1

Urban Freight Tour Models:

State of the Art and Practice

Jos Holgun-Veras, Ellen Thorson, Qian Wang,

Ning Xu, Carlos Gonzlez-Caldern, Ivn
Snchez-Daz, John Mitchell

Center for Infrastructure, Transportation,

and the Environment (CITE)
Outline
2

Introduction, Basic Concepts

Urban Freight Tours: Empirical Evidence
Urban Freight Tour Models
Simulation Based Models
Hybrid Models
Analytical Models
Analytical Tour Models
Conclusions
 3

Introduction
and Basic Concepts
Basic Concepts
4

A supplier sending shipments from its home base (HB)

to six receivers
R3
R2

R1 S-2 R4
R5
S-1 Notation:
S-3
Loaded vehicle-trip
R6 Empty vehicle-trip
Commodity flow
Consumer (receiver)
HB

The goal is to capture both the underlying

economics of production and consumption, and
realistic delivery tours
 5

Empirical Evidence on
Urban Freight Tours
Characterization of Urban Freight Tours (UFT)
6

Number of stops per tour depends on: Country, city,

type of truck, the number of trip chains, type of
carrier, service time, and commodity transported
9
Average number of stops/tour

8
7 Amsterdam New York City

6
5 Denver

4 Alphen Apeldoorn
3
2
1
Schiedam
0
10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Population
Characterization of Urban Freight Tours (UFT)
7

Denver, Colorado (Holgun-Veras and Patil,2005):

Combination
Stops/Tour Single Truck
Truck
Average 6.5 7.0
1 tour/day 7.2 7.7
2 tours/day 4.5 3.7
3 tours/day 2.8 3.3

Port Authority of NY and NJ (HV et al., 2006):

By type of company:
Common carriers: 15.7 stops/tour
Private carriers: 7.1 stops/tour
By origin of tour:
New Jersey: 13.7 stops/tour
New York: 6.0 stops/tour
Characterization of Urban Freight Tours (UFT)
8

NYC and NJ (Holguin-Veras et al. 2012):

Average: 8.0 stops/tour 12.6%: 1 stop/tour
54.9%: < 6 stops/tour 8.7% do > 20 stops
Parcel deliveries: 50-100 stops/tour
 9

Urban Freight
Tour Models
Urban Freight Tour Models
10

The UFT models could be subdivided into:

Simulation models
Hybrid models
Analytical models
 11

Simulation
Models
Simulation Models
12

Simulation models attempt to create the needed

isomorphic relation between model and reality by
imitating observed behaviors in a computer program
Examples include:
Tavasszy et al. (1998) (SMILE)
Boerkamps and van Binsbergen (1999) (GoodTrip)
Ambrosini et al., (2004) (FRETURB)
Liedtke (2006) and Liedtke (2009) (INTERLOG)
 13

Hybrid
Models
Hybrid Models
14

Hybrid models incorporate features of both simulation

and analytical models (e.g., using a gravity model to
estimate commodity flows, and a simulation model to
estimate the UFTs)
Examples include:
van Duin et al. (2007)
Wisetjindawat et al. (2007)
Donnelly (2007)
 15

Analytical
Models
Analytical Models
16

Analytical models attend to achieve isomorphism using

formal mathematic representations based on
behavioral, economic, or statistical axioms
Two main branches:
Spatial Price equilibrium models (disaggregate)
Entropy Maximization models (aggregate)
Examples include:
Holgun-Veras (2000), Thorson (2005)
Xu (2008), Xu and Holgun-Veras (2008)
Holgun-Veras et al. (2012)
Wang and Holgun-Veras (2009),
Sanchez and Holgun-Veras (2012)
 17

Entropy Maximization
Tour Flow Model
Entropy Maximization Tour Flow Models
18

Based on entropy maximization theory (Wilson, 1969;

