A Novel Trajectory Based Prediction Method for Urban Subway Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate work done by the Authors and find the paper a valuable contribution. I only have some minor comments I would like the Authors to address:

• It might be worth showing the values of the LeadeRank for subway stations on a map,
• on Figure 8, please use a different colour for „Predict region center”. The red dots overlay with red rectangles and are poorly distinguishable.
• I would greatly appreciate a map including the following elements: (1) locations of subway stations existing in 2013, (2) locations of stations built after 2013 predicted by the model, (3) locations of stations built after 2013 that the model failed to predict, (4) future station locations predicted by the model.
• Lines 280-281: “30% of the taxi business pick-up and drop positions are outside the coverage of the subway stations” – don’t you mean “pick up OR drop positions”?
• In conclusions, the Authors include the following statement: „This method can provide useful information for decision-makers in taxi infrastructure construction planning” – actually, the content of the article seems to be more about subway infrastructure planning than taxi infrastructure planning.

I also strongly encourage proofreading the text for language quality, preferably by a native English speaker. The paper is generally comprehensible, but there are some grammar and stylistic inaccuracies that should be corrected prior to publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The research proposes a method based on LeaderRank and Gaussian Mixed Model (GMM) to conduct subway station locations selection. The topic is certainly topical.

To lines 4-5, the authors write: «… few methods for selecting optimal station locations take other public transport in to consider». Is this true? What are these few methods? This needs to be written about. And it needs to be explained why one approach was preferred to the others.

In fact, transport economics suggests multiple techniques of analysis. The authors write little or nothing about this in the article. This needs to be improved, including an explanation of why the approach is proposed. Consequently, the literature review is also weak and needs to be improved.

Also, what are the limitations of the model? The problem at hand is certainly complex, as is also written in the article, but the theoretical and applicative limitations of the proposed approach are not investigated and exposed.

Only after answering the previous questions, the paper can be seriously considered for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper proposes a method to support planning of public transport with a specific focus on subway lines and infrastructures. The method is based on a cluster analysis and the main aim is to locate new station In the existing line. The method is applied in a real case in China.

The topic is relevant and the paper is interesting. However, the current version requires major and minor revisions in order to enhance its quality and readability.

In the follow there are broad and specific comments with some suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has been improved. In my opinion, it deserves to be published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The new version partially respond to my previous comments. 

The authors try to justify its editorial choices in the cover letter. 

I think that the the authors justification have to be supported by some references. In the previous version, I suggest some references but the authors do not consider any suggestions.

Please, try to confirm the knowledge of traditional approach of transport network design and then the your contribution. 

The current version lacks of references about transpot planning and modeling. Please, try to reconsider my previous uggestions.   

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The new version of the paper overcomes the previous limits. in this form, the paper can be accepted.