Research on the Increase in Commuter Use Immediately After the Opening of LRT Using IC Card Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) The "novelty" claim (differentiating trip purposes) could be sharper. While prior studies focused on aggregate ridership, papers like Alsger et al. (2018) and Kusakabe et al. (2014) already used smart-card data for purpose inference. Clarify how this study advances methodology.

(2) Logistic Regression: The choice of a logistic curve is justified, but why not compare with alternative models (e.g., Gompertz or time-series ARIMA)?

(3) How were one-way users (excluded from analysis) handled? Could their omission bias the results?

Author Response

Please check pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an analysis of commuter behavior following the opening of a LRT using IC card data. While the topic is relevant to urban transportation studies, the research suffers from several critical limitations that undermine its academic rigor and contribution. Below are detailed comments.
(1) The abstract states: "The purpose of this study is to predict the purpose of use of IC card data of the LRT immediately after the opening by means of a questionnaire survey." However, this objective does not align well with the broader focus suggested by the title, which emphasizes an investigation into increased commuter usage post-LRT opening. 
(2) The title of Figure 15, "Changes in ridership index by purpose on weekdays," does not accurately represent the presented data. 
(3) The reliance on time-trend extrapolation to predict ridership per day is problematic. 
(4) The reported R2 value further indicates weak explanatory power, suggesting that the model may not be scientifically robust. 

Author Response

Please check pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript investigates the increase in commuter use following the introduction of a Light Rail Transit (LRT) system in Utsunomiya, Japan, utilizing IC card data and a questionnaire survey. The authors aim to analyze changes in commuting patterns and retention rates of users. While the topic is timely and relevant, there are several critical areas that require improvement before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

1. The methodology section lacks sufficient detail regarding the data collection process and the analysis techniques used. The authors should provide clearer explanations of how the discriminant analysis and logistic regression were conducted, including any assumptions made.

2. The manuscript would benefit from a comparative analysis with existing studies on similar LRT systems or public transportation projects. This would help contextualize the findings and demonstrate their relevance to a broader audience.

3. The discussion section needs to be more comprehensive. The authors should elaborate on the implications of their findings, particularly in relation to urban planning and policy-making. How do the results inform future LRT projects or public transportation strategies?

4. The authors should explicitly address the limitations of their study, including potential biases in IC card data and survey responses. Additionally, suggestions for future research directions would enhance the manuscript's contribution to the field.

5. While the authors mention using logistic regression, they should provide more statistical details, such as goodness-of-fit measures and confidence intervals, to strengthen the validity of their findings.

6. The manuscript could benefit from improved clarity and organization. Some sections are dense and could be more concise, making it easier for readers to follow the argumentation.

Author Response

Please check pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Clarity and Terminology:
• Specify the full name of "LRT" (Light Rail Transit) at the beginning of the paper to avoid confusion.
2. Headings:
• Clarify and improve the headings for better readability. For example, revise section 1.2.1 to: "Research on the Discrepancies Between Forecasted and Actual Ridership in New Public Transportation Projects."
3. Avoid One-Sentence Paragraphs:
• Combine single-sentence paragraphs in sections like:
• Section 1.2.3: "Some studies exist that analyze the impact of changes in transportation services using IC card data."
• Section 1.2.2: "Many studies have clarified the initial surge in users and the time when users are established for the ex-post evaluation of projects."
• Expand these paragraphs with additional context or merge them with related content.
4. Word Choice:
• Clarify vague or confusing phrases, such as: "densely inhabited districts (DID) continued to increase with the spread" in section 2.1. Provide more specific information or rephrase for clarity.
5. Logical Flow:
• Key sections lack a logical flow, making it challenging to follow the narrative. The paper should be reorganized for better structure.
6. Reorganization Suggestions:
• Start with a succinct introduction that clearly outlines the problem, objectives, and contributions of the study.
• Group the literature review into clear subthemes, such as:
• Forecasting ridership.
• Use of IC card data.
• Ramp-up trends in LRT systems.
• Ensure that each section builds logically toward the results and discussion, creating a cohesive narrative.
7. Explanation of Figures and Tables:
• Provide a brief explanation or summary of each figure and table in the text to help the reader understand their relevance.
8. Figure 2 Issues:
• Ensure consistency in the gaps between years in Figure 2 for better data visualization and interpretation.
9. Placement of Section 2.2:
• Move section 2.2 (Overview of Haga Utsunomiya LRT) to the beginning of the paper. This will provide essential context for the study.
10. Conclusion and Structure:

• Avoid ending the paper with a discussion. Add a clear conclusion section that summarizes the key findings, practical implications, and potential areas for future research.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper's English language quality is inadequate but requires significant improvement for clarity and readability.

Please simplify language, improving sentence structure, and enhance the paper's overall presentation.

Author Response

Please check pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the previous comments—the manuscript has improved significantly. Two major but important clarifications are needed:

First, please specify the exact opening date of the LRT system and justify why September 2023 to June 2024 represents its "initial introduction phase," as this period is central to your analysis.

Second, while you note that COVID-19 led to irregular survey intervals, please briefly explain how pandemic-related disruptions may have influenced the observed trends and whether these effects were accounted for in your methodology. 

Author Response

Please check pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my concerns and suggest that it be published.

Author Response

Your advice made my paper much better. Thank you again.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The sentence structure in some parts of the manuscript, such as “As the first all-new LRT in Japan and the first in 75 years, including streetcars [4], and given the car-dependent urban structure, it was uncertain whether the number of users would be as predicted, but the number of users during the first year of operation was 1.2 times higher…”, is challenging to follow due to its length and complexity. While it is clear that the authors have made efforts to enhance the English, the result occasionally introduces unnecessary complications.

I kindly recommend seeking professional editorial assistance to refine the language and ensure the manuscript is clear and concise. Simplifying sentence structures and improving readability will significantly enhance the presentation of the research findings.

More references are required. Some targeted references—particularly focusing on behavioral transitions, and forecasting methodologies—would provide a more comprehensive foundation for the conclusions. Expanding the reference base in these areas would enhance the credibility and depth of the study.

I would like to help and review after the presentation of English is improved.

Author Response

Please check pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you .

Author Response

Thank you very much.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please seek professional help for improving the presentation in English.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

bad

Author Response

Professional help was utilized including an English-check service. A thorough check was carried out to improve the clarity of the paper.

In addition to overall clarity improvements, we have reduced the following variation in spelling of similar terms to reduce confusion for readers:
commuting users: commuters
number of use, utilize performance etc.: ridership
light rail transit, light rail system, rail transit: LRT
stay time, duration, length of stay: duration of stay
nationwide PT: national PT
get off time: disembarkation time

In addition, I edited parts that were difficult to understand and sentences that were too long.

There are many changes, and introducing them individually would make it difficult to understand the context, so we will not go into detail here.

Please see the Supplementary File, MDPI_English_v12-red.pdf.