Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors know very well that "polution" is not the same as "GHG emmissions" but they put together them. It should be always distinguished.

Nowadays nobody knows what public policy will be provided in Europe (both EU-countries and UK) in next years. It is to expect that the decarbonisation of the induvidual motorisation will be continued but the tempo of this process can differ in particular years. Due of this fact would be better to show several scenarios regarding the increasing of the share of the electric cars (BEV) of the total number of cars.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a valuable contribution to the field of transportation planning and economics.

Please find below my comments on the paper:

The English needs minor review and corrections.

The region on which the methodology was applied should be mentioned in some of the following: Title, Abstract, Keywords.

It seems that the focus of this research is on Land/Road transportation. It should be clearly highlighted throughout the manuscript.

I believe Equation (6) and (7) both are giving local costs in the 1x1 grid. What are the global emissions and their costs?

Operational costs: Why the tyres, maintenance and depreciation is included in fuel costs? In that case, what are the non-fuel costs?

Why the operational cost per vehicle (Eq. (33) and (34)) will be different for work and non-work trips?

Figure 9. The labels for urban and rural areas is not clear.

More details should be added about the use of GIS, its application and results taken from it.

Conclusions: I believe the authors should also include the potential constraints which may hinder application of their methodology to other regions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf