Webinar Participants 2 - Urban Freight...
Transcript of Webinar Participants 2 - Urban Freight...
1
Webinar Participants 2
2
Mechanics of the seminar
The webinar is being recorded, the URL will be sent out to participants and posted at www.coe-sufs.org
Participants from the US and Canada can:Use Adobe Connect to receive the audio (PRIMARY method)Dial 1-888-446-7584, access code 1120583
International participants can: Use Adobe Connect to receive the audio (PRIMARY method)Use Skype or similar to dial 1-888-446-7584, code 1120583 Dial 212-372-3742 (caller paid call)
Submit questions using the Chat feature
3
The VREF Center of Excellence for Sustainable Urban Freight Systems
(CoE-SUFS)
3
CoE-SUFS
Funded by the Volvo Research and Educational Foundations (VREF)
Main Goal: To jumpstart an integrative process, involving cities, private sector, and researchers to develop new freight systems paradigms that:Are sustainableIncrease quality of life Foster economic competitiveness and efficiencyEnhance environmental justice
5
New York City, Albany, USA
Santo Domingo, DominicanRepublic
Barranquilla, Bogotá, Medellín, Colombia
Osaka, Japan
Chennai, India
Mumbai, India
Dalian, China
Nanjing, China
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Melbourne, Australia
London, UK
Singapore, Singapore
Santander, Spain
Sao Paulo, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Pretoria, South Africa
Toronto, CA
4
Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Exchange to share global best practice cases and real world examples of sustainable urban freight systems
Next P2P (May 6th, 2014): Urban Consolidation Centers: The UK Experience
The Research Exchange to share innovative research on urban freight, and related topics
Workshops to bring together public/private sectors and academia, to jointly work to address urban freight issues; Upcoming: India, Colombia, and Mexico
CoE-SUFS Dissemination Programs 7
Urban Consolidation Centers: The Dutch Experience
5
The Dutch experienceOverviewExamplesDiscussion
QuestionsWhat are promising or successful variants of UCC in The
Netherlands?What are underlying business models?Which developments are expected?
Content
Examples throughout Europe
Type of UCC
Stakeholder(s) that initiated
Funding Subsidies I Subsidies II Support measures
Distribution vehicles
SuccessBristol UDC Municipality Subsidy EC Structural None Conventional
Kassel UDC Transportation companies
Subsidy Local Temporary Pedestrian zone
Conventional
La Rochelle UDC Municipality (agglomeration)
Subsidy Local Structural Time windows
Electric
Failure
Leiden UDC Municipality Subsidy EC One time Time windows
Conventional and electric
Utrecht Multiple UDCs
Municipality Carriers - - Time windows, usage of bus lanes
Conventional
Malaga Cross-dock Municipality PPP Local One time Pedestrian zone
Conventional and electric
Nuremberg UDC Shopkeepers Carriers and shopkeepers
- - Pedestrian zone
Conventional and electric
6
Food Center AmsterdamFood market (1930)General market (1960)Wholesale (1980)Distribution (1990)Localized focus (2010)
Supermarket Retail Distribution Centers
Retail DC’s around major citiesRegional & local functionMainly cross-docking
7
Retail DC’s (e.g. Ahold)
Local logistics clusters(e.g. Amsterdam food center)
UCC Models
Last mile
City Border
Door-to-doorNetwork
Last mileConsolidation
Big Retail
CollaborativeHub
Focus of today
City Border
UCC Implementations
8
City Perspective
UCC as a solution from city perspective City logistics activities appear to be unorganized from city
perspective UCC as a solution to organize and optimize last mile deliveries (Local) authorities see UCCs as solution for carriers because:
No city access restrictions or time-windows No difficulties maneuvering trucks in narrow streets and historical centers No congestion and parking issues in cities
Carriers have a different perspective:solving issues is their job!
Many UCCs initiated by authorities failed
15
Examples
1. Binnenstadservice (“Inner City Service”): City Perspective
2. L’Hospitalet de Llobregat: City perspective3. Transmission: Carrier UCC initiative
9
1. Binnenstadservice
Binnenstadservice: The Concept
Dutch UCC active since 20081990-2005: Many failures or studies about UCCs, but
hardly any successful implantations2008: Binnenstadservice started as solution for small
retailers in the city of Nijmegen => bottom-up initiative with start subsidy of local authorities
18
Situation before 2008Collective receiving point for shopkeeper: Binnenstadservice
10
Binnenstadservice: The Concept
‘Low price’ services packages for local stores: receiving goods, delivering goods at a predictable time, organizing reverse logistics (shopkeeper needs to change his/her delivery address to BSS)
Extra services (value proposition receiver): storage, home-deliveries, value added logistics, possibilities for e-tailing
Locally focus on small, independent retailers, since their deliveries are often not organized nor optimized.
19
Binnenstadservice: The Concept
Nationally focus on shippers and retail chains
BSS bundles deliveries of multiple suppliers
BSS uses clean transportation (value proposition authorities): electronic bicycles and natural gas trucks, electric vehicles
20
11
Binnenstadservice: Development
Start in Nijmegen (2008) as one UCC
Growing to over 10 Dutch cities (franchise concept) over the years
Decline in growth Local (development of costs non-
linear) National (local heroes / entrepreneurs)
needed, national coverage necessary for value proposition to shippers
21
Nijmegen
• One of the oldest cities in the Netherlands
with over 161,000 inhabitants
• Medieval city center is situated on a small
hill and has a historical structure with streets
where many small, independent retailers are
located
Binnenstadservice: A short History
Start in Nijmegen, April 2008Location 1.5 km outside city centre, 18 hr a day openAfter one year 98 stores joinedSubsidy given for 1 year in 2008 to find enough stores
to join. Since April 2009 BSS operates without subsidy
22
12
Binnenstadservice: UCC Effects after one year
Scenarios
DataLarge set of data on traffic in city centre availableSurvey among truck drivers (OD, deliveries)Analysis of BSS deliveries
23
Binnenstadservice: Methodology
Modelling the local impacts Use of RESPONSE model of TNO to define routes of trucks in
city center (fleet size, travelling time and travelling distance) Output of RESPONSE was used for Urban Strategy model of
TNO to calculate and visualize local impacts of deliveries Air quality (NO2, PM10) Noise nuisance (LDEN in dB) Nuisance for residents (amount of residents that experience
loading/unloading activities within 100m of their home)
24
13
Binnenstadservice: Logistics Effects
After one year reduction of 5% truck kilometres, 7% of truck stops
Scenario 2 (max) reduction of 32% truck km, 25% of truck stops
25
Data for one representative day
Binnenstadservice: Air Quality
Decrease in km results in fewer emitted pollutant emissions For local impact it is concentration that influences human health NO2 and PM10 indicate the local air quality Between scenarios hardly any difference in concentration. The
savings are too small compared to other traffic (passenger traffic and buses) and the high natural background concentration
26
14
Binnenstadservice: Local Effects on Noise
Other traffic is also the most important variable for the noise level
Noise level within city center is lower on ring road around city center. Within the city center it is mainly caused by buses and by freight traffic.
Noise calculation is based on the daily average according Dutch legislation. Changes during short periods of the day are not calculated properly in this way => therefore noise nuisance calculated (peak moments)
27
Binnenstadservice: Nuisance for residents
Amount of residents that experience a certain number of loading/unloading activities within 100m of their home
After one year small decrease of nuisance. In maximum scenario a clear shift towards nuisance fewer residents
Improvement of traffic safety and quality of life in city center expected
28
15
Binnenstadservice: Network of UCCs
BSS in more cities: interesting for carriers No problems with local regulations
One contact for many cities
Large time-windows
Enough space for (un)loading
Effects calculated for 2 different shippers/carriers
Scenario’s (maximum effect all carriers’ deliveries in city to BSS) Scenario 0 – no BSS Scenario 1 – 6 cities with BSS █ Scenario 2 – 20 cities with BSS █ █
Scenario 3 – 41 cities with BSS █ █ █
29
Binnenstadservice: Network of UCCs
Results for two cases (based on data of two BSS customers)
30
16
Binnenstadservice: Network of UCCs
Considerable savings per delivery (in case a BSS franchise is used) Kilometers: 48-72% Time: 60-70% Costs: 59-71% CO2 emissions: 47-71%
Savings vary based on: Type of deliveries Limiting factor for length vehicle roundtrip Number of kilometers between city and carriers’ DC Number of deliveries in city
Savings (per order) are similar in case only city centre addresses are delivered via BSS (in stead of all city addresses) of carriers
31
Binnenstadservice: Lessons Learned Starting with a ‘free’ service makes it difficult to develop to a financially
viable business model => always a fee for all services Difficult to get rid of label ‘subsidized’ => use subsidy not for operations,
local authorities as customer Local growth is difficult: costs (vehicles, staff, IT) develop non-linear in
contrast to volume of customers => develop towards non-asset based UCC
Proposition to local small retailers is evident (but relatively limited): local hero required for each city
Proposition to shipper: only in case of national coverage Proposition to carrier: no real proposition, last mile deliveries are the
core of carriers’ work Proposition to (local) authorities: cleaner, quieter, less nuisance, safer
32
17
2. L’Hospitalet de Llobregat
L’Hospitalet de Llobregat: Setting
Demonstrating how UCC can work Local retailers as customers Local authorities as big launching
customer DHL Supply Chain as operator
Using existing facilities
Issues after demonstration:
Financially viable business model Retail involvement, big freight attractors,
local authorities, other carriers
34
Big demand attractor Local Retailer
Supplier 1Supplier 2Supplier NUCC (DHL)
18
Urban Consolidation Center DHL-STRAIGHTSOLBusiness model approach
35
Negative business case
- One time pickup- Free add on municipal newspaper- City council as new partner
- Customer acquisition
- Operation of UCC- Extra fleet, extra
personnel- Extra costs
- Delivering to UCC instead of the retailer
- Time and cost savings
Societal and environmental benefits
Urban Consolidation Center DHL-STRAIGHTSOL
19
Different value propositions for different stakeholders:1. Agreement with the receivers (small retail and big freight attractors)
with other value added services for which they would like to pay (and non-asset based / partly hiring transport)
2. Agreement with other LSPs for cost or benefit sharing3. Agreement with shippers (paying UCC separately for last mile delivery
instead of only LSPs) => requires other conditions (e.g. terms comparable to Incoterms in international freight transport)
4. UCC as enabler for other solutions such as electric vehicles or bicycles5. Active involvement of the municipality to restrict the entrance for not
fully loaded / polluting or otherwise undesired vehicles in the city center
Urban Consolidation Center: Financial Aspect
38
Zero-Emission Inner City DistributionKey Succes Factors –from a Dutch example
20
TransMission: Inner City Distribution 39
Rome
Pompeii
A rich history
TransMission NL 40
Noordhorn
Assen
Deventer
Enschede
Geldermalsen
Helvoirt
Weert
Beverwijk
Almere
Zoetermeer
Utrecht
Dordrecht
Bergen op Zoom
13 Regions - Depot Almere serves Amsterdam
Amsterdam
21
TransMission: Introduction
High density multi drop distribution network Parcels, Pallets, General Cargo - 1 Process Overnight pick-up & delivery Benelux - every day everywhere Inner city & High Street Business Areas and Home Deliveries Lots of Extra Services
Customers SME Trade & Industry Subs of Large International companies
41
TransMission: Introduction
Figures 1.200 staff 16.000 shipments/day 450 vans & trucks
Structure – Family owned 11 Depots NL – shareholders 2 Depots NL – owned 4 Depots BE – partners 1 Small Central HQ
Quality & Service = Contract People with passion en affinity 100% Transparent quality Flexible en creative
42
22
TransMission: Inner City Distribution
ChallengesTraffic CongestionNoisePollution (CO2 & NOx)Safety“Quality of Inner Cities”
The SolutionOne frustrated entrepreneurIn lengthy “working”- group
sessionsIn the right positionAt the right time
43
City of Utrecht
Environmental Zone
44
Logistics center at edge of inner city• Receiving, cross docking, loading
• On time delivery of shipments
• Collections, returns and empty packaging
• Open EDI to connect multiple supply chains
• Warehousing for retailers
• Neutral branding to attract all carriers
Cross Chain Control Centerfor Inner City Distribution
23
45
Key Success Factors
• Location
• Volume – parcels & pallets
• Vehicles
• High level IT with low level detail
• Sponsor
• Project champion
• Perseverance
• Marketing
Integrated Approach Required
People Process
Policy Technology
Customers
46
People Process
Policy Technology
Customers
Location
• Availability
• Suitable
• Costs
• Logistics not sexy
• Traffic
• Site redevelopment
• Planning PermissionAmsterdam environmental zone
and Cargohopper Location
Local Government has task inland use/site planning
24
47
Volume
1. Food
2. Food services
3. Construction
4. Waste collection
5. Own account
6. Parcels/Pallets
7. Couriers
Food & food services, constructionand waste are the biggest flows
Heavy loads option:• Fully electric truck• 12 – 5 net• 15 – 7 net• 18 – 10 net• Classical design• Range limits!
48
Vehicles
• Range
• Loading Capacity
• Speed
• Specifications
• Availability
• Regulations
• Exemptions
Maximum range requires proximityto inner city
Cargohopper II• 75 kms range• 2,800 kg net payload• 50 kms/hr speed• 10 Europallets• 16 rolcontainers• 21,5 Cbm• Width 1,75m
25
49
Electric more expensive than diesel
But highest payload per € investment
11.21.41.61.8
22.2
E-Truck/12 CH-2/2.5 CH-1/1.5
Cost Factor Electric over Diesel
30
35
40
45
E-Truck/12 CH-2/2.5 CH-1/1.5
€ x 1,000/Net Payload
Cargohopper most efficient
Option:• Solar Power• Integrated roof panels• Loading whilst operating• Range extension 15%• Really zero-emission
50
Cargohopper – Cost/Benefit Analysis
Benefits befall to Society• Clean - where it matters• Silent• Safe• Friendly• Huge improvement in living quality• Extra investment costs need to be offset
• No operational subsidies
Local Government Policy
26
51
Conclusions
• Fulfill Key Succes Factors: People, Process, Policy &
Technology, Customers
• Cargohopper gives best net payload/€
• Solar power option to go the extra mile
• No abstract policy, white paper or vague future
100% Zero-emissionInner City Distribution
Is possible – today!
Discussion
Difference with Japan?Position in Europe?
27
On Public Involvement
Basic services (UCC) Extended services
Marketissues
• Uptake business model
• Horizontalcollaboration
• Last mile governance with receiver or carrier
• Warehousemanagement
• Cross-docking• Value added services• Vertical collaboration
Public issues • Regulatory protection• Physical support• Land use• Subsidy• Pricing
Q&AQ&A
28
More Information Quak H.J. and L.A. Tavasszy (2011). Customized solutions for sustainable city
logistics; The viability of urban freight consolidation centres, in: J. van Nunen, P. Rietveld en P. Huijbregts (eds.) Transitions towards sustainable mobility, 213 – 234, Springer, Berlin.
Van Rooijen, T and H.J. Quak (2010). Local impacts of a new urban consolidation centre – the case of Binnenstadservice.nl. Procedia, 2 (3), pp. 5967-5979.
Quak, H.J. (2008). Sustainability of Urban Freight Transport – Retail Distribution and Local Regulations in Cities. ERIM, Rotterdam (ERIM Ph.D Series Research in Management 124, TRAIL Thesis Series T2008/5).
www.binnenstadservice.nl J.H.R. van Duin, L.A. Tavasszy, L.A., Quak, H.J. , 2013. Towards E(lectric)- urban
freight: first promising steps in the electric vehicle revolution. In European Transport (54), 1-19
STRAIGHTSOL: www.straightsol.eu Deliverable 5.3 Business models for innovative and sustainable urban-interurban transport (2014)
55
Dr. Hans [email protected]
Prof. Lorant [email protected]
Peter [email protected]
56