Modelling the Effects of Traffic-Calming Introduction to Volume–Delay Functions and Traffic Assignment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The aim of the manuscript was to model the effects of traffic calming, but in my opinion, the aim of this one was to understand how we can assign traffic using video monitoring and traffic flow modeling with restrictions on traffic. Traffic calming itself is mentioned as the main idea, but in fact, it is one of the possible restrictions. That's why I think there is no way to use traffic calming in the title of this paper because it's not enough to be an independent and interesting part of the study.
I guess it is necessary to generalize the study that way with traffic calming being one option. This is my main comment on the work.
The study design should be improved. There is no methodology at all in design now.
Proofreading of the English language is necessary.
It is mentioned that "The results of this paper can help in understanding a traffic assignment of traffic calmed roads and can help with the planning and building an intelligent transport systems" BUT, how it can help? It needs to be detailed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review. Below the response can be found:
"That's why I think there is no way to use traffic calming in the title of this paper because it's not enough to be an independent and interesting part of the study." - the title have been changed.
"The study design should be improved" - The design have been improved and the information about the methodology have been added.
"Proofreading of the English language is necessary" - Language correction is in progress
"It is mentioned that "The results of this paper can help in understanding(...)" - This part have been deleted as it appears to be irrelevant.
Reviewer 2 Report
- The article uses very old sources, which do not fully correspond to modern scientific achievements
- Section 2.1 lacks references to sources and does not fully meet the objectives of this section
- Chapter 2.2 contains many general statements, lacking specificity
- It is recommended to clarify Chapter 2 in order to assess the latest developments in the field of study
- Chapter 3 does not fully present the research methodology, the model is not clear enough, it is recommended to provide a more accurate calculation model and/or evaluation algorithm
- The article provides a lot of experimental material, but lacks a methodology to evaluate the results and a clear scientific evaluation
- The conclusions are not specific enough, it is recommended to clarify
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for the review. Below, the response can be found:
"The article uses very old sources, which do not fully correspond to modern scientific achievements" - The article uses old sources to show the first research in the area as well as newer sources. In which part the sources should be updated? Measurements or modelling?
"Section 2.1 lacks references to sources and does not fully meet the objectives of this section. Chapter 2.2 contains many general statements, lacking specificity. It is recommended to clarify Chapter 2 in order to assess the latest developments in the field of study" - I have improved those chapters and will try to add more sources
"Chapter 3 does not fully present the research methodology, the model is not clear enough, it is recommended to provide a more accurate calculation model and/or evaluation algorithm" - I have improved the chapter 3
"The article provides a lot of experimental material, but lacks a methodology to evaluate the results and a clear scientific evaluation" - The methodology information have been added.
"The conclusions are not specific enough, it is recommended to clarify" - The last paragraph have been improved
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is very interesting. I especially appreciate that traffic calming is viewed not only from the perspective of local traffic safety impacts, but it focuses on its impact on traffic assignment, i.e., in a more holistic manner.
Nevertheless, two important elemens are missing in the paper, which complicated my assessment:
- Has anybody attempted a similar study before? From literature review, it is not clear whether the presented approach is completely new or not.
- Also Discussion section is missing. This is a necessary part of every scientific paper, which should compare the findings with previous studies (related to the previous point), discuss potential biases and limitations, outline further progress, etc.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for the review. Below, the response can be found:
"Has anybody attempted a similar study before? From literature review, it is not clear whether the presented approach is completely new or not." - I have not found quite a similar studies. I have added this information in the text.
"Also Discussion section is missing. This is a necessary part of every scientific paper, which should compare the findings with previous studies (related to the previous point), discuss potential biases and limitations, outline further progress, etc." - I have added those information in the last chapter
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors presented an interesting paper related to modeling the effects of traffic calming methods. The reviewer has two main suggestions that the authors need to address in order for this paper to be further reviewed.
- The authors should consider hiring an editor to go through the paper and improve the writing of the paper significantly. For example, “In this paper we are going” should be “In this paper, we are going”; “That includes reduction of traffic volume, thus noise and air pollution, improvement of road safety level, and the quality of life” has a lot of issues; “Traffic calming can be divided by” should be “traffic calming measures can be categorized by”, etc.
- The authors should improve the paper organization. For example, the first paragraph of the paper was supposed to be the motivations of the paper. The authors provided a paper outline instead. The subsection titles are also poorly organized and the paper formatting is also questionable. For example, the subsection 2.1 is named “survey methods”. It is not clear what survey methods are and the reasons behind doing surveys.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for the review. Below, the response can be found:
"The authors should consider hiring an editor to go through the paper and improve the writing of the paper significantly.(...)" - the language correction is in progress.
"The authors should improve the paper organization" - The paper organization have been improved.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript had been improved. My comments were taken into account.
It seems that the title of the manuscript now sounds discordant and the authors can make it better.
The way of constructing some sentences requires editing (in the comments: Language correction is in progress).
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
"It seems that the title of the manuscript now sounds discordant and the authors can make it better." - The title has been corrected
"The way of constructing some sentences requires editing (in the comments: Language correction is in progress)." - I have finished the language correction.
Reviewer 2 Report
It would be useful to provide a clearer mathematical model for the processing of experimental results (recommended)
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
A slight improvement of the mathematical model have been made
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the revision. I can see that the review comments were addressed and the paper quality has improved. I recommend the paper to be accepted for publication in the journal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your acceptation. I have applied some corrections from the other reviewers and made a language correction.
Reviewer 4 Report
It is not clear to the reviewer that the paper has been improved substantially.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I have finished the language editing and have applied your remarks. I have also tried to improve the clarity of the of the mentioned chapters.
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have addressed all my concerns.
