An Assessment of Accessibility from a Socially Sustainable Urban Mobility Approach in Mass Transit Projects: Contributions from the Northern Central American Triangle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Fascinating paper that questions planning assumptions and offers a novel comparative framework for decision-making.

One point I suggest is a paragraph about how the plans of the transit operators were originated or modified on a continuing basis. Is there a method to date? The paper mentions numerous 'plans' by transit officials and does discuss their efficacy, but not their origins, or how the voice of people served makes a difference [or not].

One may also ask if fixing transit to be sustainable is the key- if space separates housing from employment, education, child care, food access, isn't it just perpetuating the larger planning failures of not having a mixed use walkable city or area? One example would be the unchecked capitalist creation of 'food deserts' where there is no local access to fresh food or even in some cases 'convenience stores', especially for urban populations. Conversely, if the local pattern is a working mixed use neighborhood [I imagine few may exist in your examples], why would it need more transit 'out' unless excluded? I do think the study is very valuable and targeted, but stating the city/community is part of this fragmented 'place' that requires a transit network for thriving may be necessary early in the paper.

Overall a valuable piece.

Specific suggestions/comments:

Opening paragraph [24-30] should emphasize the strategy has failed- it comes off as anti-imperialist [that's fine] without saying it failed the needy or underclass. You may wish a brief comment that the process also marginalizes or excludes the local voices.

Name the three categories in the paragraph from Figure 2 [56-57].

Spatial equity may need a brief explanation- unserved vs. underserved vs. equity vs. exclusivity. Equity may suggest a mere access vs. needing an actual level of service that tilts the balance of resources toward the underserved.[108-109]

While I don't dispute the value of the cities chosen, is there a rationale you can state for why were the capital cities chosen? Access to data, extreme conditions, most diverse [or least diverse] current networks to test? [126-127].

Can you adjust the tone on Figure 3 such that Guatemala City [also missing capitalization of 'City'] so the urban field is more in contrast, as the two adjacent maps? I see later that 'City' is also not capitalized, so forgive me if that is a cultural convention of the location.

Figure 4 seems to be of major importance, but the grey population field tones seem to negate the grey toned lines of mode.  I am unsure if I can read the red lines on 'San Salvador' adequately. It maybe the red district bounds and BRT get confused for the reader. Whil I am unsure the publication has a multi-color format, these may read differently than intended. I enlarged them on my screen 200% and did better, but that may mean a full page for each in 'print'. 

Table 1: if there is a graphic ability/pagination to do so, I would put all of Table 1 on the following page so headers are not separated from table content.

Table 2: It would be helpful to provide a key as to meanings of all the column and row symbols and abbreviations, and the color implications, on the same page.

Figure 5: Education access relative to success or unmet is unlike the other 3 issues mapped, as tied to demographics and nature of education sought- elementary, skilled learning, undergraduate or graduate. If 'unmet' areas are mostly elderly, even less impact as an issue.

Figure 8: San Salvador has no population index designation for column meaning.

4. Discussion [270+]. There is no indication of population or demographic change here- it leads one to an assumption the served population is static over the six years.

I appreciate the discussion in lines 304-316. Some of this social detail could be introduced at a conceptual scale earlier.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some of the sentences run on a bit long.

This is more technical writing comment vs English per se, but the use acronyms is extensive. I think they were explained at least once early on, but those in planning who are not transit planners may have to go back to their meaning. Some of the tables are missing index information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 1. The topic of the thesis is meaningful. Some interesting conclusions are also drawn through data analysis.

2.However, this study does not seem to be based on solid disciplinary issues, and the research conclusions do not respond to some important academic issues .It is recommended that the author supplement some literature on spatial geography, transportation sociology, or public management in the introduction and conclusion sections of the article to promote dialogue and development of disciplinary theories

3.The article lacks research hypotheses, it is recommended to supplement them completely.

4.The explanation of data sources and data selection is not clear enough, it is recommended to provide a clearer explanation.

5.You should offer some theoretical structure for these dimensions you have measured. The  presentation of the method  is not  clear as now

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

General some typing errors and the language should be looked carefully again.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper uses the SUMM approach and presents how to use accessibility assessment to evaluate progress in social sustainability of urban mobility in Global South. Specifically, accessibility is evaluated focusing on spatial efficiency and equity in a comparative analysis in three capital cities of NCAT comparing accessibility before and after construction of BRT projects. The paper is well written with a clear structure and comprehensive discussions. Here are some comments to the authors for consideration. 

1.     Some abbreviations were not used consistently. For example, is “MUSS” on line 54 and 93 the same as “SSUM”? Similarly in Figure 8, “TPZ” was used in footnote while “ZPT” was shown in the figure. Are they the same? If so, please use the same abbreviations. 

2.     On line 134 and 136 when mentioning 210,000 and 27,000 daily passengers, please also provide the proportion number related to the total population. Proportion may be more informative in this context. 

3.     For Table 2, please provide additional footnote so that it can be self-explanatory with enough details. For example, please explain the meaning of different colors, of “A”, “P” and “Delta”. Does “delta” under spatial efficiency mean standard deviation or variance? Please clarify. In addition, why were 0 entries colored in both red and yellow? What are the difference? Why was “2,907” colored in yellow?

4.     For Figure 8, what is the meaning of x-axis? Why does the figure only highlight a portion of the full figure for GUATEMALA? Is there a better way to visualize or quantify the difference of ZPT accessibility before and after BRT project (e.g., boxplot of difference?). Is such difference associated with population size?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

The abstract needs to be revised to accurately reflect the content of the work. You have not provided a description of the research, which is a crucial element of an abstract. You should include a brief description of the research, including information about the scope, sample, time, and location of the study. Additionally, you have not included the most important research findings, which are essential in an abstract. You should present the key findings of the study that correspond to the purpose of the work and the research hypotheses. Furthermore, if applicable and feasible, numerical or percentage values should be included.

Line 26: "Sustainability in the field of transport can be perceived as a neo-imperialist notion that neglects local values." Is it possible to cite additional authors who express similar views, or is this the only researcher who discusses neglected local values? Why did the author decide to include this quotation? Is it representative of scientific consensus?

Line 31: What does "Socially Sustainable Urban Mobility" mean? In my opinion, the entire Introduction section needs to be rewritten to clearly define SSUM. Compare different approches to the topic.

Line 41: Why is this figure in black and white when others are in color? What does the Y-axis represent? It is not described.

Line 84: Figure 2 needs to be explained in a broader context. Compare with the comment regarding line 31.

Line 138: Is this scale correct? What do those pictures bring to the paper?

Line 146: The source number [30] appears before number [29]; this should be corrected.

Line 258: Tegucigalpa has a different population in this table compared to Table 1 (1,231,841 vs. 1,230,850).

Lines 259-266: Perhaps those figures should go in the appendix, and the author should describe them in detail in the text.

Lines 265-266: "Edutation" should be corrected to "Education" in the figures.

Line 447: "Global BRT Data Base de Datos 2023" is referenced again in line 506. Please correct this duplication. Double-check for other similar mistakes.

References: The author cites numerous papers that are not in English. This may make it difficult for English-speaking readers to access and understand the information from those sources.

Materials and Methods: This section requires expansion. How has the phenomenon been studied thus far, and how does the Author's approach differ from previous approaches? It also needs to be clarified. For instance, the Author states, "The concept of accessibility, as defined by Geurs and Van Wee, is adopted by this research (...)". How do Geurs and Van Wee define accessibility? Please address such unclear points throughout the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

Thank you for this paper I had the opportunity to peer review. The article should be improved before publishing according to the following suggestions:

Lines 145-149: Please, improve references about the concept of "accessibility", even in comparison with those already reported. 

Result Section: Please, provide more information about the public policies adopted by the 3 cities you take into account.

Lines 349-351: Please, provide more references about the comparison between indicators of Latin America and those of Africa and Asia. 

Please, proofread in depth the entire paper before the new submission to avoid misprints and improve English language.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the paper has been revised according to the suggestions and can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that paper can be published now.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

thank you, the text was improved as suggested.