Assessment of clean vehicle performance in relation to ...smartset-project.eu/sites/default/files/files/file_uploads/SMART... · Assessment of clean vehicle performance in relation

Assessment of clean vehicle performance in relation to

each market-driven freight terminal business model |

D4.2

Author: Maciej R.Tumasz | NEWRAIL

Quality control: | Malcolm Lundgren | Trafikverket

Version: Final version Date of version: 27.01.2016

Project: SMARTSET | www.smartset-project.eu Contract number: IEE/12/714/SI2.644747

Duration of the project: 01.05.2013-30.04.2016 | 36 months

Project coordination and contact on behalf of SMARTSET: City of Gothenburg | SWEDEN | www.goteborg.com

Urban Transport Administration

Box 2403 | 403 16 Gothenburg | SWEDEN

E-mail: [email protected] The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of

the European Union. Neither the EACI nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the

information contained therein.

mailto:[email protected]

www.smartset-project.eu page 2 of 49

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ABOUT SMARTSET ................................................................................................................ 4

2. PROJECT STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................ 6

3. OBJECTIVE OF WP4 ............................................................................................................... 9

4. CLEANER VEHICLE DEMONSTRATORS ACROSS THE DIFFERENT SMARTSET SITES ................... 11

4.1. VEHICLE TESTS IN A NUTSHELL ............................................................................................................ 11

4.2. BERLIN (from D3.2 and PADUA meeting presentation) ....................................................................... 12

4.3. GOTHENBURG (from D2.1) .................................................................................................................. 15

4.4. GRAZ (from D3.2) ................................................................................................................................. 17

4.5. NEWCASTLE (from D3.2) ...................................................................................................................... 23

4.6. PADUA (from D3.2) .............................................................................................................................. 27

4.7. ROME (from D3.2) ............................................................................................................................... 33

5. ASSESMENT OF CLEANER VEHICLES TESTS / DEMONSTRATORS ............................................ 36

5.1. PARAMETERS RELATING TO THE VEHICLE’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE ............................................... 36

5.2. PARAMETERS RELATING TO THE VEHICLE’S TRANSPORT WORK AND ENVIRONMENTAL

PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................................................................. 37

5.3. PARAMETERS RELATING TO THE VEHICLE’S MAINTENANCE ............................................................... 37

5.4. PARAMETERS RELATING TO THE TEST’S FIT WITH INCENTIVES, SOURCES OF EXTERNAL REVENUES

AND POLICIES .................................................................................................................................................... 38

5.5. PARAMETERS RELATING TO THE TESTS’ SUSTAINABILITY & IMPACT .................................................. 39

6. DESCRIPTIVE ASSESMENT OF THE DEMONSTRATION OPERATIONS ....................................... 41


6.1. ASSESSMENT OF KEY SUCCESS FACTORS ............................................................................................. 41

6.2. ASSESSMENT OF MAJOR OBSTACLES IN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................... 42

6.3. DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESS MODEL IN A NUTSHELL .................................................................... 44

6.4. ASSESSMENT OF THE BUSINESS MODEL’S POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENT ...................................... 45

6.5. ASSESSMENT OF THE DEMONSTRATORS’ TRANSFERABILITY POTENTIAL ........................................... 46

6.6. DESCRIPTION OF THE FUTURE PLANS FOR THE DEMONSTARTORS .................................................... 46

7. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 48


1. ABOUT SMARTSET

Transport of goods, both on long distances and within cities contributes to a substantial part

of the total emissions generated from the transport sector, as well as congestion. Up to 20%

of traffic, 30% of street occupation and 50% of greenhouse-gas emissions are generated by

freight.

The SMARTSET project will develop and show how freight transport in European cities and

regions can be made more energy-efficient and sustainable by a better use of freight

terminals. To reach this overall goal, the project will provide examples of good practice that

can support cities, regions and countries to contribute to the European Union „20-20-20“

targets1 for reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and improvement in energy-efficiency.

SMARTSET targets Reduction by 2016 Reduction by 2020

Reduction of CO2 emissions in tonnes 9,051 tonnes per year 23,418 tonnes per year

Reduction of energy consumption in tonnes 3,104 tonnes per year 8,056 tonnes per year

Reduction of energy consumption in GWh 34 GWh per year 449 GWh per year

Table 1: SMARTSET targets during project duration (by 2016) and beyond (by 2020)

SMARTSET is structured around three core aspects for creating successful and attractive

terminals:

Market based business models provide an outline for various strategies and distribution

solutions to be implemented through organizational structures, processes and systems.

In order to make city centres more attractive, the introduction of clean and energy-

efficient vehicles for last mile distribution and the use of intermodal transports is

facilitated as well.

Incentives and regulations improve the possibility to make the business models

profitable and financially sustainable

1 The climate and energy package is a set of binding legislation which aims to ensure the European Union meets its

ambitious climate and energy targets for 2020. These targets, known as the "20-20-20" targets, set three key objectives for

2020:

A 20% reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels

Raising the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable resources to 20%

A 20% improvement in the EU's energy efficiency


SMARTSET is a project, co-funded by the Intelligent Energy – Europe programme of the

European Union (IEE) and is composed of 14 partners, coming from Austria, Germany, Italy,

Sweden and the United Kingdom. It runs from 01.05.2013 until 30.04.2016.


2. PROJECT STRUCTURE

SMARTSET is divided into 8 work packages, all integrated into each other, in which the

leadership will be spread among the project partners:

WP 1 Project Management

WP 2 Cooperative market-driven business solutions

WP 3 Incentives and regulations

WP 4 Clean vehicles in transport

WP 5 Networking & Exchange of Experiences

WP 6 Evaluation

WP 7 Dissemination & Target Group Communication

WP 8 IEE Dissemination

FIGURE 1: WP STRUCTURE


In SMARTSET, WPs 2, 3 and 4 focus on measures to be undertaken by cities, encompassing

business solutions, incentives and regulations as well as clean vehicles. In SMARTSET all

cities start from different local situations and to develop sustainable business models for

freight distribution and increase the use of clean vehicles, the transfer of knowledge is an

absolute key issue, which will be taken care of in WP 5. This is where the actions and

knowledge in “leader cities” can be transferred to “follower cities”, and experience

regarding these issues can be exchanged. WP5 is a key work package for SMARTSET, to

ensure that information and knowledge is spread throughout the consortium to create the

best prerequisites for successful implementation of sustainable freight systems. The

conclusions drawn from the project will be shared through target group communication and

dissemination, covered in WP7 & 8

WP 1 encompasses the project management and the tasks on technical and administrative coordination of the SMARTSET project. It will be led by the city of Gothenburg with the participation of all partners.

In WP2 the objective is to develop business and market based solutions for last mile distribution and to make project viable and self-sustaining after the duration of this project. Market based business models are a crucial part of the development in energy efficient distribution solutions. The SMARTSET project contains a number of different sites with different conditions, from smaller towns to medium and big size cities, from different parts of Europe, with different types of challenges and different potential solutions. All these sites have one thing in common: the need for a sustainable business model that is comprehensive and enables overcoming of existing market barriers

The objective of WP 3 is to develop and make clear what incentives are needed and necessary to steer towards increased use of micro terminals for last mile distribution for energy efficient freight transport.

The objective of the WP4 is to make possible the introduction of clean vehicles in last mile distribution. By distributing with e.g. small electric vehicles, local environment will be drastically improved in terms of greenhouse gas and particle emissions, road safety and congestion

WP5 strives to ensure that the advancements stirred by the project activities feed the discussion as well as knowledge exchange and development with different sectors and on regional, national and international level in order to break the current impasse and mobilise action toward a fully-fledged up-take of optimised city logistics.

WP 6 and will provide means to compare experiences and impacts among the project partners and on the city level.


WP7 Dissemination & Target Group Communication and WP8 EACI Dissemination Activities disseminate the findings of the project with the goal of reaching the main target groups, key actors and potential multipliers. The two work packages will mobilise activities at the EU level but will also support the participating regions in dissemination and communication efforts at the national and local level. In doing so, a variety of target group-tailored tools will be employed (e.g. folder, website, e-updates, press-releases, etc.).

WP 8 will secure the IEE Dissemination activities and make sure that, upon request by the EACI, contribution to common dissemination activities will increase synergy


3. OBJECTIVE OF WP4

The objective of this WP is to facilitate the introduction of cleaner vehicles for last mile

distribution and the use of intermodal transports. By distributing with e.g. small electric

vehicles, local environment will be drastically improved in terms of greenhouse gas and

particle emissions, road safety and congestion. We are interested in any cleaner alternative

to diesel and petrol powered vehicles – apart from electric vehicles it includes hybrids, cargo

bikes and other forms of modal shift.

Investment in the vehicles is NOT included in this project.

FIGURE 2: WP RELATIONSHIPS


This Deliverable D4.2 measures a set of detailed parameters which have been developed on

the basis of D4.1 and later used by stakeholders to evaluate the testing of cleaner vehicles.

These parameters reflect the priorities of stakeholders and tie in with the environment they

operate in. This document provides a common assessment to the degree possible, taking

into account discrepancies in the nature, size, timing and funding of the tests.


4. CLEANER VEHICLE DEMONSTRATORS ACROSS THE

DIFFERENT SMARTSET SITES

This section describes the nature and content of the cleaner vehicle demonstrators

operating at the various SMARTSET sites. Longer descriptions already included in previous

deliverables of the project are copied here, for easy reference.

4.1. VEHICLE TESTS IN A NUTSHELL TABLE 2: VEHICLE TESTS IN A NUTSHELL

BERLIN GOTHENBURG GRAZ NEWCASTLE PADUA ROME

Reporting partner

Technische Hochschule Wildau City of Gothenburg City of Graz

Newcastle University

Interporto Padova

Rome Mobility Agency

Name of test KW-E-CHAIN

STADSLEVERANSEN & FISKELEVERANSEN Bring ME

Coherent Campus Delivery Service Plan

Cityporto Padova

Electric vansharing for urban freight distribution

Cleaner vehicle(s) tested

Fully electric 40t truck TERBERG YT202EV

Fully electric small urban distribution vehicles: Melex 390; Alké XT280E; Alké XT320E, with wagons (1-3t payload)

e-Cargo bike – Christiania P-BOX

Fully electric truck Smith Newton 7.5t

CNG powered IVECO DAILY (5t for express deliveries; 6.5t in the spa area; New service of perishable goods: 5t ; 6.5 T)

3 bimodal electric and diesel: 1 Renault Master + 2 IVECO (675kg payload)

Traditional vehicles being replaced

2 VEHICLES: 40t diesel trucks

Various diesel powered vans

Many customer private cars

Dozens of diesel vehicles - from vans to articulated lorries

Diesel powered vans and trucks

Diesel powered vans and trucks

Source of funding

German Federal funding

Combined: fees; advertising; city funds Private FP7

Mixed: Province; Municipal; Chamber of Commerce

Mixed Environment Ministry and Municipality

Start of test June 2014 November 2012 August 2014 September 2014 April 2004

November 2014

End of test June 2016 None planned None planned None planned None planned July 2015

Overall perception VERY GOOD

SUCCESS - positive perception of the concept, widely copied

MIXED - the volumes are still too low to call it success

POSITIVE – deemed innovative, unique, efficient. Awards won. A BIG SUCCESS

Positive results: reduction in distance and of emissions

Comment

well publicised trial; already resulted in next orders for the vehicle

electricity from renewable resources; clear goal to make it fully self-sustainable

no public support for the operation other than marketing

consolidation effect: 146 EV trips replaced 859 diesel trips

operation ongoing without subsidy, start in 2004 was subsidised

Operation involving UFT Prenestina going on


4.2. BERLIN (FROM D3.2 AND PADUA MEETING PRESENTATION)

KV-E-Chain demonstrates a fully electric, long-haul delivery transport chain of containers and swap

bodies, from a warehouse in North Rhine-

Westphalia via the inner-city Freight Village

“Westhafen” in Berlin, to the final recipients. The

technical requirements of the transported

containers and swap bodies require a full-electric

truck for the “last mile” transportation, with a

permitted gross mass of up to 40 tonnes. In the

frame of KV-E-Chain, the world’s first electric

tractor for container trucking was modified for road

transport and was granted an official road licence.

KV-E-Chain will also show how such large e-trucks

can be integrated into existing urban delivery fleets.

This can result also in adapted business models.

KV-E-Chain deals especially with extra-large e-trucks carrying containers and has therefore a unique

knowledge and experience status, at least in Europe. Also, new know-how regarding the change of

business models can be expected from the project. The Berlin Smartset consortium is part of the KV-

E-CHAIN project, which ensures a knowledge transfer into SMARTSET.

FIGURE 3: THE NEW KV-E CHAIN TRUCK IN OPERATION AT

WESTHAFEN


FIGURE 4: BERLIN ELECTRIC VEHICLE TEST TIMINGS

FIGURE 5: BERLIN ELECTRIC VEHICLE TESTS



4.3. GOTHENBURG (FROM D2.1)

In Gothenburg (Sweden), an urban freight terminal has been active since November 2012, as one of

the measures adopted by the Municipality to improve the efficiency of freight distribution in the city.

The bundle of city logistics solutions included the implementation of restrictive regulation for the city

centre and the shopping area, the development of new infrastructure, the promotion of clean

vehicles, the demonstration/trial of innovative technologies, and monitoring and data collection

from new vehicles.

FIGURE 6: THE STADSLEVERANSEN DELIVERY TRAIN

The “Stadsleveransen” experience started in 2012, with a pilot test, which involved the

establishment of a consolidation centre, located underground beside a loading and parking area in

the city centre, and the use of small electric vehicles to deliver the goods from the UCC to the

retailers (a small group of 8-10 shops). The manager and “owner” of this UCC was a long established,

joint company owned by the retailers, the real estate owners, and the city, which works with

development of the inner city area. The operator was a security company. The financing of the pilot

was provided by EC-projects, the PA, the trade association, six property owners, a municipal energy

company, and the regional municipal administration. In one year, the network of retailers using the

solution expanded to some 200; an additional haulier using electric cargo bikes has been added. An

additional revenue stream of significance was found in the sale of advertising space on the vehicle.

One barrier has been to overcome the long term “routines” established between the retailers and

transport operators involved, but the main challenge is to cover the higher cost of transport entailed

by the facility requirements and the extra handling of goods and equipment.


The main effort by the PA was to establish a durable concertation network, with a lot of different

stakeholders from both the private and public sectors (transport companies, forwarders, retailers,

real estate owners, associations, municipal functions, academy etc.). In order to achieve this, by

exploiting the opportunity given by the EC project START, a freight network was set up which has

been continuously developed, and managed according to strict rules that require the invited

representatives to be engaged in the forum and to attend at least a proportion of meetings in order

to keep their place in the network. The promoters have striven to keep the agenda “interesting”, by

finding different themes, issues and angles of approach to keep members engaged.

Discussions in the network have centred on a solution oriented, quite operative level (hence strategic

issues have been dealt with in a more informed manner). It emerges that the concertation process

between the involved stakeholders requires positive action to keep it alive and that an even level is

needed for discussions, possibly with different networks being established for different scopes, e.g.

operative, operative/strategic or strategic level.

The network in Gothenburg has been well established for several years and is currently considered to

serve its purpose quite well. This may, among other things mentioned above, be a result of a long

process of engaging the “right” people, but is also due to a huge effort to create a “living” forum and

maintain the network to address relevant present and future issues. A relevant challenge for the

future is the capability to drive the enlargement of the network: a need for a more strategic oriented

network has been assessed.

The preparation of the UCC has been enriched by means of a number of activities, such as:

Mapping of businesses in the area (types of businesses, size, goods volumes,

prerequisites for goods handling etc.)

Measuring of traffic volumes and goods flows

Evaluation of different concepts, competitive to the consolidation centre, with

potential to reach similar goals

Stakeholder analysis (how the logistics improvements may be valued, participation in

the process etc.)

Analysis of practical (e.g. vehicle, storage space, equipment) and economic

prerequisites.

All the above-mentioned activities proved to be helpful; however, a deeper analysis of distribution

organisation and planning from the transport companies’ perspective could possibly have helped to

adjust the initial approach.

The Gothenburg experience demonstrates that operational issues are difficult to foresee from the

start; this means that the business model should be planned in a way that allows a smooth resolution

of them, as they emerge.


4.4. GRAZ (FROM D3.2)

The b2c-delivery service ‘bring mE’ is the pilot project in Graz. The preparation works for starting this

service were carried out in spring 2014. Negotiations with the shop-owners showed that further

discussions concerning internal organisation and public relations were necessary. The project

partners (core group) - presented in Deliverable 3.1 (page 87) - therefore decided to postpone the

start of the delivery service to end of August 2014. The start was a press conference on 20nd August

and the service is still running after the second evaluation.

Organisation of the service

The target groups for this service are the clients of city centre shops who do not wish to carry home

their purchases.

The service from the customer’s point of view:

At the shop:

Select goods

Pay for goods

Register for the service (become a ‘client’ of the system; request the delivery)

Obtain a bring mE receipt

Leave the shop

At home:

Wait for the delivery of the parcel at the designated time

Accept and pay for delivery

FIGURE 7: REGISTRATION FORM FOR BOOKING DELIVERIES (MAINLY REPLACED BY ONLINE REGISTRATION)


Figure 8 + 9: POSTER IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT VEHICLES

This poster was published in more than 250 buses and trams, which run through Graz in autumn

2014 and November/December 2015.

The service from the bring mE point of view:

At the time of purchase:

Register the client

Register the delivery

Information of the carrier (Fuhrwerk) via internet

Deposit of goods

Delivery service:

Collect goods from shops

Organise the sequence of deliveries according to the plan (optimised tour)

Deliver to the customer’s address

Collect payment

Involved Stakeholders

The core group has met regularly once per month (depending on the progress of the project) to

decide the next steps.


The shop-owners are seen as the most important group, as without them bring mE could not exist.

Good contact between these shops and the core group is very important. In addition, Holding Graz

Lines, carrier of public transport in Graz, has supported the system by allowing posters to be placed

in its vehicles.

Public relations activities

In order to promote the new b2c-delivery service, a bundle of measures was proposed and

implemented:

Press conference with the Mayor of Graz

Production and distribution of posters in the shops and in public transport vehicles

(September/October 2014 and December 2015)

Production and distribution of flyers

Give-aways for bring mE customers

Website: www.bring-me.at

Information for customers, from the participating shops

Involved shops

Before starting this service the core group contacted many

shops. Some were willing to participate in the service and

welcomed the idea. In the beginning, 20 shops

participated.

The company Kastner & Öhler is the biggest shop in the

city centre. Unfortunately it was not possible to involve

them into the service. They tested bring mE for 4 days and

were happy about the quality of the service. Nevertheless

they found another solution for their deliveries.

Further on shops founded the initiative “ARGE Innenstadt”

to promote shopping in the city centre. Bring mE was

presented at the big presentation of this initiative and will

try to find a possibility to promote its service.

Presently the negotiations started with a big Shopping

Centre with more than 100 shops situated near the city centre.

Public relations - BIG

BIG is the official newspaper of the City of Graz and is

FIGURE 9: BIG PUBLICITY

http://www.bring-me.at/


distributed to all households (nearly 144.000). In May 2014 the service was promoted on the cover

sheet. In July 2014 a special 4-page article informed people about bring mE.

Press conference

On 20nd August, the Mayor of Graz held a press conference about the new delivery service bring mE.

FIGURE 10: NEW SERVICE PRESS CONFERENCE WITH MAYOR OF GRAZ


FIGURE 11: HOME PAGE OF THE BRING ME WEBSITE

Evaluation of the delivery service

In co-operation with the Technical University of Graz, Institute for Technical Logistics (TUG), a

procedure for the evaluation was worked out and executed. In December 2014, the TU held personal

interviews with the shop-owners and also enquired of passers-by, in the pedestrian zone.

The topics of the interviews and the enquiries:

Are you content with the organisation of bring mE?

Do you promote this service?

Do your clients use this service?

Have you heard about bring mE?

The results had been implemented into the system and the service was made simpler for the clients

and the shops, but the price rose from € 6,- to € 7,90 (for an average shipment).

In the meantime the second evaluation took place and the results are:

Involvement of more shops to reach the critical mass for an economic success

PR-activities to spread the service among people / target groups


Working on a “mobile hub”

Besides the b2c delivery service bring mE the feasibility of a logistics hub near the city centre was

one of the objectives of the project. Apart from the discussions of the requirements of such a hub, it

was a possibility to test a “mobile hub”. An operator of city logistics bought an E-van to deliver goods

in the city centre. In a test phase this van was used as a mobile hub, as loaded parcels were

transferred from the van to the E-cargo bike to deliver it to the destinations directly in the

centre/pedestrian zone. The van itself continued its tour to deliver the remaining parcels to the other

addresses. This cooperation is still existing and proved the pros of a E-Cargo bike in the pedestrian

zone/city centre.

FIGURE 12: BIKE ON TOUR DELIVERING GOODS FIGURE 13: PRESENTATION OF THE E-VAN AND E-CARGO BIKE

At the present situation Graz intends to continue the delivery service after April 2016, the end of

smartset project as it is a good way to promote further measures in the field of city logistics.


4.5. NEWCASTLE (FROM D3.2)

The Coherent Campus Delivery and Servicing Plan process in Newcastle University invited the major

retailers and the large institutions: Universities, City Council, NHS (National Health Service), to

understand demand for urban logistics within the context of the city. Following the initial workshop

it was clear that large institutions such as these - in particular Newcastle University - are large freight

generators through attraction. It was decided that this could be a profitable avenue to explore.

Clipper Logistics held a series of discussions with major retail stores within the Newcastle area,

hoping to generate interest for an Urban Consolidation Centre to the West of the city centre (as seen

in the map below of the Scotswood Road site and the City centre).

