An Analysis of the Interactions between Adjustment Factors of Saturation Flow Rates at Signalized Intersections

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors should justify why their manuscript is appropiated for Sustainability as I do not feel that the manuscript fit in this journal.

This study analyzes the effect of adjustment factors on the saturation flow rate at intersections, considering the interaction between factors, and it proposes a new model to reduce the bias.

Although the paper is interesting, and it is well written and organized, there are several points that the authors have to modify before possible publication:

There are too many acronyms along the abstract without any explanation.

They have to improve the literature review. The literature review points out that there are several studies about possible factors’ interaction on SFR. However, the authors do not provide any information about these studies.

As the number of intersection considered is reduced (21 in Beijing and 24 in Washington DC), the authors should acknowledge in the manuscript that this is a preliminary study and that, in order to generalize, further research is required. This should be included as a limitation of the study.

Please, clarify the number of intersection in Beijing (21 or 22).

The authors should include more details about the “collection method” (ie, position of the camera, a better description of the device, technical specifications, etc)

Author Response

所有作者都感谢编辑和审稿人在审稿时所付出的时间和精力。这些评论是有价值的，有助于提高我们的工作质量。根据审阅者的评论，我们已进行了重大改进。我们希望重新提交的稿件能够满足您的期刊要求。我们衷心感谢编辑/审稿人的辛勤工作，并希望所进行的更正能够获得该期刊的批准。我们期待您的积极回应。Word对审阅者评论的详细回复。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In reviewed paper Authors presented analysis the effect of adjustment factors on the saturation flow rate and build a new model to reduce bias. Two problems are answered in detail later in the paper: determine whether there is an interaction between adjustment factors; determine how the interaction affects the saturation flow rate.

Presented results could be useful in engineering practice.

In my opinion paper can be publish after taking into account the following remarks:

- paper should be complete with a review of the scientific literature on the subject. At present, the review of the work of other authors is very poor,

- the first time you use each acronym, you must explain it. In the paper we can find unexplained acronyms (f.ex. MAPE in Abstract),

- description of research method and measurements techniques should be completed,

- it is necessary to verify technical words/expressions in English language.

Author Response

All authors thank the editors and reviewers for their time and efforts in reviewing the manuscript. Those comments are valuable and helpful for improving the quality of our work. We have made significant improvements according to the reviewers’ comments. We hope our resubmitted manuscript can meet your journal’s requirements. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly and hope that the corrections will meet the approvals of the journal. We are looking forward to your positive response. Our detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments are attached Word.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all my concerns