Optimization and resequencing

[littlesew&sew]

This is the third time my route is flagged for resequencing. The first two times, two sections of road that don't exist stopped the resequencing. This time, it looks like it might go through. I will lose 4 miles. Will the program show my new evaluation as soon as resequencing is completed. Is there any way to know how much I will drop? I'm a very low 40K now, fearing this might drop me to a J.

 

[btdtret]

littlesew&sew -- Please - more information on "resequencing".

-- Probably will mean more time at a computer to remap your route.

 

[gotstamps]

This is the third time my route is flagged for resequencing. The first two times, two sections of road that don't exist stopped the resequencing. This time, it looks like it might go through. I will lose 4 miles. Will the program show my new evaluation as soon as resequencing is completed. Is there any way to know how much I will drop? I'm a very low 40K now, fearing this might drop me to a J.

The rerouting is suggested during mapping (so I’ve been told). When you do your mapping for this month, if a change of evaluation is to occur, it will be shown at the end of the LTM portion UNLESS your route eval is frozen from an Adjustment. Nothing is shown if frozen.

 

[littlesew&sew]

littlesew&sew -- Please - more information on "resequencing".

-- Probably will mean more time at a computer to remap your route.

Resequencing is supposed to make delivery more efficient by cutting extra miles, U turns, and left turns. It's part of the Rural Route Optimization plan.

If the LTM program decides your route is inefficient for whatever reason, you'll be flagged when you do monthly mapping. This is my third time through this process. You'll be given a new line of travel option in mapping. You watch the little car drive your "optimized" line of travel to see if it's possible. You can attempt to set restrictions, such as roads that don't exist. Then you watch the little car again. If restrictions don't work, you try again. You have to try at least three times to be able to completely reject resequencing.

The first two times I wasn't able to get the program to exclude two sections of road that don't exist. This time, those roads were able to be avoided by using restrictions. If this resequencing goes through, I will lose 4 miles from my route. I will have a line of travel that is changing my delivery order, putting my end of day deliveries to the beginning of the day and shuffling around everything else.

After LTM approval of the new line of travel, I will have to drive the route with my supervisor for remeasure of distances and adding traffic control points. Then it all gets submitted to AMS and I will have to do new labels and re-learn my route.

As a low K route, I'm concerned that losing 4 miles might drop me to a J. If I can't find any reason to reject the new Line of Travel, I will have an optimized route. All of this is supposed to be completed by July 18th.

 

[neciat]

Make note of the number of left turns on the proposed new line of travel. If there are more than you currently have , cite safety as a concern. The Nat'l Agreement has this ;

10. Service Changes

When service changes occur, the Employer shall
promptly adjust the route evaluation as determined
by the formula below, and the compensation will be
adjusted, as appropriate. Such interim adjustment
shall be made by application of a formula based upon
(1) the appropriate box factor for the route, added to
the volume factor for the route, multiplied by the boxes
added to or subtracted from the route since the last
evaluation, and (2) the change in miles, utilizing the
appropriate factors of the drive speed matrix to
determine the time to be added or subtracted from
the route evaluation

Now, we all can see what the language states but I have a bad feeling that "they" are going to go with the 'ole "3 minutes per mile" to initially "adjust the route". I know that's NOT what the language states but I'm just not too confident that this is the way it will be handled. I hope I am wrong. Anyway , you stated 4 miles. Okay, 4 miles a day at 3 minutes each mile is 12 minutes each day. 12 minutes each day at 6 days for the week is 72 minutes LESS in standard hours. Make note of that. Depending upon where the route is now in standard hours , a 72 minute loss could cause the route to drop to "J" status.

 

[btdtret]

Littlesew& sew -- Thanx for the explanation on resequencing.

"I will have a line of travel that is changing my delivery order, putting my end of day deliveries to the beginning of the day and shuffling around everything else."

-- It is a l-o-n-g shot, but you might try to fight it by pointing out that the resequencing will cause "significant delays to the customer's anticipated delivery window" for those customers currently at the start of your route!

-- Ask manglement to provide a statement about the change for each customer potentially affected by the new line of travel.

- Sorry, don't remember where those words in bold came from, I just remember them. Anyone??

-- "neciat" ( as usual ) brought up a good point about safety issue of left-hand turns.

-- And if you have to redo your case and manglement complains about the EOS times involved, be sure to tell them it was their idea to change things!! Or not.

 

[neciat]

Another issue to consider is that since you are currently a low 40K , going to a "J" status may not be as cost effective as the PO "thinks". When you look at the table for evaluated hours, you could end up at a 44J , 45J , or 46J with the mileage loss. This INCREASE in salary WOULD NOT be offset in the fuel savings. Just something you may wanna' mention.

 

[Chivvy]

Another issue to consider is that since you are currently a low 40K , going to a "J" status may not be as cost effective as the PO "thinks". When you look at the table for evaluated hours, you could end up at a 44J , 45J , or 46J with the mileage loss. This INCREASE in salary WOULD NOT be offset in the fuel savings. Just something you may wanna' mention.

A 40k, losing time can't be higher than 43j. And they are also saving 26 rca days (and paying the RCA less each day they do work the route). I think arguing your route should be less effiecent is an uphill battle.

But if you want to fight this, argue saftey first and foremost. Its the hardest thing for management to disagree with. In particular, upper management who is just looking at spreadsheets.

 

[neciat]

A 40k, losing time can't be higher than 43j. And they are also saving 26 rca days (and paying the RCA less each day they do work the route). I think arguing your route should be less effiecent is an uphill battle.

But if you want to fight this, argue saftey first and foremost. Its the hardest thing for management to disagree with. In particular, upper management who is just looking at spreadsheets.

Well, depending upon how "low" the low 40K is , the route could be more than 43J. I did think about the 26 RCA days. But even at 43J , that's 6 hours per pay period at an overtime rate. From that, you'd have to deduct the "savings" from the RCA not having to work. And THAT is assuming that the carrier WOULD NOT use some A/L which is worth more now at 43J to "replace" the relief days taken from him / her by this "optimization" . Then there is the free Saturday provision to consider as well. I'm with you, though, on the safety argument. Seems that overall and in general that this system is notorious for manufacturing left turns and U-turns creating numerous unsafe conditions. The safety argument is definitely the angle to pursue.

 

[littlesew&sew]

I have been going over the proposed line of travel line by line and comparing it to my current one (on end of shift time). I have found a few things to dispute the changes.

Safety - there is a new U turn proposed at a 4 way stop, and at least 3 more new U turns. Several houses that are currently turn arounds with boxes in driveway are no longer turn around. Customers will have to move boxes out to the street.

One address that I drive 3 miles to service has been eliminated from my line of travel. It is currently vacant, but someone could move in at any time.

I'm sitting at 47:58 right now so I am going to fight this resequencing with everything I can.

 

[neciat]

Here ya' go @littlesew&sew . A couple tid bits for your argument. One is a stand up talk and the other is from a carrier training manual. I'll keep digging through my stuff. If I find anything I even THINK would help, I'll send it your way.

 

[jsthere723]

A perfectly mid 40k ( 48:00 standard time ) if worked as a j route is 44j . So no . If low 40k looses minutes it cannot be higher than 43j

 

[littlesew&sew]

My resequencing saga is done, for now. I'm sure it will come around again.

Tips for anyone else facing this:
There's not a way to exclude U turns or left turns in the program. You have to set a barrier restriction across the road to prevent the program from adding that turn. Businesses at the beginning of the route can be added as a required start point of the route. Make sure every address is on the new line of travel.

I had to try 5 different variations of my route before I was able to completely reject resequencing. My current PM is not trying to force resequencing so that helps my situation.

 

[neciat]

Glad it worked out for you for now, at least. I was going to ask you to review the "new" proposed line of travel and compare the number of TCPs with the "old" / current line of travel. While there are times with this "system" that some TCPs are lost, there are also times that the TCPs that remain are encountered more often. And remember, the TCP count is per occurrence. So, that stop sign you encountered one time with the "old" line of travel might now be encountered two times. Same with any of the other TCPs. Then, with the "new" proposed line of travel having the same number of deliveries with LESS miles should help your drive speed / time which would have been an increase in time as well. If this had went through, the mileage deduction would probably have been immediate while any gain(s) in TCPs and / or DSM would not have been realized until at least the next MMS took effect. This is some of why I stated upthread ," the route could be more than 43J."

 

[jsthere723]

Glad it worked out for you for now, at least. I was going to ask you to review the "new" proposed line of travel and compare the number of TCPs with the "old" / current line of travel. While there are times with this "system" that some TCPs are lost, there are also times that the TCPs that remain are encountered more often. And remember, the TCP count is per occurrence. So, that stop sign you encountered one time with the "old" line of travel might now be encountered two times. Same with any of the other TCPs. Then, with the "new" proposed line of travel having the same number of deliveries with LESS miles should help your drive speed / time which would have been an increase in time as well. If this had went through, the mileage deduction would probably have been immediate while any gain(s) in TCPs and / or DSM would not have been realized until at least the next MMS took effect. This is some of why I stated upthread ," the route could be more than 43J."

Okay . But that’s not loosing minutes . You lose enough minutes from low 40k you go to 43j or lower . If you end up getting more tcps you might gain minutes not lose