Optimizing Bus Bridging Service Considering Passenger Transfer and Reneging Behavior

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript proposes a design problem for an optimal bus-bridging service in the event of interrupted subway service. The reviewers think that this manuscript basically describes the authors' work well. However, there are several points that may need to be modified to make the study more understandable to the reader, as indicated below.

(1) In Step 3 of Section 3.1.2, candidate routes are enumerated by the two rules. Please explain whether these rules are heuristic or whether these rules guarantee that the optimum route will be included in the candidate solution.

(2) In Table 1, please explain what the "set of candidate schemes for route selection" means.

(3) In equation (14), please explain how the maximum and minimum values of Z_1 and Z_2 are obtained.

(4) Figure 7 is hard to understand. Maybe, it would be easier to understand if specific routes were given as examples and their genotypes were indicated. 

(5) In section 3.3.1, it would be easier to understand the crossover and mutation operation if the authors explain using figures.

(6) In section 3.3.2., the authors evaluate the fitness value using a multi-agent simulation method. Please explain whether this approach guarantees unique fitness value or not.

(7) In Table 2, some stations with the same name are listed twice.

(8) In line 489, please explain what the traditional GA means.

(9) Related to my eighth comment, if the traditional GA optimizes the bus routes and bus deployment at the same time, the reviewer suspects that regular GA will find a better solution if the computational costs are ignored. i.e. Since the proposed two-stage GA optimizes bus routes and bus deployment independently, the final solution may not be globally optimal. Please explain why the proposed two-stage GA is superior to the traditional GA in the case study.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors 

The paper is well presented and I suggested some elements to be added in the paper. 

1. Add a table on previous research on this topic. highlight the gap scientifically

2. Why and where previous research are lacking 

3. There are many figures with low quality. please improve it 

4. Do you have non disclosure certificate of the case study data

5. What are the limitations of the proposed approach 

6. The sensitivity is not clear neither enough. can we validate it through any other method

7. The method is also confusing. can you add clear flow chart for the whole study

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the hypothesis section (lines 249–256), are the historical bus automatic vehicle positioning data and historical passenger data sufficiently representative? How is the accuracy of these data ensured? If there are data lags, it is advisable to discuss the potential impact of data bias on the model's performance. In fact, bus travel time and passenger demand are known to be difficult to establish in practice, such as traffic congestion, emergencies and other factors, so the usefulness of the model is limited, It is recommended to introduce uncertainties into the following model discussion.

 

2. Figures 13 and 14 use inward-facing coordinate axis scale lines, while Figures 15–18 use outward-facing scale lines. This inconsistency affects the overall uniformity of the paper's charts. Standardizing the chart format throughout the manuscript is recommended.

 

3. The case study focuses solely on the Ningbo rail transit network, which has only five railway lines and lacks validation across different urban rail transit systems. Consequently, the model's applicability to other contexts is unclear. It is suggested to consider case studies of other cities or different scenarios, or acknowledge this limitation in the conclusion section.

 

4. The results of the table analysis in Table 6 and Table 7 in the article are simple and suggest further in-depth analysis.

 

 

5. The discussion of the results is superficial and lacks in-depth analysis and explanation. It is suggested that the author should discuss the results in more detail, especially how to apply the results to the actual design of the bus feeder service.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx