Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the traffic congestion in Bangkok from the viewpoint of the school-escorted trips.

I found the research to be interesting.

First, the literature review is presented in a comprehensive manner, which supports the research from this study.

Second, in the methodology, I highly appreciate the information in Figure 1. With all these, there is no end point for this scheme. Please revise the figure.

Also, the use of real-data is much appreciated.

Beside these aspects, I think that the paper should try to incorporate more information on the description of the agents - after all, one of the focal points of the paper is related to the use of the ABM implementation, which is briefly described in section 3. Please revise this aspect, and add more information of the characteristics of the agents, rules of behavior. You can try to describe the ABM model in a more standardized manner, by using an ODD or ODD+D standard.

Furthermore, the calibration and validation process of the ABM should be discussed in depth. Without a proper validation process, the remainder of the results could not be reliable. Please offer more space and words in the paper to describing the validation process.

Lastly, please better shape the limitations of the paper and highlight some of the policies the authorities should take for improving the described situation associated to the traffic congestion related to the school-escorted trips.

Author Response

The authors express sincere gratitude to the referee for reviewing our manuscript and offering constructive comments. We have thoroughly examined each suggestion and implemented the necessary revisions to improve the manuscript's clarity, accuracy, and overall quality.

In summary, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript, reorganizing its content to highlight our research efforts better and underscore our findings, thus contributing significantly to the field. Below, we outline the major revision points along with an overall more concise revision:

• We have amended Figure 1 to illustrate the workflow of the model simulation from the data preparation to scenario analysis.
• The Literature Review (Section 2) has been updated in the agent-based model topic to emphasize the clarity of utilizing MATSim with a comparison of MATSim and other ABM approaches.
• In Section 3.1, we have extended an explanation for the simulation cycle and outcome of the model. We also included the configuration parameters presented in Table 1 to ensure reproducibility of the simulation model.
• We have added the details of our agent's trip characteristics and Figure 4 in Section 3.3.1.
• In Section 3.3.2, we have amended Figure 5 to clearly illustrate the comparison of the referenced network speed and our calibrated network. We also included the reason for the network calibration.
• We have added a new section, Section 3.3.3, to address the model validation by comparing travel statistics such as average trip length, travel time, and average speed between observation data and the simulation model.
• In Section 4.1, we concluded that School Time Shift Earlier is challenging to implement. Therefore, we omitted the School Time Shift Earlier and added Work From Home as a new scenario.
• We have amended the results in Section 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 to include the new scenario and exclude the omitted case.
• We have updated the scale unit in Figure 9 and 10 to be a standard unit.
• We have added examples to support the recommendation in Section 5.1.4.
• We have added Section 5.2 to discuss the policy implication from the results of the study
• We have amended Section 5.3 to include future research and added more details to the study limitation.

Specific revisions made in response to the reviewer's comments are reported point by point as follows.

1)    Please revise Figure 1.

>> We revised Figure 1 to cover not only the data preparation but also MATSim processes, logic, and outputs until the scenario analysis.

2)    Try to describe the ABM model in a more standardized manner by using an ODD or ODD+D standard.

>> Since MATSim requires only network data and travel plans, we added the agents' trip characteristics to demonstrate their trip length and pattern distribution. The MATSim operation cycle is also added more in-depth.

3)    The calibration and validation process of the ABM should be discussed in depth.

>> A detailed explanation of the model validation has been added to Section 3.3.3, and Figure 5 in Section 3.3.2 is revised to demonstrate the results of the calibrated network clearly. The reason behind the network calibration is also added in Section 3.3.2.

4)    Shape the limitations of the paper and highlight some of the policies to improve the described situation.

>> We added Section 5.2 to highlight the key findings and amended Section 5.3 to emphasize the limitations and recommended solutions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper proposes and ABM approach to the traffic congestion problem.

The authors use  MATSim for conducting their research. It is not clear why this approach has been preferred to other ABM approaches, such as NetLogo and Anylogic. To this aim, I suggest to the authors to add a comparison between some of the commonly used ABM approaches in terms of advantages and disadvantages, while militating for the approach selected by the authors.

Second, the proposed agent-based model is not adequately presented in the paper in order to ensure its reproducibility. Please add information related to the used variables, their ranges, their distribution, the interactions among agents, the agents' description, assumed rules of behavior, etc. You can use a table approach for listing the variables, their ranges and their distribution. Please state each time if the value used in the ABM is taken from real data or assumed as a synthetic data.

Please discuss more in depth the agent-based model validation. Please provide numerical evidence related to the value of the errors while running various simulations.

Please better state the political implications of various policies one can adopt as a result of observing the results of the simulations.

Please add further developments. 

Author Response

The authors express sincere gratitude to the referee for reviewing our manuscript and offering constructive comments. We have thoroughly examined each suggestion and implemented the necessary revisions to improve the manuscript's clarity, accuracy, and overall quality.