FIGURE 13: NEWCASTLE COHERENT CAMPUS DELIVERY SERVICE PLAN ZONE

It was widely accepted that this location was not ideal; however the preferred location, further

south, was constrained by political boundaries, since it was located within a different local authority.

For the pilot operation Clipper’s existing Wynyard warehouse was therefore used. Running the

operation from an existing site allowed the project to benefit from only marginal costs, rather than

the full cost of setting up a new UCC located closer to Newcastle. Gary Walker, of Clipper Logistics,

tells us his experience shows “you often need elastic walls” to run consolidation effectively as part of


an existing warehousing operation. An electric truck was purchased – a Smith Electric Newton with

gross weight of 7.5t.

FIGURE 14: THE ELECTRIC LORRY DURING TEST OPERATIONS

FIGURE 15: ROUTE TO NEWCASTLE FROM CLIPPER


FIGURE 16: NEWCASTLE COHERENT CAMPUS TIMINGS

Newcastle University is located within the City, in more than 60 different buildings. In order to make

the delivery operation as efficient as possible, the 227 unique addresses within those buildings were

clustered together into 9 drop-zones (numbered 1 – 9 on the map below). The Clipper despatch

system associates each individual recipient’s name with one of these drop-zones, allowing the driver

manifest to show the items for a drop zone and to complete his round by visiting only those drop-

zones for which there ware parcels on a given day. A vehicle charging point was located at drop zone

7, next to the internal mailroom and located centrally on the main Campus, should the driver need to

charge the vehicle for period of time whilst completing his deliveries on foot. One hour of charging

equates to around 15% of the battery.

Vehicle Delivery

-

19th August 2014

EV Specific Driver Training

-

11th – 13th September

2014

Delivery Route Knowledge

-

15th – 20th September

2014

First delivery made

-

23rd September 2014

500 Parcel's Delivered

-

12th February 2015

Over 1000 Parcel's

Delivered as of today!


FIGURE 1714: NEWCASTLE COHERENT CAMPUS DROP ZONES

The operation of Coherent Campus Delivery Service Plan is currently extended until middle of 2016.

Then, it will be decided how to extend and expand it, incorporating other receivers alongside the

University. It is currently expected that the operation will grow in the city centre of Newcastle but the

location of the consolidation centre will be changed to a one that is closer to the receivers.


4.6. PADUA (FROM D3.2)

A premise had to be established for the Cityporto service implementation, as one of its main

supporter’s is the Municipality of Padua, which is also partially financing the service for the first 4

years of the pilot phase. Another public stakeholder and co-founder is the Chamber of Commerce,

Province of Padua and Veneto Region. In 2003 the City of Padua promoted a feasibility study for the

creation of an urban freight distribution centre and the implementation of a model of city logistics

aiming at reducing the pollutant emissions. Interporto Padova, the Public-Private Company that

manages the local freight village where most of the transport operators are located, was chosen to

manage the service of city logistics, for the neutrality of its relationship with the transport operators

who joined the Cityporto service. The service of freight distribution in the LOW Emission Zone started

in 2004, with two vehicles of 3.5 tonnes powered by CGN; the fleet now comprises 11 means of

transport and almost 55 transport operators who deliver their goods daily to the UDC, where the

freight is consolidated by final destination and loaded into one of the eco-friendly vehicles –

maximising loading capacity and reducing travel km - for last mile distribution.

The Municipality of Padua approved the official traffic regulations in 2003, amended them in 2006,

and again in 2008 (Official regulation 83/2008 is currently in force). These regulate the access of

vehicles to the Limited Traffic Zone. The entry of freight vehicles to the city centre, up to 3.5 tonnes

and up to 6 tonnes if transporting perishable foods (including frozen), is allowed upon payment of a

permission and only during time-windows: on working days, from 08.30 to 09.30, from 13.00 to

16.00, and from 19.00 to 20.00.

For vehicles between these weights transporting other types of goods, a special permission must be

purchased and temporary access to a further limited traffic zone is then allowed.

Access to the LTZ and the pedestrian zone for the 11 vehicles of Cityporto is permitted 24H/day and

they are furthermore allowed use of the reserved lanes for buses and taxis. The use of reserved

parking spaces for loading/unloading operations has been studied but, at the moment, the parking of

Cityporto vehicles inside the LTZ operations is temporarily permitted close to the shops where the

parcels are to be delivered.

The closing of the city centre to everyday traffic, by providing 10 monitored electronic gates at the

strategic city access points, as well as specifically targeting freight traffic by means of 2003, 2006 and

2008 regulations, has been undoubtedly one of the keys to Cityporto’s success. It has also led to a

higher awareness of its utility among city policy makers, because of the reduction of traffic

congestion and pollution in the city centre (emissions of pollutants are constantly monitored). The

result is a smarter, more friendly and usable city centre, as felt by its citizens.

Regarding restrictions/barriers: in the beginning 10 transport operators shared the service and

mostly used the time window allowing the access to the city centre and paid the fee. As time went


on, awareness of the high performance of the service and the benefits resulting from it, has grown

their number to almost 55.

No incentives are given to transport operators for their involvement in the service. The revenues of

the service are the tariffs paid, charged in weight brackets and on the total quantity of freight

delivered to the Urban Delivery Centre (lower tariff for higher quantities).

The UDC is managed as a hub, so goods delivered by the transport operator are stored only for the

time needed to arrange the optimum delivery trip to their final destination, that same day. Two

rounds of travels are organised per single vehicle per day: one in the morning and one in the

afternoon. There are no additional services inside the UDC.

The location of the UDC is in the freight village where most of the transport operators who joined the

service are located, so no additional costs of transport for delivery to Cityporto are incurred.

Furthermore, the UDC is close to the city centre (5 km) and in a strategic position for access from the

city highway and local motorway. A new UDC was inaugurated in February 2015, within an effort to

rationalise the spaces dedicated to the logistics division in the asset management of Interport

Padova SpA. The logistics platform of Cityporto moved from its historical site in Via Nuova Zelanda 8

(since 2004) to a new warehouse owned by Interporto Padova. The new platform of urban

distribution has a surface area equal to the previous one - about 1000 square meters - but it is better

equipped with 12 loading docks (8 specifically dedicated to Cityporto operations), versus four at the

old premises, and is equipped with hydraulic platforms that allow more optimised loading/unloading

operations from customers’ trucks to the UDC and from UDC to e-vehicles. The new location of the

warehouse will also allow the rationalisation of the handling costs of the cooperative into the

activities of Cityporto, which performs logistics operations on behalf of Interporto in a warehouse

alongside the Cityporto UDC. Finally, from February 2015, the vehicle dedicated to the express

deliveries is loaded with goods directly at the courier’s premises, so reducing waiting time and

facilitating a faster departure of the van to the city centre.


FIGURE 15: URBAN FREIGHT TERMINAL OF PADUA

FIGURE 16: LOCATION OF THE TERMINAL

Our UDC distributes mostly parcels and packages. A decision was taken at the beginning of the

service, in 2004, to handle only “easy” goods, to avoid the risks involved in the transport of

perishable goods. Since that time we have become sufficiently experienced in this field of delivery to


take further steps with the service, within the SMARTSET project, including the delivery of a wide

variety of goods, such as express parcels, drinks, and non-perishable foods such as biscuits and

chocolates. Finally, May 2015 sees the start of a test delivery of perishable goods (fresh foods, fruit

and vegetables) from the cold store of a mass-market customer to one of its shops located in the

pedestrian area of Padua city centre.

Cityporto’s fleet of eco-friendly vehicles is composed of 11 vehicles, all CNG powered. Model of vans:

Iveco Daily CGN (nr. 4 gross weight 3,5 Tons + nr. 4 GW 5.0 Tons +; nr. 2 GW 6.5 Tons + nr. 1 GW 6.0

Tons). No electric vehicle is currently part of the fleet due to higher acquisition and maintenance

costs, compared to CNG vans.

FIGURE 17: GOODS BEING DELIVERED IN PADUA

Return transportation is organised and performed by Cityporto, on behalf of a single customer - a

trader and distributor of drinks - using a dedicated curtainsider. When the vehicle delivers drinks to

restaurants and bars, empty bottles are recovered and returned directly to the customer’s

warehouse, without affecting the UDC’s concept of only consolidation and temporary parcel storage

(when a consignee cannot be found or a shop is closed). Increasing return transportation would

require more space and personnel at the UDC, increasing the cost of management. As things stand,

the service is economically balanced; any expansion would require a new business model.

With reference to the overall quantity of goods transported on third party account to the city centre,

Cityporto Padova makes 25 % of the express and 75% of the parcel deliveries.


The City Action plan involves many actors and processes as follows:

Interporto Padova SpA: manager of the freight village and of Cityporto Padova, a brand of the

company’s logistics activities being considered not as a mere business source of profit but as a

service to the city. The service is managed in order to meet the transport operators’ needs and the

key performance indicators are satisfied. Interporto Padova is directly involved with its internal

employees, at different levels:

The Logistics Manager studies the best tariffs to be applied to the different contracts and coordinates

the relationship between the customers (transport operators) and the UDC, together with the

Logistics Operations Associate (LOA).

The LOA coordinates the relationship between the customers and the employees of a cooperative

that manages the handling and the transport of the goods. The cooperative staff is composed of one

Head of Operations - managing consolidation and loading tasks, following criteria of trip optimisation

and maximised vehicle capacities; one clerical person - registering goods inward to the dedicated

Cityporto (tracking & tracing of goods) IT system; and 11 drivers.

All invoices for the services provided to the transport operators are billed by the administrative office

of Interporto Padova SpA.

The IT System used to manage the delivery operation of Cityporto has been directly developed by the

staff of Interporto Padova SpA.

Local administrators: control the respecting of freight traffic regulations and make the necessary

amendments to the regulations in force.

Cityporto customers (transport and logistics operators) are the fuel of the service and make it

possible by delivering their goods to the UDC.

The revenue stream is assured by the contracts signed with the customers for the transport and

logistics (goods consolidation) services.

The income is used to cover the cooperative’s costs for logistics operations (goods consolidation) and

transport operations (including fuel and inurance costs) and for IT equipment (software and

hardware)..

No equipment or warehousing is rented; all are owned by Interporto Padova SpA and included as

part of its direct involvement as quoted in the Framework agreement signed with the Public

Stakeholder, in 2004.

The 11 vehicles are the property of Interporto Padova and were adquired partly by public financing

and partly by our direct financial sources.


The UDC is a 1000 sq m box in a warehouse property of Interporto Padova; rent does not therefore

represent a direct cost to the service. The hypothetical rental has been considered in the business

model built for Cityporto and calculated to get to a truly balanced management of the service.

The plan is to keep on providing the highest quality services to the transport operators; this is

fundamental to maintaining customers. The current fleet is large enough for the calculated quantity

of goods, but we would be interested to test an electric vehicle (if funding can be found) with enough

capacity to substitute the older CNG powered vehicle bought in 2004.


4.7. ROME (FROM D3.2)

The testing of transit points in the city centre, even though only a pilot project, follows the right path

traced by the first phase action lines of the City OR, such as the new regulations about goods delivery

in restricted zones along with interventions to rationalise goods distribution.

The core area of the city centre, named Tridente, represents a more interesting study area for

implementing pilot testing of UFTs. Tridente is an extended zone of absolute priority and

environmental interest that the CA would like to preserve; it is full of commercial points, of different

kinds, requiring a freight service with adequate consistency and frequency.

The new methods of goods distribution in this area will make possible the implementation of a new

Urban Freight Plan in the rest of the city and may be a useful guide for other Italian cities. The

challenge today is to understand the feasibility and real competitiveness and convenience of a UFT,

for all goods sectors.

On this basis, the active presence of the Ministry of Environment, already supporting sustainable

mobility projects in urban areas, made available incentives for funding a pilot project for the

feasibility check of implementing an Urban Freight Terminal (UFT) serving the Rome City Centre. This

activity was also planned in Item B) of the approved city OR 245/11.

This project, named Van-Sharing LOGECO, was already launched in May 2012 and completed its 1st

pilot phase just at the beginning of the SMARTSET project, already described in D3.1.

The pilots aim to serve the Tridente Mediceo of Rome and to finalise the planning of a future logistics

centre to be located near the historic centre, with the following goals:

To store goods from a single courier to be delivered by another courier with e-vehicles

To distribute goods through e-vehicles by the same courier

To allow an operator collect his own goods by e-vehicles provided by the van sharing service

It is monitored by a working committee formed with the involvement of a Logistics Research Centre,

the Union of Entrepreneurs, the Ministry of Environment and Roma Capitale - which is following

developments in terms of UFT feasibility plans including a possible business model to implement it

permanently, according to the SMARTSET objectives.

There are periodic meetings to discuss the incentive system and evaluation schemes for the

implementation of the UFT.

Activities so far have involved the creation of the first pilot of the system for distribution of goods by

electric vehicle and, from the end of 2014, the start of the Pilot 2 phase, with new activities

concerning urban freight distribution.


This second pilot phase presents three testing scenarios (with only the 1st relevant for WP4):

First scenario – storage point

Delivery of goods from production depots in the surrounding industrial context

collected into UFT before delivering to the city centre

Using 3 bimodal vehicles (electric and diesel engines used alternately): 1 Renault

Master + 2 IVECO

UFT composed of 500 sq m storage located in via Prenestina, via Longoni (Rome

outskirts - 7 km from the centre) with 2 shared operators.

An IT company involved in the development of the sharing service

In the first two months since the start of this pilot scenario, 766 deliveries (about 80.600 kg) were

carried out, with an initial daily delivery of 30/40 kg, to be increased during the pilot.

FIGURE 18: URBAN FREIGHT TERMINAL IN VIA PRENESTINA


FIGURE 19: CITYLOG VEHICLES IN ROME

The vehicles involved in the first scenario in the Old Town were hybrid diesel-electric, 3,5 tonnes capacity, used

for large loads, using diesel engine outside the Tridente Area (where they are used in the electric mode)

In the early months of 2015, some areas

located within the park of Villa Borghese and

the Terminal Gianicolo were used as transit

points, with the project’s full-electric vehicles.

FIGURE 20: INSIDE THE UFT ROME


5. ASSESMENT OF CLEANER VEHICLES TESTS /

DEMONSTRATORS

This section describes the results of self-assessment of performance of cleaner vehicles used

in the live demonstrators across the different SMARTSET sites and the tests themselves,

using different parameters selected by stakeholders in the course of the project (for

elaboration of parameters see D4.1 Development of common assessment parameters and

methodology for test of clean vehicles). The Partners were asked to select a period under

scrutiny so that their answers are based on events, figures and experiences from a specific

period of time. Every effort was made to make this fully representative of the test in its

entirety, and even though it is possible that for a different period, results could be different

but the differences are deemed negligible.

For each of the parameters, partners were asked to assess the failure or success of the

vehicle/test in a given aspect by selecting a digit ranging from 0 (absolute failure/ lowest

level of satisfaction) to 5 (spectacular success/full satisfaction), with an option of selecting

“not applicable” (which will be explained on a case to case basis). The simplified

interpretation of the scores is that 0-2 are negative and 3-5 are positive with 2&3 being

considered “in the middle”.

5.1. PARAMETERS RELATING TO THE VEHICLE’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE

Parameter: BERLIN GOTHENBURG GRAZ NEWCASTLE PADUA ROME reliability (time out of service)

5 4 5 4 4 4 operational range (real-life)

4 5 5 5 5 4 procurement/depreciation cost

2 3 4 4 5 4

The tests use quite different vehicles, ranging from a 40t electric truck in Berlin, through a

7.5t electric truck in Newcastle, methane-powered vans in Padua, small urban distribution

vehicles in Gothenburg and e-cargo bikes in Graz. With the exception of Padua – which uses

an established technology – all other vehicles are relatively new models, or even a prototype

(Berlin). It is therefore quite remarkable that all these vehicles showed good-to-excellent

reliability, on par with the established CNG technology. That is a promising sign for the

cleaner vehicle technologies.


What is even more optimistic, is the very strong performance of cleaner vehicles on the

second parameter – the operational range – as it is often listed as the one of the biggest

disadvantages of cleaner vehicle technologies based on electricity. The average score of

4.667 suggests that the range is not a problem in the urban conditions.

The third general parameter dealt with the cost of obtaining the vehicle and here the scores

are still quite high (average of 3.667 for all vehicles and only 3.4 for EV’s) but not as uniform

as previous parameters. This result confirms one of common truths about electric vehicles –

they are still expensive. The costs of CNG vehicles was very satisfying at the same time.

5.2. PARAMETERS RELATING TO THE VEHICLE’S TRANSPORT WORK AND

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE

Parameter: BERLIN GOTHENBURG GRAZ NEWCASTLE PADUA ROME Cargo shifted

4 4 3 2 4 4 Savings on fuel/energy

4 5 3 3 4 5 GHG emissions

4 5 2 4 4 5

While largely in the positive territory (all scores bar two are 3 and higher) this set of

parameters does not show a unified result across sites. While four sites show high level of

satisfaction (Berlin, Gothenburg, Padua and Rome), the other two (Graz & Newcastle) are

less satisfied with the transport work or GHG emissions saved. It should be noted, however,

that these two sites are the youngest and most radical operations, changing the paradigm of

deliveries and disrupting the traditional way of how cargo or shopping is delivered.

Operators of both sites admitted that they need more time to grow their schemes as the

scale is still not satisfactory but all the signs are there that it could be the case in the

foreseeable future. This finding also confirms statements found in literature that growing to

sufficient scale is a major scale of most sustainable urban logistics solutions.

5.3. PARAMETERS RELATING TO THE VEHICLE’S MAINTENANCE

Parameter: BERLIN GOTHENBURG GRAZ NEWCASTLE PADUA ROME maintenance cost

5 4 4 N/A 4 4 availability/timeliness of

service 5 4 5 4 5 4


availability of spare parts 5 3 N/A 4 5 4

The cost and availability of maintenance are crucial factors for any logistics operation, as any

problems in this department can result in delays, penalties or necessity to resort to

contingency measures that are costly, complicated or less sustainable. This is particularly

pronounced in the case of cleaner vehicle trials, as typically there is no replacement vehicle

available at short notice or at all. SMARTSET operators have reported that in case of a

cleaner vehicle breakdown they had to deploy a traditionally powered (diesel) vehicle to do

the work. In the case of cleaner vehicle demonstrators this is more than detrimental. Luckily,

the reports are mostly optimistic with many 4s and 5s, just one 3, no negative scores and

two N/A (not applicable) answers where an external partner was in charge of this aspect and

data was not available. The average score for the whole segment is 4.31, with the average of

4.5 reported for timeliness of service which means that although the vehicles are often

irreplaceable, they are repaired quickly enough for the operation to be resumed. Given that

many early studies of EV trials reported this area as a major point of concern this finding is

very welcome indeed.

5.4. PARAMETERS RELATING TO THE TEST’S FIT WITH INCENTIVES, SOURCES

OF EXTERNAL REVENUES AND POLICIES

Parameter: BERLIN GOTHENBURG GRAZ NEWCASTLE PADUA ROME Taking advantage of public support measures 3 5 0 3 4 5 Additional sources of revenue N/A 3 N/A N/A N/A 4 Fit with wider policy 4 5 5 5 4 4

This group of parameters evaluates relation of the tests to external environments (economic

and policy-related) and as such is an evaluation of these externalities as much as it is of the

tests themselves. The picture is quite heterogeneous.

The first parameter evaluated if the trial was able to take advantage of public support

measures, such as purchase incentives, company car taxation, CO2 taxation, green public

procurement, access to bus (or no car) lanes, privileged entry to access restriction schemes,

reduced (or free) parking, or support to fuelling infrastructure. Rome and Gothenburg were

very positive, followed by Padua – these scores result from the existence in these cities of

Limited Environmental Zones, where demonstrator vehicles had privileged access due to


their environmental profile. This is not the case in Berlin and Newcastle but the answers are

still cautiously positive. The opposite holds true for Graz, where some form of intervention

seems necessary as currently polluting diesel-powered delivery vehicles can enter the city

centre (in specified time windows) but all bikes (including cargo bikes deployed in the

demonstrator) are prohibited from certain pedestrianised shopping streets.

The second parameter measured availability of additional revenue from advertising on the

vehicles themselves. While this seems like a logical goal to pursue, given the fact that

vehicles are clearly visible to the public and their “greener” credentials are fairly evident, the

reality of the demonstrators is such that vehicles were often purchased with subsidies which

determined the livery on the vehicles making advertising impossible at this stage. Operators

of all 4 sites which had this issue admit that they will seek advertising revenue if the

conditions change. The remaining two remain (cautiously) optimistic as the revenue streams

are there but their values could be further improved.

The last parameter in this segment measured if the demonstrators found a fit with existing

policies aiming at increasing sustainability of transport operations in cities (such as

Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan). The answers are clearly very positive with a strong 4.5 as

average.

5.5. PARAMETERS RELATING TO THE TESTS’ SUSTAINABILITY & IMPACT

Parameter: BERLIN GOTHENBURG GRAZ NEWCASTLE PADUA ROME

Sustainability 4 4 3 5 4 5

Image and perception 5 5 4 5 4 5

Impact of consolidation 2 4 4 4 4 5

The first question in this segment was very straightforward - can the operation go on

without subsidy in the foreseeable future? The answers ranged from extremely positive in

Rome and Newcastle (although the latter with an understanding that the university will have

to cover some costs in exchange for the benefits it seeks), through positive in Berlin,

Gothenburg and Padua (where the operations are self-sustainable already) to a (very

cautious) optimism in Graz where the operation is still too small to break-even but it is not

far from it.

The second parameter in this group dealt with public awareness of the demonstrator and

the public’s perceived opinion of it. The answers are uniformly positive with an average of

4.667.


