metropolitan freight distribution by railways

Metropolitan Freight Distribution by Railways

A. Nuzzolo, U. Crisalli, A. [email protected]

11-13 July 2007, Crete, Greece (EU)

Session 6

Metropolitan freight distribution by railways 2

Summary

�Introduction

�The used methodology

�Application example to a real case (Sorrentina peninsula,

Sothern Italy)

�Conclusions


Introduction

� Metropolitan freight distribution by railways using the

residual capacity of passenger services

� Technical and economic feasibility of proposals� Methodology

� Demand model system for the estimation of potential freight

flows

� Competitiveness and sustainability analysis of railways service

� Application to a real test case: the Sorrentina peninsula (Italy)


Introduction

�Reduction of accessibility of particular urban centres to road

transport due to congestion

�Measures to mitigate environmental impacts in urban centres

use of railways infrastructure for freight transport within

metropolitan areas


� Previous experiences in this field refer to� limited areas

� particular time periods or ages

� Examples:�Use of tram for the transportation of building goods in some

of East-Germany cities (e.g. Dresden), during the energetic

crisis in the seventy years (Lange, 2001)

�Restocking of some specific commercial activities shipping

particular products to cities served by railways services (Genta

et alii, 2006)

Introduction


The used methodology

�Objective

Investigate the use of railways service as an alternative to

road transport for the freight distribution to retailers within

urban and metropolitan areas


�Service structure

Outer TerminalCollection and connection between

freight transport by road in a short-

medium range and railways service


Inner TerminalDistribution within metropolitan area (low-

accessibility area) and picking/delivery

from/to the receivers/senders of this area


Inner TerminalOuter Terminal

�Service structure



�General framework



�Study area (Sorrentina Peninsula)

Application to a real case

Main characteristics

80,000 inhabitants

6,000 trade employees

42% of activities refers to trade

∼ 800,000 tourists per year


�Structure of methodology



�Traffic surveys� traffic counts, both freight and

passengers

(july-october 2005)

�Truck driver interviews

(127 interviews)

�Surveys to potential service users

(e.g. retailers)

(106 interviews)

Freight demandSurveys and Counts

Cross section


� Main results

Freight demandSurveys Delivery journey origins:

province of Naples about 75 %

About 50% of

deliveries is generated

of Naples

In the study area about 2.6

deliveries per vehicle are done

in the 56% of cases by light

goods vehicles (LGV)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

6,30-6,45

7,00-7,15

7,30-7,45

8,00-8,15

8,30-8,45

9,00-9,15

9,30-9,45

10,00-10,15

10,30-10,45

11,00-11,15

11,30-11,45

12,00-12,15

12,30-12,45

13,00-13,15

13,30-13,45

14,00-14,15

14,30-14,45

15,00-15,15

15,30-15,45

16,00-16,15

16,30-16,45

17,00-17,15

17,30-17,45

18,00-18,15

%

PER

DA

37 %

6 %

37 %28 %

7%Peak hour:

7:00 a.m.– 8:00 a.m.

3:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Incidence of freight traffic:

Max 37%, Min 7%, average 15%

About 45% of deliveries is

done undertaking journeys with

only study area destinations


Freight demandModel structure


Freight demandO/D matrices (quantity)

Wholesalers, Distribution centersAttributes of Service Level T

ATTRACTION modelQ

sh.d

Economic Activities of zones

ACQUISITION modelpsh[o/d]

O/D matrices in quantityQ

shod

RESTOCKING modelps[m/od]

O/D matrices in quantity by retailer

Qshod [retailer]

O/D matrices in quantity by restocking center

Qshod [restocking center]

O/D matrices in quantity by carrier

Qshod [carrier]


[ ] [ ] [ ]sh ssh sh

od .d = p o/d pQ m Q m/od

Qsh.d, average quantity of freight of type s attracted by zone d in time period h

psh [o/d], share of freight type s that, attracted by zone d in time period h,

comes from zone o (e.g. production place/firm, distribution centre,

warehouse, and so on)

ps [m/od], share of freight of type s transported by restocking type m from

zone o to zone d; we consider three main ways of restocking:- directly by the retailer (receiver) in own account (m = retailer)

- by the sender in own account (m = restocking centre)

- by a carrier (m = carrier)


Attraction model

Acquisition model Restocking model



� Calibration results Attraction model

Acquisition model (logit)

Restocking model

( ) ( ) ( )s s

od 1 o 2 centre,od 3 od 4 od 5 centreV = β ln Ad + β ln T + β ln TV + β ASA + β ASA

n. wholesale employeesTravel time(in city centre) Travel time

o=d

o within city centre


Freight demandO/D matrices (deliveries)


[ ] [ ] [ ]s s

od o

h sh

d=ND q/ Q m qm m

Qshod [m], average freight quantity flows of type s, between zones o

and d, in time period h, transported with restocking type m (output of

the commodity level - 1st level)

qs [m], freight quantity delivered/picked (shipment size) with restocking type

m

Output 1st levelDelivered/picked

quantity



� Calibration results

Delivered/picked quantity – Shipment size


[ ] ( )sq m = f s


Freight demandO/D matrices (vehicles)

O/D matrices in deliveries by retailer

NDshod [retailer]

O/D matrices in deliveries by restocking center

NDshod[restocking center]

O/D matrices in deliveries by carrier

NDshod [carrier]

Vehicle typepsh[v/odq - retailer]

Vehicle typepsh[v/odq - restocking center]

Vehicle typepsh[odq - carrier]

O/D matrices in vehicles by retailer and vehicle vVC

shod [v, retailer, q]

O/D matrices in vehicles by restocking center and vehicle vVC

shod[v, restocking center,q]

O/D matrices in vehicles by carrier and vehicle vVC

shod [v, carrier, q]

Number of delivery for tripsnd

sod[v, dett/q]

Number of delivery for tripsnd

sod[v, rest./q]

Number of delivery for tripsndsod[v, car/q]


� Base assumptions for restocking process� retailer brings all the freight within the same acquisition zone o

� wholesaler (or distributor) delivers freight within the same attraction zone d

� carrier brings all freight within the same acquisition zone o and delivers them inside

the same attraction zone d


[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]sh s

od o

sh s

o dd ND q/= p v/odmVC v/ m q dmq n v/mq

NDshod [q/m], number of deliveries/collections of freight of type s on od

pair (output of the delivery level - 2nd level)

ps [v/odmq], vehicle type share

ndsod [v/mq], number of stops per trip (deliveries and collections)

Vehicle type model Stop modelOutput of 2nd level


� Calibration resultsVehicle share


Number of stops per trip (deliveries and collections)

[ ] [ ] [ ]s ss

odnd v /m q QMT v q m=

Transported quantity


ORIGIN

prov. Caserta and Naples

about 85 % of attracted quantity

�Total quantity: about 1.800 t/day

�Freight type� Foodstuffs (44%)

�Household products (5%)

�Other (51%)

Freight demandAttraction in quantity


Freight demandPotential

�Selection criteria

Potential freight demand: 110 t/day

ORIGIN

Journey from provinces

of Benevento and Caserta,

and from cities in the

North of Naples

Acquisition zones and

restocking types:

Round trip with destination

after Piano di Sorrento

Don’t consider the dangerous and refrigerated

freight, etc.


� in order to define the design variables the 50% of potential

freight demand is considered.

This is due to the possible inertia of operators to change transport mode

towards the new distribution system in absence of any normative

limitations to the freight access to the study area

Freight demandTarget

Target freight demand: about 60 t/day

Potential freight demand: 110 t/day


�Structure (existing railway system)



�9 stations on Naples-Sorrento

railways line belongs to the choice

set of potential terminals

�Outer Terminal

San Giovanni a Teduccio station

�Inner Terminal

Piano di Sorrento station

Test applicationTerminal definitions

CONNECTION

FREIGHT

TRANSPORT

in study area

RAILWAY

TRANSPORT

:

Piano di Sorrento FS

S. Giovanni a Teduccio FS

FINAL

DISTRIBUTION


�Outer Terminal� track length about 50 m (1 train)� storage area (~ 700 mq)�handling equipments• transfer road – railways → fork-lift• yard handling equipments → fork-lift, transpallet for horizontal handling operations

InfrastructuresTerminal characteristics

Storage area

Storage area


�Inner Terminal

� track length about 50 m (1 train)

� storage area (~ 500 mq)

�handling equipments• transfer road – railways → fork-lift• yard handling equipments → fork-lift, transpallet for horizontal handling operations

Infrastructures Terminal characteristics


�Standard equipment of Circumvesuviana: passenger train

type “T21”� adaptation with removal of specific passenger equipment• seats, inside doors, etc.

• horizontal on-board handling by transpallet

Rolling stock


�Unit load

Pallet ISO1: 1200 x 800 x 1500 mm

GoodsPacking requirements


�Potential service timetable

�Timetable not interested by passenger transport• before and after passenger morning (and afternoon) peak-hours

Transport by trainTimetable


�Low emission vehicles�Daily Bimodale (both electric and diesel fuel) with load

capacity of about 4 pallets ISO1

� electric Porter (load capacity 2 pallets ISO1)

Transport by roadFinal distribution


�Structure�System characteristics



Service characteristics

�Multimodal transportation chain


�Structure�Service competitiveness



COSTS

1,850,000 1,200,000

650,000 Rail transport200,000 Handling and management software

1,200,000 Terminal1,000,000 Civil buildings/

exiting rolling stock adaptation

€/yearManagement€Investment

Investment and management costs


�System performance�Average service transportation time

Technical feasibility

Loading beginning

Train departureDoor closingLoading operations

Unloading beginningTrain arrival

Loading vehicle beginningThe end of unloading operations

Loading of LGVs

Train departure

Final customersSpace

Time


� Average transportation time

25.0min / pallet-Delivery average

0.5minFinal distribution

-Manoeuvre (LGV)

1.0min / pallet-Loading of distribution vehicles

0.8min / pallet-Train unloading

1.0minInner Terminal (Piano di Sorrento)

-Forward transition

0.5min / pallet-On-board handling

55.0minRailways transport

-Terminal-to-terminal

8.0min-Forward transition

0.9min /pallet-Train Loading

0.5minOuter Terminal (S. Giovanni a Teduccio)

-Manoeuvre (HGV)

avg valueunitactivity

Technical feasibility


Externalities analysis

∼∼∼∼ 1.000.000 €/year

∼∼∼∼ 70 €/t

- 5 %Reduction of freight transport

by road

∼600.000 €/year- 20 %Congestion reduction

∼400.000 €/year- 15 %Emission reduction


Conclusions

�Comparison with scenario 0 (only road)

�Travel time (road): ∼ 90 min.

�Travel time (designed service): ∼ 90 min.

�Average transport cost (road): 60 €/t

�Average transport cost (designed service): 120 €/t

�Public authority intervention (balancing externalities): 70 €/t

�Cost reduction of transport for operators: 10 €/t

Metropolitan Freight Distribution by Railways

A. Nuzzolo, U. Crisalli, A. [email protected]

11-13 July 2007, Crete, Greece (EU)

Session 6

metropolitan freight distribution by railways

Documents