Advertisement

Identifying the Need for Freight to be Included in Local Authority Transport Planning

  • Erica E. F. Ballantyne
  • Maria Lindholm
Chapter
Part of the EcoProduction book series (ECOPROD)

Abstract

Local authorities are slowly beginning to acknowledge the need to consider freight transport in their policy decision making processes and, over the last decade research in the field of urban freight transport has increased. The purpose of this chapter is to present similarities in the way that local authorities from Sweden, the UK, and Baltic Sea Region countries perceive urban freight problems, in order to motivate a more thorough transport planning process. Interviews have been conducted in these countries, and analysed to draw out the factors that influence local authorities and freight operator perceptions of urban freight transport issues. The relationships between local authorities and freight stakeholders are also discussed. Findings from the research show that despite local authorities having begun to acknowledge freight transport more often, the issues faced by the freight industry are still not fully understood. This research is intended to highlight to local authorities the potential benefits of including freight stakeholders in the transport planning process by contributing to a better understanding on how best to approach urban freight stakeholders. The research attempts to encourage more meaningful discussions with key freight stakeholders at an early stage in the transport planning process.

Keywords

Local Authority Stakeholder Involvement Freight Transport Transport Operator Transport Planning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allen J, Browne M, Piotrowska M, Woodburn A (2010) Freight quality partnerships in the UK—an analysis of their work and achievements. In: Green logistics project (ed) Transport studies group, University of Westminster, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Anand N, Yang M, van Duin JHR, Tavassy L (2012) GenCLOn: an ontology for city logistics. Expert Syst Appl 39(15):11944–11960 (in press, corrected proof)Google Scholar
  3. Bertolini L, le Clerck F, Kapoen L (2005) Sustainable accessibility: a conceptual framework to integrate transport and land use plan-making. Two test-applications in the Netherlands and a reflection on the way forward. Transp Policy 12:207–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BUSTRIP project (2005–2008), Retrieved 14 March 2012, from www.movingsustainable.net
  5. Chapman N (2012) Parking fines rise by a third in London—but FTA victory as plan for Olympic PCN increases is abandoned. In FREIGHT: Promoting safe, efficient and sustainable supply chains. FTA, Tunbridge WellsGoogle Scholar
  6. Crainic TG, Ricciardi N, Storchi G (2009) Models for evaluating and planning city logistics systems. Transp Sci 43(4):432–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dablanc L (2011) City distribution, a key element of the urban economy: guidelines for practioners. In: Macharis C, Melo S (eds) City distribution and urban freight transport: Multiple perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  8. Danielis R, Rotaris L, Marcucci E (2010) Urban freight policies and distribution channels. European Transp/Trasporti Europei 46:114–146Google Scholar
  9. Goel A (2009) Vehicle scheduling and routing with drivers’ working hours’. Transp Sci 43(1):17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Halvorsen K (1992) Samhällsvetenskaplig metod. Studentlitteratur, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  11. Hellevik O (1996) Forskningsmetoder I sociologi och statsvetenskap. Bokförlaget Natur och Kultur, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  12. Hesse M (1995) Urban space and logistics: on the road to sustainability? World Transp Policy and Pract 1(4):39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jäderberg M (2012) Personal communication with Maria Lindholm, in April 2012Google Scholar
  14. Lindholm M, Behrends S (2012) Challenges in urban freight transport planning—a review in the Baltic Sea Region. J Transp Geogr 22:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. May A, Roberts M (1995) The design of integrated transport strategies. Transp Policy 2(2):97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. May AD, Kelly C, Shepherd S, Jopson A (2012) An option generation tool for potential urban transport policy packages. Transport Policy 20:162–173 (Article in press)Google Scholar
  17. Muñuzuri J, Cortés P, Gaudix J, Onieva L (2012a) City logistics in Spain: Why it might never work. Cities 29:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Muñuzuri J, Cortés P, Grosso R, Gaudix J (2012b) Selecting the location of minihubs for freight delivery in congested downtown areas. Journal of Computational Science (accepted manuscript)Google Scholar
  19. Muñuzuri J, Larrañeta J, Onieva L, Cortés P (2005) Solutions applicable by local administrations for urban logistics improvement. Cities 22(1):15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ogden KW (1984) A framework for urban freight policy analysis. Transp Planning and Technol 8(4):253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Potter S, Skinner MJ (2000) On transport integration: a contribution to better understanding. Futures (32):275–288Google Scholar
  22. Quak HJ, de Koster MBM (2006) Urban distribution: the impacts of different governmental time-window schemes. Erasmus Research Institute of Management report. Series Research Management. Erasmus Research Institute of Management, RotterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Division for Logistics and TransportationChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations