A Data-Driven Framework for Sustainability and Ergonomic Design of Urban Cycling Networks in the Métropole Européenne de Lille

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a well-executed, technically complex, and timely study addressing the design of urban cycling infrastructure through a data-driven approach. By applying advanced GIS techniques, graph-based modeling, and isochrone analysis, the authors propose a scalable framework that integrates conceptual, functional, physical, and procedural domains for optimizing the cycling network in the MEL region (Métropole Européenne de Lille).

 

The introduction should be expanded with recent references, particularly from the perspective of cyclist safety (e.g., https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031621) and urban design (e.g., https://doi.org/10.56578/judm020205).

 

Citation formatting does not conform to the journal’s author guidelines, as references should be sequentially numbered starting from [1]. Additionally, the practice of placing more than three references in a single citation cluster should be avoided.

 

The authors effectively integrate multiple models, including graph-theoretical structures, isochrones, metric transformations, and spatial analyses, into a clear and reproducible analytical framework.

 

The study is highly relevant for urban transport planners, as it enables context-sensitive micro-interventions and is adaptable to other metropolitan regions.

 

The manuscript is well-structured, with four distinct domains (civic, functional, physical, and procedural) that clearly trace the progression from user needs to algorithmic solutions.

 

The use of open-source tools such as OpenStreetMap, GeoPandas, and Osmium enhances the transparency and replicability of the study.

 

Certain technical sections (e.g., Sections 3.1–3.4) are overly detailed and could be streamlined without loss of clarity. Descriptions of file formats and shapefile manipulation (.pbf, .geojson, .parquet) would be more appropriate as supplementary material.

 

The discussion section (Section 4) would benefit from further elaboration, with more specific recommendations for spatial interventions in the MEL area, and clearer connections to existing studies (e.g., comparative insights from other cities, network typologies, and methods).

 

Terminological consistency should be improved, terms such as accessibility, access, connectivity, and reachability are occasionally used interchangeably without clarification. Including a table with definitions of key terms is recommended.

 

Maps and figures are useful, but some lack clarity (notably Figures 4 and 6). It is recommended to enlarge font sizes, add more detailed legends, and clearly label the IRIS zones being analyzed.

 

The manuscript is written in generally acceptable English; however:

- Occasional stylistic and grammatical errors are present, such as:

 - “Cycling offer valuable daily physical activity...”, should be: “Cycling offers...”

 - “network discontinuities, unsafe segments, and missing links, which are often overlooked...”, could be stylistically improved.

- Sentences are sometimes overly long and technically dense, periodic summarization and clearer formulations, especially in the introduction and conclusion, are advised.

 

This manuscript has significant scientific and practical value. The proposed framework contributes meaningfully to the field of sustainable urban mobility and can serve as a foundation for national strategies in developing cycling infrastructure.

 

Recommendation: Accept with minor revisions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is written in generally acceptable English; however:

- Occasional stylistic and grammatical errors are present, such as:

 - “Cycling offer valuable daily physical activity...”, should be: “Cycling offers...”

 - “network discontinuities, unsafe segments, and missing links, which are often overlooked...”, could be stylistically improved.

- Sentences are sometimes overly long and technically dense, periodic summarization and clearer formulations, especially in the introduction and conclusion, are advised.

Author Response

The manuscript presents a well-executed, technically complex, and timely study addressing the design of urban cycling infrastructure through a data-driven approach. By applying advanced GIS techniques, graph-based modeling, and isochrone analysis, the authors propose a scalable framework that integrates conceptual, functional, physical, and procedural domains for optimizing the cycling network in the MEL region (Métropole Européenne de Lille).

Response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and encouraging evaluation of our study. Your positive feedback reinforces the relevance and potential impact of our work.

 

The introduction should be expanded with recent references, particularly from the perspective of cyclist safety (e.g., https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031621) and urban design (e.g., https://doi.org/10.56578/judm020205).

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to strengthen the introduction with recent and relevant literature. In response, we have expanded the introduction to incorporate recent studies addressing cyclist safety and urban design, including the two references provided:

Ivanišević, T.; Trifunović, A.; Čičević, S.; Pešić, D.; Simović, S.; Zunjic, A.; Duplakova, D.; Duplak, J.; Manojlovic, U. Analysis and Determination of the Lateral Distance Parameters of Vehicles When Overtaking an Electric Bicycle from the Point of View of Road Safety. Applied Sciences 2023, 13, 1621, doi:10.3390/app13031621.

