Concepts of Development of Alternative Travel in Autonomous Cars
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, the authors have proposed 3 autonomous car travel development concepts that should become a conceptual tool in the development of ITS and C-ITS. The study is very interesting. However, several concerns in the current stage of manuscript need to be addressed before consideration of acceptance, as follows:
To make the manuscript self-contained and more readable, make sure all the variables have been fully specified after each equation.
Please add more discussion and limitations of the proposed method.
More discussions and literatures should be added in the introduction.
Is there any other limitation of the proposed idea? Such as the specific or limited ranges of working environment or conditions? Is the proposed architecture still valid under other environment?
Carefully recheck grammar and typo errors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
the authors of the article would like to thank you personally for the attention and cooperation shown in the improvement of the project of the article and kindly ask you to review the improved text of the article once again according to your comments. An answer to reviewer’s comment see in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The subject or topic of the paper is highly relevant and the use of a survey to identify the most important areas or most challenging factors facing the introduction of autonomous vehicle serves a useful purpose for future research effort as any attempts to introduce autonomous vehicles into the existing already complex transport system will face complex decisions. So I have no issues with the structure of the paper.
In regard to wording, a moderate number of grammatical and wording changes are required or are recommended/suggested.
Introduction. Line 28. The word 'suddenly' should perhaps be changed to 'rapidly'.
Line 32. '... , but they usually only cover one specific area' should be changed to '... , but they usually cover one specific area only' (i.e the word 'only' is in the incorrect place)
line 42. '... which will be challenged by the further increase in the distance travelled by cars ... '. I think that this should be the 'total person kilometres travelled by car' because individual car travel trips will not necessarily, or even likely, be longer. There will just be more trips made.
Line 48. This is the first time in the paper that the acronyms GPS and IMU are used and so the non-abbreviated forms should be used as well as the acronyms.
Lines 49-50. 'Therefore, most of the world's scientists propose ...'. Most of the world's scientists are not involved in any way with autonomous vehicle development or research. Perhaps this is meant to be most something such as 'most experts or transport engineers and scientists working in the area of autonomous vehicles '
Line 57. '... the use of ITS in the city will only be effective if a ... ' should be '.. the use of ITS in the city will be effective only if a ... '
Line 73. 'Australian scientists proposed that shared autonomous vehicles (SAV) could provide inexpensive mobility and on-demand services.' Where is the reference needed to support this statement?
Line 81. 'Ratner S. points out ... '. Only the author's surname and not the fist letter of the first name should be used. So 'Ratner points out ... '
Line 84 Talebpor, A and Mahmassani , H. S. should be Talebpour and Mahmassami (see above comment, Line 81)
Line 85. 'They found that the stability analysis of the resulting traffic stream behaviour using this framework was presented for different market penetration rates of connected and autonomous vehicles.' This is not complete. The previous sentence states that they conducted an analysis, and this sentence simply states that the analysis was presented. But what was the finding?
Line 88. 'Millard-Ball, A. performed ... ' should be 'Millard-Ball performed ... '
Line 97. ' ... we. together with the co-authors ... '. Who is 'we' and who are the ço-authors'. Surely this should just be 'we' or 'the authors'
Line 101. '2. Carry out a survey of foreign and Lithuanian experts ... '. The use of the word 'foreign' is problematical. It would be better to rephrase this as experts from both Lithuania and other countries ' and to then list the other countries that the other experts were from.
Line 104 'for the development of ITS and C-ITS' should be 'for the ongoing development of ITS and C-ITS'.
Line 108. The word 'foreign' needs to be considered.
Line 108. The co-authors should be 'the authors'
Line 112. The word foreign needs to be considered
Line 113. '22 experts ...'. It is incorrect to start a sentence with a numeral. This should be 'Twenty two experts ...'
Line 114. 'co-authors' should be 'authors'
Line 165. ' ... , which often depends on ... ' should be ' ... , and often depends on ...
Lines 167- 173. Where is the reference to support this?
Line 188. "... for autonomous cars that are being tested ... should be '... for autonomous cars that is being tested ... ' as it is the area (singular) that is being referred to here.
Line 258. 'Travel planning is performed only using ... ' should be 'Travel planning is performed using only ... '
Line 262. (Uber, taxi, etc.) It would be better t use on-demand transport rather than to mention a particular on-demand transport company.
Line 271. ' ... , it only facilitates ... ' should be ' ..., it facilitates only ... '
Line 330. ' ... it is only necessary ...' should be ' ... it is necessary only ...
Referencing
Most of the references combine the publishing date wit the publication details (volume, issue, page numbers. For example, in line 403 the reference has 'Science, 2016, 352 (6293). I am not familiar with this style of referencing and am used to the date being with the authors, such as in the Harvard referencing system. But I will leave it to the editors to determine whether or not this is the practice for the Sustainability journal
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
the authors of the article would like to thank you personally for the attention and cooperation shown in the improvement of the project of the article and kindly ask you to review the improved text of the article once again according to your comments. An answer to reviewer’s comment see in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The considerations presented in the article are very current and interesting. Autonomous vehicles fascinate all road users. in the article we find interesting concepts related to the possibilities of integrating autonomous vehicles in urban traffic. The concepts of travel planning with the use of ICT systems and autonomous vehicles are also interesting. As autonomous vehicles are not yet common, it is worth considering whether it would be possible to start implementing trip planning systems without the use of autonomous vehicles.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
the authors of the article would like to thank you personally for the attention and cooperation shown in the improvement of the project of the article and kindly ask you to review the improved text of the article once again according to your comments. An answer to reviewer’s comment see in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
