Style versus Service? An analysis of user perceptions of transit stops and stations
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
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).”
From Does improving stop amenities help increase Bus Rapid Transit ridership? Findings based on a quasi-experiment (2021) · cites this paper as Iseki and Taylor, 2010
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 measuredIn 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).”
From Does improving stop amenities help increase Bus Rapid Transit ridership? Findings based on a quasi-experiment (2021) · cites this paper as Iseki and Taylor, 2010
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Bronzaft, A. L., S. B. Dobrow, and T. J. O´Hanlon. 1976. Spatial orientation in a sub- way system. Environment and Behavior 8(4): 575-594.
- Dziekan, K., and A. Vermeulen. 2006. Psychological effects of and design prefer- ences for real-time information displays. Journal of Public Transportation 9(1): 71-89.
- Dziekan, K. 2008. Ease-of-use in public transportation: A user perspective on infor- mation and orientation aspects. Doctoral thesis, Royal Institute of Technol- ogy, Stockholm, Sweden.
- Evans, J. E. 2004. Chapter 9: Transit scheduling and frequency. TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. Washington D.C.: Trans- portation Research Board.
- Fox, J. 1997. Applied Regression Analysis, Linear Models, and Related Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
- Fruin, J. J. 1985. Passenger information systems for transit transfer facilities. Syn- thesis of Transit Practice 7, edited by N.C.T.R.D.P. (U.S.). Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board National Research Council.
- Hess, D., J. Brown, and D. Shoup. 2005. Waiting for the bus. Journal of Public Trans- portation 7(4): 67-84.
- Iseki, H., and B. D. Taylor. 2009. Not all transfers are created equal: Toward a framework relating transfer connectivity to travel. Transport Reviews 29(6): 777-800.
- ITE Technical Council Committee 5C-1A. 1992. The location and design of bus transfer facilities. ITE Journal: 33-37.
- Kittelson & Associates, Inc., Texas Transport Institute, and Transport Consulting Limited. 2003. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual -2nd Edition. Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press.
- Lacy, D., and P. Bonsall. 2001. Misperception and mode choice. World Conference on Transportation Research (WCTR), Seoul, South Korea.
- Moreau, A. 1992. Public transport waiting times as experienced by customers: Marketing research involving the Grenoble system. Public Transport Interna- tional 41(3): 52-68.
- MVA Consultancy, ITS University of Leeds, TSU University of Oxford. 1987. Value of travel time savings. Policy Journals, Newbury, Berks.
- Project for Public Spaces, Inc., with Multisystems, Inc.. 1999. The role of transit amenities and vehicle characteristics in building transit ridership: Amenities for transit handbook and the transit design game workbook. Transit Coopera- tive Research Program, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.
- Reed, T. B. 1995. Reduction in the burden of waiting for public transit due to real- time schedule information: A conjoint analysis study. Paper presented at the Vehicle Navigation and Information Systems Conference, Seattle, WA.
- Taylor, B. D., and K. Samples. 2002. Jobs, jobs, jobs: Political perceptions, economic reality, and capital bias in U.S. transit subsidy policy. Public Works Manage- ment and Policy Journal 6(4): 250-263.
- Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M Research Foundation, and Texas A&M University. 1996. Guidelines for the location and design of bus stops. Transit Cooperative Research Program, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.
- Wardman, M. 2001. A review of British evidence on time and service quality valu- ations. Transportation Research Part E, Logistics and Transportation Review 37E(2-3): 107-128.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shi, X., Moudon, A. V., Hurvitz, P. M., Mooney, S. J., Zhou, C., & Saelens, B. E. (2021) · Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.trip.2021.100323 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Iseki, H., & Taylor, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Transportation
- Published
- 2010-09
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 23-48
- ISSN
- 1077-291X
- 2375-0901
- Cited by
- 120
- References
- 0
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.
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
