Evaluating City Logistics Schemes and Urban Freight Networks

Assoc. Prof. Russell G. Thompson

Department of Infrastructure Engineeringrgthom@unimelb.edu.au

IIT Bombay Seminar 10th April 2014

Outline

City LogisticsEvaluation conceptsMethodology for evaluating urban freight projectsConclusions

Systems Approach to City Logistics

SensitivityAnalysis

Objectives

Resources

Constraints Alternatives

Data Collection Models

EvaluationSelectionImplementation

Review

ProblemDefinition

Goals Criteria

Taniguchi, Thompson & Yamada, 2001

City Logistics is an integrated approach for urban goods distribution based on the systems approach. It promotes innovative schemes that reduce the total cost (including economic, social and environmental) of goods movement within cities

OECD, (2003) Delivering the Goods,Challenges for the 21st Century, Paris.

City Logistics is the process for totally optimising the logistics and transport activities by private companies with the support of advanced information systems in urban areas considering the traffic environment, its congestion, safety and energy savings within the framework of a market economy

Taniguchi, Thompson & Yamada, 2001

Institute for City LogisticsEst. 1999

Aim: to promote City Logistics esp. Modelling, Evaluation & Data Collection

Main Activities• International Conferences

– Cairns, Okinawa, Madeira, Crete, Langkawi, Puerto Vallarta, Majorca & Bali

• Short courses– NYC, Kyoto, Melbourne, Delft, London & Bangkok

www.citylogistics.org

Need for Evaluation

“Specifically, the problem is this: the discovery and effective implementation of measures which will reduce the total social cost of goods movement to the lowest possible commensurate with the freight requirements and objectives of society”

Stuart Hicks

Evaluation

• Involves methodical comparison of predicted consequences of schemes, based on predetermined criteria

• Is part of systems approach to city logistics (Taniguchi, Thompson, Yamada & van Duin, 2001)

• Need to consider wide set of issues (multiple stakeholders)

• Conducted before implementation (ex-ante) aids identification of best option to be put into operation

• Done when schemes are too expensive to refine or abandon after implementation

Review or Assessment

• Conducted after it has been selected & is operating (ex-post)

• Based on actual performance • Determines whether scheme has been

successful in achieving objectives & identify unintended effects

• Comparing criteria from data collected before & after scheme is operating

Road Freight Transport Management

• Quality loop for based on Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle defined

 • Case studies of 17 urban freight management

projects from Europe & Japan presented

 • Few projects have been evaluated

PIARC (2012)

Electronic Toll Collection

PIARC (2012)

Electronic Toll CollectionStakeholder Group

Common Goals & Objectives

Shipper Maximise levels of service, including cost, time for picking up or delivering & reliability of transport (delivery without any delay with respect to designated time at customers).

Carriers Minimise costs associated with collecting & delivering goods to customers to maximise their profits.

Residents Minimise traffic congestion, noise, air pollution & traffic accidents near their residential & retail areas.

Receivers Minimise storage, disruption to business, impacts on local environment. Maximise reliability, punctuality & flexibility of deliveries.

Administrators Enhance economic development of city & increase employment opportunities. Alleviate traffic congestion. Improve environment & increase road safety

KPIs urban freight initiatives

• Level of impact with regards to transport operations

• Environmental protection• Energy saving• Technical achievement• Political consensus

SUGAR (2011)

Measuring Performance

Quality of service experienced by receivers, satisfaction of deliveries

• Punctuality• Reliability• Flexibility • Relationship between delivery persons &

shopkeepers

City Logistics in Kassel, Germany

Performance measures

• Mileage towards inner city (km/year)• Mileage within inner city (km/year)• Average distance between stops (m)• Delivery weight per stop (kg)• Vehicle saturation (%)• Average of lorry frequency per retailer (number

of lorries per year)

Kohler (1999)

Pilot Tests

• Determine feasibility of schemes

• Unexpected side-effects to be identified

• Can generate good publicity

• More credible than modelling

Ongoing research

• Advanced technologies in freight surveys methods – GPS– RFID– Sensor technologies

• Behavioural Models (interactions & trade-off’s)– Game theory– Multi agent modelling

Challenges for Project Evaluation

Wealth of legislation, policies & interest groupsTransparencyConsistencyIncorporating non-quantifiable issues (eg. health & environment)RobustnessIncorporating foundation urban planning principles (eg. sustainablity, mobility & liveability)

Goals, Objectives & Criteria

GoalsKey stakeholders issuesPublic policy (plans & strategies)ObjectivesPriority users (freight vehicles)Non-priority users (passenger vehicles)Non-users (residents)CriteriaQualitative factors defined for each objective

Goals Identified

Reduce community impacts

Improve health & safety

Reduce freight operations costs

Improve business efficiency

Thompson and Hassall (2006)

