CONSTRUCTION LOGISTICS PROGRAMME Construction Logistics Improvement - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CONSTRUCTION LOGISTICS PROGRAMME

Construction Logistics Improvement Group Meeting 4

Ref Item Timing Lead 1 Introductions and review of actions from working groups 20 GD 2 Construction Logistics Plans: update to guidance and tool 50 Arup 3 Discussion: How should we communicate the Construction Logistics Programme? 20 GD 4 Break 15 5 Investigating the construction industry’s use of HGV types 20 WSP 6 Investigating the impacts caused by construction delivery inefficiencies 25 Aecom 7 Isle of Dogs and South Poplar Opportunity Area - transport and movement 25 TfL 8 Next steps and AOB 5 GD

Introductions

▪ Organisation and role ▪ Review of Working Group actions

Standard method of communications

Establishing industry change initiatives

Actions 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

• n 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 initiatives

Actions Workstream 3

Item Action Progress Existing 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

• perated. 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 initiatives

Actions Workstream 4

Item Action Progress OAPFs 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

• pportunity 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

• pportunity 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?

dan.evanson@arup.co.uk

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 Developers Construction 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 Update

Investigating the Impacts caused by Construction Delivery Inefficiencies

March 29, 2017

Paul Wilkes, Associate Director AECOM

Project Progress

Page 43 Delivery 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 44 Delivery 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 45 Delivery 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 46 Delivery Inefficiency Research

Location Name Type Construction Stage Site Status Central - Camden Pilot Site Educational Excavation and Foundations Pilot Central - Southwark Kirtling Street (and Hammersmith) Infrastructure Site Establishment, Clearance & Alterations Confirmed Inner - H & F Hammersmith Pumping Station Infrastructure Excavation and Foundations Confirmed Outer - Heathrow Heathrow Airport Infrastructure To be confirmed Confirmed Inner - Camden Castlehaven road Confirmed Outer - Hackney Wick A12 Surfacing Infrastructure Confirmed Inner - Camden Bacton Low Rise Residential Site setup and demolition Waiting for Confirmation Inner - Enfield Tottenham Stadium Infrastructure To be confirmed Waiting for Confirmation Outer - Brentford Sky Campus Commercial Fit Out, testing and commissioning Waiting for Confirmation Inner - London Liverpool Street To be confirmed To be confirmed Waiting for Confirmation Inner - 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 area

We are looking to include more sites.

Pending Confirmed Pilot

March 29, 2017

Data Collection

Page 47 Delivery Inefficiency Research

• Manual data collection

March 29, 2017

Pilot Site – an opportunity to test and update

• ur data collection processes

Page 48 Delivery 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 49 Delivery 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 50 Delivery 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 51 Delivery 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 52 Delivery 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

• ccur
• 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 53 Delivery 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

• utside of the scope of the study.

March 29, 2017

What’s next?

Page 54 Delivery 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 Poplar Opportunity Area Planning Framework

Isle of Dogs and South Poplar Transport 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 Poplar Interventions 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

• f 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)

1 2 X X X 1 Primary Preferred Alignment 2 Other additional alignments 3 Discounted Alignments* X X 1 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 Bridging

Linking: 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

• pportunities

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

73

Subject 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

IODSP@tfl.gov.uk

Questions?

77

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