Wilson, 1970; Wilson, 1970)
Computes most likely solution given constraints
Key concepts:
Tour sequence: An ordered listing of nodes visited
Tour flow: The flow of vehicle-trips that follow a sequence
The problem is decomposed in two processes:
A tour choice generation process
A tour flow model
Entropy Maximization Tour Flow Model
19

Tour choice: To estimate sensible node sequences

Tour flow: To estimate the number of trips traveling along a
particular node sequence

Tour choice generation Tour flows

2017/11/2
Entropy Maximization Tour Flow Model
20

Definition of states in the system:

State State Variable

Individual commercial vehicle journey starting and ending at a home base
Micro state (tour flow) by following a tour ;
The number of commercial vehicle journeys (tour flows) following
Meso state
a tour sequence.
Macro state Total number of trips produced by a node (production);
Total number of trips attracted to a node (attraction);
Formulation 1: C = Total time in the commercial network;
Formulation 2: CT = Total travel time in the commercial network;
CH = Total handling time in the commercial network.
 21

Static version of EM Tour Flow Model

 The equivalent
Entropy modelTour
Maximization of formulation 2:
Flow Model
22

M
MIN Z (t
m 1
m ln t m t m )

Subject to:
M

a t Oi (i ) Trip production
im m constraints
m 1
M

cT mtm CT
m 1
( 1 )
Total travel time
constraint
M

c
m1
Hm m t CH ( 2 ) Total handling time
constraint
tm 0
Entropy Maximization Tour Flow Model
23

First-order conditions (tour distribution models)

N N
Formulation 1: t exp( a cm ) exp( i aim ) exp( cm )
* * * * *
m i im
i 1 i 1

N
i aim ) exp( 1 cTm 2 cHm )

* * * *
Formulation 2: t exp(
m
i 1

Traditional gravity trip distribution model

tij* AiOi B j D j exp( *cij )

Formulation 1 and the traditional GM model

have exactly the same number of parameters
Entropy Maximization Tour Flow Model
24

The optimal tour flows are found under the objective

of maximizing the entropy for the system
The tour flows are a function of tour impedance and
Lagrange multipliers associated with the trip
productions and attractions along that tour
Successfully tested with Denver, Colorado, data:
The MAPE of the estimated tour flows is less than 6.7%
given the observed tours are used
Much better than the traditional GM
Case Study: Denver Metropolitan Area
25

Test network
919 TAZs among which 182 TAZs contain home bases of
commercial vehicles
613 tours, representing a total of 65,385 tour flows / day
Calibration done with 17,000 tours (from heuristics)
Estimation procedure
Sorting input data: aggregate the observed tour flows to
obtain trip productions and total impedance
Estimation: estimate the tour flows distributed on these
tours using the entropy maximization formulations
Assessing performance: compare the estimated tour
flows with the observed tour flows
 Estimated vs.
Performance ofobserved tour flows
the Models
 27

Time-Dependent Freight Tour Synthesis Model

TD-FTS Model
28

Bi-objective Program:
PROGRAM TD-ODS 1
Possible combinations

K M
Minimize z ( x)
d 1 m 1
x md ln( x md ) x md
of flow (1)

2
1 k K ' M kd d
Function to replicate
A K
Minimize e( x) va

a 1 k 1 2

am x m

(2)
d 1 m 1
TD traffic counts
Subject to:
K M Trip Production

d 1 m 1
g im x md Oi i N
Constraint (3)

K M
I can drop Trip
d
jm x m Dj j N (4)
d 1 m 1 Attraction Constraint
K M

c
d 1 m 1
d
m xm C Impedance Constraint
(5)

x md 0, m M , d K (6)
TD-FTS Model
29

Multi-attribute Value formulation:

PROGRAM TD-FTS3

Minimize U e(x), z (x) 1v1 e(x) 2 v 2 z (x) Utility function from DM

Subject to:

Trip Production
K M

d
jm xm , y D jy j N , y Y ( j , y )
d 1 m1
Constraint per Industry
K M Y

c
d 1 m1 y 1
d
m xm , y C ( )
Impedance Constraint
xmd , y 0, m M , d K , y Y
Application to the Denver Region
30

Daily Flows Time Intervals Flows Estimates

Modeling Overall*
Estimates Early Morning Morning After Noon Evening
Approach
RMSE MAPE RMSE MAPE RMSE MAPE RMSE MAPE RMSE MAPE RMSE MAPE
Tour Flows
S/TD-EM 39.8 31.2% 58.5 274.7% 45.6 42.3% 55.5 46.4% 39.5 106.1% 50.3 117.0%
S/TD-FTS-A 17.2 16.6% 14.5 231.0% 14.7 29.2% 14.8 31.0% 9.5 68.7% 13.6 76.1%
S/TD FTS-B 8.0 0.8% 9.5 46.3% 9.1 3.8% 6.4 4.9% 5.9 12.3% 9.1 22.9%
OD Flows
DCGM 116.0 79.5% 39.6 364.8% 42.0 94.5% 47.2 78.2% 25.8 148.1% 60.4 170.4%
S/TD-EM 32.1 21.0% 58.3 257.0% 44.1 36.9% 56.9 42.7% 41.6 100.4% 50.7 109.0%
S/TD-FTS-A 13.8 11.3% 12.6 153.4% 12.9 23.6% 14.6 25.8% 12.6 61.4% 13.2 66.1%
S/TD FTS-B 5.7 5.2% 7.5 42.9% 8.9 9.0% 9.3 6.3% 10.5 21.6% 9.1 19.8%

TD-FTS MAPEs: 0.8%-76.1%

Static Entropy Maximization (S-EM): MAPEs 31.2%-
117%
Gravity Model (DCGM): MAPE 79.5%
Temporal aspect better captured using TD-FTS
TD-FTS Performance per Time Interval
31

450
TD-ODS AM OH 2500
TD-ODS AM PH
400
Estimated TD Tour Flows

Estimated TD Tour Flows

350 2000

300 y = 0.7554x y = 1.049x

R = 0.9132 1500
R = 0.9964
250
200
1000
150
100 500
50
0 0
0 200 400 600 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Actual TD Tour Flows Actual TD Tour Flows

TD-ODS PM PH 800
TD-ODS PM OH
2500
700
Estimated TD Tour Flows
Estimated TD Tour Flows

2000
600
y = 1.0325x y = 0.9286x
500
1500 R = 0.9987 R = 0.983
400
1000 300

200
500
100

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Actual TD Tour Flows Actual TD Tour Flows
 32

Multiclass Equilibrium Demand Synthesis

 33
Multiclass traffic
Multiclass: two or more classes of travelers with
different behavioral or choice characteristics
Vehicle classes are related under the same objective
function
Multiclass equilibrium demand synthesis (MEDS)
 34
Link Travel Cost
Travel time function depends on the vector of traffic
flows for passenger cars and trucks
The travel cost is affected by the value of time of each
one of the classes
The formula is a second order Taylor expansion of a
general link-performance function

t a ( X t , X c ) 0 1 X c 2 X t 3 X c2 4 X t2 5 X c X t

Where:
Xt: Vector of truck traffic flow
Xc: Vector of passenger cars traffic flow
 35
Multiclass Equilibrium
In a multiclass equilibrium, the cost functions of the
modes are asymmetric, traffic flows interact
The user optimal assignment cannot be written as an
optimization problem
The User Equilibrium (UE) problem could be
addressed using a Variational Inequality (VI) Problem

0 Cm Cm* t m 0
C
m
m (t , t ) (t m t ) Cij (t , T ) (Tij T ) 0
*
m
* T
ij
*
m
ij
*
m
* T
ij
*
ij
0 Cij Cij* Tij 0
 36
Link Travel Cost
Although the vehicles share the transportation network and the
travel time is the same (in equilibrium), the travel cost will be
affected by the value of time of each one of the parties
value of time
c t t a ( xt , xc )
t
a

c c t a ( xt , xc )
c
a

Considering paths, the cost functions for truck tours and

passenger cars will be given by:
Cm cat ma
a In a multiclass equilibrium, the cost functions of modes are
Cij cac ija asymmetric, traffic flows interact. UE Variational Inequality
a

Where: ma :A binary variable indicating whether tour m uses link a

ija :A binary variable indicating whether trip from i to j uses link a
 37
Multiclass EM Formulations
The multiclass EM formulations is given by:
Tt ! Tc !
Max W Min z (tm ln tm tm Tij ln Tij Tij )
(tm! Tij!)
m ,ij
m ij

Where:
W: System entropy that represents the number of ways of distributing
commercial vehicles tour flows and passenger cars flows
Tt: Total number of commercial vehicle tour flows in the network;
Tc: Total number of passenger cars flows in the network;
tm : Number of commercial vehicle journeys (tour flows) following tour m;
Tij : Number of car trips between i and j
 38
Multiclass Equilibrium ODS Formulations
Min z (t
m ij
m ln t m t m Tij ln Tij Tij ) The objective is to
find the most likely
Subject to ways to distribute
tours considering
C m
(t * * T
,
m m ij t ) (t m t *
m )
ij
C (t
ij m
*
, T * T
ij ) (Tij Tij ) 0
*
congestion

Subject to VI problem to
M
obtain a UE
O t m im
i
t
i 1,2,..., N condition for cars
m 1
M X at tm ma a and trucks
D t m jm
t
j i 1,2,..., N m
m 1
X ac Tij ija a
N
Oic Tij
ij
i {1,2,...N}
j 1
N X at Vat Vat a {1,2,...Q}
D Tij
c
j j {1,2,...N }
i 1 X ac Vac Vac a {1,2,...Q}
Cm cat ma
a
tm 0 X ac 0
Cij cac ija Tij 0 X at 0
a
 39

Spatial Price Equilibrium

Tour Models
General principles
40

The models estimate commodity flows and vehicle

trips that arise under competitive market equilibrium
Conceptual advantages:
Account for tours
Provide a coherent framework to jointly model the joint
formation of commodity flows and vehicle trips
Based on the seminal work of Samuelson (1952), as it
seeks to maximize the economic welfare associated
with the consumption and transportation of the cargo,
taking into account the formation of UFTs
Two flavors
41

Independent Shipper-Carrier Operations:

Carrier and Shipper are independent companies
Carrier travels empty from its base to pick up cargo at
shippers location(s)
Carrier delivers cargo to shippers customers
Carrier travels empty back to its base
Integrated Shipper-Carrier Operations:
Carrier and Shipper are part of the same company
Carrier is loaded at shippers location(s)
Carrier delivers cargo to shippers customers
Carrier travels empty back to its base
Integrated Shipper-Carrier Operations
42

Five suppliers deploy tours from their bases

(rhomboids) to distribute the cargo they produce to
various consumer (demand) nodes (circles)
Legend:

Supplier
Receiver
Empty trips
Loaded trips made
by suppliers
(Contested nodes are shown as
shaded circles)
A Spatial Price Equilibrium UFT Model
43

Samuelsons model is reformulated to consider freight

tours. A supplier i sends a cargo (eip1, eip2, eip3, and
eip4) to different customers (p1, p2, p3, and p4)

p2 p3 Notation:

Loaded Vehicle-trip
eip2
eip3
p4 Empty Vehicle-trip
eip4
p1 Commodity flow
eip1

i
The cost of delivering to p3 is not the
Supplier
(path) cost along i-p1-p2-p3.
It it is the (incremental) cost from p2
to p3, plus part of the empty trip cost.
A Spatial Price Equilibrium UFT Model (P1)
44