Improve business/supply chain efficiency

Increase reliability of travel times Variability of travel times

   Number of incidents (non recurrent congestion)

 Decrease transport costs between FAC's

Travel times on freight routes

   Travel speeds on freight routes

 

Increase accessibility to intermodal terminals & Freight Activity Centres

Travel speeds for FV on intermodal terminal access routes

   

Travel times of FV on access links to intermodal terminals

Goal Objectives Criteria

Reduce community impacts

Improve access to the arterial road network

Expected increase in FV numbers using the route

 

Reduce FV impacts & intrusion in sensitive areas Noise levels

   No. FV travelling near sensitive areas

 Reduce impact of FV noise Daytime noise levels

    Night time noise levels

Goal Objectives Criteria

Weightings of Goal & Objectives

Analytical Hierarchy Process

Surveys of administratorsPairwise statements (importance levels)Root rule used to generate relative importance weightings

Goal Rankings

1. Reduce community impacts

2. Improve health & safety

2. Reduce freight operations costs

3. Improve business efficiency

Improve health & safety

Reduce community impacts

Reduce freight operations costs

Improve business/supply chain efficiency

1. Provide rest areas to meet

demand

1. Improve access to arterial road network

1. Reduce delays for FV

1. Increase reliability of

travel times

2. Reduce severity of crashes

2. Reduce FV impacts & intrusion in sensitive areas

2. Improve access for FV to key freight areas

1. Increase accessibility to

intermodal terminals & FAC

2. Reduce crashes

3. Reduce impact of FV noise

2. Enhance flow efficiency for FV on critical parts of the network

2. Decrease transport costs between FAC's

3. Reduce congestion

4. Improve loading & unloading facilities

Criteria Categories

BenefitCriterion

No SignificantEffect

SlightlyIncreased

Moderately Increased

SubstantiallyIncreased

CostCriterion

No SignificantEffect

SlightlyReduced

ModeratelyReduced

SubstantiallyReduced

NormalisedPerformance

0 1/3 2/3 1

Project Rankings using weightings

1. Install height detection device for over height vehicles

2. Carriageway Duplication

3. Traffic Signal Linking

4. Ramp Metering with Heavy Vehicle bypass

5. Local Road truck bypass and road extension

6. Install Truck Parking

7. Provide Access – Signalised U-turn

8. Provide access from a local road via advance detection loops that set off pedestrian signals on the main road to create gaps in traffic

9. Construct additional Right Turn Lane

10. Modify roundabout to allow access for B-doubles

Rankings with Quantum Scores

Expected Effects

NS Slight Moderate Substantial

1. Carriageway Duplication 6 1 5 5

2. Traffic Signal Linking 12 0 3 5

3. Ramp Metering with Heavy Vehicle bypass 12 1 3 4

4. Provide Access – Signalised U-turn 13 4 1 2

5. Modify roundabout to allow access for B-doubles 18 0 0 2

Adjustment Methods

Strategic UsePriority programs (eg. rest areas)Exponent used to inflate utilityQueue AdvancementConsiders number of periods waitingIncreases range of projects selectedZonal IndicatorsPriority within or between geographic areasLinkages & access (eg. terminals & ports)

References• CIVTAS (2006). Trendsetter Report No 2005:16, City of Stockholm.

http://www.civitas.eu/docs_internal/289/20120703_CIVITAS_freight_measures_evaluation.pdf• Hicks, S. (1977). Urban Freight, In: Urban Transport Economics, (D.A. Hensher, Ed.),

Cambridge University Press.• Kohler, U. (1999). City logistics in Kassel, City Logistics I, Proc. 1st International Conference

on City Logistics, Cairns, Institute for City Logistics, Kyoto, 261-72.• Macharis, C., A. de Witte and J. Ampe (2009). The multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis

methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: Theory and practice, Journal of Advanced Transportation, 43 (2), 183–202.

• PIARC (2012). Public Sector Governance of Urban Freight Transport, PIARC Technical Committee B.4, Freight Transport and Inter-Modality, World Road Association.

• SUGAR (2011). City Logistics Best Practices: A handbook for authorities, Sustainable Urban Goods Logistics Achieved by Regional and Local Policies, INTERREG IVC programme, Bologna. http://www.sugarlogistics.eu/pliki/handbook.pdf

• Taniguchi, E., R.G. Thompson, T. Yamada and R. Van Duin, (2001). City Logistics – Network Modelling and Intelligent Transport Systems, Elsevier, Pergamon, Oxford.

• Taniguchi, E. and R.G. Thompson, (2002). Modeling City Logistics, Transportation Research Record, No. 1790, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC, 45-51.

• Thompson, R.G. and K. Hassall, (2006). A methodology for evaluating urban freight projects, in Recent Advances in City Logistics, E. Taniguchi & R.G. Thompson (Eds.), Elsevier, 283-92.

© Copyright The University of Melbourne 2011