Docstoc

Paris_ France

Document Sample
Paris_ France Powered By Docstoc
					     Grant Agreement nº.SCS8-GA-2009-234061

     Coordination and support action (Coordinating)

     FP7-TRANSPORT SST.2008.3.1.4. Urban delivery systems

     Project acronym: TURBLOG_WW

     Project title: Transferability of urban logistics concepts and practices from a world wide perspective




                                         Deliverable 3.1
        Urban logistics practices – Paris Case Study


                                     Due date of deliverable: 28th February 2011

                                           Submission date: 10th March 2011



              Start date of project: October 2009                                     Duration: 24 months

                                          NEA Transport research and training

                                                                                            Version 1.0

        Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme
                                                  Dissemination Level
PU           Public
PP           Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)
RE           Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)            X
CO           Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)
Foreword
The TURBLOG Deliverable 3.1 was produced by Laetitia Dablanc, INRETS.


The review of the document was made by:
Nathaly Dasburg, NEA
Rosário Macário, TIS.PT
Maria Rodrigues, TIS.PT
Ana Gama, TIS.PT




This document is set to be Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (RE), and should be
referenced as:


  “TURBLOG (2011) Transferability of urban logistics concepts and practices from a world wide
            perspective - Deliverable 3.1 - Urban logistics practices – Paris Case study”




QUALITY CONTROL INFORMATION:

 Version           Date                                        Description
   0.1         31/08/2010        TURBLOG D3.1 Draft version
   0.2         05/10/2010        TURBLOG D3.1 Final version to be revised
   0.3         15/11/2010        TURBLOG D3.1 Final version after revision
   0.4         30/11/2011        TURBLOG D3.1 Final version for quality control
   0.5         20/0 1/2011       TURBLOG D3.1 Final version after quality control
Final 1.0       10/3/2011        Submission of TURBLOG D3.1 final version to the EC




  TURBLOG D3.1: Urban Logistics practices – Paris Case study                                ii
                                            TABLE OF CONTENTS


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1

1    Introduction......................................................................................................... 3

    1.1   Objective of the report...................................................................................... 3

    1.2   Scope and methodology ..................................................................................... 3

    1.3   Report structure .............................................................................................. 5

2    Overview of France and the City of Paris ..................................................................... 6

    2.1   The City of Paris in the macro context ................................................................... 6

    2.2   Urban freight in Paris ....................................................................................... 12

    2.3   Urban transport problems in Paris ........................................................................ 20

3    Institutional framework and current transport and logistics policies ................................... 23

    3.1   At the national level ........................................................................................ 23

    3.2   At the Paris urban level .................................................................................... 27

4    Measures used in Paris ........................................................................................... 36

    4.1   A long term policy ........................................................................................... 36

    4.2   Traditional but updated policies.......................................................................... 37

    4.3   Innovative policies .......................................................................................... 39

5    Good practice #1: Chronopost Concorde ..................................................................... 43

    5.1   Introduction .................................................................................................. 43

    5.2   Measures ...................................................................................................... 44

    5.3   Evaluation of Chronopost .................................................................................. 48

6    Good practice #2: la Petite Reine ............................................................................. 55

    6.1   Presentation of la petite reine ............................................................................ 55

    6.2   Evaluation of la Petite Reine .............................................................................. 60

7    Good practice #3: freight oriented Master Plan ............................................................. 66


    TURBLOG D3.1: Urban Logistics practices – Paris Case study                                                   iii
    7.1    General presentation of the freight orientation of the Paris Master Plan ........................ 66

    7.2    Evaluation of the Freight Oriented Paris Master Plan ................................................. 69

8     Good practice #4: Monoprix Rail Project ..................................................................... 76

    8.1    Introduction .................................................................................................. 76

    8.2    General description of the measure ..................................................................... 77

    8.3    Evaluation of Monoprix rail project ...................................................................... 82

9     Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 88

10     References........................................................................................................ 91

Annex 1: Urban freight indicators by impact category ......................................................... 93




                                             INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1 – Type of data collected through the UGM surveys in France ....................................... 10

Table 2 - Environmental impacts of Monoprix’s rail project ................................................... 84

Table 3: Urban freight indicators by impact category .................................................... 93




                                             INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1– Map of France: economic performances of French local territories............................... 6

Figure 2 – Map of France, location of Paris within France ..................................................... 13

Figure 3 - Map of the Ile-de-France Region ....................................................................... 14

Figure 4 – Map of commercial areas in Paris ...................................................................... 16

Figure 5- Map of the main radial highways and ring-roads surrounding Paris .............................. 17

Figure 6 - Map of logistics sprawl for parcel transport terminals between 1974 and 2008 in Paris .... 18

Figure 7 – Share of different road users of the Paris street space ............................................ 19

Figure 8 – Number of vehicle-km and average speed in Paris since 1999 ................................... 21

Figure 9 – Map of the “patchwork” of freight access rules in the dense area of the Paris region ...... 36

Figure 10 – Technical Guide to Delivery Areas for the City of Paris .......................................... 38

     TURBLOG D3.1: Urban Logistics practices – Paris Case study                                                    iv
Figure 11 - Maps of the future tramway network of Paris, 2010-2020 ....................................... 41

Figure 12 – Chronopost Concorde organizational scheme ...................................................... 44

Figure 13 – Chronopost vehicle for daily shuttle and its trailer ............................................... 46

Figure 14 – The three types of delivery vehicles used by Chronopost at the Concorde ULS ............. 47

Figure 15 – Share of the different production costs of Chronopost Concorde ULS ......................... 49

Figure 16 – CO2 impact of Chronopost Concorde ULS ........................................................... 49

Figure 17 - La Petite Reine ULS locations ......................................................................... 56

Figure 18 - Different types of cargocycles ........................................................................ 58

Figure 19 – Evolution of the number of employees and vehicles of La Petite Reine ...................... 60

Figure 20 – The 2006 logistics land use map of the City of Paris .............................................. 67

Figure 21 - Photo of the Decaux Velib boat....................................................................... 72

Figure 23 – Map of the location of Monoprix warehouses and rail terminal ................................. 78

Figure 24 – Photos of the Paris Bercy rail facility ................................................................ 79

Figure 25 – Ventilation of operational costs of Monoprix with and without rail transport ............... 83




   TURBLOG D3.1: Urban Logistics practices – Paris Case study                                                 v
                                                LIST OF ACRONYMS

             Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie (Agency for the Environment and
ADEME
             Management of Energy)
AFII         Agence Française des Investissements Internationaux (French Agency for International Investments)
             Association Française du Transport Routier International (French Association for International Road
AFTRI
             Transport)
ARAF         Autorité de Régulation des Activités Ferroviaires (Authority for the Regulation of Rail Activities)
ASLOG        Association Française pour la Logistique (French Association for Logistics)
CCIP         Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie de Paris (Paris Chamber of Commerce and Industry)
CPCU         Compagnie Parisienne de Chauffage Urbain
CNG          Compressed Natural Gas
CNRS         Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (National Centre for Scientific Research)
CO2          Carbon dioxide
DIY          Do-It-Yourself
ECR          Euro Cargo Rail
EDF          Electricité de France (Electricity of France)
ELU          Espace Logistique Urbain (Urban Logistics Space)
EPSF         Etablissement Public de Sécurité Ferroviaire (Public Agency for Rail Safety)
EU           European Union
FNTR         Fédération Nationale des Transports Routiers (National Federation of Road Transport)
             Groupement des activités de transport et de manutention de la région Ile-de-France (groupment of
GATMARIF
             transport and warehousing activities in the Ile-de-France region)
GDP          Gross Domestic Product
HCNM         non-methane hydrocarbon
HCR          Hotels, Cafés, Restaurants
             Institut Francais des Sciences et Technologies des Transports, de l’Aménagement et des Réseaux
IFSTTAR
             (French Institute for Transport, Planning and Networks Sciences and Technologies)
             Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (National Institute for Statistics and
INSEE
             Economic Studies)
LET          Laboratoire d’Economie des Transports (Laboratory of Transport Economics)
LOTI         Loi d’Orientation des Transports Intérieurs (Orientation Law for Domestic Transports)
             Ministère de l’Ecologie, de l’Environnement, du Développement Durable et de la Mer (Ministry of
MEEDDM
             Ecology, Environment, Sustainable Development and the Sea)
NOx          Nitrogen Oxide
PDU          Plan de Déplacements Urbains (Urban Transport Plan)
PDUIF        Plan de Déplacements Urbains d’Ile-de-France (Urban Transport Plan for Ile-de-France)
PLU          Plan Local d’Urbanisme (Local Land Use Plan)
PPA          Plan de Protection de l’Atmosphère (Plan for Atmospheric Protection)
             Programme de recherche et d’inovation dans les transports terrestres (programme for research and
PREDIT
             innovation in surface transport)
PRQA         Plan Régional pour la Qualité de l’Air (Regional Plan for Air Quality)
RFF          Réseau Ferré de France (Rail Network of France)



     TURBLOG D3.1: Urban Logistics practices – Paris Case study                                                     vi
RST          Réseau Scientifique et Technique (Technical and Scientific Network)
SDRIF        Schéma Directeur régional d’Ile-de-France (Regional Master Plan of Ile-de-France)
SNCF         Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer (National Company of Railroads)
SNIT         Schéma National des Inffrastructures de Transport (National master plan for transport infrastructures)
SNTL         Syndicat National des Transports Légers (national syndicate for light transport)
             Fédération des entreprises de Transport et Logistique de France (Federation of transport and logistics
TLF
             companies)
UGM          Urban Goods Movement
UGSU         zone Urbaine de Grands Services Urbains (Urban zone for Large Urban Services)
ULS          Urban Logistics Space
UV           zone Urbaine Verte (Green Urban zone)
VFLI         Voies Ferrées Locales et Industrielles (Local and Industrial Railroads)
VNF          Voies Navigables de France (Waterways of France)




     TURBLOG D3.1: Urban Logistics practices – Paris Case study                                                       vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report looks at the City of Paris, France’s largest and wealthiest city. Paris as a case study
typifies some of the most common characteristics of urban freight in European cities: freight has an
important share in Paris local pollution and CO2 emissions; it has a very important economic impact
and it represents the only way to accommodate new logistics demands from Paris households and
businesses, such as e-commerce and home deliveries; and Paris is a place where many city logistics
initiatives have emerged recently. Since the beginning of 2000, the municipality of Paris has engaged
in an active freight-oriented transport policy. We present four of the measures implemented in
detail:

(1) The Chronopost Concorde Urban Logistics Space using electric vehicles for final deliveries;

(2) La Petite Reine Urban Logistics Space, using electrically assisted cargocycles for final deliveries;
(3) The freight oriented Urban Master Plan of Paris adopted in 2006;

(4) Monoprix rail train supplying all of Monoprix’s supermarkets within Paris.

A description of each of the measures is proposed, as well as economic, environmental and social
assessments. Detailed evaluation studies were made for most of the Paris urban freight measures,
and impact data can be presented and commented. We also present with less details the other
policies implemented about freight (delivery bays, access regulation). A projected freight tram using
existing and planned light rail infrastructure in and around Paris is also described.

Today, despite difficulties and some failures, Paris can be considered one of the most active
European cities in the field of urban freight. It has an active consultation policy with the private
sector (truck companies, businesses, shippers) and has set up freight partnerships. The Paris freight-
oriented municipal policy has led to significant improvements in the way freight transport is
operated. These improvements are most obvious in small-scale experiments such as Chronopost
Concorde, La Petite Reine and Monoprix: at the level of the experimented schemes, the benefits to
the environment have been very important, with important reductions in emissions of NOx,
particulate matters and CO2. At the global city scale, however, improvements remain marginal as the
experiments only deal with a limited share of the total urban freight flows. Improvements are very
important but more difficult to perceive for the measures that are more global and long-term, such
as the inclusion of freight land-use directives in a land use plan, or a more efficient management of
on-street delivery bays.

The Paris case also demonstrates that a freight-oriented policy can be complex to implement and
that it is a long process. The report insists on transferability issues. Its main conclusions, in this
regard, are the following:


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                         1
    •   Experiments of Urban Logistics Spaces such as Chronopost Concorde and La Petite Reine are
        easily transferable to another city meeting the following conditions: strong political
        commitment, strong cooperation between the private and the public sectors, ability to
        provide convenient well-located logistics areas with minimum size and safety standards,
        willingness to set a low level of rent. A specific issue arises regarding the availability of
        adequate vehicles for final deliveries or pick-ups. Available freight tricycles or cargo bikes
        still need to be improved; electric, hybrids and CNG vans and light trucks are still very
        expensive to buy, can be difficult to maintain, and do not provide adequate loading capacity;

    •   The integration of logistics land uses into a Land Use and Master Plan is easily transferable to
        another European city meeting the following conditions: strong political commitment, strong
        cooperation between the private and the public sectors, availability of space that can be
        dedicated to logistics activities: brownfields and former industrial zones, under-utilised
        freight train stations or commercial ports. In some cities, this may not be difficult, while in
        others it may prove impossible. If a city wants to add a requirement on the way the logistics
        site is to be supplied (by train or waterways), such as Paris did, this may add a difficulty that
        may make the measure very difficult to implement. This is the case in countries where the
        provision of freight rail services is poor, or rail slots for freight trains are difficult to
        accommodate within a busy passenger rail network. An experiment such as the Monoprix
        freight train demonstrates the challenges, barriers but also opportunities to other cities
        willing to promote the use of freight rail transport in urban areas: it requires large logistics
        facilities available with a connection to the railway network, one or several retailing
        companies that have a minimum volume of goods to be delivered daily to the city, a
        competitive railway industry in the country, with companies capable of responding to a bid
        for tender with reasonable prices and good quality of service.

The report concludes by looking at an important and often disregarded element of an urban freight
policy: there has always been important publicity and media attention towards Paris’ freight policy.
The City of Paris always took a great care in inviting the press and residents’ and environmental
groups to events related to its freight policy such as the inauguration of an Urban Logistics Space.
This has significantly helped raise the level of support among companies potentially interested in
urban freight schemes, and has induced some of them to participate in city logistics initiatives.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                          2
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT

The objective of this report is to present an in-depth analysis of the City of Paris’ five good practices
in the field of urban goods movement management. This report will provide both information and an
assessment of the transferability potential of some of Paris’ most successful urban freight policies. It
will also provide information on the difficulties and failures encountered in some less successful
policies, so that other cities benefit from Paris’ experience.


1.2 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

This report examines urban freight transport, defined as the transport of goods taking place in an
urban area (Dablanc, 2007a). It looks at the City of Paris, the capital of France and France’s largest
city in population and GDP. Paris as a case study typifies some of the most common characteristics of
urban freight in European cities, especially:

(1) The importance of commercial goods transport’s impacts on the urban environment (local air
emissions, CO2 emissions, noise and congestion);

(2) Issues of “logistics sprawl”, the spatial relocation of logistics terminals in suburban areas;

(3) Emerging city logistics initiatives and policies for a more environmentally friendly urban goods
distribution.

Since the beginning of the years 2000, the City of Paris has engaged in an active freight-oriented
transport policy. Today, despite difficulties and some failures, the City of Paris can be considered as
one of the most active European cities in the field of urban freight.

The report examines actual policies of the city; i.e. policies on urban freight that have been
implemented and, even more importantly, that have been assessed. Four specific policies are
examined in detail:

(1) The Chronopost Concorde Urban Logistics Space using electric vehicles for final deliveries;

(2) La Petite Reine Urban Logistics Space, using electrically assisted cargocycles for final deliveries;

(3) The freight oriented Urban Master Plan of Paris adopted in 2006;

(4) Monoprix rail train supplying all of Monoprix’s supermarkets within Paris.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                           3
Assessments made about these four policies have provided conclusions on the economic and
environmental effectiveness of the policies. They have been carried out by independent consulting
firms, with financial support from the City of Paris, and the French Agency for the Environment
(ADEME).

The four policies that are described in this report make a policy-package. The City of Paris has
consciously focused on designing and implementing an aggregated policy package to reach a long-
term objective of a more sustainable urban freight system. This policy-mix was also a requirement
from private stakeholders (shippers, carriers, storeowners) which have been associated to a major
freight consultation process that begun in 2002 in Paris.

In this policy-package, there are the following sub-categories of measures:

           •   Emerging concepts as to how freight distribution and collection can be integrated within
               comprehensive urban passenger and freight transport and land use planning: Urban
               Logistics Spaces (ULS), “last mile” solutions; environmental zones; and alternative
               transport modes;

           •   Business    arrangements:      public-private    partnerships,    consultation    with    private
               organizations;

           •   Technological developments of relevance to urban freight, covering vehicles and fuel
               technology.

The methodology to construct this report has been the following:

           •   Literature review, analysis of assessment reports made on urban freight measures in
               Paris;

           •   Interviews with experts directly involved in Paris freight policies: Sébastien Roux, freight
               expert for the City of Paris; Hervé Levifve, freight expert for APUR, the Paris urban
               planning agency; Diana Diziain, freight expert for the Ile-de-France regional council, as
               well as phone contacts or interviews with managers (Monoprix, La petite Reine, and
               Chronopost)1;

           •   Personal expertise, also drawn from current membership in the steering committee of
               the on-going preparation of the Urban Goods Movement survey in the Ile-de-France
               region.



1
    I wish to thank Hervé Levifve, from APUR, for providing many information and advice. Monoprix, City of Paris,
Chronopost and Item were also very helpful in providing valuable illustrations and data.


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                                  4
1.3 REPORT STRUCTURE

This report is structured into ten Chapters: following this introduction, Chapter two provides an
overview of France’s and Paris’ geography, demography, economy and freight flows. Chapter three
presents the institutional framework and current transport and logistics policies in France, Ile-de-
France and Paris. Chapter four presents the policy-mix that has been chosen by the City of Paris to
deal with freight issues, and presents the successes and drawbacks of the main measures adopted in
urban freight in the recent years, as well as new innovative policies. Chapter five presents the first
chosen good practice in urban freight: the Chronopost Concorde Urban Logistics Space with electric
vehicles’ final deliveries. Chapter six presents the second good practice: La Petite Reine experiment,
using electrically assisted cargocycles for final deliveries. Chapter seven presents the third good
practice: the freight oriented Urban Master Plan of Paris that was adopted in 2006. Chapter eight
presents the fourth good practice: Monoprix rail train supplying all of Monoprix supermarkets within
Paris. The report ends with a conclusive Chapter (Chapter nine) providing a subjective evaluation of
the transferability potential of Paris measures to other cities.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                       5
2 OVERVIEW OF FRANCE AND THE CITY OF PARIS

2.1 THE CITY OF PARIS IN THE MACRO CONTEXT

2.1.1      Country profile

France is a country of 550,000 km2 and 62 million inhabitants located in the Western part of the
European Union2. The population density is 112 inhabitants per km2. A country of immigration for
many decades, France also benefits from the highest fertility rate in Europe and its population is
growing, especially in urban areas. Today, 77% of the French population live in urban areas3.

France’s GDP ranks fifth in the world, with a GDP per capita close to € 28,000, slightly higher than
the EU average. The country displays quite important differences in GDP per capita according to the
region and city, as seen on Figure 1. Like all Western economies, the French economy is mostly based
on the tertiary sector (82% of the working population), but it retains important strongholds in
specialized industries such as car manufacturing, aeronautics, aerospace and transport, arms
manufacturing, chemicals, construction and public works, food-processing. France is an important
world exporter of agricultural and food products.




               Figure 1– Map of France: economic performances of French local territories
      Source: J. Poulit, 2005 – N.B. Colors indicate the values of municipal GDP per employed person

2
    These figures do not include French territories overseas.
3
 All data come from INSEE, the French National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies. The year of the
data is 2008.


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                              6
Freight transport in France relies mostly on road. The modal split for domestic freight transport in
tonnes-km is the following: 83% road, 10% rail, 2% waterways, and 5% pipelines4. The share of rail has
decreased rapidly since the end of the 1990s. Contrary to other countries in Europe such as Germany
or Sweden, freight rail transport in France has experienced an important decline in the past decade,
despite the successful entry of new companies on the market since deregulation took place in 2006.

France is the second most attractive country in the world in terms of foreign direct investments5.
This is partially linked to the country’s good physical infrastructure, particularly its transport
infrastructure (highways and high speed rail), as well as the attractiveness of the Paris region in
terms of skills, education and employability of the workforce.

France ranked 18 in the World Bank 2007 Global Logistics Index, which ranks 150 countries in the
world. Other European countries such as the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and the U.K. fared
better in this rating which included seven attributes: Customs Clearance, Logistics Infrastructure,
Ease of International Shipments, Logistics Competence/Internal Skills Sets and Service Providers,
Tracking and Tracing Capabilities, Domestic Logistics Costs, Timeliness/Consistency.



2.1.2      Urban freight data collection in the country

In 1993 a National Programme for Freight in Cities (Programme national marchandises en ville) was
established and financed by the French Ministry of Transport and the Agency for the Environment.
Under this Programme, urban freight surveys were implemented in different cities around the
country. These surveys are called Urban Goods Movement surveys (UGM surveys). They were done
under a common methodology which was designed and implemented by the Laboratoire d’Economie
des Transports (LET) in Lyon. As will be seen below, the originality of UGM surveys made in France is
that (1) They are comprehensive (2) They are based on an analysis of the urban freight demand: one
of the main components of UGM surveys is the establishments’ survey (see below). The main
drawback of these surveys is their cost. To promote data collection in cities that do not have a
sufficient budget to do an UGM survey, a simulation model called FRETURB was also designed (see
below).




4
    2008 data, source: French Ministry of Energy, 2010.
5
 Agence française pour les investissements internationaux (AFII : French Agency for International Investments),
Tableau de bord de l’attractivité de la France, 19 July 2010.


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                                7
The need for urban freight data had been previously identified for different users at the beginning of
the 1990s by the Conseil National des Transports (National Transport Council) (CNT, 1994). Three
main categories of freight data users at that time could be identified:

        •    In the early 1990s, large French cities and metropolitan organizations required data on
             urban freight because a new national law imposed all cities over 100,000 residents to
             establish a PDU (Plan de Déplacements Urbains, or Urban Transport Plan) incorporating
             freight strategies;
        •    Freight transport companies were starting to experience increasingly difficult driving
             conditions in cities, together with a shortage of workforce for urban deliveries. They
             turned to the national government for data, methods and solutions to better operate in
             cities;
        •    Society at large was becoming more aware of urban environmental issues. Freight
             transport was assumed to be an important source of local air pollution, but no
             comprehensive data existed on the share of responsibility of freight over local emissions.
             ADEME, the French Agency for the Environment, then decided that major data collection
             was needed in order to provide for a realistic assessment of freight impacts in cities.
The first freight data collection initiatives were taken in 1995-1997 with large scale surveys organised
in three different cities (Marseille, Bordeaux, and Dijon). All stakeholders were surveyed: receivers
(shops, businesses, administrations), transport companies and lorry drivers. From these initial
surveys, many results have been issued and a model has been designed called FRETURB. A second
phase of the data collection work has started in 2010, with a major survey currently (September
2010) being prepared for the Paris region. This survey represents a total budget of one million euros.
The actual collection of data should be done during spring 2011 and data processing and analyses
should provide available results by 2012-2013. Bordeaux and Marseille will also be surveyed in 2011-
2012, leading to detailed comparisons with the 1995-1997 surveys, as they were survey sites already.




METHODOLOGY OF THE FRENCH UGM SURVEYS

The UGM surveys as they have been defined in 1995-1997 and further specified for the current survey
campaign (see above) include:

        •    A detailed face-to-face interview with questionnaires of urban establishments (business
             premises) that are representative of the cities’ economy. In 1995-1997, in Bordeaux and
             Marseille, about 4,300 establishments describing more than 11,000 deliveries and pick up
             operations were surveyed;



TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                            8
         •   Face-to-face interviews with truck drivers. The 1995-1997 surveys in Bordeaux and
             Marseille included each about 2,200 truck drivers;
         •   Additional face-to-face interviews with truck companies. Trucks companies were selected
             based on the urban establishments’ survey: a sample of truck companies was identified
             from the total set of truck companies mentioned by establishments’ managers as their
             transport and delivery providers.

The budget sources for UGM data collections are numerous. The total budget for one UGM survey
varies from €300,000 to one million depending on the size of the city and the number of
establishments chosen in the sample. The national administration provides about 40% of the budget,
with two sources: the sub-Ministry of Transport on the one side, and ADEME, the French Agency for
the Environment, on the other side. Local governments included in the survey site provide 40 to 50%
of the budget. These funds come from the municipalities as well as the metropolitan governments. In
some cases, the regional government also contributed to the budget. The remaining 10 to 20% of the
budget comes from various sources, either local (such as Chambers of Commerce) or national (CNRS,
EDF). No European subsidy has ever been provided nor requested. Transport organizations have not
provided funding although they have allocated some person-days of work to participate in the
surveys’ steering committees.




INDICATORS AND UNITS USED

Table 1 below presents indicators and units that are commonly gathered when a city makes an UGM
survey or uses the FRETURB model. Most of the indicators come from the UGM survey or the FRETURB
model. Some, such as safety data, noise data, are collected in parallel but from other data sources.
An important data which is often forgotten from urban freight data collection in French cities is
noise. This is all the more regrettable as noise issues are often prominent in local disputes between
street users and residents. Many of these noise issues involve truck deliveries (Dablanc & Gallez,
2008).

Between 1995 (the starting date of the first UGM surveys) and 2013 (the planned end of the current
phase of UGM surveys) about 30 French cities have or will have collected freight data substantially.
Five have done so (or will have done so by 2013) through UGM surveys: Bordeaux, Marseille, Dijon,
Lyon, and Paris. The other ones have done so (or will have done so by 2013) using the FRETURB model
(see next section).




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                      9
Table 1 – Type of data collected through the UGM surveys in France

       Impact category          Indicator category                        Indicator

                                                              Number of urban establishments
                                                              receiving goods
     Freight volumes and                                      Number of urban establishments sending
     commodities in urban    Logistics                        goods
     areas                                                    Deliveries and pick-ups density
                                                              Deliveries and pick-ups according to
                                                              number of jobs
                                                              Population density
                             Population                       Shopping trips made with private cars
                                                              Number of vehicles according to GVW
                                                              Proportion of goods vehicles in total
     Urban freight                                            traffic – running
                             Freight vehicles
     transport fleet                                          Proportion of goods vehicles in total
                                                              traffic – parking
                                                              Number of vehicles entering cities
                             Urban traffic flow               Distribution of freight vehicles
                                                              movements over day

                             Service visits and waste         Service visits
                             collections                      Waste collection

                                                              Freight vehicles kilometres
                             Performance                      Use of load capacity
                                                              Average speed per round

                                                              Loading/unloading density
                                                              Number of loading/unloading
                                                              Loading/unloading intensity per activity
                                                              Average length of the first leg from
                                                              terminal to delivery area
                                                              Type of management (own account/for-
                                                              hire)
                             General delivery                 Type of tour (delivery round/direct
     Urban deliveries        characteristics                  delivery)
                             (operators)                      Combined shipments
                                                              Delivery days and times
                                                              Origin of delivery trip
                                                              Number of stop per tour, per day
                                                              Trip length
                                                              Distance between stops
                                                              Trip times
                                                              Travel time to and within city centre

                                                              Supply of a delivery area at premises
                                                              Dwelling time/loading and unloading
                             General delivery                 times – on street
                             characteristics                  Dwelling time/loading and unloading
                             (receivers)                      times – at premises
                                                              Number of deliveries per employee
                                                              Number of deliveries per square meter

                                                              Number of home deliveries per 1,000
                             Home deliveries                  households
                                                              Share of home deliveries in all deliveries


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                                10
       Impact category          Indicator category                          Indicator

                                                                Number of jobs in transport and related
                                                                logistics jobs (warehousing, handling)
     Contribution to         Employment in                      Number of transport related companies
     economy                 transport and logistics            Share of own-account versus for-hire
                                                                transport

                                                                Typical fuel consumption by vehicle type
                                                                Energy consumption in urban freight
     Environment             Energy use                         transport
                                                                Share of urban freight in CO2 emissions

                                                                Typical emission factors by vehicle type
                                                                Emissions according to the zone, the
                             Exhaust emissions                  vehicle, the activity
                                                                Share of urban freight in exhaust
                                                                emissions (PM, NOx)

                             Accidents and                      Number of accidents involving trucks
     Safety                  casualties in urban                Number of fatal accidents involving trucks
                             freight transport                  Share of trucks in fatal accidents

                                                   From UGM surveys: in italic
                                                   From other sources: not in italic
     Source: L. Dablanc from Table 1 provided in Annex 1 of TURBLOG template (source: Bestufs)


THE FRETURB MODEL

In 1995-1997, the analyses of the UGM data collected led to the design of the FRETURB model by the
Laboratoire d’Economie des Transports. The FRETURB model describes current urban freight
transport demand and simulates future urban freight demand based on policy and economic
scenarios. It is based on identifying detailed delivery and pick-up patterns of urban establishments6.
Four sequential modules compose the model (Ambrosini et al., 2010):

        •     A module of generation of the pick-ups and deliveries in each urban area. Structural
              variables consist of the activity types, the number of jobs in the business establishment
              (premises), the type of establishment, the number of subsidiaries of the business. In
              addition to pick-ups and deliveries, the model includes household shopping trips, so that
              it is possible to compare UGM data with private transport for shopping;

        •     A module of road occupancy by driving vehicles. It is based on the distance travelled
              between two stops. It is estimated in each area, according to the number of stops in the
              delivery round, to the vehicle type, the operating mode and the density of activities. The


6
 An establishment is a single business location of a company: it can be a shop, an office building, a factory, a
warehouse for example.


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                                  11
             length of the approach trips (in the case of a delivery tour) is based on the distance to
             the city centre;

        •    A module on the road space occupancy by parked vehicles. This module calculates the
             duration of space occupancy (illicit on-street parking, private parking spaces) according
             to demographics and the activity density as well as to the number of stops of the round
             trips and the vehicle type;

        •    A module of road space occupancy at any moment, based on the opening hours of each
             economic activity. In this case, it is useful to display UGM peak and off-peak hours.

Various simulations can be undertaken by modifying some of the control variables. The following
variables have a strong impact on the generation of freight flows: the location of activities (urban
sprawl, economic forecasting), urban planning and land use and urban development, city regulations
(parking and traffic ordinances, land use plans) and changes in logistics and supply chain
management (operating and organizational modes, vehicles size, implementation of consolidation
schemes, introduction of clean delivery vehicles, etc.).

The model is interesting in that it is not based on a freight origin-destination matrix, as origin-
destination matrices are not suitable to provide relevant vehicles flows estimations regarding
delivery rounds (which make up 75% of the total pick-ups and deliveries in a city).




2.2 URBAN FREIGHT IN PARIS

2.2.1 General presentation of Paris

The City of Paris lies in the northern central part of France (Figure 2). It covers 105 km², has a
population of 2.2 million inhabitants and represents 1.6 million jobs. Its population density is 21,000
inhabitants per km2. The City of Paris is part of the Ile-de-France region (also called the “Paris
region” in this report) which covers 12,000 km², and has 11.8 million inhabitants and 5.5 million jobs
(INSEE, 2006), with a population density of 1,000 inhabitants per km2.

The Paris region is one of the twenty-two French regions and it is among the largest and most
economically developed metropolitan areas of Europe.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                          12
                       Figure 2 – Map of France, location of Paris within France
                                                Source: APUR

The history of Paris and one of the reasons for its early development are closely linked to the Seine
river, which cruses from the South-East to the North-West part of the region and passes through the
most historical and central parts of the City of Paris. The Seine river has represented a key transport
mode for goods since the beginning of the City’s history until the dominance of rail and then road
motor transport. Today the Seine is still commonly used for the transport of aggregates and building
materials waste. Since the early 2000s, a new source of waterway traffic has emerged, the transport
of maritime containers. These containers are now being barged from Le Havre (France’s largest
container port, located on the North-West coast), to the Port of Gennevilliers (at the outskirt of the
City of Paris to the North-West). Some container traffic goes all the way to Bonneuil (another Paris
port at the other side of the City, to the South-East). There is also some outgoing container traffic
(from Paris to Le Havre) and this traffic is growing.

Despite these traditional as well as more recent waterway traffic markets, goods transport by the
river has dramatically declined since the beginning of the 20th century in Paris. Today, waterways


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                        13
carry 6% (22 million tonnes) of the Paris region’s freight and 7% (2.5 million tonnes) of the City of
Paris’ freight.




                               Figure 3 - Map of the Ile-de-France Region
                                               Source: IAU IDF



2.2.2 Description of economic features and freight flows in Paris



PARIS ECONOMY

The economic base of the City of Paris is quite specific compared to the rest of France. Paris
concentrates high level services to businesses, high level administration services, high level research
and education. Retail and tourism have also an extremely important share of the Paris’ economy,
while public jobs for teaching and hospitals are also dominant in numbers. Paris’ GDP is €150 billion,
and the city’s GDP per capita is 120% higher than the country’s.

Some industrial activities are still active in Paris. There are about 25,000 industrial establishments
employing 110,000 people. Printing-publishing is the number one industrial sector in terms of the
number of jobs (40% of Paris’ total industrial jobs). The garment and maroquinerie (leather)
industries occupy 23% of Paris industrial jobs.



TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                        14
COMMERCIAL DENSITY

Paris has a very high commercial density (Figure 4). There are some specifically dense commercial
areas in the centre (particularly in the centre-North, on the right bank), in the North-West, in the
centre-South. Commercial areas are mostly retail. Paris has several specificities compared to other
large French cities:

    •   A relatively high number of independent retailers, located in a rather homogeneous manner
        in several commercial streets existing in all the 20 boroughs of the city. Among these
        independent retailers, there is a high number of small food stores (wineries, bakeries,
        butchers, cheese sellers);

    •   Medium to large size specialized stores, such as DIY (Do It Yourself) equipment, computers,
        sportswear, pet shops. These stores have been opened in Paris for the past ten to fifteen
        years, whereas they used to be concentrated in suburban environments before. They have
        proved very successful;

    •   A high proportion of HCR (hotels, cafés, restaurants) businesses, following the vocation of
        Paris as the number one touristic city in the world;

    •   “Specialized neighbourhoods”. These neighbourhoods concentrate the same kind of
        businesses. They tend to generate specific delivery issues and have been receiving a lot of
        attention from residents and local politicians. They are of two sorts. (1) Traditional
        craftsmanship, such as textile and garment production in the Sentier (in the 2nd borough),
        and leather/maroquinerie and jewels in the Marais (in the 3rd borough). A more recent and
        very concentrated garment district has appeared in the 11th borough, in the North-East of
        Paris, with activities dominated by Chinese textile importers/exporters and producers. (2)
        Specialized retail areas, such as the furniture business in the Faubourg Saint Antoine (in the
        North-East), or the computer and computer components business in the 12th borough;

    •   Large department stores, often world-famous, such as Galeries Lafayette, Printemps and Bon
        Marché;

    •   Open air farmers’ markets, operating once or twice a week, in all Paris neighbourhoods.

All these categories are quite specific to Paris compared with the rest of France, or at least are much
more concentrated in Paris than they are in other cities. They generate specific and sometimes
problematic patterns of deliveries (Dablanc et al., 2010).




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                        15
                               Figure 4 – Map of commercial areas in Paris
                                                   Source: APUR



FREIGHT FLOWS

Based on the FRETURB model (see Section 2.1.2), we know the ratios of deliveries and pick-ups and
logistics profiles for each industrial and commercial sector of French cities. With these ratios, and
taking into account the specific characteristics of industrial and commercial densities in Paris and the
Paris region, it can be calculated that every day, about one million deliveries and pick-ups are made
in the Ile-de-France region. More than one third of these occur in the City of Paris, i.e. there are
about 350,000 deliveries or pick-ups occurring every day in the Paris streets.

These numbers will be specified in 2011-2012 when the Urban Goods Movement surveys currently
being prepared for Paris and the Paris region are completed.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                         16
LOGISTICS ACCESSIBILITY IN PARIS AND IN SPECIFIC AREAS OF PARIS

Paris is at the core of one of the largest metropolitan areas of Europe, the Ile-de-France region.
Accessing the city centre, therefore, is challenging. One of the most salient features of Paris is that
it is surrounded by three ring-roads, all of which are heavily used by transit trucks (including the
closest one, called the Peripherique). See Figure 5.




             Figure 5- Map of the main radial highways and ring-roads surrounding Paris
                                         Source: Direction des routes IDF



Delivery trucks therefore have difficulties in accessing the City of Paris. However, once inside the
city’s walls, commercial vehicles meet with less difficulty than a few years ago in circulating within
the streets of Paris. This is due to the rather successful car use reduction policy of the City of Paris
(see Section 2.3.1 and Figure 8).




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                         17
URBAN SPRAWL

The City of Paris presents three different situations regarding sprawl.

    •   In terms of population. Sprawl has been quite important starting in the 1960s until the 1990s.
        If the City of Paris, today, is regaining population in absolute numbers, it represents only a
        fifth of the total regional population compared with more than 40% in the 1950s;

    •   In terms of jobs. Although it did happen especially in the first suburban ring (the cities just
        adjacent to Paris) and in the new towns created in the 1960s (such as Marne la Vallée in the
        East), jobs’ sprawl remained very limited. Paris still represents more than a third of the total
        jobs in the region, and when including the jobs in the immediately adjacent cities this
        represents more than 40% of total jobs in Ile-de-France;

    •   In terms of logistics facilities and activities. Logistics sprawl has been extremely rapid and
        important for the last thirty years. Many terminals that were used for freight transport and
        logistics activities in the 1960s, 70s and even 80s have disappeared today from the City of
        Paris as well as from the first suburban ring. As jobs have not sprawled as much as logistics
        facilities, additional vehicle-kms have been added to the regional traffic as a direct
        consequence of logistics sprawl (see Figure 6 for the specific case of parcel/express transport
        companies) (Dablanc & Rakotonarivo, 2010).




 Figure 6 - Map of logistics sprawl for parcel transport terminals between 1974 and 2008 in Paris
                                   Source: Dablanc, Rakotonarivo, 2010


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                         18
ROAD USERS

The main changes in the past decade for road usage in Paris have been the following:)(1) the number
of   bike   riders    has   increased   a   lot   due    to   the   introduction   of   the   Velib   system
(http://www.velib.paris.fr/), a public network of short-term rental bikes. Today, more than 65,000
bikes circulate every day in the city, of which half are Velib bikes;(2) the number of cars, vans and
trucks has decreased. There were 104,100 trucks and vans registered in Paris in 2008 (-20% compared
to 1999), and 638,300 cars (-16% compared to 1999).

Figure 7 shows the most recent data for road use shares in Paris, which was compiled before the
introduction of Velib. Cars remain the most dominant road users, commercial vehicles account for
16% of traffic.




                     Figure 7 – Share of different road users of the Paris street space
                       Source: Bilan des déplacements à Paris en 2007, City of Paris



TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

The City of Paris can be accessed by three different modal networks:

     (1) roads, with four major radial highways and one urban ring-road (the Périphérique) (see
         Figure 5);

     (2) railways, with several freight rail stations currently operating within the city’s walls; and

     (3) waterways, with the Seine river and 16 urban ports located within the City of Paris. Rail and
         waterway accesses will be further presented in the following chapters.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                              19
The modal split for the City of Paris (on a total of 32 million tonnes transported annually to supply
Paris7), is the following:

    •   2.5 million tonnes are transported by barges;

    •   1 million tonnes are transported by rail;

    •   29.5 million tonnes are transported by trucks and vans.




