Transportation System and the Improvement of Urban Vehicular Flow in the District of Huánuco-Perú 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Following the evaluation of your article, I consider that these researches are of particular importance and the article is well structured and presented, rising, after reading the article, only a few questions/observations, namely:

- From the phrase at R81-83 it is not clear what you want to say: all modes of transport would increase from 0.8 to 1.55 in 2007? You mean 0.8-1.55 as it was in 2007?

- R116 - According to Dionisio et al. the citation is missing.

- R483 - Figures 18 and 22 are visible? Figure 18 a-d;

- In addition to figure 18, I suggest inserting a figure that shows the initial situation of the same routes (a section, to have a comparative image).

Author Response

Good day,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review my article, which has been improved with your important recommendations.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper investigates important and interesting topics worth analyzing and publishing. So, it has a potential for consideration in “Infrastructures”, however in its present form, it needs strong corrections and improvements.

First, the title is not appropriate for the content. I found no studies about “transportation system and the improvement of urban vehicular flow”. The paper contains a presentation of the traffic survey in one city in Peru with some elements of simple discussion about the results. Such content could be acceptable but with the right indication in the title, abstract, and introduction. Such a problem is not very important, but I see more merit lacks that were collected below.

I found no information about the case study area. How big is Huanuco, especially what is a number of citizens, and how big is the area? Without these data, it is impossible to evaluate the methodology of the research. Such data must be added in the specific section describing the case study area.

Figure 1 is too small and thus not readable. This map should be bigger and should have a scale (line representing a characteristic distance). A similar remark concerns other maps.

Modes of transport. It is not clear if today some public transport systems in the city exist (or if only rural connections operate). Some analysis of the present situation will be a good background to promote a new concept.

I read in line 438: “The present research proposes 7 feeder routes and one trunk route (…)”. Were any former proposals? Why this specific solution is chosen? What are the criteria for choosing such a network? There is a lack of details in the proposal, especially about the standards of the bus network (frequency, passenger places, etc). What is the meaning of the last column in tables: 3 and 4 (Buses reten)?

The presentation of the road infrastructure (section 3.4) should be better connected with the results of the survey. Please, add here more commentaries and recommendations.

Discussions and conclusions must be strongly reformulated and enhanced according to the real content of the research and the paper.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Good day,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review my article, which has been improved with your important recommendations.
Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The title of the professional article is quite general. It indicates consideration of the connection of the transport system with the possibilities of improving urban vehicle traffic in the city of Huanuco, Peru in 2022. In the introduction, it is written that the goal of the research is a model for the design of a transport system to enhance urban vehicle flow. The model is supposed to be established on the basis of the classic 4-phase traffic planning model with the intensive help of computer-aided tools (GIS, MS Exel, AutoCad, etc.). The article is oriented towards the search for the establishment, renovation, and upgrade of public passenger transport in the city of Huanuco, Peru, and does not deal with the comprehensive transportation system, as the title suggests. Only a proposal for public passenger transport is given, it is not known how it was developed, but it is based on data collected with the help of Travel Preference Surveys.

I suggest to the authors that when reconstructing the article, they should consider adapted modeling of the PPT system, which could be based on the optimization of all trips in the city and take into account the peculiarities of the urban environment of the city of Huanuco and Latin America. It makes sense to adjust the title and summary of the article.

In the article, more attention should be paid to the description of data collection activities. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure the statistical relevance of the sample. At the beginning of the Materials and methods chapter, I miss a brief presentation of the city of Huabuco, Peru with more important geographic and socioeconomic data. It makes sense to describe the method of data acquisition in more detail and to treat it statistically. It is also necessary to draw attention to some generally non-classic choices of categories when choosing a means of transport (collective car?) and when choosing the purpose of the trip (health - deals with access to patients, recreation is lacking). It is also necessary to perceive certain meanings in the use of individual terms related to the nomenclature of traffic planning.