In summary, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript, reorganizing its content to highlight our research efforts better and underscore our findings, thus contributing significantly to the field. Below, we outline the major revision points along with an overall more concise revision:

• We have amended Figure 1 to illustrate the workflow of the model simulation from the data preparation to scenario analysis.
• The Literature Review (Section 2) has been updated in the agent-based model topic to emphasize the clarity of utilizing MATSim with a comparison of MATSim and other ABM approaches.
• In Section 3.1, we have extended an explanation for the simulation cycle and outcome of the model. We also included the configuration parameters presented in Table 1 to ensure reproducibility of the simulation model.
• We have added the details of our agent's trip characteristics and Figure 4 in Section 3.3.1.
• In Section 3.3.2, we have amended Figure 5 to clearly illustrate the comparison of the referenced network speed and our calibrated network. We also included the reason for the network calibration.
• We have added a new section, Section 3.3.3, to address the model validation by comparing travel statistics such as average trip length, travel time, and average speed between observation data and the simulation model.
• In Section 4.1, we concluded that School Time Shift Earlier is challenging to implement. Therefore, we omitted the School Time Shift Earlier and added Work From Home as a new scenario.
• We have amended the results in Section 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 to include the new scenario and exclude the omitted case.
• We have updated the scale unit in Figure 9 and 10 to be a standard unit.
• We have added examples to support the recommendation in Section 5.1.4.
• We have added Section 5.2 to discuss the policy implication from the results of the study.
• We have amended Section 5.3 to include future research and added more details to the study limitation.

Specific revision made in response to the reviewer's comment is reported below.

1. Add a comparison between some of the commonly used ABM approaches in terms of advantages and disadvantages.

>>  We revised Section 2 in the agent-based model topic to compare MATSim with other ABM approaches and clearly point out differences.

2. Please add information related to the used variables, their ranges, their distribution, the interactions among agents, the agents' descriptions, assumed rules of behavior, etc.

>> We added the configuration parameters presented in Table 1 in Section 3.1 and the agent's trip characteristics in Section 3.3.1.

3. Please discuss more in-depth the agent-based model validation.

>> We added a new section, Section 3.3.3, to elaborate the model validation with a comparison of travel statistics between observation and the simulation result.

4. Please provide numerical evidence related to the value of the errors while running various simulations.

>> Our network calibration is carefully adjusted with the BAU case, and its number is presented in Section 3.3.2.

5. Please better state the political implications of various policies one can adopt as a result of observing the results of the simulations.

>> We added Section 5.2 to discuss the policy implications of the results of this study.

6. Please add further developments. 

>> We added recommendations for future research in Section 5.3.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines the impact of parental escorting on traffic congestion and suggests potential solutions such as flexible working hours and staggered school schedules to alleviate the issue. The structure is well done. As for the suggestion, it is complex, so it is difficult to give solutions like modifying the schedule. therefore, suggest adjusting the final conclusion to a guiding voice.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is fine and needs minor editing.

Author Response

The authors express sincere gratitude to the referee for reviewing our manuscript and offering constructive comments. We have thoroughly examined each suggestion and implemented the necessary revisions to improve the manuscript's clarity, accuracy, and overall quality.

In summary, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript, reorganizing its content to highlight our research efforts better and underscore our findings, thus contributing significantly to the field. Below, we outline the major revision points along with an overall more concise revision:

• We have amended Figure 1 to illustrate the workflow of the model simulation from the data preparation to scenario analysis.
• The Literature Review (Section 2) has been updated in the agent-based model topic to emphasize the clarity of utilizing MATSim with a comparison of MATSim and other ABM approaches.
• In Section 3.1, we have extended an explanation for the simulation cycle and outcome of the model. We also included the configuration parameters presented in Table 1 to ensure reproducibility of the simulation model.
• We have added the details of our agent's trip characteristics and Figure 4 in Section 3.3.1.
• In Section 3.3.2, we have amended Figure 5 to clearly illustrate the comparison of the referenced network speed and our calibrated network. We also included the reason for the network calibration.
• We have added a new section, Section 3.3.3, to address the model validation by comparing travel statistics such as average trip length, travel time, and average speed between observation data and the simulation model.
• In Section 4.1, we concluded that School Time Shift Earlier is challenging to implement. Therefore, we omitted the School Time Shift Earlier and added Work From Home as a new scenario.
• We have amended the results in Section 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 to include the new scenario and exclude the omitted case.
• We have updated the scale unit in Figure 9 and 10 to be a standard unit.
• We have added examples to support the recommendation in Section 5.1.4.
• We have added Section 5.2 to discuss the policy implication from the results of the study
• We have amended Section 5.3 to include future research and added more details to the study limitation.

 

Specific revisions made in response to the reviewer's comments are reported point by point as follows.

• Suggest adjusting the final conclusion to a guiding voice.

>> We removed the Work Time Shift Earlier scenario and added the Work From Home scenario to avoid the impossible implication. We also added Section 5.2 to conclude the policy implication by providing supporting evidence and our findings.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The new form of the paper incorporates the observations made in the first round of review. Please consider that the references in the text do not respect the format required by the journal. please revise.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised version of the manuscript. 

As a suggestion, please pay attention to the references cited in the text - e.g. please do not start the proposition with the number of the reference, please add the authors name at the beginning of the proposition, followed by the reference number - please consider the formatting requirements of the journal regarding the references when resubmitting the paper.