The Benefits of Truck Platooning with an Increasing Market Penetration: A Case Study in Japan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I liked this paper. I was well written, clear and logical in the way it presented the research. There is a spelling mistake in Figure 4 and early on it would be beneficial to ensure that were readers are less than familiar with acronyms that they are expanded at that time. The limitation is the requirement to used fixed values for the system (fuel costs, load [mass], pay, etc.), but the purpose is one of demonstration as opposed to being specific with end values and it achieves this admirably. 

Author Response

• Comment 1: There is a spelling mistake in Figure 4.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We replaced the Figure 4 with right legend. (“Platoon distance of all platooable trucks” to “Platoon distance of all platoonable trucks”)

Reviewer 2 Report

The whole paper is written clearly. I find it is very easy to follow the presentation. However, my key concern is the solution procedure. It is difficult to solve a large-scale problem by an exact algorithm. What is the problem complexity? What are the performance differences if the exact algorithm fails to solve the problem? I would suggest using a heuristic. Please present the pseudocode. The authors can see the following article:

 

Direct shipping service routes with an empty container management strategy, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 118, 123-142

 

Author Response

• Comment 1: However, my key concern is the solution procedure. It is difficult to solve a large-scale problem by an exact algorithm. What is the problem complexity? What are the performance differences if the exact algorithm fails to solve the problem? I would suggest using a heuristic. Please present the pseudocode

Response: We agree that an exact algorithm may fail to solve a large-scale truck platooning coordination problem. Actually, some heuristics have been proposed to solve the large-scale truck platooning coordination problem [1][2]. Since we only focused on one path consisting of two expressways connecting Tokyo and Nagoya with the maximum number of platoonable trucks of 311, an exact algorithm which can provide a more accurate result is more appropriate for this study. However, it seems slightly out of scope if we spending too much time introducing different algorithms and comparing their performance because the major objective of this study is to estimate the benefits and formation pattern of truck platooning with the increase in the market penetration of platooning technologies rather than algorithmic innovation. To clarify this point, detailed explanation was added in the beginning of section 3.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

These are my comments regarding your manuscript:

General comments

The topic is interesting; however, the authors fail to link it with sustainability. The revision should include effects on sustainability.

 

Abstract

In this section the authors should not define the concepts e.g., truck platooning

The authors stated that “It has been suggested that truck platooning has potential to reduce carbon emissions caused by the road freight sector”. However, this is not even marginally analyzed in the paper, henceforth I do not see the reason to have it in the abstract.

 

Introduction

This section includes elements which generally belongs to literature review. My recommendation is to divide this section in 2: Introduction and Literature review (or Theoretical background).

The reason for analyzing Japan case should be explained.

 

Methodology

The reason for using MILP model should be explained in terms of pros and cons.

I do not understand this: In table 1, at variables description, for ? it is mentioned a big enough number?!

The authors used 10th Logistics Census from 2015. According to the manuscript, this census is performed once at 5 years by Japanese government. My point is why the authors did not used the last census, I guess from 2020? In the last 7 years significant changes may occur.

 

Conclusion

The authors should clearly differentiate between the theoretical contributions and practical contributions of their paper. Moreover, the research gaps this paper attempts to fill should be better explained.

The most substantial revision should address the way the results influence sustainability or sustainable development.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

My comments and suggestions were included in the revised version of your manuscript.