References are lacking. In addition to the list of references at the end of the article, some references are entered directly into the text without further explanation. It is necessary to establish a uniform system of reference to the literature.

Figures are incomplete and largely illegible. It would make sense to choose fewer figures, and to process the selected ones correctly. The names of the figures are incomplete, it is not possible to understand what they represent from the names. The x and y axes are largely missing from the charts, and the legends are largely unreadable due to the relatively small thumbnails.

Since I believe that the article should be significantly reformed and reworked, and since the article does not meet the criteria for publication in our esteemed journal, I propose that it be rejected.

Author Response

Good day,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review my article, which has been improved with your important recommendations.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Check te use of technical terms

Author Response

Good day,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review my article, which has been improved with your important recommendations.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The new version of the manuscript includes the changes and improvements which correspond with much of my remarks. These changes are considered satisfactory. The second version is better and contains 27 pages plus an appendix instead of the former 20 pages. 

However, some remarks should be considered again.

The title was not changed. It still does not correspond with the content of the study. After optimizing the title structure, please add appropriate commentaries in the abstract, introduction, discussion, and conclusions.

This is a good idea to create a supplement that contains the data describing the transportation systems or characterizing the survey. But, the appendix one must be translated into English.

Because the lack in the second version of the manuscript is important, I recommend the “major review” again.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Good day,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review my article, which has been improved with your important recommendations.
Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

First of all, it should be noted that most of the originally given comments were not taken into account, new (additional) images and some additional text were added, which do not respond to the given comments. I suggest that the authors re-examine the comments originally made and revise the article accordingly.

The article contains a large number of figures and tables. Certain images consist of a large number of smaller images, which reduces the transparency and readability of the article. I advise the authors to reduce the number of images in the article to the minimum necessary number - this way the article will be adjusted to the expectations of the readers.

1. In the Abstract and the text, reference is made to Figures 31 to 34. The mentioned figures cannot be found in the article. The last Figure has the number 23. I suggest a correction.

2. Two (unrelated) reference systems are used - the first with [1] and the second with the author's note in the text (eg: Rahem et all, 2015 - line 58, Feng, X et all, 2016 - line 60, etc. Only one system of referencing should be used in the article All articles, studies, legislation, and standards should be in the reference list Urgent need to fix.

3. A new chapter 2. Literature Review has been added. The text of this chapter does not match the title. The chapter does not provide a review of the literature, but a specific explanation of the various means of transport. I suggest the authors reflect on the content of this chapter.

3. Naming Figures: The names of the figures must be precise so that it is possible to recognize from it what the figures show. The names must contain the exact content of the image, for which geographical area the image applies, and for which time zone the image applies (especially for statistical indicators). For example, Figure 4: Time distribution according to the reason of travel should be transformed into Figure 4: Time distribution of trips according to the reason for travel in Huanuco, Peru in 2022. All figure names should be transformed, especially Figures 21, and 22.

4. Certain figures are not legible (they are too small) - e.g. Figures 2, 9, 10-13, 14. Histograms need to be supplemented with axis names - e.g. Figures 4, 5, 15.

Author Response

Good day,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review my article, which has been improved with your important recommendations.
Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have incorporated most of my comments into this new version of the paper. I have no new recommendations except those relating to improving the use of English (see below).

The use of English in the new version appears to be generally clearer, with proper grammar and sentence structure throughout. However, there are a few instances where the text could be improved for better clarity or precision. For example, some sentences may be overly complex or contain jargon that could be simplified for easier understanding by a broader audience. Additionally, there are a few typographical errors, such as missing spaces between words or inconsistent formatting of references. Please review.

Author Response

Good day,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review my article, which has been improved with your important recommendations.
Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Although I do not know why the title of the article should be the same as the title of the doctoral thesis, I accept these specific conditions. I appreciate the changes in this third version of the manuscript and I do not formulate any next remarks. Hence, I recommend publishing this study.