Tools for urban freight transport modelling

1st Scientific and Technical workshopBologna, 05/11/2013

Dr Jacques Leonardi

Objectives

• Overview of selected past experiences• Current approaches in use at UoW• Presenting key questions • Recommendations and needs for future

improvements

Past experiences and models

• FRETURB: linking demand to receiving activities, for example a small corner shop is expecting to receive 5-10 deliveries per week– Sources: Articles and reports from Jean-Louis Routhier,

French surveys. • ECHO: linking shippers to logistics activities; demand is

linked to sectors, size and locations.– Sources: Articles and report from Michele Guilbault and

Christophe Rizet• Use in local decision making of FRETURB and ECHO?

Past experiences and models 2

• FIDEUS: Calculating the impacts of new technologies and Low Emission Zone on congestion, noise and emissions– Double lane unloading scenario– Telematics development for LEZ entry– Technology activating the low noise/low emission mode of the

truck when entering the LEZ– Low noise technology is enabling the night deliveries of retail

stores and small supermarket in city centres– Evaluation method: Trial measurements and calculations of noise

reduction with/without technology – BCN, Lyon, Hannover

Past experiences and models 3

• SUGAR: a qualitative model of policy impact evaluation– Developing a universal grid to assess and compare all kinds of

different initiatives, measures and policies– Using the grid for 44 Best Practice (BP) cases evaluation – Facilitate the transfer of BP to other places

• Survey and ask the BP managers on the process• Understand the magnitude of the impacts, the key success factors, and the key barriers

– Replication and effective transfer were not modelled– Towards a policy impact evaluation model for urban freight?

Current models at UoW• Before-after evaluation of trials

– Ideas small trials upscale (industry scale) – Quantify the impacts on:

• km (congestion), • fuel use (CO2), • logistics (units delivered), • economy (costs and employment), • technology (innovation, feasibility)

Understand changes• Understand policy implications of a future upscale

– Process, design of the policy– Role of actors – Success factors– Barriers

• Find the reasons for benefits and costs changes of the trials– Understand change in demand: Demand models and

estimates are not available

Collect new data• Available data do not give any answer on

the key current questions of how to support the growth of sustainable solutions on the market, or how businesses implement the new solutions with success

• No data on how good a policy is performing• Almost never asked to perform a

quantitative policy impact evaluation

BP case: Gnewtcargo evaluation• A BESTFACT example of modeling and calculating the

impacts of the use of electric vehicles and small consolidation centre in the City of London

Electric tricycle and vehicle use in retail distribution in London

• Micro-consolidation centre and complete replacement of the diesel van fleet by electric vans and tricycles

Reduction of 20% in the total distance driven by all vehicles/ parcel delivered.

• The total CO2 equivalent (CO2eq) emissions per parcel delivered was 54% lower in May 2010 than in October 2009 before the trial.

• This was due to the reduction in the total distance travelled per parcel and the use of electric vehicles using fuel generated from renewable, carbon-free sources in the City of London.

Method – transport CO2 intensity calculation

The business provide data on fuel use (mpg or l/100km), distance, load, truck type and empty runs. Formula

with: Cep = CO2 efficiency per product unit, in kgCO2e per unit (kg, box etc.)L = Mean fuel use (diesel) of all vehicles of the fleet (in litres/100km)D = Km between origin and destination of the supply chain legE = Empty running factor (1 = no empty running; 2 = one empty return trip; average UK factor E = 1.27)M = Annual volume of products sold in units (kg, box etc.)3.1672 = CO2 conversion factor : one litre diesel fuel = 3.1672 kgCO2e

MC

)1672.3 E )100(D (L ep

Source: DEFRA 2013: DEFRA emission factors

Conditions for growth

• Public support but crisis and no bank loan• Large retailer willing to change operations• Successful start-up• Upscale with new clients• Convincing financial margins enabling

payback of equity within one year• Growth from 5 to 40 vehicles in 3 years

Remarks on trial modeling

• Before-after data collection and analysis is now in use in BESTFACT

• No success story going up to industry scale that have included an independent before-after model and impact evaluation?

• Understanding of policies and managerial issues is more qualitative, with very little hard data on impacts

Topics of Urban Freight initiatives

• Urban consolidation centres & clean vehicles• Innovative traffic/street space management• Planning, environmental zones, access regulations• Urban logistic spaces• Consultation processes, PPP, charters• Use of rail and barge

FORS: An example of a quantitativepolicy impact assessment

• The evaluation of the impacts, costs and benefits of different public policies in freight and logistics is not based on a widely recognised model

• Different attempts were made to assess the externalities of freight plans or specific measures based on general European transport policy impact assessment methods, from the public sector perspective

• The case of London and the results of the policy impact assessment of FORS will be shown.

Demand data: distance travelled by London freight

  Billion km 2008Long term growth/year 1997-2007 in

%

Total 6.2  

LGV 4.5 3.3

HGV 1.7 0.2

Note: In the following, numbers in orange are the basis for assumptions used in the calculationsSources, unless specified: TfL FORS database; personal communications

Direct economic activity benefits in London in million £/year

Estimated turnover of the sector freight and logistics

2009

Fuel purchase 2010

National taxes: fuel duty, VAT and VED

2008

London taxes 2008

Total taxes 2008

18,630 1360 611 242 853

Mean 2009 annual salary in transportation and logistics in £

Number of London employees

% of employees costs in total turnover

27,000 230,000 33.3%

Values used to calculate turnover

Reference impact Tables2008 proportion of total social costs

of freight in London2008 total social costs

in million £

LGVs HGVs LGVs HGVs Total

Emissions 7.1% 7.1% 74 59 133

Infrastructure 0.4% 11.7% 4 98 102

Noise 1.3% 2.1% 14 18 32

Congestion 82.8% 70.2% 863 587 1450

Accidents 8.4% 8.8% 87 74 161

Total 100.0% 100.0% 1042 836 1878

Sources: Maibach et al. (2008) Handbook on estimation of external costs in the transport sector. Internalisation Measures and Policies for All external Cost of Transport (IMPACT). ec.europa.eu/transport/sustainable/doc/2008_costs_handbook.pdfJ. Allen, M. Piecyk and A.C. McKinnon (2010) Internalising the External Costs ofLight and Heavy Goods Vehicle. Transport in London.http://www.greenlogistics.org/themesandoutputs/wm9/outputs.htm

FORS: Estimated impact on fuel use

  Distance  Fuel use in

mpg     

 All goods vehicles to,

from and within LondonFORS vehicles

(20%)

Average FORS

members

Average FORS

members

CSRGT UK average

% improve 08-10

 Million km

2008Million km

2008mpg 2008

mpg July 2010

mpg 2009 mpg

HGV 1700 340 8 8.96 8.3 12

LGV 4500 900 20 22.4 13 12

Total 6200 1240        

FORS: estimated impact on fuel use and CO2

Fuel use in litres    CO2 reductionFuel and

CO2 reduction

Total London Estimate FORS Estimate FORS Savings in

2010Annual

reductionAnnual

reduction

Litres 2008 Litres 2008 Litres 2010 Litres diesel Tonnes CO2 % of total

HGV 600,312,500 120,062,500 107,198,661 12,863,839 34,339 2.14

LGV 635,625,000 127,125,000 113,504,464 13,620,536 36,359 2.14

Total 1,235,937,500 247,187,500 220,703,125 26,484,375 70,697 2.14

FORS social costs change according to values of CO2

Savings 2008-2010 in million £

  Low Medium High

  26 £/tonne of CO2 50 £/tonne of CO2 164 £/tonne of CO2

HGV 1.8 3.4 11.3

LGV 1.9 3.6 11.9

Total 3.7 7.1 23.2

Further reading

• City Logistics Conference 2013 and 2011 (diversity of models)http://www.citylogistics.org/City+Logistics+Bali+2013/postconference.html http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18770428/39

• BESTFACT evaluations of Best Practices www.bestfact.net/best-practices/ next Workshop on growth

• SUGAR Handbook http://www.sugarlogistics.eu/pliki/handbook.pdf• SMARTFUSION comparative evaluation of electric vehicle trials

www.smartfusion.eu

Recommendations and needs for future improvements

• Variety of models and purpose• Original data collection effort is key for model

development and application• Working together with businesses and public

sector, but ‘independently’• More trials and more independent quantitative

policy impact evaluations!• Towards a standardised trial evaluation model in

urban freight?