3rd Conference of Transportation Research Group of India (3rd CTRG)

Urban Freight and Supply Chain – The Neglected

Stakeholder: An Analysis of Current Research Trends
Chitresh Kumara, *, T. A. S Vijayaraghavanb, A. K. Chakrabortyc , R. G.
Thompsond
a
XLRI Xavier School of Management, Jamshedpur, 831001, India, fb12001@astra.xlri.ac.in
b
XLRI Xavier School of Management, Jamshedpur, 831001, India, tasviji@xlri.ac.in
c
XLRI Xavier School of Management, Jamshedpur, 831001, India, akcharaborty@xlri.ac.in
d
Department of Infrastructure Engineering, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia,
rgthom@unimelb.edu.au
* Corresponding Author

Abstract. The paper reviews what has been studied in area of urban freight during last two decades. A
three-way approach was followed to analyse the research works. This included, the research objective,
intended stakeholder and parameters/indicators used. An initial classification was done as research focused
towards policy and vehicle route optimisation studies. Further we build upon these two categories by
developing sub-categories within them. The parameters itself were classified in two categories – firm level
and city level. Using this classification of research objectives and parameters used we identified the areas
which have been studied and the areas where research gaps still exists. We conclude that firms or supply
chain in the developing countries does not understand the effect of urban freight issues and regulations on
them. Overall the effect has not been studied from the supply chain perspective and there may be an inherent
bias towards choice of parameters/indicators.

Keywords: urban freight, supply chain, city logistics

Introduction

Study of urban freight has been a recent phenomenon, first International Conference on
City Logistics was held in 1999 and was limited only to developed economies [1], [2].
There are multiple reason for lack of research e.g. minor share (1:3 by numbers or 30% by
vehicle kilometres) of urban freight as compared to urban commuter traffic in urban
transportation has led towards restrictive policy design and a total neglect of stakeholders
perspective involved in urban freight [3]–[6], [6], [7]. Though they interact and influence
each other within the same urban form and network pattern, limited research work has
studied relationship between urban freight and urban passenger traffic [3], [8], [9]. Urban
Sprawl, pollution, congestion etc. have pushed warehousing and manufacturing activities
to the fringes resulting in higher costs [6]. In addition the recent use of Flexible production
strategy like Just in Time (JIT) has only added to the number of urban freight trips.
The objective of the study is to identify research gaps in area of urban freight. In order to
do so, it categorizes previous research works based on their research objectives (e.g. policy
formulation, vehicle route optimization or sustainable transportation) and various
parameters used to develop models (e.g. city specific parameters like land use, zoning or
firm specific indicators like product type, manufacturing strategy, fleet size etc.). The
research work identifies gap in terms of research done from firm or managerial
perspective. It concludes that there is a complete lack of research works in the area of
understanding city specific indicators from supply chain perspective or from private
stakeholder’s perspective. The papers were selected post 2000 as 1st City Logistics
Conference happened in 1999 (only for studies on urban freight).

Kumar, Vijayaraghavan, Chakraborty, Thompson

For our understanding and to classify studies done as urban freight studies we define
“urban freight” based on multiple definitions provided by [9], [10], [8], [11] as having the
following characteristics;
• Goods movement within the urban area as part of supply chain it could be B2B or
B2C
• Should be handled by a designated professional personnel within the supply chain
• Services are also included which needs movement of commercial vehicles
• Individual trips for household purposes are not included

Methodology
Further study has been divided in three parts, in the first part various models used to
analyse urban freight have been studied. Second part of the research work attempts
towards categorization of urban freight models and indicators and finally zero downs upon
a classification. Then with exhaustive set of parameters and indicators it analyses various
studies in order to identify areas where further research is needed. Final section of research
paper discusses findings, gaps and preliminary future research.

Approach
An initial generic classification of urban freight research papers was done based on
whether research works were policy oriented or whether they were vehicle routing and
transportation cost minimisation and allocation based studies within the urban area. During
the course of study, final classification was arrived, the two major classes of research
works were – a) Efficiency Oriented studies, or b) studies, which intended towards
reducing pollution or congestion within urban areas (Figure 1). Interesting finding was that
though within these two categories the final outcome would be same i.e. an efficiency-
oriented study would end up reducing congestion and pollution and vice versa (Figure 1).
Third dimension of classification as to identify their study focus e.g. whether these studies
were focused towards Stakeholder /Actors, Infrastructure, Policy, Sustainable Urban
Freight Policy, Vehicle Routing, Product/Supply chain efficiency or were simply were
Meta-Analysis (Figure 2).
Alongside classifying them through research objective, at second level an exhaustive study
of all parameters and indicators was done for 23 studies, which used more than five
parameters for various study objectives. These parameters and were again classified as city
level and firm level (Figure 1). City level indicators were further classified as indicators
related to urban form, time based and technology based (refer table 1). Firm level
indicators were further classified as Manufacturing strategy, product type, Supply Chain
Management and Vehicle utilisation (Table 2).

Policy Focused Research - Studies with Policy Level Objectives

A meta-analysis of 30 studies encompassing cities of USA, Europe and Japan on urban

freight identifies no dedicated study from the private stakeholder’s perspective [13]. Only
five studies focus upon multi-actor modelling and nine study the behaviour of various
actors. This establishes the need towards study of multi-agency partnership and public
private partnership for efficient urban freight [5]. [13] provides multiple classifications of

Kumar, Vijayaraghavan, Chakraborty, Thompson

such studies from stakeholder’s perspective (Administrators, shipper, carrier, receiver),
Objective (infrastructure, efficiency, environment, etc.), Descriptor (Land use, modal
transfer, commodity flow, traffic, load factor etc.) and Research Perspective (Planner,
Policy, Technology etc.). [12] provide a meta-analysis of effect of urban freight from actor
based sustainability perspective. [14] have classified the existing emerging techniques and
models and provided way forward about enhancement for city logistics, these categories
are Vehicle Routing and Scheduling, multi-objective optimization, intelligent agents,
traffic simulation etc.

• Policy Oriented  
• Vehicle Routing  

Research Objective Based Classification

• Efficiency Orientation  
Review - Based on the • Pollution, Congestion
Broad Objectives Reduction  

Indicator Based Classification

Categorization of
• City Specific Indicators  
Parameters and Indicators
• Firm Specific Indicators  

Figure 1: Study Approach

Study Focus
• Stakeholder /Actor Based  
• Infrastructure, Policy, Sustainable Urban Freight Policy Based  
• Vehicle Routing, Product/Supply chain efficiency based  
• Meta-Analysis  

City/Zone Specific
Efficiency/ Indicators
Optimization
Based Studies Firm Specific
Indicators
Study on Urban
Freight
City/Zone Specific
Emissions and Indicators
Congestion
Reduction Based
Studies Firm Specific
Indicators
Figure 2: Approach – Study Focus

Kumar, Vijayaraghavan, Chakraborty, Thompson

[8] Provided one of the most comprehensive studies with most of the indicators and
parameters taken into consideration. According to them an argument for such an integrated
study for sustainable urban freight would be sensitive to supply chain strategies, product
typologies, establishment characteristics in terms of land use, staff requirements, time
windows and delivery systems – lead-times, inventory from firm side, while should
optimise vehicle restriction in terms of LTL/FTL policies, technological restriction e.g.
vehicle and emission zones. They [8] further argue that mitigation of adverse
environmental, social, economic and operational impact also requires to solve transport
policy related problems. Friction between freight and commuter is also emphasised upon,
reinstating the need for wholesome policies and regulations.
[15] Provide a meta-analysis of survey methods adopted by thirty urban freight studies in
UK done between 1996 -2008. According to them these factors are mainly influenced by
type of business and size of business. Their findings suggested that at an average only 5%
of the deliveries happen during night, and nearly half of them happening during morning
commuter peak hours. Half of these were on-street causing congestion and half of them
were being done by third party logistics, stating that establishment had little say in the
timings. For their study [15] used most of the traditional parameters. One of the unique
observation they found that in 12 years increase in vehicle size has led to a three fold
increase in loading and unloading time.
[4] studied private stakeholders for policy level input and observed seven different
companies in UK to identify ways to meet sustainability objective of policy makers. The
study analysed environmental and social effect of urban freight on city. Adverse impacts
were classified in three categories by [4], [6] as economic impacts (congestion,
inefficiency and resource wastage), environmental impacts (pollution and waste creation)
and social impacts (public health, noise, accidents, quality of life and difficulty in making
essential trips), thus integrating the activity and effects of freight and commuters. The
study found 5% reduction in vehicle operating cost due to emission regulations.
Congestion charging resulted towards 15% reduction in driving time, however per trip cost
increased by 5 to 15 £. Overall they concluded that time restriction with weight restriction
increases production cost for private stakeholders.
Study of urban consolidation centres (UCC) by [17] towards sustainability encompassing
114 UCC feasibility studies across 17 countries, state that segregated land use approach in
terms of UCC reduces LTLs by transhipping and consolidating goods. It also allows
implementing certain weight restriction on vehicles prior to entering urban areas. These
UCCs led towards reduction in congestion, reduction in vehicle distance travelled and total
kerb side time. The load factor improved between 15% to 100%, there was reduction in
vehicle operating cost from 60% to 80%.
Allen, Browne, and Cherrett [18] studied fourteen urban areas of UK and their respective
urban form, land use, facility location and logistics management. They attempted to
identify whether factors that impact passenger transport have an impact on urban freight or
not. According to them demand for city logistics is relatively inelastic relative to prices as
compared against passenger movement. This has more to do with fewer modal options
available for urban freight. Further deindustrialization of cities has led towards shifting out
of distribution and manufacturing centres. This spatial decentralization of stockholding
demands reliable, regular and flexible delivery something on the lines of JIT. However, all
of these things have led towards an increased urban freight and hence, operational
performance becomes a major issue.
[21] Analysed impact of transportation policies on urban freight through a five-stage
model. Policies were studied through classifying them in freight traffic regulation, physical

Kumar, Vijayaraghavan, Chakraborty, Thompson

infrastructure, ITS and, loading units and vehicles. The study identified LTL as an issue
with 57% vehicle loaded less than 1.5 tonnes having FTL capacity of 3.5 tonnes.
[22] studied freight demand in Rome using population intensity and employee intensity
at retail and wholesale centres. Their study identifies freight demand based on the product
type and regression models were developed for shipment size, vehicle type and delivery
time.
[23], [24] did urban freight modelling to understand ecological footprint of urban freight
using delivery survey. Their model used number of establishments, time and distance
based indicators for each product type within zones.
[25] analysed 15 experiments done in France in last ten years and its external
applicability. The study identified a 75% reduction in VKT. With a 17% increase in cost
the emission reduction achieved was 59% in Paris.

Vehicle Routing Models

[27] provides a comprehensive understanding of research taken place in the area of vehicle
routing for the last 50 years. When it comes to study urban freight from firm or supply
chain perspective, most research works focus upon vehicle routing issues within urban
area. [13] identify the reason as having no incremental profit to the supply chain from
interaction with the public authorities.
From the technical perspective [28] state that there is lack of study on urban link travel
time variability. Their [28] model aimed at total cost minimization by link speed
variability. The model used the traffic simulation using block density model calculated as
vehicle density per square kilometre of area and running speed variation in the links
ranging from 15 kmph to 20 kmph. Their model reduced the average operation cost by 4%
with a reduction in the standard deviation of 61%. Average delay penalty was reduced by
46% with standard deviation reduction of 77%, overall significantly improving the
reliability of the routing.
[31] developed the time dependent vehicle routing problem for time windows while
using multiple number of distributions centres. Their study found a reduction of travel time
by 3% and urban travel distance by 15%.
One of the most comprehensive study was done for city of Tokyo by [34] encompassing
commodity production, distribution, flows and traffic assignment. 56 zones and 46,000
firms were studied for the simulation exercise which used product forecasting, and supply
chain design for each buyer-supplier in every zone finally providing a vehicle typology
and link time variability as the outcome.
[35] uses a multi criteria decision-making, analytic network model to evaluate the urban
freight measures. The model used indicators for UCC, access restriction, weight restriction
and loading time restriction for Gdansk (Poland). The study found that empty vehicles did
50% of urban freight trips.
To identify factors for public policy regarding sustainable urban freight [6] studied 5 cities
in four European countries and stated that though urban freight has minor share, it has a
major share in pollution.
According to [37], the three actors functioning in the private sector domain have three
divergent objectives – the shipper wants city logistics to be low cost and responsive to the
demand. The transport company wants low cost and high quality in terms of reliability and
retailers wants short lead time, while government regulate all these to provide a
harmonized urban area, their model attempts to include all these actors and their respective
interests with optimal cost.

Kumar, Vijayaraghavan, Chakraborty, Thompson

One of the few multi – agent/actor model has been developed by [38], [39], designed as a
‘learning model (uses output to improvise)’ with Vehicle Routing and Scheduling Problem
with Time Windows – Forecasted (VRP-TW-F) the outcomes have been analysed in terms
of NOX emissions and toll revenue.

Further classifying these research works using the approach described in figure 1 (see
Table 1) we found out that current research work mostly focuses in the area of reduction,
efficiency or optimization based category, these studies have exhaustively used city
specific indicators if they are focusing upon local policy level issues like land use, zoning,
UCC etc. Firm specific indicators have been mostly used for inventory and vehicle routing
optimization. Research trend has mostly focused upon using city specific indicators to plan
for urban infrastructure. These studies lag the understanding of effects upon the firm
specific indicators. Similarly there are very few studies, which use actor based model to
understand the interrelation of effects among actors. At the same time most vehicle routing
or supply chain based studies only use firm specific indicators, while effect of city based
indicators are completely neglected. The same could be stated while analysing the
parameters and indicators through Table 2, discussed in the next section.

Urban Freight Movement – Parameters and Indicators

Models, parameters and variables, which influence urban freight, can be classified in
multiple ways. [13] categorize it based on objective of the study, stakeholder for which the
study was done, stakeholders who were involved in the study and broad class of indicators
used. [14] provided a classification based on emerging tools and techniques, which are
currently being applied in the field. However, these classifications do not consider the kind
of extensive set of parameters or indicators that have been used by other studies. [40]
classify into four categories based on the physical nature of the infrastructure calling them
material e.g. UCC, CDC etc. and Immaterial Infrastructure like Intelligent Transport
System (ITS) and governance.
This provides us with a new window to analyse these studies from the perspective of what
objective they fulfilled and in order to fulfil those objectives what parameters and
indicators they have used? Based on this approach a bi-level classification was developed
for Studies done in the past 15 years on urban freight. Further sections of paper study
various models based on their research objective only.

Analysis of Indicators and Parameters Used

Most of the parameters and indicators influencing urban freight can be classified in two
major categories one which are decided and regulated by public sector or local authorities
e.g. zoning regulations (based upon vehicle type, weight, product), congestion pricing,
time windows, land use management, vehicle technology restrictions etc. and others which
are designed to optimize the supply chain by private sectors e.g. parameters used for
vehicle routing problem like, type/capacity of vehicle used, warehousing strategy, shipping
size, frequency of replenishment and stock keeping policies etc. [12]. These two categories
influence each other, mostly the government policies have implications on private sector
strategies e.g. Delineation of Low Emission Zone in London led towards choice of

Kumar, Vijayaraghavan, Chakraborty, Thompson

improving existing vehicle, buying a new vehicle or opting out of the zone, flouting the
regulations or use a different type of vehicle [41].
Post categorization based on research objective, these studies were again analysed on the
basis of list of the parameters and indicators that was developed using all studies in the
area of urban freight. Additionally few relevant parameters for urban freight, which have
been extensively studied from urban commuters perceptive, were also added.

Further these parameters were classified into two categories as discussed earlier – City
Specific parameters and Firm Specific parameters. City Specific Parameters were further
classified into urban spatial form parameters, time based parameters and technology based
parameters. Firm Specific Parameters were classified in four sub-categories product
typology; manufacturing strategy, supply chain management and vehicle utilization.
A total of 23 research works were analyzed based on this categorization. It was found that
among the city specific indicators land use along with zoning regulation and parking
loading unloading restrictions were studied the most (eight studies each), while seven
studies were on UCC or CDC. Among the firm specific indicators distance and average
distance per delivery were the most frequently studied (fifteen times), fleet size and type
(twelve times), Fleet Utilization (ten times), Average Time Per Delivery (nine times) and
number of establishments and delivery policy were used eight times each. Warehousing,
Vehicle Load Factor and B2B or B2C supply chain typology were studied between 7 to 5
times (Table 2). Overall the pattern stated that there is a research gap in terms of using
product type, manufacturing and SCM strategy related parameters to study urban freight.
This is also the case when we analysed the studies at research objective level (Table 1).

