Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Assessment of Concrete Repairs through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
Next Article in Special Issue
Rational Organization of Urban Parking Using Microsimulation
Previous Article in Journal
Splitting Tensile Strength of Fly Ash-Modified Sand at Various Saturations and Curing Times
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Design and Evaluation of a Telematic Automated System of Weight Control for Heavy Vehicles
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Effect of Traffic Lights Countdown Timer and Motorcycle Lanes as an Approach to the Red Box for Motorcycles in Bali Island

Infrastructures 2022, 7(10), 127; https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures7100127
by Agah Muhammad Mulyadi 1, Atmy Verani Rouly Sihombing 2,*, Hendra Hendrawan 3, Edward Marpaung 4, Johny Malisan 4, Dedy Arianto 4, Tetty Sulastry Mardiana 4, Feronika Sekar Puriningsih 4, Subaryata 4, Nurul Aldha Mauliddina Siregar 4, Mutharuddin 4 and Windra Priatna Humang 4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Infrastructures 2022, 7(10), 127; https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures7100127
Submission received: 31 August 2022 / Revised: 11 September 2022 / Accepted: 22 September 2022 / Published: 26 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smart Mobility)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an interesting study considered not a worldwide phenomenon but important in Indonesia and in other countries where motorcycle traffic is very distinct. As was proved the combination of red box areas with traffic light countdowns gives effects and enlarges traffic flow parameters.

The manuscript is good written and well constructed in general. In my opinion, only the last section (conclusions) needs wider changes (see further). Besides that, I formulated some small remarks to improve the quality of the paper.

Please add the population number of Indonesia to better highlight the number (and ratio) of motorcycles.

Please add the map of Indonesia with marking of described locations, especially Bali Island (as well as: Bandung, Bekasi, Tangerang, Bogor, Denpasar, Palembang, Medan, Semarang, Purwokerto, Jepara, etc.).

I think table 2 is not necessary. It is obvious for example that Pearson’s ratio value higher than 0,8 means a very strong correlation.

The presented form of the conclusions (section 5) looks rather like a discussion of the results. I miss more general conclusions and summary there (for example what are the implications of the conducted study to the journal topic “smart mobility”). The limitations (specificity) of conducted research as well as the potential (planned) next study will be welcome there too. Please develop this section and remove section 6 (patents – is empty).

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our paper, we really appreciate it.

From the 5 point notes you gave to our paper, we have revised it. Hopefully our revision results are correct and our paper can be accepted and published.

We have attached the response from your review

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic presented in the paper is important and on time. In the reviewed paper, the Authors presented the effect of traffic lights countdown timer and motorcycles lane as an approach to the red box for motorcycles in Bali island. The Authors analyzed the effect of traffic lights countdown timer and motorcycles lane as an approach to the red box for motorcycles at signalized intersections. They prepared measurements on 4 locations in Denpasar Bali, i.e red boxes with countdown timer only (Condition 1), red boxes with motorcycle lane only (Condition 2), red boxes with countdown timer and motorcycle lane (Condition 3), and red boxes without countdown timer and without motorcycle lane (Condition 4). Finally, they concluded, that a countdown timer has a significant effect in increasing motorcycle acceleration when the green light starts, reducing the possibility of motorized vehicles other than motorcycles stopping in the red box area and reducing stop line violations while waiting during a red light. Meanwhile, the presence of a motorcycle lane as an approach lane to enter the red box area has a significant influence in increasing the occupancy of the red box by motorcycles. In my opinion, the paper can be published, after taking into  account the following remarks:

- before paper publishing, the paper text should be checked by a professional Native Speaker,

- in the "Keyword" section, the keyword "smart mobility" should be added,

- at the end of the "Introduction" section, the Authors wrote the main aim of the paper together with the research hypothesis. It is very good, but at the end of the Introduction section, the Authors should also shortly describe what was contained in each paper section,

- the four locations selected as study locations (i.e. research area) are shown in Table 1 in the section called "2. Red Box for Motorcycles". According to the MDPI paper structure, the materials and methods should be presented in the section "Materials and Methods", i.e. in the case of this paper it is section 3,

-  in subsection 3.1., the Authors wrote as follows: ..."The data collection method was conducted in three-time phases, i.e. the morning session, afternoon session, and evening session where each phase of the data collection was taken as many as 10 red light phases. While the data collected during the green light phase is the volume of motorcycles crossing the intersection."... Does the Authors check, if this research sample is sufficient from the point of view of conducting further statistical analysis (i.e. fulfill the required statistical condition of the minimum research sample size for conducting the statistical analysis)?,

- in Table 3, we can find "Time Periode". It is not in English,

- is like follows "5. Conclusion", should be like follows "5. Conclusions",

- the Conclusions section is written in a very general way and should be extended including detailed conclusions from the presented in the paper research. Moreover, some discussions and comparison of obtained results with results of other researchers in this area is also desirable,

- reference items are not formatted according to the Infrastructure journal paper template requirements.

Author Response

Dear reviewers Thank you for taking the time to review our paper. We really appreciate that.

Together with this letter, we have revised the results of your review which consists of 9 points, as for the response from the review is attached.

We really hope that this paper is accepted and can be published

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop