Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
R
a
t
i
o
o
f
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
u
s
e
Figure 3 Ratio of expressway use
(Freight shipped from refrigerator warehouses v.s. Freight shipped from other facilities)
Z =
P
o
- P
b
_P
o:crogc
(1 - P
o:crogc
) [
1
N
o
+
1
N
b
(1)
P
a
: Ratio of expressway use for freight shipped from refrigerator warehouses
P
b
: Ratio of expressway use for freight shipped from other facilities
P
average
: Average of Pa and Pb weighted by the number of samples
N
a
: the number of samples of freight shipped from refrigerator warehouses
N
b
: the number of samples of freight shipped from other facilities
Table 3 Result of significance test
P
a
P
b
Pave N
a
N
b
0-100 49.8% 38.7% 39.0% 2,736 76,761 11.76 ***
100-200 65.4% 50.2% 50.6% 1,688 74,965 12.34 ***
200-300 76.3% 56.7% 57.0% 646 43,171 9.99 ***
300-400 77.6% 61.9% 62.2% 505 34,898 7.21 ***
400-500 85.8% 67.0% 67.3% 494 34,606 8.86 ***
500- 73.5% 68.6% 68.7% 741 51,451 2.87 **
Total 63.5% 54.4% 54.6% 6,810 315,852 14.79 ***
Signif. codes: 0 *** 0.001 ** 0.01 * 0.05 . 0.1 1
km
Ratio of expressway use Number of sample
Z value
5
2) Freight with Delivery Time Specified
More sophisticated freight services such as just-in-time transport and time-specified delivery have been
advancing, enabling freight to be transported so as to arrive at a time adjusted to a factorys
manufacturing processes, or during lunchtime or evening shopping hours. Figure 4 shows the
percentage of freight in terms of delivery time specification: (1) hour specified, (2) AM or PM specified,
(3) date specified, and (4) not-specified. The percent of freight with the hour specified has increased by
1.5 points during the ten years between 1995 and 2005. Agriculture and Fishery shows the highest
percentage of hour specified freight among the nine freight types, with 19.2% of shipments designated
as such.
We established a hypothesis that hour specified freight is more likely to be transported via expressway,
which are known to be more travel time reliable, as such freight is not allowed any delay in delivery. The
hypothesis was tested by comparing the ratio of expressway use of hour specified freight and that of
not-specified freight in Agriculture and Fishery. As shown in Figure 5, hour specified freight indicated
greater ratios of expressway use over all distance categories except 400-500km. As shown in Table 4,
a Z-test revealed that the ratio of expressway use for hour specified freight was statistically higher than
that of not-specified freight at a significance level of 0.1% over all distance categories except
300-400km and 400-500km. This result suggests that expressways are used at a greater rate when
hour specified freight is transported.
10.1
8.6
22.3
16.8
29.8
39.1
37.8
35.5
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2005
1995
Total
19.2
17.5
29.2
23.5
24.8
30.0
26.9
28.6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2005
1995
Agriculture and Fishery
Hour specified AM of PM specified Date specified Not-specified
Figure 4 Percentage of freight in terms of delivery time specification
(Left: Sum of the nine freight types, Right: Agriculture and Fishery)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
l
100
100
l
200
200
l
300
300
l
400
400
l
500
500
l
Hour specified freight
Not-specified freight
R
a
t
i
o
o
f
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
u
s
e
Figure 5 Ratio of expressway use
(Hour specified freight v.s. Not-specified freight)
6
Table 4 Result of significance test
P
a
P
b
Pave N
a
N
b
0-100 53.1% 37.9% 47.6% 911 515 5.54 ***
100-200 66.0% 47.6% 60.0% 911 435 6.44 ***
200-300 79.3% 66.9% 74.7% 454 272 3.71 ***
300-400 85.1% 75.9% 81.3% 202 141 2.17 *
400-500 84.1% 84.6% 84.3% 113 117 -0.11
500- 91.6% 74.7% 87.8% 597 174 6.00 ***
Total 70.9% 55.6% 65.7% 3,188 1,654 10.59 ***
Signif. codes: 0 *** 0.001 ** 0.01 * 0.05 . 0.1 1
a: Hour specifed freight, b: Not-specified freight
km
Ratio of expressway use Number of sample
Z value
3) Small-Lot Freight
Frequency of freight delivery is increasing and the weight of freight shipped simultaneously (freight lot)
is decreasing to meet the needs of consignees who prefer that only the necessary amount of freight
should be delivered at the most appropriate times in order to reduce unnecessary storage. As shown in
Figure 6, average freight lot has halved during the 15 years between 1990 and 2005. Freight lot here is
defined as the weight of freight that is shipped as the same kind, at the same time, by the same means
of transportation, and to the same destination.
The relationship between freight lot and the ratio of expressway use was analyzed to discuss how the
trend of decreasing freight lot influences freight truck route selection. As shown in Figure 7, the smaller
the freight lot, the higher the ratio of expressway use; the cause of this trend was inferred from the
statistical data shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9. Figure 8 shows the percent of truck types used for
freight transport by freight lot category; a: consignors own trucks, b: forwarders trucks carrying
different items assigned from multiple consignors, c: forwarders trucks carrying a single item assigned
from a single consignor, d: other. The figure shows that the smaller the freight lot, the higher the percent
of forwarders trucks carrying different items (b). Figure 9 shows the average ratio of expressway use
for the four truck types; that of forwarders trucks carrying different items (b) is the highest among them
at 62%. Thus, the reason why the ratio of expressway use for small-lot freight is higher is because
small-lot freight tends to be transported by forwarders trucks carrying different items (b), for which we
have good evidence of a higher ratio of expressway use.
2.43
2.13
1.73
1.27
1990 1995 2000 2005
L
o
t
(
t
o
n
s
p
e
r
s
h
i
p
m
e
n
t
)
Figure 6 Average freight lot (tons per shipment)
7
40%
50%
60%
70%
0
I
0.1
0.1
l
1.0
1.0
l
2.0
2.0
l
3.0
3.0
l
lot(tonspershipment)
R
a
t
i
o
o
f
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
u
s
e
Figure 7 Relationship between freight lot and ratio of expressway use
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
I
0.1
0.1
l
1.0
1.0
l
2.0
2.0
l
3.0
3.0
l
a
b
c
d
S
h
a
r
e
lot (tons per shipment)
a: consignors own trucks
b: forwarders trucks carrying different items assigned from multiple consignors
c: forwarders trucks carrying a single item assigned from a single consignor
d: other
Figure 8 Percent of truck types used for transport by freight lot
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
a b c d
R
a
t
i
o
o
f
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
u
s
e
Figure 9 Average ratio of expressway use for the four truck types
8
4. MODEL PREDICTING THE RATIO OF EXPRESSWAY USE
We developed a model that predicts the ratio of expressway use from the freight characteristics
discussed previously. Specifically, the generalized logit model shown in Equation 2 was estimated by
regressing the ratio of expressway use to four explanatory variables: (1) transport distance, (2) facility
type from which freight is shipped, (3) delivery time specification, and (4) freight lot. Out of 12,127
records in Agriculture and Fishery, the 9,353 records which hold data on all four variables were used for
the estimation of the model.
Table 5 shows the estimated regression coefficients of the variables; their signs all agreed with the
conditions discussed in the previous chapter, and they all satisfied a 0.1% confidence level. This
verifies that all four variables are valid factors that explain the behavior of freight truck route selection.
Plots of the figures predicted by the model are shown in Figure 10. Averaged figures are shown in
Figure 11 and Table 6; the maximum difference was 5.6 points at 100-200km, and the accuracy ratio of
the model was 0.72.
Iogit() = log _
1 -
] = o
u
+ o
1
x
1
+ o
2
x
2
+o
S
x
S
+ o
4
x
4
(2)
f : Ratio of expressway use
X1: Transport distance (km)
X2: Facility type from which freight is shipped,
where refrigerator warehouse = 1, other facility = 0.
X3: Delivery time specification, where hour specified =1, not specified = 0.
X4: Freight lot (ton)
Table 5 Estimation results
coefficients Estimate Std. Error Z value Signif.
(Intercept) -0.5181533 0.0522113 -9.924 ***
Transport distance (km) 0.0050396 0.0001602 31.466 ***
Facility type from which freight is dispatched 0.7231309 0.0535702 13.499 ***
Delivery time specification 0.207155 0.0513031 4.038 ***
Freight lot (ton) -0.1531429 0.0199895 -7.661 ***
AIC: 10858
Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 5
Signif. codes: 0 *** 0.001 ** 0.01 * 0.05 . 0.1 1
Null deviance: 11874 on 9352 degrees of freedom
Residual deviance: 10850 on 9349 degrees of freedom
9
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 100 200 300 400 500
R
a
t
i
o
o
f
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
u
s
e
Figure 10 Plots of figures predicted by the model
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
l
100
100
l
200
200
l
300
300
l
400
400
l
500
500
l
Real (d)
Predicted (e)
km
R
a
t
i
o
o
f
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
u
s
e
Figure 11 Average ratio of expressway use (real figures / predicted figures)
Table 6 Average ratio of expressway use (real figures / predicted figures)
Real
Predicted