Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

City of Virginia Beach Solid Waste Collection Routing Software Consulting Service

1,935 views

Published on

Waste collection routing software was used by Route Optimization Consultants (Kevin Callen) and SCS Engineers (Bob Gardner) for the City of Virginia Beach (John Barnes) to improve the efficiency of the City's waste routing for its 124,000 households. The presentation was presented at the SWANA WasteCon 2014 conference.

Published in: Software
  • Be the first to comment

City of Virginia Beach Solid Waste Collection Routing Software Consulting Service

  1. 1. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION ROUTING OPTIMIZATION: THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH STORY Robert B. Gardner, PE, BCEE Senior Vice President SCS Engineers Norfolk, Virginia John C. Barnes, PE Waste Management Administrator Virginia Beach, Virginia Kevin Callen Principal Route Optimization Consultants Manassas, Virginia
  2. 2. Overview • Background • Demographics and Approach • Routing Evaluations and Results
  3. 3. Background • Why was route optimization needed? – Early completion times due to: • Reduction in tonnage • Increased collection capacity due to switch from single axle to tandem – Workload imbalance – Stewards of the citizens money – Potential for privatization
  4. 4. Background • Prior to 2008 - Route boundaries understood by operators; but not drawn • 2008 - Manually balanced routes • 2012 –Route Optimization and Right Size Study initiated
  5. 5. Background • Routing Options – Don’t Route or balance – Manual balance routes – Route Optimization • Perform In house – Limited staff availability and computer expertise • Contract – Expertise with collections, software, data analysis, safety, equipment, and industry practices – Improved confidence in results
  6. 6. Demographics and Approach • Demographics • Collection Service
  7. 7. Rural areas Beach areas Urban areas
  8. 8. Demographics and Approach • Demographics • Collection Service • Pre-study statistics – Equipment mix – Coordinator boundaries
  9. 9. Tandem Axel– Red Single Axel - Green
  10. 10. Route Coordinator Areas of 5-8 Routes Each
  11. 11. Original Routes Hours 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Friday Thursday Wednesday Tuesday Day Time (hrs) Stops Containers Mileage Total Tons Dump Trips Number of Trucks Average Time per Route (hrs) Tuesday 356.1 30,185 35,530 2,461 587 116 39 9.1 Wednesday 344.5 31,048 34,794 2,266 604 114 38 9.1 Thursday 317.5 31,313 34,689 1,259 609 115 38 8.4 Friday 337.2 31,525 34,790 1,925 613 115 38 8.9 Total 1,355.2 124,071 139,803 7,911 2,414 460 153 35.4 Average 338.8 31,018 34,951 1,978 604 115 38 8.9 Range 38.6 1,340 841 1,202 26 2 1 0.8
  12. 12. Three Phase Implementation Plan • Phase I – 2013 - Complete • 22 tandem trucks and 13 single axle trucks • 35 routes per day • 27 total tandem trucks in fleet • Phase II – 2014 – Complete • 27 tandem trucks and 5 single axle trucks • 32 routes • 32 total tandem trucks in fleet • Phase III – 2015 – Under Design • Estimated 30 routes per day (Tuesday with 5 single axles; Friday with none) • 37 total tandem trucks in fleet
  13. 13. Data Set-up Between Phases 1, II, & III • Generating Baseline Statistics for Comparison – Phase I – Phases II & III
  14. 14. Phase I • Route for mix of Tandem and Single Axle • Model calibrated to match existing production rates • Conducted area routing and path routing
  15. 15. Phase I Results • Reduced weekly routes from 153 to 143 • 11% reduction in route hours • 12% reduction in mileage • 17% reduction in dump trips • Path routing done, but not used • Operational adjustments were “bumpy”
  16. 16. Phase II • Route for additional Tandems • Did not do complete re-route • Improved accuracy of address data • Improved weight ticket data • GPS installed and available
  17. 17. Phase II Results • Reduced routes from 143 to 128 • Additional 9% reduction in the number of routes • Additional10% reduction in labor hours • Improved mapping • Operators easily adapted
  18. 18. 3rd and Final Phase (Under Design) • Review Day boundaries for workload imbalance and future development • All required tandems available • Complete re-route • Safety and limited access streets inventoried
  19. 19. Comparison of Route Optimization Software • Common Features – Did not create highly usable travel paths – Provided unique modeling of the waste routes • FleetRoute – No historical route productivity data needed – Better handling of mixed density areas with rural and suburban neighborhoods • WMDesign – Processed route solutions significantly faster – More accurate setup using actual productivity rates
  20. 20. Safety Improvements • Identified limited access streets • Established routes for dedicated back-down truck with spotter • Identified streets with service time constraints • Some single axles required to service limited access and backing streets
  21. 21. Additional Tasks • Routing for bulk item collections (point to point) • Yard debris routes; vary by subdivision, tree cover, grass, season, etc
  22. 22. Lessons Learned • Safety Improvements • Change is hard; expect resistance • Anticipate ripple effects as much as possible • Need good maps • Path routing not useful
  23. 23. Overall Results • Reduced routes from 38 to 30 • Cost savings : – $2,000,000 reduction in equipment inventory – $784,000 annual savings in personnel, equipment maintenance and fuel • Completion time • City leadership and Collection Fee Customers

×