Problems associated with urban freight

In 1977, Hicks conducted one of the earliest studies into urban freight in which he identified and provided descriptions of three key factors contributing to the urban freight problem: the under-utilization of goods vehicles, traffic congestion and the lack of adequate loading/unloading facilities. As part of this study, Hicks (1977) was also able to draw attention to the various costs that freight transport incurs, which include transport operating costs, community costs, external costs, and urban infrastructure costs.

More recently, the combination of high population densities that incur and maintain a high demand for goods and services in urban areas, and the limited opportunities to expand or improve urban road infrastructure have led to an amplification of the

problems associated with urban freight (Stanchev and Whiteing, 2006). These include: traffic congestion, environmental issues (i.e. pollution and green house gas emissions), and traffic safety and accidents (Stanchev and Whiteing, 2006; Konstantinopoulou, 2010; Allen et al, 2010). As the tendency for just in time replenishment grows,

Konstantinopoulou (2010) reports that these issues are becoming more severe, which has further fragmented the volume of goods being delivered at once by one vehicle; therefore, resulting in a rise in the number of less than full goods vehicles operating in urban areas and an increase in emissions from freight vehicles. As well as having a negative effect on society, in terms of health implications and decreasing quality of life, the impacts of these problems hinder the efficiency and effectiveness of logistics and transport operations in urban areas (Stanchev and Whiteing, 2006).

Generally local authorities attempt to solve these problems or minimize their impact by imposing restrictions in order to manage urban freight. Many cities have introduced a variety of transport demand management measures and policies, as previously discussed in Chapter Two. Although there are many examples of TDM measures and policies that can negatively impact on urban freight operations, it is also important to note that freight movements can cause some of the problems experienced in urban areas. In particular, freight can have a significant impact on traffic congestion in the urban area as well as being a source of negative environmental impacts. The next two sub-sections discuss urban freights impact on traffic congestion and the environment in more detail.

3.3.1 Urban freight and traffic congestion

In urban areas particularly, freight transport both contributes to traffic congestion and is affected by it. As urban areas expand and the number of people migrating to towns and cities continues to grow, urban traffic congestion increases; which as Anderson et al. (2005) explains, hinders improvements in the efficiency of freight operations. Whilst goods distribution in cities contributes significantly to the rising levels of traffic

congestion it is largely neglected by local authorities, who instead focus their research and planning on passenger transport (Hensher and Puckett, 2005). The DFT (2008) suggests that congestion most often occurs at “pinch points” on the road network, and that its localised and sporadic nature makes it very difficult to evaluate freight’s

contribution to road congestion.

For every HGV on Britain’s roads, there are an estimated sixty cars registered, which means that cars and HGV’s share responsibility for congestion caused by insufficient capacity on the road network (DFT, 2008). For example, when an HGV or van is engaged in loading / unloading activities, a common occurrence in urban areas, the congestion caused can reduce the road capacity by up to fifty percent overall, which doubles to one hundred percent in one direction (ibid). The resulting delays caused by traffic congestion contribute to a further problem for all users of the road network – unpredictability, and therefore unreliability of journey times, that according to the DFT (2008) is a far greater issue than overall journey time.

Policies used to curb congestion are mainly of a regulatory nature and local authorities apply a host of measures such as parking restrictions, public transport subsidies, and the reallocation of existing road space to tackle urban congestion. However, a more severe policy measure that is frequently examined by governments and discussed by researchers to combat this problem long-term is the implementation of congestion charging schemes. As explained in the previous chapter two (section 2.4.9) congestion charging schemes force drivers (or fleet operating companies) to pay a fee to access a

particular geographical area during a set time period; thus the objective being to reduce levels of traffic congestion on roads within the charging zone (Anderson et al. 2005). Although the objective of reducing traffic congestion is high on government policy agendas, the role of congestion charging schemes and their effectiveness in delivering benefits to urban freight distribution are poorly understood.

A study by Holguín-Veras et al (2006) attempted to investigate the impacts of time of day road pricing schemes in congested urban areas on the behaviour of freight operators, using the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) as a case study. The results revealed that freight operators are often significantly restricted in how they can respond to such a policy. For many of the operators interviewed, constraints imposed by their customers for peak time deliveries make it difficult for them to switch to and make use of the off-peak operating hours encouraged by time of day pricing. Furthermore, many operators have to absorb the charges themselves without passing them onto their customers. This is generally because many operators agree contracts for transport services based on distance travelled as opposed to time of day and tolls; and in urban areas it is common for multiple customers to be served in the same trip, which dilutes the overall financial impact of the charge. Therefore, Holguín-Veras et al (2006) recommend that for congestion charging aimed at reducing truck traffic to be successful, it needs to be implemented as part of a wider set of comprehensive policies that also target the receivers of urban freight; since they are responsible for deriving its demand.

3.3.2 Urban freight and the impact on the environment

Urban freight is a significant source of negative environmental impacts, in particular local air and noise pollution that affects not only the quality of life, but also causes negative health implications for the most vulnerable urban dwellers (Allen and Browne, 2010; Quak and De Koster, 2009).

In the UK, statistics reveal that there are approximately 460,600 registered HGVs and 3.2 million LGVs on Britain’s roads, compared to the 28.7 million private cars that are registered (DFT, 2013). However, studies have shown that the movement of goods in HGVs and LGVs accounts for approximately 20% to 30% of urban vehicle-kilometres, and some 16% to 50% of air pollutants emitted by transport (Dablanc, 2007) and that “the significance of urban freight to unsustainable impacts compared to passenger transport is growing” (Lindholm, 2010, p6207). Earlier estimates had reported that despite freight vehicles accounting for only a small proportion of the vehicles in cities (10% to 18%), they are responsible for approximately 40% of the air pollution and noise emissions (European Commission, 2006).

Efforts to address the negative environmental impacts of urban freight transport typically involve the implementation of policy measures and restrictions by local

authorities, for which some examples were presented in the previous chapter. For local authorities, these measures are aimed at improving one or more of the economic, social or environmental impacts of urban freight movements (Allen and Browne, 2010). Local authorities have come under increased pressure to meet stringent EU targets on air quality, and since the movement of freight by road is a major contributor to transport emissions (DFT, 2008), they have focused their attention on the emissions from

commercial vehicles.

This general drive towards reducing emissions from transport has further led to some areas introducing emissions based policies, as explained in the previous chapter two (section 2.4.4). One example is the creation of a low emissions zone, whereby only vehicles that meet strict emissions criteria are permitted to enter and operate within a particular location. Such policies tend to be implemented in locations where levels of air pollution are significant enough to cause a danger to public health (Allen and Browne, 2010). In 2008, a Low Emission Zone (LEZ) was introduced across a wide area of Greater London to encourage commercial vehicles to become cleaner by penalizing those operators whose vehicles do not meet the minimum required standard. Within this zone is the London Congestion Charge (LCC) area. The LCC is primarily focused on the reduction of congestion, but it is complementary to the LEZ scheme in the sense that electric vehicles are exempt from the congestion charge, providing an additional incentive for freight operators and other road users to adopt electric vehicle technology. Despite being considered as a good way of improving urban air quality, ex-ante

research by Browne et al (2005a) suggested that an LEZ causes significantly higher operating costs for freight operators to ensure that vehicles are compliant with the scheme. In addition, LEZ’s could potentially mean higher costs for businesses located within the zone due to potentially higher transport costs for delivery and collection of goods.