Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Off-peak City DistributionSocio-economic analysis
Sönke Behrends, Chalmers University of Technology
Off-Peak City Distribution - Final Workshop6 December 2016, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Effect of congestion on emissions
Rigid truck, 18 tons, Diesel Euro VI
Purpose• to estimate the socio-economic effects of off-peak city distribution• travel time benefits for ’common traffic’• emission reduction: benefits for public health and ecosystems• Implications of noise nuisance
• estimate the relative importance of effects• estimate the relative significance of influencing factors
•Transferability of results
Method: Theoretical case study
CUTS Assessment Model
Transport chainsGPS data: project
traffic data: google maps
Emission dataHBEFA (2014)
VehiclesSize: from projectEngine: Diesel E-VI
External cost valuesRicardo-AEA (2014)
OUTPUTexternal costs
System boundaries:
Tank-to-Wheel
no loading/unloading
urban
suburban
rural
The cases
FTL: Lidl (280km)
LTL: M&S 1 (41km)LTL: M&S 2 (28 km)
Distribution of externalities – Daytime trips
Martin & Servera 1
Martin & Servera 2
Lidl
Distribution of externalities – Daytime trips
http://www.treehugger.com/cars/picture-worth-space-required-transport-60-people-car-uber-and-av.html
Sensitivity analysis – Congestion levels
-90% -87% -85%-79% -69% -63%
Martin & Servera 1 (and 2)
• Climate: -25%• Air pollution: -67%• Noise: +158%• No effect on safety
Lidl
• Climate: -3%• Air pollution: -17%• Noise: +160%• No effect on safety
Some general conclusions• Congestion cost dominate externalities •OHD significantly reduce externalities even at moderate congestion levels• Bigger effect on air pollution than on climate impact•No effect on safety
• Benefits at the cost of significantly higher noise impacts• can be mitigated by electrification
Sönke BehrendsChalmers University of TechnologyDepartment of Technology Management of EconomicsE-mail: [email protected]: +46 31 772 1323Twitter: @Goteborgerwww.urbanfreightplatform.se
