The use of urban consolidation centre’s (UCC’s) as a possible solution to urban freight problems has become a “recurring theme” in urban freight research; and experiences across Europe provide an opportunity to compare and contrast the potential for more widespread adoption (Browne, 1997, p122). As part of the Green Logistics Project, Browne et al. (2007c) completed a detailed predominately UK literature review of logistics activities in urban areas relating to the economic, social and environmental impacts of freight operations. They highlighted the importance of road freight
movements in urban goods distribution and presented a variety of solutions to the problems of distributing urban freight identified by freight operators, most notably the introduction of UCC’s as defined in the previous chapter (section 2.4.5).
The main objective for a UCC is to avoid multiple part-loaded goods vehicles operating in the urban area (city centre, town or specific site such as a construction site or
shopping centre). Therefore, by providing a transhipment hub for all incoming urban goods which are then distributed efficiently within the urban area in a consolidated ‘milk-round’, using fewer, better utilized delivery vehicles (Allen et al. 2010). Browne et al. (2005b) determined three types of UCC: Special projects set up for non-retail purposes; single site UCC’s with one landlord; and UCC’s that serve a town or city. All three types of UCC has the potential to offer a range of services from basic
consolidation to a plethora of value-adding activities such as stockholding, labeling and pricing, waste collection and goods return services (ibid). UCC’s that have been
developed for a special project often service a single site for a given length of time, for example the Heathrow Airport construction consolidation centre used during the creation of the new terminal five. Single site UCC’s are usually built as a single development for an airport or shopping centre and can be incorporated into a site during the planning phase (e.g. Meadowhall shopping centre, Sheffield and Heathrow Airport retail UCC), and landlords can enforce their use. The third type that serve either a town or city are often established to serve the specific needs of a geographic areas, for example using a UCC to minimize the impact on a historical centre (e.g. La
Rochelle in France) or to reduce the number of deliveries made to a specific retail area (e.g. Broadmead in Bristol).
UCC schemes are a popular option amongst transport planners as they can be used to help alleviate traffic congestion and reduce environmental impacts of freight in urban areas, as well as provide the opportunity to promote ‘last mile’ delivery using electric or hybrid vehicles (Browne et al, 2011; Allen et al, 2012). However they are less attractive to shippers who are tasked with using them, as ultimately they have to relinquish control of their clients’ goods. The review of UCC schemes by Browne et al. (2005b) revealed that they are most common in Western European countries such as Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK, although another notable example is the Tenjin distribution scheme, in Fukuoka, Japan that was established in 1978. It was also noted by Browne et al. (2005b, p12-13) that the more successful schemes tended to be those operated by a single commercial enterprise as opposed to “a ‘co-operative’ of local authorities, transport companies and consignees all of whom tend to have conflicting objectives and financial goals”. Therefore further work by Browne et al (2007b) attempted to differentiate the conflicting interests between the different actors involved in a UCC by allocating potential costs and benefits amongst them. The
following Table 3-4 illustrates some of these complex trade-offs involved with allocating the potential costs and benefits of a UCC amongst the different actors.
Costs Benefits Supplier • Not a single “door-to-door”
operation.
• Less time spent making deliveries in cities, leading to reduced operating costs • Potential to use time savings to generate additional revenue Transport
Provider
• Security
• Loss of control over timed deliveries/responsibility
• Perceived increase in damage through extra handling
• Additional handling/delivery charges – could be passed to supplier as “surcharge”
• Routes involving UCCs allow more deliveries per day • Opportunity for night
deliveries
• Helps counter WTD driver shortage
• Greater efficiency as no time spent slow running in town/parking problems etc. • Less slow running = improved fuel usage Receivers • Additional stage when chasing
missing/late deliveries
• Improved delivery reliability • Fewer deliveries/less staff disruption
• Ability to call-off orders in parts
• Clients able to collect purchases from UCC • Less storage/more selling space
• Off-site value-added activities
• Improved retailing (street) environment
• Continuous waste removal/recycling
• Clients avoid travelling to store to collect orders – collect at UCC
Local authority • Cost of policing freight movements
• Potential licensing revenue • Fewer delivery vehicles in zone, leading to cleaner air, less congestion, pedestrian benefits and improved traffic flow
• Potential for alternative fuel vehicles
UCC operator • Multitude of IT & paperwork systems to handle but not if UCC is considered final delivery point and operator has own system to cover the
“last mile”
• Timed deliveries – how to service
• Responsibility for identifying losses/damages at intake stage
Developer (new retail sites only)
• Cost of establishing UCC if condition of planning consent
• A revenue stream, either if managed in-house or additional charge on rent • More rentable space as result of centralised receipt point and less “in- store” storage
space
• Single UCC makes whole site more attractive with fewer freight vehicle movements Table 3-4 Potential costs and benefits for each actor involved with an UCC (Browne et al, 2007b, p55)
The allocation of costs and benefits shown in Table 3.4 indicate the contrast in actor perspectives towards UCC’s, which to some extent supports the assumption that UCC schemes lead to increased costs for freight transport operators (Allen et al, 2012). This highlights the importance of sharing costs and benefits equitably between those
involved, so as to ensure a UCC’s success (Browne et al, 2007b). Another factor that could influence the success of an UCC is the importance of involving all potential actors in the initial discussion and planning phases; since active involvement in the decision making process is likely to achieve greater commitment to a scheme (Ibid). This reinforces the need for more joint decision making and stakeholder involvement in planning decisions, especially where it involves and impacts on private sector
companies, as well as local authorities.
3.6 Chapter Summary
Urban freight plays a fundamental role in the provision of goods and services that are necessary to support and sustain urban life. As the proportion of people choosing to reside in urban areas continues to grow, so does the demand for urban logistics; which requires an efficient goods distribution system. Due to the limited availability of viable alternatives, road transport is most often used to distribute goods within towns and cities however, this can lead to problems such as traffic congestion and negative environmental impacts, for which there are no standard or easily applicable solutions. Despite the completion of several large scale research projects such as BESTUFS over the last decade that have investigated the potential for innovative urban freight solutions and examined the social and environmental impacts of logistics activities in urban areas (Allen et al, 2007), these innovative solutions have yet to find widespread adoption.
Transport planning literature has identified local government as a critical player in the field of urban freight transport, both as a proactive facilitator of freight movements and as the arbiter of road space. However, there is a diverse set of stakeholders involved in
urban freight operations, with whom it has become necessary for local authorities to consult during the development of new strategies. Therefore, many countries,
particularly in Europe have adopted some form of partnership between the public and private sectors (such as FQP’s in the UK) as a way to bring together different
stakeholder groups, and tackle the current gaps in local authorities’ knowledge of urban freight so that freight becomes a properly integrated part of urban transport planning. However, as Allen et al. (2010) reported in their survey of FQP’s in the UK, whilst these partnerships have successfully brought together a variety of stakeholders (mainly local authorities and freight trade associations) and achieved greater awareness of freight issues; there remains in many cases, a general lack of involvement from private sector freight and servicing operators. This is possibly due to the complexity in identifying individual private sector stakeholders, which is perhaps too difficult a task for under resourced local authorities to organise. There was also evidence to suggest that some FQP’s are at risk of becoming “talking shops” since some respondents reported a lack of focus and direction, which can lead to few tangible outputs (Allen et al, 2010, p39). As such, the second stage of this research focused on developing facilitated
workshops to improve stakeholder engagement in freight transport planning and policy making; that was designed to guide both public and private sector stakeholders through a collaborative decision making process.
The next chapter reviews the role of decision analysis in structuring a problem and assessing the possible impacts of potential alternative solutions. It also presents a review of some decision making frameworks that were reviewed for potential use in a freight stakeholder workshop to address urban transport problems.