It is worthwhile noticing that the even though the
dimension of the model was the same, CPU times
ranged from 30 sec observed for solution D to
approximately 5 min and 12 minutes in solutions A
and C, respectively, and up to 1 hour and 20 minutes
in solution B (where only school and hospital
population is considered). In solution B, population
is concentrated only in a set of points and the impact
of not having a more homogeneously distributed
population relatively to the network arcs was
decisive upon the time required to compute the
optimal solution.
Table 4 summarizes, for each solution, the
average values of population exposure, travel time
and number of arcs per route (chosen to each
destination). The average number of trucks per
destination is 112.12 per year. This number is
constant for each destination as it only depends on
the quantity of fuel delivered (information provided
by the company). Hence, it is a model parameter,
unlike the population exposure, travel time and
number of arcs per route that were computed based
on the value of the decision variables after solving
the model.
It is clear that solution B, the one that accounts
for hospitals and schools population only, stands out
for presenting higher values for time and number of
arcs per route. On the other hand, solution D, with a
weight of 0.5 for each type of population and a
buffer of 800 meters, is the solution where the
population associated with each arc, when solving
the MILP model, is more uniform, therefore it is also
the one with lowest values for time and number of
arcs. Solutions A and C present similar values and
intermediate between those of solutions B and D.
Table 4: Summary of results (average values per
destination).
Solution
Population exposure
(average)
Time (min.)
(average)
No. of arcs
used
(average)
A 13,152 14.76 79.88
B 27,156 26.96 129.23
C 11,007 15.18 74.23
D 12,160 12.29 55.58
Table 5 compares the different solutions for a
particular destination (destination 23, for which the
number of trucks used is 271). This is located in the
the middle of the city, far away from the route origin
(A1 highway entrance in Lisbon). While there are
only minor changes along the route for solutions A,
C and D, there is a major change for solution B.
Population exposure is the lowest for solutions C
and D, the ones that have a split contribution from
each population source. Solution A, the one where
all the population from the census tracts is taken into
account, is the one with the least amount of people
exposed. The one where the most people are
exposed is solution B, which is also the longest route
(average travel time and number of arcs used).
Table 5: Comparison of model outputs for destination 23.
Solution Population exposure Time (min.)
No. of arcs
used
A 25,018 19.43 97
B 32,663 50.51 225
C 20,429 18.58 89
D 21,377 15.67 70
Figure 5 illustrates the route for destination 23
and solution A.
Figure 5: Route for solution A and destination 23.
6 CONCLUSIONS
There is a consensual belief on the importance of
minimizing risks associated to HazMats
transportation, particularly in urban areas, where
increasingly more people live. The growing
complexity and density of urban environments is
pressing the development of reliable and practical
tools to support the industry identifying safe and
economically viable HazMats routes. However, the
research found in the literature is still limited
particularly in the complexity of the analyzed road
networks. Aiming at contributing to increase urban
road safety and urban economic growth by
specifically supporting safe and feasible fuel
distribution, this work studied the whole city of
Lisbon, capital of Portugal, using up-to-date
distribution data provided by one petrol company
operating in the city.