how to improve the eco-efficiency of urban goods distribution romeo danielis - università di...
TRANSCRIPT
How to improve the eco-efficiency of urban goods distribution
Romeo Danielis - Università di TriesteLucia Rotaris - Università di TriesteEdoardo 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. environmentalB. 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 for-hire
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 Administration
costs Transport
operator costs Retailer costs
Negative externalities
reduction
Vehicle characteristics
+ +++ + ↓ emissions,
noise, impact on buildings
Time window + ++ +++ ↓ congestion Low Emission
Zones + + ++
↓ emissions , congestion
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
COSTS
UDC owner /
operator Transport operators Retailers Residents
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 X BENEFITS Lower urban negative externalities X Lower interurban delivery time X Lower transaction costs 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
Regulation Management Lower incentives Characteristics of city, transport operators, …
Road pricing Strong incentives, Funds
Localization, acceptability City dimension, fee level
UDCs Efficiency road
network and fleet Volumes, management,
investments Optimization supply chain
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 citiesTab. - 2 – Regulation heterogeneity among some Italian cities Bologna Brescia Firenze Roma Siena Piacenza LTZ 7-20 0-24 7:30-19:30 6:30-18 n/a 8-19
Cost of the access license
X X X X X n.a.
Time windows with access license
n.a. 9:30-12; 14-16
7:30-9:30; 15-16:30
X X X
Dedicated loading/unloading areas
X X X X X X
Time limits for loading/unloading operations
X X n.a. X n.a. X
Weight restriction >80 q. n.a. >35 q. >35 q. >35 q. >35 q. Exemption for low impact vehicles
X n.a. X X n.a.
Rules in the city of Cordoba
Automatic control system in Barcellona
Shared reserved lanes in Barcellona