A Method for the Evaluation of Urban Freight Transport Models as a Tool for Improving the Delivery of Sustainable Urban Transport Policy - Publication - MOST Wiedzy


A Method for the Evaluation of Urban Freight Transport Models as a Tool for Improving the Delivery of Sustainable Urban Transport Policy


The article presents a method which helps local authorities to evaluate urban freight transport models. Given the complex requirements for input data and the inability to supply them for most cities, a proper quantitative evaluation of model functionality may be quite difficult for local authorities. Freight transport models designed to support sustainable urban freight transport objectives are a particular example. To overcome these difficulties, the structure of the method is based on a qualitative analysis of strategic and operational conditions of urban freight management for modelling purposes. A consistent set of criteria is developed to help with parameterising strategic objectives and the analytical requirements of tools to achieve those objectives. The problems of data availability and capture are also included. The method consists of three tiers that are arranged hierarchically to reflect the interrelations. The proposed method was verified against Gdynia’s (Poland) urban freight management requirements. The city was chosen for its early experience of urban freight studies and improvement measures and because it has already defined its strategic objectives. Two comprehensive freight transport models (Freturb and Wiver) and existing city’s transport model were evaluated. The results have ruled out the existing transport model rendering it ineffective as a tool to support urban freight management to meet the city’s strategic objectives. While Freturb turned out to be much better suited for the needs, dedicated models still face a basic barrier of cities having to redesign their systems for collecting urban transport data


  • 3


  • 3

    Web of Science

  • 3



artykuł w czasopiśmie wyróżnionym w JCR
Published in:
Sustainability no. 11, edition 6, pages 1 - 23,
Publication year:
Bibliographic description:
Kaszubowski D.: A Method for the Evaluation of Urban Freight Transport Models as a Tool for Improving the Delivery of Sustainable Urban Transport Policy// Sustainability. -Vol. 11, iss. 6 (2019), s.1-23
Digital Object Identifier (open in new tab) 10.3390/su11061535
Bibliography: test
  1. Banister, D. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transp. Policy 2008, 15, 73-80. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  2. Hull, A. Policy integration: What will it take to achieve more sustainable transport solutions in cities? Transp. Policy 2008, 15, 94-103. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  3. JASPERS. JASPERS Appraisal Guidance. The Use of Transport Models in Project Appraisal. Available online: http://kc-sump.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Upotreba-Modela-u-prometnom- planiranju_JASPERS_kolovoz-2014.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2018). open in new tab
  4. te Brömmelstroet, M.; Skou Nicolaisen, M.; Büttner, B.; Ferreira, A. Experiences with transportation models: An international survey of planning practices. Transp. Policy 2017, 58, 10-18. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  5. Bertolini, L.; le Clercq, F.; Straatemeier, T. Urban Transportation Planning in Transition; Transp. Policy 2008, 15, 69-72. open in new tab
  6. Ferreira, A.; Marsden, G.; Te Brömmelstroet, M. What Curriculum for Mobility and Transport Studies? A Critical Exploration. Transp. Rev. 2013, 33, 501-525. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  7. Te Brömmelstroet, M.; Bertolini, L. The role of transport-related models in urban planning practice. Transp. Rev. 2011, 31, 139-143. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  8. Gudmundsson, H. Analysing Models as a Knowledge Technology in Transport Planning. Transp. Rev. 2011, 31, 145-159. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  9. May, A.D.; Page, M.; Hull, A. Developing a set of decision-support tools for sustainable urban transport in the UK. Transp. Policy 2008, 15, 328-340. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  10. Toilier, F.; Gardrat, M.; Routhier, J.L.; Bonnafous, A. Freight transport modelling in urban areas: The French case of the FRETURB model. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2018, 6, 753-764. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  11. Gonzalez-Feliu, J.; Gardrat, M.; Pluvinet, P.; Ambrosini, C. Urban Goods Movement Estimation for Public Decision Support: Goals, Approaches and Applications. Hal-Shs, 2013; pp. 1-15. Available online: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00778480/ (accessed on 10 March 2019).
  12. Russo, F.; Comi, A. A model system for the ex-ante assessment of city logistics measures. Res. Transp. Econ. 2011, 31, 81-87. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  13. Ambrosini, C.; Routhier, J.-L. Objectives, Methods and Results of Surveys Carried out in the Field of Urban Freight Transport: An International Comparison. Transp. Rev. 2004, 24, 57-77. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  14. Muñuzuri, J.; Larrañeta, J.; Onieva, L.; Cortés, P. Solutions applicable by local administrations for urban logistics improvement. Cities 2005, 22, 15-28. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  15. Wefering, F.; Rupprecht, S.; Bührmann, S.; Böhler-Baedeker, S. Guidelines. Developing and Implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan; Rupprecht Consult: Cologne, Germany, 2014.
  16. ENCLOSE. Guidelines. Developing and Implementing a Sustainable Urban Logistics Plan. Available online: http://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/trainingmaterials/enclose_d5_2_sulp_methodology_fin al_version_0.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2019). open in new tab
  17. Fossheim, K.; Andersen, J. Plan for sustainable urban logistics -comparing between Scandinavian and UK practices. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2017, 9, 1-13. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  18. Ambrosini, C.; Gonzalez-Feliu, J.; Toilier, F. A design methodology for scenario-Analysis in urban freight modelling. Eur. Transp. Trasp. Eur. 2013, 54, 7-21.
  19. Nuzzolo, A.; Comi, A. City Logistics Planning: Demand Modelling Requirements for Direct Effect Forecasting. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 125, 239-250. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  20. Russo, F.; Comi, A. Urban freight transport planning towards green goals: Synthetic environmental evidence from tested results. Sustainabity 2016, 8, 381. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  21. Nuzzolo, A.; Comi, A. Urban freight transport policies in Rome: Lessons learned and the road ahead. J. Urban. Int. Res. Placemaking Urban Sustain. 2014, 8, 133-147. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  22. Comi, A.; Donnelly, R.; Russo, F. Urban Freight Models; open in new tab
  23. Nuzzolo, A.; Coppola, P.; Comi, A. Freight Transport Modeling: Review and Future Challenges. Int. J. Transp. Econ. 2013, 40, 183-206. open in new tab
  24. Gonzalez-Feliu, J.; Routhier, J.-L. Modeling Urban Goods Movement: How to be Oriented with so Many Approaches? Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 39, 89-100. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  25. Anand, N.; Van Duin, R.; Quak, H.; Tavasszy, L. Relevance of City Logistics Modelling Efforts: A Review. Transp. Rev. 2015, 35, 701-719. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  26. Allen, J.; Browne, M. Review of Survey Techniques Used in Urban Freight Studies; Transport Studies Group, University of Westminster: London, UK, 2008. open in new tab
  27. Patier, D.; Routhier, J.-L. How to Improve the Capture of Uran Goods Movement Data? In Proceedings of the 8th International conference on Survey Methods in Transport, Annecy, France, 25-31 May 2008. open in new tab
  28. Bonnafous, A.; Patier, D.; Routhier, J.-L.; Toilier, F.; Serouge, M. French Surveys of the Delivery Approach: From Cross-section to Diachronic Analyses. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 12, 181-192. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  29. Macharis, C.; Bernardini, A. Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach. Transp. Policy 2015, 37, 177-186. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  30. Mardani, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Khalifah, Z.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K.M. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques in transportation systems: A systematic review of the state of the art literature. Transport 2016, 31, 359-385. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  31. Gatta, V.; Marcucci, E. Urban freight transport and policy changes: Improving decision makers' awareness via an agent-specific approach. Transp. Policy 2014, 36, 248-252. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  32. Roorda, M.J.; Cavalcante, R.; McCabe, S.; Kwan, H. A conceptual framework for agent-based modelling of logistics services. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2010, 46, 18-31. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  33. van Duin, J.H.R.; van Kolck, A.; Anand, N.; Taniguchi, E. Towards an Agent-Based Modelling Approach for the Evaluation of Dynamic Usage of Urban Distribution Centres. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 39, 333-348. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  34. Mommens, K.; Lebeau, P.; Verlinde, S.; van Lier, T.; Macharis, C. Evaluating the impact of off-hour deliveries: An application of the TRansport Agent-BAsed model. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 62, 102-111. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  35. Buldeo Rai, H.; van Lier, T.; Meers, D.; Macharis, C. Improving urban freight transport sustainability: Policy assessment framework and case study. Res. Transp. Econ. 2017, 64, 26-35. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  36. Macharis, C.; Milan, L.; Verlinde, S. A stakeholder-based multicriteria evaluation framework for city distribution. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2014, 11, 75-84. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  37. Macharis, C.; De Witte, A.; Turcksin, L. The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) application in the Flemish long-term decision making process on mobility and logistics. Transp. Policy 2010, 17, 303-311. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  38. HEATCO. Developing Harmonised European Aproaches for Transport Costing and Project Assessment; IER: Stuttgart, Germany, 2006.
  39. Beria, P.; Maltese, I.; Mariotti, I. Multicriteria versus Cost Benefit Analysis: A comparative perspective in the assessment of sustainable mobility. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2012, 4, 137-152. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  40. Kotowska, I.; Iwan, S.; Kijewska, K.; Jedliński, M. Assumptions of Social Cost-Benefit Analysis for Implementing Urban Freight Transport Measures: Modeling and Planning Initiatives. In City Logistics 2; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; ISBN 9781786302069. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1535 21 of 23 open in new tab
  41. Annema, J.A.; Mouter, N.; Razaei, J. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA), or multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) or both: Politicians' perspective in transport policy appraisal. Transp. Res. Procedia 2015, 10, 788-797. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  42. ECMT. Goods Distribution Systems in Urban Areas; ECMT Round Table 61; open in new tab
  43. European Conference of Ministers of Transport: Paris, France, 1984. open in new tab
  44. Comi, A.; Russo, F. Demand model for city logistics: A state of art and a proposed integrated system. In Recent Advances for City Logistics;
  45. Eiichi, T., Thompson, R.G., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 91-105.