Table 1: Classification of Studies based on Research Objective

Category Efficiency/Optimization Based Studies Emissions and Congestion
Reduction Studies
Study Focus City Specific Firm Specific City Specific Firm Specific
Indicators Indicators Indicators Indicators
Stakeholder /Actor [26], [42][5][39] [16] [43], [12],
Based

Land Use Urban [18], [44], [45], [46], [32], [21] [17][41][55], [1], [8] [4], [9]
Form, Facility [20][47], [22], [48], [26] [24]
Location, UCC, [35][49],
Delivery Plans, [50][51][52][37], [36],
Local [53][54]
Administrative
Policy Based,
Sustainable Urban
Freight Policy
Vehicle Routing, [7][23] [28], [29], [30], [33]
Product/Supply [31][56][38][39][57],
chain efficiency [58][59]–[61][62]–[64]
based
Meta Analysis of [15], [2], [13], [3],[14]
Tools and
Techniques

Kumar, Vijayaraghavan, Chakraborty, Thompson

Table 2: Most Frequently Used Indicators
Indicators Frequency
City Specific Indicators
Land use/ zoning regulations /parking loading unloading restrictions 8
UCC or CDC 7

Firm Specific Indicators

Distance, Average distance per delivery 15
Fleet size and type 12
Fleet Utilization 10
Number of establishments and delivery policy 8
Warehousing, Vehicle Load Factor and B2B or B2C 7 -5

23 Research Work
1. Jha et al. (2012)
2. Allen, Anderson, Browne, & Jones (2000)
3. Browne, Allen, Steele, Cherrett, & McLeod (2010)
4. Anderson, Allen, & Browne (2005)
5. Cherrett et al. (2012)
6. Allen, Browne, Woodburn, & Leonardi (2012)
7. Browne et al. (2012)
8. Allen, Browne, and Cherrett (2012b)
9. Ambrosini, Patier, and Routhier (2010)
10. Ambrosini and Routhier (2004)
11. Ando and Taniguchi (2006)
12. Behrends, Lindholm, and Woxenius (2008)
13. Figliozzi (2011)
14. Filippi et al. (2010)
15. Figliozzi 2007; Figliozzi (2011)
16. Ibeas et al. (2012)
17. Muñuzuri et al. (2005); Muñuzuri, Van Duin, and Escudero (2010); Muñuzuri, Van Duin, and
Escudero (2010)
18. Patier and Browne (2010)
19. Wisetjindawat et al. (2007)
20. Kaszubowski (2012)
21. van Duin et al. (2012)
22. Wisetjindawat, Sano, and Matsumoto (2006)

Kumar, Vijayaraghavan, Chakraborty, Thompson

We found that there are few research works understanding the effect of urban form, land
use, location and zoning upon firm and its urban freight. Additionally, limited research has
been conducted to understand the effect of manufacturing or supply chain strategy or
inventory policy or product specificity upon the urban freight. Most of these studies are
geographic area based, however, there is a complete lack of research work in the
developing countries. There are few studies, which consider a cluster of firms to analyze
the relative advantages or disadvantages of a certain city specific policy. Further major
research gaps are,
• Though most of the studies emphasize upon effect of manufacturing strategy i.e. JIT,
pull /push upon firm specific urban freight, there is a lack in terms of research work
intended to understand the impact or effect (routing for JIT - [62], [65]).
• Studies emphasize the need towards development of collaborative network so as to
reduce the cost as well as urban freight; however there are no studies to actual identify
the feasibility or pros and cons of the same.
• There is a lack of agent/ stakeholder based model from firm’s perspective. According to
[66] lack of stakeholder representation leads towards perceiving urban freight as a
problem activity rather than support to urban life
• There is a lack of research work on effect of land use, urban from and its effect of urban
freight cost from firm’s perspective.
• There are no studies attempting to understand the effect of Inventory policy on urban
freight and what would be industry specific or product specific optimal strategy from
the urban freight perspective.

Future Research Directions

It was found that most of the studies have two major objectives, either there is an attempt
to optimize the routing or the infrastructure available or to reduce pollution and congestion.
Thought both these objectives are met through making the overall urban freight efficient in
nature, the approach towards achieving is different i.e. congestion and pollution
(emissions) could be reduced by zone regulations, creation of low emission zone,
restricting vehicle technology, developing UCCs or other infrastructure. These studies are
either done post the regulation to see the impact or were part of the feasibility/pilot study.
Further research needs to be done to identify relationship between SCM Strategy, product
type and city specific urban freight urban freight. For example [57] study the supply chain
collaboration’s advantage, firm performance and firm size. Studies are needed to be done
to understand the sensitivity of vehicle routing or rolling stock utilization and city specific
indicators e.g. link time variability study by [28]. For example effect of time windows,
spatial segregation and technological restriction on cycle times of certain supply chains
functioning under responsive or efficient strategy needs to be researched.
Finally, the failure of existing models to reduce the complexities of studying supply chains
and social systems interdependencies, further establishes the need for such studies [12].
Additionally, since most of the studies have been done to understand the policy
implications of the regulations, there exists an inherent bias in choice of indicators.
 3rd Conference of Transportation Research Group of India (3rd CTRG)

