Autonomous Ride-Sharing Services in the United States: A Scoping Review of Policies, Implementation, Performance and Market Penetration

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: To realize ride-sharing service, the information of different vehicles has to be shared and so I think it is improper to use “autonomous”. It is suggested to revise it or provide more explanation technically in detail. Since," autonomous" is normally different from "connected".

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We have clarified that ride-sharing service in this manuscript refers to shared transportation among multiple riders (public vs. private transport), not vehicle connectivity (V2V/V2I). The changes can be found on Page 2, Lines 59–62.

Comments 2: It is suggested to give out some suggestions about the promotion of ride-sharing in detail, such as research directions and etc.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added recommendations for promoting ride-sharing services, including research directions, in Page 21, Lines 1233–1241.

Comments 3: Some comparative summarizations are suggested to make the reader understand the state of the art more clearly and easily.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added comparative summarizations in Page 18, Lines 908–920 to enhance clarity and help readers better understand the state of the art in ARSS.

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The manuscript explains the selection process for articles but does not specify how studies focusing on international experiences were handled. Did the authors exclude non-U.S. studies outright, or were they considered for comparative insights?

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We have clarified the eligibility criteria for international studies in Page 4, Lines 216–218. Only articles that mentioned the U.S. in some capacity were included in the screening, even if they also contained information from other countries. Studies that did not include any mention of the U.S. were excluded.

Comments 2: The manuscript devotes a significant portion to detailing the search strategy, database selection, and screening process. While transparency is important, this section could be streamlined to improve readability. For example, Figure 1 (PRISMA flowchart) and Table 4 (study characteristics) could be moved to an appendix to maintain focus on key findings.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. Figure 1 (PRISMA flowchart) and Table 4 (study characteristics) have been moved to an appendix. These changes can be found in Pages 22–33, Lines 1264–1271.

Comments 3: The manuscript title emphasizes "Policies, Implementation, Performance, and Market Penetration," but the discussion is largely centered around the socio-ecological model. Would it be more appropriate to structure the discussion section around the four key themes in the title? Reorganizing subheadings accordingly might improve alignment between research questions and findings.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have restructured the discussion section to better align with the four key themes in the title: Policies, Implementation, Performance, and Market Penetration. The changes can be found in Pages 16–19, Lines 803–1000.

Comments 4: Many studies on autonomous ride-sharing services derive conclusions by comparing ARSS to other transportation modes (e.g., conventional ride-sharing, public transit, private vehicles). However, this aspect seems underexplored in the manuscript. A more in-depth discussion on comparative studies and an analysis of how ARSS performs relative to other transportation modes would strengthen the manuscript.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. We have expanded the discussion on comparative studies and how ARSS perform relative to other transportation modes, including conventional ride-sharing, public transit, and private vehicles. The revisions can be found in Page 18, Lines 908–920.

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The authors should seriously work on the structure of the article. The manuscript does not reflect the title of the article.

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the structure of the manuscript to better align with the title and main themes. These revisions can be found in Pages 9–19, Lines 394–990.

Comments 2: It is necessary to expand the introduction. Describe the ARSS market in the USA, justify the relevance of the article. The introduction is rather weak, perhaps some diagrams of ARSS market development trends should be added. Then the relevance of the study will be more obvious.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have expanded the introduction to provide a more detailed overview of the ARSS market in the U.S. and to better justify the relevance of the study. These revisions can be found in Page 3, Lines 107–131.

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The submitted version appears to contain a significant number of unnecessary annotations, suggesting that it may not be the final version. Additionally, the table on page 23 seems to be incomplete. A thorough revision to ensure clarity and completeness is recommended.

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. The authors have made substantial revisions to the manuscript's organization based on recommendations from reviewers during the first round of review. Regarding the comment on “unnecessary annotations,” we are unclear on what specifically is being referenced. We would be happy to remove them upon further clarification from the reviewer.

Table B has been moved to the Appendix, as suggested in the previous review; however, its content remains unchanged. Upon review, we did not identify any missing information in the table. If the reviewer could please specify which elements appear incomplete, we would be glad to address them accordingly.

Comments 2: The "Implementation Strategies" section would benefit from a more detailed examination of how policy measures can be used to enhance the advantages of ARSS and position it distinctively among other transportation modes. Additionally, incorporating a more comprehensive discussion on existing comparative studies evaluating ARSS against alternative travel options would strengthen the analysis.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised Section 4.2.3 to include specific policy measures that can support and distinguish ARSS. We also incorporated findings from recent comparative studies. These changes can be found on Pages 19-20, Lines 728–768.

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The authors have done a great job. In general, my comments are satisfied. The manuscript is recommended for publication.

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback and for recommending the manuscript for publication. We appreciate your time and support.