Review Reports - An Examination of Pedestrian Crossing Behaviors at Signalized Intersections with Bus Priority Routes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is correct and appropriate for this journal, given the widespread emphasis on public transportation to mitigate problems stemming from the massive use of private vehicles.

As a potential improvement to include in the manuscript, it is suggested to reference examples and results derived from traffic calming measures that could reduce vehicle speeds on streets and avenues where bus signal priority is implemented.

An example of the lack of traffic calming measures that would enable adequate private vehicle-pedestrian integration is shown in the photos included in the manuscript, where fences separating the two. This clearly reflects that such integration does not exist due to the high risk of pedestrian accidents. When public space design is pedestrian-sensitive, no fencing is necessary because the risk to this group is minimal.

As previously mentioned, the article should emphasize such examples as one of the most effective measures to reduce pedestrian accidents in urban areas.

Author Response

please see the file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript focuses on pedestrian crossing behaviors at signalized intersections with bus priority routes. The analyses are detailed, Though the quality analyses can be known by thinking, but the quantity analyses are valuable. There are many defects in this manuscript.
1.In line 351, what is "p"?
2.In line 391, what does "33% and 38% vs. 23%" mean?
3.In line 392, what does "X2[2]" mean?
4.In Fig. 4, 21%+44%+25% is not 100%, 24%+28%+42% is not 100%, 15%+24%+21% is not 100%, and 19%+30%+28% is not 100%. Why?
5.In Fig. 4, what do the numbers in parentheses mean?
6.In line 409, what does "X2[1]" mean?
7.In line 419, what does "t(351)" mean?
8.In line 422, what does "X2[5]" mean?
9.In Table 2, why are many probability values bigger than 1 (the total of all probability values must be 1)?
10.In Table 2, why are many probability values smaller than 0?
11.In Table 2, why is the total of all probability values in the same group not 1?
12.There are some reference numbers not listed in order, e.g. [12,15,14] in line 84 and [49,45,36,12,38,41] in line 586.
In conclusion, explanation and modification are necessary.

Author Response

please see the file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors study pedestrian crossing behavior at signalized intersections with bus priority routes (BPRs).

1.The novelty of the paper should be described in the introduction.

2.In the introduction, it is clear that the authors do not have enough information on the existing studies and suggest that the authors should look into more models done by others.See for example "Multi-objective optimal dispatch strategy for power systems with Spatio-temporal distribution of air pollutants"

3.Field observations were only conducted during specific times of the day on weekdays (8 a.m. to 2 p.m. for the CL site and 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. for the CS site), but there may be differences in pedestrian behavior between morning and evening peaks and off-peak hours? Clarification is needed.

4.Why didn't the authors take into account general vehicular traffic flow, bus arrival times, pedestrian wait times, etc.?

5.The explanatory power of the multivariate model is relatively low, and it is unable to quantify the explanations of socio-cultural factors, personal habits of pedestrians, and other factors.

6.Measurement factors such as pedestrians rushing to bus stops, familiarity with the intersection, etc. were not explored for the “three-way effect” that exists at center lane BPR intersections.