Cost and Environmental Impacts of a Mixed Fleet of Vehicles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript addresses an interesting issue regarding the environmental and economic impacts of a mixed fleet of vehicles for light freight services. This is an important topic in the international agenda, owing to the negative environmental implications of the road transportation sector. The objectives and motivation of the article are well framed and the methodology adopted is clearly described. Four alternative transportation modes, with different cargo capacities and different powertrains were assessed. In addition, a sensitivity analysis for the electricity mix in different European countries is provided. Finally, the manuscript is globally well structured and has a suitable list of references. These are the main strengths of the manuscript.

Nonetheless, I include below some comments (by order of appearance) which I think may improve the overall quality of the submitted document.

• Chapter 1: although the objectives of the study are well defined, the originality of the research with respect to other studies in the literature should be highlighted;
• Chapter 2: besides the use phase, what about the vehicles’ manufacturing stage, including e.g. the production and end-of-life of battery packs?
• Section 3.3: “Combustion engine van” is denoted “thermal van” in other parts of the manuscript, which may be confusing;
• Taking into account the uncertainty and variability of several parameters (e.g. fuel and electricity prices as explained in section 5.2), it would be interesting if an uncertainty analysis was performed, with uncertainty ranges instead of deterministic data as presented in Tables 2 and 3;
• Line 214: “Annex 1” should read “Appendix A”?
• Lines 265-267: I think Figure 3 does not support these conclusions;
• Line 268: this info should be provided in section 3.3; this would also help in explaining the higher values of NOx emissions presented in Table 1 for the thermal van;
• Line 296: “ascending” should read “descending”;
• Line 309: “impact category”: I would rather call it “life cycle stage”;
• Lines 325-326: but the electric van still remains a better option in terms of NOx emissions… so what is the best option between the two alternatives?
• Lines 353-367: the last two paragraphs would be better allocated to a “Conclusions” section;

Although the data is clearly presented, I think the manuscript would much benefit if clear conclusions were extracted from the manuscript, namely in terms of the binomial environment vs economic for each transportation mode. Moreover, the contribution of other life cycle stages (manufacturing and end-of-life) for the overall comparison of all transportation modes (electric and combustion) should be clearly presented.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with an interesting topic and it is well structured. The authors balance theory and application. The methodology is clearly explained and applied. I suggest improving literature review. Some possible papers:

 

Reducing CO2 emissions through pricing, planning, and subsidizing rail freight, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2020.

Modal shift, emission reductions and behavioral change: Transport policies and innovations to tackle climate change, Research in Transportation Economics 2019.

Freight distribution with electric vehicles: A case study in Sicily. RES, infrastructures and vehicle routing, Transportation Engineering 2021

Decarbonising the transport and energy sectors: Technical feasibility and socioeconomic impacts in Costa Rica, Energy Strategy Reviews 2020

Urban freight transport and city logistics policies: Indications from Rome, Barcelona, and Santander, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 2016

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article undertakes interesting comparative studies of various means of transport. Chapter 2. The countries analyzed were not specified. What criteria were adopted for the model. Too general information provided.  The adopted method is correct. In my opinion, the cost-bearing model is too vague. But it is now included in the standards. I would list publications with an additional extensive model focused on the cost of ownership. For example. However, this is not a necessity, it is only my suggestion and request. Vehicle data and costs data shown. They are acceptable and their accuracy is sufficient for this analysis.

De Jong, G.; Fox, J.; Daly, A.; Pieters, M.; Smit, R. Comparison of Car Ownership Models. Transp. Rev. 2004, 24, 379–408

Wróblewski, P.; Drożdż, W.; Lewicki, W.; Dowejko, J. Total Cost of Ownership and Its Potential Consequences for the Development of the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Powered Vehicle Market in Poland. Energies 2021, 14, 2131. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14082131 

The discussion section is described correctly and the results are correct. Nevertheless, the Summary of Results chapter is missing. This is a serious mistake and should be supplemented with this chapter. Keep in mind that the best form of writing conclusions is points. They provide a quick overview of the results achieved in the course of the research. Please correct it. I have no major substantive comments regarding my work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf