Dynamic Evaluation Method for Mutation Degree of Passenger Flow in Urban Rail Transit
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI suggest the authors make the following corrections/additions:
• I think it is too strong to claim that: Simultaneously, this study maximizes the trip demand of passengers while ensuring their safety and maintaining a balance between passengers and the transportation environment. I am not convinced that the model can maximize the trip demand of passengers!
• As a schematic diagram is shown for the vertical mutation (parameter Q), I suggest to make a similar diagram for the horizontal mutation as well.
• I believe that the text of section 5.3 correctly states a sudden drop in outflow from 8:16 to 8:30 on September 6th; Figure 5 shows that the sudden drop in outflow started much earlier (after 7:16 a.m.). Why?
• Explain how the value of correction factor α= 0.5 was determined?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is appropriately structured, it has logically connected chapters. The results are supported by interesting data and are interpreted at a good level. The data presented are quite interesting.
The abstract should give a summary of the paper content and should represent a pertinent overview of the work. Indicate the issue addressed in a board context (the study purpose), while the paper layout (structure; content) is to be specified. Describe briefly the main methods applied. Outline the main findings of the manuscript and summarize the main conclusions or interpretations.
The introduction could be more extensive regarding this issue, also more general.
The paper lacks a more extensive discussion, especially about the individual images (a-e), it is necessary to describe in a little more detail whether the individual figures specifically show. What is the difference between them. What is the impact of passenger flows on the operation of suburban rail transport in this case?
The paper lacks (in the introduction or materials and methods section) an overview of passenger flows in normal operation on the considered lines (such as in Fig. 6).
The conclusions could be more concise.
I have no comments regarding content and form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The structure of the manuscript is appropriate.
2. Section 1 (Introduction) and 2 (Literature Review) - No references e.g.: from European countries, USA. The authors cite East Asian publications. However, it is worth considering improving this element of the manuscript (literature review). The authors didn't exhaust all valuable publications (from different regions of the world) on the subject they analysed. There are many examples from other modes of transport.
3. Methodology: the authors based their methodology on catastrophe models and potential functions. The models are well known. Indicate in titles of Table 1 on 2 the sources. Table 3 - Gradation of mutation degree of passenger flow: Why the division into a 5-stage scale?
4. Section 6 (Results and Discussion) - section lacks real discussion, which should include limitations of the study and recommendations of the CDCT method.
5. Conclusions: no comparisons with other approaches of dynamic evaluation methods for mutation degree of passenger flow.
6. Text editing:
a. Line 94, 99 and 102: lack of spaces.
b. Figure 1: Wrong font color for chart description.
c.Figure 4:
· Duplication of the Figure 4 (a), (b), (c), (d) description.
· It's not the Microsoft Word template / LaTeX template (Sustainability) - see Instructions for Authors: ttps://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instruction
· Hardly readable axis descriptions.
· Low a resolution
d. Figure 5: Duplication of the description.
e. DOI numbers are missing from the bibliography (references) list.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI thank the authors for their replies and the corrections made. I have no substantive comments on the manuscript.
There are still editorial errors in the manuscript that need to be corrected. I have commented on these as follows (see Appendix)
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