References:
1. M. Browne, J. Allen, T. Nemoto, D. Patier, and J. Visser, “Reducing social and
environmental impacts of urban freight transport: a review of some major cities,”
Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 39, pp. 19–33, 2012.
2. C. Ambrosini and J.-L. Routhier, “Objectives, methods and results of surveys
carried out in the field of urban freight transport: an international comparison,”
Transp. Rev., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 57–77, 2004.
3. J. Allen, M. Browne, and T. Cherrett, “Survey techniques in urban freight transport
studies,” Transp. Rev., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 287–311, 2012.
4. S. Anderson, J. Allen, and M. Browne, “Urban logistics—-how can it meet policy
makers’ sustainability objectives?,” J. Transp. Geogr., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 71–81,
2005.
5. M. Lindholm and M. Browne, “Local authority cooperation with urban freight
stakeholders: A comparison of partnership approaches,” Eur. J. Transp.
Infrastruct. Res., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 20–38, 2013.
6. M. Lindholm, “A sustainable perspective on urban freight transport: Factors
affecting local authorities in the planning procedures,” Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci.,
vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 6205–6216, 2010.
7. J. Muñuzuri, P. Cortés, L. Onieva, and J. Guadix, “Modeling freight delivery
flows: Missing link of urban transport analysis,” J. Urban Plan. Dev., vol. 135, no.
3, pp. 91–99, 2009.
8. J. Allen, S. Anderson, M. Browne, and P. Jones, “A framework for considering
policies to encourage sustainable urban freight traffic and goods/service flows,”
Transp. Stud. Group Univ. Westminst. Lond., 2000.
9. H. J. Quak, Sustainability of urban freight transport: Retail distribution and local
regulations in cities. Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), 2008.
10. J. Munuzuri, J. Larraneta, L. Onieva, and P. Cortes, “Estimation of an origin-
destination matrix for urban freight transport. Application to the city of Seville,”
in The 3rd International Conference on City Logistics, 2004.
11. L. Dablanc, “Goods transport in large European cities: Difficult to organize,
difficult to modernize,” Transp. Res. Part Policy Pract., vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 280–
285, Mar. 2007.
12. S. Behrends, M. Lindholm, and J. Woxenius, “The impact of urban freight
transport: A definition of sustainability from an actor’s perspective,” Transp. Plan.
Technol., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 693–713, 2008.
13. N. Anand, H. Quak, R. van Duin, and L. Tavasszy, “City logistics modeling
efforts: Trends and gaps-A review,” Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 39, pp. 101–
115, 2012.
14. E. Taniguchi, R. G. Thompson, and T. Yamada, “Emerging techniques for
enhancing the practical application of city logistics models,” Procedia-Soc. Behav.
Sci., vol. 39, pp. 3–18, 2012.
15. M. Browne, J. Allen, S. Steele, T. Cherrett, and F. McLeod, “Analysing the
results of UK urban freight studies,” Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 2, no. 3, pp.
5956–5966, 2010.
16. T. Cherrett, J. Allen, F. McLeod, S. Maynard, A. Hickford, and M. Browne,
“Understanding urban freight activity–key issues for freight planning,” J. Transp.
Geogr., vol. 24, pp. 22–32, 2012.
17. J. Allen, M. Browne, A. Woodburn, and J. Leonardi, “The role of urban
consolidation centres in sustainable freight transport,” Transp. Rev., vol. 32, no. 4,
pp. 473–490, 2012.

Kumar, Vijayaraghavan, Chakraborty, Thompson

 3rd Conference of Transportation Research Group of India (3rd CTRG)

18. J. Allen, M. Browne, and T. Cherrett, “Investigating relationships between road

freight transport, facility location, logistics management and urban form,” J.
Transp. Geogr., vol. 24, pp. 45–57, 2012.
19. E. Taniguchi, R. G. Thompson, and T. Yamada, “Visions for city logistics,” in
The 3rd International Conference on City Logistics, 2004.
20. J. Gonzalez-Feliu, F. Toilier, and J.-L. Routhier, “End consumer goods
movement generation in French medium urban areas,” Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci.,
vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 6189–6204, 2010.
21. F. Filippi, A. Nuzzolo, A. Comi, and P. D. Site, “Ex-ante assessment of urban
freight transport policies,” Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 6332–
6342, 2010.
22. A. Ibeas, J. L. Moura, A. Nuzzolo, and A. Comi, “Urban freight transport
demand: transferability of survey results analysis and models,” Procedia-Soc.
Behav. Sci., vol. 54, pp. 1068–1079, 2012.
23. J. Muñuzuri, P. Cortés, L. Onieva, and J. Guadix, “Estimation of daily vehicle
flows for urban freight deliveries,” J. Urban Plan. Dev., vol. 138, no. 1, pp. 43–52,
2011.
24. J. Muñuzuri, J. H. R. Van Duin, and A. Escudero, “How efficient is city logistics?
Estimating ecological footprints for urban freight deliveries,” Procedia-Soc.
Behav. Sci., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 6165–6176, 2010.
25. D. Patier and M. Browne, “A methodology for the evaluation of urban logistics
innovations,” Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 6229–6241, 2010.
26. J. R. van Duin, A. van Kolck, N. Anand, L. Tavasszy, and E. Taniguchi,
“Towards an agent-based modelling approach for the evaluation of dynamic usage
of urban distribution centres,” Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 39, pp. 333–348,
2012.
27. G. Laporte, “Fifty Years of Vehicle Routing,” Transp. Sci., vol. 43, no. 4, pp.
408–416, Oct. 2009.
28. N. Ando and E. Taniguchi, “Travel time reliability in vehicle routing and
scheduling with time windows,” Netw. Spat. Econ., vol. 6, no. 3–4, pp. 293–311,
2006.
29. O. Bräysy and M. Gendreau, “Vehicle routing problem with time windows, Part
I: Route construction and local search algorithms,” Transp. Sci., vol. 39, no. 1, pp.
104–118, 2005.
30. O. Bräysy and M. Gendreau, “Vehicle routing problem with time windows, Part
II: Metaheuristics,” Transp. Sci., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 119–139, 2005.
31. D. Escuín, C. Millán, and E. Larrodé, “Modelization of time-dependent urban
freight problems by using a multiple number of distribution centers,” Netw. Spat.
Econ., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 321–336, 2012.
32. M. A. Figliozzi, “Analysis of the efficiency of urban commercial vehicle tours:
Data collection, methodology, and policy implications,” Transp. Res. Part B
Methodol., vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 1014–1032, 2007.
33. M. A. Figliozzi, “The impacts of congestion on time-definitive urban freight
distribution networks CO< sub> 2</sub> emission levels: Results from a case
study in Portland, Oregon,” Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol., vol. 19, no. 5,
pp. 766–778, 2011.
34. W. Wisetjindawat, K. Sano, S. Matsumoto, and P. Raothanachonkun, “Micro-
simulation model for modeling freight agents interactions in urban freight
movement,” in CD Proceedings, 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board, Washington DC, 2007, pp. 21–25.

Kumar, Vijayaraghavan, Chakraborty, Thompson

 3rd Conference of Transportation Research Group of India (3rd CTRG)

35. D. Kaszubowski, “EVALUATION OF URBAN FREIGHT TRANSPORT

MANAGEMENT MEASURES.,” LogForum, vol. 8, no. 3, 2012.
36. F. Russo and A. Comi, “A state of the art on urban freight distribution at
European scale,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Mobility
Management, 2004.
37. F. Russo and A. Comi, “A classification of city logistics measures and connected
impacts,” Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 6355–6365, 2010.
38. D. Tamagawa, E. Taniguchi, and T. Yamada, “Evaluating city logistics measures
using a multi-agent model,” Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 6002–
6012, 2010.
39. E. Taniguchi and D. Tamagawa, “Evaluating city logistics measures considering
the behavior of several stakeholders,” J. East. Asia Soc. Transp. Stud., vol. 6, pp.
3062–3076, 2005.
40. M. Ruesch and C. Glücker, “BESTUFS Deliverable D2.1 - Best practice
handbook Year 1.” 2001.
41. M. Browne, J. Allen, and S. Anderson, “Low emission zones: the likely effects on
the freight transport sector,” Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 269–281,
2005.
42. J. Gonzalez-Feliu and J.-M. Salanova, “Defining and evaluating collaborative
urban freight transportation systems,” Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 39, pp. 172–
183, 2012.
43. T. O. Adetiloye, “Collaboration Planning of Stakeholders for Sustainable City
Logistics Operations,” Concordia University, 2012.
44. C. Ambrosini, D. Patier, and J.-L. Routhier, “Urban freight establishment and
tour based surveys for policy oriented modelling,” Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci., vol.
2, no. 3, pp. 6013–6026, 2010.
45. R. J. Czerniak, J. S. Lahsene, and A. Chatterjee, “Urban freight movement–What
form will it take,” A1B07 Comm. Urban Goods Mov. Transp. Res. Board Wash.
DC Httpwww4 Trb Orgtrbhomepage Nsfwebmillenniumpapers, 2000.
46. G. Dezi, G. Dondi, and C. Sangiorgi, “Urban freight transport in Bologna:
Planning commercial vehicle loading/unloading zones,” Procedia-Soc. Behav.
Sci., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 5990–6001, 2010.
47. M. Hesse, “Logistics and freight transport policy in urban areas: a case study of
Berlin-Brandenburg/Germany,” Eur. Plan. Stud., vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 1035–1053,
2004.
48. D. J. A. de Magalhães, “Urban freight transport in a metropolitan context: The
Belo Horizonte city case study,” Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 2, no. 3, pp.
6076–6086, 2010.
49. M. Lindholm, “How local authority decision makers address freight transport in
the urban area,” Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 39, pp. 134–145, 2012.
50. J. Muñuzuri, P. Cortés, J. Guadix, and L. Onieva, “City logistics in Spain: Why it
might never work,” Cities, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 133–141, 2012.
51. J. Muñuzuri, J. Larrañeta, L. Onieva, and P. Cortés, “Solutions applicable by
local administrations for urban logistics improvement,” Cities, vol. 22, no. 1, pp.
15–28, 2005.
52. E. Betanzo-Quezada and J. A. Romero, “An urban freight transport index,”
Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 6312–6322, 2010.
53. J. Suksri and R. Raicu, “Developing a conceptual framework for the evaluation of
urban freight distribution initiatives,” Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 39, pp. 321–
332, 2012.

Kumar, Vijayaraghavan, Chakraborty, Thompson

 3rd Conference of Transportation Research Group of India (3rd CTRG)

54. J. Visser, A. Van Binsbergen, and T. Nemoto, “Urban freight transport policy and
planning,” in First International Symposium on City logistics, July, 1999.
55. T. Goldman and R. Gorham, “Sustainable urban transport: Four innovative
directions,” Technol. Soc., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 261–273, 2006.
56. W. Wisetjindawat, K. Sano, and S. Matsumoto, “Commodity distribution model
incorporating spatial interactions for urban freight movement,” Transp. Res. Rec.
J. Transp. Res. Board, vol. 1966, no. 1, pp. 41–50, 2006.
57. M. Cao and Q. Zhang, “Supply chain collaboration: impact on collaborative
advantage and firm performance,” J. Oper. Manag., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 163–180,
2011.
58. A. Jha, K. Somani, M. K. Tiwari, F. T. Chan, and K. J. Fernandes, “Minimizing
transportation cost of a joint inventory location model using modified adaptive
differential evolution algorithm,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 60, no. 1–4,
pp. 329–341, 2012.
59. A. Federgruen and P. Zipkin, “A combined vehicle routing and inventory
allocation problem,” Oper. Res., vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1019–1037, 1984.
60. M. L. Fisher and R. Jaikumar, “A generalized assignment heuristic for vehicle
routing,” Networks, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 109–124, 1981.
61. [61] M. L. Fisher, “Optimal solution of vehicle routing problems using
minimum k-trees,” Oper. Res., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 626–642, 1994.
62. K. H. Chuah and J. C. Yingling, “Routing for a just-in-time supply pickup and
delivery system,” Transp. Sci., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 328–339, 2005.
63. A. M. Sarmiento and R. Nagi, “A review of integrated analysis of production–
distribution systems,” IIE Trans., vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1061–1074, 1999.
64. S. Sindhuchao, H. E. Romeijn, E. Akçali, and R. Boondiskulchok, “An integrated
inventory-routing system for multi-item joint replenishment with limited vehicle
capacity,” J. Glob. Optim., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 93–118, 2005.
65. R. Z. Farahani and M. Elahipanah, “A genetic algorithm to optimize the total cost
and service level for just-in-time distribution in a supply chain,” Int. J. Prod.
Econ., vol. 111, no. 2, pp. 229–243, 2008.
66. M. Browne, M. Sweet, A. Woodburn, and J. Allen, “Urban freight consolidation
centres final report,” Transp. Stud. Group Univ. Westminst., vol. 10, 2005.
67.

Kumar, Vijayaraghavan, Chakraborty, Thompson