<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Abstract
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Acknowledgement
 Summary
 Introduction
 Objectives
 General procedure
 The present system
 The analysis
 Findings
 Conclusion
 Procedures for estimating pick...
 Tables
 Routes for all alternatives and...
 Reference


FLAG IFAS UF



Reducing milk transportation costs for upper Florida producers
CITATION SEARCH THUMBNAILS PDF VIEWER PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026918/00001
 Material Information
Title: Reducing milk transportation costs for upper Florida producers a research project conducted for the Upper Florida Milk Producers Association
Series Title: Industry report Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Physical Description: xii, 75 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Degner, Robert L
Mathis, Kary, 1936-
Upper Florida Milk Producers Association
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1978
Copyright Date: 1978
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Milk -- Transportation   ( lcsh )
Milk trade -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by Robert L. Degner, Kary Mathis.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000409928
oclc - 06377675
notis - ACF6674
lccn - 79625746
System ID: UF00026918:00001

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

Reducing%20Milk%20Trans%20Cost%20IR%2078-1 ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Title Page
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
        Page iii
    List of Tables
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
    List of Figures
        Page viii
        Page ix
    Acknowledgement
        Page x
    Summary
        Page xi
        Page xii
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Objectives
        Page 1
    General procedure
        Page 1
    The present system
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
    The analysis
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
    Findings
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
    Conclusion
        Page 35
    Procedures for estimating pick up time requirements
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
    Tables
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
    Routes for all alternatives and subsets of dairies
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
    Reference
        Page 75
Full Text



INDUSTRY REPORT 78-1


REDU


TRANSPORT?

FOR UPPER


PRODUCERS


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max


FOOD AND RESOURCE FC0N'0MIiCS DEPARTMENT *AGRICULTURAL EXPE91MENT SIATIONS
INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCENCESe UNIVERSITY Of FLORIDA* GAINESVILLE, 32611',


JUNE, 1978













ABSTRACT


Transporting milk efficiently from farms to primary collection points
is a sizeable logistical task for dairies, commercial haulers, and the Upper
Florida Milk Producers Association (F1IPA).

The objectives of this ;tu~y were to 1) determine milk transportation
costs under the present collection system and 2) develop alternative collection
.'o::rduirs which reduce milk transportation costs. It was hypothesized that
three major factors contribute to hauling inefficiency: 1) uncoordinated pick
up times at dairies, 2) daily pick up of small quantities and 3) overlapping
routes where several haulers operate in the same geographic area.

The cormpiir program "ROUTE" was used to analyze the e-"' t of various
routing alternatives on total transportation costs. Routing alternatives
examined the effects of alterning farm pick up times, the effects of going
to every-other-day pick up for most dairies, and the effects of eliminating
hauler overlap. The routing alternatives examined reduced gross collection
and transportation costs from 2 to 18 percent.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max
























REDUCING MILK TPArN"'ORTATION COSTS FOR
UPPER FLORIDA PRODUCERS

By

Robert L. Degner
Kary Mathis


May, 1978







a r,:.eril project conducted for the
UPPER FLORIDA MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION





Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max














TP.-: OF CONTENTS


LIST OF TABLES


LIST OF .;. .',, TABLES

LIST OF FI-"

P .. GEMENTS



I ON





THE

SDairies
Location
on
F . of pick
cial Haulers
Relative size
Areas served by commercial haulers


T, ,- ,-IS


Data regentss
Dairy locations
;ion
F : time of ck
Truck data
Determination of Collection
Routi Alternatives
Alternative A
Alternative A'
A1*.. n,,4.r B
Alternative B
Alternative B'
Alternative C
Alternative C'
Alternative D
Alternative D'


up and stop time requirements


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max


viii










TABLE OF CONTENT --tinued


FINDINGS 23

A Routing -: :'le 23
.Savings for the System 28

CONCLUSIONS 35

APPENDIX A 36

APPENDIX B 39

APPENDIX C 49

REFERENCiiES




































iii


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max













LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Type of hauling utilized by dairies in Federal Market Order
No. 6, and January-June, 1977, daily average quantity
hauled. 3

2 Dairies utilizing commercial hauling services, number and
volume, by county, January and June, 1977. 5

3 Upper Florida Milk Producers Association dairies utilizing
commercial hauling services, by size classification. 6

4 Frequency of pick up of dairies utilizing commercial hauling
services, by size. 7

5 Proportion of commercially hauled milk by hauler. 8

6 Average distance from dairies to primary assembly points. 10

7 Summary of data requirements for "ROUTE" analyses. 12

8 Central collection points for "ROUTE" analyses based on
current hauling arrangements. 14

9 Central collection points for "ROUTE" analyses based on
non-overlapping geographic areas for haulers. 16

10 Routing alternatives defined. 19

11 Number of dairies served daily versus EOD for routing altern-
atives C, C', D, and D' based on January production levels. 21

12 Storage capacity requirements for dairies shifting from
daily to EOD pick up. 21

13 A summary of hauling costs for a two-day period for various
routing alternatives for the entire system, January production. 30

14 Summary of hauling costs for a two-day period, for various
routing alternatives for the entire system, June production. 30

15 Milk hauling costs per hundred-weight associated with various
routing alternatives. 31



iv


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










LIST OF TABLES-Continued


Table Page

16 Savings comparisons for a two-day period for various routing
alternatives, January production levels. 32

17 Savings comp.drisons for a two-day period for various routing
alternatives, June production levels. 33

18 Annual savings comparisons for various routing alternatives. 34











































v


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max













LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES


Table Page

1 January EOD production and storage requirements for dairies
currently picked up daily but producing less than one-half
truckload per day. 40

2 January hauling costs by hauler and area for routing
alternative "A", i.e., current pick up times, pick up
frequency, and haulers. 41

3 January hauling cost by area for routing alternative "A'",
i. e., current pick up times, pick up frIequency, and elimin-l-
ation of hauler overlap. 41

4 January hauling costs by hauler and area for routing
alternative "B", i.e., unrestricted pick up times,
current pick uo frequencies and haulers. 42

5 January hauling cost by area for routing alternative "B'",
i.e., unrestricted pick up times, current pick up frequencies,
and elimination of hauler overlap. 42

6 January hauling costs by hauler and area for routing
alternative "C", i.e., current pick up times and haulers,
but EOD pick up for most dairies. 43

7 January hauling costs by area for routing alternative "C'",
current pick up times, but EOD pick up for most dairies and
elimination of hauler overlap. 43

8 January hauling costs by hauler and area for routing alternative
"D", i.e., current haulers, unrestricted pick up times and
EOD pick up only for most dairies. 44

9 January hauling c.sts by area for routing alternative "D"",
unrestricted pick up times, EOD pick up only for most dairies,
and elimination of hauler overlap. 44

10 June hauling costs by hauler and area for routing alternative
llA" i r 'ily'Ant niele' iUn +;mn n4 l I ,. 'll" mm n A
"A", i.e. current pick up. t es, pick up frequency, and
haulers. 45

11 June hauling cost by area for routing alternative "A'",
i.e., current pick up times, pick up frequency, and elimin-
ation of hauler overlap. 45



vi


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES-Continued


Table Page

12 June hauling costs by hauler and area for routing alternative
"B", i.e., unrestricted pick up times, current pick up
frequencies and haulers. 46

13 June hauling cost by area for routing alternative "B'", i.e.,
unrestricted pick up times, current pick up frequencies,
and elimination of hauler overlap. 46

14 June hauling costs by hauler and area for routing alternative
"C", i.e., current pick up times and haulers, but EOD
pick up for most dairies. 47

15 June hauling costs by area for routing alternative "C'",
current pick up times, but EOD pick up for moUst dairies and
elimination of hauler overlap. 47

16 June hauling costs by hauler and area for routing alternative
"D", i.e., current haulers, unrestricted pick up times, and
EOD pick up only for most dairies. 48

17 June hauling costs by area for routring alternative "D'", un-
restricted pick up times, EOD pick up only for most dairies,
and elimination of hauler overlap. 48
























vii


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max














LIST OF FIGURES


County locations of dairies utilizing commercial hauling
services, Market Order Area No. 6.

Counties served by only one commercial hauler and counties
served by more than one hauler.

Subsets of UFMPA dairies for route analyses based on current
hauling arrangements.

Subsets of UFMPA dairies for ROUTE analyses based on non-
overlapping geographic areas for haulers.


Page


4


9


15


17


5 Routes developed for Sheffield, Jacksonville, alternative A,


January production.

Routes developed for
January production.

Routes developed for
January production.

Router developed for
January production.

Routes developed for
production.

Routes developed for
product inrl.

Routes developed for
production.

Routes developed for
production.

Routes developed for
production.


Sheffield, Jacksonville, alternative I


Sheffield, Jacksonville, alternative (


Sheffield, Jacksonville, alternative I


Jacksonville, alternative A', January


Jacksonville, alternative B', January


Jacksonville, alternative C', January


Jacksonville, alternative D', January


Grand Ridge, alternative A, January


viii


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max


Figure

1


2


3


4










LIST OF FIGURES-Continued


Page


Figure


14 Routes developed for Grand Ridge, alternative B, January
production.

15 Routes developed for Grand Ridge, alternative C, January
production.

16 Routes developed for Grand Ridge, alternative D, January
production.

17 Routes developed for North Florida, alternative A, January
production.

18 Routes developed for North Florida, alternative B, January
production.

19 Routes developed for North Florida, alternative C, January
production.

20 Routes developed for North Florida, alternative D, January
production.

21 Routes developed for Lee, alternative A, January production.

22 Routes developed for Lee, alternative B, January production.

23 Routes developed for Lee, alternative C, January production.

24 -oiite, developed for Lee, alternative D, January production.

25 RL:ute-. developed for Velda, alternative A, January production.

26 Pjutes developed for Velda, alternative B, January production.

27 Routes developed for Velda, alternative C, January production.

28 Routes developed for Velda, alternative 0, January production.

29 Routes developed for all Orlando area dairies, alternative A',
January production.

30 Routes developed for all Orlando area dairies, alternative B',
January production.

31 Routes developed for all Orlando area dairies, alternative C',
January production.

32 Routes developed for all Orlando area dairies, alternative D',
January production.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max














AC I KN- OL E DGW E MENTS


This research was initiated by a request from the Upper Florida Milk
Producers' Association and funra~ in part by a grant from the Association.
Mr. Sam Swett, General Manager of the Association, was instrumental in
formulating the project and providing the necessary production data. Joe
Dasher and Cecil Hickoks were also very helpful in providing required
information. All members of the Association staff are due our sincere
appreciation.
We also wish to express our thanks to Mr. Morton Cook, of the T. G.
Lee Company, Mr. Ray Bassett and Mr. Wilmer Bassett of the North Florida
Transport Company, Mr. Carl Sheffield and Mr. Cliff Sheffield of Sheffield
Milk Transports and Mr. Curry Bassett and Mr. Bill Hensley of Velda Farms
(Winter Havenr).
Our appreciation is also expressed to Mr. Scott Woolley, Ms. Nancy
Melton, Mr. Gerald Fieser and Dr. Tom Spreen for many hours of computer
analyses, and to Ms. Patricia Beville for typing, editing and assistance in
all phases of the study.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max
















Transporting milk efficiently from farms to primary collection points
is a sizeable logistical task for dairies, commercial haulers, and the Upper
Florida Milk Producers Association (UFMPA).

One-hundred and forty of 155 UFMPA members utilize the services of four
commercial haulers to transport almost 1.2 million pounds of milk daily;
this represents 70 percent of the Marketing Order area's total production.

Dairies served by commercial haulers are located in 30 Florida counties
and one Georgia county, spanning a distance of over 500 miles.

Production varies considerably among dairies; the raiie is from less than
1,000 pounds to well over 60,000 pounds per day.

The objectives of this study were to 1) determine milk transportation
costs under the present collection system and 2) develop alternative collection
procedures which reduce milk transportation costs.

It was hypothesized that three major factors contribute to hauling in-
efficiency: 1) uncordinated pick up times at dairies, 2) daily pick up of
small quantities and 3) overlapping routes where several haulers operate in
the same geographic area.

The computer program "ROUTE" was used to analyze the effects of various
routing alternatives on total transportation costs.

"ROUTE" designs efficient routes by systematically searching for combinations
of stops which meet all restrictions such as pick up time, volume to be picked
up, pick up time required, travel time required between stops, truck capacity,
etc., at the lowest possible cost.

Total cost is based on distance traveled and time required to serve a
given route; hypothetical costs of 50 cents per vehicle mile or $4.00 per hour
were used.

Routing alternatives examined the effects of altering farm pick up times,
the effects of going to every-other-day pick up for most dairies, and the
effects of eliminating hauler overlap.

On an annual basis, simply eliminating hauler overlap would result in
savings of 2 percent or about $28,000.

Altering pick up times at dairies to provide for more logical sequencing
of routes reduces pick up costs about 3 percent, almost $47,000.




xi


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max









Altering pick up times in combination with elimination of hauler over-
lap but maintaining current pick up frequency reduces costs by 7 percent,
about $103,000 per year.

Adopting every-other-day pick up for all dairies that produce less than
half-a-truckload per day results in substantial savings. Every-other-day
pick up at current times with present haulers results in savings of nearly
$150,000 per year; if hauler overlap is eliminated as well, the total annual
savings approaches $160,000.

[CLery-other-day pick up at altered pick up times by current haulers
decreases costs about 12 percent or $194,000 per year. If hauler overlap
is eliminated too, total savings approach $204,000.

The figures reported here are obviously gross savings. Changes from
the current system could necessitate substantial investment and/or sacrifice
by individual dairies and haulers, depending on alternatives chosen. Careful
study must be made to determine the net impact of various alternatives on
each component in the production and collection system.

































xii


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max














REDUCING MILK TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR
UPPER FLORIDA PRODUCERS
Robert L. Degner and Kary Mathis


INTRODUCTION


The Upper Florida Milk Producers Association, operating under Federal
Milk Ma-keting Order No. 6, markets approximately 50 million pounds of
milk per month produced by 155 dairies in the Florida Panhandle and the
North Central part of the state. Producers are located from Pensacola to
Jacksonville to Wauchula with a span of over 500 miles separating the
most extreme points. Processing plants to which most production is de-
livered are located in Jacksonville, Orlando, and Winter Haven. Thus,
the milk industry in the area is confronted with the sizeable logistical
task of collecting milk and delivering it to the processing plants where
it is needed. Transportation costs have increased sharply in recent years
due to the energy, labor, and equipment components.


OBJECTIVES


The objectives of this study were to (1) determine milk transportation costs
under the present collection system and (2) develop alternative collection
proceduress which reduce milk transportation costs. Increased efficiency will
benefit all segments of the dairy industry, and will ultimately benefit con-
sumers as well.


GENERAL PROCEDURE


The objectives were met by utilizing a computer routing program to
analyze dairies' current production and pick up times, dairies'geographic


ROBERT L. DEGNER is assistant professor and KARY MATHIS is associate
professor of food and resource economics, University of Florida.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max














REDUCING MILK TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR
UPPER FLORIDA PRODUCERS
Robert L. Degner and Kary Mathis


INTRODUCTION


The Upper Florida Milk Producers Association, operating under Federal
Milk Ma-keting Order No. 6, markets approximately 50 million pounds of
milk per month produced by 155 dairies in the Florida Panhandle and the
North Central part of the state. Producers are located from Pensacola to
Jacksonville to Wauchula with a span of over 500 miles separating the
most extreme points. Processing plants to which most production is de-
livered are located in Jacksonville, Orlando, and Winter Haven. Thus,
the milk industry in the area is confronted with the sizeable logistical
task of collecting milk and delivering it to the processing plants where
it is needed. Transportation costs have increased sharply in recent years
due to the energy, labor, and equipment components.


OBJECTIVES


The objectives of this study were to (1) determine milk transportation costs
under the present collection system and (2) develop alternative collection
proceduress which reduce milk transportation costs. Increased efficiency will
benefit all segments of the dairy industry, and will ultimately benefit con-
sumers as well.


GENERAL PROCEDURE


The objectives were met by utilizing a computer routing program to
analyze dairies' current production and pick up times, dairies'geographic


ROBERT L. DEGNER is assistant professor and KARY MATHIS is associate
professor of food and resource economics, University of Florida.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max














REDUCING MILK TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR
UPPER FLORIDA PRODUCERS
Robert L. Degner and Kary Mathis


INTRODUCTION


The Upper Florida Milk Producers Association, operating under Federal
Milk Ma-keting Order No. 6, markets approximately 50 million pounds of
milk per month produced by 155 dairies in the Florida Panhandle and the
North Central part of the state. Producers are located from Pensacola to
Jacksonville to Wauchula with a span of over 500 miles separating the
most extreme points. Processing plants to which most production is de-
livered are located in Jacksonville, Orlando, and Winter Haven. Thus,
the milk industry in the area is confronted with the sizeable logistical
task of collecting milk and delivering it to the processing plants where
it is needed. Transportation costs have increased sharply in recent years
due to the energy, labor, and equipment components.


OBJECTIVES


The objectives of this study were to (1) determine milk transportation costs
under the present collection system and (2) develop alternative collection
proceduress which reduce milk transportation costs. Increased efficiency will
benefit all segments of the dairy industry, and will ultimately benefit con-
sumers as well.


GENERAL PROCEDURE


The objectives were met by utilizing a computer routing program to
analyze dairies' current production and pick up times, dairies'geographic


ROBERT L. DEGNER is assistant professor and KARY MATHIS is associate
professor of food and resource economics, University of Florida.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










locations, and the usual destinations of their production under various
constraints. The basic constraints examined included (1) altered pick .
times for indiv-' ..' dairies (2) ever;, -* .-.-day (EOD) .-: up dairies
that '. -: Vo less than half a tanker load per day and (3) elimination of
overlapping routes by major ` .lers. Analyses were limited to dairies
that contract with commercial haulers for .. .. ...on .' their milk.
T*. haulers were excluded because the limited numbers of collection
:-* (only one in most cases) for self-haulers.
Current seasonal maximum and minimum production for each dairy was
taken to be that recorded in January and June, 1977, by the UFMPA. Pick
up schedules, incl.:, acceptable time ,.. for pick up, were obtained
from : personnel of the '- .',s. Precise 1.:, of all
dairies were made on large-scale '*' ..maps by hauling `:- and UFMPA
personnel. Further details .*' the analytical procedures appear in later



THE P7--:T


The -_ries


Stion data for individual dairies were obtained for the months
of January and June, 1977. These months lect highest and lowest seasonal
'. ion in the area. During these months there were 155 dairies in
operation, thirteen of which do their own hauling and were thus excluded
from further analyses. Two additional dairies are served by a ,-" ing
dairy farmer who is primarily a self-hauler and were also excluded from
analysis. the remaining 140 dairies, there were two cases where
two dairies were extremely close together and were found to be -m- as
le operations. These .. .-tions were treated as single pick up points,
result. in an effective total of 138 dairies.
The 138 dairies that utilize coanercial haul i services produce almost
1.2 million : .. of milk *. day, or about 70 of -* -'" .Order
area's total production (Table 1).


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










Table 1.--Type of hauling utilized by dairies in Federal Market ,'- No. 6,
and January-June, 1 daily average "' hauled.

No. of -.. haul-..! Percent of
T., of .:ling dairies total

(1,000 lbs)

Commercially hauled 140 1,182 70.4
-.."f-hauled 15 498 29.6

Totals 155 1,680 100.0

.- ::.- Florida Milk r.: Association records.


Location


The dairies served by commercial haulers are located in 30 Florida
counties and one ,ia .',, ranging Escambia to Duval to -
(Fi : 1). Al there is considerable geographic dispersion, 11
counties have only one dairy each and 11 others have five or fewer. The
greatest concentrations of dairies are in .. I.. ..: '-!. and Marion,
with 24, 21, and 12, respectively (Table 2).
. follows the same general pattern; production by firms
util '. commercial hauling services is also ' in the same
counties. ..1, Lafayette, and Marion Counties have .... ...:'.ly 15,
12 and 6 percent :- the commercially hauled vol -. al' .9.' Volusia and
Nassau Counties almost equal that of Marion County (Table 2).

Production

-,... 'ion varies considerably dairy to dairy, Average;. : '. ion
ranges less than 1,000 .... to well over 50,000 -'!. day.
were class'>-.' into 4 size -.:- :l11, medium, .- and
extra-' :.. on the basis of the .-... :. of their January and June 1977
S:.. These size classifications are based on -. bulk I..-- tank
capacities which are --. ,ly :..'lable in 500 gallon increments and the
effective capacity of large (6,200 illon) tankers.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max














































* = A dairy utilizing commercial
hauling


Figure 1. County locations of dairies utilizing commercial hauling
services, Mar et Order Area No, 6.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










Table 2.--Dairies utilizing commercial hauling services, number and vo'-
by county, '- and June, 1977.

Number o ::
.' dairies .
(--M (-)' ) (%)

Alachua 8 19,890 4.8 16,707 4.7
8 7,222 1.7 7, 2.1
Bradford 1 2,313 0.6 1,1 0.3
Brevard 1 1,319 0.3 1.-' 0.3
Calhoun 0.1 1,011b 0.3
Col bia 1 3,203 8 0.0
:-y 2 24. 5.8 21, 6.0
Decatur, GA 1 5,682 1.4 4,549 1.3
Duval 24 60. _:... 14.7 61.194 17.1
.. :ia 1 3."5- 0.9 ," 1.0
Gadsden 1 0.6 ". '7 0.8
Gilchrist 1 11,177 2.7 b 00
..i.lton 1 ..^"" 0.8 ---- 0.0
3 3,521 0.9 ----- 0.0
5 2,016 0.5 : 0.7
Jackson 8 11,495 10,432 2.9
... '4 23,220 5.6 19,996 5.6
Lafayette 21 48,933 11 39,902 11.2
Lake 7 21,305 ,-" 5,7
Marion 12 26, 6.4 '^.688 6.6
...6 26,"' 6.3 27,861 7.8
: 3 8.979 2.2 2.2
Sa 5 20,660 5.0 1 -.70 5.2
k 5 7,924 1.9 7,474 2.1
Putnam 1 16. 4.1 1 3.7
Seminole 1 5,763 1.4 5,289 1.5
Sumter 4 5,510 1.3 4.920 1.4
Suwannee 4 3,104 0.8 2.^76 0.6
'usia 5 25, -- 6.3 23,836 6,6
Washington 2 8,322 2.0 7,390 2.1
d 35,80d
Totals 41 350 100.0 356,880 00.0


number of dairies reported here is the .:i active in October,
1977 and does not .. ily --' ect the number in production in January
or June. Two dairies in 7- County and one in Flagler County were no
1.'.:- in ; ..' ': in October. Thus, ''..- were omitted.

production reported,

ludes a large .: .... : ..
S not- su m to 100 .... de to ra andiinn.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










Small dairies were those producing less than 8,600 pounds (1,000
gallons) every-other-day (EOD). There are 46 dairies, exactly one-third
in this size category (Table 3).
Medium-sized dairies are those whose average production ranged from
8,601 pounds to 25,800 pounds or approximately 1,000 to 3,000 gallons EOD.
This is the largest group and is comprised of 63 dairies or almost 46 percent
of the total number.
The large size classification includes dairies with production of
25,801 to 38,700 pounds or 3,000 to 4,C501 gallons EOD. There are 19 dairies
in this group, which constitutes about 14 percent of the total number.
The extra-large classification consists of dairies with production in
excess of 38,700 pounds or 4,500 gallons EOD. This grrni- contains 10
dairies, or 7 percent of the total (Table 3).


Frequency of pick up

Overall, 41 percent of the dairies served by commercial haulers are
picked up daily and the remaining 59 percent every-other-day (Table 4).
However, pick up frequency varies directly with dairy size. Twenty-two
percent of the small dairies are served daily, but 58 percent of the large
and 90 percent of the extra-large are served daily (Table 4). In absolute
terms, there are 10 small, 27 medium, 11 large, and 9 extra-large dairies
that are picked up daily (Table 4).


Table 3.--Upper Florida Milk Producers Association dairies utilizing
commercial hauling services, by size classification.

Size classification Number Percent

Small 46 33.3
Medium 63 45.7
Large 19 13.8
Extra-large 10 7.2

Total 138 100.0
asize classifications are based on every-other-day (two day) production
as follows: Small, less than 8,600 pounds or 1,000 gallons EOD; Medium, from
8,601 to 25,800 pounds or approximately 1,000-3,000 gallons; Large, from
25,801 to 38,700 pounds or about 3,000-4,500 gallon; rExtra-large, over
38,700 pounds or 4,500 gallons.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










Table 4. "- ;. of pick up dairies until* :
services, by size.


-- 1 hauling


Size ; ;
classification : Totals


(No.)


Small
Medium
Large
Extra-large

All sizes


9 90


-a (No.) Percenta ( .)


Ar
46
63
19
10

138


on the total number in each ., ::


'T.: size class.


S on the total number of dairies.


Commercial ..lers


are five firms that haul milk for dairies other than their own,
but one relatively 1-.-ll firm is primarily a self-hauler. For this reason,
this small firm and its two customers were not included in the ..., "
analyses. The remai'- : firms -: "- dairies in 138 locations.


..lative size


The two largest hauling firms, Sheffield's .*-k Transports and
Florida T; .;..- Service, together serve 110 dairies which ,. .,. over
80 : the commercially hauled volume (Table 5).
The T. G. Lee ^ : a lead'-. :- but a relatively small
hauler, serves 20 dairies, excluding : .:-*. -owned dairies. These 20
dairies ':. approximately 16 -*..-.l of the *- -. :ly hauled volume.
"da Farms, Winter: .. a processor that also provides a hauling service,
serves eight dairies that produce the * -" 3 .. of the total
commercially-hauled vol.: (Table 5).


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max


Percent

33
46
14
7

100










Table 5.--Proportion of commercially hauled milk by hauler.

Number of Percentbof
Firm dairies served volume

Sheffield's Milk Transports 57 44.4

North Florida Transport Service 53 36.8

T. G. Lee Companya 20 15.7

Velda Farms, Winter Haven 8 3.0

Totals 138 100.0

a-
axcludes Lee's own production because of proximity to own processing
plant. In several cases, two dairies are treated as one firm for pick up
when they are extremely near each other and are owned or operated by the
same individual, family, or firm.
Volume base reflects the average of January and June, 1977 production.

Does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.


Areas served by commercial haulers


Sheffield's Milk Transports primarily serves dairies in the Panhandle
counties and Nassau-Duval Counties on the east coast. Its southernmost
pick up points are in Alachua County (Figure 2). Sheffield's major pick up
activity is in the Jacksonville area, where 38 customers are served. The
38 dairies are located an average of 25 miles from Jacksonville (Table 6).
Grand Ridge is also an important collection center for the Panhandle
counties and the Sheffield hauling operation. Nineteen dairies are present-
ly served out of their Grand Ridge station; on the average, they are 44
miles from the terminal. If the one Escambia County dairy is omitted, how-
ever, the average distance for the Grand Ridge area dairies decreases to
36.2 miles.
North Florida Transport Service serves 53 dairies located from Jefferson
County in the upper central Panhandle to Brevard and Osceola Counties in the
central east coast region of the state. The milk from North Florida's
dairies is generally utilized in the Orlando market. On the average, North
Flroida's dairies are about 130 miles from Orlando (Table 6). The T. G. Lee,


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










































I j = Sheffield exclusively
=North Florida exclusively
-= .lelP i and North Florida

= Lee exclusively

= North Florida and Lee

= Velda (Winter Haven) exclusively


r-,( a-,


Figure 2.--Counties served by only one commercial hauler and counties served
by more than one hauler.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max






10


Company, with and process F cities located in ando, picks
up milk 20 dairies other than their ., The dairies Lee serves are in
a seven-county area in the central part of the state, near Orlando. -.
average distance from Lee's hauling :-.' -: to Orlando is about 43 miles.
4 i Velda Farms ipi - ... in Winter ;' s.!- serves a total of eight dairies.
Five are located in the : i '. o te ": -',s- Haven- and area (Polk County)
and three more in the Wau hula ara ("' '-. County )
There is very little overlap in haulers' routes in the major ;,*..!'..
areas in the Panhandle and the Jacksonville areas and no overlap in the Winter
:,':: :and area served by .'rda. -; jri l of the state
from Alachua .:.., to sceola County has an intermixing of dairies served
by several haulers. It was ':.,: "' zed that this intermi-: could result
in some degree of ineff-. ;:.::-.


Table 6.--Average ..'" r:, dairies to : .:,, assembly 1'..

Hauler, area Number of Average di from dairy
served dairies to primary assembly point

-----------Miles---------

Sheffield's Milk T,. -.. :

Jacksonville 38 25.0

': d's Milk T .:- ,

Ridge 19 44.0

Florida Transport Service

Orlando 130.9

T. G. Lee : y

-lando 20 43.3

Velda Farms

Winter Haven 8 23.5


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max









ANALYSIS


Any dispatcher in the milk industry can attest to the complexity of
devising efficient ." .routes. As the number of stops h. --., the
-.' routing possibilities increases : .':.:lly. For example, on
a single route with only four dairies, there are 12 routing '1
If the number of dairies on a si .'e route increases to seven, the number
Route possibilities : .:.. to an almost unbelievable 2, Obvious
geographic grouping of stops hel.. to simple" the dispatch job, but
there are other constraints such as pick up times, volume to be picked up,
truck capacities, transit time and so . which complicate matters.
To help analyze the relative efficiency of alternative routing systems,
for the 138 dairy locat -. in UFMPA, the ... : program was
obtained [1,2]. This program designs efficient routes by systematically
..,.. .- ; for combinations of .: which .' all restrictions (i.e., truck
capacity, time of day, '.-.) at the lowest possible total cost, Total cost
is based on distance traveled and time required to serve a given route. Thus,
the -. seeks to serve all stops within : times, pick up all
milk .' .' and do so at minimum cost,


Data ..


The : :ex nature of the routing problem ..'red considerable data
(Table 7). 1 of :'- .. and top :- ... of the four commercial
hauling firms were visited to gain insight into the problem and to obtain
basic data.




Initially, all dairy locations were .:otted on large scale ( = 1 mile
to 2" = 1 mrnile) ga %:* by a ff of the 'and a four 1
t -i tII J L-UUHL tV)' JLUIIb -4lC urrirn antu a 01
hauling firms [3]. Additionally, haulers indicated their usual routes on
the and marked all highway sr"~- r : .' were infeasible for milk routes
because of road conditions or weight .'. 'ions.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max











Production


Seasonal high and low production figures for each dairy were obtained
from UFMPA records for January and June, 1977. The widest fluctuations
were selected to examine their effects on changes in route efficiencies.


Table 7.--Summary of data requirements


for "ROUTE" analyses.


Data required


Source, description


Geographic locations of all
dairies and delivery points



Distances between all feasible
combinations of dairies and
delivery points


Daily milk nproductinn for each
dairy during highest and lowest
production periods
(January and June, 1977)

Frequency of pick up for each
dairy

Pick up time range for each
dairy

Pick up time required at each
da I ry



Number and capacities of trucks
available for farm pick up


Truck speed


Truck cost-per-mile




Driver cost-per-hour


UFMPA personnel and commercial
hauling firms plotted locations on
large scale ( = 1 mile) county
maps.

Usual routes and infeasible routes
due to road conditions were marked
by hauling firms. Road distances
were measured from maps.

Haule rcord.




Haulers


Haulers


Haulers provided time requirements
based on October volume; time re-
quirements were estimated statistical-
ly for January and June volume.

Haulers; Sheffield's effective truck
capacity was given as 51,600 pounds
(based on a 6,000 gallon payload in
a 6,200 gallon tank) and 47,300 for
for a11 other haulers (5,500 gallon
payload in a 5,600 gallon tank).

Estimated at 30 miles per hour.

Major haulers provided detailed
cost information; from this an
estimate of $0.50 cents per mile
was made.

Estimated at $4.00 per hour.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max


_ ~ ~
-- 1. --


-- -..~...-..~.










Frequency, time of pick up and stop time requirements


Frequency of pick up, i.e., daily or every-other-day (EOD) for each
dairy, was provided by the haulers. Tney also indicated the usual time of
day for pick up for each dairy, along with an acceptable time range during
which the individual dairies preferred to be served. The two largest
haulers also provided estimates of the time required at each of their stops
for October, 1977. Because pr:-duction varied substantially from January
to June for many dairies, statistical estimates of the relationship between
pick up time requirements and volume were developed. Details of the
estimating procedures are found in the Appendix A.


Truck data


Haulers provided the numbers and capacities of their trucks used for
farm pick up so that routes could be designed which would take into con-
sideration a fixed number of trucks of given capacities.
Although Sheffield's farm pick up trucks capacity was cited as 6,200 gallons,
an effective capacity of 6,000 gallons or 51,600 pounds was given because of
the need for a slight "cushion" to allow for production fluctuations and
stirring room. For all other haulers, an effective payload of 5,500 gallons
(47,300 pounds) in their 5,600 gallon tanks was used (Table 7). A truck
speed of 30 miles per hour was assumed for all analyses. While this is
obviously too slow for some route segments and !t r..'l.. too fast for others,
it was used to represent an overall average. An important consideration
is that the 30 mph speed was constant for all routing alternatives.
The two major haulers provided detailed cost information for their
total operations. However, neither could provide costs specifically for
their farm pick up upera-tions. Further, considerable differences between
the haulers' costs owing to differences in their operations, coupled with
the confidentiality of the data, precluded using their figures, even as
averages. Estimates were "synthesized" from information obtained from all
sources, and represent a rough i pp'-,i-i' l ion of true hauling costs. A
"truck cost" of 50t per mile and a "driver cost" of $4.00 per hour was
used to generate total route expenses for all routing alternatives. Once
again, the important consideration is the relative costs of the various
routing alternatives, and not the absolute costs.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










Determination of Collection Points


A basic characteristic of the "F'IOUTE" program is that it will develop
efficient routes for only one assembly or collection point at a time. For
analytical purposes, Jacksonville, Orlando, Grand Ridge and Winter Haven
were used as primary collection points for several subsets of dairies.
Individual dairies were assigned to each of these collection points.
This was done by consulting with haulers and UFMPA personnel to determine
the usual collection point for every dairy. The resulting assignment of
dairies to primary collection points was used for all routing analyses
based on current hauling arrangements. For example, Sheffield's Milk
Transports currently serves 38 dairies out of their Jacksonville headquarters.
The primary assembly point for milk from these dairies is usually Jacksonville.
A central point, the UFMPA terminal, was selected as an "average" location
for the Jacksonville market (Table 8, Figure 3). Similarly, the primary
collection point for milk from the 19 Panhandle dairies served by Shf-rield's
was determined to be their Grand Ridge terminal. Secondary transport costs,
i.e., costs from Grand Ridge to processing plants in Jacksonville, Orlando
or other locations were not analyzed.


Table 8.--Central collection points for "ROUTE" analyses based on current
hauling arrangements.

Central collection Number of dairies
point included in analyses Description

Jacksonville (UFMPA Terminal) 38 Sheffield's current
customers
Grand Ridge (Sheffield's terminal) 19 Sheffield's current
customers
Orlando (Mid-point, T. G. Lee and 53 North Florida's
Borden's plants) current customers

Orlando (T. G. Lee plant) 20 Lee's current
customers
Winter Haven (Velda plant) 8 Velda's current
customers


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max


































Circle = primary collection points
Number = dairies in subset




















Figure 3.--Subsets of UFMPA dairies for route analyses
based on current hauling arrangements.


if










Orlando was designated as a primary collection point for all 53 of
the dairies served by North Florida Transport Service and the 20 served
by T. G. Lee. The eight dairies picked up by Velda Farms in the Winter
Haven area were routed into Winter Haven for all analyses.
For routing alternatives which attempted to eliminate hauler over-
lap, a few dairies were reassigned from Jacksonville as a primary collection
point to Orlando (Table 9). The dairies were reassigned on the basis of
production and distance from Jacksonville.
The 19 Grand Ridge dairies were kept intact as an integral unit as
a supply source for the Jacksonville market. Their production along with
33 of Sheffields' 38 current dairies in the Jacksonville area were found
to supply Jacksonville's average daily market requirements. Thus, the

five dairies whose daily production exceeded the market requirements, were
farthest from Jacksonville, and were in an area of hauler overlap were
therefore reassigned (Table 9, Figure 4).


Table 9.--Central collection points for "ROUTE" analyses based on non-
overlapping geographic areas for haulers.

Central collection Number of dairies
point included in analyses Description

Jacksonville (UFMPA terminal) 33 Jacksonville market area
includes Sheffields'
current customers
Grand Ridge (Sheffield's terminal) 19 Jacksonville Market area
Sheffields' current
customers

Orlando (Mid-point, T. G. Lee, 78 Orlando market area in-
Borden's plants cludes all North Florida,
all Lee, plus 4 Alachua
County Dairies and 1
Suwannee County dairy
served by Sheffield's.
Winter Haven (Velda plant) 8 Winter Haven market area,
Velda's current customers

aIndividual dairies were assigned to market areas primarily on the basis
of average daily milk requirements for the major markets, i.e., Jacksonville,
Orlando, and Winter Haven and the dairies' proximity to these markets. Thus,
the only dairies reassigned were 4 in Alachua County and one in Suwannee
County currently served by Sheffield.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max
























N>-


Circle primary collection points.
Number dairies in subset


Figure 4,--Subsets of UFMPA dairies for ROUTE analyses
based on non-overlapping geographic areas for haulers.










Routing Alternati yves

i ...ination of the present commercial hauling a: .: ..:, between haulers
and dairies revealed several basic factors that were through to contribute
to hauling ineff ':,. These factors are 1) .-: up time", i.e., the time
of day that pick up is made at each dai -, 2) frequency of i.e.,
daily vs. every ~-"r--day ( ) and 3) duplication of routes due to "hauler
over that is, more than one hauler .. the same geographic area.
Pick .. times result in inefficiencies whenever dairies cannot be .. .. ..
in a logical order to reduce distance traveled and time required. Confl" ':
: up times cause trucks to back-track or delay up at some dairies
Frequency o...' largely on dairies' strange ity and
:. '.Although haul,. impose a "stop ;.:- .*.. dairies continue
to incur the stop charge daily rather than the substantial costs associated
with installing addi' .-.:l storage ty to permit EOD :'. ..
i..,ication of routes due to hauler overlap is not a serious problem
in the Panhandle-Jacksonville area nor in thePolk .::., % :.:. : ..' area.
;;..... t ,here is ...., ,-.:. overlap in the greater Orlando area (Figure 2).
..i ...- alternatives were anlayzed and compared to measure the
losses in'. :.!.' by the factors discussed above, Each alternative
is discussed below and summarized in Table 10.


Alternative A


The benchmark for comparisons is, as nearly as ." le, the current
collection ... It is des' ...' as alternative "A", in Table 10 and
subsequent : .ions.
S:.... haulers' precise routes for : .. levels of -* ., and June
1 were not available, .. designed routes were deve'. for Alternative
"A" which were ..; :.- by 1) each dai's current pick up times, 2) each
dairy's current up --%. .,. ., and 3) current hauler. Total costs for
every .. :alternative were estimated on the basis of 50: -:,. vehicle mile
and 2.1.00 per hour, It is emphasized that the ; -.: is on the relative
costs of the various .::- alternatives rather than the absolute cost of any
* -. :1e al '- ,. ..


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










Table 10.--Routing alternatives defined.

Routing al .. symbol

A Current pick up time
i. pick up -.: v, i.e., daily
and every-othe )
Current hauler

A' Same as "A" except haul," overlap is
eliminated

"B i... ... -* up times
c k up ':
Current hauler

B t. as "B" tALtL iaulir uverap is
el -.

C ..rrent u up times
.y dairies ...more than 1/2
truckload ; day are picked up
daily
*.'rent hauler

C' ,.: as "C" except hauler overlap is
eliminated

D"o. ::" pick up times
Only dairies -.'.. more than 1/2
truckload .* are picked up
daily
Current hauler

D' Same as "D" *..* : hauler overlap is
eliminated

f truckload" was defined as 25,800 Ibs 1 ons)
-**.Id's Milk Transport customers and 23, 1Ibs (2, -'llons) for all other
dairies.

Alternative A'


The second ..."' alternative designated as "A"'", is identical to ", the
only difference being the e ': -,-:tion of hauler overlap. Collect'.'-. are made
at current times and with the same frequency, but some dairies would be served
by different haulers in areas where hauler overl-- r .'Is (Tables 9 and 10).


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










Alternative B

This alternative examined the effects of altering dairies' pick up times
to permit pick up in a routing sequency that would reduce hauling distance
and total route time. Pick up was permitted between midnight and 6:00 p.m.
In reality, this alternative could be implemented with considerable flexibility
of route starting and completion times.

Alternative B'


This routing option is identical to B, except hauler overlap is eliminated.
Pick up times were chA1ged for somie dairies, but fr'?eq.iency of pick up remained
unchanged from their current practices.


Alternative C


This arrangement allowed current pick up times for all dairies, but only
provided daily pick up service for those with daily production in excess of
half-a-truckload per day. For dairies served by Sheffield's Milk Transports,
this production requirement was 25,800 pounds (3,000 gallons) per day (see
previous section on truck data, p. 13). For dairies served by all other
haulers, the production requirement was 23,650 pounds (2,750 gallons). This
alternative would require 49 dairies to change from daily pick up to every-
other-day (Table 11). A shift to EOD pick up would require storage capacity
ranging from about 500 gallons to over 4,000 gallons (Table 12, Appendix
Table 1). About 75 percent of the dairies that are currently being served
daily could go to EOD pick up with storage capacity of 3,000 gallons or
less (Table 12, Appendix Table 1). All dairies would continue to be served
by their present haulers (Table 10).

Alternative C'

This alternative is identical to "C", except that hauler overlap is
eliminated. Current pick up times are retained, but most dairies are picked
up every-other-day (Table 10).


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










Table 11.--Number
C, C',


of dairies served daily versus EOD for routing alternatives
0, and D' based on January production levels.


Frequencies of pick up
for alternative C, C' D and D'
Hauler EOD Daily


Number of dairies
changed to EOD


----------------Number of dairies -------------------


Sheffield
North Florida
Lee
Velda


Totals


129


aFor these routing alternatives, only dairies producing more than 1/2
truckload per day are picked up daily.


Table 12.--Storage capacity requirements for
pick up.


dairies shifting from daily to EOD


Minimum storage c..ipocity Number of Cumulative
requirements dairies Percent percent

-------(Gallons )-------

500 2 4.1 4.1
1,000 10 20.4 24.5
1,500 10 20.4 44.9
2,000 8 16.3 61.2
3,000 7 14.3 75.5
.4.. 8 16.3 96.8
Over 4,000 4 8.2 100.0


Totals 49 100.0 100.0

aSee Appendix Table 1 for storage requirements for individual dairies.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max


I
__~__~___~ ~ ~~I~I ___


_I ~ _ __ __ _










Alternative D


This examines the situation where pick up times are unrestrict-
ed and most dairies are picked : ever"-- --day, in alternative C and C',
only dairies with daily production exceed 1/2 '.. 'load are picked up every
day. All dairies are served by their current .'ers (Table 10 ).


Alternative D'


This ".. : : is the same as "D", except that hauler overlap is
eliminated. Pick up times are unrestricted and most dairies are picked
every-other-day (Table 10).


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max
















i:.... routing alternative discussed in the .:. section was used
to devel routes each subset of dairies listed in Tables 8 and 9 and
illustrated in Fi .. 3 and 4 for both '.i .::. and June production 1--.--'s.
This section discusses 1) examples of the routes devel* for one major
hauler and 2) system-wide -. attributable to the various alternatives.

. : ;. .J "' : --


Fi 5 through 8 depict -.-;: des :-' routes for alternatives
A, B, C, and D for the 38 dairies ...- 'ly served by held's'eld' s 'i1k
T, .. : in the Jacksonville area at .....- production levels, . .. .
'.costs associated with .: .each subset of dairies are : in ...! 'x
B. ".-.i', .,. ,". routing solutions for all other haulers (or areas) and their
Sive subsets of dairies are found in A :.- "x C.
Basic I' period for all routing analyses was two days because
of :.iling ,:' up practices. Obviously, dairies on daily pick up
schedules are picked -:: twice in the basic period and those on EOD pick up
are served only once. Thus, F'. :. and "~---ix Figures 9-32 represent
routes devel for two day periods. Further, most cost and savings com-
parisons are reported for two-day periods as well.
Each bar on the fi- .:. ...-- '. a route; numbers indicate dairies
included on each route and the order reflects the stop : The
and ending times of each route are shown on the vertical axis,
thus the time -: *-d to serve each route is shown by the length of the
bar. Routes that must be served on either the first day or second day of
the two day period have a circ, "1" or beneath them, designating the
respective day. Routes marked with an asterisk have the flexibility
bei- ; ,' : on either day.




23


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max

















12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 PM
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
NOON
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 AM
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
12:01


0 0




26


19 I5


P


Route


Figure 5.-Routes dcve]--4" for :, Jacksonville, alternative A, January
(See page 50 explanation of symbols)


- 0


S- 4
- :f
16
178

_ 5 0
35
- 2


215
12 15 5


0
rm,


4, 8
8I


production.


I &


i, ,
















12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00

7:00
6:00 PM
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
NOON
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00

6:00 AM
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Route
Figure 6.--Routes developed for Sheffield, Jacksonville, alternative B, January production.
(See page 50 for explanation of symbols)


S6
26 35 37
44
55


12:01


I 242l 1 7


. ....... .

















12:00
11:00
10:00 -

9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 PM
5:00 *
4:00- ,
3:00 *- ;
2:00 2 19 2
178 3* 28
1:00 14 50 32 3 12
NOON 23 s5 13 28
20
11:00 19
10:00 t 30j 1 128 12
24 122
9:00 2 '2



6:00 AM *
5:00 -
4:00 l
3:00 -
2:00 -
1:00 -
12:01-
1201 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Route
Figure 7.--Routes developed for Sheffield, Jacksonville, alternative C, January production.
(See page 50 for explanation of symbols)

















12:00 -
11:00 -
10:00 -
9;00 -

8:00 -
7:00 -
6:00 PM -
5:00 -
4:00 -
3:00 -
2:00 -
1:00
NOON- *

11:00-
10:00 so
,3 *
9:00
16
8:00 -12

7:00 17e
6:00 AM -

5:00 *
0
4:00 3




S:00 4 5 2 56 27 37
2 4 2 r


12:01-E 5----H- --
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Route
Figure 8.--Routes developed for Sheffield, Jacksonville, alternative D, January
production. (See page 50 for explanation of symbols)










As an example, to meet all the current constraints of the present
collection ,- -'. (alternative A), the routes shown in Figure 5 were
developed. Because these routes consider individual dairies' current,
erred pick up tirue, it was assumeIu La a ithe ..L t scheduling arrtangde-
ments, as restrictive as they may :.-,- de sufficient f' .- ility
for haulers to make deliveries to plants at ....:- times. As time and
pick restrictions are eased for subsequent routi- alternatives, haulers
have greater fl:-..ility in schedule., deliveries to plants.
For this example, 28 individual routes were developed for alternative A
for the two-day period (F'.,-.: 5). -1 small routes such as routes 7
and 12 can be :: - in any one day by the same truck and driver, 'ded
turn-around time is *:-r'cient. The total cost servi- the 38 dairies
two days under alternative A was $1..^'7 (" :'- "x Table 2).
Alternative B which provides current pick up ... ... at un-
restricted times by current haulers the time f. rements for
pick .. considerably. Trucks were arbitrary .:: "' '- to begin their
routes at 12:01 A.M. (F'... 6). In -tice, routes can be timed and
sequenced to permit several routes to be served by same truck and to
permit delivery flexibility. cost of serving the dairies with altern-
ative B was reduced slightly, to $1,261 (Appendix Table 4).
The routes for alternatives C and D are depicted and interpreted
similarly (Figures 7 and 8). ~- provide '' service to most dairies,
the number of stops is substantially reduced and routi fl, ility is
increased. A"'-- :tive C reduced the total number of routes to 24 and
total cost to $1,047 (Figure 7, '- .'ix Table 6). Alternative D reduced
the number of routes to 23 and total cost to $9' (Figure ., :, 'ix
Table 8). As with alternative B, alternative D routes were at 12:Oi
A.M., but can be started at any time to allow for desired plant delivery or
to allow several routes to be served by the same truck in the same day.




the entire system, the benchmark costs of all dairies as is
currently done (Alternative A) was estimated to be almost $7,400 : and
$7..- EOD 2 ..;:' and June volume respectively, based on the vehicle


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max









cost of "-. : mile :' driver cost of '.oO0 per hour 'able 13). The
EOD costs associated with the various .'" alternatives decline s- .-
icantly to about $6,400 and $5,800 for the respective production periods
for D, the least -'.- 'ive hauling t: :. : -.. (Tables 13 and 14).
On a system-wide basis, the cost-per-hundredweight (Cwt.) was estimat-
ed to currently be about 30 cents per Cwt. for both January and June
levels (Table 15). Eliminating hauler overlap but otheYise leaving the
collection system .* , ;. results in a cost reduction of about 2 ....
The most far-reaching alternative, D', results in a cost-per '
of about `! and 25t or 13 and 18 percent for and June .
levels, .. vely (Table 15).
". :-ison of the various alternatives for both the '".: and low production
months shows steadily increasing savi:>. by going '* .-. alternative A (the
S system) to the other alternatives (Tables 16 and 17). For example,
going from a' -:. A to A' (eliminating hauler over.:.) results in an
expected savings of .:--.'ly $132 EOD January -, _:- ' levels
(Table 16). Switching from the present. '.- to alternative C indicates
S of about .r" EOD. Similarly, savings sons between any com-
bination :- alternatives can be . ':. .-, (Table 16) and (Table
17) :.. ...: ion levels.
The savings z .r:-., :* '. for the various alternatives were -.; 'on
an annual basis by taki the average of the savi from '. and June
and *- *. !t: *them -tely. Thus, s' ly eliminate hauler overlap
results in savings of almost $28,000 per year (Table 18). Going the
current system to EOD pick .. for most dairies while maintain current
Sup times and haulers (alternative C) ; .". an annual savings of
nearly $1'^,00. The greatest savings, over ^"'.""^ per year, results from
alternative D', the option which .. "des EOD i' :. for most dairies, at
S ., and where hauler over'* is eliminated (Table 18).


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










Table 13.--A : .-. of haul
alternatives ; i the


(1 *)


464


431
428
417
415


costs for a two-day period *.- various rou"*
entire system, production.


(Mi-.> )


10.. ":
10,754
10,602
10,11"
10,001


9,574
9,500


(. liars)


7,379.88
7. '3.31
7,155.09
6,
6,723.99
6, -..88
6, '. .09
6,406.58


. ing alternatives are defined in Table ", page 19.


bTotal costs are based on vehicle
of T.00 per hour.


costs of -


mile and driver costs


Table 14.--S .. of hauling costs a two-day ', for various routi
alternatives the entire c -' June production.


Routi alternative Time required tance traveled Total cost


( -)


l) 379


(Miles)

10,464
10,193
10,012
9,489
8,986
8,907
:. 45
8,555


(Dollars)

7. r1.11
6,079.88
6,- :.87
6,433.67
6 "".95
6,016.79
5 .96
5,793.61


tink alternatives are defined in Table 10 page 19.
s-
'otal costs are based on vehicle costs of 50( mile and driver costs
ot per hour.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max


- I ~-- I






31

Table 15.--Milk hauling costs per hundredweight associated with various routtinq
alternatives.

.Jan!luary June
Routing alternative Cost per Cwt. Cost itndex Cos ip(~e' CwT. Cost. indx

(Cents) (A = 100) (Cents) (A = 100)

A 29.9 100 30.3 100
A' 29.4 98 29.6 98
B 29.0 97 29.1 96
B' 27.8 93 27.7 91
C 27.2 91 26.1 86
C' 27.0 90 25.9 85
0 26.2 88 25.2 83
'0 26.0 87 24.9 82


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max















~able 16.--Savings comparisons for a two-day period for various routing alternatives, January production
levels.

_______Routing alternative


Pouting
alternative


Current
routes
A A'


Current frequency,
unrestricted
times


EOD pick up,
current times
C C' D


EOD pick up,
unrestricted
times


--------------------------------.--- Dollars ------------------------------------------


-0- 132.57 224. 79

-0- 92.22

-0-


513.29 655.89

308.72 523.32

288.50 431.10


142.60


716.00 924.79

583.43 792.22

491.21 700.00

202.71 411.50

60.11 268.90

-0- 208.79


973.30

840.73

748.51

460.01

317.41

257.30

48.51


aRouti-: alternatives with apostrophes mean that haulers overlapping routes were eliminated result-
ing in some hauler-dairy IF -n-,, Otherwise, they are the same as the routing alternative designated by
the same letter without the appostrophe and described by the various captions.














Table 17.--Savi .
levels.


-isons for a two-day period for various


Alternatives, June


Routing alternative
C. -,... frequency, EOD pick up,
Current unrestricted EOD pick up, .
P .- times current times times
alternative . .

-------------------------------------------- Dollars ----------------------------.----.--

A -0- 171.23 286.24 617.44 984.16 1,034.32 1,2"- 15 1,257.50
A' -0- 115.01 446.21 812. .09 1,028.92 1,086.27

B -0- 331.20 697.92 748,08 913.91 971.26

B' -0- 366. 416.88 582.71 640.06

C -0- 50.16 215.99 273.34

C -0- 165.83 223.18

0 -0- '.35
D' -D-

alternatives with mean that haulers overlapping routes were eliminated result-
ing in some hauler-dairy -'--- .ise, they are the same as the ." : alternative designated by
the same letter wi the appostrophe and described by the various .....ons,














Table 18.--Annual savings comparisons for various routing alternatives, a

Routing alternative
Current frequency, EOD pick up,
Current unrestricted EOD pick up, unrestricted
Routing routes times current times times
alternative A A' B B' C C' D- D'

-------------.--------------------- $1,000 dollars -----------------------------------
A -0- 27.7 46.6 103.2 149.7 159.7 193.9 203.6

A' -0- 18.9 68.9 121.9 132.0 166.2 175.7

B -0- 56.6 103.0 113.1 147.3 156.9

B' -0- 46.5 56.5 90.7 100.4

C -0- 10.1 44.2 53.9

C -0- 34.2 43.8

D -0- 9.7
D' -0-

aBased on averages of June and July volume.

bRouting alternatives with apostrophes mean that haulers overlapping routes were eliminated result-
ing in some hauler-dairy changes. Otherwise, they are the same as the routing alternative designated by
the same letter without the appostrophe and described by the various captions.













CONCLUSIONS


The various alternatives examined here offer the possibility of substantial
savings. Two precautions are in order, however.
First, the complex and dynamic nature of the milk collection system, with
fluctuations in production and market requirements,make efficient routing a
continuing challenge. The routes developed for the various alternatives are
examples of efficient routes given all constraints. Even though efforts were
made to use current data, production from dairy to dairy may have changed
significantly from the January and June 1977 levels used here. Nevertheless,
the increased efficiencies associated with the various routing alternatives
probably remain, even though individual routes may require modification due to
changes in production, pick up times, etc.
The second precaution deals with the costs of implementing any of the
nrotinn +altrnative.c All then ravng rennrtAe here ara gnrnoc an nnt not
Changes from the current system could require substantial investments and/or
sacrifices by individual dairies and haulers. Cdreful study must be made to
determine the net impact of various alternatives on each component in the
production and collection system to insure an equitable distribution of costs
and benefits.




















35


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max





































A?'PNDIUK A


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max













PROCEDURES FOR : .-": PICK UP TIME


amount of '.i required for picking up milk at an individual dairy
on hook-up timeandthe volume to be picked up. The two major haulers'
estimates of the time .-....red at each of their '... and :r: .
quantities picked up in October of 1977 were analyzed so that stop times for
January and June production could be estimated. The following .' le re-
Smodel was used to estimate the relationship between stop time require-
ments and i' picked


Y = a + + e,
Where Y = time required to pick up milk, in minutes,

a = a -. ,

X = :'' of milk picked up, in pounds,
e = : lined variation.


Separate models were estimated for each of the major haulers suppl- :. data.
The estimated model for Sheffield Milk Transports was:


Y = 16.01 + 0.00197X
(10.83)


The t statistic (in parentheses) was statistically signi 'tant at the 0.001
level; the coefficient of determination (r2) was 0.66. These results were
used to estimate stop time ,'rements for all dairies served by '" .'-eld
in the Jacksonville and Grand Ridge areas.
The estimated model based on data supplied by North Florida T :
Service was:

Y = 14.05 + 0.00121
(10.89)


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










The t statistic (in parentheses) was statistically significant at the 0.01
level; the coefficient of determination (r2 ) was 0.70. These results were
used to estimate stop time requirements for all dairies except those served
by Sheffield Milk Transports.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max







































APPENDIX B


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max












Appendix Table


1 .--January EOD production and storage requirements for dairies
currently picked up daily but producing less than one-half
truckload per day.


EOD Storage
Hauler, area Dairy number production requirements


Sheffield, Jacksonville






















Grand Ridge


T. G. Lee Co., Orlando










Velda Farms, Winter Haven


(Gallons)


(Pounds)

6,021
6,732
6,934
6,935
7,384
8,250
11,894
12,348
12,551
13,287
14,446
15,190
15,828
16,007
18,565
19,082
19,261
20,587
23. 339
29,661
33,733
34,052
36,206
46,349
2,908
4,859
5,359
11,288
13,728
27,806
36,658
3 '0
6,232
9,708
20,758
7,351
10,054
10,638
12,782
12,969
13,687
19,389
27,294
28,037
28,078
37,181
10,246
12,991


700
783
806
806
859
959
1,: -)
1,436
1,459
1,545
1,680
1,766
1,840
1,861
2,159
2,219
2,240
2,394
2,714
3,449
3,926
3,960
4,210
5,389
338
565
623
1,313
1,596
3,233
4,263
464
725
1,129
2,414
855
1,169
1,237
1,486
1,508
1.592
2,255
3,174
3,260
3,265
4,323
1,191
1,511


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










Appendix Table 2.--January hauling costs by hauler and area for routing
alternative "A" i.e., current pick up times, pick up
frequency, and haulers.

Number of Time Quantity Total
Hauler, area dairies required Distance picked up cost

(Hours) (Miles) (1,000 lbs) (Dollars)

Sheffield, Jacksonville 38 102.77 1,712.7 890 1,267.43
Sheffield, Grand Ridce 19 30.08 1,097.6 213 749.12
North Florida, Orlando 52 251.21 6,590.8 916 4,300.24
T. G. Lee, Orlando 20 60.11 1,363.6 375 922.24
Velda, Winter Haven 8 10.30 199.3 74 140.85

Totals 137 474.47 10,964.0 2,468 7,379.88

aTotal cost was calculated using a vehicle cost of 50t per mile and an
hourly cost of $4.00.




Appendix Table 3.--January hauling cost by area for routing alternative "A",
i.e., current pick up times, pick up frequency, and elimin-
ation of hauler overlap.

Number of Time Quantity Total
Area dairies required Distance picked up cost

(Hours) (Miles) (1,000 Ibs) (Dollars)

Jacksonville 33 78.73 1,105.4 820 867.62
Grand Ridge 19 50.08 1,097.6 213 749.12
Orlando 77 328.43 8,352.0 1,361 5,489.72
Winter Haven 8 10.30 199.3 74 140.85

Totals 137 467.54 10,754.3 2,468 7,247.31


aTotal cost was calculated
hourly cost of $4.00.


using a vehicle cost of 50t per mile and an


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










I. x Table 4.--January hauli .
alternative
current pick up


costs by hauler and area for routi
, i.e., unrestricted ck up times,
frequencies and haulers.


Hauler, area


d" of Time
dairies *. :.:red


S picked :: cost


Sheffield, .: ille
-d, Ridge
; : Florida, .
T. G. Lee, Orlando
-lda, ';- i


( : ... )

103.32
46.88
248.71
54.93
9.72


Totals


cost was calculated .
. y cost of $4.00.


(Miles) (1,000 Ibs) (Dollars)


1 ..4
1,001.7
6,514.0
1,209.2
1: .4


1 ^-.98
688.37
4,251.84
824.32
129.58


463.56 10,601.7 2,468


S: a vehicle


7,155.09


cost of 50t per mile and an


.: ...'"x Table 5.--January haul', cost by area routing alternative
i.e., unrestricted pick up times, current pick up ,
and elimination ~ hauler overlap.


ies


;; of Time ,ity Total
dairies required Distance "cked :- cost


Jacksonville 33
Ridge 19
Orlando 77
: 8

Totals 137


(Hours)

78.15
46.88
312.76
9.72

447.51


(Miles) (1,000 Ibs) (Dollars)


1,088.1
1 ""1.7
7,881.9
181.4

10,153.1


820 ---.65
213 "^^ 37
1 '1 5,191.99
74 129.58

2,'- 6,866.59


totall cost was calculated
hourly cost of $4.00.


a vehicle cost of -' per mile and an


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max


_ _~~


- ~---


--~ I-~---- "-- I I I


- I II' -


- -- "- -~-----












Appendix Table 6.--January hauling costs by hauler and
alternative "C", i.e., current pick
hut EOD nick pn for mnot dairies
hu r--r _r -- _- -1. I


area for routing
up times and haulers,


Number of Time Quantity Total
Hauler, area dairies required Distance picked up cost

(Hours) (Miles) (1,000 lbs) (Dollars)

Sheffield, Jacksonville 38 86.45 1,403.2 890 1,047.40
Sheffield, Grand Ridge 19 41.57 894.5 213 613.53
North Florida, Orlando 52 250.63 6,592.2 916 4,298.62
T. G. Lee, Orlando 20 43.38 941.2 375 644.12
Velda, Winter Haven 8 8.88 169.6 74 120.32

Totals 137 430.91 10,000.7 2,468 6,723.99


aEvery-other-day service only for dairies producing half a truckload or more
per day (25,800 1bs. for Sheffield's customers. 23,650 1bs. for a1l others).
bTotal cost was calculated using a vehicle cost of 50 per mile and an
hourly cost of $4.00.


Appendix Table


7 .--January hauling costs by area for routing alternative "C'",
current pick up times, but EOD pick up for most dairies and
elimination of hauler overlap.


Number of Time Quantity Total,
Area dairies required Distance picked up cost

(Hours) (Miles) (1,000 Ibs) (Dollars)


Jacksonville
Grand Ridge
Orlando
Winter Haven


33 68.55
19 41.57
77 308.77


8

137


Totals


8.88

427.77


972.7
894.5
7,868.8
169.6

9,905.6


820
213
1,261
74

2,468


760.55
613.53
5,169.48
120.32

6,663.88


aEvery-other-day service only for dairies producing half a truckload or more
per day (25,800 lbs. for Sheffield's customers, 23,650 Ibs. for all others).
bTotal cost was calculated using a vehicle cost of 50t per mile and an
hourly cost of $4.00.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










Appendix Table 8.--January hauling costs by hauler and area for routing
alternative "D", i.e., current haulers, unrestricted
pick up times, and EOD pick up only for most dairies.

Number of Time Quantity Total
Hauler, area dairies required Distance picked up cost


Sheffield, Jacksonville
Sheffield, Grand Ridge
North Florida, Orlando
T. G. Lee, Orlando
Velda, Winter Haven

Totals


38
19
52
20
8

137


(Hours)
82.62
40.09
243.46
42.49
8.30

416.96


(Miles) (1,000 Ibs) (Dollars)
1,288.1 890 974.53


850.5
6,377.3
906.9
151.7


9,574.5 2,468


5'E.61
4,162.49
623.41
109.05

6,455.09


aEvery-other-day service only for dairies producing half a truckload or more
per day (25,800 Ibs. for Sheffield's customers, 23,650 Ibs. for all others).

bTotal cost was calculated using a vehicle cost of 50t per mile and an
hourly cost of $4.00.


Appendix Table 9.--January hauling costs by area for routing alternative "D"',
unrestricted pick up times, EOD pick up only for most
dairies, and elimination of hauler overlap.a


Area


Jacksonville
Grand Ridge
Orlando
Winter Haven


Totals


Number of
dairies


8

137


Time
required


(Hours)
67.09
40.09
298.69
8.30

414.17


Quantity Totalb
Distance Picked up cost

(Miles) (1,000 lbs) (Dollars)
929.3 820 733.01


850,5
7,568.3
151.7

9,499.8


213 585.61
1,261 4,978.91
74 109.05

2,468 6,406.58


aEvery-other-day service only for dairies producing half a truckload or more
per day (25,800 Ibs. for Sheffield's customers, 23,650 Ibs. for all others).

bTotal cost was calculated usinr a vehicle cost of 50t per mile and an
hourly cost of $4.00.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max










.. 'ix Table o1.--June hauling costs by hauler and area for routing alternate\
"A", i.e., ck up times, pick and
haulers.


... of
dairies


Sheffield, . :11e
Sheffield, Grand .
S..-th Florida, land


T. G. Lee,


- ando


Velda, Winter Haven


Totals 137

aTotal cost was calculated .
hourly cost of ".00.


Time ty Total
"red Distance picked cost

( ... ) (Miles) (1,000 Ibs) (Dollars)


52.62
-^ 93
228.99
60.10
10.15


1,180.1


1,372.6
199.3


454. 10,463.9


: a vehicle


812


680


800.53
1,277.02
3,906.61
926.70
140.^


7 --7.11


2,323


cost of "-' per mile and an


"x Table 11.--June hauli cost by area for routi
i.e., current 'ck up times, pick up
action hauler overlap.


* alternative "A'",
.. ., and elimin-


S' of Time
dairies required


Jacksonville
Grand .
Orlando
Winter Haven

Totals


(Hours)

--.62
79.02
304.03
10.15

445.82


.tity Total
stance picked cost


( es) (1,- Ibs) (Dollars)


1,l^^.1
1,123.3
7,690.6
199.3

10,193.3


800.53
813 -77.--
1.""' 5,061.42


2,323


140.25

6,879.88


aTotal cost was calculated
- ly cost of 'C..00.


using a vehicle cost of *-: per mile and an


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max


:ler, area


~"""- ~---------~~1-~


--- --










Appendix Table 12.-- June hauling costs by hauler iad area for roiutinq al i ernat ivj
"B", i.e., unrestricted pick up times, current pick up
frequencies and haulers.

Number of Time Quantity Total
Hauler, area dairies required Distance picked up cost


(Hours)


(Miles) (1,000 Ibs) (Dollars)


Sheffield, Jacksonville
Sheffield, Grand Ridge
North Florida, Orlando
T. G. Lee, Orlando
Velda, Winter Haven

Totals


38
19
52
20
8

137


aTotal cost was calculated using
hourly cost of $4.00.


46.93 1,008.6 208 692.02
102.31 1,712.1 879 1,265.29
226.54 5,907.9 812 3,860.11
54.63 1,209.2 357 832.12
9.32 174.1 68 124.33

439.73 10,011.9 2,323 6,764.87

a vehicle cost of 50, per mile and an


Appendix Table 13.--June hauling cost by area for routing alternative "B'",
i.e., unrestricted pick up times, current pick up frequencies
and elimination of hauler overlap.

Number of Time Quantity Tot4a
Area dairies required Distance picked up cost

(Hours) (Miles) (1,000 Ibs) (Dollars)


Jacksonville
Grand Ridge
Orlando
Winter Haven


46.93
78.40
287.68
9.32

422.33


1,008.6
1,104.8
7,201.2
174.1

9,488.7
J a


208
813
1,235
68

2,323
*5) 3))3
L )LJL


692.02
866.00
4,751.32
124.33

6,433.67


using a vehicle cost of 50d per mile and an


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max


Total s


aTotal cost was calculated
hourly cost of $4.00.












'ix Table 14--June hauling costs by hauler and area .' .
alternative i.e., current pick up times and haulers,
but EOD ,' oI moll dairies.a

Number Time tity Totalb
'ler, area dairies required Distance picked up cost

(: ,) (^ les) (1, --- Ibs) ( llars)


Sheffiel Jacksonville 38
S'-eld, Grand Ridge 19

North Florida, Orlando 52
T. Lee, Orlando 20


Velda, Winter Haven


Totals


41.47
83.
217.57
41.98


8 8.75

17 393.50


896.3
1,340.6
5,671.2
908.2
169.6

8 .9.9


208


812
357
68

2,324


614.,
1 .'- .22
3, .88
622.02
119.80

6,066.95


Ever. '--day service only dairies half a truckload or more
day (25,800 Ibs, for Sheffield's customers, O 650 Ibs. all others).
1 cost was calculated us'- a vehicle cost of '. per mile and an
hourly cost of $4.00.


'ix Table 15.--June hauli. costs by area for routing alternative "C'",
current pick up times, but EOD pick for most dairies and
elimination of hauler overlap.a


dairies


Time
i red


Distance


p ity Totalb
picked up cost


S) (.. les)


Jacksonville
Grand Ri
Orlando
Winter Haven


Totals


41.47
19 65.95
77 274.--


137


8.75

.. 85


896.3
910.1
6.^^^.7
169.6

-.106.7


(1, ,. 1bs)


1 ..
1,--!-
68

2,324


a'I vry-ocher-day service only for dairies producing half a truckload or more
Ipe" dIay ( ?.:,00( 1Ibs. Ior . fioel d's customers, 23,--- 1 s. for all others).


bIltal cosi w.v. at a tula 'd us tint vehicle cost
hourly ost of $41.).


m i ie and an


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max


Area


(Dollars)

614.03
718.89
4, .07
119.80

6,7-6.79











ix Table -- June hauli costs by hauler and area for routing
alternative i.e., current haulers, unrestricted a
pick times, and EOD pick up only most dairies.

of Time tity To'
er, area dairies ired Distance picked cost


-d, Jacksonville
Sheffield, Grand '-
North Florida, lando
T. G. Lee, Orlando
Velda, Winter ":ven


(Hours)
39.92
79. --
212.88
41.57
8.17


('les) (1 .


849.6
1 .'76.4


208
879


5,- 9 812
898.2
151.7 68


Ibs) (- 'lar
584.48
926.60
3,615.97
615.38
108. :


Totals 137 382.14 ^.,44.8 2.~'2 5.".96

aEvery-other-day service only for dairies producing half a truckload or more
day (25 ."" Ibs. for -". 'eld's customers, Ibs. for all others).


I-
otal cost was calculated using a vehicle cost
hourly cost of $4.00


, mile and an


x Table 17.-- June hauling costs by area for routing alternative "D'",
unrestricted pick up '" EOD pick onl most
dairies, and elimination of hauler overlap.

S of Time .tity Totalb
dairies ired Distance Picked cost


(Hours) (Miles)
39.92 "-.6


Jacksonville
Grand Ridge
Orlando
Winter Haven


77 ^'.95
8 8.17

137 379.


Every-other-day service only for dairies
day (25,800 Ibs. for i-' -eld's customers, 2


853.8
6,699.4
151.7


(1,000 Ibs) (- 11ars
208 584.48
813 "'.10
1 '7 4,447."'
68 108.53


r.554.5 2,324 5,793.61

ing half a truckload or more
3, Ibs. all others).


bTotal cost was calculated usi : a vehicle cost of r- mile and an
hourly cost of 7".00.


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max


Totals


!i







































APP '' C


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max













ROUTES FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES AND SUBSETS OF DAIRIES


The graphs in this section depict computer designed routes for all
routing alternatives ,x.arined, for all subsets of dairies, i.e., haulers
and/or areas. The following legend applies to all graphs:


Each bar represents a route;


Numbers on the bars designate dairies included in each
route and the stop sequence.

An asterisk indicates routes that may be served on either
day of a two-day period:

a circled "1" designates routes that must be served on
the first day of a two-day period,

a circled "2" designates routes that must be served on the
second day of a two-day period.

Figures depicting A', B', C', and 0' alternatives have a series
of initials on each bar designating the present haulers of the
respective dairies on each route. The initials are: L = T. G.
Lee Luparny; N = North Florida Transport Service; S = Sheffield's
Milk Transports.




















50


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max














12 00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 PM
5:00 -
4:00
3:00 s
2:00 (D 3 3 21
2:00 = O
1:00 so
NOON
11:00- S F3 (


9:00 21
1115
8:00
7:00 -
6:00 M -
5:00
4:00






1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I 15 I 17 17 I3 20 21 22 23 24 25

Route
Figure 9.--Routes developed for Jacksonville, alternative A', January production.


















12:(
11:i
10:(
9:(
8:(
7:(
6:00 1
5:(
4: C
3:0
2:C
1:0
NOo
11:0
10:0
9:0
8:0
7:0
6:00 Al
5:01
4:01
3;0(
2:0(
1:0(
12:01


0_ 0O


0D0


1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 1 3 1 IS 1]6 17 18 19 20 21 12 2 24 25

Route
Figure O1.--Routes developed for Jacksonville, alternative B', January production.



















12:00 -
11:00
10:00 -
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 PM O
5:00 -
4:00 1 ,7
3:00 *E
3
2:00 2- 3
50 26 33 26
1:00 59 5 -,
1 53 13 7
NOON .
11:00 --
10:00 2 28 12
9:00 2 212

8:00- as
7:00 -
6:00 AM -

5:00 -
4:00 -
3:00 -
2:00
1;00
12:01
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Route

Figure 11.--Routes developed for Jacksonville, alternative C', January production.


















12:00
11:00
10:00
9 :00
8:00
7:00
6:00 PM
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
NOON
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 AM
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00


1 2 3 4 5 5 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Route
Figure 12.--Routes developed for Jacksonville, alternative D', January production.



























o 0
4


S -

:' a


12:00
11:00

10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 PM
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
NOON
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 AM
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
12:01


Routes
Figure 13.--Routes developed for Grand Ridge,
alternative A, January production.


a
















12:00
11:00
10: 00
9:00
8:00
7:00 -
6:00 PM
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00- 73
1:00 102
107
NOON 11 t
11:00 11
10:00- C
9:00 (-)
8:00 -
0 77
7:00 62
6:00 AMN-
97 104
5:00- 63 10
4:00 6- 10o t
65 70
3:00 a 10.o
10 !
2: 00 o
41
1:00B 8
12:01-- -
1 2 3 4 5 6

Route
Figure 14.--Routes developed for Grand Ridge, alternative B,
January production.




















12:00

1:000
10:00
9:00
8:00
7: 00

6:00 PM
5:00 *
4 :00
43 63
3:00 2-

2:00 I 1 70
69
1:00 o l 6 7
66 5
NOON 097 1o1
,. 62 65 4
E. 11:00 70 _

10:00
68
9:00 77

8:00 os
7:00 -
6:00 AM

5:00 .
4:00

3:00
2:00
1:00

12: 01-
1 2 3 4 5

Route

Figure 15.--Routes developed for Grand Ridge, alternative C,
January production.

















12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 PM -
5:00 -
4:00 -
3:00
2:00
1:00 1s
NOON 1
07
11:00 7
10:00
9;00
8:00 63
7:00 62
6:00 AM o s
70
0*0 *
4:00
3:00 o,
2:00 77
1:00
12:01--
I 2 3 3 S

Route

Figure 16.--Routes developed for Grand Ridge, alternative D0
January production.

















12:00
11:00
10:00-
9:00- *
8:00
7:00 *
6:00 PM .
5:00 -* *
r *
4:00
3:00 220'
2:00 2 29 206 22
1:00 22
2 221
NOON 213 2
7 95 92 2 21 i
11:00- $ 0 76 6
10:00 -s 11
9:00 2 22 6 -
26
8:00 12
7:00 s 1 I '25L
6.00 AM Z4
5:00 20
4:00 2
3:00 A- -
2:00
1:00
12:01 ____
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 19 20 21 22 23

Route

Figure 17.-Routes developed for North Florida, alternative A, January production.

















12:00

11:00
10:00
9:00 .

8:00
7:00
6:00 PM 0 *
5:00
4:00-
79 *
3:00 9

2:00 6 *
6
1:00 19 9


0o 905 0 --9 2-
11:00 o o
NOON 74 0 CD I -

89 22
10:00 st 1
S60 7
9:00 62 s
8:00 9 206 e -I
7:00 98 20
117 249 Z52 8
6:00 AM 29212 52 *
500 131221 2
219205 ?2
5:00 20 ,
4:00 I 2 217
3:00 6 :1 *I 244 219
210
2:00 -- 264
217
1:00 21 5 s!6
12:01-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Route
Figure 18.--Routes developed for North Florida, alternative B, January production.


















12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00 *
8:00 -
7:00 -

6:00 PM (
*
5:00 -
94
4:00 *109
3:00 7 81 2
3:00 9 D 2n
60 100 79 212 86 20
2:00 92 25
93 29 21 ;18 19
1:00 -7 9 S 13 S 2

NOON 76 80o 19 20 *
95 130 -
11 : 00 I 52 8
11:00 82
10:00 82 9

9:00 75 i
4 98 17
8:00- 1 Q44 217

7:00 s2

6:00 AM 264


4:00
3:00 --
2:00

1:00
12:01 - -
1 2 3 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1' 20 21 22 23

Route

Figure 19.--Routes developed for North Florida, alternative C, January production.

















12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 PM
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
NOON
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 AM
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
12:01-


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Figure 20.--Routes developed


13 a 221
25
20 2 25



215
22, 2 14
201 24


9 10 11 12 13 2 15 16 117 11 19 20 21 22 23
Route
for North Florida, alternative D, January production.

















12:00
11:00


9:00


6:00





1:00- -- I
S NOON-0 28
11:00- 24O
10:00 1 2
2022'.O
9:00- 2s2 --
8:00 22 5 275
259261257 27 267 250
7:00 256 253
6263
6:00 AM --1 -- 259


4:00-
3:00 ._ 284
2:00 -
1:00 -
12:01 ...... ....... ....
12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 io 11

Route

Figure 21.--Routes developed for Lee, alternative A,
January production.
















12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 PM
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
S NOON
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00 so
7:00 50 (9
6:00 AM -2 5
5:00 51 I 8--
4:00 2 2 20fs6 0 SD
3:00 12' 27 1 22
274283 2' 26
2:00 261267 2 7
1:00 271
12:01- -- --
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Route
i-,.,ure 22.--Routes developed for Lee, alternative B,
January production.

















12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 PM
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
NOON
11:00

10:00
9:00 "
1l ss
8:00 73
7:00 6- *
6:00 AM )
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
12:01
1 2 3 4 5


671

6 7 6 9 10 11


Route
Figure 23.--Routes developed for Lee, alternative C,
January production.



















12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 PM
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
NOON

11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 AM
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00


* *


1 2 3 6 7 9 10
Route
Figure 24.--Routes developed for Lee, alternative D,
January production.















12:00
11:00 -
10:00

9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 PM
5:00 -

4:00
3:00 -
2:00 Q
1:00 -
S NOON-
11:00 12~1
10:00 1'42

9:00 236 "
8:00
7:00
6:00 AM

5:00 -
4:00 -
3:00 -
2:00
1:00
12:01
1 2 3
Route
Figure 25.--Routes developed for Velda, alternative A,
January production.


















12:00
11:00-
10:00
9 00-
8:00
7:00
6:00 PM-
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
NOON -
11: 00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00- Q
6:00 AM 2
2138
5:00 2
4:00 1
1 14
3:00 11
2:00
1:00-
241
12:01 -
1 2 3
Route
Figure 26.--Routes developed for Velda, alternative B,
January production.















12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 PM
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
NOON -
11: 00- 12
10:00 -, 2i
113 -
9:00- 236
8:00
7:00
6:00 AM
5:00 -
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
12:01
1 2
Route
Figure 27.--Routes developed for Velda,
alternative C, January production.
















12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 PM
5:00
4:00 -
3:00
2:00 -
1:00 -
NOON -
11:00 -
10:00 -
9:00 -
8:00
7:00 -
6:00 AM 2
5:00 "3
4:00 -
112
3:00 I
2:00 '
1:00
41
12:01-- I
1 2
Route
Figure 28.--Routes developed for Velda,
alternative D, January production.



























































] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 33 36

Route
Figure 29.-Routes developed for all Orlando area dairies, alternative A', January production.




































* 00


12:1
11:1
10:1
9:1
8:1
7;:1
o:00
5:1


6:00


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2k 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Route
Figure 30.--Routes developed for all Orlando area dairies, alternative B', January production.



















12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00

6:00 PM
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
NOON
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00 AM
5:00
S000
3:00
2:00
1:00

12:01


KI


*

7S7
256
N I
N

2( L
--


ND

6i IF


* 277
L

27;
L
L,


S i LJ



m_ _ _


17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 26
Route


27 28 29 30 31 32 33 3 35


Figure 31.--Routes developed for all Orlando area dairies, alternative C', January production.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16


- ---





















11: 00


9:00





5:00 -

4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00



i n. nn L





6:0(.
5:001


3:00
2:00


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 1 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 S4

Routte


developed for all Orlando area dairies, alternative D', January production.


Figure 32.













REFERENCES


11] Hallberg, M. C., RCIFT: A M.in Program for Designing Efficient Multi-route
Delivery Systems, (Mimeograph). The Pennsylvania State University,
College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, January, 1978.

12] Hallberg, M. C. and W. R. Kriebel, Designing Efficient Pickup and Delivery
Route Systems by Computer, Bulletin 782, The Pennsylvania State University,
College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, June, 1972.

[3] State Topographic Office. General Highway Maps (for respective counties)
Department of Transportation, State of Florida, Tallahassee, latest
available revisions, 1977.

































75


Thursday, July 20, 2006.max