Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
neighbourhood and used by several companies without providing a public service
(Bordeaux, Paris, Rouen) and private UCCs, like those of Chronopost and
Samada-Monoprix (Paris), Colizen and La Petite Reine (several cities in France).
Germany has also developed several UCCs, but the existing experiments rep-
resent less than 40 % of the total number projected. This can be explained by the
fact that German UCCs have generally been developed by consortiums of private
companies, without public funding to support their construction and operational
cost balancing, although research and development funds and regulatory support
have been provided by the authorities in some cases. Indeed, German UCCs are an
example of the absence of direct intervention by public authorities. This makes the
number of successful UCCs lower than those in France or Italy, but with a stronger
connection to the market and the business development of the transport operators
concerned.
The German UCC success rate, lower than in France and Italy, remains how-
ever, higher than in countries like the United Kingdom or The Netherlands, for
which support from public authorities did not suffice for operational logistics
schemes, resulting in only a very small number of UCCs still functioning (about
20-30 % of the total number of projects). Other countries have also set up UCCs
to a lesser degree, but the results are not encouraging, with only a 30 % success
rate for all the UCCs initiated. It is noteworthy than in both cases, the UCC
systems were supported by the public authorities, mainly in the form of strong
regulation policies, but with less financial support than in France and Italy.
Other interesting cases have been observed in Sweden and Switzerland, with
schemes similar to British and Dutch UCCs. The success rate is still low, but
several lessons can be learnt from them. Finally, the remaining Southwest Euro-
pean countries (Greece, Portugal and Spain) are only starting to consider the
question and follow the French and Italian initiatives. However, the problem of
financial support to ensure UCC continuity is still an important obstacle to their
development and assessment.
As most of these experiments show, a UCC needs major initial investment in
terms of infrastructure, facilities and human and technical resources (including
delivery vehicles), which are often supplemented by public financial support. This
support is not always enough, as operational costs are not always covered by the
overall income of the UCC. Moreover, transport operators still remain reticent
about using UCCs under some conditions, because the schemes related to these
logistics platforms suppose at least one additional transhipment. The main limits to
using UCC systems are grouped in the following categories (Ville et al.
2012
):
• Legislation. Although it can be seen as a factor favouring UCC development in
many cases (restrictions on access to some areas of the city for non-UCC
vehicles can help the development of UCCs), legislation can also be a limitation
when related to freight compatibility, i.e. the norms and laws that forbid the
loading of a vehicle with products of different sorts (for example dangerous
goods, fresh food, waste, raw materials, etc.) or when dealing with competition
laws that can limit the development of sharing approaches.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search