Peter Bradley is an award-winning career journalist with more than three decades of experience in both newspapers and national business magazines. His credentials include seven years as the transportation and supply chain editor at Purchasing Magazine and six years as the chief editor of Logistics Management.
The downturn in the U.S. economy may have slowed the tide of goods arriving from overseas, but according to just about everybody who looks at these things, imports will still grow faster than the economy as a whole for some time to come.
And that means importers will have to find ways to handle the seemingly endless waves of incoming goods. In recent years, companies both large and small have been looking to build warehouses and distribution centers near ports along the U.S. coastline. As imports continue to grow, many more will do so.
What should an importer look for when selecting a site for an import distribution center? To get some insight, I asked a couple of experts in the business how they advise their clients. Kristian D. Bjorson is a Chicago-based managing principal with the logistics practice group of the Staubach Co., a global real estate advisory firm. Mike Peters is first vice president of ProLogis, the world's largest developer and manager of distribution facilities. Both have long experience in site selection.
Pick a port
Bjorson and Peters agree that the site decision is about much more than the real estate; it's also about what lies outside the dock doors—the area's network of highways and rails, the community's labor pool, and more. But the first order of business is to choose the right port
"The first discussion we have is whether to locate on the West Coast or the East Coast," says Bjorson. As part of this determination, he and his clients review the importer's traffic patterns— where the goods are coming from and where they're headed. They also look at which shipping lines serve the various ports on a given coast as well as what kinds of outbound transportation services are available.
Once they've narrowed the search to a specific geographic region, the process of evaluating and comparing ports begins. "Then we will focus more on what port services are [available] now and will be in the future," says Bjorson.
With the emphasis on speed these days, the top-of-mind consideration for most importers is the quality of port services. To evaluate service levels, Bjorson recommends that his clients ask four key questions: What is the ocean transit time from their shipments' port(s) of origin? How long does it take to get shipments onto trucks or the rails once they arrive at the port? How flexible and efficient are the port operations? What kind of record does the port have for security and shipment damage?
But it's not enough just to consider current port capabilities, Bjorson warns. Importers also need to think about how things will look five, 10, or 20 years out. "Most ports can meet [shippers'] requirements today. They can handle this type of ship and have that type of capacity," he says. "The question really is—and this is a betting man's question—what will it look like in 2015? That's where you get into the capital investment at the ports. Do they have deep water and sufficient berths and terminals? Which carriers are making or not making investments? What are the contract conditions of the carriers in port? The hardest thing is predicting tomorrow. What investments are they making that will give you a comfort level in 2015?"
Peters agrees with Bjorson. ProLogis looks closely at future potential when choosing markets for development, he says. "As a developer for shippers, you want to make sure to invest in a market that has continuing opportunity for growth. For the shipper, it is a similar issue. If the port is capacity-constrained, you want to be cautious about that."
But what will it cost?
As they compare port services and capabilities, importers are sure to be looking at the variable costs as well. Oftentimes, the port decision will come down to those variable costs, says Bjorson.
With import operations, transportation is inevitably the largest variable cost. Not only does the importer have to consider the cost of ocean freight, but it also has to factor in the cost of domestic transportation. Peters cautions importers not to overlook the expenses associated with shuttling containers between ports, intermodal terminals, and DCs in their calculations. "Look at the drayage cost from the port and how that impacts outbound transportation costs," he says.
The second-largest variable cost, especially on the East Coast, is labor, Bjorson says. Because wage scales can vary widely up and down the coast, it behooves importers to do some comparison shopping whenever possible, he adds. "The question is, what is your flexibility?" Bjorson says. Labor costs are higher for unionized workers in, say, New Jersey than in Charleston, S.C., he reports, which could be a factor in a location decision if that option makes sense.
It's important to note that variable costs can be mitigated somewhat by incentive packages offered by local governments eager to attract business. These, too, can vary widely from port to port, Bjorson says. "You will not get the same incentives in Atlanta as you will in Savannah."
An ocean view?
As the search moves from picking a port to choosing a specific site, the focus turns to facility requirements.
"The second thing is what do you want the role of the facility to be," says Peters. "Is it truly a transload facility, just to get goods out of the international container and into domestic trucks and get them to your DC network?" he asks. "Or is the plan to replace a regional DC and have this facility in the port market serve as a regional DC and ship to stores or on to your customers?"
The facility's role will have a direct bearing on how close to the port it needs to be—and by extension, on land costs. If the importer intends to open a sizable distribution facility that will serve, say, the LA/Long Beach area, Peters says, its best bet might be the Inland Empire some 40 miles east of the ports rather than in the high-rent area immediately surrounding the San Pedro Bay ports.
If, on the other hand, the importer simply needs a small, narrow transload facility, a site near the port may be worth the expense. Choosing a site close to the port will keep down drayage expenses. It will also help assure fast container turnaround, which has become more important in recent years. As demand for containers around the world has soared, shipping lines have turned up the pressure on shippers to return containers promptly.
Picking a corner
With the question of the port and type of facility settled, it's time to get specific. "Once you [have a] handle on that," says Bjorson, "you can begin to get to the 'street corner' questions. That is, what street corner will you be on, what is the labor availability, what are the other costs? What are the [local] taxes and incentives?"
For most importers, the number one "street corner" question is about access to transportation. "At the end of the day," says Bjorson, "the transportation side really drives the decision."
Transportation needs will vary for manufacturers, consumer goods importers, and retailers. "Those three categories require different infrastructure based on the distances they are sending stuff," Bjorson says. Retailers on the East Coast will likely want to send products by full truckload out of the port, making highway access paramount. But a manufacturer may need proximity to rail service.
Peters notes that there are other issues that might seem peripheral to DC operations but that may ultimately prove to be important. These tend to be highly individualized matters, he says. "If you have a facility with 300 employees, access to public transportation might be a priority, but if you have just 30 workers, it might not be much of a concern. It is not one size fits all."
Another consideration might be the area's political climate. "One of the things we try to be very aware of is community opposition," says Peters. "We want to be sure that we are in an area where what we do fits well with the community. ... We do not want surprises down the road."
That said, Bjorson and Peters agree that no site is likely to have a perfect balance of attributes. Tradeoffs are inevitable. But careful consideration of port costs, services, and infrastructure capacity in light of your current and future needs will boost your chances of picking the right site.
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."