Effect of Low-Cost Policy Measures to Promote Public Transport Use: A Case Study of Oyama City, Japan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very interesting manuscript with an actual application of “low cost,” as the authors call them measures to increase public transport. I am not sure whether “low cost” is a suitable name for this kind of measures, as reducing dramatically the cost of passcards could be considered as a “high cost” measure, and, moreover the results show that in case there was no COVID-19 such an approach could even significantly increase the operators’ revenue! I don’t have an alternative to suggest, I guess the authors know better than me the reason they named their approach as such, perhaps because there were no high-cost initial expenditures requires. In any case, I find the paper to be very interesting, a realized example that other operators in areas with low public transport modal split could imitate.
I have some suggestions for the authors that might further improve their manuscript:
- The whole idea brings into mind the Laffer curve. Are you familiar with the idea? It would be a good idea to make a parallelism because perhaps some stakeholders will have a better understanding of the idea.
- The concept of “breaking the habit” is crucial when trying to make permanent changes in modal split, and attract more people to public transport (e.g., as it is discussed in https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-018-0340-6). I think it would be a good idea to discuss that compared to your results in relation to the permanent or not change in the modal split you observed.
- There are also many other “low cost” measures to change the modal split that you don’t discuss at all. E.g., you may see how public transport users hierarchize innovations for public transport many of which are of extremely low cost in https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-019-0356-6
- There is no part of “proposals for further research” in your Conclusions. I think that a very good kind of experiment would be a conjoint analysis experiment. This way you could find user groups, market share (in your case modal split), and even some evidence regarding the best pricing options. You may get an idea in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2019.100994 and even better in https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02305-8_58
There are also some minor corrections that I would suggest:
- L53: I cannot understand the “: mobility management.” I feel that something is missing… Please check that to see if this is ok.
- L164-166: As far as I know, even in case there is a high percentage of public transport modal split, usually ticket prices are low for social and environmental issues, and this is the reason they are usually subsidized. Therefore, I am not sure if I would use the same phrasing here, but this is up to you to decide.
- L457-458: The letters in the figure have been somehow distorted. Please see if you make them seem better.
- L470-472: How did you make this estimation? Please elaborate on that; it is important.
- L522: According to the APA style, numbers below ten should be written as words, six in this case, or else “six (6)”, but this is also up to the style the journal uses.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the review and for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We thank the Reviewer for the insightful comments provided. Please see the attached point-by-point responses to your comments.
In addition, below is a description of the changes to all reviewer comments and more.
L3: We have removed the words in the keywords and changed the title.
L14,123,195: Only the 70% off pass is mentioned, but there is a 50% off pass, so the text has been added and corrected.
L52-69: A detailed description of mobility management has been added. New references, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19, were added accordingly.
L118-120: The title of our study, "low-cost" has been added to the description to clarify "low-cost" for whom.
L132-133: Removed the description of the author's involvement with the project, as it was not appropriate for the "Introduction" section.
L179: We have added a sentence to explain that public transport in Japan is a special situation, where it is usually financially independent.
L212: This has been revised to clarify that this is not a consideration in our study, but rather a consideration when determining prices.
L249-261: The description of the calculation method was insufficient. We have corrected it by adding the calculation process. And I'm sorry, but We found some mistakes in the calculations, copied the results incorrectly, and wrote "year" when it should have been "month", so I fixed it. We have checked and rechecked to make sure there are no such errors.
L299-301: We believe that the quality of the communication tools distributed is very important in order to encourage people to change their attitudes and behaviors. We have added a sentence to convey this intention to the reader.
L307-308,313-334,354-375: The text has been moved for clarity.
L375-377: To emphasize that LITNs were low cost, we added a sentence comparing them to other cases.
L379-391: Removed subsection titles for clarity and simplicity.
L496-502: The description of the calculation method was insufficient. We have corrected it by adding the calculation process. Also, sorry, but I found a calculation error and fixed it. Specifically, the average fare used in the calculation should have been 167 yen, but instead it was 150 yen.
