Enhancing Safety of Navigation: Redesigning Precautionary Areas into Roundabouts in Marine Traffic Separation Schemes
, Gokhan Camliyurt 1, Antoni Arif Priadi 2, Youngsoo Park 1 and Daewon Kim 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsplease find comments in the attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
English can be improved.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper deals with a topic related to navigation safety: replacing precautionary areas with roundabouts (Lombok Strait case study). I have a few comments and suggestions, which are given below.
1. In the Abstract and the Literature Review section, roundabouts in road transportation are presented. How is that connected with roundabouts in maritime transportation?
2. When mentioning means of maritime transportation, I suggest using the terms vessel or ship instead of vehicle.
3. Lines 42-46 - It is stated: "Historically, precautionary area within TSS have been established as square or rectangular zones where vessels must transit with caution, which frequently results in traffic flow inefficiencies and heightened collision risks due to crossing traffic that will lead into collision [4,5]". When reading this sentence, a reader who is not an expert in maritime traffic would assume that the collision is inevitable when transiting a precautionary area. Secondly, what is meant by "traffic flow inefficiency"? There is always a stand-on vessel and give-way vessel - even in a roundabout. Please elaborate. In addition, how are references [4,5] connected with this statement? Reference [4] does not mention the word "precautionary" at all, and reference [5] mentions it once but in another context.
4. Lines 46-50 - The sentence is hard to follow - I suggest revising it.
5. Lines 58-60 - It is stated: "This transition is anticipated to optimize vessel movements, mitigate the risk of collisions, and enhance the overall efficiency of marine traffic management". However, when reading the paper, it cannot be concluded that replacing precautionary areas with roundabouts in maritime transportation enhanced the efficiency of traffic management and optimized vessel movements.
5. The introduction is lacking. First, the problem statement is lacking. Second, the aim of the study is not clearly stated, and third, the novelty of the study is not presented.
6. Were there any accidents or near-miss events occurring in the precautionary area that would justify redesigning it in a roundabout? And if so, why roundabout? Is there any other solution?
7. Lines 159-162 - How is the study [33] connected with the aim of this paper?
8. Lines 193-196 - It is stated: "Therefore, any closure of this chokepoint or route will surely become major disruptions that bring huge impact and costs on various stakeholders along the supply chain as what happened in the accident of Ever Given in Suez Canal back [39] and in the Hormuz Strait area [40]." Why would the closure of this chokepoint occur? What is the minimum sea depth in the Lombok Strait?
9. Figure 2. Research Flow - What do you mean by "Placement of artificial Island"?
10. Table 1 - Tankers are also cargo ships. Please revise.
11. Lines 340-343 - It is stated: "In road transport, an island of the roundabout act as speed reduction and within design phase, the fastest path will be chosen according to the geometric design to achieve smoothest and flattest path for a single vehicle considering the natural path of the vehicle, pedestrian and the entry curve [12,44]". Please elaborate more on this since it is related to road transportation.
12. Lines 404-405 It is stated: "As mentioned earlier, the heavy vehicle in this calculation was cargo ship/bulk carrier". It is not mentioned earlier. Furthermore, why? Please elaborate.
13- Lines 463-465 - It is stated: "Each element in Table 7 determined with regression analysis." Please elaborate on how. What is meant by License and Career? How was it determined for this study?
14. Lines 494-496 - It is stated: "Through the analysis of ship behavior as shown in Table 3 reveals that only 33% of vessels adhered to the designated precautionary area when crossing the northern section of the Strait." Why do you think that if the roundabout is introduced, vessels will adhere to it? Have you considered penalties for violators?
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments were addressed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors revised the paper; however, some issues remained, which must be addressed before it is considered for publication. My comments and suggestions are given below.
1. Lines 46-47 - It is stated: However, traditional precautionary areas, often designed as square or rectangular zones, are prone to traffic inefficiencies... " What is meant by "traffic inefficiencies"?
2. Regarding heavy vehicle calculation used in Equation (6), lines 417-419 - "Here, 𝑓𝐻𝑉 is the heavy vehicle adjustment factor, 𝑃𝑇 is the proportion of movement volume consisting heavy vehicle, 𝐸𝑇 is the Passenger Car Unit Equivalent (PCU) for heavy vehicle considered as 2.0 (heavy vehicle or cargo ship/bulk carrier) and 1.0 (passenger car or passenger/ferry),..." This part is hard to follow. First, you consider bulk carrier ships to be heavy vehicles, but there are bulk carriers of different sizes. Then, it is taken (as I can understand from the given) that its size is twice of a car (or, in this case, a domestic ferry). Why? How?
3. Regarding Table 7, if I understood correctly, the PARK model is developed based on data collected in Korean waters; are there any differences with the Indonesian waters (or specifically with Lombok Strait)? Could the data collected from Koeran seafarers be used in this case?
4. Furthermore, as can be seen from the data presented, only ships on domestic voyages (smaller ferry ships) do not adhere to the precautionary areas. Are there any conclusions for this?
I hope that my comments and suggestions will be helpful.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors answered my comments and improved the paper. However, I have one more comment concerning the authors' answers: how was Figure A1 developed? What method lies behind it? It is stated that it was developed in MATLAB, but it is not explained how.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
