Road Network Vulnerability Based on Diversion Routes to Reconnect Disrupted Road Segments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The results presented in this paper seem correct.  Even there is no major technical issues, however, there are major comments from this reviewer to the authors:

1) To highlight the contribution, some sentences should be added in introduction section and its can be itemized.

2) The disadvantage or the limitation of the proposed method must be described in conclusion.

3) How do you ensure the results are enough to verify the proposal?

4) All assumptions and constraints should be discussed.

5) The reviewer would like to suggest the authors comparing their results with some recent published work (2018-2021) and clearly show how the new design features in the current work.

6) Check some typo and English representation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting and timely paper.  However, I do have some concerns.  Clearly, there are other tools for identifying the effects of disruptions in road networks.  I would expect the authors to show why the shortest path approach that they are using is superior to other methods (e.g., some use economic criteria to assess the impact of loss of a facility or roadway).  I also wonder how they expect this tool to be used.  Is it primary for planning purposes so that transportation agencies have advance knowledge of where network vulnerabilities are located or is it to identify network vulnerabilities for future investments to reduce these vulnerabilities?  Given that the tool does not address the temporal aspect of disruptions, I can't see it being used for real-time traffic management.  For example, without knowing how long a disruption might last (e..g, a major incident), one cannot know whether or not to take an alternative route that will increase travel time.  If the tool is primarily to identify network vulnerabilities that are of longer duration (e.g., weeks/months), then economic criteria will be important since some vulnerable roadways may be less important to economic activity than others. The authors do mention that multiple options may be required to accommodate high traffic volume, but I would expect the network model to include a capacity limit so that the tool looks more like a network flow model than a shortest route model.  The goal is to enable the demand to be met using the available infrastructure and, without some idea of capacity, we cannot know whether or not alternative routes (even multiple alternatives) can accommodate the demand.  Finally, the authors do mention the need to acknowledge that different origin/destination pairs may result in different preferred routes.  I suggest that they also address the idea that the more distant one is from the disrupted segment or facilities, the more options may be available, including avoiding the local network altogether.  This would also require the traveler to be aware of the disruption sufficiently early to select an alternate route.

I think this contribute to the body of knowledge regarding network vulnerability but the authors need to provide more context in terms of how this tool would be used to support planning and investment decisions.  I don't see it being useful for real-time diversion given that it does not address the temporal element and, in addition, multiple alternatives already exist to support real-time route decisions (e.g., Google maps, etc.)

Lastly, the paper does need an editorial review to correct grammatical errors.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper may need to make further improvement before making consideration. 

1. The study may provide further background of study. Now, it is relatively short.
2. The paper may need to provide managerial and academic implication in the conclusion section. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Major changes have been made throughout the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised manuscript is now ready for publication.