Improvements in Urban Rapid Transit Boarding and Alighting Safety during System Modernization
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article presents a practical problem with solutions, therefore it is a more engineering than scientific paper. Scientific aspect could be improved, if desired, by adding statistical data on how intensly handicapped people use the urban railway.
Some details should be clarified - line 102: is is about railway travels, not total travels.
The authors should check the term Railway Rapid Transit: they propose not an excluded system, but use of existing railway lines, providing a system called in Polish language "rapid", but in other countries "municipal", "stadt", "metropolitan".
The word "autonomous" in transport is currently connected to driving without drivers. The desired access of handicapped people should be called "independent"
Chapter 2 - it would improve to consolidate some data from other cities, like the gap between the platform and the vehicle, in a table.
The article proposes a final solution for the platform - vehicle floor system. I failed to notice temporary solutions, before all platforms other than 760 mm can be rebuilt.
The article requires minor substantive revisions and stronger improvments of language.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language has to be improved. Some phrases are a direct translation from Polish language, using forms missing in English. I propose that authors use simple sentences and words making it easier to understand to the readers, including readers with lesser English proficiency. Words and sentences should be stated in such a way, that the reader gets a clear view whether the authors support a case or not.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your contribution to improve our paper, please refer to the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper deals with improving the safety of rapid boarding and disembarking in cities during the modernization of the system, presenting a case study in the city of Wroclaw.
The paper describes various methods of selected transit systems, analysis of elements for safe boarding and exit of passengers in regional rail transport, etc.
The abstract briefly describes the summary and analysis of selected transit systems. However, what is absent here is the counter-proposal of the overlaid contribution (only a standard, or some specific output that has concrete results from measurement, practical application...)
What is the methodology for creating this standard, or proposal? How does it differ from the previous ones? What is innovative and practically applicable?
The contribution lacks a comparison or some graphic representation of the use of rail passenger transport against individual car transport, bicycle or pedestrian transport - focused on the area under consideration.
The individual sections of the contribution are appropriately structured, clear and well described.
However, I am missing an idea or a note here, whether there are bad experiences with the current use of the passenger boarding and exiting system used in the area. It would be appropriate to state why the authors decided on this proposal - does this proposal have any concrete significant basis - experience???
Figures 1,3,4,7,9 could be smaller, I think they take up a lot of space.
Thank you for an interesting read!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your contribution to improve our paper, please refer to the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article requires improvement according to the following observations:
The article is an overview and provides a solid basis for further practical work on in urban rapid transit modernisation.
Line 1, No header and other informations on the first page as required by the journal:https://www.mdpi.com/journal/infrastructures/instructions#submission
Line 728, Conclusions: expand your conclusions,
Add more information about reference on line 782,
Harmonize the formatting on line 822 part of the html address is as a link,
Some references are from thirty years ago, for example on line 831 and line 833 please verify the relevance of the old references,
Line 925: add “Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note “ “Author Contributions:”, “Funding:”, “Data Availability Statement:”, “Acknowledgments:”, “Conflicts of Interest:”.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your contribution to improve our paper, please refer to the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is well organized and written. The question is comprehensively described, and the data are sufficient to support the conclusions of this research. The paper can be acceptable after a minor revision. Some comments:
1. In Section 2, only showing some key characteristics or parameters is enough. For example, the length of the gap. The result in Tab. 1 is not related to the topic of the problem.
2. Please provide some important mathematical equations to better explain the definitions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your contribution to improve our paper, please refer to the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
