Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transport Policy
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

The integration of passenger and freight transport for first-last

mile operations
Francesco Bruzzone a, Federico Cavallaro b, a, Silvio Nocera a, *
a
Università IUAV di Venezia, Venice, Italy
b
Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The “First-Last Mile” problem (FLM) is a relevant transport issue. According to the Green Paper on Urban
Freight-passenger integration Mobility, the combination of passenger and freight flows may be a valid approach to promote sustainable,
First-last mile efficient and socially desirable FLM transport. This paper proposes a set of key performance indicators to
Public transport
evaluate potential improvements in operational, environmental and social performances of integrated passenger
Urban logistics
Key performance indicators
and freight flows, compared to the current transport schemes. The two case studies of the Northern lagoon of
Venice in Italy and the Slovenian Municipality of Velenje indicate that the model may be particularly effective in
those cases where reduced freight volumes, limited freight pickup/delivery locations and a lower elasticity of the
travel demand reduce the constraints to the adoption of this integrated scheme. Results call for a reduction both
in distances travelled and in externalities produced, and hence a good potential in FLM terms. Beside these
technical aspects, one of the main issues is the need for innovation in the normative/regulatory context: a
prerequisite in order to apply this solution to real-life contexts.

1. Introduction document suggests how strong inter-modal and inter-sectorial passenger

Passengers and freight mobility are facing growing challenges, such
as urbanization trends, the increasing complexity of stakeholder scene,
e-commerce and rising fragmentation of freight transport. All these
changes have negative impacts on congestion, safety, environment and
quality of life in general (EC, 2019). The First-Last-Mile problem (FLM),
involving the first/last leg of each transport movement, is one of the
most challenging aspects because of its high costs and generated impacts
on both the environment and the communities of the concerned areas
(Macioszek, 2018). Authorities and decision-makers have so far pro­
duced uncoordinated policies and regulations to tackle such issues, often
resulting in minor or even counter-productive effects (Nocera et al.,
2020).
Referring to FLM, mobility and logistics deal with relevant issues in
both dense urban cores and in rural or peri-urban areas with lower
densities. Pursued uncoordinated, hurried measures have generally
brought no or few positive results. This paper will analyze the potential
of the integration of passengers and freight transport, as a possible so­
lution to those issues. For mobility integration, such effort is in accor­
dance with the 2007 “Green Paper on Urban Mobility” (EC, 2007): the
and freight integration could improve mobility and logistics efficiency as
well as sustainability, while at the same time promoting a socially
acceptable approach, responding to authorities’ needs and indications.
Even if the definition was introduced more than a decade ago, this
integration has been analysed by scientific literature only in a limited
amount of cases: in their recent literature review, Van Duin et al. (2019)
were able to find only four papers dealing with this issue. A few more
recent contributions focus on the potential of the integration, identifying
a list of challenges (Tavasszy, 2020), discussing an urban case study in
Bratislava (Galkin et al., 2019) and a rural implementation in the
Netherlands (Van Duin et al., 2019).
This paper discusses in further details the potential to serve first-last
mile operations by combining passenger and freight transport, particu­
larly highlighting the consequences in addressing FLM issues. The focus
is on the analysis of achievable operational, environmental and socio­
economic benefits and improvements, as well as on regulatory and
operational constraints that currently interfere with the promotion of
the mobility system as a whole. The paper is structured as follows: after
the definition of the FLM problem (section 2), section 3 discusses a
possible integration of freight and passenger transport, defined as IPFL

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nocera@iuav.it (S. Nocera).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.10.009
Received 26 April 2020; Received in revised form 28 September 2020; Accepted 12 October 2020
Available online 19 October 2020
0967-070X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Bruzzone et al.
(Integrated Passenger and Freight Logistics). Section 4 presents Key
Performance Indicators as tools for the evaluation of FLM improvement
through passengers-freight integration, discussing their role and
reviewing a selection of indicators from international literature and
projects. The last sections of this work present and discuss the results of
an IPFL simulation involving two case studies in Italy and Slovenia.
2. The “First-Last-Mile” problem
The First-Last-Mile (FLM), defined as “the first and the last leg of each
transport movement, concerning both passengers and freight transport”
(Nocera et al., 2020), is requested to be safe, cost-effective, time-­
sensitive and expedient. However, in practice the FLM is often charac­
terized by higher costs and by a series of critical issues that make it
fragmented, uncoordinated and unattractive. Conflicts between pas­
senger/freight vehicles and other road users, congestion and unpre­
dictability of users’ behavior are all factors that present serious threats
to on-time deliveries and ultimately cause high costs (O’Laughlin et al.,
2008).
Referring to freight transport, different studies (Arvidsson and
Pazirandeh, 2017; Goh et al., 2011; Bergqvist and Monios, 2016; Ambra
et al., 2018) estimate that between 28% and 75% of total supply chain
costs occur in the FLM, reflecting both a system inefficiency, and poor
operational performances. De Souza et al. (2014) claim that FLM
problems may be attributed to reasons related to growing freight vol­
umes, increasing fragmentation of orders and deliveries, and a wide and
interactive range of users, resulting in numerous and dynamic but
scattered exchanges, which can be business-to-consumer and
business-to-business and even consumer-to-consumer oriented. These
problems occur much more seriously in highly developed and e-com­
merce-oriented countries. In fact, traditional retail patterns become
more complex and fragmented due to the diffusion of online shopping.
Two main elements are responsible for FLM-related issues: passenger
mobility (both public and private transport) and freight transport. These
two components generate high traffic volumes and costs, especially in
dense urban areas where several uncoordinated operators and carriers
follow different routes with low load factors.
High costs related to the FLM are also due to the dominant separation
between freight and passenger transport. For passenger mobility, the
FLM suffers from similar issues, as it involves a considerable amount of
disutility for passengers. Indeed, conventional transport modes can be
rather slow, inflexible and unreliable at this stage of the trip and might
not provide a direct or reliable connection for all passengers, thus fa­
voring the use of private transport modes. Abenoza et al. (2018) and Lois
et al. (2018) find that modal split and people perceive transshipments
negatively; high waiting times also discourage the use of transit. Wang
and Odoni (2016) provide the train use ratio for different values of
waiting times at nodes. FLM is found to be as one of the main issues
when addressing transit competitiveness in relation with private modes.
Boarnet et al. (2017) tackle the FLM issue in terms of equity, finding that
changing the mode of access and egress to and from stations is more
effective at improving transit access to low-wage jobs than policies that
reduce transit wait time or improve service headway. Liang et al. (2016)
consider the possible role of automated vehicles as last mile transport
between the train station and the final destination.
The FLM can be seen as a “bottleneck”: for instance, the time to get to
the airport and perform check-in and boarding procedures could be
longer than the flight time. Similarly, the time to reach the train station
or the waiting time for a connecting service could be longer than the
travel time, especially for high-speed trains. Therefore, the first and last
leg of a journey, which are often the shortest in terms of distance, could
be the most demanding in terms of travel time. Furthermore, passenger
and goods transport services share the same infrastructure, predomi­
nantly in urban areas, but are often perceived as different systems and
treated separately – something even more pronounced when it comes to
policy, planning and research (Arvidsson et al., 2016).
32
Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48
In areas with lower densities, such as the peri-urban or rural con­
texts, possibly dealing with shrinkage, public passenger transport faces
increasing spare capacity and anti-economical operations, often result­
ing in poor or no service provision and therefore in transport-related
social exclusion (Stanley and Lucas, 2008). Similarly, goods carriers
might experience higher costs as demand is low and sparse and therefore
offer limited service, thus consequently increasing the areas’ isolation
(Boyer et al., 2009; McDonagh, 2006). The growing urbanization trend
is expected to result in an urban population of around 9 billions in 2100
(Savelsbergh and Van Woensel, 2016): both urban dense areas and
shrinking rural or peri-urban areas will grow in number and size,
bringing completely new challenges to many sectors, including that of
FLM passengers and freight operations (Taniguchi and Thompson,
2018). The urban mobility system operates indeed in a constantly
mutating environment, on which it has – obviously – both positive ef­
fects and negative effects, such as contributing to congestion, creating
safety concerns, participating in lowering the environmental quality of
the city (Mozos-Blanco et al., 2018; Bonelá Fontoura et al., 2019).
The rapid development of e-commerce and of the related delivery
fragmentation, on the one hand emphasizes the fundamental role of city
logistics for the economic development of urban areas, but on the other
hand contributes to enlarging its impacts on social and environmental
qualities of cities (Taniguchi et al., 2001; Anderson et al., 2005). City
logistics is nowadays facing various challenges, which can be attributed
to three major concurring causes:
• Market requests: the conformation of today’s dynamic market leads
to challenges for the urban goods distribution system, which has to
respond to stimulations such as just-in-time requests, a high frag­
mentation in space and time of retailers and consumers, corporate
policy such as the choice to use company-owned and branded de­
livery vehicles. This adds some further constraints to the city logistics
flows, often resulting in partial inefficiency due to low vehicle load
rate, high mileage per vehicle, longer working shifts, higher number
of deployed vehicles, etc. (ENCLOSE, 2014).
• Policy and regulation: many authorities, particularly at local level,
have introduced policy regulations that try to tackle some of the most
invasive impacts of freight transport, such as noise, pollution, and
usage of space (both for loading/unloading and while driving),
sometimes even generating counter-productive effects due to forcing
vehicles to take long detours, idle for longer times, etc. Such initia­
tives include time windows, restrictions for polluting, noisy or heavy
vehicles, spatial restrictions, and others (Munuzuri et al., 2004).
• Physical constraints/real time urban situation: transport external­
ities are generated by freight traffic and affect freight traffic, espe­
cially in terms of social acceptance by residents and, even more, by
ruling authorities (which might lead to the adoption of some of the
above mentioned measures) and in terms of inefficiency generated
by extended operational time and related cost increases.
These reasons make it difficult for transport and mobility operators
to provide an efficient service, i.e. managing to get the right product at
the right time and at the right place, at sustainable costs for both op­
erators and society. It is often not possible to invest resources to obtain a
higher capacity, either because of possible lack of space for expansion or
because of the prohibitive costs that this change would imply (Savels­
bergh and Van Woensel, 2016). A coordination in flows is therefore
needed, together with consolidation of freight volumes, and
multi-organizational cooperation. It is necessary to promote innovative
concepts at all levels: design, planning, execution, remembering that no
pre-designed theoretical model can fit to real-life city logistics (Savels­
bergh and Van Woensel, 2016). A cooperation between public inter­
vention and company-driven efforts, a locally based strategy and a mix
of technical/technological solutions (such as alternative fuel vehicles,
use of real-time fleet management data, etc.), logistical solutions (such
as supply chain collaboration etc.), and policy solutions is needed (Kant
F. Bruzzone et al.
et al., 2016). A discrete amount of literature describes possible policy
and actual measures to tackle the issues of urban freight transport and of
the FLM freight more in general. A common element can be found in the
need for support of consolidation facilities and for practices to achieve
Joint Delivery Systems, aided by normative and economic pushes to­
wards cleaner operations and innovative practices (Munuzuri et al.,
2004; Taniguchi, 2014). Not much has been written on measured impact
of radical improvement strategies. This is because those strategies often
fail to take off due to their complexity, while also independent measures
that have been promoted and tested have repeatedly proven to be
ineffective (such as investments in urban consolidation centers and
cargo trams systems) (Strale, 2014; Ardvisson et al., 2016). Literature
stresses how an increasing capacity to integrate freight transport and
other urban activities and to cooperate among stakeholders, regardless
whether public or private and whether impactful or impacted, can lead
to a more economically and environmentally sustainable FLM. The
following section focuses on IPFL as a way to put in practice this level of
integration and coordination, while improving the urban mobility sys­
tem and the freight-passenger FLM from the perspective of economic
convenience, user acceptance, environmental performance and
resilience.
3. Integration of freight and passenger transport and first-last
mile distribution analysis
The combination of people and cargo flows implies a strong link
between urban freight transport, the urban mobility system as a whole
and the key stakeholders in city management and economy: public ad­
ministrations, actors involved in the trading system (such as shop­
keepers, carriers, manufacturers), and residents. The combination of
passengers and goods transport flows has the main objective of “design
[ing] networks and related planning and scheduling policies to enable effi­
cient and reliable delivery of each parcel” (TKI Dinalog, 2020). Such model
is an integrated system, in which passengers and goods share vehicles,
infrastructures, urban space or more than one of these at the same time.
Needless to say, such an integration is complex and involve different
aspects. Fatnassi et al. (2015), for instance, show the potential gain in
sustainability of sharing goods and passengers on a network, focusing on
the improvement of service time and wasting energy.
Moreover, the focus is on the mobility system’s efficiency and effi­
cacy (or reliability), resulting in more viable operations compared to the
existing model where passengers and freight transport are referred to as
independent systems (Ardvisson et al., 2016; Monios, 2019). This im­
plies lower direct and generated costs for all involved stakeholders,
more care for environmental issues, higher social value. Such a scheme
must be accompanied by consistent policy and coherent planning: reg­
ulatory and policy aspects are crucial in determining success for the
different instances and currently constitute the biggest barrier to their
diffusion (Bruzzone, 2019). Cargo and passengers transport are not only
considered by governments as separated systems, but they are also
referred as such by the law, regulated by different authorities, and
subject to different rules and guidelines, different contractual and
employment structures. Spoor (2015) notes that regulatory constraints
contribute to increase the costs of the delivery chain. Ghilas et al. (2013)
recognize the complexity of the system, where many stakeholders
interact–namely “passenger door-to-door transportation, package
transportation and public fixed line services”–and produce different
scenarios considering different integration levels. The capacity to
establish profitable cooperation is a necessary condition for the success
of an integration process, but it takes time and a great deal of political
effort. Timing-related issues, like passengers’ sensitivity to travel times
and their prioritization over goods, time-limited availability of stores for
receiving delivery, just-in-time deliveries and the management of
just-in-time orders through web platforms, are a significant constraint to
a worry-free integration (Fatnassi et al., 2015). Other relevant con­
straints are related to the need of sparing transport capacity during
33
Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48
certain times of the day or periods of the week, to the flexibility of
scheduled transport, and to the reverse logistics, including both waste
management and the return of empty rolls and containers. Conversely,
other aspects may contribute to reduce the complexity of the combined
operations, by lowering overall costs and inefficiencies. These aspects
include a low passenger demand, a lack of valid alternatives to public
transport (especially for the vulnerable population that cannot use the
private vehicle), low freight volumes and concentrated pickup-delivery
locations.
The passenger-freight integration concept is not new: the idea of
outsourcing part of the delivery process has already been around for
decades for what concerns long-haul air and rail operations, where
mixed usage of one aircraft or train is not unusual (Ghilas et al., 2013).
The central aspect lies in the fact that the possible usage of overcapacity
of public transport to carry freight for short-haul FLM operations is
proposed. Since the first hint towards a shared passengers and freight
(urban) transport system (EC, 2007), the idea has evolved in the space
dimension, not necessarily being limited to urban operations, but trying
to encompass short-haul passengers and freight operations in general.
Trentini and Mahlene (2010) published a list of projects focused on
sharing “public transport services, public road space or existing urban
areas”, which can be considered as a pioneering attempt. A fully working
IPFL system requires a consistent change of the operational model for its
implementation, including scheduling, fares, the whole pickup, transfer
and delivery process, and physical changes to assets (vehicles and
infrastructure). Before implementing such a complex and
resource-taking strategy, local administrations and public and private
companies (including goods manufacturing and delivering companies,
passengers transport authorities, service management agencies) should
refer to their domestic contexts exhaustively.
In urban areas, benefits for passenger-freight FLM issues are not only
financial (minor expenses) and environmental (less energy consump­
tion), but can include also a better use of the urban space. In peripheral
areas, another benefit related to the users’ perception of service is that
the cost reductions - resulting from the integration of transit services and
freight deliveries – would allow for additional, more frequent transit or
delivery services. By reducing the perceived cost of public transport, this
may relieve the feeling of isolation typical of several rural areas.
Available literature demonstrates through the analysis of real or simu­
lated solutions the potential for short-haul mobility operations. Ghilas
et al. (2016), Jansen (2014), Spoor (2015) and Li (2016) show how the
entire freight sector (manufacturers, shippers and carriers, and re­
ceivers) generally gains economic advantage from loads consolidation
and FLM delivery by public transit. They agree in stating that public
transport operators obtain economic advantages when making their
spare transport capacity available for transporting parcels and/or small
goods units. Moreover, public authorities can financially benefit from
increased sustainability of transit operations, which will need lower
subsidies. Benefits related to the social sphere have also been recalled:
less onerous transport operations pave the way for additional, otherwise
anti-economical, delivery and passenger services. These supplementary
services are better suited to shrinking areas and they increase their
attractiveness for current and future inhabitants, which would benefit
from better FLM sustainable transport to and from major transit nodes or
corridors.
This new paradigm, however, implies a significant change in the
current operational and theoretical approach to mobility. As discussed
in the introduction, the regulatory and legislative systems (at all levels,
from the EU to the local one) are not shaped to incentive such sharing
initiatives (Jansen, 2014). A further point is the necessity for both public
and private investments and adaptation. To start an integration process,
at least a consolidation facility and pick-up and delivery locations have
to be made available at selected transit hubs. In addition, FLM requires
purchasing new low-impact vehicles (with all territorial implications
related to the definition of this concept, see Cavallaro et al., 2018) to
cover the last mile of freight transport, and intervening on the existing
F. Bruzzone et al.
public transport fleet to make it useable for an easy, quick (especially in
loading/unloading operations), reliable, and safe goods transport. An
acceptance model (addressed to public administrations, private and
public companies, stakeholders part of the transport and logistics sys­
tems in general) needs to be merged with an integrated business model,
which should consider all phases of the innovation process: from
concept and planning, to implementation, to monitoring and evaluation.
At least in this preliminary phase, funding by public authorities and the
design and implementation of pilot initiatives for IPFL are fundamental
elements in the development strategy. Rather than a radical change in
the system, small-scale applications (e.g., in a restricted sector of an
urban agglomeration or in a limited-size rural area) could be the key to
test proposed models, allowing to build an appropriate and reliable set
of indicators and an operational model to facilitate a future broader
diffusion.
4. Methodology
The integration of passenger and freight transport requires signifi­
cant modifications to public transport and supply chain operators’
business models, especially in the delicate context of the passenger-
freight FLM. This section presents a methodology for the evaluation of
IPFL impacts on existing FLM operations. Based on a thorough analysis
of current and proposed business models, the evaluation of operation
efficiency and sustainability is performed through ad-hoc Key Perfor­
mance Indicators (KPIs).
4.1. KPIs in freight and passenger transport
The development of metrics (or indicators) for evaluating the effi­
ciency and the sustainability of public transport operations traces back
to the embracement of sustainable development as a global mission at
the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
From that date on, literature about sustainability and related indicators
has proliferated.1 In general terms, Eboli and Mazzulla (2012) refer to
the Transportation Research Board (2004) and state that performance
measurement can be defined as the assessment of an organization’s
output as a product of the management of its internal resources (money,
people, vehicles, facilities) and the environment in which it operates.
Gudmundsson (2004) has provided a working definition of indicators, as
“selected, targeted, and compressed variables that reflect public con­
cerns and are of use to decision makers”. Seco and Gonçalves (2007),
while stating that the variety of performance indicators pointed out in
international references discloses that consensus on a uniform and
universal methodology for evaluating transport operations has not yet
been reached, list essential criteria performance indicators should
follow. They include: consistency with the goals, conciseness and
appropriateness with regard to the desired detail level, availability,
measurability, robustness, clearness/comprehensibility, sensitivity and
reciprocity. Gilbert et al. (2003) state that the main functions of in­
dicators are: to help the comparison of similar trends across jurisdic­
tions, to help with the comparison of different phenomena, to help with
the understanding of trends within a jurisdiction, to help with evalu­
ating progress towards or away from defined goals and targets. Perfor­
mance measures play an important role in assessing the transport system
in relation to the objectives of the community, in diagnosing problems,
in allocating resources and in monitoring and improving operations.
Meyer (2000) uses comprehensive classification categories, namely
general performance indicators (such as population, trips, vehicle kilo­
meters and hours), effectiveness measures (with subcategories service
supply, quality of service, availability), and efficiency measures (cost
efficiency, operating ratios, vehicle utilization, labour productivity,
1
The topic is too vast to be presented in this section. For a more detailed
analysis, readers may refer to JRC (2009).
34
Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48
energy use, fares). Litman (2009) lists three general types of perfor­
mance indicators for transit operations: measures of service quality,
indicators of outcomes, and indicators of cost efficiency. Similar classi­
fications can be found, according to Eboli and Mazzulla (2012), in Carter
and Lomax (1992) and Vuchic (2007). Several other applications of
performance indicators have been used within transport practices, for
instance regarding urban resilience (Da Mata Martins et al., 2019),
accessibility (Vasconcelos and Farias, 2012; Lessa et al., 2019), sus­
tainability performance (Munira and San Santoso, 2017; Diez et al.,
2018), safety (Castro-Nuño and Arévalo-Quijada, 2018), and energy use
(Gustafsson et al., 2018).
As for freight transport and the supply chain, a review by Guasekaran
and Kobu (2007) finds that commonly identified components to be
evaluated are related to the use of resources, operations and flexibility.
They provide a proposal for supply chain KPIs, splitting the process in
stages (plan, source, make, deliver). A similar approach is also adopted
by Chae (2009), who adopts an agency-oriented perspective. Alterna­
tively, Posset et al. (2010) propose a division into financial, operational,
service, and environmental aspects; starting from this framework, Cav­
allaro et al. (2020) define specific KPIs referred to Combined Transport.
Fu and Jenelius (2018) evaluate driving efficiency, delivery reliability,
energy efficiency and service efficiency of night goods deliveries
through the definition of specific KPIs.
Focusing on case studies on short-haul mixed passenger-freight op­
erations, limited evidences exist in literature. Some new research efforts
come from the Netherlands, where public investments have been con­
spicuous (Sampaio et al., 2019), resulting in a series of publications
discussing both urban case studies (Strale, 2014; Leijenhorst, 2014) and
rural ones (Jansen, 2014; Bakker, 2015; van Duin et al., 2019). General
mathematical models have been proposed as well (Pimentel and Alvelos,
2018), together with a limited number of studies for other European
(Masson et al., 2017; Gatta et al., 2019) and worldwide cases (Zhou and
Zhang, 2019). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the
merge between indicators and case studies has not yet been experi­
mented, with the exception of some preliminary efforts for the area of
Venice, Italy.
4.2. Definition of the framework for data collection
The proposal of a new IPFL system requires an analysis of ongoing
passengers and freight transport operations within the chosen territorial
context, and the data collection about expected operations with the
proposed IPFL setting. Information should be gathered as to have a full
representation of the transport system, including all public transport and
freight operations. In terms of passenger transport, it is fundamental to
reconstruct schedules (with time of operations and covered distances),
to know the types of vehicles used and their spare capacity, the needs
and constraints of transport operators and of agencies and authorities,
fares and subsidies, and any other data useful to produce a complete
framework for understanding operations’ morphology, sustainability
(financial, economic and environmental), weaknesses and strengths.
Regarding freight transport, similar information should be collected. In
dealing with non-fixed schedule operations, however, more attention
should be put on the architecture of the system (consolidation facilities,
location of deliveries), on the efficiency of operations (type and spare
capacity of delivery vehicles, detours and idling times, distance per
delivery) and on policy or operational constraints. Typically, they
include time windows for operations, fuel and emissions policy,
competition for space, operators’ and final consumers’ time constraints.
While designing the new IPFL system, constraints verified during the
analysis of existing operations must be combined with the potential for
innovative business models. The direct involvement of stakeholders,
such as authorities, freight and passengers transport operators, final
retailers and decision makers could be a key for a successful and realistic
IPFL setting. The identification of suitable plans and programs for IPFL,
in compliance with European indications (EC 2007, 2011) plays a
F. Bruzzone et al. Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48

relevant role in terms of process sharing and acceptance within the
involved community. As such, it should be included in the analysis and
evaluation of IPFL operations compared to traditional settings where
passengers and freight transport are treated separately.
4.3. Definition of KPIs for IPFL
In defining the most suitable indicators for IPFL, formal and content-
related aspects have to be taken into account. Referring to the former
aspect, performance criteria have to satisfy five properties, in order to
achieve objective and unbiased performance measures (Sinha and Labi,
2007):
• Suitability: the performance measure should be actually influent and
appropriate for the purpose at-stake;
• Measurableness: it should be possible and easy to measure the per­
formance in an objective manner. Measurement results should be
within an acceptable degree of accuracy and reliability;
• Realism: it should be possible to collect, generate or extract reliable
data relating to the performance measure without excessive effort,
cost or time;
residents and retailers, as well as of different stakeholders and
decision-makers. KPIs compare two different temporal frameworks,
namely A (i.e., the condition after the introduction of the IPFL scheme),
with B (before its introduction). Conditions A and B are not temporally
distant, meaning that the introduction of structural changes to the
context of study and to its infrastructural assets are not viable. According
to such premises, chosen KPIs for IPFL are presented in Table 1 and
better described by Formulas (1-7).
Indicator I1: average daily traffic (ADT). This KPI describes the traffic
variation in terms of freight vehicles (f), public transport (p) and private
vehicles (v) before (B) and after (A) the introduction of the shared
transport system. The indicator, expressed as number of equivalent ve­
hicles, takes into account the whole traffic, not limiting to the freight or
public transport components, thus allowing evaluating the pressure
variation that the proposed setting would generate on the existing
infrastructural system. The transformation of vehicles in equivalent
vehicles may adopt the coefficients proposed by the Highway Capacity
Manual (TRB, 2020), which distinguishes between a light vehicle (co­
efficient cv = 1), a heavy vehicle (coefficient cf = 1.5) and a PT vehicle
(cp = coefficient 1.2). This indicator is expressed by Formula (1):

(∑ ∑ ∑ ) (∑ ∑ ∑ )
ADTfA ∗cf + ADTpA ∗cp + ADTvA ∗cv − ADTfB ∗cf + ADTvB ∗cp + ADTvB ∗cv
I1 = (∑ ∑ ∑ ) (1)
ADTfB ∗cf + ADTpB ∗cp + ADTvB ∗cv

• Defensibility: the performance measure should be clear and concise

so that the manner of assessing and interpreting its levels can be Indicator I2: variation of travelled distances. This KPI provides an
communicated effectively within a circle of decision makers and to estimation of the variation of distances (d, expressed in km) travelled by
the public. This is often possible when the performance measure is the number of freight (f) and public transport (p) vehicles before (B) and
clear and simple in its definition and method of computation; after (A) the implementation of the proposed business model, according
• Universality: every parameter considered should be generalizable to Formula (2):
and not refer to single cases only. It should be applicable to an in­ ( ∑n f ∑m p ) (∑ ∑q p )
o f
dividual mode or a combination of modes as well. In order to in­ i=1 di + k=1 dk A − j=1 dj + l=1 dl
I2 = (∑ ) B
(2)
crease the comparability, the use of dimensionless quantities is a o f ∑ q p
j=1 dj + l=1 dl
valid option. B

Where n, o are the number of freight vehicles; m and q are the number of
Referring to the contents, the macro-categories identified by Posset
PT vehicles circulating in A and B. Differently from I1, in this case the
et al. (2010) may be a valid general framework: they state that indicators
variation between B and A is calculated according to the overall distance
have to assess operational, environmental and social performances of
travelled by PT and freight transport, without assigning any weight to
the proposed IPFL settings. Particular attention has to be put in choosing
the type of vehicle considered. This indicator is suitable to assess the
indicators capable of evaluating the system from the multiple perspec­
general sustainability of the IPFL solution and is the computational basis
tives of the operators (PT and goods carriers), of PT customers, and of
for successive indicators.
Indicator I3: PT load factor. It describes the variation in load rates (L)
Table 1 of passengers (p) aboard PT vehicles before (B) the implementation of
Identification of KPIs for IPFL. the proposed business model, and of passengers (p) and freight (f)
Category Indicator Title Description aboard PT vehicles after (A) the implementation. The load rate L can be
expressed in different ways. In order to guarantee the comparability
Operational I1 Traffic Average daily traffic variation
variation between B and A
between freight and passenger components, we have calculated it as the
I2 Covered Variation in distances covered by percentage of occupied square meters out of the total spaces available
distance PT and freight vehicles between B for the service, thus hinting at the efficiency of transit operations. To do
and A that, freight volumes, which are typically expressed as weights or vol­
I3 PT load factor Variation in load factor between B
umes, have to be pre-dimensioned and divided by a standard height,
and A
I4 Freight service Variation in frequency of freight which is dependent from the transport system considered. The indicator
frequency deliveries between B and A can be obtained through Formula (3):
Environmental I5 Energy used Variation in energy requirements ( ) ( )
for performing operations LAp + LfA − LpB
between B and A I3 = ( ) (3)
I6 Air pollution Variation in external costs due to LBp
external costs polluting emissions between B
and A Differently from previous indicators, after the introduction of IPFL, a
Social I7 Cost of labour Variation in costs for human
positive variation is expected. The indicator hints at feasibility of transit
resources between B and A

35
F. Bruzzone et al.
operations while demonstrating that spare capacity is not completely
absorbed and thus the main scope of PT, i.e. providing quality passenger
service, is not put at risk.
Indicator I4: service frequency. This indicator compares the number
(n) of daily freight deliveries (f) to retailers and/or final users in B
(before the implementation of the integrated system) with the number of
daily freight deliveries through PT vehicles (p) in A (after the integra­
tion). However, passenger transport is not considered by this indicator,
since the aim of the IPFL approach is to determine how freight distri­
bution can be improved by merging it with PT, without any change to its
current scheme. This KPI determines to what extent the combination of
the two systems could provide for better opportunities for residents and
businesses throughout the served territory. The KPI can be obtained
through Formula (4):
( ) ( )
nAf − nBf
I4 = ( ) (4)
nBf
Indicator I5: energy requirements. This indicator expresses the energy
required for the performance of the whole transport system (including
the passenger and freight components) before and after the introduction
of IPFL. According to Sinha and Labi (2007), it depends on several
variables related to the transport system, which can be grouped in some
macro-categories related to travel, facility, driver characteristics,
vehicle, fuel and environment. According to the level of detail, a
distinction between micro- and macro- models can be made (Nocera
et al., 2017). In its simplest form, the variation of energy consumption in
B and A can be considered, using Joules (J) as unit of measure (Formula
(5):
( ) ( ) (with a reduced service compared to the summer one) has been selected,
I5 =
Jp,A + Jf ,A − Jp,B + Jf ,B
( ) (5)
Jp,B + Jf ,B
Indicator I6: air pollution external costs. This indicator can be ob­
tained by identifying the most relevant pollutants that affect an area,
modelling their emissions e (Nocera et al., 2017, 2018) in A and B caused
by freight (f) and passenger (p) and then multiplying them by their
unitary economic value c, as proposed by reference manuals (such as the
Handbook on External Costs of Transport, EC, 2019). The transformation
into a common economic value is necessary to have a reliable indicator,
since the unit of measure of the different pollutants may be different (e.
g., for carbon dioxide the reference unit of measure is g/km, whereas for
particulate matter is microgram/km). The operation has to be iterated
for all relevant pollutants x and results are then to be summed, as
expressed by Formula (7).
( ) ( )
eAf + eAp ∗cx − eBf + eBp ∗cx
px = ( ) (6)
eBf + eBp ∗cx
∑
w
I6 = px (7)
x=1
Indicator I7: human resources. This indicator can be calculated by
analysing the variation of total workforce L before (B) and after (A) the
integration of the freight and passenger mobility systems. It can be
expressed as the number of workers that are involved in the transport
operations. After the implementation of the IPFL scheme, a reduction of
values has to be expected, because of the redefinition of the operational
activities. This operative KPI deserves a particular attention from a so­
cial perspective: indeed, the potential reduction in workforce might not
necessarily be acceptable for the society as a whole.
( ) ( ) IPFL, in order to explore its capacity to ease PT and freight operations.
LAf + LAp − LBf + LBp
I7 = ( ) (8)
LBf + LpB
36
Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48
5. IPFL in the Northern Lagoon of Venice
5.1. Current PT and freight transport
The method developed in the previous section is used to assess the
potentialities of IPFL for FLM operations in the Northern Lagoon of
Venice (Fig. 1). This area includes the two municipalities of Venice and
Cavallino-Treporti and the islands of Venice, Murano, Burano and
Sant’Erasmo, which overall host about 9000 inhabitants. The Northern
Lagoon of Venice is an environmentally fragile area, with sparse and
scarcely populated islands. Despite its proximity to major hubs such as
the historical center of Venice and Marco Polo airport, the area is rela­
tively isolated. Public transport is performed by the local operator
Azienda del Consorzio Trasporti Veneziani (ACTV). As far as the goods
are concerned, Venice already presents some informal “consolidation
hubs”, where goods are moved from ground to water vehicles to guar­
antee deliveries to the islands. From Venice and Cavallino-Treporti
goods and passengers follow the same itinerary across the lagoon,
identifiable by merging waterbus routes n◦ 12 and 13 (see Fig. 1), as
recognized by COSES (2002). For such geographical and environmental
reasons, the Northern Lagoon of Venice seems an ideal location to test
IPFL.
In the definition of our reference scenario (“B”, according to the
method presented in section 4), official data from transport operators
have been adopted. The existing timeframe constraints have been
considered, limiting the analysis to the morning delivery window from
04 a.m. to 11 a.m., the only period when freight transport is allowed by
the current regulatory constraints. The schedule of public transport has
been retrieved from the public database of ACTV.2 Winter scheduling
in order to test the method according to the condition with less capacity.
Further operational details have been obtained thanks to direct inter­
action with the companies that made possible to gather official data
about the spare capacity of the vessels and their occupancy during the
day, as well as the exact capacity of vessels used on each leg, in terms of
passengers and vessel size.
Public transport operations in the Northern Lagoon consist of lines
12 and 13. The former includes two main routes, namely Murano-
Burano and Burano-Cavallino Treporti. It is operated with a boat
known as “motobattello foraneo”, equipped with long-distance in­
struments and facilities, and capable of carrying 325 passengers. The
latter, which links Erasmo with Cavallino Treporti, is operated with
regular “motobattello” vessels, capable of carrying 218 passengers.
Table 2 illustrates the current passenger services for the three main
connections within the Northern Lagoon, reporting the overall capacity
in terms of passengers, square meters and cubic meters (this last value is
obtained by using a standard conversion rate of 4 passengers per square
meter and a height of cabin door of 2 m). Each route section considers
the maximum occupancy value recorded yearly (ACTV, 2016), plus a
correctional factor of 10%. Referring to the freight transport, the num­
ber of freight boats transporting third-party goods along the same itin­
eraries, and total carried volumes are presented in Table 2. This
information has been retrieved thanks to COSES (2002). Data about
freight service (volumes of carried freight and number of operating
boats and personnel) along the Venice – Northern Lagoon –
Cavallino-Treporti corridor have been retrieved thanks to the Chamber
of Commerce (2016, and following integrations).
5.2. IPFL setting
The area described in the previous section can be a good test field for
2
Available at: http://actv.avmspa.it/it/content/orari-servizio-di-navigazi
one-0.
F. Bruzzone et al.
Fig. 1. IPFL for the Northern lagoon of Venice.
Recalling section 4, this represents the scenario “A”. In detail, the pro­
posed IPFL setting envisions the delivery of all goods categorized as “of
the most common categories, transported by third-parties” by COSES
(2002) through vessels providing public transport along routes 12 and
13, by using their spare capacity at specific times. Fig. 2 shows a scheme
of the proposed business model.
In order to set a reliable scenario, the existing regulatory constraints
(time and space windows) have been explored through a direct inter­
action with operators, and with the main institutions (i.e., City of Venice
and Municipality Venezia-Murano-Burano). They have been taken into
account to define the framework of a realistic scenario. More specif­
ically, the setting considers only the itinerary Murano – Burano/San­
t’Erasmo – Treporti. This is the route of PT lines 12 and 13, chosen due to
service frequency and to existing overlapping pattern with the main axes
of freight transport in the area. Other PT lines are excluded from the
simulation due to strong seasonal variations and/or scarce coverage of
the study area or of the time of the day of interest. In terms of opera­
tional aspects, the simulation considers the winter PT schedule and the
highest freight and passenger volumes typical of the summer months, to
consider the condition with the highest occupancy. Correctional factors
have been added to spare capacity and loading capacity of ACTV vessels.
This guarantees enough capacity for passenger transport, even in the
worse condition. Referring to the freight transport, the model has been
limited to third-party transported goods because of excessive unpre­
dictability of demand of other categories (Cappelli and Nocera, 2006).
Private boats navigating for recreational purposes have been omitted:
their number varies according to season, weather, day of the week, but is
generally negligible. The existing timeframe constraints have been
considered also in this scenario, limiting the service to the morning
delivery window (from 4 a.m. to 11 a.m.). A potential implementation of
the IPFL scheme in scenario “A” is presented in Fig. 3. The red part
represents the space that would be occupied by freight in the PT vessel
cabins, the plain gray is the cabin space available for passengers and the
dotted gray area is the maximum theoretical freight load (based on spare
capacity).
Table 3 shows the size of space left to goods aboard each vessel for
each route section. Fig. 3 shows the space occupied by freight within PT
vessels’ passenger cabins. The space available for passengers is not
limited to the cabin but includes bow, stern and open spaces (not shown
in the figure). Fig. 3 clearly shows that the freight capacity is higher than
the needed one to deliver all considered goods within the timeframe of
37
Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48
reference. This would allow absorbing unpredicted peaks of both pas­
sengers and freight volumes.
5.3. Results of IPFL in the Northern Lagoon of Venice
The evaluation of the IPFL setting for FLM operations in the Northern
Lagoon of Venice is based on the set of performance indicators (KPIs)
described in section 4, by comparing the layout before (B) and after (A)
the introduction of the new scheme, as described in 5.1 and 5.2. As
regards the temporal dimension of the analysis, KPIs consider the boats
performing third-party freight transport and ACTV vessels operating
between 4 and 11 a.m., a restricted time frame still sufficient to fully
execute delivery without affecting availability of PT. The only exception
is PI1, which analyses the total daily number of vehicles circulating.
Each indicator is calculated by disaggregating PT and freight itineraries
in the northern lagoon in 6 subsections based on main PT stops. 4 of
them belong to line 12 (Murano-Burano-Treporti and vice versa), 2 to
line 13 (Sant’Erasmo-Treporti and vice versa).
I1 analyses the number of passenger and freight vessels that circulate
daily. Considering the peculiarity of the water vehicles, the coefficient c
recalled in Formula (1), which transforms vehicles into equivalent ve­
hicles has been set equal to 1 both for freight and passenger vessels. In B,
the number of vehicles vary according to the stretch considered
(Table 4). Overall, 242 passengers and 305 freight vessels are registered
(Table 4, rows 4.a and 4.b). In scenario A, the number of freight vessels
may be reduced up to 224, merging the third-party vehicles but keeping
the others (self-transport and traditional carriers). According to Formula
(1), I1 is equal to − 0.14, which means a potential decrease by 14% in
daily traffic.
I2 calculates the variation in distances run. The unitary length be­
tween the subsections is reported in Table 5, row a) and is taken from
official cartographic maps. These values have been multiplied by the
number of vehicles that circulate in A and B in the time window 04–11 a.
m. For freight transport, this quantity is equal to that calculated in PI1
(Table 4, rows 4b and 4d); for passenger transport, it is the subset of
values valid for the timeframe considered in our analysis (Table 5, rows
5c and 5e). The sum of the freight and passenger components is equal to
266 in A and 347 in B. By multiplying the distance by the number of
vehicles, results for B (5.g and 5.h) show that between 04 and 11 a.m.
freight boats cover 1634 km, while PT vessels cover 313 km, for a total
of 1947 daily km. The adoption of the IPFL scheme would lower this
F. Bruzzone et al. Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48

value up to 1515 km. By using Formula (2), this is equal to a reduction of

Treporti-S.Erasmo
− 0.22.
In marine traffic, “hours” of operations are normally used, instead of
(or besides) distances, as they are more suitable to describe real oper­
ational conditions. For this reason, a variant of indicator I2 has been

153.7
173.3
277.3
1308
327
calculated for this specific case study. The number of circulating boats in

37
10
53

87

23
6

7
each route section has been multiplied by travel times (Table 5, row 5b),
as retrieved from official ACTV timetables. As the speed limit in the
S.Erasmo-Treporti

northern lagoon is low and comparable (minimum and maximum speeds

span from 7 to 20 km/h), it has been assumed that travel times between
each O/D are the same for each type of vessels. According to rows 5.i and
Line 13

153.7
173.3
277.3
1308

5.l, the daily saving in hours of navigation is 34.

218

327

140
37
10
53

23
6

6
I3 considers PT vehicles and calculates how their usage for freight
distribution in the Northern Lagoon of Venice affects the overall trans­
Treporti-Burano

port capacity. Primary data on the total capacity in the time window of
reference and on used capacity in the B setting, as well as the volumes of
goods to load, are visible in Table 2. Freight volumes (ID 2.l) are con­
893.8

402.2
491.6
786.5
3375

verted into square meters, by considering a height of 1.80 m, applying a

163
11

35
10
55

12
44

20% security factor with respect to the height of PT vehicles’ doors and
meeting standard roll containers height. Table 6 shows available and
Burano-Treporti

used capacity, with the latter that varies from 46% in B to 63% in A. The
application of Formula (3) to the context of the Northern lagoon of
Venice gives a final value of 0.38. The indicator reveals that the com­
438.8
536.3
3900

bination of passengers and cargo flows is operationally possible without

975

858
237
12

35
10
55

13
50

Note: PT and freight transport have been analysed in the time window 04–11 a.m., the only daily period when freight transport is allowed.

any variation in PT schedules, leaving a margin in case of unpredicted

peaks of passengers or cargo volumes. Indeed, maximum used capacity
Burano-Murano

in the “A” setting is found to reach 70% (Table 6, row 6.g) while at least
102 m2 of space remain available on board (Table 6, row 6.f) to
accommodate extra passengers or good peaks.
438.8
536.3
3900
975

858
366

I4 calculates the frequency of freight deliveries. From the previous

12

35
10
55

21
81

indicator, it has been verified that the frequency of PT service in A can be

equal to B. Accordingly, final users of the logistics supply chain may
Murano-Burano

benefit from an increase in the level of service, given that items currently
delivered on a non-regular basis could be delivered daily, multiple times
Line 12

1218.8

1072.5

and according to the PT scheduling. Indeed, in B they rely completely on

548.4
670.3
4875
325

556
15

35
10
55

22
84

third-party freight operators, which impose only one possibility to

distribute the goods in the different localities (with unknown scheduling
of the service). However, in A the availability of alternatives is depen­
Unit of measure

dent from the number of PT connections, which are significantly higher

(Table 7, row 7.b). Formula (4) thus gives a value of 9.33: this value
represents the theoretical variation in number of connections.
pax
m2

m2
m2
m3
m3
n◦
n◦

n◦
n◦

I5 assesses the energetic performance through the variation in

%
%
%

required kWh (or Joules). According to the market availability, diesel-

powered PT vessels with a Cursor 9–380 Engine are considered, whose
Freight volumes (third-party, frequent categories)

fuel consumption is calculated at 76 L/h (FPT Industrial, 2020). By

vessels used (third-party, frequent categories)

multiplying the hourly consumption by the hours of daily operation,

Freight and passenger mobility in the Northern Lagoon of Venice.

1870 L of diesel per day are used by PT vehicles in both B and A. This
quantity is equal to 2.02 tonnes of oil equivalent (T.O.E), according to
the conversion factors of 1.08 for diesel and 1.20 for gasoline (ENEA,
Unitary capacity (passengers)

Space offered before 11a.m.

1992). As far as freight boats are concerned, their fuel consumption

Maximum declared usage

depends on the size of the vessel. Boats longer than 10 m are equipped
with diesel engines, which on average use 30 l/h. Boats shorter than 10
Total freight boats
Volume available

m are petrol-powered and consume 12 l/h3. In B, the total daily con­

Space available
Security factor
Spare capacity

sumption of freight vessels in the Northern lagoon of Venice is obtained

Description

Space used

as the product of the number of boats of each type (Table 8) by opera­

Capacity

tional times and by unitary consumption described above. As visible in

Runs

Table 8, this value is equal to 2653 L of diesel and 485 L of gasoline daily
(overall 3.45 T.O.E.). In A, boats longer than 10 m are found to consume
1990 L of diesel and 360 L of gasoline daily (2.58 T.O.E.). Finally, it is
Type of transport

Freight transport
Public transport

possible to transform values expressed in T.O.E as MWh, by adopting a

coefficient factor of 11.8 (ISPRA, 2003). The energy requirement is
23.83 MWh/day for PT, 40.71 MWh/day for freight in the B setting and
Table 2

3
This and the previous data have been collected through a survey addressed
2.m
2.h
2.d
2.b

2.k
2.g
2.a

2.e
2.c

2.f

2.i

2.l
2.j
ID

to the five main freight operators located in the area.

38
F. Bruzzone et al.
Fig. 2. IPFL scheme for the Northern lagoon of Venice.
Fig. 3. ACTV vessel cabins (big: line 12, small: line 13) and hypothesis of use for freight and passenger transport.
30.44 MWh/day in the A setting. By applying Formula (5), the KPI gives
a value equal to − 0.16.
I6 is calculated at aggregated level for carbon dioxide (CO2) and ni­
tric oxides (NOx), so to include in the evaluation both a global and a local
air pollutant. Their variation between B and A is based on fuel con­
sumption, as calculated by Indicator I5 (Table 8). More in detail, both
CO2 and NOx emissions are obtained through the transformation of
consumed liters of fuel in kgs (based on fuel density, 0.725 kg/l for
petrol and 0.835 kg/l for diesel) and the multiplication by an emission
factor, equal to 3140 gCO2/kg for diesel and 3200 gCO2/kg for petrol;
and equal to 42 gNOx/kg for diesel and 9.7 gNOx/kg for petrol (Jun
et al., 2002). CO2 and NOx emissions thus calculated in B (Table 9, row
9.a and row 9.e) and A (Table 9, row 9.b and row 9.f) are multiplied by
their unitary economic value, as proposed by EC (2019): 90€/ton and
10.824€/kg, respectively. This allows a sum of the two components,
which guarantee a daily saving of about 500 € (difference between 9.i
and 9.j). According to Formula (7) the indicator gives a value of − 0.15.
According to the declaration of the operators, I7 assumes that boats
shorter than 10 m require one operator, whereas longer vessels need two
operators (Table 10). Since the time window under observation is 7 h
(04–11 a.m.), only one shift of workers has to be considered. The
number of freight boats of each size, as calculated in Table 8, determines
the number of total needed resources to conduct freight boats in B and A.
The value for A is then integrated with one additional freight worker per
PT vessel, who would take care of the loading/unloading procedure and
of very last mile pickup-delivery operations. PT workers are two per
service (one pilot and one sailor) and remain unvaried in the context of
this case study. Formula (7) thus gives a value of − 0.07.
39
Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48
6. IPFL for the suburban area of velenje
6.1. Current PT and freight transport
The Slovenian Municipality of Velenje4 hosts around 32,950 in­
habitants (2019), distributed in 25 local communities (SSstat, 2020). Its
morphological and demographic characteristics make it a typical
example of a dispersed area. To overcome the transport issues related to
such areas, the Municipality has decided to serve the built areas with 5
bus routes, operated weekdays only. This service, which costs around
€32,000/month, is free of charge for users (Municipality of Velenje,
2020a). This choice requires an optimization of the service. The appli­
cation of the IPFL scheme could contribute to make it more affordable
for the local public authority. For the sake of this case study, out of the 5
routes mentioned above, only the suburban blue, green and orange lines
are considered, whereas the yellow (which provides frequent service
within the urban core) and the red ones (which is a section of a longer
interurban route) are not included in the analysis (Fig. 4).
The bus service for the three selected lines is currently composed of
high-floor vehicles, equipped with storage compartments beneath the
passenger compartment’s floor, similar to intercity buses. During peak
hours, which coincide with origins/destinations from/to schools, regu­
lar routes do not run and specific services are operated (Municipality of
Velenje, 2018 & 2020b). In the base scenario (B), operations are clearly
distinguished between passenger and freight transport. Registered
values are presented in Table 11.
6.2. IPFL setting
In accordance with the Municipality of Velenje, it has been decided
to test an IPFL business model limited to the distribution by PT of parcels
and packages under the jurisdiction of the national postal service. This
4
Together with IUAV Università di Venezia and other partners from the
Adriatic-Ionian area, the Municipality of Velenje is involved in the EU-funded
projects Smile and Smart-Commuting, which guarantee a constant and privi­
leged contact. Data and information about PT and mail services in Velenje have
been mostly retrieved thanks to direct communication with the city’s Municipal
offices, and integrated with the city’s public website.
 F. Bruzzone et al.

Table 3
Freight aboard PT vessels in the Northern Lagoon of Venice.
ID Description Unit of measure Formula Murano-Burano Burano-Murano Burano-Treporti Treporti-Burano S.Erasmo-Treporti Treporti-S.Erasmo
3
3.a Loads on each PT vessel m 37.1 30.5 19.8 14.8 23.3 14.5
3.b Loads on each PT vessel m2 (3.a/1.8m) 20.6 16.9 11 8.2 13 8.1
3.c Load size (side 1) m 4 4 4 4 2 2
3.d Load size (side 2) m (3.b/3.c) 5.15 4.22 2.75 2.05 6.5 4.05

40
Table 4
Daily traffic variation in the Northern Lagoon of Venice.
ID Description Unit of measure Murano-Burano Burano-Murano Burano-Treporti Treporti-Burano Treporti-Sant’Erasmo Sant’Erasmo-Treporti Total

4.a Passengers vehicles in B n◦ 56 56 40 42 23 25 242

4.b Freight vehicles in B n◦ 84 81 50 44 23 23 305
4.c Passengers vehicles in A n◦ 56 56 40 42 23 25 242
4.d Freight vehicles in A n◦ 62 60 37 32 16 17 224
I1 − 0.14
Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48
 F. Bruzzone et al.

Table 5
Distances and travel times in the Northern Lagoon of Venice.
ID Description Unit of measure Formula Murano-Burano Burano-Murano Burano-Treporti Treporti-Burano Treporti-Sant’Erasmo Sant’Erasmo-Treporti Total

5.a Distance km 6.74 6.74 3.55 3.55 4.10 4.10 28.78

5.b Travel time h 0.55 0.55 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.33 2.26
5.c PT vehicles in B n◦ 15 12 12 11 6 6 62
5.d Freight vehicles in B n◦ 84 81 50 44 23 23 305
5.e PT vehicles in A n◦ 15 12 12 11 6 6 62
5.f Freight vehicles in A n◦ 62 60 37 32 16 17 224
5.g Distance covered daily in B km (5.a*5.c)+(5.a*5.d) 667 627 220 195 119 119 1947
5.h Distance covered daily in A km (5.a*5.e)+(5.a*5.f) 519 485 174 153 90 94.3 1515
5.i Time travelled in B h (5.b*5.c)+(5.b*5.d) 54.45 51.15 15.5 13.75 9.57 9.57 154
5.l Time travelled in A h (5.b*5.e)+(5.b*5.f) 42.35 39.6 12.25 10.75 7.26 7.59 120
I2 − 0.22

41
Table 6
PT capacity usage in the Northern Lagoon of Venice.
ID Description Unit of measure Formula Murano-Burano Burano-Murano Burano-Treporti Treporti-Burano Treporti-Sant’Erasmo Sant’Erasmo-Treporti Average
2
6.a Potential PT capacity m 1219 975 975 894 327 327
6.b Capacity available in B m2 670 536 536 492 180 180
6.c Capacity used in B % 45 45 45 45 47 47 46
6.d Capacity available in B % 55 55 55 55 53 53
6.e Freight on PT in A m2 (2.l/1.8) 309 209 132 89 48 78
6.f Capacity available in A m2 (6.b-6.e) 361 327 405 402 132 102
6.g Capacity used in A % [100-(6.f*100)/6.a] 70 66 58 55 60 69 63
I3 0.38
Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48
 F. Bruzzone et al.

Table 7
Frequency of freight deliveries in the Northern Lagoon of Venice.
ID Description Unit of measure Murano-Burano Burano-Murano Burano-Treporti Treporti-Burano Treporti-Sant’Erasmo Sant’Erasmo-Treporti Total
◦
7.a Freight deliveries in B n /day 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
7.b Maximum freight deliveries in A n◦ /day 15 12 12 11 6 6 62
I4 9.33

42
Table 8
Fuel usage by boats in the Northern Lagoon of Venice.
ID Description Unit of Formula Murano- Burano- Burano- Treporti- Treporti- Sant’Erasmo- Total
measure Burano Murano Treporti Burano Sant’Erasmo Treporti

8.a Large freight boats (>10m) in B n◦ 72 62 19 11 7 15

8.b Large freight boats (>10m) in A n◦ 52 49 14 8 5 11
8.c Small freight boats (<10m) in B n◦ 12 18 31 33 16 8
8.d Small freight boats (<10m) in A n◦ 10 13 23 24 11 6
8.e Fuel used by PT vehicles in B and A L/day (5.b*5.c*76) 627 502 228 209 152 152 1870
8.f Fuel used by small freight boats in B L/day (8.c*5.b*12) 79 119 93 99 63 32 485
8.g Fuel used by large freight boats in B L/day (8.a*5.b*30) 1188 1023 142 83 69 149 2653
8.h Fuel used by small freight boats in A L/day (8.d*5.b*12) 66 78 69 72 43 24 360
8.i Fuel used by large freight boats in A L/day (8.b*5.b*30) 858 808 105 60 49 109 1990
8.j Fuel used by PT vehicles in B and A T.O.E./day [(8.e*1.08)/1000] 0.68 0.54 0.25 0.23 0.16 0.16 2.02
8.k Fuel used by freight boats in B T.O.E./day [(8.f*1.20)+(8.g*1.08)/ 1.38 1.25 0.26 0.21 0.15 0.20 3.45
1000]
8.l Fuel used by freight boats in A T.O.E./day [(8.h*1.20)+(8.i*1.08)/ 1.00 0.97 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.16 2.58
1000]
8.m Energy used by PT vehicles in B and MWh/day (8.j*11.8) 8.02 6.37 2.95 2.71 1.89 1.89 23.83
A
8.n Energy used by freight boats in B MWh/day (8.k*11.8) 16.28 14.75 3.07 2.48 1.77 2.36 40.71
8.o Energy used by freight boats in A MWh/day (8.l*11.8) 11.8 11.45 2.36 1.77 1.18 1.89 30.44
I5 − 0.16
Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48
F. Bruzzone et al. Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48

Table 9
External costs of CO2 and NOx emissions in the Northern Lagoon of Venice.
ID Description Unit of measure Formula Total

9.a CO2 emissions in B t/day (8.f*0.725*3200)+[(8.e+8.g)*0.835*3140] 12.98

9.b CO2 emissions in A t/day (8.h*0.725*3200)+[(8.e+8.i)*0.835*3140] 10.96
9.c External costs from CO2 emissions in B €/day (9.e*90) 1168
9.d External costs from CO2 emissions in A €/day (9.f*90) 986
9.e NOX emissions in B kg/day [(8.e+8.g)*0.835*42]+(8.f*0.725*9.7) 162
9.f NOX emissions in A kg/day [(8.e+8.i)*0.835*42]+(8.h*0.725*9.7) 138
9.g External costs from NOX emissions in B €/day (9.e*10,824) 1753
9.h External costs from NOX emissions in A €/day (9.f*10,824) 1494
9.i Total external costs from emissions in B €/day (9.c+9.g) 2921
9.j Total external costs from emissions in A €/day (9.d+9.h) 2480
I6 − 0.15

Table 10
Human resources for the transport system in the Northern Lagoon of Venice.
ID Description Unit of Formula Murano- Burano- Burano- Treporti- Treporti- Sant’Erasmo- Total
measure Burano Murano Treporti Burano Sant’Erasmo Treporti

10a PT workers in B and n◦ (2.a*2) 30 24 24 22 12 12 124

A
10. Freight workers in B n ◦
(8.a*2 + 8. 156 142 69 55 30 23 475
b c)
10. Freight workers on n◦ (8. 114 111 51 40 21 28 365
c boats in A b*2+8d)
10. Total freight workers n◦ (10.c+2.a) 129 123 63 51 27 40 433
d in A
I7 − 0.07

Fig. 4. Bus routes, households and other buildings within a 500m radius in Velenje.

service can be extended in a later stage and after a verification on the above. The selection of the postal service is coherent with PT service,
availability of further spare capacity on PT vehicles, including other both in terms of locational and temporal aspects: indeed, the central
deliveries from other carriers in the shared parcels-passengers FLM office lies in the city center, close to the central bus station, from where
stage, based on the example of the Northern lagoon of Venice presented vans depart to serve on a daily basis (weekdays only) the different

43
F. Bruzzone et al. Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48

Table 11 guarantees a good coverage of the entire territory.

Operations for mail delivery and selected PT lines in Velenje.
Current service Blue line Green line
PT service
No. runs daily (each direction) 4 4
Route length (full tour - kms) 10 11
Total km/day PT 148
Buses in service 1 overall
Post service
Daily deliveries to each served location 1
Dedicated vehicles and personnel 3 routes on Google Earth Pro has allowed to determine the distance
Covered overall distance (kms) 56
communities located along the blue, orange and green bus routes. The
IPFL scheme foresees parcels and mail transport aboard PT vehicles,
using the storage spaces beneath the passenger cabin, thus having no
impact on the space available for passengers. According to this scheme
(Fig. 5), the bus driver or a co-worker loads/unloads parcels at selected
pickup/delivery points at each served stop, where they can be stored in
automated or attended facilities prior to pick-up or delivery by/to final
users. Alternatively, from selected locations mail service employees
perform the very last mile for recipients which are impaired or not
willing to self pick-up their parcels at storage locations along PT routes.
This scheme would allow for multiple daily postal deliveries at each
location, while re-employing postmen for deliveries to final users.
Moreover, the IPFL scheme would allow for direct same-day delivery
within the served territory, avoiding the now necessary overnight
layover at the post office. Mail vehicles are stopped and only the very
last mile service is performed by zero emissions post vehicles (such as e-
bikes, e-vans, etc.). In the evaluation, it has been assumed that recipients
making use of pickup/delivery points do not cover any distance with
traditional fuel, but rather walk/cycle to their nearest location or stop
while performing other activities, thus not causing any additional
traffic. Almost half of the residential buildings within the municipality
are located along corridors served by public transport. More precisely,
around 3200 buildings out of a total of 12194 are within a 250 m dis­
tance from a PT line and around 6400 buildings are within 500 m from a
PT line. Most of the remaining households are located in the urban core
of Velenje, at short distance from the central post office, which
Table 12 reports data regarding the B and A scenarios for IPFL in the
Orange line Velenje suburban area. Yearly data have been calculated for the week­
day service, considering an average of 300 days per year (excluding
4 Sundays and public holidays), according to current PT and mail opera­
16 tions. Through a GIS analysis on the distribution of households, it has
been possible to calculate the distances covered by postal LCVs to serve
locations along the bus routes of interest. They are equal to 56 km daily
and 16,800 km early (Table 12, row 12.a). Similarly, a tracing of bus
covered (Table 12, row 12.b) by the bus serving the blue, green and
orange lines. The distance is found to be 148 km daily, equal to 44,400
km yearly. According to the type of vehicles and their engines, it is then
possible to calculate the fuel consumption of PT and freight vehicles
(Table 12, row 12.f). For PT, a 10 m, 2006-purchased suburban diesel
bus has been considered (GTT, 2020; for freight vehicles (Table 12, row
12.g), a Euro6-standard diesel-powered Ford Transit Courier van (UK
Vehicle Certification Agency, 2020). Values thus obtained, together with
the coefficients provided by EMEP/EEA (2018) and referred to Slove­
nian road transport, allow a determination of CO2 and NOx emissions
due to PT (Table 12, rows 12.j and 12.k) and mail delivery operations
(Table 12, rows 12.g and 12.h). The storage capacity aboard Velenje
local buses (Table 12, row 12.d) has been gathered from the Munici­
pality of Velenje and storage capacity aboard mail vans (Table 12, row
12.e) has been retrieved from the website of the producer, considering
the most capable (4.2-4-8 m3) as security factor.
6.3. Results of the IPFL scheme
I1 calculates the variation of total traffic in the area induced by the
implementation of the IPFL system. The average daily traffic would not
drop significantly by transferring mail and parcels on PT vehicles
independently from the total traffic value, as just the three mail LCVs are
stopped on a daily basis. Hence, the benefit can be considered negligible.
However, it has to be pointed out that congestion and traffic-related
issues in such rural area have not been identified as a primary issue.
I2 finds the variation in distances covered by PT and mail vehicles to
serve the area in B and A. In B, mail vans are found to cover 16,800 km

Fig. 5. IPFL scheme for the case study in Velenje.

Table 12
Scenarios for integrating PT and parcels in Velenje.
ID Description Source Unit of measure Formula Scenario B Scenario A

12.a Distances covered by diesel mail vehicles GIS-based calculation Km/year (km/day*300) = 56*300 16,800 0
12.b Distances covered by diesel busses Google Earth calculation Km/year (km/day*300) = 148*300 44,400 44,400
12.c Spare capacity aboard busses Municipality of Velenje m3 1.25 1.25
12.d Mail van capacity Ford, 2020 m3 4.8 0
12.e Fuel consumption from mail vehicles UK Vehicle certification agency, 2020 Diesel L/year (12.a/21.26) 790 0
12.f CO2 emissions from mail vehicles EMEP/EEA (2018) tCO2/year [(12.e*0.835*3.17)/1000] 2.09 0
12.g NOx emissions from mail vehicles EMEP/EEA (2018) kgNOx/year [(12.e*0.835*14.1)/1000] 9.3 0
12.h Fuel consumption from busses GTT (2020) Diesel L/year (12.b/2.78) 15,971 15,971
12.i CO2 emissions from busses EMEP/EEA (2018) tCO2/year [(12.h*0.835*3.17)/1000] 42.27 42.27
12.j NOx emissions from busses EMEP/EEA (2018) kgNOx/year [(12.h*0.835*33.3)/1000] 444 444
12.k External costs of mail service EC (2019) € (12.f*90 + 12.g*10,824) 289 0
12.l External costs of bus service EC (2019) € (12.i*90 + 12.j*10,824) 8611 8611

44
F. Bruzzone et al.
yearly (Table 12, row 12.a) while buses cover 44,400 km yearly
(Table 12, row 12.b). Since in A the postal service would rely completely
on PT, up to 16,800 km/year would be saved, out of a total of 61,200
km. Indicator I2 is thus equal to − 0.27.
I3 illustrates the variation in capacity usage aboard PT vehicles. Since
in Velenje high-floor busses with separated storage space are used, mail
and parcels can be stored separately in currently unused compartments,
not affecting passengers’ comfort (Table 12 row 12.c). Depending on the
model of the bus, at least a compartment of 1.25 m3 is available (1 m ×
0.50 m x 2.50 m). If compared to the loading capacity of a mail van
(Table 12 row 12.d), between 4.2 m3 and 4.8 m3, the bus service (4 daily
runs on each considered route) would offer equivalent or higher ca­
pacity to that currently guaranteed by the post company. No variation in
PT capacity for passenger has to be considered. Accordingly, Formula
(3) indicates no reduction in the overall capacity.
I4 assesses the frequency of freight deliveries. By assuming that the
frequency of PT service in A is equal to B, final users of the mail service
may benefit from an increase in the level of service, given that items
currently delivered on a daily basis could be delivered multiple times
and according to the PT scheduling. Indeed, in B they rely on the or­
ganization of the postal service, which imposes only one possibility to
distribute the goods. However, in A the availability of alternatives is
dependent from the number of PT connections, which are higher
(Table 11). Formula (4) thus gives a value of 4, which represents the
potential increase in number of daily deliveries.
I5 calculates the energetic performance through the variation in
required kWh (or Joules). Diesel-powered PT buses with a Euro 4-stan­
dard Engine are considered, whose fuel consumption is calculated at
2.78 km/l (GTT, 2020). By multiplying the fuel consumption by the total
yearly distance, 15,971 L of diesel per year are used by PT vehicles in
both B and A. This quantity is equal to 17.25 tonnes of oil equivalent (T.
O.E), according to the coefficient factor of 1.08 (ENEA, 1992). As far as
mail LCVs are concerned, their fuel consumption is found to be 21 km/l
(UK Vehicle Certification Agency, 2020), making for a total consump­
tion of 790 L of diesel per year (0.85 T.O.E.). Values expressed in T.O.E
can then be transformed into MWh, by adopting a coefficient factor of
11.8 (ISPRA, 2003). The energy requirement thus obtained is equal to
203.55 MWh/day for PT and 10 MWh/day for mail service (in B only).
By applying Formula (5), this KPI gives a value equal to − 0.05.
I6 is calculated for carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxides (NOx),
basing on fuel consumption (Indicator I5). Emissions of both pollutants
are obtained through the transformation of consumed liters of fuel in kgs
(based on fuel density for diesel, 0,835 kg/l) and the multiplication by
an emission factor specifically referring to the Slovenian road transport,
equal to 3.17 g CO2 and to 14.1 g NOx for kilogram of consumed fuel
(EEA, 2018). CO2 and NOx emissions thus calculated for bus service in B
and A (Table 12, row 12.i and 12.j) and for mail service in B (Table 12,
row 12.f and 12.g) are multiplied by their unitary economic value, as
proposed by EC (2019): 90 €/ton and 10,824 €/kg, respectively
(Table 12, rows 12.k and 12.l). According to Formula (6), the indicator
gives a value of − 0.03.
Finally, I7 investigates the variation in the employment rate, both in
bus and mail operations. In this case study, savings are not achievable in
this field as the limited number of postal service employees that are
relieved from delivery service are needed for managing the very last
mile leg and pickup-delivery points.
7. Discussion of results
According to the principles of IPFL, the two case studies presented in
Sections 5 and 6 have been developed considering the current layout and
operational characteristics of both passengers and freight transport
systems and by limiting the new design to cope with existing patterns. In
Venice, the performance indicators have shown positive operational
results, with a better use of the capacity (I3) and less pressure in terms of
km travelled in the lagoon (I2, I5). This has resulted in a reduction in
45
Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48
external costs (I6), without reducing the social aspects related to
mobility (I4 indicates a better freight connection to remote islands,
thanks to the use of PT vessels for the distribution of goods). In Velenje,
the IPFL setting could allow for an increase in the delivery frequency of
mail and parcels of up to 4 times for users willing to use pickup/delivery
points located at PT stops. This form of transport is becoming an
increasingly popular alternative to at-door delivery (Yuen et al., 2018).
Moreover, intra-area shipments could be delivered within a few hours,
thus avoiding an overnight layover at the central post office. Integrated
operations would also allow for environmental benefits and boosted
performances, especially within the mail delivery service (I2, I5).
In both case studies, the contribution of IPFL to the improvement of
the FLM is multifaceted. On the one hand, the integration of passengers
and goods, while boosting operations efficiency and reducing spare ca­
pacity, addresses typical FLM issues such as competition for limited
space, congestion, environmental and noise pollution. On the other
hand, IPFL contributes to a FLM that is more sustainable for shippers
from a financial point of view, allowing for more frequent service to­
wards isolated areas, at virtually no extra expense to subsidies for PT
provision. This aspect will expectedly become more important with a
further diffusion of e-commerce and urban polarization trends, aspects
that are associated with a progressive abandonment of suburban and
rural communities (Jansen, 2014). Particularly in the Venetian lagoon,
this trend is constant and the necessity to increase the attractiveness of
these areas is evident (Città di Venezia, 2012). IPFL provides for more
economically sustainable PT and freight services in the FLM, thus
allowing a better level of service and directly addressing attractiveness
issues, while gaining environmental and operational benefits.
The KPIs presented in section 4 are not valid for each context, but
have to be adapted or integrated according to the territorial specificities
that are deemed relevant for the analysis. For instance, the case studies
do not consider increased travel times of the PT service consciously: in
this kind of operations average speeds are low, the number of freight
pickup/delivery locations are generally limited, and freight volumes are
reduced. Moreover, freight loading/unloading can be performed in
parallel with passenger operations, due to the different location of
freight on the vehicle (like in the case of Velenje, where the storage
compartment is beneath the passenger compartment’s floor of the bus:
see 6.1). Hence, the incidence of freight operations on PT travel time is
limited and affects the choice of travellers only marginally. Other as­
pects (such as the frequency and the quality of the service) are consid­
ered more important by users (White, 2015). This is particularly evident
in a context such as the lagoon of Venice, where PT by boat is the only
option to reach Venice and the mainland for the inhabitants of the
islands and travel demand may be considered as inelastic. On the con­
trary, such an assumption would not be valid for urban services, where
variations in travel times could make significant changes to the line of
argument: in this context, a trade-off between passengers’ sensibility to
travel time and freight operations has to be considered (Ghilas et al.,
2016). In both cases, but mostly in the presence of inelastic demand, the
implementation of new PT schemes has to consider the related social
equity issues that may be generated, namely accessibility, movement
and activities, health-related, financial related and community-related
(Jones and Lucas, 2012).
The Covid-19 pandemic will pose new challenges to the definition of
the model, for instance by redefining the maximum capacity of a mean
and its importance. Indeed, the public acceptance of a space reduction
aboard transit vehicles for carrying goods might be lower compared to
the previous condition. Despite the analysis presented in this paper was
developed before the outbreak of Covid-19, new operational conditions
and priorities should be considered. This implies a multi-level and multi-
actor redefinition of the service, which is related to the decisions taken
at the national level by the Ministries in charge of transport and health
issues and made operational by the single service providers. Hence,
solutions may be very different according to the country and the evo­
lution of the pandemic.
F. Bruzzone et al.
Regarding the strategic implications of the proposed scheme, the
case studies suggest a rigorous discussion about the improvement of PT
service in terms of frequency, quality, and operational model (e.g.,
through the introduction of a more flexible transport). This could be
done by reallocating part of the budget currently used for freight service
-and no longer needed- under the new transport scheme, opening a
variety of new scenarios with wide impacts on private mobility as well.
In this article, we have assumed that IPFL is set up with no changes to the
current layout of PT. Further research could investigate the strategic
impacts of a change in the current layout, according to a different use of
budget available deriving from the reduction of the freight component.
In this context, the choice of the transport modes involved in the IPFL is
of the utmost importance. This would also imply a (more rigorous)
revision of the labour market, which in our model is summarized by
indicator I7. The redefinition of activities deriving from the merging of
passenger and freight transport should lead to different job opportu­
nities. For example, in the case of the Venice lagoon, personnel previ­
ously employed for the freight distribution can be used to guarantee the
last mile connection. This aspect, which has relevant working implica­
tions, is related with the definition of specific business models, which
depends on the types of transport considered.
Finally, the integration of passengers and goods flows for the
improvement of the FLM has been assessed from a technical point of
view, not considering the current inadequacy of the regulatory setting as
a limit for its implementation. In a comprehensive analysis this aspect
cannot be omitted, and the identification of appropriate instruments to
promote integrated passengers/goods transport is urgent. The frame­
work could be represented by the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan,
currently under discussion in both Venice and Velenje. From a tactical
perspective, a valid instrument can be either the tender or the bid. This
would include and regulate the integrated transport system, defining
clear rules and giving all operators time to organize and compete ac­
cording to their competences. In this scenario, the implementation of the
IPFL system would be supported by a powerful strategic planning in­
strument as the SUMP and promoted by the operators which would
compete to affirm their role within the new system, thus lowering the
risk of an otherwise likely resistance.
8. Conclusions
This paper has discussed a possible solution for tackling some of the
issues related with the passengers-freight First-Last-Mile, by pursuing a
higher integration level between transport systems. First and last legs of
journeys normally show some performance issues: it is likely that the
current trend showing a general growing urbanization, a rather disor­
dered growth of passenger transport and sometimes an increasing
fragmentation of goods deliveries, will inflame the things further. Au­
thorities and governments have at times tried to tackle major issues
(congestion, noise, pollution) by promoting restrictive and targeted
measures, which have sometimes proven to be not completely effective –
and in some cases even counter-producing.
Based on the EC push for further integration between freight and
passenger transport, their integration may be seen as a possible solution
for achieving higher efficiency and sustainability standards for the
transport system. After discussing the contribution of IPFL in improving
efficiency and reducing externalities from the FLM, this article has re­
ported the setting and results of a simulation conducted in Venice (Italy)
and Velenje (Slovenia) within the EU-funded project SMILE. The eval­
uation process, conducted using some ad-hoc KPIs, is an element of
innovation with respect to existing literature, considering that it com­
prehends both passengers and freight transport. Performance indicators
have highlighted incentivizing results, with discrete operational and
environmental benefits, while social aspects need to be further assessed.
The immediate definition of KPIs makes them an appropriate instrument
to govern possible attempts at traffic rationalisation, and a tool of im­
mediate use by local authorities since they base mostly on available
46
Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48
data. However, policy makers have to be aware that results obtained by
this method are not definitive: a complex issue as IPFL requires inte­
grative operational simulations, as well as other appraisal tools (such as
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Multi Criteria
Analysis), in order to have a more comprehensive view of all potential
implications deriving from the adoption of a similar scheme. Further­
more, the adoption of these KPIs in urban contexts requires some ad­
justments in their definition, as discussed in the previous section.
A relevant policy issue for the improvement of FLM through freight
and passenger integration has been highlighted in the inadequacy of the
governance and regulatory systems, which deals with the passengers
and freight transport systems as independent sectors, while in real-life
operations they share space, infrastructure, and challenges. Further
research and future efforts should be directed towards the identification
of common European guidelines and strategies for legal and operational
acknowledgement of passengers and freight transport integration, with
special focus on the FLM inasmuch its economic, environmental and
operational impacts are particularly relevant for the transport sector as a
whole.
Despite these aspects, the method shown here is an efficient tool for
the performance monitoring of possible passenger/freight transport in­
tegrations. It is of the utmost importance to set suitable objectives and
tools to verify the results all in effort to properly weigh the efficiency of a
certain transport strategy. In this perspective, the performance mea­
surement is really at the heart of the management of a process: it allows
to identify the data that has to be collected and analysed, to document
the developments of the activities, to highlight the areas of strength and
weakness, and finally to guide the improvement processes, ensuring that
the strategies are shared by all actors involved in the process: the users/
customers, the service producers, the other stakeholders involved and,
last but not least, the community.
Authors statement
FB: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing- Reviewing and
Editing;
FC: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing- Reviewing and
Editing;
SN: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing- Reviewing and
Editing.
Acknowledgement
Funding for this paper was provided through the project no. 252
“SMILE: FirSt and last mile Inter-modal mobiLity in congested urban
arEas of Adrion Region” of the ETC INTERREG V–B Adriatic-Ionian
Cooperation Programme. This support is gratefully acknowledged by
the authors.
References
Abenoza, R.F., Ceccato, V., Susilo, Y.O., Cats, O., 2018. Individual, travel, and bus stop
characteristics influencing travelers’ safety perceptions. Transport. Res. Rec. 2672
(8), 19–28.
ACTV, 2016. Capacity Utilization on Routes 12 and 13. Personal Communication data
summer 2016.
Ambra, T., Caris, A., Macharis, C., 2018. Towards freight transport system unification:
reviewing and combining the advancements in the physical internet and
synchromodal transport research. Int. J. Prod. Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2018.1494392.
Anderson, S., Allen, J., Browne, M., 2005. Urban logistics how can it meet policy makers
sustainability objectives? J. Transport Geogr. 13 (1), 71–81.
Arvidsson, N., Pazirandeh, A., 2017. An ex ante evaluation of mobile depots in cities: a
sustainability perspective. Int. J. Sustain. Transport. 11 (8), 623–632.
Arvidsson, N., Givoni, M., Woxenius, J., 2016. Exploring last mile synergies in passenger
and freight transport. Built. Environ. 42 (4), 523–538.
Bergqvist, R., Monios, J., 2016. Inbound logistics, the last mile and intermodal high
capacity transport. World Rev. Intermodal Transp. Res. 6 (1), 74–92.
Boarnet, M.G., Giuliano, G., Hou, Y., Jin Shin, E., 2017. First/last mile transit access as an
equity planning issue. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 103, 296–310.
F. Bruzzone et al.
Bonelá Fontoura, W., de Lorena Diniz Chaves, G., Mattos Ribeiro, G., 2019. The Brazilian
urban mobility policy: the impact in São Paulo transport system using system
dynamics. Transport Pol. 73, 51–61.
Boyer, K.K., Prud’homme, A.M., Chung, W., 2009. The first-last mile challenge:
evaluating the effects of customer density and delivery window patterns. J. Bus.
Logist. 30, 185–201.
Bruzzone, F., 2019. Cargo Hitching as a tool to transform the urban mobility system.
Integrating passengers and goods transportation towards a more sustainable,
desirable and efficient mobility. Aesop 2019 Conference – Book of Papers,
pp. 2599–2612.
Cappelli, A., Nocera, S., 2006. Freight modal split models: data base, calibration problem
and urban application. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 89, 369–375.
Carter, D.N., Lomax, T.J., 1992. Development and Application of Performance Measures
for Rural Public Transportation Operators, vol. 1338. Transportation Research
Record, pp. 28–36.
Castro-Nuño, M., Arévalo-Quijada, M.T., 2018. Assessing urban road safety through
multidimensional indexes: application of multicriteria decision making analysis to
rank the Spanish provinces. Transport Pol. 68, 118–129.
Cavallaro, F., Danielis, R., Nocera, S., Rotaris, L., 2018. Should BEVs be subsidized or
taxed? A European perspective based on the economic value of CO2 emissions.
Transport. Res. Transport Environ. Volume 64, 70–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2017.07.017.
Cavallaro, F., Sommacal, G., Božičnik, S., Klemenčič, M., 2020. Combined Transport in
the Alps: Reasons behind a Difficult Acceptance and Possible Solutions. Research in
Transportation Business & Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rtbm.2020.100461.
Chae, B.K., 2009. Developing key performance indicators for supply chain: an industry
perspective. Supply Chain Manag. 14 (6), 422–428. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13598540910995192.
COSES, 2002. Consorzio per la ricerca e la formazione. Rilevazione del Traffco Acqueo
Lagunare. Rapporto n. 74/2002.
Da Mata Martins, M.C., Rodrigues da Silva, A.N., Pinto, N., 2019. An indicator-based
methodology for assessing resilience in urban mobility. Transport. Res. Transport
Environ. 77, 352–363.
De Souza, R., Goh, M., Lau, H.-C., Ng, W.-S., Tan, P.-S., 2014. Collaborative urban
logistics – synchronizing the first-last mile a Singapore research perspective.
Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 125, 422–431.
Città di Venezia, 2012. Venezia e la sua Laguna patrimonio mondiale UNESCO. Piano di
gestione 2012-2018.
Diez, J.M., Lopez-Lambas, M.E., Gonzalo, H., Rojo, M., Garcia-Martinez, A., 2018.
Methodology for assessing the cost effectiveness of sustainable urban mobility plans
(SUMPs). J. Transport Geogr. 68, 22–30.
Eboli, L., Mazzulla, G., 2012. Performance indicators for an objective measure of public
transport service quality. European Transport\Trasporti Europei 51.
EMEP/EEA, 2018. Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2016 – Update July
2018.
ENCLOSE Energy efficiency in City LOgistics for small and mid-sized European historic
towns, 2014. Final publishable Report.
ENEA, 1992. Agenzia nazionale per le nuove tecnologie, l’energia e lo sviluppo
economico sostenibile. Circolare Ministeriale 219F del 02/03/1992, tabella A.
European Commission, 2007. Green paper on urban mobility. https://eur-lex.europa.
eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0551&from=EN; last.
(Accessed 28 March 2020).
European Commission, 2019. Handbook on external costs of transport. https://ec.europ
a.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/studies/internalisation-handbook-isbn-97
8-92-79-96917-1.pdf.
European Commission, 2019. Transport in the European union – current trends and
issues. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2019-transport-in-the-
eu-current-trends-and-issues.pdf. (Accessed 28 March 2020).
Fatnassi, E., Chaouachi, J., Klibi, W., 2015. Planning and operating a shared goods and
passengers on-demand rapid transit system for sustainable city logistics.
Transportation Research Part B 81, 440–460.
Ford, 2020. Ford transit courier: technical characteristics. https://www.ford.it/guida
-allacquisto/scegli-la-tua-ford/configura-cv-gf3#/catalogID/WAEIX-C4A-2014-Tra
nsitCourierITA202000/?code=BS-DD. (Accessed 25 March 2020).
Fu, J., Jenelius, E., 2018. Transport efficiency of off-peak urban good deliveries: a
stockholm pilot study. Case Studies on Transport Policy 6 (1).
Galkin, A., Schlosser, T., Galkina, O., Hodakova, D., Capayova, S., 2019. Investigating
using urban public transport for freight deliveries. Transport Research Procedia Vol.
39, 64–73.
Gatta, V., Marcucci, E., Nigro, M., Patella, S.M., Serafini, S., 2019. Public transport-based
crowdshipping for sustainable city logistics: assessing economic and environmental
impacts. Sustainability 11, 145.
Ghilas, V., Demir, E., Van Woensel, T., 2013. Integrating Passenger and Freight
Transportation: Model Formulation and Insights. Working Paper. TU/e Eindhoven.
Ghilas, V., Demir, E., Van Woensel, T., 2016. The pickup and delivery problem with time
windows and scheduled lines. Information Systems and Operational Research Vol.54
(2), 147–167.
Gilbert, R., Irwin, N., Hollingworth, B., Blais, P., 2003. Sustainable transportation
performance indicators (STPI). Transportation Research Board (TRB), CD ROM.
Goh, M., Gan, C., Chen, K., Zhang, Y., 2011. China’s E-Commerce Market: the Logistic
Challenge. https://www.atkearney.de/documents/856314/1214566/BIP_Chinas_EC
ommerce_Market_The_Logistics_Challenge.pdf/f40a1ef8-8849-41fe-823b-b5e
752079acc.
47
Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48
GTT Gruppo Torinese Trasporti, 2020. Schede tecniche parco veicoli, 10.5 meters Euro 4
suburban bus. Available online at: http://www.gtt.to.it/cms/risorse/gruppo/veicol
i/parco_veicoli_tpl.pdf.
Gudmundsson, H., 2004. Sustainable transport and performance indicators. Issues in
environmental science and technology 20, 35–63.
Gunasekaran, A., Kobu, B., 2007. Performance measures and metrics in logistics and
supply chain management: a review of recent literature (1995–2004) for research
and applications. International Journal of Production Research 45 (12), 2819–2840.
Gustaffsson, M., Svensson, N., Anderberg, S., 2018. Energy performance indicators as
policy support for public bus transport – the case of Sweden. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment 65, 697–709.
industrial, F.P.T.. Cursor 9 marine engines. https://www.fptindustrial.com/global/it/mo
tori/marini/commerciali/cursor9. (Accessed 19 March 2020).
ISPRA, 2003. Analisi dei Fattori di Emissione di Co2 dal settore dei trasporti, Rapporti.
Jansen, T.A.M., 2014. Development of a Design Model for Integrated Passengers and
Freight Transportation System. Master Thesis. TU/e School of Industrial
Engineering.
Jones, P., Lucas, K., 2012. The social consequences of transport decision-making:
clarifying concepts, synthesising knowledge and assessing implications. Journal of
Transport Geography 21, 4–16.
JRC, Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability, 2009. Indicators
to Assess Sustainability of Transport Activities. Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, Luxembourg.
Jun, P., Gillenwater, M., Barbour, W., 2002. CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions from
transportation-water-borne-navigation [Background paper]. Good practice guidance
and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas inventories 71–92.
Kant, G., Quak, H., Peeters, R., Van Woensel, T., 2016. Urban freight transportation:
challenges, failure, and successes. In: Zijm, H., Klumpp, M., Clausen, U., Ten
Hompel, M. (Eds.), Logistics and Supply Chain Innovation: Bridging the Gap between
Theory and Practice, vol. 3, pp. 127–139.
Leijenhorst, A., 2014. Cargo hitching bij binnenstadservice Maastricht. Bachelor
Opdracht. Universiteit Twente, Technische Bedrijfskunde.
Lessa, D.A., Lobo, C., Cardoso, L., 2019. Accessibility and urban mobility by bus in belo
horizonte/minas gerais – Brazil. Journal of Transport Geography 77, 1–10.
Liang, X., Correia, G.H.A., van Arem, B., 2016. Optimizing the service area and trip
selection of an electric automated taxi system used for the last mile of train trips.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 93, 115–129.
Litman, T., 2009. A Good Example of Bad Transportation Performance Evaluation.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Lois, D., Monzon, A., Hernandez, S., 2018. Analysis of satisfaction factors at urban
transport interchanges: measuring travellers’ attitudes to information, security and
waiting. Transport Policy 67, 49–56.
Macioszek, E., 2018. First and last mile delivery – problems and issues. In: Sierpiński, G.
(Ed.), Advanced Solutions of Transport Systems for Growing Mobility. TSTP 2017.
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 631. Springer, Cham.
Masson, R., Trentini, A., Lehuédé, F., Malhéné, N., Péton, O., Tlahig, H., 2017.
Optimization of a city logistics transportation system with mixed passengers and
goods. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics 6, 81–109.
McDonagh, J., 2006. Transport policy instruments and transport-related social exclusion
in rural Republic of Ireland. Journal of Transport Geography 14, 355–366.
Meyer, M., 2000. “Measuring that Which Cannot Be Measured at Least According to
Conventional Wisdom”, Transportation Research Board. Proceedings from the 26th
Annual Meeting on Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and
Agency Operations, Irvine, October 29-November 1.
Monios, J., 2019. Geographies of governance in the freight transport sector: the British
case. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 121, 295–308.
Mozos-Blanco, M.Á., Pozo-Menéndez, E., Arce-Ruiz, R., Baucells-Aletà, N., 2018. The
way to sustainable mobility. A comparative analysis of sustainable mobility plans in
Spain. Transport Policy 72, 45–54.
Munira, S., San Santoso, D., 2017. Examining public perception over outcome indicators
of sustainable urban transport in Dhaka city. Case studies on Transport Policy 2,
169–178.
Munuzuri, J., et al., 2004. Solutions applicable by urban administrations for urban
logistics improvements. Cities Vol. 22 (1), 15–28.
Nocera, S., Basso, M., Cavallaro, F., 2017. Micro and macro modelling approaches for the
evaluation of the carbon impacts from transportation. Transportation Research
Procedia 24C, 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.080.
Nocera, S., Ruiz-Alarcón Quintero, C., Cavallaro, F., 2018. Assessing carbon emissions
from road transport through traffic flow estimators. Transportation Research Part C:
Emerging Technologies 95, 125–148.
Nocera, S., Pungillo, G., Bruzzone, F., 2020. How to evaluate and plan the freight-
passengers first-last mile. Transport policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tranpol.2020.01.007.
O’Laughlin, R., Thomas, D., Rinnan, M., 2008. Chicago Downtown Freight Study.
Compendium of Papers. TRB 87th Annual Meeting.
Pimentel, C., Alvelos, F., 2018. Integrated urban freight logistic combining passenger and
freight flows – mathematical model proposal. Transportation Research Procedia 30,
80–89.
Posset, M., Gronalt, M., Häuslmayer, H., 2010. COCKPIIT - clear, operable and
comparable key performance indicators for intermodal transportation. https://www
2.ffg.at/verkehr/file.php?id=340.
Sampaio, A., Savelsbergh, M., Veelenturf, L., Van Woensel, T., 2019. Crowd-based city
logistics. Sustainable Transportation and Smart Logistics 381–400.
Savelsbergh, M., van Woensel, T., 2016. City logistics: challenges and opportunities.
Transportation Science 50 (2), 579–590.
F. Bruzzone et al.
Seco, A.J.M., Gonçalves, J.H.G., 2007. The quality of public transport: relative
importance of different performance indicators and their potential to explain modal
choice. Urban transport XIII: Urban Transport and the Environment in the 21st
Century 313–325.
Sinha, K.C., Labi, S., 2007. Transportation Decision Making: Principles of Project
Evaluation and Programming. Wiley.
Spoor, J.M., 2015. Replenishing nanostores in megacities for a consumer packaged goods
company. Master Thesis. TU/e School of Industrial Engineering.
Stanley, J., Lucas, K., 2008. Social exclusion: what can public transport offer? Research
in Transportation Economics 22, 36–40.
Strale, M., 2014. The cargo tram: current status and perspectives, the example of
Brussels. In: Sustainable Logistics. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 245–263.
Taniguchi, E., 2014. Concepts of city logistics for sustainable and liveable cities. Social
and Behavioral Sciences 151, 310–317.
Taniguchi, E., Thompson, R.G., 2018. City Logistics 1: New Opportunities and
Challenges. Wiley, ISBN 978-1-786-30205-2.
Taniguchi, E., et al., 2001. City Logistics. Network Modelling and Intelligent Transport
Systems (Emerald).
Tavasszy, L.A., 2020. Predicting the effects of logistics innovations on freight systems:
directions for research. Transport Policy 86, a1–a6.
TKI, Dinalog, 2020. Cargo hitching. https://www.dinalog.nl/en/project/cargo-hitch
ing/. (Accessed 28 March 2020).
Transportation Research Board, 2004. Performance-Based Measures in Transit Fund
Allocation. A Synthesis of Transit Practice, TCRP Synthesis, vol. 56. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
48
Transport Policy 100 (2021) 31–48
Transportation Research Board, 2020. Highway capacity manual. https://sjnavarro.files.
wordpress.com/2008/08/highway_capacital_manual.pdf. (Accessed 16 March
2020).
Trentini, A., Mahene, N., 2010. Towards a Shared Urban Transport System Ensuring
Passengers & Goods Cohabitation. Working Paper, Trimestrale del Laboratorio
Territorio Mobilità e Ambiente, Dipartimento di Pianificazione e Scienza del
Territorio, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II.
UK Vehicle Certification Agency. Van fuel data, diesel Euro 6 Ford transit courier,
combined consumption. https://vanfueldata.vehicle-certification-agency.gov.
uk/vehicles.aspx.
Van Duin, R., Wiegmans, B., Tavasszy, L., Hendriks, B., He, Y., 2019. Evaluating new
participative city logistics concepts: the case of cargo hitching. Transportation
Research Procedia Volume 39, 565–575.
Vasconcelos, A.S., Farias, T.L., 2012. Evaluation of urban accessibility indicators based
on internal and external environmental costs. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment 17, 433–441.
Vuchic, V.R., 2007. Urban Transit: Systems and Technology. Wiley, New York.
Wang, H., Odoni, A., 2016. Approximating the performance of a “last mile”
transportation system. Transportation Science 50, 659–675.
White, P., 2015. Report on Public Transport Provision in. Rural and Depopulated Areas
in the United Kingdom.
Yuen, K.F., Wang, X., Ng, L.T.W., Wong, Y.D., 2018. An investigation of customers’
intention to use self-collection services for last-mile delivery. Transport Policy 66,
1–8.
Zhou, F., Zhang, J., 2019. Freight Transport Mode Based on Public Transport: Taking
Parcel Delivery by Subway as an Example. Sixth International Conference on
Transportation Engineering. Chengdu, China.