Dynamic Multi-Function Lane Management for Connected and Automated Vehicles Considering Bus Priority

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors conducted a literature review that discusses lane management methods, with a particular focus on prioritizing buses and connected automated vehicles (CAVs). The review covers a wide range of studies on lane management for automated vehicles and intelligent transportation systems. The goal is to develop a dynamic multi-functional lane (MFL) management strategy that allows for more efficient use of the available road infrastructure, especially in the context of the growing share of automated vehicles.
The authors present a detailed methodology that includes a mathematical model and simulations conducted in the PTV-VISSIM environment. The proposed strategy is based on dynamically allocating the multifunctional lane for buses and automated vehicles depending on current traffic conditions.
The analysis of the results is clear and aligns with the objectives of the study. The simulation results show that the proposed strategy significantly reduces vehicle delays and the number of stops, especially under high traffic conditions. However, the analysis could be enhanced by providing a more detailed discussion of the potential limitations of the proposed method, such as its effectiveness under different traffic conditions or in the presence of other types of vehicles.

The article is solid and meets high standards, but there are several areas that could be improved to make the work even more scientifically valuable. Expanding the literature review, providing a more detailed analysis of the method's limitations, and comparing it with other approaches could strengthen the article's impact and significance.

The language used in the article is formal and technical, which is appropriate for a scientific paper aimed at readers in the field of transportation and traffic engineering.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The concept presented by the authors looks interesting and promising. However, from the point of view of scientific validity, a serious question arises to what extent this experiment corresponds to the real situation. The model looks too abstract, without reference to a specific situation.

1. Table 2 shows the input parameters for the simulation. Is it necessary to justify how these parameters were chosen? And if there are other parameters, then how “optimal” will the simulation be? What are the limitations of this experiment?

2. In the introduction, when setting the problem, the authors do not provide any data about the location, city, or country. Does this mean that this concept is suitable for any cities and countries? And in this case, what to do with national legislation regulating road traffic.

3. There is no section for analysis of literary sources. It would be extremely useful to consider in it various ways of solving this problem that other authors have considered

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject of the paper is one of maximum topicality. The paper is interesting, but an additions need to be made before it can be published:

1. The introduction is too short and does not refer in detail to the existing references. In 3 paragraphs (20 lines in total) 27 references are cited. Citations are 10 to 14, 15 to 20, and 20 to 27. Authors should detail the current context and highlight the specifics of each reference;

2. Figure 1 needs to be more detailed, better explained and possibly modified. On the multi-function lane is the traffic light green left and forward at the same time? If so, how can vehicles in the 3rd lane turn left (this intersect with the vehicles that are in the multi-function lane and go ahead)?

3. Section 3 is very difficult to read and understand because it contains a complex mathematical model that is too little described and analyzed;

4.Section 4 should be reorganized because it contains many very short subsections that are not justified (4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5. - the titles should be removed);

5. It would be interesting to additionally add other scenarios that include different saturation flow rates;

6. What errors can appear in the management strategy of new variant proposed in the paper?

7. At what percentage of automated and connected vehicles does a multifunctional lane becomes efficient compared to the traditional one for buses?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses the application of optimization methods to independently tackle lane change and right-of-way allocation issues in the authors’ proposed problem of multi-function lane management. While the paper is well-structured, several critical areas need enhancement or are missing entirely. The primary concerns are as follows:

1. The introduction lacks a review of relevant academic literature, which is essential for contextualizing the current work within the broader field.
2. The quality of Figure 2 requires improvement. Additionally, the flowchart presented for the right-of-way allocation module is somewhat unclear and could benefit from further clarification.
3. The paper does not specify the typical length of the control zone used in the study. Providing this information and comparing it with real-world urban traffic examples would greatly enhance the paper's practical relevance.
4. The methods applied are basic, and it is not clear what the novel contributions of this work are. The paper should explicitly highlight its innovation and how it advances the state of the art.
5. The numerical results are limited to bar charts, which do not provide sufficient insight into the behavior of the system. For instance, details on how CAVs perform lane changes, the smoothness of their trajectories, and how buses accelerate or decelerate are missing. This additional information is crucial for readers to fully assess the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made very good additions based on my comments. Excellent work! The manuscript is recommended for publication.

Author Response

Comment 1: The authors made very good additions based on my comments. Excellent work! The manuscript is recommended for publication.

Response 1: Thanks for your review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper content is improved for the revised version. New information has been added to increase the quality and clarity of the paper.  The authors responded to all my observations. I think the paper can be published in this form.

Author Response

Comment 1: The paper content is improved for the revised version. New information has been added to increase the quality and clarity of the paper.  The authors responded to all my observations. I think the paper can be published in this form.

Response 1: Thanks for your review.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While this paper attempts to solve specific engineering challenges, it may inadvertently introduce additional complexities. For example, the authors state that IBLs require sophisticated control mechanisms and real-time traffic monitoring, but the proposed MFL exacerbates these issues even further. In situations of traffic congestion, ensuring absolute bus priority becomes increasingly difficult, which is not in line with the third claimed contribution.

Additionally, the literature review appears lacks detailed analysis. It seems more like a compilation of generic statements, possibly generated by a ChatGPT-like tool, with insufficient specific details on the studies referenced.

In section 5.2.3, the quality of the added figure is inadequate and needs improvement. This section also requires further clarification, as several sentences are unclear. For instance, the figure does not specify the distance being referenced, and it is unclear when and how CAVs change lanes in this phase. Without these details, it is difficult to evaluate the algorithm’s performance, even under ideal conditions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The primary problem of the paper remains in Section 7. Although the new figure is an improvement, quite a lot of questions remain: Why the vehicles proceed during a red light? Why the time starts at 1200 s while ends at 1800 s? Why are there five distinct trajectory families? Why do CAVs change lanes over such short distances, and which lanes are original versus target lanes? How many lanes are modeled in the simulation? Are human-driven vehicles included? Why the 2nd bus stops at a green light? A clear presentation of results should be able to answer the above quesitons.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf