Review of 'Assessment of Transit Accessibility from Sheltered TARC Stops: A Spatial Investigation of TARC Bus Services and their Reachability to Essential Service Nodes'

I enjoyed reading the article. It presents an important and relevant topic regarding transit accessibility and the reachability of essential service nodes. However, I believe the paper is not yet in a shape suitable for acceptance. Below, I outline several points that require further elaboration and revision.

Comments:

1) The rationale behind selecting these two types of services needs further explanation. Why were they chosen over other possible essential services? Providing a more detailed justification, perhaps referring to transit accessibility literature, would strengthen the argument. This also applies to the methods selected. 

2) While the paper acknowledges that accessibility is shaped by both supply (services) and demand (users), it pays little attention to intervening factors that affect this relationship. One of the most crucial is safety—both in terms of actual victimization and perceived fear of crime on the way to services. This is particularly relevant for vulnerable populations, such as older adults (Bamzar & Ceccato) and young people, especially women (Newton, 2018; Ceccato & Loukaitou-Sideris, 2020). Please consider incorporating discussions on how safety perceptions influence accessibility and mobility decisions.

3) The "so what" of the findings needs more development. How do these results apply to other urban contexts in the U.S.? Could the methodology be transferred to other cities, both within and outside the U.S.? A comparative perspective would significantly enhance the impact of the study.

4) The limitations are currently underdeveloped. Consider structuring this section more clearly, discussing issues related to data availability, methodological choices, and potential biases. A useful addition would be a table comparing the pros and cons of the two models used in the study, highlighting their respective strengths and weaknesses.

5) The conclusion should provide a more in-depth reflection on the methods employed and how they contribute to the broader field of transit accessibility research. Discuss how the simple yet effective GIS measures applied in the study can be useful for both researchers and practitioners.

6) See also these references, they are not at the same geographical level but are relevant for the topic: 1) Socio-spatial disparities in access to emergency health care—A Scandinavian case study. 2) Spatiotemporal variations in ambulance demand: towards equitable emergency services in Sweden.

By addressing these points, the paper can significantly improve in clarity, depth, and relevance. I look forward to seeing how the authors develop their arguments further.