4 ms·
Classic network balancing problem. Even in regular times this causes gross inefficiencies: A number of years ago I had heard that for large carriers (e.g. FedEx
by Jun8 6y ago
Classic network balancing problem. Even in regular times this causes gross inefficiencies: A number of years ago I had heard that for large carriers (e.g. FedEx, UPS) ~20% of trailers you see on the road drive totally empty to balance their network. They didn't have a good solution to optimize this figure nor did they know what the minimum value of this percentage could be.
- throwaway894345 6y ago> A number of years ago I had heard that for large carriers (e.g. FedEx, UPS) ~20 of trailers you see on the road drive totally empty to balance their network. This is a typo right? It should be 20%?
- Jun8 6y agoYep, thanks for catching that, edited to correct it.
- BurningFrog 6y ago20% sounds like a lot, but I don't know what to compare it to. Surely no system could reach 0%. Some areas are bound to be net exporters of stuff, and others net importers.
- ethbr0 6y agoWell, perfect inefficiency would be 50%, right? Assuming standard routes / no repositioning. I.e. towing an empty back for every container you shipped full. I have no idea what percent is needed to cover repositioning, but 20% sounds decent. Especially for a dynamic demand system (little ability to micro forecast flows).
- refurb 6y ago20% sounds pretty good? I mean you’d expect empty trailers for delivery - the flow of goods to be predominantly one-way (e.g. Memphis sends way more volume to Chattanooga than the other way around).
- fomine3 6y agoI heard that Europe->Asia container ships transported plastic garbages because of there are less utilization compared to Asia->Europe. So sometimes higher utilization isn't good.
- PoignardAzur 6y agoAlso because until recently a lot of countries paid China to recycle their plastic garbage for them. Actually, I wonder how the economy has adapted now that China has stopped "importing".