Enhancing Freight Mobility?

1

José Holguín-Veras,

William H. Hart Professor

Director of the VREF Center of Excellence

for Sustainable Urban Freight Systems

jhv@rpi.edu

Enhancing Freight Mobility? Correction: No, We Need to

Enhance the Economy…

The CoE-SUFS

2

New York City,

Albany, USA

Santo Domingo,

Dominican

Republic

Barranquilla,

Bogotá,

Medellín,

Colombia

Osaka,

Japan

Chennai,

India

Mumbai,

India

Beijing,

China

Shanghai,

Nanjing,

China

Rotterdam, Netherlands

Abu Dhabi, United

Arab Emirates

Melbourne,

Australia

London, UK

Singapore,

Singapore

Santander, Spain

Sao Paulo and

Belo Horizonte,

Brazil

Pretoria,

South Africa

Toronto, CA

Gothenburg, Sweden

Rome,

Bologna,

Italy

Delhi,

India

México City,

México

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

Mark Twain

Freight …. The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

(and the Key)

A complex system, complex impacts…

The Good Freight activity is the key physical

expression of the economy

Impeding freight activity Impeding the economy…

New York City, US 45 kg/person-day

Beijing, China 35 kg/person-day

Medellin, Colombia 25 kg/person-day

Port-au-Prince, Haiti 8 kg/person-day

The Bad Freight activity produces externalities

Pollution, Congestion, Pavement damage, etc.

The Ugly See JHV Principle

The key: Maximize benefits, minimize negatives

6

The JHV Principle: In complex problems,

obvious solutions are always wrong…

Industry Sectors 8

NA

ICS

Freight-intensive Sectors

(FIS)

NA

ICS

Non-freight-intensive

Sectors (non-FIS)

11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 51 Information

21 Mining, Quarrying, Oil / Gas… 52 Finance and Insurance

22 Utilities 53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

23 Construction 54 Professional,Scientific,Tech. Services

31-33 Manufacturing 55 Management of Companies /

42 Wholesale Trade 56 Administrative,Support,Waste Manag.

44-45 Retail Trade 61 Educational Services

48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 62 Health Care and Social Assistance

72 Accommodation and Food Services 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation

81 Other Services

92 Public Administration

Totals for ALL MSAs: Freight Intensive Sectors 9

Number % Number %

11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing … 15,614 0.22% 142,779 0.12%

21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas 21,929 0.31% 543,042 0.46%

22 Utilities 14,643 0.21% 616,818 0.52%

23 Construction 613,873 8.72% 6,240,668 5.25%

31-33 Manufacturing 271,633 3.86% 10,606,778 8.93%

42 Wholesale Trade 397,026 5.64% 6,301,619 5.31%

44-45 Retail Trade 990,533 14.07% 16,475,243 13.87%

48-49 Transport and Warehousing 195,853 2.78% 4,276,935 3.60%

72 Accommodation and Food Services 633,191 9.00% 13,494,478 11.36%

Sub-Total 3,154,295 44.81% 58,698,360 49.42%

Establishments Employment

Freight Intensive Sectors (FIS)

NAICS Description

45% of commercial establishments are in FIS…

About half the employment depends on freight deliveries and

services…

Large Traffic Generators… 10

In Manhattan:

- 80 buildings and large traffic generators produce

4-8% of the total freight traffic…

- Restaurants and drinking places (10,000) produce four times the

freight traffic produced by the port…

FTG at Metro/Micro-politan Areas 11

0

500

1000

1500

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20

Th

ou

san

ds

Population (Millions)

Total FTG

Total of establishments

Total employment

FTG = 0.065 * Population

FTG = 2.517 * Establishments

FTG = 0.154 * Employment

The Severity of the Problem in Developing Countries

Funded by the Inter-American Development Bank:

“Methodology to Analyze and Quantify the Impacts of

Congestion on Supply Chains in Latin-American Cities”

Santiago, Chile – Typical Congestion 13

0.00

100,000.00

200,000.00

300,000.00

400,000.00

500,000.00

600,000.00

700,000.00

800,000.00

0.0

06

.59

9.5

71

1.0

71

1.2

11

4.8

11

7.9

71

8.6

81

8.7

82

1.3

62

2.5

32

4.0

62

5.1

92

6.6

83

0.4

63

4.0

13

8.1

34

5.0

05

1.8

8

CO

ST

($

)

DISTANCE (km)

Additional Time Additional Cost

This Route 0.91 hours (34%) 57%

City Min 0.02 (3%) 2%

City Max 5.23 (69%) 167%

City Average 1.12 (38%) 43%

Santiago, Chile – Typical Congestion 14

Sao Paulo, Brazil – Typical Congestion 15

Additional Time Additional Cost

This Route 3.59 hours (50%) 89%

City Min 0.09 (2%) 11%

City Max 4.72 (65%) 210%

City Average 2.82 (39%) 93%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Cost

Distance (km)

Sao Paulo, Brazil – Typical Congestion Costs 16

What Could Be Done To Foster Sustainable Urban Freight Systems in

Developing Countries?

17

From NCFRP Report 33

“Improving Freight System Performance in Metropolitan Areas”

A lot, many initiatives underused, many actors… 18

Fed

eral govern

men

t C

ity g

overn

men

t

Ship

per

s

State g

overn

men

t C

arri

ers:

Air

,

truck

ing, ra

il

Rec

eiver

s

Oth

er u

sers

: ca

rs,

buse

s, b

ikes

…

Com

mu

nit

ies

Enviro

nm

ental

agen

cies P

orts,

airports…

Planning Guide: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ncfrp/ncfrp_rpt_033.pdf

Interactive version: http://coe-sufs.org/wordpress/ncfrp33/

Initiative Selector: http://coe-sufs.org/wordpress/InitiativeSelector/

FTG Estimator: https://coe-sufs.org/wordpress/ncfrp33/appendix/ftg/

NCFRP 33: Improving Freight Systems… 14

Thanks!