Evaluating City Logistics Schemes and Urban Freight Networks

Evaluating City Logistics Schemes and Urban Freight Networks Assoc. Prof. Russell G. Thompson Department of Infrastructure Engineering rgthom@unimelb.edu.au IIT Bombay Seminar 10 th April 2014

Outline City Logistics Evaluation concepts Methodology for evaluating urban freight projects Conclusions

Problem Definition Goals Objectives Criteria Data Collection Models Review Resources Sensitivity Analysis Constraints Alternatives Implementation Selection Evaluation Systems Approach to City Logistics 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 21 st 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 Logistics Est. 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)

Stakeholder Group Electronic Toll Collection 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 Administrators Minimise storage, disruption to business, impacts on local environment. Maximise reliability, punctuality & flexibility of deliveries. 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)

Goal Objectives Criteria Improve business/supply chain efficiency Increase reliability of travel times Decrease transport costs between FAC's Increase accessibility to intermodal terminals & Freight Activity Centres Variability of travel times Number of incidents (non recurrent congestion) Travel times on freight routes Travel speeds on freight routes 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 Reduce FV impacts & intrusion in sensitive areas Reduce impact of FV noise Expected increase in FV numbers using the route Noise levels No. FV travelling near sensitive areas Daytime noise levels Night time noise levels

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 Use Priority programs (eg. rest areas) Exponent used to inflate utility Queue Advancement Considers number of periods waiting Increases range of projects selected Zonal Indicators Priority 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. 1 st 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.