5 Urban distribution facilities and

policies part 1

Transport Policies and

Terminals Design
1044043
10

Maria Vittoria Corazza

44
0

URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

43

INTRODUCTION
Paucity of loading/unloading areas or facilities is a recurring problem
in many urban areas, and especially in the city centers

Citizens and distribution operators for a long

time have only perceived the negative
outcomes of this problem, but not the reasons
behind, which are many:
Poor knowledge of regulations and stats on
urban distribution operations
Lack of proper policies/governance at urban
l
levell
Modest or even non-existent participation of
distribution operators in the urban decision-
making process

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

Transport Policies and Terminals Design 1

1044043
 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PROBLEMS RELATED TO URBAN
DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS
Too many actors, with Competition with other land
different requirements and use (e.g. on-street parking)
operational
Poor unsuitability of central
organizations/management
areas to accomodate large
Poor availability
Difficult to understand who of infrastructure urban distribution flows
delivers what
Complexity of the process
Huge amount of goods

Difficulties in collecting
Lack of specific regulations Not appropriate Operators poor information/data about
regulations cooperation
on urban distribution freight/goods distributed
No strict enforcement
Operators poor interest in
creating common
10

distribution management
schemes
3

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND POLICIES

44
0

URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

43

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PROBLEMS RELATED TO URBAN

DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS
Urban and City Logistics:
Core Relations Between Freight and Urban Areas Complexity of the process

CONSUMPTION
OF LAND (routes,
modes and
terminals)
Many functions

DISTRIBUTION
STRATEGIES
(including modal
choice)
(Rodrigue and Dablanc 2017)

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND POLICIES

Transport Policies and Terminals Design 2

1044043
 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PROBLEMS RELATED TO URBAN
DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS

Different areas of influence Complexity of the process

DISTRIBUTION CONCENTRATED IN
CENTRAL AREAS

In Italy, 45% of goods is moved within urban areas

10

but

(Rodrigue and Dablanc 2017) ISTAT 2013

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND POLICIES

44
0

URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

43

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PROBLEMS RELATED TO URBAN

DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS

Difficulties in collecting data Complexity of the process

But data are not

regularly collected

This means that most of

deliveries in cities, usually
operated directly by
retailers or minor carriers,
are not even surveyed

BESTUFFS 2006

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

Transport Policies and Terminals Design 3

1044043
 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PROBLEMS RELATED TO URBAN
DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS

Difficulties in collecting data Complexity of the process

Shortcomings in
the data National bodies collect a wide spectrum of
collection are data mainly just to feed national statistics.
due to poor
Local authorities do not survey freight
coordination distribution on a regular basis; data collection
between national is either carried out merely to support political
and local decisions or to provide new data to traffic
authorities: models
10

no real interpretation of the distribution

process.
7

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND POLICIES

44
0

URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

43

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PROBLEMS RELATED TO URBAN

DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS

Many actors, many types of operation, many facilities Complexity of the process

MAIN
STAKEHOLDERS

DIFFERENT INTERPLAY
Regulate
Mitigate LOGISTICS
Addetti
nd Dablanc 2017)

Enforce OPERATORS
logistica
stratore

Cooperate
ORS

Conflict
ale

Cooperate Compete
ADMINSITRATO
loca
Amminis

Conflict
(Rodrigue an

cittadini
itt di i
CITIZENS Cooperate

COMMERCE
Addetti
LOCAL

OPERATORS
commercio

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND POLICIES

Transport Policies and Terminals Design 4

1044043
 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PROBLEMS RELATED TO URBAN
DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS

Many actors

Complexity of the process

10

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

44
0

URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

43

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PROBLEMS RELATED TO URBAN

DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS

Many types of operation. Complexity of the process

Urban freight flows are

imbalanced in their reciprocity.

This is particularly the case for

nd Dablanc 2017)

consumer-related flows that are

usually unidirectional and related
with empty backhauls.
(Rodrigue an

For instance, retail deliveries

(most commonly from distribution
centers) are one way freight flows
with the delivery vehicle returning
empty or with small loads of
returned goods or recyclables
(e.g. cardboard boxes).
10

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

Transport Policies and Terminals Design 5

1044043
 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PROBLEMS RELATED TO URBAN
DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS

Many types of operation. but basic function Complexity of the process

nd Dablanc 2017)
(Rodrigue an

A transloading facility Cross-docking takes place in the Warehousing is a function that

mainly transfers the last segment of the retail supply acts as buffers and points of
contents of maritime chain. With very limited storage, the consolidation or deconsolidation
containers into domestic contents of inbound loads are sorted within supply chains
containers or truckloads
10
and transloaded to their final
(or vice-versa). destinations.

11

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND POLICIES

44
0

URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

43

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PROBLEMS RELATED TO URBAN

DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS

Many types of operation. but basic function Complexity of the process

A warehouse is a
facility where
goods are stored
nc 2017)

for periods of time,

while a distribution
(Rodrigue and Dablan

center tends to
store goods for
short periods of
time as orders are
fulfilled. on a daily basis

12

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

Transport Policies and Terminals Design 6

1044043
 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PROBLEMS Poor availability
of infrastructure
RELATED TO URBAN DISTRIBUTION OF
Complexity of the process
GOODS

Many facilities

Facility Activity Affected area

Load/ Sorting Storage/ Urban Metropolitan or urban

unloading/ stocking
transloading
Wharehouse X X X
Urban X X X X X
consolidation
center
10

Logistic city X X X X
Transit point X X X
13

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND POLICIES

44
0

URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PROBLEMS
43

RELATED TO URBAN DISTRIBUTION OF

GOODS Complexity of the process

Urban consolidation centers

Actually, the urban consolidation centre has different meanings, but it can be considered as
a range of potential applications along a spectrum dependent upon the split of involvement (or
control) of the public and private sectors,
terms used to refer to the consolidation centre concept therefore include:
- public distribution depot
- central goods sorting point
- urban transhipment centre
- shared-user urban transhipment depot
- freight platforms
- cooperative delivery system
- consolidation centre (sometimes specific, e.g. retail, construction)
- urban distribution centre
- city logistics (or city logistik) schemes
- logistics centre
- pick-up drop-off location
- offsite logistics support concept
14

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND POLICIES

Transport Policies and Terminals Design 7

1044043
 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PROBLEMS
RELATED TO URBAN DISTRIBUTION OF Poor availability
of infrastructure
GOODS Complexity of the process
Decision process to locate a facility

Decision-makers and Decision-makers and

other stakeholders other stakeholders

Id of Id of
possible sites Site optimal sites
Choice
10

Freight distribution Freight distribution

Operators Operators

15
Top-down approach
Bottom-up approach
5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND POLICIES
44
0

URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

AND POLICIES
43

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PROBLEMS RELATED TO URBAN

DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS Not appropriate
regulations
To meet the requirements of so many actors and enable so many
different functions and operations, regulations are mostly local,
exceptions for specific goods are often granted, and few are the
examples of cities enforcing specific urban distributions plans;

For example in Italy, in past times most part of rules in this field was
enforced within the local master plans, whereas now it is comprised
within the Urban Mobility Plans or in the Traffic plans

It is also to consider that historical urban features and very dense

land use greatly complicate delivery systems

The resulting approach by many local administrators is to

provide short-term solutions to emergency situations
16

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

Transport Policies and Terminals Design 8

1044043
 URBAN DISTRIBUTION POLICIES
However, there are
some trends in the
governance actions

Disincentives
Participation and
support by external
actions
Incentives to some
forms of deliveries Not appropriate
regulations
plus
(Indirect regulations)
10

17

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND POLICIES

44
0

URBAN
DISTRIBUTION
43

relationships between
implemented measures and
POLICIES respectively:
number of inhabitants,
urban density
size of urban areas

A cluster analysis
surveying 20
European
p cities
policies on delivery Not appropriate
regulations

organization
18

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND POLICIES

Transport Policies and Terminals Design 9

1044043
 URBAN Most recurring
DISTRIBUTION measures in the
surveyed European
POLICIES cities
most commonly y applied
pp disincentives to some forms of deliveries
deliveries:
:
enforcement of time slots (50%),
loads limits (35%)
access restrictions to high emitting vehicles (< 35%)
most commonly applied support policies and incentives to some
forms of deliveries
deliveries:
:
infrastructural improvements
p -p
provision of new loading/unloading
g g areas,
creation of transit points or distribution centers - (40%)
fleet renewals to comply with the local emissions standards (30%)
most commonly applied participation measures:
10

information
19

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND POLICIES

44
0

URBAN Most recurring

DISTRIBUTION measures in the
43

surveyed European
POLICIES cities

Cities generally tend to apply a raft of measures and very

seldom rely on just one measure:
Some measures always seem to go hand in hand with others:
load limits + time slots,
implementation of distribution centers + zero or low emissions vehicles
(30% of the whole bunch of surveyed cities, in both cases)

are the most recurring pairs

In 10% of cases, the enforcement of time slots called for an agreement

process between operators and administrators
20

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND POLICIES

Transport Policies and Terminals Design 10

1044043
 URBAN Most recurring
DISTRIBUTION measures in the
surveyed European
POLICIES cities
2500000

2000000

Inhabitants 1500000

and 1000000

measures 500000

Highly populated cities lot mi

t
tio
n t
en rea
s t
oin icle
s
cit
y es
e s ad li duc ur
seem to prefer restrictive m e eem g a sit p veh tics ruct
i r in ran
T Lo ns r Ag oad t tri
c gis ast
measure io L tion ec Lo Infr
ss El
10

i ea
Em Cr
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

Langres Monaco Siena La Rochelle Terni Leiden Ferrara

0 0 0 0 0
0

21
Basel Freiburg Bordeaux Utrecht Copenaghen Rotterdam Genoa
5 URBANStockholm
DISTRIBUTION
Milan
FACILITIES
Barcelona Paris Rome Dresden
44
0

URBAN Most recurring

DISTRIBUTION measures in the
43

surveyed European
POLICIES sqkm
cities

Size of urban
areas and
measures
The widest
Th id t palette
l tt off
interventions is achievable
within 500 sqkm meas.

0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

Langres Monaco Siena La Rochelle Terni Leiden Ferrara

0 0 0 0 0
0

Basel Freiburg Bordeaux Utrecht Copenaghen Rotterdam Genoa

Stockholm Milan Barcelona Paris 22 Rome Dresden

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND POLICIES

Transport Policies and Terminals Design 11

1044043
 URBAN Most recurring
DISTRIBUTION Inh/sqkm
measures in the
surveyed European
POLICIES cities

Density
and
measures
The
e less
ess co
complex
p e tthe
euurban
ba
context, the highest
meas.
synergy between incentives
and disincentives !!!
10

0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

Langres Monaco Siena La Rochelle Terni Leiden Ferrara

0 0 0 0 0
0

Basel Freiburg Bordeaux Utrecht Copenaghen Rotterdam Genoa

Stockholm Milan Barcelona Paris 23 Rome Dresden

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND POLICIES

44
0

URBAN Most recurring

DISTRIBUTION measures in the
43

surveyed European
POLICIES cities

soft approaches (i.e.

(i
participation, infrastructural
improvements) occur mainly in cities
within 500,000
with population

inhabitants

restrictiveness-based
approaches
pp ((time slots,,
emissions control, load limits) are usually
with
implemented in urban areas

1,500,000 inhabitants
and more
24

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND POLICIES

Transport Policies and Terminals Design 12

1044043
 URBAN Relationship between cost per
capita and number of
DISTRIBUTION inhabitants for middle size
POLICIES towns (less than 1,000,0000
inh.)

Transit points seem to be the most expensive solution (12.5 Euro/inh. as mean value), vs. the renewal of the
fleet seems the cheapest one (< 5 Euro/inh.).
10

but infrastructural interventions (< 10 Euro/inh.) appear to be the most feasible, in spite of their middle-range costs, due to easiness of decision and implementation

25

5 URBAN DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND POLICIES

44
0 43

Transport Policies and Terminals Design 13

1044043