Al-Ansari, H.A., Al-Khafaji, A.S., 2023. Enhancing Public Health Through Sustainable Urban Design: An Examination of Transportation and Green Space Integration. https://doi.org/10.56578/judm020205

Some new references references (2025) are also included:

Islam, A., Mekker, M., Singleton, P.A., 2025. Investigating bicycle crash frequency, severity, and safety in numbers at signalized intersections in Utah using crowdsourced data. Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research 4, 100068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmr.2025.100068

Anupriya, McCoy, E., Graham, D.J., 2025. Safe Streets for Cyclists? Quantifying the Causal Impact of Cycling Infrastructure Interventions on Safety.

 

Citation formatting does not conform to the journal’s author guidelines, as references should be sequentially numbered starting from [1]. Additionally, the practice of placing more than three references in a single citation cluster should be avoided.

Egon

We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. We have revised the citation formatting to conform with the journal’s guidelines: references are now numbered sequentially starting from [1], and no more than three references appear in any single citation cluster. Additionally, we have extended several paragraphs to provide more detailed context and better reflect the contributions of the cited authors.

 

The authors effectively integrate multiple models, including graph-theoretical structures, isochrones, metric transformations, and spatial analyses, into a clear and reproducible analytical framework.

Response:

We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s positive assessment and encouragement. This motivates us to continue refining and developing our approach.

 

The study is highly relevant for urban transport planners, as it enables context-sensitive micro-interventions and is adaptable to other metropolitan regions.

Response:

We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s positive assessment and encouragement. This motivates us to continue refining and developing our approach.

 

The manuscript is well-structured, with four distinct domains (civic, functional, physical, and procedural) that clearly trace the progression from user needs to algorithmic solutions.

Response:

We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s positive assessment and encouragement. This motivates us to continue refining and developing our approach.

 

The use of open-source tools such as OpenStreetMap, GeoPandas, and Osmium enhances the transparency and replicability of the study.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the value of using open-source tools in our study. We agree that these resources play a crucial role in ensuring transparency and reproducibility, which are core goals of our work.

 

Certain technical sections (e.g., Sections 3.1–3.4) are overly detailed and could be streamlined without loss of clarity. Descriptions of file formats and shapefile manipulation (.pbf, .geojson, .parquet) would be more appropriate as supplementary material.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback.

In response, we have streamlined Sections 3.1–3.5 to improve clarity and readability while preserving the necessary information.

Detailed descriptions of file formats and data manipulation procedures (.pbf, .geojson, .parquet) have been relocated to the supplementary material “Appendix A Technical Details of the Computational Model for MEL”, as suggested.

We believe this change improves the flow of the main text and makes the paper more accessible to a broader readership.

 

The discussion section (Section 4) would benefit from further elaboration, with more specific recommendations for spatial interventions in the MEL area, and clearer connections to existing studies (e.g., comparative insights from other cities, network typologies, and methods).

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable and constructive suggestion. In response, we have expanded the discussion section (Section 4) to provide greater depth and clarity, particularly with regard to spatial interventions in the MEL area and to strengthen connections to existing studies. To enhance structure and readability, the revised discussion is now organized into four subsections:

• 4.1 Principal Findings – summarizing the key results of the spatial and statistical analyses;
• 4.2 Interpretation and Critical Analysis – discussing the implications of our findings and establishing clearer links with relevant existing studies;
• 4.3 Specific Recommendations for Spatial Interventions in MEL – providing actionable proposals for infrastructure improvements, including targeted corridors, enhanced network connectivity, and priority areas for intervention based on identified risk and demand patterns;
• 4.4 Implications for the Sustainable Ergodesign of the Cycling Network – situating the findings within broader urban design principles to support sustainable and inclusive cycling infrastructure.

 

Terminological consistency should be improved, terms such as accessibility, access, connectivity, and reachability are occasionally used interchangeably without clarification. Including a table with definitions of key terms is recommended.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for pointing out the need for improved terminological consistency. In response, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure more precise usage of key terms such as accessibility, connectivity, and reachability. To further support clarity and avoid ambiguity, we have clearly defined these concepts and added a dedicated table in the revised manuscript to distinguish these terms as used in the context of our study. Additionally, the mathematical definitions underlying these terms are now included to provide a formal and unambiguous specification of their use in our analyses.

Maps and figures are useful, but some lack clarity (notably Figures 4 and 6). It is recommended to enlarge font sizes, add more detailed legends, and clearly label the IRIS zones being analyzed.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for the valuable feedback regarding the clarity of our maps and figures. In response, we have enlarged the font sizes in Figures 4 and 6 to improve readability. Additionally, we have enhanced the legends by including more detailed explanations of the symbols, color scales, and data represented, to better guide readers through the visual information. Regarding the suggestion to label the IRIS zones, we fully acknowledge the importance of spatial clarity. However, given the high density and large number of IRIS units within the MEL area, directly labeling each zone—particularly in Figure 4—would result in excessive visual clutter and significantly reduce the figure’s readability. We believe that the improved legibility and detailed legends help convey the spatial patterns effectively without compromising clarity.

This manuscript has significant scientific and practical value. The proposed framework contributes meaningfully to the field of sustainable urban mobility and can serve as a foundation for national strategies in developing cycling infrastructure.

Response:
We sincerely thank the reviewer for recognizing the scientific and practical significance of our work.

 

Recommendation: Accept with minor revisions.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is written in generally acceptable English; however:

- Occasional stylistic and grammatical errors are present, such as:

 - “Cycling offer valuable daily physical activity...”, should be: “Cycling offers...”

 - “network discontinuities, unsafe segments, and missing links, which are often overlooked...”, could be stylistically improved.

- Sentences are sometimes overly long and technically dense, periodic summarization and clearer formulations, especially in the introduction and conclusion, are advised.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for their careful reading and helpful suggestions regarding stylistic and grammatical improvements. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to correct errors such as the one noted (“Cycling offer” corrected to “Cycling offers”) and have refined phrasing for better clarity and style, including the sentence referencing “network discontinuities, unsafe segments, and missing links.”

Additionally, we have addressed concerns about sentence length and density by breaking up overly long sentences and adding periodic summaries, particularly in the Introduction and Conclusion sections. These changes improve the overall readability and accessibility of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the abstract and introduction, the unique innovation points of this research can be highlighted more prominently, and the differences from existing studies can be clearly defined.
2. In the current literature review section, a comparative analysis of the limitations of existing data-driven frameworks can be added to highlight the supplementary contribution of this study.
3. Details of the methodology need to be supplemented, such as whether slope or traffic signal delay is taken into account in time calculation and the basis for algorithm selection.
4. The reliability and coverage of the data have not been fully verified, such as whether the bicycle lane labels are complete and the basis for buffering 200 meters has not been explained. It is suggested to add data quality assessment and rationality analysis of spatial matching.
5. Some of the pictures lack legend explanations. It is suggested to add chart legends and add statistical analysis methods to support the credibility of the conclusion.
6. This paper does not mention the limitations of the model assumptions. This paper assumes a fixed cycling speed of 15 km/h and does not take into account individual differences and the influence of weather. It is suggested that in the discussion section, a critical analysis of the model assumptions and data limitations be added, and directions for improvement be proposed.
7. The "micro-intervention strategies" proposed in Part 5 lack specific case support.
8. There are issues with the format of some references, such as References 16 and 17. It is suggested that they be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a comprehensive and technically rigorous framework for analyzing urban cycling networks. However, several improvements are needed before publication. First, the authors should clarify the innovation of the proposed framework compared to existing models and justify the selection of the MEL region. Second, the role of ergonomic design needs to be clearly defined and better integrated into the analysis. Third, the assumed average cycling speed (0.8 m/s) appears unrealistic and requires justification or adjustment. Fourth, key terms such as "accessibility" and "reachability" should be used consistently throughout the text. Fifth, the structure of Sections 2 and 3 should be streamlined to eliminate redundancy, and non-essential background content should be condensed to improve clarity. Sixth, a methodological flowchart should be added to help readers grasp the overall research process. Seventh, a dedicated section discussing the limitations of data, assumptions, and applicability is needed. Eighth, Table 1 and certain technical details may be better placed in an appendix. Ninth, figure captions should be revised to be more descriptive and self-explanatory. Finally, the Discussion section should be enhanced by highlighting practical policy implications derived from the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After revisions, this manuscript has met the journal's acceptance criteria. It is recommended that the manuscript be accepted following further formatting and typesetting refinements

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form