The Analysis of Selected Factors Improving the Cargo Susceptibility to Modal Shift

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This  article discusses the factors which are influencing the real possibility of CO2 reduction by changing the mode of transport and shows an example of calculations based on a selected region. Topic is very attractive and in general paper is well written.

Minor changes have to be done, such as:

- In section 1 change text "There are numerous definitions of intermodal cargo transportation. It can be found 17 in e.g. [1] as well as in [2] or [3]." to "There are numerous definitions of intermodal cargo transportation (such as those in [1], [2] or [3]).

- In section 2 change text "You can find out that the ratio of the amount of the goods hauled to the GDP generated in the country in the EU-27 has remained practically unchanged over the last 10 years" to "It could be found  that the ratio of the amount of the goods hauled to the GDP generated in the country in the EU-27 has remained practically unchanged over the last 10 years"

- Lines 137-138 add reference to text "Most often, transit surveys are carried out as round-the-clock surveys, with a distinction of the generic structure being made."

- In section 3 add comparison of methods

- Delete point in the title of section 4

- Figure 4 (not drawing) has text which is not in English, correct it

 

Author Response

Thanks for your kind review. We agree with all comments. Sentences that do not match the scientific article have been deleted. Some sentences that were previously unclear and abstract have been corrected. The assumptions and steps are presented in the part related to the calculations. Hope the current character is acceptable enough.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Topic of the paper is interesting and important.

Comments:

Technical comment - Author should correct "Authors data" in the submission system. Now it is "Mateusz Mateusz" and should be "Mateusz Zając".

Structure have to be improved - current version contains sometimes only one subchapter inside chapter, like 2.1. I propose one of two solutions: to include whole text from 2.1 to general 2 chapter or to improve and add 2.2 subchapter.

Figure 4 at line 547 include text in other language. It have to be deleted or translated. What more this figure name is "Drawing 4" I suggest to change it into Figure 4.

One more comments to the Figure 4 - there are not any information about axis . Author definitely have to include these information on the Figure.

Author should improve conlcusion part and add method limitation and plans of future research in the field.

Author Response

Thanks for your kind review. We agree with all comments. Sentences that do not match the scientific article have been deleted. Some sentences that were previously unclear and abstract have been corrected. The assumptions and steps are presented in the part related to the calculations.

Hope the current character is acceptable enough.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The main findings of your study need to be highlighted in the abstract, as well as the contribution of your study.

2. As a scientific paper, there seem to be some parts where the wording is not precise. In the abstract, you mentioned that “It is very easy to fall into simplifications, where practically every load transported by road vehicles over a longer distance is indicated as unjustified CO2 emission.” Actually, there are many papers that discuss multi-modal/intermodal transport, where they used different methods to calculate the impact of different factors on emissions, and they go in-depth on the calculation methodology.

3. In lines 48-52, you mentioned that “Many articles, mentioning the authors who do not contribute any useful insights into the discussion….”, “Some publications indicated that the transfer of the loads from road to rail transport would unarguably result in a reduction of pollution....” you did not cite any paper to back up your point. I believe the author can do more research on related topics to get a deeper understanding of this topic and see if their work can additional insights to this paper.

4. Currently the structure is a bit messy, what do you think is the main problem that your paper addresses?  The title of your paper and the problem you are trying to solve do not correspond to the actual content of your research. In the first section you suggest the difficulties of calculating emissions, and does your work improve the calculation methodology? From my perspective, your study is mainly focusing on what kind of factors may affect cargo shift from road to rail transport. It's essentially a transport problem not an emission calculation issue in intermodal transport. 

5. Furthermore, the models you mentioned in lines 260-264, are not emissions calculation models, and these are models usually used to simulate transfer behavior between different modes of transportation. And that’s why some solutions of these models are the assumption that fuel (energy) consumption is constant or simplified/no emissions calculation.

6. In your analysis of Poland road haulage structure and emission calculations, it is not clear how the analysis is done and what factors are considered. There is not enough discussion on the potential impacts of many factors including but not limited to the type of fuel used, emission factors, the impact of alternative energy vehicles, etc. These factors can all impact carbon emissions and might make intermodal transport’s advantage much lower. It is fine not to have considered everything, you should make it clear in the analysis of what the assumptions are and the potential limitations of these assumptions. 

Author Response

Thanks for your kind review. We agree with all comments. Sentences that do not match the scientific article have been deleted. Some sentences that were previously unclear and abstract have been corrected. The assumptions and steps are presented in the part related to the calculations.

In the future we will study the issues discussed here more closely. Hope the current character is acceptable enough.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I believe the paper can be considered for publication.