The last parameter in this section measured the impact of consolidation, understood as

reduced number of vehicles in the street. The answers were positive (average of 3.83) but

weighed down by the negative answer from Berlin, where consolidation effect was never

expected as the test involved replacing one polluting vehicle with one non-polluting one. If

you disregard Berlin, the average rises to 4.2 which is a good result, and shows that the

number of vehicles in the streets is being reduced on top of reducing emissions. This is very

important as it is imaginable that reduced payload of cleaner vehicles could lead to the

opposite effect, creating a trade-off between lowered emissions and congestion.


6. DESCRIPTIVE ASSESMENT OF THE DEMONSTRATION

OPERATIONS

This section provides an opportunity for the stakeholders to evaluate the success of their live

demonstrators at different SMARTSET sites with free text rather than numeric values. The

Partners were asked to give their views on a number of aspects which are crucial for

evaluating the demonstrators in relation to the business models developed.

6.1. ASSESSMENT OF KEY SUCCESS FACTORS

The quantitative assessment in section 5 of this document has clearly shown that all

SMARTSET vehicle tests / demonstrators were successful. We have asked their operators

which factors contributed to their success the most.

BERLIN Open minded operator, not afraid to experiment with innovative ideas.

Federal funding for the acquisition of the vehicle.

Close cooperation with the vehicle manufacturer Terberg.

GOTHENBURG The scheme works directly with transport operators;

The vehicles are small enough to blend in a pedestrian zone – appreciated by the community;

True Zero emission vehicles (electricity from renewable sources)

GRAZ The scheme offers clear benefits for end users (shopping without having to carry the goods); benefits for shops (value added on top of the purchase); benefit for the city - promoting gentle mobility (walking, public transport)

NEWCASTLE The use of Logical Framework Analysis workshop at the beginning of the process, which identified the stakeholders who not only had interest but also mandate and access to resources. This process at the beginning insured that only these stakeholders collectively will be able to design and monitor interventions to support clean urban logistics. This process identified not just stakeholders who could collectively deliver but also identified those who could play no effective role either due to lack of interest or appropriate mandate or resources (for example transport operators in the Tyne and Wear region have no mandate to change the pattern of logistics activity since their core business activity is meeting the needs of their customers, their interest in clean urban logistics has to be secondary);

The project that was developed using the LFA workshop was based on the added value for the institution of Newcastle


University of reducing vehicle movement on site. This institutional need constituted value. This value could then be generated and paid for in a business model where the institution controls inbound logistics;

Involvement of an entrepreneurial logistics company willing to invest a lot of money;

NU’s Estates and Procurement managers willing to change organisational policy;

Coherent methodology for implementation based on an over a decade of EU funded research in the field.

PADUA The kind of clean fuel chosen and capacity of vehicles that are suited to geographical area and urban characteristics of the city of Padua and satisfy the performance required by the customers of the services supplied by Cityporto

ROME The consolidation through UFT has determined the reduction of mileage of the distribution system, reducing the number of vehicles and the last mile distances. Traffic reduction results in decrease in fuel consumption and therefore, for vehicles with internal combustion engine, CO2, and NOx reduction. For electric vehicles, the saved emission have been calculated for micrologistic service.

While the schemes themselves differ from one another substantially, a common picture of

the main success factors emerges, which includes:

having a good value proposition to the users,

good planning of both implementation and operation,

the sheer fact that vehicles are cleaner,

involvement of the right stakeholders, with courage, will, mandate and resources,

selecting the right vehicles in terms of propulsion, size, capacity and cost.

6.2. ASSESSMENT OF MAJOR OBSTACLES IN IMPLEMENTATION

BERLIN No vehicle of the necessary size existed, when the project started. Also the registration of the vehicle as a street legal truck, took some development effort and testing (mainly of the break-systems). But altogether, close cooperation with Terberg, and discussions with the authorities in Berlin, helped overcome all of these obstacles.

GOTHENBURG Major difficulties turned out to be:

to involve missing stakeholders in the project (real estate owners, transport companies),


to reach financial sustainability

to get paid. GRAZ Major difficulties turned out to be:

reaching critical mass;

the local regulation stating that bikes (including cargo ones) are

not allowed in the pedestrian zone

NEWCASTLE Major difficulties turned out to be:

market failure to deliver clean urban logistics vehicles of 7.5t and greater;

location of the appropriate logistics space was a potential problem; the city council wished to develop consolidation services but due to administrative boundaries insisted that such a facility would be in Newcastle (wrong side of the river) - this shows the need for large regional initiatives rather than smaller city based ones – ironically, you need the very local to solve the problem but you need to fit it into a bigger network

PADUA The testing of the vehicles has not had any technical obstacles. The obstacles can be referred to a wider implementation of the service due higher costs of acquisition of the vehicles and global managing of the Cityporto scheme compared to tariffs which have not been increased in recent years (due to a continuing economic crisis).

ROME Despite the reduction of the category vehicles emission (Euro 5), some emissions exceed the standard, due to the frequent stop and go and low commercial speed.

High cost of vehicles (hybrid and electric).

For specific logistic chains, the load capacity in volume and weight of the van is not sufficient. It is necessary to involve the builders to design higher load capacity vehicles, in order to optimize loads and deliveries.

The obstacles observed (and overcome) by the proponents of the demonstration schemes

are quite specific to their local situations as it is evidenced in the table above. However they

can be categorised into two major groups:

regulatory limitations

market issues which can be further divided into two distinct subgroups:

o vehicle availability

o business model/financial sustainability


6.3. DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESS MODEL IN A NUTSHELL

This section provides only brief summaries of the business models deployed at SMARTSET

sites in order to provide context to the answers given in the next section (6.4). For full

discussion of the business models, please consult documents produced in WP2.

BERLIN Purchasing costs for the vehicle were about 300% higher than for a conventional Diesel truck. Energy costs about 40% lower and maintenance costs about 30% lower. Revenues come from container transport to customers, as well as from general terminal operations, where the vehicle is additionally used as a yard truck. Purchasing costs were partly (ca. 40%) funded by the federal government, all other costs are being covered by the operator BEHALA.

GOTHENBURG Three sources of revenue:

- transport companies - 60% of turnover - advertising - 10% (the goal is to double this) - public funding 30%.

Stadsleveransen is a non-profit organisation. There is a small profit for the transport operator who runs the operation.

GRAZ Customer buys the goods and leaves them in the shop. Then the goods are delivered by the service at the time specified. The service is paid for by the shop or the customer (depending variant chosen by the shop). Balance of the operation for the period of assessment is about zero.

NEWCASTLE There was external funding for purchase of the vehicle and initial period of running the demonstrator. The current business model delivers value to the institution by reducing the number of vehicles on site, with a target of reducing freight vehicles by 40%. This is achieved by routing appropriate inbound logistics through a consolidation centre. The operation is run as a marginal cost activity inside existing logistics operation by a third party logistics company (Clipper). The price for Clipper is marginal and is paid by the Newcastle University. The 3PL can recruit additional institutional customers and make it a business case. The majority of suppliers cannot account for savings and it is debatable if changing the delivery address in the same area brings any savings (they might be still coming to the whereabouts - critical mass is still important). The only observed difficulty in the business model are small pockets of institutional resistance to losing control of their inbound logistics (for example one electrical engineering department orders parts at 10PM the day before delivery)

PADUA The cost of vehicles (most of which have already been completely depreciated) was covered partly by own sources and partly with public funding. The cost of handling/drivers (sub-contractors) is paid for by Interporto (Manager of the service). IT development and maintenance are


performed by Interporto’s internal staff. The Urban Distribution Centre is a property of Interporto. Revenues: Customers pay the tariffs for the services provided. Balance: yes, in profit

ROME The introduction of the service resulted in the reduction of management costs, despite the breakage of loads. This was observed because of the increase in utilisation time and the volume of the vehicles This scheme is very useful for just in time deliveries.

6.4. ASSESSMENT OF THE BUSINESS MODEL’S POTENTIAL FOR

IMPROVEMENT

This section describes the modifications the SMARTSET partners would like to introduce to

the business models of the demonstrators, described briefly in 6.3 above.

BERLIN The business model has already been sound and well working with conventional diesel trucks, so there is no real need for improvement. As a general rule: operators are not willing to use electric vehicles differently than conventional vehicles, so that specialised business models are usually not successful.

GOTHENBURG Considering increasing price as they are low. This will make the operation self-sustainable.

GRAZ More volume, more shops.

NEWCASTLE The business model seems optimal.

PADUA Saving of costs (lower costs of subcontractors or part of the services provided by internal staff, such as support in the UDC); Increasing of number of deliveries performed; Implementing new services;

ROME Integrating the testing scenarios in the freight strategy plan as recommended by Mobility Master Plan

The modifications to business models proposed above are none, marginal or incremental,

with the exception of Padua, which is the demonstrator with the longest history and would

like to see a certain shift in responsibilities. Other partners are happy with the set-up – who

pays for what – and in some cases only wish the volume, the tariffs or geographic scope of

the operation to be extended. However it has to be stressed that their operations have been

running for a relatively short time and with a longer history of operations, more necessary

improvements to the business models may become apparent.


6.5. ASSESSMENT OF THE DEMONSTRATORS’ TRANSFERABILITY POTENTIAL

In this section, partners expressed their opinions on what basic conditions would have to be

met in order to implement their scheme elsewhere.

BERLIN Lower purchasing costs for the vehicle, either through funding or through a long-term price decrease. The biggest factor is the cost of batteries so any progress in this area would be most welcome.

GOTHENBURG Limited Environmental Zone of some kind is necessary.

GRAZ All that is needed is a pedestrianised shopping district with good access by gentle mobility.

NEWCASTLE Strong institutional need for added value that is not necessarily to do with the delivery cost on the final invoice and the willingness to use procurement policy to achieve that value; since the public sector (universities hospitals schools etc.) often have corporate values that are not wholly driven by the bottom line and generate significant volumes of inbound logistics in city centres, this is then a more productive route to achieve clean urban logistics than those that focus on transport operators city government and shippers.

PADUA Support of Municipality and other public stakeholders; Neutrality of operator with respect to other players in the market.

ROME Identify the role of administration, logistics operators and stakeholders involved and the strategy toward a sustainable urban freight distribution.

Most SMARTSET sites reported above that in order to replicate their solution in a another

location, there is a clear need for the regulatory framework that makes such schemes

possible and/or attractive in terms of value to the market oriented players. An access

restriction scheme was overtly mentioned by 1/3 of respondents. Half of the demonstrator

operators listed the involvement of the right stakeholders, including the public ones and

receivers. Only Berlin (with the most expensive vehicle) mentioned the prohibitive cost of

the tuck to be a factor hindering transferability.

6.6. DESCRIPTION OF THE FUTURE PLANS FOR THE DEMONSTARTORS

Since the project is drawing to a close it is vital to understand what is happening with cleaner vehicle

trials/demonstrators in the future, after the project is finished. Apart from the scientific work, the incentives

and regulations, the extended life of the demos could be the true legacy of this project. Below are partner’s

plans regarding the cleaner vehicle trials.


BERLIN The truck will be operating well beyond the end of the project. BEHALA has purchased the vehicle and is planning on using it within its fleet.

GOTHENBURG Adding volume – new vehicle is coming – a new street to be included. Also to include transport operators with smaller volumes than the ones already involved.

GRAZ There are plans to extend it, include more shops, and intensify the promotion.

NEWCASTLE There are plans to bring more customers. The consolidation centre should move to a closer location. The number of suppliers involved is to be ramped up. The operating costs should go down and the university expects to sign a longer contract (3-5 years) with the operator. Due to its originality and paradigm-shifting nature, it is very likely that this scheme will be copied throughout Europe or even become a policy standard for achieving cleaner urban logistics.

PADUA Implementing new services (i.e. management of city point of collection of the goods for the e-commerce products) and widening of the distribution of perishables goods to new customers

ROME There is a plan to create a network of urban freight terminals not only close to LTZ, but also in semi-central areas, with EV charging points.

It is clearly a big success of the project that none of the vehicle demonstrators has ended

prematurely or is finishing with the end of the project. They all remain operational and have

plans to expand further.


7. CONCLUSIONS

This document reflects self-assessment of 6 SMARTSET demonstrations of cleaner vehicles

for freight.

The first part of the assessment had a quantitative character. The partners evaluated their

tests on 15 parameters (resulting from D4.1), using a scale from 0 (failure) to 5 (spectacular

success). If one disregards the 6 N?A (not applicable scores) the average across all 6 sites and

all 15 parameters is 4.1 – which is a very positive result.

The parameters relating to cleaner vehicles’ reliability and range showed very strong positive

results but the costs of purchasing them yielded mixed results, confirming the overall

perception that freight vehicles propelled by electricity (at 200-300% the price of equivalent

diesel vehicle) are still too expensive.

The parameter reflecting the degree to which the amount of cargo moved during the tests

matched the expectations delivered mixed results, with none of the tests scoring 5. Slightly

better was the energy&environmental performance with some 5s and only one 2 as the

lowest – this set of parameters confirms that the scale of cleaner vehicles operations is

somewhat disappointing while the energy and Emissions profiles are appreciated.

Cost, availability and timeliness of service and maintenance for the vehicles scored rather

high, doing away with a myth that low production volume cleaner vehicles are a technical

and operational risk – combined with high reliability scores this is a very good prognostics

for the future.

Taking advantage of public support schemes for cleaner vehicles was evaluated rather low in

most sites – this is a result of more schemes being focused on passenger vehicles than

freight ones, clearly there is room for improvement in Europe. And it is worth noting that

this negative sentiment appeared despite the fact that all tests were in line with strategic

policy document for the sector.

Evaluating financial sustainability potential brought about mostly very positive results and

the publicity effects of demonstrators were even better. The results of measuring the

consolidation effect were slightly worse but still positive.

The second part of the document provided qualitative self-assessment of the present and

the future of the 6 demonstrators. The most striking findings are:


- it is crucial to plan the test well, select the best vehicle(s) for the situation and

involve relevant stakeholders

- there are still regulatory limitations hindering such tests and the market for cleaner

vehicles and services provided with their assistance is still volatile

- the business models developed in SMARTSET are evaluated positively and need to be

extended rather than substantially modified

- the tests could be easily replicated elsewhere in Europe, providing there is support of

public stakeholders and/or an access restriction scheme in place

- all cleaner vehicle tests are to be extended beyond the life of SMARTSET.

Documents

Assessment of clean vehicle performance in relation to ...smartset-project.eu/sites/default/files/files/file_uploads/SMART... · Assessment of clean vehicle performance in relation