In what's beginning to seem as predictable as the tides, the nation's ports are in an uproar about the funding allotted to them in the upcoming year's federal budget. No sooner had President Bush unveiled the 2006 federal budget proposal last month than the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) issued a strongly worded statement expressing its concerns over funding shortfalls. Specifically, AAPA leaders charged that funding for waterway and seaport security fell far below what U.S. public ports need for implementing new, federally mandated seaport security programs. They also claimed the proposed budget would significantly underfund needed deep-draft dredging projects.
If that's starting to sound familiar, it's because the group issued similar warnings about funding shortfalls in 2002, 2003 and 2004. But this time around, it appears that the ports have new cause for concern. The Bush plan calls for eliminating the Department of Homeland Security's Port Security Grant Program and merging it into a new program that combines the security needs of seaports with those of trains, trucks, buses and other public transit systems. It also cuts funding allocated to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works program, which includes deep-draft dredging projects.
Kurt Nagle, president and CEO of the AAPA, made no secret of his disappointment with the proposed budget. "Protecting America's marine facilities from acts of terrorism must be a top administration priority and a shared responsibility between the ports, government and private industry," he said. Ports are required to comply with federal security initiatives, he noted, but as public service entities, they don't have the option of cutting programs or eliminating services to pay for them. If federal funding falls short, ports will be forced to spend scarce resources on security instead of capital improvements, compromising their ability to keep up with growing cargo volumes.
Nagle added that the U.S. economy, the nation's safety and its national defense depend largely on how well seaports are protected and by ensuring deep-draft shipping access. "Unfortunately, the proposed federal budget the administration released [last month] literally removes port security as a separate line item and leaves gaping holes in funding for the dredging needs of U.S. ports."
It appears that the AAPA and the administration remain far apart when it comes to their notions of appropriate funding. For fiscal year 2006, AAPA urges appropriations of $735 million for deep-draft navigation operations and maintenance, at least $500 million for deep-draft construction and $10 million for new project studies. That compares with the administration's request of $607 million for harbor and channel operations and maintenance, $260 million for continuing construction and $7 million for studies.
The way that shippers and carriers classify loads of less than truckload (LTL) freight to determine delivery rates is set to change in 2025 for the first time in decades, introducing a new approach that is designed to support more standardized practices.
But the transition may take some time. Businesses throughout the logistics sector will be affected by the transition, since the NMFC is a critical tool for setting prices that is used daily by transportation providers, trucking fleets, third party logistics providers (3PLs), and freight brokers.
For example, the current system creates 18 classes of freight that are identified by numbers from 50 to 500, according to a blog post by Nolan Transportation Group (NTG). Lower classed freight costs less to ship, ranging from basic goods that fit on a standard shrink-wrapped 4X4 pallet (class 50) up to highly valuable or delicate items such as bags of gold dust or boxes of ping pong balls (class 500).
In the future, that system will be streamlined by four new features, NMFTA said:
standardized density scale for LTL freight with no handling, stowability, and liability issues,
unique identifiers for freight with special handling, stowability, or liability needs,
condensed and modernized commodity listings, and
improved usability of the ClassIT classification tool.
The new changes look to simplify the classification by grouping similar articles together and assigning most classes based solely on density – the most measurable of the four characteristics, he said. Exceptions will be handled separately, adding one or more of the three remaining characteristics in cases where density alone is not adequate to determine an accurate class.
When the updates roll out in 2025, many shippers will see shifts in the LTL prices they pay to move loads, because the way their freight is classified – and subsequently billed – might change. To cope with those changes, he said it’s important for shippers to review their pricing agreements and be prepared for these adjustments, while carriers should prepare to manage customer relationships through the transition.
“This shift is a big deal for the LTL industry, and it’s going to require a lot of work upfront,” Davis said. “But ultimately, simplifying the classification system should help reduce friction between shippers and carriers. We want to make the process as straightforward as possible, eliminate unnecessary disputes, and make the system more intuitive for everyone. It’s a change that’s long overdue, and while there might be challenges in the short term, I believe it will benefit the industry in the long run.
Business leaders in the manufacturing and transportation sectors will increasingly turn to technology in 2025 to adapt to developments in a tricky economic environment, according to a report from Forrester.
That approach is needed because companies in asset-intensive industries like manufacturing and transportation quickly feel the pain when energy prices rise, raw materials are harder to access, or borrowing money for capital projects becomes more expensive, according to researcher Paul Miller, vice president and principal analyst at Forrester.
And all of those conditions arose in 2024, forcing leaders to focus even more than usual on managing costs and improving efficiency. Forrester’s latest forecast doesn’t anticipate any dramatic improvement in the global macroeconomic situation in 2025, but it does anticipate several ways that companies will adapt.
For 2025, Forrester predicts that:
over 25% of big last-mile service and delivery fleets in Europe will be electric. Across the continent, parcel delivery firms, utility companies, and local governments operating large fleets of small vans over relatively short distances see electrification as an opportunity to manage costs while lowering carbon emissions.
less than 5% of the robots entering factories and warehouses will walk. While industry coverage often focuses on two-legged robots, Forrester says the compelling use cases for those legs are less common — or obvious — than supporters suggest. The report says that those robots have a wow factor, but they may not have the best form factor for addressing industry’s dull, dirty, and dangerous tasks.
carmakers will make significant cuts to their digital divisions, admitting defeat after the industry invested billions of dollars in recent years to build the capability to design the connected and digital features installed in modern vehicles. Instead, the future of mobility will be underpinned by ecosystems of various technology providers, not necessarily reliant on the same large automaker that made the car itself.
Regular online readers of DC Velocity and Supply Chain Xchange have probably noticed something new during the past few weeks. Our team has been working for months to produce shiny new websites that allow you to find the supply chain news and stories you need more easily.
It is always good for a media brand to undergo a refresh every once in a while. We certainly are not alone in retooling our websites; most of you likely go through that rather complex process every few years. But this was more than just your average refresh. We did it to take advantage of the most recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI).
Most of the AI work will take place behind the scenes. We will not, for instance, use AI to generate our stories. Those will still be written by our award-winning editorial team (I realize I’m biased, but I believe them to be the best in the business). Instead, we will be applying AI to things like graphics, search functions, and prioritizing relevant stories to make it easier for you to find the information you need along with related content.
We have also redesigned the websites’ layouts to make it quick and easy to find articles on specific topics. For example, content on DC Velocity’s new site is divided into five categories: material handling, robotics, transportation, technology, and supply chain services. We also offer a robust video section, including case histories, webcasts, and executive interviews, plus our weekly podcasts.
Over on the Supply Chain Xchange site, we have organized articles into categories that align with the traditional five phases of supply chain management: plan, procure, produce, move, and store. Plus, we added a “tech” category just to round it off. You can also find links to our videos, newsletters, podcasts, webcasts, blogs, and much more on the site.
Our mobile-app users will also notice some enhancements. An increasing number of you are receiving your daily supply chain news on your phones and tablets, so we have revamped our sites for optimal performance on those devices. For instance, you’ll find that related stories will appear right after the article you’re reading in case you want to delve further into the topic.
However you view us, you will find snappier headlines, more graphics and illustrations, and sites that are easier to navigate.
I would personally like to thank our management, IT department, and editors for their work in making this transition a reality. In our more than 20 years as a media company, this is our largest expansion into digital yet.
We hope you enjoy the experience.
Keep ReadingShow less
In this chart, the red and green bars represent Trucking Conditions Index for 2024. The blue line represents the Trucking Conditions Index for 2023. The index shows that while business conditions for trucking companies improved in August of 2024 versus July of 2024, they are still overall negative.
FTR’s Trucking Conditions Index improved in August to -1.39 from the reading of -5.59 in July. The Bloomington, Indiana-based firm forecasts that its TCI readings will remain mostly negative-to-neutral through the beginning of 2025.
“Trucking is en route to more favorable conditions next year, but the road remains bumpy as both freight volume and capacity utilization are still soft, keeping rates weak. Our forecasts continue to show the truck freight market starting to favor carriers modestly before the second quarter of next year,” Avery Vise, FTR’s vice president of trucking, said in a release.
The TCI tracks the changes representing five major conditions in the U.S. truck market: freight volumes, freight rates, fleet capacity, fuel prices, and financing costs. Combined into a single index, a positive score represents good, optimistic conditions, and a negative score shows the opposite.
Robotic technology has been sweeping through warehouses nationwide as companies seek to automate repetitive tasks in a bid to speed operations and free up human labor for other activities. Many of those implementations have been focused on picking tasks, a trend driven largely by the need to fill accelerating e-commerce orders. But as the robotic-picking market matures and e-commerce growth levels off, the robotic revolution is shifting behind the picking lines, with many companies investing in pallet-handling robots as a way to keep efficiency gains coming.
“Earlier in this decade and the previous decade, we [saw] a lot of [material handling] transformation around e-commerce and the handling of goods to order,” explains Josh Kivenko, chief marketing officer and senior vice president at Vecna Robotics, which provides autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) for pallet handling and logistics operations. “Now we’re talking about pallets—moving material in bulk behind that line.”
Kivenko explains that whether items are being packaged and shipped directly to a customer’s home address or moved as finished goods to a shipping bay for store delivery, those items are first moved in bulk in some way, often by human hands and with human-operated equipment. He describes warehouses as chaotic environments in which humans move pallets and cartons in multiple ways—up and down, side to side, from receiving to storage, from storage to shipping, or via cross-docking. Automation can help bring order to that chaos.
“What we’re trying to do is relieve some of the pressure [on the] humans [doing] this work,” Kivenko says of companies that develop pallet-handling robotic technologies. “At the end of the day, we’re trying to automate some of those flows, relieve labor pressure, save costs, and keep the goods flowing.”
But automated pallet handling isn’t right for every situation, so it’s important to understand the warehouse conditions required and the protocols and best practices needed to make it a win. Here are some guidelines for applying pallet-handling robots and gaining the most from your investment.
FIRST, UNDERSTAND THE TECHNOLOGY
Pallet-handling robots fall into four general categories, explains Rich O’Connor, vice president of storage and automation for Raymond West Group, a business unit of lift truck manufacturer The Raymond Corp. They include:
Palletizing/depalletizing robots, which are used to load or unload items onto and off of pallets, usually with the use of a robotic arm for picking and placing. Today, these systems are being increasingly integrated with automated storage and retrieval systems (AS/RS) to further streamline pallet handling in the warehouse, O’Connor explains.
Autonomous guided vehicles (AGVs) and autonomous mobile robots (AMRs), which are used to transport pallets within the warehouse. Often outfitted with lift decks or conveyors, or designed to tug or tow items, these robots move pallets from point A to B within a facility. AGVs, which often follow a marked guide-path or wire in the floor, have been around for many years, but the advent of high-performance guidance and vision systems is allowing them more flexibility today, O’Connor says. AMRs are self-guided vehicles that use software and sensors to navigate their way through the warehouse.
Forklift AGVs and AMRs, which can move products both horizontally, from place to place, and vertically, into and out of storage racks. They come in various styles—including stackers, counterbalanced trucks, reach trucks, and even very narrow aisle (VNA) vehicles for use in densely packed warehouses. These vehicles are more complex than those used only for horizontal transport, O’Connor explains. They must be “highly integrated” into the facility’s warehouse management system (WMS) or warehouse execution system (WES) so that they know precisely where to retrieve and deliver pallets within the facility.
Robotic pallet shuttles, which move pallets into, out of, and within dense storage racking. The Raymond Corp. describes such a system as “a standalone, automated deep-lane pallet storage system that utilizes self-powered shuttle carriages to move pallets toward the back or front in a racking channel. Shuttles are motor driven and travel along rails within a storage lane.”
O’Connor and others say that no matter which of these technologies you’re investing in, it’s important to remember that they are all part of a larger system designed to optimize operations throughout the warehouse.
“The expanding role of all these different styles working together is what’s amazing today,” O’Connor says.
SECOND, ENSURE THE TECHNOLOGY IS A FIT
Kivenko, of Vecna, also emphasizes the importance of pallet-handling robots working in concert, particularly AMRs and AGVs.
“The magic isn’t just that the robots are autonomous and driving by themselves. The magic is multiple robots—when you have a [whole integrated] system [in place],” he says. “[It’s] how the fleet operates autonomously and optimizes itself for continuous improvement. That’s where the exponential gains are. [It’s] not just about automating what a worker does; it’s about automating a system.”
But you can’t install these systems in just any warehouse and expect magic. Kivenko and others point to certain conditions that enable the best robotic pallet-handling outcomes, especially when it comes to transportation-based and forklift-type AMRs and AGVs.
“The robots that I sell are large-load machines with very expensive technology,” Kivenko explains. “They move material, generally, in larger facilities. And in order for them to produce a return [on investment]—because that’s the name of the game here—they have to be higher-velocity facilities.”
He says pallet-handling robots work best in large facilities running multiple shifts, usually more than five days a week. Wider aisles allow the equipment to move more freely through the facility and at higher speeds, to optimize efficiency and productivity. Strong Wi-Fi networks and clean, dry environments also help keep equipment running at top performance.
O’Connor agrees that pallet-handling robots are best suited to facilities with multishift operations, where they can ease labor constraints and boost productivity. And he says many customers are willing to extend the typical two- to three-year ROI period to five years in order to achieve those gains. But there is even more to it than that. O’Connor’s colleague John Rosenberger says customers must first step back and analyze their processes to ensure that, even if they have the right facility for pallet-handling AMRs or AGVs, they are moving material in the most efficient way to begin with.
“Many times, we find that the processes in place [are inefficient],” says Rosenberger, who is director of iWarehouse Gateway and global telematics for The Raymond Corp. He emphasizes the importance of analyzing existing data—from an equipment telematics system or similar—to determine the best path toward automation.
“Do you have congestion zones now?” he asks. “They’ll still exist if you automate [those processes exactly].”
THIRD, MAKE SIMPLICITY A PRIORITY
Another basic rule of thumb when implementing pallet-handling robotics: Keep it simple.
Andy Lockhart, director of strategic engagement for global warehouse and logistics process automation company Vanderlande, says that when designing a pallet-handling robotics system, “you want to minimize the processes you [automate]. When you can create [an automated system] that focuses on one task—for example, AMRs delivering pallets from a high-bay [storage rack] directly to the palletizing cell—you can do that efficiently and effectively. When you ask the AMR to do this and this and this … you are adding risk of failure.”
Lockhart’s colleague Jake Heldenberg advises customers to first test their target processes via pilot programs within the warehouse or DC. Heldenberg is Vanderlande’s head of solution design, warehousing, North America.
“If AGVs or AMRs for pallet handling are interesting [to a customer], the best thing to do is pilot one or two in an existing DC,” he says, explaining that the process can help companies troubleshoot, understand integration timelines, and gauge ROI. But pilot programs can add expense to a project, making it unaffordable for some.
“If that’s the case, then the best advice is work with a vendor who has experience integrating [the technology],” Heldenberg says. “Use their experience to benefit your business. You won’t have the same hiccups and challenges you would with a less-experienced vendor.”