Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007

SEARCH FOR SUITABLE URBA FREIGHT DISTRIBUTIOMEASURES: THE CASE OF HORIZOTAL AD VERTICAL
COOPERATIVE DELIVERY SYSTEM
Nashreen G. Sinarimbo
Katahira & Engineers International
Taiko Building
4-2-16 Ginza, Chuo-ku
Tokyo, 104-0061 Japan
Fax: +81-3-3563-4055
E-mail: nash@katahira.com

Yoji Takahashi
Advanced Research Institute for Sciencesand Humanities (ARISH)
Nihon University
1-2-1 Izimicho, Narashino City
Chiba, 275-8575 Japan
Fax: +81-90-6042-4329
E-mail: y.takahashi@catv29.ne.jp

Tetsuro Hyodo
Dept. of Logistics and Info. Engineering
Tokyo University of Marine Science & Tech.
2-1-6 Etchujima, Koto-ku
Tokyo, 135-8533 Japan
Fax: +81-3-5620-6492
E-mail: hyodo@kaiyodai.ac.jp
Abstract: Insufficient numbers of parking space and lack of (off) loading areas are some ofcommon problems that driver of delivery trucks have to deal with. One way to address thisproblem is by increasing the utilization rate of the limited parking spaces by ensuring shortparking time of trucks. Attaining this brief parking time, however, requires a shift from a
traditional way of delivering goods to a policy-driven method. Traditional way presents asituation where the driver has to leave his truck and make his way to the floor of the building
to make delivery. Although this method remains to be popular due to its simplicity, there exist
methods that when carefully enforce would present sizeable benefits. One of these policies isby assigning workers inside the building to facilitate the (un)loading activities to free thedriver immediately. This paper discusses implementation of cooperative delivery system andtries to produce a guideline regarding what CDS design is suitable depending on thecharacteristics of the CBD.
Key Words: urban freight distribution, cooperative delivery system, urban goods movement
1. ITRODUCTIO
Ensuring efficient delivery of goods – i.e. safe and on time – lies to many segments of thedelivery chain. Congestion may delay the truck, lack of parking space for truck may prolong
the delay, and lack of sufficient number of freight elevator may further extend the delay.
Facilities related to delivery of goods inside the building therefore require serious examinationin the same manner as that of traffic congestion outside the building.
Delivery vehicles that cannot access the parking area inside the building would use any
available space near the establishment to (un)load their goods. This behavior has substantial
impact to the movement of other vehicles. The portion of road used by truck to park while
delivering the goods reduces the capacity of the road thus the fluidity of traffic is affected.
Most buildings in the central business district have limited number of parking spaces allotted
for trucks because of the prime importance of space. In a traditional way of delivering goods,
normally, the driver would park the truck, unload the goods, call the freight elevator, andmake his way to the floor where the recipient is located. Therefore, the truck exclusively use

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007

the parking space for the entire delivery chain until the driver gets back and move out of thebuilding. Given this problem, one potential solution is to find a way to shorten the parking
time of trucks which can be done by assigning workers at the parking area to assist the driver.
This paper explores the possibility of such arrangement and then assessed the change ofparking time and total delivery time.
The paper begins by reviewing related papers in management of the delivery system inside abuilding. Section 1 introduces the delivery chain while Section 2 is devoted to the review ofsignificant papers in the delivery of goods. Along the review process, common problems inurban centers of moving goods were noted such as the difficulty of driver locating available
parking space. Section 3 of the paper is devoted to cooperative delivery system while Section
4 provides brief presentation of the social experiment in Marunouchi district in Tokyo.
Setting-up of simulation analysis and its result is found in Section 5. Section 6 attempts to
produce a guideline on the application of CDS based on the characteristics of the CBD.
1.1 Urban Goods (Off) Loading Process
Iwao et al (2001) produces perhaps the most notable illustration of delivery process inside(unloading activity) the building (see Figure 1). The chain of this process is composed of six
steps which start as soon as the delivery truck arrives. In the figure, the truck is parked in an
on street (off) loading area which has the longest time of loading/unloading activity ascompared to truck parked in a parking space located inside the building or beside the building(off-street) (Park et al, 1998). The obvious reason is its distance from the freight elevator
located inside the building.
building④
Logistics
center③①

Activities:①delivery②unloading③conveyance inside
the building④receiving⑤return from⑤ receiving to parking
space⑥return trip

ParkingSpaces②

Sidewalk
roadway⑥

Figure 1. Delivery and unloading activities (source: Iwao et al, 2001)
1.2 Common Problems Related to (Off) Loading Activities
Problems of (off) loading activity range from lack of sufficient number of parking space tolack of freight elevator. In New York for instance, inadequate freight-handling facilities in the
CBD were identified as the major barriers to freight mobility. Inadequate docks or receiving
areas and insufficient freight elevators did not support the increasing number of freightdeliveries, resulting in a significant amount of off-loading on the streets (Morris et el, 2001).
Further, it is more difficult to deliver goods in the buildings in ancient cities where freight
elevator usually does not exist. Under this condition, the goods carriers have to utilize the stair
which naturally resulted to longer delivery time.

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007

Parking spaces and freight elevators are two important elements that could determine thesmoothness of the delivery activity. As the number of parking space increases, the probability
that the waiting time of vehicle is short also increases. Parking time of vehicle on the other
hand can be influenced by the availability of enough number of freight elevators. Truck
drivers that do the delivery would find it fast to return to their truck if elevator is right waitingnear the parking area.
Table 1. Problems and countermeasures of (off) loading activity

Trucks trip

Parking of goods
vehiclesLoading/unloading

Problems

Countermeasures

Delayed delivery
Reduction of travel speed
Mixing of passenger cars and freight vehicles
Parking congestion of passenger cars andfreight vehicles at on-street parking facility

Cooperative delivery, regulation of delivery time
Provision of priority lanes for goods vehicle
Traffic regulation, traffic imposition
Time and spatial separation of vehicles at onstreet parking facility

Increase of illegal parking

Conduction of off-street parking facility (onstreet parking facility regulation, parking charge
discount)Competing people and goods
Lack of conveyance paths
Lack of elevator for exclusive use of goods
inside the building

The reinforcement of the criterion on theplanning of inside parking facility for goods
vehicleSpatial separation of people and goods
Design standards for conveyance path
Design standards of elevators for goods

Source: Park et al, 1998

Park et al (1998) has summarized the frequent encountered problems during the delivery of
goods and its countermeasures (see Table 1). Congestion reduced the speed of trucks thus
delay the delivery. This problem is compounded by the increasing number of vans used fordelivery which propelled by the Just-in-time (JIT). It is argued that using vans instead oftrucks will increase total traffic thus congestion.
The lack of parking spaces and (off) loading spaces for goods vehicles resulted to the rampant
practice of occupying the spaces not intended for goods delivery. Although sometimes there
are reserved spaces for vehicles delivering goods, it has been reported that in most cases, theseare occupied by private cars and hence double parking occur. Protection of reserved places forgoods vehicles therefore is necessary to ensure that right type of vehicles occupied the places.
Exclusive elevator for delivery is often inexistence or short in number affecting the entire
chain of delivery – this means truck has to spend longer time in the (off) loading area.
2. IMPROVEMET MEASURES FOR URBA GOODS TRASPORT
There are measures that can be applied to realize efficient delivery of goods in view of the
difficulty faced by the sector (see Table 2). Although most of the measures listed are rather
familiar, there are quite unconventional measures that have not been widely reported inliterature such as time-sharing of both parking spaces and elevators, and consolidated delivery
inside the building. Time-sharing is referring to allow the use of facilities intended for private
cars (parking space) and passengers (elevator) to goods delivery during the determined offpeak periods in a day. This policy would increase the capacity of freight-handling facilities
hence increase the fluidity of goods. Similarly, consolidating the goods intended for the same
receiver would decrease the utilization of elevator. This scheme however might require somestaff members permanently station at the (off) loading area to perform the consolidation.
Some measures in Table 2 that are not very familiar are discussed further to make the paperProceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007

more accessible.

Soft

Type of Measures

Hard(i) Establishment of Depot in the Inner City
As mentioned, protection to the city center of old towns by restraining access of delivery
trucks is one of common reasons to erect a depot. Cities that were built even before the start of
motorization were simply not suited to accommodate heavy vehicles and therefore were inneed of other method to deliver the goods. This case has been witnessed in some European
cities like Genoa in Italy. Table 2. Improvement policy for urban goods movement
The depot then serves asEstablishment of depot in the inner city
consolidation area for
Increase of lane capacity
goods that will beSignal control improvement
distributed to the finalProvision of (off) loading and parking places
receivers by a truck that
Automatic conveyance material system inside the building
suits the environment ofConsolidated delivery
old town. In some cases,Efficient checking and sorting inside the building
a staff in the depot would
Cooperative delivery
inform the recipient that aTime sharing of elevators
package has arrived and itTime-sharing of parking spaces
can be delivered or beCoordinated delivery inside the building
pick-up by the recipient.
Source: Iwao et al, 2001(ii) Signal Control Improvement
Signal control improvement has also been proven as an effective measure to improve the flowof traffic. This measure can be done by optimizing traffic signal timing plans, coordinating
traffic signal control, and implementing adaptive signal control. Normally, results that can beattained for improving the signal control includes improvement of travel time, reduction ofdelays and stops of vehicles in the network.

Building
2F
1F

Passenger elevator

Building

Freight elevator

1F

After

Passenger elevator

2F

BeforeFreight elevator(iii) Consolidated Delivery and Cooperative Delivery Systems
It appears obvious that there is a need to distinguish the difference between consolidateddelivery and cooperative delivery. Literature tends to suggest that consolidation takes placewhen a cooperative delivery among companies is formed (Castro, 2002, Visser et al, 1999).
Cooperative delivery change the form of urban delivery from independent private transport toconsolidated transport that resulted to higher load factor and reduction of the number oftrucks. It is worth to note thought that consolidated delivery can also be done by a single
transport company having a multiple customers in an area.

B1

B1

Each elevator is dedicated to aparticular customer

Both elevators can be used forgoods delivery during off-peakperiods of the day

Figure 2. Time-sharing of elevators

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007(iv) Time Sharing of Elevators
Allowing freight carriers to use the passenger elevator during off-peak periods would increase
their mobility (Figure 2). It should be noted however that some passenger elevators might notsuit for freight use due to their configuration (i.e. more decorated such as glass wall whichmight be damaged during freight transport). In Japan, there was a reported case where 70% oftrucks in a day arrived to a store before it opens thus they might be allowed to use elevators
for passenger while the intended users are not yet at its peak (Iwao et al, 2001).
(v) Time Sharing of Parking Spaces
Parking management is a powerful tool to control the flow of traffic (Figure 3). This measureincludes provision, control, regulation or restriction of parking space. Parking management
can consist of actions that fall into six categories: on-street parking, off-street parking, fringeand corridor parking, pricing, enforcement and adjudication, and marketing.
Before

After

15F

15F

1F

1F
LIFT

LIFT

Limited number of parking space isallotted to delivery vehicles while therest spaces is reserved for private cars

Delivery vehicles can use the parking
spaces including those reserved for
private cars during off-peak periods ofthe day

Figure 3. Time-sharing of parking spaces
Another parking management strategy that is being considers in many communities is theconcept of shared parking. Shared parking in essence means that two or more land uses
controlled by one or may owners can share the same parking space over the course of a day,week, or month. The basic premise for this strategy is shown in Figure 4 which indicates thatdifferent activities generate different temporal demands for parking which provide good
opportunities for more efficient parking provisions.
100
90

Percent of Peak Time

80
70
60
50
40
Residential
OfficeRetailRestaurant
Cinema

30
20
10

10PM

9PM

8PM

7PM

6PM

5PM

4PM

3PM

2PM

1PM

12AM

11AM

10AM

9AM

8AM

7AM

6AM

0

Time

Figure 4. Parking Accumulation by Land Use by Time of the Day
Source: Meyer, M.D. (1997). A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion andEnhancing Mobility, Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007(vi) Coordinated Delivery Inside the Building
Organizing the goods after it was unloaded from the trucks would also bring some benefits
such as utilization to the freight elevator would become more rationalize (Figure 5). This
would remove unnecessary waiting time for staff delivering the goods since the elevator ishardly use.
BeforeAfter

Building

Building

2F

Receivingarea

2F

Receivingarea

1F

Receivingarea

1F

Receivingarea

Parking area

Consolidationarea

Parking area

Consolidationarea

Figure 5. Coordinated delivery inside the building
3. COOPERATIVE DELIVERY SYSTEM
3.1 Different Models of Cooperative Delivery System and Its Application
There are many terminologies used to describe cooperative system; among them arecooperative freight transport system (CFTS) and voluntary cooperation. Yamada et al (1999)
gives a clear definition of CFTS as systems in which a number of shippers or carriers jointly
operate freight vehicles to reduce their costs for collecting and delivering goods and provide
higher levels of service to their customers. Castro (2002) on the other hand stated thatcooperative delivery is concerned with the promotion of change in the form of urban delivery,
from independent private transport to consolidated transport using public carriers.
Type

Before Application After Application

Consolidated transport
between shippers(Multiple shippers)
Consolidated transport
between carriers(Multiple carriers)
Cooperative delivery(Multiple shippers,
multiple carrier)
Cooperative delivery(Single shippers,
multiple carrier)
Cooperative delivery(Multiple shippers,
single carrier)

Remarks
Mutual cooperation amongshippers resulting to consolidated
transport

Mutual cooperation among
carriers resulting to consolidated
transport

Shipments are consolidated at a
distribution center, then delivered
cooperatively to several outlets byrouting
Individual shipments are delivered
to a designated carrier, whichthen performs consolidateddelivery
Carrier performs cooperative
delivery to several outlets byrouting

Shippers
Carrier

Figure 6. Different Models of Cooperative System

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007

In essence, cooperative system is attained when two or more companies (either shippers or
carriers) pool their resources and start coordinating their operation. Kuse (1999) provided
what appears to be extensive list of cooperation delivery system models among thestakeholders in freight transport (Figure 6). The concept shown is very similar to the spokehub distribution paradigm.
3.2 Different Types of Design of Cooperative Delivery System
There are three ways to design a cooperative delivery system namely; (i) horizontal
cooperative delivery system, (ii) vertical cooperative system, and (iii) combination of verticaland cooperative delivery system.

(ii)
Vertical Cooperative Delivery System
Vertical cooperative delivery system on the other handentails to assigning of staff at high rise buildings or
establishment with high number of goods attracted.
When the delivery trucks arrived, the staff would unload
the goods and deliver them to the recipients. Under thissystem, trucks arrived without fix frequency and thegoods are not consolidate due to the absent of Stockpoint where the consolidation can take place (Figure 8).
(iii)

15F
3F
2F
1F

Vertical Cooperative System(i)
Horizontal Cooperative Delivery System
Under the first design, trucks of different sizes and
15F
loads have to bring their cargoes to the stock point(SP) or depot for consolidation (Figure 7). Small
3F
trucks, normally non-polluting vehicles, will complete
2F
the delivery going to the customers. At the (off)1F
loading area of the building, the driver would unload
goods and deliver them to the recipients. Usual Depot
Bldg
practices of cooperative delivery system follow certain
Horizontal Cooperative
time interval for delivery and assigned regular route.
Figure 7. Design of Horizontal CDS
For instance, the Shinjuku Matenro cooperative has
two delivery time in the morning (10:00 and 11:30)
and one (13:50) in the afternoon and the route has been
prepared to easily trace the delivery vehicles.

Bldg

Figure 8. Design of Vertical CDS

Combination of Horizon and VerticalCooperative Delivery System

Vertical Cooperative

The third design of cooperative delivery
system which is the combination ofhorizontal and vertical cooperative system
15F
combined the functions of two systems
resulting to comprehensive delivery system
3Fthat has strong impact both on traffic and
2F
environment. Under this system, staff are
1F
usually stationed at each building covered
Bldg
Depot
by the joint delivery (Figure 9). The task of
Horizontal Cooperative
the staff is to free the driver from the
Figure 9. Design of combination ofdifficulty of delivering goods going to the
Horizontal and Vertical CDS
recipients. Instead, the staff would replace
this role from the driver. After the truck
docked-in at the (off) loading area of the building, the staff would unload the goods and thedriver would move immediately to the next delivery destination. This procedure allows

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007

limited parking time of the truck and the delivery is faster. The familiarity of the staff to thelayout of the building contributes to speedy delivery. The cooperative delivery system that was
adopted in Marunouchi district falls under this category of design of cooperative delivery
system.
4. SOCIAL EXPERIMET AT MARUOUCHID DISTRICT
4.1 Review of Building Use and Trip Attraction
Land use has tremendous effect to the movements of trucks. Table 3 shows that space used forcommercial purposes, i.e. either shop or restaurant, has large number of attracted trips.
Moreover, it appears that pulling strength of CBD in terms of attracted trips does notdetermine by country’s level of economic development. Trip attractions of space forcommercial use in Manila, a capital city of a developing country, are even stronger than thetrip attractions in Ginza although smaller than that of Marunouchi district, both of Japan. Itshould be noted that the data of Manila and Marunouchi is taken from the survey done by theauthors in 2005 and 2002 respectively.
Table 3. Trip attraction of space use in a building per 1000 sq meter
CBD name

GLA (m2)*

Number of trips

OfficeShops and
restaurants

Tokyo (Marunouchi district)

153801

442

2.6

14.1

Tokyo (Ginza district)

218 shops

-

2.9

10.64

Manila4711583858-

12.03*-ote: *GLA means Gross Leasable Space; **data is taken from shopping centers

4.2 Application of Measures to Improve Goods Delivery
Four policies from Table 2 were seen adopted in the social experiment in the Marunouchi,
Tokyo in 2002 – (i) establishment of depot, (ii) provision of off/loading and parking places,(iii) cooperative delivery, and (iv) consolidated delivery inside the building. The social
experiment is reported in length by Takahashi et al (2004). Although there exist number of
papers regarding the experiment itself, this is the first time that an attempt to analyze alldifferent designs of CDS is made.
Freight elevator supports all the building covered by the experiment and designated parking
spaces for delivery vehicles are also available (see Table 4). The number of trips and goods
found in the table is recorded prior to experiment. This was done to observe the naturalprocess of performing delivery activity and to determine the severity of truck’s traffic.
At the (un)loading area inside the four (4) buildings joined the social experiment, two staff
members are permanently station to assist the drivers of delivery trucks. After unloading thegoods, the truck would leave and move to the next building and the same process is repeated.
This arrangement, however, is not available to those who did not participate to the social
experiment.
The effect of this scheme reduced the parking time of each truck from 15 minutes to 2.35
minutes. This reduction to the parking time of trucks was mainly credited to the presence of
two staff which handles the goods once the truck entered the docking area. The usual
responsibility of the driver, that is to deliver the goods to the final recipients, has been passed
to the staff. This arrangement allows the driver to bring out the truck to the next delivery
destinations.

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007

Table 4. Properties of the four buildings

No of floor
No of freight elevator
No of staff member at unloading area
No of parking space

Furukawa
Yaesu
9
1
2
4

Gross floor (m2)

70016

45985

55259

62906

43628
62%
41080
94%
2547
6%
84
18
102
144
68
212

31861
69%
30477
96%
1414
4%
74
18
92
184
100
284

37829
68%
37829
100%
0
0%
132
0
132
772
0
772

40484
64%
40248
99%
236
1%
93
23
116
271
185
456

Building

2

Leasable space (LS) (m )Percentage of LS
Office space (OS) (m2)Percentage (OS)Shops & Restaurants (SR) (m2)Percentage (SR)OfficeTrips per day
Shops & Restaurants
Total
OfficeNo of freightper day
Shops & Restaurants
Total

&

Mitsubishi
Jyukou10
1
2
4

Mitsubishi
Shouji15
12
4

Mitsubishi
15
1
2
4

5. COMPARISO OF TIME SAVED FROM THE DIFFERET DESIGS OF CDS
5.1 Introduction
In order to evaluate which CDS design is to be applied as a management measure for freighttransport in the CBD, a simulation analysis is conducted to the Marunouchi district. At first,
all the 15-buildings were assumed to have the same number of story which is 15. The numberof story is then increased to 20, 30, and 40. The simulation and analysis process compares theaverage waiting time of trucks between with and without CDS schemes.
In this section of the study, four cases is compared; 1) without CDS, 2) Vertical CDS, 3)
Horizontal CDS, 3) combination of Vertical and Horizontal CDS.
5.2 Data requirements
The Marunouchi building was taken as model to estimate the likely GLA of the building area
when it reaches 40-story. At present, no building exceeded 40-story. Marunouchi building
being the tallest has 37-story. With that consideration, the likely configuration of the buildingin the area is shown in Table 5. As mentioned, the area is more of an office-oriented CBD
where around 97% of building space is dedicated for office use.
Table 5. Properties of the buildings
Space usage

Trip attraction per 1,000 sq. m.

GLA

Parking

Freight(sq. m.)space

elevator

Office15 story

42,162

4

2

97

3

2.6

14.1

20 story

56,216

5

3

97

3

2.6

14.1

30 story

84,324

6

4

97

3

2.6

14.1

40 story

112,432

8

5

97

3

2.6

14.1

Building story

Shops andRestaurants-ote: Trip attraction is based on the survey in Marunouchi district in 2002.

OfficeShops andRestaurants

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007

The estimated number of trips based on the trip attraction in Table 5 is available in Table 6.
The number shown is total delivery trips but since each truck would make two deliveries, thetotal number of trucks entering the district is therefore half of the total trips. For instance, thetotal number of trucks that would enter the CBD when all the buildings are 15-story is 900
trucks.
Table 6. Number of trips without CDS and under Vertical CDS
Number of trips
Building story

8:00 - 9:30

9:30 - 12:00

12:00 - 17:00

Total

Total trips to 15bldgs

29
38
58
77

42
56
84
112

49
65
98
131

120
160
240
320

1800
2400
3600
4800

15 story
20 story
30 story
40 story-ote: Average goods per delivery to one building is 4. Survey results show that every truck had made two stops for eachdelivery, the total number of goods per truck therefore is 8.

Without CDS scheme and Vertical CDS scheme have the same pattern of truck trips. The only
difference between them is that under the Vertical CDS, there are staff inside the building thatwould help the driver unloads the goods. In essence, there is no depot and goods consolidation
under the Vertical CDS.
Table 7. Number of trips and goods under Horizontal CDS and combination of Horizontal andVertical CDS
Building
story

8:00 - 9:30

Number of trips
9:30 - 12:00 12:00 - 17:00

Total

8:00 - 9:30

Number of goods
9:30 - 12:00 12:00 - 17:00

Total

15 story

6 (19)

5 (34)

5 (39)

16

115

168

196

479

20 story

6 (26)

5 (45)

5 (52)

16

153

224

262

639

30 story

6 (38)

5 (67)

5 (79)

16

230

336

393

959

40 story

6 (51)

5 (90)

6 (87)

18

307

448

524

1279

-ote: Figures in the parenthesis are number of goods per delivery to one building. Since CDS truck would make two stops
for each delivery, the total number of goods per truck is therefore double of that number.

Horizontal CDS scheme and the combination of Horizontal and Vertical CDS scheme havethe same pattern of truck trips (Table 7). The only component that separates them is theavailability of staff inside the building for the combination of Horizontal and Vertical CDS.
Horizontal CDS relies to the ability of the driver to unload all the consolidated goods. Further,
there is a depot where goods are consolidated under these two schemes.
5.3 Setting-up the Arrival Distribution of Freight Vehicles
45%
40%
35%
Percentage share

The arrival of freight vehicles for thecase of CDS follows the format set by
the Committee designed the social
experiment – 15 minutes interval from8:00 – 9:30; 30 minutes interval from9:30 – 12:00 and; 60 minutes intervalfrom 12:00 – 17:00.

30%
25%
20%
15%
10%

For the case of normal form ofdelivery, the distribution pattern of therecorded arrival time of the one-day
survey is followed (Figure 10). The

5%
0%
0:0

0: 0

0
0:0

1: 0

0
0:0

2: 0

0
0:0

3: 0

0
0:0

4: 0

0

5
0:0

: 00

0:0

6: 0

0
0:0

A rrival time

Figure 10. Distribution pattern

7: 0

0
0:0

8: 0

0

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007

arrival of freight vehicle follows exponential curve as reflected in the same figure. Close to 35
percent of trips has equal or less than 1-minute interval while close to 40 percent has 1 to 2
minutes interval. The said distribution is used as input data that determines the arriving
pattern of freight vehicle in the simulation. For the case of CDS, however, a fixed interval
between trips is used.
5.4 Properties of the Simulation Model
The simulation analysis of the study was entirely designed in the commercially available
manufacturing simulation software SIMUL8. This software combines the graphical interface
and spatial simulation. The works on the principle of drawing from different spatial
components of study area composed of organization/establishment to be analyzed. Data
specifying the dimension of the organization/establishment or that would define the behaviorsof the workers or vehicles can be done by filling in numerical information ready available.
Table 8. Properties of the simulation model

Unloading time
Delivery time
Elevator time per
floor
Elevator’s
maximum capacity
No of workers

Figure 11. Screenshot of the simulation model

Without
CDS
19.8 sec
27 secWith CDS

5 sec

5 sec

20

20

0

Based on thenumber ofelevator plus 1
staff

19.8 sec
27 secThe drawing of simulation model is done by clicking buttons and dragging the objects to theirlocation. In the study’s model, first created were those fixed objects such as Stock point,
loading dock, floors of the building. Routes between these objects were made by clicking thearrow and entering appropriate figure say speed, distance and other dimensions thatcharacterize the behaviors of elements of the model. On the other hand, controlling the arrivalof freight vehicle is made by selecting appropriate distribution built-in the software. Working
environment of the software and the screenshot of the study’s model is shown in Figure 11.
The properties of simulation model are shown in Table 8. These figures were obtained during
the social experiment. The average unloading time per freight from the vehicle up to theelevator is 19.8 seconds while it took 27 seconds to deliver each good from the elevator up to
the receiver. It can be observed that the delivery time is longer as compared with theunloading process since the delivery staff sometimes has to wait for the receiver.
During the experiment, it was recognized that the two staff assigned at each building were notable to hold the incoming freight to the buildings where attraction of trips are high. Further,
the 15-minute interval between trips is too close for the two staff members to deliver the first
trip and clear the (off) loading area before another trip arrives. In this paper, the number ofstaff stationed at a building was based on the number of elevator. One additional staff isprovided, aside from the mentioned number of staff, designed to be permanently station at theloading / unloading area to help unload the freight from the vehicle with the driver and sign
the document confirming that the freight were delivered. This process would allow the driver
to move immediately making the loading / unloading space available for another income trips.

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007

5.5 Simulation Results
The average waiting time of trucks is considerably low when the building has 15-story to all
the schemes (Figure 12). Even without any form of CDS, the average waiting time is merely
2.27 minutes. There was also a small waiting time under the Vertical CDS at 0.7 minute. Thiscan be attributed to the high number of trucks in the morning and limited number of space
where trucks could park while waiting for the assistance of the staff inside the building.
100
96.62
90

Without CDS

H + V CDS

V ertical CDS

Horizontal CDS

Average waiting time per truck (min)

80
70
60
50
40
32.53

30
16.46

20

15.3
10

2.27
0.7
0
0.0
15-story

0

6.8
5.6
2.2
0.0
0
0
20-story
30-story
Building he ight

7.5
040-story

Figure 12. Average waiting time of trucks per CDS design
In this section of the study, the term “distribution time” will be used to describe time derived
from delivery, unloading, waiting time for parking, labor time at stock point (SP), and verticaldelivery. The summary of distribution time from Table 9, Table 10, and Table 11 is shown in
Table 12. For a district which has an average height of 15-story buildings, Horizontal CDS has
the lowest delivery time followed by without CDS scheme. The reason that the combinationof Horizontal and Vertical CDS have high distribution time is because of the substantial timeby staff inside the building. This is a large time that can not be easily offset through reductionof delivery time and waiting time.
Table 9. Comparison of Without CDS scheme and Combination of Horizontal and Vertical
CDS scheme
Variables

Computation process

Without
CDS

Computation process

H + V CDS

Differencea. 15-story
Delivery time

898 trucks x 5.34 min

4,796

120 trucks x 5.34 min

Unloading time7185 goods x 0.33 min

2,371

7185 goods x 0.33

Waiting time for parking

1796 trucks X 2.27 min

4,077

240 trucks X 0 min

Labor time at SP

No SP

Vertical Delivery time7185 goods x 1 min

Total

7,185

641

4155

2,371

0

-

4077

1 min/goods X 7192 goods

7,192

-7192

45 staff x 421 min

18,945-1176029,148-10719

641
3,163
9,589
26,22039,613

5757
0
39442
-9589
-1663518976

18,430b. 20-story
Delivery time
Unloading time
Waiting time for parking
Labor time at SP
Vertical Delivery time
Total

1198 trucks x 5.34 min
9585 goods x 0.33
2396 trucks X 16.46 min
No SP
9585 goods x 1 min

6,398
3,163
39,442
9,585
58,588120 trucks x 5.34 min
9585 goods x 0.33
240 trucks X 0 min
1 min/goods X 9589 goods
60 staff x 437 minProceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007

c. 30-story
Delivery time1798 trucks x 5.34 min

9,602

120 trucks x 5.34 min

641

Unloading time

14385 goods x 0.33

4,747

14385 goods x 0.33

4,747

0

Waiting time for parking

3596 trucks X 32.53 min

116,986

240 trucks X 0 min-

116986

Labor time at SP

No SP

1 min/goods X 14383 goods

14,383-14383

Vertical Delivery time

14385 goods x 1 min

75 staff x 437 min

32,775-1839052,546

93174

721
6,331
19,17839,87066,10012085
0463414-19178-20685435636

Total

14,385
145,7208961

d. 40-story
Delivery time
Unloading time
Waiting time for parking
Labor time at SP
Vertical Delivery timeTotal

2398 trucks x 5.34 min
19185 goods x 0.33
4796 trucks X 96.62 min
No SP
19185 goods x 1 min

12,806
6,331
463,414
19,185
501,736

135 trucks x 5.34 min
19185 goods x 0.33
270 trucks X 0 min
1 min/goods X 9589 goods
90 staff x 443 min-ote: 5.34 minute is the average time a truck has to spend in the district to deliver goods (computed by getting average
distance and truck’s speed in the district) while 0.33 minute and 1 minute (for labor time at SP and vertical delivery) are
derived from survey data. The number of staff is equal to total number of freight elevator plus one additional staff while
waiting time of trucks and staff’s working time (vertical delivery) are derived from simulation result (Details discussion can’t
be done due to page limitation).

Table 10. Comparison of Without CDS scheme and Vertical CDS scheme
Variables

Computation process

Without
CDS

Computation process

Vertical CDS

Differencea. 15-story
Delivery time
Unloading time
Waiting time for parking
Labor time at SP
Vertical Delivery time
Total

898 trucks x 5.34 min
7185 goods x 0.33 min
1796 trucks X 2.27 min
No SP
7185 goods x 1 min

4,796
2,371
4,077
7,185
18,430898 trucks x 5.34 min
7185 goods x 0.33 min
1796 trucks X 0.7 min
No SP
45 staff x 432 min

4,796
2,371
1,257.38
017,28025,70402820
0-10095-7,2751198 trucks x 5.34 min
9585 goods x 0.33
2396 trucks X 16.46 min
No SP
9585 goods x 1 min

6,398
3,163
39,442
9,585
58,5881198 trucks x 5.34 min
9585 goods x 0.33
2396 trucks X 2.2 min
No SP
60 staff x 475 min

6,397
3,163
5,271.75
028,50043,3321034171
0-18915
15,2561798 trucks x 5.34 min
14385 goods x 0.33
3596 trucks X 32.53 min
No SP
14385 goods x 1 min

9,602
4,747
116,986
14,385
145,7201798 trucks x 5.34 min
14385 goods x 0.33
1798 trucks X 5.6 min
No SP
75 staff x 470 min

9,602
4,747
20,139.00
035,25069,738

0
0
10642
0
0
75,9822398 trucks x 5.34 min
19185 goods x 0.33
4796 trucks X 21 min
No SP
19185 goods x 1 min

12,806
6,331
463,414
19,185
501,7362398 trucks x 5.34 min
19185 goods x 0.33
2398 trucks X 7.5 min
No SP
90 staff x 470 min

26,4086,527.80
35,971.88
042,300111,208

0
0
10642
0
0
390,528b. 20-story
Delivery time
Unloading time
Waiting time for parking
Labor time at SP
Vertical Delivery time
Total

c. 30-story
Delivery time
Unloading time
Waiting time for parking
Labor time at SP
Vertical Delivery time
Total

d. 40-story
Delivery time
Unloading time
Waiting time for parking
Labor time at SP
Vertical Delivery time
Total

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007

Table 11 Comparison of Without CDS scheme and Horizontal CDS scheme
Variables

Computation process

Without
CDS

Horizontal
CDS

Computation process

Differencea. 15-story
Delivery time
Unloading time
Waiting time for parking
Labor time at SP
Vertical Delivery time
Total

898 trucks x 5.34 min
7185 goods x 0.33 min
1796 trucks X 2.27 min
No SP
7185 goods x 1 min

4,796
2,371
4,077
7,185
18,430120 trucks x 5.34 min
7185 goods x 0.33
240 trucks X 0 min
1 min/goods X 7192 goods
7185 goods x 1 min

641
2,371
7,192
7,185
17,388

4155
0
4077
-7192
0
1041

1198 trucks x 5.34 min
9585 goods x 0.33
2396 trucks X 16.46 min
No SP
9585 goods x 1 min

6,398
3,163
39,442
9,585
58,588120 trucks x 5.34 min
9585 goods x 0.33
240 trucks X 6.8 min
1 min/goods X 9589 goods
9585 goods x 1 min

641
3,163
9,589
9,585
22,978

5757
0
39442
-9589
0
35611

1798 trucks x 5.34 min
14385 goods x 0.33
3596 trucks X 32.53 min
No SP
14385 goods x 1 min

9,602
4,747
116,986

120 trucks x 5.34 min
14385 goods x 0.33
240 trucks X 6.8 min
1 min/goods X 14383 goods
14385 goods x 1 min

641
4,747
1,632
14,383
14,38535,7888961
0115354-143830109932135 trucks x 5.34 min
19185 goods x 0.33
270 trucks X 15.3 min
1 min/goods X 9589 goods
19185 goods x 1 min

721
6,331
4,131
19,17819,18549,54612085
0459283-191780452190b. 20-story
Delivery time
Unloading time
Waiting time for parking
Labor time at SP
Vertical Delivery time
Total

c. 30-story
Delivery time
Unloading time
Waiting time for parking
Labor time at SP
Vertical Delivery time
Total

14,385
145,720d. 40-story
Delivery time
Unloading time
Waiting time for parking
Labor time at SP
Vertical Delivery timeTotal

2398 trucks x 5.34 min
19185 goods x 0.33
4796 trucks X 96.62 min
No SP
19185 goods x 1 min

12,806
6,331
463,414
19,185
501,736

For a CBD with an average of 20-story buildings, Horizontal CDS still has the lowest delivery
time. This is followed by the combination of Horizontal and Vertical CDS and Vertical CDS
comes third. One notable observation is that all the CDS design have lower distribution time
as compared to the present scheme (without CDS).
For a high density CBD with an average building height of 30-story, still the Horizontal CDS
produces the smallest distribution time. Although it has the lowest distribution, it should also
be noted that it has the highest waiting time of trucks among the 3 CDS schemes at 6.8
minutes (Figure 12). The order of distribution time remain the same even after the height ofthe buildings in the CBD is increased to 40-story – Horizontal CDS being the scheme having
the lowest distribution time. Waiting time of this CDS design however increases to 15.3 while
Vertical CDS increases to 7.5 minutes (Figure 12). The combination of Horizontal andVertical CDS has not record waiting time from different CBD densities.
Table 12. Total delivery time from each scheme
15-story

Without CDS(2) 18,430

TOTAL TIME (min)H + V CDS
Horizontal CDS(4) 29,148(1) 17,388

Vertical CDS(3) 25,704

20-story(4) 58,588(2) 39,613(1) 22,978(3) 43,332

30-story(4) 145,720(2) 52,546(1) 35,788(3) 69,738

40-story(4) 501,736(2) 66,100(1) 49,546(3) 111,208

Building story-ote: Figure in the parenthesis is rank of each scheme, 1 being the scheme having the lowest distribution timeProceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007

6. COCLUSIO AD RECOMMEDATIOFrom the social point of view, i.e. reduction of environmental emissions and other negative
impact of trucks, any CDS scheme is desirable. Reduced number of trucks would mean few
sources of emissions, vibration, accident and other negative externalities born out of truck’spresence. There is no change to the number of trucks under Vertical CDS since there is no
consolidation of goods however there is benefits in the form of reduced waiting time.
However, when other components of distribution system are considered such as labor time atdepot and unloading time, each CDS has its own strength. For instance, when a CBD is low
density, i.e.15-story buildings, Horizontal CDS is the most suitable owing to the 6% time
saved (Figure 13). Adopting any of the other two CDS would increase distribution time which
can be interpreted as increase to distribution cost as shown by the negative position of thecurve.
100%
90%
87%
78%

75%

80%
61%

Time savings from 3 CDS

60%

Vertical CDS

52%

32%

40%
20%

64%

Horizontal CDS

6%

26%

0%
15-story

20-story

30-story

40-story

-20%

-40%
-39%

Vertical and Horizontal
Combination

-60%
-58%
-80%
Building he ight

Figure 13. Time saved from three types of CDS for an office-oriented CBD
The positive effect of all the CDS begins when the building height reaches 20-story. Thismeans that the building administration has more options of which CDS to adopt knowing that
this would not necessarily increase the distribution cost. The time saves from the combinationof Horizontal and Vertical CDS is notable since under the CBD with 15-story buildings, it has
the largest loss.
It must be noted that the analysis is performed to an office-oriented CBD and therefore there
might be changes to the pattern of time saves from the different CBD designs. Based on thisresult however, it can be theorized that significant changes of building use from office tocommercial (i.e. shops and restaurants) would put the combination of Horizontal and Vertical
CDS into strong position as the most effective measure. This theory have two grounds; 1)
there would be substantial increase to the number of trucks and gained from delivery timealone would be tremendous and 2) there would be a long waiting time of trucks which could
be removed when Horizontal and Vertical CDS is adopted. Of course adopting the Horizontal
CDS would have also bring tremendous reduction of truck trips however without theassistance of staff inside the building, it would be difficult for the driver alone to deliver the
consolidated goods. This situation would significantly increase delays to other CDS trucks.

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007

The highlight of the paper is the identification of suitable CDS design depending on thebuilding density of the CBD. It was found out that Horizontal CDS is the only design suitable
for low density CBD in view of distribution time. Adopting any of the two other CDS designs,
i.e. the combination of Horizontal and Vertical CDS and Vertical CDS, would bring increase
to the distribution time and therefore would increase the distribution cost. However, when thebuilding density increases and each building reaches 20-story, all the 3 CDS designs bringenormous benefits in the form of time saved. These findings would be useful guidelines inselecting which CDS design is adopted and when it is adopted based on the characteristics of
the CBD.
REFERECES
1. Ashida, N. et al (2002). A study on the improvement of home delivery systems and theeffect of introudincg a new measure in a concentrated high-rise residential area. City
Logistics II. Institute of Systems Science Research, Japan.
2. Iwao, E. and Kuse, H. (2001) Traffic and Environmental Impact Analysis of Large-scale
Facilities in the Commercial Business District. Journal of Eastern Asia Society forTransportation Studies, Vol. 4, No.1, 523-535.
3. Meyer, M.D. (1997). A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion and Enhancing
Mobility, Institute of Transportation Engineers.
4. Morris, A. and Kornhhi Auser, A (2001). Relationship of Freight Facilities in Central
Business District Office Buildings to Truck Traffic. Transportation Research Record
1707, Paper No. 00-0197.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
5. Park, S. et al (1998). A Simulation Analysis on Loading/Unloading and Pick-Up/Delivery
Activities for Efficient Goods Movement at the CBD in Japan, No. 199, 8th World
Conference on Transport Research, Antwerp, Belgium.
6. Takahashi, Y., Sinarimbo, N. and Hyodo, T. (2004). A Study on Traffic and Environmental
Effects of Cooperative Delivery System in CBD – Case of Marunouchi District, World
Conference on Transport Research, Istanbul, Turkey.