  46. Filippi, F.; Nuzzolo, A.; Comi, A.; Site, P.D. Ex-ante assessment of urban freight transport policies. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 2, 6332-6342. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  47. Boerkamps, J.; van Binsbergen, A.; Bovy, P. Modeling Behavioral Aspects of Urban Freight Movement in Supply Chains. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2000, 1725, 17-25. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  48. Visser, J.; Van Binsbergen, A.; Nemoto, T. Urban freight transport policy and planning Review. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on City Logistics, Cairns, Australia, July 1999.
  49. European Commision. Togehter towards Competitive and Resource Efficient Urban Mobility; COM (2013) 913; open in new tab
  50. European Commision: Brussels, Belgium, 2013. open in new tab
  51. European Commision. Directive 2004/27/Ec of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on Measuring Devices; European Commision: Brussels, Belgium, 2004. open in new tab
  52. Bruntland, G.H. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
  53. Wolfram, M. Expert Working Group on Sustainable Urban Transport Plans Final Report; Rupprecht Consult-Forschung & Beratung GmbH: Cologne, Germany, 2004. open in new tab
  54. Taniguchi, E.; Thompson, R.G.; Yamada, T. Visions for city logistics. In Logistics Systems for Sustainable Cities; open in new tab
  55. Browne, M.; Allen, J. Enhancing the Sustainability of Urban Freight Transport and Logistics. Transp. Commun. Bull. Asia Pac. 2011, 80, 1-19. open in new tab
  56. Browne, M.; Allen, J.; Nemoto, T.; Patier, D.; Visser, J. Reducing Social and Environmental Impacts of Urban Freight Transport: A Review of Some Major Cities. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 39, 19-33. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  57. Ogden, K. Urban Goods Transportation: A Guide to Policy nad Planning; Ashgate: Farnham, UK, 1992.
  58. Woudsma, C. Understanding the Movement of Goods, Not People: Issues, Evidence and Potential. Urban Stud. 2001, 38, 2439-2455. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  59. Schoemaker, J.; Allen, J.; Huschebeck, M.; Monigl, J. Quantification of Urban Freight Transport Effects; University of Westminster: London, UK, 2006; pp. 1-72.
  60. COST 321. Urban Goods Transport; Final Report of the Action; European Commision, Directorate General Transport: Luxembourg, 1998. open in new tab
  61. City Ports. City Ports Project Interim Report; City Ports: Bologna, Italy, 2005. open in new tab
  62. Van Duin, J.H.R.; Quak, H.J. City logistics: A chaos between research and policy making? A review. Wit Trans. Built Environ. 2007, 96, 135-146. open in new tab
  63. Russo, F.; Comi, A. A classification of city logistics measures and connected impacts. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 2, 6355-6365. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  64. Henriot, F.; Patier, D.; Bossin, P.; Gérardin, B. Méthodologie D'évaluation des Innovations en Matière de Logistique Urbaine. Programme National de Recherche et D'innovation dans les Transports Terrestres à L'initiative du Ministère de l'Ecologie, du Développement et de l'Aménagement Durable; LET: Lyon, France, 2008.
  65. Patier, D.; Browne, M. A methodology for the evaluation of urban logistics innovations. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 2, 6229-6241. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  66. Kaszubowski, D. Recommendations for urban freight policy development in Gdynia. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 12, 886-899. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  67. Holguín-Veras, J.; Jaller, M. Comprehensive Freight Demand Data Collection Framework for Large Urban Areas. In Sustainable Urban Logistics: Concepts, Methods and Information Systems; Gonzalez-Feliu, J., Semet, F., Routhier, J.L., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 91-112. ISBN 978-3-642-31788-0. open in new tab
  68. Danielis, R.; Rotaris, L.; Marcucci, E. Urban freight policies and distribution channels. Eur. Transp. Trasp. Eur. 2010, 46, 114-146. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1535 22 of 23 open in new tab
  69. Hounwanou, S.; Comi, A.; Gonzalez-Feliu, J.; Gondran, N. Inner city versus urban periphery retailing: Store relocation and shopping trip behaviours. Indications from Saint-Etienne. Transp. Res. Procedia 2018, 30, 363-372. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  70. Marsden, G.; Frick, K.T.; May, A.D.; Deakin, E. How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in Northern Europe and North America. Transp. Policy 2011, 18, 501-512. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  71. Oskarbski, J.; Kaszubowski, D. Potential for ITS/ICT Solutions in Urban Freight Management. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 16, 433-448. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  72. Patier, D.; Dufour, J.-G. Introduction to discussion based on the experience of the French experimental and research programme. In Freight Transport and the City; ECMT Round Table 109; ECMT: Paris, France, 1997. open in new tab
  73. Routhier, J.; Patier, D. Une Méthode D' Enquête Du Transport De Marchandises En Ville Pour Un Diagnostic En D Anièle Patier. In Les Cahiers Dcientifiques du Transport; AFITL: Lyon, France, 2009; pp. 11-38. open in new tab
  74. Browne, M.; Allen, J.; Woodburn, A.G.; Patier, D.; Routhier, J.-L.; Ambrosini, C. Comparison of urban freight data collection in European countries. In Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Transportation Research, Berkeley, CA, USA, 24-28 June 2007.
  75. Allen, J.; Browne, M.; Cherrett, T.; McLeod, F. Review of UK Urban Freight Studies;
  76. Green Logistics Project Work Module 9; University of Westminster: London, UK; University of Southampton: Southampton, UK, 2008. open in new tab
  77. Cherrett, T.; Allen, J.; McLeod, F.; Maynard, S.; Hickford, A.; Browne, M. Understanding urban freight activity-Key issues for freight planning. J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 24, 22-32. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  78. Nuzzolo, A.; Crisalli, U.; Comi, A.; Galuppi, S. Demand Models for the Estimation of Urban Goods Movements: An Application to the City of Rome. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Transportation Research (WCTR 2010), Lisbona, Portugal, 11-15 June 2010; pp. 1-20.
  79. Nuzzolo, A.; Crisalli, U.; Comi, A. A restocking tour model for the estimation of O-D freight vehicle in urban areas. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 20, 140-149. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  80. BMVBS. Mobilitätsstudie Kraftfahrzeugverkehr in Deutschland 2010; BVMI: Braunschweig, Germany, 2012. open in new tab
  81. Kaszubowski, D. Relevance of Urban Freight Transport Modelling Towards the Challenges of Urban Freight Policy. In New Research Trends in Transport Sustainability and Innovation; Suchanek, M., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 122-134. ISBN 978-3-319-74461-2. open in new tab
  82. Kaszubowski, D.; Pawłowska, A.; Marszałkowska, K. Adapting new tools of urban freight management based on Gdynia's dedicated delivery bays example-An analysis of the process. Transp. Res. Procedia 2018, 30, 265-274. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  83. Okraszewska, R.; Romanowska, A.; Wołek, M.; Oskarbski, J.; Birr, K.; Jamroz, K. Integration of a Multilevel Transport System Model into Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning. Sustainability 2018, 10, 479. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  84. Sonntag, H. A computer model of urban commercial traffic-Analysis, basic concept and application. Transp. Policy Decis. Mak. 1985, 3, 171-180.
  85. Sonntag, H.; Meimbresse, B. Modelling urban commercial traffic with model WIVER. In L'intégration des Marchandises dans le Système des Déplacements Urbains; open in new tab
  86. Patier, D., Ed.; Laboratoire d'Economie des Transports: Lyon, France, 2001; pp. 93-106. open in new tab
  87. Ambrosini, C.; Meimbresse, B.; Routhier, J.-L.; Sonntag, H. Urban freight policy-oriented modelling in Europe. In Innovations in City Logistics; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 197-2012. open in new tab
  88. Routhier, J.L.; Aubert, P.L. FRETURB, un modèle de simulation des transports de marchandises en ville. In Proceedings of the 8th WCTR, Antwerp, Belgium, 12-16 July 1998; pp. 531-544. open in new tab
  89. Patier, D. L'intégration des Marchandises dans le Système de Déplacements Urbains: Actes des Treizièmes Entretiens Jacques Cartier, 1er-6 octobre 2000, Montréal (Québec); open in new tab
  90. Coll. Etudes et Recherches 15;
  91. Laboratoire D'Économie des Transports: Lyon, France, 2000; ISSN 0769-6434. open in new tab
  92. Routhier, J.; Toilier, F. FRETURB V3, A Policy Oriented Software of Modelling Urban Goods Movement. In Proceedings of the 11th WCTR, Berkeley, CA, USA, 24-28 June 2007; p. 23.
  93. Gonzalez-Feliu, J.; Toilier, F.; Ambrosini, C.; Routhier, J.-L. Estimated Data Production for Urban Goods Transport Diagnosis. In Sustainable Urban Logistics: Concepts, Methods and Information Systems; open in new tab
  94. Gonzalez-Feliu, J., Semet, F., Routhier, J.L., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 113-143. ISBN 978-3-642-31788-0.
  95. Segalou, E.; Ambrosini, C.; Routhier, J.-L. The environmental assessment of urban goods movement. In Logistics Systems for Sustainable Cities; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2004; pp. 15-207. open in new tab
  96. Comi, A.; Rosati, L. CLASS: A City Logistics Analysis and Simulation Support System. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 87, 321-337. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  97. Comi, A.; Rosati, L. CLASS: A DSS for the analysis and the simulation of urban freight systems. Transp. Res. Procedia 2015, 5, 132-144. [CrossRef] open in new tab
  98. Gonzalez-Feliu, J.; Ambrosini, C.; Routhier, J. New trends on urban goods movement: Modelling and simulation of e-commerce distribution. Eur. Transp. 2012, 50, 1-23. open in new tab
  99. Vigo, D.; Gentile, G. A demand model for freight movements based on a tree classification of the economic activities applied to city logistics. City Goods. In Proceedings of the 2nd Roundtable, BESTUFS Workshop TFH, Wildau, Germany, 8-9 June 2006.
  100. Oskarbski, J.; Kaszubowski, D. Applying a Mesoscopic Transport Model to Analyse the Effects of Urban Freight Regulatory Measures on Transport Emissions-An Assessment. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2515. [CrossRef] open in new tab
Verified by:
Gdańsk University of Technology

seen 144 times

Recommended for you

Meta Tags