International Journal of Sustainable Transportation

ISSN: 1556-8318 (Print) 1556-8334 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujst20

An ex ante evaluation of mobile depots in cities: a

sustainability perspective

Niklas Arvidsson & Ala Pazirandeh

To cite this article: Niklas Arvidsson & Ala Pazirandeh (2017): An ex ante evaluation of mobile
depots in cities: a sustainability perspective, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation,
DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2017.1294717

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1294717

View supplementary material

Accepted author version posted online: 17

Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 29

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujst20

Download by: [University of Newcastle, Australia] Date: 02 April 2017, At: 04:12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

An ex ante evaluation of mobile depots in cities: a sustainability perspective

Niklas Arvidsson1,2, Ala Pazirandeh1,3

1
University of Gothenburg School of Business, Economics and Law
2
Viktoria Swedish ICT
3
Department of Industrial Management and Logistics Engineering, Lund University

Corresponding author email: niklas.arvidsson@viktoria.se

Abstract

Today, a large share of cost, congestion, and emission in cities is attributed to light goods

vehicles like carrier vans distributing to the last mile. The aim of many policy agendas is to reach

cleaner cities with less disturbance from the distribution vehicles. Several suggestions have been

put forward and tested in research and practice, such as access restrictions, multimodal transport,

and use of cleaner vehicles. In this paper, we develop a case for a more sustainable freight

distribution within cities using an ex ante case study. The idea of the the mobile depot is built on

the iteration between historical transitions within cities and contemporary developments in urban

freight distribution, and then analyzed ex ante both quantitatively in calculations and

qualitatively in two stakeholder workshops. The idea is integrated and multimodal, based on a

mobile depot (e.g. a bus, truck, barge, or tram) that circles the city, while a team of people using

ultra light vehicles, like bikes or segways, link to it and distribute the last mile. We found that

such a system can be environmentally and socially better for the city context, while maintaining

economic viability above a certain utilization rate of the mobile depot for the transport operators.

Keywords

Mobile depot, Sustainability, City logistics, Urban Freight distribution, Transitions

1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Introduction

Transport systems are the backbone of cities, which have been the birthplace of several transport

technologies such as bicycles, electric trams, and automobiles (Geels, 2005). However, for both

people and freight these transport systems have become environmentally unsustainable (Banister,

et al. 2011).

Last mile distribution of parcels within cities, or urban freight distribution, plays an important

role in the transport system and in the development of the economy (Figliozzi, 2010), but is also

a disrupting activity that creates negative externalities such as congestion, noise, and pollution

(Crainic, et al. 2004) in densely populated areas where, for instance, congestion also has social

and economic implications. As much as 28 percent of the transportation cost can be attributed to

this last leg of distribution (Goodman, 2005). Additionally, about a quarter of the vehicle

kilometers driven in cities are attributed to freight, which contributes to between 16-50 percent

of the transport related emissions, depending on which pollutant one considers (Filippi, et al.

2010; Dablanc, 2007; Albergel, et al. 2006). Consequently, last mile logistics commonly

performed in urban areas is considered the most expensive (Goodman 2005; Onghena, 2008),

least efficient (European Commission, 2011) and most polluting (Albergel, et al. 2006) part of

the supply chain.

As a response, governing bodies have called for immediate action; for instance, the EU calls for

halving the use of “‘conventionally-fuelled’ cars in urban transport by 2030", phasing " them out

in cities by 2050" and essentially achieving "CO2-free city logistics in major urban centres by

2030” (European Commission 2011, p 9).

2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

So far, strategies to alleviate the negative externalities of urban distribution have mostly focused

on optimization of freight movement (e.g. Nourinejad, et al. 2014; Ouyang, 2007; Hensher &

Figliozzi, 2007), different regulatory forms such as time and access restrictions (e.g. Arvidsson,

2013; Silas, et al. 2012; Maes & Vanelslander 2010; Holguin-veras, 2008; Browne, et al. 2005a),

mode choice (e.g. Boerkamps, et al. 2000) and vehicle choices (Browne, et al. 2007). While such

strategies have substantial momentum, their future is often uncertain (Banister, et al. 2011). For

instance, the research on vehicle choice has found larger electric freight vehicles to reduce the

negative externalities (Löfstrand, et al. 2013; Baker, et al. 2009), however, these vehicles are not

yet financially viable from a total cost of ownership perspective (Löfstrand, et al. 2013).

In this paper, we argue for the importance of also focusing on other types of vehicles and

operational changes for more sustainable solutions; vehicles that are better adapted to the urban

context and that accommodate the infrastructure changes of cities. Recent studies recognize

smaller vehicles as an operationally flexible and more sustainable mode of transport suitable for

parcel distribution in cities (Lebeau, et al. 2014; Browne, et al. 2011), but with limited radius of

action. Distribution centers can address this limitation and expand the radius of action (e.g.

Browne, et al. 2011; Conway, et al. 2011; Muñuzuri, et al. 2012). However, such distribution

centers add loading and unloading, costs associated with the intermediate storage, and require

subsequent dependence on subsidies from various actors (Quak, et al. 2014), and consequently,

many discontinue their activities (Macharis and Melo, 2011).

We build our arguments on the findings from these studies and hence move the conversation

forward. More specifically, in this study we contribute to the sustainability discussions in city

3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

logistics literature by introducing an integrated multimodal approach using a mobile depot, small

vehicles, and a transloading unit making intermediate storage and reloading unnecessary.

As depicted in the study timeline in Figure 1, we motivate the development of our case inspired

by the transition perspective and historical transitions in urban freight (as suggested by Rotmans,

et al. 2000; Loorbach, 2007), which we then analyze ex ante in terms of costs and benefits (i.e.

within developed scenarios) and stakeholder perspectives. Transition perspective supplies a

framework to better understand desired system changes in societies (Loorbach, et al. 2010). An

essential part of this perspective is to have common insights into how the system works; for

instance, dominant practices, technologies, and ways of thinking, power relations, types of

regulations or other incentives that influence the behaviour of actors (Loorbach, 2007).