2.3 URBAN TRANSPORT PROBLEMS IN PARIS

2.3.1   State of the art

As most large European cities, Paris faces urban problems related to transport and traffic. In general,
problems have tended to decrease over the last decades and especially in recent years in terms of
traffic (see Figure 8) and in terms of some pollutants such as sulfur dioxide. However, there are two
exceptions: the first one is the emission of fine and very fine particulate matters (PM10, PM2.5 and
under) and NOx, which are both local pollutants. The second one is the emission of CO2. The emission
of these pollutants does not decrease and in some cases tends to increase. These pollutants are
strongly related to freight traffic, and have become specific targets of the City of Paris.




CONGESTION

As an outcome of local policies targeted on reducing automobile parking and traffic, the number of
vehicles circulating in Paris has constantly decreased over the last ten years (see Figure 8), and the
average speed has increased subsequently. Congestion is very severe at a regional scale but at the
Paris scale, it has actually become better over the years.




7
 These figures are provided today by the Paris Department of Transport but result from old sources (IAURIF,
1997). The current UGM survey in the Paris region will provide updated data on modal split.


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                            20
                 Figure 8 – Number of vehicle-km and average speed in Paris since 1999
                      Source: L. Dablanc from Bilan des déplacements à Paris en 2008



AIR POLLUTION

Since the year 2000 a slight increase in base levels for particulates (PM10) has been observed in Paris
and Ile-de-France by Airparif, the agency in charge of air quality monitoring. In 2009, the region
failed in respecting the limit values for NOx and PM108. E.U. limit values were exceeded at many
traffic stations (stations close to automobile traffic) in Paris. The concentrations of nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) and of nitric oxide (NO) did not respect the limit value on traffic station.



GLOBAL WARMING

A carbon footprint assessment has been made in 2004 for the City of Paris9. Of the 6.55 million
tonnes of equivalent carbon emitted in 2004 by the City of Paris, 51% were from transport activities,
including 26% related to freight and 25% related to passengers.

Transport in general and freight transport in particular are one of the few CO2 sources which
continue to increase both their emissions in absolute terms, and their share of total emissions.




8
   http://www.airparif.asso.fr/page.php?article=bilan2009_100218_cp&rubrique=actualites      [accessed   on   29
September 2010].
9
    http://www.paris.fr/portail/pratique/Portal.lut?page_id=8414 [last accessed on 2 September 2010].


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                                   21
ROAD SAFETY

A new problem has arisen in Paris following the rapid development of bike use after the introduction
of the Velib system in 2007: bike accidents, some of them fatal (three fatalities since 2007). A
significant proportion of accidents involving bicycles also involved trucks. Specific attention is now
given to truck/bike relationships on the city streets.



2.3.2     Expected urban transport problems in the future

In line with the previous results, the most severe expected urban problems in Paris remain air
pollution (NOx and particulate matters) and CO2 emissions. Local emissions may continue to increase
due to:

    •     The average age of the commercial vehicles’ fleet. The commercial vehicles circulating in
          city streets are generally older than the commercial vehicles circulating on highways
          (Dablanc, 2008), and commercial vehicles in Paris are older than commercial vehicles in
          other French cities; and
    •     The increasing use of motorbikes. Motorbikes have quite low performances regarding
          emissions because of the very slow introduction of European standards for the manufacturing
          of cleaner motorbikes (standards for automobiles, trucks and vans had been introduced many
          years before).

Contrary effects, such as the increasing use of bikes and public transport, as well as the decrease of
private car use in the city streets, may not be sufficient to offset motorbikes and vans use if a strong
public policy of prohibiting access to the oldest types of vans and trucks is not enforced by the
municipality (see Chapter 3).




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                         22
3 INSTITUTIONAL                FRAMEWORK               AND    CURRENT         TRANSPORT            AND

     LOGISTICS POLICIES




3.1 AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL



3.1.1   Institutional framework at the national level
The Ministry of Ecology, Environment, Sustainable Development and the Sea (MEEDDM), which
includes a sub-Ministry of Transport, is in charge of national policies related to transport and freight
transport.

    •   Infrastructure development. The Ministry of Ecology invests in the maintenance and
        development of the national infrastructure networks (road, rail, maritime, waterways,
        airports – see below). It also co-finances a large part of the lower level networks, through
        “Project Contracts” that are established every five years and signed with the regions,
        departments and other local governments. For freight transport infrastructure specifically,
        the current version of the Project Contracts represents about €500 million, half of which is
        financed by the Ministry of Ecology and the other half by regions and other local governments
        (Dablanc, 2007b);

    •   Supervision of national agencies and institutions involved in the management of transport
        systems. Réseau Ferré de France (RFF) is the owner (through a delegation from the national
        State) and manager of the national railway network, comprising 29,000 km of railways. RFF
        also acts as the responsible body for the organisation of rail traffic slots. Voies Navigables de
        France (VNF) is the national administration in charge of the inland waterway network. The
        Agency for the Environment (ADEME) is a key institution in providing expertise and in
        financing research works on transport and innovation. One of ADEME’s major current
        undertakings is the National Plan for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles presented by the
        government in October 2009 with an ADEME budget of €95 million (other Clean Vehicle Plan
        funds will also be available through other organisations and the ministry);

    •   Direct management of transport facilities. All the major maritime and inland ports in France
        are national public entities. This is specifically the case for the three major maritime ports
        (Le Havre, Dunkirk, Marseille). All the major airports (passenger/cargo) are also owned and
        operated by the national administration. Smaller ports and airports are owned and managed
        by regional or more local governments, with a participation of chambers of commerce. Until

TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                          23
           recently, the national State owned and operated (mostly through concessions) all the major
           highways and an extensive network of national roads. This has changed in two ways: (1)
           Concession highways were privatized in 2007. They are now owned and operated by large
           construction and service groups such as Vinci, Effarie, Abertis. (2) And in 2004 more than
           two-thirds of the national roads have been given to departmental governments (there are 100
           departments in France) and are not part of the national road system anymore;

       •   Enforcement of regulation and regulatory work. The Ministry of Ecology is in charge of
           enforcing European Directives and Regulations that relate to transport, such as Euro pollution
           standards for car, truck and van manufacturing, air quality standards, labour laws for working
           hours in the trucking industry, deregulation of the rail markets, etc. It is also in charge of
           enforcing national laws such as the Road Code and other national Codes that relate directly
           and indirectly to transport. The Ministry employs more than 300 “Transport Controllers” that
           are specifically in charge of enforcing labour and driving legislation for truck driving;

       •   Management and financing of the PREDIT10, the main agency for surface transport research in
           France. One of the six Working Groups of PREDIT is dedicated to freight and logistics. PREDIT
           finances are between 1 to 2 million euros a year on this topic. Grants are allocated to various
           entities, from academic organisations (such as IFSTAR and universities) to consulting firms.
           Allocations are made following yearly tenders.

A new agency, ARAF (Autorité de Régulation des Activités Ferroviaires, or authority for the regulation
of rail activities), is now responsible for supervising access to the rail infrastructure by the various
rail operators.

A National Transport Council (Conseil National des Transports, or CNT) served as a consultation body
for all transport issues. Members came from a large spectrum of origins: the different modes were
represented (air, sea, waterways, rail, road, intermodal), the different professional entities (unions,
transport, business and shippers’ organisations, non-profit organisations, government, universities)
and different issues (economic and financial, social, environmental, regulatory). The CNT has
recently disappeared. It provided influential reports and served as a permanent working group for
preparing national transport legislation. Today, the diverse lobbies and professional institutions
representing the transport sector meet in various bodies that are not as comprehensive as was the
CNT. In the freight and logistics area, among the most influential organizations that regularly consult
with the government are the following:

           •   The FNTR, or Fédération Nationale des Transports Routiers (National federation of Road
               Transport), the main freight transport organisation in terms of the number of members

10
     Programme de Recherche et d’Innovation dans les Transports Terrestres (www.predit.prd.fr).


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                            24
             (12,000). Its members are very diverse, from small companies to large ones. FNTR
             advocates some level of government’s intervention to protect the road transport industry
             from the requirements of the shippers;
        •    TLF, fédération des entreprises de Transport et Logistique de France. TLF is FNTR’s main
             competitor. It is the main freight transport organisation in terms of the revenue of its
             members, which are mostly large companies. TLF is also more intermodal and also
             represents transport organisers and logistics providers. TLF advocates deregulation and a
             decrease in government intervention;
        •    ASLOG, ASsociation française pour la LOGistique (French association for logistics) has
             1,500 members representing all categories of logistics providers;
        •    AFTRI, Association Française pour le Transport Routier International (French association
             for international road transport) represents truck companies with international
             operations, especially in Eastern Europe and in North Africa.

The rail lobby is more concentrated, as Fret SNCF, the freight division of the publically owned rail
company SNCF, still operates 80% of rail freight in France. Fret SNCF has its own (powerful) access to
ministries and lawmakers. The other freight rail companies (ECR, a subsidiary of Deutsche Bahn, and
Europort, a subsidiary of Eurotunnel which recently bought Veolia Cargo France) have not yet
organised lobby activities formally, at least at the French level.

An important contributor to the national transport policy is the Réseau Scientifique et Technique
(RST, scientific and technical network). This is a multi-level grouping of different technical and
research centres (32 institutions are members) dedicated to transport, safety, and strength of
materials on account of the national State. Most of the 9,000 employees of the RST are public
servants. Among the various entities of the RST, and leading its scientific work, is the new IFSTTAR
(Institut Français des Sciences et Technologies des Transports, de l’Aménagement et des Réseaux,
French Institute for Transport, Planning and Networks Sciences). This Institute, with one thousand
employees, results from the January 2011 merger of the National Institute for Transport and Safety
Research (INRETS) and the LCPC (Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées). Linked to many
universities throughout France, IFSTTAR represents the main centre for research and expertise on
transport, transport engineering, transport economics, infrastructure engineering in France.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                       25
3.1.2      French national transport policy

Four major framework-documents define the French national transport policy and have freight and
logistics components.

       •   The SNIT is the Schéma National des Infrastructures de Transport (national master plan for
           transport infrastructures);

       •   The 2007 “Grenelle11 de l’Environnement” (“Grenelle of the environment”) and the October
           2009 “Engagement national pour le Fret Ferroviaire” (national commitment for rail freight)
           have a common objective of increasing the share of non-road freight transport from 14% to
           25% (in tonnes) by 2022. The Engagement is an investment plan of seven billion euros focused
           on various infrastructures and projects: renovation of the rail network, experimentation of
           “rail highways” and of regional freight short lines, investments in rail access to French ports;

       •   The LOTI, Loi d’Orientation pour les Transports Intérieurs (orientation law for domestic
           transports). The LOTI was originally adopted in 1982 and is regularly amended. The latest
           amendments were made by the Loi Grenelle 1 and Loi Grenelle 212;

       •   The Plan National Véhicules Electriques et hybrides (national plan for electric and hybrid
           vehicles). It was launched on the first of October of 2009. 14 measures are included, from
           standardisation to co-financing of infrastructure to subsidies for buying an electric car or van.

For urban freight, the most influential of these documents are the LOTI and the Plan National
Véhicules Electriques. Following a 2000 addition, the LOTI in its article 28-1 provides the general
orientations for urban freight planning in all large cities’ Urban Transport Plan (called Plan de
Déplacements Urbains, or PDU):

           Article 28-1 of the Domestic Transport Orientation Act or LOTI: the mission of a PDU for freight
transport is to “address freight transport and deliveries while rationalising the resupply conditions of the
agglomeration in order to maintain its commercial and artisanal activities. It shall render coherent the hours of
delivery as well as the weight and dimensions of delivery vehicles within the urban transport perimeter. It
takes into account the space necessary for efficient deliveries in order to limit the congestion of traffic lanes
and parking areas. It offers a response well-adapted to the use of existing logistic infrastructures, notably
those situated on routes other than roads and specifies the location of future facilities, in the interest of a
multimodal service” (Dablanc, 2007a).


11
   A “Grenelle” process traditionally means, in French, a large scale consultation process leading to a
nonpartisan compromise. The Grenelle de l’Environnement took place in 2007 and 2008, and led to two pieces of
legislation, the Grenelle 1 Law (Law 2009-967 of 3 August 2009) and the Grenelle 2 Law (Law 2010-788 of 12 July
2010).
12
     See previous footnote.


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                                  26
One may question the highly ambitious objectives assigned to the PDUs (including, for example, the
organisation of multimodal options for freight operators). Also, many local or metropolitan
authorities do not have the technical, legal, or financial means, or even the logistical expertise
necessary to implement these goals. However, for the past ten years, article 28-1 of LOTI gave
French cities an impulsion to look at freight issues, to collect data, and to organize consultation
processes.

Another recent addition to LOTI may have important impacts for urban freight. It is the creation of
new “zones d'actions prioritaires pour l'air (priority action zones for air). Cities over 100,000 which
are non-attainment areas (over the E.U. limits for air pollution) will be able to implement areas
where access will be forbidden to the most polluting vehicles (hence to trucks and vans).




3.2 AT THE PARIS URBAN LEVEL

3.2.1   Institutional framework at the urban level of Paris



AGENTS IN CHARGE OF FREIGHT

At the municipal level, two agents are in charge of freight on a full-time basis. One is the City’s
Freight Project Manager, and the other one is a freight transport engineer, acting as the Deputy
Freight Project Manager. The position of Freight Project Manager has been created in 2001 when a
new Mayor (Mr Delanoë, still the current Mayor) and his Deputy Mayor for Transport, Denis Baupin,
entered office. The freight managers are part of the Agency for Mobility (Agence de la Mobilité), a
strategic body created within the Department of Transport of the City of Paris, also in 2001.

In addition to the Municipality, other stakeholders participate in managing/regulating freight
transport in the Paris metropolitan area:

    •   The Regional Council has recently appointed a full-time Freight Expert;
    •   Each of the three Departments around Paris has employees dedicated to freight. Some have
        full-time personnel (Departments Seine-St-Denis and Val-de-Marne, both with two agents) or
        part-time (Department Hauts-de-Seine, with one agent who also works on other issues).

Even more important than the Region and the Departments for freight policies is the Préfecture de
Police. The Préfecture de Police does not have one specific freight expert, but it is responsible for
traffic and parking rules’ enforcement. Its agents are either policemen/women, or special agents for
traffic/parking enforcement. In both cases, the Préfecture has full responsibility over traffic/parking



TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                        27
violations control. The Prefecture de Police is a State-controlled administration, and does not depend
upon the City. The City often laments the lack of sufficient enforcement of traffic and parking
violations, but it has no leverage over the Prefecture’s priorities and organisation.




PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITIES OVER FREIGHT

The City of Paris:

    •    It defines vehicles’ traffic and parking access rules as well as delivery time-windows. It does
         so through municipal ordinances. These are presented in Chapter 3. Municipal ordinances can
         define weight, size and other kinds of technical limits to the trucks that are allowed to enter
         within city limits. The City also defines general traffic laws that may have an impact over
         truck and van traffic (such as maximum speeds – provided it is under the maximum national
         speeds defined by the national State);
    •    It defines, locates and lays out on-street delivery bays;
    •    It defines requirements to build off-street delivery bays within new buildings’ premises;
    •    It defines general land-uses on the municipal territory.

The City of Paris also organises freight consultation processes as well as specific policies aiming at
promoting clean and sustainable ways of delivering in Paris. This is described extensively in Chapter 3
and subsequent Chapters.

The other cities within the region Ile-de-France:

     •   There are 1280 cities in the Region Ile-de-France and each of them has the same legal powers
         over traffic, land use and building permits than the City of Paris. This has caused major
         coordination problems for truck traffic (see below);
     •   Municipalities other than Paris have enforcement powers, which the City of Paris does not
         have, as it is in the hands of the Préfecture de Police. Most small cities, however, have
         turned towards the State for police enforcement.

The Departments:

    •    They define traffic rules, signing and information (such as on vehicle message signs) on
         departmental roads. However, if a departmental road is within the dense area of a
         municipality, the Mayor of the municipality is responsible for traffic regulation;
    •    Over than that, Departments have little jurisdiction over freight planning and policies. Most
         of them have tried to promote inter-municipal coordination of freight policies;

    •    The Region Ile-de-France:


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                          28
    •    It delivers the Regional Master Plan (SDRIF: Schéma Directeur de la Région Ile-de-France), as
         well as the regional Urban Transport Plan (PDUIF: Plan de Déplacements Urbains d’Ile-de-
         France);
    •    It delivers the PRQA, Plan Régional pour la Qualité de l’Air or Regional Plan for Air Quality,
         and the PPA, Plan de Protection de l’Atmosphère (Plan for Atmospheric Protection). These
         two documents set principles that cities have to go along with when setting their own traffic
         regulations;
    •    It finances about half of the region’s major transport infrastructure such as roads, railways,
         waterways, ports, public intermodal facilities;
    •    Currently, it finances half of the Urban Goods Movement survey being planned for spring
         2011.

The Préfecture de Police:

     •   It enforces the City of Paris’ traffic and parking regulations through its agents, either general
         agents (policemen and policewomen) or dedicated agents (dedicated to parking and traffic).

The State:

    •    It regulates all traffic rules and is responsible for traffic management on all the highways in
         the region;
    •    It owns and operates the Port of Paris, as well as Fret SNCF and RFF (see Section 3.1.1);
    •    In addition to its general freight and transport policies (see Section 3.1.1) it sets up general
         traffic laws such as maximum speed limits for each category of roads (50 km/hour in cities,
         90 km/hour for trucks on highways for example);
    •    Through its research and development activities (through the PREDIT, see Section 3.1.1), it
         participates in the promotion of many Paris city logistics initiatives;
    •    It finances about 40% of the regional infrastructures (roads, rails and waterways) through the
         Project Contract;
    •    Currently, it finances half of the Urban Goods Movement survey being planned for spring
         2011.



PRIVATE STAKEHOLDERS

Two major institutions are active in consulting with the City of Paris on freight issues. (1) One is the
Chamber of Commerce of Paris (CCIP). CCIP has one Freight expert, who is in constant relationship
with the municipal Freight Project Manager. (2) The other one is the GATMARIF, Groupement des
activités de transport et de manutention de la region Ile-de-France – groupment of transport and


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                           29
warehousing activities in the Ile-de-France region). GATMARIF is a carriers’ organisation that has the
specificity of grouping together the two competing national carriers’ organisations, FNTR and TLF
(see Section 3.1.1). GATMARIF also includes the regional branch of the SNTL (Syndicat National des
Transports Légers, or national syndicate for light transport), the representative body for transport
companies that use vans.

At the Paris regional level, therefore, all truck and intermodal transport companies are represented
within the GATMARIF, which is very active in meeting and discussing with the City of Paris. Section
3.2.2 details the urban freight consultation processes that took place in Paris, involving the City, the
Region, the Departments, the CCIP and GATMARIF.



ONE MAJOR CHALLENGE FOR TRUCK ROUTES: INSTITUTIONAL FRAGMENTATION

The Paris region is currently confronting a major institutional challenge that affects freight traffic
and logistics activities. The main problem of the region in terms of governance is its considerable
municipal fragmentation. The Paris region (see Figure 3) is composed of 1,280 municipalities, among
them the city of Paris. All of these municipalities, some of which are extremely small, have the legal
power to establish traffic and parking rules on their territorial limits. This has ended up in a
“patchwork” of local rules for lorry and van access, based on size, tonnage, or surface limits of
vehicles, as well as delivery time windows. There is no regional harmonisation of the local freight
rules, and truck companies find it extremely difficult to follow the different local rules. See Figure 9
showing an old cartographic representation of truck access rules in the most urban municipalities of
Ile-de-France. Although old, this map is still more or less the same today.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                         30
  Figure 9 – Map of the “patchwork” of freight access rules in the dense area of the Paris region

                                           Source: L. Dablanc (1995)



GRAND PARIS

Another challenge, and one which is closely connected to the institutional fragmentation we have
just discussed, is the “Grand Paris”. The “Grand Paris” (Greater Paris) represents an initiative from
President Sarkozy in 2007 aiming at planning the Paris region and its surroundings for the next thirty
years. This will be done mainly through a major transport and housing development plan. With
regards to freight, one of the dominant features of the Grand Paris strategy will be to establish closer
links between Le Havre, the Seine valley and Paris. Despite geographical closeness, the port of Le
Havre today is not the main gateway for imports and exports of goods to and from the City of Paris
(the Port of Antwerp plays this role). The plan for the Grand Paris aims at making the connection
more obvious and at developing rail and barge traffic between Le Havre, Rouen and Paris.

The Grand Paris project was presented following an architects and planners competition in 2009.
Among the conclusions of the project was the proposal to create a unified metropolitan government
for the City of Paris and neighbouring municipalities. This generated a controversy with the most
powerful (and politically opposed to the national government) local governments of Ile-de-France:


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                         31
the City of Paris and the Regional Council. Both fear that the national government tries to reoccupy
the political arena in the Paris region and recentralize the decision-making process. They oppose the
idea of a metropolitan institution having considerable power over land use and transport to
implement the Grand Paris project.

3.2.2   Urban transport policy

In the changing institutional and economic context of Ile-de-France, freight and logistics activities
have been acknowledged as major contributors to the region's economic well-being that nonetheless
have negative environmental effects such as noise, air pollution, and CO2 emissions. Therefore, since
2001, urban goods transport, long since neglected in Paris urban mobility policies, has been brought
to the Paris agenda as part of a new approach in transport planning. In the past, the authorities
restricted their activity to regulating traffic and delivery vehicles loading or unloading goods. Since
2001, as part of a new policy on sharing urban space and managing mobility, the City of Paris has
expanded its freight-specific scope of action incorporating, in particular, city planning,
environmental, economic and social aspects. The municipality considers the transport of goods as a
priority amongst its policies on urban development and transport and mobility. It has the following
objectives (Dablanc et al., 2010):

    •   To better control the public space occupied by this sector;

    •   To reduce negative impacts on the environment caused by transporting goods in Paris
        (pollution, noise, CO2, accidents);

    •   To increase economic and social efficiency in this sector;

    •   To make the City of Paris more attractive;

    •   To integrate the logistical needs of the City of Paris.

To do so, the City of Paris has focused on a deliberate strategy of policy-mix, mixing traditional but
updated policies (such as traffic and parking regulations) with more innovative approaches (such as
the promotion of rail and waterways, the promotion of city logistics experiments). Underlying its
policy, a consultation process dedicated to freight transport provided the ground for all subsequent
measures taken by Paris decision-makers.

Today, the following documents constitute the main framework for the Paris urban freight policy.




CHARTER ON GOOD PRACTICES FOR DELIVERIES




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                        32
Signed on 28 June 2006, the Charter is accessible on the Paris city website13. A consultation in 2002
brought together the Deputy Mayor in charge of transport with freight transport stakeholders: those
who generate flows (represented by Chambers of Commerce and shippers' associations), carrier
federations, rail and river infrastructure managers, energy providers, and some institutions (including
the State, the Region, and ADEME). An action plan and a pilot committee were created, and three
working groups were launched simultaneously. The first sought to collect data and information about
the delivery sector and make diagnostics. The second proposed actions towards the optimisation of
the city’s logistic activities. The final one developed prospective analyses for the medium and long
term, and focused on innovative urban logistics and organisational techniques. In June of 2006, all
the participants agreed to sign a Charter of good practices for freight transport and deliveries in
Paris. This text is not legally binding, but based on the commitment and willingness of each party. A
Charter’s follow-up committee was also created to verify the continuing commitment of the
stakeholders. This committee also serves to resolve problems and conflicts related to goods
deliveries within Paris.

The Charter includes the following elements:

     •   Delivery traffic regulations. The major innovation was to introduce an "environmental"
         regulation for the first time in Paris, with a time window reserved for the least polluting
         vehicles (see below);

     •   Supply and use of on-street delivery areas, by revising how delivery areas are positioned on
         roadways and creating new rules for their use (see Section 4.1.3);

     •   Land use and planning regulations. Several freight specific items were added to the local land
         use and master plan (PLU);

     •   In fall 2009, the City and its partners made a global assessment of the cooperation under the
         Goods Charter. The most salient conclusions were the following (Dablanc et al., 2010);

     •   Dialog on goods transport is important. The first advantage of consultation is to bring
         together groups who do not habitually meet. This time devoted to discussion helps develop
         an understanding of each participant’s specific limits, needs, and difficulties, and defuses
         conflicts before they break out;

     •   There is a temporal misalignment between actions by public and private parties. In general,
         public authorities and the private sector do not function on the same time scale. The private


13

www.paris.fr/portail/pratique/Portal.lut?page_id=376&document_type_id=5&document_id=21016&portlet_id=1
187. [Last accessed 27 September 2010].


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                        33
         sector is accustomed to setting plans into motion rapidly and tends to find public decision-
         making processes very slow. On the other hand, private sector investments are geared
         toward the long term because of amortization concerns. The private sector seeks to
         coordinate these investments with future regulatory changes;

     •   Enforcement is quite insufficient. Private businesses demand better enforcement, as this is
         the only way to distinguish "virtuous" transport companies from their less scrupulous
         competitors;

     •   The City must take measures on real estate issues. The City of Paris is trying to conserve and
         develop logistic sites within its territory, but land scarcity remains a major issue, in Paris as
         well as in the inner suburbs;

     •   Lack   of   representativity.    Large    professional   federations   and   large   carriers   are
         overrepresented relative to small businesses with only a few employees;

     •   The usefulness of experimentation. New forms of city logistic organisation (see Good
         Practices 1, 2 and 4) are effective in communicating possibilities and spreading ideas that
         promote changes in behaviour;

     •   The relevant territory is larger than the City of Paris. The organisation of freight flows is
         mainly regional, with warehouses that serve the entire region. When faced with the difficulty
         of supplying central Paris, businesses adopt strategies with consequences for the surrounding
         municipalities.

These conclusions constitute, today, the basis of the current reformulation of the Paris freight policy.




LOCAL TRAFFIC ORDINANCES OF 13 DECEMBER 2006

These two twin ordinances organize the regulation of delivery vehicles’ access and parking in Paris.
The first one provides delivery time-windows and vehicles’ technical specifications. It is updated
every year, as the specification on Euro standards for the vehicles varies. The current regulation
defines a “clean vehicle” as a vehicle with a Euro 5 standard. The second ordinance lists the location
of all the delivery areas in Paris.

A brochure summarizing the regulation for transport companies can be downloaded from the Paris
city website14. The main rules that apply in Paris are the following:

14

www.paris.fr/portail/pratique/Portal.lut?page_id=376&document_type_id=5&document_id=25945&portlet_id=1
187. [Last accessed on 27 September 2010].


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                              34
     •   Vehicles that are less than 29m2 in surface can circulate from 22:00 till 17:00;
     •   Vehicles that are more than 29m2 in surface (with a maximum limit of 43m2) can circulate
         from 22:00 till 7:00;
     •   “Clean” vehicles that are less than 29m2 in surface can circulate 24/24. Clean vehicles are
         defined as the following: Euro 5 vehicles, electric and CNG vehicles;
     •   A vehicle can only stay on a delivery area for 30 minutes. It must show a “delivery disc” on
         its front window.

The City of Paris, therefore, promotes night deliveries for large vehicles (this is contrary to many
other French and European cities), and it provides a specific delivery time-window in the afternoon
for recent and clean delivery vehicles.




PARIS URBAN LAND USE AND MASTER PLAN (PLAN LOCAL D’URBANISME)

This is a document officially adopted by the Paris Council on 12 & 13 June of 2006. It can be accessed
online15.

In its article 1216, the document organises the building requirements for delivery areas within new
commercial or industrial buildings. There is an obligation to set aside a delivery area on private land
when constructing shops with a floor area of over 500m2, hotels with over 150 rooms, offices with a
floor area of over 2,500m2, and warehouses irrespective of surface area. Another major content of
the Paris Master Plan aims at preserving a range of rail and waterway transport sites within Paris, and
to locate logistic activities on them (See Chapter 7).




15

www.paris.fr/portail/pratique/Portal.lut?page_id=7042&document_type_id=4&document_id=21439&portlet_id=
16186. [Last accessed on 27 September 2010].
16
     For     the    urban    sections   of    Paris,  the   rule   is   detailed on    page    65    of
www.paris.fr/portail/pratique/Portal.lut?page_id=7042&document_type_id=4&document_id=21439&portlet_id=
16186. [Last accessed on 27 September 2010].


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                        35
4       MEASURES USED IN PARIS

The main objective of the City of Paris, as described in Chapters 2 and 3, is to alleviate the
environmental impacts of freight traffic, mainly related to atmospheric emissions (local pollutants
and CO2). However, the City is very keen in doing this while recognising freight transport as a very
important asset for the economic vitality of Paris, considering Paris’ strongholds in commercial and
business activities. Therefore, a second key element of the Paris policy towards freight is a focus on
innovations in city logistics, so as to provide Paris businesses with a choice of efficient and
environmentally-friendly solutions for their urban supply chain.

To do so, Paris has designed a freight strategy which is served by a “policy-mix” of various and mostly
interconnected measures. Most of the measures revolve around a recentralised logistics system:
logistics activities should find space and facilities within the Paris urban area, and not be located
further and further away generating many additional vehicle-km. The second emphasis of Paris urban
freight policy is on rail. Paris promotes the re-use of rail freight facilities within the city. More
recently, it has been promoting and studying a cargo-tram project.




4.1          A LONG TERM POLICY

The Paris freight program has to be seen as a global and comprehensive policy. The mix of measures
that has been chosen serves a set of objectives presented in section 3.2.2. The transport of goods is
viewed as a priority for both Paris’ policy on urban development and its transport policy. Long term
objectives, such as increasing the use of waterways and railways or developing specific training
programmes for urban delivery drivers, go along with short term ones, such as access regulation.

Paris innovative and comprehensive approach towards freight transport is a consequence of a
particularly good cooperation and understanding between two key persons in the period 2002-2007:

    •   The deputy mayor in charge of transport, who set up an ambitious policy towards the
        reduction of environmental impacts, the promotion of public transport, the reduction of the
        use of cars, but who also understood that freight traffic is a key asset to the economic
        activity and needs to find space and facilities within the city to better operate;

    •   The newly hired city's freight project manager, who created and maintained extensive
        consultation with private stakeholders, designing new solutions based on their needs.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                        36
Thanks to this good cooperation, innovative solutions emerged in addition to traditional ones, and
private and public sector shared common decision because these decisions were good for both of
them: in this case, environmental constraint met economic objectives.

To develop this approach and pursue these objectives, and in the framework of the documents that
have been described in Section 3.2.2, the City of Paris uses different categories of tools to organize
freight and logistics. This “policy mix” is an important principle for the City and is a direct result of
the Charter of Goods Deliveries (see Section 3.2.2). The private partners that signed the Charter
required that different options be experimented in order to reinforce the efficiency of the freight
measures.

The measures will be presented in two categories: “traditional” measures, i.e. measures long-
established and focused on traditional targets of municipal policy such as traffic and parking
ordinances; and “innovative” measures, measures that belong to fields usually unknown from
municipal decision-makers. Four of the measures below are described in specific chapters, as they
have been identified as “good practices”. Therefore, in this chapter, their description is quite short.




4.2 TRADITIONAL BUT UPDATED POLICIES

4.2.1   Promoting consultation with private stakeholders

A major freight consultation process started in 2002 has been a key element and the main basis for
the Paris freight policy since then. The achievements and drawbacks of this consultation process have
been described in Section 3.2.2.




4.2.2   Regulating commercial vehicles’ traffic and parking

The City of Paris has been regulating commercial vehicles for fifty year, as the first local ordinance
on truck traffic was passed in 1961 (Dablanc, 1995). Paris has always had quite complex truck traffic
regulations, linking the trucks’ surface and other characteristics to specific time-windows. These
regulations have been simplified over the years. Today, the regulation is organised by two local
ordinances of December 2006, which have been described in Section 3.2.2. The City has always
promoted night deliveries, contrary to London, for example, which has favoured lorry bans during the
night. The current regulation innovates with an environmental principle introduced favouring the
most recent vehicles.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                          37
The main drawback of this policy lies in insufficient enforcement. Enforcement agents pertain to the
Prefecture de Police, a State administration. Agents are not sufficiently trained in delivery issues and
they do not know the details of the delivery regulations. This has been discussed in Section 3.2.1.




4.2.3    Providing more efficient on-street loading/unloading areas

The implementation of loading bays is the most widely used tool to organize freight activities in
urban areas and it is the most convenient way for a city to respond to the specific needs of delivery
personnel. In Paris, before 2004, the 10,000 existing delivery bays were more often used for car
parking than for delivery operations. The City of Paris took a series of measures to improve the use of
delivery bays.

     •   Improvement of the delivery bay positioning. A method was set up to quantify the number of
         delivery bays needed (depending on the type and quantity of shops). A technical guide has
         been written by the City’s Department of technical services in charge of street design
         (Technical guide to delivery bays for the city of Paris)17 (see Figure 10);




                  Figure 10 – Technical Guide to Delivery Areas for the City of Paris

                                            Source: City of Paris



     •   Limitation of the stopping time for delivery to a maximum of 30 minutes. The time limit is
         controlled using a time disc on which delivery drivers must indicate their arrival time;


17
  This guide, also available in English, is not downloadable from a website, but it can be delivered free of
charge by contacting: Direction de la Voirie et des Déplacements, Agence de la Mobilité, Section Marchandises,
40 rue du Louvre, 75001 PARIS, France.


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                               38
      •    In September 2010, general (private cars) parking has been allowed on delivery bays during
           the night (from 8:00 pm to 7:00 am) on 80% of the delivery bays. The remaining 20% have
           been identified as spaces commonly used by delivery trucks early in the morning (before 7:00
           am).

A 2008 survey showed that with the new organisation, the use of delivery bays has changed with a
better availability of delivery bays during the day. Car parking on the bays has much decreased.
Enforcement has increased considerably, with 13% of illegal stops fined in 2008 versus only 1% in
2004. This has not yet transferred into an increased use of delivery bays by delivery truck drivers but
it has laid the necessary conditions for a more efficient use of the Paris delivery bays.




4.3 INNOVATIVE POLICIES


4.3.1      Experiments in City Logistics, emerging concepts

The City of Paris decided to support innovative urban logistic organizations, by initiating and funding
some feasibility studies and providing logistic space at a reasonable price. Five Urban Logistics Spaces
(ULS) were set up: these small facilities are intended to facilitate the cross-docking and preparation
of parcels and shipments that need to be delivered to specific neighbourhoods. The rules for using
these ULS are as follows:

      •    Consolidate goods flows entering Paris, using heavy goods vehicles, thereby reducing suburbs-
           Paris road traffic;

      •    Use ‘green’ vehicles for the final distribution in Paris (delivery tricycles, electric commercial
           vehicles, etc.);

      •    Three ULS are detailed in the following sections (good practice #1 Chronopost uses one ULS
           and good practice #2 La Petite Reine uses two ULS). The two other ones are located:

               o   in the South of Paris, in the Porte d'Orléans parking lot, used by a small delivery
                   company specialised on home deliveries with high level of service, called Colizen18;

               o   on the right bank of the Seine, near the Opera. This ULS is used by Urban Cab, a
                   transport company, working as a subcontractor for FedEx urban parcels distribution
                   and for Telemarket (an e-grocery company)19.


18
     www.colizen.fr/index.html
19
     www.urban-cab.com


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                             39
4.3.2    Alternatives to road transport and the cargo-tram project

Besides ULS, the local administration in Paris promotes alternatives to road transport and supports
logistic organizations based on the use of railways or waterways. The re-use of a traditional rail
freight terminal in Paris Bercy by Monoprix is a successful example of this policy (cf. good practice #4
in Chapter 8). The intention to evaluate the opportunity of a cargo tram service using future tramway
infrastructure could lead in 2013 to a new alternative to road transport. The rail passenger network
will be improved around Paris in order to respond to a growing demand, with extensions of subway
lines, the creation of new tram lines and rapid bus corridors. This brings a serious opportunity to
consider the integration of a logistics link within the future rail transit network: a freight tram (or
cargo tram) serving Paris.

In January 2010, the urban planning agency of Paris (APUR, Atelier Parisien d'Urbanisme) decided to
start examining the capacity of the future tramway network for goods transport. The Bercy Monoprix
railway project (see Good Practice #4) had demonstrated the possibility to use passenger train rail
tracks for freight transport on short distances.

However, a rail oriented logistics organization faces a severe set of constraints:

     •   Economic constraints: trains are mass transport systems and freight operators must carry a
         very large volume of goods (400 to 500 tonnes) in order to make the transition to rail
         worthwhile and to bear the cost of one additional transhipment operation;

     •   Operational constraints: there is a need for dedicated warehouses connected to the railway
         network;

     •   Regulation and safety constraints: the equipment used must be qualified to operate on the
         national rail network, and rail operators themselves must be authorized by the EPSF (the
         French railway safety agency). This authorization process can take several months or even
         years, especially in France where the rail administration is notoriously slow.

These constraints limit the number of shippers and receivers (such as major retailers like Monoprix)
able to shift from road to rail in an urban environment.

A cargo tramway could be a solution for overcoming these constraints, because it has several
advantages over a regular cargo train. A tramway has a total load between 60 and 80 tonnes. It has a
safety and regulation system still to be defined but which will be less exacting than the rail
regulatory framework. Also, a tramway presents a potentially more favourable economic dimension,
making it more attractive to businesses and operators.

The objective of the feasibility study currently carried by APUR is to define the conditions of a
successful implementation of a freight tram before the end of 2013. One of the success factors of the


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                         40
Monoprix Bercy rail project was the close cooperation between public and private sectors during the
feasibility study. APUR will reproduce this organization and it is already very careful in reaching out
the private sector and associating private companies and organizations to the study.

The following topics will be covered by the upcoming APUR study:

     •   Benchmark. What can be learned from foreign experiences? Five specific foreign experiences
         with cargo trams will be assessed: cargo tram Dresden and cargo tram Zurich as actual
         operations, cargo tram Amsterdam, cargo tram Bordeaux as past or current projects. Are
         there other similar projects in the world? The study will survey this question. The failure of
         the cargo tram project in Amsterdam (Arvidsson, 2010), which was an ambitious and far
         reaching project, will be of major importance to the preparation of the Paris cargo tram;

     •   Technical study. Figure 11 below shows the future tramway network. The technical
         feasibility study will identify and locate all potentially interesting activities and facilities
         closed to the tramway network: warehouses and distribution centres, other logistics
         facilities, business and industrial parks, shopping malls, supermarkets, wholesalers, etc. It
         will also identify ways to integrate these sites into the tram network: missing rail sidings,
         specific issues of integration into the urban fabric.




                Figure 11 - Maps of the future tramway network of Paris, 2010-2020

                                          Source: courtesy of APUR



The technical study will also look at the rolling stock. It will define the relevant tram cars for freight
loads, identifying key characteristics such as dynamic behaviour, size, load capacity, engine (ability
to roll over short distances without connecting to the grid). Containers will be examined, trying to
answer the question: what is the best solution to transport goods? Advantages and disadvantages of
mini containers and pallets will be assessed. Different options may be considered depending on the

TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                           41
type of goods (consumer goods for retail, express freight, waste, etc.). Handling equipment will also
be studied.

Safety issues and regulations will receive specific attention. Freight tram is a new topic, and safety
rules are not defined yet. In accordance with the relevant authorities, the study will define safety
requirements for equipment (braking ability, strength, resistance to crash test), for the loads
(resistance to fire, storage, type of products transported), and for operations (specific constraints in
relation to passengers tram traffic).

Tram operator will be looked at. The study will identify the scope of the tram operator’s
responsibilities: loading and unloading, driving tramways on private sidings and private property,
ownership of the equipment, maintenance services.

Insertion of freight routes in passenger routes will also be an issue. Study of the network's capacity to
absorb the additional freight traffic during peak and off-peak periods, and during the night.

Economic and marketing study, business plan. Shippers will be associated to this study. Three studies
with different private operators will be undertaken in parallel, including the following: a shipper’s
needs analysis, looking at the organization of its supplies from warehouses to stores; an analysis on
how to connect shippers’ facilities to the network and on how to define rolling stocks; the definition
of the tram service: schedule, breakdown between operation and investment costs, technical
solutions, stakeholders to be associated; and finally an environmental assessment and comparison of
the tramway solution to road transport. This assessment will look at noise, local pollution and
greenhouse gas emission, as well as the congestion that will be caused or reduced with the cargo
tram.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                          42
5 GOOD PRACTICE #1: CHRONOPOST CONCORDE

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Chronopost Concorde is an innovative organisation of parcel deliveries in the 7th and 8th boroughs of
Paris using clean delivery vehicles as well as an Urban Logistics Space (ULS). Chronopost Concorde is
the good example of the Urban Logistics Space policy of Paris, a policy that is easily transferable to
any large city provided it owns or regulates the use of urban car parking public facilities.

Chronopost is a French subsidiary of La Poste group, one of the largest mail and express carriers in
Europe. Chronopost is active on both the Business to Business and Business to Customer markets. The
company has 3,500 employees and its 2009 turnover was 623 million euros. It delivers 240,000 parcels
each day around the world, and has a market share of 18% in France.

As was seen in the previous chapters, the City of Paris has a freight policy that focuses on developing
experimental actions, in order to promote new ways of delivering to the city centre. One of the
pillars of this policy is to develop small logistic facilities in the city centre. The spatial dispersion of
logistic facilities in the metropolitan area has increased the distance travelled by trucks and vans
which deliver to the city, leading to increased CO2 emissions. Therefore, the City took several
measures to reintroduce logistic facilities in the centre, and to demonstrate their usefulness by using
concrete examples of innovative ways of delivering, using environmentally friendly vehicles.

A key element of this policy is to provide some transhipment facilities within the city walls. These
facilities are now called Urban Logistics Spaces (ULS), or ELU (espaces logistiques urbains in French).
A decision was taken to provide some space in underground parking lots. Most underground parking
facilities in Paris are controlled by the City, either directly (the municipality owns and operates the
facility with its own employees) or indirectly (the municipality owns the facility, but concedes the
management to a private company under public service obligations).

The Concorde facility is located in the Concorde underground parking lot, below the Place de la
Concorde. It is located very close to the American embassy and to the palace hotel Crillon (i.e.
expensive real estate markets). Before 2004, the space that is now dedicated to logistic activities
was used to collect coins from on-street parking toll machines.

In September 2004, the City of Paris organized a bid for tender based on the provision of clean supply
chain operations:

    •   Parcels transported to the Concorde transit facility must be consolidated;
    •   Clean vehicles for final deliveries to local business and residents must be used.



TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                             43
Chronopost won the bid for tender and developed a new organisation for delivering parcels in the 7th
and 8th boroughs of Paris. These boroughs include the busiest neighbourhoods of Paris in terms of
offices, shops and administration.

Chronopost started to operate from the site in July 2005.




5.2 MEASURES

Chronopost developed a new organisation which is based on a main transport link from a hub outside
of Paris to the Concorde ULS, and final deliveries using a fleet of electric vehicles from the Concorde
ULS to the clients. The hub outside of Paris is located in Charenton, one of the Eastern cities of the
first ring around Paris. Figure 12 shows how the introduction of the Concorde ULS has reorganized the
transport chain20.



Without Concorde ULS                                          With Concorde ULS




                        Figure 12 – Chronopost Concorde organizational scheme
                           Source: courtesy of the City of Paris/Grant Thorton




5.2.1    Stakeholders

The Chronopost Concorde project involved different stakeholders:

     •   The municipality of Paris. The municipal authority decided to develop the ULS concept, and
         it was the first city in France to decide to use an underground parking facility for this.


20
  Figure 11 shows a hub located in Bercy, which was the previous location. Today, the hub is in Charenton, a
few hundred meters further east. It does not change the general organizational scheme.


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                             44
        Without this political commitment toward a better management of urban freight and the
        willingness to develop environmentally friendly last mile solutions, the experiment would not
        have been effectively implemented.

The role of the municipality was:

        o    To provide public space at a “logistic cost”, i.e. a cost comparable to real estate costs
             for logistics facilities in the Paris region’s suburban locations. The price was even
             reduced during the experimental phase;
        o    To finance a two year assessment study.

    •   Chronopost. The company has been involved in finding solutions for city distribution since
        1999, when it started to develop a new vehicle, called Chronocity, dedicated to pedestrian
        areas (see Figure 13). Chronocity was first implemented in 2001 in the cities of Strasbourg
        and Montpellier. Parcels were transported from an external hub to the city centre.

Chronopost developed the Concorde ULS together with the City of Paris in order to be able to use
electric vehicles. Chronopost paid for all the studies and works necessary to transform the space into
a logistic facility and to conform it to local and national safety regulations.

    •   The Fire Brigade and the Préfecture de Police. The Fire Brigade together with the
        Préfecture de Police played the leading role in verifying the conformity to regulation. During
        the works and the implementation phases, these two institutions were often consulted. The
        implementation of a logistic space in a public parking had never been done before at this
        scale. There were no existing dedicated safety regulations.

    •   Electricity of France (EDF), the national electricity distribution company. EDF has been
        associated to the project to provide advice in choosing the electric delivery vehicles and to
        contribute to the provision of the electricity supply devices.

    •   ADEME, the Agency for the Environment. ADEME provided funding to invest in the electric
        delivery fleet. It also funded impact assessment studies.



5.2.2   Product and services involved

The site is dedicated to express deliveries in the 7th and 8th boroughs of Paris. Each year, 700,000
parcels are transhipped through this 950m² facility. 57% of them are deliveries and 43% are pick-ups.
The new organisation put in place by Chronopost is based on the following scheme:

    •   A daily shuttle between the Bercy Charenton hub and the underground Concorde facility. This
        18 km link is made with a vehicle which can access the underground facilities, limited to a


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                       45
        height of 1.95 m. Chronopost has increased the loading capacity by adding a specific trailer
        to the van.




                                                                                        1,90 m
                                                     1,90 m
                                                     1,90 m


                    Figure 13 – Chronopost vehicle for daily shuttle and its trailer
                                             Source: Chronopost



    •   The transhipment facility, with a total area of 903 m2, is divided into several spaces, each
        having its functional attributes:
             o   A parking space for the electric fleet and the shuttle truck
             o   Space to sort parcels and prepare the delivery or pick-up route
             o   An office for the site manager and a meeting room
             o   A locker room with toilets and shower.

    •   A fleet of 16 vehicles divided into the following: (1) Fourteen small electric vans (Citroen
        Berlingo and Peugeot Partner at the beginning, progressively replaced by Goupil vehicles).
        The replacement was needed because manufacturers discontinued the production of the
        initial vehicles. Chronopost was faced with severe maintenance issues related to Berlingo and
        Partner electric vans as the manufacturers did not have sufficient trained personnel to
        maintain the vehicles. (2) Two “Chronocity” wheeled containers (see Figure 14). Chronocity
        containers were specifically developed by Chronopost which was not able to find that type of
        equipment on the market.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                      46
Partner and Berlingo vans              Chronocity                        Goupil G3
                 3                                      3
capacity: 2.8m                         capacity: 1.5m                    capacity: 2.8m3
autonomy: 75 km                        max speed: walking speed          autonomy: 70 km
max speed: 95 km/h                     No driving licence required       max speed: 40 km/h
                                                                         No driving licence required

     Figure 14 – The three types of delivery vehicles used by Chronopost at the Concorde ULS
                                             Source: Chronopost



The organisation is the following:

    •   To make the distribution, two routes per day are organized: one being a 3.5 hour long tour in
        the morning and the other a two hour long tour in the afternoon (two shifts). A productivity
        indicator is that 70 delivery points (addresses) are served per day per person.
    •   To collect the parcels, one route per day is organized, which is 3.5 hour long in the
        afternoon. A productivity indicator is that 21 addresses per day per person are served.




5.2.3   Financial aspects

Chronopost has invested €500,000 in the logistic facility, including civil work (deconstruction,
construction, ventilation, fire detection) and equipment. The City of Paris decided to rent the
underground logistic facility at the regional average price of logistics facilities (most of them being
located in suburban locations at low rental cost). This average price is 60€/m²/year. A reduced price
has been applied by the City during the first years in order to help Chronopost invest in the facility.
The price applied was 15€/m²/year during the first three years; then 30 €/m²/year for the following
three years and 60€/m²/year afterwards. The contract has been signed for a total of 10 years.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                        47
The compensation in favour of Chronopost will amount to €109,000 over the 10 year period.21

If the City had decided to implement more parking places for cars instead of providing a logistic
facility, the total rental profit would have reached €390,000. So the effort made by the city of Paris
can be evaluated at €207,00022.

The two year assessment study has been co-financed by the City of Paris (€20,000) and by ADEME
(€20,000).




        5.3 EVALUATION OF CHRONOPOST

5.3.1    Introduction

The City of Paris and ADEME financed a two year impact assessment study, which was made by an
external independent consulting firm, Grant Thornton. The aim of this study was to monitor the
Chronopost activity over two years of operation and to elaborate a range of indicators in order to
analyse economic, social and environmental aspects of the Chronopost Concorde ULS. This evaluation
took place between July 2006 and June 2008.




5.3.2    Specific urban freight data collected

Operational data related to Chronopost activity were collected, such as the number of parcels
collected or delivered, the number of clients, the number of vehicle used, distance travelled, fuel
consumption, human resources. All these data were provided by Chronopost. Some data were
collected from the City of Paris, such as noise maps and Concorde parking lot description.




21      The total rent paid by Chronopost to the City over the 10 year period will be 487x(3x15 + 3x30 + 4x60) =
€182,625 whereas it should have been 487x10x60 = €292,200 if the rent of 60/m2/year had been applied since
the beginning. 487 m2 is the total space rented from the City, while 443 m2 are rented from the parking
operator.

22       The average gain for private car parking space location is 80€/m²/year in Paris. So over a 10 year
period, the logistic space could have brought 487x10x80 = €389,600 to the City of Paris, instead of 182,625.


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                                 48
5.3.3   Impacts



TRANSPORT IMPACTS

From a strictly operational point of view, the Concorde ULS gives Chronopost the advantage of being
very close to its clients. This means no wasted time in congestion before delivering the first
customers, and a higher productivity (70 addresses per route instead of 56 addresses when the route
started from a hub outside of the city limits).




ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Investment costs are detailed in 5.2.3 above. All operational costs are paid by Chronopost only; there
is no further public support or subsidies. The Grant Thornton analysis showed that the balance
between additional costs and savings (compared to the previous organisation of operations) was null.
The additional costs, due to the renting of the site and the energy needed to run the electric fleet,
are compensated by the savings made on fuel. Each year, 41,000 km of fuel powered vehicles are
saved by using electric vehicles.

The largest share of the operational costs of the ULS comes from salaries and the use of
subcontractors for some of the deliveries, but these costs are not specific to an ULS.

The total cost per parcel delivered is the same from the ULS than from an external hub.




          Figure 15 – Share of the different production costs of Chronopost Concorde ULS
               Source: L. Dablanc from data courtesy of the City of Paris/Grant Thornton




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                       49
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The CO2 emissions calculated over a six month period represent 11.4 tonnes. Without the ULS, these
emissions would have reached nearly 28 tonnes. This decrease of emissions by 16.6 tonnes could be
analysed in the following way:

    •   Two thirds of the reduction is due to the use of an electric fleet for final deliveries;

    •   One third of the reduction is due to the new logistic organisation (one shuttle between the
        ULS and an external hub instead of a fleet of vehicles).




                          Figure 16 – CO2 impact of Chronopost Concorde ULS
               Source: L. Dablanc from data courtesy of the City of Paris/Grant Thornton



The total distance travelled by traditional vans has decreased by 75%, which means that one can
assume there was the same impacts on local emissions . Over one year of activity, local emissions of
NOx had decreased (compared to the previous year) from 192 to 48 kg, and PM10 emissions from 12 to
3 kg.

Over a six month period, 31,200 km were made by non-polluting and silent vehicles within Paris.
Employees working for the ULS now reach their workplace by public transport, which was not
possible before because the external terminal was not well connected to public transport.

The use of electrical vehicles has also had an impact on noise emissions in the city, by replacing noisy
vehicles with silent ones.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                         50
SOCIAL IMPACTS

The implementation of the ULS has located 19 new jobs within Paris (mainly low qualified jobs). The
impact assessment study showed that employees relocated to Paris premises were quite satisfied to
work in the Concorde logistics terminal. They provided the following reasons during interviews:

    •   Less time spent in congestion;

    •   Driving electric vehicle is more comfortable;

    •   The starting hour for the delivery tours is later than previously when employees started their
        work in the suburban terminal.



5.3.4   Implementation of measures



SPECIFIC CHANGES NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT MEASURES

The implementation of ULS in Paris is due to strong political commitments towards a better
integration of city logistic needs. Innovative solutions for freight distribution have to be supported by
the public sphere. It could be done in different ways, such as implementing strict regulation (as long
as enforcement follows), or offering tools for more efficient logistic activities, as the development of
ULS in Paris.

It also has to be clear that the involvement of a city on developing alternative logistic organisation
run by a private company could be done if there is a gain for the collectivity. Providing scarce public
space for a private activity can only be done if there are some benefits for the city’s residents.

The implementation of the Concorde ULS also relies on a strong partnership with a private company
which decided to experiment and accept to take some risk, on an operational as well as on a
financial point of view.

Before starting to operate from the transit facility of Concorde, a lot of preparatory work had to be
undertaken:

    •   The space was previously used to collect money, and was organised in many different small
        spaces. Everything had to be removed in order to implement a logistic facility;

    •   The logistic space is located within a public underground parking. French law imposes a
        complete separation of public spaces and other industrial or commercial activities for safety
        and fire prevention reasons. Consequently, walls (providing a two hour fire protection) and
        fire doors were built around the logistic facility, while dedicated ventilation and fire


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                          51
         detection were installed.

It took eight months to finalize these works. As it was the first time that a logistic facility was
implemented in a public underground parking, the project was also very closely monitored by the fire
brigade who delivered the authorization to start the logistic activity at the end of the works.




INTEGRATION ASPECTS

From an urban point of view, the integration of the Concorde ULS is good as the logistic facility
below the Place de la Concorde, one of the major touristic attractions of Paris, is totally invisible.

The concentration of a logistic activity has no consequence on road traffic (only 20 to 30 movements
of vehicles per day due to the ULS compared to 1600 vehicles per hour arriving from rue de Rivoli on
place de la Concorde).




ACCEPTABILITY

Chronocity and electric vehicles provide a good image of Chronopost to the general public. However,
in general, store and office managers receiving parcels from Chronopost Concorde are little aware of
the way goods are being delivered, as they are not very involved in the organisation of deliveries in
general.




BOTTLENECKS / BARRIERS

Developing logistic activities from an underground parking facility is subject to difficulties detailed
above:

(1) Height limited to 1.95m;

(2) Location in a public space; and

(3) Strict fire detection regulation.

Height is a major operational problem as it obliges to design a specific vehicle to bring the
consolidated parcels in the morning or evacuates the parcels to be shipped in the afternoon.

The Chronopost project was also subject to difficulties with the supply of electric vehicles. In 2005,
no major car manufacturer was selling relevant electric delivery vehicles. The electric version of the
Peugeot Partner and Citroen Berlingo were not on the catalogue anymore, and Chronopost found its
vehicles on the second hand market. The maintenance of the vehicles was also difficult to make (few

TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                              52
technicians have the know-how and spare parts are not always available). Chronopost started testing
lighter electric vehicles in 2009, manufactured by a small French company called Goupil. A close
collaboration has been put in place by the two companies and Goupil started to develop a specific
model adapted to Chronopost needs. Since January 2010, Chronopost has been using four Goupil
vans, called Chronovan, replacing the Berlingo and Partner vans.



SUCCCESS AND FAILURE FACTORS

A strong involvement from both the municipality and Chronopost has been the first success factor of
the Chronopost Concorde experiment in Paris. The benefit of the experiment is demonstrated by the
fact that in 2009 and 2010, several companies also opened small logistic facilities within Paris,
without the help of the municipality.

Companies’ environmental responsibility has grown in importance since 2005. The image of transport
companies is strongly linked to trucks and vans, and these vehicles are seen by the general public as
a problem (pollution, noise, danger, congestion). This is why the use of clean delivery vehicles can be
seen as an asset in the future.

The use of electric vehicles to deliver goods in cities is limited by batteries’ autonomy, and so any
scheme similar to Chronopost Concorde needs to be organized from a location which is very close to
the delivering company’s operational area.

A municipality can also decide to promote the use of environmental friendly vehicles by
implementing one or several specific regulations. Private companies investing in such fleet are
anticipating future access or road charging regulations which could be taken by municipalities in the
future.




5.3.5     Transferability issues

An experiment such as the one implemented with Chronopost Concorde is easily transferable to
another city provided some conditions are met. Several elements are needed:

    •     A strong political commitment toward a better management of urban freight is necessary,
          and there must be a willingness to develop environmentally friendly last mile solutions at the
          municipal level;

    •     The implementation of an ULS relies on a strong cooperation between the private and the
          public sectors. The huge competition existing among express transport companies make them
          quite open to any innovation which can bring them ahead of their competitors. This is the


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                         53
          case with innovative last mile solutions.

In this context, the action of the city also depends on its ability to provide well-located areas (the
closest possible to the city centre) and usable by logistics providers. The choice of Paris to implement
the ULS in public underground car parks is a “default choice” (the second best option), as no other
real estate owned by the city was available for logistics. The impacts on operations have been
detailed (height limit, technical constraints due to regulations).

Some transferability issues must be addressed by public bodies before implementing urban logistics
spaces:

    •     Does the community own some sites that could be used for logistics? Are they appropriate? At
          least an area of 500m2 is required;

    •     Which rental rate? It must be attractive, adapted to the local market. The average
          warehousing rent in the region around Paris is 80€ per m² per year; the City of Paris chose a
          maximum rent of 60€ per m2 in order to make these spaces attractive, and to help the
          logistics company bear the additional costs (due to investment and costs of an additional
          transhipment);

    •     What perspective: will the City support experiments on a short or on a long term? The two
          solutions are possible, but the second one makes more sense in order to get long-term result.
          However, it is more costly for the City;

    •     Does the regulatory framework encourage the emergence of new practices, in other words,
          are there restrictions on vehicles (size, environmental quality, time fence) that may make
          the circulation of electric or CNG vehicles in underground facilities impossible?

Transferability issues also concern technical matters, such as the availability of electric vehicles for
final deliveries.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                         54
6 GOOD PRACTICE #2: LA PETITE REINE

La Petite Reine is a company which developed a new delivery service for densely populated urban
environments exclusively using “cargocycles” or electrically powered tricycles with a container at the
front or at the back (see Figure 18). La Petite Reine means “the little queen” in French, a familiar
nickname for bicycles. It was founded in 2001 in Paris and has since then been expanded to
Bordeaux, Rouen, Dijon, Geneva, and Lyon in September 2010. It now makes some 2,500 deliveries
every day for clients including DHL, ColiPoste, Monoprix, Dannon and more. La Petite Reine
experiment is similar in one way to the previous good practice (Chronopost Concorde) as it uses an
Urban Logistic Space provided by the City of Paris. It is also a very innovative and original experiment
in that it invented the cargocycles and uses them exclusively.

La Petite Reine also maintains a fleet of about 75 cargocycles for hire on demand by businesses that
need to make small to medium-sized urban deliveries over a distance up to 30 km. Weighing only 80
kg (as opposed to a tonne or more for most delivery vans), each cargocycle can carry about 180 kg of
merchandise in its 1,400 litre cargo space.




        6.1 PRESENTATION OF LA PETITE REINE

6.1.1    Introduction

La Petite Reine was founded on the basis that while 80% of its market concern parcels less than 30kg,
a little van weighting more than a tonne is oversized regarding the real needs of the company. An
average load is no more than 100 kg for a complete route of seven hours and vans generate pollution,
congestion and double parking. This is why cargocyles were favoured over regular vans.

La Petite Reine needs to operate from the city centre. In Paris, La Petite Reine is located in two
Urban Logistic Spaces: one in an underground parking close to the Louvre museum (parking Saint
Germain l'Auxerrois) since 2003 and another in an underground parking (parking Saint Germain des
Pres) on the left bank since 2010.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                         55
                                Figure 17 - La Petite Reine ULS locations
                                             Source: L. Dablanc



La Petite Reine’s business model is based on the following two key elements:

    •   Consolidation: la Petite Reine receives parcels from different companies before the morning
        peak hour and consolidates the parcels by routes and destinations;
    •   A final delivery using a cargocycle.



6.1.2   Measures

In 2002, the City of Paris financed a feasibility study to evaluate the capacity of delivering goods with
tricycles. The feedbacks from a large scale questionnaire survey were very positive, with great
interest demonstrated by both local stores (603 positive answers on a total of 624) and express
transport companies.

Following the positive results of this first study, the City of Paris decided to put a pilot in place. It
provided a 600m² space located at level -1 of the underground parking Saint Germain l'Auxerrois,
close to the Eastern end of the Louvre museum. This space was used before as a gas station which
had been closed for safety reason.

A bid for tender was organized to allocate the logistic space, in which it was mandatory to organize a
new logistic service based on tricycles. La Petite Reine, a company created in 2001, won the bid and
opened its first urban terminal in 2003.



TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                          56
La Petite Reine started its activity of parcel collection and deliveries mainly as a subcontractor to
major express delivery companies, such as DHL, FedEx or Chronopost. These companies discovered
that tricycles could be better fitted to cities than vans. For example, in 2006 when Ciblex started to
work with La Petite Reine, four tricycles replaced six ciblex vans. In fact, tricycles provide the
following advantages:

    •   Access is possible in pedestrian areas;

    •   Tricycles are allowed in bike and bus lanes;

    •   Operational cost is lower than for a motor vehicle;

    •   The terminal (the Urban Logistics Space) is close to the market area where goods are picked
        up and delivered. This shortens the reactivity time of the company in case of unexpected
        events or unplanned operations.



6.1.3   Stakeholders

Stakeholders involved in the project are the following:

The City of Paris. The City decided to develop the concept of ULS (Urban Logistics Spaces) and it was
the first city in France to decide to use underground parking facilities for this. Without this political
commitment and the willingness to develop environmentally friendly last mile solutions, the pilot
experiment of cargocycles would not have been possible.

The involvement of the municipality was twofold:

    •   To provide public space at a “logistic cost”, i.e. a cost comparable to real estate costs for
        logistics facilities in suburban locations. The price was even reduced during the experimental
        phase;

    •   To finance a two year assessment study.

La Petite Reine developed the first Parisian ULS together with the City of Paris in order to be able to
use tricycles for final deliveries in the centre of Paris. The ULS was necessary for the development of
La Petite Reine and its transformation from a classical bicycle courier company (carrying parcels and
letters by bicycle from a point A to a point B) to a bicycle transport company (collecting and
consolidating goods and preparing routes).

Customers (clients of la Petite Reine). Customers’ profile has changed since the opening of the
service. Express deliveries were the main market segment at the beginning. Today, in 2010 the core
business of la Petite Reine is more varied:



TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                          57
      •   Letters and parcels for express courier companies (with the possibility of advertising on
          cargocycles);

      •   Parcels delivery for mail orders and e-commerce businesses;

      •   Parcels delivery for local shops;

      •   Fresh product deliveries (for example, deliveries of Dannon fresh products to small retailers
          like bakeries, etc.).

Besides this activity of goods pick-up and delivery, La Petite Reine also offers advertising on the side
and rear panels of the cargocycle. It also manufactures its own cargocycles (through a subsidiary –
see below) and sells or rents them.
The tricycle manufacturer, LOVELO23. It has worked closely with la Petite Reine since the beginning
of the service. Today, it is a subsidiary of the company itself.




6.1.4     Products and services involved



THE TRICYCLES

La Petite Reine specifically developed the tricycle needed for its business with a local (French)
manufacturer. All models have an electric assistance to pedalling, and four hour autonomy. The
speed with the electric assistance cannot go over 20km/h due to French safety regulation.




       2003 - Cargocycle V1                 2005 - Cargocycle V2               2007 - Cargocycle V3
       Capacity 80kg 0.56 m3               Capacity 150 kg 1.4 m3              Capacity 180 kg 1.5m3

                                  Figure 18 - Different types of cargocycles
                                     Source: courtesy of La Petite Reine
23
     http://www.lovelo.com/


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                            58
A refrigerated model has been introduced in 2010, which allows for fresh product deliveries as well
as medical products.



ORGANISATION

Each day, 3,000 business or home locations are being served by the 40 drivers of La Petite Reine. For
parcels deliveries, everyday La Petite Reine receives all the goods to be delivered from its customers
in the Saint Germain L’Auxerois ULS. This ULS has been the only logistic facility of La Petite Reine for
several years. Tracking tools are provided by customers. La Petite Reine organises the different
routes for the final deliveries.

For fresh product deliveries, La Petite Reine stores the products in the ULS and manages inventory
and orders. When delivering local shops, La Petite Reine assigns a delivery person (always the same)
to the customer’s premises.




6.1.5   Financial aspects

From 2003 to 2006, the City of Paris supported the experiment by applying a very low price on the
rental of the Urban Logistics Space. The rental price initially was €4000 annually.

Since 2007, the price applied has been 60€/m²/year (equivalent to the average logistic real estate
price region-wide). This price remains well under normal rental prices of prime locations such as the
Louvre and Saint Germain des Pres (in the centre of Paris) where La Petite Reine’s facilities are
located today.

The total rental revenue from 2003 to 2009 has reached €120,00024. There are opportunity costs for
the municipality. If it had decided to implement more parking places for cars instead of a logistic
facility, the total rental revenue would have reached €288,000. Therefore, the effort made by the
City of Paris to support La Petite Reine can be evaluated at €168,000.25

The initial feasibility study was funded by the City of Paris, for a total amount of €34,448. A two year
impact assessment study was also financed by the City of Paris (€15,000) and by ADEME (€15,000).




24      3 years x4000€ + 600m2x60€x3 years = €120,000.

25        Average gain for private car parking space rental is 80€/m²/year in Paris. So over a 6 year period, the
logistic space could have brought 600x6x80 = 288,000€ to the city of Paris, instead of 120,000€.


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                                  59
        6.2 EVALUATION OF LA PETITE REINE

6.2.1    Introduction

The City of Paris and ADEME financed a two year evaluation, which was made by an external
independent company, ITEM. The aim of this study was to monitor La Petite Reine’s activity for two
years, and to design a range of indicators in order to analyse economic, social and environmental
results of La Petite Reine’s ULS at Saint Germain l'Auxerrois. This evaluation took place between July
2003 and June 2005.




6.2.2    Impacts



TRANSPORT IMPACTS

In May 2003, La Petite Reine started its operations with eight employees (including five drivers, one
mechanic, one manager and one operations’ supervisor). The permanent increase in the number of
employees and vehicles was due to the constant activity growth. At the end of the survey period, in
June 2005, the number of vehicles reached 19 and the number of employees 18.

In 2007, La Petite Reine reached the maximum capacity available at the 600 m² Urban Logistic Space
at Saint Germain l'Auxerrois, with a total fleet of 35 cargocycles and 35 employees. La Petite Reine
then decided to open a second site in 2010 which allows for continued growth.




          Figure 19 – Evolution of the number of employees and vehicles of La Petite Reine
                              Source: courtesy of the City of Paris and ITEM

TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                       60
In 2010, La Petite Reine uses 50 Cargocycles in Paris. The average speed of a cargocycle is 12 km/h,
which is quite close to the average speed of engine powered delivery vehicles in Paris (16 km/h). The
operational advantages of cargocycles compared to vans are the following:

     •   There are no parking difficulties;
     •   There is a full accessibility to pedestrian areas;
     •   And very importantly, cargocycles are allowed in bus lanes, bike lanes as well as reverse
         traffic bike lanes.

Each cargocycle delivers 70 parcels per day in average, which means that a total of 1,000,000 parcels
are delivered every year. About 3,000 locations are served every day.




ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Since 2003, La Petite Reine has experienced rapidly increasing volume of business. The type of
customer has changed over the years: at the end of the survey in June 2005, 96% of the deliveries
were related to express deliveries (subcontracting for DHL, FedEx and Chronopost), while in 2010,
the types of customers are very different. The proportion of express deliveries has decreased. This
change can be explained by an economic context very specific to the express transport business. The
competition is very strong between subcontractors, with a lot of independent drivers who provide
very low price/low cost services, significantly different from the ones proposed by transport
companies like La Petite Reine26. The strong competition between the express delivery companies
and the permanent need for cost cuts means that these low cost subcontractors are preferred to the
high quality subcontracting service of La Petite Reine. The recent economic crisis emphasized this
phenomenon. La Petite Reine was not able to follow the decreasing transport prices proposed by
other small independent truck companies acting as subcontractors for the major Express transport
companies. La Petite Reine then decided successfully to turn to other business markets (cf. 6.1.3).




ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

La Petite Reine has introduced 50 clean and silent vehicles in Paris, replacing diesel vans, which
contributes to the improvement of the urban air quality.

Over a twelve month period, it has been calculated that La Petite Reine has helped:

26
  However, it is difficult to provide specific figures for the differences in tariff between La Petite Reine and
more traditional small operators. With the financial and economic crises of 2008-2010, the differences in tariff
have probably increased due to a general decrease of transport prices in the road transport market in Europe.


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                                 61
    •   Avoid 600,000 tonnes-km hauled by vans in Paris (not counting the hours of illicit parking);

    •   Generate savings of 89 TOE (tonnes of oil equivalent) in engine consumption;

    •   Avoid emissions of 203 tonnes of CO2 and 84 kg of particles;

    •   Reduce noise pollution.




SOCIAL IMPACTS

La Petite Reine created 50 jobs in Paris over a period of seven years, with a constant growth rate of
job creation. The majority of these jobs are now occupied by poorly educated people, while at the
beginning the drivers were mostly students or people wanting a side job.

The employee doing the maintenance work on the bikes is a disabled worker. In 2009, La Petite Reine
joined Ares Group, a company specialized in “integration employment” or social employment
processes, dedicated to the disabled or to people who have been out of the job market for a long
time. Today, 13 drivers work under this integration programme, managed by a dedicated team of
social workers which supports them while at work.



6.2.3   Implementation of measures



SPECIFIC CHANGES NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT MEASURES

The implementation of an ULS in Paris results from a strong political commitment towards a better
integration of city logistics needs. Innovative solutions for freight distribution have to be supported
by public administrations. It could be done in different ways, like implementing strict regulations (as
long as sufficient enforcement is provided), or offering tools for more efficient logistic activities, as
aimed by ULS in Paris.

It is also clear that the involvement of a municipality in developing alternative logistic organisations
run by private companies can only be done if there is a gain for the public side. Providing scarce
public space for a private activity can only be done if there are some benefits to people living in the
city attached to the scheme.

The implementation of the Saint Germain l'Auxerrois ULS also relied on a strong partnership with a
private company which decided to experiment and accept to take some risks, on an operational as
well as on a financial point of view.



TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                            62
A technical breakthrough was necessary to make La Petite Reine experiment possible by means of
creating a well-adapted cargocyle. La Petite Reine company had to create its own equipment as such
a cargocycle did not exist on the market at the time when the company was created. Cargocycles are
still in need of technical improvement (see below).




INTEGRATION ASPECTS

From an urban point of view, the integration of the Saint Germain l'Auxerrois underground ULS is
good, as this logistic facility, very close to the Louvre, one of the major touristic attractions of Paris,
is invisible.

The implementation of a logistic activity in that area has had no consequence on road traffic. There
are only 50 to 70 movements of vehicles per day due to the ULS, compared to 1600 vehicles per hour
travelling on the nearby rue de Rivoli.




ACCEPTABILITY

Vehicles carrying goods around cities are seen as a problem: they contaminate, congest roads, and
are dangerous and noisy. Reversely, the business model of La Petite Reine is based on a new image of
logistic activities, with a city-friendly vehicle. The image of the cargocycle is the opposite of a fuel
powered van: safe, clean, and silent. As drivers are able to park anywhere, they often stop right in
front of the place they are delivering. So the cargocycle is seen by shopkeepers and the employees
that handle delivered goods. This is one of the reasons for the success of La Petite Reine with local
shops.

Some customers use the cargocycle as a communication tool, by branding the vehicle on the side and
rear panels.



BOTTLENECKS / BARRIERS

La Petite Reine’s activity is limited by the size of parcels that a cargocycle can carry (the maximum
load is 180kg and 1.5m3) and which can be hauled by a person herself (no handling equipment can be
embarked due to the limited capacity).

Another problem coming from the use of cargocycles is the rapid deterioration of the wheels,
generated by the heavy loads (heavy compared to a passenger’s bicycle). Larger and more solid




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                            63
wheels can be used but they decrease the handiness of the vehicle. Therefore, maintenance costs
have been quite high due to the frequency of wheels replacement.

The business model of La Petite Reine is based on finding prime central city locations to operate
from. These locations are actually not easy to find when there is no support from municipalities. The
choice of Paris to develop some facilities in underground car parks it is not always an optimal
solution, because of technical constraints (limitation of height and steep access slope). The
maximum capacity of the 600m² Saint Germain l'Auxerois ULS is 35 cargocycles, which means that
only 2,500 parcels can be delivered per day at a maximum. To be able to continue growing, the
company needs more logistics spaces in relevant locations within Paris.




SUCCCESS AND FAILURE FACTORS

La Petite Reine today faces new competitors. A pioneer in 2003, the success of its business model has
generated other business initiatives. The last bid for tender placed by the City of Paris in 2009 for a
new ULS received five different propositions, three of them based on the use of tricycles.

Gilles Manuelle, founder and manager of La Petite Reine, understood that his company needed to
differentiate strongly from the newcomers and decided to emphasise the social employment’s
aspects of La Petite Reine. He joined the ARES group (cf. above) in 2009. This social involvement was
decisive in the City’s decision to grant La Petite Reine the use of the new ULS at Saint Germain
l'Auxerrois.

The growth of La Petite Reine today is linked to its capacity to operate from a central city location.
This could be the major limit of the business model. La Petite Reine must also face a sort of unfair
competition from independent subcontractors in the parcel industry (see above). To counterbalance
its relatively high transport prices, it has to offer an outstanding service adding a real added value.
This added value today is the environmentally friendly image of the cargocycle as well as the social
service provided towards the disabled and the long term unoccupied workers.

Technical improvements still need to be made on cargocycles in order to have less costly
maintenance on the tricycles (especially on the wheels).




6.2.4     Transferability issues

Transferability issues of La Petite Reine are very closed to the ones for Chronopost Concorde,
both belong the same categories of projects, using underground parking facilities for logistics
spaces.


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                        64
The main differences between the two projects and between their transferability potential are
the following:

    •   The types of vehicles used: the main difficulty for La Petite Reine was to find a vehicle
        well adapted to its activity. As the right vehicle was not available on the market, La
        Petite Reine managers had to design it with the collaboration of a small manufacturer.
        This manufacturer (today a subsidiary of La Petite Reine) already exports the
        cargocycles to other countries, and there are no problems of transferability;

    •   La Petite Reine is a transport company acting as a subcontractor, carrying goods for
        several clients. In order to be profitable, La Petite Reine must find a sufficient number
        of customers to deliver to in a limited area, because of the limited autonomy of the
        vehicles it uses. However, this is not a transferability issue for policy-makers.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                         65
7 GOOD PRACTICE #3: FREIGHT ORIENTED MASTER PLAN

        7.1 GENERAL PRESENTATION OF THE FREIGHT ORIENTATION OF THE PARIS MASTER PLAN

7.1.1    Introduction

Historically, the City of Paris was developed around industrial and logistics sites, particularly in
connection with rail sidings, the river Seine and various canals. Faced with rising land prices, many of
these sites have now disappeared and have been replaced by large urban development projects
targeted at meeting the demand for housing, public facilities and green space amenities. Nowadays
the few remaining logistics sites in Paris are largely neglected and do not meet the minimum
requirements for a proper integration into the urban environment.

As such, logistics operators have gradually left the former warehousing and distribution centres’
areas in the city centre and the immediate surroundings, in preference of the inner and outer
suburbs of Paris. Meanwhile, heavy goods transport (rail and waterway) were abandoned in favour of
road transport: 90% of freight tonnage is carried by road transport, 7% by waterways and 3% by rail
(see chapter 2).

The increased distance between terminals and warehouses and the urban clients (the goods’
receivers) has multiplied the tonnes-km driven by truck drivers in the Paris region generating energy
consumption, harmful emissions, noise, greenhouse gases and consumption of space (see Figure 6 in
Chapter 2).

This is why in 2006 the City of Paris chose to introduce freight orientations into its new Land Use Plan
to an extent that has not been reached by any other French city (and few European cities). This
initiative is considered a good practice in urban freight policy, because it tackles structural long-term
changes in urban land uses which can have large scale effects on freight flows in the future.




7.1.2    Measures

The City of Paris has set the goal of reincorporating within the city’s walls some of the logistics
facilities it relies on, by ways of the City’s Land Use and Master Plan or Plan Local d’Urbanisme
(PLU).

The Paris PLU was adopted by the Paris Council in June 2006. When it was being drawn, specific
attention was paid to the issue of goods’ flows. The following changes were made compared to the
previous PLU:



TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                          66
    •   It is now compulsory for the main generators of urban freight flows to integrate a delivery
        area into their premises in order to take care of all the deliveries and pick-ups generated by
        their activities. The businesses subject to these rules are the ones that have a minimal Net
        Floor Area Ratio of 500 m² for shops, 2,500m² for offices, one m² for warehouses. The rule
        also applies to hotels with a minimum of 150 rooms;

    •   Specific spaces have been reserved for logistics areas accessible by rail or waterways.
        Specific land-use areas called UGSU area (zone Urbaine de Grands Services Urbains or Urban
        Zones for Large Urban Services) must accommodate logistics activities. Some areas with
        direct access by train or waterways cannot eliminate logistics activities in future
        developments. This provision makes it possible to design specific areas for intermodal
        logistics activities (See Figure 20);

    •   Thirteen “part-time transit ports” have also been identified in the UV areas of Paris (UV
        stands for zone Urbaine Verte or Green Urban area) along the Seine, between the bridges
        Pont de Bercy and Pont de Grenelle: these areas may be used at certain times to tranship
        goods from a boat to a delivery vehicle, then resume normal uses (promenade for example)
        for the rest of the day.




                    Figure 20 – The 2006 logistics land use map of the City of Paris
                                            Source: City of Paris


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                       67
7.1.3   Stakeholders

Stakeholders involved in the project of relocating logistics facilities in urban environment are:

    •   The City of Paris. It has the authority for land use decisions and building permits;

    •   Real estate developers. They develop logistic facilities, and they need to find some
        economic advantages in developing urban logistics projects rather than other urban
        commercial uses (offices) or suburban logistics facilities. Sogaris is a very interesting example
        of a real estate and logistics parks’ manager involved in promoting urban logistics parks
        (www.sogaris.fr);

    •   Land owners which have land included into the UGSU area, such as the SNCF (the major
        French railway company), Réseau Ferré de France (French rail infrastructure manager) and
        Ports of Paris;

    •   Transport companies or retailers agreeing to use urban facilities with railway or waterway
        access for their goods supplies.




7.1.4   Products and services involved

The Paris Master Plan preserves some land in order to develop logistic facilities with railway or
waterway access. In order for this to be effective, specific services or products are needed. An
efficient and competitive railway service is required, and this also applies to waterway transport
services. A good design and the use of state of the art construction techniques and materials are
needed in order for the urban logistics facility to be accepted by adjacent communities. If not,
environmental nuisances such as noise, dust and smells will soon be in focus and a target of local
organizations.

The development of urban logistic facilities is also linked to the willingness of logistic operators to
reorganize their transport model between warehouses and final delivery locations. They also have to
agree to integrating a railway or waterway segment into the transport chain, as well as using
environmentally friendly vehicles for the last kilometres.




7.1.5   Financial aspects

Keeping logistics areas in Paris as part of the PLU required strong political arbitration. Decision-
makers needed to make sure that preserving rail and waterway lands in the urban core was
worthwhile in terms of future economic and environmental benefits, as against turning these


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                          68
properties (always in attractive locations) into much needed housing or recreational projects. The
choice in favour of logistics land has also an impact on the City’s budget: logistics companies are
known for generating quite a low amount of business taxes. Besides, logistic activities require a lot of
space, resulting in a low ratio of tax per m2 for the City. More traditional businesses for Paris, such
as tertiary activities, do generate much more taxes to the City’s budget.

For a developer specialised in logistics real estate, working on urban projects leads to additional
costs because of the additional environmental and safety requirements existing in urban areas for
industrial activities.

For the owner of the land, the registering of their properties into the UGSU zoning meant that the
value of the land automatically decreased compared to similar land which remained open for housing
or office oriented buildings.




        7.2   EVALUATION OF THE FREIGHT ORIENTED PARIS MASTER PLAN

7.2.1    Introduction

No evaluation was conducted about the impact of the 2006 Paris Master Plan’s freight orientations.
Nevertheless, four years after the PLU was adopted by the Paris Council, a quick review of every site
that was marked up as a UGSU (i.e. open for logistics activities) can be made in order to assess the
impacts and to discuss the difficulties encountered as well as future opportunities. We will review
each of the 2006 marked UGSU sites (see map on Figure 20 for precise location), first for railway
projects then for waterway projects.




7.2.2    Railway projects

Les Batignolles (17th borough)

In 2006, this site was owned by SNCF and used by Geodis (the largest freight transport and logistics
French company, and a subsidiary of Group SNCF). Despite the fact that the area was well connected
to the railway network, no freight trains were used and the site was accessed only by trucks.

In 2010, the UGSU part of the site is in complete renovation and it represents one of the biggest
construction sites of Paris. Parts of the proposed logistic area, not labelled as UGSU (therefore not
protected from other uses) have been turned into public parks, housing, business buildings or public
amenities. As far as the UGSU (protected) area, it should become by 2015 a modern logistic facility
including the following services: two freight railway stations for urban logistic distribution (including

TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                          69
a cross docking terminal of 400 meter long and a capacity of up to eight freight wagons), one
concrete factory supplied by rail (cement, aggregates: sand, stones, etc.), and one garbage
collection depot using rail for the transport of collected waste towards a treatment facility outside of
Paris.

The different projects are financed by the SNCF (land owner) and the SYCTOM (one of the garbage
management public companies of the Paris region).



La Chapelle (18th borough)

The site of La Chapelle Internationale, located near Paris Northern railway network, experienced a
similar evolution as Batignolles. Used by trucks companies only four years ago, it is now undergoing a
complete renovation. A project for a railway cross docking terminal has been integrated into the new
development plan of the area. However, financial investors are still to be found to effectively launch
the project.



Bercy – La Rapée (12th borough – Halles Gabriel Lamé and Rapée Supérieure and Inférieure)

The Bercy La Rapée terminal is currently used by Monoprix (see Chapter 8). The Rapée Supérieure
and Inférieure terminal is not currently integrated into a development project. The City of Paris has
just started to explore future uses for the area.



Est-Pierres station (18th borough)

This site is currently used by a company specialized in delivering drinks to hotels, bars and
restaurants called Tafanel (a family owned company establish since the 1950s). The site is supplied
by trains and trucks, but the share of the railways has decreased for the past years. This is mainly
caused by the proper difficulties of the French rail freight industry (Dablanc, 2010) rather than by
Tafanel’s changes in its modal choices. The lack of a good quality freight rail service today in France
means that several beverage producers (beer, mineral water) decided to change from rail to road,
which Tafanel had then to accept even though it meant a difficult reorganisation of its Paris
terminal. Nevertheless, Tafanel is still using the rail logistic facility in 2010.



Pantin Villette station (19th borough)

This site is currently used by a competitor of Tafanel called Bertrand (a subsidiary of Heineken).
However, today, no more trains supply Bertrand on this location. There is some thinking about having

TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                         70
rail services back and turning the current warehouse facility into a rail-accessed cross dock terminal,
as the one used by Monoprix in the Bercy terminal (see Chapter 8).



Cour Hebert (18th borough)

This site is currently unused and has known no activity since 2006. Since Monoprix successfully
started to use a railway link into Paris Bercy, major Monoprix competitors are interested by
duplicating this experiment on Cour Hebert.



Tolbiac – building materials’ platform (13th borough)

This site continues to receive one full cement train per day. Cement is then delivered to ready to use
concrete factories in Paris. There was no change of activities between 2006 and this day.



Vaugirard – heating company’s platform (15th borough)

This site is dedicated to fuel reception for the Paris heating company CGCU (the warm water utility
for Paris). There was no change of activities between 2006 and this day.



Gobelins station (13th borough)

This 70,000m² underground station is temporally disconnected from the railway network because of a
long term building project. It is planned to be reconnected in 2016/2017.

Today the site is used by about 40 different small companies, mainly for activities linked to the Asian
wholesale market close-by (Paris main Chinatown is located here).




7.2.3   Waterway sites

All the port sites that had been identified as a UGSU zone (preserved for logistics activities) in 2006
were already maintaining a goods transport activity, mainly focused on building materials and
aggregates. The 2006 Master Plan acted as a confirmation of the logistics or industrial destination of
these sites.

The Paris Master Plan also created thirteen time sharing transit ports on the Seine river, ports that
can be used for loading or unloading freight only for limited times during the day. Some of them
today are used by Decaux, an urban service company which runs the Velib system in Paris. Decaux


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                        71
uses a boat as a mobile shop for bicycle repair. Velib bikes are collected by vans in the streets of
Paris and left on some of these time sharing transit harbours, where the repair boat collects them
and delivers repaired ones instead (Figure 21).




                               Figure 21 - Photo of the Decaux Velib boat
                                     Source: JC Decaux Communication

7.2.4   Impacts



TRANSPORT IMPACTS

Nine logistic sites connected to railway systems and five port facilities have been dedicated to
logistic activities in the 2006 Paris Master Plan. These facilities were designated because they were
historically dedicated to industrial or logistic activities, but had been neglected these past years (i.e.
railways) or needed some protection for the future (i.e. waterways).

The Paris Master Plan had a decisive impact on redeveloping train activities for the inbound supply of
Paris. Four of the nine sites were using trains before 2006 and continue to do so. Without the 2006
Master Plan, these services would probably have been discontinued. The other five sites have
reintroduced trains (e.g. Monoprix in Bercy) or are projected to do so in the near future. This could
lead to an increase in the modal share of the railway in the total of goods supplied in Paris. It is
estimated that this share could rise from 3% in 2005 to 6% if all sites are used by rail.



ECONOMIC IMPACTS

See discussions below for each site. See Chapter 8 (Monoprix good practice) for a detailed economic
analysis.


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                           72
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The Monoprix Bercy example (Chapter 8) provides detailed feedback on the environmental impact of
using a train on one of the nine rail dedicated urban sites into the Paris Master Plan. We can assume
that these results could be multiplied by nine if all the railway sites were used in the same way (this
is of course an approximation).

The 2.5 million tonnes of freight coming in Paris by waterways removed roughly 125,000 trucks per
year from the region’s roads, with an important impact on CO2 emissions, local pollution and
congestion.



SOCIAL IMPACTS

In order to keep its social diversity, a central city like Paris needs to maintain or re-introduce
industrial jobs (with low qualification). Logistics activities are natural providers of these types of
jobs, such as for transport and delivery as well as handling activities within warehouses.

7.2.5   Implementation of measures



SPECIFIC CHANGES NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT MEASURES

The logistic sites preserved in the Paris Master Plan have always been dedicated to logistics. Located
at the outskirts of the urban core in the 19th century, they are now in the most central location of
the Paris metropolis.

Public decision-makers have neglected these sites for many decades, and many of them just
disappeared from the city being replaced by more urban types of development. Now that negative
impacts of logistics sprawl are better known (Dablanc, Rakotonarivo, 2010), decision-makers
understand that a safer and more liveable city requires better integrated and somewhat
recentralised logistics activities.

The Paris Master Plan’s freight orientations could only be implemented thanks to a strong political
commitment towards urban logistics.



INTEGRATION ASPECTS

The Paris Master Plan is the first in France that included a logistics approach and preserved some
land for logistic activities. The future regional urban mobility plan, called PDU (Plan de




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                        73
Déplacements Urbains) will also integrate a freight and logistics approach on a regional scale and will
provide a map of protected logistic sites.



ACCEPTABILITY

Businesses are increasingly looking for logistic sites in dense urban areas, in line with emerging
strategies to reduce the distance travelled for their goods supplies. Reducing goods’ vehicle-km can
have a positive impact on congestion, lead time reduction, environmental and climate change. But
the business sector is also quite reluctant to use trains or barges, because road transport remains
undisputedly more competitive (better price, better reaction time and higher quality of service).

Resistance for an increased use of trains and barges to deliver goods in Paris also comes from local
communities. Logistic facilities are often considered noisy, dirty and polluting. People living near
these activities would rather have parks or local services. The Monoprix example represents one
specific case of a dispute with the residents of an adjacent apartment building which threatened the
project itself.



BOTTLENECKS / BARRIERS

Despite the Master Plan which identifies dedicated land uses for logistics activities, four years later
there is still discussion about some of the sites. The reasons are the following:

    •   Available urban space is scarce and these areas designated as logistics uses represent some of
        the last large-scale areas available in Paris for new development;

    •   Monoprix Bercy (see Chapter 8) is the only actual rail project in operation. The other projects
        have yet generated more discussion and studies than actual implementation.




SUCCCESS AND FAILURE FACTORS, BARRIERS

One success factor in reserving land for logistics activities in a zoning and land use regulation is a
strong and long-term political commitment. Any electoral change may put an end to the willingness
of politicians to promote urban logistics land uses.

Another barrier for the achievement of this plan is that the public and private sectors do not have
the same time scales. A short-term project for the public sector if often considered a long time
project by the private sector. This is one of the reasons why no private operator (transport company,




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                         74
retailer) is yet much involved in using sites that will be available in two to three years (such as
Batignolles or Chapelle).

The main difficulty may also lie in the double objective of the freight strategy of the Master Plan.
While preserving logistics land uses in its Master Plan, the City of Paris also tried to promote
alternative modes of transport (rail and waterways) to transport goods to the projected urban
logistics facilities. However, rail especially is not adequately operated in France at the moment.
Urban freight rail is even more complicated and costly than freight rail in general. By binding the
development of logistics areas with the use of rail, the municipality may prevent investors to start
logistics operations in Paris, even though they may have been interested in implementing a road-road
operation in the short term.



7.2.6   Transferability issues

In Paris, it took a strong political will to preserve some land for logistic activities from being
allocated to other projects, because of severe competing needs for the development of businesses,
parks, housing and public facilities. In many other cities, these competing demands will also be a
major impediment to the preservation of land for freight activities. However, in some cities (in
Germany for example, especially in former Easter German cities), preserving land for logistics
activities may not be as hard as in Paris, as these cities are undergoing a phenomenon of demographic
and urban shrinkage as well as de-industrialization.

Another element which may be difficult to transfer is the requirement set by the City of Paris to link
the development of these logistic facilities to the use of rail whenever technically feasible. This
represents a huge constraint in many countries with under developed freight rail services such as in
Italy or Spain. In Germany, however, this may be much easier considering the active rail shortlines
business.

In order to preserve sites in the Master Plan, a City must have a full control on its Plan. But a better
approach should be to design some sort of regional freight master plan, with a control of the land by
an authority larger than a City, in order to prevent local authorities from transforming logistics areas
into something else.

The last requirement for a successful transfer of policy is to develop innovative projects, with a
specifically good integration into the local community and adjacent neighbourhoods. Today, logistic
facilities use a lot of space, and they generate locally a lot of impacts, like noise, dirt, road traffic.
Cities and real estate developers must invent new logistic buildings, which integrate useful services
for the local population, low environmental impact, and beautiful architecture and design.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                           75
8 GOOD PRACTICE #4: MONOPRIX RAIL PROJECT

Monoprix is a French retail group (50% subsidiary of Casino and Groupe Galeries Lafayette, two large
French retail groups), with more than 300 urban supermarkets in France. Monoprix stores are present
in 85% of French cities of more than 50,000 inhabitants, employ 20,000 people and generate a
turnover of 3.6 billion euro (2008). Half of Monoprix stores are located in the Paris region,
specifically in the dense urban areas and 65 stores are located within Paris.

Monoprix is famous in City Logistics because its Paris stores are now partly supplied by rail. In
November 2007, the first Monoprix train ran from Monoprix's suburban warehouses to Paris Bercy rail
station, located in the 12th borough of Paris, within the City’s limits. This represents a 30 km rail link.
The Monoprix train uses passenger trains’ tracks at off-peak hours. From the Paris Bercy terminal,
CNG (compressed natural gas) trucks deliver pallets to the 65 Paris supermarkets. Recently, stores
located in the close suburban municipalities around Paris have been added to the scheme, and more
than 90 stores are now supplied by the combination of rail and CNG trucks.

Monoprix rail experience is one of the best-known examples of City Logistics initiatives in France. It
has received a lot of attention and has had significant positive environmental impacts. Its
transferability will be discussed below. It is a transferable experiment for any major city provided it
has underutilized urban rail facilities that can be regenerated for goods transport purposes, an
efficient rail industry and major retail chains willing to innovate in their transport chains. These
conditions are not easy to meet altogether.




      8.1 INTRODUCTION

In 2004-2005, the Direction Regionale de l'Equipement (State’s regional agency for transport and land
use matters) and the City of Paris were studying how to promote railway for freight transport in the
Paris Region. They decided to finance a feasibility study in order to experiment the possibility to use
railway for goods for the supply of supermarkets. Monoprix accepted to participate in the project. At
the end of 2005, the technical and market studies concluded that opportunities existed and Monoprix
decided to go on with the project. A bid for tender was launched in May 2006 for the choice of a
railway operator, and VFLI, a subsidiary of Fret SNCF (the national French rail operator) was
designated in December 2006.

The first train ran on the 28th of November 2007. The new railway link has been fully and smoothly
integrated into the previous logistics organization of Monoprix: it was important that the final
delivery points, the supermarkets, be not impacted by the new process and receives the same quality

TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                            76
of service: same schedules and same frequencies of deliveries.


        8.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE

The development of the Bercy logistics facility with Monoprix required the following conditions:

    •    A freight oriented master plan (cf. good practice #3) and sufficient space reserved for
         logistics in the Paris Bercy rail terminal;

    •    The promotion of rail freight for urban deliveries within the mobility master plan of the Ile-
         de-France Region;

    •    A truck access regulation favouring clean trucks, which was the case in Paris as only trucks
         that are electric, CNG or Euro V can deliver from 5 to 10:00 pm in Paris.




              Figure 22 - The route of rail supply of pallets for Monoprix supermarkets

                                         Source: Monoprix/Samada



On Figure 22, in phase 1, trains are loaded with pallets in Combs-la-Ville and Lieusaint warehouses,
30 km South-East of Paris. All the stores’ non-alcoholic beverages and general goods (textiles,
cosmetics and household and leisure items) are shipped by train. Goods have been previously
supplied to both warehouses by lorries (and not trains) from regional, national or intra-European
locations. Products are prepared and palletized for each supermarket following each supermarket’s


TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                        77
daily order. Loading operations must be finished by 6:00pm, when the assemblage of the train must
start.

In phase 2, the train leaves Combs-la-Ville at 7:40 pm and arrives at Paris Bercy at 8:20 pm, covering
30 km using a regional passenger train’s tracks (RER D train). The average number of wagons is 16,
with a maximum of 20 depending on orders made by supermarkets, and subject to seasonal
variations.




              Figure 23 – Map of the location of Monoprix warehouses and rail terminal

                                          Source: courtesy of APUR



Phase 3 represents cross-docking operations in the Paris Bercy terminal. Because the Bercy terminal
is only 200 meter long, the train needs to be shunt, meaning that eight to ten wagons only enter the
terminal together. Unloading the wagons starts at 9:15pm. The second part of the train is unloaded
between 11:30pm and 2:00am. Pallets are grouped together in line for each supermarket, ready for
truck loading. There is no picking operation in the Bercy terminal.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                       78
                            Figure 24 – Photos of the Paris Bercy rail facility

                                    Source: courtesy of APUR/Monoprix



The train leaves Bercy at 5:00am and comes back to Combs-la-Ville in order to be loaded for the
evening.

Phase 4 represents the final delivery. The goods are delivered to the shops thanks to a fleet of twenty
19 tonne lorries powered by natural gas. A CNG distribution station has been installed on the site to
fill up the vehicles.

The first trucks leave Bercy at 7:00am, loaded with pallets for one or two supermarkets within Paris
or in one of the adjacent municipalities.

The Paris Bercy site is used five days a week, from Sunday night to Thursday night. It is used by two
companies, Monoprix on 3,700m², as well as Millet, a distributor specialized in delivering beverages
for bars, hotels and restaurants. Millet’s activity occupies 6,000m², but does not use rail.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                        79
The objectives of the Monoprix rail experimentation, prior to its actual implementation, were the
following:

    •   To demonstrate the feasibility of a short rail link to enter the very core of the Paris urban
        area;

    •   To demonstrate the compatibility between passenger trains and freight trains on the same
        tracks within the metropolitan/urban area;

    •   To find a solution avoiding the increasing congestion of highways in the suburbs;

    •   To reduce the environmental impacts of deliveries in Paris;

    •   To introduce a rail link without disrupting the supply service of the supermarkets and at a
        “reasonable” additional cost (no financial savings were envisioned before the project was
        implemented!).




8.2.1   Stakeholders

Stakeholders involved in the Monoprix rail project are the following:

    •   The Monoprix company. It agreed to consider using rail for its urban supplies when
        approached by local and national administrations wishing to promote alternative modes of
        transportation in the Paris region;

    •   The City of Paris. It had the authority on land use decisions, and it decided to relocate
        logistics facilities within the urban environment (see Good Practice #3);

    •   The Direction Régionale de l'Equipement (State’s regional agency for transport and land use
        matters), which decided to finance the initial project’s feasibility study;

    •   SNCF, the French national rail operator which is the owner of the Bercy logistics facility and
        whose subsidiary, VFLI, operates the Monoprix train;

    •   Local residents. A local association of residents living in close-by apartment buildings was a
        major stakeholder in the Monoprix rail project, because of the noise associated with the
        operation of the freight train every night. This problem has generated (and still does) a lot of
        controversy and problems with the immediate neighbourhood. See below.




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                         80
8.2.2   Product and services involved

Description

The Monoprix rail project involves a range of new products and services:

-       An urban logistic facility, connected to the railway network and with good road connection
for final deliveries;

    •   A daily freight shuttle train service on a short distance (30 km);

    •   Specific low noise handling equipments in order to mitigate impacts on the neighbouring
        communities;

    •   A fleet of CNG trucks equipped with low noise devices for final deliveries;

    •   A natural gas distribution station on the Bercy site in order to fill up the trucks.



8.2.3   Financial aspects

The feasibility study has been paid by the Direction Regionale de l'Equipement for a total amount of
€80,000.

The City of Paris paid for the renovation/reconstruction of the Paris Bercy facility at a total cost of
€11,000,000 for the City. The previous rail facility was torn down after some negotiation with its
owner, SNCF. The City of Paris bought a piece of the land on which the building was located in order
to build a school. The destruction of the previous building and the construction of a new one were
included in the deal made with SNCF.

Some investment was also made by Monoprix, with the financial help of the Caisse des Depots bank.
Monoprix specifically financed the rail sidings of the Combs-la-Ville warehouse. Civil work and tracks,
modification of internal roads, security equipments amounted to a total investment of €658,000.

In the Paris Bercy terminal, civil work and equipments cost €175,000 (paid by Monoprix).

A financial help of €4,000 per truck was given by ADEME for investment in the CNG lorries’ fleet (22
trucks of a 26 tonne capacity, and four trucks of a 16 tonne capacity).




TURBLOG D3.1 - Urban Logistics practices – Case study Paris                                        81
8.3 EVALUATION OF MONOPRIX RAIL PROJECT

8.3.1   Introduction

The type of impacts considered is mostly environmental. During the feasibility study which was made
prior to the experiment’s actual implementation, potential environmental benefits had been
evaluated as followed:

    •   The new scheme was supposed to suppress the equivalent of 12,000 lorries every year
        between Paris and Combs-la-Ville (where the warehouses are located);

    •   The new scheme was supposed to save 337 tonnes of CO2;

    •   The new scheme was supposed to cut nitrogen oxide emissions by 60%, carbon oxides by 65%
        and particles by 90%.

An economic impact had also been estimated. It was expected that the substitution of road by rail
would generate an increase of transport costs of between 20 to 30% per pallet.

An assessment of the actual impacts of the rail experiment was made in 2009 by Monoprix with the
assistance of an external consultant. Monoprix gave us access to the main results.




8.3.2   Specific urban freight data collected

Data was collected directly from Monoprix, and a comparison was made between the former
organization (diesel lorries leaving from Combs-la-Ville for final deliveries in Paris) and the new one
(a rail transport between Combs-la-Ville and Paris with CNG lorries for the final deliveries).

Data like the number of pallets, fuel consumption, and distance travelled were collected.




8.3.3   Impacts



TRANSPORT IMPACTS

As the number of supermarkets has changed between 2007 and 2009, it was decided to take one year
freight volume (192,000 pallets), and to compare the train organization (train + CNG lorries) and the
road-based organization (diesel lorries only) as if road routes had been designed in 2009, based on
the 2009 number of supermarkets serviced.



D31ParisVersion1.doc                                                                                82
For the road-based organization, 1,000,000 km are needed every year to deliver 85 supermarkets. For
the rail-CNG lorry organization, only 300,000 km are made by trucks.

The impacts of the introduction of the train, therefore, represent a reduction of 700,000 km of
trucks in the suburban highway network of Paris. It replaces 10,000 truck routes every year.



ECONOMIC IMPACTS

The assessment of economic impacts was made using 2009 costs (fuel, salaries, real estate, etc.)
applied to the old and the new organization.

The cost per pallet with the road-based organization is €22.6. The cost per pallet with the rail-CNG
lorries organization is €28.4, and €29.9 if we add the depreciation of the investment made on the rail
sidings in Combs-la-Ville, which means an increase of the cost between 26% and 32%.

Costs can be ventilated as such:




     Figure 25 – Ventilation of operational costs of Monoprix with and without rail transport

                                     Source: data from Monoprix



ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Environmental impacts were evaluated with the help of models developed by the European
Commission DG Transport like COPERT 4 for diesel trucks, by ADEME for CNG trucks, and by railway
companies for the rail segment with ECOTRANSIT.




D31ParisVersion1.doc                                                                               83
Table 2 - Environmental impacts of Monoprix’s rail project

                            Previous organization   New organization       Evolution
                            (road-based)            (rail + CNG lorries)
    CO2 (tonnes/year)       874                     464                    -47%
    NOx (tonnes/year)       7.2                     3.1                    -56%
    Particulates (kg/year) 140                      90                     -36%
    HCNM (kg/year)          317                     342                    ' +8%

                                     Source: data from Monoprix



As can be seen from Table 2, the impacts of the Monoprix rail organization to supply Paris stores are
positive, both for local pollution (with a decrease of 36% of particulates emitted and a decrease of
56% of nitrogen oxides) and for greenhouse gas emissions (with a decrease of 47% of CO2).

Noise emissions, on the contrary, did not decrease with the new organization. The night operations in
the Paris Bercy rail terminal have had a negative impact on adjacent communities. One month after
the train operations started, residents in apartment buildings located across the street from the
terminal complained about excessive noise emission. The train is being unloaded from 9:00pm until
2:00am.

The City of Paris then decided to have an external expert assess the problem and determine if night
rail activities were compatible with noise standards and regulations. The French national noise
regulation is based on the average noise measured during a period. The expert demonstrated that the
activity was 5 dB above the limits, and advised to reduce noise emissions by 8 dB.

The origins of the noise are: the opening of the doors of the wagons and the passage of the forklift on
the plate between the wagon and the terminal’s dock.

Since then, some solutions have been found to reduce the origin of the noise: new plates with noise
absorber, shock absorber on the doors. However, the best solution would be to improve the noise
absorption of the building, by adding soundproofing material. The cost has been evaluated between
€175,000 and €265,000. Neither the City nor SNCF or Monoprix is willing yet to make such an
investment.



SOCIAL IMPACTS

The new organization involves twelve employees in the Monoprix Paris Bercy facility working on two
shifts from 9:00pm to 2:30pm.




D31ParisVersion1.doc                                                                                84
The train requires four employees working on two shifts. The first team works from 5:00pm to
12:30am (trip from Combs-la-Ville to Bercy by train, downloading, returning by car), the second from
1:00am to 8:00am (trip from Bercy to Combs-la-Ville, continuing downloading, returning by car).




8.3.4   Implementation of measures



SPECIFIC CHANGES NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT MEASURES

The new Monoprix logistics organization including a rail segment within the transport chain
represents a true innovation, the first short rail link for urban deliveries in France (and in Europe
apparently). Its implementation required a range of changes and innovations:

    •   A new logistics planning process for Monoprix;

    •   A new way of using an urban logistics facility, involving cross-docking instead of warehousing.




INTEGRATION ASPECTS

Including a rail segment into an urban supply chain has been on the agenda of several master plans at
regional and urban levels in the Paris region for many years. For example, the Regional Mobility Plan
of 2000 (PDUIF) promoted urban rail and the re-use of existing rail facilities in Paris. However, these
plans so far had not been followed through. It took the Master Plan of Paris (Plan Local d’Urbanisme)
of 2006 to really prepare the grounds for the Monoprix rail project. Good practice #3 details how the
Paris Master Plan did reserve some abandoned freight rail facilities for new logistics activities
involving rail.



ACCEPTABILITY

The Monoprix rail experiment has been closely monitored by competitors (other retailers), who did
not think much of rail transport at the beginning. Monoprix decided to invest in a new logistics
process, which was more expensive than the previous one, including a rail component which is
supposedly of lower service quality than road transport: freight trains are known to be late
frequently because of the priority given to passenger trains as well as the high number of strikes from
SNCF employees. Three years after opening its rail service, Monoprix is very positive about the
current organization. 94% of the trains are on schedule, and the environmental image of Monoprix has




D31ParisVersion1.doc                                                                                85
been reinforced, as the Monoprix train received a lot of media attention, both from the general as
well as the specialized media.

The additional costs generated by the organization based on train + CNG delivery vehicles may be
reduced in the coming years if the contract with SNCF is to be renegotiated. The key factor in cost
reduction is the possibility to run two trains a day. This would result in a better use of the employees
dedicated to rail activity, and a more optimal use of the Paris Bercy facility. The Paris Bercy
terminal, today, is not used during a large part of the day.

Local, regional and national administrations are very favourable towards this experiment, because it
reduces the number of trucks on the Paris and the Paris region’s roads, and it contributes to a
reduction of CO2 emissions.




BOTTLENECKS/BARRIERS

One of the difficulties of the project has been to find a good rail freight operator. SNCF is not the
only rail freight operator in France. Monoprix decided to launch a bid for tender to operate the train
between Combs-la-Ville and Paris. But as the Bercy facility belonged to SNCF, it was quite difficult
for Monoprix to choose another operator, despite the fact that another operator may have been
cheaper.

Barriers may also lie in the availability of a suitable terminal close enough to the centre of the city.
While progress has been made in recent years to secure potential freight terminal sites in urban
areas, many cities lack that kind of facilities.

Also, improvements need to be made on the integration of these facilities in an urban environment.
Freight rail facilities generate noise and many truck movements, and this can be a major barrier to
local acceptability (therefore success) of an urban rail project.



SUCCESS AND FAILURE FACTORS

The public sector was at the origin of the Monoprix rail initiative by deciding to finance a first
feasibility study in 2004. Success came after the decision was made to focus the study on the
implementation of an actual experimentation, and to ask a private company to participate in the
study. Without such a close cooperation between public and private partners, Monoprix would not
have taken the initiative of using a train for its Paris deliveries. If public administrations had not
cooperated with a private company, the feasibility study may not have resulted into an actual
experiment.




D31ParisVersion1.doc                                                                                 86
OTHER FACTORS

Monoprix is an upscale retailer, focusing on inner city wealthy residents. Additional operational costs
that result of the rail project can easily be compensated into the price of the goods sold in the
stores. Most competitors, even retailers that retain an urban market, are more sensitive to the prices
of the products they sell.

Monoprix has always been an innovator in environmental and social issues.




8.3.5   Transferability potential

The transferability of the Monoprix rail project to other cities may be delicate. It is conditioned to
the following three requirements.

    •   Some urban logistics facilities need to be available with a connection to the railway network:
        this means that there must be a good railway network in the City that is considering such an
        experiment. This rail network must have connections to freight terminals. There must be a
        willingness from decision-makers and politicians to preserve some space close to the city
        centre available for logistic areas;

    •   There must be one or several retailing companies that have a minimum volume of goods to
        be delivered daily to the city. For example, Monoprix runs a 500 tonne train daily only to
        serve Paris. There aren’t many other French retailers capable of grouping so much freight on
        a daily basis to supply their Paris stores. If traffic falls below 500 tonnes, a rail service will be
        very costly;

    •   There must be a competitive railway industry in the country, with at least one or two
        different companies capable of responding to a bid for tender with reasonable prices and a
        good quality of services that can compare with road-based deliveries.

In regards to these requirements, transferability of the Monoprix rail operation seems quite difficult,
mainly because carrying goods by train is complex, it requires important investment in time and
money before operating the first train. The most positive gain of this project is the benefit in terms
of image and reputation. Today, Monoprix appears as one of the “greenest” French companies.




D31ParisVersion1.doc                                                                                      87
9    CONCLUSIONS

In this report, we have presented an in-depth analysis of the City of Paris’ urban freight situation.
Paris as a case study typifies some of the most common characteristics of urban freight in European
cities: freight has an important share in Paris local pollution and CO2 emissions; it has a very
important economic impact and it represents the only way to accommodate new logistics demands
from Paris households and businesses, such as e-commerce and home deliveries; and Paris is a place
where many city logistics initiatives have emerged recently. More importantly, for the past decade,
the City of Paris has engaged in an active freight-oriented transport policy. We have presented four
of the measures implemented by Paris in this field: (1) The Chronopost Concorde Urban Logistics
Space using electric vehicles for final deliveries. (2) La Petite Reine experiment, using electrically
assisted cargocycles for final deliveries; (3) The freight oriented Urban Master Plan of Paris, which
was adopted in 2006. (4) Monoprix rail train supplying all of Monoprix’s supermarkets within Paris.

Today, despite difficulties and some failures, Paris can be considered as one of the most active
European cities in the field of urban freight. Its freight-oriented municipal policy has led to
significant improvements in the way freight transport is operated.

These improvements are most obvious in small-scale experiments such as Chronopost Concorde, La
Petite Reine and Monoprix: at the level of the experimented schemes, the benefits to the
environment have been very important, with important reductions in emissions of NOx, particulate
matters and CO2. At the global city scale, however, improvements remain marginal. The experiments
implemented or promoted by the City of Paris only deal with a very limited share of the total urban
freight flows. As a result of all Urban Logistics Spaces experiments in Paris, one can consider that
about 500 tonnes of CO2 have been saved every year since 2003 (Dablanc & Rakotonarivo, 2010),
while the City’s Carbon Footprint Assessment made in 2004 indicated that freight was responsible for
more than six million tonnes of CO2 in a year.

Improvements are more difficult to perceive for the measures that focus on global and long-term
objectives, such as the inclusion of freight land-use directives in the Paris Master Plan, or a more
efficient management of the City’s on-street delivery bays. These measures are poorly visible by
elected officials and the general public. Their benefits only appear in the long term, while they are
very ill-perceived locally by direct stakeholders such as a local resident in a neighbourhood where a
new urban logistics building is being built, or a shopkeeper prevented from parking on a delivery bay
because of a better enforcement.

In all cases, the Paris case demonstrates that a freight-oriented policy can be complex to implement
and that it is a long process. Transferability issues have been described for each of the measures
presented:



D31ParisVersion1.doc                                                                                  88
    •   An experiment such as Chronopost Concorde ULS is easily transferable to another European
        city meeting the following conditions: strong political commitment, strong cooperation
        between the private and the public sectors, ability to provide convenient well-located
        logistics areas with a minimum of 500 m2, willingness to set a low level of rent (therefore to
        risk losing money over a more “normal” use of the facility), and finally sufficient expertise to
        design or implement safety regulations for the use of electric and CNG vehicles in
        underground facilities;

    •   La Petite Reine ULS experiment faces the same transferability issues than Chronopost
        Concorde, with additional challenges falling on the company’s shoulders (not the City’s): (1)
        Efficient tricycles must be found. La Petite Reine makes and exports its own cargocycles
        through a subsidiary, but these vehicles are not yet fully satisfactory (users encounter
        wheels’ maintenance problems). And (2) La Petite Reine is a freight consolidator, and as such
        must find enough clients to consolidate parcels into full loads for the cargocycles. It must find
        enough clients for each neighbourhood served, and it must find them despite high transport
        prices;

    •   The integration of logistics land uses into the local Land Use and Master Plan is easily
        transferable to another European city meeting the following conditions: strong political
        commitment, strong cooperation between the private and the public sectors, availability of
        space that can be dedicated to logistics activities: brownfields and former industrial zones,
        under-utilised freight train stations or commercial ports. In some cities, this may not be
        difficult, while in others it may prove impossible. If a City wants to add a requirement on the
        way the logistics site is to be supplied (by train or waterways), such as Paris did, this may add
        a difficulty that may make the measure very difficult to implement. This is the case in
        countries where the provision of freight rail services is poor, or rail slots for freight trains are
        difficult to accommodate within a busy passenger rail network;

    •   An experiment such as the Monoprix rail supply is a challenging measure with regards
        transferability. Other cities willing to promote the use of rail to supply large supermarkets
        would need to meet the following conditions: a large logistics facility available with a
        connection to the railway network, one or several retailing companies that have a minimum
        volume of goods to be delivered daily to the city, a competitive railway industry in the
        country, with companies capable of responding to a bid for tender with reasonable prices and
        good quality of service.

A good level of transferability of the different measures experimented in Paris may also require an
element that the City of Paris and its public and private partners were very good at providing:
publicity and media attention towards Paris’ freight policy. As soon as the new Mayor and his Deputy



D31ParisVersion1.doc                                                                                     89
Mayor for transport took office in 2001, local and national media started scrutinizing freight transport
measures (at least the most spectaculars). This was because the new administration started with a
major dispute between truck drivers and the City over the new protected bus lanes (truck drivers
blocked some of the busiest commercial boulevards). Media attention was also caused by to the fact
that the City always tried to reach out to the press and the public on its freight policy, for example
inviting journalists, residents’ groups and environmental associations to the inauguration of each of
its new Urban Logistics Spaces. This has significantly helped raise the level of support among
companies potentially interested in urban freight schemes, and has induced some of them to
participate in city logistics initiatives.

Finally, the transferability of freight policy measures will be better guaranteed if some structural
conditions are met, which are not the responsibility of local governments but are the responsibility of
national governments and the private industry: this is the case, for example, of the provision of
adequate clean delivery vehicles, which are not available to freight companies at acceptable prices
today. Manufacturers have recently been announcing the release of new electric or hybrid vehicles,
and this may be a very important factor for a successful transmission of city logistics initiatives.




D31ParisVersion1.doc                                                                                   90
10 REFERENCES

Ambrosini C., D. Patier, J.L. Routhier, 2010. Urban freight establishment and tour based surveys for
policy oriented modeling, The Sixth International Conference on City Logistics, Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences 2, pp. 6013–6026.

Arvidsson, N., 2010. New perspectives on sustainable urban freight distribution: a potential zero
emissions concept using electric cars on trams, 12th World Conference on Transport Research, Lisbon,
Portugal, 10-15 July.

Dablanc, L., 2010. Freight transport, a key for urban economies, Guidelines for practitioners,
Transportation Research Board 89th Annual Meeting, 14-17 January 2010, Washington DC, USA.

Dablanc, L., 2008. Urban Goods Movement and Air Quality, Policy and Regulation Issues in European
Cities, Journal of Environmental Law, Volume 20, Number 2, pp. 245-266.

Dablanc, L., 2007a. Goods Transport in Large European Cities: Difficult to Organize, Difficult to
Modernize, Transportation Research Part A 41, pp. 280–285.

DABLANC L., 2007b. Le fret vu par les Régions, in M. OLLIVIER-TRIGALO (Dir.) Six régions à l’épreuve des
politiques de transport. Décentralisation, régionalisation ferroviaire et différenciation territoriale,
Synthèse N°55, Les Collections de l’INRETS, pp. 179-192.

Dablanc, L., 1995. Réglementation de la circulation et du stationnement, Chapter 6 (pp. 150-161) in
IAURIF, Transport de fret en zone dense de la Région d’Ile-de-France, Paris.

Dablanc, L., D. Diziain, H. Levifve, 2010. New urban freight issues for the Paris region: results of
recent consultation processes with business organizations, 12th world Conference on Transport
Research, 11-15 July, Lisbon, Portugal.

Dablanc L. & D. Rakotonarivo, 2010. The impacts of logistic sprawl: how does the location of parcel
transport terminals affect the energy efficiency of goods’ movements in Paris and what can we do
about it? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, The Sixth International Conference on City
Logistics, Edited by Eiichi Tanguchi and Russell G. Thompson, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp. 6087-6096.

Dablanc, L. & C. Gallez, 2008. The perception of street space by the citizens, an analysis of Paris
neighbourhood councils’ meetings, European Transport Conference, 6-8 October, Noordvijkerhout,
The Netherlands.

Henriot, F. & J.L. Routhier, 2010. Scenarios of commercial zoning to reduce impacts of freight
movement in a city, 12th world Conference on Transport Research, 11-15 July, Lisbon, Portugal.




D31ParisVersion1.doc                                                                                 91
LET - Aria Technologies - Systems Consult, 2006. Mise en place d’une méthodologie pour un bilan
environnemental physique du transport de marchandises en ville, consommation, émissions, qualité
de l’air. ADEME, CERTU co-publishing, Lyon.

Poulit, J., 2005. Le territoire des hommes, Paris, Bourin Publisher.




Reports from web sites

Région Ile-de-France, 2000. Plan de Déplacements Urbains d’Ile-de-France (Local Transport Plan of
Ile-de-France). Available at: http://pdu.stif.info/

Région Ile-de-France, 2008. Projet de Schéma Directeur Ile-de-France (Ile-de-France Master Plan).
Available at: http://www.sdrif.com/nc/fr/pdf/

SUGAR,     2010.       Good   Practices   Analysis,   Deliverable      3.3.   Soon   available   from
http://www.sugarlogistics.eu.

Ville de Paris, 2006. Plan Local d’Urbanisme de Paris (Urban Master Plan of Paris). Available at:
http://www.paris.fr/portail/pratique/Portal.lut?page_id=7020.

Ville de Paris, 2007. Plan de Déplacements de Paris (Local Transport Plan of Paris). Available at:
http://www.paris.fr/portail/politiques/Portal.lut?page_id=14&document_type_id=5&document_id=4
763&portlet_id=611




D31ParisVersion1.doc                                                                               92
ANNEX 1: URBAN FREIGHT INDICATORS BY IMPACT CATEGORY


    Table 3: Urban freight indicators by impact category




                  Source: “Quantification of Urban Freight Transport Effects I”, Bestufs




D31ParisVersion1.doc                                                                       93

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:41
posted:6/29/2011
language:English
pages:100