wp3: ir 3.1 final best practice impact evaluation methodology · wp3: ir 3.1 final best practice...

WP3: IR 3.1 Final Best Practice Impact Evaluation Methodology

Date: Delivered 15 October 2012, Updated 20.03.2013

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme Start date of project: 1st January 2012 Durati on: 48 months

Dissemination Level PU Public x

PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)

RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO

Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

BESTFACT IR 3.1

Page ii Date of release: 20.03.13 Version: Final

File name: BESTFACT IR31 Final update 3 20.03.2013.doc

Editors

Main editor(s) Antti Permala, Karri Rantasila,VTT

Contributor(s) Heidi Auvinen, Arto Nokelainen, Jarkko Lehtinen VTT,

Marcel Huschebeck, Claudia Eichhorn PTV, Jacques Leonardi UoW, Simon Bohne RAPP

Disclaimer This document reflects only the author’s views and the European Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

Version number Name (company) Date File name

3 VTT 6.6.2012 IR 31 ver. 3

5 VTT 15.6.2012 IR 31 ver. 5

6 VTT 3.7.2012 IR 31 ver. 7

8 VTT 13,7,2012 IR 31 ver. 81

9 VTT 12.10.2012 IR31 Final date 15.10.2012

10 VTT 18.1.2013 IR31 Final update1 18.01.2013

11 VTT 15.2.2013 IR31 Final Update 2 15.02.2013

12 VTT 20.3.2013 IR31 Final Update 3 20.3.2013

BESTFACT IR 3.1

Page iii Date of release: 20.03.13 Version: Final


Table of contents

1 Abstract ............................................................................................................... 1

2 Objectives ........................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Objectives of BESTFACT .................................................................................... 2

2.2 WP3 objectives ................................................................................................... 2

2.3 Task 3.1: Development of a best practice impact evaluation framework (DoW) .. 2

2.4 BESTFACT expert survey on strategic targets .................................................... 4

3 Impact assessment, transferability and recommendations methodology ............. 7

3.1 Method ................................................................................................................ 7

3.2 Approach............................................................................................................. 9

3.3 The Framework ................................................................................................... 9

3.4 Assessment tool .................................................................................................12

3.5 Transferability ....................................................................................................15

3.6 Output of the impact analysis .............................................................................16

4 Conclusions .......................................................................................................17

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................18

Annex 1: Draft Excel sheet for case pre-assessment ........................................................18

Annex 2: Transport and Logistics System .........................................................................18

Annex 3: Impact Assessment Methodologies ...................................................................18

Annex 4: Experiences from previous Best Practice projects .............................................18

Annex 5. EU Transport policy and impact assessment .....................................................18

BESTFACT IR 3.1

Page iv Date of release: 20.03.13 Version: Final


List of tables Table 1. Methodological input from previous Best Practice projects. ..................................... 8

Table 2: Possible impact areas of best practices on different stakeholders ..........................10

Table 3. Stakeholder selection in EXCEL tool ......................................................................12

Table 4. Impact assessment tool, filled with a case from NICHES project (Read texts are only for policy initiative assessment). ...................................................................................14

Table 5. NICHES project methodology. ................................................................................35

List of figures Figure 1 Strategic targets, private actors (source WP2). ........................................................ 4

Figure 2 Strategic targets, public actors (source WP2) .......................................................... 5

Figure 3. Development of Best Practice Impact Evaluation Framework ................................. 7

Figure 4. Radar presentation of impact analysis results, based on calculation results from Table 3. ........................................................................................................................15

Figure 5. Producers, users and interactions within the transport system. .............................20

Figure 6. Core indicators of progress towards meeting the general and specific objectives pursued by the Logistics Action Plan (Commission of the European communities 2007). .....................................................................................................................................27

Figure 7. Transferability algorithm (Macário & Marques 2008). .............................................29

Figure 8. Practice, guidelines and research in evaluation (Source Veli Himanen). ................30

Figure 9. Bestlog evaluation criteria. .....................................................................................38

Figure 10: Innovation pathway diagram ................................................................................41

BESTFACT DX.Y Title

Page 1 Date of release: 20.03.13 Version: Final2


1 Abstract The objective of BESTFACT is to develop, disseminate and enhance the utilisation of best prac-tices and innovations in freight transport that contribute to meeting European transport policy ob-jectives with regard to competitiveness and environmental impact.

This internal WP3 report gives an overview of Best Practice impact assessment methodolo-gies and builds up a common approach for BESTFACT impact assessment of strategic tar-gets and instruments. The methodology starts from BESTFACT WP2 “Best practice” results. Evaluation criteria and indicators are developed for best Practice impact analysis.

Best practice in BESTFACT is considered as existing approach or solution like industrial business cases, measures, administrative procedures, and research results providing a solu-tion for a relevant problem or challenge in freight transport. The BESTFACT survey, per-formed by WP2, showed that private business is focused on efficiency measurements. The public perspective demonstrates a high interest in environmental targets. In the evaluation of best practice requirements it became clear that users ask for practices that provide direct benefits and are innovative and feasible.

An evaluation tool including impact analysis and transferability evaluation has been devel-oped in WP3 for BESTFACT 150 Best Practice cases. The method basis on findings in re-lated literature and past freight transport related Best Practice projects.

BESTFACT IR 3.1

Page 2 Date of release: 20.03.13 Version: Final


2 Objectives 2.1 Objectives of BESTFACT The objective of BESTFACT is to develop, disseminate and enhance the utilisation of best practices and innovations in freight transport that contribute to meeting European transport policy objectives with regard to competitiveness and environmental impact.

This will mainly be achieved by:

- Development, dissemination and promotion of best practices within logistics that con-tribute to increasing freight transport efficiency and meeting European transport policy

- Focus on competitiveness and environmental impact

- Provision of a knowledge base simplifying administrative requirements in the freight transport sector

- Provision of recommendations for policy tools for facilitating best practices and simpli-fying administrative processes

- Support for implementation strategies by market sectors in co-operation with private actors, trade associations, regional bodies and technology platforms

- Support of transfer of best practice between different domains.

2.2 WP3 objectives The main objective of WP 3 is to provide recommendations on policy and business level stimulating and facilitating the transferability and implementation of best practices. Main ob-jectives are:

- To set up an evaluation scheme to assess the impact and effectiveness of best prac-tice transfer – Task 1 (this report)

- To transfer the findings from the cluster activities into recommendations on business strategies and policy activities

- To develop and evaluate the impact of specific policy measures that improve the ef-fectiveness and sustainability of the European freight logistics systems

2.3 Task 3.1: Development of a best practice impact evaluation framework (DoW)

Considering the heterogeneous targets and structures of the BESTFACT clusters a common approach for impact assessment of strategic targets and instruments will be defined, based on WP2 results. Evaluation criteria / indicators will be developed in line with the overall pro-motion targets.

Best practices and success stories as well as barriers or problems collected by the BEST-FACT clusters will be used as input. The input will be organised employing the information and tools provided by the BESTFACT knowledge platform.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



Industrial best practice cases and benchmarks, barrier analysis (which means practice or current status compared to ideal conditions, due to political, business, technical or other bar-riers) will be distinguished from the available cases. The WP3 evaluation framework will in-clude divergent objectives of different stakeholders. Practical indicators such as the cost of actions, target audience reached, the quality of the promotion etc. will be defined and meas-ured.

Impact evaluation

� Specific bottlenecks limiting the transfer and implementation of best practices will be addressed. Approaches and policy schemes developed facilitating and supporting to overcome these bottlenecks.

� In order to achieve recommendations of high relevance and quality a two-level ap-proach will be employed in WP 3.

• On the first level, the best practice cases coming from the cluster activities will be observed continuously in order to derive success factors but also bottle-necks and limitations. Recommendations to overcome these bottlenecks will be worked out.

• On the second level, innovative policy schemes that will support and facilitate a more efficient and sustainable transport system in general will be devel-oped.

BESTFACT will develop 3 innovative policy schemes by means of surveys assessing the im-pact of these innovative policy schemes. How EU or national administrations can influence on improving the efficiency of intermodal logistics. The following schemes have been initially identified:

• Corridor improvements

� Incentives schemes to drive efficiency in cargo load and intermodal transport (e.g. by means of taxation of empty containers)

� Co-operation schemes for ports. Framework for ports to share inland terminals and Intermodal solutions

� Incentive schemes to improve capacity utilisation at logistics nodes, removing bottlenecks, decongestion by improved capacity utilisation (better capacity utilization of existing networks, sharing between trucks and cars, both national and supranational)

� Simplifying administrative requirements and processes � Removing legislative burdens

• Urban freight improvements

� Distribution system development � Vehicle capacity usage (no empties) � Access to cities, waiting time reductions � Air quality improvements by emission reduction (electro mobility)

BESTFACT IR 3.1



• e-Freight deployment

� Paperless B2B messaging � Standardised procedures and contents � Solutions to B2A data transfer.

2.4 BESTFACT expert survey on strategic targets The BESTFACT survey received insights from more than 200 freight transport experts on their strategic targets and key topics (see WP2). The respondents delivered a broad over-view of opinion across shippers, transport service providers, infrastructure providers, consult-ants, academic researcher and public authorities. Private business is focused on efficiency measurements. The public perspective demonstrates a high interest in environmental tar-gets. In the evaluation of best practice requirements it became clear that users ask for prac-tices that provide direct benefits and are innovative and feasible. Strategic targets, according to private actors (105 responses ranked pre-defined targets in the order of importance, see also Figure 1): 1. Increased efficiency / productivity of logistics processes (economics) 2. Increased competitiveness (services) 3. Increased quality (services) 4. Increase company profitability (economics) 5. Reduced emissions (environment) 6. Increased safety and security (services) 7. Reduced resource use (environment) 8. Image (services) 9. Limited climate change (environment) 10. Minimisation of financial risks (economics)

Figure 1 Strategic targets, private actors (source WP2).

7,8 7,5 7,5 7,1 6,9 6,8 6,7 6,5 6,5 6,03,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

Incr

ease

def

ficie

ncy/

prod

uctiv

ityof

logi

stic

s pr

oces

ses

Incr

ease

dco

mpe

titiv

enes

s

Incr

ease

d qu

ality

Incr

ease

d co

mpa

nypr

ofita

bilit

y

Red

uced

em

issi

ons

Red

uced

res

ourc

eus

e/C

onse

rvat

ion

ofre

sour

ces

Incr

ease

d sa

fety

and

secu

rity

Imag

e

Lim

ited

clim

ate

chan

ge

Min

imis

atio

n of

finan

cial

ris

ks

BESTFACT IR 3.1



Strategic targets, public actors (98 responses ranked pre-defined targets in the order of im-portance, see also Figure 2) 1. Efficient public spending (economics) 2. Ideal utilisation of infrastructure (economics) 3. Highest safety and security (society) 4. Reduced emissions (environment)Conservation of resources (environment) 5. Competitive logistics and transport system (economics) 6. Efficient public spending (economics) 7. Limited climate change (environment) 8. Balanced provision of goods and services (society) 9. Acceptance and influence (society) 10. Increased amenity value (society)

Figure 2 Strategic targets, public actors (source WP2)

For the impact assessment frame, we have split or combined the criteria to the following sub-sets:

Economic issues

- Increased efficiency in logistic processes - Increased productivity in logistic processes - Minimisation of financial risks

Service issues (total scores):

- Competitiveness - Quality - Image - Safety (e.g. to avoid damages)

7,3 7,3 6,9 6,9 6,8 6,8 6,7 6,2 6,0 5,43,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

Red

uced

em

issi

ons

Idea

l util

isat

ion

ofin

fras

truc

ture

Hig

hest

saf

ety

and

secu

rity

Con

serv

atio

n of

reso

urce

s

Com

petit

ive

logi

stic

san

d tr

ansp

ort s

yste

m

Effi

cien

t pub

licsp

endi

ng

Lim

ited

clim

ate

chan

ge

Bal

ance

d pr

ovis

ion

ofgo

ods

and

serv

ices

Acc

epta

nce

and

influ

ence

Incr

ease

d am

enity

valu

e

BESTFACT IR 3.1



- Security (e.g. to avoid thefts) - Level of service

Society issues

- Acceptance and influence - Balanced provision of goods and services - Increased amenity value - Highest safety and security

Environmental issues

- Emissions - Use of resource - Climate change

BESTFACT IR 3.1



3 Impact assessment, transferability and recommenda-tions methodology

3.1 Method

To develop the framework, we have used the following input (Figure 3):

- Methodologies in earlier projects (e.g. PROMIT)

- Methodology for BESTFACT Best Practice and Working Instructions (BESTFACT WP2 definitions) and WP2 expert survey results

- Generic Evaluation methods (Cost/Benefit, Multi-criteria, Before – After) and related literature.

Policy and business objectives define the criteria for the impact assessment. Analysis of dif-ferent methodologies is gathered in Annex 3. Experiences from previous Best Practice pro-jects are shown in the next Table 1. Policy objectives are discussed in annex 5.

Figure 3. Development of Best Practice Impact Evaluation Framework

A lot of literature is available on impact assessment. BESTFACT interest is also on transfer-ability and recommendations. Some projects like Sugar, Niches and Turbolog give approach

Methodologies in earlier Projects

- Promit - Turbolog

- Bestufs - Freightvision

- Sugar, Niche

- Bestlog, Supergreen

- Posmetrans

Evaluation Framework

Stakeholders- Business

- Policy

- Infrastructure

Quantification of impacts- Economic

- Services / Society

- Environment

- Transferability

Generic Evaluation

methods

- Cost/Benefit

- Multicriteria

- Before - After

- Methodology for

BESTFACT Best Practice

and Working Instructions

(Bestfact WP2)

- WP2 survey on strategic

targets

Methodology Input

Topics

- Best Practice concept

- Evaluation criteria / indicators

- Impact assessment

methodology

- Recommendations

methodology

- Transferability methodology

- Identification of relevant

policy objectives

- Identification of relevant

business objectives

- Urban Freight

- Green logistics and co-

modality

- E-freight

32 Best Practice Impact Evaluation and 33 Impact Evaluation for Policy Schemes

BESTFACT IR 3.1



to transferability. Niches, Innosutra and Freightvision have defined approach to recommen-dations making. (See Table 1 below)

Table 1. Methodological input from previous Best Practice projects.

Project Impact evaluation Transferability Recommend ations

PROMIT Degree of fulfilling the defined requirements

Benchmark criteria

Criteria for recommendations

BESTUFS Considerable and measurable positive effects (qualitative, quantitative) on relevant indi-cators.

Positive and negative impacts

SUGAR Key performance indicators on policy level

Good practice sites, transfer sites

Four transfer tools developed

Action plans

NICHES Defined impact areas Move most promising con-cepts “niche” position to a “mainstream” urban transport policy application

Base on answers to four ques-tions

TUR-BOLOG

World –wide view

CIVITAS 10 step transferability algorithm

INNO-SUTRA

Commercial Innovations and public policy initiatives

Success and failure

Systems Analysis (SA) frame-work

Structured recommendations to focus actions in the key ar-eas, conditions to success

FREIGHT-VISION

Highly recommended (positive impact on criteria and no dis-advantages)

Recommended (moderate positive impacts)

Not recommended

ENABLE Analysis of situation and prob-lems in target, mapping chal-lenges and needs

Needs contra Best practice so-lutions

SUPER-GREEN

KPIs grouped to five main cat-egories

Corridor bottlenecks, ICT and technology gaps against on-going R&D activities and lack of activities solving the bottle-necks

POSMETRANS

Criteria for policy schemes, in-novative technologies, key players

BESTFACT IR 3.1



3.2 Approach In the Dow and BESTFACT meetings a list of related projects was defined. These projects deal with Best Practices or cluster topics. Best Practice approaches in these projects have been analysed, especially the following approaches:

- How Best Practice and criteria is defined?

- What is the impact assessment methodology?

- How the recommendations are made?

The impact evaluation framework developed here includes the following stakeholders:

- Business – Logistics and Supply Chain Management parties

- Infrastructure – Administrations dealing with infrastructure, customs and border control

- Policy / Society – EU, National and Regional stakeholders, End users of transport and logistics services

The impacts are divided into four main categories:

- Economic including efficiency, new business opportunities

- Services / society

- Environment including energy consumption and emissions and

- Transferability.

3.3 The Framework The BESTFACT evaluation framework, presented later in table 4, includes all strategic targets, topics and transferability issues provided by WP2. In addition, supplementary input has been picked from methodology literature and earlier Best Practice projects. Different types of impact mechanisms are taken into account. Table 2 shows grouping of stakeholders and impacts on strategic targets and transferability. The classification of stakeholders presented in Table 2 is more detailed compared to evaluation framework shown in table 3 where groups are combined due to the easy usability of the framework. Table 2 cells include found impacts, the ones from WP2 and additional ones. Table 3 impacts have been completed with these new findings.

Findings on best practices will be processed into recommendations for industry and policy. Tools for improvements and further activities will be outlined, especially identification of busi-ness potentials and market distortion implications.

VTT will be task leader co-ordinating the information processing over the clusters and the processing of information. UoW will support the process and derive recommendations from the research perspective. VGTU will be responsible for deriving specific recommendations from the East European regional perspective.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



Table 2: Possible impact areas of best practices on different stakeholders

Stakeholders

Impacts Economic Services/Society Environmental Tra nsferability

Sup

ply

Cha

in P

artn

ers

SME specific - Increased productivity - Increased profitability (CBA) - Increased efficiency - Availability of funding - New business - Financial risks

- Competitiveness - New services

- Reduced energy usage - Reduced emissions - Use of resources

- Innovation degree - Implementation degree (real

life or pilot implementation) - Standardised solutions -

Logistics Service Provider (3PL, 4PL)

- Increased productivity - Increased profitability (CBA) - Increased efficiency - New business

- Competitiveness - Quality - Safety and security - Image - Level of service - New services - Access to services

- Advanced technology - Climate change

- Innovation degree - Implementation degree - (real life or pilot implementa-

tion) - Standardised solutions - Open IT architecture

Operators - Increased profitability (CBA) - Increased efficiency - New business

- Competitiveness - Safety and security - New services - Access to services

- Reduced energy usage - Reduced emissions - Use of resources -

- Innovation degree - Implementation degree - (real life or pilot implementa-

tion) - Standardised solutions - Open IT architecture

Infr

a-st

ruct

ure

Road, rail, IWW, nodes

- Smooth lead time - Facilitates efficient transport

- Ideal utilisation - More options - Transparency - Wealth generation

- Enables more environmen-tal friendly transport modes

- PPP - Transferable in wider Euro-

pean scale (generalizability)

Customs, border control

- Smooth border procedures - Smooth custom procedures

- Safety and security - Efficient clearing services - Transparency

- Zero waiting time - Zero paper documents

- Standardised procedures

Society

BESTFACT IR 3.1

Page 11 (53) Date of release: 20.03.13 Version: Final


Com

mun

ity

EU / EC - Increased efficiency - Increased productivity - Competitive logistics and

transport system - Reduced co-modal com-

plexity - e-Freight technology sup-

port -

- Efficient public spending - Highest safety and security - Acceptance and influence - Better living environment - Wealth generation - Balanced provision of goods

and services - Services in rural areas - Political consensus - Optimal use of freight system

- Recommendations and reg-ulations

- Harmonising and standardi-sation measures

- Modal shift - Limited climate change - Reduced emissions - Reduced congestions

- Innovation degree - Implementation degree - Potential to be implemented

in European level - Measurability - Legally acceptable

National - Increased efficiency - Increased productivity - Competitive logistics and

transport system - Reduced co-modal com-

plexity - e-Freight technology sup-

port - Financial risks - Funding available

- Efficient public spending - Highest safety and security - Acceptance and influence - Better living environment - Wealth generation - Balanced provision of goods

and services - Services in rural areas - Political consensus - Optimal use of freight system

- Recommendations and reg-ulations

- Harmonising and standardi-sation measures

- Use of resources - Limited climate change - Reduced emissions - Reduced congestions - Reduced dependency of oil

- Innovation degree - Implementation degree - Measurability - Legally acceptable

Regional / City - Competitive logistics and

transport system - Funding available

- Efficient public spending - Acceptance and influence - Increased amenity value

- Reduced emissions - Last mile efficiency - Reduced noise, conges-

tions etc.

- Implementation degree - Measurability - Legally acceptable

End-user - Affordable logistics and transport services

- Financial risks

- Quality - Provision of goods and ser-

vices - Services in rural areas

- Limited climate change - Reduced congestions - Reduced emissions

- Implementation degree

BESTFACT IR 3.1



3.4 Assessment tool The overall impact assessment approach is the following:

- All the selected 150 Best Practice cases will be assessed. The tool can also be used to assess conference and workshop presentations and policy papers. The assess-ment tool is Excel-based.

- The first excel sheet contains selection of main stakeholder concerned (Table 3). The service rows are for the private sector and society rows for the public sector. If the case has impacts on several stakeholders, it is possible to evaluate impacts on all stakeholder groups.

- The excel tool will be attached into the Best Practice (BP) inventory form (Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. ). It will be filled together with WP3 member and the cluster member who is filling the BP inventory form. The WP3 mem-ber is always VTT unless agreed otherwise. The cases, where the expertise is not covered by WP3 partners, VTT, PTV UoW, VGTU, support from other WPs or clus-ters is enquired.

- Assessment can be done again for in-depth cases if new information appears chang-ing the case description.

- The assessment frame is same to all 150 cases, workshop presentations, conference presentation and policy papers.

One common approach ensures the comparability of results.

1) The selection of stakeholder in question is done first. The stakeholders are: - Private stakeholders: End users, service providers - Public stakeholders: EU, national, regional/city - Main stakeholder: Private, public

Table 3. Stakeholder selection in EXCEL tool

2) Next step is to fill in assessment table in the second Excel sheet. The sheet contains the following sections: - strategic targets - impacts on topics and - transferability / novelty.

The assessment scale is

� 2 High positive impact � 1 Slight positive impact � 0 no impact

Background information

Scale:

Stakeholder (Private): End-users

Stakeholder (Public): EU

Main stakeholder Public

BESTFACT IR 3.1



� -1 slight unfavourable impact � -2 High unfavourable impact

Comment column is for verbal expression of the impact. Both positive and unfavourable (negative) impacts are collected. This applies to impacts on targets, topics and transferability.

The last part is the assessment of transferability of the Best Practice in question. Innovation characters can include new services, products, technologies and business models. Feasibil-ity may include technical, operational, organisational and financial feasibility. Through all cases are Best Practices, some of these may cause also unfavourable impacts. Unfavoura-ble business impacts are related to competitiveness, costs compared to benefits, and service provision and quality. Main sources for the unfavourable impacts can include:

o Economic impacts: congestion, inefficiency, and resource waste o Environmental impacts: pollutant emissions, noise nuisance and waste prod-

ucts o Social impacts: pollutant emissions on public health, injuries and death, loss

of greenfield sites and open spaces in urban areas Impact assessment tool serves as input to assessment report which is 2-4 pages word text file. An outline for this document will be prepared.

Converting the results given in Excel format into WEB application has to be considered. The evaluator chooses the right background information and the application gives right impact se-lection.

On next page we have filled in example of impact assessment.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



Table 4. Impact assessment tool, filled with a case from NICHES project (Read texts are only for policy initiative assessment).

Impacts on strategic targetsPositive impact (scale +1 to +2)

Unfavourable impact (scale -2 to -1)

Justification

Economic issues (total scores): 3 0Efficiency in logistic processes / transport service 2 reduction in travel time, congestion and delay for freight operatorsProductivity in logistic processes (incl. costs) 1 productivity of trucks and drivers will improveNew businessAvailability of funding / Reduced financial risksEconomic growth / Transport activityModal shiftReduction of administrative burden

Service issues (total scores): 4 0Competitiveness (Incl costs) 1 many benefits for operatorsQuality (Incl strikes, weather)Image 1 many benefits have a positive imageSafety (e.g. to avoid damages)Security (e.g. to avoid thefts)Access to services 2 many benefits improve level of service

Society issues 0 0Acceptance and influenceBalanced provision of goods and servicesIncreased amenity valueWealth generation (Incl SMEs) Highest safety and securityDistributional impactsEmployment level and conditions

Environmental issues (total scores): 3 0Green technologyEmissions (Incl noise) 2 reducing of congestions and energy consumptionUse of resource 1 better exploitation of fleet of trucks and street infrastructureClimate change

SUM 10 0

Impacts on topics (improving effect) Positive impact (x) Negative impact (x)

Infrastructure and Technology (total scores): 6 0Access to transport networks, infrastructure and nodes 2 improves the access to infraFreight consolidation and transhipmentImplementation of low energy and emissionsNew ICT technology (e-freight) 2Implementation of new technology: Innovative vehicles, vessels and equipment 2

Organisation and cooperation (total scores): 3 0Improved business models Communication between stakeholders 2 multi use lane requires communication between b&aCompetitive aspects: collaboration (cooperation with competitors), prioritisation (priorities on infrastructure and in nodes)

1 prioritisation is needed

Target audience reached

Operations and Services (total scores): 2 -2Transport management, fleet management 1 VMS technology will be exploitedService quality and sustainability agreements/certificationValue added services, development (or extension) of services -2 less initiative to develop other freight solutionsInnovative operational solutions (B2C, last mile...) 1 improve last mile delivery

Regulations and Policy (total scores): 4 -1Safety and security: measures, regulations, insuranceInteroperability and standardisation: vehicles, equipment, loading units, infrastructure, environment (Incl. information systems) 2 may have impactInfrastructure financing: taxation, user charges, PPP -1 equipment for the multi-use lane is quite expensiveLand use and spatial planning: assessment and siting of transport facilities and infrastructure

1 some kind of impact

Access rules and restrictions of urban areas 1 strong impact

Knowledge, tools and Methods (total scores): 4 0Monitoring and benchmarking of processes 2 improves monitoring and benchmarkingWorking and implementation guidelines 1 reporting of experiences, guidesEducation and trainingData, modelling and forecasting 1 should be forecastedQuality of the promotion

19 -3

Transferability and novelty Positive impact (x) Negative impact (x)

Transferability (total scores): 6 0The case has an innovative character 2The case is feasible (economical, political)The case contributes standardisationThe case provides clear and measurable positive effects 1The case has clear and reliable information and which is widely available and accessible 1The case has been implemented in real life (not a pilot)The case is transferrable to other geographical areasThe case is transferrable to other industries 2 Case is tranferable to other regulatory systems

6 0

SUM 35 -3

TOTAL SCORE (NOT WEIGHTED)TOTAL SCORE (WEIGHTED)

Niches: Innovative Approaches in City Logistics: Concept 4 "Space Management for Urban Delivery", pages 10-11

3254

BESTFACT IR 3.1



An example of Excel output

The Excel table is now filled with a case from Niches project, dealing with innovative ap-proaches in city logistics: Concept "Space Management for Urban Delivery". The Excel counts the number of impact marks, in the example 22 positive and 2 unfavourable marks, total 20 scores. Excel output also shows the average scores of all best practice in order to allow comparison attributes.

The last sheet gives the results with descriptions and illustrative chart. As the results are in quantitative form, different types of summaries and analysis of BESTFACT 150 cases and other evaluation results can be performed.

Figure 4. Radar presentation of impact analysis results, based on calculation results from Table 3.

3.5 Transferability Transferability refers how applicable the best practise in question is re-structuring transport system and/or logistics chains in other cases. This might mean introducing new business models, service concepts and operational principles. Information technology might be used in connecting operations to logistics networks. Also time horizon has impact on transferability. CIVITAS initiative has worked out a 10 step transferability algorithm to facilitate a success-fully implemented transportation measures to be transferred to other sites. This method is meant for the target site and is a tool to find best practices to be used. SUGAR project had defined the transfer targets (cities) in the beginning of the project. The project developed action plans for target cities through SWOT analysis. Transfer tools include round tables, training, planning workshops and transfer programme.

In BESTFACT project the transferability is based on estimated transfer possibilities. Most rel-evant criteria is

- Innovation degree - Feasibility - Clear and measurable positive effects - Information is available - Implementation degree and

0

5

10

15strategic stargets

Impacts on topicsTransferability

Best Practice 1

Stakeholder ave

BESTFACT IR 3.1



- Assessment of transferability.

The scoring from impact assessment is used, together with other results.

3.6 Output of the impact analysis The impact analysis gives us the impacts on different strategic targets: Economic, Ser-vice/Social and Environmental issues. Second part gives impacts on the following topics: In-frastructure and technology, Organisation and co-operation, Operations and services, regula-tions and policy and knowledge, tools and methods. The positive and unfavourable impact scores guide the recommendations making. The following criteria is defined:

1. Highly recommended a. Several positive impacts b. No unfavourable impacts

2. Recommended with limitations a. Several positive impacts and some unfavourable impacts b. Positive impacts must exceed unfavourable ones clearly.

Based on the analysis, recommendations are given. The target group is a wide audience. Concrete recommendations for policy actions and stakeholder perception are done. Primary scope are EU-level decision makers.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



4 Conclusions The objective for the methodology development has been to develop a comprehensive method which is transparent, easy to use and to understand. Assessment framework is sup-porting the process of making recommendations. It is not the only input for recommendations but gives justification for the analysis. The evaluation methodology do not compare different cases to each other and point out the best ones but shows where the case is most usable or appropriate. The analysis show the type of the problem and the circumstances where the results are most useful. Assessment methodology can be used of all sort of Best Practice input, such as case studies and policy schemes. Usage of one common tool harmonises the results and supports the demand for simple approach. The collected best practice cases in BESTFACT WP2 will provide the input for evaluation. In case of lacking information, complementary data is asked from WP2 clus-ters.

Impact evaluation is based on selected criteria. The criteria consist of strategic targets deal-ing with economy, service/society and environment and topics dealing with infrastructure and technology, organisation and co-operation, operations and services, regulations and policy and knowledge, tools and methods. Both positive and unfavourable impacts are taken into account. The results show the main impacts of current Best Practice case, its main contribu-tion compared to other cases, strategic targets and topics where the case have positive or unfavourable impacts and assessed transferability.

Transferability is assessed based on four different criteria: innovation, feasibility, measurable positive effects and accessible information. In addition, transferability to other organisations or areas is assessed separately. Probably most of the cases from WP2 are on business level, meaning transfer from one operator to other operators. In these cases important tar-gets are costs and benefits. Assessment will include quantitative CBA figures as far as possi-ble,

Recommendations are based on impacts on different targets and topics. Positive impacts guide recommendations and in case there are unfavourable ones, the recommendations are limited to some extent. For policy impact assessment we have included some additional cri-teria, such as “Reduction of administrative burden”, based on the impact assessment meth-odology developed for the White Paper

Business and policy schemes are identified and specified in workshops and conferences. Output, in addition to substance, is recommendations on how to work out a policy scheme and how EU can support that as well as how transferability can be enhanced.

The developed method in WP3 will be tested when first Best Practice cases are available. These first assessments might cause some changes in approach and tools.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



ANNEXES Annex 1: Draft Excel sheet for case pre-assessment

Annex 2: Transport and Logistics System

Annex 3: Impact Assessment Methodologies

Annex 4: Experiences from previous Best Practice pr ojects

Annex 5. EU Transport policy and impact assessment

BESTFACT IR 3.1



Annex 1: Draft Excel sheet for case pre-assessment

Pre-Assessment MCA for BESTFACT best practice casesName of the case:

Cluster no.:

Partner filling this MCA:

Date of latest update:

Level 3 2 0Segment and rating guidelines

High level of innovation and high feasibility

High level of innovation and low feasibility-or-low innovation and high feasibility

Not feasible or not innovative

level*weight


High potential: Proven positive impact of the practice. High potential for posi-tive effects and justifiable (quanti-fiable) results.

Medium potential: Medium po-tential (good indication) for positive effects and posi-tive impacts.

None: No indica-tion that measur-able effects will occur through implementation or sources that prove that no effects will occur.

level*weight


Full : public access to all needed information, readily available (e.g. direct download) or helpful contacts or affiliated partner � no problems foreseen for thorough review of this case

Broad : public access to first basic information and details available on request, further sources available and free of charge � review of the case will not be seriously delayed

Not available / accessible : Possibility of review of the item is highly doubtful due to restricted information and / or (repeatedly) no response by developer or responsible contacts

level*weight


Robust: Case is ready for broad implementation, documented transfer between different domains occurred. Frame-work for transfer is known.

Realistic : New solution implemented in few cases. Case successfully adopted by other domains..

Not applicable: No indication that a case can be transferred

level*weight

f) Transferability of best practice cases: Transferability of cases to other domains, situations, framework conditions or business structures has to be secured. At least a partial implementation with certain (necessary) adjustments should be possible outside of the originating environment.

Weight: 22%

1Expected : Documentation that suggests transferability through reason and figures. Good prototype/idea but not tested or ap-plied outside of original source.

1Limited : access on request possible, access only for limited user group, charges to receive information, anticipation of availability issues � delays for review possible

Fill in the

level rating

per each

criteria

1Low potential: Prognosis of ef-fects difficult but positive impact expected. Antici-pation of risks..

e) Accessibility of information: A minimum of information and access to this information is needed for consideration in BESTFACT. This information has to allow an assessment and evaluation at least for the inventory phase but better also for in-depth analysis phase.

Weight: 22%

c) Innovative character and feasibility: Solutions should be innovative and include more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are accepted by markets, governments, and society. The rating should include also feasibility of a practice.

Weight: 27 %

1Low level of innovation and low feasibility

d) Measurable effects: Solutions should have a positive impact on the defined strategic business and/or policy targets. These targets have been identified in task 2.1.

Weight: 29 %

BESTFACT IR 3.1



Annex 2: Transport and Logistics System A transport system, international, national or local, relates closely to the definition of large technological systems: The ultimate purpose of the transport system is to serve the needs and expectations of the end users, who in turn shape the system by their own behaviour and ac-tions. The system is thus both socially constructed and society shaping (Figure ).1

Figure 5. Producers, users and interactions within the transport system.

The state of the transport system is a result of the measures and actions carried out by the producers, operators and users of the system. Producers and operators are organisations or companies, which can be categorised according to their main duties, such as: (1) policy for-mulation, (2) infrastructure construction and maintenance including terminals, (3) production and operation of services for the transport system, and (4) production of transport-related ser-vices (e.g. vehicle manufacturing and fuels). Some of these categories (especially (2) and (4)) have traditionally been divided further into transport mode specific segments. Producers gather information on the state of the transport system and also receive feedback from customers, i.e. the users of the transport system. They make plans on the grounds of expert knowledge (design principles), and decisions based on generic or special decision-making principles. Within the process, information about the system gathered by the producers is, or at least should be, transformed into policy measures, aiming to lead the transport system into the de-sired future.

In freight transport, companies and organisations in the field of industry, transport and com-merce are the users of the transport system. They operate either with their own vehicle fleet

1 Tuominen, A., Ewent WP1 Working Report on Transport system performance indicators.

TRANSPORT SYSTEM

PRODUCERS

USERS

NEEDS

Design principles Decision-making principles

User-connectivity

Knowledge transformation

Use

r fe

dbac

k

Mon

itorin

g

© Mervi Himanen & Veli Himanen 2004


TRANSPORT SYSTEM

PRODUCERS

USERS

NEEDS

Design principles Decision-making principles

User-connectivity


Use

r fe

dbac

k

Mon

itorin

g

© Mervi Himanen & Veli Himanen 2004


BESTFACT IR 3.1



or outsource their transportation to a special transport company. Also individual people, e.g. in the fields of agriculture and forestry may be considered as users of the freight transport system.

Supply / Demand Chain Management (SDCM) extends the view of operations from a single business unit or a company to the whole supply chain and as part of a network focuses on developing individual supply chains. SDCM consists of strategic and operative management practices and information and production infrastructure. The challenge is to manage and co-ordinate the entire chain from raw material suppliers to the ultimate customers. The objective is to improve the entire process rather than focusing on local optimization (Heikkilä 2004).

Developing freight transport logistics is primarily a business-related activity and a task for in-dustry. Nevertheless, the authorities have a clear role to play in creating the appropriate framework conditions and keeping logistics on the political agenda. This framework approach concentrates on improving the preconditions that Europe can offer for logistics innovation and leaves the internal running of company logistics to the companies themselves (Commu-nication – Freight Transport Logistics in Europe).

BESTFACT IR 3.1



Annex 3: Impact Assessment Methodologies

Cost – benefit (CBA)

The European Commission guide to cost-benefit analysis (European Commission 2008) of-fers to EU officials, external consultants, and other parties common agenda for the evalua-tion process. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of investment projects is explicitly required by the new EU Regulations for Structural Funds (SF), Cohesion Fund (CF) and Instrument for Pre-Accession countries (ISPA), for projects with a budget upper than to, respectively, 50 Meuro, 10 Meuro and 5 Meuro.

The guide presents some CBA impact areas of which the following could be useful also for measuring transport systems performance in following aspects:

• Impacts on existing physical infrastructures, • Use of the existing networks, • Impacts on intermodality, • networks’ interoperability, • management of the infrastructure, • externalities, • accessibility to regions, • transport-operating costs, • travel times, • costs for users.

The impacts may occur in/for:

- densely populated areas - long distance travel - for freight transport - for passenger transport

A generic CBA is comprised on following steps:2

1. List alternative projects/programs. 2. List stakeholders. 3. Select measurement and measure all cost and benefits elements. 4. Predict outcome of cost and benefits over relevant time period. 5. Convert all costs and benefits into a common currency. 6. Apply discount rate. 7. Calculate net present value of project options. 8. Perform sensitivity analysis. 9. Adopt recommended choice.

In case of applying CBA to BESTFACT project evaluation the most important steps are 2) identifying stakeholders and 3) selecting measurement and measure all cost and benefits el-ements. Stakeholders and measurement elements need both to be fitted to the scope of the

2 Boardman, N. E. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis, concepts and practice. (3 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ, U.S.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



project to be evaluated. For example if project generates benefits indirectly for community, the costs/benefits also need to be assessed from their point of view. Converting currencies, applying discount rates etc. is more or less straight forward after identifying impacts and stakeholders.

Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) 3

MCA techniques can be used to identify the most preferred option, to rank options, to short-list a limited number of options for subsequent detailed appraisal, or simply to distinguish ac-ceptable and unacceptable possibilities. A full range of MCA techniques is currently available and only some of the key characteristics are described here.

In general MCA establishes preferences between options by reference to an explicit set of objectives that the decision making body has identified, and for which it has established measurable criteria to assess the extent to which the objectives have been achieved. In com-plex circumstances, MCA offers a number of ways of aggregating the data on individual crite-ria to provide indicators of the overall performance of options. MCA emphasizes the judge-ment of the decision making team, in establishing objectives and criteria, estimating weights and judging the contribution of each option to performance criteria. In order to choose most appropriate technique following criteria should be considered:

• internal consistency and logical soundness, • transparency, • ease of use, • data requirements not inconsistent with the importance of the issue being considered, • realistic time and manpower resource requirements for the analysis, • process, • ability to provide an audit trail, • software availability (if needed)

Value Tree Analysis The aim of the decision analysis (DA) process is to provide a structured way to think about decisions and develop and support subjective judgements that are critical for good deci-sions4. DA processes typically involve four main phases. - Problem structuring: The main purpose is to create a better understanding of the decision

problem. Relations between multiple objectives are analysed with hierarchical modelling. Attributes measure the extent to which different decision alternatives satisfy the stated objectives.

- Preference elicitation: The aim is to measure and estimate the decision makers’ prefer-ences over a set of objectives.

- Recommended decision - Sensitivity analysis. A specific application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) or Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is Value Tree Analysis (VTA). Value tree analysis is based on Multi-attrib-ute value theory (MAVT) with additive value function.

3 Lynda S. Robson, Harry S. Shannon, Linda M. Goldenhar, Andrew R. Hale (2001) ” Guide to Evaluating the Ef-fectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Work Injuries”, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

4 http://www.mcda.hut.fi/value_tree/theory/theory.pdf

BESTFACT IR 3.1



In multi-attribute value theory (Keeney and Raiffa 1976) each decision alternative is assigned a value vi(xi) for each attribute Xi according to the preferences of the decision-maker. The alternatives are given values from 0 for the least desirable to 1 for the most desirable alterna-tive with regard to each attribute. The overall value V of an alternative is then calculated us-ing an additive value function:

where wi, i Î (1, 2, ..., n) is the weight of the attribute Xi. The weights indicate a subjective trade-off between attributes, i.e. how significant the decision-maker considers a change from the worst to the best level of that attribute relative to a similar change in another attribute. An additive value function exists if and only if the attributes are mutually preferentially independ-ent 5. In a value tree analysis the objectives are organised hierarchically. Each objective is defined by sub-objectives or attributes. There can be several layers of objectives and attributes are added under the lowest level of objectives.

Figure. Elements of value tree analysis (VTA).6 One specific case of value tree analysis is the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). AHP is a structured technique for organizing and analyzing complex decisions. It was developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s and has been extensively studied and refined since then78. AHP method helps decision makers find one that best suits their goal and their understand-ing of the problem. It provides a comprehensive and rational framework for structuring a deci-sion problem, for representing and quantifying its elements, for relating those elements to

5 Porthin, Rosqvist, Perrels and Molarius. Multi-criteria decision analysis in adaptation decision-making: a flood case study in Finland. Regional Environmental Change, 2013, (DOI) 10.1007/s10113-013-0423-9).

6 Hämäläinen, Raimo P. eLearning resources / MCDA team. Helsinki University of Technology,

Systems Analysis Laboratory. http://www.eLearning.sal.hut.fi

7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_Hierarchy_Process#Practical_examples

8 Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H., Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley Series in probability and Mathematical Statistics. John Wiley & Sons. 1976.

[ ] [ ]1 21 1

( , ,..., ) ( ) 0,1 , 1, ( ) 0,1n n

n i i i i i i ii i

V x x x w v x w w v x i= =

= ∈ = ∈ ∀∑ ∑

BESTFACT IR 3.1



overall goals, and for evaluating alternative solutions. Once the hierarchy is built, the deci-sion makers systematically evaluate its various elements by comparing them to one another two at a time, with respect to their impact on an element above them in the hierarchy. The AHP converts evaluations to numerical values that can be processed and compared over the entire range of the problem. A numerical weight is derived for each element of the hierarchy, allowing diverse and often incommensurable elements to be compared to one another in a rational and consistent way. In BESTFACT impact analysis the aim is not to compare all 150 cases to one another two at a time. That’s why we have selected generic value tree analysis method rather than analytic hierarchy process. The aim of impact analysis is to find cases that support desirable targets, to find covered topics with new innovations and approaches and assess the transferability of each case.

Before – After studies

Before – After analysis is also used for impact assessment. The logic of before-after study is relatively simple; “before” refers to a measurement being made before an intervention is in-troduced and “after” refers to a measurement being made after its introduction. The before -after design offers evidence about intervention effectiveness and is most useful in demon-strating the immediate impacts of short-term programs. This is because over the longer pe-riod of time, more circumstances can arise that may obscure the effects of an intervention.i

A case describes here urban consolidation centres (UCCs) in reducing freight traffic and its environmental impacts in towns and cities. The results show that the total distance travelled and the CO2eq emissions per parcel delivered fell by 20% and 54% respectively as a result of this delivery system. 9

EC Policy Impact Assessment

The European Commission (EC) has established a thorough approach to impact assessment and performance indicator monitoring of the white paper on transport (European Commission 201110). The impact assessment document sets out the assessment criteria and indicators as well as describes the process and agenda for their implementation.

The scope of the EC impact assessment methodology for the white paper focuses on the ag-gregate level transport policies, but the same topics covered apply to the more detailed and delimited areas such as logistics. Most importantly the assessment criteria and performance indicators reflect the three elements of sustainability: economic, social and environmental im-pacts. These are further divided into more specific topics.

Impact assessment criteria (those possibly relevant to the BESTFACT project are in bold ital-ics):

1. Economic impact

9 Michael Browne, Julian Allen, Jacques Leonardi. Evaluating the use of an urban consolidation centre and elec-tric vehicles in central London. IATSS Research 35 (2011) 1–6.

10 European Commission (2011). Impact assessment. Accompanying document to the White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. SEC(2011) 358.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



o Impact on transport as a business � Transport activity � Modal shift � Unit costs per user

o Impact of transport dynamics on: � Economic growth � Efficiency of the transport system – transport as a service � Congestion levels � Household transport costs � Transport-related sectors � Innovation and Research � Administrative burden � EU budget � International relations

2. Social impact o Impact on the degree of citizens’ mobility o Impact on accessibility and cohesion o Distributional impacts o Impact on employment level and conditions (includin g on gender bal-

ance) � Effect on green jobs � Effect on total employment

o Impact on safety 3. Environmental impact

o Impact on climate change o Impact on air and noise pollution o Impact on efficient use of energy and renewable ene rgy sources o Impact on biodiversity and other environmental reso urces

Performance indicators (those possibly relevant to the BESTFACT project are in bold italics):

- Monitoring the environmental performance of transport: o Share of renewable energy in transport o GHG emissions from transport o Emissions of particulate matter from transport o Fragmentation due to transport infrastructure o Average CO2 emissions per km from new passenger cars o R&D intensity in transport

- Monitoring the overall efficiency of EU transport system: o Modal split of passenger transport o Modal split of freight transport o Investment in transport infrastructure to GDP o Road safety

Even more general but comprehensive instructions for (policy) impact assessment across various sectors can be found in the EC impact assessment guidelines (European Commis-sion 200911). Furthermore, next sheet shows the core indicators of progress used to evaluate

11 European Commission (2009). Impact assessment guidelines. SEC(2009)92.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



the EC Logistics Action Plan (Commission of the European communities 200712). The table serves as an example showing what topics have been considered important in the context of freight transport.

Figure 6. Core indicators of progress towards meeting the general and specific objectives pursued by the Logistics Action Plan (Commission of the European communities 2007).

CIVITAS Transferability Framework

The CIVITAS initiative (City-Vitality-Sustainability or Cleaner and Better Transport in Cities) was launched in 2002 to support cities to introduce transport measures and policies towards

12 Commission of the European communities (2007). Impact assessment. Accompanying document to the Freight Transport Logistics Action Plan. SEC(2007) 1320.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



sustainable urban mobility. The main objective is to achieve a modal shift towards sustaina-ble transport through encouraging innovative technology and policy-based strategies. During the several phases of the CIVITAS initiative, numerous research and demonstration projects have been carried out in cities across the Europe, and as a part of the research work, a transferability algorithm has been developed to facilitate a successfully implemented trans-portation measure or package of measures to be transferred to other cities (Macário & Marques 200813). Within the CIVITAS scope, transport measures covering the following clus-ters were used to demonstrate and pilot the algorithm:

- transport information and management - multimodal interchanges - mobility management - cycling - car sharing and car pooling - zones with controlled access - clean vehicles and fuels - public transport - goods distribution and logistics services - parking management - road urban pricing.

The developed transferability algorithm is justified by the following statement:

“The starting hypothesis is that if a measure or package of measures has been successfully implemented within a given geographical, demographic, socio-economic, cultural, techno-logic, institutional and organisational setting, then comparable results in terms of the degree of attainment of the measure or package of measures objectives can be achieved in areas characterized by a similar setting.” (Macário & Marques 2008)

The 10 steps of the CIVITAS transferability algorithm illustrated are:

- STEP 1 Diagnostic of the problems. - STEP 2 Characterisation of the city. - STEP 3 Analysis of the city context and implications of problems identified. - STEP 4 Look around for similar contexts. - STEP 5 Selecting examples of source urban contexts. - STEP 6 Identify measures with potential for transferring - STEP 7 Packaging and dimensioning the measures for transferring. - STEP 8 Ex-ante assessment of measures to transfer. - STEP 9 Identify need for adjustment. - STEP 10 Implement measures and steer results. (Macário & Marques 2008)

For detailed information and guidance on each step, see (Macário & Marques 2008).

13 Macário, R. & Marques, C.F. (2008). Transferability of sustainable urban mobility measures, Research in Trans-portation Economics, Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages 146-156.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



Figure 7. Transferability algorithm (Macário & Marques 2008).

Finnish policy impact assessment: LIIPOLA themes 14

14 Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö (2012). Kilpailukykyä ja hyvinvointia vastuullisella liikenteellä Valtioneuvoston liikennepoliittinen selonteko eduskunnalle 2012.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



For comparison, the following themes have been proposed to evaluate the Finnish transport policy guidelines (these are further divided into performance indicators, (see Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö 2012):

- society o equity o service level o safety and security

- economy o economic growth o public finance

- environment o climate o environment.

Practice contra guidelines

The conceptual model of evaluation includes three steps; define impacts, inform others, and draw conclusions. The guidelines are much simplified compared to theoretical methods. No evaluation method can show the best solution. They can only aid in the information and deci-sion processes. 15

Figure 8. Practice, guidelines and research in evaluation (Source Veli Himanen).

15 Himanen, V, Transportation investment evaluation. Basic problems and concepts. VTT 1987.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



Annex 4: Experiences from previous Best Practice pr ojects There are several earlier Best Practice projects which give some methodological viewpoints. The structure of the Best Practice project presentations is the following:

- Short project description - How Best Practice is defined and which is the criteria - Impact assessment methodology - Recommendations methodology - Transferability methodology.

PROMIT

PROMIT was the European Coordination Action (CA) for intermodal freight transport initiat-ing, facilitating and supporting the coordination and cooperation of national and European ini-tiatives, projects, promotion centres, technology providers, research institutes and user groups related to this complex transport mode.

Business strategy

Market strategies study in PROMIT was concentrating on best practice models of intermodal transport in transport corridors, where two or three different modes of transport were com-bined: road, maritime, as well as rail transport. All these modes differ greatly from each other, both in operational and organizational aspects. Main areas of interest were:

� To find out what types of business strategies and models are suitable for intermodal cor-ridors and to find out the operation principles

� To look at the roles and operations of the operators

� To assess the types of companies that could be in the transport corridor manager position and to describe the role of the leader

Policy strategy

Policy strategy concentrated on the following topics

� Intermodal state of the art and vision � EU Policy level; directives, infrastructure investments, financing � National transport policies � Corridors, terminals, ICT and security.

Best Practices were identified and analysed how well they fulfil the following requirements (Promit 3.3):

− Improving quality and/or efficiency of intermodal transport; Contribution to quality im-provements or cost reductions of intermodal transport. Modal Shift has to be realised or a considerable potential or

− Modal shift has to be expected. − Innovation character: New approaches, solutions are especially important (new ser-

vices, products, technologies, business models, etc.).

BESTFACT IR 3.1



− European coverage: European coverage is needed as far as possible (EU 25, Nor-way, Switzerland) and new accession countries (Romania, Bulgaria). It is clear that on certain corridors (e.g. transalpine) intermodal transport plays a more important role than on others.

− Feasibility: Technical, operational, organisational, financial feasibility − Transferability: Transferability to other situations or framework conditions (eventually

with certain adaptations).

The most important benchmarks include cost, transit time (operation time), variability of transit time, frequency of service, shipment compatibility (namely if it is possible to use a cer-tain type of intermodal solution for a specific type of cargo and loading unit), damages and theft. (Promit D4.3)

Promit D53 gave the following criteria for recommendations: − Efficiency − Transparency − Supply chain collaboration models − Measurability − Sustainability − Industrial solutions − Open architectures, standardisation, interoperability; how to reach these goals? − SMEs should be included − Acceptance of all EU members − EU wide view of national support actions − Public subsidies should treat all operators fairly − The role of Intermodal Promotion Centres; One European voice.

Bestufs

The EC coordination action (CA) BESTUFS (BEST Urban Freight Solutions II) aimed to maintain and expand an open European network between urban freight experts, user groups, associations, on-going projects, the relevant European Commission Directorates and repre-sentatives of national, regional and local transport administrations and transport operators. BESTUFS16 was EU funded project running from 2000 until 2008.The objective with the network activities was to identify, describe and disseminate best practices, success crite-ria and bottlenecks of urban logistics solutions. (Allen et al. 200717)

Best practices are planned of implemented private only, public only or Public Private Partner-ship (PPP) strategies, measures or activities which have an essential contribution, and ide-ally lead to benefits for all actors involved. This can be projects, strategies of concepts. Best practices will be identified on the fulfilment degree regarding the following requirements:

- Best practices have to fit to a defined theme or address a relevant problem

16 BESTUFS Good Practice Guide on Urban Freight Transport. http://www.bestufs.net/download/BE-STUFS_II/good_practice/English_BESTUFS_Guide.pdf

17 Allen, J., Thorne, G. & Browne, M. (2007). BESTUFS Good Practice Guide

on Urban Freight Transport.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



- Best practice should be based on real experiences or analysis in studies - Best practices should have considerable and measurable positive effects (qualitative,

quantitative) on relevant indicators.

Definition of best Practice in BESTUFS project1819based on an initial analysis of the effects of urban freight transport on the EU objectives. Indicator categories have been identified. Within each indicator category a number of indicators have been developed and an initial data set has been collected. The structured data set has been compared to the contribution to objec-tives, which led to refinement of the indicators categories and indicators. With iterative ap-proach, the “picture” of the urban freight context improves when more information gets avail-able.

In some cases it can also be important to take project activities into account which have not been successful. We can also learn from bad experiences and improve solutions by describ-ing and analysing failure factors. The following impacts of urban freight transport systems on the economy, society and environment were identified within BESTUFS (Allen et al. 2007):

- Positive impacts: o Economy: The total cost of freight transport and logistics is significant and has

a direct bearing on the efficiency of the economy. o Society + Economy: The role it plays in servicing and retaining industrial and

trading activities which are essential for major wealth generating activities. o Society + Economy: It is a major employer in its own right. o Economy: The contribution that an efficient freight transport sector makes to

the competitiveness of industry in the region concerned. o Society: It is fundamental to sustaining our existing life styles.

- Negative impacts: o Economic impacts: congestion, inefficiency, and resource waste o Environmental impacts: pollutant emissions including the primary greenhouse

gas carbon dioxide, the use of non-renewable fossil-fuel, land and aggre-gates, and waste products such as tyres, oil and other materials

o Social impacts: the physical consequences of pollutant emissions on public health (death, illness, hazards etc), the injuries and death resulting from traffic accidents, noise, visual intrusion, and other quality of life issues (including the loss of greenfield sites and open spaces in urban areas as a result of transport infrastructure developments)

According to BESTUFS “Sustainability policies can address economic, environmental and social objectives. The most effective sustainability freight transport policy measures are likely to be those that meet economic, environmental and social needs simultaneously; and so minimise trade-offs between objectives to reduce associated losses and costs”.

Sugar

SUGAR20 addressed the problem of inefficient and ineffective management of urban freight distribution, a critical component of the overall urban transport system and a primary source

18 DELIVERABLE D2.3 PART I. Road pricing and urban freight transport Urban freight platforms Best Practice Update 2007 Part I. Updated Handbook from Year 2002 http://www.bestufs.net/bestufs2_bp_handbook.html

19 Quantification of Urban Freight Transport Effects I. Best Urban Freight Solutions II. September 2006.

20 City Logistics Best Practices: a handbook for Authorities.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



of pollution. SUGAR promoted basic actions for the exchange, discussion and transfer of pol-icy experience, knowledge and good practices through policy and planning levers in the field of urban freight management, between and among Good Practice and Transfer sites.

The main project achievements concerned first of all the improvement of public policies and actions in city logistics in the SUGAR sites, as well as the contribution to the policy process of non partner administrations, in the perspective that city logistics issues go further than the project partnership „boundaries‟. The main policy improvements concerned the development of Freight Plans, Mobility Master plans, new techniques for city logistics data collection, pol-icy actions on Low Emission Zones, urban planning for city logistics as well as the set up and tuning of administrative regulations for access to urban areas.

The policy leverages covered include: - transport: access control, circulation, regulation pricing, signage, intelligent communi-

cation technologies applied to transport, etc.; - environment: incentives for using clean vehicles and modes, regulations on vehicle

typologies and usage in critical environmental zones, etc., - space and territory: planning and development of distribution areas, loading areas,

industrial zones, economic development zones, etc. - harmonization: to create a common and harmonized platform in terms of rules and

procedures among different public bodies. SUGAR‟s approach has been structured along three main strands:

1. The refinement of urban freight policies of SUGAR Good Practice Sites through dia-logue with other leading administration outside the project partnership. These objec-tives have been supported through the mapping of new policy „innovation‟ areas in city logistics, thematic training and specific technical round-table discussions.

2. The development of urban freight policies in SUGAR Transfer Sites. These objectives have been supported by the development of good practices analysis thematic train-ing, joint planning for transfer sites, and the development of local transfer action plans.

3. The creation of interest, knowledge, tools and exchange for new administrations from outside the SUGAR partnership through the Enlarged Transfer Programme. This ob-jective was met by providing access to project results, participation in training events, and a high level exchange programme for bilateral meetings between administrations.

SUGAR activities has provided results along main pillars:

- Best Practices - Transfer of experiences - Action Plans

Best Practices

- Good practices conceptual model: The SUGAR conceptual model covers all the pol-icy leverages and defines key performance indicators for characterizing good prac-tices in an objective manner (level of impact with regards to transport operations, en-vironmental protection, energy saving, technical achievements and political consen-sus). A template for data collection has been developed and has been adopted as cornerstone for all SUGAR activities.

- Good practices analysis: A transversal analysis of all good practices and innovation areas has been carried out. To ensure an extensive coverage, good practices experi-ences have been gathered from within the SUGAR consortium as well as from out-side the partnership. This analysis served to define primary transfer policy areas, to

BESTFACT IR 3.1



create the SUGAR transfer tools, and to identify the winners of the SUGAR good practice award.

Transfer of experiences Based on the result of the good practice analysis, the following transfer tools have been de-veloped:

- �6 GPRT (Good practice round tables): dedicated technical sessions on the policy themes. With the participation of external experts, their main aim was to discuss how to improve city logistics policies;

- 4 TtT (Train the Trainer sessions): dedicated sessions for developing new skills of all SUGAR partner administrations;

- �4 JPE (Joint Planning Exercise-workshops): the SUGAR transfer sites prepared and presented their local objectives, challenges and opportunities with regards to city lo-gistics topics. The SUGAR good practice representatives collaborated by identifying main problems and providing advice on how to solve them;

- �An ETP (Enlarged Transfer Programme): Administrations outside the SUGAR part-nership have been invited to participate in the project activities.

Action Plans All SUGAR sites have developed action plans through SWOT analyses, definition of local vi-sions and by conducting strategic development workshops (for developing action plans within the individual site, as well as to broaden the SUGAR initiatives within their countries). The workshops have been based upon train-the-trainer and good practice experiences and cov-ered discussions on the state of the art and on how policies can be improved.

Niches

The aim of NICHES (New and Innovative Concepts for Helping European Transport Sustain-ability) project was to facilitate the coordination of research activities of academic institutions, industry, transport operators and authorities regarding key urban transport innovations that lack broad application. More specifically, NICHES promoted the most promising new urban transport concepts, initiatives and projects (NICHES Concepts, see table below) to move them from their current “niche” position to a “mainstream” urban transport policy application. The project thus wants to contribute to a more efficient and competitive transport system, a healthier environment and improved quality of life in urban areas.

Table 5. NICHES project methodology.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



Based on the examination of existing transport innovations, NICHES identified four key ar-eas, where barriers are often found on the local and regional level to make a real step to-wards a more sustainable urban transport system. These areas are:

- Financial & Economic Issues - Public Support/ Users & Awareness - Interorganisational Cooperation & Networks - Legal, Regulatory & Administrative Issues

The recommendations build on the analyses of the 12 NICHES Innovative Concepts and the work with urban transport experts. They focus on possibilities for local action to push urban transport innovations, addressing key public and private stakeholders in European cities. The following questions proved to be particularly important in this context:

- Financial & Economic Issues: How to achieve and secure funding for urban transport

innovations regarding investment, operation and maintenance? - Public Support/ Users & Awareness: How to generate sufficient support by the gen-

eral public and by policy makers to successfully implement and run urban transport innovations? How to raise awareness and improve acceptance?

- Interorganisational Cooperation & Networks: How to establish frameworks for interac-tion and collaboration practices between stakeholders that support a successful im-plementation of urban transport innovations?

- Legal, Regulatory and Administrative Issues: How do legal & regulatory issues, in-cluding administrative structures & practices, affect the implementation of urban transport innovations, and what changes could be done to create an enabling frame-work?

-

The Niches criteria included the following topics:

Key aspects for implementa-tion

Categories

Size of the city small city: < 200.000 inhabitants medium city: 200.001 to 500.000 big city: > 500.000

no influence

Costs for the measure quantitative (cost figures),

or qualitative (when there are no figures available),

or no information available

Time horizon short term: < 3 years medium term: 3-5 years long term: > 5 years

Stakeholder, initiator public initiator/authority/company/stakeholder

private initiator/company/stakeholder

Excluding factors most important excluding factor (e.g. only if minimum bicycle infrastruc-ture available)

Crucial factors most important other criterion that has to be considered (e.g. certain le-gal aspects)

Undesirable secondary effects most important negative side effect (e.g. Reduces use of public transport)

BESTFACT IR 3.1



(Transport) policy aims

Reduce transit / travel times and reliability of transports

Increase cycle and walking modal share

Reduce energy use/consumption

Reduce air pollution and CO2 emissions

Reduce noise levels

Reduce congestion

Ensure/improve accessibility to services and jobs

Improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness of transports

Improve use of urban space

Improve transport safety

Impacts on urban logistics:

- Reduced congestion and demand for parking,

- Better accessibility to services, employments and leisure,

- Modal shift (more users of public transport ),

- More rational use of private vehicles (increased car occupancy –i.e. average no. of passengers per car) and freight/delivery vehicles,

- More rational use of freight/delivery vehicles,

- Increased use of environmentally friendly means of transport (bicycles, AFVs, etc.),

- Improved accessibility for inhabitants of low density area and/or socially excluded (due to lack of mobility choices),

- More rational use of urban (road) space,

- Reducing negative impact (nuisance) of freight delivery in high density urban areas,

- Reduction of air pollution and noise nuisance bringing health effects and improving quality of life in urban areas,

- Reduced energy consumption and CO2 emission,

- Reducing dependence on oil as a source of energy.

Turbolog

The objective of the TURBLOG_WW (Transferability of urban logistics concepts and prac-tices from a worldwide perspective) project was to provide a complementary perspective for the Bestufs network by addressing urban logistics from a world-wide perspective. The main goal of the project was to extend and disseminate the research and knowledge between countries and regions, most importantly the EU and Latin America.

An important part of the project was to study transferability of best practices in urban logis-tics, and different methodologies were reviewed and compared.. As an outcome of the com-parison, the CIVITAS transferability algorithm was selected as the suitable methodology for

BESTFACT IR 3.1



the TURBLOG project in assessing the potential for transferability of urban logistics con-cepts, practices and models. (TURBLOG 201121)

Bestlog

The actual evaluation of cases includes:

• determining the benefits • assigning benefits into social, economic and environmental dimensions • confirming quantitatively and qualitatively that the benefits were achieved

The bestLog evaluation method is unique in that it encompasses a wide range of criteria from the following categories:

Figure 9. Bestlog evaluation criteria.

Enable

The main goal of the project ENABLE (Stimulate Sustainable Freight Transport between Latin America & Europe) http://www.enable-project.net/ was to boost the external relations between the EU and Latin American countries, focusing on the sector of co-modal and inter-modal freight transport.

Based on the analysis of existing situation in Argentina and Brazil, findings of project forums held in latin America, and developed logistics performance indicators, the main logistical challenges and needs for improvements in Brazil and Argentina were addressed and dis-cussed. After identifying the problems, the European intermodal innovations and best prac-

21 TURBLOG (2011). Transferability of urban logistics concepts and practices from a worldwide perspective. De-liverable 4: “Transferability guidelines and Evaluation”.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



tices, mainly developed in projects of PROMIT, Viacombi and Bestlog and by European In-termodal Association, were employed to provide solutions to logistical challenges in Latin America. General approach to best practices was:

- Benchmarking the European Intermodal best practices - Looking for sustainable concepts, industrial innovations, and intermodal solutions - Classification and clustering the best practices - Review of innovations and ideas - Analyzing the organization of innovation process and business models of services - Transferability to other situations or framework conditions.

The current intermodal status in LA guided the selection of best practices that are further di-vided into five categories according the type of the case: 1) Company Cases, 2) Operator Cases, 3) Logistics Service Cases, 4) Information Technology Cases and 5) Policy Strate-gies. Despite of the differences in EU and LA logistics systems, the key findings of EU Best Practices are extendable to LA and allow one to understand the development paths of LA lo-gistics. The key findings of best practices to be transferred to LA include:

- Arranging logistics chain by using intermodal transport - Business models, service concepts and operational principles of intermodal transport

operator - Business model and service concept of intermodal logistics network - Connecting port- and shipping operations to logistics network by utilizing information

technology

Innosutra

The main idea of the INNOSUTRA22 project was to advance innovation in transport and logis-tics chains by focusing on improved market understanding, knowledge management and net-work organisation. All surface modes are covered, i.e. maritime, road, rail, inland navigation, and also intermodal solutions and transfer points.

INNOSUTRA selected from an initial 59 innovation cases a smaller number which could be analysed in detail. The detailed analyses led to a methodological approach, capable of identi-fying constructive actions and policy interventions by commercial entities and public agencies to achieve the successful prosecution of innovations. There were to be two separable cate-gories of innovation: the first covering a variety of commercial innovations and the second covering public policy initiatives/innovations.

INNOSUTRA project adopted the following definition of innovation for the purposes of the project.

“A technological or organisational (including cultural, including marketing, as a separate sub-set) change to the product (or service) or production process which either lowers the cost of the product (or service) or production process or increases the quality of the product (or ser-vice) to the consumer.”

Detailed Innovation Analysis combined successes and ‘failures involved a detailed analysis of each of the selected innovation cases. The specific objectives of the analysis were:

- �Assessment of key factors in the success of innovative concepts. - �Identification of key players involved. - �Analysis of the adoption process within sectors.

22 Innosutra D9. Final Report.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



- �Identification of current policy intervention initiatives.

The methodologies used in this phase of the process were selected to be: - The Oslo manual; guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data, OECD - �Methods for Studying Innovation Development in the Minnesota Innovation Re-

search Program (MIRP).

These two methodologies were ones which study the innovation process and use extensive and solid, tested methods. The MIRP classification of the three broad phases of the innova-tion process, i.e. Initiation, Development, and Implementation, was used in the InnoSuTra analysis. The specific objectives of the analysis were targeted in relation to the three phases of the process for each of the innovation cases, and the various key factors, key players, and current policy interventions identified in relation to the specific adoption processes.

Scenario work delivered a suggested framework required to establish the relevant measures to achieve successful prosecution of the innovations of the types studied in the project. The analytical framework selected was that of the Systems Analysis framework. It was argued that this approach offered a useful method to identify the appropriate areas for commercial and public policy actions and interventions to achieve successful innovation; in terms of a rapid spread of innovation across the surface transport market sectors involved. The impacts of innovations were analysed.

The aim of the recommendations approach was to produce a set of structured recommenda-tions to enable both policy makers and commercial actors to focus their actions and interven-tions in the key areas – in relation to the innovation type and its stage/phase of development – required to achieve the conditions for success. As the recommendations cover both com-mercial innovations and public policy initiatives the two branches of the innovation pathway are important to note (see figure below).

BESTFACT IR 3.1



Figure 10: Innovation pathway diagram

Freightvision

Freightvision project23 defines basis for the recommendations in the following way:

- Highly recommended (based on highly positive impact on one or more of the four sus-tainability criteria and no, or very limited, disadvantages)

- Recommended (based on moderate positive impacts on one of the 4 sustainability cri-teria or if there are high positive impacts on one or some of the four sustainability cri-teria, but there are disadvantages form the other points of view e.g. economic growth, social aspects etc. and in total the positive impacts outweigh the negative impacts)

- Not recommended (no positive impact on one or more of the four sustainability criteria or did have positive impact on one criteria but there are severe disadvantages from other points of view etc.)

23 freightvision. D 6.1 Several scenarios of long distance freight transport by 2050 and their impact on environ-mental emissions, dependence on fossil fuels,congestions and accidents. EGIS, FR January 2010

BESTFACT IR 3.1



The impact opportunity of each measure on the key drivers was assessed based on scale evaluation principles, where +++ was the most suitable to reach the vision to --- not applica-ble for the particular key driver vision. Prioritization of the measure was then undertaken by using ABC analyses, where A is the most suitable and C is the last suitable for deployment.

Supergreen 24

The purpose of SuperGreen is to promote the development of European freight logis-tics in an environmentally friendly manner. Environmental factors play an increasing role in all transport modes, and holistic approaches are needed to identify 'win-win' solutions. SuperGreen will evaluate a series of 'green corridors' covering some repre-sentative regios and main transport routes throughout Europe. SuperGreen is a Co-ordinated Action supported by the European Commission (DG-TREN) in the context of the 7th Framework Programme.

Supergreen project25 allocated relevant KPIs to five main groups;

- Efficiency meaning unit costs ( €/ton and €/ton-kilometre for the entire stretch) - Service Quality including transport time, reliability (on-time deliveries), ICT applica-

tions (tracking services, other ICT services), frequency of service (number of ship-ments available per week), cargo security and cargo safety

- Environmental Sustainability measured by greenhouse gases (CO2/ton-km) and pol-luters (NOx/ton-km, SOx/ton-km, PM2.5/ton-km)

- Infrastructural Sufficiency, measured by congestion (delay) and bottlenecks (serious-ness)

- Social Issues, with KPIs on corridor land use (% of urban areas over total corridor area and % of Natura 2000 areas over total corridor area.), safety (accidents) and noise.

Supergreen project recommendations26 are based on the reported corridor specific bottlenecks, and the related ICT and technology gaps identified. On-going R&D activ-ities that are specifically targeted for solving the identified bottlenecks and lack of ac-tivities for solving the identified bottlenecks are identified.

Posmetrans

POSMETRANS27 project is exploring the efficiency of policy measures for innovation in the transport sector with special focus on small- and medium sized enterprises. Objectives are to

24 http://www.supergreenproject.eu/project.html

25 SuperGreen - SUPPORTING EU’S FREIGHT TRANSPORT LOGISTICS ACTION PLAN ON GREEN CORRI-DORS ISSUES. Deliverable D2.2: Definition of Benchmark Indicators and Methodology. EU, 7th FP.

26 SuperGreen - SUPPORTING EU’S FREIGHT TRANSPORT LOGISTICS ACTION PLAN ON GREEN CORRI-DORS ISSUES. Deliverable D5.2. Define and submit R&D Recommendations, 1st version. http://www.super-greenproject.eu/info.html 27 POSMETRANS - POlicy measures for innovation in TRANSport sector with special focus on Small- and Me-dium sized Enterprises - factors and recommendations for success and sustainability. Deliverable 1.4. Document

BESTFACT IR 3.1



provide a frame for the impact assessment and evaluation of EU measures aiming at innova-tion in the transport sector and to drawing recommendations for policy measures in order to accelerate the market take-up of innovative technologies and processes.

D14 presents a methodology used in making a ranking of innovative technologies and policy measures collected in the project. The same methodology is also used to make a ranking of keys players identified. The ranking procedure is based on criteria defined by the consortium and used to estimate the relevance/importance of each collected data, each criteria being moreover weighted and classified in one of four categories (functional, social, economical and environmental).

The decision process of a multiple criteria problem in defined in POSMETRANS as follows: - definition and construction of the problem (variants), - definition of a set of consistent family of criteria, - identification of the preference system of the decision maker, - selection of the multiple method evaluation, - computational experiment, - analysis and comparison of results, - choice of the best solution and conclusion.

Definition of the consistent family of criteria for the POSMETRANS project Definitions of the consistent family of criteria for Policy Measures:

- C1: Geographical area of enforcement - This criterion indicates on what geograph-ical area policy measure is/can be enforced: local, national or EU.

- C2: Time of enforcement - In the case of EU funding programme this criterion makes reference to the average length of the projects funded. When considering reg-ulations in general, it refers to the time length passing from their approval to the time when they are actually put in force. For a guideline/action plan: time-scale concerned by the paper.

- C3: Ease of enforcement/bureaucracy burden - This criterion indicates the level of complexity in implementing a policy measure / accessing a funding programme. Is the process easy to understand and follow, transparent, time-consuming or not, requires taking into account many non-technical aspects such as social and environmental as-pects, requires specifically trained personal.

- C4: Mandatory level - Level of obligatory nature of policy measures. For example, recommendations, opinions, communications (low level); regulations, decisions or di-rectives (high level).

- C5: Part of comprehensive and holistic strategy/app roach - The criterion means the policy measure is integral to a long-term and comprehensive strategy / vision which aims at considering the most facets of a problem / situation.

- C6: Dissemination extent - Existence of weak/strong information channel between policy maker and policy target (weak: communication only through a website - Middle: info disseminated at local contact points, or through cluster/networks - strong: direct contact between policy maker and policy target (visit/mailing...).

describing methodology for analysis. http://www.posmetrans.eu/downloads/D1_4_POSMETRANS_Methodology-for-analysis_v2_0.pdf http://www.posmetrans.eu/

BESTFACT IR 3.1



- C7: Level of support to R&D activities - The criterion means the policy measure (both EU funding programme and regulations) supports R&D activities (the biggest the support is - for example grants allocated to R&D activities- the highest the rank is) in different ways.

- C8: Consistency with EU standards - Criterion indicates if the policy measure is in compliance with EU standards, and if it is consistent with EU standards, or results from them.

- C9: Safety and security aspects - Are safety and security aspects taken into ac-count in the policy measure? (High rank: it is clearly defined what must be taken into account and/or it is actually the theme of the policy - low rank: not even mentioned).

- C10: Consumer oriented - This criterion indicates in which extent the interest of con-sumers / end-users of a technology is taken into account (high: policy directly in-tended at improving the consumer well-being - low: consumer well-being not consid-ered or only indirectly).

- C11: Total allocated budget - High of the total allocated budget (only applicable to funding programmes).

- C12: Industry participation - Percentage of funding allocated to industry partners (Rank 1: 0-10%, 2: 11-20%, 3: 21-30%, 4: 31-40%, 5: 41-50%, 6: >51%).

- C13: SME participation - Percentage of funding allocated to SME partners (Rank 1: 0-10%, 2: 11-20%, 3: 21-30%, 4: 31-40%, 5: 41-50%, 6: >51%).

- C14: Incentive taxes system - This criterion indicates if the use of incentive taxes is planned either to penalize those who do not follow a policy measure (e.g. CO2 tax) or to help/simplify/encourage investments/the implementation of policy measures.

- C15: Environmental commitment - Criterion indicates the degree of commitment with environmental sustainability of policy measure.

Definitions of the consistent family of criteria for Innovative Technologies:

- C1: Reliability - Criterion indicates whether or not the technology works correctly and fulfils its functions in expected time and in specified conditions of exploitation.

- C2: Implementation flexibility - Criterion indicates whether or not the technology is easy to implementation in specific (local) circumstances.

- C3: Transferability - Criterion indicates whether or not technology can be transfera-ble and implemented in different conditions e.g. in different country.

- C4: Level of competition - This criterion indicates how many actors are (potentially) active in a given technological field and how far they already are in the implementa-tion of this technology. The level of competition also depends on the market extent: e.g. 10 actors in a niche market might already mean a high level of competition whereas 100 enterprises in Europe for a market where the consumers are the whole population of Europe might correspond to a very low level of competition.

- C5: Position of SMEs - This criterion is an estimation of the amount of SMEs (per-centage of the total number of enterprises in the field) involved in the industrialization of an innovative technology.

- C6: Existence of networks/associations supporting t his technology - Existence and size of networks/clusters/associations supporting a given innovative technology.

- C7: Job creation - Thanks to the introduction of the innovative technology the rate of employment has increased (think for example of the jobs created through by the Green economy).

- C8: Life quality improvement - Thanks to the introduction of the innovative technol-ogy citizens' and /or workers' life has become better (time saving, reduced physical efforts, reduction of traffic problems).

BESTFACT IR 3.1



- C9: Accessibility - Degree to which a technology (product, device, service) is acces-sible by as many people as possible.

- C10: Customers' acceptance - It means the innovative technologies are well per-ceived and thought as valuable, useful and efficient by the end-users.

- C11: Risk management - Criterion indicates how high is the identification, assess-ment and prioritization of risk followed by coordinated and economical application of resources to minimize, monitor, and control the probability and/or impact of unfortu-nate events concerning innovative technology.

- C12: Cost of the implementation - Criterion indicates the costs related to necessary personal and equipment investments related to the implementation of a new technol-ogy (from R&D to production).

- C13: Added value - Criterion indicates how high is the difference between the sale price of a technology and the cost of its production.

- C14: Time to market - Time to market is the length of time it takes from a product being conceived until its being available for sale.

- C15: Market position - How far is the innovative technology developed: is it to date only existing at R&D level or is the technology already available on the market (Rank 1: technology invention -> 2: laboratory prototype -> 3: Industrial demonstrator -> 4: industrialisation -> 5: market entry).

- C16: Environmental friendly - Criterion indicates whether or not the technology in-flicts minimal or do not harm on the environment, e.g. concerns renewable energies commitment and CO2 reduction commitment.

Definitions of the consistent family of criteria for Key Players:

- C1: Territorial coverage in which they operate - This criterion means how wide spread (f.i. regional, national, European, world-wide scale) is the territory where the key player works / can have influence on.

- C2: Influence in sector - Criterion indicates the access to decision making on trends or policies, by market power (big companies) or political power (government institu-tions).

- C3: Membership in networks - Is the person/entity member in a cluster/network and how many of them (high number of membership = high ranking) - criterion intended for enterprises and research institutes.

- C4: Direct communication channel with innovation ac tors from the industry - Criterion intended for policy makers and networks: do they have a direct and regular contact with innovation actors in the research and industry (especially SMEs) - this should indicate how well a key player is effectively informed about the current techno-logical and economical situation (and if he/she is entitled to become a POSMETRANS expert).

- C5: Number of patents - Criterion indicates how many patents have been/are cre-ated by key player.

- C6: Number of implemented technologies - Criterion indicates how many technolo-gies have been/are implemented by key player.

- C7: Involvement in training sector - This criterion indicates how deeply involved and committed the key player is, with regards to carrying out training activities (both targeted to their members and to a broader audience).

- C8: Capacity of know-how transfer - This criterion means the key player is able to make the know-how accessible and usable by third parties.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



- C9: Number of employees/members - Criterion indicates how many people are em-ployed in key player enterprise / how many members are registered in the key player network.

- C10: Contribution to the Municipality - Criterion indicates how the company can support and guide municipalities on transport matters.

- C11: Awareness of the brand - Criterion indicates whether or not the society is aware of the key player existing on the market and know his products.

- C12: % of the turnover invested in R&D activities – This criterion indicates which percentage of the annual turnover is spent on R%D activities (both internally and given in outsourcing).

- C13: The new technologies/the action undertaken res pect the new targets set by the European Agenda 20-20-20 - In the Europe 2020 Strategy, the Commis-sion identifies three key drivers for growth: smart growth (fostering knowledge, innovation, education and digital society), sustainable growth (making our pro-duction more resource efficient while boosting our competitiveness) and inclu-sive growth (raising participation in the labour market, the acquisition of skills and the fight against poverty). Progress towards these objectives will be measured against five representative headline EU-level targets: 1)75 % of the population aged 20-64 should be employed. 2) 3% of the EU's GDP should be invested in R&D. 3) The "20/20/20" climate/energy targets should be met. 4) The share of early school leavers should be under 10% and at least 40% of the younger generation should have a degree or diploma.5) 20 million less people should be at risk of poverty.

EIA Intermodal Award

Award has three key judging criteria: The product or service should be in an intermodal envi-ronment, in actual commercial operation and innovative in approach. By mentioning the meas-urable contribution, the chances to win will increase. Research projects, feasibility studies, etc. are not accepted in this competition, since EIAs aim is to focus on concrete and existing market realisations, no ‘paper’ solutions.

BESTFACT IR 3.1



Annex 5. EU Transport policy and impact assessment

Challenges

• Increasing competitive pressure in the global economy • Growing congestion and poorer accessibility. An infrastructure gap in the enlarged

EU • Increasing oil price and persistent oil dependency. A deteriorating climate and local

environment

White paper on Transport

White paper is a roadmap to a single European transport area, towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. A single European transport area means that all residual barriers between modes and between borders are eliminated. By 2050, freight goals include:

- 40% use of sustainable low carbon fuels in aviation; at least 40% cut in shipping emis-sions.

- A 50% shift of medium distance freight journeys from road to rail and waterborne transport.

- New and sustainable fuels and propulsion systems

- Optimising the performance of multimodal logistic chains, including by making greater use of more energy efficient modes

- Increasing the efficiency of transport and of infrastructure use with information systems and market-based incentives.

Actions should lead to a 60% cut in transport emissions by the middle of the century

TEN-T policy review - Connecting Europe Facility

A dual layer approach : • Core network: the strategically most important part of the trans-European transport

network, where it has the highest European added value, supporting key traffic flows across the EU, formed of nodes and multi-modal links between these nodes

• Comprehensive network : updating and adjustment of the current TEN-T

A corridors’ approach : rail freight corridors, ERTMS corridors or « green corridors » => merging these different concepts into multi-modal corridors

A single framework to use coherently money in TEN-T, cohesion and structural funds: • Core network : « Connecting Europe Facility » (implementation by 2020, adressing 3

sectors : Energy, Transport, ICT). • Comprehensive network : cohesion fund and / or ERDF

Horizon 2020

Horizon 2020 is the financial instrument implementing the Innovation Unio, a Europe 2020 flagship initiative aimed at securing Europe's global competitiveness. Running from 2014 to

BESTFACT IR 3.1



2020 with an €80 billion budget, the EU’s new programme for research and innovation is part of the drive to create new growth and jobs in Europe.28

The transport section supports innovative research that focuses on such themes as reducing CO2 emissions for all transport modes, reducing congestion and developing smarter and safer mobility for people and freight. Advances in areas like these are not only required to tackle some urgent transport related challenges that citizens are facing, they are also ex-pected to help maintain Europe's global leadership in the transport industry.

Strategic Transport Technology Plan (STTP)

Horizon 2020 / STTP : • A different time frame : there is a need for a long-term perspective (beyond Horizon

2020 + full innovation cycle) • Transversal vs transport-specific

The White Paper’s goals will not be met without innovative technology. Objectives (planned Communication): Describe research and innovation areas / needs in the current economic climate towards policy and deployment

Preliminary findings : � Leverage effect of the public sector � Modally organised industry => need for new forms of partnering looking at the system

as a whole

Current developments at DG MOVE

E-Freight initiative means preparation of topic nro7 in the White Paper / multimodal transport of goods. To build the appropriate framework to streamline the electronic flow of information associated with the physical flow of goods. This includes a common reference framework for ICT in transport logistics. Use of the framework for the following services :

� Single Transport Document (STD): for business-to-business opera-tions

� Single Window (SW): for business-to-administration, (administration-to administration) and administration to business purposes at national, between national and at EU level.

� Multimodal journey planners and related booking services � Tracking / tracing � Intelligent cargo.

The e-freight inefficiencies are caused by four main drivers29 : - lack of interoperability1 between existing information systems - duplication of information submission : operators have to provide information through dif-

ferent transport documents (CMR for road, Bill of Lading for maritime, etc…), as well as often the same information several times for different reporting requirements

28 http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020

29 e.Freight Roadmap draft Feb 2012

BESTFACT IR 3.1



- lack of multimodal information on transport services and of multimodal booking tools, which makes operators look for information on available services from many sources, and therefore creates inefficiencies for setting up multimodal operations

- lack of integration of information coming from tracking and tracing technologies as well as from emerging intelligent cargo applications ('self-aware, context-aware and connected cargo') into freight transport information systems

Green corridors for freight

o In relation with the TEN-T evolution (taking into account rail freight corridors, ERTMS corridors, etc)

o Key performance indicators (KPIs) and a first assessment of corridors and technologies based on the research project SuperGreen

wp3: ir 3.1 final best practice impact evaluation methodology · wp3: ir 3.1 final best practice...

Documents