Kuroma
AI Readiness benchmark for Passenger Transport / Transit
Across 138 audited domains we have classified as Passenger Transport / Transit, the median AI Readiness score is 38 out of 100. That is 1 points below the median for all 30,738 audited domains in the corpus (39).
How the scores are distributed
Half of the 138 audited Passenger Transport / Transit domains score between 35 and 42. The corpus-wide interquartile range, across all 30,738 audited domains, is 32 to 45.
Which factors this industry fails most often
The rubric scores 19 factors. This table shows 16 of them: the rest were counted on fewer than 30 audits in this industry, which is too few to publish a rate from. A factor counts as failed here when a site scores below 50 out of 100 on it. The last column is how many audits each rate was calculated from. Media Accessibility is not scored on every kind of page: a rankings table or a paginated index has no question to answer and no image to caption. That row therefore leaves out every audit of a page the factor was not scored on the same scale, and every audit that did not record enough about the page for us to tell. Every other row counts every audit in this industry that scored the factor.
| Factor | Fails in Passenger Transport / Transit | Fails corpus-wide | Difference | Audits counted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unique Value Proposition AI Readiness · 5.1% of the total score |
99% | 94% | +5 | 138 |
| External Citations & References Authority Signals · 9% of the total score |
95% | 83% | +12 | 138 |
| Media Accessibility On-Page Content · 1.8% of the total score · counted only on pages this factor applies to |
95% | 87% | +8 | 124 |
| Trust & Brand Signals Authority Signals · 9% of the total score |
93% | 74% | +19 | 138 |
| Structured Data Quality On-Page Content · 4.5% of the total score |
93% | 96% | -3 | 138 |
| Answer Box Potential AI Readiness · 7.2% of the total score |
90% | 68% | +22 | 138 |
| Schema Markup Completeness Technical Optimization · 1% of the total score |
83% | 63% | +20 | 138 |
| Crawlability & Accessibility Technical Optimization · 13% of the total score |
50% | 46% | +4 | 138 |
| AI Discoverability AI Readiness · 3% of the total score |
38% | 34% | +4 | 138 |
| Heading Hierarchy On-Page Content · 2.8% of the total score |
33% | 28% | +5 | 138 |
| Content Freshness AI Readiness · 5.7% of the total score |
25% | 49% | -24 | 138 |
| Raw HTML Availability AI Readiness · 1.5% of the total score |
22% | 24% | -2 | 138 |
| Mobile Optimization Technical Optimization · 4% of the total score |
18% | 14% | +4 | 138 |
| Page Performance Indicators Technical Optimization · 2% of the total score |
15% | 20% | -5 | 138 |
| AI Readability Score On-Page Content · 3% of the total score |
10% | 8% | +2 | 136 |
| Content Depth & Comprehensiveness On-Page Content · 6.5% of the total score |
8% | 14% | -6 | 138 |
Where Passenger Transport / Transit diverges from everyone else
Relative to the whole corpus, this industry is distinctively weak on Answer Box Potential (+22 points), Schema Markup Completeness (+20 points), Trust & Brand Signals (+19 points).
It is distinctively strong on Content Freshness (-24 points), Content Depth & Comprehensiveness (-6 points), Page Performance Indicators (-5 points).
Answer Box Potential: fails on 90% of the 138 Passenger Transport / Transit audits it was measured on
The real mechanism is passage self-containment: heading-scoped sections that stand alone match retrieval chunking, and fixing context-severed passages measurably cuts retrieval failures.
Schema Markup Completeness: fails on 83% of the 138 Passenger Transport / Transit audits it was measured on
Controlled tests show no AI-citation lift from schema.org markup, and Google states no special structured data is needed for AI features. Near-zero weight is kept only for classic rich results and Bing grounding.
Trust & Brand Signals: fails on 93% of the 138 Passenger Transport / Transit audits it was measured on
On-page trust badges are untested as a class; the evidenced trust channel is off-site reviews. Retained for publisher accountability (who publishes this, declared where a machine can read it) and for basic legitimacy signals such as contact routes and published policies.
Audited Passenger Transport / Transit sites with a public report card
Each of these sites has a public AI Readiness report card from a real audit. Scores are point-in-time; the card shows what was measured and when.
| Site | Grade | Score | Audited |
|---|---|---|---|
| 和歌山電鐵 (wakayama-dentetsu.co.jp) | Grade B | 53/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 高千穂あまてらす鉄道 (amaterasu-railway.jp) | Grade B | 53/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 関東鉄道 (kantetsu.co.jp) | Grade B | 52/100 | 16 Sep 2026 |
| 知多バス (chitabus.co.jp) | Grade B | 51/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 多摩モノレール (tama-monorail.co.jp) | Grade B | 51/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 西武鉄道Webサイト (www.seiburailway.jp) | Grade C | 49/100 | 16 Sep 2026 |
| こころまちつくろう 京阪グループ (www.keihan.co.jp) | Grade C | 48/100 | 16 Sep 2026 |
| ＩＧＲいわて銀河鉄道 (igr.jp) | Grade C | 48/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 京王電鉄 (www.keio.co.jp) | Grade C | 48/100 | 16 Sep 2026 |
| ほくほく線 北越急行株式会社 (hokuhoku.co.jp) | Grade C | 47/100 | 16 Sep 2026 |
| 大井川鐵道【公式】大井川鐵道【公式】 (daitetsu.jp) | Grade C | 47/100 | 16 Sep 2026 |
| JR北海道 (www.jrhokkaido.co.jp) | Grade C | 47/100 | 16 Sep 2026 |
Browse every audited site in the public audit archive.
See the full ranked list of 37 Passenger Transport / Transit sites →
How to read this
- What the sample is. The 138 domains we have audited and classified as Passenger Transport / Transit. That is a sample of the industry, not a census: it is the set of sites our crawler has reached and scored, and it carries whatever bias that selection has.
- Rubric version 2026-08-13. Every figure here comes from audits scored on this single rubric generation. Scores from different generations measure different things, so they are never mixed. Compatible generations: 2026-08-13.
- Why there are no company names. These are aggregates. We do not publish which domains sit at the bottom of a distribution, and the queries behind this page cannot return a domain name.
- Publishing floor. We publish an industry only once it reaches 100 audited domains, and a factor's failure rate only once 30 audits in the industry count toward that factor. Below either floor the number would move with a handful of sites, so we withhold it.
- What the audit can and cannot see. This audit measures citation readiness: how easily AI engines can crawl, extract, and quote these pages. It cannot see the off-site brand footprint (mentions, reviews, third-party coverage) that gates whether AI engines retrieve a brand at all; Kuroma's visibility scans and off-site signals track that side. Read the full methodology.