Traffic Flow State Analysis Considering Driver Response Time and V2V Communication Delay in Heterogeneous Traffic Environment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review
Traffic Flow State Analysis Considering Driver Response Time and V2V Communication Delay in Heterogeneous Traffic Environment
Shan Guan, Chicheng Ma, Jianjun Wang
Subject
The research topic is interesting and appropriate for the journal requirements.
Title
Clear and corresponds to the content of the article.
Abstract
Appropriate, including the purpose of the research. The abstract is clear, arouses interest,
and consists of the goals.
1. Introduction
The introduction is of sufficient scope.
The number of the earlier studies presented is enough as there are previously known scientific publications on the subject.
2. Car-following Model in Heterogeneous Traffic Environment
The presentation of model is understandable and well-presented.
3. Traffic flow state analysis considering multi-delay factors
The presentation of results is understandable and well-presented. The figures are suitable for understanding the study.
4. Simulation Verification
The chosen route is very simple, in reality, there is no such route with undisturbed traffic flow, it is more suitable for illustration of the model and not for its verification. I advise the change of the chapter title.
5. Conclusions
The conclusions are appropriate based on the results presented.
References
It contains just the right amount of the most important announcements.
Overall merit
The content of the article is adequate, however, the size of the figures is not proportional to their importance, figures 1-6 are unreasonably large, it would be advisable to merge them into one figure, on the other hand, the size of the diagrams in Figure 7-13 is too small, so the captions are difficult to read.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper updated the existing car-following models considering driver response time and CAV communication delay, and tested it using SUMO. My comments are presented as follows.
1. Professional terms in this paper are inconsistent, and there are some confusing terms, such as intelligent network vehicles (Does it mean Intelligent Connected Vehicles?); intelligent network training vehicle; penetration rates (Does it mean Market Penetration Rates?); permeability; manual driving cars, and so on.
2. The writing of this paper needs to be significantly improved, and there are some confusing sentences, such as but not limited to:
Lines 37-38, “With the increase of CAVs permeability, it is more and more necessary to study the heterogeneous traffic environment.”
Lines 231-232, “Under the optimal condition, the flow rate of heterogeneous traffic environment is twice that of CAV permeability of 0, and the effect is obvious.”
3. The statement in line 53 that CACC has not been tested by real vehicles is not rigorous, and I suggest referring to this literature:
“Milanés V, Shladover S E. Modeling cooperative and autonomous adaptive cruise control dynamic responses using experimental data. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 2014, 48: 285-300.”
4. The calculation of the probability of three types of vehicles should be derived in detail, using formulas or even figures to make it easier for readers to understand. In addition, the article assumes that the car-following state of different types of vehicles is an independent event. Why not consider it a conditional probability event?
5. Figures 1 to 6 are not significant. It is recommended to merge them into a group figure or delete them.
6. Figure 11 needs to be better quality and show more information.
7. What are the parameters of the car-following model selected during the simulation process? Are all default values used?
8. How is the updated car-following model implemented in SUMO?
9. In addition, there are also some formatting issues. For example: 1) Part 2.2 has chaotic numbering; 2) Some variables are not italicized; 3) The format of the references is not uniform.
The language needs more work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
All the reviewer comments have been carefully addressed, and the paper is recommended for being accepted.
The authors are suggested to double-check the English.