SN SN DN
MAX NSP Si (Ei ) Ciju (eiju ) (Social Welfare)
i 1 u i 1 j 1

Subject to: S ( E ) E s( x)dx

0
i
(Area under excess supply function)
i i

Ei eiju (Excess supply)

u j

Ciu, p u (ei , p u ) cD d p u u cT t pu u cE plu cH ei , p u (Delivery cost to demand node)

l l l 1 , pl l 1 , pl l

weiu, p u j Qiju 0 (Linking flows to vehicle-trips)

l
Lu 1

(t0i ti , pu t pu , pu t Lu 0 ) T
(Tour length constraint)

L 1 L
u u
1
l 1 This term is equal to the
l l 1

we u
p ,p
Q u u
summation ofconstraint)
(Capacity tour costs.
i 1 j i 1
i j
Thus, it could be replaced by
j ,u
iju 1 (Conservationofoftour
the summation flow) costs,

which(Integrality)
allows to eliminate the
iju (0,1)
delivery cost constraint
eiju 0 cD , cT , cH 0 di , j , ti, j 0 (Non-negativity)
A Spatial Price Equilibrium UFT Model (P2)
45

SN
MAX NSP Si (Ei ) CV
u
(Net Social Payoff)
i 1 u
Ei
Subject to: Si ( Ei ) s( x)dx (Area under excess supply function)
0

Ei eiju (Excess supply)

u j
we u
i , plu j
Qiju 0 (Linking flows to vehicle-trips)
Lu 1

(t0i ti , pu t pu , pu t Lu 0 ) T (Tour length constraint)

1 l l 1
l 1
Lu 1 Lu

pu , pu Q
we
i 1 j i 1
u
i j
(Capacity constraint)

ij 1 j
u
(Conservation of flow)
j ,u

(0,1) i, j, u
u
ij (Integrality)

eiju 0 cD , cT , cH 0 di , j , ti , j 0 (Non-negativity)
However
46

P2 is a nasty combinatorial and non-linear problem

that is notoriously difficult to solve
To solve it, frame it as:
A dispersed SPE problem
A problem of profit maximization subject to competition
(which is equivalent to the NSP formulation produced by
Samuelson)
A dynamic problem in which competitors adjust decisions
based on the market competition results
Use heuristics
Heuristic Solution Approach (Dispersed SPE)
47

Initialization: Assume First-stage: Production level,

prices prices, profit margins, net profits

Phase 1: Initialization of TS,

Generate initial solutions
Profit-maximizing
Phase 2: Initial Improvement:
routing:
Perform neighborhood search
procedure
Phase 3: Second Improvement, 2-
Opt procedure and repeat 2

Phase 4: Intensification, Perform

neighbor search on solutions from 3
No
Convergence?
Yes
Market competition: Compute
purchases from suppliers
No Production dynamics:
Equilibrium?
Update production level

Second-stage pricing: Compute

optimal prices, profit margins

Yes Equilibrium? No Production dynamics:

STOP
Update production level
 Equilibrium Results
48

100 100

80
Two suppliers, four customers 80
Vehicle-tours
C3, D=4 C3, D=4
60 60
Y (miles)

Y (miles)
S1 S1
Consumers Consumers
C2, D=8 C2, D=8
40 Suppliers 40 Suppliers
S2 S2
C4, D=10 C4, D=10

20 20

C1, D=6 C1, D=6

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
X (miles) X (miles)
100

Commodity flows and prices

80

C3, D=4
60

Y (miles)

S1
(1 op ) (mQijuht mITijuht ) Consumers
1 Pijt j ,u , h 40
C2, D=8
Suppliers
Pijt S2
(1 si ) D j ( si
C4, D=10
si2 ) C4 (3.59, .97)
20

C1, D=6
C4
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
X (miles)
 49

Concluding
Remarks
Conclusions
50

There are reasons to be optimistic:

