Public Transport Prioritization and Descriptive Criteria-Based Urban Sections Classification on Arterial Streets
, Yevhen Fornalchyk 1, Eugeniusz Koda 2, Ivan Kernytskyy 2, Oleh Hrytsun 1, Romana Bura 1, Piotr Osinski 2,*, Anna Markiewicz 2, Tomasz Wierzbicki 2, Ruslan Barabash 3, Ruslan Humenuyk 3 and Pavlo Polyansky 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
After carefully reading the paper, some minor comments should be discussed as follows:
1. More details around Table 1 should be listed.
2. Give a reference to Equation (1)
3. Rewrite the following sentence "where ????і – the length of the section, [m];".
4. How the authors evaluate the dispersion concept along the paper?. Explain.
5. Did the authors discussed the normality property for data before modeling?. How?.
6. The homogeneity property should be reported for data.
7. Data scattering should be plotted to obtain the shape of data.
8. The residual plots should be sketched for regression models.
Author Response
The authors would like to express their appreciation for valuable suggestions and comments to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript. The authors would like to assure all the Reviewers that the paper was proofread, carefully reviewed, checked and corrected. Below you will find the specific answers to the given comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 1:
Remark no 1: More details around Table 1 should be listed
Answer:
In Table 1, column 1, the name and the number of the stopping point are given respectively to their city-wide numbering. In column 2, there are schedules set for every bus on the route. These schedules are embedded in the software environment MicroGIS which is used in the Center of traffic management of public transportation to monitor the operation of public transport. Column 3 contains the information about the real time of arrival of buses at every specific stopping point. This arrival time is recorded by GPS-tracker, information from which is transferred to the monitoring program. After every working shift, a final report on compliance with traffic schedules on all routes of the public transport network is formed. Additional paragraph was added in the main text, please see l. 213-221.
Remark no 2: Give a reference to Equation (1)
Answer:
The sentence in Lines 228 and 230 is changed: “To systematize data obtained from GPS-trackers (Table 1), about the speed of public transport movement () at i-section of the route network without considering the downtime of buses at stopping points, the following equality is derived”
Remark no 3: Rewrite the following sentence "where ????і – the length of the section, [m];".
Answer:
This was changed. Please see the corrected copy of the manuscript.
Remark no 4: How the authors evaluate the dispersion concept along the paper?. Explain
Answer:
The dispersion in the paper was determined by the formula (please see the .pdf file for a better presentation), where t denotes public transport delay, M[t] – mathematical expectation; pt – frequency.
Remark no 5: Did the authors discussed the normality property for data before modeling?. How?.
Answer:
“Normality” of data about traffic volume was justified based on the field research, which then was interpreted for three schemes of traffic management (please see Fig. 2, Table 3, and the discussion completing the figure and table).
Remark no 6: The homogeneity property should be reported for data.
Answer:
The homogeneity property of incoming data to the traffic simulation, then this property can be observed in Table 4 taking into account the number of lanes, length of sections and traffic volume. Homogeneity dictates the number of lanes, and lengths of observed sections. Please see l. 361-364 in the corrected copy of the manuscript, where the explanation was added.
Remark no 7: Data scattering should be plotted to obtain the shape of data.
Answer:
If it is about traffic delays at stopping points then, for example (Table 2), the limits of their dispersion around the mathematical expectation can be determined (subject to the normal distribution law) with the use of “” method: .
Remark no 8: The residual plots should be sketched for regression models
Answer:
Results given in Table 5 about the speed of vehicular movement between stop-lines are justified by limits of distances L (see Fig. 2), which are in Table 4 for every mode A, B, C (the second column).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript relates research conducted to develop measures to prioritize bus transportation on streets in Lviv, Ukraine.
In general, the manuscript seems to lack scientific soundness. The hypotheses oversimplify the issue of street section optimization as important variables are ignored. The conclusions are general and already available in literature, adding nothing new to the current state of knowledge.
The abstract focuses too much on the statement of the research problem and too little on the research.
The first half of the introduction does not have a clear structure. The text circles around several ideas in a repetitive and unordered fashion.
Line 42. A reference for these measures is missing.
Line 76. Imprecise statement.
Line 173. The meaning of “given analysis” is not clear.
Line 178. It is not clear whether the goal is targeted for any city of for the city of Lviv.
Materials and methods. The authors did not describe how may data they collected, which hours, how many days, which vehicles were monitored, etc.
Line 267. The authors assume that stopping delays depend on the type of stopping area. They ignored whether delays depends on the number of passengers boarding and alighting and the bus occupancy level. This one is a severe limitation of the study.
Line 277. Meaning unclear
Line 316. Description of figure 2 is meagre. It is not clear whether the lanes represented are used for one or both driving directions.
Line 322: For a more comprehensive study of the situation, the complete bus line route should have been simulated with VISSIM.
Line 453. Conclusions are not new with respect of the current state of knowledge.
Author Response
The authors would like to express their appreciation for valuable suggestions and comments to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript. The authors would like to assure all the Reviewers that the paper was proofread, carefully reviewed, checked and corrected. Below you will find the specific answers to the given comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 2:
General comment: The manuscript relates research conducted to develop measures to prioritize bus transportation on streets in Lviv, Ukraine. In general, the manuscript seems to lack scientific soundness. The hypotheses oversimplify the issue of street section optimization as important variables are ignored. The conclusions are general and already available in literature, adding nothing new to the current state of knowledge. The abstract focuses too much on the statement of the research problem and too little on the research. The first half of the introduction does not have a clear structure. The text circles around several ideas in a repetitive and unordered fashion
Answer:
The authors would like to assure the Reviewer that the manuscript was corrected and all the detailed comments were addressed. All necessary changes were introduced in the corrected copy of the manuscript. Detailed answers can be followed below:
Remark no 1: Line 42: A reference for these measures is missing
Answer:
The references [1-3,5] were added, please see the corrected copy of the manuscript reference. Line
- Currie, G.; Sarvi, M.; Young, B. A New Approach to Evaluating On-Road Public Transport Priority Projects: Balancing the Demand for Limited Road-Space. Transportation (Amst). 2007, 34 (4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-006-9107-3.
- Currie, G.; Sarvi, M.; Young, W. A New Methodology for Allocating Road Space for Public Transport Priority. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2004, 75.
- Novotný, V.; Kočárková, D.; Havlena, O.; Jacura, M. Detailed Analysis of Public Bus Vehicle Ride on Urban Roads. Transp. Probl. 2016, 11 (4). https://doi.org/10.20858/tp.2016.11.4.5.
- Fornalchyk, Y.; Vikovych, I.; Royko, Y.; Hrytsun, O. Improvement of methods for assessing the effectiveness of dedicated lanes for public transport. Eastern-European J. Enterp. Technol. 2021, 1 (3–109). https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2021.225397.
Remark no 2: l. 76: Imprecise statement.
Answer:
The sentence is rewritten: “In studies [1,2] authors admit that the determining criteria for the operation of the road network are travel time and the reliability of this network for users of private and public transport. Such a rather general formulation confirms that road traffic needs to meet two major requirements, and provide efficient communication without decreasing users’ safety”. Please see l. 74-78 in a corrected copy of the manuscript.
Remark no 3: Line 173. The meaning of “given analysis” is not clear
Answer:
The analysis states that when public transport lanes are allocated at the cost of general traffic, traffic delays for private transport increase.
Remark no 4: Line 178. It is not clear whether the goal is targeted for any city of for the city of Lviv.
Answer:
This statement is valid for cities with established built-up areas and the configuration of road network with a high density and the absence of free territory that would make it possible to expand the roadway.
Remark no 5: Materials and methods. The authors did not describe how may data they collected, which hours, how many days, which vehicles were monitored, etc
Answer:
In this research, the collection of information from GPS-trackers about the movement of buses that operate on city public transport routes took place throughout the work shifts on weekdays and weekends. The research was carried out during the year. Data was first systematized and grouped according to separate routes, and at the next stage, data was superimposed from different routes for the same sections. Such grouping made it possible to establish information about whether the speed indicator is related to the traffic characteristics inherent in only one route, or whether such common (for all routes on the section) indicators indicate the characteristics of the transport service of the section. Such information is now provided in the main text please refer to l.199-207 in corrected copy of the manuscript.
Remark no 6: Line 267. The authors assume that stopping delays depend on the type of stopping area. They ignored whether delays depends on the number of passengers boarding and alighting and the bus occupancy level. This one is a severe limitation of the study.
Answer:
Undoubtedly, the number of passengers entering and exiting at the bus stop, as well as the level of occupancy of the bus, directly affect the duration of its delay. When processing data directly from GPS-trackers, it was not possible to detect the duration of the delay at the stopping points. Respectively, separate studies of traffic delays at stopping points were conducted, which were previously divided into 5 groups, based on the method of their arrangement and the geometric parameters of the roadway. With known values of the duration of this delay, we can determine quite accurately the speed of buses on the route sections and the duration of the traffic delay caused by the method of its regulation. The critical review of the approach is now added in the discussion paragraph, showing that the authors are fully aware that these are not the only causes of delays. Please see added critical review in l. 471-482 in corrected copy of the manuscript.
Remark no 7: Line 277. Meaning unclear
Answer:
Separate distribution of directions with two and three lanes was not considered provided that spatial priority is given to public transport in a form of a dedicated lane. Now the explanation is given in l. 294-298, please see the corrected copy of the manuscript.
Remark no 8: Line 316. Description of figure 2 is meagre. It is not clear whether the lanes represented are used for one or both driving directions.
Answer:
The Fig. 2 was improved and replaced, to make it clear to understand
Remark no 9: Line 322. For a more comprehensive study of the situation, the complete bus line route should have been simulated with VISSIM
Answer:
The essence of this study is to model a rational way of giving priority to public transport, primarily in the area of intersections, pedestrian crosswalks and stopping points, based on their arrangement and planning features of the roadway.
Remark no 10: Line 453. Conclusions are not new with respect of the current state of knowledge.
Answer:
The authors did their best to present the scientific contribution to existing knowledge. We tried to emphasize it in Point 4 in Conclusions, which has been added in the corrected copy of the manuscript (l. 498-500) “Due to the high value of the density of the road network, which is observed in cities with a radial-ring configuration, when approaching the city centre, it is advisable to introduce separate streets exclusively for the movement of urban public transport.”
The authors would like to express a genuine appreciation to the reviewer for all his effort in such a detailed revision. We do believe that now all the comments are appropriately addressed and the reviewer is satisfied with the explanations and amendments introduced in the paper.
Regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The innovation and the main differentiations from other previous researches and conclusions should be highlighted. Furthermore, it would be interesting if transferability of method is further described.
Author Response
The authors would like to express their appreciation for valuable suggestions and comments to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript. The authors would like to assure all the Reviewers that the paper was proofread, carefully reviewed, checked and corrected. Below you will find the specific answers to the given comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 3:
Remark no 1. The innovation and the main differentiations from other previous researches and conclusions should be highlighted. Furthermore, it would be interesting if transferability of method is further described.
Answer: The authors tried their best to improve the scientific soundness of the paper by including all Reviewers’ comments. The materials and methods section was improved please see the corrected copy. The discussion part now includes a more critical review of the present research (please see l. 471-482). The conclusion section, which refers to reviewer’s remark, is now included in point 4. Please see l.498-500.
“Due to the high value of the density of the road network, which is observed in cities with a radial-ring configuration, when approaching the city center, it is advisable to introduce separate streets exclusively for the movement of urban public transport.”
The authors would like to express a genuine appreciation to the reviewer for all his effort in such a detailed revision. We do believe that now all the comments are appropriately addressed and the reviewer is satisfied with the explanations and amendments introduced in the paper.
Regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors
The structure and flow of this paper are good enough to understand. I just have several questions.
1. I think the authors should provide the reference for those descriptions in Lines 61~68 " Although every city tries to take ..... not the number of 67 private or public transport vehicles."
2. I am confused about the mean of 'reliability of the operation of this network' in line 75. Please explain it a little bit more clearer.
3. Line 115 "regime". Is this a miss spelling?
4. Please notice the means of "I, IV, ... VIII" in figure 1.
5. Why the length of segments was set differently in the simulation? (lines 322-323: 200 m, 600 m and 1000 m for three-lane sections; 200 m, 600 m and 800 m for two-lane and one-lane sections)
Author Response
The authors would like to express their appreciation for valuable suggestions and comments to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript. The authors would like to assure all the Reviewers that the paper was proofread, carefully reviewed, checked and corrected. Below you will find the specific answers to the given comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 4:
Remark no 1: I think the authors should provide the reference for those descriptions in Lines 61~68 " Although every city tries to take ..... not the number of 67 private or public transport vehicles."
Answer:
The reference [5] is now provided. Please see the corrected copy of the manuscript.
[5]. Fornalchyk, Y.; Vikovych, I.; Royko, Y.; Hrytsun, O. Improvement of methods for assessing the effectiveness of dedicated lanes for public transport. Eastern-European J. Enterp. Technol. 2021, 1 (3–109). https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2021.225397.
Remark no 2: I am confused about the mean of 'reliability of the operation of this network' in line 75. Please explain it a little bit more clearer.
Answer:
The sentence is rewritten please see l. 74-78 in corrected copy of the manuscript: “In studies [1,2] authors admit that the determining criteria for the operation of the road network are travel time and the reliability of this network for users of private and public transport. Such a rather general formulation confirms that road traffic needs to meet two major requirements, and provide efficient communication without decreasing users’ safety.”.
Remark no 3: Line 115 "regime". Is this a miss spelling?
Answer:
The phrase in l. is rewritten as: “The first provides traffic control in real-time movement mode…”
Remark no 4: Please notice the means of "I, IV, ... VIII" in figure 1
Answer:
The Figure 1 and the caption was modified. Please see the corrected copy of the manuscript (also presented below)
Figure 1. Connection speed changes on bus route 1A in Lviv city: I, II, III – respectively, the average values of connection speed for hours of the morning, afternoon peak and off-peak hours; 1-8 – the type of section
Remark no 5: Why the length of segments was set differently in the simulation? (lines 322-323: 200 m, 600 m and 1000 m for three-lane sections; 200 m, 600 m and 800 m for two-lane and one-lane sections)
Answer:
The length of the section with the different numbers of traffic lanes was chosen as such really existing on the road network and which would provide an opportunity to conduct real simulations for further comparison of experimental and simulated data.
The authors would like to express a genuine appreciation to the reviewer for all his effort in such a detailed revision. We do believe that now all the comments are appropriately addressed and the reviewer is satisfied with the explanations and amendments introduced in the paper.
Regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Although an effort to improve the manuscript by the authors can observed, I am afraid it will not suffice from the reviewer’s viewpoint to make it publishable. The manuscript still suffers from lack of scientific soundness. While the authors focused on my minor comments, the most important issues highlighted in the previous review were ignored.
The manuscript title does not suit the content of the text and especially the ‘findings’ of the study. The text is rather directed towards classifying urban sections based on descriptive criteria.
The abstract still focuses too much on the statement of the research problem and too little on the research, which is a usual sign of unfruitful research.
Second, the structure of the text in the introduction is still unorganized. Therefore, the authors have not addressed either of these comments. Without these features being modified, the manuscript does not deserve publication in an indexed journal.
The development of conclusions is unclear and are of little usefulness. No recommendations are given, nothing practical can be extracted.
Author Response
The authors would like to express their appreciation for valuable suggestions and comments to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript. The authors would like to assure Reviewer no 2 that the paper was proofread, carefully reviewed, checked and corrected. Below you will find the specific answers to the given comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 2:
General comment:
Although an effort to improve the manuscript by the authors can observed, I am afraid it will not suffice from the reviewer’s viewpoint to make it publishable. The manuscript still suffers from lack of scientific soundness. While the authors focused on my minor comments, the most important issues highlighted in the previous review were ignored.
Answer:
The authors would like to present an improved copy of the manuscript. The authors have carefully gone through the previous revisions and can confirm that all the Reviewer no 2 comments, both major and minor were addressed and implemented in the main text. All the specific comments given in the second review can be followed below and in a corrected copy of the manuscript.
Remark no 1: The manuscript title does not suit the content of the text and especially the ‘findings’ of the study. The text is rather directed towards classifying urban sections based on descriptive criteria.
Answer:
The authors agree that the title needed revision. The newly proposed title is Public transport prioritization and descriptive criteria based urban section classification for arterial streets. We do hope that no it is reflecting the content more precisely.
Remark no 2: The abstract still focuses too much on the statement of the research problem and too little on the research, which is a usual sign of unfruitful research.
Answer:
The authors strongly disagree that the research is unfruitful. All the research finding can bbe followed in the results section, and they are summed up in the Conclusions section please see all 4 points in the main text. Although, the authors agree that the findings were not clearly presented in the abstract. Please see the new copy for improve abstract. A new line (l.29-33) was added:
“The results of onsite monitoring and further computations reviled that there are particular urban sections with specific, different distances between adjacent stop-lines that are critical for public transport operation. Furthermore, based on the delay criterion there were three different passage modes proposed to improve the efficiency of the traffic.”
Remark no 3: Second, the structure of the text in the introduction is still unorganized. Therefore, the authors have not addressed either of these comments. Without these features being modified, the manuscript does not deserve publication in an indexed journal.
Answer:
The introduction part has been modified and improved. Please see l.39-72, where sentences were restructured and presented in a more consistent matter. Hopefully Reviewer no 2 is satisfied with such modifications.
“Although most metropolitan areas are developing their public transport systems towards rail on the ground and underground systems, the non-rail means of transport in big cities are still very much in use. Such means of transport This means of public transport presents a number of inherent features as it participates in general traffic flow, still using the same lanes as private transport. Thus, such type of public transport directly impacts the dynamics of urban traffic flow in general. Congestion of the road network is a major challenge, considering the modern tendencies of development towards the increase of urbanization levels.
This phenomenon causes a significant increase in the amount of time spent by commuters in traffic. To face that challenge and reduce the congestion of the road network both in theory and practice, several well established solutions are available [1-3,5], these are mainly:
– optimization of network parameters (building of new or the reconstruction of existing streets and roads; design of arterial directions; parking restrictions, etc.);
– optimization of functional and transport zoning (reduction of the share of transit motion; changes of city services; development of new functional or transport zones, etc.);
– establishing regulations and policies in the field of transportation (restriction of transport allowance in certain zones; regulation of vehicles taxation; tariff policy management, etc.);
– traffic flow management (traffic routing; implementation of automated traffic control systems; speed limits optimization, etc.);
– increasing the attractiveness of public transport (provision of priority in movement; improvement of rolling stock; provision of social funding, etc.).
Taking into account the specifics of each city development, unorganized residential areas planning, diversity in road network parameters, and simultaneous implementation of activities in all directions is a challenging task. It is often observed especially in cities with old infrastructure, where transport districts were formed according to various engineering practices in urban planning. To avoid severe consequences associated with congestion of road network, here the most often researched and implemented methods are related to the reconstruction of intersections and sections of streets between them: improvement of operation of automated traffic control systems and prioritization of particular types of transport. Although every city tries to take a balanced approach to develop all means of transport, the highest priority is given to public transport. It is due to its ability to provide large volumes of transportation.”
Remark no 4: The development of conclusions is unclear and are of little usefulness. No recommendations are given, nothing practical can be extracted.
Answer:
The practical value of the present research is the development of recommendations for implementing modes of the passage of signalized sections of the arterial road network of different types. Such recommendations are given in Table 6. The authors recognise it as a practical contribution to existing knowledge. Moreover, the research results that the authors find to be of major significance is that the field monitoring and modeling reviled that particular urban sections with specific, different distances between adjacent stop-lines are critical for public transport operation. These are sections with a distance between adjacent stop-lines of 250–300 m and a volume of 540 p.c.u./h per one lane and more for typical sections 4–6 and with a traffic volume of 450 p.c.u./h per one lane for typical sections (as presented in the Results section). Furthermore, based on the delay criterion there were three different passage modes proposed to improve the efficiency of the traffic (modes A, B and C). Specifically, mode A (with the provision of conditional time-based priority) – on typical sections 1, 2, 4 and 5; mode B (with the provision of active time-based priority) – on typical section 3; mode C (with the provision of active time-based priority) – on typical sections 7 and 8. Please refer to the Result section.
The authors would like to express a genuine appreciation to the reviewer for all his effort in such a detailed revision. We do believe that now all the comments are appropriately addressed and the reviewer is satisfied with the explanations and amendments introduced in the paper.
Regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
