Section 48 Transport Strategy

7/31/2019 Section 48 Transport Strategy

1/16

Section 48

Transport strategy

Summer 2012


2/16


3/16

S48-DT-000-XXXXX-000004 | Summer 2012

Section 48:

Transport strategy


4/16


5/16

Thames Tideway Tunnel

Section 48: Transport strategy

List of contents

Page number

1 Transport strategy ........................................................................................... 11.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 11.2 River transport ......................................................................................... 11.3 Other measures ....................................................................................... 21.4 Need for flexibility .................................................................................... 21.5 Areas where river usage is not proposed ................................................ 21.6 Flexibility to do more by river ................................................................... 41.7 Benefits of the revised strategy ............................................................... 4

Appendix A ................................................................................................................ 7

List of tables

Page number

Table 1.1 Benefits of the updated transport strategy .................................................. 4Table 1.2 Reduced overall predicted HGV numbers .................................................. 5


6/16


7/16


Section 48: Transport strategy 1

1 Transport strategy

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 We have reviewed the options for the transport of construction materialsincluding excavated material to and from our construction sites. Our aimwas to examine the feasibility of increasing the quantities of constructionmaterials to be moved by river. Our work has included:

policy review

analysis of key issues and opportunities

options development and testing

stakeholder discussions with the Greater London Authority, Transportfor London, the Port of London Authority, and the London Boroughs.

1.2 River transport

1.2.1 We propose to transport the following materials by river:

a. main tunnel excavated material from the main tunnel drive sites(Carnwath Road Riverside, Kirtling Street, and Chambers Wharf)

b. import and export of cofferdam fill material at all foreshore sites

c. shaft excavated material at ten sites in the foreshore or with directriver access at Putney Embankment Foreshore, Carnwath RoadRiverside, Cremorne Wharf Depot, Chelsea Embankment Foreshore,Heathwall Pumping Station, Albert Embankment Foreshore, VictoriaEmbankment Foreshore, Blackfriars Bridge Foreshore, ChambersWharf and King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore

d. excavated material for connection tunnels, interceptions andassociated structures at eight sites at Putney Embankment Foreshore,Cremorne Wharf Depot, Chelsea Embankment Foreshore, AlbertEmbankment Foreshore, Victoria Embankment Foreshore, Blackfriars

Bridge Foreshore, Chambers Wharf and King Edward Memorial ParkForeshore

e. import of sand and aggregates for main tunnel secondary lining formain tunnel sites at Carnwath Road Riverside, Kirtling Street andChambers Wharf.

1.2.2 We would like to move all of the above materials by river, but for ourtransport assessment we have assumed that a minimum of 90 per cent ofthese materials would be transported by river. We have done this to allowsome flexibility to use road transport for periods where river transport maybe unavailable and for material that is unsuitable for river transport, such

as excessively wet spoil or any contaminated materials. Our intention is toincentivise the construction contractors to move as much of the above


8/16



material by river as practical in order to achieve an amount closer to 100per cent of materials by river.

1.3 Other measures

1.3.1 In addition, in the construction contracts we would require:

a. the main tunnel secondary concrete lining to be batched on site

b. ready-mix suppliers for all sites to source sand and aggregates byriver or rail

c. best practice measures for road transport, such as adoption of EURO5 vehicles as a minimum heavy goods vehicle (HGV) standard.

1.3.2 These measures will help to further reduce the volume and impact of roadtransport during construction.

1.4 Need for flexibility

1.4.1 Our transport strategy will be subject to suitable provisions in the DCO andin agreements with key stakeholders, such as the Greater LondonAuthority, the Port of London Authority, Transport for London and therelevant London borough to ensure flexibility to use other transport modesin order to:

a. re-use or dispose of material locally by road where this would haveless overall impact and/or allow sustainable re-use of materials

b. use road transport in exceptional circumstances if river transport isunavailable

c. use other means of transport in the event that river transport costsescalate prohibitively.

1.4.2 A summary of overall barge and lorry numbers at each proposed site iscontained in Appendix A.

1.5 Areas where river usage is not proposed

1.5.1 The project has considered all options where river transport is possible inpractice, but at this stage we do not propose to commit to using rivertransport for the following:

a. main tunnel precast concrete lining segments

b. materials to/from Greenwich Pumping Station, Beckton SewageTreatment Works and Abbey Mills Pumping Station

c. excavated shaft material from Kirtling Street.

1.5.2 A major concern is the associated risks of using the river on the scalecurrently proposed, particularly in the west. Some of the challenges that

we face include the requirement to establish infrastructure, acquireadditional barge and tug capacity, and ensure additional trained and


9/16



experienced crew are available. We would also need transport capacity tosupport major continuous tunnelling operations 24 hours a day, sevendays a week, over two to three years, simultaneously at multiple sites. Wealso do not propose to commit to using river transport where the volumes

of material concerned would be so small or so erratic as to render riveruse impractical.

Main tunnel lining segments

1.5.3 The movement of tunnel segments by river to Carnwath Road Riverside,Kirtling Street, Chambers Wharf and Greenwich Pumping Station wouldincrease risk to the successful construction of the main tunnel. Any delaysor complications associated with the movement of tunnel segments couldhave serious effects on the programme and significant cost implications.There are also issues associated with segment manufacturing and

handling: if a contractor proposes to utilise a segment manufacturing sitethat does not have river access, segments would first need to betransferred to the river by road, which would require double handling andnegate the potential benefits of river transport. The tunnel segments mayalso be prone to damage during loading and unloading, which wouldfurther delay construction. It is essential that handling is kept to aminimum.

1.5.4 The benefits of moving tunnel segments by river in terms of HGVmovements would be relatively small (four per cent of all constructionmaterials), and would not achieve significant environmental benefits. Forexample, at Carnwath Road Riverside over 65 per cent of materials wouldbe removed by river. If tunnel segments were transported by river,average peak vehicle numbers during the tunnelling phase would bereduced from 30 to 16 HGVs per day. We are undertaking further reviewof the implications of transporting tunnel segments by river, however, wedo not currently propose to commit to this in our proposed DCOapplication.

Materials to/from Greenwich Pumping Station, BecktonSewage Treatment Works, Abbey Mills Pumping Station,and Kirtling Street

1.5.5 We considered using Deptford Creek to move materials to and fromGreenwich Pumping Station. However, as it is a narrow, tidal creek, itwould only support restricted barge sizes and would possibly requiredredging before works could commence. In addition there are issuesrelated to handling and transport of the excavated Chalk.

1.5.6 The movement of materials at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works wouldbe relatively expensive due to the limited volumes and the need toestablish conveyors on the existing jetty. River transport would not resultin significant benefits, as the impacts of road transport at this location arenot considered significant.


10/16



1.5.7 At Abbey Mills PS, we will not commit to river transport until we have fullyevaluated the lessons learned from how the Lee Tunnel project made useof the river.

1.5.8 The river frontage at Kirtling Street is very restricted and establishing rivertransport facilities for the project would be difficult due to existing riverusers and infrastructure. We are committed to providing river transport formain tunnel excavated materials at Kirtling Street but the excavation of theshaft itself should not be constrained by a requirement for river transportwhile the required infrastructure is constructed.

1.6 Flexibility to do more by river

1.6.1 Our strategy does not preclude any appointed contractors from increasingthe use of river transport, if practical and economic to do so. We will

engage with contractors to identify opportunities for greater river use or anappropriate incentive to encourage greater river use.

1.7 Benefits of the revised strategy

1.7.1 We have increased our commitment to river use since phase twoconsultation. We believe that this would have considerable benefits interms of reducing total vehicle numbers and the associated impacts,particularly at the CSO shaft sites. The projects updated transportstrategy would have the following overall benefits:

Table 1.1 Benefits of the updated transport strategy

Benefit Notes

Total lorries taken off the road 262,000 lorries taken off the road due to the useof the river

Reduction in lorry movementssince phase two consultation

Lorry numbers reduced from 285,000 to 265,000 a reduction of 20,000 lorries or 40,000 lorrymovements

Total tonnes moved by river 4,235,000 tonnes moved by river

Per cent change in river

transport since phase twoconsultation

River usage increased from 48 to 53 per cent of

all materials

Increase in number of tonnesmoved by river since phasetwo consultation

River usage increased from 3,810,000 tonnes to4,235,000 tonnes (an increase of 425,000 tonnesor 11%)

1.7.2 There would be significant local benefits as a result of the amendments interms of reduced overall predicted HGV numbers:


11/16



Table 1.2 Reduced overall predicted HGV numbers

Site name

Phase two

total lorrynumbers

Updatedstrategy

lorrynumbers

Change

in lorrynumbers

Per cent

change Notes

PutneyEmbankmentForeshore

4,650 3,350 - 1,300 -28.0%

Carnwath RoadRiverside

26,750 25,850 - 900 -3.4% Benefit fromimportedsecondarylining, sand andaggregates

Cremorne WharfDepot

4,300 3,350 - 950 -22.1%

ChelseaEmbankmentForeshore

8,350 5,600 - 2,750 -32.9%

Kirtling Street 50,800 51,500 700 1.4% Amendedquantities andchange indiaphragm wallarisings balanceimport of

secondarylining, sand andaggregates.

Heathwall PumpingStation

5,900 4,250 - 1,650 -28.0%

AlbertEmbankmentForeshore

8,750 6,600 - 2,150 -24.6%

VictoriaEmbankment

Foreshore

8,000 5,750 - 2,250 -28.1%

Blackfriars BridgeForeshore

18,350 13,350 - 5,000 -27.2%

Chambers Wharf 38,650 32,350 - 6,300 -16.3% Removal ofshaft excavatedmaterial andimport ofsecondary liningaggregates.

King Edward

Memorial ParkForeshore

10,150 10,600 450 4.4% Change in

diaphragm wallarisings by road


12/16



Site namePhase twototal lorrynumbers

Updatedstrategy

lorrynumbers

Changein lorry

numbers

Per centchange

Notes

and increaseddetail of designof interceptionstructures.


13/16


14/16


15/16

Appendix


Note 3: HGV lorry movements were assessed based on operating five days

per week. HGV lorry movements might be permitted on Saturday mornings but

the figures have been calculated on a five-day week.

Note 4: Barge movements were assumed to be over five days per week withthe exception of the main drive sites (Carnwath Road Riverside, Kirtling Street

and Chambers Wharf), where barges operate seven days a week. Note 5: HGV numbers were based on the following assumptions:

o excavated material would be removed from site by tipper wagons with a

load capacity of 16 tonnes (equivalent to approximately 8m3 of un-bulked

excavated material)o imported bulk fill material would be brought to site by tipper wagons with a

load capacity of 16 tonnes (equivalent to approximately 8m3 of compacted

fill material)o ready mix concrete would be brought to site by mixer wagons with a

capacity of 15 tonnes of concrete (equivalent to approximately 6m3)o HGV numbers for steel reinforcement were based on 15 tonnes per

deliveryo all other HGV numbers were based on 20 tonnes per delivery

Note 6: Barge numbers were based on utilising 90 per cent of barge capacity.

The size of barges used was assessed on a site-by-site basis in consultation

with the Port of London Authority. The assessed barge sizes at some sites

also vary depending on the material transported and location constraints.


16/16

S48-DT-000-XXXXX-000004

For further information or to comment

on our proposals please see our website:

www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk

It is very important that you understand the information

we have provided. If you need further information in

another language, braille, large print or audio format

please contact us on 0800 0721 086.

Documents

Section 48 Transport Strategy