Analyzing Demand with Respect to Offer of Mobility
, Claudio Badii, Pierfrancesco Bellini, Stefano Bilotta, Paolo Nesi * and Michela Paolucci
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Please refer to the attached document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Your paper “Analyzing demand with respect to offer of mobility” as the title suggests addresses to the subject of demand in relationship with mobility offer. The abstract suggests that you have developed a tool DORAM in order to analyze such relationship. The developed tool was developed in MOSAIC research. You solution has been tested with real data from Tuscany region.
In a world with a continuously growing number of vehicles such analyze must be taken in order to address effects like traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emission and transport services.
After lecturing the manuscript, I have found the following issues in your manuscript:
- On line 52-53 there is an ambiguous expression. Please rephrase and verify intended use.
- On line 61-62 another ambiguous expression has been found. Please rephrase and verify intended use.
- On line 78 the use of “w.r.t.” abbreviations are not explained.
- On line 81 the use of in brakets reference[] must be reworded. See template examples regarding proper author work referencing’s.
- Again, on line 87 the use of in brakets reference[] must be reworded. See template examples regarding proper author work referencing’s.
- Again, on line 90 the use of in brakets reference[] must be reworded. See template examples regarding proper author work referencing’s.
- Again, on line 90 the use of in brakets reference[] must be reworded. See template examples regarding proper author work referencing’s.
- Again, on line 96 the use of in brakets reference[] must be reworded. See template examples regarding proper author work referencing’s.
- Again, on line 98 the use of in brakets reference[] must be reworded. See template examples regarding proper author work referencing’s.
- Again, on line 101 the use of in brakets reference[] must be reworded. See template examples regarding proper author work referencing’s.
- Again, on line 105 the use of in brakets reference[] must be reworded. See template examples regarding proper author work referencing’s.
- Again, on line 110 the use of in brakets reference[] must be reworded. See template examples regarding proper author work referencing’s.
- On line 129 “wrt” group is unclear. Please provide a short description.
Answer: Thanks for the comments. All the above corrections have been performed to make the paper more readable.
- Link provided at line 161 http://www.snap4city.org/odanalyzer/ leads to 502 bad gateway error.
Answer: Sorry the link was off for maintenance. Now it is operating.
- ATAF on line 209 acronym requires a description. Please provide a proper description.
- On lines 212-212 double use of works “stops”. Please rephrase.
- Phrase described in lines 239-241 require a better reference. Please provide further information for Bellini et al, 2017.
- Again, on line 276 “wrt” group is used but again unclear. Please provide a short description.
- Please provide a proper description for “OD” group in front of Matrix word on line 317 that leads to the ODM abbreviation.
Answer: All the above corrections have been performed to make the paper more readable.
- Equation (1) lacks details regarding “.” Operator found between ti,j(t,m,o) and c(m,o). Please check equation and complete every detail for clarity.
Answer: Clarified as “The operator denotes the multiplication between scalars” after Equation (1).
21 Please provide a separate description for variables s, t, k in Table 2 at the top to provide clarity.
Answer: table 2 with the definitions has been improved.
- Please provide a phrase that describes the limits of the assumption specified in lines 355-361. Please detail the assumption implications regarding your model. Can it take into account transitory traffic? Does identify/equation (2) hold in the case of transitory traffic? What about equation (3)? What other assumption does DORAM take into consideration ?
Answer: The solution provided is general enough to cope with cases in which the inflow and outflow are not balanced as in the transitory. This implies that the OD matrices can be 4 distinct. In the new version of the paper it has been specified.
- Again, misuse of ‘wrt’ group at line 377. Please clarify or rephrase for readability.
Answer: Correction has been performed to make the paper more readable.
- Equation 9 is ambiguous due to dot (.) operator. Please check and clarify. Please specify what operator is considered.
Answer: Clarified as “The operator denotes the multiplication between scalars” after Equation (9).
- Line 489 is hard to follow. Please clarify ‘pr level’ meaning.
- Again, the ‘.’ Operator if found in the second expression of equation (14). Please clarify the operator.
- Again, on line 545 the use of in brackets reference[] must be reworded. See template examples regarding proper author work referencing’s.
Answer: Clarification has been performed to make the paper more readable.
- Text is hard to read in Figure 9. Please provide a higher quality one or split the figure in 2 with a higher quality picture to improve readability.
Answer: The figure has been split in two subimages Fig.9a and Fig.9b as suggested.
- Figure 11 a,b and c can be replaced with images with a higher quality. Please provide higher quality picture and better use available space in the template.
Answer: The images of Figure 11 have been replaced with higher resolution images as suggested.
- Link provided at line 730 https://www.snap4city.org/odanalyzer/#b leads to 502 bad gateway error. Please update the manuscript with a correct one.
