Building Sustainable and Connected Communities by Addressing Public Transportation’s First-Mile Problem: Insights from a Stated Preference Survey in El Paso, Texas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the public transportation’s first-mile problem through a stated preference survey. The topic is interesting. However, the paper can be improved and the main concerns are listed as follows:

1. A typo can be seen for Eqs listed in the paper. Please check and give a revision.

2. Please give a brief explanation for the primary trip purposes.

3. Given that the survey was carried out in 2018 and 2019, how to ensure the applicability of the research in this year, e.g. 2014?

4. It is suggested to give a flow chart for the data processing.

5. The contributions and novelty of the study are not clear in the conclusion. It is suggested to use numerical results to highlight the contribution.

6. A policy implication should be discussed in the conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main content of this paper is to study the sustainability and influencing factors of public transport use. The study collected the information of participants' personal characteristics, travel behavior and attitude through questionnaires, and analyzed the influence of these factors on public transport preference. The advantages of this article include: the first is the research method. The article adopts the method of questionnaire survey and collects a lot of data, which can provide more comprehensive information. The second is data cleaning, which cleans and filters the data, eliminates abnormal values and missing data, and improves the reliability and interpretability of the data. The third is the choice of variables. This paper chooses the socioeconomic and building environment variables related to the use of public transport to analyze, which is helpful to reveal the influencing factors of public transport preference.

The article can be improved as follows: the first is the explanation of the results. The article does not explain and discuss the results in detail in the results part, and lacks in-depth analysis and explanation of the research results. The second is the method description. The article gives a brief description of the research method, without specifying the questionnaire design, sample selection and data analysis methods, and needs a more detailed method description. The third is the practical significance of the results. The article does not discuss the practical significance of the research results, and does not put forward specific policy suggestions or prospects for future research.

To sum up, this paper has some advantages in research methods and data analysis, but it needs to be improved in the interpretation of results and practical significance. It is suggested that the results should be further analyzed and explained, and specific policy suggestions and future research directions should be put forward. In addition, a more detailed description of research methods and data analysis process is also needed to be improved.

Also, the literature may be improved by citing more relevant papers. Just list several as follows.

AI-Empowered Speed Extraction via Port-Like Videos for Vehicular Trajectory Analysis

A hybrid visualization model for knowledge mapping: scientometrics, SAOM, and SAO

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

About the text, the reviewer does not have any comments, but about the template of the paper, the reviewer has some comments:

First, the font is different from lines 26 to 78. That font is more large than other text in your paper;

Second, when some read Instruction for Authors, they see that the tables in that Word file do not have vertical lines. Fix that in your paper;

Third, they have an equation but move over the text in the Word file. Instruction for Authors is not like that; please fix that and

Fourth, they could put the chapter 4.6 Concluding Remarks in chapter 5. Concluding

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper addressing an important aspect to enhance the access to public transport modes and, thus, sustainability of passenger mobility.

The following aspects are recommended to be considered in a revision of the paper:

- The literature review (and also the introduction) is focused on the US, although similar programs and experiences to address the first/ last mile problem are available in other regions of the world, too (e.g., Europe). Either clearly state that the review is restricted to the US (and explain why), or extend the scope of the literature review. 

- When presenting and explaining the results in chapter 3.0, a more explicit link should be established to equation (3), i.e. explicitly stating how the presented results refer to the central equation (3).

- Tab. 5-7: the meaning of the numbers with and without brackets should be explicitly explained. Also the meaning of "*", "**" and "***" should be explicitly stated.

- The "additional transit trips" require some further consideration, as these additional transit trips may either be trips shifted from other modes, or induced demand. Induced demand is not necessarily desirable in terms of sustainability targets. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is well written. Nevertheless, a language check is recommended (e.g., "The laten demand may also stems from").

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have dealt with all my concerns.