Consequently, the contributions of this paper are twofold: the framing of mobile depot

distribution in cities in the context of historical transitions and contemporary developments in

urban freight distribution; and, a case-study illustrating the economic, environmental, and social

potential of the mobile depot distribution systems (see Figure 1).

Henceforth, we will first give a brief introduction to the transition perspective and explain how it

has guided this study, then we argue for the importance of the auxiliary and small vehicles in

urban transport. Thereafter, in section 4 the case and results from analyses are discussed.

2. A transition perspective

History shows that oftentimes established technologies are slowly replaced with new

technologies, e.g the replacement of sailing ships with steam boats, or horse carriages with

automobiles (Geels, 2005; Falkemark, 2006). These transitions start in small niches, often

4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

limited by special functional requirements, and in experimental settings (for a transport setting

see Bakker, et al. 2014), driven by lower costs, incremental performance enhancements,

increases in competitiveness in markets, but also socio-technical adoptions (Geels 2005; 2012).

A diffusion process, from which a transition takes place, is the result of linking various elements

together; i.e. products, technology, markets, infrastructure, preferences, habits, values, modes of

social activities, job creation, regulation and subsidies. Diffusion is possible only when enough

of these elements are linked, increasing momentum, irreversibility, mutual dependencies, lock-

ins and path dependencies (Geels, 2005; Bergh and Kemp, 2006).

In other words, a sustainable transition is a nonlinear, complex and long-term process that results

from the interplay of developments at three levels (see Figure 2): 1) niches (the locus for

innovations, a „protected space‟ such as a subsidized innovation project), 2) socio-technical

regimes (the locus for established practices and associated rules that stabilize existing systems),

and 3) an exogenous socio-technical landscape (e.g. demographic trends, societal values, and

macroeconomic patterns).

Change in such systems is based on co-evolution of the different actors on the different levels

(Geels, 2011), and an important part of innovation is the “new combinations of existing

elements” (Geels and Schot, 2007). Figure 3, depicts how change can occur, change the patterns

and dynamics and eventually lead to a transition (Geels and Schot, 2007).

Transition to a more sustainable urban freight distribution is also multifaceted and multilayered.

Below we will review the dynamics of transition in this context by summarizing historical

transition cases in cities, and review some experimental implementations today. By reviewing

several ongoing projects we increase the understanding of challenges, shortcomings of the

5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

solutions, and the aspects of change needed. By iterating the theoretical and conceptual

understanding gained from historical and contemporary evidence, we develop the case for

mobile depots and small vehicles, which we then analyze.

3. The importance of the auxiliary and small vehicles in urban transport

Within the transportation industry, previous technological transitions have been signified by

various add-on and hybridization mechanisms. The new technologies typically link to the old

technology in the form of an auxiliary add-on, often to improve its functioning. In addition to

competing technologies, these linked technologies can also borrow technical elements and cross

fertilize each other (Pistorius and Utterback, 1997; Birky, 2008).

An example is the case of bikes in the transition away from horse transport in the 19th century.

At that time transport means such as horse trams and horse wagons were commonplace, and had

created operational, societal and environmental problems (Falkemark 2006; Geels 2005; Kirsch

2000). Societal problems (Landscape level) with horses including congestion and pollution

triggered the search for alternative ways of transportation and created windows of opportunity

for new technologies that were first developed in niches; e.g. trams, steam and electricity (Geels

2005; Kirsch, 2000). Electric vehicles were considered an alternative to horse carriages only

after the bicycle, which was at this point produced in higher quantities, showed that another

means of motion was possible (Birky 2008). The transition to electric trams and bicycles paved

the way for the automobile (Geels 2005, chapter 5).

Today, cities again suffer from “congestion, poor air quality and noise exposure”, and urban

transport contributes to a quarter of the transport emissions and more than two thirds of road

6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

accidents (European Commision, 2011, p. 8). The use of bicycles is also again promoted by

many cities for congestion, health and emission reasons (Transport for London 2010; New York

City, 2008)1.

Higher population density in cities means lower demand on radius of action. Thus, smaller

vehicles with limited range, which are often cleaner modes, can be implemented faster in cities.

In a freight study funded by the EU Bestfact, Lebeau, et al. (2014; 2015) find electric vehicles to

be a competitive alternative in the small vehicles (quadricycles and clubcars) segment and the

lighter Light Goods Vehicles (LLGVs) segment (i.e. gross vehicle weight of max 2.300kg), but

not yet in the heavy Light Goods Vehicles segment (i.e. gross vehicle weight of 3.500kg); and

thus, show the applicability of lighter electric vehicles for the urban context.

We can see a continuous increase in policies limiting the use of conventionally fueled vehicles,

and an increase in the spatial area for public transport, walking and cycling in many cities

worldwide (Schwanen, 2015). For instance, in private transportation, for every electric car that is

being sold, 60 e-bikes are sold (Dings, 2014). So, the space for freight deliveries will most likely

shrink. We argue that this development will support the use of small electric freight vehicles in

urban distribution.

Smaller vehicles, in general, are rather operationally flexible; e.g. the accessibility to a wide

variety of infrastructure such as bicycle paths, pedestrian areas, and bus lanes, easier flow

through congestion, better parking possibilities, and with limited structural impacts in terms of

noise and road damage. Electrically assisted smaller vehicles are also found to be cheaper in

1
Drawn on environmental considerations, in the EU White paper (2011), it is recommended to move away from the use of conventionally
fuelled vehicles, encouraging the use of smaller and lighter vehicles, and integrating walking and cycling in urban transport and infrastructure
design (ibid, p 8). “Large fleets of urban buses, taxis and delivery vans are particularly suitable for the introduction of alternative propulsion
systems and fuels. These could make a substantial contribution in reducing the carbon intensity of urban transport while providing a test bed for
new technologies and opportunity for early market deployment” (European Commission 2011, p 8).

7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

purchase price, tax, insurance, storage, depreciation and running costs, have no parking and

congestion charges, have higher speed in congestion, do not need driver training, and have less

environmental impact (Browne, et al. 2011; Transport for London, 2009). From a more social

point of view, smaller vehicles do not pose a threat to pedestrians and cyclists to the same extent

as trucks do, thus are perceived safer and less intimidating. The Transport for London study

(2014) shows that although heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) only make up around four percent of

the traffic, more than half of the fatal cyclist and pedestrian accidents involves a HGV.

However, the limitation in radius of action of smaller electric vehicles, necessitates an auxiliary.

Many of the experiments currently underway in Europe use some sort of an urban consolidation

or distribution center (e.g. Browne, et al. 2005b; Browne, et al. 2011; Conway, et al. 2011;

Muñuzuri, et al. 2012; Dablanc, 2014), which unfortunately, are often not financially viable and

heavily rely on subsidies (Quak, et al. 2014; Macharis and Melo, 2011). Such logistics facilities

are located in or near a delivery area to consolidate freight flows, and use different carriers in the

last mile such as electric vans and tricycles (Browne, et al. 2011; Dablanc, 2014); tricycles

(Conway, et al. 2011), or by foot with a handcart (Muñuzuri, et al. 2012; Dablanc, 2014).

In a project in Berlin an electric Micro-Carrier Utility Vehicle, a Segway-like vehicle with trailer

capacity, was tested in a pilot project, where the larger trucks delivered their goods to a City-hub,

from where the micro-carriers pick them up (Magnes, 2013). The use of this vehicle made it

possible for the operator to deliver goods for a greater amount of time in the day, that is, since

vans are only allowed in the city in the mornings. In another urban parcel delivery project in

Brussels a moveable warehouse facility was introduced; simply a truck equipped with all the

normal depot technologies, like data entry, labeling, and loading docks. This facility was moved

8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

to a central location and parks in one place all day, from which electric freight tricycles delivered

parcels within the last mile (Straightsol, 2012). Compared to conventional distribution, in both of

these cases extra loading and unloading was required and in one project a costly intermediate

storage was needed.

This makes such solutions dependent on subsidies from various actors (Quak, et al. 2014),

something that ought to be accounted for in future business models of the sort. Additional

drawbacks or barriers identified in these projects are related to the limited capacity of these

vehicles in terms of carrying weight and volume. This forces the small vehicles to travel a further

distance per item delivered, and forces the companies to employ more drivers (Browne, et al.

2011; Transport for London, 2009). Furthermore, security, driver fatigue, and seasonality

(Transport for London, 2009) were also mentioned as drawbacks.

In summary, historical transitions show us that new technologies oftentimes coexist with old

technologies, complementing and supporting them. This reveals the importance of hybridization

and add-ons as a step to change. Additionally, sometimes technologies “go out of fashion”, to

later become popular again, such as the bike. This perspective also shows us that innovation can

sometimes just simply be “new combinations of existing elements” (Geels and Schot, 2007).

Lastly, the transition perspective equips us with a broad notion of how change happens, and the

importance of various elements connecting together (Geels 2005, 2005; Bergh and Kemp, 2006)

in a diffusion process. Change in such systems is based on the co-evolution of the different

actors on the different levels (Geels and Schot, 2007).

9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4. An ex ante case for mobile depots in cities

As depicted in Figure 3 the urban space required to transport the same amount of people with

bicycles or a bus, is much smaller than that with cars. The picture would look very similar if the

people in this figure were replaced with parcels and the cars with delivery vans, representing

today's urban freight distribution. In theory, it is possible to fit more freight into the vans than

shown in the picture, but with the actual load rates of today's deliveries, the picture would be

very similar to reality. The main reason for this poor resource utilisation is the length of the

workday; in an 8-hours working day a driver can deliver about 30 parcels or make 30 stops.

Other drawbacks with parcel distribution using vans, than air pollution and urban space, are

linked to the amount of non-value adding time the drivers spend driving from and to the

distribution centers, which are typically located in the outskirts of the city. This driving is done at

the time of the day when there is more congestion than normal, that is in the mornings and in the

afternoons. Upon entering the city the drivers either incur parking charges (i.e. quite a

noteworthy cost for the companies) such as those for double parking, or spend a significant

amount of time circling for possibilities.

As an alternative, we propose a multimodal solution that involves a mobile depot. We suggest

the use of an existing transport network within the city, such as a bus, truck, barge, or tram lane

for transit of the mobile depot in the city. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a similar concept for

distribution of passengers in the city (as presented in e.g. Combs and Rodrigues, 2014). In our

suggestion, the BRT concept will be transferred to the freight distribution context; simply put, a

larger distribution vehicle (i.e. the mobile depot) connected with a series of small vehicles,

making intermediate storage redundant for parcel distribution.

10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In this suggestion, as depicted in Figure 4 and 5, the mobile depot is loaded at the distribution

center (located in the outskirts of the urban area) and is driven into the city by a driver. Pre-

packed load units in the form of e.g. standardized mini containers or small trailers can be used to

facilitate transloading. A wishlist for the mini containers would be Euro pallet size, lightweight

material, stackable at least one layer. Along the city, a series of smaller vehicles, e.g. cargo

bikes, segways, or the other small vehicles mentioned in previous projects, can be used to pick

up the pre-packed load units from the depot, and distribute in the last mile. This will reduce the

high emission flows created by the delivery vans to a great extent. In a situation where the

mobile depot is fueled by more environmentally friendly energy (e.g. an electric bus or tram), the

tail pipe emissions would be zero.

Connecting the mobile depot to the extant public transport system can facilitate the delivery

using this system. For example, the mobile depot can use the existing public transport lanes, and

it would not interfere with public transport, since it does not have to stop at every stop, and could

use a “follow mode” (as described in Arvidsson and Browne, 2013).

5. Evaluation of the mobile depot case using a freight bus

The results of the economic, social, environmental, and stakeholder perspectives of this

suggestion are presented in this section. The mobile depot model is calculated based on a freight

bus serving as the mobile depot with electric cargo bikes for last mile deliveries. For the

economic and environmental evaluation, firstly, the variables are analyzed according to a base

demand model. Since the base scenario illustrates very low utilization rate of the bus, to

11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

investigate how scale influences them, the same calculations are performed for a scenario with

higher demand (i.e. 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% utilization rates of the freight bus)2.

The base scenario is based on real-time data from a medium size parcel distributor in the city of

Gothenburg in Sweden in 2015, with 520 return trips per year, 80 parcels per return trip, 41600

parcels per year, 53 stops per return trip, 27560 stops per year, and 1.5 parcels per stop (in 260

working days a year in a six-hour time frame of 10am to 4pm). On average, each parcel weighs 4

kg and has a volume of 19,5 cm3 (i.e. a standard DHL package of 33.7 cm x 32.2 x 18 cm).

In the conventional distribution model, to fulfill the demand specified in the base scenario, two

vans are needed (with a volume load capacity of 5.9 m3 and a weight carrying capacity of 815

kg). The average distance per return trip per vehicle is 74 km or 19 240 km per van per year (i.e.

24 km roundtrip DC to center + 50 km in the center).

The freight bus is assumed to take the same route to the city as the vans, and makes six stops in

the city center. In the base scenario, assuming an equally distributed demand, if the two vans

deliver 80 parcels each, the freight bus would be loaded with 160 parcels and deliver 27 parcels

per stop, requiring two cargo bikes. It is worth noting that in this scenario, the bus driver has an

important managerial function to coordinate the bikes and decide when to move the mobile depot

to the next stop. Based on the bus routes for the city of Gothenburg, the total distance driven by

the bus is 31 km (i.e. 9 km from DC to center + 22 km in center), and by the bikes, 24 km (i.e. 6

km in between stops+3 km radius of action around each stop*6 stops=24 km). One fully charged

bike battery works for 25 km, but one extra battery is also accounted for.

2
Part of the economic and environmental calculation are previously published in a master thesis on this research project (see Berninger and
Farneman, 2015)

12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

5.1. An economic evaluation of the mobile depot system

In this section, the cost of conventional urban freight distribution using vans is compared with

that of the mobile depot, to estimate its financial viability. The operating costs of the distribution

systems (i.e. the standing costs, running costs and overhead costs) are analyzed based on the base

and scaled scenarios, and then the influence of possible variables that can affect the outcome of

the cost analysis are tested through a sensitivity analysis. In the sensitivity analysis, the labor

costs, the fuel costs, the delivery rate of parcels per stop, the delivery speed of the distribution

vehicles as well as congestion charges and parking fees were evaluated to find the break-even

points where one of the two models make more economic sense.

Table 1 shows the difference in operating costs of the two distribution systems in the base

scenario. The bus would have the highest total operating costs per year (i.e. 84,544 EUR), due to

the high capital investment required, and the cargo bike the lowest (i.e. 39,605 EUR compared to

52,306 EUR for a van). As a result, the mobile depot distribution would yield about 24% higher

cost than the conventional model.

However, since the base scenario represents low utilization of the vehicle maximum weights and

volumes (i.e. 6-40% for the different vehicles), for a more realistic comparison, as depicted in

Table 2, cost of per-parcel delivery is compared for 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% utilization rates

of the bus.

At above 25% utilization rate, as the capital investment for the bus is spread over a larger amount

of parcels and since the cost of employing a new van is higher than that of a cargo bike, the

mobile depot distribution system becomes financially competitive compared to conventional

deliveries using vans. This is further illustrated in Figure 6, in which the total cost for the

13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

different systems increases in a stepwise manner and where the mobile depot becomes

financially competitive when the cost gap between vans and bikes equals the fixed costs of the

bus.

The results of the sensitivity analysis, show that the mobile depot model remains financially

viable even in situations of lower labor costs, parking charges, fuel costs, or higher delivery rate

per stop. On the other hand, if the bikes deliver at a higher speed than the assumptions, or with

lower congestion charges that commonly apply for more environmental modes of delivery,

mobile depot gains even more competitiveness (for more details of the calculations please see the

master thesis on this project by Berninger and Farneman, 2015).

5.2. A social and environmental evaluation of the mobile depot system

To evaluate the environmental implications, the “Guidelines for Measuring and Managing CO2

Emission from Freight Transport Operations” (Cefic and ECTA, 2011) were used.

In the base scenario, the annual CO2 emissions for distribution using vans is 11,160 kg CO2 (i.e.

2*2.9 kg CO2/liter [Well-to-Wheel fuel emission conversion factor for diesel fuel]*10liter/100

km*19,240 km) and 11,171 kg CO2 for the mobile depot (i.e. 3.3 kg CO2/kg [Well-to-Wheel

fuel emission conversion factor for CNG fuel]*42 kg/100 km*8,060 km). In this scenario, we are

essentially comparing two vans with a bus, since the electric cargo bikes employed are

considered emission free with a Swedish energy mix. The environmental performance is greatly

improved in the scaled scenario since only one bus is required for 1-1869 parcels while the

number of vans needs to be increased (see Figure 7 for details).

14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The mobile depot suggestion would also add notable benefits in terms of congestion 3, noise and

visual intrusion. The space-time occupation method suggested by Browne, et al. (2011) is used,

in which the dimensions of the various vehicles are multiplied with the time spent in the city.

The results show that the total road space and time occupancy is 59 m2-hours (9.87m2*6h) for a

van and 20 m2-hours (3.33m2*6h) for a freight bike. While, the space and time occupancy of the

vans and bikes increases linearly as the number of parcels increases, since only one bus is

required for 1-1869 parcels, for the bus it varies between 94 and 188 m2-hours in a zig-zag

pattern due to the break-of-point in terms of capacity (see Figure 8). At above 480 parcels, the

mobile depot becomes more competitive.

5.3. Stakeholder perspective of the mobile depot system

Stakeholders are any individual or group that can influence or are influenced in the process of

achieving objectives (Freeman, 2010). They directly influence the factors that stimulate

sustainable development and growth of technology and infrastructures, and each have their own

views, objectives, incentives, norms and standards to govern the situation. Consequently, the

study of stakeholder involvement and perspective is of great importance (Verlinde, et al. 2014;

Freeman, 2010).

In the transport sector, investors, operators, and the society as a whole are part of the

stakeholders (Macharis, 2007). Urban freight, specifically, typically comprises of a multitude of

actors, some of which are freight carriers/ operators, transport buyers, authorities and

3
From the standpoint of congestion, the gain is made by replacing x distribution vans with one freight bus and x smaller vehicles. The x=x
relationship can be maintained by smaller vehicles being more agile in a city environment: The distributors (for instance freight cycle operators)
start their work day when they meet up with the bus in the morning and work for eight hours delivering, the distributors do not have go back and
forth to the distribution center in rush hour in the morning and afternoon. They do not have to incur parking costs and fines and are not restrained
by one way streets to the same extent and can use shortcuts, like bike paths. They can also get a bit closer to where they have to deliver (often just
outside the door), whereas a van driver usually has to walk a bit longer. They do however have to go back to the bus a once a day to collect a new
load unit. In general, the delivery speed for the cycles and distribution vans are considered to be the same.

15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

administrators, vehicle manufacturers (Arvidsson, et al. 2013), citizen, transport unions and

researchers. In this study, the aim was to get the input from representatives from each of these

stakeholder groups that would be affected by the new distribution system, on its applicability,

advantages, disadvantages, possible barriers, and needed adjustments to increase its likelihood of

success. In this regards, two workshops were conducted ensuring the participation of at least one

representative from each stakeholder in either of them. Representatives were selected using a

snowball sampling and by contacting the actors in the city of Gothenburg, where the scenarios

were also developed.

The mobile depot suggestion and the economic and environmental results were presented in the

workshops and then data was collected using roundtable discussions, joint discussions, and

surveys. The details of data collection from the two workshops including the number of

representatives from each stakeholder group are summarized in Table 3.

Biggest advantages of the BRD were discussed to be improved aesthetics of the city due to

reduced number of vans and the difference in size and movement of small vehicles compared to

vans, improved air quality and lowering of CO2 emissions, and lower urban congestion (also

related to reduced number of vans). Related to these aspects, the participants noted the large

geographical drop-density the solution can offer compared to other non-mobile city warehouse

solutions that use small vehicles.

On the other hand, as the numbers in Table 4 suggest, the biggest possible barriers, were

respectively considered to be issues related to coordination of the multiple individuals during

operations (e.g. bus driver with the multiple cargo bike drivers), risk and reward sharing, turf

protection due to change of actors, and resistances to change. But, to our surprise, economic

16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

viability and use of city space of this solution compared to existing methods of delivery was not

regarded as an issue after round-table discussions. In general, all discussed issues were regarded

solvable at either the short or long term. Table 4 shows what percentage of the participants who

considered each possible barrier to be solvable in short versus long term and the application

possibilities related to each aspect.

Additional application possibilities to the ones listed in Table 4 were discussed in relation to the

size of packages suitable for the solution (small to medium, e.g. e-commerce, perishable local

goods like food or home deliveries, or newspapers and post), possibility of integrating a

collection system with the delivery (reverse logistics), combining the solution with drop-off

terminals for small vehicles to pick up the freight, the importance of standardized containers for

future scale-up of the solution, and the suitability of the solution for residential areas as well as

city centers.

In the mobile depot system, the interrelation and interplay between the actors becomes of vital

importance. The small vehicles drivers act similar to satellites and work throughout the day,

adding value to the company by delivering parcels to customers in the load units. The driver of

the mobile depot has a coordinating role. The municipality, in such a project, is a vital actor who

has to analyze and approve the system. Technological add-ons, such as a smartphone app that the

distributors and the driver of the mobile depot can know the location of each vehicle, could

increase the efficiency of distribution and effectiveness of this interplay.

17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

6. Implications, limitations and concluding remarks

In this paper we suggest and analyse an urban distribution system informed by the socio-

technical transitions literature and based on the historical transitions and contemporary needs of

urban transport. The suggested system is integrated and multimodal, consisting of a mobile depot

(i.e. depending on the context of the city e.g. a freight bus, truck, barge, tram, or other), small

vehicles (quadricycles, clubcars and/or segways), and some form of standardized load unit to

make transloading easier. Compared to previously discussed mobile depot distributions in the

literature (such as the case of TNT in Brussels, in which the depot parks in the vicinity of last

mile distributions during the day and thus requires urban space for this matter suggested in

Verlinde, et al. 2014), the suggested depot in our study circles the city and only stops for loading

and unloading in e.g. the loading zones for trucks.

Our analysis revealed that such a transition to mobile depots for distribution of parcels in cities

can be beneficial from an environmental and social point of view in terms of improving air

quality and lowering CO2 emissions, noise intrusion, congestion and visual intrusion (i.e. time-

space occupancy at 480 parcels or more in our example), and still remain economically

competitive for transport operators (i.e. when the cost gap of the vans and the small vehicles

equals the fixed cost of the mobile depot).

While more studies are required to understand the drawbacks of this system, the major aspects

found in our study were related to coordination of the actors (both individuals and

organizations), fair sharing of risks and rewards, resistances to change and turf protections. This

finding is in line with suggestions in the transition literature regarding vested interests, mutual

18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

dependencies, lock-in and path dependencies that are influenced during a transition (Geels 2005,

2005; Bergh and Kemp, 2006).

In a situation where an electric bus is utilized from the start, the environmental (i.e. “tailpipe

emissions”) benefits can be even higher. However, the investment costs are also significantly

higher, impacting the short-term economic calculations. Additionally, the range issue might

affect the applicability of this solution. Alternatively, conventional distribution vans could be

replaced with electric vans with the same investment and range issues as with the freight bus.

Lebeau, et al. (2015) discusses this paradox with electric vehicles further.

From a policy perspective, these results suggest that a mobile depot distribution system using

small vehicles for the last mile delivery of parcels in the city can be a more sustainable

alternative to the current distribution systems using vans. This suggestion can replace part of the

parcel distribution in the cities. Aspects to consider for higher success of the system are the

context of the city such as the available public transport systems and existence of inner

waterways, the importance of standardized load units, and inclusion of the actors impacted by the

change. Further studies need to be conducted on small scale implementations of such a system to

better understand its implications. It is also important to point out that a continued increased

pressure by regulatory bodies on the transport operators to find zero emission alternatives (e.g.

increase of transportation innovation requirements in public procurement) is important for more

sustainable solutions (according to the transition perspective e.g. as depicted in Figure 3).

Yet, the findings of this study are firstly limited to the method employed. The effect of policy

measures, like Congestion Charging and Low Emission Zones, to promote the use of more

sustainable operations is not analyzed in this paper, see for instance Verlinde, (2014).

19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Furthermore, the analysis has not taken into account the type of network patterns suitable for this

type of deliveries. Topography and weather conditions have not been analyzed specifically.

These matters need to be taken into account in future research. Finally, during the workshops we

had limited representation of the operators which are arguably key actors in such a system

change. It is, however, worth mentioning that towards the end of the review process of this

research paper Schenker consulting confirmed the quantitative findings of the paper and

developed a reference case based on it (see appendix), and Mercedes-Benz together with Starship

Technologies, a manufacturer of autonomous small robots, are aiming to invest $560 million on

a similar concept presented above4.

7. Acknowledgements

Financial support by The Swedish Retail and Wholesale Development Council (Handelsrådet),

Västra Götalandsregionen as well as Vinnova (Mobil depå Diarienummer 2015-00266) have

made this research possible and is gratefully acknowledged. We would also like to acknowledge

the two master students, Stefanie Berninger and Sofie Farneman and the anonymous reviewers

for their valuable input.

4
http://www.drivesweden.net/en/smart-mobility-news-and-comments/mercedes-benz-and-starship-technologies-build-robot-enhanced-delivery-
concept

20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References

Albergel, A., Ségalou, E., Routhier, J. L., & De Rham, C. (2006). Mise en place d’une

méthodologie pour un bilan environnemental physique du transport de marchandises en ville.

consommation, emissions, qualite de l‟air. Co-edition ADEME, CERTU, Lyon.

Arvidsson, N. (2013). The milk run revisited: A load factor paradox with economic and

environmental implications for urban freight transport. Transportation Research Part A: Policy

and Practice, 51, 56-62.

Arvidsson, N., & Browne, M. (2013). A review of the success and failure of tram systems to

carry urban freight: the implications for a low emission intermodal solution using electric

vehicles on trams. European Transport – Trasporti Europei 54.

Arvidsson, N., Woxenius, J., & Lammgård, C. (2013). Review of road hauliers' measures for

increasing transport efficiency and sustainability in urban freight distribution. Transport

Reviews, 33(1), 107-127.

Bakker, S., Maat, K., & van Wee, B. (2014) Stakeholders interests, expectations, and strategies

regarding the development and implementation of electric vehicles: The case of the Netherlands.

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 66, 52-64.

Baker H., Cornwell R., Koehler E., Patterson J., Powell N., Ricardo RD. (2009) Review of low

carbon technologies for heavy goods vehicles, [available at: owcvp.org.uk]

French, S. A., Story, M., & Jeffery, R. W. (2001). Environmental influences on eating and

physical activity. Annual review of public health, 22(1), 309-335.

Berninger S. and Farneman, S. (2015) Bus Rapid Distribution. Cost analysis of an innovative

freight distribution model for urban areas. Master thesis, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg.

21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Bergh, J.v.d. and Kemp, R. (2006) Economics and transitions: lessons from economic sub-

disciplines. Maastricht, UNU-MERIT, Maastricht Economic and social Research and training

centre on Innovation and Technology.

Birky, A. K. (2008) Socio-technical transition as a co-evolutionary process: innovation and the

role of niche markets in the transition to motor vehicles. University of Maryland, College Park,

University of Maryland, College Park.

Boerkamps, J. H., van Binsbergen, A. J., & Bovy, P. H. (2000) Modeling behavioral aspects of

urban freight movement in supply chains. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the

Transportation Research Board, 1725(1), 17-25.

Browne, M., Allen, J., & Anderson, S. (2005a) Low emission zones: the likely effects on the

freight transport sector. International Journal of Logistics 8, 269–281.

Browne, M., Sweet, M., Woodburn, A., & Allen, J. (2005b) Urban freight consolidation centres:

final report. University of Westminster for the Department for Transport, Transport Studies

Group. Project Report.

Browne, M., Allen, J., Woodburn, A., & Piotrowska, M. (2007) Literature Review WM9: Part II

– Light Goods Vehicles in Urban Areas, Carried as part Work Module 1. Green Logistics

Project, English.

Browne, M., Allen, J., & Leonardi, J. (2011) Evaluating the use of an urban consolidation centre

and electric vehicles in central London. IATSS Research, 35(1): 1-6.

Cefic and ECTA, (2011). Guidelines for Measuring and Managing CO2 Emission from Freight

Transport Operations. Brussels: The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) and European

Chemical Transport Association (ECTA).

