Evaluating City Logistics
Schemes and Urban Freight
Networks
Assoc. Prof. Russell G. Thompson
Department of Infrastructure Engineering
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