Mitch Mac Donald has more than 30 years of experience in both the newspaper and magazine businesses. He has covered the logistics and supply chain fields since 1988. Twice named one of the Top 10 Business Journalists in the U.S., he has served in a multitude of editorial and publishing roles. The leading force behind the launch of Supply Chain Management Review, he was that brand's founding publisher and editorial director from 1997 to 2000. Additionally, he has served as news editor, chief editor, publisher and editorial director of Logistics Management, as well as publisher of Modern Materials Handling. Mitch is also the president and CEO of Agile Business Media, LLC, the parent company of DC VELOCITY and CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly.
If Charles Dickens were the author of this column, it might be titled "A Tale of Two Supply Chains." From an economic perspective, these may be more like the worst of times than the best of times. But as a summer shopping experience illustrated, at least one thing hasn't changed much since the time of the French Revolution. Both wisdom and foolishness still abound today—at least when it comes to the way companies have responded to the challenging retail climate.
Here's how the tale unfolded:
Just as summer finally arrived in the Northeast, with temperatures topping 90 degrees, the family's old, reliable refrigerator finally gave out. After 17 years, including a decade of "combat duty" with three teens in the house, the low-end, economy-model appliance had served the family well. But given its age (and the fact that several hundred dollars' worth of food were at risk of spoilage), we decided not to seek repairs. It was time to retire the old war horse and bring in a new soldier.
So it was off to the store—or to be precise, several stores. As with most any purchase of this type, some comparison shopping was in order. We had agreed beforehand that given the exemplary track record of our 17-year-old refrigerator, it made sense to go with another basic model. No fancy stainless steel façade. No built-in ice and water dispenser. Just a regular, old-fashioned refrigerator.
First stop: Home Depot, which offered plenty of options and had a good supply of inventory on hand for next-day delivery. As the helpful sales representative explained, all we had to do was pick our preferred delivery time for the following day. At the appointed hour, the crew would show up to deliver and install the new appliance and take away the old one. It was all very simple.
But we weren't ready to sign up. For purposes of comparison shopping, we felt obliged to make at least one more stop before any deal was done. So, it was across the street to Best Buy.
The first thing we noticed was the absence of shoppers—the store was almost eerily quiet. The second thing we noticed was a scarcity of staff on hand in the appliance department to assist customers—it seemed downright odd to have to seek out a sales representative when there were so few other shoppers around. The third thing we noticed was that Best Buy carried the same refrigerator we had just seen over at Home Depot, at a price that was $70 (or about 10 percent) lower.
It seemed the comparison shopping was about to pay off. At least it did until we inquired about delivery times. The sales associate had already begun entering the purchase into her computer when we mentioned there was a critical need for next-day delivery.
"Oh. Yeah. That makes sense," she said. "You certainly can't go without a fridge in weather like this. Let's see (long pause), it looks like the next available delivery slot for your town would be (longer pause) next Thursday." Not this Thursday, which was two days away, she clarified, but next Thursday, which was nine days away.
"What's up with that?" she was asked. "Well," she replied, "things have been slow, and we've had some layoffs and consolidated our distribution centers. It's delaying everything."
Along with delaying everything, it cost Best Buy at least one sale.
In the end, Best Buy's loss was Home Depot's gain, but that's not the point of the story. The lesson here is that when it comes to logistics, there's a lot more to it than price. How fast you can get the goods to the customer is sometimes the overarching consideration ... especially when it involves the delivery of a refrigerator on a sweltering summer day.
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.
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.
DAT Freight & Analytics has acquired Trucker Tools, calling the deal a strategic move designed to combine Trucker Tools' approach to load tracking and carrier sourcing with DAT’s experience providing freight solutions.
Beaverton, Oregon-based DAT operates what it calls the largest truckload freight marketplace and truckload freight data analytics service in North America. Terms of the deal were not disclosed, but DAT is a business unit of the publicly traded, Fortune 1000-company Roper Technologies.
Following the deal, DAT said that brokers will continue to get load visibility and capacity tools for every load they manage, but now with greater resources for an enhanced suite of broker tools. And in turn, carriers will get the same lifestyle features as before—like weigh scales and fuel optimizers—but will also gain access to one of the largest networks of loads, making it easier for carriers to find the loads they want.
Trucker Tools CEO Kary Jablonski praised the deal, saying the firms are aligned in their goals to simplify and enhance the lives of brokers and carriers. “Through our strategic partnership with DAT, we are amplifying this mission on a greater scale, delivering enhanced solutions and transformative insights to our customers. This collaboration unlocks opportunities for speed, efficiency, and innovation for the freight industry. We are thrilled to align with DAT to advance their vision of eliminating uncertainty in the freight industry,” Jablonski said.
Global trade will see a moderate rebound in 2025, likely growing by 3.6% in volume terms, helped by companies restocking and households renewing purchases of durable goods while reducing spending on services, according to a forecast from trade credit insurer Allianz Trade.
The end of the year for 2024 will also likely be supported by companies rushing to ship goods in anticipation of the higher tariffs likely to be imposed by the coming Trump administration, and other potential disruptions in the coming quarters, the report said.
However, that tailwind for global trade will likely shift to a headwind once the effects of a renewed but contained trade war are felt from the second half of 2025 and in full in 2026. As a result, Allianz Trade has throttled back its predictions, saying that global trade in volume will grow by 2.8% in 2025 (reduced by 0.2 percentage points vs. its previous forecast) and 2.3% in 2026 (reduced by 0.5 percentage points).
The same logic applies to Allianz Trade’s forecast for export prices in U.S. dollars, which the firm has now revised downward to predict growth reaching 2.3% in 2025 (reduced by 1.7 percentage points) and 4.1% in 2026 (reduced by 0.8 percentage points).
In the meantime, the rush to frontload imports into the U.S. is giving freight carriers an early Christmas present. According to Allianz Trade, data released last week showed Chinese exports rising by a robust 6.7% y/y in November. And imports of some consumer goods that have been threatened with a likely 25% tariff under the new Trump administration have outperformed even more, growing by nearly 20% y/y on average between July and September.