22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Combs, T. S., & Rodríguez, D. A. (2014) Joint impacts of Bus Rapid Transit and urban form on

vehicle ownership: New evidence from a quasi-longitudinal analysis in Bogotá, Colombia.

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 69, 272-285.

Conway, A., Fatisson, P. E., Eickemeyer, P., Cheng, J., & Peters, D. (2012, January). Urban

micro-consolidation and last mile goods delivery by freight-tricycle in Manhattan: Opportunities

and challenges. In Proceedings of the 91st Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting,

Washington, DC, USA(pp. 22-26).

Crainic, T. G., Ricciardi, N., Storchi, G. (2004). Advanced freight transportation systems for

congested urban areas. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 12(2): 119-

137.

Dablanc, L. (2007). Goods transport in large European cities: Difficult to organize, difficult to

modernize, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41, 280-285.

Dablanc, L. (2014). Transferability of Urban Logistics Concepts and Practices from a

Worldwide Perspective-Deliverable 3.1-Urban Logistics Practices–Paris Case Study. FP7-

TRANSPORT SST.2008.3.1.4. Urban delivery systems.

Dings, J. (2014). Cars are going electric, but should we get plugged in? Transport &

Environment, [Available at: http://www.transportenvironment.org/news/cars-are-going-electric-

should-we-get-plugged]

Ekström, G. (1984) Svenskarna och deras velocipeder, Winbergs Förlag.

European Commission. (2011). White Paper. Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area–

Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. COM (2011) 144 Final, Brussels,

European Commission.

23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figliozzi, M. A. (2010). The impacts of congestion on commercial vehicle tour characteristics

and costs. Transportation Research E, 46(4), 496–506.

Filippi, F., Nuzzolo, A., Comi, A., & Site, P. D. (2010) Ex-ante assessment of urban freight

transport policies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(3), 6332-6342.

Freeman, R. E. (2010) Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University

Press.

Falkemark, G. (2006) Politik, mobilitet och miljö : om den historiska framväxten av ett ohållbart

transportsystem, Gidlunds förlag.

Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A

multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8-9): 1257-1274.

Geels, F.W. (2005). The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: a multi-level

analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930).

Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 17 (4), 445–476.

Geels, F. W. (2005). Technological transitions and system innovations: a co-evolutionary and

socio-technical analysis, Edward Elgar.

Geels, F. Schot W. J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways, Research Policy

36 399–417.

Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven

criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1): 24-40.

Geels, F. W. (2012). A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: introducing the multi-

level perspective into transport studies. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 471-482.

24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Goodman, R.W. (2005). Whatever you call it, just don‟t think of last-mile logistics, last. Global

Logistics and Supply Chain Strategies. Keller International Publishing Corporation.

Holguín-Veras, J. (2008). Necessary conditions for off-hour deliveries and the effectiveness of

urban freight road pricing and alternative financial policies in competitive markets.

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42(2) 392-413.

Hensher, D., & Figliozzi, M. A. (2007). Behavioural insights into the modelling of freight

transportation and distribution systems. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological,

41(9), 921-923.

Kirsch, D. (2000). The electric vehicle and the burden of history, Rutgers University Press.

Lebeau P., Cathy M., Joeri VM., Lebeau K. (2014) Electric vs Conventional vehicles for city

logistics: a Total Cost of Ownership, Presentation at Small scale solutions workshop, Brussels,

the 30th of January 2014, [Available at: http://www.bestfact.net/wp-

content/uploads/2014/02/BESTFACT_Brussels_30Jan_Day2.S5.3_VUB.pdf]

Lebeau P, De Cauwer C, Van Mierlo J, Macharis C, Verbeke W, Coosemans T. (2015).

Conventional, Hybrid, or Electric Vehicles: Which Technology for an Urban Distribution

Centre? The Scientific World Journal. 2015.

Loorbach, D. (2007). Governance for sustainability. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy,

3(2).

Loorbach, D., van Bakel, J. C., Whiteman, G. & Rotmans, J. (2010). Business strategies for

transitions towards sustainable systems, Business Strategy and the Environment 19, 133-146.

25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Löfstrand, S., Hellgren, J., Thulin, N., Engdahl, H., Pettersson, S., Williamsson, J., & Sandoff,

A. (2013). Feasibility of Electrifying Urban Goods Distribution Trucks. SAE International

Journal of Commercial Vehicles, 6(2013-01-0504), 24-33.

Macharis, C. (2007). Multi-criteria analysis as a tool to include stakeholders in project

evaluation: the MAMCA method. Transport Project Evaluation. Extending the Social Cost–

Benefit Approach, 115-131.

Macharis, C., & Melo, S. (Eds.). (2011). City distribution and urban freight transport: multiple

perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Maes, J. & Vanelslander, T. (2010). The Use of Bicycle Messengers. An Option in the 2010

Supply Chain? European Transport Conference, Proceedings, Association for European

Transport.

Magnes, E. (2013). MicroCarrier - an innovative, electric, parcel-delivery vehicle tested in

Berlin (Germany), Eltis, The urban mobility portal.

Meunster's Planning Office, Commercial Poster of space utilization, [Available at:

http://www.core77.com/posts/8015/car-bus-bicycle-taking-up-space-in-the-same-place-8015]

Muñuzuri, J., Cortés, P., Grosso, R., & Guadix, J. (2012). Selecting the location of minihubs for

freight delivery in congested downtown areas. Journal of Computational Science, 3(4), 228-237.

New York City Department of Transportation (2008). Sustainable Streets, Strategic Plan for the

New York City Department of Transportation 2008 and Beyond. New York, [Available at:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/stratplan_compplan.pdf]

26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Nourinejad, M., Wenneman, A., Habib, K. N., & Roorda, M. J. (2014). Truck parking in urban

areas: Application of choice modelling within traffic microsimulation. Transportation Research

Part A: Policy and Practice 64, 54-64.

Nykvist, B. and Whitmarsh, L. (2008). A multi-level analysis of sustainable mobility transitions:

Niche development in the UK and Sweden. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,

75(9): 1373-1387.

Ouyang, Y. (2007). Design of vehicle routing zones for large-scale distribution systems.

Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 41(10), 1079-1093.

Pistorius, C. W. I. and Utterback, J. M. (1997). Multi-mode interaction among technologies.

Research Policy, 26(1): 67-84.

Quak, H., Balm, S., & Posthumus, B. (2014). Evaluation of city logistics solutions with business

model analysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 125, 111-124.

Raven, R. (2005). Strategic niche management for biomass: a comparative study on the

experimental introduction of bioenergy technologies in the Netherlands and Denmark.

Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. Doctoral dissertation, Eindhoven.

Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., Van Asselt, M. B. A., Geels, F., Verbong, G., & Molendijk, K. (2000)

Transitions and transition management, the case of an emission-free energy supply. International

Centre for Integrative Studies, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Schwanen, T. (2015). The Bumpy Road toward Low-Energy Urban Mobility: Case Studies from

Two UK Cities. Sustainability, 7(6), 7086–7111.

27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Silas, M. A., Holguín-Veras, J., & Jara-Díaz, S. (2012). Optimal distribution of financial

incentives to foster off-hour deliveries in urban areas. Transportation Research Part A: Policy

and Practice, 46(8), 1205-1215.

Straightsol, (2012) Project Demonstrations. Demonstration B: TNT Express in Brussels - City

Logistics Mobile Depot, [Available at: http://www.straightsol.eu/demonstration_B.htm]

Transport for London (2009) Cycle freight in London – a scoping study. T. f. London. London,

[Available at: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/cycle-as-freight-may-

2009.pdf]

Transport for London (2010) Cycling Revolution London. London, [Available at:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/roadusers/Cycling/cycling-revolution-london.pdf]

Verlinde, S., Macharis, C., Milan, L., & Kin, B. (2014). Does a Mobile Depot Make Urban

Deliveries Faster, More Sustainable and More Economically Viable: Results of a Pilot Test in

Brussels. Transportation Research Procedia, 4, 361–373.

28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1 Cost comparison of the conventional and mobile depot distribution for base scenario in €

(41600 parcels/year)

Cost Depreci Insura Lab Tax Fuel Lubric Mainten Tir Othe Overh Total per
of ation nce or ants ance es rs ead parce
Capi l
tal
Conventio 890 5561 3878 722 114 59 59 1570 34 176 1120 1046 2.51
nal 60 6 26 6 8 8 12
Mobile 434 20779 5510 729 107 63 63 1003 35 554 1754 1295 3.11
depot 2 52 10 3 5 17
Difference 345 15219 1632 692 - 38 3 -567 6 - 6337 2490 0.60
2 103 4 121 5
9 4

29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2 Per-parcel cost comparison of the conventional and mobile depot distribution for a

scaled scenario in €

base scenario 25% 50% 75% 100%

Conventio 2.51 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72
nal
Mobile 3.11 1.72 1.51 1.44 1.41
depot
Difference 0.60 0 -0.21 -0.28 -0.31

30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3 Details of the two workshops and data collection

Workshop Duration Role & (No.) of participants Source of data Collection

method

7th Oct 2015 2 hours Researchers (4) - Roundtable - Recorded

discussions
and
Citizens (4)
transcribed
- Joint
discussions

Consultants (2)

Local authorities (2)

Architects (2)

24th Sep 8 hours Researchers (5) - Survey before - Survey

and after forms
2015 workshop
Citizens (2)

- Notes from
roundtable
discussions
Transport union (1)

- Roundtable
discussions
Operators (2)

Buyers (1)

31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

- Whiteboard
vote from
joint
Local authorities (1)
discussion

- Vote ballots

Vehicle manufacturers (1)

ICT solution provider (1)

- Joint discussion

- Anonymous

votes

32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4 Workshop results in relation to possible barriers of mobile depot

% considering it

solvable in

Short Long-

Barrier term terms Application possibilities

Coordination of 16 84 Information technology solutions

multiple individuals

Coordination of 16 84 - Drive possible scenarios from the concept and

test within the network
multiple

organizations - Let users fill the containers

Resistance to change 25 75 - The social interaction and "good example

effect"

Turf protection 25 75 -

Fair risk and reward 25 75 -

sharing

Compensation of 41 59 -

losers

Safety issues 50 50 -

33
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Legal and insurance 50 50 - You create novelty, you create new rules

- mobile depot to be contextually adapted; e.g.

Barge in certain cities

- Make this visible to public

34
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 1: A timeline of the method incorporated in this paper

35
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 2: A multi-level perspective, in (Nykvist and Whitmarsh, 2008 and Geels, 2002)

36
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 3 The transition process in time and the three MLP levels (based on Geels and Schot,

2007: 401)

37
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 3: Amount of space required to transport the same number of passengers by car, bus, or

bike

38
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 4 The impact of a mobile depot system on delivery flows in a city, own making.

39
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 5 A suggestion on how the intermodal transloading could look like, in this case the

mobile depot is a low floor vehicle, created by Per Gyllenspetz in the Vinnova project Mobil

depå. Source:

http://www.core77.com/blog/object_culture/car_bus_bicycle_taking_up_space_in_the_same_pla

ce_8015.asp

40
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 6 Comparison of the total costs of conventional freight distribution vs. mobile depot

(source: Berninger and Farneman, 2015: 60)

41
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 7 Comparison of the CO2 emission of conventional freight distribution vs. mobile depot

(source: Berninger and Farneman, 2015: 65)

42
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 8 Comparison of the road space and time occupancy of conventional freight distribution

vs. mobile depot (source: Berninger and Farneman, 2015: 67)

43
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT