Evaluating the Effects of the A-Double Vehicle Combinations If Introduced to a Line-Haul Freight Transport Network

Abstract

One of the solutions to improve the eco-efficiency of road freight transport is to combine existing transport modules into Longer and/or Heavier Vehicles (LHVs). The scientific and industrial communities have paid increasing attention to an LHV, known as the A-double combination, consisting of a tractor, two 13.5-m semitrailers, and a dolly converter. The present research contributes to the existing literature by developing a methodology based on a cost-benefit approach to quantify the effects of the A-double combinations if introduced to a line-haul transport system. Four implementation scenarios and sensitivity analyses of main variables were evaluated within a case study of 48,472 line-haul trips in Denmark. The results indicate that in the least beneficial scenario, the A-double combinations reduce transport cost by 9.65% while reducing trips, CO2 emissions, and road wear by 17.91%, 5.34%, and 9.55%, respectively. Besides, the use of A-double combinations can significantly reduce empty tractor-semitrailer trips. However, the benefits are relatively less in the case of just-in-time deliveries and cargo constrained by vehicle weight. Also, cost saving is highly sensitive to driver salaries, fuel prices, and driving speeds. This research provides valuable insights into the potentials of A-double combinations under different regulations and freight characteristics from a micro perspective.

Analysis of the barriers to multimodal freight transport and their mitigation strategies

“…This is unacceptable from the point of view of policies to encourage intermodal transport. This is because allowing LHVs can reduce road freight costs and, consequently, induce a shift from rail and water to road transport [31,99]. For example, Liimatainen et al [100] found that sharing rail freight transport decreased by 4% due to allowing LHVs.…”

“…Inadequate pricing policies for road transport [31,39,40,[93][94][95] Lack of full rail liberalization [10,16,31,69,[96][97][98]] Allowing high-capacity vehicles [31,[99][100][101][102]133] Lack of incentive policies [11,13,14,[23][24][25][26]103] Lack of awareness programs [11,14,36,40,57,63,83]…”

Evolutionary game analysis of three parties in logistics platforms and freight transportation companies’ behavioral strategies for horizontal collaboration considering vehicle capacity utilization

“…Hernández and Peeta [30] insisted that a higher degree of collaboration always leads to a win-win situation in a single-carrier collaboration problem when a less-than-truckload carrier seeks to acquire other carriers' capacity to service excess demand. Karam and Reinau [31] proposed a double combination to improve the eco-efficiency of road freight transport in empty tractor-semitrailer trips, but it is less effective for just-intime deliveries. Obviously, the algorithm optimization has achieved great benefits for enterprises, but with the development of the supply chain, the limitation of the enterprise's internal operation optimization becomes more obvious.…”

A Real-Time Decision Support Approach for Managing Disruptions in Line-Haul Freight Transport Networks

“…The number of affected trips in each route includes the first-affected trip and reactionary-affected trips. The CO2 emission of each trip is calculated following the method described in [32] which used the Passenger car and Heavy-duty Emission Model to estimate the CO2emission factors at different values of payload and speed. Linear interpolation and extrapolation were utilized to get the emission values at other payload values.…”