A Study on Safety Evaluation of Pedestrian Flows Based on Partial Impact Dynamics by Real-Time Data in Subway Stations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

# Sections 2.2.2 ~ 2.2.5 define the partial impact dynamics in four aspects and constrains the behavior model of pedestrians. What is the difference and innovation from the existing research?

# Figure 2 (The hierarchical structure of risk evaluation), the description in the paper is not comprehensive enough, and in AHP, the weights are the basic work of risk evaluation, but the calculation of elements' weights are not complete.

# The verification of improved self-driving force, the verification of improved force on obstacles and the verification of improved force on signs lack of visual graphics, so it is difficult to effectively reflect the effectiveness of PI-SFM model only from Table 5.

# In the final case study, there are no visual graphics, only some comparison data, and the simulation results should be added.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Page 1, Title of the paper, “A study on safety evaluation of pedestrian flows based on partial impact dynamics by real-time data”: “Subway Stations” should be included in the title of the paper since your work refers to subway stations, a crucial element of a transportation system in an urban area. Thus, the title will better reflect the content of the paper.

Page 1, Keywords: My suggestion is to include “Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)”, “Risk Evaluation” and “Subway Stations” in the Keywords.

Page 1, Abstract, line 12, “…Orderly pedestrian behavior is a crucial factor…”: please explain with the manuscript the meaning of “Orderly pedestrian”.

Section 1. Introduction: My suggestion is to include a subsection which must be dedicated to terminology. It will be very useful for the reader to go through the global definitions for concepts/terms like “urban rail transit”, “rail transit system”, “subway” etc.

Page 1, line 39, “…The successful development of subways inevitably comes with accidents…”: I do not agree with the use of the word “inevitably”. In addition, if the development of the subway is “successful”, then I think that you cannot write “inevitably comes with accidents”.

Page 1, line 41, “…The factors affecting the safety in stations include…”: My suggestion is to include the layout of the station as a factor. The geometrical and functional characteristics of a station play an important role in the level of safety for pedestrians.

Section 1. Introduction: My suggestion is to include a Table with statistics about accidents involving pedestrians at subway stations worldwide.

Section 1. Introduction: My suggestion is to include a subsection dedicated to case studies worldwide where pedestrian simulation software is used, like PTV Viswalk, for safety evaluation.

Page 3, Section2. Methodology and models, 2.1., Characteristics analysis, line 129, ”…pedestrians have pre-defined origins and destinations in subway stations…”. I am not sure about the validity of your assumption. There are intermediate stops for the pedestrians, which must be considered.

Page 3, Section2. Methodology and models, 2.1., Characteristics analysis, lines 137-138, “…to complete the goal in a shorter time”: This assumption is strongly related to the waiting time for the pedestrians, their arrival time at the station etc. Therefore, my suggestion is to better discuss, within your manuscript, the statement “complete the goal in a shorter time”.

Section 2. Methodology and models: My suggestion is to include a Data Flow Chart (DFC) describing all your methodological steps, so that the reader can obtain a clear overview of your work from the early beginning of the paper. Please note that the proposed DFC could include part(s) of the existing Figures (e.g., Figure 2. The hierarchical structure of risk evaluation, page 7).

2. Methodology and models, subsection 3. Operational level.: My suggestion is to include the appropriate references to justify the assumptions presented in the specific subsections (e.g., “…Typically, pedestrians expect to keep a certain spatial distance from others. However, in subway stations, pedestrians are willing to tolerate mutual crowding to reach their destinations quickly, and the space required for individuals can be compressed…”). Overall, please try to fully justify all the assumptions presented in subsections 1. Strategic level, 2. Tactical level and 3. Operational level.

Page 7, lines 269-270, “…We define the element level factors as indicators describing…”: Please include within your manuscripts the selection process for the specific indicators in AHP. Why did you select the specific indicators?

Page 7, lines 276-277, “AHP introduces the numbers from 1–9 as the scale…”: Why did you use all 9 numbers and not just 1,3,5,7,9?  (The rest could be considered as intermediate numbers).

Page 9, Subsection 2.4. Overall, line 327, “…pedestrian risks and helps managers…”: My suggestion is to replace “managers” with “respective decisions makers and decision takers”.

Page 14, 3.2. Case study, 434-436, “…The experiments were conducted at the Wuyi Square subway station in Changsha, Hunan, China, the largest interchange station in Changsha,…”: My suggestion is to include some characteristic photographs of the specific subway station (and the layout of the specific station, if possible) for the benefit of the reader.

 

My suggestion is to include a new Section (Discussion) before the Section of Conclusions. In the proposed Section, please discuss whether your findings comply or not (and if “yes”, to what extent) with the findings in the literature worldwide. Please add the necessary references.

Section 4. Conclusions: Please include the directions for future research in the topic of your research. Please also include a subsection which must be dedicated to policy recommendations arising from your findings. Please address each one of the policy recommendations to the respective stakeholders (e.g., Transport Operators, Traffic Management Authorities etc.). To do so, you need to carry out a stakeholders’ analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to express my deepest thanks to the authors because they have carefully addressed my comments. Congratulations !