CITYLAB – City Logistics in Living Laboratories EUROPEAN COMMISSION INNOVATION and NETWORKS EXECUTIVE AGENCY HORIZON 2020 PROGRAMME for RESEARCH and INNOVATION Reducing impacts and costs of freight and service trips in urban areas (Topic: MG-5.2-2014) Grant agreement no: 635898 Deliverable 5.4 Sustainability analysis of the CITYLAB solutions CITYLAB – City Logistics in Living Laboratories Document Control Sheet Project no.: 635898 Acronym CITYLAB Project Title City Logistics in Living Laboratories Work Package WP 5 Title: Evaluation Deliverable no.: D 5.4 Title: Sustainability analysis of CITYLAB solutions Version 1 Revision 0 Issue Date 29 September 2017 Dissemination Level Public Future references CITYLAB Deliverable D 5.4 Sustainability analysis of the CITYLAB solutions Author(s) Nina Nesterova, Tariq van Rooijen, Stefan Talen (TNO), Sara Verlinde and Bram Kin (VUB) Laetitia Dablanc and Zeting Liu (IFSTTAR); Edoardo Marcucci and Valerio Gatta Co-author(s) (UR3); Fraser McLeod (SOTON); Olav Eidhammer and Tale Orving (TOI); Jacques Leonardi (University of Westminster) WP Leader VUB Internal Reviewer Jardar Andersen (TOI), Fraser McLeod (SOTON) Project Manager Andrea Arcelli (INEA) CITYLAB consortium by Living Lab Living lab Municipal partner(s) Industry partner(s) Research partner(s) Brussels Brussels Mobility Procter & Gamble Services Vrije Universiteit Brussel London Transport for London TNT University of Westminster Gnewt Cargo University of Gothenburg Oslo Oslo kommune Steen & Strøm TOI Paris Mairie de Paris IFSTTAR DLR Randstat Gemeente Rotterdam PostNL TNO Rome Roma Capitale Poste Italiane Università degli studi Roma Tre MeWare SRL Southampton Southampton City Council Meachers Global Logistics University of Southampton Networking and outreach partner POLIS D5.4 – Sustainability analysis of the CITYLAB solutions 2 CITYLAB – City Logistics in Living Laboratories List of tables 6 List of figures 8 Executive summary 10 1 Introduction 12 1.1 Background and overview of CITYLAB 12 1.2 Scope of the deliverable 15 1.3 Deliverable structure 15 2 Methodology 16 2.1 Impact assessment and upscaling 16 2.2 Impact assessment and upscaling tools 18 2.2.1 Business model canvas 18 2.2.2 Agent-based model SYMBIT 19 2.2.3 CITYLAB Dashboards 20 2.2.4 Multi-actor multi-criteria analysis description and methodology 20 3 Amsterdam 28 3.1 Implementation description and its effects 28 3.1.1 Business as usual versus CITYLAB implementation 28 3.1.2 Role of stakeholders 29 3.1.3 Effects from CITYLAB implementation 30 3.2 Stakeholder support for Amsterdam solution 32 3.3 Upscaling of Amsterdam implementation 33 3.3.1 Baseline for upscaling 33 3.3.2 Upscaling scenario A: All delivery by electric freight bike 34 3.3.3 Upscaling scenario B: CITYLAB solution applied to another city 35 4 Brussels 36 4.1 Implementation description and its effects 36 4.1.1 Business as usual versus CITYLAB implementation 36 4.1.2 Role of stakeholders 38 4.1.3 Effects from CITYLAB implementation 39 4.2 Stakeholder support for Brussels solution 44 4.3 Upscaling of Brussels implementation 46 4.3.1 Baseline for upscaling 46 4.3.2 Upscaling CITYLAB Brussels implementation 46 5 London 54 5.1 Implementation description and its effects 54 5.1.1 Business as usual versus CITYLAB implementation 54 5.1.2 Role of stakeholders 55 5.1.3 Effects from CITYLAB implementation 56 5.2 Stakeholder support for London solution 60 5.3 Upscaling of London solution 62 5.3.1 Baseline for upscaling 62 D5.4 – Sustainability analysis of the CITYLAB solutions 3 CITYLAB – City Logistics in Living Laboratories 5.3.2 Upscaling scenario A: The volumes through Gnewt will increase by at least 20% per year in the next 5 years. 63 Overall, upscaling of this solution will: 65 5.3.3 Upscaling scenario B: When more companies start using electric vehicle for the last mile. 65 6 Rome 67 6.1 Implementation description and its effects 67 6.1.1 Business as usual versus CITYLAB implementation 67 6.1.2 Role stakeholders 67 6.1.3 Effects from CITYLAB implementation 68 6.2 Stakeholder support for Rome solution 71 6.3 Upscaling of Rome solution 72 6.3.1 Baseline for upscaling 72 6.3.2 Upscaling scenario A: Citylab solution applied to the whole Rome territory 72 6.3.3 Upscaling scenario B: CITYLAB solution applied to different materials 74 7 Oslo 76 7.1 Implementation description and its effects 76 7.1.1 Business as usual versus CITYLAB implementation 76 7.1.2 Role of stakeholders 77 7.1.3 Effects from CITYLAB implementation 78 7.2 Stakeholder support for Oslo solution 83 7.3 Upscaling of Oslo solution 85 7.3.1 Baseline for upscaling 85 7.3.2 Upscaling scenario A: Citylab solution applied to all biggest shopping centres in Oslo and Akershus 87 7.3.3 Upscaling scenario B: CITYLAB solution applied to all big and