digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

UPS saved 3 Million Gallons of Gas-- By Not Turning Left

nytimes.com — Mapping out routes for its drivers, drastically reducing the number of left-hand turns they make helped the company shave 28.5 million miles off its delivery routes, which has resulted in savings of roughly three million gallons of gas and has reduced CO2 emissions by 31,000 metric tons.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • polymath22, on 12/12/2007, -30/+245i am convinced that market forces will eventually force people to make wiser choices. if UPS does this, surely FedEX will too, or risk losing a competitive edge. "a penny saved is a penny earned" means if you make your company more lean then it will be more profitable (and if it saves a *****-load of carbon from being belched into the atmosphere, all the better.)

    American consumers have a world-wide reputation for not being able to grasp this concept. remember when the girls paid top dollar for ripped-up blue jeans, or how everyone thought it would be so cool to buy a huge, gas guzzling SUV to take suzy to soccer practice?

    speaking of market forces, election time means we get to listen to all the politicians talk about taxes. taxes are a given. wisely crafted tax policy is not.
    in iowa, there is a marijuana tax on the books, but nobody buys the stamp except stamp collectors. how much revenue could iowa realize if they legalized and taxed like they do alcohol and tobacco?

    • Ineedanap, on 12/12/2007, -1/+25Fedex doesnt have the requisite background systems in place to do this like UPS does. Fedex is looking into alternate energy delivery vehicles however, as is UPS. Dont get me wrong, Fedex is and will always be looking for ways to reduce costs, its just that their internal systems work alot differenetly than UPS.
      • arjung, on 12/12/2007, -4/+10why would FedEx Ground be any different from UPS Ground?
        • byronm, on 12/12/2007, -0/+19Fedex Ground is franchised and thusly isn't under the strict corporate control as say UPS
      • doxavg, on 12/13/2007, -2/+3Well, one consistently delivers packages to the _right_ house, the other one...well, if it's not right, it must be left? Yeah...Fed Ex has a habit of delivering my packages to the neighbor, it's really annoying (same street address, different street). I'm guessing Fed Ex uses Google maps, while UPS uses their eyes.
    • kirashira, on 12/12/2007, -2/+50"remember when the girls paid top dollar for ripped-up blue jeans"
      This still happens today...It's called designer denim.
      • bigdoof, on 12/12/2007, -9/+1Ripped jeans are so early 2000s. Get with the program.
        • pegisys, on 12/12/2007, -1/+6I thought it was so 1980's. I must be getting old :(
          • Digitel, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2lol have them ripped in the store while you wait...
        • blowjustinup, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2Designer jeans often still come ripped.

          By the way.. You just told someone to "Get with the program", because they, to your knowledge, weren't up on designer fashion.. Seems to me your lingo isn't quite up to date..
      • LeifErikson8, on 12/12/2007, -5/+27its called a waste of godamn money.
        • badjoke, on 12/12/2007, -2/+19Those holes are expensive pieces of negative material!
        • enginbeering, on 12/13/2007, -3/+2Yeah, but it looks hot as hell.

          I'm just saying...
        • comand, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1... now get off my lawn!
      • bigdoof, on 12/12/2007, -15/+0Haha, I like the digg down. Leave it to digg users to think that anyone besides trailer trash still pays "top dollar" for distressed denim.
        • GetShorty, on 12/12/2007, -1/+17You obviously haven't been to any high end stores lately.
          • bigdoof, on 12/12/2007, -10/+2Walmart isn't high end, buddy, sorry to burst your bubble. The design industry has moved past distressed denim a while ago. Walmart will catch up eventually. In the meantime, you can continue wearing your Members Only jackets, too.
          • sleepwalkers, on 12/12/2007, -2/+8@bigdoof: Just stop. You're wrong.
        • maci01, on 12/12/2007, -0/+101. Go to Abercrombie
          2. Ignore the half-naked male model
          3. Click jeans and observe ripped jeans
          • HentaiJeff, on 12/12/2007, -1/+64.????
            5. Profit!!!
          • blowjustinup, on 12/12/2007, -6/+0Abercrombie is not a "high end"...

            So, we'll replace the first and second steps with 1. Go to Armani
      • ronaldinho, on 12/12/2007, -1/+11Paying top dollars for ripped-ed up blue jeans is ***** stupid. Just wear your old jeans enough and try to stretch it in the meantime to loosen the fabric. I guaratee you it will rip eventually. Or dammit, just cut up your jeans yourself. Ugh stupid people!
        • hfactor, on 12/12/2007, -0/+7Well, you still need some sewing skills to stop the rips from getting bigger.
      • thepatster, on 12/12/2007, -7/+2What a waste. But I wouldn't mind an SUV if I could afford it.
      • onestrawplz, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1the only designer denim i've seen (recently) that's come pre-ripped is D&G denim. so no, most "designer denim" is not pre-ripped.

        you're thinking abercrombie denim, not designer.
    • DucoNihilum, on 12/12/2007, -7/+4I don't know if this will really give them much of a competitive advantage unless they can lower their rates.
      • t3soro, on 12/12/2007, -1/+9they saved 3 million gallons of gas in a year, thus lowering the cost to bring their service to market. whether it directly lowers their rates or not is irrelevant; the money saved can also go to other things such as improving employee wages or more R&D etc.
        • allywilson, on 12/12/2007, -1/+3The term 'can' there is the point really, isn't it? Where's the article to say that UPS isn't just reinvesting the money they saved from saving fuel on for future carbon inefficient advertising or R&D? Or in-fact in countries where they're not so fuel-concious?
    • Avor, on 12/12/2007, -2/+16"in iowa, there is a marijuana tax on the books, but nobody buys the stamp except stamp collectors. how much revenue could iowa realize if they legalized and taxed like they do alcohol and tobacco?"
      None, because the federal government would intervene.
      • Kr4t05, on 12/12/2007, -16/+8Which is why you should consider electing Ron Paul. He would work to legalize, or, at the very least, decriminalize marijuana and make it a viable and taxable product.
      • alkaline213, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1So think of the gigantic revenue to be gained by National legalization and taxation.

        one day.
        one day.
    • kaelyiesta, on 12/12/2007, -1/+8As long as that money doesn't go to lobbying government to secure 'regulation' that helps them edge out competition, then yea I agree. Strict adherence to free market is what I think you and I appreciate. The Orwellian argument for capitalism to tend towards corporatism is the problem.
    • bingobongony, on 12/12/2007, -3/+7Cosnidering UPS has been doing this for a long time now, and Fed Ex hasn't followed suit, I would say your comment doesn't make sense.
      • cawpin, on 12/12/2007, -3/+3No *****. Why is this hitting /. and Digg today? UPS has been doing this for several YEARS now.
    • DavidYeah, on 12/12/2007, -7/+4You really had to stretch to work free market fundamentalism principles into your comment, didn't you?
    • brundlefly76, on 12/12/2007, -0/+16I always try to plan my route to avoid left turns - a long-lasting side effect of not having a working turn signal for two years. However, turn signal or no, I hate left turns.
    • MagicToenail, on 12/12/2007, -7/+0k.
    • spillwater, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3having to pay makes you save...nuff said
    • TheDarkTrumpet, on 12/12/2007, -0/+4Relating to the Iowa drug tax law (I live in iowa, read a lot about this law).

      First the source: http://www.state.ia.us/tax/taxlaw/DrugTaxLaw.html

      Basically, if one gets caught with drugs in Iowa, not only does the person get charged criminally, but also gets charged the taxes related to the drug. I don't think this makes much sense, but that's how it's done. The end result just extra revenue for the state.
      • masterofsw, on 12/12/2007, -2/+2The reason the law exists has nothing to do with tax revenue.
        If you don't have the tax stamp, no matter how little you have, it's tax evasion, a felony.
    • colberrep, on 12/12/2007, -9/+1buried for believing in the free market fairy.

      girls still waste money on expensive jeans, and rednecks and soccer moms still buy SUV's. cars still haven't improved their MPG for DECADES. why? because corporations are there to squeeze as much money out of people as possible--the good of our planet and lives be damned.
    • randomerratum, on 06/10/2008, -0/+9I'd love to see this feature in Google Mapes / mapquest etc...
      "Fastest Route, Avoid Freeways, Least Gas Used"
      Awesome
    • multitude, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Your argument is misleading, and I think wrong-headed. You say that free market principles will make people act "wisely," but then go on to imply that acting "wisely" is also acting ethically. This is not the case. Conservative, free-market logic allows people to act "wisely" in order to secure their own best interests, which is not that of society. It is perfectly within the logic of the free market that you adore to act "wisely," make lots of profit, and exploit the hell out of anyone in order to reach your goals.
    • themoosejuice, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Fedex cant, UPS patented it. (wink)

      Soon everything will be patented and we wont be able to talk or move.
    • Dylson, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Those clever *****.
    • Scumbunny, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Free Market rules! As a Domino's Pizza driver, I made more money burning less gas - and got there faster - by taking right turns. Sure, I lost the extra money betting in the casino after work but, hey, it's a free world, right?
    • jsebrech, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1The tragedy of the commons dictates that the free market does not always lead to the most ethical choice. The issue is with goods or services that are priced differently to an individual than their cost to society is. Oil is a classic example. It's still way too cheap. As a result, free market economics can't work as they should with oil, which happens to be the reason why they're negotiating a treaty in Bali right now.
  • MikeonTV, on 12/12/2007, -26/+58What they don't tell you is how much they payed to implement the software
    • thebaron2, on 12/12/2007, -2/+85Probably not nearly as much as they'll save PER YEAR by implementing this.

      And I'd bet that they reduced their number of accidents as well, along with a host of other not-so-obvious or quantifiable benefits.
    • Ineedanap, on 12/12/2007, -0/+18I doubt it was very much, UPS had all the addresses of their pkgs- systemwide, and already told their drivers how many pieces and what their next stop was. This was a simple matter of mapping software correctly routing their trucks.
      • hfactor, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3I wouldn´t exactly call that kind of optimization problems "simple" though.
    • dakotatypes, on 12/12/2007, -8/+2Or how much they spent on tires? Inquiring minds of car-dummies want to know!
      http://digg.com/software/UPS_Uses_Software_To_Crea ...
      • AceTracer, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2If it's less than $6-9 million they came out ahead, and that's just in the short term.
    • i4ybrid, on 12/12/2007, -1/+3I'm sure they had an existing routing software for delivery already, I doubt adding this functionality to their software cost them (cost of gas)*3,000,000...which I think is over 9 billion on the national average
      • rkzda, on 12/12/2007, -0/+7$3*3milllion gallons=$9million.
        I dugg you up in anyways because it was just a simple(Though large) mistake.
        • s1mph0ny, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2i4ybrid didn't actually specify a unit, so his answer is just as correct as yours... although not as useful.
    • jacook11, on 12/12/2007, -1/+6"What they don't tell you is how much they payed to implement the software" -
      Probably a lot less then what most people would pay to "reduce CO2 emissions by 31,000 metric tons".
    • GreySpec, on 12/12/2007, -17/+2This article isn't about saving money its about saving the environment! You must be a limp dick retard! Especially when the cost of gas is increasing, this will only save more and more money...
    • i208khonsu, on 12/12/2007, -9/+7I can tell you one thing, it was OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!!!!!
    • arjung, on 12/12/2007, -1/+3who cares how much it costs? funding another programmer isn't going to affect carbon emissions.
      and if it really cost more than the potential gas savings, i promise you that they wouldnt have done it.
    • LRG1, on 12/12/2007, -2/+15They paid $750M and they (UPS) plan on saving $750M each year.
      I just finished a course on this.
      • s1mph0ny, on 12/12/2007, -4/+3You must be right then. What was the course, 4th grade math?
        • LRG1, on 12/13/2007, -2/+5No, it was a 4th level university course on information systems

          Nice try though.
    • FenrisUlf, on 12/12/2007, -0/+6It's an up-front cost that results in recurring savings.

      Over enough time, it'll recoup its investment, unless the yearly maintenance cost for the program exceeds the yearly savings, for example.
  • hroo772, on 12/12/2007, -22/+4just wow....that is all
  • zaibatsu, on 12/12/2007, -20/+101I shall never turn left again... Well, maybe a couple of times.

    But I swear I saw a UPS drive pull a lefty just yesterday.
    • Ineedanap, on 12/12/2007, -2/+114it didnt say, never allowing their drivers to turn left- simply removing as many lefties as possible.
      • qole, on 12/12/2007, -4/+9No, they aren't allowed to turn left AT ALL! If they must turn left, they have to turn right three times instead.
        • Vorticity, on 12/12/2007, -1/+7Sarcasm is so hard to get across without the use of your voice sometimes, isn't it?
    • raytibbitts, on 12/12/2007, -3/+2I am also going to try this more often. This is smart and conservation-in-action, and it amazes me how much money it has saved them! I just hope that not EVERYONE starts doing this, I think it will backfire.
      • elnerdo, on 12/12/2007, -1/+9If everyone started doing it, all of traffic would flow better. If nobody made left turns, you'd never need to wait to cross a lane of traffic, and everything would work more smoothly. Most traffic for in-town driving is because of people making left turns.
    • idiotwithastick, on 12/12/2007, -0/+6Unfortunately, you probably don't have route-planning software and a delivery path to be optimized, so it probably won't make much of a difference anyways. There's a reason why they need software to do all of this, you know.
    • NoodleGuy, on 12/12/2007, -1/+7Driving around the block so you can make 3 right turns instead of one left turn defeats the purpose in most cases.
      • brentinkc, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2RTFA
        • NoodleGuy, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I did RTFA, I'm replying to zaibatsu. Hence, I used the REPLY button.
    • joegibes, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2I believe they first implemented this in major cities like New York... I talked to the engineer who came up with this idea. He went to the school I'm going to (Kettering University) and he had co-oped with UPS during his education.
      • BreatheRhetoric, on 12/12/2007, -0/+0I doubt it. You can't make right on reds in most places in New York City.
    • univerio, on 12/13/2007, -5/+1wtf? 4 right turns = 1 left.
      • nontitle, on 12/13/2007, -2/+83.

        4 right turns will get you nowhere.
        • SatansSpatula, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Nobody said the distance traveled between each turn... ;-)
    • brentinkc, on 12/13/2007, -2/+1RTFA
  • bradym80, on 12/12/2007, -5/+293UPS isnt an ambi-turner.

    -zoolander
    • sotopheavy, on 12/12/2007, -3/+24He's so hot right now!
    • fluidfoundation, on 12/12/2007, -3/+4Maybe they were taking crazy pills.
    • njhardc0re, on 12/12/2007, -5/+2first thing i thought of when reading the title!
    • IglooBurner, on 12/12/2007, -0/+6You think that you're too cool for school, but I have a newsflash for you Walter Cronkite... you aren't.
    • likwidfuzion, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Did you ever think there's more to life than being really, really, really ridiculously good looking?
  • 97thfloor, on 12/12/2007, -5/+183It is cool to see something so simple make such a big impact
    • sotopheavy, on 12/12/2007, -11/+5Imagine how much gas would be saved if 3d printers could print out simple goods at their destination.
      • drlha, on 12/12/2007, -9/+5Or if people just walked to a store to buy what they want, instead of everyone ordering online. Shipping thousands of small packages to people's doors is far less efficient than bulk delivering to someone local. That said, most people wouldn't walk, but would instead drive there Hummer, then spend 20 minutes idling the parking lot trying to find a space 1 ft closer to the store entrance so they don't have to walk for more than 60 seconds.
        • natedouglas, on 12/12/2007, -5/+4Yeah, it's a good thing all the ***** I need to buy gets made locally.
        • DucoNihilum, on 12/12/2007, -5/+5Pretentious jackass that hates innovation much?
        • Gerz1219, on 12/12/2007, -3/+10"Shipping thousands of small packages to people's doors is far less efficient than bulk delivering to someone local. "

          Not in terms of gas consumption. For most of the country, visiting a brick-and-mortar outlet involves getting in your car and driving to and from the store. I'd wager that it's more fuel efficient to have a truck deliver individual packages along a route, since there is only one return trip.
          • drlha, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Didn't actually read my comment then? Good.
        • MaxPayne3476, on 12/12/2007, -0/+5Not to mention the markup that the big box stores throw onto products i purchase online is unbelievable.
      • codesuidae, on 12/12/2007, -1/+3Maybe. Probably the commercially-made machines that most people would buy would be DRM loaded and make stuff out of materials that degrade in a few weeks so you have to keep mail-ordering more raw materials. Then the machine itself would become incompatible with the new (non-refillable) material cartridges, and you'd have to toss out the machine and get a new one with new and sleazier DRM restrictions.
    • TheKricket, on 12/12/2007, -5/+1definitely - i guess ill say what i never thought i would: "bravo ups"
    • citizen782, on 12/12/2007, -1/+5If you've ever had anything to do with route logistics you wouldn't call this simple.
      • brentinkc, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3I've discovered that anything involving the word "logistics" is incredibly complicated.
      • Memitim, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4It's a simple idea; the implementation is just an unholy bitch.
        • NorthKorea, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4route-planning software can run into real problems with even relatively simple departure and arrival objectives. in fact, with one-way streets and pickups included in a delivery route, the problem of finding the quickest or most efficient route can get ridiculously complex.
    • idiotwithastick, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1I find hard to believe that reducing left turns will reduce travel distance; sure it may reduce the aggregate time that the engines are on but sitting at a left turn doesn't make the car go anywhere. I can see how it will save gas though. I'm guessing the software does more than just minimize left turns, because if it had included left turns it should be able to find paths that are even shorter.
  • Hellman109, on 12/12/2007, -3/+52They will go left when it makes more sense, the article basically says right hand turns are more efficient and therfore more used by their software. Left hand turns means waiting for oncoming traffic and such and therfore are less efficient, but sometimes the better route.
    • Ineedanap, on 12/12/2007, -1/+10the efficiency comes from momentum- typically left hand turns require stopping, and it requires vastly more energy to get a 2000lb truck rolling again than it does to keep it rolling- even if turing right at 10mph.
      • nicktheawesome, on 12/12/2007, -1/+11UPS trucks are substantially heavier than 2,000 pounds.
        • Ineedanap, on 12/12/2007, -1/+5my bad, missed a Zero.
          20,000
          the principle is the same though
        • rarson, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1That's a huge ***** truck if it weighs 20,000 lbs, even with a bunch of ***** loaded up in it.
        • VegaObscura3, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Depends on whether its a big truck with a trailer that goes between UPS buildings, or the smaller trucks that deliver the goods from the UPS building to the recipient's house. A big truck with a full trailer can easily weigh more than 20,000 pounds. That's why you see those weight limit signs on small weak bridges.
          • nicktheawesome, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Normal tractor trailers (18 wheelers) have a GVWR (Gross vehicle weight rating) of 80,000 pounds. Some trucks (those with extra axles, and better brakes) have loads that exceed that by a large amount.

            Normal trucks (no pivot in the middle, single rear axle with dual tires on each side) usually have a GVWR of 26,000 pounds. So normal "around town" UPS trucks weigh less than 26,000 pounds.
      • t3soro, on 12/12/2007, -0/+5theres also the time and gas wasted idling at left turn red lights
      • rarson, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3The description of the article says "drastically reducing the number of left-hand turns they make helped the company shave 28.5 million miles off its delivery routes."

        I would think for the reasons mentioned above, they would probably save gas anyway, but it resulted in shorter routes as well?
        • SatansSpatula, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Yes, that's very confusing... I would have to assume the routing software is also significantly smarter about optimizing multiple destinations.
    • CedEx, on 12/12/2007, -2/+0All that gas savings being offset by delivering packages in the UK... oh well...
      • thomashauk, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2Same except right, but then we tend to have roundabouts which are best approached from the busiest entrance unless its right of another busy entrance, which of course changes by the time of day.
    • itspuddingtime, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1why do you have 30 diggs for merely summarizing the article?
  • torrzilla, on 12/12/2007, -14/+89Hey UPS, how about adjusting the efficiency of your package flow process to exclude your truck loaders from forcing my box into a space three times too small. My package arrives looking like a gorilla sat on it, but at least you saved gas on left turns.
    • kestrel1989, on 12/12/2007, -10/+7Of course any fuel savings they achieved by not making left turns is completely lost when they have to deliver the replacement package ... because your first package does look like a gorilla sat on it.

      Earlier this year I asked the sales manager for Pennsylvania why FedEx and DHL never damaged our boxes as much as UPS did. His immediate response, which I will cherish forever, was "Because they handle their packages differently than we do". The look in his eyes was priceless when he realized what he had said.
      • darkcooger, on 12/12/2007, -0/+7My cousin worked at the FedEx hub in Memphis for a while. After what he said about the place, I will never again intentionally ship via FedEx.
        • Jeff2840, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3such as?
        • Supurcell, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2What did he say? You can't leave us hanging like that.
        • darkcooger, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3Okay, okay... Such as people randomly opening packages to see what was in them (and, if so inclined, to steal stuff), dropping packages off the assembly line, throwing packages clearly marked as "fragile," and so on. He commented that he wouldn't ship via FedEx, and as he has that inside knowledge that I lack, I don't think I want to either.
        • hfactor, on 12/12/2007, -0/+6Unfortunately, EVERYBODY who´s EVER worked ANYWHERE tells you stuff like this. The restaurant stories are the ones I like best...
          • darkcooger, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Yes, but with very few exceptions, the other people who have said those things were not my cousins, so I don't have any compelling reason to trust them. ;)
      • Nauthez, on 12/12/2007, -0/+11Actually, i'm a UPS loader...we have a certain requirement of packages per trailer. I have to manage to squeze in 1600 packages into a trailer, and that means using all available space. I usually try to put the lighter packages on the top so they wont get damaged, but sometimes i'll miss one and load it at the bottom.
        • rarson, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1I'm surprised people are actually digging you up. You basically admitted to sometimes crushing their packages.

          I've had better luck with UPS than FedEx. Nobody's perfect, but the majority of packages I have sent and received with UPS have arrived intact.
          • ccheath, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1yeah... at my work we ship ups and fed ex a lot...
            my anecdotal experience has been that ups has less problems with damaged boxes/goods etc
            the fedex driver is a really nice guy tho, and always makes sure that he notes the damages and tells us as he's delivering them, so that we can sign it as damaged (even adding a DMG to you signature can really help a lot especially with non usp/fedex/dhl)
        • Flummoxer, on 12/12/2007, -0/+4Company policy isn't his fault.
        • MooMaster716, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Its true, as a UPS Air ramp worker its not always easy to place the small packages on top. Sometimes when we unload the planes all small packages have to come out first before we can even reach the packages at the back. I will say that the security check points we encounter at our terminal make it impossible to steal anything and if we get reckless the supervisors have the authority to fire us on the spot which has happened before.
      • unicronband, on 12/12/2007, -1/+10I work at a UPS Store. We ship out around 50 packages each day and rarely ever do we hear about damaged packages. The ones that do get damaged are usually the porcelin dolls that grandma wrapped in a newspaper and threw into a shoe box because she didn't want to buy a shipping-weight box. Yeah, boxes get tossed around whether it's UPS, Fed Ex, DHL, USPS or Planet Express. If it's packed like *****, it'll get mangled.

        Our rule of thumb is: if you can drop it from 4 feet without breaking it, it's well packed.
        • centerblack, on 12/12/2007, -0/+11Connor: The rule of thumb here is...
          Rosengurtie: Wait, rule of thumb? In the early 1900s it was legal for men to beat their wives, as long as they used a stick no wider than their thumb.
          Connor: Well, can't do much damage with that then, can we? Perhaps it should have been a rule of wrist?
        • rarson, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2So how often do you test how well the packages are packed? :)

          I'm just kidding, I actually completely agree with you, especially on smaller items (I shipped a synthesizer via UPS once, and I couldn't really package it in anything but the case, so I was worried, but it arrived safely). I've gotten some really poorly-packed packages and it makes me wonder how people can send stuff in the mail like that. I don't think I've ever received anything broken that was packed properly.
      • VegaObscura3, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1You all missed the joke. "handle their packages" think about what that could mean.
    • DiggMasterJ, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Don't blame the loaders man! We only sometimes throw your boxes and persuade them into small spaces. They mostly get crushed by the machines. The belt takes them to a slide where they pile up and are smashed together. A small package between two huge heavy packages doesn't fare so well.
    • vexious, on 12/17/2007, -0/+0Employees at UPS DO NOT care. When packages come down the belt, and fall off all the time on the sides of the rollers, when you go up to the top of the belt to break jams you just step on boxes on the way to the top... this is why ur boxes come to u smashed to *****
  • lhbaker, on 12/12/2007, -16/+200Imagine how much gas UPS would save it they didn't turn at all.
    • zengonzo, on 12/12/2007, -0/+12That's why they've implemented a pilot program to suspend drivers in spice tanks.

      Hard to deliver packages with flippers, though.
    • digggggggggg, on 12/12/2007, -1/+10They should fit their trucks with monster truck wheels. Then, they wouldn't even need to turn. They would just start the truck off in the destination's general direction and it would get there eventually.
  • slayerab, on 12/12/2007, -6/+29How about when UPS holds your package until the expected day of arrival and passes your house/hometown in the process? What if they just delivered it directly, wouldn't that save fuel?
    • g2g079, on 12/12/2007, -2/+21No, they would be driving more. Chances are you are not getting a truck load from ups with each delivery.
    • zydeco, on 12/12/2007, -5/+5How about paying for the express delivery instead of going cheap and hoping it gets there ahead of time?

      (Yeah, it pisses me off too, but you get what you pay for.)
  • strum40, on 12/12/2007, -11/+4This is a great year for UPS they save money on gas and get back all the strike gains the union got in 97.
    http://tdu.org/node/1635
  • kestrel1989, on 12/12/2007, -10/+3"We can’t speak to how good or bad they are in the parcel-delivery world,"
    I can !!! But the amount of curse words I would have to type might make my Dell computer burst into flames.
  • mattnyc99, on 12/12/2007, -0/+10And now they've got electric delivery trucks, too! http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_car ...
    • tgc1, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3We can only hope the rest of the fleet follows suit. Good for them. I'm glad to see SOME company is paying attention.
  • psychotron, on 12/12/2007, -3/+7Left turns are the bane of existence no matter how you look at them. You are either stuck trying to make a left, or stuck because everyone trying to make a left will still make a left 10 seconds into the left arrow being red. The mayor of L.A. unveiled a "traffic relief" plan last week for one of the busiest streets in Los Angeles. One of his solutions, make more left turn lanes! Brilliant! It will never happen but someone ought to design a city with only one way streets and no left turns. I cannot prove it but I know that would relief traffic a great deal....
    • Stradenko, on 12/12/2007, -1/+24If they're all one-way streets, a left turn is as good as a right.
      • psychotron, on 12/12/2007, -0/+5You are right. I feel dumb not having realized it....so a city with nothing but one way streets it is.
    • itisfritz, on 12/12/2007, -1/+6Have you ever driven in downtown Atlanta? Half the roads there are one way alternating directions every street. If you know the area it is perfect, but people who do not know the area get confused extremely easily by it.
    • shootsfired, on 12/12/2007, -0/+8Check this out. Michigan left http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_left
    • geodescent, on 12/12/2007, -1/+4What's that sim game where you can study traffic patterns and such by designing just such a city?
    • signal15, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3We have a few two way streets in Minneapolis that disallow left turns during busy times of the day. Those streets would be unusable if they didn't do this because of the huge amount of traffic on them. If I need to take a left on them, I go one block past my street, and then take 3 rights. Even during non-peak hours, this is usually faster than waiting at a green light for a break in oncoming traffic.
    • GreySpec, on 12/12/2007, -1/+3One way streets only cause confusion no matter what, even when you're use to the city & Stradenko's right, lefts are the same as rights on one way streets because you don't have to wait for the light to turn green.
      • thomashauk, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Yes you do, if there is more than one in road to the junction anyway...
        • GreySpec, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Huh? When turning from a one-way onto a one-way, obviously!
    • jedi851508, on 12/12/2007, -1/+4Roundabouts anyone?
      • electricalen, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2Living in MA, I can testify that roundabouts are dangerous and confusing, not a good idea. Better, however, than the "square". For those of you who haven't been in one, think of a normal 4 way stop light intersection, add 2 or 3 more intersecting roads, then remove the stop light (no yield, no stop sign, no warnings).
        • rarson, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2If you think a roundabout is dangerous and confusing, then clearly the problem is you're not a very good driver. And that's 90% of the problem, too damn many people on the road that can't ***** drive. It's way too easy to get a license in the US.
  • mrjit, on 12/12/2007, -1/+13Good job UPS.
  • JJ2K1, on 12/12/2007, -9/+6This is old news that i've seen on Digg before, thats why everytime I see a UPS truck it always reminds me of this right turn only technology.
    • misterhat, on 12/12/2007, -2/+3I know, I swear I remember reading this at around the same time last year. It's prob. just a pr fluff piece that they put out right before the busiest shipping season of the year
  • BurntToast, on 12/12/2007, -4/+6That's actually pretty impressive.
  • gdstudios, on 12/12/2007, -9/+224Maybe NASCAR should start racing clockwise....
    • Compuwiz, on 12/12/2007, -13/+60Or just stop driving in the first place - driving in a circle isn't a sport anyway.
    • thomashauk, on 12/12/2007, -3/+6But that will fry the driver's brains.
      RIght? Right! they haven't heard of such a thing!
    • GerbilKing, on 12/13/2007, -8/+10Did you know that racecar spelled backwards is racecar?
      • BakaDrgn, on 12/13/2007, -2/+2Woah! I just noticed that too, but I'm still going to digg you down because everyone else is doing it.
  • DAaaMan64, on 12/12/2007, -13/+23Imagine what UPS could do for Nascar.
    • Memitim, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Improve their gas mileage and make them entertaining?
  • r0b1, on 12/12/2007, -5/+19So then did they make three rights?
    • itisfritz, on 12/12/2007, -6/+1no, they routes they take generally do not require left turns.
    • otaku22, on 12/12/2007, -2/+3Yeah, now they take three rights to make a wrong.
  • dupeduperson, on 12/12/2007, -1/+5This is similar to the study showing that many people can save money by driving slower (and using less gas). Calculator included.
    http://www.phys.selu.edu/allain/efficiency/page4/p ...
    • Primous, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Dude this calculator doesnt show that driving slower is always better in fact it shows that driving faster is better more often. The average speed limit on most of my highways is like 55, this thing is telling me that driving 70 is more econmical (for example). Not only that that guy doesnt even say driving slower is better. It all depends on your car and how much you make an hour. I suggest you go back and look through this article again you have poorly interpreted it and now are making false assumptions.
  • shadowspawn, on 12/12/2007, -3/+107Fed-Ex tried that, but wasted 9 million dollars of gas... because their drivers kept on making three rights.
  • Homerr, on 12/12/2007, -2/+69Brown is the new green?
    • gdstudios, on 12/12/2007, -3/+32If you don't work in advertising, you need to.
    • billbillbilly, on 12/12/2007, -2/+27sometimes my brown is green...
    • Shawn4168, on 12/12/2007, -7/+7Brown is the color of poo.
      • CedEx, on 12/12/2007, -0/+11Digg this man up, for he is telling the TRUTH! And the truth should not be suppressed!
      • Memitim, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Why yes. Yes it is.
  • brandstone, on 12/12/2007, -2/+13Anyone else heard of a Michigan left?
    • kahrytan, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3or new jersey left turn.
    • spyd3rweb, on 12/12/2007, -2/+3Michigan lefts are a complete waste of time, you have to turn right and go waaay to the outside lane and you basically end up having to wait for a light anyways. then you have to turn left to get on the street you're actually wanting to turn left on in the first place, again having to wait for a light. The only thing nice about michigan is the blinking red left turns, however even that has a problem because some cities you get an green arrow before the blinking red and in others you get it after. /end rant on Michigan stupidity.
      • Volkov137, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3But the point of it is to keep straight-moving traffic going. The majority of people don't turn at a light, and even less turn left. So when you do have to turn left, it does impose a bit more hassle and time, but for everyone else, traffic is less impeded.
        • spyd3rweb, on 12/12/2007, -1/+3Up here in the UP there is no traffic :)
    • blinddonkey, on 12/12/2007, -1/+0I live in Michigan. A Michigan left probably consumes 8x more fuel than a regular left. LOL
    • Shawn4168, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1I'm from Toledo...I'm quite familiar with the Michigan left.
    • wibambau, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Inktown here, I make a Michigan left just about every single day.
    • MaxPayne3476, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1The NJ Jughandle is the ingenious idea of champions! :)
    • brentinkc, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1What about the Texas two-ball shuffle?

  • zyl0x, on 12/12/2007, -3/+2That's pretty awesome.
  • nesibus, on 12/12/2007, -2/+8Did someone tell big oil about this?

    Wouldn't matter, the whole U.S. could use 100gallons of gas a month and they would still say our inventories are low.
  • calvin22, on 12/12/2007, -9/+0Wow, this is a really old story, I saw this on the news a month or so ago!
    • 11oops, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3wow, that's a really old comment. I've seen it posted thousands of times all over the internet. First time I've seen this story though...
  • Noah0504, on 12/12/2007, -4/+6Let me tell you this all on paper. UPS wants drivers to make more right turns, but let's face it: no matter how well things are mapped out, sometimes it's just not efficient to turn right. Most UPS centers employ EDD on their driver's DIADs, which is suppose to tell them the exact route for delivering packages. However, the system, while helpful, doesn't always work as well as it should, often sending drivers up and down the same street for multiple stops.
    • mikealive, on 12/12/2007, -5/+2shutup
    • ReadTheFeed, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2I take it you were on the other team that didnt come up with No Left Turns
    • itspuddingtime, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1please read the article and try again, thanks
    • MaxPayne3476, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1EDD? Sounds like a genitalia medical problem... or and STD.
    • adrenaline33, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1The point isn't to avoid lefts in residential areas where there are no lights and such, the point is to avoid lefts on highways where the truck will be idling for 5 minutes and wasting fuel.
  • B5tKUnT1, on 12/12/2007, -4/+17Username bugmenot29
    Password password
    • barroni, on 12/12/2007, -19/+1Oh look who posted there username and password
      • dnields, on 12/12/2007, -0/+13Obviously, someone hasn't ever heard of www.bugmenot.com
        • simpleid, on 12/12/2007, -0/+4lol he thought he was on to something. next thing you know he goes to his friends; "oh yea man... i hacked this site, piece of cake." ;-)
  • Ugoff, on 12/12/2007, -3/+6anti-nascar?
  • DteK, on 12/12/2007, -3/+9no wonder they are always behind fedex
    • DiggMasterJ, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Everyone know FedEx ships their packages UPS.
  • kgorczyn, on 12/12/2007, -5/+4Brown is going Green. Dugg.
  • JBravada, on 12/12/2007, -1/+3Seriously speaking, a lot of these simple, easy to do activities will make a big difference-- especially with bigger organizations. Sun Microsystems, who comes in first place in Silicon Valley for lowest carbon emissions, is hosting a free event to share their wealth of knowledge regarding conservation and sustainability at a free event called Energy Camp in January of 2008. Its my N.Y. resolution:: www.openeco.org/energycamp
    • johnpaul191, on 12/12/2007, -0/+5in the 90s somebody in California did a study of office computers (all with the same CRTs) and said if they switched from the current standard Intel chip, to the G3 or G4 PPC (Apple PowerMac) it would save some insane amount of electricity. not only did the chips draw less power, when you consider whole buildings full of them humming and how much electricity is devoted to the air conditioning to compensate for it.
      similar studies have shown up to encourage huge companies to buy LCDs as opposed to CRT displays. obviously these days it's less necessary to make that push, but when you have hundreds of machines in a building and all have a big 19"+ CRT that has to add up.
    • crackintosh, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1New York resolution?
  • barroni, on 12/12/2007, -7/+1I wonder what other sites this, user name and password would work on
  • nick2, on 12/12/2007, -7/+2Why is UPS a sponsor of NASCAR, then?
  • cusoman, on 12/12/2007, -12/+6OMGZ! They only turn RIGHT so they MUST support the Neocons. Death to UPS!
  • LogicBomB, on 12/12/2007, -0/+11Just like how these companies are trained on how to start the engine, put on their seat belt, knock on a door (they are supposed to avoid doorbells because it's quicker), etc..

    These companies own so many trucks and resources that even the smallest change results in milliions saved. Ever hear about the flight attendant who saved some airline millions? He suggested they drop the olives in the in-flight salads down to 3 each from like... 12. Small changes in large numbers are tremendous.
  • sponeil, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2That's nothing. The whole city of New Orleans eliminated left turns completely a long time ago. It really messes visitors up to see "No Left Turn" signs at every damn stop light. It seems to work pretty well to keep traffic moving, though.
    • snorcup, on 12/12/2007, -0/+8It all makes sense now! No one from the west side of town evacuated because they could not go north! Brilliant!
  • alanak, on 12/12/2007, -2/+13This title is wrong. Read the article. USING THE SOFTWARE saved them the gas/money. And not turning left is only one small part of the software.
    • lexluthor5, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3The summary is wrong. It probably should be mapping out routes AND drastically reducing the number of left hand turns. Shaving off left turns couldn't reduce miles traveled, it would add to the miles traveled since eliminating the option of left hand turns would be less effecient. The gas savings came from both mapping out the most effecient routes and reducing time spent idling while waiting to make left hand turns.
    • digggggggggg, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1Maybe they really did botch up the steering of the trucks so that it would have been physically impossible to turn left...
    • SasquatchBill, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I'm amazed at the number of people who didn't actually read the article - how could they have saved on MILEAGE by not turning left?

      It's clear they are talking about overall savings from the software, NOT just the savings from reducing the number of left turns.

      Buried as inaccurate.
  • Stevie6G, on 12/12/2007, -1/+4Oh this is just to get publicity. I worked as a driver, you just get there as quick as you can. you do one side of the street first and then the other. Since people in AMERICA generally drive on the right side of the road...it makes sense that you take only right turns onto streets that you have deliveries on. then when you're done with that side of the street you take the left. It's just a process that makes sense. Sillyness. UPS doesn't have mapped out routes in a computer. Sorry, it doesn't really work that way. The higher "UPS" may say thats how its done, but it's not really done that way. Sorry to burst your bubble greenies.
    • blurplevtx, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2Agreed, press or urban myth. The diesel (not gas) engines they use are some of the most unregulated and polluting engines in vehicles these days. New trucks now have to have reduced emissions only for 2008 so think of all the ones out there now that make enough CO2 for a small country.
    • pirahtays, on 12/13/2007, -0/+0I agree completely. I worked on one of the package flow technology programs for big brown. Ultimately the drivers can and will drive the route as they seem fit, so mapping the "most efficient route" never really works out. Not negating that it does save some resources, but there are inevitably routes that are botched that negate the efficiency of the optimized routes. In addition, the map data isn't always as accurate as it should be and has no way of modeling traffic conditions, etc.

      I can say with certainty that it is a TREMENDOUS increase in efficiency over their previous systems though, and probably one of the more sophisticated systems used in a delivery network, so there is something to be said about that...

      I just never bought into the big numbers they were touting, they always seemed to change... And as for the cost savings, well... I know installing it wasn't cheap.. not sure if /when it will break even for them.
  • CycleNomad, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3I plan my routes to avoid right hand turns, not to save gas but to save time. I'll bet the time savings for UPS is far more lucrative than the gas savings.
    • VegaObscura3, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I think you mean left, not right.
  • tgoose, on 12/12/2007, -3/+11As a Briton, the heading perplexed me for at least a couple of seconds.
    • jonshipman, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1The left turn part or the gas/petrol part?
    • yeahbuddy, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1So Gallons really throws you off? I call BS.
    • honkaform, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Umm.. Gee, I don't know guys, maybe its because they drive on the left side of the road, so left turns in that case wouldn't cross oncoming traffic.
  • tkareeson, on 12/12/2007, -5/+2GENIUS!
    • k3nt, on 12/12/2007, -3/+1you mean BRILLIANT! I think I'll have a Guiness.
  • johnpaul191, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3there was a UPS commercial in the early 90s or something about how they wash their airplanes once a day and how much fuel they save from just that. when you consider what fuel cost back then, compared to today, it has to be a huge impact. then you consider you are saving tons and tons of fuel (and upper atmosphere pollution) by using (biodegradable?) soap and water, and the environmental impact is even greater.
  • snorcup, on 12/12/2007, -6/+12The article contradicts itself.

    First it lays out the argument that the savings come from not waiting to make left hand turns....

    "It seems that sitting in the left lane, engine idling, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear so you can make a left-hand turn, is minutely wasteful — of time and peace of mind, for sure, but also of gas and therefore money. Not a ton of gas and money if we’re talking about just you and your Windstar, say, but immensely wasteful if we’re talking about more than 95,000 big square brown trucks delivering packages every day."

    Then the UPS spokesperson tells us about how many miles they shaved from their routes

    "Last year, according to Heather Robinson, a U.P.S. spokeswoman, the software helped the company shave 28.5 million miles off its delivery routes"

    So what is it? Do the savings come from traveling less miles, or from not waiting to make left hand turns. Furthermore, can you really travel less miles on a given route by only turning right?

    Something does not add up, but I guess you can't let facts, logic, and common sense get in the way of a good story, especially one that promotes "green" practices.
    • Chakat, on 12/12/2007, -0/+9I interpreted it as saying that doing x, y, and z together, while none of them adding up to much on their own, contributed to noticable savings when combined. That by programming in a preference for right turns into their routing software, they could get a good balance as to what the optimal route is.
    • jworkin, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3I concur. The title is misleading, or at the very least is not supported by the text of the article. Yes, they try to minimize left turns, but then later it attributes the savings to fewer miles traveled. Avoiding left turns would almost certainly result in more miles being driven.
  • floatingpoints, on 12/12/2007, -9/+4WTF does turning left have to do with anything?

    Take the shortest route. If I get to a place in 2 minutes by making a left versus 10 by taking all rights, what sense does that make?
    • HonestAbe, on 12/12/2007, -1/+5That's what they did, as it says in the article. Poor reading comprehension FTW.
    • t3soro, on 12/12/2007, -0/+8there are multiple points on their route that they have to deliver to, not just two points. the magic is in optimizing the route for the best combination of distance and stopping time at lights and such.
    • FenrisUlf, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Delivering packages is a lot like Travelling Salesman... there are a lot of alternate valid paths, the problem is to find one that is reasonably efficient.

      Apparently this software improves their calculation of efficient routes, and also takes into account the fuel and time costs of a left vs. a right turn.
  • 15charmaxwtf, on 12/12/2007, -6/+3Way to make some interesting facts and good cost cutting into green political propaganda.
  • mjwedeking, on 12/12/2007, -9/+8The Democrats just passed a bill in the House that will make left hand turns illegal.
    • Shiftgood, on 12/12/2007, -4/+4You know what? ive never called someone an asshat before because it never seemed right.. but for you.. it just came to me like an epiphany.

      asshat.
  • newspimp, on 12/12/2007, -2/+21For what it's worth, the technology used isn't rocket science, nor is it incredibly complex. I work at a newspaper, and we've just started utilizing a system produced by RouteSmart, which also provides this technology for FedEx. The simple gist of it is that the system when developing a route from individual service locations (stop points) is that it will tree through the street network (a vast network of interconnected street segments, each one storing which segments they connect to on a turn-by-turn basis), based on a relative speed (which differs by street type and individual route solution setting) and set time delay for any stop signs, lights, etc. It'll tree through, and add up the total time for each driving segment, and then will present that as the route time. It then does this again, looking for shorter paths, basically. Shortest one wins.

    What you have the option to do is to create a "time penalty" for various types of road situations, and assigning an additional 3-5 second (or more) penalty for each made left turn increases that route solution's overall time. So, the system will analyze the route, and see that making one left turn (5 seconds) versus three right turns (2 seconds) still works out better for the turn to be made left, and thusly will use that solution.

    Now, it will look for ways to reduce the number of them, but it's not a "Three right turn" type of deal. There is a lot of capability and a lot of tweaking that is needed to be done to a routing system such as this to get the delivery times, service times, penalties, etc setup in a way that works for your local environment, and it varies city to city. Overall this system has been a boon for our newspaper delivery and has saved us quite a bit of money in efficiency.
    • HonestAbe, on 12/12/2007, -5/+1("thusly" is not a word)
      • newspimp, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Duly noted.

        (Technically, I've found it's validity is debated. It's not considered proper in most circumstances, but isn't wrong. I will, however, work to avoid it.)
        • HonestAbe, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1It was invented to make fun of people who use words to sound smarter than they really are.

          "It appears to have first been used by humorists, who may have been echoing the speech of poorly educated people straining to sound stylish."
      • thomashauk, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1It is because he said it.
        If no one made new words all we'd be saying is "ugg".
  • damnyooneek, on 12/12/2007, -11/+4imagine how many gallons of gas they could save if they stop making rights too. the possibilities of astonishing!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 132 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.