Comparison of Vehicle Miles Traveled and Pollution from Three Goods Movement Strategies

Abstract Purpose To provide insight into the role and design of delivery services to address CO2, NO x , and PM10 emissions from passenger travel. Methodology/approach A simulated North American data sample is served with three transportation structures: last-mile personal vehicles, local-depot-based truck delivery, and regional-warehouse-based truck delivery. CO2, NO x , and PM10 emissions are modeled using values from the US EPA’s MOVES model and are added to an ArcGIS optimization scheme. Findings Local-depot-based truck delivery requires the lowest amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and last-mile passenger travel generates the lowest levels of CO2, NO x , and PM10. While last-mile passenger travel requires the highest amount of VMT, the efficiency gains of the delivery services are not large enough to offset the higher pollution rate of the delivery vehicle as compared to personal vehicles. Practical implications This research illustrates the clear role delivery structure and logistics have in impacting the CO2, NO x , and PM10 emissions of goods transportation in North America. Social implications This research illustrates tension between goals to reduce congestion (via VMT reduction) and CO2, NO x , and PM10 emissions. Originality/value This chapter provides additional insight into the role of warehouse location in achieving sustainability targets and provides a novel comparison between delivery and personal travel for criteria pollutants.

[1]  Markus Hesse,et al.  Shipping news: the implications of electronic commerce for logistics and freight transport , 2002 .

[2]  Kari Tanskanen,et al.  Increasing the cost efficiency of e‐fulfilment using shared reception boxes , 2002 .

[3]  M. Punakivi,et al.  Identifying the success factors in e‐grocery home delivery , 2001 .

[4]  Lassi Linnanen,et al.  Effects of E‐Commerce on Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Case Study of Grocery Home Delivery in Finland , 2002 .

[5]  T. Crainic,et al.  ADVANCED FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FOR CONGESTED URBAN AREAS , 2004 .

[6]  D. Andreoli,et al.  The rise of mega distribution centers and the impact on logistical uncertainty , 2010 .

[7]  Sally Cairns Promises and problems: using GIS to analyse shopping travel , 1998 .

[8]  H. Quak,et al.  Exploring Retailers' Sensitivity to Local Sustainability Policies , 2005 .

[9]  H. J. Quak,et al.  Delivering Goods in Urban Areas: How to Deal with Urban Policy Restrictions and the Environment , 2009, Transp. Sci..

[10]  José Holguín-Veras,et al.  On the comparative performance of urban delivery vehicle classes , 2013 .

[11]  Anne Goodchild,et al.  Evaluating CO2 emissions, cost, and service quality trade-offs in an urban delivery system case study , 2011 .

[12]  J. Holmström,et al.  Solving the last mile issue: reception box or delivery box? , 2001 .

[13]  Agostino Nuzzolo,et al.  Ex-ante assessment of urban freight transport policies , 2010 .

[14]  Laetitia Dablanc,et al.  The impacts of logistics sprawl: How does the location of parcel transport terminals affect the energy efficiency of goods’ movements in Paris and what can we do about it? , 2010 .

[15]  Sally Cairns,et al.  Delivering supermarket shopping: more or less traffic? , 2005 .