit lines in King County, Washington, between Fall 2012 and Fall 2014. We applied the Conditional Inference Tree method to identify combinations of amenity changes that characterized amenity installation patterns and examined the associations between changes in amenities and changes in ridership at stop-level. Compared to stops with the fewest changes, stops had a higher likelihood of increases in boardings if their combination of amenity changes included new RTIS, shelters, and bike hoops. There were no significant relationships between amenity changes and alightings. Stop amenities are positively associated with higher transit ridership, however, some amenities are more impactful than others.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Improving stop amenities on two new King County RapidRide BRT lines was associated with higher stop-level boardings, especially when amenity bundles included new RTIS, shelters, or bike hoops. No significant associations were found for alightings.

Key findings

  • Compared with stops that had the fewest amenity changes, boardings were 203.5% higher at stops with new bike hoops, 199.1% higher at stops with new RTIS, and 81.4% higher at stops with new or improved shelters.
  • In negative binomial models, relative to combination group 1, boardings were significantly higher for shelter (OR = 1.814, p < 0.001), RTIS (OR = 2.991, p < 0.001), and bike hoop (OR = 3.035, p < 0.001) combinations; RTIS and bike hoop did not differ significantly from each other (p = 0.926).
  • No amenity combination was significantly associated with more alightings in 2014.
  • Across the 96 stops, mean weekday boardings increased 139.9% and alightings 138.2% from 2012 to 2014.

Methods

  • Quasi-experiment using 96 active stops along King County Metro’s RapidRide E and F lines, comparing fall 2012 (before BRT conversion and amenity changes) with fall 2014 (after).
  • Amenity changes were coded as binary variables for RTIS, shelter, lighting, bench, litter receptacle, and bike hoop; because amenities were installed in correlated bundles, conditional inference tree (CIT) analysis grouped stops into amenity-combination categories.
  • Negative binomial regressions estimated associations with 2014 boardings and alightings, controlling for 2012 ridership, change in residential density, number of routes served, nearby new stops, nearby closed stops, and E-line status.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: results may only generalize to metropolitan areas with sociodemographic and public transportation infrastructure similar to King County; longitudinal amenity data and research in other metropolitan areas are needed to validate causal inferences; increased boardings could reflect new riders, existing riders taking transit more, shifting to improved stops, or a combination; APC data do not distinguish transfers at stops serving multiple lines; “amenity” is a misnomer for features critical to universal design and inclusive access.
  • Evident from the text: the design is quasi-experimental rather than randomized, and amenity installations were bundled and highly correlated, so the study estimates combinations rather than independent effects of individual amenities.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.trip.2021.100323

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

2 of 25 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data

    Compared to stops with the fewest changes, stops had a higher likelihood of increases in boardings if their combination of amenity changes included new RTIS, shelters, and bike hoops.

    “Compared to stops with the fewest changes, stops had a higher likelihood of increases in boardings if their combination of amenity changes included new RTIS, shelters, and bike hoops.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    There were differences between the E and the F line, with fewer lighting, bike hoops, and RTIS amenities being added at the F line stops.

    “There were differences between the E and the F line, with fewer lighting, bike hoops, and RTIS amenities being added at the F line stops.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    From the boxplots, combination 3 and 4 have higher average increases in boardings than the other two combinations.

    “From the boxplots, combination 3 and 4 have higher average increases in boardings than the other two combinations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Mean boardings and alightings at stops along the E line were higher than those at stops on the F line.

    “Mean boardings and alightings at stops along the E line were higher than those at stops on the F line, but the percentages of increase on the F line were higher than on the E line.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    None of the stops in combination group 1 had any changes in the key amenities: shelter, RTIS or bike hoops.

    “None of them had any changes in the key amenities: shelter, RTIS or bike hoops.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 38
  • May combine two claims. 17
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Change in residential density was used to approximate change in local demand for transit service.

    “Change in residential density (count of residential units per hectare) was used to approximate change in local demand for transit service (Stewart et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stewart et al., 2017 source

      The Methods section says the study used changes in the count of residential units within ¼ mile of transit stops to control for nearby development. The Discussion links increased residential density with increased demand for transit service. The paper does not describe the measure as residential units per hectare, so the cited claim's specified unit is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In a survey of 749 transit passengers in Los Angeles County, transit stops being well-lit at night was ranked as one of the most important factors in their decision to use transit among 16 attributes of stops.

    “In a survey of 749 transit passengers in Los Angeles County, they ranked transit stops being well-lit at night as one of the most important factors in their decision to use transit among 16 attributes of stops, while having a place to sit or buy food were ranked as least important (Iseki and Taylor, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Iseki and Taylor, 2010 source

      The Introduction reports a survey of 749 transit users around metropolitan Los Angeles. In “Rating and Ranking of Importance, Satisfaction Level, and Importance-Satisfaction” (page unavailable), station lighting is classified as very important, while seating and places to buy food or drink are classified as less important among the 16 attributes. The survey ranks attributes of the stop or station experience; it does not establish that lighting was ranked as a factor in passengers’ decisions to use transit. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    On average, stops on the E line had more amenity changes (3.46 per stop, SD = 1.61) than those on F line (1.98 per stop, SD = 1.30).

    “On average, stops on the E line had more amenity changes (3.46 per stop, SD = 1.61) than those on F line (1.98 per stop, SD = 1.30).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Combination group 2 contained stops with new shelters but none of them had new RTIS or new bike hoops.

    “Combination group 2 contained stops with new shelters but none of them had new RTIS or new bike hoops.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The two most frequent combinations were only new benches (n = 22 stops) and new shelters, benches and litter receptacles (n = 25 stops).

    “There were in total 21 unique combinations, with the two most frequent combinations being only new benches (n = 22 stops) and new shelters, benches and litter receptacles (n = 25 stops).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The percentages of increase on the F line were higher than on the E line.

    “Mean boardings and alightings at stops along the E line were higher than those at stops on the F line, but the percentages of increase on the F line were higher than on the E line.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    Among these 21 unique combinations, 15 were added to <5 stops.

    “Among these 21 unique combinations, 15 were added to<5 stops.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Combination group 3 were stops with new RTIS but no new bike hoops.

    “Combination group 3 were stops with new RTIS but no new bike hoops.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    There were in total 21 unique combinations of amenity changes among the 96 stops in the sample.

    “There were in total 21 unique combinations, with the two most frequent combinations being only new benches (n = 22 stops) and new shelters, benches and litter receptacles (n = 25 stops).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Combination group 1 consisted of 22 stops with only new benches, 3 stops without any new amenities and 2 stops with new lighting and litter receptacles.

    “Combination group 1 consisted of 22 stops with only new benches, 3 stops without any new amenities and 2 stops with new lighting and litter receptacles.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Overall, average weekday boardings were similar to alightings.

    “Overall, average weekday boardings were similar to alightings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Benches, shelters, and litter receptacles were the most common amenities being added or changed.

    “Amenity changes within this period show that benches, shelters, and litter receptacles were the most common amenities being added or changed (Table 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    In general, the four combination groups had an increasing number of new installations.

    “In general, the four combination groups had an increasing number of new installations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Combination group 4 included stops with a new bike hoop.

    “Combination group 4 included stops with a new bike hoop.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Amenities were added in a non-random way, with several types of amenities being added together at given stops.

    “Following King County Metro Transit Facilities Guidelines (2018) recommendations to install combinations of amenities at stops, we hypothesized that amenities were added in a non-random way, with several types of amenities being added together at given stops.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Pearson correlation analyses showed that many amenity changes co-occurred and that, as a result, single amenities would be unlikely to have an independent association with the outcome.

    “This was consistent with prior studies (Talbott, 2011) and was confirmed by Pearson correlation analyses showing that many amenity changes co-occurred and that, as a result, single amenities would be unlikely to have an independent association with the outcome.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Talbott, 2011

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both mean boardings and alightings increased from 2012 to 2014 at a similar rate, 139.9% for boardings and 138.2% for alightings.

    “Both mean boardings and alightings increased from 2012 to 2014 at a similar rate, 139.9% for boardings and 138.2% for alightings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    Amenities were mostly installed in groups.

    “Amenities were mostly installed in groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Combination group 3 (RTIS as key amenity change) was significantly associated with more boardings in 2014 (OR = 2.991, p < 0.001).

    “boardings at stops with new RTIS were 199.1% higher”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    Between 2012 and 2014, King County Metro added amenities to transit stops along RapidRide E and F lines.

    “Between 2012 and 2014, King County Metro added amenities to transit stops along RapidRide E and F lines.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Combination group 4 (bike hoop as key amenity change) was significantly associated with more boardings in 2014 (OR = 3.035, p < 0.001).

    “boardings at stops with new bike hoops were 203.5% higher”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Brown et al. (2006) found that a Bus Stop Index scoring amenities including signs, shelters, schedules, lighting, and paved landings was positively related to ridership.

    “In North Carolina, Brown et al.'s team (Brown et al., 2006) created a Bus Stop Index to score amenities including signs, shelters, schedules, lighting, and paved landings, and found that the index was positively related to ridership.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brown et al., 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    More bus lines may bring more riders transferring from other lines.

    “More bus lines may bring more riders transferring from other lines.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The presence of shelters was found to be associated with higher crime incidence within 100 m of stops.

    “In another study, the presence of shelters was found to be associated with higher crime incidence within 100 m of stops (Moudon et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Moudon et al., 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    The assumption that the impacts of individual amenities are independent and statistically identifiable may not hold given that stop amenities are typically installed in combinations.

    “However, this assumption may not hold given that stop amenities are typically installed in combinations (i.e., a shelter is added along with a new bench and a litter receptacle).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The combinations represent a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive partitioning of the amenity changes that best predicted changes in boardings.

    “These combinations thus represent a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive partitioning of the amenity changes that best predicted changes in boardings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    King County Metro Transit Facilities Guidelines recommend that benches be installed in all shelters, and shelters and bike hoops be installed with RTIS.

    “King County Metro Transit Facilities Guidelines (King County Metro, 2017) recommend that benches be installed in all shelters, and shelters and bike hoops be installed with RTIS.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites King County Metro, 2017

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Compared with traditional clustering methods, tree-based methods require fewer assumptions about data distribution and allow more robust statistical inference.

    “Compared with traditional clustering methods, tree-based methods require fewer assumptions about data distribution and allow more robust statistical inference.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Assessing the effect of individual amenities would not be appropriate; the study proceeded to only estimate the effects of combinations of amenity changes on ridership.

    “We concluded that assessing the effect of individual amenities would not be appropriate and proceeded to only estimate the effects of combinations of amenity changes on ridership.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    Combination group 1 represented the stops with the smallest number of total new amenities.

    “This combination group represented the stops with the smallest number of total new amenities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Kim et al. (2020) using propensity score matching found that bus stops with improved amenities were associated with a significant increase in ridership in Salt Lake County; possible differences in impact by amenity type were not assessed.

    “Another study (Kim et al., 2020) using propensity score matching found that bus stops with improved amenities were associated with a significant increase in ridership in Salt Lake County; possible differences in impact by amenity type were not assessed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kim et al., 2020 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Using ridership collected in the same season of a year helps to control for regular seasonal variations commonly observed in ridership.

    “Using ridership collected in the same season of a year helps to control for regular seasonal variations commonly observed in ridership.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    RTIS displays have been reported to reduce perceived waiting time and bring higher customer satisfaction in selected European and U.S. cities.

    “Real-Time Information System (RTIS) displays have been reported to reduce perceived waiting time (Dziekan and Vermeulen, 2006) and bring higher customer satisfaction (Science Applications International Corporation, 2003) in selected European and U.S. cities (Dziekan and Kottenhoff, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Dziekan and Vermeulen, 2006 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

    • cites Science Applications International Corporation, 2003

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Dziekan and Kottenhoff, 2007 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The presence of shelters, benches, and mature trees at stops was found to significantly lower the perceived waiting time reported by passengers.

    “The presence of shelters, benches, and mature trees at stops was found to significantly lower the perceived waiting time reported by passengers (Lagune-Reutler et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lagune-Reutler et al., 2016 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The installation of amenities in anticipation of the BRT service serves as a quasi-experiment, which adds to the rigor of assessment compared to cross-sectional studies.

    “The installation of amenities in anticipation of the BRT service serves as a quasi-experiment, which adds to the rigor of assessment compared to cross-sectional studies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Stop amenity installations were not systematically related to unobserved stop-level factors that also affected ridership changes, so the quasi-experimental comparison is not confounded by such factors.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Talbott (2011) observed correlations between ridership and the presence of amenities in several cities; however, the absence of confounding variables in the analyses hindered the ability to make causal inferences.

    “Finally, a multi-city study (Talbott, 2011) observed correlations between ridership and the presence of amenities in several cities; however, the absence of confounding variables in the analyses hindered the ability to make causal inferences.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Talbott, 2011

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Stop amenities are positively associated with higher transit ridership, but some amenities are more impactful than others.

    “Stop amenities are positively associated with higher transit ridership, however, some amenities are more impactful than others.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The choice of negative binomial regression model over Poisson model was based on the observed over-dispersion in the outcome variable.

    “The choice of negative binomial regression model over Poisson model was based on the observed over-dispersion in the outcome variable (Hilbe, 2011;White and Bennetts, 1996).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hilbe, 2011

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites White and Bennetts, 1996 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The 1/2 mile distance was used as a proxy for a 10 min walk.

    “The 1/2 mile distance was used as a proxy for a 10 min walk (Nabors et al. 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nabors et al. 2008

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Few studies rigorously examined the impact of stop amenities on ridership, with most existing studies focusing on other service attributes such as frequency, travel time, and price.

    “Overall, few studies rigorously examined the impact of stop amenities on ridership, with most existing studies focusing on other service attributes such as frequency, travel time, and price.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Prior research suggested that ridership increased overall in the E and F lines relative to the previously existing traditional bus service along these routes.

    “Prior research has suggested that ridership increased overall in the E and F lines relative to the previously existing traditional bus service along these routes (Stewart et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stewart et al., 2017 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Stops included in the study all experienced the same level of upgrade in BRT service, which included the introduction of new vehicles.

    “Stops included in the study all experienced the same level of upgrade in BRT service, which included the introduction of new vehicles.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In the same survey, having a place to sit or buy food were ranked as least important among 16 attributes of stops.

    “In a survey of 749 transit passengers in Los Angeles County, they ranked transit stops being well-lit at night as one of the most important factors in their decision to use transit among 16 attributes of stops, while having a place to sit or buy food were ranked as least important (Iseki and Taylor, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Iseki and Taylor, 2010 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The CIT method applied in this study is a robust alternative to using traditional multivariate linear models when studying such highly correlated variables as the combinations of amenities installed at stops.

    “The CIT method applied in this study is a robust alternative to using traditional multivariate linear models when studying such highly correlated variables as the combinations of amenities installed at stops.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Bike hoops, RTIS, and shelters appeared to be key amenities that, combined with other amenities as was frequently done in practice, could affect transit ridership.

    “Thus bike hoops, RTIS, and shelters appeared to be key amenities that, combined with other amenities as was frequently done in practice, could affect transit ridership.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    In multi-modal trips, access and egress trip stage satisfaction were most impacted by the primary trip, which was often defined using trip leg duration.

    “in multi-modal trips, access and egress trip stage satisfaction were most impacted by the primary trip, which was often defined using trip leg duration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Susilo and Cats, 2014 source
    • cites Abenoza et al., 2019 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    The results may only be generalizable to metropolitan areas with sociodemographic and public transportation infrastructure that are similar to those of King County.

    “The results may only be generalizable to metropolitan areas with sociodemographic and public transportation infrastructure that are similar to those of King County.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The study demonstrates the importance of amenities on improving service quality and system efficiency.

    “The study demonstrates the importance of amenities on improving service quality and system efficiency.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The improved stops either attract new riders or encourage existing riders to take transit more and/or shift to stops with improved amenities.

    “present findings suggest that the improved stops either attract new riders or encourage existing riders to take transit more and/or shift to stops with improved amenities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
49 of 49

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Stop amenity installations were not systematically related to unobserved stop-level factors that also affected ridership changes, so the quasi-experimental comparison is not confounded by such factors.

    “The installation of amenities in anticipation of the BRT service serves as a quasi-experiment, which adds to the rigor of assessment compared to cross-sectional studies.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No prior studies have examined the impact of stop amenities on alightings.

    “No prior studies have examined the impact of stop amenities on alightings.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Amenities at bus stops are a less expensive capital investment option compared to other system improvements such as vehicle purchase or service area expansion.

    “As a less expensive capital investment option compared to other system improvement such as vehicle purchase or service area expansion”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Amenities at bus stops provide the first impression of the transit services and thus affect users' attitudes and experience towards the service.

    “amenities at bus stops provide the first impression of the transit services and thus affect users' attitudes and experience towards the service.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The same transfer riders who are alighting one bus will be boarding another bus.

    “the same transfer riders who are alighting one bus will be boarding another bus”
5 of 5

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Claim to estimate only amenity combinations conflicts with appendix

    Minor

    The methods say that only effects of amenity combinations were estimated, but Table A2 reports regression results for individual amenities.

  • Individual-amenity models exceed the stated sample size

    Minor

    The RTIS models in Tables A2 and A3 each report N = 101, although the study sample contains 96 stops. The text gives no additional sample for those models.

  • Overall 2014 residential density disagrees with line-specific means

    Minor

    The 52 E-line and 44 F-line stops have reported 2014 means of 17.82 and 7.11 units/ha. Their weighted mean is 12.91, not the reported overall mean of 13.92.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Nabors, 2008, Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies. United States, Federal Highway Administration

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Shi, X., Moudon, A. V., Hurvitz, P. M., Mooney, S. J., Zhou, C., & Saelens, B. E.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Shi, Xiao
ORCID
Venue
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-06
Volume
10
Pages
100323
ISSN
2590-1982 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.trip.2021.100323
OpenAlex
W3138776802
Semantic Scholar
79651e62d265673dd9477e33781a5c215033a14f
Cited by
20
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Transportation Planning and Optimization
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Urban Transport and Accessibility
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Transportation and Mobility Innovations
Keywords
bus rapid transit, transit ridership, real-time information systems, bus shelters, bike racks, boarding and alighting, conditional inference trees, King County, Washington

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-11-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-06.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review