Visualizing Travel Accessibility in a Congested City Center: A GIS-Based Isochrone Model and Trip Rate Analysis Considering Sustainable Transportation Solutions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript focuses on assessing the accessibility in Sukkur, and understanding the effect of land-use patterns on accessibility.

 

The manuscript in the current form is very confusing, requiring work. The ideas not laid out logically and the formatting is off, confusing the reader. Specific feedback as follows:

1. The introduction states that the study focuses on land-use and transportation routes, and the link between them. However, most of the analysis talks about existing land use and accessibility. Little is said about what led to this, or how this can be improved, or any actionable insights. That is the largest area of improvement in my opinion.

2. Minor note, but the point of reference in the diagrams is immediately adjacent to the 6-12 minute polygon. Also, the 0-6 minute boundary intersects with 6-12 minute boundary elsewhere. These are counterintuitive and require explanation.

3. With equation 12, why is analysis being done for 2030 population numbers? And why is n=19 for growth between 2017 and 2030? Lots of inconsistencies in the analysis. Other big assumptions are the distribution of vehicles staying constant between 2017 and 2030 for various family sizes.

4. English writing can be improved to convey the ideas better.

Overall, the study has significant scope for rewriting and improvement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English writing can be improved to convey the ideas better. The ideas are lost in the writing.

Author Response

Dear Sir 

First of all, I am thankful to you for your valuable constructive suggestions to improve the paper. We tried our level best to address each of your suggestions at best I hope the revised version will meet your expectations. Please find the file attached with responses. 

thanks 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Remarks:

The study employs an isochrone model based on GIS and trip generation regression to measure accessibility within a 1-kilometer radius of the city center. Data from 234 randomly selected visits, collected through travel journals, reveal the monocentric structure of Sukkur City and the absence of zoning restrictions on specific activities. The study's isochrone-based maps provide insights into commuters' accessibility needs. The findings have the potential to improve transportation in Sukkur and other populous cities worldwide. The article finally revealed some interesting results, but the content and structure of the article still need improvement. Additionally, the innovation points of this article are not prominent enough.

 

Major Comments:

1.      The abstract of the article is not well-organized. It is recommended to introduce the research purpose with a background statement at the beginning, followed by the presentation of research methods and content, and finally conclude with findings and the significance of the study. But there are too many research results, please summarize some representative results appropriately.

2.      The keyword "Monocentric" is not clearly reflected in the text. How can you determine if the city structure is Monocentric?

3.      In the introduction section, the author proposes "What are the effects of land-use and transportation policies on the accessibility of different land uses?" However, in the later content of the article, the impact of land use on accessibility is not reflected. Or does the author view different activities as different land uses? I don't know if I understand correctly, please explain.

4.      In the literature review section, consider removing or compressing case studies, particularly the first three, if they have limited relevance to the practical application of the methods discussed in the article. The method introduction for the fourth case study could be relocated to the third section on data and methods.

5.      There is no need to be so detailed about the explanations of some charts. For example, the introduction of Table 2 can be merged with the previous paragraph. Other parts of the article can also be modified accordingly.

6.      In Section 4.2, there are numerous explanations for tables and images, although they are clear, they might seem somewhat redundant. Can they be streamlined, or could we introduce sub-sections for a more concise presentation?

7.      Figures 3 to 9 lack a compass rose and scale bar, and the legend obscures the images. It can be moved downward or displayed in two columns.

8.      I suggest adding a section to the discussion section. This section can provide planning and transportation recommendations based on the research findings for city administrators and residents to address the issue of excessive traffic pressure.

9.      Condense the conclusion section, especially the latter part, into a brief summary of the study's significance.

 

Minor Comments:

1.       Lines 202-203: Please ensure that this sentence is correct. Why is a question used here?

2.       Line 249: Regarding Table 1, I'm not sure about the difference between "Estimated Population" and "Projected Population," and what does "1998/2017" and "2008/2020" in the second row of the table mean?

3.       Lines 252-254: Is the sample size simply averaged across the total population, with little variation in the number of people in each area? Does this align with the real-world scenario?

4.       Lines 264-266：These sentences mention that different colored labels are used in Figure 1 to distinguish different activities. Does this refer to the green labels in the figure? The text in the figure is too small and not clear enough.

5.       Lines 208-281: The description in this sentence does not match Table 2. In Table 2, the modes of travel for trips related to going to businesses or banks are cars and bicycles, and there is no mention of "Suzuki" and "Rikhsw." Please double-check. Additionally, could "Suzuki" and "Rikhsw" be replaced with more common words?

6.       Lines 282-283：Please check table 3 carefully. I don't see the housing type in Table 3.

7.       Line 291: The sentence says equation 7, please confirm if it should be changed to equation 8?

8.       Lines 310-320: These sentences involve formulas that may need to be rearranged.

9.       Line 354: Please confirm if Table 5 here should be changed to Table 4?

10.    Lines 515-521: “Comparatively, it can be argued that health services were found quite hard to access by the local inhabitants.” This sentence is not rigorous enough. What I mean is that hospitals, unlike commercial centers, are not concentrated near the city center but are established in different areas to serve nearby residents.

11.    Line 515: As with the previous question, please confirm whether "Figure 4" should be changed to "Figure 5" here, and ensure that such issues are avoided in other parts of the article.

12.    Line 576: Is there another park in Figure 8 outside the study area? Please confirm if there are any errors in the figure.

Author Response

Dear Sir 

First of all, I am thankful to you for your valuable constructive suggestions to improve the paper. We tried our level best to address each of your suggestions at best I hope the revised version will meet your expectations. Please find the file attached with responses. 

thanks 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting topic to study “travel accessibility in congested city center”, however, the motivation of the topic and the feasibility of  Isochrone-based model should be explained further. There are also some detailed comments:

 

(1)   The choice of 234 trip data for calculating urban center accessibility in this study may indeed be relatively limited for a comprehensive analysis of transportation accessibility in a city centre. It is important to note that the sample size of the trip data can significantly impact the accuracy and reliability of the findings. To achieve a more robust evaluation of urban accessibility, a larger and more representative dataset would be desirable.

(2)   The article utilizes "Trip generation and isochrone-based models" to analyze and assess urban accessibility, please describe in further detail.

(3)   Please further describe the process of the survey.

(4)  L255: What is the meaning of N, and what is the effect of the calculation result 610.789 on the article?

(5)  In Table 3, is there no possibility that “Household Size” is less than 3 or greater than 10?

(6) L 299: “5760 trips were produced per day in the study area, but following the sample size, only 234 trips were calculated.” How do I choose 234 trips from 5760 trips? Can it represent the characteristics of urban travel?

(7) Why is the sum of the ratios in “Persons per household” in Table 4 not equal to 1?

(8)   How is the threshold determined in Formula 11?

(9)L639:“people preferred walking to reach their destinations despite the ineffectual walking environment.” How do you come to this conclusion?

(10)Rikshaw and Suzuki are unclear.

(11)The format of the manuscript needs to be improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Sir 

First of all, I am thankful to you for your valuable constructive suggestions to improve the paper. We tried our level best to address each of your suggestions at best I hope the revised version will meet your expectations. Please find the file attached with responses. 

thanks 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the quality of the article significantly. Minor comments:

1. What is SDG-11.2?

2. What is ravi pickup?

Other such minor clarifications will improve the quality of the manuscript. Thank you.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The revised version meets the journal standards, with a minor grammatical check recommended.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

We thank you for your kind comments throughout the editorial process. We have made certain compliance in round 2. We hope that corrected manuscript will fulfill your expectations.

With Warm Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the author's response, most of the issues in the manuscript have been resolved, but I still have some suggestions. 

1. The abstract has been well reorganized, but the results are still too long. ines 24 to 34 are a description of the results. Can you remove any unnecessary ones and present the main meaningful findings.

2. The tables have been significantly improved, but it is recommended that the formatting of the tables in the text be adjusted to make them more compact and aesthetically pleasing, e.g., the first column in Table 3 is too far away from the data in the second column.

3. There is still a problem with the figures in the article, the legends for figures 3 through 9 have obscured the map, please change the legends to two columns and place them in the margins.

 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam.

We have made certain changes as suggested in round 2 of the review process.

We hope that corrected manuscript will meet your expectations.

With Warm Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) Please explain further about the Innovation of Isochrone Technique proposed in this work. Compare the method with existing methods and explain the advantages.

(2) As for "Rikshaw and Suzuki are unclear.", it is still not proper to use words that cannot be understood by all the readers. Please explain further.

(3) And why Rikshaw and Suzuki is selected together with bike and car? Are there any other travel modes?

(4) Please add the data and reference for the statement "no Household Size is less than 3"

(5) The format through the work is unacceptable, including the formular, tables, Figures and etc.

(6) As for Eq.(2), please explain how do you calibrate parameters and please add the statistical significance for the parameters.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Sir,

We thank you for your kind comments. We have made essential modifications as suggested in Round 2. 

We hope that corrected manuscript will meet your requirements.

With Kind Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am happy with the most modification. However, the contribution or innovation remains unclear. The title mentions the "Congested City Centre," and it is essential to establish whether the method for "Computing Travel Accessibility" differs in the context of a "Congested City Centre" compared to different scenarios. How was the existing method modified? If no distinction exists, employing the same method across various countries or cities may not be recognized as innovation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Sir 

Thanks for your valuable suggestions to improve the paper. Actually, we have used the travel method with some modifications aligned with the local conditions. We have not used the model only but we added some features as modification of the model. Thus, this makes this study different from all other studies. The details are added to the separate attached sheet. 

thanks  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf