Improving the Efficiency of Waste Collection Operations with Computerised Vehicle Routing and Scheduling

Guide FreightBestPractice Improving the Efficiency of Waste Collection Operations with Computerised Vehicle Routing and Scheduling

Acknowledgements The Freight Best Practice programme and the Transportation Research Group at the University of Southampton would like to thank the following Councils and Waste Collection Authorities (WCA) who provided information for this Best Practice Guide: Basingstoke & Deane, Hart and Rushmoor WCA Rossendale Borough Council Kettering Borough Council Reading Borough Council Northampton Waste Partnership Daventry District Council Disclaimer: While the Department for Transport (DfT) has made every effort to ensure the information in this document is accurate, DfT does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of that information: and it cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damages of any kind resulting from reliance on the information or guidance this document contains. The inclusion of published software in the case studies does not represent endorsement of these products by the DfT. i

Foreword Freight Best Practice offers FREE advice and information to help you increase efficiency, reduce your environmental impact and save money in your freight transport operation. Freight Best Practice is funded by the Department for Transport and managed by Faber Maunsell Ltd and consists of guides, case studies, and software, all of it FREE! All Freight Best Practice materials can be downloaded from www.freightbestpractice.org.uk or ordered through the Hotline on 0845 877 0 877. ii

Contents 1. Introduction 1 The Challenge 1 Who should read this Guide 2 2. Collecting Initial Data 3 Weight and Volume of waste 3 Number and capacity of vehicles 3 Loading and unloading times 3 Vehicle speeds 4 Locations of households, vehicle depots and disposal sites 4 Operating times 4 Data quality 4 Which software package to use 5 3. Modelling Issues 6 Modelling existing rounds Comparisons between existing and optimised routes Locating properties 6 7 7 4. Case Studies 8 a) Joint working in North Hampshire 8 b) Redesigning rounds in Lancashire 10 c) Redesigning rounds in Northamptonshire 12 d) The impact of a disposal site closure in Kettering 14 e) The impact of alternate weekly collections in Reading 15 f) Optimising street sweeping routes in Daventry 16 5. Conclusions 18 Appendix Action Plan for the redesign of rounds Computer applicatioens suitable for modelling waste collection Further reading 18 19 19 20 iii

1. Introduction The aim of this Guide is to provide best practice information for waste collection authorities (WCAs) and the inclusion of case studies is seen as an important aid to anchoring best practice in real operations. It is intended that the material presented here will contribute to greater efficiency in waste collection operations and help WCAs to understand how their collection operations could be improved, potentially through working more closely with neighbouring authorities. There are many different types of domestic kerbside collection scheme, with wide variations in the types of recyclables targeted by individual authorities. Waste collection frequencies can be weekly, fortnightly or monthly and the waste receptacles used can range from wheeled-bins to bags and boxes. Residual waste and recyclables tend to be collected separately. Recyclables can be collected together in co-mingled collections in one single-bodied refuse collection vehicle or be separated by the householder into different boxes for loading into separate compartments in a multi compartment vehicle as part of a kerbsidesort scheme. Recyclables can also be mixed with the residual waste and collected by the same vehicle using survival sacks in a mixed waste collection system. By reducing their residual waste capacity, alternate weekly collection (AWC) schemes (where the residual waste and recyclables are collected on alternate weeks) force householders to recycle more effectively and increase recycling rates without the need for additional transport infrastructure. Through either their own in-house operations, or by contracting out services to third parties, Local Authorities undertake a range of additional waste collections in the community, in addition to the domestic kerbside rounds. Often, separate fleets of vehicles will be employed to service bring sites (bottle, paper and clothing banks), collect clinical waste (from NHS outpatients and sometimes commercial enterprises), collect bulky household waste from households (sofas, fridges) and provide a trade waste service for commercial businesses. The Challenge Designing waste collection rounds in these operational areas is a highly complex task since a large number of factors have to be considered. You must take into account the different waste types to be collected (residual waste, dry recyclables, green waste, bulky items, hazardous waste) the collection frequency required (weekly or every other week) and the expected volume of waste (and any seasonal variations). But the complexity of the task doesn t end there. In the area of domestic waste collection, the number of households and their locations will affect how much time is needed to complete rounds and how many vehicles are used. The vehicle specifications will affect how drivers and crews operate and the locations of disposal sites and vehicle depots, and their opening hours, will largely dictate the conditions a WCA can operate under. Finally, the available road network will have an enormous impact on the type of operations deemed feasible in a given WCA. For example, some roads might be unsuitable for use (too narrow or not providing safe stopping areas) whilst others might only be useable for part of the working day, such as city centres or approaches to schools. Where new property developments are built, adding to the collection requirements, they are often simply added on to existing collection rounds. If this is done several times, the round design may become inefficient and may require a complete overhaul. The complexity of the task makes it very difficult, even for the most experienced waste collection managers, to produce optimal routes and schedules without the aid of some form of Computerised Vehicle Routing and Scheduling (CVRS). This guide discusses the application of CVRS to the waste collection problem 1

using case study examples from WCAs who have used systems currently on the market. Who should read this Guide You should keep reading if you are involved in WCA fleet operations or work in related areas such as Local Authority highway departments. This Guide will also be of interest to those who design and implement collection and delivery networks regardless of the product being transported as well as those involved generally in CVRS. Signpost to Freight Best Practice publications: Computerised vehicle routing and scheduling (CVRS) for efficient logistics Efficient Public Sector Fleet Operations Fleet Performance Management Tool with CO 2 calculator Local Authority Freight Management Guide Freight Quality Partnerships Telematics for Efficient Road Freight Operations Saving Fuel Through People successful change management in road freight operations 2

2. Collecting data The main advantages of using CVRS in designing waste collection rounds are to: Quantify reductions in transport costs by producing more efficient routes, round structures and collection arrangements. Allow alternative collection schemes to be compared in order to aid the decision making process and inform the procurement process. Provide brand new rounds in a very short time that can then be tweaked with local knowledge and experience. Essentially, the process of redesigning waste collection rounds starts with the collection of detailed operational data along with Key Performance Indicators (KPI) on your existing rounds, feeding this along with your new requirements into the chosen software, implementing the new rounds (applying local knowledge to the software generated rounds when appropriate) and then monitoring the performance of the redesigned routes and schedules. In order to inform a CVRS application of the nature of the proposed collection rounds the type of information and/or KPIs that need to be collected will depend on the requirements of the software package being used. However, it is likely that the following data will be needed as a minimum: Weight and Volume of waste The overall weights of the different waste types collected on the existing collection rounds will normally be known by the WCA, taken from the waste disposal records which are required for waste disposal reporting purposes. Dividing the overall weight of waste collected by the number of households collected from gives the average weight per household. For CVRS modelling purposes, an average weight per household is likely to be adequate in most cases. For improved accuracy, however, different average weights per household may be derived and used (e.g. if the individual bin allocation is known for each house on the collection round). The average weight per household may be different between rural and urban areas and special consideration may have to be given to blocks of flats using communal bins. Number and capacity of vehicles Most vehicle scheduling models will either allow the user to specify how many vehicles are available for use or let the application decide how many vehicles are needed, based on the collections to be made. Vehicle capacity will normally be specified in terms of the weight of waste that may be carried by the vehicle. For example, for a standard 26-tonne gross vehicle weight refuse collection vehicle (RCV), the carrying capacity will typically range between 10 to 11 tonnes, when used for collecting residual waste, and 7.5 to 8 tonnes, when used for collecting dry recyclable waste. The weight is lower for dry recyclable waste as it is generally bulkier and less dense than residual waste. It is volume, not the weight, which is the constraining factor. The capacity of the RCV could be specified by volume (cubic metres), rather than by weight (kg or tonnes), however, the amount of waste collected and disposed of is normally measured in terms of its weight rather than its volume. Where a split-bodied RCV is used to collect residual waste and recyclable waste at the same time, the capacities of the separate compartments will have to be specified. Loading and unloading times The time needed to load waste onto RCVs includes the time taken to fetch bins, bags or boxes from households (depending on the type of kerbside collection system used), load them directly onto the 3

vehicle (potentially using lifting apparatus) or empty their contents manually into the RCV and where appropriate, return the bin, box or bag to the kerbside. This time has a significant effect on the overall time taken to do the work and as a consequence is critical when designing collection rounds. The average time taken to load waste, per bin or by unit weight of waste (e.g. kg), will not be generally known by waste collection operators but may be estimated by dividing the round time, less time spent when not making collections (e.g. driving to and from collection areas and to and from waste disposal sites), by the number of bins collected or by the waste weight collected. Some trial and error may be required with this estimate. Unloading time is the time spent at the waste disposal site. In practice this varies due to more than one vehicle tipping at the waste disposal site at the same time. For modelling purposes it is likely to be satisfactory, in most cases, to assume an average time spent at the waste disposal site (e.g. 10 minutes). However, if there are significant delays at a disposal site at certain times of day then this will need to be reconsidered in the final round design. Vehicle speeds Within a collection area the speed of a refuse collection vehicle is often very low and is zero when the vehicle is stopped to load waste. Often, when the RCV is moving slowly, the crew members are fetching bins at the same time. These times within the round can be disregarded therefore, as they have been already modelled. The vehicle speed of interest here is the speed when all the crew members are on the vehicle. This will include travel to and from the depot, to and from the waste disposal site and between different roads or collection areas serviced. The vehicle speed will mainly depend on the type of vehicle, the type of road and the amount of traffic on the road. Vehicle routing software typically allows the user to set vehicle speed for different types of road (A roads, B roads, city centre etc) and for different time periods (e.g. peak and off-peak periods), which allows a certain amount of flexibility and improved accuracy in the modelling. Some software may even allow speeds to be specified for individual roads or areas or may allow the user to specify vehicle access bans. These features are useful if a particular road or area, such as a city centre or near to schools, must be avoided at certain times of the day. Locations of households, vehicle depots and disposal sites The vehicle scheduling software must be supplied with a list of the locations to be visited and the amount of waste to be collected from each location. The finest level of detail that can be considered for specifying the locations to be visited is the individual household. This provides the most detailed and accurate modelling of individual rounds but for routing and scheduling over a large authority area, this level of detail may be too cumbersome. An alternative level of detail is to use postcodes. This has the advantage that most vehicle routing and scheduling software packages are able to recognise postcodes and the number of locations to be visited is therefore much reduced, compared to the number of individual households. This reduces the complexity of the optimisation task and the run time of the software. A disadvantage, however, of using postcodes is that there might be a slight loss of accuracy associated with the modelling of within-postcode vehicle travel. Also, the total waste production of a group of households under one postcode along with the cumulative lift time would have to be accurately determined. Operating times Operating times include the opening and closing times of the waste disposal sites used and the start and end times of the drivers and crews working hours. Data quality In order to model collection rounds well, good quality data are essential. This is particularly true where the WCA wants to assess its existing collection rounds accurately and gauge the benefits of any alternative operating scenarios. 4

Which software package to use? A critical issue for modelling waste collection is the level of detail in the maps used for calculating and displaying routes. Street-level mapping is likely to be an essential requirement for most, if not all, waste collection applications. The Freight Best Practice guide to CVRS describes a number of different software packages that are suitable for general use. These are DiPS Distribution Planning Systems, LogiX, Optrak, Paragon, Roadnet, Descartes Delivery and TruckStops. Others, e.g. Entec/Webaspx, RouteSmart, FleetRoute incorporate specific functionality relevant to waste collection. All of these applications can be used for solving problems associated with designing collection rounds and typical issues that these applications can address include: Comparing existing collection rounds with newly designed ones. Assessing the impact of alternate weekly collection schemes. Choosing suitable locations for vehicle depots. Deciding between alternative waste disposal sites. Redesigning rounds to cater for changes in the collection requirements (e.g. new building developments.) Evaluating the impact of joint working collection arrangements between neighbouring authorities. Example case studies are given in section 4. 5

3. Modelling issues The general guides to using CVRS highlighted the need for adequate training in using the software and the availability of ongoing support. Although CVRS applications are designed to be relatively easy to use, the complexity of the waste collection task means that there is plenty of scope for confusion about the inputs required and in interpreting the outputs. In addition, the modelling itself might require a certain amount of manual intervention in order to produce optimum desired routes. Although the user need not be an expert modeller, quite a high level of computer literacy is likely to be required. Furthermore, any routes calculated by a software package will have to be checked by someone with good local knowledge of the road network, as even the best models will not have this expert knowledge. It is possible that a model might even contain an error or be lacking in some important information, such as a banned vehicle movement or a vehicle access restriction. Good models, however, will allow this information to be entered manually. It is quite possible that the user will not have considered all the constraints on the collection system until some violation of the model s rules occurs and produces an error message, crashes or provides obviously unworkable collection rounds. One option for a WCA to consider is to hire the services of a waste collection modelling consultant to undertake the work on their behalf. There is considerable merit in this approach, as the consultant is likely to have extensive experience of using their preferred software. Where the waste collection modelling task is subcontracted out to a consultant it will remain important for the waste collection manager to provide local knowledge and expertise, as required, to specify the problem and constraints correctly. Modelling existing rounds Modelling existing rounds is possible with most applications but requires considerable effort from the user to specify them as ordered lists of the locations visited. Locations may be specified either as postcodes, Ordnance Survey grid references or lat/ longs depending on the software used. To obtain the highest degree of route accuracy the list of locations will need to include all of the turning points (e.g. at road junctions) taken on the route. This is rather an onerous task and the user may prefer to specify the route at a coarser level of detail. The minimum level of detail required is a list of the streets collected from on the round which then needs to be translated into an ordered list of postcodes (or map co-ordinates). Again, this translation task is far from being trivial. For example it needs to bear in mind that longer roads, such as arterial roads, may be visited by the collection crew(s) on a number of separate occasions, interspersed by visits to other roads such as side streets or cul-de-sacs. Another complicating factor might be that busy roads (e.g. High Streets) may have to be traversed in two opposite directions where it would be dangerous for the crew to attempt to drag bins across the road. The route taken from one postcode (or map coordinate) to the next one will normally be determined by the software package. If a high degree of route accuracy is sought then successive points on the route need to be relatively close to each other to avoid the wrong route being chosen by default by the software. In short, existing routes may only be modelled effectively if the user is prepared to spend considerable time and effort in their specification. It may be decided that such a use of resources may not be worthwhile and the waste collection manager may prefer to measure the performance of existing routes by recording vehicle mileages from the actual routes taken. 6

Comparisons between existing and optimised routes Models may allow optimisation according to various criteria such as time taken, distance travelled or some cost function. Optimising rounds according to time taken is a reasonable choice as time is strongly correlated with distance travelled and with cost. Great care should be taken when trying to compare the output from a model with existing rounds to ensure that that the comparison is fair. The new rounds need to be checked by someone with good local knowledge of the road network and of the waste collection requirements of the WCA to ensure that the modelled round is feasible and does not violate any traffic restrictions. Some models may not allow some of the more detailed restrictions to be specified readily e.g. traversing a busy road in both directions and any such limitations should be recognised and accounted for at the start of the modelling process. Many modellers claim that the new, optimised rounds they have derived from CVRS applications make considerable savings when compared with the existing rounds. Any new routes however may contain some quirks that need further investigation. These will be easiest to spot visually using a map, usually produced by the software itself. Alternatively, an oddity may come to light when the modelled distance between two points is far in excess of what it should be. An area for potential error can be the representation of postcodes within the road network. In some cases a postcode may not be recognised at all if, for example, it is for a new property development not contained in the model. In other cases a postcode may be recognised but placed wrongly. Postcodes are typically represented within a model as a centre of gravity and it is this point that is assigned to the nearest road. In some cases the nearest road might not be the correct one. Locating properties Problems of accuracy in locating the households that require collections can occur within the software used (or they can result from the incorrect input of data). This can lead to various errors in the modelling which require correction, including: Properties being inaccurately located in the wrong village or even in the middle of fields, dual carriageways, motorways or roundabouts. Duplicate records. Trade properties being treated as residential. Missing records (these frequently arise from the construction of new housing developments.) 7

4. Case studies a) Joint working in North Hampshire Background The Transportation Research Group at the University of Southampton was commissioned to study the potential benefits of joint collections along the borders of three neighbouring North Hampshire WCAs of Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor (Figure 1). The three WCAs operated a total of 30 RCVs collecting either residual waste or dry recyclables (or both) each day, from a total of 130,000 households. Objectives The main aim of the study was to assess the potential impact of joint working between the three WCAs. Other aspects of waste collection including the implementation of alternate weekly collection and combining the collection of commercial waste alongside domestic waste were also investigated. Modelling approach A single super-authority was modelled using the combined resources (vehicle fleet, staff and depots) of the three individual WCAs. Around one-fifth of the residual waste rounds were modelled in detail in this study, equating to 25 vehicle days work. Since the focus of the research was on joint working, the rounds that were closest to the inter-wca boundaries were chosen for detailed study. The main data sets collected were ordered lists of the streets visited on each vehicle round, and the waste volume collected. From these data the average amount of waste collected from households was derived. Collection rounds were designed with the aid of the software package LogiX, developed by DPS International, a general purpose CVRS package but with street-level mapping for Hampshire supplied. This was considered to be an essential requirement for the modelling. The existing rounds were modelled and compared with newly designed rounds that allowed cross-boundary collections and sharing of resources. Modelling the existing rounds, as specified by the WCAs, proved to be problematic, due to a lack of sufficient detail in the data and, in some cases, errors. As a consequence, it was decided to use LogiX to optimise the existing collection arrangements within each WCA and use these optimal round times as the baseline for comparison with the results from the joint working. Figure 1. Joint working in North Hampshire. Map of case study area 8

Results The modelled benefits of joint working compared to optimised existing rounds were as follows: A resource requirement saving of 4%: the work was reduced from 25 to 24 vehicle days Time savings of 1.4% (approximately 6 minutes per vehicle day) Vehicle mileage saving of 5.9% (approximately 3.3km per vehicle day) The annual distance savings for the selected rounds were estimated to be approximately 4,300 km, equating to an annual cost saving of around 35,000 An estimated reduction of 7.69 tonnes of CO 2 emissions It should be noted that if the existing rounds were not initially optimised with the software then the savings would have been even greater. Building on this work, a further study undertaken by Entec developed models of existing collection rounds for six authorities (Basingstoke and Deane, East Hampshire, Hart, Havant, Portsmouth and Winchester) using the Webaspx RoundManager software. The initial joint working scenario modelled used the resources (depots and facilities) of all six authorities along with their individual data for waste collection. The impact of depot rationalisation was then tested, with two sites removed from the available depot resource to which vehicles could be assigned. The results identify substantial potential savings of nearly a quarter of a million miles per annum, in part through a reduction in total fleet size of six vehicle equivalents (including drivers and loaders). The combined financial benefit was estimated to be in the region of 1 million per annum. 9

b) Redesigning rounds in Lancashire Background Rossendale Borough Council covers an area of 137 square kilometres. The main towns of Bacup, Haslingden, Rawtenstall and Whitworth are surrounded by larger rural areas. There are approximately 28,000 households within the borough. The natural geography of the borough makes waste collection particularly challenging with the main population densities and roads following an H shaped distribution. Prior to the study, the council operated a domestic refuse and dry recyclables collection to all households on alternate weeks (but not necessarily the same day). In addition, they operated fortnightly organic (green) collections from around 15% of the properties (4000). The replacement of a number of vehicles to be specified based on the outcome of the study. Modelling approach The analysis was undertaken by Entec/Webaspx using their Roundbuilder and WasteManager software (Figure 2). The modelling aims were met by carrying out a number of round design scenarios agreed with Rossendale Borough Council. The scenarios modelled included an as is study and a new design. Figure 2. Example screenshot showing round allocations by Rossendale Borough Council The existing collection rounds had been in operation for a number of years but due to changes in the location of the disposal facilities and construction of new properties the council believed that the rounds were less efficient than required. Furthermore, the service operated with an ageing fleet of vehicles, the majority of which were near to the end of their economic life. Objectives Rossendale was mindful of Lancashire County Council s long-term waste disposal contract, which was likely to require the vehicles to deliver to new transfer and disposal facilities. With this in mind the Borough Council was keen to make major changes to the service including: The extension of the green waste collection to cover all properties with a garden (in excess of 50% of households). The absorption of the old green collections and the new ones within a 4-day week (rather than being carried out on a fifth day). The introduction of a same day rule for all collections; i.e. paper, recyclables and green waste all collected on the same day as refuse but on the alternate week. The use of an alternative waste reception facility at the Northern end of the Borough rather than the central reception facility previously used. The as is study revealed that the data provided were not consistent with actual performance in the Borough. It uncovered significant gaps and inconsistencies in the data which were investigated and remedied such that a good level of confidence was established in the modelling. The new design study was carried out imposing a number of new demands on the service: Moving to a restricted same day alternate weekly collection for all services as opposed to mixed days for refuse, recycling and green. In practice this would mean each household having refuse collected on one day one week and all other collections on the same day the next week. Increasing organics collections to cover all houses with a garden (circa 15,000 properties.) Keeping to a 4-day week (4 3 9hr) for all of refuse, dry recyclables, organics and paper. This 10

was different to the current regime of having organics spilling over to a 5 th day. Changing the waste reception facility to the most northerly point in the district from the previously used central location. Looking at the impact of an alternative vehicle depot location. Results The modelling enabled the Council to make all the changes required with one less vehicle and crew than before. They successfully absorbed the full coverage of green properties required on the normal 4 day week and the main waste reception facility was changed to the north of the borough (which would have been impossible with many of the existing rounds). In total the Council saved an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 per year in annual running costs. Rossendale Borough Council have commented that: The work was pivotal in moving us from a situation where we were struggling to deliver our existing service to our current position where we are delivering a more challenging service, better, with less resource. Overall we are delighted with the results of the work. 11

c) Redesigning rounds in Northamptonshire Background The Northamptonshire Waste Partnership is comprised of seven district councils and the county council. Northampton itself is an urban district; Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough are mainly urban with a relatively small proportion of the population living in villages and rural areas while Daventry, East and South Northamptonshire are districts which are mainly rural in nature (Figure 3). Figure 3: The Northampton Waste Partnership area Identify savings achievable by integrating the operations of two or more councils Investigate the further savings that might accrue from a county-wide integrated contract Modelling approach Routing was undertaken using RouteSmart software using specific datasets: Drive Restriction Information (DRI) Weight restrictions in relation to the road network Residential property locations Locations of the waste management facilities and vehicle depots Topographical information from the Ordnance Survey. Information on residential property locations proved to be difficult to obtain and the reliability and accuracy of the data were variable, although minor discrepancies made little or no difference to the results produced. The original source of the data was the Local Land and Property Gazetteer, however this was not 100% accurate and, in its standard form, includes not only residential properties but also commercial, industrial and other types of property. All districts, except East Northamptonshire, operate alternate weekly collection, with the latter collecting residual waste weekly in black bags. The total number of households collected from was around 300,000, requiring a total of around 50 residual waste collection rounds. White Young Green and its subcontractor Integrated Skills Limited were awarded a contract to undertake a routing exercise for the Northamptonshire Waste Partnership. Objectives The study was comprised of four distinct stages: Optimise the collection routes within each district Identify opportunities for savings achieved by cross-boundary working Rounds were generated for two or three different material types: residual waste, green waste (usually the same routes as the residual waste) and recycling. In some districts the 6-wheel vehicles and the 8-wheel vehicles were modelled separately because of their different payloads. Trade waste was also modelled separately, because it would not normally be mixed with waste from residential premises. Similarly, restricted access routes were modelled separately since they cannot be serviced by standard vehicles. Results The results achieved varied markedly between districts. In all districts, small improvements in productivity were achieved in the order of 5 to 10%, either in mileage, labour hours or both. Such results are by no means negligible but more impressive savings were achieved for the district of Daventry which are described in more detail below: 12

Characteristics and Objectives: The Daventry crews worked hard (many loaders were running from one collection point to the next and the kerbsider crews sorted recyclables very quickly) but in the interests of both safety and sorting quality the Management believed that the work rate should be reduced. As a consequence a request for one additional vehicle for both residual waste and recyclables was made. In addition to this the District Council wished to transfer their workforce to a fixed 37 hour week from the existing job-and-finish system. Results before Additional Vehicles: The initial routing before allowing for the planned additional vehicles gave an indication of like-for-like savings which could be achieved by modelling. The results, however, tended to be slightly over-optimistic, as no account was taken of the practicalities of implementing the new rounds. The exercise (only undertaken for residual waste) did show that labour hours would be reduced by nearly 8% and mileage by 20%. Results with Additional Vehicles - Residual Waste: An additional vehicle route had been authorised for a 4-wheeler with a crew of two loaders. This would potentially save some 45,000 p.a., compared with using a 6-wheeler with a driver and two loaders. After discussion with Management and incorporating the additional vehicle as a 4-wheeler, the software demonstrated that the overall labour hours would remain virtually unchanged over the existing system with 7 vehicles. This would mean that no overtime would be required, saving a further 28,000 p.a. The modelling suggested that there would also be sufficient time for drivers to wash their vehicles within the 37 hour week, avoiding a further payment of 17,000 p.a. which is currently awarded to them as a vehicle washing allowance. The overall mileage on the new rounds was reduced by 12%, saving some 14,500 in diesel costs with further savings generated in reduced maintenance. Results with Additional vehicles - Green Waste: Green waste is very seasonal and for 8 months of the year the quantities are substantially lower than in the summer months, to such an extent that a four day week is theoretically possible. Further operational benefits could be realised by splitting each day of work into 4 residual waste and 4 green waste rounds. This would create a better overall balance of workloads for the crews over each two week period. It would also provide additional capacity for residual collections or other tasks at the end of each collection day during the seasonal low demand periods for green waste collection. Re-routing resulted in a 13% reduction in mileage, saving some 10,800 in fuel costs and the overall savings from the modelling process were estimated as 114,300 which was made up as follows: Diesel costs: Overtime: Vehicle washing allowance: Use of 4-wheel vehicle for residual 25,300 28,000 17,000 waste: 45,000 13

d) The impact of a disposal site closure in Kettering Background Kettering Borough Council was faced with the challenge of predicting and managing the impact of the closure of a disposal site used for residual waste collected in the authority s area of operation. Objectives Entec/Webaspx using their RoundManager and Roundbuilder software evaluated three alternative disposal sites, allowing the performance of the existing rounds to be tested under different operating conditions and facilitating the design of new balanced rounds. Modelling approach Kettering s existing services were modelled by capturing data on the rounds and engaging with the operational staff. This was then compared with the relative impacts of moving from the existing disposal site to two alternative landfills (one in Corby, one in Wellingborough) and the possible use of a waste transfer station in Kettering. This analysis identified the optimum disposal point which allowed Kettering Borough Council to justify the choice of a preferred option. Results The modelling resulted in the production of a new set of balanced collection round data that provided the flexibility to cater for three year s growth in the Borough. By deferring the requirement for another refuse vehicle for three years, a saving of 150,000 per annum was identified as being achievable. The analysis helped the Council build a case for the provision of a waste transfer station by demonstrating its economic viability and environmental benefits. 14

e) The impact of alternate weekly collections in Reading Background Reading Borough Council is mainly urban in nature and covers an area of approximately 40 square kilometres to the west of London. Reading has a growing population of approximately 144,000 people, living in around 63,000 properties. The Borough Council was planning a move to alternate weekly collection. Any council wishing to implement them is faced with the challenge of predicting changes in yield and participation on kerbside collections, assessing what impact this may have on collection speed and then redesigning rounds in order to deliver efficient collections. Objectives Approaching the switch to alternate weekly collection the Council had re-routed their vehicle rounds in order to compensate for predicted changes in yield and participation. In order to ensure that these rounds would stand up to different situations, the new rounds were modelled extensively. Modelling approach RoundManager and Roundbuilder software mapped the coverage of the rounds using the council s own property database (Figure 4). Based on historic data of collected waste material on each scheme in Reading the software predicted the likely range of yields and collection speeds that would be experienced on the new collection scheme. This information was used to test the likely performance of the refuse and dry recycling rounds in terms of number of properties served, total distance travelled, time to complete and number of tips required per day. This analysis was undertaken to minimise the risk of rounds being too long (or too short), and to assess the balance of work between the various crews. Results The analysis highlighted some differences in the likely balance of work over the rounds, allowing Reading Borough Council to make modifications to their design before implementation. Following the rollout of alternate weekly collections, Reading Borough Council are monitoring the performance of their rounds as the scheme develops, and making adjustments as necessary to keep a fair balance of work between crews. Figure 4: Example screenshot of RoundManager software. 15

f) Optimising street sweeping routes in Daventry Background CVRS products can be used to optimise street sweeping operations which have a number of unique operating characteristics when compared to traditional refuse collection rounds. These include: Frequency of sweeping Practical Sweeping speed Number of sweeping passes per street segment RouteSmart software has recently been used to optimise street sweeping routes in Daventry, to help improve the level of service. Unfortunately, no tracking information relating to the existing vehicle movements was available and so the new routes were computed using the best assumptions of the operational staff. Daventry was operating 3 mechanical street sweepers and 4 street sweeping vehicles at the time of the research. At the time, the Council provided a street cleansing service throughout the District using: 1 3 Scarab Major (mechanical sweeper) 1 3 Scarab Minor (mechanical sweeper) 1 3 Hako CityMaster (mechanical sweeper) 6 3 litter pickers (3 x caged vans) 2 3 fly-tipping clearers (1 x caged van) 1 3 Barrowman 1 3 Litter picker The Scarab Major and Scarab Minor vehicles operated as a team to provide a mechanical sweep of carriageways throughout the district on a 36 week cycle. Mechanical sweeping of Daventry town was provided by a Hako Citymaster sweeper operating on a 26-day cycle. Litter picking of rural towns and villages was undertaken every 36 weeks with litter bins being emptied either weekly or fortnightly. Objectives It was recognised early on that the Council wished to reconfigure the existing service to achieve cleanliness improvements rather than rationalise on vehicles and crew. RouteSmart was therefore used to identify service frequency enhancements through route optimisation, ultimately resulting in a more frequent cleansing schedule of the Districts streets and paths. Modelling approach For each street within the District, the service requirements i.e. preferred cleansing approach (mechanical sweeper, litter picker, litter bin emptying), and service time were input into the underlying street data. Individual streets could therefore be associated with more than one cleansing approach. For each street, non-service driving speeds were assigned (Table 1), according to road classification Table 1. Non-service speeds by road type used in the RouteSmart street sweeping modelling. Description Travel Driving Speed Types (miles per Allowed hour) Motorway Drive Only 25 A and B road Any 25 single and dual carriageway Local and Minor roads Any 20 Local street urban Any 10 area A and B road links Any 15 Local and Minor road Any 10 links, and Alleys Private and Any 5 Pedestrianised Streets Paths Walk Only 5 In addition, mean service speeds were also assigned to each level of service (5mph for the Scarab Major mechanical sweeper; 3mph for the Hako CityMaster mechanical sweeper; 1.5mph for walking crews (litter picking) and 1 minute to empty a typical litter bin). Rather than task crews with a range of roles that change on a daily basis as is more traditionally employed, the recommended approach focused on specific task-based roles for crews that rotated on a scheduled cycle. RouteSmart was used to address this type of logistical problem as the software can simultaneously evaluate the service requirements of the whole District, whilst dividing the area into 16

manageable daily schedules that also account for driving time to and from disposal facilities and depots. Routes were designed using a 6 hour working day target. This ensured that sufficient daily slack was assigned to each crew to allow for variation in road traffic, cleanliness issues, and breaks. Results Table 2 shows the results of the modelling exercise and what work could be theoretically achieved using the same resources (operatives and equipment): Table 2: Results of street sweeping round optimisation in Daventry Vehicles Crew Old Service Frequency New Service Frequency Mechanical sweeping carriageways Mechanical sweeping Daventry town centre Mechanical sweeping Daventry paths Litter picking rural towns and villages 2 1 3 1 1 6 36 weeks weekly 5 weeks 36 weeks 6 weeks daily 4 weeks 2 weeks Litter picking Daventry 0 1.5 Litter picking carriageway 1 1.5 5 weeks 4 weeks 1 p.a. 3 p.a. The new routes were successfully introduced in August 2008. 17

5. Conclusions Redesigning waste collection rounds can bring noticeable benefits in a relatively short period of time. The most obvious are: Savings in fuel consumption and a reduction in CO 2 emissions A reduction in vehicle use with a positive impact on road congestion Any redesign of waste collection rounds, however, must have at its core: The establishment of KPIs Monitoring of KPIs before and after the proposed change takes place In addition, the opportunities provided by the establishment of closer working relationships with neighboring WCAs should never be overlooked. Action Plan for the redesign of rounds Designing waste rounds is a highly complex task and it is difficult to produce optimal results without the aid of some form of CVRS. Moreover, there is considerable merit in hiring an outside consultant as they are likely to have had extensive experience in the area and in-depth knowledge of software packages. (If this approach is taken it is important that there is an effective input of local knowledge into the process.) Figure 5 outlines a simple approach to take when planning for changes in your existing round structure. Above all remember that no collection round will remain optimum for long. Therefore constant collection and monitoring of KPIs, and benchmarking against similar operations elsewhere, is essential to maintaining efficiency in this challenging area of public sector operations. Figure 5: Action Plan for the redesign of rounds 18

Appendix Computer applications suitable for modelling waste collections: System name(s) Descartes Delivery Management Solution DiPS FleetRoute LogiX (also online system logixcentral.com) Optrak Paragon Roadnet Supplier Descartes Systems UK Limited The Mill House Business Centre Station Road Castle Donington Derby DE74 2NJ Tel: 0870 164 6355 Website: www.descartes.com Distribution Planning Systems Bridge House Bewdley Worcestershire DY12 1AB Tel: 01299 400528 Website: www.dips.co.uk SLR Consulting Ltd (UK distributor) Treenwood House Rowden Lane Bradford on Avon Wiltshire BA15 2AU Tel: 01225 309 400 Websites: www.slrconsulting.co.uk www.fleetroute.com DPS International Ltd Lygon Court Hereward Rise Halesowen West Midlands B62 8AN Tel: 0121 585 6633 Website: www.dps-int.com Optrak Distribution Software Limited Orland House Mead Lane Hertford SG13 7AT Tel: 01992 517100 Website: www.optrak.co.uk Paragon Software Systems plc Allen Court High Street Dorking Surrey RH4 1AY Tel: 01306 732600 Website: www.paragonrouting.com 121 Systems Ltd Sutton Place 49 Stoney Street The Lace Market Nottingham NG1 1LX Tel: 0845 603 1703 Website: www.121logistics.com 19

RoundBuilder/WasteManager RouteSmart/WinRoute TruckStops Webaspx The Heath Runcorn Cheshire WA7 4QX Tel: 01928 513336 Website: www.webaspx.com Integrated Skills Limited (UK distributor) Rownhams House Rownhams Southampton SO16 8LS Tel: 023 8073 7983 Websites: www.routesmart.com www.integrated-skills.com MapMechanics Canal Court 155 High Street Brentford TW8 8JA Tel: 020 8568 7000 Website: www.mapmechanics.com This list is not exhaustive and has been compiled from information currently available to the Freight Best Practice Programme. The listing of an organisation does not constitute an endorsement by Freight Best Practice of its products, services or competence and neither does the omission of an organisation discriminate against its products, services or competence. There are many other CVRS available which would be suitable for modelling waste collection rounds. There does exist however three CVRS applications that have been specifically designed for modelling this particular type of operation: RoundBuilder/WasteManager (Webaspx/Entec) (http://www.webaspx.com) RouteSmart (RouteSmart Technologies/ Integrated Skills Limited) (http://www.routesmart.com/) FleetRoute (Civix Software/SLR Consulting) (http://www.fleetroute.com/) Further reading: McLeod FN and Cherrett TJ (2006) Modelling the benefits of joint working between waste collection authorities. Proceedings of the Waste 2006 Conference, 19-21 September 2006, Stratford-upon- Avon, pp799-808. 20

Freight Best Practice publications, including those listed below, can be obtained FREE of charge by calling the Hotline on 0845 877 0 877 or by downloading them from the website www.freightbestpractice.org.uk Fuel Management Guide Saving FUEL This is the definitive guide to improving the fuel performance of your fleet. It gives step-by-step explanations of the key elements of fuel management, how to measure performance and how to implement an effective improvement programme. Performance MANAGEMENT Monitoring and Understanding CO 2 Emissions from Road Freight Operations This guide provides step by step advice for creating a comprehensive CO 2 inventory and the benefits this can bring. It provides templates to enable the reader to monitor the amount of CO 2 produced by its Trucks, Vans, Warehouses, MHE and Company Cars. Power to Your People Developing SKILLS This case study provides examples of change management and motivational techniques employed to improve efficiency and morale in three transport operations. Multi-MODAL Interactive Multi-modal Map coming soon This map allows you to identify terminals that could be used to transfer loads from road to either rail or water (or both). The map provides details on where these terminals are located, who operates them and how to contact them. It should be your first port of call to transferring to alternative modes of transport. Equipment & SYSTEMS Make Back-loading Work for You This guide shows you how to find and choose backloads in order to improve your fleet efficiency. Case STUDIES There are over 25 case studies showing how companies have implemented best practice and the savings achieved including: Short Haul Rail Freighton Track for Profits in Scotland Switch for Sustainability Tesco Sets the Pace on Low Carbon and Efficiency ISBN 978-1-84864-041-2 9 781848 640412 November 2009. Printed in the UK on paper containing 100% recycled fibre. FBP1111 # Queens Printer and Controller of HMSO 2009. Multi-MODAL