Cargo Delivery Systems in Agglomeration Areas: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Krystian Pietrzak
,
Oliwia Pietrzak
,
Andrzej Montwiłł

Transport constitutes a key component of any city or agglomeration’s functioning and development. It is indispensable for the functioning of business entities (deliveries of raw materials and components, internal flows, distribution of finished products, provision of services) and public institutions (public services, administrative functions, regulatory and inspection activities), as well as for the functioning of the city and agglomeration’s residents and users (meeting the transport needs of the public—moving about to meet their work, education, entertainment, healthcare, and other needs).

  • energy transition
  • zero-emission transport
  • electromobility
  • sustainable urban freight transport
  • transport
  • Cargo Delivery Systems

1. Introduction

Transport constitutes a key component of any city or agglomeration’s functioning and development [1]. It is indispensable for the functioning of business entities (deliveries of raw materials and components, internal flows, distribution of finished products, provision of services) and public institutions (public services, administrative functions, regulatory and inspection activities), as well as for the functioning of the city and agglomeration’s residents and users (meeting the transport needs of the public—moving about to meet their work, education, entertainment, healthcare, and other needs).
Unfortunately, in addition to its positive effects, transport generates a number of negative impacts on the environment. The environmental impacts include degradation of air quality, greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, increased threat of global climate change, degradation of water resources, noise, and habitat loss and fragmentation [2]; and the adverse impacts on society include respiratory, nervous, and circulatory system diseases, decreased safety on the roads and side-walks, and the extended time and cost of travel to the destination as a result of road congestion [3][4][5][6]. Due to the abovementioned aspects, transport in cities constitutes a particular challenge for urban logistics [7], as it requires searching for innovative solutions to make cities less polluted and easier to access, and to make the street traffic more fluent [8].
The European cities’ response to the abovementioned challenges is an irreversible shift to low-emission mobility. Pursuant to A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility adopted by the EU, it is to be implemented via three major areas of actions: the achievement of higher efficiency of the transport system, utilisation of low-emission alternative energy for transport, and application of low-/zero emission vehicles [9]. The implementation is to cover both freight and passenger transport.

2. The Effects of Applying Cargo Delivery Systems to Support Energy Transition in Agglomeration Areas

A transport system constitutes a vital element of any human environment. It provides mobility to residents, supports logistics processes, and moreover it is an indispensable factor of regional competitiveness and development. In this respect, intensively developing TSs gains particular importance in cities and agglomerations [10]. Their development is a direct outcome of demographic changes, including the progressing global urbanisation trend. According to United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs [11], the urban population between 2018 and 2030 is to increase from 55% to over 60% of the global population. The forecasts show that by 2050, the value will reach as much as 66–68% [12][13][14].
When analysing the processes connected with city development, it is possible to notice that TSs play a key role in those processes. It is hard to imagine a contemporary city without appropriately developed systems of:
  • Linear and nodal transport infrastructure;
  • Passenger (private and public) transport;
  • Urban deliveries.
As it is these systems that are responsible for meeting the transport needs found in urbanised areas, it is also hard to imagine future cities without well-developed TSs; even more so as the forecast large rise in the population of urbanised areas may significantly increase the needs related to passenger and cargo flows.
However, when analysing any TSs it is also necessary to account for the accompanying phenomena that may influence the city residents’ health and life quality. Domagała et al. [15], Kijewska et al. [16], and Davidich et al. [17] pointed out that in addition to its positive aspects, a transport system may also be a source of hazards. This is also confirmed by Gao et al. [18] who indicated that the cities where the TS is mainly based on road transport experience various negative consequences. As noted by Lah [19] and Waquas et al. [20], said hazards result mainly from the fact that most vehicles are still powered with fossil fuels. This leads to considerable emissions of harmful substances, including: CO, CO2, SO2, NOX, PM10, PM2.5. There are numerous studies on transport-related emissions, including those authored by, e.g., Łapko et al. [21], Strulak-Wójcikiewicz et al. [22], Mikulski et al. [23], Połom et al. [24], Jereb et al. [25], and Urrutia-Mosquera et al. [26].
Zhang et al. [27], Matz et al. [28], and Boogaard et al. [29] pointed to the existing correlation between TS and life and health of people living in cities and agglomerations. The identified and studied diseases that derive directly from TS functioning include: cardiovascular diseases [30], asthma and COPD/chronic bronchitis [31][32][33], and acute changes in blood pressure [34][35].
Also, a significant environmental hazard ensuing from TS-related emissions is the global warming. This fact is emphasised in the studies authored by Giannakis et al. [36], Abraham et al. [37], and Zhang et al. [38]. According to the literature, the industry related to the transport sector is responsible for ca. a quarter of the global GHG emissions [39][40], and unless adequate measures are taken, in the future the transport sector will have an even greater share in GHG emissions. Very interesting insights in this respect are presented by Gelete et al. [41], Regmi et al. [42], and Koetse et al. [43]. They pointed out that the global warming caused by TSs, in addition to the negative impacts on the natural environment and human life and health, may also hinder and constrain the functioning of TSs themselves. The rising average air temperatures and the increasingly frequent extreme weather events (floods, hurricanes, torrential rain) can lead to accelerated wear and tear of vehicles and transportation infrastructures, as well as to increased costs of constructing new infrastructure elements. They may also periodically disrupt the possibility of providing transport services.
Aminzadegan et al. [44] pointed out that within the EU area, the TS was the second largest source of GHG emissions. According to Pomianowski [45], the TS constitutes the main source of air pollution in cities. The tangible aspects of the measures taken by the EU to mitigate the impact of TSs on the natural environment and human health and life are, e.g., the numerous changes within the scope of its transport policy [46]. The policy promotes all activities to support the development of low- and zero-emission forms of transport [47]. The aspect of particular importance in this respect is the development of electromobility [48], that is, the totality of issues related to the use of electric vehicles [49] applied in passenger and freight transport. The process of electromobility development in transport encompasses both the implementation of low- and zero-emission means of transport along with the necessary infrastructure and making specific urban spaces available exclusively for them—low-emission zones (LEZs) [50][51][52] and zero-emission zones (ZEZs) [53].
In the case of urban passenger transport, it is possible to identify several areas of activity in that regard. The first of them is the development and promotion of public transport (PT). It is aimed at increasing the PT share in the overall number of passenger trips in cities and agglomerations. There are numerous studies that have proved the effectiveness of those measures [54][55][56][57][58][59][60], where the authors indicate that PT may constitute the basis for the development and functioning of sustainable transport in cities and agglomerations. Cheng et al. [61] pointed to the considerable potential of PT in GHG emissions’ reduction, which results from the possibility of carrying a large number of passengers in a short time compared to individual transport; this was also confirmed by Ranceva et al. [62]. For the past several years, it is possible to notice that many cities have been developing their existing TSs. They place particular emphasis on enhancing the role of PT, or even prioritising it over other forms of movement. In this case, the particularly relevant solutions seem to be the ones that are independent of or moderately dependent on road congestion—trams, metro, light rail, and trolleybuses [63][64][65][66][67][68].
The second area of activity regarding passenger transport, which in some terms supplements the first one, is the development and application of alternative sources of energy for public means of transport. As Guzik et al. [69] were right to say, vehicles such as trams, metro, light rail, and trolleybuses may be excluded from this process. Due to the fact that they are electrically-powered, they have been meeting the electromobility criteria for many years. However, there is still an issue connected with the use of buses in the city public transportation system, as many of them are still internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). Therefore, it is important to develop and implement alternative drives for this type of means of transport. The application of compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) buses, as well as hybrid vehicles at the initial stage, brought tangible benefits in terms of noise and GHG emissions’ reductions [70][71][72][73][74][75]. However, this was only a beginning of further activities in that respect. A kind of revolution was the introduction of electric buses to the market. The benefits of replacing ICEVs with electric buses were demonstrated in the studies authored by Konečný et al. [76] and Dalla Chiara et al. [77]. They stressed that the use of electric buses may bring significant savings in social costs.
The last area of activity regarding passenger transport is the development of environmentally-friendly vehicles that may be jointly referred to as non-motorised transport (NMT), along with the infrastructure that is indispensable for their functioning. The literature also refers to this kind of movement as “active transportation” or “human powered transportation” [78][79]. NMT encompasses bicycling and other kinds of vehicles: skates, skateboards, or push scooters, which may be categorised as small-wheeled transport [80]. As shown by Maciorowski et al. [81], NMT has been gaining popularity due to its low external costs, but also the significant benefits to the physical and mental health of its users. Risimiati et al. [82] on the basis of studies carried out in Johannesburg pointed to the possibility of integrating NMT with the infrastructure dedicated for PT and the ensuing benefits. NMT can be used in the initial and final stages of multimodal passenger travel, e.g., where the PT network is not adequately developed (city outskirts) or where there are restrictions for motorised traffic (city centres, old towns). The appropriate integration of NMT with PT makes it possible to build all-inclusive transportation chains in city TSs. In fact, the suggested integration relies on the construction of an appropriate nodal infrastructure (e.g., B&R); however, as Rietveld [83] emphasised, due to the small size of NMT vehicles it does not require considerable space as in the case of P&R facilities.
Grzelak et al. [84] argued that the relevant aspects of measures taken to reduce TS-related CO2 emissions were also those aiming at the promotion of the purchase and use of private electric vehicles (to replace the currently used ICEVs). These include systems of subsidies for the purchase of vehicles or the application of various kinds of preferences in using the city car parks, or access to special, designated traffic lanes. Gerboni et al. [85] are of a similar opinion and they stress that an increased share of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in the total number of individual vehicles may bring the desired effects. This, however, depends on the improved availability of public charging infrastructures, among other things.
In the case of urban freight transport (UFT), the implementation of solutions aimed at mitigating TSs’ impact on the natural environment and human health and life pertains predominantly to the first- and last-mile (FM and LM) operations. These are usually light, small-size cargoes—mainly parcels and courier consignments. Deliveries of this kind may be made using electric freight vehicles (EFVs) whose parameters correspond to the diesel-powered light commercial vehicles (LCVs) used thus far with a carrying capacity of up to 1.5 tonnes. The practical aspects of the possibilities of making deliveries with the use of EFVs, as well as the potential barriers to that process, were investigated by Dong et al. [86], Wątróbski et al. [87], Iwan et al. [88], Taefi et al. [89], and Malander et al. [90]. Importantly, the application of EFVs may bring tangible benefits in terms of mitigating the TS’s impacts on the natural environment and human life and health (reduced levels of emissions and noise); nonetheless, it does not eliminate all the nuisances caused by UFT. For example, it does not reduce congestion and does not improve pedestrians’ and cyclists’ safety [91].
Where the entry of ICEVs is constrained or prohibited [92], and also in the case of the numerous spatial limitations found especially in city centres, cargo deliveries supporting energy transition may also be made using the vehicles categorised as light electric freight vehicles (LEFVs). According to Balm et al. [93], LEFVs are electrically powered or electrically assisted vehicles that are smaller than a van and have a maximum loading capacity of 750 kg. Moolenburgh et al. [94] enumerated the following LEFVs: electric cargo bikes (loading capacity up to 350 kg), electric cargo mopeds (loading capacity up to 500 kg), and small electric distribution vehicles (loading capacity up to 750 kg). LEFVs take up much less space than EFVs; therefore, they are much easier to manoeuvre in city centres, and it is also easier to find an appropriate place for un/loading them. The utilisation of LEFVs may bring considerable effects in terms of processes related to energy transition in UFT. The study carried out by Diaz-Ramirez et al. in Bogota [95] has shown that the utilisation of LEFVs in urban distribution may reduce GHG emissions by more than 95%. Such a large reduction may be the result of synergy encompassing the abandonment of fossil fuels and replacing them with electric energy, at the same time reducing the demand for energy due to the reduced vehicle weight.
As noted by Iwan et al. [96], at the moment electric vehicles are still much more expensive than ICEVs; moreover, they have other limitations. The most significant ones include a limited travel range, long charging time (considerably longer than the time needed to refuel ICEVs), and the still-small number of public charging stations. This was also confirmed in the studies carried out by Skrúcaný et al. [97], Macioszek [49], and Anosike et al. [98]. The above indicated features effectively curb the applicability of electric vehicles in heavy cargo or long-distance transport; however, they do not negatively affect the provision of transport services in urban conditions. An interesting study in this respect was carried out by Settey et al. [99]. According to the study, it is in urban cycles characterised by frequent stopping and low velocity that EFVs are the most effective in terms of energy consumption. The advantage of EFVs over ICEVs can be particularly noticeable in limited speed zones (e.g., 30 km/h zones) or areas prone to congestion. The discussed results were also confirmed by Melo et al. [100] who pointed out that EV effectiveness depends on the cargo weight and size as well as the route length. In the authors’ opinion, the use of electric vehicles is particularly effective in urban logistics, which deals predominantly with small and light consignments that are carried over small distances. The EV travel range, which depends on the amount of electric power stored in the vehicle batteries, imposes additional constraints on distribution routes’ design [101], may require recharging while the vehicles are in operation [102], and also imposes the need to support the delivery systems by cargo consolidation centres.
The completed literature review has shown that the issue of energy transition in UFT is addressed primarily in relation to typical urban and agglomeration delivery systems, mainly in FM and LM deliveries. This derives directly from the constraints and properties of electric vehicles. It is in urban traffic that it is possible to charge the vehicles on a current basis or recover energy as a result of frequent braking, and the travel range of this type of vehicle does not constitute a significant barrier to making deliveries over short distances.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that many cities and agglomerations still have an issue with delivery systems for heavy weight cargoes, such as bulk, oversized, hazardous cargoes or containers. The problem affects mainly port, trading, tourist, and industrial cities and agglomerations, where deliveries are made often without a possibility of consolidation/deconsolidation and determine the use of the transport infrastructure connecting specific points or entities (e.g., trading ports, industrial enterprises). Deliveries of this kind are made over long distances with the use of high-carrying-capacity vehicles.
Unfortunately, the literature does not sufficiently address cargo delivery systems supporting energy transition with respect to the abovementioned cargo group. This is mainly due to the very limited possibility of applying electric road vehicles that are capable of making such deliveries. Even though it is possible to apply electric drive in heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), this requires very capacious batteries which would considerably reduce the vehicle’s loading capacity, in terms of both volume and weight. As indicated by Olovsson et al. [103], given the current battery efficiency, long-distance HGVs would need a battery with a capacity in the range of 600–800 kWh, which would necessitate a battery package weighing several tonnes.
In an attempt to solve this problem, some solutions are being tested in several countries, to make it possible to charge HGVs while they are in motion. The electric road system (ERS) program [104][105], also called dynamic power transfer (DPT), which is currently being tested, e.g., in Sweden, Norway, and Germany, consists of constructing traction power networks above selected roads to supply road vehicles in motion, on a similar principle as in the case of trains or trams. Schwerdfeger et al. [106] noted that the implementation of this type of solution to a larger extent may be costly and time-consuming. Moreover, according to Börjesson et al. [107], the potential benefits of the ERS system may be limited in the long term as a result of the further development of batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. A substantial limitation of this solution may also be the fact that a traction power network located above the road may restrict or even block the transport of oversized cargoes.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/en16247943

References

  1. Condurat, M.; Nicuţă, A.M.; Andrei, R. Environmental Impact of Road Transport Traffic. A Case Study for County of Iaşi Road Network. Procedia Eng. 2017, 181, 123–130.
  2. Demirel, H.; Sertel, E.; Kaya, S.; Zafer Seker, D. Exploring Impacts of Road Transportation on Environment: A Spatial Approach. Desalination 2008, 226, 279–288.
  3. Hao, G.; Zuo, L.; Weng, X.; Fei, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, L.; Wang, Z.; Jing, C. Associations of Road Traffic Noise with Cardiovascular Diseases and Mortality: Longitudinal Results from UK Biobank and Meta-Analysis. Environ. Res. 2022, 212, 113129.
  4. Andersson, E.M.; Ögren, M.; Molnár, P.; Segersson, D.; Rosengren, A.; Stockfelt, L. Road Traffic Noise, Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Events in a Swedish Cohort. Environ. Res. 2020, 185, 109446.
  5. Ahmed, S.K.; Mohammed, M.G.; Abdulqadir, S.O.; El-Kader, R.G.A.; El-Shall, N.A.; Chandran, D.; Rehman, M.E.U.; Dhama, K. Road Traffic Accidental Injuries and Deaths: A Neglected Global Health Issue. Health Sci. Rep. 2023, 6, e1240.
  6. Afrin, T.; Yodo, N. A Survey of Road Traffic Congestion Measures towards a Sustainable and Resilient Transportation System. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4660.
  7. Bjørgen, A.; Ryghaug, M. Integration of Urban Freight Transport in City Planning: Lesson Learned. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2022, 107, 103310.
  8. EU Commission. Green Paper—Towards a New Culture for Urban Mobility; 25.9.2007 ; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
  9. EU Commission. A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility; 20.7.2016 ; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
  10. Pietrzak, K.; Pietrzak, O. Environmental Effects of Electromobility in a Sustainable Urban Public Transport. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1052.
  11. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. The World’s Cities in 2018—Data Booklet; (ST/ESA/SER.A/417); United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
  12. Bennani, M.; Jawab, F.; Hani, Y.; ElMhamedi, A.; Amegouz, D. A Hybrid MCDM for the Location of Urban Distribution Centers under Uncertainty: A Case Study of Casablanca, Morocco. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9544.
  13. Rudewicz, J. Entrepreneurship in Slum Dwellers: Social Inclusion and the “Right to a City”. Przedsiębiorczość–Eduk. 2020, 16, 318–333.
  14. Ritchie, H.; Roser, M. Urbanization|OurWorldInData. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization (accessed on 31 May 2023).
  15. Domagała, J.; Zych-Lewandowska, M. Environmental Costs Generated by Road Freight Transport in Poland. Rocz. Ochr. Sr. 2021, 23, 138–150.
  16. Kijewska, K.; Jedliński, M.; Iwan, S. Ecological Utility of FQP Projects in the Stakeholders’ Opinion in the Light of Empirical Studies Based on the Example of the City of Szczecin. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 74, 103171.
  17. Davidich, N.; Galkin, A.; Iwan, S.; Kijewska, K.; Chumachenko, I.; Davidich, Y. Monitoring of Urban Freight Flows Distribution Considering the Human Factor. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 75, 103168.
  18. Gao, Y.; Zhu, J. Characteristics, Impacts and Trends of Urban Transportation. Encyclopedia 2022, 2, 1168–1182.
  19. Lah, O. Factors of Change: The Influence of Policy Environment Factors on Climate Change Mitigation Strategies in the Transport Sector. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 25, 3495–3510.
  20. Waqas, M.; Dong, Q.; Ahmad, N.; Zhu, Y.; Nadeem, M. Understanding Acceptability towards Sustainable Transportation Behavior: A Case Study of China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3686.
  21. Łapko, A.; Panasiuk, A.; Strulak-Wójcikiewicz, R.; Landowski, M. The State of Air Pollution as a Factor Determining the Assessment of a City’s Tourist Attractiveness—Based on the Opinions of Polish Respondents. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1466.
  22. Strulak-Wójcikiewicz, R.; Lemke, J. Concept of a Simulation Model for Assessing the Sustainable Development of Urban Transport. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 39, 502–513.
  23. Mikulski, M.; Droździel, P.; Tarkowski, S. Reduction of Transport-Related Air Pollution. A Case Study Based on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Level of NOx Emissions in the City of Krakow. Open Eng. 2021, 11, 790–796.
  24. Połom, M.; Wiśniewski, P. Assessment of the Emission of Pollutants from Public Transport Based on the Example of Diesel Buses and Trolleybuses in Gdynia and Sopot. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8379.
  25. Jereb, B.; Stopka, O.; Skrúcaný, T. Methodology for Estimating the Effect of Traffic Flow Management on Fuel Consumption and CO2 Production: A Case Study of Celje, Slovenia. Energies 2021, 14, 1673.
  26. Urrutia-Mosquera, J.A.; Flórez-Calderón, L.Á. Impact of Confinement on the Reduction of Pollution and Particulate Matter Concentrations. Reflections for Public Transport Policies. Environ. Process. 2022, 10, 2.
  27. Zhang, K.; Batterman, S. Air Pollution and Health Risks due to Vehicle Traffic. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 450–451, 307–316.
  28. Matz, C.J.; Egyed, M.; Hocking, R.; Seenundun, S.; Charman, N.; Edmonds, N. Human Health Effects of Traffic-Related Air Pollution (TRAP): A Scoping Review Protocol. Syst. Rev. 2019, 8, 223.
  29. Boogaard, H.; Patton, A.P.; Atkinson, R.W.; Brook, J.R.; Chang, H.H.; Crouse, D.L.; Fussell, J.C.; Hoek, G.; Hoffmann, B.; Kappeler, R.; et al. Long-Term Exposure to Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Selected Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environ. Int. 2022, 164, 107262.
  30. Raaschou-Nielsen, O.; Andersen, Z.J.; Jensen, S.S.; Ketzel, M.; Sørensen, M.; Hansen, J.; Loft, S.; Tjønneland, A.; Overvad, K. Traffic Air Pollution and Mortality from Cardiovascular Disease and All Causes: A Danish Cohort Study. Environ. Health 2012, 11, 60.
  31. Jerrett, M.; Shankardass, K.; Berhane, K.; Gauderman, W.J.; Künzli, N.; Avol, E.; Gilliland, F.; Lurmann, F.; Molitor, J.N.; Molitor, J.T.; et al. Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Asthma Onset in Children: A Prospective Cohort Study with Individual Exposure Measurement. Environ. Health Perspect. 2008, 116, 1433–1438.
  32. Khreis, H.; Kelly, C.; Tate, J.; Parslow, R.; Lucas, K.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M. Exposure to Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Risk of Development of Childhood Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environ. Int. 2017, 100, 1–31.
  33. Favarato, G.; Anderson, H.R.; Atkinson, R.; Fuller, G.; Mills, I.; Walton, H. Traffic-Related Pollution and Asthma Prevalence in Children. Quantification of Associations with Nitrogen Dioxide. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2014, 7, 459–466.
  34. Hudda, N.; Eliasziw, M.; Hersey, S.O.; Reisner, E.; Brook, R.D.; Zamore, W.; Durant, J.L.; Brugge, D. Effect of Reducing Ambient Traffic-Related Air Pollution on Blood Pressure. Hypertension 2021, 77, 823–832.
  35. Zhong, J.; Cayir, A.; Trevisi, L.; Sanchez-Guerra, M.; Lin, X.; Peng, C.; Bind, M.-A.; Prada, D.; Laue, H.; Brennan, K.J.; et al. Traffic-Related Air Pollution, Blood Pressure, and Adaptive Response of Mitochondrial Abundance. Circulation 2016, 133, 378–387.
  36. Giannakis, E.; Serghides, D.; Dimitriou, S.; Zittis, G. Land Transport CO2 Emissions and Climate Change: Evidence from Cyprus. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2020, 39, 634–647.
  37. Abraham, S.; Ganesh, K.; Kumar, A.S.; Ducqd, Y. Impact on Climate Change due to Transportation Sector—Research Prospective. Procedia Eng. 2012, 38, 3869–3879.
  38. Zhang, A.; Gudmundsson, S.V.; Oum, T.H. Air Transport, Global Warming and the Environment. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2010, 15, 1–4.
  39. Zhang, S.; Witlox, F. Analyzing the Impact of Different Transport Governance Strategies on Climate Change. Sustainability 2019, 12, 200.
  40. Marsden, G.; Rye, T. The Governance of Transport and Climate Change. J. Transp. Geogr. 2010, 18, 669–678.
  41. Gelete, G.; Gokcekus, H. The Economic Impact of Climate Change on Transportation Assets. J. Environ. Pollut. Control 2018, 1, 105.
  42. Regmi, M.B.; Hanaoka, S. A Survey on Impacts of Climate Change on Road Transport Infrastructure and Adaptation Strategies in Asia. Environ. Econ. Policy Stud. 2011, 13, 21–41.
  43. Koetse, M.J.; Rietveld, P. The Impact of Climate Change and Weather on Transport: An Overview of Empirical Findings. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2009, 14, 205–221.
  44. Aminzadegan, S.; Shahriari, M.; Mehranfar, F.; Abramović, B. Factors Affecting the Emission of Pollutants in Different Types of Transportation: A Literature Review. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 2508–2529.
  45. Pomianowski, A. Electromobility in Poland, Availability, Trends and Challenges. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 2021, XXIV, 612–622.
  46. Deja, A.; Ulewicz, R.; Kyrychenko, Y. Analysis and Assessment of Environmental Threats in Maritime Transport. Transp. Res. Procedia 2021, 55, 1073–1080.
  47. Montwiłł, A.; Pietrzak, K.; Pietrzak, O. Analysis of the possibility of reducing external costs of transport within land-sea transport chains on the example of Zachodniopomorskie Voivodeship, Poland. Transp. Probl. 2020, 15 Pt 2, 179–190.
  48. Mercik, A.R. Elektromobilność w autobusowym transporcie publicznym organizowanym przez górnośląsko-zagłębiowską metropolię jako narzędzie realizacji idei zrównoważonej mobilności. Pr. Kom. Geogr. Komun. PTG 2020, 23, 18–33.
  49. Macioszek, E. Analysis of Trends in Development of Electromobility in Poland: Current Problems and Issues. In Transport Development Challenges in the 21st Century; Suchanek, M., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 145–156.
  50. Zhang, Y.; Andre, M.; Liu, Y.; Wu, L.; Jing, B.; Mao, H. Evaluation of Low Emission Zone Policy on Vehicle Emission Reduction in Beijing, China. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 121, 052070.
  51. Cruz, C.; Montenon, A. Implementation and Impacts of Low Emission Zones on Freight Activities in Europe: Local Schemes versus National Schemes. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 12, 544–556.
  52. Kowalska-Pyzalska, A. Perspectives of Development of Low Emission Zones in Poland: A Short Review. Front. Energy Res. 2022, 10, 898391.
  53. de Bok, M.; Tavasszy, L.; Kourounioti, I.; Thoen, S.; Eggers, L.; Nielsen, V.M.; Streng, J. Simulation of the Impacts of a Zero-Emission Zone on Freight Delivery Patterns in Rotterdam. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2021, 2675, 776–785.
  54. Kos, B.; Krawczyk, G.; Tomanek, R.J. Determinants for the Effective Electromobility Development in Public Transport. In Electric Mobility in Public Transport—Driving towards Cleaner Air; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 27–51.
  55. Goliszek, S. Private Car Transport or Public Transport? The Study of Daily Accessibility in Szczecin. Geogr. Časopis–Geogr. J. 2022, 74, 337–356.
  56. Sen, V.; Hajela, A.; Suneeth, G.; Saxena, S.; Deore, A. Greening of Public Transport in Pune—A Feasibility Study. Australas. Account. Bus. Financ. J. 2023, 17, 220–235.
  57. Iqbal, R.; Ullah, M.U.; Habib, G.; Ullah, M.K. Evaluating Public and Private Transport of Lahore. J. World Sci. 2023, 2, 325–336.
  58. Velasco Arevalo, A.; Gerike, R. Sustainability Evaluation Methods for Public Transport with a Focus on Latin American Cities: A Literature Review. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2023, 17, 1236–1253.
  59. Al-Dalain, R.; Alnsour, M. Measuring the Sustainability Performance of the Public Transport System. Int. J. Proj. Manag. Product. Assess. 2022, 10, 1–13.
  60. Budiarto, A. The Sustainability of Public Transport Operation Based on Financial Point of View. MATEC Web Conf. 2019, 258, 01008.
  61. Cheng, H.; Madanat, S.; Horvath, A. Planning Hierarchical Urban Transit Systems for Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2016, 49, 44–58.
  62. Ranceva, J.; Ušpalytė-Vitkūnienė, R. Models of public transport organization and management in Lithuania and foreign countries. Moksl.–Liet. Ateitis 2021, 13, 1–10.
  63. Gadziński, J.; Radzimski, A. The First Rapid Tram Line in Poland: How Has It Affected Travel Behaviours, Housing Choices and Satisfaction, and Apartment Prices? J. Transp. Geogr. 2016, 54, 451–463.
  64. Barczak, A. The Expectations of the Residents of Szczecin in the Field of Telematics Solutions after the Launch of the Szczecin Metropolitan Railway. Information 2021, 12, 339.
  65. Pietrzak, K.; Pietrzak, O. Can the Metropolitan Rail System Hamper the Development of Individual Transport? (Case Study on the Example of the Szczecin Metropolitan Railway, Szczecin, Poland). In Transport Development Challenges in the 21st Century; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 181–192.
  66. Łukaszkiewicz, J.; Fortuna-Antoszkiewicz, B.; Oleszczuk, Ł.; Fialová, J. The Potential of Tram Networks in the Revitalization of the Warsaw Landscape. Land 2021, 10, 375.
  67. Wołek, M.; Wolański, M.; Wyszomirski, O.; Grzelec, K.; Hebel, K. Ensuring sustainable development of urban public transport: A case study of the trolleybus system in Gdynia and Sopot (Poland). J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123807.
  68. Połom, M. Technology Development and Spatial Diffusion of Auxiliary Power Sources in Trolleybuses in European Countries. Energies 2021, 14, 3040.
  69. Guzik, R.; Kołoś, A.; Taczanowski, J.; Fiedeń, Ł.; Gwosdz, K.; Hetmańczyk, K.; Łodziński, J. The Second Generation Electromobility in Polish Urban Public Transport: The Factors and Mechanisms of Spatial Development. Energies 2021, 14, 7751.
  70. Jurkovič, M.; Kalina, T.; Skrúcaný, T.; Gorzelanczyk, P.; Ľupták, V. Environmental Impacts of Introducing LNG as Alternative Fuel for Urban Buses—Case Study in Slovakia. Promet–Traffic Transp. 2020, 32, 837–847.
  71. Milojevic, S.; Grocic, D.; Dragojlovic, D. CNG Propulsion System for Reducing Noise of Existing City Buses. J. Appl. Eng. Sci. 2016, 14, 377–382.
  72. Merkisz, J.; Dobrzyński, M.; Kozak, M.; Lijewski, P.; Fuć, P. Environmental Aspects of the Use of CNG in Public Urban Transport. In Alternative Fuels, Technical and Environmental Conditions; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2016.
  73. Park, S.-A.; Tak, H. The Environmental Effects of the CNG Bus Program on Metropolitan Air Quality in Korea. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2011, 49, 261–287.
  74. García, A.; Monsalve-Serrano, J.; Lago Sari, R.; Tripathi, S. Life Cycle CO2 Footprint Reduction Comparison of Hybrid and Electric Buses for Bus Transit Networks. Appl. Energy 2022, 308, 118354.
  75. Dreier, D.; Silveira, S.; Khatiwada, D.; Fonseca, K.V.O.; Nieweglowski, R.; Schepanski, R. Well-To-Wheel Analysis of Fossil Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Conventional, Hybrid-Electric and Plug-in Hybrid-Electric City Buses in the BRT System in Curitiba, Brazil. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 58, 122–138.
  76. Konečný, V.; Gnap, J.; Settey, T.; Petro, F.; Skrúcaný, T.; Figlus, T. Environmental Sustainability of the Vehicle Fleet Change in Public City Transport of Selected City in Central Europe. Energies 2020, 13, 3869.
  77. Dalla Chiara, B.; Pede, G.; Deflorio, F.; Zanini, M. Electrifying Buses for Public Transport: Boundaries with a Performance Analysis Based on Method and Experience. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14082.
  78. Alessio, H.M.; Bassett, D.R.; Bopp, M.J.; Parr, B.B.; Patch, G.S.; Rankin, J.W.; Rojas-Rueda, D.; Roti, M.W.; Wojcik, J.R. Climate Change, Air Pollution, and Physical Inactivity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2021, 53, 1170–1178.
  79. Rather, A.R.; Ram, S.; Ganie, R.A. Study for Human Powered Transportation and Its Consequences on General Traffic. Int. J. Sci. Res. Dev. 2020, 8, 1147–1150.
  80. Yazid, M.R.M.; Ismail, R.; Atiq, R. The Use of Non-Motorized for Sustainable Transportation in Malaysia. Procedia Eng. 2011, 20, 125–134.
  81. Maciorowski, M.M.; Souza, J.C. Urban Roads and Non-Motorized Transport: The Barrier Effect and Challenges in the Search for Sustainable Urban Mobility. Transp. Res. Procedia 2018, 33, 123–130.
  82. Risimati, B.; Gumbo, T.; Chakwizira, J. Spatial Integration of Non-Motorized Transport and Urban Public Transport Infrastructure: A Case of Johannesburg. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11461.
  83. Rietveld, P. Non-Motorised Modes in Transport Systems: A Multimodal Chain Perspective for the Netherlands. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2000, 5, 31–36.
  84. Grzelak, M.; Kijek, M. Modeling the Price of Electric Vehicles as an Element of Promotion of Environmental Safety and Climate Neutrality: Evidence from Poland. Energies 2021, 14, 8534.
  85. Gerboni, R.; Caballini, C.; Minetti, A.; Grosso, D.; Dalla Chiara, B. Recharging Scenarios for Differently Electrified Road Vehicles: A Methodology and Its Application to the Italian Grid. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2021, 11, 100454.
  86. Dong, Y.; Polak, J.; Tretvik, T.; Roche-Cerasi, I.; Quak, H.; Nesterova, N.; Van Rooijen, T. Electric freight vehicles for urban logistics—Technical performance, economics feasibility and environmental impacts. In Proceedings of the 7th Transport Research Arena TRA 2018, Vienna, Austria, 16–19 April 2018.
  87. Wątróbski, J.; Małecki, K.; Kijewska, K.; Iwan, S.; Karczmarczyk, A.; Thompson, R. Multi-Criteria Analysis of Electric Vans for City Logistics. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1453.
  88. Iwan, S.; Kijewska, K.; Kijewski, D. Possibilities of Applying Electrically Powered Vehicles in Urban Freight Transport. Procedia–Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 151, 87–101.
  89. Taefi, T.T.; Kreutzfeldt, J.; Held, T.; Fink, A. Supporting the Adoption of Electric Vehicles in Urban Road Freight Transport—A Multi-Criteria Analysis of Policy Measures in Germany. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016, 91, 61–79.
  90. Melander, L.; Nyquist-Magnusson, C. Drivers for and Barriers to Electric Freight Vehicle Adoption in Stockholm. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2022, 108, 103317.
  91. Pietrzak, K.; Pietrzak, O.; Montwiłł, A. Effects of Incorporating Rail Transport into a Zero-Emission Urban Deliveries System: Application of Light Freight Railway (LFR) Electric Trains. Energies 2021, 14, 6809.
  92. Papaioannou, E.; Iliopoulou, C.; Kepaptsoglou, K. Last-Mile Logistics Network Design under E-Cargo Bikes. Future Transp. 2023, 3, 403–416.
  93. Balm, S.; Moolenburgh, E.; Anand, N.; Ploos van Amstel, W. The Potential of Light Electric Vehicles for Specific Freight Flows: Insights from the Netherlands. In City Logistics 2: Modeling and Planning Initiatives; ISTE Ltd.: London, UK, 2018; pp. 241–260.
  94. Moolenburgh, E.A.; van Duin, J.H.R.; Balm, S.; van Altenburg, M.; van Amstel, W.P. Logistics Concepts for Light Electric Freight Vehicles: A Multiple Case Study from the Netherlands. Transp. Res. Procedia 2020, 46, 301–308.
  95. Díaz-Ramírez, J.; Zazueta-Nassif, S.; Galarza-Tamez, R.; Prato-Sánchez, D.; Huertas, J.I. Characterization of Urban Distribution Networks with Light Electric Freight Vehicles. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2023, 119, 103719.
  96. Iwan, S.; Allesch, J.; Celebi, D.; Kijewska, K.; Hoé, M.; Klauenberg, J.; Zajicek, J. Electric Mobility in European Urban Freight and Logistics—Status and Attempts of Improvement. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 39, 112–123.
  97. Skrúcaný, T.; Kendra, M.; Stopka, O.; Milojević, S.; Figlus, T.; Csiszár, C. Impact of the Electric Mobility Implementation on the Greenhouse Gases Production in Central European Countries. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4948.
  98. Anosike, A.; Loomes, H.; Udokporo, C.K.; Garza-Reyes, J.A. Exploring the Challenges of Electric Vehicle Adoption in Final Mile Parcel Delivery. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2021, 26, 683–707.
  99. Settey, T.; Gnap, J.; Synák, F.; Skrúcaný, T.; Dočkalik, M. Research into the Impacts of Driving Cycles and Load Weight on the Operation of a Light Commercial Electric Vehicle. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13872.
  100. Melo, S.; Baptista, P.; Costa, Á. Comparing the Use of Small Sized Electric Vehicles with Diesel Vans on City Logistics. Procedia–Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 111, 350–359.
  101. Juan, A.; Mendez, C.; Faulin, J.; de Armas, J.; Grasman, S. Electric Vehicles in Logistics and Transportation: A Survey on Emerging Environmental, Strategic, and Operational Challenges. Energies 2016, 9, 86.
  102. Li, Y.; Lim, M.K.; Tan, Y.; Lee, S.Y.; Tseng, M.-L. Sharing Economy to Improve Routing for Urban Logistics Distribution Using Electric Vehicles. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153, 104585.
  103. Olovsson, J.; Taljegard, M.; Von Bonin, M.; Gerhardt, N.; Johnsson, F. Impacts of Electric Road Systems on the German and Swedish Electricity Systems—An Energy System Model Comparison. Front. Energy Res. 2021, 9, 631200.
  104. Shoman, W.; Karlsson, S.; Yeh, S. Benefits of an Electric Road System for Battery Electric Vehicles. World Electr. Veh. J. 2022, 13, 197.
  105. Taljegard, M.; Thorson, L.; Odenberger, M.; Johnsson, F. Large-Scale Implementation of Electric Road Systems: Associated Costs and the Impact on CO2 Emissions. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2019, 14, 606–619.
  106. Schwerdfeger, S.; Bock, S.; Boysen, N.; Briskorn, D. Optimizing the Electrification of Roads with Charge-While-Drive Technology. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2021, 299, 1111–1127.
  107. Börjesson, M.; Johansson, M.; Kågeson, P. The Economics of Electric Roads. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2021, 125, 102990.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback