4.7 Article

Shipment size and vehicle choice modeling for road freight transport: A geographical perspective

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2023.103732

关键词

Freight transportation; Mode choice; Mixed logit; Road freight vehicles; Shipment size; ANCOVA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the geographical factors that influence shipment size and road freight vehicle choice. The research findings reveal that one region in Kocaeli province, neighboring Istanbul, has different vehicle choice mechanisms compared to the rest of the province. Therefore, in planning for freight transportation, the effects of neighboring large metropolitan areas should be taken into consideration.
Shipment size and freight transport mode choice have been modeled previously in many studies. There are several studies on the road transport level of this subject as well. This study investigates shipment size and road freight vehicle choice from a geographical point of view. An industrial region in a province may be neighboring another province, a large metropolitan area. Then, freight vehicle choice patterns in that industrial region may differ from the rest of the province it is part of. In this research, data were obtained from Kocaeli province in Turkiye. Modeling techniques include Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) for shipment size choice and Discrete Choice approaches for vehicle choice. This study investigates the effects of neighboring using dummy variable and market segmentation approaches. Both approaches show that one region of Kocaeli, neighboring Istanbul, has different vehicle choice mechanisms from the rest of Kocaeli. Therefore, in shipment size and freight vehicle choice modeling or freight transportation master plans for a region, neighboring effects of other large metropolitan areas should be considered. If necessary, separate models may be required for such regions. Effects of several variables on shipment size and vehicle choice patterns are also given.

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