This article was downloaded by: [Washburn University]On: 31 October 2014, At: 15:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Transport Reviews: A TransnationalTransdisciplinary JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttrv20

The Role of Urban ConsolidationCentres in Sustainable FreightTransportJulian Allen a , Michael Browne a , Allan Woodburn a & JacquesLeonardi aa Department of Transport and Planning, School of Architectureand the Built Environment , University of Westminster , 35Marylebone Road, London , NW1 5LS , UKPublished online: 21 May 2012.

To cite this article: Julian Allen , Michael Browne , Allan Woodburn & Jacques Leonardi (2012)The Role of Urban Consolidation Centres in Sustainable Freight Transport, Transport Reviews: ATransnational Transdisciplinary Journal, 32:4, 473-490, DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2012.688074

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2012.688074

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Role of Urban Consolidation Centres in Sustainable

Freight Transport

JULIAN ALLEN, MICHAEL BROWNE, ALLAN WOODBURN ANDJACQUES LEONARDI

Department of Transport and Planning, School of Architecture and the Built Environment,

University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, UK

(Received 2 August 2011; accepted 20 April 2012)

ABSTRACT The paper reviews the study and use of urban consolidation centres (UCCs) which are a

freight transport initiative intended to reduce goods vehicle traffic, vehicle-related greenhouse gas

emissions and local air pollution. An international literature review has identified 114 UCC

schemes in 17 countries (12 in the European Union (EU) and 5 outside the EU) that have been

the subject of either a feasibility study, trial or a fully operational scheme in the last 40 years. The

period from 2006 to 2010 has been the most active 5-year period in terms of UCC study, trial and

scheme generation since the first UCC study was carried out in the early 1970s. Five countries

account for the majority of all the 114 UCC schemes identified: France, Germany, Italy, the Nether-

lands and the UK. The vast majority of UCCs serve either all or part of an urban area. Examples of

UCCs serving a single property (such as an airport or shopping centre) and construction sites have

also been identified. Key organizational, operational, and financial issues that are critical to the

success of UCCs are discussed. The traffic and environmental impacts of UCC trials and fully oper-

ational schemes are also reviewed.

Introduction

There is much interest in Urban Consolidation Centres (UCCs) as a means bywhich to alleviate local environmental and traffic problems within urban areas.However, outstanding questions about the success of UCCs in terms of their finan-cial, transport and environmental impacts have remained largely unaddressed.UCCs are logistics facilities that are situated in relatively close proximity to thegeographic area that they serve be that a specific site (e.g. shopping centre orairport), city centre, or an entire urban area. The key purpose of UCCs is the avoid-ance of poorly loaded goods vehicles making deliveries in urban areas andthereby a reduction in goods vehicle traffic. This objective can be achieved bytranshipping and consolidating goods at the UCC onto vehicles with high loadfactors for final delivery in the urban area. The UCC also offers the opportunityto operate electric and alternatively powered goods vehicles for this urban

Correspondence Address: Julian Allen, Department of Transport and Planning, School of Architecture andthe Built Environment, University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London NWI 5LS, UK. Email:allenj@westminster.ac.uk

Transport Reviews, Vol. 32, No. 4, 473–490, July 2012

0144-1647 print/1464-5327 Online/12/040473-18# 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2012.688074

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

delivery work. A range of other value-added logistics and retail services can alsobe provided at the UCC.

The paper is based on an international literature review of both printed andonline resources. The paper addresses the following issues:

. The evolution of UCCs and their purpose

. The methodology adopted for the review of UCCs

. The identification of UCC feasibility studies, trials and operations by country,date, and type

. A discussion of results and lessons learned from UCC trials and initiativesincluding: traffic and environmental impacts, organizational, financial andoperational insights

Each of these topics is addressed in turn in the following sections.

The Evolution of UCCs and Their Purpose

Initial research in the UK and France from the 1970s onwards focused on theso-called ‘transhipment centres’. These projects came about as a reaction togrowing concerns about the environmental impacts of large, heavy goods vehicles(HGVs) and were intended as a means by which the number of HGVs operating inurban areas could be reduced. UCCs were viewed as ideally being implemented atan urban level on a communal, shared-user basis, with much attention devoted tothe use of smaller, lighter vehicles for the final deliveries from the UCC (see forexample Battilana & Hawthorne, 1976; GLC London Freight Conference, 1975;Lorries and the Environment Committee, 1976; Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners,1975). The research did not concern itself with the resulting proliferation of goodsvehicle trips that would result from a substitution of large HGVs with smallerHGVs and vans. The concern about HGVs and their impacts came about as aresult of campaigning by anti-road and environmental pressure groups (McKin-non, 1998a). In the USA and Canada, interest in urban transhipment centreswas driven to a greater extent by the poor load factors of goods vehicles operatingin urban areas (McKinnon, 1998b). These North American transhipment centreswere conceived as public sector led initiatives in which communal, shared-userurban facilities would be established at which HGVs would unload their goodsdestined for delivery in the urban area. Goods vehicles with higher load factorswould then be used for the final delivery of these products thereby reducingthe proportion of HGV traffic in the urban environment.

None of the transhipment centres for which feasibility studies were carried out in the1970s in the UK, USA, Canada and Japan was ultimately established due to concernsabout their viability in terms of obtaining sufficient product throughput and the likelyresulting impacts on operating costs. An urban transhipment operation together with arestriction on goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross weight entering Paris was intro-duced in 1971, but in this scheme the two transhipment centres located on the northand south edges of the city failed to attract expected levels of throughput and theiruse was subsequently changed to more general logistics and warehousing activities(McKinnon, 1998b). Urban transhipment schemes were also established in severalDutch cities in the 1970s run by small freight operators working co-operatively andsometimes receiving public funding. However, it would appear that these Dutchschemes generated low levels of goods throughput (McKinnon, 1998b).

474 J. Allen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

During the 1990s, the German ‘city logistics’ trials and operational schemeswere established by small freight operators and forwarders working in co-operation with each other in many towns and cities. In some cases, these involvedthe establishment of new transhipment centres, while in others existing facilitieswere used and operators simply agreed how to share traffic (Crainic, Ricciardi,& Storchi, 2004). These schemes were encouraged by the rise of the green partyin German politics and received public funding. However, only five of these orig-inal schemes were still operating in 2005, namely in Aachen, Bremen, Essen,Frankfurt am Main, and Regensburg (Nobel, 2005).

During the late 1990s and 2000s, there has been a resurgence of interest in theurban transhipment centre concept in several European countries including theUK, France, Italy and the Netherlands (Browne, Woodburn, Sweet, & Allen,2005). These are usually referred to as UCCs instead of the earlier terms of‘urban transhipment centres’ or ‘city logistics’ schemes. Other terms currentlyused in the literature to describe UCCs include ‘freight consolidation centres’(FCCs) and ‘urban distribution centres’ (UDCs). UCCs are the same in motivationto the research in the USA amd Canada in the 1970s, in that their key purpose isthe avoidance of the need for poorly loaded goods vehicles of any size or weight tomake deliveries in urban areas (be that a city centre, an entire town or a specificsite such as a shopping centre) thereby leading to reductions in the total distancetravelled by goods vehicles in urban areas and their associated environmentalimpacts. This objective can be achieved by providing facilities within or close tothe urban area where goods (for retail, restaurant, office, residential or construc-tion use) can be consolidated for subsequent delivery into the target area by avehicle that is appropriately sized for the products and locations served andwhich achieves a high load factor. The vehicles operated from these centres are,therefore, not necessarily small and light vehicles, and range in size and typefrom tricycles and vans to large rigid vehicles (see, for example, Department forTransport, 2002; Dunning, 1997; Exel, 2004; Hesse, 2004; Institut fur Seeverkehrs-wirtschaft und Logistik, 2005; Kohler & Groke, 2004). In addition, since the late1990s as well as efforts to reduce total distance travelled through the applicationof UCCs, there has also been growing interest in the use of alternatively poweredvehicles from the UCC to make the final delivery and thereby further reducegreenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution. UCCs are the penultimatelink in the supply chain prior to the final delivery of goods; they receive goodsfrom upstream logistics centres. A range of other value-added logistics andretail services are also now being provided at some UCCs in order to enhancesupply chain efficiency and improve their attractiveness and financial turnover.In addition, recent UCCs tend to provide a far greater role for the private sectorin terms of operations, management and financing (Browne et al., 2005).

Figure 1 shows the effects of a typical UCC scheme in which previously poorlyloaded goods vehicles making direct deliveries to receivers in urban areas arediverted to a UCC from which more consolidated vehicle loads are delivered. Itreflects the typical financial, traffic and environmental effects from the perspectiveof carriers, receivers, the UCC operator and other road users.

Methodology Adopted for the Review

The literature review included academic journals, trade press, research reports,project publications and conference proceedings. It was necessary to include a

Role of Urban Consolidation Centres 475

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

wide range of documents in the review in addition to academic papers andreports, as UCCs have been widely referred to in non-academic publications.This review was carried out using paper-based and online resources. Initially,paper-based resources in the possession of the authors were consulted; theseincluded both publications about a single UCC as well as others that summarizedor referred to several UCCs. These publications also provided references to otherrelevant publications that were then consulted. The paper-based review carriedout was responsible for the majority of UCC schemes identified. For onlinesearches, the following English search terms were used: UCCs, urban tranship-ment centres, city logistics schemes, FCCs, and UDCs. The authors acknowledgethat the literature review will not have identified all UCC schemes. However, theyconsider the results to constitute a reasonable sample given that the main purposeof the paper was not to identify every UCC scheme, but to consider the lessonslearned from such schemes.

For each of the UCC schemes identified, the start date, progress, results andcurrent status were recorded where this could be gleaned from the literature. Itproved difficult in some cases to identify start dates with any precision andeven more difficult to determine when, or in some cases if, a trial was concluded.As a result the start dates presented should be considered as indicative rather thandefinitive. To add complexity to the review, many UCCs ceased being reported onfollowing the feasibility study or trial phase which suggests that the initial enthu-siasm that was associated with the launch of many of the schemes, especially inthe case of many UCCs in Germany, soon evaporated. Kohler and Groke (2004)state that approximately 200 UCC schemes were either considered, planned orcarried out in Germany the 1990s. Flamig (2004) estimated that less than 15schemes were still in existence by the end of 2002, and Nobel (2005) reportedthat only 5 schemes were still operating in 2005. In the literature review, it was

Figure 1. Model of poorly loaded vehicles making direct deliveries replaced by better loaded vehiclesfrom UCC.

476 J. Allen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

only possible to identify 14 UCCs in Germany that had been the subject of a feasi-bility study, trial or fully operational scheme.

Summary of UCC Feasibility Studies, Trials and Operations Identified in theLiterature

This section discusses the type and number of UCC schemes identified in the inter-national literature review carried out, and a classification system for UCCs is alsopresented. The review identified 114 UCC schemes in 17 countries worldwide (12in the European Union (EU) and 5 outside the EU) that had either been the focusof a feasibility study, trial or fully operational scheme. Mention of a further 33UCC schemes were also found in the literature review. However no evidencecould be found that these UCCs had been the subject of a study or trial and may,therefore, have been no more than an idea. As there was no readily identifiablework carried out on these 33 UCC schemes, they are not included in the discussion.

Table 1 shows the indicative start dates for the 114 UCC projects, trials and oper-ational schemes by the country as identified in the literature review. The earliestUCC study referred to in the literature dates from 1972 in Colombus, Ohio(McKinnon, 1998a). However, the UCC concept does not appear to have provedpopular in the USA since this early study. Table 1 shows that the country inwhich the majority of UCC research activity took place prior to 1990 was theUK. These involved UCC studies in several county towns, industrial towns andLondon. However, none of these proceeded beyond the investigation stage.

During the 1990s, the literature review indicates increasing interest in the UCCconcept in Germany, and to a lesser extent in France, the Netherlands and the UK.Between 2001 and 2005, the establishment of UCC study, trial and schemeformation appears to have continued at the same rate as in the previous two5-year periods (i.e. 1991–1995 and 1996–2000). This coincided with increasinginterest from policy-makers about the potential role that UCCs could play inbringing about more sustainable urban distribution. The most recent 5-yearperiod from 2006 to 2010 has generated more UCC studies, trials and schemesthan any previous 5-year period. The literature review indicates that the vastmajority of this activity has taken place in the UK, Italy and the Netherlands.

Over the entire period from the early 1970s to the present, the countries in whichmost interest in UCCs has occurred are France, Germany, Italy Netherlands andthe UK. Between them, these five countries have accounted for approximately80% of the 114 UCC schemes, with the UK alone accounting for approximatelyone-third of all the UCC schemes identified in the literature review. Althoughthere has been much UCC research and implementation in the UK, this findingcould also be influenced by the element of the research that was internet-based,using only English search terms. This may have resulted in some studies notbeing identified (i.e. those studies which have not been referred to in any of theliterature consulted in English including papers or summary reports).

The 114 UCC schemes identified in the literature review that had involved workbeing undertaken on them were allocated to one of three categories: (i) researchproject/feasibility studies, (ii) trials, and (iii) operational schemes. ‘Researchproject/Feasibility studies’ refer to UCCs that did not progress beyond an initialresearch/feasibility project, while ‘trials’ refer to UCCs that did not proceed beyonda trial. The ‘operational schemes’ refer to any schemes that extended beyondthe trial stage. Table 2 shows the 114 UCC schemes according to this categorization.

Role of Urban Consolidation Centres 477

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 1. Analysis of UCC schemes by country and date of investigation/start-up, 1970–2010

Country Unknown 1970–1975 1976–1990 1991–1995 1996–2000 2001–2005 2006–2010 Total

Austria – – – – 1 – – 1Belgium – – – – 1 – – 1Canada – – 1 – – – – 1Finland – – – – – 1 – 1France – 1 – 5 – 3 2 11Germany – – – 8 6 – – 14Italy – – – – 1 5 8 14Japan 1 – 1 – – 2 – 4Monaco – – 1 – – – – 1The Netherlands – – 2 3 1 1 7 14Portugal – – – – 1 – – 1Slovenia – – – – – – 1 1Spain – – – – – 1 2 3Sweden – – – – 2 2 1 5Switzerland – – – 2 1 – – 3UK – 4 4 1 4 4 21 38USA – 1 – – – – – 1Total 1 6 9 19 18 19 42 114

Note: ‘–’ represents zero.

478J.

Allen

etal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Typically, UCCs that have become operational have been subject to an initial trial, andUCCs that are trialled have been subject to a research project or feasibility study.Therefore, a UCC that has been subject to more than one of these categories hasbeen allocated to its most advanced category (with operational schemes being themost advanced and research projects/feasibility studies the least advanced).

The results indicate that in the five countries in which interest and activity inUCCs has been greatest, there are differences in the proportion of UCCs have pro-ceeded beyond a feasibility study or research project. In France and the UK,approximately two-thirds of the UCCs identified in the literature review did notproceed beyond a research project or feasibility study. By comparison inGermany, Italy and the Netherlands the vast majority of UCC studies proceededto either a trial or a fully operational scheme.

In the UK, over the last 40 years, public funding has been made available onmany occasions to study the UCC concept but relatively little public fundinghas been available for trials and fully operational schemes. Of the 13 UCCs inthe UK that have been fully operational, all of these have occurred since 2000and many have been both led and funded by commercial enterprises that,perhaps following the path established by the major grocery retailers, recognizedthe benefit of controlling the logistics movements that affected their operations.Therefore, it has been the private sector (including logistics service providers,property developers and landlords) that have driven the recent development ofUCC trials and operational schemes in the UK.

The vast majority of the schemes identified as operational in Table 2 remain inoperation today (approximately 40 of the 50 identified are believed to still be func-tioning). The majority of these were established from the year 2000 onwards.

Table 2. Analysis of UCC schemes by country and status, 1970–2010

Country Research/feasibility study Trial Operational Total

Austria 1 – – 1Belgium 1 – – 1Canada 1 – – 1Finland 1 – – 1France 7 2 2 11Germany 1 2 11 14Italy 2 5 7 14Japan – 2 2 4Monaco – – 1 1The Netherlands 4 – 10 14Portugal – 1 – 1Slovenia 1 – – 1Spain 2 – 1 3Sweden 2 1 2 5Switzerland – 2 1 3UK 22 3 13 38USA 1 – – 1Total 46 18 50 114

Notes: ‘–’ represents zero.As previously mentioned, far more UCC schemes appear to have either been planned or trialled inGermany than shown in the table. The table contains schemes about which it has been possible toobtain the literature.

Role of Urban Consolidation Centres 479

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Having carried out the literature review and identified UCC schemes, it wasalso possible to devise a classification system based on the type of operationand geographical area served for all the UCC cases identified. This comprisesthree categories of UCC:

(1) UCCs serving all or part of an urban area: These UCCs are usually associatedwith the supply of retail products, but are also used for the supply of officeproducts, and occasionally food supplies for restaurants and cafes. TheseUCC schemes are often intended to serve a specific district in an urban areaand are often used to serve locations with features such as narrow streetsand historic layouts and therefore have a concentration of freight transport-related issues including:

. vehicle congestion and delay

. restricted access times and insufficient parking provision

. a preference for pedestrians only schemes

. unacceptable levels of air pollution

The introduction of this type of UCC is usually initially suggested by the localauthority which hopes to benefit from the traffic and environmental improve-ments that are typically associated with it. Existing examples of such UCCsinclude Reglog in Regensburg, Cityporto in Padua, La Rochelle UCC, NijmegenUCC and Bristol UCC.

(2) UCCs serving large sites with a single landlord: These UCCs are most commonlyassociated with the supply of retail products and food supplies for restaurantsand cafes. There are also examples of them being used for supplying hospitalproducts. The types of large sites served by these UCCs include airports, shop-ping centres and hospitals. In some instances, these UCCs serve only one largesite (for example, London Heathrow airport retail UCC and Meadowhall shop-ping centre UCC in Sheffield), while in other cases, they serve several large sites(such as the Hospital Logistics Centre in London which delivers to severalmajor hospitals). Although these UCCs only serve one or a few large sites,these often contain many different outlets (such as various retailers in a shop-ping centre or airport). The interest in UCCs among developers and owners ofairports and shopping centres usually stems from the desire to maximize retailspace by minimizing on-site storage and the need for multiple delivery bays(WSP, 2008). In the case of a hospital, the interest is more commonly in reducingon-site stock levels and storage space. These UCCs differ from those serving allor part of an urban area (i.e. type 1 described above) in the following ways: (i)the sites served are built as a single development so the UCC can potentially bedesigned into the planning of the site, (ii) the site landlord has the potential toinsist that tenants use the UCC, (iii) the unloading points tend to be located off-street in a specially designed delivery area with access via a single route, and(iv) the UCC operation can potentially be made self-financing throughcharges built into tenants’ rental arrangements.

(3) Construction project UCCs: These are UCCs that are used for consolidating con-struction materials for major building projects including housing, office blocksand hospitals. Examples include UCCs established at London Heathrowairport during major development work and in Hammarby in Stockholm

480 J. Allen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

for a major housing project. This type of UCC can serve either a single majorbuilding project or several. This type of UCC can either exist only for the life-time of a building project or can be on-going serving new major building pro-jects as they are established, but experience to date suggests that the former ismore common. Either the site developer or the main construction contractorwould decide to make use of a UCC, or it could be made mandatorythrough the planning permission process.

Each of these three types of UCC can offer either relatively basic consolidation anddelivery services or can offer a wider range of value-added logistics activities such asstockholding facilities, ticketing and pricing, goods return and waste collection ser-vices. Similarly, each of the three types of UCC could also potentially offer commu-nity collection and delivery point facilities (for other consumer and businessproducts), and home delivery operations could also be operated from the UCC.

Table 3 shows the 114 UCC schemes divided into these three categories. UCCsthat serve part or all of an urban area can be seen to be by far the most numerous(97 out of 114 UCCs).

Results and Lessons Learned from UCC Trials and Initiatives

In carrying out the literature review, it has been possible to identify key issues andlessons concerning existing and attempted UCCs. These include potential trafficand environmental impacts, organizational features, financial issues and oper-ational practices. Each of these topics is addressed in turn in the following sections.

Traffic and Environmental Impacts of UCCs

By improving the load factor of goods vehicles making deliveries in congestedlocations, UCCs can reduce the total distance travelled in urban areas, as wellas reducing greenhouse gas emissions and local air quality pollutants associatedwith these journeys (both through reductions in the total distance travelled, andthrough the use of low emission vehicles). Fewer goods vehicle kilometres arealso associated with reductions in conflicts between goods vehicles and otherroad users, and greater pedestrian safety. In addition, the improved load consoli-dation resulting from the use of UCCs can reduce the total kerbside time andspace occupied by vehicles making on-street deliveries, thereby further reducingthe impact of freight operations on traffic congestion (Boudouin, 2006; Browneet al., 2005; Gonzalez-Feliu & Morana, 2010; WSP, 2008).

Quantification of the transport and environmental impacts exists for relativelyfew of the UCCs identified in the literature review. Such analysis was identifiedfor only 24 of the 68 UCC schemes identified in the review that involved a trialor were fully operational.

In these 24 UCC evaluation studies, improvements in vehicle load factorsranged from 15% to 100%, reductions in vehicle trips and vehicle kilometrestravelled were typically between 60% and 80%, and reductions in greenhousegas emissions from these transport operations ranged from 25% to 80%. All ofthese improvements refer only to the change in transport activity that takesplace between the UCC and the final point of delivery, rather than in the entiresupply chain for the product.

Role of Urban Consolidation Centres 481

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

In some UCC schemes, the reduction in kerbside space or time occupied byvehicles making deliveries in the urban area has also been estimated. In thecase of Monaco there was a 42% reduction in the total space used by deliveryvehicles after the introduction of the UCC, while in Tenjin there was a 7%reduction in the time taken to make deliveries to receivers as a result of theUCC (Nemoto, 1997; Patier, 2006). In a UCC operation in the City of London,the kerbside metre-hours occupied per hour were 10% lower when using theUCC than before (Browne, Allen, & Leonardi, 2011).

The results from UCC studies indicate that UCCs have the ability to improve theefficiency of freight transport operations and thereby reduce the congestion andenvironmental impacts of this activity. For construction project UCCs and UCCsserving major sites such as airports and hospitals, the reduction in total freightactivity and associated impacts at the delivery locations can, therefore, be con-siderable. In the case of UCCs serving all or part of an urban area, as a result oftheir scale of operations, the reduction in total road freight traffic and environ-mental impacts in the urban area will be relatively limited and may be toosmall to be measurable. The effect on total road freight activity within a givenurban area is dependent on the proportion of all goods that are sent via theUCC rather than delivered directly.

Organizational Features

It appears that UCCs that are imposed are successful only if the imposing organ-ization is able to control or strongly influence all the potential carriers and recei-vers of goods. This is far more readily achieved in the case of construction projectUCCs and UCCs that serve large sites with a single landlord than in UCCs that

Table 3. Analysis of UCC schemes by country and type, 1970–2010

All or part of urban area Large site with single landlord Construction Total

Austria 1 – – 1Belgium 1 – – 1Canada 1 – – 1Finland – 1 – 1France 11 – – 11Germany 13 – 1 14Italy 14 – – 14Japan 3 1 – 4Monaco 1 – – 1The Netherlands 14 – – 14Portugal 1 – – 1Slovenia 1 – – 1Spain 3 – – 3Sweden 3 1 1 5Switzerland 3 – – 3UK 26 7 5 38USA 1 – – 1Total 97 10 7 114

Notes: ‘–’ represents zero.Of the ten UCCs serving large sites with single landlord, six serve shopping centres, three serve airportsand one serves hospitals.

482 J. Allen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

serve all or part of an urban area. For instance, at London Heathrow airport, theowner Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) has been able to insist that the retailersin its terminals use its dedicated consolidation centre, and has also determinedthe ground rules under which DHL manages the centre and the freight operation(DHL, 2009). As landlord, HAL is clearly in control. This condition can be readilyachieved in the case of major construction sites led by a single developer and isalso feasible at other large sites with a single landlord (such as airports, shoppingcentres and hospitals).

In many recent UCCs that serve either part or all of an urban area, the publictransport authority has also implemented restrictions on other goods vehicle oper-ations in order to encourage use of the UCC (Kloppers, 2008). Examples includethe introduction of loading time restrictions in pedestrianized areas served bythe UCC in Bristol; the requirement that goods vehicles have at least Euro 3engines, are at least 70% laden, and have a satellite navigation system in Parma;vehicle access restrictions on goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross weightbetween 06:00 and 07:30 in the historic centre of La Rochelle together with per-mission for UCC vehicles to use bus lanes; the total prohibition of goods vehiclesover 8.5 tonnes gross weight in Monaco; and access restrictions for all goodsvehicles in the historic centre of Vicenza (City Ports, 2005; Mollard, 2002; Patier,2006; START, 2008; Ville, Gonzalez-Feliu, & Dablanc, 2010).

In the case of Vicenza, the city transport authority has implemented a UCC forthe historic, pedestrianized city centre that is operated by one appointed companyand has put in place a prohibition of other carriers’ vehicles entering the areaduring the daytime, thereby encouraging them to use the UCC and its goodsvehicles when making deliveries (Comune di Vicenza, 2011). A legal challengewas bought by a trade association representing these other carriers but the StateCouncil, the highest Italian administrative court, has authorized the city author-ity’s scheme. There is, however, a possibility that the trade association will takeits legal challenge to the European community’s court of justice (Ville et al.,2010). This case highlights the potentially complex legal and political issues thatsurround the implementation of delivery restrictions in order to promote ormandate the use of UCCs.

Financial Issues

There are concerns about the financial viability of UCCs due to the failure ofschemes in the past (Quak & Tavasszy, 2011). The general consensus is thatUCCs must be financially viable in their own right in the medium- to long-termas public subsidies are not necessarily a desirable solution. As part of wider finan-cial considerations, however, a case might be made for hypothecated funds fromother transport-related sources such as congestion charging and road pricingbeing used to underwrite or pump-prime UCC operations, especially when theUCC is shown to result in traffic and environmental benefits (Boerkamps & VanBinsbergen, 1999; Patier, 2006). It is apparent that, without some initial fundingfrom the central or local government to pay for feasibility studies and trials, anyform of UCC that is not related to a major new development is unlikely toproceed, let alone succeed (TTR, 2010).

A common objection to UCCs is the assertion that they will lead to increasedcosts in the delivery operation as a result of double handling (McKinnon,1998a). It is, therefore, important to discuss the wider implications of such

Role of Urban Consolidation Centres 483

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

schemes with the road transport industry and potential customers, and to demon-strate that by using UCCs costs in other parts of their operation could be reduced.Such reductions may be achieved through, for example, less time being spent ondeliveries in congested areas, shorter journey times and increased vehicle utiliz-ation, and the possibility of night-time deliveries into the UCC. Efficiency gainsand additional sales can also be achieved from the value-added services thatcan be provided by a UCC such as off-site stockholding facilities, and pre-retailingactivities such as unpacking, ticketing and handling returns. One of the key con-siderations is how to allocate the costs and benefits resulting from a UCC schemeas a whole and not solely the cost impact on the part of the supply chain or a singleplayer (Browne et al., 2005; Marcucci & Danielis, 2008; TTR, 2007).

Construction project UCCs and those that serve a single site with one landlordpresent fewer financial issues than UCCs that serve part or all of an urban area.This is because the landlord of a shopping centre or airport is able to make useof a UCC a contractual condition of the site access and to build any necessarycharges into the rental arrangement for retailers (DHL, 2009; Hapgood, 2009).Similarly in the case of a construction site, the property developer is responsiblefor taking the decision to implement a UCC and meets its running costs and per-sonally benefits from cost savings that it results in due to faster site development,and less waste and theft of building materials. The London Heathrow airport con-struction UCC operation resulted in a 2% saving in net project costs; on a majordevelopment, this level of savings can far outweigh the cost of the consolidationoperation (Department of Trade and Industry, 2004; Transport for London et al.,2008). In the case of the London Heathrow airport retail UCC, half of theincome is met by retailers and other outlets in the airport paying for the consoli-dated delivery service, while 10% of the income is generated through chargesmade for value-added services such as pre-retailing and off-site storage. Theremaining 40% of income is met by the airport operator HAL (Hapgood, 2009).

For UCCs that serve part or all of an urban area, the financial considerations areoften more complicated to resolve with schemes requiring on-going publicsubsidy. For instance, in Bristol in 2007/08, 60% of the total UCC operating costcame from Bristol City Council while retail users met the other 40% costs(Hapgood, 2009). The UCC in La Rochelle has received a public subsidy eversince it was established in 2001 (Mollard, 2002; Ville et al., 2010). In many suchUCCs, it is the intention that the proportion of cost recovery from users will beincreased over time and the level of public funding progressively reduced (see,for example, van Rooijen & Quak, 2010 for discussion of the UCC set up in Nijme-gen). This is usually intended to be achieved through signing up new users to gen-erate greater product throughput, and selling more value-added services to users.However, in such UCCs, it is likely that public support will be required on a con-tinuing basis, given their voluntary nature and the typical lack of mechanisms forenforcing retailer participation (TTR, 2010).

Imposing more stringent vehicle access restrictions for non-UCC vehicles, andthereby providing the UCC with some competitive advantage, can help toincrease goods throughput and hence financial viability of UCCs. In Parma, themayor has stated that public authorities must accept the need to subsidize theUCC as the market will not provide the environmentally sustainable urbanfreight transport systems required (Ville et al., 2010). However, such a positionis difficult to maintain and justify in times of public funding cuts. The vehicleaccess restrictions imposed by the city transport authority in Vicenza severely

484 J. Allen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

limited the times at which goods vehicle deliveries were possible and therebyencouraged the use of the UCC scheme. However, such an approach runs therisk of decreasing the competitiveness of businesses based in the UCC deliveryarea if the services provided by the UCC are more expensive than the services pre-viously offered by other carriers or, alternatively, require public subsidy to keepdown the prices charged by the UCC. In the case of Vicenza, the UCC receivespublic funding from the city authority on the basis of the environmental improve-ments that it achieves (Ville et al., 2010).

By comparison, a recent UCC trial in the City of London by Office Depot that hasnow become an on-going operation is reported to result in no higher costs than thedelivery system that it replaced (Office Depot, 2010). Learning more about howfinancial breakeven has been achieved in such a scheme is extremely important ifUCCs that serve part or all of an urban area are to be affordable in the future.

To establish a successful UCC trial it may be desirable for the participatingplayers to keep the initial cost base low. It is important that the trials be fit-for-purpose but that the investment is kept to a minimum. Rather than build a newconsolidation centre, an existing building (with expansion potential) can beused at the outset. Some recent UCC schemes that serve part of an urban areahave made use of relatively small, basic transhipment facilities (such as theParis UCC operated by La Petite Reine, and the City of London UCC operatedby Gnewt on behalf of Office Depot (Attlassy & University of Westminster,2005; Office Depot, 2010). Physical expansion, more elaborate handling systems,or additional capabilities such as chilled and frozen produce storage, can be devel-oped over time.

Currently, in many UCC schemes, the carriers delivering goods to a UCC are notasked to contribute towards the operating costs. Instead it is the receivers of thegoods located in the UCC catchment area who make payments for the service pro-vided (exceptions to this include the UCCs in Monaco in which carriers and recei-vers both pay a charge, Tenjin in Fukuoka City, Japan in which only carriers pay,and Nijmegen in which only carriers pay for deliveries, with receivers only havingto pay for value-added services—Nemoto, 1997; Patier, 2006; van Rooijen & Quak,2010). However, the carriers delivering goods to a UCC receive major benefits interms of time savings by not having to make deliveries in a congested urban areaor transport goods from shopping centre loading bays on foot to receivers’ outletslocated long distances away. Finding a suitable charging mechanism by whichthese users can contribute towards the costs of the UCC operation is likely to beimportant in making the financial model more sustainable and less dependenton public subsidy in the longer term.

Operational Practices

The UCC concept proposed in some countries in the 1970s in which HGVs were tobe banned from entering urban areas and instead would tranship their loads ontosmall goods vehicles is now recognized to have uncertain traffic or environmentalbenefits, especially when the contents of a highly laden HGV are transferred intomany smaller goods vehicles (McKinnon, 1998a). Some current UCCs do make useof vehicles for final delivery that can carry smaller loads than the vehicles drop-ping goods at the UCC, such as the electrically assisted cycles used in UCCs inParis and London. However, although these smaller vehicles may lead to increasesin vehicle kilometres per tonne delivered, they are ideally suited for busy urban

Role of Urban Consolidation Centres 485

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

areas and have environmental advantages due to not emitting greenhouse gasesand local air quality pollutants. Many operational UCCs make use of alternativelyfuelled goods vehicles for final delivery and have thereby become importanttesting grounds for this technology (see, for example, van Duin, Quak, &Munuzuri, 2010; Gonzalez-Feliu & Morana, 2010; Kloppers, 2008; Office Depot,2010; Patier, 2006; van Rooijen & Quak, 2010; START, 2008; Ville et al., 2010).

Whereas the primary focus of a UCC is to consolidate loads for final delivery, ifthe transport operation is to be optimized, it is equally important that vehiclesreturning to the UCC after making deliveries are as highly utilized as possible.To achieve this, inter-site transfers, unsold stock, waste and damaged materialfor recycling and orders placed by customers may all be candidates for returnloads (Browne et al., 2005; Kloppers, 2008). Having additional services at theUCC may both increase revenue and augment the overall use of the UCC andtherefore its role within the urban area. The range of such activities can bevarious: pre-retailing operations such as price ticketing and the removal ofouter packaging; the assembly of promotional offers; waste recycling; providinga post-sale collection service for the retailers’ customers; and field stores forservice engineers are typical examples (Browne et al., 2005). Given that one ofthe non-financial objections to UCCs is typically the loss of control and responsi-bility for the final leg of the delivery operation, this can be overcome by the UCCoperator becoming the ‘final signatory’ for a delivery.

The location of the UCC in relation to its target market will have important con-sequences for the traffic and environmental benefits associated with the scheme aswell as the commercial benefits of using it. If the UCC is located several kilometresfrom the final delivery area, this has the advantage that vehicles delivering goodsto the area from some distance away would not need to enter into the urban area atall. In addition, the distance over which specially designed environmentallyfriendly vehicles were operated could be maximized. However, if small vehicleswere used from the UCC, the number of vehicle trips and kilometres may increase.Alternatively, if the UCC was located very close to the area which it serves, thisreduces the distance over which environmentally friendly vehicles from theUCC operate, and hence the environmental benefits of the UCC. There is clearlya need to carefully balance such issues when deciding upon the location(Browne et al., 2005; McKinnon, 1998a).

It is also important to note that a UCC will generate inbound and outboundgoods vehicle movements. Therefore, the area in which the UCC is based mayexperience goods vehicle traffic growth, while the delivery area served by theUCC will gain the traffic and environmental benefits. This implies the need forneighbouring authorities to work closely together in planning UCCs with theobjective of mitigating the impact on any one authority.

Conclusions

If applied appropriately, UCCs have the ability both to improve supply chain per-formance and reduce environmental and social impacts of freight transportactivity. They can, therefore, generate both internal and external benefits.

The literature review indicates that the level of interest in UCCs has been par-ticularly strong in France, Germany, Italy Netherlands and the UK over the last40 years and this has continued in the last decade. Most of this interest has

486 J. Allen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

been focused on UCCs that serve part or all of an urban area, with many trials andoperational schemes taking place.

One of the major barriers concerned with making UCCs financially sustainable(and hence securing their long-term future) is the extent to which the various par-ticipants (carriers, receivers and local authorities) are willing and able to meet thefinancial costs of the UCC in return for the benefits that they receive. In the case ofUCCs that serve major sites with a single landlord, this is relatively easy to resolveas a single party is responsible for financing the UCC and then attempting torecover some of these costs from those other parties that also obtain operationaland financial benefits from the scheme. In the case of construction projectUCCs, the developer is often responsible for both funding the UCC and receivesthe operational and financial benefits through project cost savings.

The financial situation for UCCs that serve all or part of an urban area is moreproblematic. In these cases, the decision to make use of the UCC is typically avoluntary one and there is no single private body that is responsible for financingthe UCC or enjoying its benefits. Instead there are usually many business users, aswell as a local authority that is keen to reduce traffic and environmental costs. Thefinancial costs therefore tend to be shared unequally between these parties, withthe local authority often taking a disproportionate role. This type of UCC offersthe greatest potential to reduce urban freight transport impacts, given thelocations of the schemes in central areas in towns and cities. However, it hasalso been subject to a substantial number of abandoned UCC trials.

In the same manner that it is desirable that any initial financial investment in aUCC be minimized, the same applies to the operating methods employed duringany trial. It is at the pilot stage that the potential users will be persuaded withregard to the validity of the concept and it is, therefore, important that the oper-ation is simple and straightforward. It may therefore be appropriate to initiallyconsider only simple handling, sortation and transhipment methods. However,some UCC schemes will need to offer additional value-added services to bothmake them attractive to users and to generate additional revenue. However,such services significantly increase the logistical complexity, and hence cost, ofthe UCC.

Obtaining high product throughput at a UCC is likely to result in sufficientlylow costs that business users could fund the entire UCC operation, and removethe need for public subsidy. However, until that point is reached public fundingmay be required. Some local transport authorities have implemented additionalfreight transport policy measures that either restrict vehicles not using thecentre or provide benefits to UCC vehicles in order to enhance the operationalbenefits of the UCC, in an effort to obtain a greater number of users and productsthroughput at the UCC. This ranges from minor ‘incentives’ such as allowing UCCvehicles to use bus lanes, through to major restrictions such as the prohibition ofall non-UCC vehicles from the specified delivery area. At its most extreme, thisprevents competition between urban freight transport providers and results inthe creation of public sector appointed monopolistic operator. This is a draconianmethod by which to try to bring about traffic and environmental improvements inurban freight. A better approach involves ensuring that the logistics services pro-vided by the UCC are sufficiently commercially beneficial that users voluntarilydecide to use and pay for the service, and that a charging mechanism is developedand put in place that ensures all users (carriers and receivers) make financialcontributions to reflect the commercial benefits they derive. This may involve

Role of Urban Consolidation Centres 487

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

some additional freight transport policy incentives to further enhance the UCC’soperational benefits. In this way, public subsidies can be progressively reduced asthe UCC market share is increased, until the point is reached whereby the UCC isfinancially self-supporting.

References

Attlassy, M., & University of Westminster. (2005). The tricycle experimentation in Paris “la Petite Reine”.London: University of Westminster.

Battilana, J., & Hawthorne, I. (1976). Design and cost of a transhipment depot to serve Swindon town centre(Laboratory Report 741). Crowthorne: Transport and Road Research Laboratory.

Boerkamps, J., & Van Binsbergen, A. (1999). Goodtrip—a new approach for modelling and evaluatingurban goods distribution. In E. Taniguchi & R. Thompson (Eds.), City logistics I (pp. 241–254). Kyoto:Institute of Systems Science Research.

Boudouin, D. (2006). Les espaces logistiques urbains: Guide methodologique. Paris: La DocumentationFrancaise.

Browne, M., Allen, J., & Leonardi, J. (2011). Evaluating the use of an urban consolidation centre andelectric vehicles in central London. IATSS, 35(1), 1–6.

Browne, M., Woodburn, A., Sweet, M., & Allen, J. (2005). Urban freight consolidation centres (Report forDepartment for Transport). London: University of Westminster. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from http://www.freightbestpractice.org.uk/urban-freight-consolidation-centre-report

City Ports. (2005). City ports project (Interim Report). Bologna: Assessorato Mobilita E Trasporti, RegioneEmilia-Romanga. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from http://www.mobiliter.eu/wcm/mobiliter/pagine/approfondimenti/documentazione/quaderni_servizio_pianificazione/quaderno_7.pdf

Comune di Vicenza. (2011). Trasporto merci/franchigia. Vicenza: Comune di Vizenza. Retrieved June 27,2011, from http://www.comune.vicenza.it/argomenti/scheda.php/42734,46101

Crainic, T.G., Ricciardi, N., & Storchi, G. (2004). Advanced freight transportation systems for congestedurban areas. Transportation Research Part C, 12, 119–137.

Department of Trade and Industry. (2004). Construction logistics consolidation centres: An examination of

new supply chain techniques—managing & handling construction materials (Executive SummaryReport). London: Department of Trade and Industry. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from http://www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/zones/logisticszone/downloads/dti_executive_summary.pdf

Department for Transport. (2002). Heathrow Airport Retail Consolidation Centre: BAA PLC (Good PracticeCase Study 402, Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme). London: Department for Transport.Retrieved June 20, 2011, from http://www.freightbestpractice.org.uk/heathrow-airport-retail-consolidation-centre

DHL. (2009). DHL wins major contract extension for Heathrow Consolidation Center, press release Novem-ber 16, 2009. Bonn: DHL. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from http://www.dp-dhl.com/en/media_relations/press_releases/2009/dhl_wins_contract_extension_for_heathrow_consolidation_center.html

van Duin, R., Quak, H., & Munuzuri, J. (2010). New challenges for urban consolidation centres: A casestudy in the Hague, the sixth international conference on city logistics. Procedia Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 2, 6177–6188.Dunning, J. (1997, August 28). Lorries in town: Could transhipment schemes really deliver the goods?

Local Transport Today.Exel. (2004). Exel to operate a leading-edge urban consolidation centre in the UK, Exel press release April 14,

2004. London: Exel.Flamig, H. (2004). The success or failure of city logistics in Germany. Paper presented at Inter and Intra

Urban Freight Distribution Networks, Cityfreight Project Conference, 16–17 December, Prague.GLC London Freight Conference. (1975). The scope for transhipment and consolidation operations in London:

An analysis of available goods vehicle and commodity movement data (Background Paper No. 8). London:Greater London Council.

