How UPS Trucks Saved Millions of Dollars By Eliminating Left Turns (ndtv.com)

Some people probably already know this, but for those who don't: UPS truck drivers don't take left turns, and despite this usually resulting in longer route, they are saving millions of dollars in fuel costs. From a report: The company decided on eliminating left turns (or right turns in left-hand driving countries such as India) wherever possible after it found that drivers have to sit idly in the trucks while waiting to take the left turn to pass through traffic. So, it created an algorithm that eliminated left turns from drivers' routes even if meant a longer journey. This meant that drivers do not have to wait in traffic to take a left turn and can take the right turn at junctions. Of course, the algorithm does not entirely eliminate left turns, but the number of left turns taken by UPS trucks is less than 10 percent of all turns made. Turns out that UPS was right -- the idea really paid off. In 2005, a year after it announced that it will minimize left turns, the company said that the total distance covered by its 96,000 trucks was reduced by 747,000km, and 190,000 litres of fuel had been saved. In 2011, Bob Stoffel, a UPS Senior Vice President, told Fortune that the company had reduced distance traveled by trucks by 20.4 million miles, and reduced CO2 emissions by 20,000 metric tons, by not taking left turns. A recent report by The Independent says that the total reduction in distance traveled by UPS trucks now stands at 45.8 million miles, and there are 1,100 fewer trucks in its fleet because of the algorithm. Even by conservative estimates, that's tens of millions of dollar of savings in fuel costs. Senior VP Bob Stoffel explained how it works on CNN a few years ago.

Comments

Something is missing

[thsths]

Eliminating left turns to save time at the expense of longer distance is plausible.

Making the journey shorter by eliminating left turns is not. So what is the article not telling us?

Re:Something is missing

[sunking2]

Depends on whether shorter is time or distance.

Re:Something is missing

[Jason Levine]

I heard this years ago. I think the key is idling time. When you try to turn left, you often need to wait for traffic to clear in both directions before going. While you're doing that, the UPS truck is sitting there burning gas and getting 0 mpg. If the driver makes right turns, they might drive further, but they'll wind up still moving and thus won't be wasting gas waiting on a clearing. By using special mapping software, they can find the ideal route to deliver packages so that the truck is idling as little as possible and uses the minimum amount of gas needed.

Re:Something is missing

[ClickOnThis]

Depends on whether shorter is time or distance.

This. I suspect eliminating left turns results in modestly longer distances but significantly shorter times. And if the time waiting to turn left is significant, then the savings from not burning gas while idling at an intersection could be significant as well.

Re:Something is missing

[skids]

I suspect they are right: a truck that spends less total time on travel + waiting for left turns makes more deliveries, so there do not need to be as many trucks.

Re: Something is missing

[Anonymous Coward]

They can have fewer trucks because of the increased efficiency. So even though each truck travels farther the total distance traveled by all trucks combined is much less.

Re:Something is missing

[Fragnet]

The engine is still running whilst you're waiting. My own personal experience of sitting waiting in traffic has over the years taught me the following: "there's always some cunt who wants to turn right" (left if you drive on the wrong side of the road, i.e. USA). It would often be quicker to turn left, go around the roundabout and drive straight past the junction you were sitting at in the first place, before you'd have been able to turn there.

I'm serious by the way. I use that saying at least once a day.

Re:Something is missing

[ChrisMaple]

Part of the distance traveled by a UPS truck is going from the distribution center to the delivery area. If some trips are eliminated entirely, those parts of the trips come off the total even as mileage inside the delivery area increases slightly.

Re:Something is missing

[DerekLyons]

The GPS in my Honda Odyssey also tries to eliminate left turns. I turned that feature off because it was sometimes doing a ridiculous amount of re-routing to avoid a single left turn.

But you aren't a UPS driver, you're going to a single destination. A UPS driver is going to multiple destinations, which means the algorithm can use a trick you cant's - sequencing destinations. What's a "ridiculous" detour to you is an opportunity to deliver package "B" while avoiding a left turn on the way to delivering package "A". UPS's algorithms don't just arbitrarily eliminate left turns, they sequence the route (and choose which truck which package goes onto) so as to reduce the need for left turns and reduce the total number of miles traveled per package.

Oh the irony.

[fisted]

You are an idiot. Even if they're went from N left turns to N-1 left turns, they'd still have eliminated a left turn.
Nowhere TFS says that *all* left turns were eliminated.

Worthless "journalist".

Worthless AC.

Re:Oh the irony.

[Bryan Ischo]

Are you serious?

"eliminate: completely remove or get rid of (something)"

Saying 'partially eliminate' is an oxymoron although it's commonly used enough to mean "eliminating part of" that its meaning is well understood.

A sentence that is otherwise unqualified that says:

"How UPS Trucks Saved Millions of Dollars By Eliminating Left Turns"

VERY clearly means that "all left turns were eliminated".

But I think you understood all of this already and were just looking for a way to be salty. Mission accomplished!

Look at the big picture

[mede]

Of course to get from point A to B, it takes more time when you eliminate left turns... But think that you actually have points A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H.. And Multiple trucks.. Meaning that maybe point B is not served by truck 1, even when it's two blocks away from its original route, but it's taken by truck 2 because it's better served by the no-left-turn algorithm..

That's what I call economies of scale.. And not the idiot thing of being able to push your providers tu give you better prices because you're a big buyer..

Counterintuitively, cheaper = jobs

[raymorris]

> You think eliminating 1000 trucks didn't cost some jobs?
> So then why do they need to hire more people or raise wages when they SAVED MONEY?

At first glance that seems rather counter-intuitive, doesn't it? There is a suprise waiting around the corner.

This has been studied over and over, so even the very fine details are well understood now, but pretty much all economists and most business majors. Here's a clear example that makes the big idea clear:

Suppose it cost UPS $20/pound to make deliveries, so they charge $30/pound. How many books would people have ever ordered from Amazon? Roughly zero, because who wants to pay $30 shipping for a book.

Suppose it costs UPS $1/pound, so they charge $1.50/pound. How many people order books from Amazon? A shitload. Giving Amazon the ability to expand into a million other products. How many people order stuff from Amazon now, with shipping costs low? A shitload. How many people are hired to deliver all the things people order from Amazon? A shitload.

The general idea is that when costs are reduced, more people buy it. When more people buy something, that creates more jobs in the industry.

In the early 1980s, mobile phones cost $3,995. Hundreds of people were employed in the mobile phone industry, selling hundreds of phones. Today you can get a mobile phone for $29, so millions of people get mobile phones, creating an industry with millions of jobs.