The community is cognizant of the need to model tours
Collecting data and developing tour models
However:
The models developed are still in need of improvements
The data collected are small and not comprehensive

Simulations and hybrid models require better

behavioral foundations that are not always validated
The most theoretically appealing models present
significant computational challenges to be overcome
Entropy Maximization models offer an interesting
avenue, though disregarding commodity flows
 51

References
References
52

Ambrosini, C., J. L. Routhier and F. Toilier (2004). How do urban policies work on the urban goods transport flows? WCTR, Istanbul.
Boerkamps, J. and A. van Binsbergen (1999). Goodtrip - A New Approach for Modelling and Evaluation of Urban Goods Distribution. City Logistics I, Cairns,
Australia.
Donnelly, R. (2007). A hybrid microsimulation model of freight flows. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on City Logistics, July 11-13, 2007. E.
Taniguchi and R. G. Thompson. Crete, Greece, Institute for City Logistics: 235-246.
Figliozzi, M. A. (2007). "Analysis of the efficiency of urban commercial vehicle tours: Data collection, methodology, and policy implications." Transportation
Research Part B: Methodological 41(9): 1014-1032.
Figliozzi, M. A. (2010). "The impacts of congestion on commercial vehicle tour characteristics and costs." Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review 46(4): 496-506.
Holgun-Veras, J. (2000). A Framework for an Integrative Freight Market Simulation. IEEE 3rd Annual Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference ITSC-2000,
Dearborn Michigan, IEEE
Holgun-Veras, J. (2002). "Revealed Preference Analysis of Commercial Vehicle Choice Process." Journal of Transportation Engineering 128(4): 336.
Holgun-Veras, J. (2008). "Necessary Conditions for Off-Hour Deliveries and the Effectiveness of Urban Freight Road Pricing and Alternative Financial Policies."
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42A(2): 392-413.
Holgun-Veras, J. (2011). "Urban Delivery Industry Response to Cordon Pricing, Time-Distance Pricing, and Carrier-Receiver Policies " Transportation Research
Part A 45: 802-824.
Holgun-Veras, J. and G. Patil (2005). "Observed Trip Chain Behavior of Commercial Vehicles." Transportation Research Record 1906: 74-80.
Holgun-Veras, J. and G. Patil (2007). "Integrated Origin-Destination Synthesis Model for Freight with Commodity-Based and Empty Trip Models." Transportation
Research Record 2008: 60-66.
Holgun-Veras, J. and G. Patil (2008). "A Multicommodity Integrated Freight Origindestination Synthesis Model." Networks and Spatial Economics 8(2): 309-326.
Holgun-Veras, J., M. Silas and J. Polimeni (2008). An Investigation on the Attitudinal Factors Determining Participation in Cooperative Multi-Carrier Delivery
Systems. Innovations in City Logistics IV. E. Taniguchi and R. Thomson, Nova Science Publishers: 55-68.
Holgun-Veras, J., M. A. Silas, J. Polimeni and B. Cruz (2007). "An Investigation on the Effectiveness of Joint Receiver-Carrier Policies to Increase Truck Traffic in
the Off-Peak Hours: Part I: The Behaviors of Receivers." Networks and Spatial Economics 7(3): 277-295.
Holgun-Veras, J., M. A. Silas, J. Polimeni and B. Cruz (2008). "An Investigation on the Effectiveness of Joint Receiver-Carrier Policies to Increase Truck Traffic in
the Off-Peak Hours: Part II: The Behaviors of Carriers." Networks and Spatial Economics 8(4): 327-354.
Holgun-Veras, J., E. Thorson and J. Mitchell (2012). "Spatial Price Equilibrium Model of Independent Shipper-Carrier Operations with Explicit Consideration of Trip
Chains." Transportation Research Part B (in review).
Holgun-Veras, J., E. Thorson and K. Ozbay (2004). "Preliminary Results of Experimental Economics Application to Urban Goods Modeling Research."
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1873(-1): 9-16.
Holgun-Veras, J. and Q. Wang (2011). "Behavioral Investigation on the Factors that Determine Adoption of an Electronic Toll Collection System: Freight Carriers."
Transportation Research Part C 19(4): 593-605.
Holgun-Veras, J., Q. Wang, N. Xu, K. Ozbay, M. Cetin and J. Polimeni (2006). "Impacts of Time of Day Pricing on the Behavior of Freight Carriers in a Congested
Urban Area: Implications to Road Pricing." Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 40 (9): 744-766.
References
53

Holgun-Veras, J., N. Xu and J. Mitchell (2012). "A Dynamic Spatial Price Equilibrium Model of Integrated Production-Transportation Operations
Considering Freight Tours." (in review).
Hunt, J. D. and K. J. Stefan (2007). "Tour-based microsimulation of urban commercial movements." Transportation Research Part B: Methodological
41(9): 981-1013.
Liedtke, G. (2006). An actor-based approach to commodity transport modelling. Ph.D., Karlsruhe Universitat.
Liedtke, G. (2009). "Principles of micro-behavior commodity transport modeling." Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review
45(5): 795-809.
McFadden, D., C. Winston and A. Boersch-Supan (1986). Joint Estimation of Freight Transportation Decisions Under Non-Random Sampling. Discussion
Paper, Harvard University.
Ruan, M., J. Lin and K. Kawamura (2012). "Modeling urban commercial vehicle daily tour chaining." Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review 48(6): 1169-1184.
Samuelson, P. A. (1952). "Spatial Price Equilibrium and Linear Programming." American Economic Review 42(3): 283-303.
Samuelson, R. D. (1977). Modeling the Freight Rate Structure. Cambridge MA, Center for Transportation Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Stefan, K., J. McMillan and J. Hunt (2005). "Urban Commercial Vehicle Movement Model for Calgary, Alberta, Canada." Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1921: 1-10.
Tavasszy, L. A., B. Smeenk and C. J. Ruijgrok (1998). "A DSS for Modelling Logistics Chains in Freight Transport Systems Analysis." International
Transactions in Operational Research 5(6): 447-459.
Thorson, E. (2005). The Integrative Freight Market Simulation: An Application of Experimental Economics and Algorithmic Solutions. Ph.D., Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute.
van Duin, J. H. R., L. A. Tavasszy and E. Taniguchi (2007). "Real time simulation of auctioning and re-scheduling processes in hybrid freight markets."
Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 41(9): 1050-1066.
Vleugel, J. and M. Janic (2004). Route choice and the impact of logistic routes. Logistics Systems for Sustainable Cities. E. Taniguchi and R. Thompson,
Elsevier.
Wang, Q. (2008). Tour Based Urban Freight Travel Demand Models. PhD, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Wang, Q. and J. Holgun-Veras (2008). "Investigation of Attributes Determining Trip Chaining Behavior in Hybrid Microsimulation Urban Freight Models."
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2066: 1-8.
Wang, Q. and J. Holgun-Veras (2009). Tour-based Entropy Maximization Formulations of Urban Commercial Vehicle Movements. 2009 Annual Meeting of
the Transportation Research Board. CDROM.
Wilson, A. G. (1969). "The use of entropy maximising models in the theory of trip distribution, mode split " Journal of Transport Economics and Policy
108-126.
Wilson, A. G. (1970). Entropy in Urban and Regional Modelling. London, Pion.
Wilson, A. G. (1970). "The use of the concept of entropy in system modelling." Operational Research Quarterly 21(2): 247-265.
Wisetjindawat, W., K. Sano, S. Matsumoto and P. Raothanachonkun (2007). Micro-Simulation Model for Modeling Freight Agents Interactions in Urban
Freight Movement. 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board
 54

Thanks! Questions?