How Much Will the Sichuan–Tibet Railway Improve the Accessibility of Tibet, China: A Comparative Study by Multiple Scenarios

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper, and a well-done study on accessibility supported by appropriate references.

I have only three major sets of comments.

First, it is not clear why this study is necessary, or how it builds on those that came before. There are hints in the conclusions that this work reveals different spatial patterns of accessibility in Tibet than those seen by other researchers. This point could be made more strongly in the introduction to justify why this is a topic worthy of investigation.

Further, a search online says the railroad was completed in 2006, so I’m not sure what the three scenarios in table 1 refer to.

Secondly, what are internal and external accessibility? They were introduced on page 2, line 71 but not defined. External accessibility shows up again on page 5, but I still don’t understand it.

Thirdly, the data section is a single paragraph, with much going on within it. It would be better to give more details about the timetable or rail schedule data. Do these times include waiting times? What are the frequencies of these trains? What were the transfer times mentioned on line 121?  What points were used to represent access points or stations? Were these cities within the 74 counties?  This paragraph should be expanded to more fully describe the data and processing.

I was also surprised in Section 3.2.1. to be now reading about roads and road accessibility. I had thought this was a railroad accessibility study. This could be clarified in the introduction. There is a reference here to estimated speeds for railways. Why not just use railway speeds derived from timetables? Why should this be estimated?

Some of the map legends are so small they are hard to read.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is good, but it could use a bit more proofreading. I had no trouble understanding it. My issues above were with organization or missing information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is innovative, however, I recommend a minor revision before publication. Firstly, incorporating more recent references on transportation accessibility, particularly regarding the use of GIS and transportation networks in remote regions, would enhance the study's relevance and contextual depth. Current literature on high-speed and inter-regional rail networks, such as those influencing socio-economic growth in isolated areas, could offer valuable comparative insights.

Another aspect to consider is the structure of the methodology section, which could be organized more cohesively. Providing additional details on specific data sources and assumptions made in the model would improve transparency and reproducibility for readers. Furthermore, expanding on the spatial analysis methods used, especially in relation to the GIS techniques applied, would give a clearer understanding of the analytical framework.

The figures and tables in the paper effectively illustrate the findings.

In addition, I suggest extending the discussion on future research directions. This could include the significance of developing transportation infrastructure in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and exploring additional methods to evaluate accessibility changes. Moreover, the authors could benefit from identifying and discussing the study’s limitations more thoroughly. For instance, the reliance on idealized transportation parameters, rather than real-world conditions, may limit the accuracy of the results.

The study would also benefit from a clearer explanation of how the results might inform policymakers and contribute to balanced regional development. In particular, detailing how transportation improvements could reduce regional disparities and support social and economic integration within Tibet and with adjacent provinces would strengthen the study’s practical implications.

Lastly, while the authors have done an excellent job analyzing accessibility at different levels, they might also consider discussing the broader impacts of accessibility changes on socio-economic factors, such as employment and education opportunities, in remote areas. This would broaden the study’s scope and provide a more comprehensive view of the implications of improved accessibility.

The paper contains several grammatical and stylistic issues that could be addressed to improve clarity and readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf