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.
> Turns out that UPS was right
I see what you did there.
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?
The MythBusters did that one 7 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2010_season)#Left_Hand_Turn
If this is true then it would make sense for Google maps and the others to offer routing options that also eliminate left turns.
I wonder what happens to traffic if everyone on the road eliminates left turns.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
For those readers outside the USA: In the USA, cars turning right can treat a red light like a stop sign, and turn right after stopping and checking the turn is safe.
All they do is turn left.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
This "news" was posted about ten years ago on ./, by CmdrTaco on in December 2007.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
If you ignore the first article (Gadget 360) and click through the report hyperlink to
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
Then you find out that by cutting left turns they increase distance per package, but reduce time per package. By reducing time per package, they managed to put more packages on each truck. Miles per truck goes up, but the number of trucks goes down far more.
This reduction in total trucks also creates a slight reduction in distance traveled whenever two pickups are close to each other. So while miles per package goes up, total miles travelled drops tremendously.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Now we know why NASCAR cars burn gas so fast - it's all the left turns.
> Let's eliminate left turns from government policy as well.
Agreed.
> 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.
Here are three left turns. We eliminated them by turning right instead.
Sadly we weren't able to eliminate stupidity on the internet, even from people with three digit Slashdot UIDs.
That's why, if I ever competed in a NASCAR race I'd drive in the opposite direction.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch