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.
A move by federal regulators to reinforce requirements for broker transparency in freight transactions is stirring debate among transportation groups, after the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published a “notice of proposed rulemaking” this week.
According to FMCSA, its draft rule would strive to make broker transparency more common, requiring greater sharing of the material information necessary for transportation industry parties to make informed business decisions and to support the efficient resolution of disputes.
The proposed rule titled “Transparency in Property Broker Transactions” would address what FMCSA calls the lack of access to information among shippers and motor carriers that can impact the fairness and efficiency of the transportation system, and would reframe broker transparency as a regulatory duty imposed on brokers, with the goal of deterring non-compliance. Specifically, the move would require brokers to keep electronic records, and require brokers to provide transaction records to motor carriers and shippers upon request and within 48 hours of that request.
Under federal regulatory processes, public comments on the move are due by January 21, 2025. However, transportation groups are not waiting on the sidelines to voice their opinions.
According to the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), an industry group representing the third-party logistics (3PL) industry, the potential rule is “misguided overreach” that fails to address the more pressing issue of freight fraud. In TIA’s view, broker transparency regulation is “obsolete and un-American,” and has no place in today’s “highly transparent” marketplace. “This proposal represents a misguided focus on outdated and unnecessary regulations rather than tackling issues that genuinely threaten the safety and efficiency of our nation’s supply chains,” TIA said.
But trucker trade group the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) welcomed the proposed rule, which it said would ensure that brokers finally play by the rules. “We appreciate that FMCSA incorporated input from our petition, including a requirement to make records available electronically and emphasizing that brokers have a duty to comply with regulations. As FMCSA noted, broker transparency is necessary for a fair, efficient transportation system, and is especially important to help carriers defend themselves against alleged claims on a shipment,” OOIDA President Todd Spencer said in a statement.
Additional pushback came from the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC), a network of transportation professionals in small business, which said the potential rule didn’t go far enough. “This is too little too late and is disappointing. It preserves the status quo, which caters to Big Broker & TIA. There is no question now that FMCSA has been captured by Big Broker. Truckers and carriers must now come out in droves and file comments in full force against this starting tomorrow,” SBTC executive director James Lamb said in a LinkedIn post.
The “series B” funding round was financed by an unnamed “strategic customer” as well as Teradyne Robotics Ventures, Toyota Ventures, Ranpak, Third Kind Venture Capital, One Madison Group, Hyperplane, Catapult Ventures, and others.
The fresh backing comes as Massachusetts-based Pickle reported a spate of third quarter orders, saying that six customers placed orders for over 30 production robots to deploy in the first half of 2025. The new orders include pilot conversions, existing customer expansions, and new customer adoption.
“Pickle is hitting its strides delivering innovation, development, commercial traction, and customer satisfaction. The company is building groundbreaking technology while executing on essential recurring parts of a successful business like field service and manufacturing management,” Omar Asali, Pickle board member and CEO of investor Ranpak, said in a release.
According to Pickle, its truck-unloading robot applies “Physical AI” technology to one of the most labor-intensive, physically demanding, and highest turnover work areas in logistics operations. The platform combines a powerful vision system with generative AI foundation models trained on millions of data points from real logistics and warehouse operations that enable Pickle’s robotic hardware platform to perform physical work at human-scale or better, the company says.
Bloomington, Indiana-based FTR said its Trucking Conditions Index declined in September to -2.47 from -1.39 in August as weakness in the principal freight dynamics – freight rates, utilization, and volume – offset lower fuel costs and slightly less unfavorable financing costs.
Those negative numbers are nothing new—the TCI has been positive only twice – in May and June of this year – since April 2022, but the group’s current forecast still envisions consistently positive readings through at least a two-year forecast horizon.
“Aside from a near-term boost mostly related to falling diesel prices, we have not changed our Trucking Conditions Index forecast significantly in the wake of the election,” Avery Vise, FTR’s vice president of trucking, said in a release. “The outlook continues to be more favorable for carriers than what they have experienced for well over two years. Our analysis indicates gradual but steadily rising capacity utilization leading to stronger freight rates in 2025.”
But FTR said its forecast remains unchanged. “Just like everyone else, we’ll be watching closely to see exactly what trade and other economic policies are implemented and over what time frame. Some freight disruptions are likely due to tariffs and other factors, but it is not yet clear that those actions will do more than shift the timing of activity,” Vise said.
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 indicating the industry’s overall health, a positive score represents good, optimistic conditions while a negative score shows the inverse.
Specifically, the new global average robot density has reached a record 162 units per 10,000 employees in 2023, which is more than double the mark of 74 units measured seven years ago.
Broken into geographical regions, the European Union has a robot density of 219 units per 10,000 employees, an increase of 5.2%, with Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia in the global top ten. Next, North America’s robot density is 197 units per 10,000 employees – up 4.2%. And Asia has a robot density of 182 units per 10,000 persons employed in manufacturing - an increase of 7.6%. The economies of Korea, Singapore, mainland China and Japan are among the top ten most automated countries.
Broken into individual countries, the U.S. ranked in 10th place in 2023, with a robot density of 295 units. Higher up on the list, the top five are:
The Republic of Korea, with 1,012 robot units, showing a 5% increase on average each year since 2018 thanks to its strong electronics and automotive industries.
Singapore had 770 robot units, in part because it is a small country with a very low number of employees in the manufacturing industry, so it can reach a high robot density with a relatively small operational stock.
China took third place in 2023, surpassing Germany and Japan with a mark of 470 robot units as the nation has managed to double its robot density within four years.
Germany ranks fourth with 429 robot units for a 5% CAGR since 2018.
Japan is in fifth place with 419 robot units, showing growth of 7% on average each year from 2018 to 2023.
Progress in generative AI (GenAI) is poised to impact business procurement processes through advancements in three areas—agentic reasoning, multimodality, and AI agents—according to Gartner Inc.
Those functions will redefine how procurement operates and significantly impact the agendas of chief procurement officers (CPOs). And 72% of procurement leaders are already prioritizing the integration of GenAI into their strategies, thus highlighting the recognition of its potential to drive significant improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, Gartner found in a survey conducted in July, 2024, with 258 global respondents.
Gartner defined the new functions as follows:
Agentic reasoning in GenAI allows for advanced decision-making processes that mimic human-like cognition. This capability will enable procurement functions to leverage GenAI to analyze complex scenarios and make informed decisions with greater accuracy and speed.
Multimodality refers to the ability of GenAI to process and integrate multiple forms of data, such as text, images, and audio. This will make GenAI more intuitively consumable to users and enhance procurement's ability to gather and analyze diverse information sources, leading to more comprehensive insights and better-informed strategies.
AI agents are autonomous systems that can perform tasks and make decisions on behalf of human operators. In procurement, these agents will automate procurement tasks and activities, freeing up human resources to focus on strategic initiatives, complex problem-solving and edge cases.
As CPOs look to maximize the value of GenAI in procurement, the study recommended three starting points: double down on data governance, develop and incorporate privacy standards into contracts, and increase procurement thresholds.
“These advancements will usher procurement into an era where the distance between ideas, insights, and actions will shorten rapidly,” Ryan Polk, senior director analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a release. "Procurement leaders who build their foundation now through a focus on data quality, privacy and risk management have the potential to reap new levels of productivity and strategic value from the technology."