Examining the Connectivity between Urban Rail Transport and Regular Bus Transport

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting and discussing an important area of research. I suggest the following changes to be made into the study.

1. The abstract is not according to the format. Please divide it into aims/objectives, methods, findings, conclusion and implications. Use simple present tense for writing.

2. Update and strengthen the literature review by adding latest literature and studies. 

3. Why you use this methodology? Provide a justification at the methodology section.

4. Add sections for Recommendations, Limitations, and future studies.

5. Increase the references to at least 60

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have presented valuable and important research in the field of public transportation. However, it is necessary to provide more explanations as below.

1- Why are variables such as travel cost, travel safety and travel time at stations not considered for both travel modes? It is recommended to consider these variables in this study.

2- The reason for using the two analysis methods presented in the article should be explained.

3- The results should be presented in a way that can be used practically. In other words, what solutions are suggested to connect and adapt the two modes of transportation?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In order to improve the quality of the work, I suggest:

• that all the equations they state in the paper should be numbered. numbering of equations starts from the 5th page

• harmonize the order of Establishing Evaluation Indicators with the order of indicators in Table 1

• Harmonize the numbering method of subtitles in point 2.1.2 with the marking method in point 2.1.1.

• I think the next paragraph does not only refer to point 2.1.2 (2): Interchange comfort but to the whole point 2.1?

This section aims to establish an evaluation indicator system for the coordination of rail transit and regular bus interchanges based on the characteristics of existing transport interchanges. This section also defines and quantifies the comprehensive evaluation indicator system and further selects a comprehensive evaluation method to calculate the evaluation indicators, thereby deriving the basis for grading the degree of coordination of rail transit and regular bus interchanges, as well as conducting an in-depth analysis of the stations.

• Explain the labels Ft and Fs.

• It would be interesting for readers if the parts of the research covered by the following description were presented:

After cleaning and processing the collected data, we obtained data on average transfer time, regional accessibility, interchange requirements, interchange information service, capacity matching, the reasonability of regular bus setting, interchange comfort, and per capita interchange area.

• I think that explaining the previous activities would strengthen the description of the methodology and give more importance to the author's contribution

• In point 3.2 Example Studies, it should be stated that only two examples are presented in the paper: Civic Center Station and Xibei Canal Station! State how much was analyzed in total!

• in point 3.3.2, I think a mistake was made in the following sentence:

This result indicates that the transfer path between the Civic Center Station and regular buses is short, the station information and service facilities are lacking, and the level of the station environment and equipment intelligence is low.

• I assume instead of Civic Center Station it should be Xibei Canal Station?

• Point 5. Conclusions should be expanded. At this point, only one conclusion is given:

The level of connection is an important factor in measuring the efficiency of rail transport, which directly affects the intention of travelers for choosing rail transport, thereby affecting the passenger flow sharing rate of rail transport.

• other parts of point 5. represent the report of what was done in the presented work!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The methodology and the experiment are not clear describe. It is hard to understand how some of the used indicators were measured, for examples, Interchange comfort, Regional accessibility, Reasonability of regular bus setting, Interchange information service. This lack of information influences on the clear understanding of table 1, for example, why the max value of the Interchange comfort is 10, so give more information about the used questionnaires. It is not clear when the survey was conducted, the period of observation, and how many people were interviewed. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

There's nothing wrong with the paper. But I think the approach is extremely academic. The available options for transfer between transit modes are usually too limited for complicated design models to be of much use. Existing roads, buildings and railway tracks limit the available options. The authors indicate that the approach would be difficult to apply in cities like Beijing or Shanghai, probably also in much smaller cities than those two.

It would improve the paper if the authors included a paragraph or two indicating that the given method is a guideline and must be supplemented by common sense and local knowledge.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is improved, but still I have one suggestion to make. Please add future work in separate sections after conclusions.