A Rural Transport Implementation Index for Connected, Autonomous and Electric Vehicles
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
-selected indicators are subjective and there is no sensitivity analysis of selected indicators
-there is no correlation between selected indicators and potential score
-the lack of data significantly influenced the chosen methodology and ultimately the result
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Given similar feedback from other reviewers I have extended the limitations section to the conclusion to address these points.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is very interesting and important, from the point of view of transportation development and sustainability. However, I have some minor comments on the article.
1) In the CARTI indicator, both in the need-based and capacity-based components, I miss the more reference to autonomous vehicles. The authors also make little reference to the development of autonomous vehicles in the results and in the conclusion.
2) The need-based index seems to combine stimulants with destimulants, for example, exhaust emissions is a stimulant (the greater the emissions, the greater the need for change), while the percentage of people living within walking distance of a bus stop is a destimulant (the greater percentage of people living within walking distance, the less the need for change). If stimulants were combined with destimulants, this may be a methodological error in the indicator, if not, this needs to be noted in the text and normalization provided, both for stimulants and destimulants.
3) The text could define what rural areas are in terms of this study. The definition may differ depending on country under . This definition may vary depending on the country studied
4) It would be good to include an appendix at the end, representing all the factors considered in the following steps
5) On page 11 there is a missing link, or an incorrect link
6) The article is valuable in confronting the CARTI index with experts. However, I miss a more in-depth comparison of the index with other similar indices used in the literature, comparing their results for rural areas.
7) Is the 4G network relevant to the construction of the CARTI index? If so, to what extent? While I have no doubt that internet coverence is important from a CAEV perspective, I have my doubts about whether a study of 4G networks is sufficient, especially since autonomous vehicles require 5G networks.
Author Response
Thank you for your review and constructive comments, please find my response below:
I have included more discussion of AVs including their context within the CAEV definition. I have specifically discussed the distinctions between level 3, level 4 and level 5 AVs and their rural requirements as mentioned by other reviewers.
Changed bus stop destimulant to stimulant for consistency, “within” should have been “outside”.
Reference made to previous works where the rural definition is defined in detail.
Corrected the incorrect link on page 11
Few equivalent indices in the literature could be found but have added this comment to the further work and recommendations section. I have also included a summary of a review I conducted of KPMG’s AVRI which is the most similar index available, in the main text.
The speed of connectivity will vary across rural areas and it will be difficult to provide extensive and reliable 5g across rural areas. I also do not envisage level 5 autonomous vehicles operating in everyday rural scenarios. 4g is likely to be adequate to support level 3 and some level 4 autonomous vehicle operations if consistent and reliable. I have included this discussion in with the reference to the levels of autonomy as you suggested in your first point.
Reviewer 3 Report
Below I provide a list of specific issues, in no particular order of priority that need to be revised, intending to help the authors in their future effort.
1. The literature review must be extended and highlight the novelty and contribution of the study.
2. I advise authors to present the current literature and their contribution to the literature with a summary table.
3. What are the advantages of the proposed index?
4. Only practical research avenues are provided. The authors need to add several future scientific research directions.
5. Clearly state your unique research methodological contributions in the Conclusions section.
6. Add limitations of proposed index.
7. There are two sections denoted as "6".
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, please find my response below:
The literature review and conclusions include contributions to knowledge.
The advantages of the index have been emphasised together with highlighting the novelty of the index.
Included exploration of level 5 autonomy scenarios and 5G connectivity requirements, including comment of LEO satellite technologies and communications.
Methodological contributions are stated in the conclusions section.
Limitations in conclusions section extended based on other reviewer comments.
The two section “6” have been corrected.
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper describes the methodology behind, and development of, the CAEV Rural Transport Index (CARTI), based on existing literature and a combination of existing and developed indicators in order to identify the levels of need, capacity and overall potential of different rural areas to support rural CAEV implementation.
It is an interesting and useful work.
I suggest to accept it.
Author Response
Thank you for your positive feedback!
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
selected indicators are subjective and there is no sensitivity analysis of selected indicators