L640,643-644: The sentence has been revised for clarity.
L649-676: Since there were no “proposals for further research”, we have added sentences. New references, 30 and 31, have been added accordingly.
L681-682: The "low" level use of public transport was unclear, so it was added for clarification.
L713: The name was incorrect and has been corrected.
All tables: it seems that an error occurred in the process of converting Word to PDF. We have changed the format of all the Tables.
Table 1: The definition of "commuters" was not clear, so the wording has been revised. And added the price of 3-month-old pass.
All Figures: it seems that an error occurred in the process of converting Word to PDF. We have changed the format of all the Figures.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents a case study in which authors study the effectiveness of a low-cost method of promoting bus usage in addition to a significant fare reduction. The solution was implemented in Oyama City (Japan) (with a population of 167.000 inhabitants).
The results of the implementation of the promotional campaign and fare reduction reveal that the proposed solution is effective, contributing to a significant increment of bus usage without a significant reduction in revenues. Though the final results had to be estimated because of the COVID19 pandemic disaster, the results are consistent.
Overall, the topic covered in the paper is relevant to the journal. The paper is well structured, organized, and all the content is easy to follow.
Minor review: please review the quantities described in lines 230-232. I am not sure if they are correct.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the review and for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We thank the Reviewer for the insightful comments provided. Please see the attached point-by-point responses to your comments.
In addition, below is a description of the changes to all reviewer comments and more.
L3: We have removed the words in the keywords and changed the title.
L14,123,195: Only the 70% off pass is mentioned, but there is a 50% off pass, so the text has been added and corrected.
L52-69: A detailed description of mobility management has been added. New references, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19, were added accordingly.
L118-120: The title of our study, "low-cost" has been added to the description to clarify "low-cost" for whom.
L132-133: Removed the description of the author's involvement with the project, as it was not appropriate for the "Introduction" section.
L179: We have added a sentence to explain that public transport in Japan is a special situation, where it is usually financially independent.
L212: This has been revised to clarify that this is not a consideration in our study, but rather a consideration when determining prices.
L249-261: The description of the calculation method was insufficient. We have corrected it by adding the calculation process. And I'm sorry, but We found some mistakes in the calculations, copied the results incorrectly, and wrote "year" when it should have been "month", so I fixed it. We have checked and rechecked to make sure there are no such errors.
L299-301: We believe that the quality of the communication tools distributed is very important in order to encourage people to change their attitudes and behaviors. We have added a sentence to convey this intention to the reader.
L307-308,313-334,354-375: The text has been moved for clarity.
L375-377: To emphasize that LITNs were low cost, we added a sentence comparing them to other cases.
L379-391: Removed subsection titles for clarity and simplicity.
L496-502: The description of the calculation method was insufficient. We have corrected it by adding the calculation process. Also, sorry, but I found a calculation error and fixed it. Specifically, the average fare used in the calculation should have been 167 yen, but instead it was 150 yen.
L640,643-644: The sentence has been revised for clarity.
L649-676: Since there were no “proposals for further research”, we have added sentences. New references, 30 and 31, have been added accordingly.
L681-682: The "low" level use of public transport was unclear, so it was added for clarification.
L713: The name was incorrect and has been corrected.
All tables: it seems that an error occurred in the process of converting Word to PDF. We have changed the format of all the Tables.
Table 1: The definition of "commuters" was not clear, so the wording has been revised. And added the price of 3-month-old pass.
All Figures: it seems that an error occurred in the process of converting Word to PDF. We have changed the format of all the Figures.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The study presented in the paper deals with the analysis of a low-cost solution for promoting bus usage (a public information campaign that was carried out simultaneously with the introduction of new passes with 50 % and 70 % fare reduction) in Oyama City, Tochigi prefecture, Japan. This policy was analyzed from two angles: the commuter's attitude changes regarding the public transportation by bus, and the financial stability of the operator of the bus service.
The Introduction section is written rather well, but other sections require some changes. Specific remarks and suggestions are given below.
