Dynamic Evolutionary Game on Travel Mode Choices Among Buses, Ride-Sharing Vehicles, and Driving Alone in Shared Bus Lane Scenarios

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study employs evolutionary game theory to evaluate the evolutionary game dynamics of three travel modes—bus, carpooling, and solo driving—under different shared bus lane strategies, and assesses the impact of various sharing strategies on the choice of these travel modes.

However, there are several issues, shortcomings, and suggestions for improvement:

1. The study does not clearly specify the condition of the bus lane. It is unclear whether buses travel exclusively on the bus lane throughout the entire journey or only on certain sections of the road.

2. In Section 2.1.2, "The evolutionary game theory of travel mode choice," it is not specifically explained why the evolutionary game approach is suitable for modeling the decision-making process of travelers in the context of shared bus lanes.

3. In Section 2.2, "Cumulative prospect value model construction," while comprehensive costs are considered for all three travel modes, Equation (2) only takes into account the comprehensive cost of carpooling.

4. To enhance the realism of the model, the average local wage is used for quantification. The study employs a road congestion model to calculate travel time, considering the impact of traveler decisions on traffic flow. However, the rationale for using this road congestion model to calculate travel time is not clearly explained.

5. Equation (6) should be understood as the total expected cost of the reference point (solo driving), but in the study, it is interpreted as the total expected cost for different travel modes. Moreover, if interpreted as the total expected cost for different travel modes, it deviates from Equation (2) by lacking a comprehensive cost component.

6. In Equation (7), Gi is used without providing a specific calculation process.

7. πi+t is the cumulative probability weighting function when the decision choice is a gain, and πi−r is the cumulative probability weighting function when the decision choice is a loss. The meanings of t and r are not specifically explained.

8. In Equation (16), CPVi = ∑ πi+tW(Vit) + ∑ πi−rW(Vir), the subscript r should be changed from 1 to 0.

9. The text states that "as more travelers opt for a particular mode, the traffic volume for that mode increases, affecting its cumulative perceived value. If the cumulative perceived value of the current mode falls below that of other options, some travelers will begin to switch to alternative modes." However, this point about the decrease in cumulative perceived value when a travel mode is chosen by a majority of travelers was not previously mentioned.

10. In Equation (17), N is not explained or defined.

11. In the explanation of Equation (18), (mq − nq) = {a: a ∈ mq and a ∉ mq, nq ∈ Q, mq ∈ Q} is incorrectly written. It should be "a belongs to mq and a does not belong to nq."

12. The phrase "then when travelers switch from travel mode n to mode" is incomplete and should be revised to "then when travelers switch from travel mode n to mode m."

13. In Table 2, "Profit Matrix," only the disadvantages of taking a bus are considered, without mentioning its advantages; similarly, only the advantages of driving alone are considered, without discussing its disadvantages.

14. From Figure 2(b), it can be seen that (0,1,0) is an asymptotically stable point. (This is noted for completeness, even though it is more of an observation than a key issue requiring correction.)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.            It is possible to add an analysis of the complementarity and competition among different travel modes and how these factors influence travelers' choices.

2.            It is advisable to include an analysis of the impact of weather on travelers' mode choice.

3.            It is suggested to incorporate flowcharts and model relationship diagrams.

4.            The research hypotheses and methods can be more accurately described: in the fifth part of the simulation of evolutionary values, when a certain factor changes, the corresponding indicator values change. More explanations should be provided for the specific values obtained.

5.            The article can be improved in terms of adequate citation: in the second part, more articles should be cited to demonstrate the superiority of evolutionary game theory over other traditional methods in studying travelers' decision-making behavior.

6.            When constructing the model, the travel modes chosen by passengers only consider travel and time costs, benefits and losses, but do not take into account factors such as passengers' living habits, economic conditions and weather.

7.            The article neglects the changes in passengers' behavior over time, the impact of policies and improvements in transportation when constructing the game theory model.

8.            The prospect value quantification method used in this article is overly idealized and theoretical. In reality, drivers' decisions are complex and changeable. It is questionable whether it can be applied in practice.

9.            The conclusion states that adopting a shared mode can reduce the use of private cars. However, this mode may improve the overall travel efficiency of the transportation system, but the use of private cars mainly depends on the decisions of travelers and cannot be directly concluded to reduce the use of private cars.

10.          The article should provide specific data support in the simulation analysis and policy recommendation sections.

11.          The literature review on bus lanes and shared strategies can be expanded in terms of scope and depth.

12.          Currently, the article mainly relies on theoretical models and theoretical data for analysis, lacking actual data to support the main models used in the article. At the same time, the article only considers the factors influencing individual travelers' decisions and the game between decision-makers, but ignores the impact of the broader environment on all decision-makers, such as the differences between urban and suburban areas.

13.          The article mainly analyzes the sharing of bus lanes by carpooling vehicles. However, in reality, many cities have implemented the sharing of bus lanes by all vehicles within a limited time. The theoretical background of the article lacks a description of this situation.

14.          Expand the literature review section, such as the latest research progress on shared transportation and bus lanes. Comparative analyses can be added to explore the similarities and differences among different studies and their impact on this research.

15.          When introducing evolutionary game theory and the cumulative prospect value model, some charts or flowcharts can be used to more intuitively present the theoretical framework and model construction process.

 

16.         In the building section of the Cumulative Prospect Value model, more detailed explanation and derivation of the mathematical model can be added so that readers can better understand the construction and application of the model.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See comments above

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I carefully reviewed this article, which is of practical significance. Using evolutionary game theory, the authors constructed a travel mode choice model based on cumulative prospect value, simulated and analyzed the dynamic game process of three travel modes, namely, bus, shared travel vehicle and driving alone, under different bus lane sharing strategies, and explored the impact of sharing strategies on travel choice and bus lane utilization efficiency. However, the following revisions may be required before publication. My comments may be comprehensive because the article does not have line numbers.

1. The authors may need further explanation in constructing the model because the article makes some simplifications and assumptions about the decision-making behavior of travelers. For example, the traveler makes decisions based solely on cumulative prospect value, which may ignore other elements.

2. The introduction is insufficient, although the authors introduce the basic background of evolutionary game theory and the three travel modes. I think the introduction needs to be further improved, especially on the recent use of three-way evolutionary games. It is suggested that the authors refer to the following references to enhance the quality of the introduction. - A tripartite evolutionary game analysis on China's waste incineration projects from the perspective of responsible innovation; Tripartite Evolutionary Game Analysis and Simulation Research on Zero-Carbon Production Supervision of Marine Ranching against a Carbon-Neutral Background; The tripartite evolutionary game of enterprises' green production strategy with government supervision and people participation

3. The evolutionary game article needs to focus on the issue of parameter setting, this article can only be blamed for the lack of detail in the setting of some of the parameters and data sources, such as, the comprehensive cost of shared trips, the impact of the improvement of the level of public transport service on the perception of travelers, etc., the lack of actual data support, which will have an impact on the simulation results.

4. Although this is a very meaningful social topic, have the authors considered the new issue of equity in society? In exploring the impact of sharing strategies on travel choices and bus lane utilization efficiency, the article may need to consider the fairness issues between different social groups, such as the protection of the rights and interests of low-income groups, the elderly, etc. in shared travel and bus lane use. I hope the authors can clarify and explain.

5. The authors' analysis of the long-term dynamic evolution process is not deep enough, mainly focusing on the short-term changes and equilibrium state of travelers' choices under different sharing strategies, and the depth of analysis should be further expanded.

6. Pay attention to the update of references, I recommend the last 5 years to keep the article current.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article considers the problem of travellers’ choice of travel mode using game theory, in connection with which the authors contribute to the theoretical understanding and evolution of behaviour models, which is the basis for the development and implementation of practical transport policy. This gives grounds to conclude that the study is relevant and timely. In the abstract, the authors substantiate the essence of the problem and describe the applied research method, indicate that the application of the proposed method helps to increase the efficiency of using bus lanes and reduce the load on urban traffic. The title of the article and keywords adequately reflect the content of the article.

In the introduction, the authors provide a brief overview of research on traffic, dedicated bus lanes and the efficiency of their use, as well as ways to reduce emissions. Here, the authors also provide the structure of the study. The second section, "Methods," includes a description of the evolutionary game theory and the construction of a cumulative value model of prospects. In the next section, the authors present an evolutionary game model. Section 4 describes the analysis of the model parameters. The fifth section is devoted to the analysis of the modelling and policy recommendations. In the final section, the authors summarize the results of the study. The article has been prepared in accordance with the instructions for authors, is relevant, corresponds to the topic it studies and publishes. The list of literary sources is sufficient. Tables and figures support theoretical and practical findings and conclusions of the authors.

In our opinion, the article corresponds to the topic of "improving the management of urban parking space" and corresponds to the type of Preliminary study.

Comment.

Despite the certainly relevance of the study, there are some comments:

1. In our opinion, although the authors point out that the article can serve as a theoretical basis for planning the joint use of bus lanes, however, in our opinion, it is necessary to more clearly define the limitations of the model, cases when the model can give a result close to real conditions. In addition, since we are talking about the choice of travel mode, it is necessary to more specifically identify the factors that influence the choice, based on the behavioural patterns of travellers.

2. The authors, in our opinion, should, in our opinion, describe how to assess the adequacy of the proposed solution.

3. The authors claim that the method can have practical application. We would like this point to be described in more detail.

4. It is recommended to expand the list of literary sources, mentioning articles written in recent years.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been significantly improved through the author's revisions. I recommend acceptance.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my concerns and can be accepted in the present version.