1. Tools for urban freight transport modelling 1 st Scientific and Technical workshop Bologna, 05/11/2013 Dr Jacques Leonardi

2. Objectives Overview of selected past experiences Current approaches in use at UoW Presenting key questions Recommendations and needs for future improvements

3. 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?

4. 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

5. 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?

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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 CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 eq) 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.

11. Method – transport CO 2 intensity calculation The business provide data on fuel use (mpg or l/100km), distance, load, truck type and empty runs. Formula with: C ep = CO 2 efficiency per product unit, in kgCO 2 e 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 leg E = 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 = CO 2 conversion factor : one litre diesel fuel = 3.1672 kgCO 2 e Source: DEFRA 2013: DEFRA emission factors

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. FORS: An example of a quantitative policy 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.

16. Demand data: distance travelled by London freight Billion km 2008 Long term growth/year 1997-2007 in % Total6.2 LGV4.53.3 HGV1.70.2 Note: In the following, numbers in orange are the basis for assumptions used in the calculations Sources, unless specified: TfL FORS database; personal communications

17. 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 18,6301360611242853 Mean 2009 annual salary in transportation and logistics in £ Number of London employees % of employees costs in total turnover 27,000230,00033.3% Values used to calculate turnover

18. Reference impact Tables 2008 proportion of total social costs of freight in London 2008 total social costs in million £ LGVsHGVsLGVsHGVsTotal Emissions7.1% 7459133 Infrastructure0.4%11.7%498102 Noise1.3%2.1%141832 Congestion82.8%70.2%8635871450 Accidents8.4%8.8%8774161 Total100.0% 10428361878 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.pdf J. Allen, M. Piecyk and A.C. McKinnon (2010) Internalising the External Costs of Light and Heavy Goods Vehicle. Transport in London. http://www.greenlogistics.org/themesandoutputs/wm9/outputs.htm

19. FORS: Estimated impact on fuel use Distance Fuel use in mpg All goods vehicles to, from and within London FORS vehicles (20%) Average FORS members CSRGT UK average % improve 08-10 Million km 2008 mpg 2008 mpg July 2010 mpg 2009mpg HGV170034088.968.312 LGV45009002022.41312 Total62001240

20. FORS: estimated impact on fuel use and CO 2 Fuel use in litres CO 2 reduction Fuel and CO 2 reduction Total LondonEstimate FORS Savings in 2010 Annual reduction Litres 2008 Litres 2010Litres dieselTonnes CO 2 % of total HGV600,312,500120,062,500107,198,66112,863,83934,3392.14 LGV635,625,000127,125,000113,504,46413,620,53636,3592.14 Total1,235,937,500247,187,500220,703,12526,484,37570,6972.14

21. FORS social costs change according to values of CO 2 Savings 2008-2010 in million £ LowMediumHigh 26 £/tonne of CO 2 50 £/tonne of CO 2 164 £/tonne of CO 2 HGV1.83.411.3 LGV1.93.611.9 Total3.77.123.2

22. 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 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 www.bestfact.net/best-practices/ SUGAR Handbook http://www.sugarlogistics.eu/pliki/handbook.pdfhttp://www.sugarlogistics.eu/pliki/handbook.pdf SMARTFUSION comparative evaluation of electric vehicle trials www.smartfusion.eu www.smartfusion.eu

23. 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?