construction logistics programme · 2017. 9. 4. · presentation to tfl clig investigating the...
TRANSCRIPT
CONSTRUCTION LOGISTICS
PROGRAMME
Construction Logistics Improvement Group Meeting 4
Ref Item Timing Lead
1Introductions and review of actions from working
groups20 GD
2Construction Logistics Plans: update to guidance
and tool50 Arup
3Discussion: How should we communicate the
Construction Logistics Programme? 20 GD
4 Break 15
5Investigating the construction industry’s use of HGV
types20 WSP
6Investigating the impacts caused by construction
delivery inefficiencies25 Aecom
7Isle of Dogs and South Poplar Opportunity Area -
transport and movement 25 TfL
8Next steps and AOB
5 GD
Introductions
▪ Organisation and role
▪ Review of Working Group actions
Standard method of communications
Establishing industry change initiativesActions Workstreams 1 and 2
Item Action Progress
Data sources and collection
CLIG to review report on planning and supply data from MPA and also info from LAWG (in progress – currently trying to source report from MPA.
A monitoring report from London Aggregates Working Group has now been provided by Ian Brooker)
Wharves Mapping study
TfL / PLA to incorporate the points based on Water freight toolkit from CLIG into study
TfL is meeting with Canal & River Trust on 3rd April to start the ball rolling and then to include PLA in follow up session
Tipper Rigid study Invite CLIG members to participate in the study
A call has gone out with the meeting minutes and WSP will present on 29th so further opportunities for engagement through that session
CLPs Various actions were on Dan at Arup
Dan presenting at the meeting and will have an update covering the actions and will also provide a hand out for the draft CLP template
Standard method of communications
Establishing industry change initiativesActions Workstream 3
Item Action ProgressExisting rail and water freight activity
IB to source C & RT report and contact LAPW for materials moved by water and river
IB has provided the Aggregates Monitoring report from London Aggregates Working Group dated September 2016, but has not been able to get the CRT report
Review collaboration methods that support logistics efficiency
CLIG to review and put forward some case studies that demonstrate logistics efficiency
Suggest a call goes out to CLIG for this
FORS TfL to ensure consolidation centres are ranked the level of FORS specified in contracts rather than the fleet operated. All centres need to be specifying CLOCS Standard as a minimum
TfL actioning
Consolidation centres CLIG to discuss and agree the criteria that defines a consolidation centre and identify the business benefits and best practices as part of directory update
AOB at CLIG if time – otherwise for table for another CLIG meeting
Barriers study Various actions on SDG SDG no longer presenting at the meeting and are currently focussing on increasing the numbers of interviews – further updates to be given at the next CLIG
Standard method of communications
Establishing industry change initiativesActions Workstream 4
Item Action ProgressOAPFs Develop methodology for establishing
the key elements of high impact construction sites within OAPFs to help inform a document on infrastructure plans and routes
Suggest for discussion at future CLIG session
Inefficient deliveries study
AECOM to include interviews with drivers as part of inefficient deliveries study i.e. who gave instructions, how their journeys are planned
AECOM to give an update as part of their presentation at CLIG
Environmental impact
Garry Lewis (Tarmac) attends the LoCITY steering group as CLIG representative and provide feedback on LoCity developments and progress
Standing item to be included in WG
Re timing programme
Some work needs to be done on this retiming programme as currently not fit for purpose
CLIG to review – suggest tabling at a future meeting
DVS consultation CLIG members to express views as to how TfL can practicably achieve the Mayor’s commitment to the current HGV DVS consultation
Remind at CLIG – consultation closing date is 18 April
Working groups Merge WG3 and WG4 into one WG on Planned Measures
To be done
Construction Logistics Plans – Update to
guidance and tool
Construction Logistics Plan Project: Update to
CLIG
Wednesday 29 March
Dan Evanson
Presentation Scope
• CLP Technical Guidance Update
• CLP Training update
• Forthcoming project dates of note
• Questions
Technical Guidance ipdf update
Key Technical Guidance Alterations
As a reminder, we aimed to consider the following:
• Content and language have been refined – SIMPLE
• There is less ambiguity in the guidance – CLEAR
• There are now multiple levels – PROPORTIONATE
• The guidance follows a clearly defined structure –CONSISTENT
• Tables required are produced automatically by the Trip Generator Template that accompanies the Guidance –EFFICIENT
• The use of a standardised methodology will enable accurate review – COMPARABLE
CLP Technical Guidance Update
• Since I last presented the ipdf to you it has been discussed at the CLIG Workstream 2 working Group group meeting
• The output of this is a revised draft of a new CLP Technical Guidance Document
• Major changes are few but…. it will be printable!• Reined in some of the language so that we reiterate
rather than re-write existing CLP policy• Have added definitions to deliver the clarity and
consistency required
CLP Technical Guidance Update
Medium impact site
• For developments with a medium impact, the overall programme will need to be identified including the start of demolition/enabling works and the peak period of activity.
High impact site
• For developments with a high impact, the pre-contract engagement of a contractor or construction logistics expert is suggested to ensure the Outline CLP is as accurate and realistic as possible. The programme for the works should be defined including start and end dates for each stage of construction and a description of how works are expected to occur at the different stages.
CLP Technical Guidance Update
• We would like to confirm some areas of the guidance with you:
• Outline CLP
• Medium impact
CLP Technical Guidance Update
• We would like to confirm some areas of the guidance with you:
• Outline CLP
• High impact
CLP Technical Guidance Update
• We would like to confirm some areas of the guidance with you:
• Detailed CLP
• Medium impact
CLP Technical Guidance Update
• We would like to confirm some areas of the guidance with you:
• Detailed CLP
• High impact
CLP Trip Generation Template
From this…..To this!
CLP Training Update
• Engaging interactive sessions that provide delegates with the opportunity to both explore the new guidance and then put their learning into practice
• The training takes a balanced approach – acknowledging the challenges that individuals face and providing them with the opportunity to consider solutions and ways around these
• Brings together individuals from across the industry facilitating collaboration opportunities and allowing them to network
• Accredited by the CILT
Last time I told you we were adopting a novel training approach.
This time I thought I’d just show you:
Forthcoming dates of interest
• Late February: Tech Guidance Draft Shared with CLIG volunteers
• 14 April: Final Draft Guidance submitted (original date was 13 March)
• By 1 May: Pilot training delivered• This is a key focus – we are holding 5/6 May
(Thursday/Friday)• please let us know if you would like to attend?
• 22 May: Full training delivery begins • There will be some 200 funded places, please register
your interest with me
Any Questions?
Open discussion:
How should we communicate the Construction Logistics Programme?
Standard method of communications
Establishing industry change initiatives
Some effect but no
industry wide
movement
Localised action but
not debated in any
detail
Standard method of communications
Establishing industry change initiatives
Background to successful communications
Powerful industry-led change initiatives
Over 400 champions
signed up
Over 4000 operators
accredited
Over 1000
stakeholders involved
Communicating construction logistics
Where do we want to be?
Communicating construction logistics
How are we going to get there?
Research
• Construction industry’s use of HGV types
• Impacts caused by construction delivery inefficiencies
• Barriers to River and Rail
• Old Oak and Park Royal Construction Logistics Strategy
Communicating construction logistics
Discussion points
• Should the programme be positioned as industry led or TfL led?
• Should the programme develop a branding identity that is
carried through all assets?
• Should the programme develop a web presence that is
independent from the TfL dot gov domain?
• How does the programme engage with the wider industry, what
does the stakeholder look like?
• Are there any other communications points to consider?
How should programme
communications be funded?
Break
Investigating the construction industry’s
use of HGV types
Presentation to TfL CLIG
Investigating The
Construction
Industry’s Use Of
HGV Types
March 2017
CONTENT
32
Why TfL is interested in this issue
How we are undertaking the study
Questions
▪ WHY are rigids preferred
▪ WHAT can be done to promote artics
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
33
To conduct a technical comparison into the use of Rigid versus
Articulated HGV Combinations, within the construction industry -
including the reasons for use, barriers to entry and a commercial,
environmental and safety benefit analysis.
Leads to more congestion, potentially more emissions, more
accidents, and increased costs for the construction industry
=
MIXED MESSAGES
34
London sites
are
constrained
We need a
common
vehicle to
serve all jobs
They seem to
use more
artics abroad
We are
investing in
artic tippers
Its too easy
to overload
an artic
Artic tippers
are not safe
It’s a
construction
culture thing
Artic mixers
are too big
for most jobs
OTHER OBJECTIVES
35
Covers tippers and mixers
Who receives commercial gain from
improved efficiency?
The role of dealers and manufacturers
Client contractual arrangements
Understand procurement decision making
process
Driver availability
HOW: BACKGROUND RESEARCH
36
UK and International
What research has already been done?
What construction vehicle specification and operational guidance
has been issued and by whom?
Which accident reports and/or safety recommendations exist for
vehicles on construction sites?
Which technological solutions have been developed to ensure tipper
and mixer (rigid and artic) safety at loading points and on
construction sites?
Data on vehicle registrations and use in London
WHO: INTERVIEWS
37
Transport Operators
Overseas (EU Based)
Transport Operators
Commercial Vehicle Dealers
Vehicle Manufacturers
Bodybuilders HGV Drivers
DevelopersConstruction Companies
WHO: WE NEED YOUR HELP!
38
We assume all CLIG members
would love to be interviewed!
We would like your suggestions for
named interviewees, particularly:
▪ Dealers
▪ Body builders
▪ Transport operators
QUESTIONS: WHY?
39
Why are rigids
used in preference
to artics?
QUESTIONS: WHAT CAN BE DONE?
40
How can the industry be encouraged to make more use of artics?
▪ Technical solutions?
▪ Better information?
▪ Spreading best practice?
▪ Role of CLPs and CLOCS?
▪ Regulation / enforcement?
Investigating the impacts caused by
construction delivery inefficiencies
Client logo
Project UpdateInvestigating the Impacts caused by Construction Delivery
Inefficiencies
March 29, 2017
Paul Wilkes, Associate Director
AECOM
Project Progress
Page 43Delivery Inefficiency Research
Task 1•Project Initiation and Project Management
Task 2•Develop a Primary Research Plan
Task 3•Build and Manage a Contact Management Database
Task 4•Site Selection and Commissioning
Task5•Data Collection
Task 6•Presentation of Initial Insights
Task 7•Develop an Impact Assessment Model
Task 8•Data Analysis and Impact Modelling
Task 9•Reporting
Task 10•Presentation of Final Findings
March 29, 2017
Site Selection Requirements
Page 44Delivery Inefficiency Research
• 12 sites – 6 manual and 6 remote monitoring
• Central/ Inner / Outer London representation
• Mix of phases of construction
• DMS / No DMS / Holding Areas / No Holding Areas
• Efficient and less efficient sites
How do you identify the less efficient sites?
March 29, 2017
Identifying the less efficient sites
Page 45Delivery Inefficiency Research
• A select group of Hauliers was invited to participate in a survey in January.
• We are now contacting additional Hauliers to gather feedback on their delivery process.
1) Based on your experience what are the main reasons behind construction delivery inefficiencies?2) How do you usually arrange your deliveries (i.e. by delivery management system)?3) Are there any sites in London that are noticeably less efficient at receiving deliveries?4) Waiting times to certain sites are perceived to be high. Do you believe there is a reason for this?
March 29, 2017
Site selection and commissioning
Page 46Delivery Inefficiency Research
Location Name Type Construction Stage Site StatusCentral - Camden Pilot Site Educational Excavation and Foundations PilotCentral - Southwark Kirtling Street (and Hammersmith) Infrastructure Site Establishment, Clearance &
AlterationsConfirmed
Inner - H & F Hammersmith Pumping Station Infrastructure Excavation and Foundations ConfirmedOuter - Heathrow Heathrow Airport Infrastructure To be confirmed ConfirmedInner - Camden Castlehaven road ConfirmedOuter - Hackney Wick A12 Surfacing Infrastructure ConfirmedInner - Camden Bacton Low Rise Residential Site setup and demolition Waiting for ConfirmationInner - Enfield Tottenham Stadium Infrastructure To be confirmed Waiting for Confirmation
Outer - Brentford Sky Campus CommercialFit Out, testing and commissioning Waiting for Confirmation
Inner - London Liverpool Street To be confirmed To be confirmed Waiting for ConfirmationInner - London Farringdon Street To be confirmed To be confirmed Waiting for Confirmation
Construction sites have been selected to represent a good mix of:• Construction types• Construction phases• With/without holding areaWe are looking to include more sites.
PendingConfirmedPilot
March 29, 2017
Data Collection
Page 47Delivery Inefficiency Research
• Manual data collection
March 29, 2017
Pilot Site – an opportunity to test and update our data collection processes
Page 48Delivery Inefficiency Research
- W/C the 20th February
- Safety process
- Site reconnaissance
- Perform one day worth of manual data collection
- Update form and processes for data collection
- Combine collected data to received DMS data
- Gap Analysis for impact modelling development
March 29, 2017
Initial insights
March 29, 2017 Page 49Delivery Inefficiency Research
Data
• Time spent on site for delivery/muckaway vehicles can vary significantly at different sites. The mean time a delivery/muckaway vehicle spent at one of the sites varied from 26 minutes to 45 minutes (depending on the day).
• The variation in this mean time often came from incidents on site (equipment breaking down, vehicles blocking logistics bays).
• Some sites under-booked vehicle deliveries significantly (only 26% of vehicles entering site were booked)
- Vehicles turning out without booking were able to access the site by making an emergency booking.- A small number were turned away.
Initial insights
Page 50Delivery Inefficiency Research
Data continued
• Other sites overbooked vehicle deliveries (only 40% of booked deliveries actually arrived on site during observation period).
• The standard deviation for delivery time was consistently around 25 minutes (i.e. some vehicles spent 10 minutes, others 100 minutes).
• So far, less than 5% of deliveries have not been accepted on site.
• Initial observations suggest that delivery/muckaway vehicles tend to arrive in batches
March 29, 2017
Initial insights
Page 51Delivery Inefficiency Research
Delivery Management System (DMS)
• DMS appear to be used to schedule a significant proportion, but not all vehicle trips. Also appears there is some speculative booking of slots to cover all eventualities.
• Significant variance witnessed between scheduled vehicle arrival time and actual arrival time at site in some case. Although this didn’t lead to the vehicle being turned away (if late) or having to wait (if early).
• Vehicles with no booking were witnessed either being turned away (failed delivery) or having to call the site to make an emergency booking and having to wait to gain entry.
March 29, 2017
Initial insights
Page 52Delivery Inefficiency Research
Vehicle Holding areas
• They allow site gate staff to check vehicles against DMS schedules and in particular sort out issues i.e. vehicles not booked in
• Vehicles can be held as necessary to allow others vehicles to clear the site or if a problem occurs on site
• Multiple vehicles i.e. tippers during the excavation phase can queue and allow almost seamless excavation and loading of vehicles to occur
• The holding areas require careful and assertive management by gate staff / traffic marshals to ensure vehicles / drivers manoeuvre / park up properly and cause minimal disruption to other road users and VRUs
March 29, 2017
Initial insights
Page 53Delivery Inefficiency Research
Safety
• Depending on site location, several pedestrians tried to walk through the logistics zone to get through to the other side of the site. They were all stopped before entering but all attempted to enter the logistics zone.
• At least one cyclist cycled along a footpath as he could not use the road running through the Logistics Zone.
• The safety impacts of the logistics zone and its impact on pedestrians could be modelled along with the impact on pedestrian flows, although outside of the scope of the study.
March 29, 2017
What’s next?
Page 54Delivery Inefficiency Research
• Follow up data collection
• Carry out site inspections in advance of data collection at agreed sites
• Data analysis and Impact assessment modelling
• Congestion• Incidents• Air Quality• Noise• Infrastructure
• Review findings
March 29, 2017
Client logo
Thank you
March 29, 2017
Isle of Dogs and South Poplar Opportunity
Area - Transport and Movement
Supporting communities and enabling growth March 2017
Isle of Dogs and South PoplarOpportunity Area Planning Framework
Isle of Dogs and South PoplarTransport Briefing Pack
The purpose of this briefing pack is to highlight the transport work programme, challenges and proposed draft interventions to support the OAPF.
Contents
▪ Opportunity and Growth Areas
▪ OAPF transport challenges
▪ Interventions and measures to address challenges
▪ Focus on: Freight
The need to proactively support Opportunity Areas
Significant growth across the east and south east sub-region, most of which will be housed through Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification
East and south east London sub-region is forecast to grow by 160,000 jobs and 600,000 people by 2031 (current London Plan)
A significant proportion of this will take place within the Isle of Dogs and South Poplar Opportunity Area –There is a need to proactively plan and support growth as well as existing communities here
60
Isle of Dogs and South Poplar Transport Challenges
OAPF Transport & movement challenges
Maximise transport investment and use across the OA
61
Improve local connectivity and reduce severance
Manage public transport crowding and capacity
Enable the highway network to maintain an acceptable level of performance
Enable travel by sustainable modes and behavioural change
Emerging Mayor’s Transport Strategy priorities• Delivering a good public
transport experience• Healthy streets and healthy
people• Supporting the economy, new
homes and jobs
62
Isle of Dogs and South PoplarInterventions to address challenges
Transport and movement key principles
Strategic capacity
enhancement
Reducing severance
through new and improved connections
Creating healthy streets
Improving how we travel
Making better use of the
public transport network
63
64
Making better use of the public transport network
DLR slide
Enhancements to DLR Network to create metro-style system▪ DLR rolling stock replacement
programme rolled out across network
▪ Incremental service patterns to provide significant capacity to network – 30tph network wide
▪ Station upgrades and enhancements (including public realm), e.g. Crossharbour & Poplar
▪ Enable travel choice through improved access to/from South Quay and Poplar stations, e.g. bridges
▪ Wider influence of transport corridors – e.g. effect of improving interchange at Lewisham and Shadwell
65
Making better use of the public transport network
More can be done to make best use of the strategic public transport network. This could include: ▪ Jubilee Line capacity
enhancements 2019 and beyond
▪ Potential Elizabeth Line enhancements
▪ Proposed Elizabeth Line extension to Slade Green
DLR slide
The Isle of Dogs and South Poplar sits at the epicentre of broader change and growth in London.
TfL is looking at to how public transport needs to support inner east London up to 2041, through further enhancements to the existing public transport network and the potential for new infrastructure and services entirely.
66
Strategic capacity enhancement
Leamouth
▪ A series of further bridges have been proposed across Leamouth and will be taken forward as part of the Housing Zone and Royal Docks OAPF / EZ LEP Bid
North Greenwich – Isle of Dogs
▪ Short term - New pier/river services to enable walking and cycling connectivity
67
Reducing severance through new and improved connections (1)
Rotherhithe – Isle of Dogs▪ TfL looking at
feasibility for a fixed crossing between Southwark and Tower Hamlets
River Crossings Package
Decking Aspen Way / Poplar DLR Depot
68
Reducing severance through new and improved connections (2)
Pre-feasibility work has taken place to understand potential for decked structure across Aspen Way and DLR depot in order to address N-S physical severance and barriers to travel
To get full benefit of the scheme it would need to include interfaces with Billingsgate, Tower Hamlets College, North Quay and Poplar High Street
Assumes upgraded Poplar station, providing new key interchange and access point to Poplar, Canary Wharf and Crossrail.
Assumes Aspen Way footbridge upgrade to the west
Ongoing engagement taking place (via OAPF) with Canary Wharf Group, LBTH, Poplar Harca & other associated landowners
Early draft proposal
Indicative areas of interface
North Quay
South Poplar
Billingsgate
Early draft proposal
Indicative areas of interface
South Dock Bridge package▪ Working in partnership with LBTH to
look at new crossings at South Dock▪ Phase 1 (optioneering and feasibility)
has identified a preferred crossing point 1 and second crossings on site of existing Wilkinson Bridge or further west (2)
▪ New fit-for-purpose bridge infrastructure would enable resilience and crowding relief for DLR
▪ Phase 2 of the work (which could lead to Planning Application) due to take place in 2017
▪ Engagement has taken place with interested parties throughout process
Other bridges▪ Further work is being undertaken
(via planning application process) to understand what improvements are needed for Pepper Street Bridge and Poplar footbridge.
69
Reducing severance through new and improved connections (3)
12X X X
1 Primary Preferred Alignment 2 Other additional alignments3 Discounted Alignments*XX1
3
▪ We need to make more efficient use of the road space, through facilitating use of space-efficient forms of transport which focus on the movement of people and goods, rather than vehicles
▪ Create an environment that encourages people to walk and cycle for local journeys and the last mile of longer journeys
▪ Reduce pressure on the public transport network through a range of viable alternative options
▪ Improve health and wellbeing through providing a network of safe and attractive connections linking existing and emerging neighbourhoods and centres
70
Creating healthy streets (1)
A vision for new and upgraded local connections in the OA, to:
A Local Connections Strategy and Design Guide will look to address the barriers to active travel in the OA, as part of a wider package of measures to mitigate the impact of growth in the area over the twenty year OAPF plan period.
71
Creating healthy streets (2)
Orientating: Enhancing local character and identity through a sequence of connected public realm and open space assets.
Proposals: Thames Path upgrades; station public realm improvements; wayfinding strategy
Bridging: Overcoming local barriers to movement including the waterways and major lines of infrastructure.
Proposals: South Dock bridges; Leamouth bridges; Aspen Way footbridge
Upgrading: Investing in the existing street network to ensure the needs of all users are balanced and the street environment is safe, inviting and attractive.
Proposals: Improvements to pedestrian and cycle safety, accessibility and public realm upgrades on key corridors in the OA, junction improvements; connections to CS3; freight infrastructure.
Linking BridgingLinking: Major new connections within the OA and outwards to surrounding areas.
Proposals: New cross-river connections; North-south spine through the OA; Aspen Way decking; connections to the Leaway to Poplar Riverside Housing Zone
Orientating Upgrading
72
Improving how we travel
The transport package needs to provide genuine alternatives to car use, as well as provide greater choice in how we travel to enable access to opportunities
In addition to infrastructure, there needs to be consideration for how people and goods travel. This could include:
Address the dominance of peak travel
Growth in the OA increases the potential for internalised and local trips
Provide enhanced information and travel planning measures to help us manage how and when we travel, e.g. congestion hotspots
A freight and servicing strategy
A robust strategy and package of measures to manage construction, servicing and delivery through the OA.
An appropriate approach to cycle parking, storage, together with car parking, to be considered within the planning process
Summary - Outline draft strategic and local transport requirements
73Subject to change as work programme develops
74
Focus on freight
Freight – Working at the OAPF scale
• TfL works at a number of levels to make freight safer, greener and more efficient:
– Industry level: FORS, CLOCS, Direct Vision Standard
– The city scale: Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ)
– Development scale: Construction Logistics Plans & Delivery and Serving Plans
– Opportunity Area scale: Opportunity Area Planning Framework
• Area of high growth
• The need to plan for good growth is recognised
• Planning freight transport is key to achieving good growth in OAPF
75
Freight - Construction, delivery and servicing
Delivery and servicing freight
• Understand the challenge– Forecast freight generation
and impact
• Set up a process for mitigation– Charter?– Working groups?– DSP requirements
• Achieve safe, green efficient freight solutions– Coordination, Consolidation
Re-mode, Re-time
76
Construction freight
• Understand the challenge– Study to forecast freight
generation and impact
• Set up a process for mitigation– Construction Charter– Working groups– CLP requirements
• Achieve safe, green efficient freight solutions– Coordination, Consolidation,
Re-mode, Re-time
Learning lessons and transferring knowledge from other Opportunity Areas
Summary and Next Steps
Future meetings:
1. CLIG – proposal to hold meetings
three times a year from now on
2. Sub Groups – dates tbc
Thank you