Cost–Benefit Analysis in High-Speed Railway Projects: Appraisal of Methodological Approaches and an Initial Social Equity Evaluation, A Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Resonable effort but seems more focusing in a case study rather than methodlogical research. Please consider the following comments.
1- The HS/HC in line 41 should be declared to what it is refere.
2- Rugiardini 1970, in line 58 is different from the spelling of the author name in the reference list.
3- ACB in line 162? Do you mean CBA?
4- Case study network illusterations in lines 169 and 170 need to be illusterated with a figure.
5- in line 258 and any simillar issues, please write the equation not isert it as a photo.
6- NFV in line 267 refers to what?
7- in line 447 you provided illusterations of the method and variables, it should be illusterated in the methodology section rather than results section.
8- in line 456 B/C ratio = 2.3? you need to prvide the values of the cost and the benefit that resulted in this ration.
9- illusterations in lines 463 to 469 need to be showin in the figure requested in comment 4.
10- the value 6.8% in Table 3 should be in one line instead of its strange appearance.
10- lines 597 to 606 illusterates a method and should be moved to methodology section. Just keep the results in current section and move illusterations to methodology section.
11- Availability in lines 626 and 632 is not mentioned in the table and not studied as more as a key word. It is rarly considered in the paper although it declared as a key word in keywords declaration.
12- There are many references in the reference list but the were not mentioned in the body text of the paper such as reference 1, 3, 5, ......
Also reference style should be unified specially for books.
Moderate
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
attached is the file with the answers.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
-
Methodological Enhancement: While the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) provides a solid foundation for the study, incorporating additional decision-making tools could enrich the analysis. I recommend considering the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to capture the qualitative aspects of the project, such as social and environmental impacts. This would provide a more holistic view of the project's implications.
-
Opportunity Cost Analysis: The scrutiny of public funds expenditure is a critical aspect of the study. However, it would be beneficial to extend this analysis to consider the opportunity cost of the project. What other public needs or projects could have been addressed with these funds? This broader socio-economic analysis could provide valuable insights into the trade-offs involved in such large-scale infrastructure projects.
-
Sensitivity Analysis: Given the inherent uncertainties and risks associated with large-scale infrastructure projects, a more rigorous sensitivity analysis could be beneficial. This would provide a range of possible outcomes and help decision-makers prepare for various scenarios.
-
Systems Thinking Approach: The study could benefit from considering the rail line within the broader urban ecosystem. How does this project impact and integrate with other transportation systems and urban development projects? A systems thinking approach could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the project's implications.
-
Language and Style: While the manuscript is generally well-written, some sections could benefit from further editing for clarity and conciseness. Ensure that complex ideas are explained clearly and that the paper adheres to the academic writing style appropriate for the journal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been reasonably improved. I recommend accepting it after minor modifications such as summarising the relevant literature in a table showing all previous research contributions compared to the contribution of this paper in addition to highlighting the shortcomings that need to be addressed in further research.
Fine
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, Thank you again for these last suggestions. I have included (highlighted in pink) Table 3 which summarizes the main contributions deriving from the most relevant scientific papers considered in this review. The significant aspects that emerge are grouped under 4 headings:
1- the national impact of the projects
2- regional relevance of the contribution of the interventions
3 - relevance of the stakeholders
- equity analysis.
Finally, with reference to future prospects, you will find the answer in the conclusions (highlighted in green).
I hope I have been exhaustive and in line with your expectations.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