Lines 2–4: I would suggest shortening the title to “Effect of low-cost policy measures to promote public transport use: A Case study of Oyama City, Japan” – “fare reduction” and “communication campaign” are used as keywords, and “significant” does not contribute to the clarity of the title.
Line 109: What about 50 % discount mentioned in Table 1?
Lines 119–121: this information does not belong in the Introduction section.
Lines 181–182: Why there is no mention of the new 50% off 1 and 3-month pass?
Line 279: The first sentence is unnecessary.
Lines 293–313: For clarity’s sake, move these lines after line 281 (before sentence “A sample of the articles is shown in Figure 1, and the contents of the LITNs in Table 2.”).
Lines 336–337: Please put this in the perspective, i.e., compare the cost of this campaign with other studies.
Line 348: Subsection title is unnecessary – rewrite the first sentence, for example: “The following data on bus operation was provided by Oyama City, the operator of the bus service.”
Line 360: the same comment as for line 348.
Line 461: the title is the same as title 3.2.
Lines 572–580: these lines do not contribute to the study – I am suggesting removing them.
Line 613: suggestion: “The low-cost public information campaign targeted all citizens, …”.
Lines 616–617: suggestion: “As the public information campaign was carried out at the same time as the fare reduction, the above effect was not the result of the campaign alone.”
Line 626: suggest or define what is considered a “low” level of public transport usage.
Tables
Tables are not designed according to the Instructions for authors.
Table 1: groups of commuters are not clearly defined; for example: “Commuting, etc. (over junior high school students and older, under 65” – is this group commuting to work? Why is “et cetera” used here? It would be clearer if all groups are defined either by age, social group or by the purpose of commute.
Figures
I think that Figures 2–4 do not contribute to the paper at all, so I would suggest removing them.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the review and for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We thank the Reviewer for the insightful comments provided. Please see the attached point-by-point responses to your comments.
In addition, below is a description of the changes to all reviewer comments and more.
L3: We have removed the words in the keywords and changed the title.
L14,123,195: Only the 70% off pass is mentioned, but there is a 50% off pass, so the text has been added and corrected.
L52-69: A detailed description of mobility management has been added. New references, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19, were added accordingly.
L118-120: The title of our study, "low-cost" has been added to the description to clarify "low-cost" for whom.
L132-133: Removed the description of the author's involvement with the project, as it was not appropriate for the "Introduction" section.
L179: We have added a sentence to explain that public transport in Japan is a special situation, where it is usually financially independent.
L212: This has been revised to clarify that this is not a consideration in our study, but rather a consideration when determining prices.
L249-261: The description of the calculation method was insufficient. We have corrected it by adding the calculation process. And I'm sorry, but We found some mistakes in the calculations, copied the results incorrectly, and wrote "year" when it should have been "month", so I fixed it. We have checked and rechecked to make sure there are no such errors.
L299-301: We believe that the quality of the communication tools distributed is very important in order to encourage people to change their attitudes and behaviors. We have added a sentence to convey this intention to the reader.
L307-308,313-334,354-375: The text has been moved for clarity.
L375-377: To emphasize that LITNs were low cost, we added a sentence comparing them to other cases.
L379-391: Removed subsection titles for clarity and simplicity.
L496-502: The description of the calculation method was insufficient. We have corrected it by adding the calculation process. Also, sorry, but I found a calculation error and fixed it. Specifically, the average fare used in the calculation should have been 167 yen, but instead it was 150 yen.
L640,643-644: The sentence has been revised for clarity.
L649-676: Since there were no “proposals for further research”, we have added sentences. New references, 30 and 31, have been added accordingly.
L681-682: The "low" level use of public transport was unclear, so it was added for clarification.
L713: The name was incorrect and has been corrected.
All tables: it seems that an error occurred in the process of converting Word to PDF. We have changed the format of all the Tables.
Table 1: The definition of "commuters" was not clear, so the wording has been revised. And added the price of 3-month-old pass.
All Figures: it seems that an error occurred in the process of converting Word to PDF. We have changed the format of all the Figures.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
