4.7 Article

Characterization of urban distribution networks with light electric freight vehicles

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2023.103719

关键词

Optimization modeling; e-bikes and e-trikes; Urban freight distribution; Light electric freight vehicles; Last-mile delivery; Bogota

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The massive incorporation of light electric freight vehicles (LEFV) in large Latin American cities has been identified as a cleaner and more effective alternative for logistics operations. By using a routing optimization model, this paper evaluated the reduction in operational cost and GHG emissions achieved by replacing fuel-based cargo trucks or motorcycles with LEFV (e-trikes or e-bikes) in the last mile distribution. The results showed that using LEFV could reduce operational cost by over 50% and GHG emissions by over 95% in a commercial area in Bogota, considering parcel delivery and dry chain operations. These significant reductions are attributed to the synergistic effect of switching to electricity and reducing energy consumption of vehicles.
The massive incorporation of light electric freight vehicles (LEFV) in the last mile distribution has been identified as one of the alternatives that large Latin American cities shall include in their agenda for cleaner and more effective public policy in logistics operations. Thence, in this paper, a routing optimization model was used to evaluate the reduction in operational cost and GHG emissions when fueled cargo trucks or motorcycles are replaced by LEFV (i.e., e-trikes or e-bikes) in the last mile distribution in large Latin American cities. Results showed that for the case of a commercial area in Bogota, and two lines of business (i.e., parcel delivery and dry chain), the use of LEFV reduces more than 50% de operational cost and more than 95% the GHG emissions. These high reductions are due to the synergistic effect of switching from fuel to electricity and reducing the energy consumption of vehicles.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据