This study discusses freight trip generation of pure receiver establishments, establishments that only receive goods, and freight intermediaries, establishments that both receive and ship goods. In addition, freight trip attraction and freight trip production patterns of establishments in different industry sectors were compared by using freight generation models. The analyses indicated important differences between production and attraction between establishments across and within industry segments and between pure receivers and intermediaries. As a result, econometric models (discrete and discrete-continuous models) were estimated to identify intermediary establishments. External data were used to validate the estimated models. The analyses and models could be used to improve modeling of freight trip generation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Sánchez-DíazI., Holguín-VerasJ., and WangC.. Assessing the Role of Land-Use, Network Characteristics, and Spatial Effects on Freight Trip Attraction. Presented at 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2013.
2.
Holguín-VerasJ., JallerM., DestroL., BanX., LawsonC., and LevinsonH. S.. Freight Generation, Freight Trip Generation, and Perils of Using Constant Trip Rates. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2224, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 68–81.
3.
KawamuraK., ShinH.-S., and McNeilS.. Business and Site Specific Trip Generation Methodology For Truck Trips. University Transportation Center Working Paper 2008-1. Midwest Regional University Transportation Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, 2008.
4.
Holguín-VerasJ., JallerM., Sánchez-DíazI., WojtowiczJ., CampbellS., LevinsonH., LawsonC., PowersE., and TavasszyL.. NCHRP Report 739–NCFRP Report 19: Freight Trip Generation and Land Use.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012.
5.
RussoF., and ComiA.. Urban Freight Movement: A Quantity Attraction Model.WIT Press, Southampton, United Kingdom, 2002.
6.
RouthierJ.-L., SegalouE., and DurandS.. Mesurer l'Impact du Transport de Marchandises en Ville: le Modèle de Simulation FRETURB v1.2002.
7.
IdingM. H. E., MeesterW. J., and TavasszyL. A.. Freight Trip Generation by Firms. Proc., 42nd European Congress of European Regional Science Association, Dortmund, Germany, Aug. 27–31, European Regional Science Association, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 2002.
8.
CampbellS., Sánchez-DíazI., LawsonC. T., JallerM., and Holguín-VerasJ.. Comparison Between Industrial Classification Systems in Freight Trip Generation Modeling. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.
9.
BartlettR. S., and NewtonW. H.. Goods Vehicle Trip Generation and Attraction by Industrial and Commercial Premises.Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Berkshire, United Kingdom, 1982.
10.
ShinH.-S., and KawamuraK.. Development of Disaggregate-Level Truck Trip Generation Model: Case Study of Furniture Chain Stores. Presented at 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006.
11.
TaC., McCormackE., BassokA., and FishkinE.. Truck Trip Generation by Grocery Stores. TNW2010-04. Transportation Northwest, Seattle; and Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, 2010.
DeVriesJ. B., and DermisiS. V.. Regional Warehouse Trip Production Analysis: Chicago Metro Area.Illinois Center for Transportation, Rantoul, 2008.
14.
LawsonC., Holguín-VerasJ., Sánchez-DíazI., JallerM., CampbellS., and PowersE.. Estimated Generation of Freight Trips Based on Land Use. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2269, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 65–72.
15.
TadiR. R., and BalbachP.. Truck Trip Generation Characteristics of Nonresidential Land Uses. ITE Journal, Vol. 64, No. 7, 1994, pp. 43–47.
16.
BroganJ. D.Improving Truck Trip–Generation Techniques Through Trip-End Stratification. In Transportation Research Record 771, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1980, pp. 1–6.
17.
MiddletonD. R., MasonJ. M.Jr., and Chira-ChavalaT.. Trip Generation for Special-Use Truck Traffic. In Transportation Research Record 1090, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1986, pp. 8–13.
18.
WagnerT.Regional Traffic Impacts of Logistics-Related Land Use. Transport Policy, Vol. 17, 2010, pp. 224–229.
19.
JallerM., and Holguín-VerasJ.. Comparative Analyses of the Stated Behavioral Responses to Off-Hour Delivery Policies. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2379, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 18–28.
20.
Holguín-VerasJ., Sánchez-DíazI., LawsonC. T., JallerM., CampbellS., LevinsonH. S., and ShinH.-S.. Transferability of Freight Trip Generation Models. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2379, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 1–8.
21.
JallerM., Sánchez-DíazI., Holguín-VerasJ., and LawsonC. T.. Area Based Freight Trip Generation Models. Presented at 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2014.
22.
McFaddenD.Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics (ZarembkaP., ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1974, pp. 105–142.
23.
LemeshowS., and HosmerD. W.. A Review of Goodness of Fit Statistics for Use in the Development of Logistic Regression Models. American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 115, No. 1, 1982, pp. 92–106.
24.
ManneringF., and HensherD. A.. Discrete/Continuous Econometric Models and Their Application to Transport Analysis. Transport Reviews, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1987, pp. 227–244.
25.
Commodity Flow Survey.U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2015.
