How to improve the eco-efficiency
of urban goods distribution
Romeo Danielis - Università di Trieste
Lucia Rotaris - Università di Trieste
Edoardo Marcucci - Università di Urbino
Nectar Cluster 1 - Seminar "From sustainability to ecoefficiency in
transportation”, 15th – 16th October 2005 , Fiesole, Firenze
(Italy)
Urban goods distribution
city logistics: the possibility of co-ordinating
urban goods storage and distribution, as an
alternative to the prevailing organization
base on individual decision makers
Motivations
Pollution
Noise
Safety
Intrusion
Congestion
Energy saving
Transport cost
High share of commercial traffic
Low load factor
Lack of loading\unloading facilities
High proportion of own account transport
Re-balancing between commercial and transport
activities
 Political considerations












Conflicting views and interestsi
 Transport operators: cost, time and
flexibility
 Economic activities: efficiency, lead
time, security
 Consumers: cost, diffusion, variety
 Citizens (socio-economic): minimum
impact on other urban activities and
functions
Decision-making with conflicting
goals and uncertainty
 Local administrators takes decisions
facing
 Conflicting interests conflittuali (times,
loading\unloading areas, size and type of
vehicles, size and storage facilities,
pedestrian areas, public transport)
 Tastes uncertainty (e-commerce)
 Technological uncertainty (fuels)
 Behavioural uncertainty (acceptance of
road pricing measure)
Suggestions from economic theory
Theoretical motivations for public
intervention – Areas of improvement with
respect to the status quo situation
1. Externalities
A. environmental
B. congestion
2. Insufficient consolidation
3. Inefficiencies in the supply chain
1A - Environmental externalities





Pollution, noise, visual intrusion, safety
Borne by all citizens
Many contributers
Awareness, free riding incentive
Public intervention needed (no private
cost advantages )
 Regulation
 Fiscal pollicies
 Revenue ear-marking
1B. Congestion Externalities
 Mainly within the transport system
 Borne directly by transport operators and
indirectly by shopkeepers and consumers
 Private cost advantages, possibly
transferred to consumers
Insufficient consolidation
 Foregone economies of scale and scope
 It is necessary to distinguish between forhire and own account transport
 Own\account is farther from optimality
 Third-party transport might face
coordination cost and lack of information
(vehicle planning and routing)
 Inadequate firms’ dimension
 Excess competion
Inefficiencies in supply chain
 Co-ordination among the actors (producer,
wholesale, trasport operators, retailer,
consumer).
 Various difficulties: information, conflict of
interest, communication.
Decision-support tools from
economic and engineering sciences
Models and analysis
 Forecasting and simulation models of
flows, routes, etc.
 Preference analysis
 Behavioural studies
 Economic and land use models
Intermediate conclusions
 Difficult task for local administrators
 Knowledge of conflictiing interests
and goals
 Information, monitoring,
experimentation, partecipation
Policy options
Regulation
Road pricing
Urban distribution center
Regulation: description
Access restrictions to the urban area, or
to the loading/unloading area located
within the urban perimeter, according
to:
 the characteristics of the vehicle (length,
width, height);
 the time during which those activities are
performed;
 the truck routes.
Regulation: issues
Enforcement and enforcement cost
Costs imposed on transport operators
and retailers
Co-ordination with urban planning
Flexibility and heterogeneity among
cities
Regulation: costs and benefits
Tab. - 1 – Impacts of different regulation policies on the involved stakeholders
Public
Negative
Administration
externalities
Transport
costs
operator costs Retailer costs
reduction
↓ emissions,
Vehicle
+
+++
+
noise, impact on
characteristics
buildings
+
++
+++
↓ congestion
Time window
↓ emissions,
Low Emission
+
+
++
congestion
Zones
Regulation: innovations
Optimization technology
Reserved lanes shared with public
transport
Road pricing: description
 Polluter pays principle
 Loading factor
 Vehicle type
 route
 Objectives:
 Congestion reduction
 revenue raising
 Modal transfer
Road pricing: discussion
Passenger and freight transport?
Relative fee
Implementing an efficiency-inducing fee
Effect on congestion
Who bears the fee
 Trasport operators, retailers or consumers?
Spatial effect (urban sprawling)
Acceptabilty
Urban distribution Centers:
definition
Freight platforms o Freight villages
Urban distribution Centers(UDC):
 French Model
 Dutch Model
 German Model
Urban distribution Centers: costs and
benefits
Tab. – 3 – UDC costs and benefits distribution among the involved stakeholders
UDC
owner /
Transport
COSTS
operator
operators
Retailers
Land, infrastructure,
maintenance, management
X
Higher transaction costs
X
X
Loading\unloading costs
X
No customer assistance
X
X
New logistic organization of
each supply chain stakeholder
X
Higher negative externalities
around the UDC
BENEFITS
Lower urban negative
externalities
Lower interurban delivery
time
X
Lower transaction costs
X
Residents
X
X
Urban distribution centers: issues
Type of goods
Location
Management
Acceptability
Efficiency and financial sustainability
 Volumes
 User fees
Urban distribution Centers:
volumes
How to create volume:
 Authoritarian
Total access restriction
 Discouraging:
Regulation and\or pricing
 Partnerships
With transport operators
 Spontaneous
Efficiency and higher services
Urban distribution Centers:
international experiences
 Delusion and doubts on economic
sustainability
 Successes and failures
 Optimization issues
 Compatibility with private optimization efforts
Conclusions
Tab. - 4 – Critical issues and potentialities of each group of policy measures
Pros
Cons
Issues
Characteristics of city,
Management
Lower incentives
Regulation
transport operators, …
Strong incentives,
Localization, acceptability
City dimension, fee level
Road pricing
Funds
Efficiency road
Volumes, management,
Optimization supply chain
UDCs
network and fleet
investments
Acceptability of policy measures
 Stakeholders’ preferences for UDC
(Regan and Golob, 2005)
 Interactive Agent Conjoint Analysis
(David Henher, 2003) of stakeholder
preferences for policy measures
Thanks for your attention!
Respect of rules
Rules in some Italian cities
Tab. - 2 – Regulation heterogeneity among some Italian cities
Bologna
Brescia
Firenze
Roma
LTZ
7-20
0-24
7:30-19:30
6:30-18
Cost of the access
license
Time windows with
access license
Dedicated
loading/unloading
areas
Time limits for
loading/unloading
operations
Weight restriction
Exemption for low
impact vehicles
X
Siena
n/a
Piacenza
8-19
X
X
n.a.
X
X
n.a.
X
X
X
X
9:30-12; 7:30-9:30;
14-16
15-16:30
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
n.a.
X
n.a.
X
>80 q.
X
n.a.
n.a.
>35 q.
X
>35 q.
>35 q.
X
>35 q.
n.a.
Rules in the city of Cordoba
Automatic control system in Barcellona
Shared reserved lanes in
Barcellona