Analysis of the Impact of Road Traffic Generated by Port Areas on the Urban Transport Network—Case Study of the Port of Gdynia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presented a case-study of the impact of heavy vehicles (HGV) on the performance of road networks around Gdynia port. Authors employed PTV Vissim software to model the existing scenario and simulate the effect of increase in the % of HGV on travel time, average speed, Queues length etc. Although the issue is well known and established, few academic studies are available to show recent conditions around the globe. As such the paper is a welcome development in the field. Nonetheless, the authors must improve the manuscript for the paper to be considered a journal material. Below are lists of comment for the authors to address.

 

1.     There several grammatical errors in the manuscript please the whole paper and fix them. Examples

2.     Opening paragraph Line 26 – 27: “Seaports are the research of scientists from all over the world, however, ports can be 26 grouped according to their…” Are the authors trying to say “Seaports are the research FOCUS of scientists from all over the world, however, ports can be 26 grouped according to their…”

 

3.     Line 64 – 65: significantly what? Missing word there

 

4.     Figure 1: Legend and volume presentation are not clear. Please use a better style and add number along the corridors.

 

5.     Line 88: By saying “…level of freedom of movement…” are the authors implying level of service? If so, use the most appropriate term (LOS) and provide result of LOS for base condition (for the network especially around the port). This is because figure 1 is not sufficient as the volume per hour per lane is not given.

 

6.     Figure 2 is not clear, please provide a better and clearer presentation.

 

7.     Figure 3, Fig. 4 to Fig 6.  title of the vertical and horizontal axes is missing. In addition, it is not recommended to the axis for different variables with different units on the same axis. You have to make one of them a secondary axis and provide their titles and units.

 

8.     Fig. 7 is too packed, use table instead. Or combination of table and bar chart.

 

9.     Please provide title to all axis in the figures. Add numbers/label to the bars as well…

 

10.  Conclusion is too detailed. Make the main findings in to bullet points separately for travel time, delay etc. with specific numbers/statistics on the impact of the HGV. E.g., for every 10 % increase in HGV by how much the time-time, queues of vehicles, average speed etc. are affected.

 

11.  Please provide the model calibration/validation results.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments. In our opinion, they contributed to the improvement of our article. We hope that the changes we have adequately introduced implement the remarks you have indicated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The apper by the title of "Analysis of the impact of road traffic generated by port areas 2 on the urban transport network. Case study of the Port of Gdynia" is of theoretical and practical implications. The research objective is clear and the data is fine. However, there are some major concerns which need to be addressed before considered for acceptance.

1. Abstract. The abstract is poorly written. The abstract should include the research question, the research methodology and the results and implications. However, the authors only introduce what they want to study rather than their findings and contributions.

2. The methods, variables and data are not clearly presented. There is only one paragraph to explain its model which is far from satisfaction.

3. The researh gap is not well demonstrated. In particular, what's your research question? For example, how to better optimize and coordinate port and urban transport through network planning or management.

4. The conclusions should be specific and quantitatively described, and the policy implications can be improved.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments. In our opinion, they contributed to the improvement of our article. We hope that the changes we have adequately introduced implement the remarks you have indicated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have addressed my comments.  I have no further comment...