The Importance of Robust Datasets to Assess Urban Accessibility: A Comparable Study in the Distrito Tec, Monterrey, Mexico, and the Stanford District, San Francisco Bay Area, USA
, Jorge Narezo-Balzaretti 1,2,†, Ana Luisa Gaxiola-Beltrán 1, Mauricio Adolfo RamÃrez-Moreno 1,*, Blas Luis Pérez-HenrÃquez 3, Ricardo Ambrocio RamÃrez-Mendoza 1, Daniel Krajzewicz 4 and Jorge de-Jesús Lozoya-Santos 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The authors need to be clear regarding the contribution of their paper. The main contribution of the paper must be clearly stated in the abstract and at the end of the introduction.
2. The introduction section must be improved. A more comprehensive literature review must be included with more details regarding related studies so that the knowledge gap can be easily identified by the reader.
3. The conclusions should include the results obtained in the tests. And compare with other papers
Author Response
Thank you for all your comments and suggestions. We authors appreciated them and responded as best we could. The changes made are underlined and in the attached table the specific location of each one. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Some issues to address:
- In the abstract, you mention that the study will be conducted in two areas. I would like to see the exact name of the Mexico location, as it is in the paper title, i.e., Nuevo Leon > Monterrey.
- In the abstract, it is rather obvious to state that up-to-date data are essential for planning (lines 6 and 7). Of course, they are.
- 'Technology' as a keyword is too generic.
- Insert one last paragraph in the introduction explaining the paper structure.
- Lines 80 to 83 and 127 to 128 – is it necessary to list all counties?
- Line 104, check '[?]'.
- In chapter 2.2, it would be beneficial to have one table listing essential characteristics of the two study areas (population, surface, households…)
Things to consider regarding the study design:
As I understood, you evaluated one-way accessibility levels to different points of interest using two transport modes. However, I sometimes expect to return to my starting point when I go somewhere (e.g., to pop out to my grocery store and come back). So a round trip is in play, and I plan my journey accordingly.
Now let's assume I live on the hilly side of my city. In that case, it is easy for me to go somewhere with my bike or walk downhill, but returning may be too difficult and physically exhausting. Hence, when evaluating accessibility levels, some journeys' round-trip nature must be considered. That was not the case in your study.
Author Response
Thank you for all your comments and suggestions. We authors appreciated them and responded as best we could. The changes made are underlined and in the attached table the specific location of each one. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors should explain better where is the innovativeness with respect to the state of the art in the literature. The literature review in the Introduction section deals with the topic, but is more general with respect to the particular piece of work proposed in this manuscript. Therefore, from the discussion in the Introduction I can’t really understand the added value of this work.
Authors should show a comparative analysis with other methods, and the results could be compared. The results should be more discussed.
Author Response
Thank you for all your comments and suggestions. We authors appreciated them and responded as best we could. The changes made are underlined and in the attached table the specific location of each one. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
