1. Route Redesign Using GPS A case study on Claremore, OK Presented by Tim Miller Director of Utilities Claremore, OK

2. Why Redesign Routes  Routes were done in an employees head, no formal routes were written down.  Employee turnover meant that new hands were trained on what previous employee could remember about route and many things were forgotten as information was passed down.  As new employees learned routes, each driver had preferences on where to start and where to “break-off” to go to the dump. With little to no standardization, drivers were constantly changing routes to fit their personal desires and in many cases, duplicating work.  As a result there were 4 trucks needed and we received many complaints about missed trash and untimely pickups.  In addition to customer complaints there were regularly large amounts of overtime, making the operation too costly to continue in this same manner.

3. How to Redesign Using GPS Tracking  Set GPS units on vehicles to track their daily routes  Units can be installed simply with 12-volt power and antenna space  Compile raw data to analyze routes  Determine where routes overlap  Intersection crossovers  Streets used more than once for travel instead of pickup  Duplication of routes and areas covered in more than one manner (i.e. 2 drivers covering the same road).  Utilize professional route optimization company to redesign routes  Benefits – Specialized company redesigns routes, ensuring accuracy and feasibility  Constraints – Professional optimization is costly, smaller cities may not have funds for a project of this nature.  Using a GPS system to do “In-House” routing is a one time event, the system will not update itself or compile routes for you.  Software can be purchased for the types of operations.

4. Route Redesign Parameters  Routes must be designed for success. Use some simple mathematic formulas to ensure that your proposed route will be feasible.  Utilize raw data to redesign routes  Work with route drivers to redesign routes  Utilize driver knowledge and experience to ensure feasibility of redesigned routes, making sure that you are interpreting the map in the same way. This keeps you from assuming a street is connected where is it actually a dead end.  Gauge average waste per household (WPH) to determine roughly where the “break-off points” will be:  These will be determined by the carrying capacity of your collection vehicle (CCV) divided by the WPH.  CCV/WPH = # of average households vehicle can carry  Example Vehicle holds 8 tons, WPH = 30lbs. (Claremore avg.)  16,000/30 = 533 Houses per load (average)  Use national benchmarks to ensure that vehicles have enough time to pickup their route stops  National standard ranges from 2.5 to 1.5 households per minute  Factor in dump time for each vehicle so that employees are not working overtime to complete standard routes.  Get routes as even as possible so that workday is constant throughout week and vehicles are not overweight on roads.  Example 8-1.25(dump trip time) * 60 = 405 route minutes  405*1.5 = 607.5 households per day Collection vehicle holds 533 houses so plan for excess of 74 households or 1.14 dump trips per vehicle per day.

5. Contingency Plans  Developed for worst case scenarios to ensure two backup plans are in place because trash must be picked up each day  Plan 1  If a truck goes down, the routes can be completed with only 2 residential trucks, but 3 hours of overtime per truck will have to be used  Plan 2  If 2 trucks go down, the commercial polycart truck will be utilized to pick up the rest of the route. Overtime will depend on the amount of the route left to complete. The commercial polycart truck has a lifter arm on the back and the polycarts have wheels so there is a reduced chance of a worker’s comp injury during this process

6. Route Redesign Results  Reduced active automated route trucks from 4 to 3.  4 th vehicle is for contingency plan and to rotate vehicles on maintenance schedule.  Increased profitability of department by over 200%  FY 05/06 Profit - $248k  FY 06/07 Profit - $550k  Profit increase was through reduced operational costs, not increased rates or new accounts.  Reduced sanitation rate by 8%  Introduced “Senior Rate” at $1/Mo. Lower than regular residential rate.  Reduced employee overtime