Information Requirements and Legal Framework for Multimodal Transport System Coordination

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the comment are agreed by authors but not feasible to be implemented.

Author Response

Comments 1: The authors describe most of the information within the paragraphs, to

make the article easy to read and follow, the critical data must be summarized in tables

and schematics in the revised manuscript. Specifically, wording must be replaced with

summary tables and schematics as much as possible.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We do agree with this comment. Therefore,

we have added Table 1 on page 5, which summarizes the delays, their impact on

coordination, and possible remedies. Additionally, we created a schematic of the system

architecture (Figure 2 on page 9) that provides a generic architecture.

 

Comments 2: To show the contribution of the current work, the authors must compare

their findings with similar works from the published literature if possible.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. Such a combined approach of technical

and legal requirements does not yet exist. In this regard, for instance, Article 25 of

the GDPR stipulates that data protection measures must be considered from the outset

of technical development (see Section 3.1). Regulatory requirements will need to be

incorporated into topology design requirements for new systems. This will be of increasing

importance as more systems are connected and require data. With this research, we point

out how this needs to be approached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately the authors have not successfully addressed previous comments. This reviewer feels that the current form of the paper has not enough contribution to be eligible for publishing in logistics.

Author Response

Comments 1: A pertinent topic, however the focus is purely on the EU region, how

this will be beneficial for rest of the world.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. While our study focuses on the EU

region due to its extensive and historically significant regulatory framework, we believe

that our findings can be beneficial globally. The EU is often a pioneer in implementing

regulations, which are frequently adopted or serve as models in other regions that may

lack such regulatory structures (see Section 1). Given that the EU is a large economic

area, developments here can have worldwide implications. Our aim is to showcase the

EU’s pioneering role and illustrate how the insights gained from our research can be

transferable to other applications and regions. The basic functionality of transportation

systems remains identical globally, meaning that our methodology is adaptable and can

be applied elsewhere. We will include this in the abstract and expand upon it in the

introduction, emphasizing the potential for international adoption.

Comments 2: It could have been better in case the methodology is supported by proper

data and corresponding analysis.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have restructured the technical

section to clearly convey our intention of providing a generic framework that supports

the implementation of different methodologies across various layers. This includes a

schematic of the system architecture (Figure 2 on page 9) that illustrates the framework.

Implementing the methodology in specific use cases and including data will be part of

future work, continuing this research.

Comments 3: It was not clear what kind of delays are caused in the current EU transportation

system. Kindly elaborate and justify.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We created

Table 1 on page 5, which summarizes the delays, their impact on coordination, and

possible approaches for each of them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with authors' responses. I don't have any further comments.

Author Response

Comments 1: The flow of the paper is not straightforward and confuses the reviewers.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have restructured the entire technical

section. Additionally, we have provided individual summaries for each section as well

as a combined summary. Furthermore, we emphasize the need to include regulations as

requirements in design decisions for future systems, as they become more connected and

require data (see Section 3.1).

Comments 2: The main contributions of the paper is not justified in the paper properly,

for example, authors claim that they have used some optimisation techniques in

their technical framework but they have not tested its effectiveness and have not justified

and compared it with similar ones in a numerical result form.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing out the misunderstanding regarding usage and

selection. We reformulated the paper to provide a generic framework, highlighting possible

methods based on their properties and how the methodology and legal aspect can

be combined. We described, through the structure in Figure 2 on page 9, how selected

methods may be integrated. Additionally, we translated the mathematical formulation

into written format to make the problem more accessible to non-technical readers. The

simulation-based evaluation of the effectiveness of certain methods and their combinations

is beyond the scope of this paper and is addressed in the outlook.

Comments 3: The legal aspect of the paper has not been described and justified clearly.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We do not fully agree with this comment,

but revised certain formulations, as well as included a practical example from the technical

section. Additionally we included that regulations are requirements and influence the

design of a system (see Section 3.1). Which in turn influences the coordination methods.

Comments 4: It is not clear that why the authors introduced the section 2.5. It seems

to be inconsistent with the rest of paper.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Section

2.5 has been removed as part of the restructuring of the technical section.

Comments 5: There is not any table for introducing the terms.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and added a

table after the abbreviations with basic descriptions for certain terms to facilitate better

understanding of the subjects.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the have been suitably addressed.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Not further comments. Thank you

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article proposes a methodological framework for the coordination of multimodal passenger transport systems by European data protection law by combining optimization techniques of Predictive Topology Optimisation (PTO), Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL), and Distributed Model Predictive Control (DMPC). In general, the article is well-written and is of practical importance. However, to improve the overall quality of the article, I have the following comments to the authors.

1.      The authors describe most of the information within the paragraphs, to make the article easy to read and follow, the critical data must be summarized in tables and schematics in the revised manuscript. Specifically, wording must be replaced with summary tables and schematics as much as possible.

2.      To show the contribution of the current work, the authors must compare their findings with similar works from the published literature if possible.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A pertinent topic, however the focus is purely on the EU region, how this will be beneficial for rest of the world.

It could have been better in case the methodology is supported by proper data and corresponding analysis.

It was not clear what kind of delays are caused in the current EU transportation system. Kindly elaborate and justify.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors proposed a methodical and legal framework for multimodal transport system coordination.

This reviewer thinks that this form of manuscript is not appropriate for publication due to the following comments:

-The flow of the paper is not straightforward and confuses the reviewers.

-The main contributions of the paper is not justified in the paper properly, for example, authors claim that they have used some optimisation techniques in their technical framework but they have not tested its effectiveness and have not justified and compared it with similar ones in a numerical result form.

-The legal aspect of the paper has not been described and justified clearly.

-It is not clear that why the authors introduced the section 2.5. It seems to be inconsistent with the rest of paper.

-There is not any table for introducing the terms.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please re-check for any typo.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes a multimodal transport system coordination framework. However, there are several major issues need be addressed. 

1. The paper claims a combine optimization problem from a system-centric and passenger-centric perspective is proposed. I fail to see the motivation of this optimization formulation for individual passengers. It is reasonable that some centralized platforms or road planners in intelligence transportation systems can make centric decisions corresponding to mode choice, route choice and so on. However, passengers who make mode choice may not comply with the centralized decisions. Usually, individual passengers work as self-interest motivated users who choose their modes or routes according to their disutility. The centralized planners definitely should consider these passengers choice when studying the equilibrium regarding mode choices. 

2. The legal framework is very wired. It is not well posed and incorporated into the whole framework. For example, how the data protection law may impact the decision making of centralized planners and decentralized passengers? how the legal framework influence the mode choice? Authors should provide a detailed mathematical formulation to address this issue. The whole section 3 is not well fit into this work. It should be significantly improved. 

3. The abstract mentions that: The proposed framework spans.... (DMPC). I fail to see this point. There does not exist any numerical results that can be used to demonstrate it. Authors should conduct thorough numerical experiments if this paper will be published. 

4. The presentation can be improved a lot. For example, the connection between each section can be highlighted in a big picture.