medium shopping centres in Oslo and Akershus 89 8 Paris 91 8.1 Chapelle logistics hotel: implementation description and its effects 91 8.1.1 Business as usual versus CITYLAB implementation 91 8.1.2 Role of stakeholders 92 8.1.3 Effects from CITYLAB Chapelle implementation 93 8.2 Upscaling of Chapelle logistics hotel functions at full capacity 95 8.3 Beaugrenelle urban delivery centre: Implementation description and its effects 96 8.3.1 Business as usual versus CITYLAB implementation 96 8.3.2 Role of stakeholders 97 8.3.3 Effects from CITYLAB Beaugrenelle implementation 98 8.3.4 Stakeholder support for Beaugrenelle solution 98 8.3.5 Upscaling scenario: Chronopost uses only clean vehicles in Beaugrenelle 99 9 Southampton 100 9.1 Southampton Sustainable Distribution Centre: implementation description and its effects 100 9.1.1 Business as usual versus CITYLAB implementation 100 9.1.2 Role of stakeholders 102 9.1.3 Effects from CITYLAB Southampton consolidation implementation 102 9.2 Upscaling of Southampton SSDC solution 105 9.2.1 Baseline for upscaling 105 D5.4 – Sustainability analysis of the CITYLAB solutions 4 CITYLAB – City Logistics in Living Laboratories 9.2.2 Upscaling scenario: All residence halls of University of Southampton and Southampton Solent University use consolidation centre for combined deliveries 105 9.3 Small electric vehicles: Implementation description and its effects 106 9.3.1 Business as usual versus CITYLAB implementation 106 9.3.2 Role of stakeholders 108 9.3.3 Effects from CITYLAB Southampton electric vehicles implementations 108 9.4 Upscaling scenario: 50% of municipality fleet is switched to electric vehicles 112 10 Conclusions 114 11 References 120 ANNEX 1 125 ANNEX 2 130 ANNEX 3 134 ANNEX 4 141 ANNEX 5 149 ANNEX 6 153 D5.4 – Sustainability analysis of the CITYLAB solutions 5 CITYLAB – City Logistics in Living Laboratories List of tables Table 1. CITYLAB axes for intervention and implementations. .............................................................. 12 Table 2. Analysis of Living Lab implementations and their expected positive economic, social and environmental impacts. ............................................................................................................................ 13 Table 3. List of stakeholders and criteria used for the CITYALB MAMCA analyses ..................................... 24 Table 4. Justification of weights used for the CITYLAB MAMCA analyses ................................................ 25 Table 5. Stakeholders participating in Amsterdam CITYLAB solution ...................................................... 30 Table 6. Baseline for upscaling CITYLAB Amsterdam implementation .................................................... 33 Table 7. Amsterdam and Utrecht population and surface ..................................................................... 35 Table 8. Participating stakeholders in the Brussels CITYLAB solution ..................................................... 38 Table 9. Comparison modern retail – traditional retail (Blanco & Fransoo, 2013) ....................................... 40 Table 10. Overview results upscaling scenarios Brussels implementation ................................................ 49 Table 12. Participating stakeholders in London CITYLAB solution .......................................................... 55 Table 13. TNT distance reduction (Gnewt Cargo data from September 2016) ........................................... 58 Table 14. CO2 reduction effect (Gnewt Cargo data, September 2016) .................................................... 59 Table 15. Energy reduction (Gnewt Cargo data, September 2016) ......................................................... 59 Table 16. Reduction in empty distance (Gnewt Cargo data, September 2016) .......................................... 60 Table 17. Overview of strategic business indicators relevant for baseline, tests and future scenarios ............. 62 Table 18. Key effects of scenario A ................................................................................................. 64 Table 19. Participating stakeholders in Rome CITYLAB solution ............................................................ 67 Table 20. Baseline for upscaling Rome CITYLAB implementation .......................................................... 72 Table 21. Participating stakeholders in Oslo CITYLAB solution ............................................................. 77 Table 22. Time spent on freight delivery activities without common logistics function .................................. 81 Table 23. Potential value creation for the actors involved ..................................................................... 82 Table 24. Baseline for upscaling of CITYLAB Oslo