Gonzalez-Feliu, J., & Morana, J. (2010). Are city logistics solutions sustainable? The Cityporto case.Territorio Mobilita e Ambiente, 3(2), 55–64.

Hapgood, T. (2009). The importance of freight management and the role of urban consolidation centres. Paperpresented at Seventh Transport Practitioners Meeting: Ideas and Reality, 13–15 July, University ofReading.

488 J. Allen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hesse, M. (2004). Logistics and freight transport policy in urban areas: A case study of Berlin-Brandenburg/Germany. European Planning Studies, 12(7), 1035–1053.

Institut fur Seeverkehrswirtschaft und Logistik. (2005). City logistics: Experiences and perspectives.Bremen: Author.

Kloppers, A. (2008). Possibilities for an urban consolidation centre in the Hague. Unpublished MSc disser-tation. Delft: Delft University of Technology.

Kohler, U., & Groke, O. (2004). New ideas for the city-logistics project in Kassel. In E. Taniguchi &R. Thompson (Eds.), Logistics systems for sustainable cities: Proceedings of 3rd international confer-ence on city logistics (pp. 321–332). Kidlington: Elsevier.

Lorries and the Environment Committee. (1976). Report on transhipment London. London: PE ConsultingGroup.

Marcucci, E., & Danielis, R. (2008). The potential demand for a urban freight consolidation centre.Transportation, 35, 269–284.

McKinnon, A. (1998a). International review of urban transhipment studies and initiatives (Report preparedfor the retail and distribution panel of the UK Government’s Foresight Programme). Edinburgh:Heriot Watt University). Retrieved June 20, 2011, from http://www.sml.hw.ac.uk/logistics/downloads/UKTranshipINT.pdf

McKinnon, A. (1998b). Urban transhipment: Review of previous work in the UK (Report prepared for theretail and distribution panel of the UK government’s foresight programme). Edinburgh: HeriotWatt University. Retrieved June 27 2011, from http://www.sml.hw.ac.uk/logistics/downloads/UKTranshipUK.pdf

Mollard, J. (2002). ELCIDIS—electric delivery vehicles in the city. Paper presented at BESTUFS workshopon land use planning and business models for urban distribution centres, 25–26 April, La Rochelle.Retrieved June 27, 2011, from http://www.bestufs.net/download/Workshops/BESTUFS_I/La_Rochelle_Apr02/BESTUFS_LaRochelle_Apr02_Mollard_La%20Rochelle.pdf

Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners. (1975). Chichester central area servicing system: Local interchange depotstudy. London: Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners.

Nemoto, T. (1997). Area-wide inter-carrier consolidation of freight in urban areas. Transport Logistics,1(2), 87–101.

Nobel, T. (2005). Development and experiences of city logistics activities in Germany—the example of Bremen.Paper presented at “Goods Management and Strategic Implementation”, TELLUS Open Workshop,17 June, Gothenburg. Retrieved June 27, 2011, from http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/internationales_eu/verkehr/archiv/tellus/www.tellus-cities.net/media/en/Goods_WS05_City_Logistics.pdf

Office Depot. (2010). Launch of cargo cycles (Office Depot Briefing Document). London: Office Depot.Retrieved June 23, 2011, from http://www.officedepot.co.uk/OD_content/data/documents/press-kit/Cargo%20Cycle%20%20briefing%20doc1.pdf

Patier, D. (2006). New concept and organization for the last mile: The French experiments and theirresults. In E. Taniguchi & R.G. Thompson (Eds.), Recent advances in city logistics: Proceedings of 4thinternational conference on city logistics (pp. 361–374). Kidlington: Elsevier.

Quak, H., & Tavasszy, L. (2011). Customized solution for sustainable city logistics: The viability ofurban freight consolidation centres. In J. van Nunen, P. Huijbregts, & P. Rietveld (Eds.), Transitionstowards sustainable mobility: New solutions and approaches for sustainable transport systems. Berlin:Springer.

van Rooijen, T., & Quak, H. (2010). Local impacts of a new urban consolidation centre—the case of Bin-nenstadservice.nl, the sixth international conference on city logistics. Procedia Social and BehavioralSciences, 2, 5967–5979.

START. (2008). City of Bristol: Access management and priority measures (START project factsheet).Retrieved June 23, 2011, from http://www.start-project.org/download%5Cfact%20sheets%5CSTART%20Bristol%20WP3%20Dec08.pdf

Transport and Travel Research Ltd. (2007). South London freight consolidation centre feasibility study: Finalreport (Report prepared on behalf of South London Freight Quality Partnership). Lichfield: Transportand Travel Research Ltd. Retrieved June 23, 2011, from http://www.londonsfqps.co.uk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=1FSau5i7vTI%3d&tabid=188&mid=520&forcedownload=true

Transport and Travel Research Ltd. (2010). Freight consolidation centre study: Main report (Prepared forDepartment for Transport). Lichfield: Transport and Travel Research Ltd. Retrieved June 20, 2011,from http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/freight/research/freightreport/pdf/mainreport.pdf

Transport for London, Bovis Lend Lease, Constructing Excellence, Stanhope, Wilson James and theUniversity of Westminster. (2008). London Construction Consolidation Centre: Final report. London:

Role of Urban Consolidation Centres 489

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Transport for London. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from http://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/freight/documents/publications/LCCC_final_report_July_2009.pdf

Ville, S., Gonzalez-Feliu, J., & Dablanc, L. (2010). The limits of public policy intervention in urban logistics:The case of Vicenza (Italy) and lessons for other European cities. Paper presented at the 12th WorldConference on Transport Research, 11–15 July, Lisbon, Portugal.

WSP. (2008). Freight consolidation and remote storage. London: BCSC Educational Trust. Retrieved June 23,2011, from http://www.bcsc.org.uk/media/downloads/FreightConsolidation2008.pdf

490 J. Allen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

02 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014