Analysis of Multi-Modal Public Transit Competing Relationships and Evolutionary Mechanisms in Cities in Cold Regions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript contains a severe editorial error, which is the mixing of two languages in the figures and Table 2. To me, this kind of mixture does not serve a reasonable purpose and appears to be simply due to negligence. Authors should always proofread their manuscript prior to submission. Therefore, I do not believe it is suitable for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting paper focusing on a great topic. Authors made a remarkable effort to present, discuss and explain the competing relationships and the evolutionary mechanisms that are usually found in multi-modal public transit. Their research is focused on urban areas in cold climates.
Literature review is more than rich and results are quite significant. However, I have some comments for authors to consider:
1. I think that the abstract section should be transformed. More specific: (a) lines 8-11 may be rephrased. The sentence can be divided in two smaller ones. The case study research may be presented later in the abstract. (b) lines 11-14 should also be rephrased as the sentence is not quite understandable. (c) It is crucial for readers to understand the goal of the research. As a result, aim and objectives should be clarified.
2. Introduction section seems to be quite big concerning the length of the paper. Taking into account that introduction usually (a) consists of the 10% of a paper and (b) focuses on i. aim and objectives, ii. the research question (it should be quite clear), iii. the reason why it is important to study this query and iv. the structure of the paper, I propose to split Section 1 into two smaller sections: 1. Introduction (approx 1 page) and 2. Literature Review (approx 1.5 page), in which the existing literature review can be presented.
3. Although the research is about the competitive relationships they are not clearly presented. A diagram where their possible relationship is captured can also be integrated in the manuscript (Introduction or Literature Review).
4. It is necessary to be explained the thematic area of the research. Do authors focus on urban space (urban public transport) or in extra-urban space (long disstance journeys)? On the one hand, it is implied that the research focuses on urban space. However, plenty of the literature review is about extra-urban space.
5. A table summarises all the literature review may optionally be integrated to the manuscript. An indicative structure may be based on reference to: (a) name(s) of the author(s), (b) year of publication, (c) competing relationships, (d) description or justification. Information about the models applied may also be added.
6. In sub-section 2.1, authors need to explain more how and why the model they use came to the fore. References need to be added.
7. In subsection 2.2, I believe that the 3 assumptions presented (l. 165) need to be justified (why these ones)? Moreover, text should be rephrased in some parts of this section (ie. l. 176-180 and 195-196).
8. Section 3 title has to be changed (ie. The case study of Harin or something similar to that). Although authors seem to mention to the whole city/metropolitan area, they also refer to the city centre. This should be clarified. In this part, it would useful if authors could add a map presenting the study area as well as the transportation network (network coverage area can also be presented).
9. Data collection part can either be extended or to be transferred in a new section (Methodology that can be presented after the literature review). It should be clearly explained which type of data received from each authority.
10. It is important for all the information to be presented in english. In Figures 2-5 (especially in Figs 4 and 5) there are Chinese words that are not understandable by all the readers.
All in all, an above average paper which needs some changes to reach publication status.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease improve table 1. Line braking makes hard to follow which row.
Some figures are not in English, please improve. Fig.2-5.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author(s),
Thank you for submitting this paper, which addresses, with an original methodology, an interesting topic. I enclose some suggestions to improve your manuscript:
Literature review: I would include a section dedicated to a more extensive exploration of existing studies on multi-modal transit competition in cold urban areas. An in-depth review of prior research could set the stage for the current study, offering insights into the challenges and gaps that the research aims to address. Key aspects to cover may include urban transit modeling, Lotka-Volterra models in transportation studies, and specific considerations for cold climate regions.
Findings and Discussion: I would include a “Discussion” section, separated from a “Findings” section. While the findings section is dedicated to presenting the raw results of the study, the discussion section should interpret and contextualize those findings in light of what is already known about the topic (the theoretical framework).
Conclusions: To enhance the conclusion, it would be valuable to provide a summary of the most significant findings, discussing their practical implications for urban transit planning and policy-making in cold areas, as well as including considerations on generalization. While it’s understandable that the study focuses on a particular city, mentioning the limitations related to generalizing the findings to other cold urban areas would be helpful. Additionally, addressing the study's limitations and avenues for future research could further enrich the conclusion, ensuring a comprehensive and forward-looking closure to the abstract.
Best wishes!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease find my suggestion in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author(s),
The paper has consistently improved with respect to the previous version. However, I would again suggest you to include a specific "Discussion" section, where to interpret findings on the basis of the existing literature on the topic.
Best wishes!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
