Evaluating City Logistics

Schemes and Urban Freight

Networks

Assoc. Prof. Russell G. Thompson

Department of Infrastructure Engineering

rgthom@unimelb.edu.au

IIT Bombay Seminar 10th April 2014

Outline

City Logistics

Evaluation concepts

Methodology for evaluating urban freight

projects

Conclusions

Systems Approach to City Logistics

Sensitivity

Analysis

Objectives

Resources

Constraints Alternatives

Data Collection Models

EvaluationSelectionImplementation

Review

Problem

DefinitionGoals 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 citiesOECD, (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 groups

Transparency

Consistency

Incorporating non-quantifiable issues (eg. health

& environment)

Robustness

Incorporating foundation urban planning

principles (eg. sustainablity, mobility & liveability)

Goals, Objectives & Criteria

Goals

Key stakeholders issues

Public policy (plans & strategies)

Objectives

Priority users (freight vehicles)

Non-priority users (passenger vehicles)

Non-users (residents)

Criteria

Qualitative 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 administrators

Pairwise 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

Benefit

Criterion

No Significant

Effect

Slightly

Increased

Moderately

Increased

Substantially

Increased

Cost

Criterion

No Significant

Effect

Slightly

Reduced

Moderately

Reduced

Substantially

Reduced

Normalised

Performance

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 utility

Queue AdvancementConsiders number of periods waiting

Increases range of projects selected

Zonal IndicatorsPriority within or between geographic areas

Linkages & 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