Amsterdam maps the business case for waterborne urban logistics: it is not automatically a ‘no-regret’ option. The City of Amsterdam has been exploring for several years whether water transport can play a larger role in urban logistics. A recent exploratory cost–benefit analysis compared the societal and financial impacts of waterborne transport with road transport and urban consolidation hubs. The study examined six freight flows: construction logistics, hospitality, waste, retail, supermarkets, and parcel delivery. The report is insightful, but not entirely convincing.
Where the short-term opportunities lie
In the short term, the greatest opportunities for consolidation lie in flows where one party can take the lead. This may be a receiver, such as a construction project bundling deliveries from multiple suppliers, or a supplier serving several customers on one trip to the edge of an area and distributing locally from there. Hospitality deliveries and circular waste logistics are clear examples.
In construction, the benefits are most evident for projects located directly on the waterfront. Reduced urban disruption and the possibility of using water as temporary storage improve logistical control. Although hub-based transport – by water or road – is often more expensive, improved predictability leads to more efficient construction processes and fewer on-site disruptions.
In hospitality, hub systems also show promise. A limited number of large wholesalers and beverage suppliers serve many addresses in the city centre. Consolidation could significantly reduce medium and heavy vehicle movements, provided a level playing field exists for all suppliers.
Consolidation is the real game-changer
The study’s key insight is that the greatest societal benefits stem from consolidation rather than water transport alone. Waterborne logistics delivers the largest positive impacts but is usually the most expensive option. A road-fed urban consolidation hub can achieve roughly 75% of the societal benefits of water transport at significantly lower cost.
These benefits mainly result from fewer heavy vehicles in the city centre: less pollution, reduced noise, lower congestion, and less damage to bridges and quays. This last factor is particularly critical in Amsterdam, where heavy traffic contributes to the deterioration of historic infrastructure.
Socially attractive, economically challenging
Although water transport clearly improves liveability and infrastructure protection, it is often more expensive than road transport. Longer transit times, additional transhipment, and organisational complexity are key drivers. A truck can carry roughly the same load as a canal vessel, which limits companies’ economic incentive.
However, water transport can be viable in specific contexts, such as waterfront construction projects or where stricter weight limits for road vehicles are introduced. In such cases, waterborne transport may even become cost-competitive.
The study also finds that switching to smaller vehicles is not an attractive alternative. Smaller vehicles lead to more trips and, therefore, additional traffic pressure and negative environmental impacts. Hub-based solutions – whether supplied by road or water – perform significantly better.
The market will not move on its own
The study confirms that the market will not automatically shift towards consolidation or water transport. Bundling freight flows almost always requires collaboration. Large companies can consolidate their own volumes, but smaller suppliers and carriers rarely have the scale to do so independently. A limited number of coordinating actors is therefore needed to organise consolidation and distribution.
However, several barriers remain. Suppliers value control and reliable carriers who understand their customers and processes. Additional supply chain steps introduce uncertainty, reduce standardisation and increase costs through adjustments to distribution centres, ICT systems and staffing. Urban space for transhipment is scarce, and long-term availability of hub locations is essential.
Operational constraints also play a role. Time windows for road and water transport are not well aligned, and delivery times must suit both customers and transport workers. In the short term, stakeholder interests are not always aligned, as consolidation requires upfront investment before efficiency gains materialise. Competition law further complicates collaboration between carriers, even though competition remains essential for choice and market functioning.
No silver bullet
Large-scale waterborne logistics is not a silver bullet. The real key lies in structural consolidation of urban freight flows, with water transport as a strategic option in specific areas such as the historic city centre. The report therefore calls for targeted pilots, stronger regulation, and long-term policy certainty to future-proof city-centre logistics.
What will the city do next?
In a recent council letter, Amsterdam outlined how it plans to further stimulate waterborne logistics as part of its strategy to manage growing freight pressure in the city centre. Water transport is seen as a complement to road transport, helping reduce congestion, infrastructure damage, and nuisance to residents while supporting a liveable, accessible, and zero-emission city.
A major bottleneck is the current time window regime for waterborne transport, which largely restricts unloading to night-time. The municipality is therefore exploring expanded or location-specific time windows to make water logistics more feasible.
The letter emphasises that transition requires collaboration with market parties. Water transport will not be profitable everywhere, so policy will focus on experiments, improved framework conditions and creating space for scaling up this logistics mode.
A critical reflection
The report provides a valuable first exploration but remains methodologically cautious. It is not a full cost–benefit analysis: a detailed baseline scenario, long-term discounted cash flow calculations, and concrete policy variants are missing. As a result, the analysis remains indicative rather than decision-ready.
The study relies heavily on modelled flows, assumptions, and expert judgement. While understandable in an exploratory study, this limits its robustness for policy decisions. Market behaviour and system changes are only considered qualitatively. Validation with market stakeholders is therefore essential, especially given the limited practical experience and unclear market structure.
The comparison with road-fed hubs is a strong element of the study. However, the conclusion that consolidation is the main driver partially undermines the focus on water transport itself. The report supports policy direction but does not yet provide a sufficiently strong evidence base for large-scale implementation.
Walther Ploos van Amstel.