Answer: Sorry the link was off for maintenance. Now it is operating.
- Alternative Scenario Analysis subsection can be improved. Please provide a proper description on the additional alternative stop Cosimodo Ridolfi and its location.
Answer: Done, added the following sentence in the related paragraph: “For the sake of clearness, the mentioned bus-stop Indipendenza XXVII Aprile is located in the central area of Florence and it represents a fundamental and crowded stop in the city. In the case, the alternative (hypothetical) scenario with respect to the actual one is related to a new bus-stop creation near the bus-stop Indipendenza XXVII Aprile, for example in the nearest road which is called Cosimo Ridolfi. Then, a new bus stop called Cosimo Ridolfi is considered which is hypothetical located few metres away from the bus-stop called Indipendenza XXVII Aprile. So that, some lines which pass through the bus-stop Indipendenza XXVII Aprile could be transferred in the new one (created) bus-stop Cosimo Ridolfi. By applying the DORAM tool in the context of what-if analysis to such a case, lines 1 and 23, which are the two of the most frequent lines among those that pass through Indipendenza XXVII Aprile stop, have been transferred to the new stop Cosimo Ridolfi.”
- Conclusion section must be improved to reiterate your contributions and to add value to the created tool.
Answer: Conclusions have been strongly revised making them more focussed on putting in evidence the benefits of the DORAM model and tool.
As it can be seen, most of issues are due to readability, clarity, ambiguous expressions. A few issues take into account the correctness of the equations. Another issue is referencing work of others. Please read other published paper to see the writing differences. Other issues are due to use of abbreviations.
I highly recommend through reading of the manuscript and rephasing each sentence especially when referencing work of other. Add more details to the Alternative Scenario Analysis subsection and also improve conclusion section.
Best of luck with your research. I look forward to read the final manuscript.
Answer: Thanks a lot for your comments, their implementation have improved the paper readability and general value.
Reviewer 2 Report
Table 3 need too be put on proper place as table 6
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Table 3 need too be put on proper place as table 6.
Answer: The suggestion has been accepted, and changes performed accordingly.
Reviewer 3 Report
The work is of interest for the field of transport system mobility. The used model, DORAM, shows performance for the analysis of public transport systems and multimodal systems. I accept for publication.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The work is of interest for the field of transport system mobility. The used model, DORAM, shows performance for the analysis of public transport systems and multimodal systems. I accept for publication.
Answer: thanks a lot for your appreciation.
Reviewer 4 Report
Quality of Presentation
The overall presentation quality is acceptable. The article is, on the whole, well-written; the English used in the paper is understandable.
- Introduction
It is best to compare your study findings with those of the existing literature in one table.
- Referencing
It can be improved by providing more references, especially in paragraphs 2 and 3 in the introduction.
- Methodology
The figure needs to be improved. Fonts are not standard, the figures are a little bit blur, and there is missing text in Figure 5.
- Results and Discussion
Same as in the methodology, the figure needs to be improved. Fonts are not standard, and the figures are a little bit blur.
It is best to compare your study findings with those of the existing literature in one table.
Conclusions
The conclusions are straightforward. This needs to be improved. Include more specifics about the outcomes that were achieved.
Overall Merit:
The article certainly has some merit. For the rest, I believe that the article is organised in a logical and understandable manner.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Quality of Presentation The overall presentation quality is acceptable. The article is, on the whole, well-written; the English used in the paper is understandable.
- Introduction It is best to compare your study findings with those of the existing literature in one table.
Answer: thanks a lot for the comment. Table 1 of the paper describes the state of the art status, putting in evidence: 1) the range of supported data, 2) multi-modality mobility, 3) multi-operators’ mobility and 4) the possibility to adopt what-if analysis performance in PTSs also by using KPI. New references have been added.
- Referencing: It can be improved by providing more references, especially in paragraphs 2 and 3 in the introduction.
Answer: According to your suggestion 6 references have been added and the paragraphs 2 and 3 improved with their description putting in evidence the relationships with our DORAM work presented in the paper.
- Methodology: The figure needs to be improved. Fonts are not standard, the figures are a little bit blur, and there is missing text in Figure 5.
Answer: The figures have been produced at higher resolution.
- Results and Discussion: Same as in the methodology, the figure needs to be improved. Fonts are not standard, and the figures are a little bit blur.
Answer: The figures have been produced at higher resolution.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I believe that your paper delivers the intended objectives. I also think that the way you are referencing work of others can be improved. I am also satisfied with the modifications added to the paper.
In the end, I would like to say that the abstract can be improved by underlining that DORAM is a tool of your own development. This tool I am sure that will be appreciated by the scientific community and transportation developers.
Best of luck with your research!
